Why druggies don't work

[GIThruster]

Well really, the body count is incidental. Cannabis is more carcinogenic than tobacco, but plenty of people use tobacco. It's legal because it doesn't make people stupid, crazy and lazy. Cannabis does.

Welcome back, Iadajo!

[ladajo]

The idiot seems to have gotten bored being ignored and left. Or died. Either way is fine with me.

[williatw]

Where are the bodies?

a little speculation...
Are there reliable statistics that show pot smokers are not (also) typically tobacco users? Where is that data...

Anecdotally, I have never once met a pot smoker in my life that wasn't also addicted to regular cigarettes.

Thus, possible cancer and the cardiovascular damage of pot smoking may be embedded in the general statistics of tobacco user fatalities.

Edit: I read some of the links MSimon posted after writing the above. It seems that the key study did account for tobacco users and pot-only users to some extent. Claim is THC kills off cells before cells have the chance to become malignant.

Small comfort, *if* true. I think there needs to be more studies before I believe that. However, the mechanism theorized (killing off cells before they have a chance to become cancerous...) is small comfort if true. In that case THC is a cell-death accelerator. Much like chemotherapy drugs. A useful poison. While that could prove useful in a cancer treatment, it strikes me as a bad thing to take regularly as a recreational or "health benefit." Like taking Chemo drugs for fun. No thanks.

Let's assume for discussion's sake that there is a net 0% change in lung cancer deaths from pot smokers, even tobacco smoking pot smokers. Okay but what about emphysema? It is debilitating and lethal, pretty hard to swallow that filling your lungs regularly with smoke (pot or otherwise) is doing your lung alveoli any good. Though those who ingest pot orally or use some kind of vaporizer escape the issue of emphysema; although in the later instance maybe not, you’re still filling your air sacs with a foreign substance, they were made by God to move air nothing else.

[ladajo]

The point here (which is not well advertised by the Pro-Pot crowd) is that the medical community firmly states that smoking pot is not an effective means to administer any medical benefit it may have. The medical community happily reports that THC derivatives are best administered by pills. But, this means does not get you high. The Pro-Pot crowd wants to get high, they could give a shit less about any medical benefits, it is mythology that supports and end, and the end is about getting high.

When dealing with any situation involving others, it is best approached by seeking to understand core objectives of the others, as well as the objectives prioritizations.

Pro-Pot and Pro-Drugs crowd has two camps. One camp is the suppliers. They are motivated by money. The other is the users. They are motivated by getting high (#1) and saving money/resources to get high (#2).

You can drill in further on the suppliers in regard to short term and long term $$ gain strategies, as they tend to be exclusive. Some suppliers are positioning for both, but it is not common.

None of them give a shit about the rhetoric. They simply see that as a means to the ends, and the ends justify the means.

[williatw]

The point here (which is not well advertised by the Pro-Pot crowd) is that the medical community firmly states that smoking pot is not an effective means to administer any medical benefit it may have. The medical community happily reports that THC derivatives are best administered by pills. But, this means does not get you high. The Pro-Pot crowd wants to get high, they could give a shit less about any medical benefits, it is mythology that supports and end, and the end is about getting high.

When dealing with any situation involving others, it is best approached by seeking to understand core objectives of the others, as well as the objectives prioritizations.

Pro-Pot and Pro-Drugs crowd has two camps. One camp is the suppliers. They are motivated by money. The other is the users. They are motivated by getting high (#1) and saving money/resources to get high (#2).

You can drill in further on the suppliers in regard to short term and long term $$ gain strategies, as they tend to be exclusive. Some suppliers are positioning for both, but it is not common.

None of them give a shit about the rhetoric. They simply see that as a means to the ends, and the ends justify the means.

None of which seems to be an argument for continuing the ruinously expensive war on drugs.

[ladajo]

I have said many times that we can do something better. But so far, no viable sustainable answer has really surfaced.

I tihnk there is another problem mixed into the "drug war" that oft gets lost in the discussion. That is the problem of the encroachment of state into the citizenry. It has manifested in very basic terms with a fundamental shift in policing culture from "Protect and Serve" to Defeat and Intimidate. I do not agree with this, but I see it as a separate problem with a different root than the drug war. The drug war merely provides this problem a vehicle to manifest in. It was not the catalyst.

[MSimon]

Actually marijuana growers are against legalization. It would greatly reduce their profits. From 2010:

illegal substances bring a larger profit margin than legal ones.

http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news ... ews=841715

[MSimon]

I have said many times that we can do something better. But so far, no viable sustainable answer has really surfaced.

I tihnk there is another problem mixed into the "drug war" that oft gets lost in the discussion. That is the problem of the encroachment of state into the citizenry. It has manifested in very basic terms with a fundamental shift in policing culture from "Protect and Serve" to Defeat and Intimidate. I do not agree with this, but I see it as a separate problem with a different root than the drug war. The drug war merely provides this problem a vehicle to manifest in. It was not the catalyst.

