Well, two of them, anyway.
Yesterday there was a study published which stated that prescription overdose deaths are lower in states with legal medical marajuana.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/study-finds-fewer-overdose-deaths-in-medical-marijuana-states/article_8ca175e9-36d8-5cfb-9cc2-dca5f8bfe878.html
Today we hear that:
| The researchers discovered that the more often couples smoked marijuana (approximately two or three times monthly), the less frequent husbands engaged in violent behavior against their wives. The corelations between non-violence and pot use was most prevalent among women who had no previous history of antisocial behavior. |
I hear that tomorrow there will be the announcement of a study that elected officials who smoke pot write fewer bad laws--especially about pot.
*****Notice: I don't smoke pot. I'm allergic.
Link - (
New Window )
The illegal drug trade fuels a lot of violence and is an enormus burden on law enforcement and the judicial system. Alcohol seems like a lot worse drug to me in terms of impairing people.
Quote:
if it's good or bad. And I personally don't give a crap if it's legal or illegal.
But honestly, what mystifies me is that people do (give a crap). I can't for the life of me understand why if it's illegal people would take time out of their day to waste ATP on the topic, other than registering an opinion. Not you guys, because it's fine to debate the merits and voice displeasure...but people who would go out of their way to join a group, walk in a march, buy a tee shirt. I mean, it's like if >18 oz soft drinks were criminalized. It might be harmless and not meriting being made illegal. So yeah, I would miss it; I might be a bit miffed. But oh well, it's not an essential or the even least bit important to daily life. Really worth a march???
Why not? It sends people to prison (though the conflation of sentences for weed and those for hard drugs is irritating), it causes interactions with the justice system for people who are not otherwise likely to enter into it, it costs money to administer, and it inhibits freedom. To a small degree? Perhaps, but for those who enjoy it that degree may be much larger.
SO I should amend my rant to include it mystifies me how trivia takes on such importance as to make people break the law (and that would include those attendant consequences). If they did out law the big sodas, I'm finding an alternative and not sneaking off into the woods to down a Big Gulp.
Yeah....
I'm glad to see someone use the dreaded "gateway drug" in an accurate and actually meaningful way. Jumping to subject somewhat, I just saw someone state that prescription painkillers are a "gateway drug to heroin."
This is so laughable that it's sad. Yes, abuse of prescription painkillers is a current, serious problem. People don't "move up" to heroin because they want to get even higher; they start doing heroin because they are addicted to the prescription painkillers and for whatever reason cannot get them any more.
Drugs are such a hot-button issue here that there's very little hope of getting by the knee-jerk reaction so we can find solutions other than punitive ones or false equivalencies.
I get what you're saying but people have used drugs recreationally for a long, long time. Doesn't make it right, certainly not all of the time anyway, but I don't find it mystifying that people would break the law.
I get what you're saying but people have used drugs recreationally for a long, long time. Doesn't make it right, certainly not all of the time anyway, but I don't find it mystifying that people would break the law.
Nor does it make it wrong, except in a very narrow sense.
I think you're way overstating the degree of incarceration, particularly for 1st time simple possession of non-dealing weight. We're not dealing with (at least in the vast majority of jurisdictions) long mandatory minimums.
I think Dune's pretty much on target here.
Quote:
people find all sorts of other ways to take the edge off.
I get what you're saying but people have used drugs recreationally for a long, long time. Doesn't make it right, certainly not all of the time anyway, but I don't find it mystifying that people would break the law.
Nor does it make it wrong, except in a very narrow sense.
That mystifies me too. IMO, breaking the law is always wrong. I suppose if it's the choice between life and death, but otherwise...
2) If I beleive that a law is wrong, if the chances of getting caught are minimal, and the implications if caught are also minimal, is it OK with you if I decide to take the risks involved with the behavior? People drank during prohibition. Did they all belong in prison?
3) Drinking and driving is vastly more dangerous, and in many jurisdictions, comes with greater punishment, as it should. People do it anyway. What is so difficult to understand about millions of people ignoring laws that are on the books, particularly when the laws make little sense as in the case of pot possession for personal use?
