What the thread title says:
Offered without comment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/drug-policy-needs-centrists.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/drug-policy-needs-centrists.html?_r=1)
QuoteOverdosing on ExtremismBy KEVIN A. SABET
Published: January 1, 2012
ACCORDING to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control, drug overdoses have increased almost six-fold in the last 30 years. They now represent the leading cause of accidental death in the United States, having overtaken motor vehicle accidents for the first time on record.
One might expect such news to spur politicians to explore new options for drug abuse treatment, prevention and enforcement. Instead, at precisely the wrong time, extremists on both sides have taken over the conversation. Unless we change the tone of the debate to give drug-policy centrists a voice, America's drug problem will only get worse.
Indeed, moderates have historically been key contributors to both the debate and the practice of effective drug policy. In 1914, Representative Francis B. Harrison, a New York Democrat, worked with Republicans and President Woodrow Wilson to pass the first major piece of federal anti-drug legislation, in response to a surge in heroin and cocaine use.
Other moderates, from Theodore Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, made drug policy an important part of their domestic agendas. President Bill Clinton worked closely with Bob Dole, the Republican Senate majority leader, on sensible measures like drug courts and community policing. And Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the reason there is a drug czar in the first place, having pushed the idea for years before President Ronald Reagan approved it.
So where are the moderates now? Certainly, the current political climate makes it hard to come together on any question. Republicans are too timid to touch any domestic policy issue, like effective drug prevention and treatment, that might appear to cost taxpayers more money. And too many Democrats have yet to recognize that drugs are an issue that they and their constituents should care deeply about: after all, drug abuse and its consequences affect the most vulnerable in society in especially harmful ways.
In their place, a few tough-on-crime conservatives and die-hard libertarians dominate news coverage and make it appear as if legalizing drugs and "enforcement only" strategies were the only options, despite the fact that the public supports neither.
This stalemate comes just as a new range of cost-effective, evidence-based approaches to prevention, treatment and the criminal justice system are within our reach. We know much more about addiction than we did 20 years ago; with enough support, we could pursue promising medications and behavioral therapies, even a possible vaccine against some drug addictions.
Meanwhile, smart, innovative law enforcement strategies that employ carrots and sticks — treatment and drug testing complete with swift but modest consequences for continued drug use, or incentives for abstinence — have produced impressive results, through drug courts or closely supervised probation programs.
And drug prevention has moved from a didactic classroom exercise to a science of teaching life skills and changing environmental norms based on local data and community capacity. We now know that recovery from addiction is possible, and that policies that give former addicts a second chance are in everyone's interest.
Most recently, R. Gil Kerlikowske, President Obama's top drug policy adviser, introduced a sensible four-point plan to curb prescription drug abuse: educate prescribers, parents and young people about the dangers of overdose; shut down illegitimate "clinics" that freely sell these drugs; establish electronic monitoring at pharmacies; and encourage the proper disposal of unused medications. Yet his plan received little attention from the news media or Capitol Hill.
Of course, there is no magic bullet for America's drug problem. The magnitude and complexity of our drug problem require us to constantly refine and improve our policies through thoughtful analysis, innovation and discussion.
Moderates should lead that conversation. To remain silent not only betrays widely shared values of compassion and justice for the most vulnerable. It also leaves policy in the hands of extremists who would relegate a very serious and consequential discussion to frivolous and dangerous quarters.
Kevin A. Sabet, a drug-policy consultant, was a senior adviser in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy from 2009 to 2011.
What constitutes a moderate and an extremist here though?
For example, I think marijuana should be legalized. Heroin should stay illegal. Does that make me a radical or a centrist?
I think the problem here is that "Drugs" is just a blanket term. It's meaningless. Some drugs should be legal, some should not be.
I think using the terms "radical" or "extremist" is a bit much. I mostly relate to the basic centrist policy position laid out which is, crudely, between the legalization approach and the "law enforcement" only approach. Most of the people I work with in this field, in my state anyway, I would characterize as centrists as defined in this op-ed piece. We don't think legalization is a good idea, BUT, we also think we need to have a better balance between prevention/treatment and law enforcement. More money needs to be shifted to evidence based prevention and treatment practices. If we do this effectively and wisely, we will reduce the demand for drugs. Law enforcement is dealing with the end of the equation where they can't really make that much of a difference. Not to the root causes and symptoms anyway.
Fair enough. I still think that one of the problems is how "drugs" is defined. And you get it in different places too. Like, in some Arabic countries you can't drink, but you can use khat or smoke weed. Caffeine is a drug. See what I mean?
I think that if drug laws are to be successful they need to be less binary. Someone having a bad acid trip is different than someone fucked up on angel dust. Pothead=/=methhead and all of that stuff.
I agree Areola. It seems to me that drug policy should be based on reality, rather than fantasy. To have marijuana, shrooms, heroin and crack all lumped together as Schedule 1 seems to create a lot of the problems the op-ed is pointing out.
Drug overdose... a serious problem, one that applies to prescription meds, opiates, etc. but doesn't apply to marijuana or shrooms. Yet, they're all seen as equal in the eyes of drug policy. The Drug War spends almost half of its time dealing with marijuana, 82% of the increase in drug arrests between 1990-2002 were for marijuana. 12% of prisoners (in 2004) at both federal and state levels were in for marijuana.*
Even if we won't, as a nation, legalize pot... the Drug war itself (and the scheduling) should be more triage focused I think. If nothing else, the resources should be balanced based on risk and threat.
In the real world we don't equate speeding and jaywalking... even though both are illegal and both could have life threatening consequences.
Personally, if we assume that there will always be recreational drug use among humans, marijuana seems far preferable to any other option, including alcohol, caffeine and tobacco. In my opinion, people should be responsible for their own actions... but I understand that my philosophy and the reality of the US Drug Policy are unlikely to meet.
* ONDCP
Quote from: Areola Shinerbock on January 05, 2012, 01:25:25 PM
Fair enough. I still think that one of the problems is how "drugs" is defined. And you get it in different places too. Like, in some Arabic countries you can't drink, but you can use khat or smoke weed. Caffeine is a drug. See what I mean?
Interesting thing about this is when refugees come to America from some of these Muslim nations, the kids will start forsaking their religious tenents that say alcohol=evil. Because, of course, it is part of their aculturation process to become more "American". But, meanwhile, the parents will not hear of their kids drinking because they have an unquestioning faith that because their religions says it is verboten, then their kids aren't doing it. It causes some real problems and stress within families.
QuoteI think that if drug laws are to be successful they need to be less binary. Someone having a bad acid trip is different than someone fucked up on angel dust. Pothead=/=methhead and all of that stuff.
I definitely agree their needs to be better balance. The one I always key in on is the sentencing disparity between cocaine and crack. Obama moved the needle in the right direction but it is still too far out of whack.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/how_americans_really_feel_about_drugs/singleton/QuoteIf ever a college taught a class in how modern political propaganda works — and how it proceeds without any connection to a shred of fact — this article [The OP] should be required reading because it is such a pure example.
.... he (and the New York Times editors and headline writers who published his piece) wholly ignores the indisputable facts and simply deems the millions of Americans in this pro-legalization majority as "extremists" — that is, he pretends that the position in the actual center of public opinion is on the extreme edge of that public opinion. He then asserts that true "centrists" and "moderates" are those who do not support legalization — even though those voices are empirically the extremists whose positions put them far away from the mainstream center of public opinion. And, just for good measure, he employs a bit of ad hominem, suggesting it's just "a few ... die-hard libertarians" who support legalization — ignoring not only the American majority, but the scores of top law enforcement officials who are fighting to end the drug war.
Taken together, Sabet's goal in his Op-Ed is obvious: He's a committed drug warrior with a vested (and, based on his Times billing as a "drug policy consultant," possibly financial) interest in marginalizing those trying to end the drug war. To do that, he's employed the most tried and true instruments of marginalization — the newly redefined notions of "centrism" and "moderate" policymaking. And he's employed them even though the actual facts show that, in comparison to the mass public, he's the fringe extremist.
Now sure, it's certainly true that polls showing strong — and growing — support for legalizing marijuana cannot be fully equated to Americans' views of policies for all drugs. However, marijuana-themed polls and election results are also hardly wholly unrelated to that conversation — and at the very least, those polls and election results should mean that the burden of proof is on someone like Sabet when he declares that being for legalization is the definition of "extremism" and the opposite of "centrism."
But that burden of proof is nowhere to be found because in the 21st century, "centrism" and "moderate" still have nothing to do with the center of any political debate, or the moderate middle of any policy discussion. They remain political weapons deployed by attention-seeking fabulists against the real centrists and moderates in the American majority.
I noticed that clumsy propagandizing as well. I did think it was just my relfexive response to "centrism" and "moderates" at first, but then I remembered I have that response to those words for a reason. It's an attempt to provilege a position with a number of traits which it may not actually have.
And let us not forget, it also depends on variables of comparison. Is the "centrist" position between FOX News and, say President Obama on National Security a "moderate" position? Not according to the opinion polls. Certainly not by global standards. I can't be the only one to notice the complete and utter lack of supporting opinion polls for the assertions in the OP.
Could he have made an argument where he treated the reader as a rational adult, to advance the same position? Maybe. But for some reason, he felt like treating them like idiots. There are a number of possible reasons for this, and some are offered in Sirota's comments, but I'm going to put it down to the usually correct answer when it comes to government: he really believes what he is saying, that he is as much a victim of propaganda as a perpetuator of it.
And that places a certain degree of suspicion on his ability to correctly evaluate policy, and indeed the government at large.
Looking back, I realize that the OP doesn't actually address marijuana. He talks about overdoes, addiction, vaccines for addiction etc etc... none of which is related to marijuana. The he talks about the 'extremist' wanting legalization (which mostly applies to marijuana). I hadn't rally picked up on quite how he pulled that off before.
"Drugs kill people, we have to help them!"
"These extremist people want to legalize drugs!"
Both are true statements, but the usage of the word drugs obscures the facts. If we replace 'drugs' with the actual drug names, suddenly the argument seems far more disjointed.
"Opiates, Coke, Crack, Bath Salts and Prescription Meds kill people, we have to help them!"
"These extremist people want to legalize marijuana!"
I hadn't seen the "Above the Influence" ad where the ONDCP claimed that Marijuana was the safest thing in the world. Kinda ironic.
As I said before, I think the usage of terms like "extremism" weren't helpful to the piece. But that is obscuring the underlying point of the piece which I elucidated earlier. The position between law enforcement only and full legalization. That is, by definition, a position that is centrist, or at a minimum, to the left of one and to the right of another. I would stipulate one might find ways to argue that it is a position closer to law enforcement only or the other end, but I don't think the author in that Salon piece has it correct when they suggest such a position is an extreme position.
Because I can tell you that most people who are on the ground doing this work are in that position. It isn't that rare at all as the Salon author would have one believe. It doesn't seem terribly helpful for that author to combat poor usage of terms with poor usage of terms.
Quote from: RWHN Episode I: The Random Menace on January 06, 2012, 11:50:56 AM
As I said before, I think the usage of terms like "extremism" weren't helpful to the piece. But that is obscuring the underlying point of the piece which I elucidated earlier. The position between law enforcement only and full legalization. That is, by definition, a position that is centrist, or at a minimum, to the left of one and to the right of another. I would stipulate one might find ways to argue that it is a position closer to law enforcement only or the other end, but I don't think the author in that Salon piece has it correct when they suggest such a position is an extreme position.
Because I can tell you that most people who are on the ground doing this work are in that position. It isn't that rare at all as the Salon author would have one believe. It doesn't seem terribly helpful for that author to combat poor usage of terms with poor usage of terms.
Valid points RWHN.
I notice too that 'popular opinion' gets abused quite often in these debates.
The OP says "Most people don't want broad legalization" as though that's an argument against it. Yet, in a number of states, 'most people' have voted for some form of legalization and we often hear "Well, just because people want it, that's not a good reason to make it legal" If public opinion isn't a good argument FOR legalization, it shouldn't be a good argument AGAINST legalization either.
If we remove the 'centrist' argument from the OP, there isn't much left. Hes still advocating law enforcement have carrots and 'sticks', he's still advising that drug users == drug abusers. He's still holding the position that if you use drugs you must need help.
Quote"swift but modest consequences for continued drug use, or incentives for abstinence "
... doesn't seem centrist or moderate to me. It appears like more of the same kind of policies that are failing us now.
I agree that popular opinion is useless for either argument. Especially if that popular opinion is coming from polls. Because then you get into the weeds of phrasing of questions, who is doing the research, etc., etc.,
The best measure for popular opinion currently, I think, is looking at the initiatives that have gone on the ballots in different states. So clearly there are some majorities in certain parts of the country that favor changes in marijuana policies with regards to medicinal use. I'm not sure to what extent that can be used as a proxy to measure approval of legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Given that some of the majorities have been fairly slim, the majorities may not be quite there for rec use. But who knows.
I'd like to see a voice saying 'ok, priority is making medical mj happen. Legalisation is not on the table either way for now, and compromises can be made to avoid it. How can we work together to make this happen?'
Quote from: RWHN Episode I: The Random Menace on January 06, 2012, 01:34:16 PM
Given that some of the majorities have been fairly slim, the majorities may not be quite there for rec use. But who knows.
(http://i.imgur.com/I2qPv.png) (http://www.people-press.org/2011/03/03/section-3-attitudes-toward-social-issues/) | | The public is divided over whether the use of marijuana should be legal or not; half (50%) oppose legalization while nearly as many (45%) favor legalizing marijuana. Support for legalizing marijuana is up slightly since March, 2010; and over the past 40 years – drawing on trends from Gallup and the General Social Survey – support for legalizing marijuana has never been higher. |
Legalization will be on the table soon in spite of the propaganda campaigns emanating from the billion dollar private prison industry. (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/business/companies/corrections-corporation-of-america/index.html)
From Corrections Corporation of America's annual report,
| "The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them." | |
From GEO's (formerly Wackenhut) annual report,
| | "[A]ny changes with respect to the decriminalization of drugs and controlled substances could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities. Immigration reform laws which are currently a focus for legislators and politicians at the federal, state and local level also could materially adversely impact us." | |
Well, I for one think we should definitely keep throwing people in jail if it helps the economy. Freedom is expensive.
