I'll just leave this here....

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring.  Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other.  But that is not the case.  A good example is the recent banning of bath salts.  It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs.  It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people.  (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)

The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal.  So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause? 

And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children.  There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal.  I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP. 

The trouble with that is that alcohol is certainly dangerous developmentally and for health issues, (not just for what can happen if a child drinks it, but what can happen if parents of children are addicted), and tobacco has (I believe) more documented health issues than marijuana.

So if the more productive debate is whether it should be banned for its developmental effects as well as associated health risks, alcohol beats it on both counts and tobacco beats it on one, doesn't it? So the question of whether tobacco and alcohol should be banned alongside it is still a valid one.

It is just that our culture makes the banning of alcohol impossible, because that particular drug is held to different standards. Unless I'm missing something here? Not that pointing out the hypocrisy is itself enough to toss concerns out the window on that basis alone, but it still seems like a valid complaint to me, and possibly an argument for more alcohol-focused abuse prevention campaigns.

I don't know about the States, but I wrote a paper on drug and alcohol abuse in the UK, and some of the statistics I was coming across regarding how much damage alcohol does simply because it is a 'socially acceptable' addiction were horrendous. That seems like a pretty good reason to try to fight more substances entering that same category in people's minds.

I think it is more that we have a case study of what happens with alcohol prohibition. We tried it and usage actually went up, along with it serving as a huge source of funds for organized crime.  Alcohol prohibition categorically does not work in the US.

It's also stupidly easy to make at home.  Take juice, add yeast, let sit, Tada! People may argue that pot is as easy to grow, but that at least requires seeds to start and light and whatnot.  There aren't even any signs law enforcement can use to catch a homebrewer if he's brewing small quantities.

Of course, an error in alcohol distillation can result in death. An error in pot growing can result in weak pot... we don't have people dropping dead or going blind from 'bathtub pot'.

[East Coast Hustle]

(cue urban legend passed off as fact regarding pot being laced with crack)

[BabylonHoruv]

I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring.  Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other.  But that is not the case.  A good example is the recent banning of bath salts.  It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs.  It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people.  (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)

The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal.  So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause? 

And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children.  There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal.  I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP. 

The trouble with that is that alcohol is certainly dangerous developmentally and for health issues, (not just for what can happen if a child drinks it, but what can happen if parents of children are addicted), and tobacco has (I believe) more documented health issues than marijuana.

So if the more productive debate is whether it should be banned for its developmental effects as well as associated health risks, alcohol beats it on both counts and tobacco beats it on one, doesn't it? So the question of whether tobacco and alcohol should be banned alongside it is still a valid one.

It is just that our culture makes the banning of alcohol impossible, because that particular drug is held to different standards. Unless I'm missing something here? Not that pointing out the hypocrisy is itself enough to toss concerns out the window on that basis alone, but it still seems like a valid complaint to me, and possibly an argument for more alcohol-focused abuse prevention campaigns.

I don't know about the States, but I wrote a paper on drug and alcohol abuse in the UK, and some of the statistics I was coming across regarding how much damage alcohol does simply because it is a 'socially acceptable' addiction were horrendous. That seems like a pretty good reason to try to fight more substances entering that same category in people's minds.

I think it is more that we have a case study of what happens with alcohol prohibition. We tried it and usage actually went up, along with it serving as a huge source of funds for organized crime.  Alcohol prohibition categorically does not work in the US.

It's also stupidly easy to make at home.  Take juice, add yeast, let sit, Tada! People may argue that pot is as easy to grow, but that at least requires seeds to start and light and whatnot.  There aren't even any signs law enforcement can use to catch a homebrewer if he's brewing small quantities.

Of course, an error in alcohol distillation can result in death. An error in pot growing can result in weak pot... we don't have people dropping dead or going blind from 'bathtub pot'.

Yep, just one more reason that prohibition of alcohol was shown not to work.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

(cue urban legend passed off as fact regarding pot being laced with crack)

LOL, which has NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring.  Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other.  But that is not the case.  A good example is the recent banning of bath salts.  It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs.  It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people.  (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)

The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal.  So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause? 

And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children.  There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal.  I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP. 

The trouble with that is that alcohol is certainly dangerous developmentally and for health issues, (not just for what can happen if a child drinks it, but what can happen if parents of children are addicted), and tobacco has (I believe) more documented health issues than marijuana.

So if the more productive debate is whether it should be banned for its developmental effects as well as associated health risks, alcohol beats it on both counts and tobacco beats it on one, doesn't it? So the question of whether tobacco and alcohol should be banned alongside it is still a valid one.

It is just that our culture makes the banning of alcohol impossible, because that particular drug is held to different standards. Unless I'm missing something here? Not that pointing out the hypocrisy is itself enough to toss concerns out the window on that basis alone, but it still seems like a valid complaint to me, and possibly an argument for more alcohol-focused abuse prevention campaigns.

I don't know about the States, but I wrote a paper on drug and alcohol abuse in the UK, and some of the statistics I was coming across regarding how much damage alcohol does simply because it is a 'socially acceptable' addiction were horrendous. That seems like a pretty good reason to try to fight more substances entering that same category in people's minds.

I think it is more that we have a case study of what happens with alcohol prohibition. We tried it and usage actually went up, along with it serving as a huge source of funds for organized crime.  Alcohol prohibition categorically does not work in the US.

It's also stupidly easy to make at home.  Take juice, add yeast, let sit, Tada! People may argue that pot is as easy to grow, but that at least requires seeds to start and light and whatnot.  There aren't even any signs law enforcement can use to catch a homebrewer if he's brewing small quantities.

