Patrick Kennedy's Crusade

[Borachio]

There is no valid reason why alcohol should be legal while marijuana is not.

There is, I think, and it goes like this:

Because one drug is harmful and legal (for a variety of mostly historical and cultural reasons) it doesn't automatically follow that another drug should also be legal.

But this is besides the point whether I personally think marijuana should be legal or not. Just that the legality of alcohol is not a reason to legalize marijuana.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is like trying to ban tea because it contains caffeine while completely overlooking that coffee has far more.

Alcohol actually does cause substantial societal problems and is even physically addicting. IF you want to continue to ban marijuana, at least you should be consistent by demanding the same for alcohol.

 

[Gucumatz]

So you think its inevitable - I could provide more historical comparison, but I believe we are only just starting to see a real reaction that will grow in the upcoming century against Marijuana.

And as I have said before, Marijuana is currently illegal its consistent to want to protect that status. As I have said, I believe Prohibition was a good thing for the US and it helped heal the US and created a stronger society. IF you want Marijuana to be Legal, popular support won't be enough if the science continues to prove various negative effects. Marijuana is psychologically addicting. Alcohol is regulated and we have various organizations against Alcohol and continue to try and weaken its position here.

 

[Berzerker]

Hey Guc, you didn't answer my question

and if you think Prohibition is a good idea, have you ever checked homicide rates for the 20th century? You'll notice 2 spikes - both during drug wars. And alcohol prohibition didn't last long enough for the black market to re-supply the country, but it would have. I think you'll find alcoholism related diseases increasing as Prohibition continued and bootleggers spread the booze.

Now, what proof do you have the drug war has reduced consumption? Seems to me the war on pot in the 70s induced a market shift to cocaine and heroin and the highest homicide rates of the century under Reagan even surpassing the war on booze. I'd love to see what successes we've achieved since Nixon declared war on pot. Can you identify any?

 

[Gucumatz]

Alcoholism did increase slightly near the end of Prohibition sure. But compare that to the drastic drop from Prohibition's implementation and that by itself is peanuts. The alcohol managed to destroy the ban - but the success and positive effects to society have been reaped ever since still (and long after the transition away from bootleggers).

Gangs and violent crime existed prior to Prohibition as well and I have admitted odds are it did contribute to a higher homicide rate - but it is not as if violent crime came or went with prohibition.
==========

And as far as your question - I believe you mean is it a medicine? If you read any of my responses you would know my answer - No. It has medicinal traits but it can not be considered a medicine by any scientific, consumer safety, or bureaucratic way.

And as far as positive effects there have been various studies, but let me approach with an economic description by a good working paper from NBER

The Effects of Prices and Policies on the Demand for Marijuana: Evidence from the National Household Surveys on Drug Abuse -

In it we see that there has been little unbiased reporting on Marijuana consumption in the US and the reasons why. Spikes in Marijuana usage normally occur in conjunction with price shifts in substitute substances and its possible to correlate up to 40-50% of use due to this. But while these substitute increases have increased the usage of Marijuana - the derivatives of its substitutes show that Marijuana psychological addiction has at least been curbed to an extent as there are less "frequent" buyers than other substitutes.

Programs like STRIDE have been severely undercut and probably will never get proper funding to examine exactly how much psychological addiction has been prevented from existing policies - but what evidence does exist normally exists from sales [And there is limited evidence on numbers of addicts due to various interests] and that to a degree policy has been successful.

There are Marijuana interests out there and their pressure have reduced the effectiveness of policies and even led to the cutting of congressional funding [The ATF isn't the only thing that has been cut and delayed by Republicans - but in the case of Marijuana there have been various Democrats in the act too] for studies to observe effects before most of them even had a chance to accumulate vast data.

 

[Hygro]

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?

I disagree most cannabis users even need an ounce of rehabilitation, but I very much respect this post.

edit: in the conceptual abstract divorced from drugs. Applying this whole jail thing to drug users is crazy.

