|
SurgicalOntologist posted:OK, but that's not what you said originally ("let's keep the lovely ones illegal"). The lovely ones should be illegal because we should have already made better ones instead of spending 90 years preventing anyone from making better ones.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Criminalization is almost certainly the worst possible policy as far as the harm caused by drugs. Tax and regulate is almost certainly the best possible policy yet proposed. Which is why so many nations are doing it. Oh wait... What Portugal is doing is really smart, making drug abuse into an illness you treat, rather than a crime you punish, but at the same time not taxing and selling heroin. Its still illegal to possess many substances in Portugal, you just face a different penalty than you would in other nations. SurgicalOntologist posted:I have an idea, let's make these sorts of "incidents" illegal, rather than the circumstances that make them more likely to occur. See, e.g., drunk driving, assaults, rape, etc. Please tell me how the government is going to dictate, say, what percentage of a paycheck may be spent on substances per pay period, because I would genuinely like to hear it. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The lovely ones should be illegal because we should have already made better ones instead of spending 90 years preventing anyone from making better ones. Ah. OK. Well in that case it's just a minor side question but I'm not sure I agree. Should Tylenol be illegal because Ibuprofen is a safer alternative? Well... perhaps. Red_Mage posted:Which is why so many nations are doing it. Oh wait... You can't seriously be making the argument I think you're making. Red_Mage posted:What Portugal is doing is really smart, making drug abuse into an illness you treat, rather than a crime you punish, but at the same time not taxing and selling heroin. Its still illegal to possess many substances in Portugal, you just face a different penalty than you would in other nations. I agree that what Portugal is doing is a good thing. And I agree that it's not tax and regulate. But it's actually not that far off. After all, the "regulate" part of T&R means its supporters are open for all sorts of regulations that are quite similar to Portugal's. Where you can't possess, what jobs you can't possess on the job, etc. The only real difference is that the transactions occur above-ground rather than in a black market, which really is best for everyone involved. Red_Mage posted:Please tell me how the government is going to dictate, say, what percentage of a paycheck may be spent on substances per pay period, because I would genuinely like to hear it. Why don't you just say whatever argument it is you're trying to make. Obviously my answer is they shouldn't dictate that at all, but clearly I've just stumbled into your trap. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:1. I suggest you reread the various posts in the thread where people repeatedly state, and I quote (one of them), "But if I want to put it in my body, why is that anybody's business but mine?" 1. So in what way does prohibition help this problem? I'm very much aware - as I'm sure most people in this thread are - about the high cost of addiction on the families and friends of the addict. Prohibition just makes these costs higher, though. Nobody chooses to become an addict. People make bad decisions for lots of reasons, and bad decisions affect the people around us - but we don't criminalize bad decisions. 2. Yes, they do, and I certainly won't deny it - but it's possible to be a functional alcoholic in a way that is much more difficult with heroin, and that's not down to the effect of the drug. It's perfectly possible to be rocking a habit as a fully functional member of society, but not with a record. 3. Well I'm glad we agree on that point, then. You still seem to think that the idea here is to make every drug available behind the counter at the corner store, which isn't what is being argued. There are a lot of alternatives to the current system - heroin being made available by prescription to addicts, for example. I've heard it proposed that people get licenses to buy a drug in the same way one gets a boating or driver's license - mandatory education and the completion of a test on consequences and responsible use of LSD grants you the right to buy up to 1000 micrograms a week from a licensed retailer. I'm not here to debate alternative regulatory schemes, since the point is that the drug war is a horrifying thing that needs to stop, but perhaps by failing to mention them I've given the wrong impression.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Is there a separate thread for the Drug War in America? I would really like to read about Colorado marijuana legislation but the last three pages don't have anything to do with it. For some content, here is the giant PDF released by the Colorado task force: http://www.colorado.gov/cms/forms/dor-tax/A64TaskForceFinalReport.pdf the black husserl fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