Apparently the Swiss are allowing their Cantons to decide for themselves. Four cantons legalized home growth for personal use.
http://the420times.com/2011/11/switzerland-legalizes-growing-cannabis-at-home/ (http://the420times.com/2011/11/switzerland-legalizes-growing-cannabis-at-home/)
Well, we all know what an uncivilized and backward place Switzerland is. It's really just like Somalia, but with lederhosen.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 07, 2012, 03:03:16 PM
Well, we all know what an uncivilized and backward place Switzerland is. It's really just like Somalia, but with lederhosen.
:lulz:
In Switzerland, the cantons pretty much decide everything, from taxes to health care contributions to the language and indeed drug policy.
I know it was a major pain in the arse with the school I worked at there, because in our canton, drug possession was still illegal, but you could catch a train to Bern, less than an hour away, and buy as much as you wanted.
That they didn't just smoke the shit there, but instead kept on bringing it back to where it was illegal, is proof of the school's status as not an educational establishment for the most gifted children of foreign despots and gangsters.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 07, 2012, 10:02:12 AM
Well, I for one think we should definitely keep throwing people in jail if it helps the economy. Freedom is expensive.
I wanna
wear that on my coffee shirt.
Though it seems to go well this time, I'm still calling 30 pages.
Meh. I think we're all well past the absolute certainty that we're all a bunch of hypocrites and when we're not wasted on the intoxicant of choice (gambling, sex, beer, etc), we're generally riding pretty high on a heaping, technicolor load of our own bullshit. :)
There. I just short-circuted past 7 pages at least.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2012, 11:16:51 PM
Though it seems to go well this time, I'm still calling 30 pages.
Do you
want that to happen?
Quote from: navkat on January 10, 2012, 12:20:32 AM
There. I just short-circuted past 7 pages at least.
MY GOD, I'M RUINING PEEDEE!
Quote from: RWHN on January 10, 2012, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2012, 11:16:51 PM
Though it seems to go well this time, I'm still calling 30 pages.
Do you want that to happen?
Only if it's 30 pages of puns.
Or we could all just drink your pee and get high.
Quote from: RWHN on January 10, 2012, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 09, 2012, 11:16:51 PM
Though it seems to go well this time, I'm still calling 30 pages.
Do you want that to happen?
Of course he does. That's probably why he started this thread.
Oh, wait.
When asked by a passenger how high he would get, the pilot replied,'I don't do drugs.'
Switching from alcohol to drugs is bad because you'll be high and dry.
Taking drugs is a misstep that could cause a bad trip.
Drug stores seem to be especially prone to pillaging.
Quote from: navkat on January 10, 2012, 12:20:32 AM
There. I just short-circuted past 7 pages at least.
Yo momma short-circuited seven pages. With her FACE.
Cain,
making up the other 23
:fnord:
twid
helping cain
This thread has given me pause to think.
Specifically, it has made me wonder how often the same people have to get mugged on the same street by the same people, in exactly the same manner, before folks call them rubes?
Fread's dead! :crybaby:
Ill just leave this here then
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 10, 2012, 10:03:55 PM
This thread has given me pause to think.
Specifically, it has made me wonder how often the same people have to get mugged on the same street by the same people, in exactly the same manner, before folks call them rubes?
My personal thoughts on that: more than twice. The first one might have been a fluke. The second, well, now you know where they hang out, and what they're gonna do, so if it happens again, it's your own damn fault.
I honestly don't think I would really be cut out to be much of a mugger.
I'm too much of a people pleaser.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 10, 2012, 10:50:48 PM
Ill just leave this here then
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html
Saw that. Here's another.
http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/
[Edit: Here's a story with a link to the abstract.]
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/uk-study-shows-middle-aged-males-marijuana-usage-not-detrimental
Quote from: Telarus on January 11, 2012, 01:15:25 AM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 10, 2012, 10:50:48 PM
Ill just leave this here then
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html
Saw that. Here's another.
http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/
[Edit: Here's a story with a link to the abstract.]
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/uk-study-shows-middle-aged-males-marijuana-usage-not-detrimental
:banana:
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 12:16:09 AM
I honestly don't think I would really be cut out to be much of a mugger.
I'm too much of a people pleaser.
I'm still trying to figure out if your the mugger or the muggee ;-) Given the past threads, I think its more like a Battle Royal kind of Mugging :D
I will point out to the posts that show evidence of no physical harm though, that it doesn't address the concerns RWHN has stated several times. His concern is with the effect of the drug on the life of young people. While I disagree with his position on prohibition and I disagree with the propaganda used by the ONDCP (most of which is often demonstrably false)... I have seen kids ruin the potential in their lives and marijuana has often been a part of that equation (it appears more like a symptom than a cause to me, but that's probably subjective).
One kid I met in the SCA. He was 13 and loved to cook... he was apprenticed to a cooking Laurel and even ran a complete (documented) medieval feast for 200 people. He was offered a full scholarship to the Culinary Institute of America. Then he started having serious family problems, then he started smoking pot, then things got worse and worse and now he's the manager of a call center.
Another guy I met (as an adult) was extremely intelligent, brilliantly gifted in understanding engineering, mechanics and computers... he has no job to speak of, because he got arrested multiple times for possession as a teen, then moved on to meth because he didn't have anything better to do.
In both cases, I think Marijuana was an escape for problems at home. without marijuana its likely that these people would still have crashed and burned. However, the pot didn't help matters.
I think RWHN has a legitimate concern, I just disagree with his opinion on how best to deal with that concern.
Quote from: Telarus on January 11, 2012, 01:15:25 AM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 10, 2012, 10:50:48 PM
Ill just leave this here then
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html (http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html)
Saw that. Here's another.
http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/ (http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/)
I think the guy being quoted in that story might have gone a little overboard when he said:
Quote
Mr Balderstone said the "fear and paranoia of smoking under prohibition" is also one of the biggest causes of mental illness in cannabis users.
I dunno, I've known a lot of marijuana smokers and while they weren't exactly peachy keen with it being illegal, they weren't exactly losing their marbles over it either. I think he might have jumped the shark there.
Quote from: Telarus on January 11, 2012, 01:15:25 AM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 10, 2012, 10:50:48 PM
Ill just leave this here then
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html (http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html)
Saw that. Here's another.
http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/ (http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/)
[Edit: Here's a story with a link to the abstract.]
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/uk-study-shows-middle-aged-males-marijuana-usage-not-detrimental (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/uk-study-shows-middle-aged-males-marijuana-usage-not-detrimental)
Quote
But, the researchers said that the advantage was small and might reflect another finding, that people who use drugs generally have a higher education level than non-users. A small subset of the participants who said that they had been treated for drug use, which may suggest more of an addiction, or very heavy use, did not fare as well cognitively at 50, but researchers say the subset was too small to draw a meaningful conclusion.
Researchers did caution that heavy or long term use of any illicit drugs may still be bad for brain function. Past studies have found that marijuana and cocaine can cloud thinking, affect memory and attention span, but the current finding add support that those effects may only be temporary.
But when we look at heavy use of substances, this study does suggest some impairment. So if everyone uses marijuana responsibly and doesn't abuse it, then sure, everything should be fine. But kids aren't equipped to successfully and consistently exercise that restraint, as well as your adults who are prone to abuse. It doesn't surprise me in the least that "normal" or moderate usage of the drug does not create significant impariment.
The question then becomes, how many drug users are able to exercise that restraint?
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 10:59:29 AM
Quote from: Telarus on January 11, 2012, 01:15:25 AM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 10, 2012, 10:50:48 PM
Ill just leave this here then
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html (http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html)
Saw that. Here's another.
http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/ (http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/)
[Edit: Here's a story with a link to the abstract.]
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/uk-study-shows-middle-aged-males-marijuana-usage-not-detrimental (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/uk-study-shows-middle-aged-males-marijuana-usage-not-detrimental)
Quote
But, the researchers said that the advantage was small and might reflect another finding, that people who use drugs generally have a higher education level than non-users. A small subset of the participants who said that they had been treated for drug use, which may suggest more of an addiction, or very heavy use, did not fare as well cognitively at 50, but researchers say the subset was too small to draw a meaningful conclusion.
Researchers did caution that heavy or long term use of any illicit drugs may still be bad for brain function. Past studies have found that marijuana and cocaine can cloud thinking, affect memory and attention span, but the current finding add support that those effects may only be temporary.
But when we look at heavy use of substances, this study does suggest some impairment. So if everyone uses marijuana responsibly and doesn't abuse it, then sure, everything should be fine. But kids aren't equipped to successfully and consistently exercise that restraint, as well as your adults who are prone to abuse. It doesn't surprise me in the least that "normal" or moderate usage of the drug does not create significant impariment.
The question then becomes, how many drug users are able to exercise that restraint?
Honestly? Every pot smoker I've ever met, with the exception of a couple kids and one guy that had serious pain issues and smoked to deal with it. He would get impaired, but he claimed it was less impaired than using whatever drug it was his doctor had described.
Some people might smoke more than usual at a party... but its not their daily or average routine.
Do some people exist that can't handle it? Sure, just like with alcohol, or food, or television or anything else that people can use to run away from their problems.
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 10:53:50 AM
Quote from: Telarus on January 11, 2012, 01:15:25 AM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 10, 2012, 10:50:48 PM
Ill just leave this here then
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html (http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html)
Saw that. Here's another.
http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/ (http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/)
I think the guy being quoted in that story might have gone a little overboard when he said:
Quote
Mr Balderstone said the "fear and paranoia of smoking under prohibition" is also one of the biggest causes of mental illness in cannabis users.
I dunno, I've known a lot of marijuana smokers and while they weren't exactly peachy keen with it being illegal, they weren't exactly losing their marbles over it either. I think he might have jumped the shark there.
There was a study I remember reading which claimed higher rates of mental illness among Jamaican immigrants to places where pot was prohibited than Jamaicans that were in Jamaica or Holland. Correlation, I would say... but both sides of the drug debate love to take correlation and pass it off as causation ;-)
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 10:59:29 AM
Quote from: Telarus on January 11, 2012, 01:15:25 AM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 10, 2012, 10:50:48 PM
Ill just leave this here then
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html (http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html)
Saw that. Here's another.
http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/ (http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/)
[Edit: Here's a story with a link to the abstract.]
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/uk-study-shows-middle-aged-males-marijuana-usage-not-detrimental (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/uk-study-shows-middle-aged-males-marijuana-usage-not-detrimental)
Quote
But, the researchers said that the advantage was small and might reflect another finding, that people who use drugs generally have a higher education level than non-users. A small subset of the participants who said that they had been treated for drug use, which may suggest more of an addiction, or very heavy use, did not fare as well cognitively at 50, but researchers say the subset was too small to draw a meaningful conclusion.
Researchers did caution that heavy or long term use of any illicit drugs may still be bad for brain function. Past studies have found that marijuana and cocaine can cloud thinking, affect memory and attention span, but the current finding add support that those effects may only be temporary.
But when we look at heavy use of substances, this study does suggest some impairment. So if everyone uses marijuana responsibly and doesn't abuse it, then sure, everything should be fine. But kids aren't equipped to successfully and consistently exercise that restraint, as well as your adults who are prone to abuse. It doesn't surprise me in the least that "normal" or moderate usage of the drug does not create significant impariment.
The question then becomes, how many drug users are able to exercise that restraint?
Oh hell, why not...
With pot it's not really restraint. It's not much of moremoremoremore drug. Of course, when it becomes a cool rebellious thing cause of, I dunno, whatever factors may lead to it being viewed as a cool rebellious thing, then the cool rebellious thing is to one up your peers by literally forcing yourself to smoke copious amounts.
...aaaaand. I'm sure someone could quite quickly pull up some statistics or other that pertain to the efficacy of "norming", versus abstinence based approaches, in encouraging moderate use.
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-found-to-boost-memory-in-kids-under-nine-213277650 (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ptWpbuB3w28/TG6KkS_Ur-I/AAAAAAAABP0/SXn_IBVPuRI/s1600/thirty.jpg)
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on January 11, 2012, 11:19:30 AM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 10:59:29 AM
Quote from: Telarus on January 11, 2012, 01:15:25 AM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 10, 2012, 10:50:48 PM
Ill just leave this here then
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html (http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html)
Saw that. Here's another.
http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/ (http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/)
[Edit: Here's a story with a link to the abstract.]
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/uk-study-shows-middle-aged-males-marijuana-usage-not-detrimental (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/uk-study-shows-middle-aged-males-marijuana-usage-not-detrimental)
Quote
But, the researchers said that the advantage was small and might reflect another finding, that people who use drugs generally have a higher education level than non-users. A small subset of the participants who said that they had been treated for drug use, which may suggest more of an addiction, or very heavy use, did not fare as well cognitively at 50, but researchers say the subset was too small to draw a meaningful conclusion.
Researchers did caution that heavy or long term use of any illicit drugs may still be bad for brain function. Past studies have found that marijuana and cocaine can cloud thinking, affect memory and attention span, but the current finding add support that those effects may only be temporary.
But when we look at heavy use of substances, this study does suggest some impairment. So if everyone uses marijuana responsibly and doesn't abuse it, then sure, everything should be fine. But kids aren't equipped to successfully and consistently exercise that restraint, as well as your adults who are prone to abuse. It doesn't surprise me in the least that "normal" or moderate usage of the drug does not create significant impariment.
The question then becomes, how many drug users are able to exercise that restraint?
Oh hell, why not...
