Infrastructure Reforms

[ladajo]

And a NIH posted study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055315/

[ladajo]

And this DEA websites (obvious bias alert), is also a good place to locate source materials.

http://www.justthinktwice.com/content/f ... ction.html

Here is the EU take on Ireland and drug use:

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publication ... erviews/ie

[Blankbeard]

Ladajo:

Thank you for posting your evidence! I appreciate it. I'm going to go through what you've posted and see what it says and how much of it is backed with actual science. Even if we end up disagreeing I appreciate the effort you've put into supporting your beliefs.

Let me restate my positions so we have a baseline for where I'm coming from.

1) US drug policy is immoral because it is both completely ineffective and costly in terms of money, human life, and loss of civil rights. This policy should be changed.
2) There is sufficient evidence to indicate that chronic use of marijuana increases the risk of schizophrenia in teens who have a genetic predisposition to developing the disorder. There is not sufficient evidence to assume the same is true of teens who do not have such a predisposition.
3) There is sufficient evidence to recommend marijuana as a treatment in nausea. It appears to be more effective and no less safe than other treatments.
4) There is at least some evidence to indicate marijuana may be useful in treating chronic pain, refractory schizophrenia, and other illnesses. More study is needed to find out if it is a safe and effective treatment.
5) Marijuana is thus not without medical use and is incorrectly classified as Schedule I and should be reclassified as Schedule II, drugs with medical use and significant abuse potential. States that wish to experiment with full blown legalization should do so, weighing the costs and benefits in order to make decisions. The federal government should not prevent this process.

Anything else I am not currently taking a position on unless it's brought up.


I will say that the news articles all seem to point to the same study which you didn't link to. That's bad form. Journalists are seldom able to accurately report scientific findings and are seldom equipped to understand studies. You really should grab the study and have a go at reading it. The abstract is a good start but pay attention to not just conclusions but also any limitations the authors identified.

Also, not looking forward to digging for science in those drug policy websites but I'll have a go.

I am not sure how long this will take to go through. I suspect not that long as there seems to be multiple paths to the same evidence. I may write one or several posts responding.

Thanks!

[Diogenes]

Now think about drug policy. Despite spending billions each year, drugs are cheaper, more potent, and more available today then they were before the drug war started. We have the largest number of people in prison and this has failed to change drug use rates at all.

I have a couple of physics questions for you. If you have a free body above a gravitational well, and the free body is not in orbit, what must you do to keep the free body stationary in elevation?


What must you do to gain altitude?

[Diogenes]

Now think about drug policy. Despite spending billions each year, drugs are cheaper, more potent, and more available today then they were before the drug war started. We have the largest number of people in prison and this has failed to change drug use rates at all.

Now let's ask some similar questions about communicable disease.


If you have an infection spreading through a biological population, what will happen if you do nothing?





What must you do to hold the infection at some specific level?


What must you do to cure it?

[GIThruster]

I would really appreciate it if you'd post your evidence. You haven't shown the ability to formulate an interesting insult.

As I said, I've posted many dozens of sources of evidence. The onus is on you to address what's been done before, not on everyone else to repeat themselves because you just joined the party.

Your mother dresses you funny.

[williatw]

Now think about drug policy. Despite spending billions each year, drugs are cheaper, more potent, and more available today then they were before the drug war started. We have the largest number of people in prison and this has failed to change drug use rates at all.

Now let's ask some similar questions about communicable disease.


If you have an infection spreading through a biological population, what will happen if you do nothing?





What must you do to hold the infection at some specific level?


What must you do to cure it?

Well now if drug usage/addiction is analogous to a disease epidemic...seems to me it should be treated like a medical condition (like they do in Europe). Treatment, preventative education, controlled regulated... instead of jack-booted thug administered beatings, raped in prison brutalized by the system. Present policys seem more like the way they treated the mad in the Middle Ages.