 

[Berzerker]

Alcoholism did increase slightly near the end of Prohibition sure. But compare that to the drastic drop from Prohibition's implementation and that by itself is peanuts. The alcohol managed to destroy the ban - but the success and positive effects to society have been reaped ever since still (and long after the transition away from bootleggers).

Gangs and violent crime existed prior to Prohibition as well and I have admitted odds are it did contribute to a higher homicide rate - but it is not as if violent crime came or went with prohibition.

When Prohibition was repealed the homicide rate dropped 13 years in a row to half the peak under the war on booze. The rate stayed ~level until the mid to late 60s and started climbing when Nixon began his war on pot and peaked again under Reagan's drug war. As for alcoholism and disease:

From wiki

At the end of Prohibition, some supporters openly admitted its failure. A letter written in 1932 by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., states:

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.

-------------------

By the greatest majority of indicators, the biggest drops in alcohol consumption and alcohol problems actually came before national prohibition went into effect. Those drops continued for about the first two years of Prohibition and then alcohol consumption began to rise. By 1926, most of the problems were worse than they had been before Prohibition went into effect and there were a number of new problems -- such as a drinking epidemic among children -- that had not been there before.

http://druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

More kids were drinking too, like kids using drugs with the current drug war. Not many kids used drugs before the war on pot... Do the people who push drug wars in the name of the children understand that? Anyway, the drug library has plenty of stats and even testimonies of supporters showing the failures of Prohibition - like deaths from alcoholism in major cities like NYC and Chicago. They were much higher midway thru Prohibition than the couple years before it began.

And as far as your question - I believe you mean is it a medicine? If you read any of my responses you would know my answer - No. It has medicinal traits but it can not be considered a medicine by any scientific, consumer safety, or bureaucratic way.

Then all those doctors out there prescribing it are quacks? Here's the definition of "medicine":

1. The science which relates to the prevention, cure, or alleviation of disease.
2. Any substance administered in the treatment of disease; a remedial agent; a medication; a medicament; a remedy; physic.

Having medicinal properties makes it a medicine, the FDA denies that reality. And I dont see anything in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to decide what is or isn't a medicine and punish us for ignoring their dictates - the Constitution was amended to allow for Prohibition, it was never amended to allow for wars on other drugs or control over our bodies via the FDA.

The highest death rates from alcoholism occurred during the decade prior to Prohibition as did the highest death rates from cirrhosis of the liver. These statistics should be qualified by the observations of Dr. Charles Morris, Chief Medical Examiner for New York City: "In making out death certificates (which are basic to Census Reports) private or family physicians commonly avoid entry of alcoholism as a cause of death whenever possible. This practice was more prevalent under the National Dry Law than it was in preprohibition time" (Tillitt, 1932: 114-115).

Notice a problem with your one success story?

 

[Gucumatz]

No offense - But Rockefeller isn't a scientific citation

There are testimonials on both sides of the effects. And yes NYC had its issues as did many other large cities. But compare violence to that in lower density regions and the effects of "sober" people in these communities, prohibition led to a more productive, successful, and profitable society


====
And as for the FDA "denying reality" - There is a reason we have Caveat Emptor policy regarding to drugs as significant as Marijuana, it must be proven that the side effects, risks, damage, and greater strains on society aren't overthrown. There is NO consensus on Caveat Emptor and reducing the FDA does weaken the drug market undoing years of successful progressive action to protect consumers against faulty drugs and drug companies. Marijuana supporters have proposed legislation to weaken the FDA and senators like Orin Hatch [Republican from Utah] have used the movement to help weaken restrictions on other drugs [Partially why we have more and more risky drugs getting approved]

And let me ask you - what were homicide rates prior to prohibition? Homicide rates were nearly the same from 1915 - 1920 (7 per 100k). The average during Prohibition was 8 per 100k. As I have said, prohibition probably preserved a violence problem to an extent as it gave them an industry which they could be complicit with many more "reputable" alcohol providers

Either way - The death rate from Alcoholism prior to Prohibition was above 6 per 100k - Even factoring in 'fraudulent reports of cause of death" the average dropped below 2 per 100k during prohibition and while that number increased back to 3 per 100k for about 10 years after prohibition - The stigma and society's reactions against Alcoholism reduced that number further over the years.