With pot it's not really restraint. It's not much of moremoremoremore drug. Of course, when it becomes a cool rebellious thing cause of, I dunno, whatever factors may lead to it being viewed as a cool rebellious thing, then the cool rebellious thing is to one up your peers by literally forcing yourself to smoke copious amounts.
...aaaaand. I'm sure someone could quite quickly pull up some statistics or other that pertain to the efficacy of "norming", versus abstinence based approaches, in encouraging moderate use.
There is certainly evidence that in areas where its legal, adults are not smoking to the point of impairment. (See Holland etc).
Now, I'm going to say something and I don't mean it to be rude but I think its an important point. RWHN has never tried pot, he knows only what he's read on the subject, which (based on what he's shared) appears to be the official government view. Its one of those points in this debate where we just hit a wall. He seems to think Marijuana is like alcohol or coke or meth... yet for people that use it, such a comparison seems absurd.
One of my friends has a saying "If you're high, stop smoking... you don't end up more high, you just end up with less weed". In my experience, this view appears to be the norm among users.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 11:17:12 AM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 10:53:50 AM
Quote from: Telarus on January 11, 2012, 01:15:25 AM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 10, 2012, 10:50:48 PM
Ill just leave this here then
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html (http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-doesnt-harm-lung-function-study-found-210146886.html)
Saw that. Here's another.
http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/ (http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2012/01/09/memory-loss-fears-over-cannabis-use-up-in-smoke/)
I think the guy being quoted in that story might have gone a little overboard when he said:
Quote
Mr Balderstone said the "fear and paranoia of smoking under prohibition" is also one of the biggest causes of mental illness in cannabis users.
I dunno, I've known a lot of marijuana smokers and while they weren't exactly peachy keen with it being illegal, they weren't exactly losing their marbles over it either. I think he might have jumped the shark there.
There was a study I remember reading which claimed higher rates of mental illness among Jamaican immigrants to places where pot was prohibited than Jamaicans that were in Jamaica or Holland. Correlation, I would say... but both sides of the drug debate love to take correlation and pass it off as causation ;-)
Marijuana is prohibited in Jamaica. Enforcement varies depending on what part of the island you're talking about, but if you light up in front of a Jamaican cop and he's not a relative or friend of yours, you're probably gonna have a bad day.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 11, 2012, 11:22:51 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/marijuana-found-to-boost-memory-in-kids-under-nine-213277650 (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ptWpbuB3w28/TG6KkS_Ur-I/AAAAAAAABP0/SXn_IBVPuRI/s1600/thirty.jpg)
:lulz:
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 11:38:45 AM
Now, I'm going to say something and I don't mean it to be rude but I think its an important point. RWHN has never tried pot, he knows only what he's read on the subject, which (based on what he's shared) appears to be the official government view. Its one of those points in this debate where we just hit a wall. He seems to think Marijuana is like alcohol or coke or meth... yet for people that use it, such a comparison seems absurd.
I would humbly suggest this isn't completely accurate. My knowledge goes a bit beyond what I've read. For example, I also have experience working with those (young people) who have been addicted to marijuana. My former agency did, and still does, outpatient treatment, intensive outpatient treatment, family treatment, residential. The whole gamut of treatment options. In fact graduates of our program have often done speaking engagements at various schools across the state talking about their experience with substance abuse, how it impacted their lives, how it started, how it evolved.... I've done many focus groups and other formative research with kids who have abused drugs. So, I personally don't think my lack of doing drugs impacts my ability to have a firm, evidence based understanding of how drugs impact youth and communities.
I would further stipulate that my view isn't predicated on the "official government view". Indeed, there are instances where I part ways with the government, particularly when it comes to how things are funded. The government puts a lot of money and resources into law enforcement policies. I personally believe there should be more money in treatment and prevention. Further, when I do messaging in my work, I don't rely on resources from the government. I make my own, based on science and peer-reviewed research and best practices. I tend to think their stuff is a bit boring an ineffective. I think I bring a bit more creativity and out of the box thinking to the game. My grant director seems to agree.
I'll also just add for the hell of it that I actually do little to no work in the area of marijuana specifically. My current work has me focusing more on Rx abuse, inhalant abuse, and the rise of synthetic drugs like "bath salts". Also underage drinking which is always a given.
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 02:20:11 PM
I'll also just add for the hell of it that I actually do little to no work in the area of marijuana specifically. My current work has me focusing more on Rx abuse, inhalant abuse, and the rise of synthetic drugs like "bath salts". Also underage drinking which is always a given.
That's a worthwhile area to work on.
Also, obligatory response to this:
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 02:06:28 PM
For example, I also have experience working with those (young people) who have been addicted to marijuana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUPHlAbAf2I
Dude.
Nobody gets addicted to marijuana. That's just ridiculous.
Also, your argument is reminiscent of someone saying that they are qualified to fly an airplane because they've talked to alot of pilots and read alot of manuals. If you've never sparked up, you literally CAN NOT know what you are talking about. You can only suppose, assume, or infer.
Twid, I can't watch videos on this connection but I hope to hell that's the scene from Half-Baked where Bob Saget tears Dave Chapelle a new one for saying he's in rehab for marijuana. :lulz:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 11, 2012, 02:57:51 PM
Twid, I can't watch videos on this connection but I hope to hell that's the scene from Half-Baked where Bob Saget tears Dave Chapelle a new one for saying he's in rehab for marijuana. :lulz:
It most certainly is. 8)
:shrug:
Marijuana is the number one drug amongst youth in Maine (and I suspect in other areas of the country too) who are admitted for substance abuse treatment. Science, evidence-based, best practice treatment. This ain't homeopathy. (Though I'm sure there are some quacks out there that employ homeopathic treatments for drug abuse) Kids, and adults, come out the other side and rid themselves of their addiction.
I dunno, maybe it's magic or coincidence, but something is helping them be in recovery.
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 04:00:08 PM
:shrug:
Marijuana is the number one drug amongst youth in Maine (and I suspect in other areas of the country too) who are admitted for substance abuse treatment. Science, evidence-based, best practice treatment. This ain't homeopathy. (Though I'm sure there are some quacks out there that employ homeopathic treatments for drug abuse) Kids, and adults, come out the other side and rid themselves of their addiction.
I dunno, maybe it's magic or coincidence, but something is helping them be in recovery.
How are they treated? What are the root causes for their marijuana abuse, generally speaking?
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 02:06:28 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 11:38:45 AM
Now, I'm going to say something and I don't mean it to be rude but I think its an important point. RWHN has never tried pot, he knows only what he's read on the subject, which (based on what he's shared) appears to be the official government view. Its one of those points in this debate where we just hit a wall. He seems to think Marijuana is like alcohol or coke or meth... yet for people that use it, such a comparison seems absurd.
I would humbly suggest this isn't completely accurate. My knowledge goes a bit beyond what I've read. For example, I also have experience working with those (young people) who have been addicted to marijuana.
That statement tells me that ou've worked with kids that have serious problems... which some people consider 'marijuana addiction'. As I've stated many times, kids + pot = bad (usually because of whatever issues drove the kid to smoking). However, having had experience talking and working with kids that got in bad with the drug and in talking with adults that use the drug and having used it myself... I don't really think the two things are comparable.
Do kids oversmoke? Most likely because kids like to do everything to excess (especially if its part of a habit of escapism). However, those behaviors don't generally exist in the adult population (including the adult population that used to oversmoke as kids). That you still stick with the term 'addicted' doesn't really instill confidence in your perception of the topic. No offense.
Quote
My former agency did, and still does, outpatient treatment, intensive outpatient treatment, family treatment, residential. The whole gamut of treatment options. In fact graduates of our program have often done speaking engagements at various schools across the state talking about their experience with substance abuse, how it impacted their lives, how it started, how it evolved.... I've done many focus groups and other formative research with kids who have abused drugs. So, I personally don't think my lack of doing drugs impacts my ability to have a firm, evidence based understanding of how drugs impact youth and communities.
Again... I don't think the experiences you list here are giving you an objective view... or anything close to a realistic view of the drug, how its used by adults, how it affects adults and what the adult culture surrounding it is. On occasion you've repeated examples which are in reality urban legends (like 'they lace weed with glass') which, if you had experienced the culture, you would have found absurd as soon as you heard it. If for no reason that in breaking down the weed to smoke it you would have found glass, or your fingers would have gotten glass embedded in them. Not to mention the more social/cultural aspects where a weed dealer's ability to make money depends heavily on his relative honesty about the product he's selling. Again, I'm not trying to smear the work you do with kids. I think that's good stuff and important, but I do find that many of your comments, concerns and viewpoints tend to seem naive when it comes to adults.
Quote
I would further stipulate that my view isn't predicated on the "official government view". Indeed, there are instances where I part ways with the government, particularly when it comes to how things are funded. The government puts a lot of money and resources into law enforcement policies. I personally believe there should be more money in treatment and prevention. Further, when I do messaging in my work, I don't rely on resources from the government. I make my own, based on science and peer-reviewed research and best practices. I tend to think their stuff is a bit boring an ineffective. I think I bring a bit more creativity and out of the box thinking to the game. My grant director seems to agree.
Yes, you disagree on topics like funding and enforcement... but I'm talking about the drug, its use and its effects. Not how to better implement prohibition. That you say things like 'addiction' 'cognitive impairment' or 'physical harm' is in line with the government view of the topic and completely put of line with the science and actual experience. asking things like "How many users can exercise restraint?" also comes across as completely uninformed.
Again, I'm not trying to be an ass to you here. I'm just trying to stress that your expertise in dealing with kids on Rx drugs or bath salts... doesn't seem to extend to the real world experience of adults using the drug. It doesn't lessen the value of the work you're doing, but I think it may lend a few bars to your BIP that block the view of some of the topics I mentioned. As such, I think your comments sometimes come across as uninformed or naive or propaganda (which I don't believe personally) to those that actually know though experience what they're talking about.
I don't think that means you should smoke pot, only that maybe you might consider that there could be some serious gaps in your knowledge.
----added since there are new posts----
I know 10 people including one teenager that went through treatment after getting caught with marijuana. In EVERY case, they thought it was funny because they would make shit up and get away with 'talking' instead of jail time. However, all of them were still happy to light up and privately thought marijuana addiction was a crock of shit.
Maybe there really are people out there addicted to pot. I've never met one. I've met people addicted to all sorts of drugs... but never pot. Just my experience.
What is your definition of addiction?
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 04:05:34 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 04:00:08 PM
:shrug:
Marijuana is the number one drug amongst youth in Maine (and I suspect in other areas of the country too) who are admitted for substance abuse treatment. Science, evidence-based, best practice treatment. This ain't homeopathy. (Though I'm sure there are some quacks out there that employ homeopathic treatments for drug abuse) Kids, and adults, come out the other side and rid themselves of their addiction.
I dunno, maybe it's magic or coincidence, but something is helping them be in recovery.
How are they treated? What are the root causes for their marijuana abuse, generally speaking?
Licensed counselors will use best practices such as cognitave behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing. If there are some serious family and behavioral issues also showing up they might go through something like Family Functional Therapy. If there is other mental-health stuff showing up they would go through some kind of co-occuring therapy, depending on which behavioral issue seems to be taking precedence. Of course, like any kind of behavioral treatment, it won't always work for everyone, and many will make multiple attempts before it works. Part of it depends on the person and their willingness to receive help.
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 04:19:45 PM
What is your definition of addiction?
Physical or Psychological dependance. That is, a 'need' based on some sort of negative effect if you don't have the object of addiction. I have never met anyone that meets either of those criteria. Maybe they exist, but I know a lot of smokers...
So you guys basically send a messed up kid to therapy to treat his marijuana abuse kid gets less messed up and stops smoking up? Im just making sure i understand that right.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 04:28:40 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 04:19:45 PM
What is your definition of addiction?
Physical or Psychological dependance. That is, a 'need' based on some sort of negative effect if you don't have the object of addiction. I have never met anyone that meets either of those criteria. Maybe they exist, but I know a lot of smokers...
So what would you say to the educated, licensed substance abuse counselors who do assess individuals (using evidence-based, science-based practices), youth and adults, to meet the above threshold? Are they wrong? If so, why?
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 04:40:43 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 04:28:40 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 04:19:45 PM
What is your definition of addiction?
Physical or Psychological dependance. That is, a 'need' based on some sort of negative effect if you don't have the object of addiction. I have never met anyone that meets either of those criteria. Maybe they exist, but I know a lot of smokers...
So what would you say to the educated, licensed substance abuse counselors who do assess individuals (using evidence-based, science-based practices), youth and adults, to meet the above threshold? Are they wrong? If so, why?
Because that's the view outside their cell...
In the instances where I know the people involved, its because they lie to the counselor and tell them what they want to hear so they don't have to deal with jail time. I don't know of a single one of them that actually stopped smoking as a result. Is that the norm, or do I simply know the few outliers? I dunno.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 04:39:36 PM
So you guys basically send a messed up kid to therapy to treat his marijuana abuse kid gets less messed up and stops smoking up? Im just making sure i understand that right.
Well, technically, I myself don't send anyone anywhere. I'm prevention, not treatment.
But a kid, or adult, goes to a treatment agency. They will go through an in-take process where they go through an initial screening to make sure they qualify for treatment. If they do they will have a more thorough assessment which may be a self-administered tool, an interview, or combination of the two. This would be a protocol that has been researched and peer-reviewed and found to have reliability and validity. Through this process, it will be established what kind of treatment protocol will be best for the individual. They will then set up a treatment plan and implement that plan. At the end of that plan, and throughout the plan, there will be constant evaluation to see where the patient is. Adaptations may need to be made along the way depending on progress.
Many come out of that in recovery. Someone in recovery can always relapse. We never characterize someone as "cured". Roughly, it's somewhat analagous to someone in remission for cancer. It's something that an individual needs to stay on top of, but without the need for the substance, they certainly should be enjoying a higher quality of life. A key to this will be the kind of support system they have within their family and community. If they come from a family of drug abusers, or run in a social circle with drug abusers, it could end up being quite challenging to stay clean.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 04:44:12 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 04:40:43 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 04:28:40 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 04:19:45 PM
What is your definition of addiction?
