Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

Sorry, two major RECREATIONAL drugs, is what I meant. Emphasis on major, BTW.

There are two recreational drugs named alcohol and tobacco

Alcohol yes, but tobacco? Is that really a recreational drug? I suppose there are recreational hookah smokers, but for the most part I wouldn't call what the average tobacco smoker does "recreation." People drink to have fun. Who smokes for fun? My impression is that they're hopelessly addicted and smoke even though they hate it because they're miserable if they don't. Ask any tobacco smoker if the enjoy smoking. Most of them hate it. It's more "if I don't do this thing I suffer" than "if I do this thing I have fun."

In any case, why is recreational drug use the thing you want to limit? Why is fun bad?

Personally, it bothers me far more than we're subjecting elementary school kids to compulsory drugging with ritalin than that teens and adults might choose to burn a few brain cells in exchange for a good time.

this may be crossing a line for some, but yes, I set the value of all of the future damage that can be prevented through the approach of the perfect system (where you can't harm others, only yourself) higher than the value of all of the current harm going on because of the current state.
In my view the prevented harm in the future through working against lenient legalization attempts not only outweighs the current harm being done under the current system, but outweighs it by an order of magnitude.

Speaking more generally than the current drug issue, I suspect that your method is not an effective means of accomplishing your stated goal. Let's work with an analogy:

Imagine that there is a minefield next to a park. Sometimes people playing in the park ply in the minefield. And when they do, sometimes they step on a mine and blow off their legs. This causes distress to others. Family who now have to care for a legless cripple, children traumatized by seeing a person blown up, etc. It's all round a bad situation, with a lot of harm being caused.

So what do you do? Do you:

A) Arrest people who walk into the minefield, fine them for each leg they lose, and throw them in jail if they can't pay.

B) Put a fence around the minefield and signs saying, "there are mines here, If you walk here, you might step on one and lose your legs causing great distress both to yourself and others around you. And that would be bad."

C) Remove the mines.

Now, I think very obviously, "C) remove the mines" is the preferred solution. But removing the problem isn't an option when it comes to (we're calling it cannibis, now? Ok.) ...to cannibis, or other drugs in general. Plants that you can grow in your garage aren't a thing that 's practical to remove. You can't eliminate drugs from circulation any more than you can remove tomatoes. People who want them will find a way to procure them.

I also think "A) fine and imprison them" is very obviously a ridiculous solution. Does it make any sense at all to steal money and imprison people who have their legs blown off by mines? No, of course not. Why does it make more sense to fine and imprison people who use drugs? Making a thing "illegal" does not remove it from circulation. Some drugs are illegal, yet we still have them. Some firearms are illegal, yet still we have them. In some cases murdering people is illegal, yet still murder happens. The nature of punitive law is not to eliminate a thing or stop it from happening, but to punish people who do that thing. I acknowledge the possible value of punishment as a deterrent. Possibly there are some people in the world who'd like to murder somebody, but choose not to because of fear of punishment. But I suspect not many. The sort of person who kills people probably isn't generally the sort of person to intelligently think "if I do A, B might happen. I want A, but I don't want B. Clearly, suppressing my desire to do A in order to avoid B in the future is in my best interest, therefore I won't kill that person. Yes, that really would be best. I'll go have lollipops instead." No, I don't think many people think that way, and the people who do are probably the people you don't need to worry about because they wouldn't go out murdering people or destroying their minds and bodies with drugs in the first place. And clearly the legal deterrent has not worked in the case of drugs.  One in ten people out of the entire population of the United States have been arrested for a drug offense. Punishment is clearly not working.

So that leaves option B. Put up a fence and signs. And in the case of drugs, we can accomplish that by educating people and putting up minimal barriers to prevent people who don't pay attention or know any better from falling into the trap. Warning labels, education in schools, no smoking in public areas, etc.

I bet that one episode of South Park did more to stop people from smoking cannibis than the the entire legal system ever did.

[DJ]

100% of rapists masturbated.

