Hi! It's me. My last post was so fun, I figured I'd do it again. And, frankly, I hate talking about candidates, becuase it give me a headache. Now, before you throw digital stones at me, just hear me out. After all, the point of this blog is to show that active LDS people can and do have differing viewpoints.
First, I want to pose a question - if a candidate's platform was, "I'm going to propose an amendment to repeal the 21st Amendment (which itself was a repeal of the 18th Amendment - the prohibition Amendment)" How many of you would vote for him? Or, if this Amendment was proposed, how many of you would be in favor of it, or vote for it? I think it's interesting that Utah was the swing vote state for the 21st ammendment. What? Utah voted to repeal Alcohol? How could that be? Mormons don't drink, and in the 1930's, Utah was like all Mormon?!?!?! It's because they saw something that I think LDS people need to look at again - to re-evaluate. Alcohol was bad - it really was - but there was still a demand for it - so, making it illegal created vast amounts of crime and corruption where it hadn't previously been (see this for a concise history). Anyways, the repeal of prohibition got rid of the problems that prohibition had created - it was a good thing, and I think even the LDS could see that. (discussion continues after Chart info)
Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.
Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's abilityto get users to take it again and again.
Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it..
Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.
Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.
Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use."
Fast forward to today. We have almost the exact same problem with marijuana. People want it, there is a demand for it, and it, being illegal, is sexy...right? Anyways, it's rediculous that MJ is illegal when nicotine, alcohol and even caffeen ARE legal. I don't know where I stand on the repealing the prohibition of ALL drugs, but I know for Marijuana that it absolutely should not be illegal. As you can see from the chart, the addictive properties of MJ are increadible low - dependance, withdrawl and tolerance, it is lower than caffeine! But, since it is illegal, it has a particularly bad rap. It is less damaging, has less long term effects, and is far, far less addictive than nicotine, so why is it illegal? And obvioulsy, the medical benifits can be great. However, our Jails are surprisingly full of inmates there for Posession of marijuana. It doesn't increase violent tendencies (it's a downer, not a stimulant), but the posessors and users of MJ are stereotyped and catagorized with violent criminals - and sharing Jail cells with them. ANd for what? For having something that is far less damaging than cigarettes? In relation to the 21st ammendment earlier referrend to, in exactly the same way as prohibition caused crime, so the illegality of Marijuna causes crime where it wouldn't otherwise exist. Drug runners, smugglers, gangs and organized crime to get drugs distributed - alot of that criminality would cease to be without the prohibition on pot. Just like with prohibition of alcohol, we have legally cut the supply of MJ, which caused the demand to get even bigger. Pot has been called the "gateway" drug - the reason being that some people who get into hard drugs started out their drug use with pot. Statistically, that isn't correct - actually, people who try hard drugs ussually first tried alcohol and nicotine. Pot is just the one on our radar, because it is illegal. If alcohol was illegal, people would call it the "gateway" drug. If nicotene were illegal, same thing. If caffine were illegal, same thing, and if carrot juice were illegal, I'd be willing to bet that it would be called the "gateway drug." People who are likely to try hard drugs are the ones who are attracted to illegal things. So, it would follow that, at least in this case, making it illegal would decrease the appeal quite a bit. Not only that, but we waste vast amount of funds and resources to prosecute MJ users, when that money could, and should be put to better use. Now, I don't smoke pot (surpise!). I never have even tried it. I simply see a problem that has an obvious fix, but, for some reason, isn't even on most people's radar. This website is basically the text for a book that I have and really appreciated called "Drug War Facts" it's propigated by an organization called LEAP - that is Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Basically a bunch of cops and stuff who have seen some of the things I've been talking about first hand and see the same obvious fix. I'm not telling you all to go buy pot - simply saying that, if we repealed its prohibition, we'd be fixing a huge leak of money, time, resources, and government intervention. Let me know what you think. Peace – Rick
Opening a Can
Posted by Anonymous on 2/03/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Hooray! Sanity when discussing controlled substances!
Seconded.