Physical or Psychological dependance. That is, a 'need' based on some sort of negative effect if you don't have the object of addiction. I have never met anyone that meets either of those criteria. Maybe they exist, but I know a lot of smokers...
So what would you say to the educated, licensed substance abuse counselors who do assess individuals (using evidence-based, science-based practices), youth and adults, to meet the above threshold? Are they wrong? If so, why?
Because that's the view outside their cell...
In the instances where I know the people involved, its because they lie to the counselor and tell them what they want to hear so they don't have to deal with jail time. I don't know of a single one of them that actually stopped smoking as a result. Is that the norm, or do I simply know the few outliers? I dunno.
Scientifically, how are they wrong?
Do they treat for marijuana withdrawal? What sorts of medications do they use for it? What are symptoms of severe marijuana withdrawal?
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 04:58:05 PM
Do they treat for marijuana withdrawal? What sorts of medications do they use for it? What are symptoms of severe marijuana withdrawal?
I'm not aware of any medical treatments currently available to treat the withdrawal symptoms, though it is something that is being researched. Here is an example of one study that didn't have very good results. But it also gives a little background on the nature of the withdrawal symptoms and how it can results in relapse.
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v29/n1/full/1300310a.html (http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v29/n1/full/1300310a.html)
Cant click from phone. Will have to look at later.
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 04:44:12 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 04:40:43 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 04:28:40 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 04:19:45 PM
What is your definition of addiction?
Physical or Psychological dependance. That is, a 'need' based on some sort of negative effect if you don't have the object of addiction. I have never met anyone that meets either of those criteria. Maybe they exist, but I know a lot of smokers...
So what would you say to the educated, licensed substance abuse counselors who do assess individuals (using evidence-based, science-based practices), youth and adults, to meet the above threshold? Are they wrong? If so, why?
Because that's the view outside their cell...
In the instances where I know the people involved, its because they lie to the counselor and tell them what they want to hear so they don't have to deal with jail time. I don't know of a single one of them that actually stopped smoking as a result. Is that the norm, or do I simply know the few outliers? I dunno.
Scientifically, how are they wrong?
Scientifically? Because they are part of the process, therefore their subjective BIP will affect what they expect, what they see and how they interpret what they're being told. Further, the subjective behavior of the 'addict' is involved... and we cannot objectively quantify 'truth' from 'lie' in these situations.
Perhaps in Maine you have guys that can? I only know about experiences second hand from the perception of the 'addict' in Ohio... and in all of them, the 'addict' saw the councilor as a rube. Did the councilor know that? I don't know. did the councilor include that as part of their scientific process? I don't know.
The young kid I mentioned, told me how he explained his 'withdraw' and his 'addiction' to the councilor. He told me it was bullshit.
What were the credentials of the councilor in question?
Were they licensed by the State of Ohio?
Did they used evidence-based treatment techniques?
I guess where I'm getting lost is using the anecdotal evidence from people you know vs. a body of science. Because there is a whole body of science behind behavioral health treatment. In Maine, anyone who wants to be licensed MUST follow these protocols. If they don't, they don't get licensed. There are certainly private independents who may employ other techniques not backed by science. I would tend to discourage an individual from going to one of these practices.
Have you ever gone through a treatment program?
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
What were the credentials of the councilor in question?
Were they licensed by the State of Ohio?
Did they used evidence-based treatment techniques?
I don't know... they were sent there by the courts after getting caught with possession, so I assume they're licensed.
Quote
I guess where I'm getting lost is using the anecdotal evidence from people you know vs. a body of science. Because there is a whole body of science behind behavioral health treatment. In Maine, anyone who wants to be licensed MUST follow these protocols. If they don't, they don't get licensed. There are certainly private independents who may employ other techniques not backed by science. I would tend to discourage an individual from going to one of these practices.
Again, I'm only telling you from my experience. Do the protocols account for the patient BSing the councilor? If so, then in those cases the protocols must have failed.
Quote
Have you ever gone through a treatment program?
No. The only time I got caught with weed by a cop he took it... and later gave it to a friend of mine that managed a strip club for some free dances. I kept a little idol of Shiva in my weed bag and my friend found it, recognized it and returned the weed and the Shiva.
I've never found a reason to enroll myself since my social and work life was great. When pot wasn't available, I never noticed any symptoms that would indicate physical or psychological dependence. As I've said several times, I suppose that such effects ARE POSSIBLE... I've never experienced them, no one I know has ever experienced them.
Though you know me, I figure almost anything is possible. I can't possibly know every stoner and every experience, so I'm sure that some people out there might have some serious effects.
I do know one guy that used to smoke pot. he'd always been a little weird, but after smoking he got seriously weird (talkiing to himself in the corner during parties weird). So we all sat down with him, said "Dude, whats up with this?" discussed it and he decided not to smoke pot. Several months later he ended up going into a treatment facility for schizophrenia. I don't think the weed caused the schizophrenia, but it certainly aggravated the problem while he was high. I am not ignorant of the fact that we're all individuals and we all have our own unique set of physical and psychological conditions. Pot is a drug that affects the brain and I have no problem accepting the fact that it can react differently in different people. Based on my experiences though, and the experiences of other pot smokers I've talked to, addiction, if it exists I think it must affect a very small minority of people.
Bear in mind though that I also accept the possibility that UFO's have visited earth. And I accept the possibility that we can break free of our Black Iron Prison by recreating it as a Golden Sphere of Possibility... ;-)
I would tend to think a good counselor worth their salt will know when they are being BS'ed. The ones I know are pretty savy and tend to know when someone is filling them full of shit. But, at the same time, if someone is in treatment and doesn't want to play ball, it isn't going to work. While the science is there, the science can't extract an individuals heels from the earth.
I would argue that isn't a failure of treatment, that is a failure of the individual.
Of course, this can happen with chemical treatment regimens as well. Like the guy prescribed cholesterol-lowering medications who makes nightly trips to KFC. The patient needs to be on board with the program.
I would be inclined to think that you arent actually treating marijuana addiction rather than other psychological issues that lead to smoking too much. I've been addicted to nicotine (that happened very quickly) and ive had problems with drinking too much. Ive never wanted to get stoned more than every so often. The most i did was every weekend senior year of high school and that was partially due to my parents splitting up.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 06:10:34 PM
I would be inclined to think that you arent actually treating marijuana addiction rather than other psychological issues that lead to smoking too much.
Why? Based on what?
Thing is, I've never know anyone who volunteered to go into rehab for pot. It's always court-mandated or school-mandated.
I had to go to outpatient rehab for awhile in high school to avoid getting kicked out of school and sent to the alternative high school. I was literally stoned every time I went to rehab, except for the time I was high on acid. I told the counselors exactly what they needed to hear and even passed the random piss tests with the help of some trickery. And literally every single other person in my rehab group was doing the same thing. Nobody actually wanted (or needed) to be there, it was just some kids who got caught smoking or selling at school and took the path of least resistance when it came time to deal with the consequences.
Of course, if you'd ever smoked a joint you'd know all this already.
My own experiences as well as talking with other people who have used it. And that most people who smoked kinda left behind once booze was available to them. Anybody who smokes too much imo is using it to escape. Like i said ive had my own abuse problems but never with thc nor have i known anyone else to. Like rat said i suppose its possible but its gotta be rare if it is.
Fair enough. It is true that kids may be required to undergo a full assessment for substance abuse as a term of returning to school. But the thing is, if they don't meet the criteria, they won't go through the treatment process. If they do, they will. And if they go in as an unwilling participant, it is very likely, if not certain, that it won't work.
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 06:04:29 PM
I would tend to think a good counselor worth their salt will know when they are being BS'ed. The ones I know are pretty savy and tend to know when someone is filling them full of shit. But, at the same time, if someone is in treatment and doesn't want to play ball, it isn't going to work. While the science is there, the science can't extract an individuals heels from the earth.
I would argue that isn't a failure of treatment, that is a failure of the individual.
Of course, this can happen with chemical treatment regimens as well. Like the guy prescribed cholesterol-lowering medications who makes nightly trips to KFC. The patient needs to be on board with the program.
So then, I guess the takeaway here is that I (like FU1I) have never met a person that wanted to be on board with the program... plenty that pretended to be on board and didn't have to go to jail... but they never saw pot smoking as a problem and never stopped. Are our experiences out of line with the norm? Are there lots of people begging for help getting off the weed?
More interestingly, are the 'addiction' stories that are being told to these councilors true, or bull shit? In all the cases I'm aware of, the 'addict' told it was BS. But again, maybe I ended up in some weird scenario where my experiences aren't the norm.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 06:22:50 PM
My own experiences as well as talking with other people who have used it. And that most people who smoked kinda left behind once booze was available to them. Anybody who smokes too much imo is using it to escape. Like i said ive had my own abuse problems but never with thc nor have i known anyone else to. Like rat said i suppose its possible but its gotta be rare if it is.
Is it possible that your social circles would exclude the type of people who would willingly seek treatment for drug addiction?
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 06:23:35 PM
Fair enough. It is true that kids may be required to undergo a full assessment for substance abuse as a term of returning to school. But the thing is, if they don't meet the criteria, they won't go through the treatment process. If they do, they will. And if they go in as an unwilling participant, it is very likely, if not certain, that it won't work.
I think we're talking past each other here.
You're approaching it from the perspective that Person X needs help, but if they're not willing... it won't work. However, its possible that Person X doen't need help, but finds lying to a councilor much easier than spending time in Juvie or Jail. Further, the stories of 'addiction' (in at least some cases) are outright fabrications designed to get the user through the process and out so they can get back to their life.*
I feel like there's this huge flower vase sitting on the table between us and we simply can't communicate through it.
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 06:27:17 PM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 06:22:50 PM
My own experiences as well as talking with other people who have used it. And that most people who smoked kinda left behind once booze was available to them. Anybody who smokes too much imo is using it to escape. Like i said ive had my own abuse problems but never with thc nor have i known anyone else to. Like rat said i suppose its possible but its gotta be rare if it is.
Is it possible that your social circles would exclude the type of people who would willingly seek treatment for drug addiction?
My social circles include artists, businessmen, techies, chefs, blue collar workers, white collar workers, SCAdians, drug dealers, hippies, etc. I'm also good friends with a devout Catholic/Mason/Discordian/Pot Smoker that just got his PHD in psych. He didn't smoke during school, he did smoke when he came home to visit. He claimed that he never had any problems at all... and discussed at length things like addiction etc. (You see we stoners often discuss this stuff amongst each other as well).
*At least in the experiences of people I've talked with.
Maybe maybe not. I would have to follow up on all of them and see what their drinking habits are like. Considering i just got back in contact with one and hes now a father of two and quit smoking tobacco if he had any abuse problems then yes he would seek help.
50 pages. Easy.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 06:23:47 PM
So then, I guess the takeaway here is that I (like FU1I) have never met a person that wanted to be on board with the program... plenty that pretended to be on board and didn't have to go to jail... but they never saw pot smoking as a problem and never stopped. Are our experiences out of line with the norm? Are there lots of people begging for help getting off the weed?
Well, I offer you this. In Maine, between 2010 and the beginning of 2012, according to our Treatment Data System, 1208 youth up to the age of 21 were seeking treatment services and idenitified marijuana as the primary substance. Do you think all 1208 of those young people are like the people you have known? If so, how could you be sure?
QuoteMore interestingly, are the 'addiction' stories that are being told to these councilors true, or bull shit? In all the cases I'm aware of, the 'addict' told it was BS. But again, maybe I ended up in some weird scenario where my experiences aren't the norm.
A seasoned and qualified counselor will smell bullshit from a mile away, in my experience anyway.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2012, 06:35:18 PM
50 pages. Easy.
Even so, this thread is only 5 days old and 6 pages long.
The homeopathy thread, on the other hand, is 20 pages and three days old.
Homeopathy is the new drug thread!
Imagine how stoned I would get if I diluted my pot with water!
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on January 11, 2012, 06:50:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2012, 06:35:18 PM
50 pages. Easy.
Even so, this thread is only 5 days old and 6 pages long.
The homeopathy thread, on the other hand, is 20 pages and three days old.
Homeopathy is the new drug thread!
Doesn't matter.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2012, 06:52:04 PM
Quote from: The Freeky of SCIENCE! on January 11, 2012, 06:50:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2012, 06:35:18 PM
50 pages. Easy.
Even so, this thread is only 5 days old and 6 pages long.
The homeopathy thread, on the other hand, is 20 pages and three days old.
Homeopathy is the new drug thread!
Doesn't matter.
Yeah. Once it started drifting to other articles than the OP, it is bound to happen.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 06:33:34 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 06:23:35 PM
Fair enough. It is true that kids may be required to undergo a full assessment for substance abuse as a term of returning to school. But the thing is, if they don't meet the criteria, they won't go through the treatment process. If they do, they will. And if they go in as an unwilling participant, it is very likely, if not certain, that it won't work.
I think we're talking past each other here.
You're approaching it from the perspective that Person X needs help, but if they're not willing... it won't work. However, its possible that Person X doen't need help, but finds lying to a councilor much easier than spending time in Juvie or Jail. Further, the stories of 'addiction' (in at least some cases) are outright fabrications designed to get the user through the process and out so they can get back to their life.*
I feel like there's this huge flower vase sitting on the table between us and we simply can't communicate through it.
But the thing is, if they don't meet the criteria for treatment, they won't get it. Because, of course, someone needs to pay for this treatment. If the individual doesn't have insurance, the state will probably be picking up the bill. And they are not going to pay for it if the state-mandated assessment says "Nope, no treatment necessary."
Again, unless the counselor is a complete quack, which of course is possible, they are going to sniff out when they are being sold bullshit. If they are like the counselors I know, they have waiting lists. THey aren't going to waste their time with people who have no interest in the treatment when they have other people waiting just to get in who do. It just wouldn't make any sense.