[Antsan]

I think we're on LSD now. In response to LSD, I say... Eh? Maybe there could be special centers with 'mind enhancing chambers' where you can get put inside a room filled with lava lamps and padded walls with 60s album covers on them and just trip without finding out you are in the middle of the forest buck naked.
I realize this center I'm talking about probably exists or did exist somewhere in California.

That would be an incredibly bad idea. When tripping on LSD being confined can lead to very serious consequences, no matter the surroundings. Being able to walk and living out curiosity is an important part of the whole experience.
Being supervised by a trusted person would be a much better idea.

As to the whole addiction thing:
I know one person who took the stuff almost daily. That person also regularly stayed awake for 4 days or more (as in: chained. I don't think in the time I had contact with him he ever slept on two consecutive nights) with the help of Amphetamines.
Any other person I know who took LSD was way too exhausted at the end of the trip and way too satisfied by it to even consider doing another trip again. As far as I know even on a good trip that is kept in fond memory for years at the end you wish it would stop - while it is certainly nice it also is extremely exhausting.
Also the trip normally is not forgotten. I don't know about any blackouts happening on a trip. What is valuable about the whole thing stays with you afterwards without a need for the substance. LSD actually has long term effects on the mind, which can be life changing (in the positive and negative meaning). Another of my friends was a compulsive liar (born out of poor self esteem) and generally very awkward around people (think Walter from "The Big Lebowski"). When he took LSD he first pretended to feel the effects of the drug, then got silent and proceeded to have an epiphany about his life. It certainly wasn't a nice experience for him, but it helped him to change his whole personality for the better in a matter of months. Today he is one of the most honest people I know.
Those two might be big reasons why LSD addiction isn't really a thing. There is no desire nor a need for most people to use the drug excessively. The ones who do so are, as far as I know, always misinformed about how the stuff works. They mostly expect the equivalent of pink elephants or something like that.

And right there on the wiki page is a picture of a cup of coffee. Caffeine is a drug. It is a mind-altering, psychoactive substance that crosses the blood-brain barrier and chemically alters the way your brain functions. And that's why people take.it. Specifically for the chemically altered mental state that it imparts. Caffeine is also addictive, and anyone who regularly partakes can tell you all about the withdrawal symptoms. In fact, in most offices it's a running joke that people can't function without it.

And furthermore: As someone who doesn't consume caffeine I can attest that being half asleep while working is quite survivable without it. Those are actually really withdrawal symptoms.

@i2amroy:
I live in Germany, where cannabis is illegal. I have never seen that anyone had any problems at all with getting the stuff when he wouldn't have had the same problems if the stuff where legal (like not having any money or it being between 1 and 3 on Sunday night). I also had friends who where persecuted for distributing the stuff. The only effect I could see that they changed to become assholes. The availability of cannabis wasn't affected at all.
Most people I know who smoke won't ever drive while under the influence. People who normally smoke tons of the stuff will stay clean when they have to drive. I have a slight nagging at the back of my head that I once knew one who would drive while high.

Also my experience with drug users is that the ones who are harmful to themselves and their surroundings are largely uneducated - specifically in regards to drugs and generally. Responsible drug use is a thing and I have seen it often done by people who lead productive and healthy lives.

Here's a graphic showing a ranking of drugs by the harm they cause, split by "harm to others" and "harm to users":
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm
I would also like to note that LSD and magic mushrooms rank at the bottom.

To the war on drugs:
Drug use has seen a surge since the begin of the war on drugs.
Metamphetamine is a drug that has been developed as an answer to the criminalization of Amphetamines - it is easier to produce and wasn't illegal at the beginning, but it is much more harmful. Any user of Metamphetamine is a direct consequence of the war on drugs.
Imprisoning drug users (which thankfully doesn't happen in Germany) doesn't help them or anyone (at least I see no reason at all why it should help anyone) but it costs a fortune and presents drug users with an environment where they are almost required to learn how to be successful criminals - what I heard about prisons in the USA is not pretty and suggests the opposite of rehabilitation is happening there. You can look that up for yourself, I am sure YouTube has a few documentations on that available.
The war on drugs prevents true education on the subject. There are safer use fliers circulating in Germany and they contain a lot of information that should be taught in school but isn't, because authorities feel that this would incite more drug use (which I highly doubt - the fliers on safer drug use don't read like advertisements and certainly contain a lot of warnings).
I know people who function just fine with drugs but are shunned for it (not for a change in behavior, mind you). This also seems to be happening due to misinformation and a general perception of drug users as losers.