It's all a question of personal freedom and responsibility mirrored against safety and regulation. There needs to be a mix of both. Now personally I'm all for total legalization and taxation, but I believe that isn't the way to go, at least for now. The social consequences need to be looked at also. I'm not talking about widespread addiction, but more about the possible emergence of two distinct social 'castes', so to speak. The users and the non-users. Many people are still vehemently for prohibition and the social tension between groups that would still follow that ideal and the others who discarded it will be quite...tense. While you cannot convince all that drugs are not an inherent bad (IMO they're neutral) what you can do is educate people so as to allow them to make more educated opinions on them. A lot of the fear or hate of drugs is built quite a bit around misinformation. I might be dramatizing this point of view though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Why don't you just say whatever argument it is you're trying to make. Obviously my answer is they shouldn't dictate that at all, but clearly I've just stumbled into your trap. Its not a trap, you said the acts that people commit while abusing substances should be the illegal part, how do you intend to regulate the family where the mom spends every cent of the income on heroin or alcohol, rather than on new school clothes for the children, or the power bill in the summer. Its not technically child abuse, but it is a form of harm caused by substance abusers, obviously not a situation that anyone wants to happen. To address your earlier point about tax and regulate, if you are going to claim a solution is the "best" one, you should probably have some case studies, or some examples or something. The lack of any country doing this is kind of a barrier to that, and also a blow to the idea that it is the "best solution." The issue still with all drugs being legal (rather than just decriminalized) is that it is a tacit endorsement of their use. I think a Democracy has every right to say "we don't want X being used here, the societal cost is too great." Chitin posted:You still seem to think that the idea here is to make every drug available behind the counter at the corner store, which isn't what is being argued. There are a lot of alternatives to the current system - heroin being made available by prescription to addicts, for example. I am totally aware that is not what you are arguing, it is however what a fair number of people are arguing, see Surgical Ontologist above. I agree there are a great many alternatives to the curent system, in most of them (not necessarily the ones you outlined, but the ones in place in other countries) most of the drugs that are perceived as harmful stay strongly controlled and illegal. Its silly to say that "abolish the CSA" (which is what I was originally posting about when you posted to correct me) is the same as "allow doctors to prescribe morphine to taper off addicts." One of them is something that we could do tomorrow that would probably help (I think doctors prefer to use non morphine substances not just because of schedule but because they are safer long term, but I am not a doctor), the other is just hilariously short sighted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:Is there a separate thread for the Drug War in America? I would really like to read about Colorado marijuana legislation but the last three pages don't have anything to do with it. This is a good point, and I am sorry for the derail (it is mostly my fault). The Washington State Liquor Control Board have been dragging their heels, but if anyone is interested, they've been doing it by extending the deadlines for comment. quote:Dear Listserv subscribers, So if you want to tell the WSLCB about how producer licenses should work, here is how.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:This is a good point, and I am sorry for the derail (it is mostly my fault). While law enforcement and most top Democrats in the state are pretty pro-legalization, you can tell that the state government itself really doesn't want to go through the effort, and they are worried about the Fed slamming down on them. And I keep hearing more and more comparisons to cigarettes with marijuana on the radio/TV, i.e. "They will destroy your lungs" etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Its not a trap, you said the acts that people commit while abusing substances should be the illegal part, how do you intend to regulate the family where the mom spends every cent of the income on heroin or alcohol, rather than on new school clothes for the children, or the power bill in the summer. Its not technically child abuse, but it is a form of harm caused by substance abusers, obviously not a situation that anyone wants to happen. How do we regulate it when a mom spends all the family's money on lottery tickets, or going out, or any number of lovely things parents do? This isn't a problem that is specific to drugs. If you're looking for studied, reasonable policy, you may want to check out the Drug Policy Alliance, which has a massive online resource library. There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here, though the US is the major cause of it; we more or less force other countries to follow our drug policy, which is the main reason you don't see more innovation. What information we do have about full legalization - heroin assisted treatment, decrim countries, safe injection sites, etc. - are all extremely positive on the side of legalizing. My mindset as pertains the CSA is "anywhere but here." It's hilariously lovely legislation on every level. While I'm not arguing for it, the "heroin at the corner store" scenario is better than what we have now. Almost anything is better than what we have now. You