Now that is just Alcohol related deaths - but put that into comparison - An extra "homicide" per 100k compared to a 3-4 death reduction against Alcoholism. Now that's a little grim, but merely comparing those numbers yes - even despite increased crime, Prohibition was a success. And those are only some of the benefits from Prohibition

 

[Gucumatz]

And it looks like Patrick Kennedy will be the leader of the first real anti Marijuana movement here in the US. By far not the only of its movement in the Americas - but it looks to be the start of something big in the US

Project SAM - I will look into it, the debating here has helped convince me there is a need for stronger involvement for groups like these.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/patrick-kennedy-project-sam-marijuana_n_2535944.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...a-industry-will-be-the-next-tobacco-industry/

 

[Hygro]

And it looks like Patrick Kennedy will be the leader of the first real anti Marijuana movement here in the US. By far not the only of its movement in the Americas - but it looks to be the start of something big in the US

Project SAM - I will look into it, the debating here has helped convince me there is a need for stronger involvement for groups like these.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/patrick-kennedy-project-sam-marijuana_n_2535944.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...a-industry-will-be-the-next-tobacco-industry/

Erm, what? You mean that because cannabis turns out to not be a problem, we have to oppose it with even more ferocity?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not to mention it shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the massive propaganda campaign against marijuana that has been incessantly occurring for over 80 years now. The "first real anti Marijuana movement here in the US" started in the Southwest back then to try to control the "Mexican problem".

Even now, misguided do-gooders like Patrick Kennedy are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to trying to keep marijuana illegal. That group is predominately "law and order" conservatives.

 

[MobBoss]

Patrick Kennedy isnt a conservative.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Patrick Kennedy isnt a conservative.

Thanks again for showing how poor your reading comprehension is when it comes to my posts.

 

[MobBoss]

Thanks again for showing how poor your reading comprehension is when it comes to my posts.

And yet, my comment is indeed factual.

Hmmm. Thank you for thinking my post had anything to do with my 'poor reading comprehension'. It didnt. The point being you continually try to lay this kind of stuff at the feet of conservatives, but here is clear evidence that its not just conservatives that hold that stance.

You should thank me form. I give you so many opportunities to play the role of victim as you love to do. Carry on.

 

[Gucumatz]

So clearly I must be one of these "misguided do gooders" as well. I honestly think part of the reason some of the Democratic party has gotten weak on Marijuana has been because like gun control they haven't had the stomach to fight for it and thought it would be easier to just let it be legalized or destigmitzed letting interests buy and push them around on this issue. And if we are going to go on discussing the "Mexican Problem" I have a whole load of hornets nests I can bring up there.

 

[BvBPL]

Hmmm. Thank you for thinking my post had anything to do with my 'poor reading comprehension'. It didnt. The point being you continually try to lay this kind of stuff at the feet of conservatives, but here is clear evidence that its not just conservatives that hold that stance.

You should thank me form. I give you so many opportunities to play the role of victim as you love to do. Carry on.

He totally does that. Formaldehyde is the perfect demonstration to me of how you can agree with someone's views, but still find that person to be a less than useful, or less than enjoyable, to converse with.

It is rather bizarre to have someone post in his .sig how to debate someone and then just completely ignore the rules and their intended goal.

 

[Berzerker]

No offense - But Rockefeller isn't a scientific citation

Never said he was - but he did offer a fairly accurate description of Prohibition. Dont need to be a scientist for that.

There are testimonials on both sides of the effects.

Yours was a bogus claim about liver disease, and that was it.

