REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[Triple Zero]

I've seen people addicted to both and from the perspective of addiction, it seemed pretty comparable to me. Both were in a bad spot in life, filled it up with an addiction and wasted away a year of their life and studies. Then, maybe I've never seen a "heavy" pot addict.

I agree with you, I just want to add: You live in Europe, so a lot of the people that think they are addicted to weed are (also) addicted to the tobacco they put in their joints.

One of the guys I was thinking of always smoked them pure, though. Which is a horrible idea with Dutch weed

My mother recently put titanium in her joints, btw.

[AFK]

That, and as much as I agree with RWHN about the need to do everything possible to ensure that medical pot doesn't get diverted to the underage black market, I think it's still preferable to the same thing happening with opiate-based pills.

Philosophically, sure.  But both are being diverted currently.  I think this is an unfortunate turn of events.  For the past 8-10 years, at least in Maine, we've been very successful in bringing the prevalence of marijuana use amongst youth down.  In my county it's come down something like 24%.  But my fear is that the introduction of medical marijuana is going to work against that.  As it adds a new layer of acceptance and access. 

[AFK]

It isn't without its side effects, however.  I'm talking social side effects.  Such as medical marijuana being diverted to non-prescribed users, including minors.  AND, the message it (intentionally or unintentionally) to youth which is that it is okay to use because it is prescribed.  (even though it hasn't been prescribed to them.) 

I'm not saying this as an argument against medical marijuana, per se, but pointing out that the benefits do not come without costs. 

These side effects are of criminalization, really. I live in the Netherlands, and most young people here don't use weed. One of the reasons is the kind of drug users we see: there are few artist glamorizing weed, and most of the people you see in coffeeshops are old. Housewives in their fifties. Working class men in paint speckled uniforms. Most of them are  friendly and interesting people, but they're not the kind of thing young people aspire to.

I'm not following.  How can you ascribe the side effects I mentioned to criminilazation as opposed to the introduction of medical marijuana?  It isn't the criminilization that makes kids think marijuana is now more acceptible.  It is the fact that doctors are now prescribing it that kids think this.  This has nothing to do with the criminilazation of the substance. 

[AFK]

What's with all the "damn" all of a sudden?

Either you can assume good faith, accept that maybe your point was not entirely clear to me,
OR you can insist that your point is "pretty damn clear" and imply I'm deliberately misrepresenting what you try to say.

Well, I was a little put off by the commentary you added at the end to your edit. 

what I wrote before was a less nice and more condescending version of the above

If something is unclear you can ask me but if you are going to be "condescending" about it then yeah, it's gonna tick me off a bit. 

There are huge differences between a kid who is heavily addicted to pot and a kid who is addicted to WOW. I'm sorry but that is the goddamn truth.

I shouldn't have said "kids" but "people addicted to online computer games".

And it's not immediately obvious to me that a person addicted to pot is worse than a person addicted to WoW.

I've seen people addicted to both and from the perspective of addiction, it seemed pretty comparable to me. Both were in a bad spot in life, filled it up with an addiction and wasted away a year of their life and studies. Then, maybe I've never seen a "heavy" pot addict.

That's just it.  I have seen them.  Where I worked before we had a residential treatment center.  I've met the kids and heard their stories and there are far too many who've got stuck because of heavy dependency on marijuana.  Of course, many of these kids also eventually "graduate" to heavier substances.  A kids who gets addicted to video games or the internet certainly also experiences some negatives in their life.  But they simply are not on-par, nor as common, with someone who becomes addicted to marijuana and other drugs. 

[AFK]

I pretty much totally agree with RWHN on what he and his work are trying to accomplish, I just think the methods currently in use are totally counterproductive. For some reason, though, my extensive personal experience in these matters seems to be dismissed out of hand because there's not a published study that goes along with it, which is why I'm sometimes given to fits of rhetoric.

I dunno, the methods we are currently using to prevent substance abuse amongst youth have been pretty successful.  The strategic plan I wrote for one of the Maine counties has resulted in reduced rates of underage drinking, marijuana use, prescription drug abuse, and binge drinking.  The work we are doing here in my county has had similar results.  So I can't agree with that based upon my experience with the work. 

[East Coast Hustle]

I understand that, but you seem to be taking the narrow scope of your work (limited and isolated geographical area combined with the fact that the very nature of your work means that you tend to see a MUCH higher percentage of "worst-case scenarios") as the be-all and end-all of what directions the entirety of american drug policy should be. I say "seem" because I have no idea if that's what's going on in your head, just how it comes across when you write about it. As though the ONLY thing that should matter in drug policy is how it might affect some fucked-up kids in Maine, most of whom would just get fucked up on ACB if there were no drugs available.

