REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[Laughin Jude]

I've been going back and forth on whether or not drug laws are thought-crime for a while, and my thinking goes something like this:

Modern American society is very geared toward making you think in certain ways. Our public educational system, for example, is designed not just to make students believe certain things but to teach them to think about things in a certain way, along a line from A to B to C, with no deviation from that path. From an authoritarian perspective, it's best if certain thoughts just plain don't occur to people because their long-adapted mental pathways don't pass any places where certain concepts are a part of the scenery. You don't have to debate an objection to the way society is run if that objection never comes up because no one can think along the lines necessary to voice it.

The problem is that some people have those thoughts anyway, and those people are a threat (although generally a tiny and laughable one) to the establishment. Being able to slip out of the groove your brain has been trained to follow since childhood takes a lot of effort and discipline, and backsliding is both easy and potentially frequent. But use of certain drugs can be a shortcut to that process (though, I have to stress, that shortcut can leave you wanting for the skills you would have developed by getting there on your own and it's not a permanent solution). If increasing numbers of people start thinking outside the government-approved box, the authoritarian-dominated society could start to break down. People might start to postulate that A doesn't necessarily lead to B, and if it does, it could also further lead to D or E instead of C. They might question the Protestant work ethic and wonder why real wages have been stagnant for twenty years, or they might get pissed off about living in glorified police state. Probably not, but the possibility's there, and that sort of threat to the status quo scares the piss out of the authoritarians.

To avoid the possible effects of a nation consuming natural substances that might help them think outside the box once in a while, the government bans drugs that might encourage that kind of wrong-thinking. Just to make it clear that it's the effects of those substances they're concerned about, they also pre-emptively outlaw any substances yet to be discovered or invented that mimic those effects. That should make it as clear as day that the government isn't so much outlawing the substances themselves as doing everything in their power to legally prevent people from achieving the psychological states such substances provide. In other words, the authoritarians are so afraid of you thinking certain things that they've done everything in their power to throw up roadblocks between you and those mental states.

So perhaps a better way to phrase that would be to say that drug use leads to "thought-crime" in the eyes of the authoritarians; "thought-crime" in this sense being "seeing the world in a way other than how they want you to see it." Like I said, that's one I'm still working on.

There's also the gateway drug effect.  because weed is illegal if you know someone that sells weed you probably know someone that sells something else, if the weed dealer doesn't he knows someone that does.  Also once you start smoking weed you've passed the psychological barrier of "doing an illegal drug" and any other illegal drug is much easier to decide to experiment with.

While I agree with most of your post, I'd like to add that the "gateway drug" effect has been largely debunked in study after study. It's one of those correlation does not equal causation things; while people who are going to use hard drugs will generally use cannabis as well, most cannabis users seem to have no interest in using hard drugs.

You are allowed to brew your own alcohol.

But you are, so long as you're not selling it.

[Bruno]

My official position is "who gives a shit".

There are kids in this country who have two choices if they want to escape poverty: join the military, or sell drugs.

I really don't want to take away their best option.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If increasing numbers of people start thinking outside the government-approved box, the authoritarian-dominated society could start to break down. People might start to postulate that A doesn't necessarily lead to B, and if it does, it could also further lead to D or E instead of C. They might question the Protestant work ethic and wonder why real wages have been stagnant for twenty years, or they might get pissed off about living in glorified police state.

I like the way you think.

But you're wrong.

[Laughin Jude]

If increasing numbers of people start thinking outside the government-approved box, the authoritarian-dominated society could start to break down. People might start to postulate that A doesn't necessarily lead to B, and if it does, it could also further lead to D or E instead of C. They might question the Protestant work ethic and wonder why real wages have been stagnant for twenty years, or they might get pissed off about living in glorified police state.

I like the way you think.

But you're wrong.

That's why the next line after that is:

Probably not, but the possibility's there, and that sort of threat to the status quo scares the piss out of the authoritarians.

[Triple Zero]

Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea?  Sound off. A bad idea when driving? Yes. A bad idea always, like heroin? No.

Who thinks pot is fine?  Sound off. Yes? Isn't this just the opposite of the previous question or am I missing a nuance here?

Who thinks pot should land someone in prison?  Sound off. No. Maybe if you sell it to children, though.

Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol?  Sound off. Yeah. Well, not entirely. 16 years (you know, when kids are allowed to drink beer) is too young, better make it 18 (when they're allowed to drink hard liquor and drive a car).

Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way?  Sound off. I dunno.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If increasing numbers of people start thinking outside the government-approved box, the authoritarian-dominated society could start to break down. People might start to postulate that A doesn't necessarily lead to B, and if it does, it could also further lead to D or E instead of C. They might question the Protestant work ethic and wonder why real wages have been stagnant for twenty years, or they might get pissed off about living in glorified police state.

I like the way you think.

But you're wrong.

That's why the next line after that is:

Probably not, but the possibility's there, and that sort of threat to the status quo scares the piss out of the authoritarians.

Yeah, saw that, but I get a big boot out of telling people they're wrong.   