are indeed not a doctor, but here's what you need to know about methadone: it is an opiate which has a longer half life. This means that you can go and get it in the morning and you won't withdraw for the whole day, which is great because it leaves you with a less chaotic use pattern (in theory). It works very well for some people, not for others - for intractable cases, HAT has proven extremely effective where methadone has failed. HAT is illegal under the current law (as are safe injection sites - at least "official" ones). EDIT - will end derail now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Its not a trap, you said the acts that people commit while abusing substances should be the illegal part, how do you intend to regulate the family where the mom spends every cent of the income on heroin or alcohol, rather than on new school clothes for the children, or the power bill in the summer. Its not technically child abuse, but it is a form of harm caused by substance abusers, obviously not a situation that anyone wants to happen. This is literally impossible to regulate and simply has to be caught via Child Protective Services and the mental health system. I get that you want to make a technical argument that it is necessary to continue constricting the supply of these drugs to avoid exposing new users, but arguments based on constricting supply are foolish when you can literally order drugs anonymously off The Silk Road instantly or find them locally within a few hours. The number of people who want to try heroin but can't find it if they tried is pretty damned small. Also, legalization would presumably lead to lower cost. One person can only shoot up so much heroin, if drugs were legal then drugs wouldn't carry a premium due to their illegality and the number of moms spending every last cent on booze would decline. For the few that would spend every last cent anyway, they obviously need help from the aforementioned systems, but maintenance programs have shown that addicts can live totally normal lives when provided with an adequate supply of their drug of choice (which costs nothing compared to incarceration). More heroin users doesn't imply that those users will lose their job and start robbing liquor stores unless we make that happen by applying social and financial pressure to ostracize and bankrupt addicts. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Mrit posted:While law enforcement and most top Democrats in the state are pretty pro-legalization, you can tell that the state government itself really doesn't want to go through the effort, and they are worried about the Fed slamming down on them. And I keep hearing more and more comparisons to cigarettes with marijuana on the radio/TV, i.e. "They will destroy your lungs" etc. The legislation movement needs to move quickly and promote vaporization. It's safe, discreet, odor-free and best of all it shuts these arguments down right away. Juicy J posted:No papers just vapors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:The legislation movement needs to move quickly and promote vaporization. It's safe, discreet, odor-free and best of all it shuts these arguments down right away. Are there some good links to the benefits of vaporizing? I have a few friends who refuse to take it up because they whole-heartedly believe its worse on their throats n lungs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Its not a trap, you said the acts that people commit while abusing substances should be the illegal part, how do you intend to regulate the family where the mom spends every cent of the income on heroin or alcohol, rather than on new school clothes for the children, or the power bill in the summer. Its not technically child abuse, but it is a form of harm caused by substance abusers, obviously not a situation that anyone wants to happen. Well, this problem goes away with legalization and regulation. Once the risk of going to jail forever for manufacturing/possessing drugs is gone, businesses and/or the government will be able to sell them in stores for far cheaper than street prices. Lower priced drugs, a reduced risk of overdose through standardized dose regulations, and reduced exposure to questionable dealers would mean the addict's children would have a much greater quality of life. The heroin-addicted mother would still shoot up when she needs to, but at a fraction of the cost and risk. Always keep in mind, people start doing drugs for a reason. Making drugs harder to get or life-destroyingly illegal doesn't alter that original reason. MacheteZombie posted:Are there some good links to the benefits of vaporizing? I have a few friends who refuse to take it up because they whole-heartedly believe its worse on their throats n lungs. