REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[AFK]

Are you trying to say that the limitations placed on how and where you drive your car are analogous to COMPLETE federal prohibition of marijuana?

Because I'm trying to say the limits placed on things like owning guns and driving cars SHOULD be analogous to how we treat marijuana.

No, I'm not making an analogy, I'm pointing out that in our society we do place limits, through laws, on our behavior.  Even those behaviors that certain individuals can engage in and not harm or impact another person.  But if we want to use another example, say driving a car, I think it's safe to say there are individuals who are capable of driving a car at a very high speed and do it safely without harming others.  Yet, we do impose speed limits. 

Guns.  Though it is no longer in force, for a time we banned assault weapons even though there were certainly individuals in America that could responsibly own such firearms.  I do have to say it's very bizarre to me that this hasn't been reauthorized, especially given that the last time it was offered as a bill it was co-sponsored by 4 Republicans, but that's for another thread. 

So it seems to me there really isn't a question as to whether or not there can be limits imposed upon us regarding what we are able to do.  It really isn't a question that we can have complete and unbinding freedom.  So the question then becomes where do those lines get drawn.  In the case of drugs, the line has moved a bit, the obvious example being alcohol.  And of course my opinion is that the line is best where it is at this time because in my professional experience and opinion, the costs to our communities would outweigh the benefits.  BUT, some of the benefits being sought can be achieved by amending state sentencing laws and by introducing progressive, diversion programs in states so that non-violent, non-trafficking offenders don't wind up in jail or prison. 

[AFK]

I think one of the most objectionable unspoken memes in this thread is that all 'use' is 'abuse' &/or 'dependence'.

Unspoken by me, no doubt, given that I'm the only one on this side of the discussion.  But that is something you are conjuring up yourself.  I've not made any claim that all use = abuse/dependence.  I'm very well aware of the 4 stages of drug use.  For those who may not they are as follows:

Experimentation
Social Use
Seeking
Habitual Use

Of course how a person progresses through these stages can be different.  Some may stay at experimentation, some may stay at social use, occasionally dipping down into experimentation.  Still, others can move through all 4 in a matter of months.  The bottom line is that prevention is still the best prescription for substance abuse.

And with all due respect, your article, in my experience, is a bit of a straw-man.  I know many, many, many treatment providers.  Outside of perhaps some extreme co-occurring disorders, Lithium is not prescribed to marijuana addicts.  And if it is prescribed to those with co-occurring it really isn't targeting the substance abuse, it is targeting the underlying mental health issue.   It certainly isn't the norm and I hope people don't read this and accept that it somehow is the norm in marijuana abuse treatment in the U.S. 

RWHN, I'm going to go back through the thread to look at the references you posted, but do you have anything on-hand which shows any more 'Harm' than what Dr Grinspoon is talking about, or any new information on the specifics effects of adolescent use?

I've posted links to studies earlier in this thread that show an increased risk of psychosis and other serious mental disorders for teens who are heavy marijuana users. 

http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/research/marijuana-linked-to-early-3

I also think you should review the article I posted earlier that was in the journal Pediatrics which lays out a pretty strong case, based on research, why legalizing marijuana will be a net harm to our youth.  So far no one has commented on it.  Maybe no one has read it yet but I'd like to get some responses from some of you and if you disagree with any of it hopefully some evidence as to how the research is wrong. 

http://www.preventionworksinseattle.org/uploads/Pediatrics%20-%20potential%20impact%20on%20youth.pdf

I would finally, again, encourage folks to do some Googling of Hawkins and Catalano who have done some pretty ground breaking stuff on risk and protective factors.  One of those risk factors being drug use norms established in a community which includes the laws and regulations restricting drug use.  I think, perhaps, it is a side of the story some of you may be missing. 

[East Coast Hustle]

Are you trying to say that the limitations placed on how and where you drive your car are analogous to COMPLETE federal prohibition of marijuana?

Because I'm trying to say the limits placed on things like owning guns and driving cars SHOULD be analogous to how we treat marijuana.

No, I'm not making an analogy, I'm pointing out that in our society we do place limits, through laws, on our behavior.  Even those behaviors that certain individuals can engage in and not harm or impact another person.  But if we want to use another example, say driving a car, I think it's safe to say there are individuals who are capable of driving a car at a very high speed and do it safely without harming others.  Yet, we do impose speed limits. 

Guns.  Though it is no longer in force, for a time we banned assault weapons even though there were certainly individuals in America that could responsibly own such firearms.  I do have to say it's very bizarre to me that this hasn't been reauthorized, especially given that the last time it was offered as a bill it was co-sponsored by 4 Republicans, but that's for another thread. 

So it seems to me there really isn't a question as to whether or not there can be limits imposed upon us regarding what we are able to do.  It really isn't a question that we can have complete and unbinding freedom.  So the question then becomes where do those lines get drawn.  In the case of drugs, the line has moved a bit, the obvious example being alcohol.  And of course my opinion is that the line is best where it is at this time because in my professional experience and opinion, the costs to our communities would outweigh the benefits.  BUT, some of the benefits being sought can be achieved by amending state sentencing laws and by introducing progressive, diversion programs in states so that non-violent, non-trafficking offenders don't wind up in jail or prison. 