TGRR,
Like the pope, only way younger. 

[Freeky]

Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol?  Sound off. Yeah. Well, not entirely. 16 years (you know, when kids are allowed to drink beer) is too young, better make it 18 (when they're allowed to drink hard liquor and drive a car).

In the states, drinking age is usually 21.

[El Sjaako]

In the states, drinking age is usually 21.

In the Netherlands it isn't :P.

Also, good idea Roger. Now we are actually discussing something, instead of firing off opinions about pot and disagreeing.

[AFK]

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/

I know it's MPP, but the scientists who did the analysis are reliable and its endorsed by 3 Nobel laureates.  According to that paper we'd save 2.4 billion at the federal level and 5.3 billion at the local and state levels. I know that 5.3 would be spread out over a lot of localities, but that is still a lot of money.

•Whether marijuana legalization is a desirable policy depends on many factors other than the budgetary impacts discussed here. But these impacts should be included in a rational debate about marijuana policy.

It would've been helpful if this study had been a cost/benefit analysis.  The study, for example, does not factor in the increased health care costs that are associated with addiction.  Or the increased cost to employers when they have addicted employees.  Both in terms of lost productivity, but the costs they incur when they have to fire employees and go through the time-consuming process of hiring new employees. 

[AFK]

While I agree with most of your post, I'd like to add that the "gateway drug" effect has been largely debunked in study after study. It's one of those correlation does not equal causation things; while people who are going to use hard drugs will generally use cannabis as well, most cannabis users seem to have no interest in using hard drugs.

It is only a myth in as much as marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug.  But it certainly does serve as a gateway drug.  Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access.  Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is fairly easy for a young person to get.  All experimentation starts with drugs that are easy to get.  Inhalants and Rx are also gateway drugs, because a kid can get them right in their house without paying anybody for them.  These are particularily scary gateway drugs in that the first use can kill or cause serious brain damage. 

The other piece with marijuana is its social acceptance.  Despite the name of this thread, the "REEFER MADNESS" attitude towards marijuana in our society doesn't exist anymore.  It is much more accepted and this has unfortunately even trickled down to some permissive attitudes on the part of parents when it comes to youth using it.  They consider it a "rite of passage" and don't really think too much about it.  Unfortunately, we do see that what starts MJ leads to other drugs, and in many cases poly-drug use.  Just the combination of alcohol and marijuana alone can cause serious issues with kids, particularily when it comes to judgement and behavior. 

[AFK]

I also would like to point out that a lot of the discussion around the Mexican cartels is a little conflationary.  In the sense that those cartels are increaslingly becoming involved in the illegal prescription drug trade.  Whether it is trafficking or creating knock-offs and working them into the system.  Legalizing marijuana may take care of a few small time operations that are solely focusing on marijuana, but the large crime organizations are diversified enough, that it won't really make that big of an impact.  And so you really won't be saving a whole helluva lot of money in that area.  Just something to think about. 

[El Sjaako]

There's also the gateway drug effect.  because weed is illegal if you know someone that sells weed you probably know someone that sells something else, if the weed dealer doesn't he knows someone that does.  Also once you start smoking weed you've passed the psychological barrier of "doing an illegal drug" and any other illegal drug is much easier to decide to experiment with.

While I agree with most of your post, I'd like to add that the "gateway drug" effect has been largely debunked in study after study. It's one of those correlation does not equal causation things; while people who are going to use hard drugs will generally use cannabis as well, most cannabis users seem to have no interest in using hard drugs.

I don't think Jude was talking about the traditional "I tried pot, now I might as well try cocaine" effect, but more the accessibility effect. If you smoke illegal drugs you know where you can get illegal drugs. Many times people that will sell you pot will also sell you MDMA, or will know where you can get MDMA. If you legalize drugs, and license the sellers, and make them lose their licence without warnng if they discuss harder drugs, it becomes harder to find these things.

It is only a myth in as much as marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug.  But it certainly does serve as a gateway drug.  Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access.  Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is fairly easy for a young person to get.  All experimentation starts with drugs that are easy to get.  Inhalants and Rx are also gateway drugs, because a kid can get them right in their house without paying anybody for them.  These are particularily scary gateway drugs in that the first use can kill or cause serious brain damage.

What the article said was that marijuana is not a gateway drug:

There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.

Do you not trust the article or do you not agree with their definition of gateway drugs?

There is a kind of social gateway drug effect, of course. But like I've argued before, the best way to change pot culture is to legalize pot. That way you get a bigger gap between pot and other drugs.

[AFK]

I don't think Jude was talking about the traditional "I tried pot, now I might as well try cocaine" effect, but more the accessibility effect. If you smoke illegal drugs you know where you can get illegal drugs. Many times people that will sell you pot will also sell you MDMA, or will know where you can get MDMA. If you legalize drugs, and license the sellers, and make them lose their licence without warnng if they discuss harder drugs, it becomes harder to find these things.