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3274081 It's really nice. Like getting all of the benefits of smoking marijuana with 1/10 of the coughing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:1. You do in fact have people in this thread arguing that what they put in their body is solely their own business. Certain substances prove that is categorically untrue. While no one drug (at least that I am aware of, there are an awful lot of RCs and Pharmas out there) is going to turn anyone into a murderous sociopath, there are plenty of drugs that impair judgement to a degree where it is impossible to claim that their use solely affects the user. That is irrelevant. Everything we do can have an impact on others. Downstream effects, even negative ones, cannot alone justify criminal punishment or we would be punishing people for eating fatty foods. quote:2. As many anti-prohibitionists rightly argue, Alcohol and Tobacco have devastating societal effects, and they are legalized. This is used as an argument for why other substances should be (because they are not as bad as Alcohol), I think this is backwards. While the cost would go down, and substance addiction might harm the families of victims slightly less, I think what we know of the Great Binge and the Opium wars period suggests the number of people addicted would go up. Much like alcoholism or a gambling addiction can be financially ruinous, despite being perfectly legal, I think the number of innocent people hurt would increase if addiction increases. Tobacco and alcohol have devastating effects because they are under regulated. Here is a diagram:  Where the law creates a presumption of liberty, each person has a vital interest in not having his liberty denied while others are allowed an equal or more harmful liberty. To the extent that the law fails to protect basic liberties, like bodily autonomy, then it becomes illegitimate. It is outrageous that we allow the government the right to draw a line between a lawful and unlawful wherever it chooses when it comes to the classification of some drugs. It is as an obscenity that we punish illicit drug users more harshly even though they pose no more of a social threat than someone who uses alcohol or tobacco or petrol etc. It is thoroughly irrational for the government to declare that it will allow some bad things but criminalise others. KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Its not a trap, you said the acts that people commit while abusing substances should be the illegal part, how do you intend to regulate the family where the mom spends every cent of the income on heroin or alcohol, rather than on new school clothes for the children, or the power bill in the summer. Its not technically child abuse, but it is a form of harm caused by substance abusers, obviously not a situation that anyone wants to happen. Do you realize just how cheap opiates are before the markup for being illegal kicks in? The price for heroin, for example, gets inflated something like 5000% between the producer and final street value, and that's with the producer price already ridiculously above cost because it has to be done clandestinely, without access to proper capital markets or equipment, etc, etc. The price of maintenance doses of licitly produced opiates wouldn't factor into the budget of even the most destitute of people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Tobacco and alcohol have devastating effects because they are under regulated. Here is a diagram: Oh hey an inverse Laffer curve, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Always keep in mind, people start doing drugs for a reason. Making drugs harder to get or life-destroyingly illegal doesn't alter that original reason. Being life-destroyingly illegal doesn't matter because the primary consideration when people commit crimes is likelihood to be caught, not sentencing. And good luck making drugs harder to get at this point. We've tried for ages to eradicate in-person dealing and now it's even tougher with The Silk Road. AreWeDrunkYet posted:Do you realize just how cheap opiates are before the markup for being illegal kicks in? This is on top of a worldwide shortage of medical opiates and a massive opium eradication campaign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Its not a trap, you said the acts that people commit while abusing substances should be the illegal part, how do you intend to regulate the family where the mom spends every cent of the income on heroin or alcohol, rather than on new school clothes for the children, or the power bill in the summer. Its not technically child abuse, but it is a form of harm caused by substance abusers, obviously not a situation that anyone wants to happen. The current policy is doing nothing to prevent this situation, and is in fact even making it worse as others have pointed out. The general point is - whatever the level of harm an action has to cause for it to be illegal should be the same for drug users as it is for non-users. Whatever the level of child neglect it takes before the law does something about it should be the same for any cause of child neglect. Red_Mage posted:To address your earlier point about tax and regulate, if you are going to claim a solution is the "best" one, you should probably have some case studies, or some examples or something. The lack of any country doing this is kind of a barrier to that, and also a blow to the idea that it is the "best solution." No, the lack of countries legalizing is not a blow to the idea that it is the best solution. Are you really such a fan of the status quo in general that the worthiness of a policy is judged by how many nations enact it? As to examples, ever heard of alcohol prohibition? Alcohol now is taxed and regulated. We have many rules, and public health and education campaigns, related alcohol that have seriously reduced its societal harms. Let alone the societal harms caused by the black market during prohibition. So, we do have a model! Different drugs will need different regulations, but the important thing is that the black market be squeezed out and tax money spend on health education and (voluntary) rehabilitation. Red_Mage posted:The issue still with all drugs being legal (rather than just decriminalized) is that it is a tacit endorsement of their use. I think a Democracy has every right to say "we don't want X being used here, the societal cost is too great." Just like the government tacitly endorses cigarettes (while labeling them "WILL KILL YOU")? The Democracy should listen when it starts to become obvious that all their efforts to get rid of X have not even made a dent in it, in fact have exacerbated the problems with X, has ruined millions of lives, and costs billions per year. At this point the Democracy should change their question from "How can we get rid of X?" to "How can we mitigate the harm caused by X?" Red_Mage posted:
