The Link Between Marijuana and Schizophrenia

[Ayn Rand]

This is what the government did:

1) two people exchange their goods, pot for cash
2) You (the government following your instructions with money taken from the 2 people above) run in with guns drawn threatening to kill the 2 people if they resist
3) two people are carted off to be put in cages
4) or two people resist and people die because you dont like pot
5) or the cops make a mistake and raid the wrong house and kill the occupants while conducting a constitutionally protected "reasonable" no knock search

The law comes first, trade comes second. Your argument can justify the mafia to trade in plutonium, or terrorist groups to trade weapons, or organ runners to trade body parts.

The fact that someone's trade is being interrupted is irrelevant. Trade can only occur when a State exists to uphold the legal system and protect rights and contracts.

This argument adds nothing to the discussion. People do not have an automatic right to trade whatever goods they wish, free from the scrutiny and constraint of the proper legal authorities.

thats for starters, I didn't even get into the black market's effect on "society"....

So the "black market" made all those people do all those evil things? I respectfully disagree. There was a lot else going on at the time.

They were crimes, but like you said, so what if it was legal? Who cares what the law said, they were crimes then in spite of the law and they've always been crimes. Now you're getting it, the state does not define "crime" - the concept of right and wrong predates government.

A crime occurs when a law is broken. Crime has nothing to do with morality. Stop trying to use the two interchangeably as you are confusing the discussion.

It does if its acting on my behalf... There are exceptions to the rule (like jury duty) but that is the rule. But you're a ferner, we here in the USA have a Declaration of Independence stating some of the principles our system is based on (ostensibly). And consent of the governed is the basis for a legitimate government. And btw, that "consent" predates government too...

Your Constitution is the reason that the American State does not need your consent to enforce the law. The powers of government are outlined by the constitution and subsequent amendments and legislation. Whether you agree or consent is irrelevant. The government has a responsibility to enforce the law no matter what your personal feelings or acceptance of it are.

You seem to have misunderstood the nature of the Constitution and the role of law in a republic or democracy - it sets down the structure of the American State but it does not make every law and action of that State subordinate to your specific consent, or to the consent of any one individual. That's how the law works in every Western country - rational principles are set down, and every citizen must then obey them, and will be compelled to obey them if necessary, for the freedom and security of all.

I'm not comparing the victims of these crimes, you said the state defines what is or isn't criminal and I pointed to slavery and the Nazis as my rebuttal. So you said slavery and genocide are not crimes when they are legal, right? You gotta know when to fold 'em... You're making a ridiculous argument.

No, you've missed the point. I didn't make an argument I simply cleared up the definition of crime for you, which you then misunderstood.

One that defines crime based on the legitimacy of a victim's claim against a perpetrator. Slavery is a crime under that system, drug use is not - the former has a victim, not the latter. Under that system, you are the criminal for imprisoning millions of innocent people under the guise of "safety", ie "they" might commit actual crimes with victims.

You forget that such noble principles must be balanced in the real World. Your right to take drugs could infringe on my rights in some way - then what will you do? You are not the only one who wants freedom.

Government has a responsibility to look at the facts in a situation and take the responsible course of action. That means limiting the poisonous influence of drugs. Your semantic diversions into slavery and the nature of crime/morality are ill-founded and irrelevant.

If you are gonna assign blame for violence, first identify those introducing it into the situation - that would be you (the state). Two people peacefully exchanging their goods aint violent or criminal, you trying to stop them with guns is violent (and criminal). You're blaming the victims for your violence...

Two people exchanging their goods may not be violent at the point of transaction, but could be violent in other places and at other times. Also, one does not need to be violent to do harm. A company can peacefully put arsenic into the water and it will do harm even though no violence has been committed.

The point still stands - trade is not automatically free from scrutiny and restriction where necessary. You are ignoring the consequences of drug-taking and concentrating on the trade aspect, but it doesn't matter if some or even all aspects of the trade are peaceful [which they aren't anyway]. The harm still exists.