I have this very strong suspicion than a majority of people who say that they don't understand why anyone would break the law a and smoke pot actually think that it should be illegal.
Whites often have the financial backing to get out of these offenses while blacks often do not. So it is more then just going to jail, it is about the long term effects.
I look at my own life and how luck and timing have played a role and how one incident here or there and my life would totally be in the shitter.
2) If I beleive that a law is wrong, if the chances of getting caught are minimal, and the implications if caught are also minimal, is it OK with you if I decide to take the risks involved with the behavior? People drank during prohibition. Did they all belong in prison?
3) Drinking and driving is vastly more dangerous, and in many jurisdictions, comes with greater punishment, as it should. People do it anyway. What is so difficult to understand about millions of people ignoring laws that are on the books, particularly when the laws make little sense as in the case of pot possession for personal use?
I have this very strong suspicion than a majority of people who say that they don't understand why anyone would break the law a and smoke pot actually think that it should be illegal.
I'm just questioning saying that it's not wrong. Jaywalking is wrong; even if people do it and everything else you say. I guess I would say that all the people who drank during prohibition should have had whatever punishment there was a meted out. I'm not arguing that the law was right or wrong or even that drinking or pot smoking should be prosecuted. But that doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of it so long as it's illegal. And, I truly don't have an opinion on whether it should be legal or illegal; I wouldn't vote on it either way. I just don't see the activity as being so significant as to be worth the effort.
Comparing marijuana to knocking off a convenience store? No, not apt.
Fact is, people march because it's about personal freedom, and no amount of anecdotal evidence about red herrings like laziness or addiction should trump my personal freedom. I'd wager that the vast majority of anyone who is on the non legalization side is on the "don't touch my guns" side as well. Your right to pack a deadly weapon is not and should never trump my right to smoke marijuana, for any reason, medically or recreationally. Carrying a gun is not a g-d given right, g-d didn't make guns man did. Marijuana though? One of the most resilient and useful plants that has ever come out of nature.
This issue is literally the single issue I am most passionate about. I am a smoker for 24 years and own 3 businesses, all fairly successful at the moment and work out extremely hard 5-6 days a week doing Crossfit, one of the most strenuous forms of exercise there is. I smoke recreationally, and smoke medically. I just recently went through a bout of an extreme external hemmorhoid attack. Had 2 surgeries. Only one painkiller was able to give my pain, which I would put at a 10, a rest.
The case , or cases, of young seizure victims such as the famous Charlotte Figi, where seizures were lowered from 75-100 to none for days at a time. Why is that less relevant/important or more anecdotal of someone's college roommates getting high and lazy(not picking on you Dune)?
Does Marijuana have some risks? Sure, but they are WAY lower, unarguably then other recreational fixes such as cigs or alcohol. They are also WAY WAY lower then medical fixes such as OxyContin.
Is it a miracle plant? Miracle is a strong word, but it damn sure clearly obviously has a huge amount of positive uses. Right now we are stuck in the stone ages, with it schedule 1(no medical use like herion, LSD, PCP), unable to even legally medically research it on any real level. It's ridiculous. The moral high horses in the government against it will feel that way until it helps a family member with some kind of crippling disease(although don't get me started on NY states half ass medical legalization).
Almost no one against marijuana even has any fucking clue about the actual plant. There are 66 chemicals in marijuana, called canabanoids. Only one even gets you high!
I reject the "stoner" stereotype, those of us passionate about cannibus are far more educated and knowledgeable about the plant then those who carelessly want it to be illegal. We aren't criminals. We aren't reckless. The ones who are reckless here are the ones who are ok creating criminals, denying sick people medicine(in many cases the only medicine that works!) who are ok with denying of personal freedoms without doing the research into what they are protesting in the first place.
the key point, though, isn't whether or not you can function while high. it's whether getting high today affects your productivity tomorrow. If you can get high and build a bird house, fine. If you want to mellow out and watch Ren and Stimpy, fine. It's recreation time. (If you decide to get high while doing something dangerous or important - non recreational - , you're an idiot). When you wake up in the morning, unless you're a major pot head, you can still go to work and achieve just as well as you could if you didn't smoke. some people here were intimating otherwise.