And let me ask you - what were homicide rates prior to prohibition? Homicide rates were nearly the same from 1915 - 1920 (7 per 100k). The average during Prohibition was 8 per 100k. As I have said, prohibition probably preserved a violence problem to an extent as it gave them an industry which they could be complicit with many more "reputable" alcohol providers

I'll repeat myself: the homicide rate dropped 13 years in a row when Prohibition was repealed to half the level. Thats a bunch of dead people, and what did their sacrifice buy the Prohibitionists?

Either way - The death rate from Alcoholism prior to Prohibition was above 6 per 100k - Even factoring in 'fraudulent reports of cause of death" the average dropped below 2 per 100k during prohibition and while that number increased back to 3 per 100k for about 10 years after prohibition - The stigma and society's reactions against Alcoholism reduced that number further over the years.

That website says the death rate from alcoholism fell that low 2 years before Prohibition even began and 2 years into Prohibition the rate started going up and ~doubled the pre-Prohibition rate. You got it backwards, Prohibition saw more alcohol-related deaths and thats even with the under reporting by docs.

I honestly think part of the reason some of the Democratic party has gotten weak on Marijuana has been because like gun control they haven't had the stomach to fight for it and thought it would be easier to just let it be legalized or destigmitzed

Yes, so much more humane to stigmatize mental illness and addiction with the law

Okay, but dont go on TV Patrick Kennedy and tell us about your personal crusade to destigmatize mental illness

the stench of hypocrisy would repel starving vultures

 

[Formaldehyde]

And yet, my comment is indeed factual.

I was clearly pointing out that left wing "do gooders" like Patrick Kennedy are far eclipsed by the right wing "law and order" crowd, despite them also believing the same propaganda they have been fed about a topic they clearly know nothing about themselves.

Hardly a thread goes by where you don't mischaracterize my opinions at least once, as you just did yet again. Yet you continue to confuse your clearly incorrect opinion about my own opinions for "fact".

He totally does that. Formaldehyde is the perfect demonstration to me of how you can agree with someone's views, but still find that person to be a less than useful, or less than enjoyable, to converse with.

It is rather bizarre to have someone post in his .sig how to debate someone and then just completely ignore the rules and their intended goal.

Yet you ignore that I am merely responding to someone who is actually far worse in that regard. Someone whom you decided not to criticize at all, while engaging in a personal attack yourself instead of even trying to discuss the topic. I find that blatant hypocrisy to be just as revealing merely because I disagree with your own personal opinions.

I also fully admit that I am hardly the perfect example of completely civil discourse. That is part of the reason why I decided to use it as a sig to remind myself to try to do better despite those in this forum who continue to discuss me instead of the topic.

Not to mention your own sig isn't any better in that regard. Progress is accomplished despite those who are still trying to live in the distant past. For instance, how are you going to feel when marijuana is likely completely legal in your own state in the near future? Will you still claim:

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

While I hardly advocate children to use any drugs whatsoever, the rest is essentially utter nonsense straight out of a DEA propaganda pamphlet.

Yes, so much more humane to stigmatize mental illness and addiction with the law

Okay, but dont go on TV Patrick Kennedy and tell us about your personal crusade to destigmatize mental illness

the stench of hypocrisy would repel starving vultures

It is amazing how much they have in common with those who have the same goals, but who are on the opposite end of the political spectrum. They both want to control what should be personal decisions in a supposedly free and open secular society. It truly is a "crusade".

 

[BvBPL]

INot to mention your own sig isn't any better in that regard. Progress is accomplished despite those who are still trying to live in the distant past. For instance, how are you going to feel when marijuana is likely completely legal in your own state in the near future? Will you still claim:

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

While I hardly advocate children to use any drugs whatsoever, the rest is essentially utter nonsense straight out of a DEA propaganda pamphlet

This is absurd. The scientific research is quite clear: heavy marijuana use is linked to reduced academic performance and general amotivational problems in young adults. It is also linked with neurocognitive problems in adolescents.