Minority Report was a movie about catching criminals before they commit their crimes based on some technology. Racism is based in part on the notion that "those" people are more likely to commit crimes, therefore "they" should be punished collectively (in whatever way the racist deems appropriate).

I know that, I just don't get what it has to do with banning drugs.

I think slavery is a crime regardless of its legality and you think it aint a crime if its legal. That means I'd probably be helping runaway slaves and you'd be turning them in 150 years ago (and you're preaching ethics?).

I don't know how you came to this conclusion. I said it was not a crime - this is a fact, and you are wrong in saying it is a crime. I did not say it was moral.

As for consequences, you continually ignore your own. Crime stats overwhelmingly show more violence and more death occur during drug wars, but here you are telling us we're safer because of a drug war.

Not at all. I'm aware of the consequences of the drug war [I disagree about who is responsible]. But legalising drugs will not make the harm go away. The drug war is probably the lesser of two evils - at least, that is what responsible people with knowledge of crimonology, sociology and psychology have decided.

I therefore expect the government to act responsibly and choose the lesser of two evils. You are presenting an argument which basically says "all harm will go away if we legalise marijuana now" which is a very naive and unconvincing argument.

Sorry, the definition of freedom doesn't refer me to your freedom with limits. Why dont you just admit it, freedom means we get to do what you tell us.

I don't thnk you demonstrate much understanding of how freedom really works. Looking up the word in a dictionary is a long way from having the knowledge required to be an intelligent and responsible citizen.

Freedom definitely has limits and responsibilites. It requires a balancing of principles and the capacity to compromise. Central to freedom is the maintenance of law and order, and the ability to be mature enough to obey the law and accept the decisions made by police and government experts who have to take the steps necessary to protect the stability and rights of a complex society.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The drug war is probably the lesser of two evils - at least, that is what responsible people with knowledge of crimonology, sociology and psychology have decided.

Show me.

I'll be a sport and produce some of my own. And they are not people who see only benefits or problems, but acknowledge there are pros and cons. This is why I am using them.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/if-marijuana-is-legal-will-addiction-rise/

Roger Roffman is a professor of social work at the University of Washington.

More Honesty Needed

Marijuana dependence occurs in 9 percent of Americans who have ever used the drug, and between 33 percent and 50 percent of those who smoke it daily. Approximately 3.6 million Americans are daily or near daily users. In 20 years of marijuana dependence counseling studies at the University of Washington, those who’ve sought help averaged 10 years of daily or near daily use and had unsuccessfully tried to quit more than six times.

Surveys indicate increasingly positive attitudes in the U.S. for liberalizing marijuana policies. Two ways of doing this are: (1) legalization, which would involve lawful cultivation and sale of marijuana, and (2) decriminalization, which would retain criminal penalties for cultivation and sale while removing them for possession of small amounts.

Will more people use marijuana and become dependent if marijuana is decriminalized? Probably not. A number of U.S. studies tell us decriminalization would not likely have an effect on the rates of marijuana use by adults or adolescents.

What if marijuana is legalized? No one can say for certain. Using one country’s reform example to estimate what would happen in another is very risky. How countries differ (cultural, social, political, economic) makes a big difference.

However, the Dutch “coffee shops” example might give us a little insight. The de facto legalization policy in the Netherlands did not, in itself, affect rates of marijuana use among adults or young people. But rates of use among young people increased when the number of coffee shops increased and the age of legal access was 16. Then these rates declined when the numbers of coffee shops was reduced and the age of legal access became 18.

A cautious conclusion, as I see it, is that any consideration of legalization should include careful planning for how those who are most vulnerable to harm from marijuana use, children and adolescents, can be protected.

I support finding alternatives to criminal penalties for marijuana possession. Those penalties have costs (being jailed, having a criminal record, barriers to employment, loss of scholarships, to name a few) and may accomplish little in deterring use.

