|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:OK guys, what's worse, possible cognitive changes to a developing brain, or the war on drugs? The depends on the magnitude of the cognitive changes and how much marijuana use patterns will change with it legalized. Right now I think it's clearly the war on drugs but the effects of both should be reasonably though about and compared, not dismissed because you chose team green. Better study is here http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.full , though harder to grok. Sounds like they saw some effects which were persistent after quitting, and it's a much larger sample over a longer time frame. I'm not finding much in the way of studies trying to actually find causality. For schizophrenia as opposed to IQ, there was a study here http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/10/harvard-marijuana-doesnt-cause-schizophrenia/63148.html showing marijuana use is correlated with schizophrenia in your relatives, though again that is confounded because relatives of people who use marijuana are more likely to use marijuana themselves, so it's still not enough. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Apr 16, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:OK guys, what's worse, possible cognitive changes to a developing brain, or the war on drugs? That's a red herring. I hate the War on Drugs as much as anyone under 30, but if we're going to legalize marijuana we need to take into account the impact on the health care system (or what passes for it in the US). I don't think there's any possible way that the potential impact on public health could ever be any worse than the continued cost of keeping it illegal, but there will be challenges, and we need to discuss the health impacts of marijuana so we can properly address them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Let's be fair here. I have no problems, for instance, in restricting cannabis usage to adults, especially if it can cause mental issues in developing brains. Think about how lead has impacted society. (obligatory link) That said, why even discuss the effects of cannabis on youth, in the context of legalization, when said legalization would not make it legal to sell to kids anyway? Edit: Actually, AYC made a good point... studying health impact is useful. But I'd say not really that useful for the legalization debate. Study illegal usage, fine, but that has no real impact on adult legal use. Putting it on front pages in the midst of the public discussion is kinda ingenuous. Iunnrais fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
For the record, and I don't mean to rock the boat here, but I do not endorse 9 year olds smoking 5 joints a week. Edit: It's fine to unwind with some Scotch after a rough day at Elementary School though. davebo fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:Let's be fair here. I have no problems, for instance, in restricting cannabis usage to adults, especially if it can cause mental issues in developing brains. Think about how lead has impacted society. (obligatory link) It doesn't matter if it's legal to sell to kids, it matters if the amount of kids using it will go up. I don't think it's out of this world to imagine it would. I believe it did in the Netherlands but I don't have time to go find the link for that right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:That said, why even discuss the effects of cannabis on youth, in the context of legalization, when said legalization would not make it legal to sell to kids anyway? Cause, like I said, "youth", in terms of the developing brain, extends up to your mid 20s. No one who supports legalization wants the legal age to be 25+. Most people think it should be 21, just like alcohol. I agree with that, but it is important to educate people about the potential risks, so that individuals can self-police their marijuana use accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
AYC posted:That's a red herring. I hate the War on Drugs as much as anyone under 30, but if we're going to legalize marijuana we need to take into account the impact on the health care system (or what passes for it in the US). I don't think there's any possible way that the potential impact on public health could ever be any worse than the continued cost of keeping it illegal, but there will be challenges, and we need to discuss the health impacts of marijuana so we can properly address them. How come some people concerned about the effects of marijuana on the brain, but not other legal (by prescription) drugs, like amphetamines? Or even legal drugs like alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine? It makes no sense to me being concerned about the effects of cannabis, but not all the other easily available drugs that are out there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:How come some people concerned about the effects of marijuana on the brain, but not other legal (by prescription) drugs, like amphetamines? Or even legal drugs like alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine? It makes no sense to me being concerned about the effects of cannabis, but not all the other easily available drugs that are out there. Last time I checked, people are concerned about those-have you noticed all the public smoking bans? Drugs should be a public health issue, not a law enforcement one. If marijuana is going to be a legal drug, we need to address its impact on our health care system like any other recreational substance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