The Association Between Earlier Marijuana Use and Subsequent Academic Achievement and Health Problems: A Longitudinal Study. by Brook, Stimmel, Chenshu, and Brook, published American Journal on Addictions; Mar/Apr2008, Vol. 17 Issue 2.

Examining the Reciprocal Relation Between Academic Motivation and Substance Use: Effects of Family Relationships, Self-Esteem, and General Deviance by Andrews and Duncan, published Journal of Behavioral Medicine; Dec97, Vol. 20 Issue 6.


Marijuana abuse destroys people. Anyone who has been to a public university knows this as he or she can easily watch incoming freshmen unleashed from the fetters of parental control smoking their grades away and dropping out. Or carpenters who smoke so much grass they can't keep their billables and payables straight.

Casual use, as distinguished from abuse, is almost certainly not as destructive. However, as we embark upon a public debate about the future of drug laws in America we have to recognize that many people will abuse newly legal marijuana and face consequences as a result. Maybe that's a reasonable price to pay for abandoning a drug policy that has placed many non-violent offenders in jail and denied a potentially helpful medicine to the sick. However, if the argument is "we should legalize grass so I can get high on the weekend" then I think that changes the calculus of social harm.

 

[Gucumatz]

Never said he was - but he did offer a fairly accurate description of Prohibition. Dont need to be a scientist for that.

Yours was a bogus claim about liver disease, and that was it.



I'll repeat myself: the homicide rate dropped 13 years in a row when Prohibition was repealed to half the level. Thats a bunch of dead people, and what did their sacrifice buy the Prohibitionists?



That website says the death rate from alcoholism fell that low 2 years before Prohibition even began and 2 years into Prohibition the rate started going up and ~doubled the pre-Prohibition rate. You got it backwards, Prohibition saw more alcohol-related deaths and thats even with the under reporting by docs.



Yes, so much more humane to stigmatize mental illness and addiction with the law

Okay, but dont go on TV Patrick Kennedy and tell us about your personal crusade to destigmatize mental illness

the stench of hypocrisy would repel starving vultures

I was actually talking about statements from other politicians of the time that Prohibition was a success when I mentioned testimonials - In fact if you want testimonials, just check nearly the entire Supreme Court and the dozens of written statements on various cases involving prohibition (Use the December 1928 Digest, a shorter more condensed form if you are in a hurry and in Chronological order)

------
From the very link you provided: Alcoholism "directly attributable deaths" average for the decade before was 4.8 a year [And 5.2 discounting the first 2 years of major Prohibition in 1918 and 1919). Statistics vary from this era [My source was the 72nd Congress hearing on the voting of Repealing the amendment - so the data looks old] but that brings up a good point and actually argues my point even more. Prohibition was a local movement before it became a national movement. Various states and cities had proposed and implemented local bans on Prohibition as the movement for Prohibition grew strength. The Amendment itself was proposed at the very end of 1917and enjoyed the peak of its following in the 2 years after 1917 and was ratified by 36 states during 1918-1919 In fact the majority of the US had various forms of Prohibition in effect during 1918-1919. And even with your link the rate fell from 1918-1929 to 2.9 a year.

Also from the same website:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/homrate1.htm

Homicide rates averaged 8.1 homicides per 100k during the Prohibition's era. Following that for the next 10 years homicide rates averaged 7.1 per 100k. Comparing the net "direct" costs of Alcoholism to the net cost of homicides, yes that is a difference.

And Cirrhosis did drop drastically and never grew to levels pre-prohibition www.bu.edu/econ/files/2011/01/2004_40_Miron.pdf

And yes back to the main point, Marijuana can ruin lives. The burden of the proof is not on the law but on the drug's proponents itself, which can not and have not been able to proven reasonable Caveat Emptor medical safety and proper societal safety. Its not even a crusade - It's a statement of reality and something which can not be undermined without scientific consensus.