Of course, an error in alcohol distillation can result in death. An error in pot growing can result in weak pot... we don't have people dropping dead or going blind from 'bathtub pot'.

Brewing and distilling are two completely different things though. Sorry if this comes off as pedantic, but it's almost impossible to fuck up simple fermentation; the worst that you can do is make an unpalatable drink. Distilling to make a hard liquor is a completely different process, and also the "error" is simply the omission of the crucial step of disposing of the methanol, which distills before ethanol. It's not like "ZOMG something can randomly go wrong and then it will kill you!"

[BabylonHoruv]

I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring.  Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other.  But that is not the case.  A good example is the recent banning of bath salts.  It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs.  It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people.  (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)

The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal.  So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause? 

And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children.  There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal.  I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP. 

The trouble with that is that alcohol is certainly dangerous developmentally and for health issues, (not just for what can happen if a child drinks it, but what can happen if parents of children are addicted), and tobacco has (I believe) more documented health issues than marijuana.

So if the more productive debate is whether it should be banned for its developmental effects as well as associated health risks, alcohol beats it on both counts and tobacco beats it on one, doesn't it? So the question of whether tobacco and alcohol should be banned alongside it is still a valid one.

It is just that our culture makes the banning of alcohol impossible, because that particular drug is held to different standards. Unless I'm missing something here? Not that pointing out the hypocrisy is itself enough to toss concerns out the window on that basis alone, but it still seems like a valid complaint to me, and possibly an argument for more alcohol-focused abuse prevention campaigns.

I don't know about the States, but I wrote a paper on drug and alcohol abuse in the UK, and some of the statistics I was coming across regarding how much damage alcohol does simply because it is a 'socially acceptable' addiction were horrendous. That seems like a pretty good reason to try to fight more substances entering that same category in people's minds.

I think it is more that we have a case study of what happens with alcohol prohibition. We tried it and usage actually went up, along with it serving as a huge source of funds for organized crime.  Alcohol prohibition categorically does not work in the US.

It's also stupidly easy to make at home.  Take juice, add yeast, let sit, Tada! People may argue that pot is as easy to grow, but that at least requires seeds to start and light and whatnot.  There aren't even any signs law enforcement can use to catch a homebrewer if he's brewing small quantities.

Of course, an error in alcohol distillation can result in death. An error in pot growing can result in weak pot... we don't have people dropping dead or going blind from 'bathtub pot'.

Brewing and distilling are two completely different things though. Sorry if this comes off as pedantic, but it's almost impossible to fuck up simple fermentation; the worst that you can do is make an unpalatable drink. Distilling to make a hard liquor is a completely different process, and also the "error" is simply the omission of the crucial step of disposing of the methanol, which distills before ethanol. It's not like "ZOMG something can randomly go wrong and then it will kill you!"

People were also actually cutting liquor with methanol during prohibition, so it wasn't so much a mistake as an intentional addition.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html

(linking source before anyone asks for it)

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh, the government poisoned people to further a prohibition agenda? OH SURPRISE! 

[East Coast Hustle]

you mean like how they add acetamenophen to opiate-based painkillers for no other reason than to raise the LD50 to a level that justifies the schedule those pills are in?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

you mean like how they add acetamenophen to opiate-based painkillers for no other reason than to raise the LD50 to a level that justifies the schedule those pills are in?

Yes, exactly.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"Shit, I think we better add something that will FUCKING KILL YOU to this drug that can otherwise be used to get high with no serious side effects. People will still be able to become addicted to it, but rather than just receiving a harmless buzz they will destroy their livers. IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY".

Incidentally, I can't tolerate opiates, they give me such a headache that I generally prefer to suffer rather than take painkillers. The last time I was prescribed them, my doc gave me two kinds so I could combine them in order to get a dose that would take care of the pain without killing me. I still ended up never finishing them, let alone refilling.

(This is why my doctor thinks I'm drug-averse... funny, if not totally inaccurate)

[AFK]

Actually, FWIW, there are initiatives underway to do the exact opposite.  Create and manufacture pharmaceutical opiates that are far less likely to be addictive while still delivering the same amount of pain relief.  Initiatives that the federal government is behind 100%, which I heard directly from the horse's mouth.  Well, he really isn't a horse, doesn't really look like a horse.  Actually, he kind of looks like Fred Rogers. 

[The Rev]

[East Coast Hustle]

Actually, FWIW, there are initiatives underway to do the exact opposite.  Create and manufacture pharmaceutical opiates that are far less likely to be addictive while still delivering the same amount of pain relief.  Initiatives that the federal government is behind 100%, which I heard directly from the horse's mouth.  Well, he really isn't a horse, doesn't really look like a horse.  Actually, he kind of looks like Fred Rogers. 

So, they're going to stop adding acetamenophen to opiates and then pat themselves on the back for removing a danger that they intentionally created in the first place?

I'd say that's mighty white of them.

[AFK]

It was a general statement of policy direction and not a specific recitation of procedure. 
And actually that work has been going on for a while now.  To develop pharmaceuticals that are less prone to abuse.  Of course, your hardcore users are going to find ways around it so it will always be trying to hit a moving target. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It was a general statement of policy direction and not a specific recitation of procedure. 
And actually that work has been going on for a while now.  To develop pharmaceuticals that are less prone to abuse.  Of course, your hardcore users are going to find ways around it so it will always be trying to hit a moving target. 

If ECH is correct that the government intentionally made drugs more deadly, then they are utterly unqualified to speak about drug abuse at all.