However, our debates need more honesty. Those favoring liberalizing marijuana policy ought to stop inferring that marijuana is harmless; it is not. Those who believe possession should remain a crime need to acknowledge that most adult occasional users are not harmed, and should be prepared to defend with data the belief that criminalizing possession is the best way to avoid harm.

Wayne Hall is a professor of public health policy at the School of Population Health at the University of Queensland in Australia.

Mitigating Dependence

What effect would marijuana legalization have on dependence?

Some people remain skeptical about whether marijuana dependence exists but let’s assume that it does and that it affects around 1 in 10 of those who use marijuana. The effects that legalization has on marijuana dependence depend critically on what we mean by the term.

If we mean replacing imprisonment with a fine as the penalty for using marijuana then legalization would have little effect on dependence. Evaluations of this policy in 11 U.S. states in the 1970s and 1980s found little or no effect on rates of use among adolescents and adults.

There is more debate about the effects of allowing a de facto legal marijuana market as the Netherlands has done since 1983 in tolerating the sale of small amounts of marijuana in coffee shops. Marijuana use increased in the Netherlands in the 1990s, but this was also the case in the rest of Europe, and policy analysts disagree about whether rates of use increased faster in the Netherlands than elsewhere.

If by legalization we mean making it legal to use, grow and sell marijuana then our task becomes more speculative because no modern country has adopted this policy. It seems common sense that legalizing marijuana use and sales would lead to more people using it regularly and this would probably mean more marijuana dependence.

Nonetheless it is difficult to say how much use may increase because there are options for reducing use under a legal market that are not now available. For example, we could tax marijuana to set the price at a level that discourages casual use, regulate its THC content, restrict sales to minors, include a health warning on packs and advise users on ways to reduce dependence risks (e.g. by using less than weekly). These possibilities make it difficult to predict the effect that a legal market would have on rates of marijuana dependence.

Marijuana dependence should be taken into account in considering whether we should legalize marijuana in any of these ways. But this concern also needs to be weighed against the costs of current policy, that is, the creation of perverse incentives to produce more potent marijuana, the widespread disregard of legal prohibition on marijuana use that could contribute to a decline in respect for law and policing; the unregulated access of minors to marijuana; and the social and economic costs of a large marijuana black market.

Mark A.R. Kleiman is a professor of public policy at U.C.L.A., the editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis and the author of “Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results.” His new book, “When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment,” will be published later this summer.

Not Your Grandfather’s Pot?

One of the standard arguments against the legalization of cannabis is that “this is not your grandfather’s pot”: cannabis, say the drug warriors, is much stronger now than it was a generation ago. It is, therefore, much more dangerous, and must remain prohibited.

That argument is a few bricks shy of a full load. Here are some of those bricks.

1. The average gram of cannabis sold today contains much more Δ-9-trahydrocannabinol (THC) than the average gram sold in 1970, though there has always been some highly potent product available.

2. Emergency-room visits and treatment admissions related to cannabis have increased, though the number of self-reported cannabis users hasn’t.

3. If the only change were in potency as measured by THC content, users could (and do) compensate by smoking smaller quantities.

4. But contemporary cannabis also has a much higher ratio of THC (which tends to induce anxiety) to cannabidiol (CBD, which tends to relieve anxiety). That would be expected to create a higher rate of panic attacks.

5. Whether high-THC, high-ratio pot is also more habit-forming than other pot remains unknown. Increased treatment admissions might come from increased enforcement pressure against users. Or perhaps a cannabis habit is harder to live with than it used to be because the cannabis experience is more disturbing.

6. If cannabis were made legal, restrictions could be put both on potency and on the THC/CBD ratio. So rising potency makes no sense as an anti-legalization argument; if anything, less-potent legal pot would be expected to substitute for the more-potent pot that would remain illegal.