With all these arguments it's not like usage will go up that much (if at all) with legalization, especially within the "vulnerable" demographics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
AYC posted:Last time I checked, people are concerned about those-have you noticed all the public smoking bans? Do you think cannabis is as dangerous as let's say, nicotine, or caffeine?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Do you think cannabis is as dangerous as let's say, nicotine, or caffeine? I don't think weed is dangerous if used in moderation, same as alcohol. However, it does have the potential to have a negative impact on public health, so we need to address those concerns while we legalize it. I'm a firm proponent of reasonable drug policy, and that includes treating weed like any other drug. This is just common sense stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:How come some people concerned about the effects of marijuana on the brain, but not other legal (by prescription) drugs, like amphetamines? Or even legal drugs like alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine? It makes no sense to me being concerned about the effects of cannabis, but not all the other easily available drugs that are out there. Well, this is the marijuana thread, so that's what people are talking about. If you want to start a nicotine thread I'm sure the discussion there would revolve around that subject instead. That said, there are a lot of people concerned about the health effects of nicotine these days. We've proven that cigarette smoking is harmful, but with the recent popularity of vaporizers, people are starting to focus on whether nicotine itself is harmful. As far as prescription drugs, that is not a good comparison. These drugs are prescribed to treat a medical condition, whereas recreational drug use (I'm including alcohol and nicotine here) has no medical purpose. As far as alcohol goes, adolescents should limit their intake of the drug, because it can adversely affect their brain's development. As far as caffeine goes, I'm not sure it has any negative long-term effect on the brain, besides addiction, which anything can cause. Edit: Sorry, you were referring to illegal amphetamine use, not prescription use. I think people are concerned about that, but it is less widespread than marijuana and there is not broad support for legalizing drugs like meth. So it also isn't a good comparison. forgot my pants fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:OK guys, what's worse, possible cognitive changes to a developing brain, or the war on drugs? Both. Both are worse. Like any drug it needs to have some regulation (this time informed by doctors and not racist politicians), and maybe that includes making the legal age higher than the drinking age depending upon what other studies reveal. Nobody knows the full extent of the effects of regular or occasional use, because it's been so difficult to study marijuana in a scientific setting for legal reasons. I'm also not convinced cigarettes should be legal at all, knowing the burden they place on public health. At the very least cigarette tax should be increased to about 75%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
AYC posted:That's a red herring. I hate the War on Drugs as much as anyone under 30, but if we're going to legalize marijuana we need to take into account the impact on the health care system (or what passes for it in the US). I don't think there's any possible way that the potential impact on public health could ever be any worse than the continued cost of keeping it illegal, but there will be challenges, and we need to discuss the health impacts of marijuana so we can properly address them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Ummmmm, have you watched TV lately? They're advertising drugs on TV that spend 75% of the commercial listing side-effects like "suicidal thoughts and death." Not to mention the absolute insanity that is prescription drug abuse in this country. Obviously these side-effects on public health don't matter to our governing bodies or healthcare professionals. I agree with you that we should learn more about this stuff, but let's not pretend legal drugs are on some pedestal of perfection and marijuana has to prove itself 100% safe. Side effects certainly do matter to our governing bodies and healthcare professionals. You sound quite ignorant when you claim otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
forgot my pants posted:Side effects certainly do matter to our governing bodies and healthcare professionals. You sound quite ignorant when you claim otherwise. Meanwhile the DEA, FBI, FDA, ATF and all the other agencies that are the enforcement arm of the government are busy catching people growing tomatoes with military grade infrared equipment from helicopters and using SWAT teams to bust in on farmers who are selling raw milk...