Here's a link on the costs of the war on drugs:
http://www.susanrobbins.com/cv/warondrugs.html
These parts are especially interesting:

Although some have debated the efficacy of treatment (see Bender & Leone, 1998), an important study by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center found that each dollar invested in drug abuse treatment saves taxpayers more than $7 in societal costs (such as drug related emergency room visits and crime committed to support a drug habit).

The war on drugs not only affects Black men and their families, but the inner cities as well. As Friedman points out (1998), the destruction of the inner city in major metropolitan areas is a direct consequence of drug prohibition. Sellers, who are heavily concentrated in these areas, are involved in stiff competition with one another, and the resulting violencehas left many inner city areas looking like war zones. Children who live in the inner city face some of the greatest dangers of being victims of drug-gang violence Benjamin & Miller, 1993).

Citing a National Institute of Drug Abuse study, the Network of Reform Groups (1999), notes that 60% of societal costs of illicit drug use are due to drug related crime and the black market. This includes “police, legal and incarceration costs, lost productivity of incarcerated criminals, and victims of crimes, as well as the lost productivity due to drug-related crime careers” (p. 1). Significantly, less than 30% of the societal costs were found to be caused by the effects of ingesting the drugs themselves. The authors conclude that “our failing War on Drugs actually creates the majority of costs our communities pay when considering illegal drugs” (p. 1).

This one is especially especially interesting, in light of your personal course of argumentation:

Many who support the current war on drugs cite drug use as being a significant causal factor in crime, replete with images of the crazed drug addict who robs or burglarizes to support his or her habit. Although there are crimes related to drug use, very few burglaries or robberies are drug related (Walker, 1998). Despite the common misperception that drug use causes a significant rise in crime, the relationship between the two is complex and the data do not support this connection. According to Walker, the National Household Survey data show that few who use illicit drugs become addicts or engage in other criminal activity. Quite to the contrary, there is a wealth of data that demonstrates the clear causal link between drug prohibition and crime (Benjamin & Miller, 1993; Gray, 1998), and the rise in crime that occurred with alcohol prohibition is analogous to the rise in crime that has resulted from the war on drugs. Not surprisingly, organized crime plays a central role in the distribution of illicit drugs and the war on drugs has led to a significant rise in organized crime and violence associated with drug dealing (Benjamin & Miller).

If you are further interested, there is a Google Tech Talk (I think) by a former police officer who worked in the... I don't know what the name is right now... who is now strongly advocating against continuing the war against drugs.

@DJ:
I am sure there are some who didn't. I guess there are even some who raped because they considered masturbating the less acceptable option.

[Caz]

Second point: If you're going to claim that 7% of polled murderers (hardly all murderers, let alone all murders) say that cannabis was a factor (not the only factor, or the factor directly responsible, but a factor), then at least make a more reasonable claim rather than saying "because it causes some murders, then it should be strictly regulated." Think of it this way- you're more likely to be hit by a car from someone who's sober than you are from someone who's high. Doubles the risk, sure- but it's already illegal to drive while high, like it's illegal to drive while being on anything that can negatively influence your driving. What you have to realize is that legalization does not make it prolific- making smoking pot legal doesn't mean that everyone will immediately do so and the entirety of society will collapse in a stoned stupor. If all else, the stat proves nothing- some murderers were high when they killed people, sure. Doesn't mean that being high made them killers. Correlation does not equal causation, damnit.

True. I bet some people committed murders while sober. Ban sobriety! Margaritas for all!

[i2amroy]

@Ispill
I realize that everyone won't degrade into a stoned stupor. My argument hinges on the fact that any increase, no matter how small, is still an increase. And I meant to say "long post", if I said "first post" my apologies. (Here's the link in case you can't find it).

Here's a graphic showing a ranking of drugs by the harm they cause, split by "harm to others" and "harm to users":
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm
I would also like to note that LSD and magic mushrooms rank at the bottom.

