Patrick Kennedy's Crusade

[LucyDuke]

He's a condescending, busybody hypocrite with enough ego to think he's smarter than the voters of two states.

Remind me again, how many states have had efforts to loosen mj laws be shot down by voters?

 

[Formaldehyde]

At least for the most part, those individuals who continue to be against it aren't pushing for mandatory counseling and ongoing monitoring of people who use a harmless recreational drug.

Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if Patrick Kennedy had suggested the same measures be used against smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol, both of which are vastly more hazardous to the health and well being of those around them and society in general?

 

[BvBPL]

Considering this man's personal history, it seems to me condescending and hypocritical that he desires to paint anyone who smokes marijuana as an addict that needs "reeducation." He completely ignores the fact that most people who smoke marijuana aren't addicts, and are probably more educated about weed's effects than someone who got wasted off pills and booze while driving a car.

So he's a former drug addict. Does this necessarily invalidate his opinion? I don't think so. In fact, I think that drug addicts should have a greater voice in the national debate over drug policy. The drug war has touched addicts more than most groups, and those addicts should add their voices to the conversation.

I've known a lot of drug users. A whole lot of them. Some of them have had serious problems with their drug use, even their marijuana use, that has cost them their families, enrollment in school, their jobs, and has negatively affected them in other ways. I also know drug users who have become very successful individuals with careers in medicine, the law, sales, and the like.

However, the drug users that have impressed me the most are those drug users that have gone on to work with at-risk populations to help those populations surmount their problems. I know former drug addicts who have gone on to run drug addiction consoling services, users that work as educators for troubled youth, and those that work in general mental health services.

Berzerker, and others, suggests that the opinions and experience of people should be invalidated based upon past actions and misdeeds. I don't accept this. In fact, I find the idea of disqualifying a person from contributing to the public debate for those reasons to be shameful and opposed to the principle of democracy.

Consider, for a moment, what Berzerker and others would say if Kennedy took a stand favorable to the liberalization of marijuana policy. They would probably claim that his life experience added validity to such an opinion! When you consider that then you realize that the attacks by Berzerker and the like upon Kennedy are likely nothing more than the ad hominem low blows of louts than any reasonable argument.

Simply because I believe that Kennedy's voice has a place in the public debate of the drug war doesn't mean I necessarily agree with him. I don't necessarily think that prohibition is the best way to deal with drugs. I do, however, think that Kennedy, and other former and current drug addicts, do have a role to play in this debate and I've taken care to illustrate why they may fall on the side of prohibition in previous posts.

 

[Berzerker]

Berzerker, and others, suggests that the opinions and experience of people should be invalidated based upon past actions and misdeeds. I don't accept this. In fact, I find the idea of disqualifying a person from contributing to the public debate for those reasons to be shameful and opposed to the principle of democracy.

Would you like to quote me saying all that? I'm calling Kennedy a hypocrite - he's on a crusade to de-stigmatize mental illness and addiction but wants to jail people for pot knowing damn well the mentally ill (like him) often self-medicate. I find your strawman shameful

Consider, for a moment, what Berzerker and others would say if Kennedy took a stand favorable to the liberalization of marijuana policy.

I wouldn't call him a hypocrite

They would probably claim that his life experience added validity to such an opinion! When you consider that then you realize that the attacks by Berzerker and the like upon Kennedy are likely nothing more than the ad hominem low blows of louts than any reasonable argument.

I never said his opinion was invalidated by his past, that would be missing the point.

Simply because I believe that Kennedy's voice has a place in the public debate of the drug war doesn't mean I necessarily agree with him. I don't necessarily think that prohibition is the best way to deal with drugs. I do, however, think that Kennedy, and other former and current drug addicts, do have a role to play in this debate and I've taken care to illustrate why they may fall on the side of prohibition in previous posts.

And if the addicts dont want to be jailed? Did Patrick Kennedy want to be jailed?

 

[BvBPL]

Would you like to quote me saying all that? I'm calling Kennedy a hypocrite - he's on a crusade to de-stigmatize mental illness and addiction but wants to jail people for pot knowing damn well the mentally ill (like him) often self-medicate. I find your strawman shameful

If you call him a hypocrite, what is the alternative inference a reader is to draw of your conclusions then to state that his public statements are unwelcome? That he is a hypocrite but his opinions are valid and noteworthy?