I think where our views on the matter diverge the hardest is that I think any policy decisions on the federal level about scheduling and medicinal usefulness should be made STRICTLY based on the actual potential of the substance in question to alleviate suffering and treat/manage the conditions it is useful for. That some medical pot might get diverted to kids is unfortunate, but it ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT be used as a factor when deciding whether to legalize it medicinally at the federal level.

And I know you won't believe me, but FYI kids don't give a shit about whether or not pot is viewed as acceptable or not. In fact, in alot of cases it IS the criminalization of it that makes it seem rebellious and glamorous. Just like with so many other things, telling a young teenaged kid not to do something is a sure way to get them to try it.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.

[Salty]

I was just about to post that while I don't have much to add to this discussion I'm glad to see the change in tone this larger PD topic. For one thing this thread and the others like it have made me cringe whenever I hear people casually talking about it IRL, especially the LEGALIZE IT NAO crowd.

[Triple Zero]

Well, I was a little put off by the commentary you added at the end to your edit. 

what I wrote before was a less nice and more condescending version of the above

If something is unclear you can ask me but if you are going to be "condescending" about it then yeah, it's gonna tick me off a bit. 

But that's why I made the edit. First version I wrote in a bit more emotional state. Which I edited because I didn't want to tick you off. The commentary was because I always try to write the reason for an edit below the edit, for clarity. You should interpret it as "the condescending version was wrong, I shouldn't have written it, so I edited it". Feel better?

[Requia ☣]

I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.

The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.

[Freeky]

Whenever I drop in this thread, I'm always pleasantly surprised at how the discussion is always carefully maintained, and how both sides have very good points that I agree with. 

[East Coast Hustle]

I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.

The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.

So, discussions and arguments that don't lead to agreement or mutual understanding on your approved timetable should be abandoned?

[Requia ☣]

I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.

The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.

So, discussions and arguments that don't lead to agreement or mutual understanding on your approved timetable should be abandoned?

No, I just don't see the point in everybody repeating themselves and generating a 100 page thread with no content in it.

[Salty]

I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.

The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.

So, discussions and arguments that don't lead to agreement or mutual understanding on your approved timetable should be abandoned?

No, I just don't see the point in everybody repeating themselves and generating a 100 page thread with no content in it.

I think it's time I shared this story:

My dad was diagnosed with three separate cancers at the same time. Terminal stage 4 in the colon, and also cancer in the liver and lungs and according to the oncologists, the three had sprung up independently and were not related to each other.

Needless to say, the reactors in the first generation of nuclear-powered submarines were pretty dirty and not well shielded. My dad ran the reactor on the 2nd nuke sub ever put in the water by the US Navy. They had seen his condition before, in the other guys that ran those 1st-gen nuke subs.

My dad was a combat-injured veteran. He had 100% medical coverage by the VA. His country's promise to take care of him in exchange for the services he had provided his country. When he was diagnosed, the doctors told him that with a 3 month course of experimentally intense chemotherapy, he might get another 6 good months followed by one or two bad ones before the end.

The chemo was brutal. If that was the VA doc's idea of "good months", I cringed at the thought of what the bad months might be like. They prescribed him massive amounts of morphine right from the start. 15mg IR and 60mg ER, which are like the Bentley of morphine pills. He took them at first, but they made him confused and junked out, and he HATED that. Now, he had been a recreational smoker on and off through his life, but had not been smoking for the past few years because he held a Class A CDL which requires a periodic recertification including a drug screen. He kept the morphine for the occasions when the pain got really intense, but for the most part managed his pain, nausea, and lack of appetite with pot.

As the disease ran its course, this turned into ALOT of pot.

Good pot, since he had to smoke it (couldn't be guaranteed of keeping it down long enough if he ate it) but his lungs couldn't tolerate too much of it.

Expensive pot. Even though a few of the old growers in the area who knew my dad would occasionally drop an ounce on me as a gift, I ended up spending a whole fucking lot of money on pot for my dad.

Pot the VA, as a federally-funded agency, could not and would not recommend or prescribe.

The organization that, in theory, said "don't worry, we'll take care of you as best we can" had nothing to offer but an undignified end to life clouded in a heavy morphine addiction. Which, of course, causes constipation, a condition which would have probably proved gruesomely fatal to a person with a tumor already blocking most of their lower intestine.