That is exactly the type of study that I needed, thank you . It supports my point that harm to others caused by cannabis is positive (at least in that analysis). My idea is simply that I would rather ensure responsible drug use (thus preventing harm to others) than depend on the education and wellbeing of the human race, especially when said wellbeing and education is currently impaired by the drug they are using. I have no problem with responsible drug users, I just have a problem with the irresponsible ones and the ones who think they are responsible but aren't. It's not the idea of legalization that I have a problem with, it's the specifics of the laws we're trying to pass to legalize it that I have a problem with.

The country idea is great, but I'm not sure we could find a country that matches the "ideal" state that I see. It would:
1) Allow legal or medical drug use in ways that prevent harm to others (like in special places only where you had to pass a test before leaving or whatever).
2) Penalize use and ownership outside of said restrictions.
3) Actually enforce said laws.

[Helgoland]

But you need to weigh the harm prevented against the harm caused by legislation [...] All you've shown is that there's something [the negative effects of prohibition enforcement] need to be weighed against.

I guess I'll just quote myself instead of spelling it out again...

[LordBucket]

furthermore: As someone who doesn't consume caffeine I can attest that being half asleep while
working is quite survivable without it. Those are actually really withdrawal symptoms.

I'm moderately convinced that regular caffeine use actually makes morning sleepiness worse somehow. I'm uncertain which is cause and which is effect, but very consistently I've observed that regular coffee drinkers have miserable mornings and trouble being awake.

I am of course not suggesting we make caffeine illegal. But again, this comes to the perception issue. People can be very obviously addicted to caffeine, they'll give it to their children, they can openly talk about their dependence on it and share camaraderie over it in the workplace...for that matter it's an addictive drug that many companies provide to their employees for the mind altering effects it provides. Seriously, think about that. It's standard corporate policy in this country to drug your workforce with an addictive, mind altering substance.

And everyone's ok with that. Meanwhile the tobacco smokers are standing outside together huddled in the cold getting their fix so that they can continue to function.

But then somebody says that they use a non-addictive substance like LSD or cannibis for purely recreational use, and everybody freaks out and wants to throw them in jail.

It's bizarre.

[i2amroy]

But you need to weigh the harm prevented against the harm caused by legislation [...] All you've shown is that there's something [the negative effects of prohibition enforcement] need to be weighed against.

I guess I'll just quote myself instead of spelling it out again...

Do you have a link that I can compare against? That was my point earlier. I've given (and been given now) data that supports my reasoning. I have hard proof that links cannabis use to an increase in harm to other people. That means the burden of proof falls on those who want to prove that it doesn't. That's the way a debate works, I've brought proof out for why I do something and now it's your turn to bring out proof that competes with it. I'm not going to spend potentially copious amounts of time looking for data that may not exist. I will say that I've considered both sides, but I'm not going to dig out data for you just so that I have to dig out more to fight it.

Hell, that study isn't even about the number who said yes- it was about why, which is behind a paywall. So not only does the study not prove your point, it isn't even about the same point.

Hunh, I wan't aware it was behind a paywall. I got to it through my college website. And it doesn't matter about how many there are. My argument doesn't care if the number is 1 or 1 billion, as long as it is greater than zero. If even 1 person ended up committing a crime due to cannabis my argument would still be a valid one, it would just be easier for you to find data to compete with it, (which nobody else has done yet).

[i2amroy]

Would you care to enlighten me as to how twinkies influence your actions in a way that increases your chance of harming others? Because like the McDonalds one, the only way I'm seeing it is if you suffer a heart attack or something, which is a risk much, much smaller than that posed by most drugs that influence your perceptions and judgement.

[LordBucket]

Do you have a link that I can compare against?