7. Any sort of flat-out legalization would risk a large increase in the number of very heavy users. A legal cannabis industry, like the legal alcohol industry, would derive more than half its revenue from people with diagnosable substance abuse disorders. Telling marketers they can get rich by creating disease is dangerous.

8. Instead we could choose a “grow your own” policy that would allow production for personal use or by small nonprofit cooperatives, but forbid commercial sales.

Cannabis policy is fascinating because so many people smoke the stuff, but whatever we do about cannabis will leave us with most of the nation’s drug abuse problems, which center on alcohol, and most of the nation’s drug-market and drug-enforcement problems, which center on cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin.

Peter Reuter is a professor at the School of Public Policy and the Department of Criminology at the University of Maryland.

Experimenting with marijuana has long been a normal part of growing up in the U.S.; about half of the population born since 1960 has tried the drug by age 21. Perhaps one out of six has used it for a year or more. This statement is increasingly true of other Western countries such as Australia and Britain.

Over the last decade most of these countries have seen three trends; sharp increases in the number of marijuana users seeking treatment, in the potency of the marijuana consumed and in the number of arrests. For example, in the European Union the number of people entering treatment programs for marijuana dependence tripled between 1999 and 2005. In the U.S., the potency of seized marijuana has steadily increased since the late 1970s, while arrests for simple possession have tripled since 1991 to 750,000.

Are these trends connected? Given that marijuana research is almost as scarce as drug-free communities, all that is available is moderately informed speculation. A recent book that I co-authored, “Cannabis Policy: Moving Beyond the Stalemate,” identifies five other factors that may play an influence in this. There is also no direct evidence that potency makes a difference to how much the drug hurts users’ health; most users titrate their dose with higher THC.

What would happen if the drug were legalized? The Dutch de facto legalization of sale through coffee shops is the closest available experience. The most striking observation is that marijuana use in that country is lower than in many other European countries and a lot lower than in the United States; 6 percent of 15- to 64-year-olds in Holland had used marijuana in the past year, compared to 11 percent in the U.S.

Legalization in the U.S. might be a much more commercial matter than in pragmatic Holland, where the government created a legally ambiguous regulatory system with minimal court oversight. The U.S. might find it hard to prevent producers from using their First Amendment rights to actively promote the drug. A way of avoiding this would be to remove prohibitions on growing for your own use and for gifts to others. No doubt there would still be a black market but it would allow access to marijuana without creating a full commercialization. Probably this would lead to a modest increase in the number of people who use the drug, which needs to be weighed against the elimination of 750,000 arrests for simple possession.

Norm Stamper was Seattle’s police chief from 1994 to 2000. He is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and the author of “Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing.”

The Tobacco Precedent

Any law disobeyed by more than 100 million Americans, the number who’ve tried marijuana at least once, is bad public policy. As a 34-year police veteran, I’ve seen how marijuana prohibition breeds disrespect for the law, and contempt for those who enforce it.

Let’s examine arguments against legalizing marijuana: use and abuse would skyrocket; the increased potency of today’s marijuana would exacerbate social and medical problems; and legalization would send the wrong message to our children.

It’s reasonable to expect a certain percentage of adults, respectful or fearful of the current prohibition, would give pot a first try if it were made legal. But, given that the U.S. is already the world’s leading per capita marijuana consumer (despite our relatively harsh penalties), it’s hard to imagine a large and lasting surge in consumption. Further, under a system of regulated legalization and taxation, the government would be in a position to offer both prevention programs and medical treatment and counseling for those currently abusing the drug. It’s even possible we’d see an actual reduction in use and abuse, just as we’ve halved tobacco consumption through public education — without a single arrest.