But, I will stipulate that perhaps we have a different culture amongst treatment providers here in Maine. It seems unlikely to me, but I won't rule it out.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 11, 2012, 06:51:09 PM
Imagine how stoned I would get if I diluted my pot with water!
SHIT FUCK DAMN!
So in an odd twist, a friend just showed up here and we had a nice smoke while discussing this topic. The friend told me that they went through the same thing here in Turkey.
"If you ever get caught, just tell them that you're addicted. They'll make you go to counseling but won't send you to jail." The friend ended with "I went to every session stoned".
I wonder how much data on 'addiction' is based on that mentality?
But that is the criminal justice system you are talking about. Not the treatment agency. And I'm suspect about a judge simply taking a person's word that they are addicted without making them go through a rigorous assessment. If they are, that would be a problem that needs to be fixed so treatment agencies aren't bunged up with people who don't want help.
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 07:04:55 PM
But that is the criminal justice system you are talking about. Not the treatment agency. And I'm suspect about a judge simply taking a person's word that they are addicted without making them go through a rigorous assessment. If they are, that would be a problem that needs to be fixed so treatment agencies aren't bunged up with people who don't want help.
Err, I think you're missing the point... still...
Ok, I'm stepping out because I value you as a friend and I really don't want to degenerate into the more SLACKFISTED sort of response.
Have fun getting to 50 pages everyone else :lulz:
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 07:07:26 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 07:04:55 PM
But that is the criminal justice system you are talking about. Not the treatment agency. And I'm suspect about a judge simply taking a person's word that they are addicted without making them go through a rigorous assessment. If they are, that would be a problem that needs to be fixed so treatment agencies aren't bunged up with people who don't want help.
Err, I think you're missing the point... still...
Ok, I'm stepping out because I value you as a friend and I really don't want to degenerate into the more SLACKFISTED sort of response.
Have fun getting to 50 pages everyone else :lulz:
Just ten seconds ago you were cheering him on.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 07:07:26 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 07:04:55 PM
But that is the criminal justice system you are talking about. Not the treatment agency. And I'm suspect about a judge simply taking a person's word that they are addicted without making them go through a rigorous assessment. If they are, that would be a problem that needs to be fixed so treatment agencies aren't bunged up with people who don't want help.
Err, I think you're missing the point... still...
Ok, I'm stepping out because I value you as a friend and I really don't want to degenerate into the more SLACKFISTED sort of response.
Have fun getting to 50 pages everyone else :lulz:
Hmm, okay, not sure what it is I'm missing. I understand that there are those for whom treatment doesn't work, especially when they are dead set against it. I guess I just don't get how that level of experience translates to the larger population. I guess I just can't get on board with the idea that all of the people who go to treatment are making it all up. Just statistically, that seems to be pretty improbable.
Treatments not going to work if there is nothing to treat. Rats point is that these people arent addicts but for legal reasons have to pretend that they are. Its not a matter of them not wanting to help themselves not be addicted. Its a matter of them not needing treatment because theyre not addicted period. I thought that was pretty easily understandable.
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 06:33:34 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 06:23:35 PM
Fair enough. It is true that kids may be required to undergo a full assessment for substance abuse as a term of returning to school. But the thing is, if they don't meet the criteria, they won't go through the treatment process. If they do, they will. And if they go in as an unwilling participant, it is very likely, if not certain, that it won't work.
I think we're talking past each other here.
You're approaching it from the perspective that Person X needs help, but if they're not willing... it won't work. However, its possible that Person X doen't need help, but finds lying to a councilor much easier than spending time in Juvie or Jail. Further, the stories of 'addiction' (in at least some cases) are outright fabrications designed to get the user through the process and out so they can get back to their life.*
I feel like there's this huge flower vase sitting on the table between us and we simply can't communicate through it.
But the thing is, if they don't meet the criteria for treatment, they won't get it. Because, of course, someone needs to pay for this treatment. If the individual doesn't have insurance, the state will probably be picking up the bill. And they are not going to pay for it if the state-mandated assessment says "Nope, no treatment necessary."
Again, unless the counselor is a complete quack, which of course is possible, they are going to sniff out when they are being sold bullshit. If they are like the counselors I know, they have waiting lists. THey aren't going to waste their time with people who have no interest in the treatment when they have other people waiting just to get in who do. It just wouldn't make any sense.
But, I will stipulate that perhaps we have a different culture amongst treatment providers here in Maine. It seems unlikely to me, but I won't rule it out.
I wouldn't be so quick to discount that possibility, given the cultural differences between Maine and the rest of the country in nearly every other aspect of life.
That may sound like a pithy one-liner but I'm dead serious. Most of the country does not have the finely-honed bullshit detector that most Mainers are born with.
Quote from: Billy the Twid on January 11, 2012, 08:08:18 PM
Treatments not going to work if there is nothing to treat. Rats point is that these people arent addicts but for legal reasons have to pretend that they are. Its not a matter of them not wanting to help themselves not be addicted. Its a matter of them not needing treatment because theyre not addicted period. I thought that was pretty easily understandable.
I understand that but what I've been trying to get across is that those people will (mostly) be weeded out by an evidence-based assessment protocol. There are mechanisms built into these tools to detect when someone isn't being forthcoming. I used to administer one of these tools (JASAE) in a prior job and they would always kick out this measurement that showed how truthful the respondent was being in their answers. And again, on top of that, a counselor who knows what they are doing will very easily be able to tell whether or not the person is being on the up and up.
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 07:15:24 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 11, 2012, 07:07:26 PM
Quote from: RWHN on January 11, 2012, 07:04:55 PM
But that is the criminal justice system you are talking about. Not the treatment agency. And I'm suspect about a judge simply taking a person's word that they are addicted without making them go through a rigorous assessment. If they are, that would be a problem that needs to be fixed so treatment agencies aren't bunged up with people who don't want help.
Err, I think you're missing the point... still...
Ok, I'm stepping out because I value you as a friend and I really don't want to degenerate into the more SLACKFISTED sort of response.
Have fun getting to 50 pages everyone else :lulz:
Hmm, okay, not sure what it is I'm missing. I understand that there are those for whom treatment doesn't work, especially when they are dead set against it. I guess I just don't get how that level of experience translates to the larger population. I guess I just can't get on board with the idea that all of the people who go to treatment are making it all up. Just statistically, that seems to be pretty improbable.
Not all of them, just the vast majority of the ones who end up having to go to treatment for pot.
you really can't lump it in with the other commonly abused recreational drugs.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/12/pope-claims-babyfood-laced-with-pot-prevents-addiction-later-in-life/
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2012, 07:18:43 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/12/pope-claims-babyfood-laced-with-pot-prevents-addiction-later-in-life/
Page not found.
Which bitterly disappoints me.
Trip thats fox news and the pope makes all sorts of ludicrous claims.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 12, 2012, 07:20:13 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 12, 2012, 07:18:43 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/09/12/pope-claims-babyfood-laced-with-pot-prevents-addiction-later-in-life/
Page not found.
Which bitterly disappoints me.
Just realized I forgot to link it somewhere.
On the other hand, this way that URL will appear in fox's logs somewhere with PD as referrer, so there's an upside, too :)
My day.
Ruined.
:sad:
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, GO.
I know a lot of pot smokers who describe themselves as dependant on the drug. I agree with this, based on my observation of them with and without it. It's kind of surprising to me to read that, knowing a lot of stoners, anyone can not know any they would consider addicted.
Maybe New Zealand has better weed.
For all the back and forth, this seems like a polite conversation so far.
So there's this.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/
And we have cannabis not associated with decreased lung function in young men (and, presumably other healthy adults), and not associated with cognitive impairment in middle aged men. Both stories broke "as if" those were the previous assumptions (it's a drug, it messes with your cognitive abilities, it's smoked, it messes with your lung function).
Now, to touch on Beardman Meow's point (& dig into Tosk's anecdotal evidence)... let's ask the question:
What effects of cannabis are self-described "dependent" users dependent on?One would immediately say "the high/mental-perceptual effects".. but that's too obvious. Of course it makes one "feel good" and "feeling good" may not be a usual state for these users. But let's look at the other actual medical effects in conjunction with this.
I find Dr. Robert Melamede to be one of the smarted people in this field who can effectively communicate the benefits of cannabis consumption (and a DEA speaker once claimed "what you say is very dangerous to our children & I'm very sorry you consider yourself a role model" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncWiKJqH_0A) because of this, LOL).
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/17
Quote from: Dr. BobA little explored question is what does harm reduction specifically mean with respect to cannabis consumption? This article will address cannabis harm reduction from a biological perspective. Two directions will be examined: what are the biological effects of cannabis use and what are the social effects that emerge from the biological foundation.
Like many substances that are put into the human body, there can be positive or negative consequences that result from cannabis consumption, depending on amount, frequency, quality, and probably most importantly, the idiosyncratic biochemistry of the user. Prohibitionists concentrate their efforts on the negative effects of cannabis use, while anti-prohibitionists tend to focus on the positive effects. If we assume that both sides have valid arguments, the issue to be resolved is one of balance between the negative and positive effects.
...
Cannabis preparations have been used medically for thousands of years for illnesses such as epilepsy, migraine headaches, childbirth, and menstrual symptoms. However, it is only relatively recently that the active components have been identified and their mechanisms of action have begun to be understood. While delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) was first synthesized by Mechoulam in 1967 [5], it was not until 1990 that the cannabinoid receptor was localized in the brain [6] and cloned [7]. Since then, discoveries in the field have proceeded at an ever-increasing pace.
...
Endocannabinoid synthesis, degradation, transport, and receptors together form the endocannabinoid system.
...
Evolution of Endocannabinoids
The cannabinoid system appears to be quite ancient [13,14], with some of its components dating back about 600 million years to when the first multicellular organisms appeared. The beginnings of the modern cannabinoid system are found in mollusks [15] and hydra [16]. As evolution proceeded, the role that the cannabinoid system played in animal life continuously increased (as Dr. Bob says elsewhere, this indicated a selection pressure - Telarus). It is now known that this system maintains homeostasis within and across the organizational scales of all animals. Within a cell, cannabinoids control basic metabolic processes such as glucose metabolism [17]. Cannabinoids regulate intercellular communication, especially in the immune [18] and nervous systems [19]. In general, cannabinoids modulate and coordinate tissues, organ and body systems (including the cardiovascular [20], digestive [16], endocrine [21], excretory [22,23], immune [18], musculo-skeletal [24], nervous [19], reproductive [25], and respiratory [26] systems). The effects of cannabinoids on consciousness are not well understood, but are well known, and underlie recreational cannabis use. These effects also have therapeutic possibilities [27].
...
Behavioral Effects: Self-administration and Reward
The broad homeostatic activities of cannabinoids that have been developed in this article have been rooted in hard science. The extension of these ideas to the psychological and behavioral levels is intrinsically more speculative, but remains consistent with the literature. For years, researchers have looked into the possible addictive qualities of cannabis. The lack of significant reward behavior was indicated by the lack of self-administration in primates. Experiments examining preference in rats demonstrated that low doses of THC could induce place preference but that higher doses produced drug aversion [110], again demonstrating the homeostatic nature of cannabinoids. Self-administration is typical of most psychoactive drugs of abuse. Hence, one could conclude that marijuana has a low potential for abuse.
Some may question the conclusion that cannabis has a low abuse potential since an animal model using squirrel monkeys was recently developed in which self-administration behavior was maintained using THC [111]. Interestingly, and consistent with the notion that the cannabinoid system is a biological homeostatic harm reduction mechanism, the self-administration of THC ranges from 2 to 8 ug/kg and peaks at 4 ug/kg [112]. Thus, in this animal model a controlled dose is chosen. To further put these experiments in perspective, the dose used must be examined more closely. A 1-gram joint of 10% THC content would contain 100 mg of THC. The self-administered dose schedule chosen by the animal of 4 ug/kg would correspond to 360 ug of THC (if absorption was complete, approximately 1/278 of the joint) for a 200-pound human. Similarly, in rats, the intravenous self-administration of the synthetic cannabinoid Win 55,212-2 also occurred in a biphasic manner, with a maximum response occurring at 12 ug/kg[113] The self-regulated, controlled use of low drug doses is not characteristic of addictive drugs of abuse.
Additional cannabinoid involvement in reward behavior is suggested by the increased activity of dopaminergic neurons stimulated with psychoactive cannabinoids [114]. This pathway is shared by other major drugs of abuse including, morphine, ethanol, and nicotine [115]. However, the production of glucocorticoid hormones that are normally produced in response to stress [116], are suppressed by cannabinoids [117]. Are cannabinoids addictive, is pleasure addictive, or is a low stress state addictive?
Cannabinoids and Stress
Stress and reward are complicated components of addictive behavior. How does repeated use of THC influence these states? A recent study examines this question by measuring glucose utilization in different areas of the rat brain following repeated treatment with THC [118]. After 7 and 21 days of THC treatment, THC no longer resulted in reduced glucose utilization in many areas of the brain typically affected by a single THC dose (most cortical, thalamic, and basal ganglia regions). In contrast, glucose utilization in other areas of the brain remained unaltered (nucleus accumbens, mediodorsal thalamus, basolateral amygdala, portions of the hippocampus and median raphe). Thus while the effects of THC on body temperature and locomotor activity become resistant to repeated THC administration, those areas involved in many higher brain functions remain responsive to THC. This differential adaptation to THC administration is consistent with a low addictive potential. The best evidence that demonstrates the absence of an addictive response to cannabis use is the fact that most people who use it do not continue to use it, and stop using it without any effort.
...