Not sure I want to participate in the "harm" part of the discussion, since it seems a bit beside the point to me. But a quick google search turns up a sixty page study titled Consequences and costs of marijuana prohibition

A few highlights:
 * ~829,000 arrests in a year
 * An estimated $4.9 billion/yr of drug enforcement costs are inferred to be attributable to marijuana
 * Cost of incarcerations for marijuana use estimated at $600 million per year
 * $5 billion in private assets seized by law enforcement in a decade

Also, found this interesting:

"Contrary to what this theory would predict, the evidence suggests that drug arrests
in general, and marijuana arrests in particular, do not lower criminal activity, and
may actually increase crime.94 For example, researchers using Florida data found that
every additional drug arrest led to an increase in 0.7 index crimes.95 That is, for every 10
additional drug arrests, there were an additional 7 index (violent and property) crimes.
A similar but more recent study found that a 1% increase in drug arrests leads to a .18%
increase in index crimes.96 And a study of New York state law enforcement practices
reports that rising numbers of drug arrests resulted in a significant increase in assaults,
robberies, burglaries, and larcenies. For example, the authors report that a 10% increase
in marijuana sales arrests was accompanied by an additional 800 larcenies in the state."

[BurnedToast]

I am of course not suggesting we make caffeine illegal. But again, this comes to the perception issue. People can be very obviously addicted to caffeine, they'll give it to their children, they can openly talk about their dependence on it and share camaraderie over it in the workplace...for that matter it's an addictive drug that many companies provide to their employees for the mind altering effects it provides. Seriously, think about that. It's standard corporate policy in this country to drug your workforce with an addictive, mind altering substance.

And everyone's ok with that. Meanwhile the tobacco smokers are standing outside together huddled in the cold getting their fix so that they can continue to function.

But then somebody says that they use a non-addictive substance like LSD or cannibis for purely recreational use, and everybody freaks out and wants to throw them in jail.

It's bizarre.

I find it rather amusing that you say caffeine is addictive but marijuana is not.

There are NO recorded cases of genuine caffeine addiction. Mild physical dependence? yes, but full-on, compulsive addiction? Zero, despite it being one of the most commonly consumed drugs in the world. People joke about it, but it's just that - jokes.

Meanwhile, about 9% of people who smoke marijuana become addicted to some degree, many who require treatment to be able to quit.

As for caffeine being mind altering - it's a mild stimulant, which technically does mean it's mind-altering but stimulants by definition don't effect your perception.

Meanwhile marijuana is a (mild) hallucinogen, and while you're probably not going to break out in full-blown visual hallucinations after smoking it, it does alter your perception.

So it's not really bizarre at all, unless you're trying to pretend marijuana is something it's not.

Edit: which is not to say I give a crap if you smoke marijuana - I think it should probably be legalized, but let's not pretend it some sort of magical wonder drug.

[LordBucket]

No, no- someone literally murdered a guy and claimed he did it over being on a sugar high after eating a twinkie.

He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

It actually wasn't a twinkie. It was "junk food and sugar laden soda." The twinkie name was given by the press.

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense#Origins

[Leafsnail]

No, no- someone literally murdered a guy and claimed he did it over being on a sugar high after eating a twinkie.

He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

Like most highly improbable news stories that is completely untrue.   Dan White's lawyers successfully argued that their client was depressed.  His change from a balanced diet to sugary junk food was merely cited as evidence of this.

http://www.snopes.com/legal/twinkie.asp

[Leafsnail]

So, yes. There is established legal precedent that junk food and sugar can induce diminished judgement sufficient to lead to a person choosing to kill somebody else.

The page you are linking here debunks the claim you are making.

Contrary to common belief, White's attorneys did not argue that the Twinkies were the cause of White's actions, but that their consumption was symptomatic of his underlying depression. White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

[LordBucket]

I find it rather amusing that you say caffeine is addictive but marijuana is not.

I'm speaking from personal observation. I know, and have known lots of coffee drinkers who are, to my eye, very obviously addicted. They clearly and obviously experience diminished function and withdrawal symptoms. The same with tobacco smokers.

I have not seen this among marijuana smokers I've known. Marijuana appears to be a substance that people use recreationally. I've never known a marijuana smoker to claim that they can't function without it, like coffee drinkers regularly do. I've never seen a marijuana smoker "fiending" for a fix the way coffee drinkers and tobacco smokers do. It's more "hey, wanna get high?" And they can take it or leave it. Same with LSD.

I lack formal studies to corroborate that observation...but has anyone here observed differently?