Potency? Users, benefiting from the immutable law of supply and demand, have created huge market pressure for “quality” marijuana over the past few decades. Legalization opponents are correct that “today’s weed is not your old man’s weed.” But the fear-mongers miss the point, namely that stronger strains of marijuana are already out there, unregulated by anything other than market forces. It’s good that responsible consumers know to calibrate their consumption; they simply smoke less of the more powerful stuff. But how about a little help from their government? Purchase booze and you have access, by law, to information on the alcoholic content of your beverage, whether it’s .05 percent near-beer or 151-proof Everclear.

Perhaps the biggest objection to legalization is the “message” it would send to our kids. Bulletin: Our children have never had greater access to marijuana; it’s easier for them to score pot than a six-pack of Coors. No system of regulated legalization would be complete without rigorous enforcement of criminal laws banning the furnishing of any drug to a minor.

Let’s make policy that helps, not handcuffs, those who suffer ill effects of marijuana or other drugs, a policy that crushes the illegal market — the cause of so much violence and harm to users and non-users alike.

 

[amadeus]

Because I have seen probably more than most what drugs can do to peoples lives and the cost thereof.

I can assume that you are talking in extreme cases, right? Not every person that uses a drug becomes dependent on it or abusive towards others, nor do they all become unproductive layabouts.

And all legalization will do is vastly increase the use of those drugs, exposing just that many more people to the problems drugs offer.

Is there any evidence to support this, though? How can prohibition be working anyway if the DEA is only able to intercept less than 1% of drugs coming into this country? Legal or not, there's no shortage of drugs in this country.

Do you think it coincedental that the propisition in California is being opposed by blacks, asian and hispanics the most? Those are the demographs that have lost more to drugs than anyone, and they know the cost. Its why they are vehemently opposing the legalization of pot in California.

You should know by now that I don't give a good God-damn what blacks or Hispanics think when it comes to infringing on my liberty.

 

[MobBoss]

I can assume that you are talking in extreme cases, right? Not every person that uses a drug becomes dependent on it or abusive towards others, nor do they all become unproductive layabouts.

No, not all were extreme cases. But illegal drug use is not condusive with military service, whether its extreme...or not.

And yes, the vast majority of those removed for doing drugs often have other problems than just the drugs. That is, a majority of the time, they are indeed 'unproductive layabouts' or a problem in other ways.

Is there any evidence to support this, though?

Isnt it rather a common sense thing that if you make it legal, more people will try it?

Contrary to common knowledge, not everyone smokes pot or even tried it.

You should know by now that I don't give a good God-damn what blacks or Hispanics think when it comes to infringing on my liberty.

Wow, thats pretty harsh racism there. Since you left out the asians, I guess your ok with them then?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'm pretty sure drug use among the Dutch went down when marijuana was decriminalised. *Casts summon Ziggy spell*

 

[warpus]

No, not all were extreme cases. But illegal drug use is not condusive with military service, whether its extreme...or not.

And yes, the vast majority of those removed for doing drugs often have other problems than just the drugs. That is, a majority of the time, they are indeed 'unproductive layabouts' or a problem in other ways.

Wait, so you are basing your entire "marijuana shouldn't be legalized" argument based on a couple losers IN THE MILITARY who were caught doing drugs?

OF COURSE soldiers shouldn't be doing (certain) drugs, and OF COURSE people on (cetain) drugs are not going to be "condusive with military service". What the hell does this have to do with the rest of us?

Wouldn't a soldier with a drinking problem be in the same situation as well? Do we ban alcohol too, based on the fact that soldiers with drinking problems are not "condusive with military service"?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Isnt it rather a common sense thing that if you make it legal, more people will try it?

There's quite a bit of debate about this 'common sense', studies have been inconclusive.

I'm pretty sure drug use among the Dutch went down when marijuana was decriminalised. *Casts summon Ziggy spell*

Nope, sorry, it went up .... along with the rest of Europe where there were no changes in the status. Whether it went up faster or slower than the other European countries depend on the study you look at. At the moment usage is somewhere in the middle for European countries.

What if marijuana is legalized? No one can say for certain. Using one country’s reform example to estimate what would happen in another is very risky. How countries differ (cultural, social, political, economic) makes a big difference.