That mystifies me too. IMO, breaking the law is always wrong. I suppose if it's the choice between life and death, but otherwise...
At various points in American history it has been legal to own human beings, illegal for homosexuals to marry, legal to detain Japanese-Americans, illegal for women to vote...
I am sure if we put our heads together we could come up with 100 clear instances where the law of the land was not morally just. Breaking unjust laws has led to major social progress, MLK is a national hero for advocating civil disobedience which is a policy of peacefully breaking unjust laws to draw attention to social issues.
The drug war is not exactly equivalent to the civil rights movement as people can choose to use or abstain from use, whereas being black or a woman or gay is not something you pick.
However, the deleterious effects of the prohibition of drugs are wide spread and unmistakable. The amount of people we incarcerate for non-violent drug offenses are staggering, as is the social cost in the form of cost to incarcerate, lost productivity, and broken families.
When the cure is worse than the disease something has to change. The progress toward eventual legalization of marijuana is a good thing, and something I view as pretty much inevitable at this point.
Quote:
In comment 11828055 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
people find all sorts of other ways to take the edge off.
I get what you're saying but people have used drugs recreationally for a long, long time. Doesn't make it right, certainly not all of the time anyway, but I don't find it mystifying that people would break the law.
That mystifies me too. IMO, breaking the law is always wrong. I suppose if it's the choice between life and death, but otherwise...
Breaking the law is always 'wrong' as far as the law is concerned, sure. But there are plenty of silly and/or arbitrarily enforced or just outdated laws on the books. So I'd disagree with the blanket statement that breaking the law is always wrong in any moral sense.
I'm on the pro marijuana side, but the whole 'nature' argument always struck me as lame.
besides, modern strains of mj, and the various forms of imbibing in it, are just as natural as guns.
Quote:
In comment 11828055 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
people find all sorts of other ways to take the edge off.
I get what you're saying but people have used drugs recreationally for a long, long time. Doesn't make it right, certainly not all of the time anyway, but I don't find it mystifying that people would break the law.
Nor does it make it wrong, except in a very narrow sense.
That mystifies me too. IMO, breaking the law is always wrong. I suppose if it's the choice between life and death, but otherwise...
Ever hear of a bad law? Ever look into what made up this particular set of laws? You have an exceptionally rigid viewpoint; I don't. Doesn't really mean much, but maybe try looking at it from both sides (I do).
IMO, legalize it - it's not worth the headaches created by making it illegal.
Except be high!
I'm on the pro marijuana side, but the whole 'nature' argument always struck me as lame.
besides, modern strains of mj, and the various forms of imbibing in it, are just as natural as guns.
So, poison ivy gets you pleasurably high? Who knew?
More power to you, mg! Let me know how it works out.
(Yeah, yeah, I know it was sarcasm).
Academic issues - ( New Window )
Journal of Neuroscience - ( New Window )
I can't remember the name of the article - ( New Window )
"None of the users reported any problems with school, work, legal issues, parents or relationships, according to Dr. Hans Breiter, co-senior author of the study and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine."
"The groups in the study started using marijuana daily between 16 to 17 years of age for about three years."
This article seems to refer to heavy/daily use in teens. Is anyone here proposing to make it legal for use by teenagers? Seems like the data would be inapplicale to all but a very small minority of users.
I'd also be curious how daily use of alcohol would affect teenagers.
If you buy pot in Denver, can you regulate the strength that you're getting or is it somewhat vague? E.g., I know if I have two 12 oz beers that I will be fine driving. I also know that of I have two 8 oz martinis I will have trouble driving even though I am drinking less volume with the martinis.
I don't think anyone would be surprised that completely sober students tend to do better than students that party.
If you buy pot in Denver, can you regulate the strength that you're getting or is it somewhat vague? E.g., I know if I have two 12 oz beers that I will be fine driving. I also know that of I have two 8 oz martinis I will have trouble driving even though I am drinking less volume with the martinis.
