Does Anybody Argue That Drug Use Isn't Bad For You

[williatw]

Why is it beyond you to think that there are folks that want to try drugs, but do not because it is against the law?

I started using at age 13. For years I believed that drug use was "normal" despite that it alienated me from the vast bulk of those around me. It wasn't until years after I had quit all the drugs that I realized what had been happening.

Most of the people I knew in high school flat out refused to have anything to do with illegal drugs, despite they would drink beer or liquor at a party. That's because most people are not willing to become criminals in order to use illegal drugs.

This is just common sense, folks. Only actual drug use will pervert you to come to a different conclusion.

And look at the converse: I rationalized my drug use by the fact my teachers in high school were using. I got high with my teachers literally hundreds of times. When you look sensibly at the issue, it was in large portion my teachers' fault for portraying illegal drug use as normal and acceptable. Had I had very different teachers, who weren't involved in illegal activities, odds are good I would never have so dabbled and all my adult life would be different. It was for example, the direct influence of drugs that pursuaded me to give up my dreams of becoming an astronaut. I have thus sacrificed a specific quality of life and self-actuualization, because illegal drugs were easy to get hold of and commonly accepted as "normal".

So by your own admission, prohibition didn't stop you (and doubtlessly others) from using drugs, couldn't keep them from your 13yr old hands. That your teachers ostensibly trusted vetted government employees weren't following the laws passed by the gov they were a part of, and aided and abetted your use. Those teachers you knew were government employees, part of the same state you trust far more than the founders did to do the right thing. So prohibition failed miserably in your case, yet you think the reason why many others you knew didn't use drugs was because drugs were illegal. So as an adult you continue to support the failed policy of drug prohibition even though it was completely ineffective in stopping the child you were from your drug use, on the theory that if it wasn't for prohibition many more would be like you were. That's similar to the type of arguments are gun control friends would make. But for the government we would all be walking around with AK47's itching to shoot at each other with the slightest provocation. That we are the children regardless of age, who can't be trusted to make the right decisions with our own lives, without the helpful boot on the neck of our grownup surrogate parent the state to keep us from doing something foolish.

[GIThruster]

. . .yet you think the reason why many others you knew didn't use drugs was because drugs were illegal.

Obviously so. To doubt this requires an idiot.

[williatw]

. . .yet you think the reason why many others you knew didn't use drugs was because drugs were illegal.

Obviously so. To doubt this requires an idiot.

So I didn't/don't use heroin/crack/crystal meth because it was illegal? Funny, because I think I don't use it because only a self-destructive moron would want to put something like that into their body. If I didn't care to much about that, dont think I would be particularly concerned about it being illegal. But for the law half of us here would be heroin/opium addicts?

[GIThruster]

So I didn't/don't use heroin/crack/crystal meth because it was illegal?

You're proposing a false cause and/or generalization fallacy I have certainly not committed to.

What "many" or even 'most' do, has nothing whatsoever to do with what you have done.

[paperburn1]

So I didn't/don't use heroin/crack/crystal meth because it was illegal?

You're proposing a false cause and/or generalization fallacy I have certainly not committed to.

What "many" or even 'most' do, has nothing whatsoever to do with what you have done.

[TDPerk]

Why is it beyond you to think that there are folks that want to try drugs, but do not because it is against the law?

\

Because their use has been at a fairly constant level, whether they were illegal or not. This means the laws are irrelevancies in that regard.

[ladajo]

Show me.

I also invite you again to look at the study link I posted.

[kcdodd]

It's a very simple question. If you can't answer, then say so. Just don't try to justify your non-answer. If I asked how many people died each year due to heart disease, or anything else, I think you could find the answer it if you wanted to. They tend to keep those records.

Don't be obtuse. You can look for an answer just as easily as anyone else. The fact is, the data point you're looking for has no useful function. You haven't even said what "direct" means. If Cannabis causes cancer in the user and the user dies, is that a Cannabis death or does that qualify as "indirect"? And how do you propose one parse out the cancer deaths caused by Cannabis amongst those who use tobacco? Obviously, one cannot do that so the data you're looking for is unobtainable.

As soon as one tries to answer the question you pose, a multitude of such problems occur. What about the case of a family that dies in an apartment fire that was started by a careless 12 year-old doper in another apartment? Isn't that a Cannabis death?

Data and statistics do not apply in the general sense you're assuming by asking for data that does not exist.

Not only do you seem to not know the subject you freely choose to debate in, you argue that the knowledge is not even needed. How, then, can you call me obtuse when you are representing its very definition? You are wrong that the data does not exist, and the information is easily available. You choose to ignore it for whatever reason. This is called socratic method. I asked the question to make people think about the answer by trying to answer it themself. You can choose to do what you want.

If something is made illegal, there had better be a very good reason for it.

[williatw]

So I didn't/don't use heroin/crack/crystal meth because it was illegal?

You're proposing a false cause and/or generalization fallacy I have certainly not committed to.

What "many" or even 'most' do, has nothing whatsoever to do with what you have done.

Okay then I will reword it: So many/most people didn't/don't use heroin/crack/crystal meth because it was illegal? Funny, because I think many/most people don't use it because only a self-destructive moron would want to put something like that into their body. If many/most people didn't care to much about that, dont think that many/most would be particularly concerned about it being illegal. But for the law half of us here would be heroin/opium addicts?

[GIThruster]

You are wrong that the data does not exist, and the information is easily available.

Show us a single study that isolates cancer caused by Cannabis, from cancer caused by tobacco. Show us a study that clearly demonstrates how people keeping these sorts of data have faithfully recorded incidents where innocents have died as result of careless drug users causing accidents.