Most people who use cannabis in their youth stop using it as their lives progress. Most do so as a natural part of their development. They do so without outside intervention or help. They do so without ever having become heroin users, schizophrenic, or motivationally compromised. These facts indicate that for the majority of people who try marijuana, it is not addictive, does not lead to heroin use, nor is it a trigger for the onset of psychological problems. However, due to the complexity of cannabinoid activities, it is likely that in a small percentage of the population, cannabis use may foster problems. The biology presented in this paper suggests that such individual differences should be expected. We must learn to identify individuals who would be negatively affected by cannabis use; they are the people that an intelligent drug policy would help to identify and assist. In contrast, our policy criminalizes the majority of users and further harms them, perhaps psychologically as well as medically, through its repercussions. ... The use of cannabis – and any mind-altering drug – by young developing minds rightfully remains an area of focus and concern.
...
Endocannabinoids modulate the pro-inflammatory TH1 response by up-regulating the anti-inflammatory Th2 response.
The last line in my quoted selection is especially interesting, but the portion of the article which described immuno-responses had much more medical jargon that most. click over and read it for a full understanding.... basically "cannabis is good for inflammatory symptoms, but bad for fighting infections that require inflammatory reposes". Cannabinoids can also rein in runaway inflammatory responses, such as the immune system attacking the body, etc.
Now, stress and chronic muscle-tension have been linked to chronically elevated levels of inflammation all over the body (I note that youth cannabis users tend to have VERY stressful environments and the view that they have very few options to release that stress.. at least, from what I've read and from RWHN's anecdotal evidence).
As an adult, if you're burnt out from the rat race and your body aches and you have knots in your back that haven't loosened up in a week, a joint is good medicine. If you have pneumonia, it's probably not the best thing for you.
Here is another video of Dr. Melamede talking about the medical effects of the cannabinoid system: http://youtu.be/bEp9Ic_-xhs
The only reason I can see for the diversion of the medical discussion around cannabis into the rhetoric and emotion filled fight over legalization is so that certain factions can keep control of the Narrative. Probably because cannabis prohibition, as it stands, is an income stream for them.
Some people are
making a profit by putting other people in jail because those other people attempted to resolve chronic low-level pain on their own terms (One of the Cali med-pot collective owners recently said "All cannabis use is medicinal cannabis use"... I'm not ready to buy that completely but I'd probably say "Most"...).
I personally find the prohibitionists' stance on cannabis abhorrent, and think that institutionalizing this though process does far more harm to the next generation (& society as a whole) than experimentation with cannabis (done by currently
uneducated youth) has done. This is (of course) an opinion.
Quote from: Telarus on January 13, 2012, 10:29:59 AM
http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/ (http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/%5B/quote)
But I think this caveat is important:
Quote
It is more difficult to estimate the potential effects of regular heavy use, because this pattern of use is relatively rare in our study sample; however, our findings do suggest an accelerated decline in pulmonary function with heavy use and a resulting need for caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered.
The average person in this study smoked marijuana only 2-3 times per
month and they were comparing that to people who smoke 8 cigarrettes a
day. I'm a little suspicious as to how representative that is of the average marijuana user in the U.S., or anywhere. I mean, if we go by the anecdotal evidence posted in this thread, it would seem your average user smokes a bit more often than 2-3 times per month. And someone who is addicted/dependent, whatever you want to call it, is definitely smoking more often than 2-3 times per month. As for the rest of your post, I'm not keen on the idea of self-medication, which does tend to influence a lot of drug use, not just marijuana use. People pop pills they aren't supposed to be taking to help relieve stresses in their lives, but that initial benefit isn't going to be much of a benefit after they become addicted, dependent, and then THAT turns into another stress point in their lives. Taking medicines is something that should happen under the advice of a trained medical professional. If a kiddo or adult really has that much disruptive stress in their lives, I'm not sure smoking up is really going to help, especially if there is an underlying mental condition that is being ignored.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/21/mayans-demand-global-legalisation-of-hallucinogens-or-they-will-stop-time-in-2012 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2008/oct/28/architecture)
SHIT JUST GOT REAL
Quote from: Beardman Meow on January 13, 2012, 07:17:14 AM
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, GO.
I know a lot of pot smokers who describe themselves as dependant on the drug. I agree with this, based on my observation of them with and without it. It's kind of surprising to me to read that, knowing a lot of stoners, anyone can not know any they would consider addicted.
Maybe New Zealand has better weed.
So when they don't have any pot, do they start sweating and shaking and vomiting?
Do the cravings ever get SO BAD that they resort to robbery or burglary to get their fix?
Or are they just irritable and cranky because their routine has been broken and they're weak-minded little bitches?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 13, 2012, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: Beardman Meow on January 13, 2012, 07:17:14 AM
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, GO.
I know a lot of pot smokers who describe themselves as dependant on the drug. I agree with this, based on my observation of them with and without it. It's kind of surprising to me to read that, knowing a lot of stoners, anyone can not know any they would consider addicted.
Maybe New Zealand has better weed.
So when they don't have any pot, do they start sweating and shaking and vomiting?
Do the cravings ever get SO BAD that they resort to robbery or burglary to get their fix?
Or are they just irritable and cranky because their routine has been broken and they're weak-minded little bitches?
I'm hopelessly enslaved to caffiene.
And I do know a couple of people who HAVE to smoke weed...But I think that's just Pavlov stuff. They're the same sort of people that would get addicted to TV.
Exactly. There's a huge difference between a drug that creates dependency in the people who use it and people who create a dependency on anything that helps them get through another day in their miserable life, whether that's pot, TV, sex, shopping, or whatever.
TV is the weirdest shit, though. I haven't owned one in years and any time I see one I still get lost in whatever happens to be on, no matter how little I care. Pigeons take part in more involving psychology experiments.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 13, 2012, 02:44:40 PM
Exactly. There's a huge difference between a drug that creates dependency in the people who use it and people who create a dependency on anything that helps them get through another day in their miserable life, whether that's pot, TV, sex, shopping, or whatever.
THIS!!!
I'm getting the feeling that some people here think that psychological addiction is an exaggerated case of poor willpower, and not a "real" illness.
The jury is still out, for me.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 13, 2012, 03:45:41 PM
I'm getting the feeling that some people here think that psychological addiction is an exaggerated case of poor willpower, and not a "real" illness.
This is exactly what I think. If the dependency is not physical in nature, you have the power to choose to stop at any time. If you can't bring yourself to do that, how is that a disease? There's no pathology involved. Just lack of self-control.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 13, 2012, 02:44:40 PM
Exactly. There's a huge difference between a drug that creates dependency in the people who use it and people who create a dependency on anything that helps them get through another day in their miserable life, whether that's pot, TV, sex, shopping, or whatever.
Yep.
So, while it is possible for someone to be dependent on marijuana, I think that's a function of the person and not the drug, as opposed to, say, meth, which will addict ANYONE who uses it.
Quote from: Xooxe on January 13, 2012, 03:11:53 PM
TV is the weirdest shit, though. I haven't owned one in years and any time I see one I still get lost in whatever happens to be on, no matter how little I care. Pigeons take part in more involving psychology experiments.
TVs induce a receptive state in humans. This is established fact.
I zone right the fuck out. I didn't just throw away my teevee because it was full of crap, I did it as a defensive measure.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 13, 2012, 03:45:41 PM
I'm getting the feeling that some people here think that psychological addiction is an exaggerated case of poor willpower, and not a "real" illness.
The jury is still out, for me.
I think that some people are able to just walk away from almost anything, pott, alcohol, cocaine and so forth. Whereas another person may be addicted after the first toke, take or snort. I think some people just have addictive personalities and will be addicted, like ECH said, to just about anything.
Not saying the addiction is not very real, it is. Is it poor will power? I don't know. I guess I think that. I look at morbidly obese people and I think, like almost everyone, they need to put down the fucking twinkie. Is that addiction not psychological?
Are we more sympathetic to people who are psychologically addicted to drugs and alcohol than we are to those addicted to food or something else? I think we may be. As for it being a real illness, eh, I won't go there. I'm not a Doctor of anything.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 13, 2012, 03:45:41 PM
I'm getting the feeling that some people here think that psychological addiction is an exaggerated case of poor willpower, and not a "real" illness.
The jury is still out, for me.
Nope. I'm just arguing the cause of the illness.
Thinking as a Discordian, isn't the distinction between physical and psychological somewhat arbitrary on a certain level?
I mean, the brain is part of our biology, is it not?
Valid point, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.
I draw it at "does going without this thing make me physically sick (like heroin or barbiturates) or induce a craving heavy enough to cause me to abandon my moral compass and any empathy I have for other humans (like coke or meth)?"
On the other hand, if going without just makes you cranky for awhile and forces you to use some self-restraint, well, life's rough and you should get a helmet.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 13, 2012, 04:15:48 PM
induce a craving heavy enough to cause me to abandon my moral compass and any empathy I have for other humans
I'm pretty sure gambling addictions have caused this to happen.
They definitely have. In fact, some research has suggested the brain chemistry in an addicted gambler is very similar to the brain chemistry of a drug addict. It seems to hit some of the same neurotransmitters and that gamblers chase the next big win the same way a drug addict will chase the next big high.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 13, 2012, 05:00:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 13, 2012, 04:15:48 PM
induce a craving heavy enough to cause me to abandon my moral compass and any empathy I have for other humans
I'm pretty sure gambling addictions have caused this to happen.
you'll notice that I didn't list gambling among the things I don't think cause a REAL addiction. There was a good reason for that.
Though, thinking about it further, I think I would be inclined to put it in that category after all.
I mean, nobody ever had to go through sweaty vomit-laden detox to get those cards out of their hands.
Actually, I'd put cocaine in that category as well if it weren't for the fact that it's so morally objectionable for so many other reasons and the fact that everyone I know who actually enjoys doing it recreationally is a scumbag of the worst variety.
Actually, there are people who do require therapy to solve their problem gambling issues. They do tend to be a very small percentage of the overall gambling population, roughly 9%, but in that population they really do need some kind of intervention to stop.
http://articles.herald-mail.com/2002-05-30/news/25120455_coke_vs_poppy_seeds_another_tough_choice_for_teens (http://articles.herald-mail.com/2002-05-30/news/25120455_1_powerade-coke-mountain-dew)
Quote from: RWHN on January 13, 2012, 05:27:04 PM
Actually, there are people who do require therapy to solve their problem gambling issues. They do tend to be a very small percentage of the overall gambling population, roughly 9%, but in that population they really do need some kind of intervention to stop.
Oh, I'm not arguing that the psychological addiction to gambling isn't a very real and strong thing. But it's still different from the actual physical dependency caused by heroin or phenobarbitol.
Put another way, no matter how strong a psychological addiction is the person suffering under the addiction can, at any point in time, JUST STOP. That many people don't have the mental or emotional fortitude to do so says more about them than it does about whatever they're psychologically addicted to.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2012, 01:53:09 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 13, 2012, 01:50:53 PM
Quote from: Beardman Meow on January 13, 2012, 07:17:14 AM
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, GO.
I know a lot of pot smokers who describe themselves as dependant on the drug. I agree with this, based on my observation of them with and without it. It's kind of surprising to me to read that, knowing a lot of stoners, anyone can not know any they would consider addicted.
Maybe New Zealand has better weed.
So when they don't have any pot, do they start sweating and shaking and vomiting?
Do the cravings ever get SO BAD that they resort to robbery or burglary to get their fix?
Or are they just irritable and cranky because their routine has been broken and they're weak-minded little bitches?
I'm hopelessly enslaved to caffiene.
And I do know a couple of people who HAVE to smoke weed...But I think that's just Pavlov stuff. They're the same sort of people that would get addicted to TV.
Unlike weed, caffiene is physically addictive.
The portion of the literature review that I quoted on animal models of abuse seems to make that pretty clear.
From my perspective it is an arbitrary distinction as there are documented and proven withdrawal symptoms in heavy marijuana users when they stop using marijuana. Withdrawal symptoms that make it very challenging for folks to simply engage willpower to resist and has resulted in research to find medications to help with the addiction.
Horseshit.
What are these "documented and proven" symptoms?
And "being cranky" doesn't count.
Stepping back in to add something new I found.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/fashion/19pot.html?pagewanted=all
Quote57 percent of those admitted for marijuana addiction treatment were ordered to do so by law enforcement. (The percentage of those ordered into treatment was lower for other drugs, except for methamphetamine. For alcohol abuse, 42 percent were ordered into treatment.)
Meaning that a large number do apparently check themselves in.
Quoteof the people who had used marijuana, only 9 percent became addicted, according to a 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, a nonprofit research organization on science and health. Of those who drank alcohol, 15 percent became addicted. For cocaine, the figure was 17 percent, and heroin, 23 percent. (These are the latest figures from the institute; advocates and addiction experts said there were no more recent data available.)
9% is still a number even if it is pretty low.
QuoteMany people can smoke marijuana every day without ill effects, advocates say, just as many casually drink wine in the evening.
These marijuana users do not meet the clinical definition of addiction, which includes an inability to stop using the drug, an uncontrollable obsession with it and increased tolerance.
So I think (if the data in this article can be trusted) that I would have to change my position. Some, but not all, users of Marijuana (9% let's say) can become addicted. These people may need help to overcome the addiction. Like any addiction, this could be very bad for them and their family/life/etc.
However, this indicates that most, but not all, users (91% let's say) are not addicts and do not need counseling. These numbers seem far smaller than any other drug we have data on. They are on par with numbers associated with gambling, tv and other similar addictions (various internet references/news articles etc put the numbers between 6 and 12 percent on these kinds of addiction).
In researching this I found a comment referencing the "Bureau of Alcoholic Rehabilitation. Shattering Myths About Drinking. Tallahassee, Florida: Department of Health and Rehbilative Services, 1973, p. 11." (couldn't find an online copy).
Quote"Alcohol no more causes alcoholism than sugar causes diabetes." The agency points out that if alcohol caused alcoholism then all drinkers would be alcoholics. 22 In fact, a belief common among members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is that people are born alcoholic and are not caused to be alcoholic by alcohol or anything in their experience. They argue that many people are born and die alcoholic without ever having had a sip of alcohol. Of course, a person can't be a drinking or practicing alcoholic without alcohol.