 

[Gucumatz]

Did he want to be jailed? Probably not? Has he reflected on it - yes

So he is a hypocrite because he has experienced first hand the effects and has come to a set of policy stands from it? Some Marijuana users discredit anyone who has never used it. Maybe I am a bleeding "liberal", but I believe in rehabilitation. But I also believe in jail. Doesn't mean the two can't go together and it doesn't mean you can't be rehabilitated in your mind to see what is clearly right.

And as for the claims of Joe Kennedy (Sr.) being a bootlegger and the Kennedy family... so his views are invalidated by his family name? Whatever happened to judging the individual on his merit rather than his lineage, skin color, or creed?

 

[illram]

Marijuana abuse is destructive. It ruins people. Marijuana use aggravates underlying psychological issues and interferes with the cognitive development of adolescents.

That marijuana is "merely" psychological addictive, as opposed to physically addictive, doesn't change those facts.

Because marijuana abuse is potentially devastating, it seems well founded that a person with addiction problems who is otherwise involved in speaking out about substance abuse has a reasonable interest in preventing the abuse of marijuana.

Really, whether or not marijuana is addictive isn't at issue and argues to the contrary are red herrings.

Even if I assume you are correct (I definitely disagree that cannabis is potentially devastating in the same way other drugs are) there is a big difference between advocating for referral to mental health treatment for addicts and advocating for the continued criminalization of simple possession, which affects everyone, addicted or not. These are two very different things.

 

[Berzerker]

If you call him a hypocrite, what is the alternative inference a reader is to draw of your conclusions then to state that his public statements are unwelcome? That he is a hypocrite but his opinions are valid and noteworthy?

His opinion is not invalid because of hypocrisy or his past, its invalid because jailing the mentally ill for drug use doesn't de-stigmatize mental illness. And you're defending him by building strawmen and throwing around insults while complaining about ad hominems

 

[Formaldehyde]

So he's a former drug addict. Does this necessarily invalidate his opinion? I don't think so. In fact, I think that drug addicts should have a greater voice in the national debate over drug policy. The drug war has touched addicts more than most groups, and those addicts should add their voices to the conversation.

Only, again, physical drug addiction clearly has nothing at all to do with marijuana use.

Should his opinion on abortion or the death sentence also carry more weight? Or should we discount much of what he even has to say because he proved that he cannot handle recreational drugs at all? Hundreds of millions of people in the US have used physically addicting drugs prescribed by medical doctors without becoming drug addicts. It is only a relatively small minority who do so. It is entirely possible to responsibly use any drug with or without medical prescription. There are even heroin users who lead completely normal and respectable lives except for their occasional recreational drug use.

 

[Berzerker]

Did he want to be jailed? Probably not? Has he reflected on it - yes

You mean Patrick Kennedy wants to be jailed...now...if they'd take him? Hehehe

So he is a hypocrite because he has experienced first hand the effects and has come to a set of policy stands from it? Some Marijuana users discredit anyone who has never used it. Maybe I am a bleeding "liberal", but I believe in rehabilitation. But I also believe in jail. Doesn't mean the two can't go together and it doesn't mean you can't be rehabilitated in your mind to see what is clearly right.

And as for the claims of Joe Kennedy (Sr.) being a bootlegger and the Kennedy family... so his views are invalidated by his family name? Whatever happened to judging the individual on his merit rather than his lineage, skin color, or creed?

I never mentioned Joe Kennedy or the family, but if your belief in jail includes sending the mentally ill there for self-medicating while parading around on TV as a crusader for de-stigmatizing mental illness, please spare us the lectures until you've come back down to Earth - the hypocrisy is stinking up Heaven.

 

[Gucumatz]

Yes there are self medicators. But it doesn't change the facts or dangers - people under certain medications have to go through certain hardships too.

And as for myself, I have no problem as being viewed as a hypocrite. I value hypocrisy and the ends do justify the means. Also the Joe Kennedy comment was made for previous posters, not you . I just don't see how Patrick Kennedy can be called a hypocrite here. Either way its a false analogy - All those sent to jail aren't necessarily self medicating.

 

[BvBPL]

Even if I assume you are correct (I definitely disagree that cannabis is potentially devastating in the same way other drugs are) there is a big difference between advocating for referral to mental health treatment for addicts and advocating for the continued criminalization of simple possession, which affects everyone, addicted or not. These are two very different things.