Thats putting the cart before the horse.  Kids don't move on to harder drugs just because the drug dealer has them.  They move on to harder drugs as they develop a tolerance and they don't get the same kick they were getting.  This is especially pronounced with kids who are self-medicating and using drugs to escape from some real or perceived negative in their life.  That the dealer has those harder drugs certainly greases the wheels, but it is not the primary influence behind that pattern of behavior. 

What the article said was that marijuana is not a gateway drug:

There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.

Do you not trust the article or do you not agree with their definition of gateway drugs?

There is a kind of social gateway drug effect, of course. But like I've argued before, the best way to change pot culture is to legalize pot. That way you get a bigger gap between pot and other drugs.

Yes, I disagree with that definition and I explained in my previous post the more accurate definition of gateway drug.  And I'm sorry but the notion that legalizing pot is giong to change the culture is unfounded. Kids are risk takers by nature but they don't take the risk of drug use because of its illegality.  They do it to take risks with their body or to rebel against parents.  Legalizing does nothing to change either one of those.  Indeed, if you read the work of Hawkins and Catalano, you will see that the illegality and enforcement of that illegality is an important protective factor when it comes to preventing youth substance abuse.  Communities that set standards and enforce the rules when it comes to alcohol and other drugs are communities that will generally see less youth substance abuse.  Because it sets a certain value system for a community and in turn provides for an environment that is more conducive to positive youth deveopment and education.  

[El Sjaako]

Thats putting the cart before the horse.  Kids don't move on to harder drugs just because the drug dealer has them.  They move on to harder drugs as they develop a tolerance and they don't get the same kick they were getting.  This is especially pronounced with kids who are self-medicating and using drugs to escape from some real or perceived negative in their life.  That the dealer has those harder drugs certainly greases the wheels, but it is not the primary influence behind that pattern of behavior. 

I wasn't claiming that. But pot being legal would create another barrier between wanting something harder and getting something harder. I know people that want MDMA and can't get it, and thus don't use it. These people have never learned how to buy illegal drugs.

It wouldn't stop those who really want it, but nothing will.

Yes, I disagree with that definition and I explained in my previous post the more accurate definition of gateway drug.  

I'm sorry, could you please restate it? The closest I could find was:

Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access.

In your posts you seem to assume that legalizing pot will increase usage, or perhaps even availability. There is no evidence that usage will go up, see: http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/07/prop-19-analysis-will-marijuana-legalization-increase use/

That article mentions that in the Netherlands usage did go up a little in the start, but that this was probably due to marketing. This is why I think there should be rules against marketing, like the Netherlands has now implemented.

And availability, at least for high school age kids, is already near 100%. It can't go up much more.


The thing that really bugs me is that alcohol is more harmful in every way I know of than pot. Why don't we make pot legal and alcohol illegal? Oh yeah, because making alcohol illegal causes violent gangs to form, makes treatment harder, and loses taxes to the state. I forgot.

[AFK]

I'm sorry, could you please restate it? The closest I could find was:

Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access.

It is only a myth in as much as marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug.  But it certainly does serve as a gateway drug.  Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access.  Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is fairly easy for a young person to get.  All experimentation starts with drugs that are easy to get.  Inhalants and Rx are also gateway drugs, because a kid can get them right in their house without paying anybody for them.  These are particularily scary gateway drugs in that the first use can kill or cause serious brain damage.   

In your posts you seem to assume that legalizing pot will increase usage, or perhaps even availability. There is no evidence that usage will go up, see: http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/07/prop-19-analysis-will-marijuana-legalization-increase use/

That article doesn't actually declare that consumption won't go up.  It basically says, "we don't know", which isn't exactly no.  It also doesn't address the fact that a price drop is certainly going to increase access to minors.  It also doesn't address the fact that legalizing would invariably lead to more adults having marijuana in the home which will also increase access to youth. 

That article mentions that in the Netherlands usage did go up a little in the start, but that this was probably due to marketing. This is why I think there should be rules against marketing, like the Netherlands has now implemented.

And given the marketing and advertising culture in America, do you think that would really happen?  Tobacco and Alcohol companies still find very clever ways to market to youth, despite regulations.  You put up a hurdle, they find a way around it.  And they are pretty good at that too. 

And availability, at least for high school age kids, is already near 100%. It can't go up much more.

How do you come to that figure?  Surveys I see show that it is far less than 100% of kids who think marijuana is easy to get.  So while it certainly is accessible, it is incorrect to say availability is at 100%. 

The thing that really bugs me is that alcohol is more harmful in every way I know of than pot. Why don't we make pot legal and alcohol illegal? Oh yeah, because making alcohol illegal causes violent gangs to form, makes treatment harder, and loses taxes to the state. I forgot.

I don't agree with the notion that the merits of the legalization debate of marijuana have to be measure against alcohol.  I always see that as a bit of obfuscation and basically a smoke screen.  (pun unintended).  Yes, certainly, alcohol is pretty damaging to youth and families, but I don't see how that means we should go ahead and legalize another substance, just because it seems to be less harmful.  It still is not harmless.