Is this true? I don't know. If it is, then it makes sense that marijuana aaddiction with a lower rate may also have a similar basis.
However, based on several articles I read... I was tentatively incorrect. Some people may get addicted to marijuana.
Horseshit, though I'm not at all surprised to see you take the opportunity to stir this particular pot.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on January 14, 2012, 06:04:33 PM
Horseshit, though I'm not at all surprised to see you take the opportunity to stir this particular pot.
I C WAT U DID THAR. :tgrr:
:thanks:
:lulz:
Hey, look at this. The government uses prisoners to staff government and outsourced call-centers. The prison industry's "best kept secret of outsourcing"...
There is a subset of people
making a profit off of jailing non-violent drug offenders. Fuck this turns my stomache.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/12/10140493-inside-the-secret-industry-of-inmate-staffed-call-centers
QuoteWhen you call a company or government agency for help, there's a good chance the person on the other end of the line is a prison inmate.
The federal government calls it "the best-kept secret in outsourcing" — providing inmates to staff call centers and other services in both the private and public sectors.
The U.S. government, through a 75-year-old program called Federal Prison Industries, makes about $750 million a year providing prison labor, federal records show. The great majority of those contracts are with other federal agencies for services as diverse as laundry, construction, data conversion and manufacture of emergency equipment.
But the program also markets itself to businesses under a different name, Unicor, providing commercial market and product-related services. Unicor made about $10 million from "other agencies and customers" in the first six months of fiscal year 2011 (the most recent period for which official figures are available), according to an msnbc.com analysis of its sales records.
READ MORE (http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/12/10140493-inside-the-secret-industry-of-inmate-staffed-call-centers)
Original story: http://wnyt.com/article/stories/s2449477.shtml?cat=300
So the inmates get $0.50/hour and "job training" (granted, a good thing)... But a violent offender who is a violence risk in a prison won't be picked for this "job" (how many office supplies "are" shivs in need of sharpening?). The company definitely gets to charge more than minimum wage (per worker) to those it provides services to.
Rehabilitation and training seem good to me, prison factories for commercial businesses seems like slavery. Plus, the more customers they get and the more this "industry" grows... means is "we need more prisoners". Plus, with all the rhertoric last year about "training level wages", "why do waitresses make wage AND tips?!?", etc.. it seems to me that some crafty CEO has found a legal way around the minimum wage laws.
Of 50,000 Marijuana Arrests In New York City A Year, Most Are Black And Hispanic Men (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/05/of-50000-marijuana-arrest_n_1078023.html)
NavKat's worries have come true, but its not "get in that shower".. its "get in that call-center". Dead people don't turn you a profit.
[I'll note after digging into this a bit that some prisoners in Oregon are paid to make blue jeans. But they get paid minimum wage (with 50% deducted to cover their incarceration expenses).]
That article is pretty tentatively linked to the topic of this thread. And that's being generous.
Just sayin.
There's quotas to reach, RWHN. If we don't bring in every possible outside source which mentions weed, how will we reach 50 pages?
I fail to see how the fact that there is financial motivation on the part of the prison industry to have non-violent drug offenders put in prison is irrelvant to a thread about drug policy.
Because there is no link between the two. Nothing in either of those links provides any proof that their is a concerted effort to arrest non-violent drug offenders solely for the purposes of putting them to work and padding their wallets.
Honestly, and with all due respect, it smacks of conspiracy theory the way it is presented. It's a belief statement, but there is no cause and effect proven.
Quote from: RWHN on January 15, 2012, 03:27:20 AM
Because there is no link between the two. Nothing in either of those links provides any proof that their is a concerted effort to arrest non-violent drug offenders solely for the purposes of putting them to work and padding their wallets.
Honestly, and with all due respect, it smacks of conspiracy theory the way it is presented. It's a belief statement, but there is no cause and effect proven.
Do you really believe that corporate prison owners do not utilize lobbyists, amongst many other things? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyomAb1BrGw)
And what standard of proof are you going by here? What criteria needs to be fulfilled to qualify as proof for you?
This looks kinda like proof to me
http://www.justicepolicy.org/news/2615
QuoteThe demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the
relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and
sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are
currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect
to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number
of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing
demand for correctional facilities to house them. Legislation has been proposed in
numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent
crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior.
Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders on
probation with electronic monitoring who would otherwise be incarcerated.
Similarly, reductions in crime rates or resources dedicated to prevent and enforce
crime could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring
incarceration at correctional facilities.
~ CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA 2010 ANNUAL REPORT
That was quoted on page 2 of the Justice Institute report.
Page 9/10:
MORE PRISON...
Some of the most rapid increases in
incarceration occurred during the 1980s and
1990s , in part fueled by a policy shift toward
,tough on crime‛ measures such as
mandatory sentencing and ,three strikes‛
laws, ,truth-in-sentencing‛ laws that limit
parole eligibility and keep people in prison
longer, and the ,war on drugs.‛ Such policies
have sent more people — especially people
convicted of drug offenses
42 — to prison, and
keep them there longer, thus increasing the
total number of people in prison. Such
sentencing policies have been a primary
contributor to the number of people in
prison.
4342 / 43 - Alfred Blumstein and Allen J. Beck, ,Population Growth in U.S. Prisons, 1980-1996,‛ Crime and Justice 26 (1999)
Page 13:
The number of people in prison continued to rise in
2009, in part, because more people are entering
and staying in federal prisons, largely due to
increased penalties for drug law violations.
Between 2008 and 2009, the number of people
sentenced to a year in federal prison
increased by 5,553 people or 3 percent,
with the number of people in private,
federal facilities, increasing by 925 people
or 2.8 percent.53
Page18:
In Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, two local private youth prisons made illegal payments to two judges
totaling over $2.6 million. In what came to be known as the "kids for cash" scandal, the Mid Atlantic Youth
Service Corporation paid the judges for sentencing youth to confinement in their two private youth prisons.
It is estimated that over 5,000 children appeared before the two judges over the past decade, and half of
those who waived their right to counsel were sentenced to serve time in one of the private correctional
facilities.
According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, privately owned
corporations operate more than 50 percent of youth correctional facilities
in the United States.
ii - Private facilities amount to 56 percent of all entire correctional institutions for persons under the age of 20.
Department of Justice, Louisiana Juvenile Findings Letter 1. United States of Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.
www.justice.gov/crt/split/documents/lajuvfind1.php
------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, this was not an "isolated incident". There was the Rampart Scandal (in LA in the late 90's) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal), and more recently, this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/us/accused-of-misconduct-judge-amanda-williams-of-georgia-will-resign.html
QuoteJudge Williams, 64, who said she would resign on Jan. 2., faced wide-ranging misconduct accusations. She vowed not to seek another judgeship, and, as a result, those complaints will be dropped, the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission said. She could still face criminal charges related to her conduct.
She was first elected in 1990 to the court, which handles cases in five southeast Georgia counties. For more than a decade, she also ran the state's largest drug court.
...
According to the commission's 14-count list of charges against her, she sentenced drug-court defendants to "indefinite" detention "until further order of the court." In one case, she ordered that a defendant be denied any communication.
"Nobody! Total restriction!" she ordered, according to the complaint. "No mail, no phone calls, no visitors." The complaint says the defendant, who had a history of mental illness, spent 73 days in solitary confinement and tried to kill herself while in jail.
"Judge Williams was a person you did not cross," said J. Robert Morgan, a lawyer in Brunswick who argued cases before her. "She ruled by fear and intimidation. I've been in front of 50 judges in 34 years and I've never seen anything like her."
...
Quote from: Net on January 15, 2012, 08:31:05 AM
Quote from: RWHN on January 15, 2012, 03:27:20 AM
Because there is no link between the two. Nothing in either of those links provides any proof that their is a concerted effort to arrest non-violent drug offenders solely for the purposes of putting them to work and padding their wallets.
Honestly, and with all due respect, it smacks of conspiracy theory the way it is presented. It's a belief statement, but there is no cause and effect proven.
Do you really believe that corporate prison owners do not utilize lobbyists, amongst many other things? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyomAb1BrGw)
And what standard of proof are you going by here? What criteria needs to be fulfilled to qualify as proof for you?
A concerted, intentional, and systematic effort to ramp up non-violent drug convictions in order to fill prisons with cheap labor. Because that is what is being inferred, implied, etc. I mean, from the evidence that was provided, you could infer that the system would be ramping up ANY conviction to increase the number of prisoners and feed them into this labor system.
This thread is about drug policy, if there is evidence that this is a systematic effort to get non-violent (I would add non-trafficking) offenders in prison to be cheap labor, I would like to see it. Not rogue judges, bad apples. I don't argue that at all. I'm talking about what is being inferred now in this thread that this is a system, a gang of players knowingly trumping up, ramping up non-violent drug charges for the cheap labor.
I think this thread should be aborted before it becomes a horrible blight on the board. I don't see anything productive coming out of it. Just more of this: :argh!: from all parties.
Quote from: Cain on January 15, 2012, 08:43:14 AM
This looks kinda like proof to me
http://www.justicepolicy.org/news/2615 (http://www.justicepolicy.org/news/2615)
Not from my perspective. It does not prove what is being purported in this thread now which is an increase in the number of non-violent drug offenders in an effort to provide cheap labor and to make the prisons money.
My experience is that more and more states are doing what Maine is doing and looking for ways to keep non-violent (non-trafficking) marijuana users out of prison. I won't rule out there may be specific areas, maybe specific states where something like this might be prone to happen. But I'm not seeing proof of an organized, national effort aimed at specifically increasing the number of non-violent drug offenders in prisons.
(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5569/pbs.png)
Quote from: RWHN on January 15, 2012, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: Net on January 15, 2012, 08:31:05 AM
Quote from: RWHN on January 15, 2012, 03:27:20 AM
Because there is no link between the two. Nothing in either of those links provides any proof that their is a concerted effort to arrest non-violent drug offenders solely for the purposes of putting them to work and padding their wallets.
Honestly, and with all due respect, it smacks of conspiracy theory the way it is presented. It's a belief statement, but there is no cause and effect proven.
Do you really believe that corporate prison owners do not utilize lobbyists, amongst many other things? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyomAb1BrGw)
And what standard of proof are you going by here? What criteria needs to be fulfilled to qualify as proof for you?
A concerted, intentional, and systematic effort to ramp up non-violent drug convictions in order to fill prisons with cheap labor. Because that is what is being inferred, implied, etc. I mean, from the evidence that was provided, you could infer that the system would be ramping up ANY conviction to increase the number of prisoners and feed them into this labor system.
This thread is about drug policy, if there is evidence that this is a systematic effort to get non-violent (I would add non-trafficking) offenders in prison to be cheap labor, I would like to see it. Not rogue judges, bad apples. I don't argue that at all. I'm talking about what is being inferred now in this thread that this is a system, a gang of players knowingly trumping up, ramping up non-violent drug charges for the cheap labor.
With all due respect, this comes off as a sort of "MY FINGERS ARE IN MY EARS I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA".
Quote from: RWHN on January 15, 2012, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: Net on January 15, 2012, 08:31:05 AM
Quote from: RWHN on January 15, 2012, 03:27:20 AM
Because there is no link between the two. Nothing in either of those links provides any proof that their is a concerted effort to arrest non-violent drug offenders solely for the purposes of putting them to work and padding their wallets.
Honestly, and with all due respect, it smacks of conspiracy theory the way it is presented. It's a belief statement, but there is no cause and effect proven.
Do you really believe that corporate prison owners do not utilize lobbyists, amongst many other things? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyomAb1BrGw)
And what standard of proof are you going by here? What criteria needs to be fulfilled to qualify as proof for you?
A concerted, intentional, and systematic effort to ramp up non-violent drug convictions in order to fill prisons with cheap labor. Because that is what is being inferred, implied, etc. I mean, from the evidence that was provided, you could infer that the system would be ramping up ANY conviction to increase the number of prisoners and feed them into this labor system.
This thread is about drug policy, if there is evidence that this is a systematic effort to get non-violent (I would add non-trafficking) offenders in prison to be cheap labor, I would like to see it. Not rogue judges, bad apples. I don't argue that at all. I'm talking about what is being inferred now in this thread that this is a system, a gang of players knowingly trumping up, ramping up non-violent drug charges for the cheap labor.
Who needs all of that when it is
known that the system will repeatedly break down in the specific ways noted. I mean, that shit seems repeatable enough to define a statistical predictive model around, but I sure don't have the training to do so.
This thread is about Drug Policy, and at this point in time Drug Policy is influenced by for-profit prison lobbying money.
(Are there lobbyists for the Rehabilitation industry? Probably... Do they carry the same weight in DC? .... lol :horrormirth: )
I really respect RWHN, but I think we just see/experience a different slice of America than he does.
Uh, sure.
I would just suggest that this theory doesn't hold up to the numbers. The latest numbers I can find, 2002, from BJS, suggests that folks in jail for drug possession make up 11% of the total population. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcf/correct.cfm (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcf/correct.cfm) THat's all drugs, not just Marijuana.
So, the numbers just don't support a theory that we are throwing non-violent (non trafficking) drug offenders in jail so we can put them to work. The numbers just aren't there to drive such an engine. There certainly are quite a few in jails and prisons who committed other offenses, violent offenses, or trafficking drugs, maybe they have some sway with this whole thing, but your average joe getting caught with a joint is simply not the fuel for this.
I'm not sure how you can make that judgment with those numbers?
11% of the total US prison population is a LOT of people. And given that prisons typically don't allow violent offenders to do that sort of work, a more relevant number would be what percentage of all non-violent offenders are in prison for drug offenses. Either way, 11% of the total US prison population is a huge labor pool.
It would be more telling if there was data that showed the actual makeup of these prisoners doing this work.
AND, if there was some evidence that showed an organized and concerted attempt to get more of these kinds of prisoners, specifically the non-violent drug offenders, to feed into this system.