Um, thirded? This isn't going to be very interesting! Geez Rick, couldn't you start a really inflammatory "baby-killer" thread or something? :)
No, seriously. I think MJ should be controlled like alcohol - age restrictions, no driving, etc. I see no evidence for it to be otherwise. I don't need my prisons full of people purveying the munchies. Save the room for, you know, murderers and stuff.
Hi Rick. So I was looking around because I remember hearing about the Mormon prophet at the time counseling the saints against repealing prohibition, and it looks like Heber J. Grant may have also been against suffrage. Times have changed. With that being said, I have a hard time with the idea of legalizing something that I don't want to encourage, that I don't want to deem "okay." I realize it may be less practical now than ever, but I would love to see successful application of the prohibition of alcohol because of all the very terrible things to which it contributes and the very little good it does. I feel the same about legalization of marijuana and other like drugs. And if it's anything like the parking rule change at a nearby university, making it free for all will guarantee to increase the number of people using it and cause a major headache for those who really need the parking spots. You get what I'm saying. I totally agree those using marijuana are not in the same criminal category as serial killers, but I don't think the popularity and prominence of the drug is cause for legalizing it. That to me is like the tail wagging the dog.
By the way Mike. Hooray for you for making this website and making us all think. I was talking with Rick last night about this, and I find these posts to be very insightful and educational. I love reading and learning about people's different views. Nice work!
Hi Em!
But see, we've outlawed alcohol. It is one of the few universally acknowledged unmitigated disasters in legal US history. So it stands to reason, to me, that outlawing other popular and less harmful substances would have a similar effect, and that legalizing them might lessen the criminal component of their usage.
And a lot of people would argue that alcohol has many positive benefits. Not everyone is Mormon. ;) Benjamin Franklin said "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
Fourthed. Not sure that's a word. Legalize, regulate and tax the crap out of it, then get all of those weed smokers out of prison and back where they belong - serving me french fries at McDonald's.
Interesting topic. I am not sure where I stand on it. I totally understand, and mostly agree with, (fifthed?)Ricks side of the argument. On the other hand, I am not so sure that I understand the argument against legalizing marijuana. I guess that there is just something that does not feel right about it to me.
Perhaps it is due to the fact that I treat addicts for a living and I am not sure that I agree with the chart with regards to reinforcement value of pot and the other things that the chart shows as well.
Perhaps it is due to the fact that I have seen what marijuana can lead to when it is used as "a gateway drug".
Perhaps it is because the exact same arguments that can be used for legalizing marijuana can also be used for legalizing meth, heroine, pcp and other currently illegal substances. When you apply those arguments to the other drugs the arguments still make sense but the feeling that it just may not be ther right thing to do gets bigger.
I am not willing to vote on this one yet. However, I am secure in the knowledge that it does not matter if these things are legal or illegal, it is a fact that they are very damaging to lives, relationships and the ability of a given individual to be in tune spiritually. They are convienient damnation because just the simple act of using stops so much of that which is good and they destroy lives (earthly and eternal) if they are not overcome. So, I have job security and I will continue to work to help people overcome addictions to pot or any other substance that they want to overcome but I do not have an opinion as yet, on what to do about the "legal" issue.
See ya, Chris, Ricks brother
Sixthed. Where are all the conservative readers? I was sure when I started this site I'd have trouble getting enough leftward-learners to participate for fair and balanced-ness.
Well put, Rick! You stole my next blog topic! Let me first say that I am proud to live in Arizona, where the DUI laws are toughest in the nation. DUI is the height of irresponsibility and criminal negligence, and should always be prosecuted as such.
I have never encountered anyone who makes a compelling case that alcohol is in any way "worse" than marijuana. Therefore, legal alcohol should imply legal marijuana. Logic; as Jackson says, sanity. :)
Thanks, Emily, I'm glad you like the site. It's been fun!
Well, I'm glad to see that most of us are in agreement. And I suppose I should go change the title of the post...what a let down...:)
Wow, I'm loving the comments on this post, you guys are cracking me up! Very good comments, all around.
One thing I would say in response to Chris's comment: I'm not so sure that the arguments in favor of legalizing (and regulating and taxing) marijuana could be easily applied to meth, heroine, pcp, etc.