If you study the policing of our other drug war - alcohol prohibition - you will find that it WAS the catalyst for the kind of policing we see today. In fact if you study the history of our Fourth Amendment you will note that the search for contraband almost invariably leads to the kind of policing you are against. It is inherent in the nature of the beast.

With crimes (mallum per se) you have some one who complains. Some one assaulted, some one defrauded. With mallum prohibitum type crimes you either have no one who complains (grow your own) or a willing buyer and a willing seller. With no directly injured party how do you police? Difficult. Or you do what the Soviets did - watchers on every block and secret police.

We used to know the difference between vice and crime. That distinction has been lost. We are the worse for it.

[williatw]

Actually marijuana growers are against legalization. It would greatly reduce their profits. From 2010:

http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news ... ews=841715

Well of course they are. Were Al Capone and the other bootleggers in favor of repealing prohibition? If pot were legalized, licenses and regulation will quickly follow. Illegal growers with criminal records probably wouldn't be able to obtain licenses any more than someone many places can get a liquor license if they have a record. Users would probably very much prefer buying what would then be legal as well as perceived as safer (who knows what all is in illegal pot now, paraquat perhaps?) from a licensed provider. This would of course allow regulations on THC content, as I have said I am concerned about the increasing concentration. Keep jacking it up and you will eventually be in the same place as heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.

[paperburn1]

Tha

(who knows what all is in illegal pot now, paraquat perhaps?) from a licensed provider. This would of course allow regulations on THC content, as I have said I am concerned about the increasing concentration. Keep jacking it up and you will eventually be in the same place as heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.

That is my major problem with pot, in my youth before a tour in the military I was somewhat a lost boy. When the paraquat incident of the 70s happened I had seen the dealers adding things to the weed that should have not been used to increase the high. Speed, mda were commonly used with no regard to the end used health. Then they just finished out selling the bad Mexican when they could not get any more. That’s when I changed my mind about what I would put in my body for recreation. I can only assume it’s the same way now as the days of my youth. Just what I saw mind you.

[ladajo]

This is another of my past points. The body develops a tolerence as well as a need (addiction). This in turn tends to drive the user for more often more high density hits to get to wher ethey want to go. It is highly probable spiralling effect. You can see this with heavy drinkers, and IMO it is more pronounced in drug users. So, with that in mind, I think it is going to be VERY hard to regulate use, if not make it worse by presenting it as societally sanctioned. Of course this point is completely aside to the physical impacts and functional degradation issues for users. But hey, why not burden society further? It is not like we are in trouble with sustainability or anything these days due to an imbalance between contributors and takers.

[GIThruster]

The cost is off the charts. Not only have all of the last score of mass murderers been liberal pot smokers, but pot smokers routinely generate 1/3 of all violent crime, even though they compose less than 1/10 the population. The DOJ reports that there are more than 100,000,000 cannabis-related violent crimes per year. Note I didn't say cannabis related crimes. These are just the violent crimes--the kind of thing people actually go to jail for and that cannot be blamed on prohibition. Cannabis makes people nuts.

http://www.mmyvofficial.org/marijuana-and-violence/

[Teahive]

I think that website is satire. Either that, or they're nuts. Maybe from cannabis? Who knows...

[williatw]

This is another of my past points. The body develops a tolerence as well as a need (addiction). This in turn tends to drive the user for more often more high density hits to get to wher ethey want to go. It is highly probable spiralling effect. You can see this with heavy drinkers, and IMO it is more pronounced in drug users. So, with that in mind, I think it is going to be VERY hard to regulate use, if not make it worse by presenting it as societally sanctioned. Of course this point is completely aside to the physical impacts and functional degradation issues for users. But hey, why not burden society further? It is not like we are in trouble with sustainability or anything these days due to an imbalance between contributors and takers.

I would limit use by having a legal product sold only by licensed providers with much lower THC content, much cheaper than the illegal street supply (driving them out of business) without contamination by paraquat or any other noxious by-product. I would limit sell to those over 21, registered as users. I would emphasize treating drug abuse/addiction as a medical problem to be treated as such not a law enforcement matter. I would not make it "societally sanctioned" any more than heavy drinking is much nowadays. If addicts remain social pariahs, find by me, more incentive for them to seek treatment

[paperburn1]

I will limit use by having a legal product sold only by licensed providers with much lower THC content, much cheaper than the illegal street supply (driving them out of business) without contamination by paraquat or any other noxious by-product. I will limit sell to those over 21, registered as users. I will emphasize treating drug abuse/addiction as a medical problem to be treated as such not a law enforcement matter. I will not make it "societally sanctioned" any more than heavy drinking is much nowadays. If addicts remain social pariahs, find by me, more incentive for them to seek treatment

yeppers that the solution, that works so well with booze as well.