Clearly, you have no training in statistical analysis and your thoughts here are freshman or worse, pedestrian. You do not understand how statistical analysis works. The kinds of data you are presuming are obtainable are not in fact obtainable by any means, and people trained in statistical analysis know this.

[cgray45]

The article's title is in error.

Because nobody argues that habitual drug use is good for you-- and that includes two of the most deadly drugs on the planet-- nicotine and alcohol. (While they may not be as dangerous on a per-capita base as compared to crack, their wide availability drives the numbers up).

If one could wave a magic wand and make marijuana only useful for hemp production, or caues the coca fields of the drug producing nations to vanish, no doubt the world would be a better place.

Sadly, we do not have such a wand.

So the question is really-- is our current method working and is keeping cannabis illegal producing sufficient rewards to justify the tremendous costs associated with prohibition.

Given that pot is more available today tahn it was at the beginning of the "War on drugs" and the primary result of said war has been to empower organized crime, I would say no.

[MSimon]

It's a very simple question. If you can't answer, then say so. Just don't try to justify your non-answer. If I asked how many people died each year due to heart disease, or anything else, I think you could find the answer it if you wanted to. They tend to keep those records.

Don't be obtuse. You can look for an answer just as easily as anyone else. The fact is, the data point you're looking for has no useful function. You haven't even said what "direct" means. If Cannabis causes cancer in the user and the user dies, is that a Cannabis death or does that qualify as "indirect"? And how do you propose one parse out the cancer deaths caused by Cannabis amongst those who use tobacco? Obviously, one cannot do that so the data you're looking for is unobtainable.

As soon as one tries to answer the question you pose, a multitude of such problems occur. What about the case of a family that dies in an apartment fire that was started by a careless 12 year-old doper in another apartment? Isn't that a Cannabis death?

Data and statistics do not apply in the general sense you're assuming by asking for data that does not exist.

Not only do you seem to not know the subject you freely choose to debate in, you argue that the knowledge is not even needed. How, then, can you call me obtuse when you are representing its very definition? You are wrong that the data does not exist, and the information is easily available. You choose to ignore it for whatever reason. This is called socratic method. I asked the question to make people think about the answer by trying to answer it themself. You can choose to do what you want.

If something is made illegal, there had better be a very good reason for it.

Let me add. We are spending in the US around a $ hundred billion a year on an effort which does not produce the desired result. Reduced drug use. It has had an effect.

1. Ruined lives - you can give up drugs - you can't give up a conviction
2. Finance of criminal gangs
3. Enforcement is racially motivated
4. A private prison industry which the government has guaranteed occupancy
5. The spread of disease
6. And of course the wasted $100 billion

And despite these obvious "benefits" some people want to keep at it.

If you self medicate for a chronic condition your use will be chronic. We call this "addiction".

We do know about opiate "addiction" - roughly 60% to 80% is certainly caused by self medication for very severe PTSD. And most of that is caused by severe sexual abuse in childhood. Punishing the afflicted? Is it just? Is it wise?

And the stunning proof that opiate "addiction" is not a real idea? Most people given opiates do not become "addicts". So it can't be the drugs that cause addiction.

So not only are we getting no result. We are paying through the nose in many ways for our wasted effort.

The people behind this racket have cleverly tied it to the emotional part of the brain so it is immune to reason. But there is a way out of this mess and we are taking it.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

[MSimon]

Show us a single study that isolates cancer caused by Cannabis, from cancer caused by tobacco.

That is an interesting question. No study has done that it is true. But there are studies.

Marijuana And Cancer: Scientists Find Cannabis Compound Stops Metastasis In Aggressive Cancers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... 98208.html

Cannabis and tobacco smoke are not equally carcinogenic
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/

One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors.[3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8] http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/ ... onal/page4

Harvard Study says Marijuana Cures Cancer
http://www.endalldisease.com/harvard-st ... es-cancer/

I believe the above (among other medical reasons) is why med pot has such high support in the US - 70% to 80% of the population supports it.

Think about it: prohibition has made a very cheap anti-cancer drug unavailable. Maybe that is why Johnson & Johnson puts so much effort into its anti-drug effort. They have only your best interests at heart. Just ask their accountants.

Marijuana cures cancer – US government has known since 1974
http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpr ... ince-1974/

A Spanish medical team’s study released in Madrid in February 2000 has shown that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active chemical in marijuana, destroys tumors in lab rats. These findings, however, are not news to the U.S. government. A study in Virginia in 1974 yielded similar results but was suppressed by the DEA, and in 1983 the Reagan/Bush administration tried to persuade U.S. universities and researchers to destroy all cannabis research work done between 1966 and 1976, including compendiums in libraries. http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stor ... -research/

The word is getting out. And it it is not looking good for the future of prohibition.

[MSimon]

And then you have to ask yourself. What kind of government suppresses research findings in order to continue a war on a segment of its population?

Is that the kind of government you want?

[GIThruster]

. . .yet you think the reason why many others you knew didn't use drugs was because drugs were illegal.

Obviously so. To doubt this requires an idiot.

So I didn't/don't use heroin/crack/crystal meth because it was illegal? Funny, because I think I don't use it because only a self-destructive moron would want to put something like that into their body. If I didn't care to much about that, dont think I would be particularly concerned about it being illegal. But for the law half of us here would be heroin/opium addicts?

You're again avoiding the real issue, which is not these harder drugs but Cannabis. It's entirely possible people avoid Meth because they know how dangerous is it, though we can be sure that many if not most avoid it because it is illegal. Cannabis is not the same sort of dangerous. The vast majority avoid it because it is illegal. Those who have tried it are only 9% of the populous whereas almost everyone has tried alcohol. There are no verbal gymnastics that are going to get you around these facts.

Prohibition works.