So you're saying that marijuana is more harmful to the overall health of communities than cars (and whole hydrocarbon-based economy), guns, or refined sugar?

Because those things vary from "somewhat restricted but legal" to "fully legal with no restrictions at all".

Now, making a distinction between pragmatism and idealism and leaving aside the "it's how it is now so we should leave it like that" line of thought, how do you personally come to the conclusion that a substance that is less harmful than refined sugar should be made illegal at the federal level when many things that are WAY more harmful to both adults AND children are freely available? I mean, if we accept the premise that it's OK to limit our freedoms because of something that might happen to children, where should the line be drawn?

[AFK]

But I don't agree with your assessment as to the harm posed by marijuana.  Certainly alcohol and tobacco are very damaging to youth.  But they are legal now and my personal view on that IS one of pragmatism.  They are legal and that's that.  So my work focuses on how to deal with that reality and do the best I can help prevent youth substance abuse even though the legal status of the product creates many challenges and barriers to that work. 

But marijuana IS illegal now.  And so I draw the pragmatic, and yes, arbitrary line that it should remain illegal.  As I said before in this thread, when it comes to alcohol and tobacco, the toothpaste is out of the tube.  I am of the opinion that it is best for our communities to keep the marijuana toothpaste in the tube.  Because the mess we have is big enough as it is.  We don't need to create an even bigger mess. 

[AFK]

BTW, did you read the PEDIATRICS article I linked to? 

[Bruno]

I think the punishment should fit the crime. As it is right now, punishment for drug possession is disproportionately high relative to its actual threat to society. I got a year of probation (monthly visits) and a total cost of about $3000 for less than a quarter ounce of weed. Someone who was driving 10 mph over the speed limit would have gotten a ticket for maybe $200.

The reason for this is: more people drive cars than smoke pot (or use other drugs). Breaking traffic laws is simply more popular than the use of illegal drugs, so despite the greater risk, (20% of all child deaths in the US are from automobile accidents) punishments are much lighter.

I propose that we scale up our traffic law penalties to match our drug laws (for the children).

The new penalties should be:

Speeding:

5mph over: 1 year
10 mph over: 3 years
20 mph over: 5 years
30mph or more over: 10 years

Running a red light: 10 years
Passing in a no passing zone: 15 years

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.

Go, Washington State, go!

[East Coast Hustle]

I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.

Go, Washington State, go!

Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.

[Adios]

I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.

Go, Washington State, go!

Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.

[AFK]

I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.

Go, Washington State, go!

Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.

Consider this.  The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million.  Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized.  That would be 400,000 kids.  You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined? 

[Kai]

This thread is still going?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.

Go, Washington State, go!

Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.

Consider this.  The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million.  Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized.  That would be 400,000 kids.  You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined? 

As opposed to the nearly twice that number of people who are imprisoned on marijuana charges each year?

Hm. Gotta think about that. OH WAIT

[trix]

I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.

Go, Washington State, go!

Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.

Consider this.  The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million.  Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized.  That would be 400,000 kids.  You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined? 

As opposed to the nearly twice that number of people who are imprisoned on marijuana charges each year?

Hm. Gotta think about that. OH WAIT

THIS, and, regular user of marijuana does not equal life is ruined.  400,000 kids, of which I wouldn't believe 50,000 would have their life ruined.  Especially since it's no longer illegal, and they wont be arrested and go to jail or lose out on Financial Aid.

[East Coast Hustle]

I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.

Go, Washington State, go!

Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.

Consider this.  The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million.  Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized.  That would be 400,000 kids.  You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined? 

Even if I accept that 400,000 additional children would immediately start smoking pot if it were legalized, how is that going to ruin ALL of their lives? Especially if they don't have to worry about getting a criminal record and being denied financial aid for college?

but even if all 400,000 kids are ruined forever, that's still substantially less than the amount of people currently in prison on marijuana-related charges (and ONLY marijuana-related charges). And still substantially less than the 300,000,000+ Americans that would benefit greatly from the federal government NOT spending all that money on failed policies and corrupt enforcement officials.

[AFK]

I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.

Go, Washington State, go!

Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.

Consider this.  The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million.  Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized.  That would be 400,000 kids.  You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined? 

As opposed to the nearly twice that number of people who are imprisoned on marijuana charges each year?

Hm. Gotta think about that. OH WAIT

THIS, and, regular user of marijuana does not equal life is ruined.  400,000 kids, of which I wouldn't believe 50,000 would have their life ruined.  Especially since it's no longer illegal, and they wont be arrested and go to jail or lose out on Financial Aid.

Yes, because if they legalize marijuana they are going to also make it legal for kids to use just like they did for alcohol and tobacco....oh, wait, no, those were still illegal for minors to use.