You have to grant that decriminalization is very different from legalization. I don't see it as inconsistent to be for some form of decriminalization and against out and out legalization.

His opinion is not invalid because of hypocrisy or his past, its invalid because jailing the mentally ill for drug use doesn't de-stigmatize mental illness. And you're defending him by building strawmen and throwing around insults while complaining about ad hominems

Jailing the mentally ill for murder doesn't remove the stigma of mental illness either. I don't see why he can't have a position on both issues, and then choice the primacy of one issue over another when they come into conflict.

 

[Gucumatz]

And speaking of "medicines" there is a reason we have the FDA. And although members of our government have tried to weaken it in the past (looking at you Hatch) - Marijuana isn't medicine that has been approved by any means of the imagination. It doesn't mean it can't have "beneficial" effects, but so have other "miracle" drugs in the past (Cocaine, Alcohol, Various levels of Opiates) that various dealers pushed onto societies. Did they help alleviate certain conditions - Yes. But they came at great cost and many additional and unintended side effects. A lot of the jury is still out on Marijuana believe it or not in the Scientific community. I am sorry if I don't want another world wide opiate situation after being hailed as a miracle cure for everything for nearly 300 years.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How long can the "jury be still out" on a basically harmless drug that was completely legal prior to the repeal of prohibition, which necessitated all the feds who used to enforce those laws finding something else to do or become unemployed?And the desire to clamp down on Mexican-Americans in the Southwest for political reasons over 80 years ago?

The DEA is the worst sort of bureaucracy imaginable, and they have been propagandizing the supposed negative effects of marijuana since their inception with no scientific basis whatsoever.


Link to video.

And now a voice of sanity instead of fear mongering. Retired Superior Court Judge James P. Gray:


Link to video.

 

[Gucumatz]

Oh of course there is propaganda on both sides. But there is no denying there have been scientific studies showing harmful effects that can't be whisked away. Heroin was considered mostly harmless for almost a century in the west and even longer than that in China, Vietnam, and India. Scientific studies took years to produce any real effects and only after many years of non-conclusive results.

Relatively Marijuana is a newer "natural" drug in the west than any of its major competitors. Scientific consensus is much more even handed than you would think and for every "pro-study" I could name 2 largely negative. Studies so far suggest its relatively less harmful than many other substances - but it isn't cut and dry as some would lead us to believe.

How long have we been having legitimate inquiries into the nature of Marijuana or studies on its long term effects - Neuroscience on Marijuana is much more limited than you think compared to many other drugs. Surprisingly most of the studies are only fairly recent [But that is admittedly for various cultural factors]

 

[Berzerker]

And speaking of "medicines" there is a reason we have the FDA. And although members of our government have tried to weaken it in the past (looking at you Hatch) - Marijuana isn't medicine that has been approved by any means of the imagination. It doesn't mean it can't have "beneficial" effects, but so have other "miracle" drugs in the past (Cocaine, Alcohol, Various levels of Opiates) that various dealers pushed onto societies. Did they help alleviate certain conditions - Yes. But they came at great cost and many additional and unintended side effects. A lot of the jury is still out on Marijuana believe it or not in the Scientific community. I am sorry if I don't want another world wide opiate situation after being hailed as a miracle cure for everything for nearly 300 years.

Are you saying marijuana is not a medicine? Citing the opinions of bureaucrats employed by the same politicians waging a war on pot users is illogical.

Here's a bit of history, when politicians wanted to ban pot the American Medical Association (AMA) testified against the ban. This was 1937... Over the next couple years ~3,000 doctors were prosecuted for illegally prescribing drugs. In 1939 the AMA reversed its position to support the ban on pot, over the next 13 years only three doctors were prosecuted. Thats how Congress works... But if the end justifies the means...

Jailing the mentally ill for murder doesn't remove the stigma of mental illness either. I don't see why he can't have a position on both issues, and then choice the primacy of one issue over another when they come into conflict.

If Kennedy was a murderer and he went on TV with a crusade to de-stigmatize murder while wanting other murderers jailed, he'd be a hypocrite.

 

[Gucumatz]

Are you saying marijuana is not a medicine? Citing the opinions of bureaucrats employed by the same politicians waging a war on pot users is illogical.