However, the Dutch “coffee shops” example might give us a little insight. The de facto legalization policy in the Netherlands did not, in itself, affect rates of marijuana use among adults or young people. But rates of use among young people increased when the number of coffee shops increased and the age of legal access was 16. Then these rates declined when the numbers of coffee shops was reduced and the age of legal access became 18.

There is more debate about the effects of allowing a de facto legal marijuana market as the Netherlands has done since 1983 in tolerating the sale of small amounts of marijuana in coffee shops. Marijuana use increased in the Netherlands in the 1990s, but this was also the case in the rest of Europe, and policy analysts disagree about whether rates of use increased faster in the Netherlands than elsewhere.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm pretty sure drug use among the Dutch went down when marijuana was decriminalised. *Casts summon Ziggy spell*

We are talking about the USA here....not the dutch. Your ziggy spell really means nothing in the context of that.

Wait, so you are basing your entire "marijuana shouldn't be legalized" argument based on a couple losers IN THE MILITARY who were caught doing drugs?

OF COURSE soldiers shouldn't be doing (certain) drugs, and OF COURSE people on (cetain) drugs are not going to be "condusive with military service". What the hell does this have to do with the rest of us?

Wouldn't a soldier with a drinking problem be in the same situation as well? Do we ban alcohol too, based on the fact that soldiers with drinking problems are not "condusive with military service"

No, but we remove them for that reason as well.

And since we are the military, yes, we often ban alcohol use in certain areas or at certain times. For example, alcohol consumption has been banned in Iraq and Afghanistan for US military forces since the beginning.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Alakazam! It worked! But Ziggy was probably replying before he saw my post.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

We are talking about the USA here....not the dutch. Your ziggy spell really means nothing in the context of that.

I thought we were talking about schizophrenia?

Is the USA the only country that has people smoking pot?

 

[MobBoss]

Nope, sorry, it went up .... along with the rest of Europe where there were no changes in the status. Whether it went up faster or slower than the other European countries depend on the study you look at. At the moment usage is somewhere in the middle for European countries.

OOops.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Is that among the Dutch only or does it apply to the large amount of drug tourism?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't know

I just know it's not common sense that legalizing will increase usage, neither is it a magic wand that will make all things right.

I do believe the pros outweigh the cons though.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I was probably mistaken about usage going down then.

As a percentage your young people smoke less dope than us in the UK and you have less problem drug users (according to Wiki).

EDIT: Of course all this debate is irrelevant since as marijuana usage has gone up, schizophrenia rate remains steady (about 1% IIRC).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

We are talking about the USA here....not the dutch. Your ziggy spell really means nothing in the context of that.

What it does mean is that it's not a given that usage will go up. Both sides in this debate will have to give up their certainty about what will happen wrt usage.

There are very clear pros though.
- Depriving criminal organizations of that line of income since they lose their market to regular coffeeshops.
- Removing a great deal of the gateway drug potential
- Regulation on the strength of the drug (not done in the Netherlands either, where growing is still ludicrously illegal and enforced but selling isn't)
- Control on age limitations. Whenever and wherever I buy weed I will have to show my ID before I can get it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'll tell you who really don't want marijuana to be legalised/decriminalised: the alcohol industry.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I agree. Alcohol in combination with weed is a definite no-no.

 

[MobBoss]

I just know it's not common sense that legalizing will increase usage

/meh. I know it is common sense that legalization will increase usage.

I mean really, are you going to also argue that somehow alcohol consumption goes down at age 21 when it becomes legal to drink in the USA?

Right.

You make it legal, more people are going to do it. Simple.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, screw research and studies and people who look at this sort of thing as a part of their job concluding differently.

You just know. Right?

edit: wrong smiley ... sorry.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I wonder what the effects would be on consumption of other more dangerous drugs would be as well. Like alcohol for instance.