"Thanks for your service, here's that death of massive infection caused by a ruptured bowel that you wanted. Don't worry, though, you'll be so high on morphine you won't know what's going on. Unless you develop such a tolerance that when a pain like THAT comes along, you'll feel everything."

So the VA did what they could, and I did what I could, and my dad lived 18 months past his diagnosis and all but the last 3 or 4 months could reasonably qualify as "good" time. And I give alot of the credit for that to the marijuana, which kept the constant low-grade pain and nausea at bay and gave him an appetite for awhile. Frankly, I think that "giving the munchies" is vastly underrated as a potential medicinal property. Your body can't fight a disease if it doesn't have any fuel.

So at the end, the combination of not being able to work, having to buy all of my dad's pot out of my own savings, and the incidental expenses of his care not covered by the VA (gas to appointments, all of my own living expenses, etc.) left me completely penniless when he died. He didn't own his house, and the restaurant I had been cheffing at until I had to quit to take care of him full-time had just closed for the season, so there I was in rural Maine in November - broke, unemployed, and soon to be homeless. Funny thing, though. Even though he never really started taking the morphine regularly until the last couple months, he was still getting his monthly prescription mailed to him every month for the 18 months between his diagnosis and his death.

And in a position of desperation that might not have existed if medical marijuana were legalized at the federal level, guess how I was able to come up with the money to move 2 people and all of their stuff across the country to WA and be able to pay rent until gainful legal employment was found?

I do believe (hipsters correct me if I'm wrong) that this falls under the correct usage of the phrase "Ironic, huh?"

Nope, no content here. Nossir, not in this thread.

[AFK]

I understand that, but you seem to be taking the narrow scope of your work (limited and isolated geographical area combined with the fact that the very nature of your work means that you tend to see a MUCH higher percentage of "worst-case scenarios")

Well, actually, that is not true.  I deal with the full spectrum of kids.  From the kids who don't use, to the kids who experiment, to the kids who use moderately, to the kids who are heavy users.  That's because I don't work in treatment, I work in prevention.  In prevention, we look at the broad picture and we tackle the issue through environmental strategies.  Treatment focuses in on the "narrow" picture that are the worst-case scenarios.  I, deal with the big picture.  

as the be-all and end-all of what directions the entirety of american drug policy should be. I say "seem" because I have no idea if that's what's going on in your head, just how it comes across when you write about it. As though the ONLY thing that should matter in drug policy is how it might affect some fucked-up kids in Maine, most of whom would just get fucked up on ACB if there were no drugs available.

There is nothing special about kids in Maine vs. kids in the rest of the country.  What IS different is how the state deals with the issue.  Until Lepage came into office, Maine has been a very progressive state when it comes to addressing substance abuse, and particularly substance abuse amongst adolescents.  Again, this is because of the environmental approach.  I mean, my specific job tasks me with preventing substance abuse in my community.  (Which, to stroke my ego, I've done a pretty good job as the grant isn't over and I've already exceeded my goals).  Though, I do serve on a few state-wide organizations that look at the big picture.  But, as a professional in the field, I certainly have an interest in the national scene with this issue as certainly the federal regulations effect the work I do here and they effect the people in my community, whom I serve.  

I think where our views on the matter diverge the hardest is that I think any policy decisions on the federal level about scheduling and medicinal usefulness should be made STRICTLY based on the actual potential of the substance in question to alleviate suffering and treat/manage the conditions it is useful for. That some medical pot might get diverted to kids is unfortunate, but it ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT be used as a factor when deciding whether to legalize it medicinally at the federal level.

I think it is foolish to not consider the social impacts especially when the science is still uncertain with regards to the usefulness of pot.  

And I know you won't believe me, but FYI kids don't give a shit about whether or not pot is viewed as acceptable or not.In fact, in alot of cases it IS the criminalization of it that makes it seem rebellious and glamorous. Just like with so many other things, telling a young teenaged kid not to do something is a sure way to get them to try it.

I don't believe it because my experience in this work tells me that opinion is flat out wrong.  I've had kids flat out tell me that they use because their parents use and say it is okay.  There are parents in this community who will light up right along with their kids.  I work very closely with a couple of seasoned and well experienced substance abuse counselors who tell me that many of the clients they see have parents who have a very permissive attitude when it comes to alcohol and marijuana.  So I know that it is indeed a factor, despite what you may have experienced.