Here's a bit of history, when politicians wanted to ban pot the American Medical Association (AMA) testified against the ban. This was 1937... Over the next couple years ~3,000 doctors were prosecuted for illegally prescribing drugs. In 1939 the AMA reversed its position to support the ban on pot, over the next 13 years only three doctors were prosecuted. Thats how Congress works... But if the end justifies the means...

Here is a bit of history for you. All forms of Opiates were legal up until 1910s here in the US. Heroin was considered the cure - and doctors were also prosecuted following the banning of Heroin in 1924. Now - With the various studies that have come out since, would you honestly suggest Heroin should still be legal for all?

Almost every "major" drug you could imagine was considered a miracle medicine at one point - and believe it or not there are studies that show medicinal purposes for most of them. The question is the larger consequences, side effects, and effects on society.

Tobacco, Alcohol, Heroin, and others have either been banned or heavily regulated. Yes, I admit I support the FDA - But if the illogical and still not properly tested must justify the passions...

And are you saying that the various studies that have proven various side effects unacceptable to various drugs today were sponsored by politicians? There are also medicinal effects of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Opiates - does that mean we should have unrestricted use of any of the above? Tobacco has a large stigma and is regulated to an extent. Alcohol was banned for a while - and a massive campaign helped reduce rates of alcoholism to points lower than they have ever been. Opiate restrictions helped increase productivity in countries (A Chinese study estimated a 27% over 3 decades) etc.
=====================

Whether you like it or not - There is not enough evidence, right, or medical truth in making Marijuana legal yet.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Morphine is still used quite frequently in this country as an anesthetic. What do you think heroin is directly related to chemically?

When used in medicine it is typically used to treat severe pain, such as that resulting from a heart attack or a severe injury. The name "heroin" is only used when being discussed in its illegal form. When it is used in a medical environment, it is referred to as diamorphine. The white crystalline form considered "pure heroin" is usually the hydrochloride salt, diacetylmorphine hydrochloride.

Under the chemical names diamorphine and diacetylmorphine, heroin is a legally prescribed controlled drug in the United Kingdom, and is supplied in tablet or injectable form for the same indications as morphine is, often being preferred over morphine due to its lower side-effect profile.[citation needed] It is also available for prescription to long-term users as a form of opioid replacement therapy in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark, alongside psycho-social care—in the same manner that methadone or buprenorphine are used in the United States or Canada[9][10]—and a similar programme is being campaigned for by liberal political parties in Norway.

Cocaine also has many practical purposes, such as toothaches. Coca leaves are still frequently used to combat altitude sickness. You can openly buy them in some South American countries.

Whether you like it or not - There is not enough evidence, right, or medical truth in making Marijuana legal yet.

Don't confuse your own personal opinion formed after listening to the incessant drug hysteria all your life with the facts. It has already occurred in two states, and it won't be that long before it is legal in most of them. There is no valid reason why alcohol should be legal while marijuana is not.

 

[Gucumatz]

Morphine is still used quite frequently in this country as an anesthetic. What do you think heroin is directly related to chemically?

I know... which is why I listed is specifically separately from the rest of the Opiates... And even then Morphine is also highly regulated.

Don't confuse your political opinion either with the facts. Scientific Consensus does not exist yet despite what some interests would have you believe.

And while several states are undermining federal law - all it takes is Supreme court visitation or a refocus on the federal level to bring back practice under law. I will continue to support the FDA, SAMHSA, and HHS.

We should not support Caveat Emptor policies that belong out of the late guilded age more than a modern society. A drug needs to be safe and effective. As I have said, it doesn't mean they can't have medicinal qualities - but it doesn't make it right for societal consumption.

And as for Coca leaves - Natives have been using it for centuries, same with Tobacco, San Pedro Cactus, and Peyote. The difference is how societies treat each of these substances and the extremely limited usages of them. No one is denying that these various substances have medicinal properties, but there is plenty of science disagreeing with legality or straight up medicine for various of these substances. We don't need to have the FDA undermined even more by snake oil pitchmen

 

[Formaldehyde]

I seriously doubt you have to worry about the real modern day "snake oil pitchmen" falling victim to the same sort of propaganda they so frequently use to spread fear and hate regarding a basically harmless substance.

But like alcohol, it is now only a matter of time before it is legal in most of the states in the US. There will be some holdouts as there invariably are. But eventually it will be legalized nationally so even that won't matter.