I am in no way arguing that all drugs should be available at the corner store. I believe they should be tightly regulated. Many should probably only be available from a pharmacy. And there should be plenty of restrictions at that. You seem to think decrim is a good solution. In decrim you have civil penalties but still a black market. I'm arguing for taking a decrim model and getting rid of the black market by making the drugs selectively available. Everything else could be the same - all the restrictions as to where and who can possess and use, etc. You can even take the civil penalty and keep it as tax at the point of sale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:I am in no way arguing that all drugs should be available at the corner store. I believe they should be tightly regulated. Many should probably only be available from a pharmacy. And there should be plenty of restrictions at that. So, just curious. What happens if someone goes outside of the tight regulations? Maybe sells them outside of a pharmacy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
I don't have a specific proposal as to the particular punishments, but they would be prosecuted. Same as the guy who sells alcohol out of his basement, or firearms out of the back of his van. Or even like the guys who start an unregistered restaurant out of their kitchen. In other words, it should be illegal not because they're selling drugs, but because they are avoiding regulations. Both health regulations and economical regulations (e.g., taxes) in this case.
SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Longanimitas posted:It's just obtuse to compare alcohol to something like GHB in the context of date rape. Get real. Unless, of course, you have actually done GHB and have the actual ability to compare the two in an informed fashion. Or you have compared the number of GHB related rapes to alcohol related ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:So, just curious. What happens if someone goes outside of the tight regulations? Maybe sells them outside of a pharmacy? Probably the same thing that happens if you sell alcohol or cigarettes without a license, you would get massively fined or put to jail
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Do you realize just how cheap opiates are before the markup for being illegal kicks in? The price for heroin, for example, gets inflated something like 5000% between the producer and final street value, and that's with the producer price already ridiculously above cost because it has to be done clandestinely, without access to proper capital markets or equipment, etc, etc. The price of maintenance doses of licitly produced opiates wouldn't factor into the budget of even the most destitute of people. For at least a sampling of this reality, look at the prices for grey-market research chemicals. For most of them, you can buy thousands of doses for less than you'd buy a hundred of traditional psychedelics - literally thousands. This would likely be the same for all drugs - it's easy to produce them, and you can produce them in absolutely staggering quantities. It's just another example of how 99% of the negative aspects of drug use are caused by prohibition, not the drugs themselves. Even the worst drugs like krokodil would be many orders of magnitude safer and cleaner and cheaper if they just weren't illegal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:It's just another example of how 99% of the negative aspects of drug use are caused by prohibition, not the drugs themselves. Even the worst drugs like krokodil would be many orders of magnitude safer and cleaner and cheaper if they just weren't illegal. The stuff known as Krokodil is always bad, all the time. It's unpurified Desmorphine taken straight from the flask it just got created in. It's got all that nice stuff like elemental iodine and a shitload of phosphates (maybe phosporic acid? dont remember too well). Krokodil is bad. Pure Desmorphine is fine though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:The stuff known as Krokodil is always bad, all the time. It's unpurified Desmorphine taken straight from the flask it just got created in. It's got all that nice stuff like elemental iodine and a shitload of phosphates (maybe phosporic acid? dont remember too well). Krokodil is bad. This is exactly what he was talking about though? No one would ever use Krokodil if heroin was legally available and safely regulated. The criminalization of drugs creates these harmful chemical clodges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Well if we want to continue the drug descheduling/legalizing talk I think we should focus on specific recreational and consider how