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Meanwhile kids are being prescribed all sorts of medications that, like I said, have insane side-effects like depression, and the correlation between mass shooting in this country and the shooter's history of anti-depressant use. That correlation is probably explained by the simple fact that almost all mass shootings are at their core suicide attempts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Both. Both are worse. Like any drug it needs to have some regulation (this time informed by doctors and not racist politicians), and maybe that includes making the legal age higher than the drinking age depending upon what other studies reveal. Nobody knows the full extent of the effects of regular or occasional use, because it's been so difficult to study marijuana in a scientific setting for legal reasons. I'm also not convinced cigarettes should be legal at all, knowing the burden they place on public health. At the very least cigarette tax should be increased to about 75%. Cigarettes and Tobacco in general should absolutely stay legal, however you should be forced to consume them "in private" or in social place specifically for that type of activity. No different than Alcohol is, and Marijuana will be. Right now it is totally acceptable to smoke in public, but not drink. Which just seems dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Cigarettes and Tobacco in general should absolutely stay legal Why is that? If the argument is, "because it will create a dangerous War on Tobacco" then I might agree, but other reasons are probably less convincing. There absolutely should be a "War on Tobacco" but it can take the form of progressively rising taxes, boiling the frog slowly if you will. That seems to be an effective strategy thus far. Powercrazy posted:.. No different than Alcohol is, and Marijuana will be. Different substances with different effects shouldn't be treated equally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Bans don't work. I'm fine with stigmatizing tobacco usage and heavily taxing it, but any attempt to make it illegal would make the War on Drugs look like a traffic citation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Nobody knows the full extent of the effects of regular or occasional use, because it's been so difficult to study marijuana in a scientific setting for legal reasons. I'm also not convinced cigarettes should be legal at all, knowing the burden they place on public health. At the very least cigarette tax should be increased to about 75%. You're wrong, we do know, there have been studies. quote:The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer. granted, it has to do with the lungs, but to claim that NO ONE KNOWS is just ignorant as gently caress. There has been research on cannabis, but there needs to be more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Why is that? If the argument is, "because it will create a dangerous War on Tobacco" then I might agree, but other reasons are probably less convincing. There absolutely should be a "War on Tobacco" but it can take the form of progressively rising taxes, boiling the frog slowly if you will. That seems to be an effective strategy thus far. On Principal I don't believe in protecting people from themselves. In practice, banning things doesn't work, and excessive taxation is incredibly regressive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:On Principal I don't believe in protecting people from themselves. In practice, banning things doesn't work, and excessive taxation is incredibly regressive. On principal I believe in doing which actions help people the most and cause the least harm, without any presuppositions that who is making the decision matters. No right to hurt oneself by choice is above analysis, personal choice is only useful insofar as people get pleasure from making their own choices and that pleasure is to be weighed like any other. ...I should make a consequentialism thread at some point. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:On principal I believe in doing which actions help people the most and cause the least harm, without any presuppositions that who is making the decision matters. No right to hurt oneself by choice is above analysis, personal choice is only useful insofar as people get pleasure from making their own choices and that pleasure is to be weighed like any other. What's good for the goose is good for the gander you say?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
AYC posted:That's a red herring. I hate the War on Drugs as much as anyone under 30, but if we're going to legalize marijuana we need to take into account the impact on the health care system (or what passes for it in the US). I don't think there's any possible way that the potential impact on public health could ever be any worse than the continued cost of keeping it illegal, but there will be challenges, and we need to discuss the health impacts of marijuana so we can properly address them. I think this is true as long as everyone participating in the discussion agrees that the war on drugs must be stopped because it has fundamentally failed to keep cannabis away from children. The problem with the ONDCP is that they are arguing that we must keep the war on drugs going full force because of these cognitive effects. I 100% believe that we must keep cannabis away from children and that it is a vice but the way to reduce use and restrict use to adults isn't through the war on drugs and prohibition. That was the lesson of prohibition we should have learned ~80 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:What's good for the goose is good for the gander you say? Not necessarily, but the entirety of the extent of the consequences of the actions we take need to be consider before we can consider doing them good or bad, even if those consequences are second-order or unintended, and if those are bad enough, we shouldn't take the action even if not doing so violates something previously held as principal. