Trigger warning: Drugs

[AFK]

It's either more available or it isn't.  The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available.  Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.

So people would keep jamming MPVD into themselves. 

Well done.

The prevalence of synthetic cannabinoid use is nowhere near the prevalence of natural cannabinoid use.  It isn't, on balance, being used as an alternative.

You keep saying that, but all the actual available data says exactly the opposite thing.

No, IMO, you and Nigel are misinterpreting that data.  If it was really being used as an alternative its prevalence would be much higher than it is.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's either more available or it isn't.  The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available.  Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.

So people would keep jamming MPVD into themselves. 

Well done.

The prevalence of synthetic cannabinoid use is nowhere near the prevalence of natural cannabinoid use.  It isn't, on balance, being used as an alternative.

You keep saying that, but all the actual available data says exactly the opposite thing.

No, IMO, you and Nigel are misinterpreting that data.  If it was really being used as an alternative its prevalence would be much higher than it is.

Yeah, I saw the contortions you went through on that. 

[AFK]

No contortions, it is simple.  If it was being used as an alternative prevalence would be higher.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It's either more available or it isn't.  The prevailing opinion here seems to be that it would be more available.  Which is precisely why I don't want it legalised.

So people would keep jamming MPVD into themselves. 

Well done.

The prevalence of synthetic cannabinoid use is nowhere near the prevalence of natural cannabinoid use.  It isn't, on balance, being used as an alternative.

You keep saying that, but all the actual available data says exactly the opposite thing.

No, IMO, you and Nigel are misinterpreting that data.  If it was really being used as an alternative its prevalence would be much higher than it is.

I gotta agree with Nigel on this. It seems like you're missing the lifetime use part for the weed. I don't think it's misinterpreting anything. We have two different interpretations here, and it seems like a rather interesting result. More data would show whether or not one interpretation is supported or not supported.

Twid,
learning to science.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No contortions, it is simple.  If it was being used as an alternative prevalence would be higher.

99% of people who use synth use weed.

93% of those people prefer weed.

Let's see.

I prefer Indian food to Spam.

If I have no other food, I will eat Spam.

This leads you to believe that I will eat Spam when Indian food is available?  Because I don't eat Spam every day?

Not sure where you're getting that logic.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Weed prohibition is largely the least effective prohibition effort ever, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.  So the supply dries up in a given region.  For a while, people use synth, until the real shit is available again.

But because they don't use synth all the time, it can't be an alternative to weed.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, if she weighs as much as a duck...
\

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So, if she weighs as much as a duck...
\

[Salty]

 

I reeeealy want spam now. Fried. With bread and mustard.

NOW.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I reeeealy want spam now. Fried. With bread and mustard.

NOW.

Crackhead.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I reeeealy want spam now. Fried. With bread and mustard.

NOW.

I'm one of those foodheads who would never eat Spam, and I don't, but I love the hell out of some bhaji and saag paneer. Bit of naan. Chicken vindaloo. Spam, hell no. That's what ramen is for.

[AFK]

No contortions, it is simple.  If it was being used as an alternative prevalence would be higher.

99% of people who use synth use weed.

93% of those people prefer weed.

Let's see.

I prefer Indian food to Spam.

If I have no other food, I will eat Spam.

This leads you to believe that I will eat Spam when Indian food is available?  Because I don't eat Spam every day?

Not sure where you're getting that logic.

Here is what you are missing.  Yes, in this survey, 99% of the SYNTH users were also using natural cannabis.  But, flip that, what percentage of natural cannabis users are using synth.  If it is the alternative you say it is, a very large percentage of natural users should also be using synth, yes?


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57601387/new-u.s-drug-survey-marijuana-and-heroin-increasing/
[/size]
[/size]Nationally, there are about 7.6 million Americans using marijuana daily.  Now, if synth is a true alternative, we should have near 7.6 million using synth correct?
[/size]
[/size]If you have statistics showing this to be the case I would be interested to see them.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I like Indian food.

After the war with India started, if I got caught eating Indian food I would be shot.

My friend says spam tastes kinda like Indian food.

I eat spam, but I prefer Indian food.

Sometimes, when I think it's safe or I'm sick of spam, I eat Indian anyway.

I never would have eaten spam if there was no external risks to eating Indian food.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

OK, detouring around the thread wreck:

Currently in many states (including Maine), you can easily purchase synthetic drugs online and have them shipped to your home. In the UK, you can just go to your local head shop and buy them. I would say, due to prohibition, that it is more difficult to get access to weed in both places.

Does this mean that prohibition works? No, it means that this shit is very easy to buy online or in a shop and weed is more difficult.

Most synthetic users have also used real pot.

Does this mean that they were looking for a different kind of high? No, it means that they tried synthetic for some reason, which we do not know. There are many reasons and it seems logical that not all people had the SAME reason. So what reasons would there be for someone to smoke synthetic?

A) Legal drugs are more attractive to people who generally don't break the law. If the only illegal activity a person engages in is buying and smoking pot, then it seems likely that they would prefer a legal option if it existed.

B) If a person likes to get high on pot,  it seems likely that they would be willing to experiment with something that is marketed as similar to marijuana.

C) Due to the nature of the black market, it may occasionally be easier to get access to a 'legal' drug.

D) Some people are always looking for the "next thing" to fuck themselves up on.

If marijuana were legally available, it seems reasonable that individuals in groups A and C would not use synthetic marijuana. Group B and D, on the other hand may still 'try' some new drug, or chew moth balls, or huff paint etc.

Based on the data available, MOST people would prefer to use the real stuff. SOME people (Group D) would still seek out shit to smoke, Group B may still try something that was billed as similar. Group A and C, would likely NOT smoke synthetic. EVEN if these groups were equal in users (25% of the total users in each group), making marijuana legal would result in 50% of the people NOT using synthetic and 25% of the people perhaps trying it once and not using it again. That leaves 25% of the people who are going to fuck themselves no matter what.

So what this means is that legalization would reduce the users of a dangerous drug by some percentage greater than 50 and less than 75. If we use the number RWHN just gave for daily users (7.6 million) and don't include weekly or monthly smokers... we're looking at somewhere between 3.8 million and 5.7 million people that would not smoke the synthetic.

I recall that RWHN has often made the argument that if legalization happened and there was even a 2% increase in adolescent use, it would be unacceptable. Even 2% increase in a drug that can cause problems, but not physical damage was enough for RWHN to hold his position. I would therefore argue that in this situation, using that same logic, legalization would make a much safer environment. Instead of 2% we're talking about a much larger percentage AND instead of a problematic drug, we're looking at a physically dangerous, toxic drug.

There are many arguments for and against legalization. Some of those arguments legitimately support prohibition (I don't want 2% increase in adolescent use either). This particular argument, however, seems to support legalization.

[AFK]

Whoa, hold the phone.  Before you can go using that 7.6 million number you first need to provide statistics that say those 7.6 million are all also using synthetic.