Again, my professional experience is different, where the trend is to divert as much as possible non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders from the jails and prison systems.
I suspect that if the data is available, we'd see a large variation on those numbers between states. Places like New England and the PNW are probably much more likely to send non-violent drug offenders to diversion programs (whether or not the offense was trafficking-related is irrelevant in this context) than places in the south and midwest. I also suspect there would be a discrepancy between states that run their own prison systems and states that farm it out to private contractors.
Quote from: RWHN on January 15, 2012, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: Net on January 15, 2012, 08:31:05 AM
Quote from: RWHN on January 15, 2012, 03:27:20 AM
Because there is no link between the two. Nothing in either of those links provides any proof that their is a concerted effort to arrest non-violent drug offenders solely for the purposes of putting them to work and padding their wallets.
Honestly, and with all due respect, it smacks of conspiracy theory the way it is presented. It's a belief statement, but there is no cause and effect proven.
Do you really believe that corporate prison owners do not utilize lobbyists, amongst many other things? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyomAb1BrGw)
And what standard of proof are you going by here? What criteria needs to be fulfilled to qualify as proof for you?
A concerted, intentional, and systematic effort to ramp up non-violent drug convictions in order to fill prisons with cheap labor. Because that is what is being inferred, implied, etc. I mean, from the evidence that was provided, you could infer that the system would be ramping up ANY conviction to increase the number of prisoners and feed them into this labor system.
This thread is about drug policy, if there is evidence that this is a systematic effort to get non-violent (I would add non-trafficking) offenders in prison to be cheap labor, I would like to see it. Not rogue judges, bad apples. I don't argue that at all. I'm talking about what is being inferred now in this thread that this is a system, a gang of players knowingly trumping up, ramping up non-violent drug charges for the cheap labor.
"Since 2000, private prison populations have increased 120%, while in the same time period, the overall prison population only increased 16%. Gee, I wonder how that happened."
Whether private prison companies and inmate prison labor companies benefit a single entity or whether inmate prison labor companies are independent and just riding private prison industry's coattails is really besides the point. They have the same interests: increase the number of people in prison, increase the time served in prisons, and prevent changes in policies that effect their bottom line.
They have specifically mentioned drug policy in their annual reports, and left a paper trail in their dealings with ALEC:
Quote
In 2003, Allen became the Texas House Chairman of the Corrections Committee and began peddling the Prison Industries Act and other legislation beneficial to CCA and Geo Group, like the Private Correctional Facilities Act. Soon thereafter he became Chairman of ALEC's Criminal Justice (now Public Safety and Elections) Task Force. He resigned from the state legislature in 2006 while under investigation for his unethical lobbying practices. He was hired soon after as a lobbyist for Geo Group.
Quote
Alex Friedmann, associate editor of Prison Legal News, says prison labor is part of a "confluence of similar interests" among politicians and corporations, long referred to as the "prison industrial complex." As decades of model legislation reveals, ALEC has been at the center of this confluence. "This has been ongoing for decades, with prison privatization contributing to the escalation of incarceration rates in the US," Friedmann says. Just as mass incarceration has burdened American taxpayers in major prison states, so is the use of inmate labor contributing to lost jobs, unemployment and decreased wages among workers—while corporate profits soar.
http://www.thenation.com/article/162478/hidden-history-alec-and-prison-labor
The evidence is mounting on this side of the argument, RWHN. It looks like you can't even remotely refute a single one of these points, so you've been reduced to trying to reframe this as having nothing to do with private prisons or asking for evidence based on criteria you refuse to supply (I asked you point blank).
Just one more thing that I don't think many people are aware of.
Did you know that federal prisoners are
forced to work?
Quote
MANDATORY WORK REQUIREMENT FOR ALL PRISONERS
Pub. L. 101-647, title XXIX, Sec. 2905, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat.
4914, provided that:
"(a) In General. - (1) It is the policy of the Federal Government
that convicted inmates confined in Federal prisons, jails, and
other detention facilities shall work. The type of work in which
they will be involved shall be dictated by appropriate security
considerations and by the health of the prisoner involved.
"(2) A Federal prisoner may be excused from the requirement to
work only as necessitated by -
"(A) security considerations;
"(B) disciplinary action;
"(C) medical certification of disability such as would make it
impracticable for prison officials to arrange useful work for the
prisoner to perform; or
"(D) a need for the prisoner to work less than a full work
schedule in order to participate in literacy training, drug
rehabilitation, or similar programs in addition to the work
program."
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C307.txt
Quote from: Net on January 15, 2012, 10:41:06 PM
The evidence is mounting on this side of the argument, RWHN. It looks like you can't even remotely refute a single one of these points, so you've been reduced to trying to reframe this as having nothing to do with private prisons or asking for evidence based on criteria you refuse to supply (I asked you point blank).
There is still nothing in the link you provided that points to a link between a practice of imprisoning non-violent drug offenders and this private prison labor force. I mean, that was the whole point of this thread of the discussion being started, right?
This is why I suggested that there was, generously, a tenative link to the topic of this thread. I'm still not seeing a link. And nobody is providing a link between the two issues. Show me something that says we are throwing more non-violent drug offenders into prison to feed this labor system.
Again, my experience is that non-violent drug offenders are being diverted from jails and prisons wherever possible and appropriate. Maybe there is something nefarious going on in certain states. Okay, if so show me, I certainly would not be on board supporting some kind of inmate-mill. Fabricating or trumping up non-violent charges to pad wallets. But, my issue is, so far, no one has provided this evidence. What is happening is people are saying, "look at this awful shit" and inferring that it is linked. But that doesn't pass the smell test.
Quote from: RWHN on January 16, 2012, 12:27:19 AM
Quote from: Net on January 15, 2012, 10:41:06 PM
The evidence is mounting on this side of the argument, RWHN. It looks like you can't even remotely refute a single one of these points, so you've been reduced to trying to reframe this as having nothing to do with private prisons or asking for evidence based on criteria you refuse to supply (I asked you point blank).
There is still nothing in the link you provided that points to a link between a practice of imprisoning non-violent drug offenders and this private prison labor force.
I'll quote what I just posted, since you apparently are having reading comprehension issues.
Quote from: Net on January 15, 2012, 10:41:06 PM
Whether private prison companies and inmate prison labor companies benefit a single entity or whether inmate prison labor companies are independent and just riding private prison industry's coattails is really besides the point. They have the same interests: increase the number of people in prison, increase the time served in prisons, and prevent changes in policies that effect their bottom line.
And here it is from the horse's mouth, which I posted previously in this thread:
Quote
The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them.
So what is the specific demand created by incarcerating non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders?
And are we know in an argument for legalization of all drugs or is the track of this discussion still marijuana? Because that will produce two very different numbers for my prior question.
More to the point, what is the population of non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders in these prisons?
Quote from: RWHN on January 16, 2012, 01:02:04 AM
More to the point, what is the population of non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders in these prisons?
Drug policy includes trafficking laws, so you'll need to explain why this narrow frame of reference is relevant.
Quote
Of the inmates residing in federal prisons as of September 2011, and for whom offense data are known, more than half (101,929 or 50.4%) were serving sentences for federal drug offenses—including simple possession.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42066.pdf
I thought we were talking about these private prisons? What is that population in the private prisons?
Quote from: RWHN on January 16, 2012, 01:38:13 AM
I thought we were talking about these private prisons? What is that population in the private prisons?
Again, your frame of reference is obfuscatingly narrow.
Let's look at the change in population of private prisons compared to the change in the overall prison population:
"Since 2000, private prison populations have increased 120%, while in the same time period, the overall prison population only increased 16%." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyomAb1BrGw)
I still fail to see how making a distinction between non-violent posession charges and non-violent trafficking charges is relevant to the discussion.
Well, I'm assuming the thesis behind all of this is if we just legalized all of the drugs, these people wouldn't be in prison and being used as slave labor, right? Or is it something else? It's the only connection I can actually find between this prison story and drug policy.
If so, then from my perspective we are talking about non-violent offenders. Further, this thread was begun on a premise of a centrist drug policy, one that I tend to agree with. A drug policy that isn't for legalization, but is also not for a law enforcement-only approach. I've mentioned time and again in these discussions that I am for law enforcement reforms. Namely, reforms that divert non-violent, non-trafficing offenders from prisons. I throw non-trafficking in as a qualifier because trafficking results in drugs winding up in the hands of youth. Nevermind that trafficking drugs has an overall negative impact on communities, much more so than a single individual drug user.
I may be wrong, but I'm assuming Telarus and Net are not suggesting that violent drug offenders, or drug offenders also convicted of other crimes should not be in prison. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, as I've shown earlier, the percentage of non-violent, non-trafficking offenders in prisons is a small percentage compared to all other crimes. 2002 data showed it was just under 11%. Certainly still a significant number, and perhaps one that should be smaller through reforms, but it isn't what proponents of legalization will often sell us, trying to paint a picture of prisons overcroweded with people who were just smoking a joint.
So if it is only 1 in 10 who are in for possession, what are the other 9 in for?
Keep in mind that "trafficking" frequently includes things like buying a small bag for a friend when you go to pick one up for yourself. Or even having 2 small bags in your posession at once because the guy you get your pot from only sells 8ths and you wanted a quarter. Most real traffickers get federal charges. The majority of "traffickers" in state prisons are either small-time low-level dealers (many of them with their own addiction issues and just clever enough to try to get theirs for free) or people who really aren't traffickers at all and just got caught in unfortunate circumstances. There used to be a semantic distinction between "trafficking" and "dealing", apparently that is no longer the case in official circles.
And that could be another potential area of sentencing or law enforcement reform. Fine tuning the definitions to minimize ensnaring the guy who is just buying for another friend, as opposed to the guy who is trying to supply the entire block. THat latter guy I'm perfectly fine being in prison. That guy is a negative for the community.
MOAR
Quote from: The Bad Reverend What's-His-Name! on January 05, 2012, 11:48:18 AM
What the thread title says:
Offered without comment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/drug-policy-needs-centrists.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/drug-policy-needs-centrists.html?_r=1)
QuoteOverdosing on ExtremismBy KEVIN A. SABET
Published: January 1, 2012
ACCORDING to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control, drug overdoses have increased almost six-fold in the last 30 years. They now represent the leading cause of accidental death in the United States, having overtaken motor vehicle accidents for the first time on record.
One might expect such news to spur politicians to explore new options for drug abuse treatment, prevention and enforcement. Instead, at precisely the wrong time, extremists on both sides have taken over the conversation. Unless we change the tone of the debate to give drug-policy centrists a voice, America's drug problem will only get worse.
Indeed, moderates have historically been key contributors to both the debate and the practice of effective drug policy. In 1914, Representative Francis B. Harrison, a New York Democrat, worked with Republicans and President Woodrow Wilson to pass the first major piece of federal anti-drug legislation, in response to a surge in heroin and cocaine use.
Other moderates, from Theodore Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, made drug policy an important part of their domestic agendas. President Bill Clinton worked closely with Bob Dole, the Republican Senate majority leader, on sensible measures like drug courts and community policing. And Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the reason there is a drug czar in the first place, having pushed the idea for years before President Ronald Reagan approved it.
So where are the moderates now? Certainly, the current political climate makes it hard to come together on any question. Republicans are too timid to touch any domestic policy issue, like effective drug prevention and treatment, that might appear to cost taxpayers more money. And too many Democrats have yet to recognize that drugs are an issue that they and their constituents should care deeply about: after all, drug abuse and its consequences affect the most vulnerable in society in especially harmful ways.
In their place, a few tough-on-crime conservatives and die-hard libertarians dominate news coverage and make it appear as if legalizing drugs and "enforcement only" strategies were the only options, despite the fact that the public supports neither.
This stalemate comes just as a new range of cost-effective, evidence-based approaches to prevention, treatment and the criminal justice system are within our reach. We know much more about addiction than we did 20 years ago; with enough support, we could pursue promising medications and behavioral therapies, even a possible vaccine against some drug addictions.
Meanwhile, smart, innovative law enforcement strategies that employ carrots and sticks — treatment and drug testing complete with swift but modest consequences for continued drug use, or incentives for abstinence — have produced impressive results, through drug courts or closely supervised probation programs.
And drug prevention has moved from a didactic classroom exercise to a science of teaching life skills and changing environmental norms based on local data and community capacity. We now know that recovery from addiction is possible, and that policies that give former addicts a second chance are in everyone's interest.
Most recently, R. Gil Kerlikowske, President Obama's top drug policy adviser, introduced a sensible four-point plan to curb prescription drug abuse: educate prescribers, parents and young people about the dangers of overdose; shut down illegitimate "clinics" that freely sell these drugs; establish electronic monitoring at pharmacies; and encourage the proper disposal of unused medications. Yet his plan received little attention from the news media or Capitol Hill.
Of course, there is no magic bullet for America's drug problem. The magnitude and complexity of our drug problem require us to constantly refine and improve our policies through thoughtful analysis, innovation and discussion.
Moderates should lead that conversation. To remain silent not only betrays widely shared values of compassion and justice for the most vulnerable. It also leaves policy in the hands of extremists who would relegate a very serious and consequential discussion to frivolous and dangerous quarters.
Kevin A. Sabet, a drug-policy consultant, was a senior adviser in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy from 2009 to 2011.
I forgot about this one. I'm pretty sure this is the only one that was actually started by me. Every other drug thread was started by someone else. By the way, the above STILL more or less reflects my overall view/stance on drug policy.
FYI, Kerlikowske is a big-time fuckhead.
I've actually met him in person. I was invited to a summitt pulled together by the Attorney General and Kerlikowske gave a talk at lunch time. Seemed like a fairly decent fellow, not that I had a terribly long or in-depth conversation with him.
Yeah, he's made himself all shiny and new now that he's got a federal job. he was an epic dickweed in Seattle. I mean, he may be a perfectly nice guy one-on-one, but so was Uncle Joe.