Those drugs are all much more harmful to the overall health of an individual user than marijuana is. Many of them can cause long-term or permanent physical or mental damage to the user. Marijuana is pretty much completely safe, although there could be lung damage if it's smoked too frequently (eating or vaporizing would eliminate this risk).
Also, some of those other drugs can cause erratic or violent behavior. All the marijuana smokers I've known seem to just kind of... sit there. Not very threatening.
One last note thing is that marijuana is a naturally growing plant, which means it's even harder than other drugs to regulate. People can grow it anywhere. The other drugs we mentioned require intense chemical processing, which can be quite conspicuous (and dangerous).
Wow... this post ended up being way too long. In short, I completely agree with your concern that harder drugs should not be legalized. That could be disastrous. However, I think the danger of that happening is very small.
In response to Jacksons statement
“I'm not so sure that the arguments in favor of legalizing (and regulating and taxing) marijuana could be easily applied to meth, heroine, pcp, etc.”
I want to clarify which arguments I was referring to in the earlier response. Rick stated several strong points that would justify the legalization of pot but not other drugs. These more legitimate arguments apply not only to pot but also to all drugs that are currently illegal. Those arguments include the “prohibition” argument (that it creates more crime than would be there otherwise); the argument that if it were easier to get it would not be so glamorized and consequently would be able to be seen for what it really is; the argument that we spend money and other resources chasing and prosecuting drug users and it is a waste of time and resources; and the argument that taxing and regulating could help reduce desire to use. I will talk a little later about good uses for the tax money.
I need to take exception to other weaker arguments that Rick presented that are simply not true as stated. Rick is my brother and he is not lying, he just has a poor source in my opinion. Like I said earlier, I spend my whole day, every work day treating addiction. That having been clarified, I need to state that pot IS addictive. I know people who are pot addicts and that are in treatment to recover from pot addiction and it is tough!! Pot IS very reinforcing, particularly emotionally. It CAN have bad side effects. It works on the same brain centers that other drugs do to create euphoric feelings and it kills the brain. Additionally, it IS 5 times more carcinogenic than cigarettes (another good reason to legalize it is so that we can spread the word about health dangers like we have for tobacco). I do not like or trust the chart that was presented. There are still a lot more studies to be had on the addictive effects of pot. The chart does not present an accurate picture of the problems it causes. Pot, as stated, does not increase violent tendencies, however, part of pot dependence and withdrawals is that when the user goes without, and starts having withdrawals, they can and often do become more moody, angry, violent, aggressive and criminal.
Oh by the way, the medical benefits of pot are not significant enough to even consider that argument in a discussion on legalization.
I don’t know if I can give any credence to this argument that Rick posted:
“Pot has been called the "gateway" drug - the reason being that some people who get into hard drugs started out their drug use with pot. Statistically, that isn't correct - actually, people who try hard drugs usually first tried alcohol and nicotine. Pot is just the one on our radar, because it is illegal. If alcohol was illegal, people would call it the "gateway" drug. If nicotine were illegal, same thing. If caffeine were illegal, same thing, and if carrot juice were illegal, I'd be willing to bet that it would be called the "gateway drug.”
I see why he says it, but I know that pot, like alcohol and cigarettes, IS A gateway drug and that people who use pot ARE more likely than the average Joe to go ahead and use other harder drugs.
So, I guess what I am saying with this very wordy comment is that I agree that we need to consider, as Rick suggested
“if we repealed its prohibition, we'd be fixing a huge leak of money, time, resources, and government intervention”.
But I think that we need to consider it for the really strong reasons that I restated in the first paragraph of this comment and not for the weak sauce arguments that stoners and hippies have been using since the 60’s. Which, by the way were the ones that I talked about in the second third and fourth paragraphs.
One really good reason to legalize, regulate and tax drugs is because then the money could go to the one part of the war on drugs that is working. That is treatment. It is very effective when done correctly and even though it is the ONLY part of the war on drugs that has been effective in doing what it was intended to do, it only gets 12% of the total money that goes out to fight against drugs. Our country really needs to get a clue on this little known fact.
So Jackson, Rick and the rest of you, I hope this helps you to understand why I both agree and struggle with the idea of legalizing pot or any drug. Because the good arguments apply to all drugs, not just pot and the bad arguments are just bad.