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the saying. I could conceive of a drug harmful enough yet desirable that legalizing it ends up being worse(due to easier access), even if putting adults in prison over personal choice is something I find distasteful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:I could conceive of a drug harmful enough yet desirable that legalizing it ends up being worse(due to easier access), even if putting adults in prison over personal choice is something I find distasteful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:On Principal I don't believe in protecting people from themselves. That's fine. Why should I care about that principal above other things like lower healthcare costs (i.e. less resources spent on preventable lung cancer and more spent on other things) and a creating a healthier nation overall? Powercrazy posted:and excessive taxation is incredibly regressive. I don't support sales tax in general, preferring graduated income tax and higher capital. Taxing a single, particularly harmful class of goods is not enough to determine the regressive or progressive nature of the overall system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:On Principal I don't believe in protecting people from themselves. In practice, banning things doesn't work, and excessive taxation is incredibly regressive. Protecting people from hazardous products and misleading product marketing is not an example of protecting people from themselves. I fail to see how taxation is 'incredibly regressive' when dying from a tobacco or alcohol related disease/accident eliminates your ability to earn an income at all. KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:Can you describe the properties of a drug such that putting a person into the US prison system is preferable to them using the drug? Literally the only thing I can think of is a magical drug that automatically causes people to commit crimes meaning that they would end up in prison anyways. Well it's not more harmful to that person, the point is it net decreases the harm to all the people who wouldn't use the drug if it were illegal, or the people who won't be harmed by the actions of the person on the drug. I think you understand this and are being obtuse on purpose but I'll contrive an example anyway. Say someone made a drug that was identical to alcohol in every way, except it is not detectable by any meaningful means. So, the reason it is sold is solely for the purpose of evading modern alcohol screens, allow people to drive drunk, etc. In my eyes this is a very dangerous drug, and serves no recreational purpose since alcohol is already available. Yet there would obviously be a market for it, and the world would be more dangerous for it. I think the world where anyone seeking to distribute or consume this drug is put in prison is better than the one where "they are an adult putting a chemical in their body" overrules all other reasoning. Another example could include a drug that is very pleasurable, extremely fatal, but given effective enforcement, easily stopped from being distributed(say it has a distinct radioactive signature whereby its presence in a car on a busy highway is easily detectable). In the world where its legal, many more people would take it and die, whereas if it is illegal, it is effectively controlled and we prevent most of those deaths. The correct course of action seems obvious to me here. Acting like humans are rational actors making the best decisions for themselves doesn't work in economic policy and I don't see why it should be applied to health policy either, so no "being an adult" doesn't make their voluntary death not count for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:That's fine. Why should I care about that principal above other things like lower healthcare costs (i.e. less resources spent on preventable lung cancer and more spent on other things) and a creating a healthier nation overall? That is a short-path to a slippery slope. If we use Lower Healthcare costs as your argument, drinking cokes, alcohol, and fatty foods quickly becomes a problem that needs to be corrected, then how long until anything that isn't beneficial becomes harmful? What about "high-risk" sports with the amount of acceptable personal risk being highly subjective, and probably classist in practice? I don't want to derail the thread about this stuff so I'll just stop there. KingEup posted:Protecting people from hazardous products and misleading product marketing is not an example of protecting people from themselves. For the second point you don't understand what regressive taxes are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:That is a short-path to a slippery slope. If we use Lower Healthcare costs as your argument, drinking cokes, alcohol, and fatty foods quickly becomes a problem that needs to be corrected, then how long until anything that isn't beneficial becomes harmful? I will just say that I think actions which lower the amount of soda and fatty food that people as a whole consume are good. I don't think we understand nutrition well enough to helpfully legislate against much at this point, but I don't think there is any place in a reasonable society for people producing material aimed at convincing others to eat less healthily. I certainly don't think we should use tax money to subsidize the encouragement of children to partake high risk sports. I really want to make that thread now, I just don't think I'll be able to keep up with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I didn't say anything about advertising etc. I just said that tobacco use shouldn't be illegal. Inform consumers about all the risks you want, I don't care, but ultimately it is up to them if they want to partake. People should be deterred from engaging in harmful practices. Taxation is a deterrent. So are advertising bans and smoke free environment bans. I'm not sure why you're talking about the legality of tobacco. Unless you're getting confused and think regulating something is the same as criminalising it. Powercrazy posted:For the second point you don't understand what regressive taxes are. You should be more worried about the burden of tobacco related disease (including premature death and permanent disability) falling disproportionately on the poor. Think of the lasting intergenerational effects of a poor blue collar worker with 3 kids who dies at 45 from smoking related disease. Think of the loss of life-time income and how this will affect transmission of wealth to his kids. Regressive taxes? How unjust! KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