Driving under the influence of pot is illegal in WA and CO and would be illegal under any new laws as well I'd presume.
The brain changes when people drink alcohol, coffee (caffein), eat high amounts of sugar/fats, etc.
I think your overall point makes sense (that there's potential risks/drawbacks to cannabis use and that people need to be careful), but there's risks/drawbacks to lots of things in life that people enjoy. The risks/drawbacks to adults using cannabis, by all accounts, appear to be relatively minor when compared to a lot of othert things that are already legal.
I think the strength of marijuana can be measured. I believe some of the stores actually describe what kind of high each sample provides.
The more worrisome issue is the pot edibles. I can imagine you could ingest more than you wanted to without realizing it.
Hell, I've killed and eaten only three people since all that weed caught up to me. Where was it you said you lived?
Well, without compromising myself (or anyone else) too much, I've been in league with Brett and Davisian, processing slightly used kidneys and enjoying the more than occasional platter of long pig.
If the kidneys were good, we didn't bother with doing a Dahmer on them. If the kidneys were bad, however, watch out!
Can that really be ascribed, one way or another, to legalizing pot? I suppose anyone can come up with numbers that support whatever their view, but it's a meaningless question.
Might as well find a way to make our economy boom off it.
Quote:
Is crime lower in Colorado and Washington after legal weed?
Can that really be ascribed, one way or another, to legalizing pot? I suppose anyone can come up with numbers that support whatever their view, but it's a meaningless question.
Yikes, you really don't see the big picture, do you? First of all if marijuana is legal you have can wipe possession related arrests off the board. That alone takes a tremendous strain on lower level courts. Philadelphia moved towards decriminalization about 4 years ago after studies showed the city was spending millions upon millions of dollars to arrest, house, and prosecute people for the possession of small amounts of marijuana.
That's where you will see your short term returns. Long term, it will be interesting to see what effect it has on trafficking and gang related crime.
[quote] stronger than it was in my youth - late 70s / early 80s. Seems that things like car accidents from being under the influence of MaryJ will get / have gotten worse.
If you buy pot in Denver, can you regulate the strength that you're getting or is it somewhat vague? E.g., I know if I have two 12 oz beers that I will be fine driving. I also know that of I have two 8 oz martinis I will have trouble driving even though I am drinking less volume with the martinis. [/quote
& I'm sure you're always perfectly able to calculate how drunk you are according to the law if the difference between the alcohol content of the 12 oz. beer you drink is 4.5 or 7.2, even though it says what the alcohol content is on the bottle. You don't even have that luxury if you buy a few beers on tap at your local bar or club.
From the 100s of people I've known who smoked pot pretty regularly since I was 17 (I'm 54 & virtually everyone who goes to or performs at concerts dsmokes regularly), it matters not a whit how strong the pot they happen to be turned onto. Every single person knows what their capacity is for getting "too" stoned, if there is even such a thing for regular tokers. The people who rarely smoke have no clue at all about how people who do smoke regularly handle their "addiction."
I went to Albany State - 1 of the 2 best schools in the NY state system along with Binghampton - & virtually everyone smoked pot. A lot of it. I knew of only TWO people who didn't graduate. 1 was a roommate the school foisted upon me for 1 semester & he was a completely whacked out transfer student who had done PCP a bunch too many times. The other ate a bunch of acid each day every week for about 2 months.
Some Fan, you have some ENORMOUS reading comprehension problems that are far more serious than any pot related problems that exist in society. The article you posted rather clearly did NOT say that pot related fatalities increased 3 times since pot was legalized. As a matter of fact, the 2 states in which pot was legalized - Colorado & Washington - weren't even included in the study, which ended in 2010, 3 & 4 years before pot effectively became legal in those 2 states. That study was limited to only 6 states, hence it says NOTHING about the country as a whole or the 2 states in which it was legalized. If you can't post something that is remotely relevant or factually true, then just STFU altogether instead of proving what a complete fucking moron you are.