Thanks for your patience while I went through this mental exercise. It is very late so I hope it makes sense. I hope that someone reads it because I know that many or most of the readers have moved on from this topic after Super Tuesday.
See ya, Chris
Thanks for your response, Chris, it helps me to see the issue from a slightly different perspective.
That said, I don't think that all of your claims in the last post are quite accurate. I'm aware that you deal with drug addiction on a daily basis, and I believe that you know what you're talking about. However, it seems to me like you're repeating some of the government sponsored propaganda that simply isn't true or isn't supported by available evidence.
For one thing, marijuana is addictive in the same way pornography is addictive. That is to say, the physical addiction factor is so low with marijuana that withdrawal is practically nonexistent. Mental dependence, however can be extreme with marijuana or with any addictive behavior: gambling, eating, sex.
Now if you're smoking pot all day every day, to the point where you literally could not do anything else in the day, I'll concede that there would probably be some withdrawal symptoms. Frankly, though, it's just not practical for someone to smoke that amount.
The withdrawal symptoms you were describing: anger depression, etc., could be experienced from trying to beat any of the mental addictions I described above. I've seen the statistics Rick posted above before, and I personally believe them to be accurate.
As far as marijuana being a carcinogen, the studies I have read linked cancer in marijuana users with the stoner practice of holding very hot smoke in the lungs for long periods of time--something cigarette smokers rarely do. As I stated in my previous post, consumption or vaporization would eliminate this risk.
I do not believe that marijuana is a "gateway drug." I think you're mixing up correlation and causation here. People who are likely to be willing to use a contraband drug like marijuana will also be more willing to try other contraband drugs. I don't think the marijuana causes the use of harder drugs. I rather think that sociological and personal factors cause both the marijuana use and the use of the harder drugs.
As far as the medical benefits go, I disagree with you. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that marijuana is as addictive as you say it is, other prescription pain killers that are available are much, much more addictive. Furthermore, those drugs generally cause liver damage or other harms that are not seen from the use of marijuana. The painkillers that are less harmful to the body are, unfortunately, very expensive. (I know because I have family members who have to use the more dangerous pills because they cannot afford the safer ones.) Marijuana is cheap and easy to obtain or grow.
Patients who use marijuana to control pain are probably better off than if they were using another prescription pain killer. There are other medical benefits of marijuana that are rarely discussed. For example: HIV patients often suffer from lack of appetite, or cannot eat because their HIV drugs make them nauseous. One side effect of marijuana use is increased appetite ("the munchies"). Thus medical marijuana use can make their lives much more bearable.
Let me say again that I do not think you are lying or that you don't know what you're talking about. I found your response to be very well thought out and a good summary of the arguments against legalization. Thanks again for your input.
Great Crap, you two - those are practical dissertations. Anyways, Chris, I see your points - when I was writing this post, I was thinking that someone would argue that the same "arguements" could be made for the legalization of other drugs. So, I concede, that some of those arguements would carry over - I'm not advocating the end of illegal drugs - But I am advocating the end of RELATIVELY harmless drugs. - Meaning ones that you can't OD on - I like what Jackson said about emotional addiction, rather than Chemical addiction. People who aren't emotionally addicted to pot can just put it down cold turkey (using multiple friends as case points there.) But people with addictive personalities who are going to get emotionally addicted to it - well, we have a mutual loved one who we can both see IS very addicted - but I still think what Jackson said holds true - that it's an emotional addiction. Anyways, both of them are good points, and I still think that we all would agree that, in the end, it would be best to legalize and tax the stuff.
mmmmmmm.....weeeeeeeed.
Jackson, were DO you get your sources from anyhow? Maybe it is just cause I am a conservative, but Chris's points seemed more factual than just disagreeing with his points.
not trying to be rude, ...sorry... just that he works with it, and I would like to know where you are coming from.
Rick, you should have named it, lighting it up, or blowing smoke...he he.
I've been reading about this particular topic for a few years now, so it's hard to say where I got what information from. However, I do take your point and I'll try to corroborate my facts as best as possible in the future.
Post a Comment