KingEup posted:People should be deterred from engaging in harmful practices. Taxation is a deterrent. So are advertising bans and smoke free environment bans. I'm not sure why you're talking about the legality of tobacco. Except that the victims of a health problem/risk factor (tobacco addiction) who are unable to quit face both the regressive tax and the negative health outcomes. There isn't any doubt that reducing smoking prevalence is a worthy public health goal, but I think most of us would like to see it done with methods that don't penalize low income people. Taking an extra few thousand dollars/year out of the pocket of tobacco addicts is problematic and should not be our first line of deterrence. MixMasterMalaria fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:If only that study had been posted just a few posts up and we had a discussion about it already... Here is a link to the entire paper: http://jn.sfn.org/press/April-16-2014-Issue/zns01614005529.pdf The authors note the limitations as follows: quote:This preliminary study has several caveats. First, the sample size does not provide power to examine complex interactions such as sex differences. Because this is a cross-sectional study, causation cannot be determined, although marijuana exposure parametrically correlated with structural differences, which suggests the possibility of causation. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether marijuana exposure explicitly leads to the differences observed in this study. Furthermore, this study did not include quantifiable marijuana metabolite levels, which would have provided further information about the amount of marijuana exposure. This measure could be incorporated into future studies as a complementary measure to detailed timeline follow-back measures of drug use. Finally, age of onset was collected for marijuana use only. Early exposure to alcohol may have also affected brain structure (although no participant met criteria for past alcohol abuse or dependence). Perhaps the most telling sentence in the whole article is this: quote:the present finding indicate further study of marijuana effects are needed to help inform discussion about the legalization of marijuana. The reason I say 'telling' is because the potential harms of cannabis have absolutely nothing to do with whether it should be lawful. I've never read a contemporary paper that suggests the health effects of using alcohol should help inform the discussion about criminalising alcohol use. ----- Dr Carl Hart has thoroughly debunked the 'drugs change your brain' nonsense in his seminal paper on methamphetamine: quote:In spite of these observations, there seems to be a propensity to interpret any cognitive and/or brain difference(s) as a clinically significant abnormality. The implications of this situation are multiple, with consequences for scientific research, substance-abuse treatment, and public policy. http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v37/n3/abs/npp2011276a.html KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Well it's not more harmful to that person, the point is it net decreases the harm to all the people who wouldn't use the drug if it were illegal, or the people who won't be harmed by the actions of the person on the drug. Prohibition has demonstrated that there isn't a meaningful correlation between the severity of punishment applied by the justice system and the reduction of use of a substance. Your entire post is based on this concept which is fundamentally, albeit counter-intuitively, false. In your hypothetical situation with nu-alcohol you'd end up with the worst of both worlds; a large prison population, an underground black market, and people still widely using it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:. In your hypothetical situation with nu-alcohol you'd end up with the worst of both worlds; a large prison population, an underground black market, and people still widely using it. Whoa whoa whoa. It's great to discuss this, but no need to bring race into it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:I could conceive of a drug harmful enough yet desirable that legalizing it ends up being worse(due to easier access), even if putting adults in prison over personal choice is something I find distasteful. This assumes that access = popularity or prevalence. As far as marijuana goes, perceived risk seems to affect prevalence moreso than availability: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Also if you require the detection of alcohol for your DUI Convictions, maybe you should revisit the purpose of DUI laws in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Regardless of other considerations, cigarette taxation works. It's tightly correlated with rates of use. Now matter how addicted people are to tobacco, the majority of them choose to smoke less once it starts costing too much money.Studies done in the United States, South Africa and Israel support this. Unfortunately not all poor people will discontinue smoking just because prices go up, and that leaves them with less money to buy food, but healthy food needs to be made more cheaply available anyway. Perhaps raising taxes on tobacco companies themselve and using that money to fund anti-cigarette education campaigns, lung cancer treatment and increases to SNAP would be even better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2014 23:54
|
|