best to regulate them. I'm guessing the people who want more legalization already would want things like LSD or MDMA and I feel these would probably go over better with the general public than trying to advocate for drugs that can carry more consequences like heroin or other addictive substances. I think one important thing that often gets overlooked is the affect that drug usage has on the public. While pretty much everyone here already can acknowledge that alcohol has significantly more of a negative impact on society than cannabis, alcohol is already part of the status quo for what is accepted socially in society and trying to frame harder drugs like heroin against alcohol may not be very convincing to the general public. Another part is trying to regulate these recreational drugs considering their effects. While being able to get LSD at a store would be great, how does society deal with people who misuse the drug and negatively affect not only themselves but others around them. Sure you can make acts like spiking the punch at a party with LSD illegal, but by making LSD even more prevalent and easier to get is going to increase the odds of events like that happening a lot more frequent. The legalization of cannabis on Colorado has now created a lot more questions that the local government has to respond to and regulate. These things can also be applied to other drugs should they ever be legalized or whatever. For drugs like heroin or cocaine, who supplies the drug and is it done ethically? How much could be sold to an individual at once that wouldn't cause additional problems of that person unloading it on the black market or to kids. How much would it take to make someone too intoxicated to operate a vehicle? Even if you have the best regulation and the most educated drug users you're still going to run into the assholes who cause problems for the rest of us and society as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
1. Yes, this is difficult to accomplish given public perception. That doesn't make it a bad idea. 2. Despite all our efforts, drugs of all kinds are extremely easier to acquire. I seriously doubt that LSD (e.g.) would become more prevalent if it was legalized, assuming there are restrictions on things like advertising. 2A. People already do stupid things regarding drugs. This is fueled by the amount of misinformation in society regarding drugs. Sensible drug policy would combat this misinformation and hopefully fewer stupid things would occur. Regarding everything in your last paragraph, prohibition exacerbates all these problems: Who supplies the drug and is it done ethically? Under prohibition, gangs and cartels. Is it done ethically? No. What's the answer under regulation? I don't know but it surely wouldn't be any worse. How much could be sold to an individual at once? Under prohibition, there is no limit. Unloading to kids? Under prohibition, there is no age limit. DWI? Under prohibition, the law must already (and does) answer this question. Hence why there is a separate charge for DWI from possession. E: In general, you can't judge legalization in a vacuum. It won't get rid of all problems related to drugs. Instead you have to compare it to the status quo (and alternatives). For all the harm caused by prohibition, in addition to its direct monetary costs, we should be asking ourselves "how much reduction in drug use do we need to justify these costs?" Then we need to ask the question "how much reduction in drug use are we getting?" For every person whose life is ruined by incarceration, how many people must we prevent from becoming addicts for it to be worth it? Considering how many people we incarcerate, I find it extremely unlikely that we even achieve a 1:1 ratio (ratio of lives ruined to lives helped). We probably don't even achieve a 100:1 ratio. Or to be more blunt: How many people of color are worth incarcerating to prevent one white kid from doing drugs? E2: While I'm on my soapbox. The US incarcerates black men at a per-capita rate over four times that of South Africa under apartheid (source). This is almost entirely a consequence of the war on drugs. How can we possibly be getting enough value out of the policy to justify that? Actually, that was in the early 90s. I've heard the figure eight times quoted today but the above was the first source I found so eh. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Mrit posted:I keep hearing more and more comparisons to cigarettes with marijuana on the radio/TV, i.e. "They will destroy your lungs" etc. Which is weird, because that's been mostly debunked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
snorch posted:Which is weird, because that's been mostly debunked. From it's inception the anti-drug movement has started form the point of ignoring all scientific data, it's kind of unfair to say it's weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
snorch posted:Which is weird, because that's been mostly debunked. quote:average marijuana use was only a joint or two a few times a month
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Well funny you guys bring up that lung cancer study because I just for the White House FAQ for cannabis that mentions barely the new legal status in Colorado and Washington, figure I'd post it here so we could tear into anything misleading or false if they're dumb enough to cite it. So far though from just looking at it they're just using statistics to misrepresent the dangers of cannabis and use it to imply that using it is dangerous. But I think most of us here know that correlation is not causation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
snorch posted:Which is weird, because that's been mostly debunked. Yeah your own links only really debunk it if you are only smoking once or twice a month to a week. Not that I think marijuana users are going to be moving to a 9 joint a day regime now that its legal obviously, but smoking anything in the amounts that cigarettes are smoked is going to cause damage, so they aren't really lying. I just had a horrible vision of a tobacco-inspired industry trying to get people to 9 (low thc) joints a day, and trying to suppress vapes. Marlboro greens. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Yeah your own links only really debunk it if you are only smoking once or twice a month to a week. Not that I think marijuana users are going to be moving to a 9 joint a day regime now that its legal obviously, but smoking anything in the amounts that cigarettes are smoked is going to cause damage, so they aren't really lying. Really though the studies still debunk cannabis as being dangerous regardless of how much you use if its only harmful by smoking heavily when people have several ways of mitigating that from using water filtration when you combust cannabis or going the safer way and vaporizing or even eating it. To say that using cannabis is dangerous because you can increase your risk of carcinogens from burning it is disingenuous as you are ignoring all the other methods of ingesting it. The only legitimate way to evaluate the dangers from carcinogens and cancers would be to look at all methods of ingestion together and make conclusions from that, which I have a feeling would spread the danger even thinner and respectfully still represent the actual danger that the average person could expect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Yeah your own links only really debunk it if you are only smoking once or twice a month to a week. Not that I think marijuana users are going to be moving to a 9 joint a day regime now that its legal obviously, but smoking anything in the amounts that cigarettes are smoked is going to cause damage, so they aren't really lying. I smoke Camel Highs myself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Yeah your own links only really debunk it if you are only smoking once or twice a month to a week. Not that I think marijuana users are going to be moving to a 9 joint a day regime now that its legal obviously, but smoking anything in the amounts that cigarettes are smoked is going to cause damage, so they aren't really lying. Nobody smokes a pack (20 for cigs in the US) of joints a day or if they do, they are an extreme outlier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
One thing I have always wondered about these studies on the cancer risk of cannabis use is whether or not they account for any beneficial effect the THC has on cancer growth or are they simply just looking at the amount of carcinogens created from burning up the weed and extrapolating that into increased cancer risk. If anyone smarter than me about cells and health could answer I'd definitely like to know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Nobody smokes a pack (20 for cigs in the US) of joints a day or if they do, they are an extreme outlier. For the record, I think a pack of cigarettes is about 0.7 grams/cigarette * 20 cigarettes, or 14 grams of tobacco. This is a half ounce. There are certainly people who smoke two packs a day, I find it hard to believe that anyone smokes an ounce of weed a day. (That's a challenge goons get on it.) I don't know how much a heavy user would smoke a day but I imagine the highest(snicker) would would be ~1/4 oz a day, and that's still insane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:For the record, I think a pack of cigarettes is about 0.7 grams/cigarette * 20 cigarettes, or 14 grams of tobacco. This is a half ounce. There are certainly people who smoke two packs a day, I find it hard to believe that anyone smokes an ounce of weed a day. (That's a challenge goons get on it.) I don't know how much a heavy user would smoke a day but I imagine the highest(snicker) would would be ~1/4 oz a day, and that's still insane. Well, there is an unexpected societal benefit to that level of smoking: if you take down a quarter of an ounce in one day, you aren't going anywhere except to the pantry. Stimulates the grocery economy. Half an ounce per day would basically be incapacitating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
Jeffrey posted:For the record, I think a pack of cigarettes is about 0.7 grams/cigarette * 20 cigarettes, or 14 grams of tobacco. This is a half ounce. There are certainly people who smoke two packs a day, I find it hard to believe that anyone smokes an ounce of weed a day. (That's a challenge goons get on it.) I don't know how much a heavy user would smoke a day but I imagine the highest(snicker) would would be ~1/4 oz a day, and that's still insane. If you really wanted to estimate how much a heavy smoker could realistically go through a day at most I would say probably an 8th, but even then the amount of people who would do that consistently over a month or longer is probably very small. I think on average your probable "heavy/regular" user would go through an ounce a month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:46
|
|