[GIThruster]

Well now if drug usage/addiction is analogous to a disease epidemic...seems to me it should be treated like a medical condition (like they do in Europe). Treatment, preventative education, controlled regulated... instead of jack-booted thug administered beatings, raped in prison brutalized by the system. Present policys seem more like the way they treated the mad in the Middle Ages.

Even though I am completely against drug use and legalization, I am in favor of treatment programs and suspending sentences until someone proves through repeat offenses they have to be incarcerated. Unfortunately, this is already the case in most states and we have the sheer numbers of people in prison we do because they are repeat offenders who prey upon others.

My pizza delivery guy was held up at gunpoint a few weeks ago. Someone called for a delivery off in one of the more remote parts of town and when he arrived someone stuck a gun in his face and took $300. (Oddly enough he left the pizza.) Who doubts this crime was motivated by a need to get high? Everyone who hears the story says the same things, "drugs. . ." So lets stop pretending users are decent people and not preying upon the masses. They're parasites, like Simon; who justify their pathetic existences based upon whatever complaints about life they can find. Yeah, give a guy a suspended sentence and treatment the first time he's caught and maybe even the second. By the third time he's lucky we don't cut his balls off and feed them to him.

[Diogenes]

Well now if drug usage/addiction is analogous to a disease epidemic...seems to me it should be treated like a medical condition (like they do in Europe). Treatment, preventative education, controlled regulated... instead of jack-booted thug administered beatings, raped in prison brutalized by the system. Present policys seem more like the way they treated the mad in the Middle Ages.

You are leaping completely over the point. The point is regarding how a growth exponential is the normal progression.





The person to whom my questions were directed postulates that nothing is accomplished by holding a growth exponential to a slope of zero. I am attempting to point out by the use of well understood scientific examples that energy or effort is required to hold back an exponential effect.

Such efforts cannot be classified as having no effect. Their effect is to prevent acceleration.

[GIThruster]

But you're taking Blankbeard seriously. There is all sorts of evidence posted up that any use of cannabis at all, increases the likelihood of psychotic episode by 5,000%, yet he's posting that it is benign and only injures those who have a genetic predisposition to psychosis. First of all, he doesn't and can't know whether there is a genetic predisposition because the studies do not track that. What the studies do track are raw numbers.

Anyone/everyone is 50X more likely to have a psychotic episode if they use cannabis even once.

This explains the behavior in the White House.

And just saying again, it simply does not matter if you explain these numbers with genetic predisposition. The fact is, without the cannabis, 49 out of 50 cases of psychosis don't appear. Arguing over "cause" is therefor a useless distraction.

[williatw]

My pizza delivery guy was held up at gunpoint a few weeks ago. Someone called for a delivery off in one of the more remote parts of town and when he arrived someone stuck a gun in his face and took $300. (Oddly enough he left the pizza.) Who doubts this crime was motivated by a need to get high? Everyone who hears the story says the same things, "drugs. . ." So lets stop pretending users are decent people and not preying upon the masses. They're parasites, like Simon; who justify their pathetic existences based upon whatever complaints about life they can find. Yeah, give a guy a suspended sentence and treatment the first time he's caught and maybe even the second. By the third time he's lucky we don't cut his balls off and feed them to him.

I would legalize and regulate like hard liquor even more so for hard drugs...treat drug abuse as the disease it is with treatment education. As far as your pizza delivery guy robber, I would jail his sorry ass for the 1st robbery, armed robbery is armed robbery, don't care why he did it. Alcohol/nicotine are legal (& ferociously addictive) we don't sympathize with someone robbing someone else to get a drink/smoke money to satisfy his alcoholism.

The proper way to treat would be robbers:

Homeowner Shoots Intruder in Grand Prairie: Police

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Homeow ... 51731.html

[ladajo]

1) US drug policy is immoral because it is both completely ineffective and costly in terms of money, human life, and loss of civil rights. This policy should be changed.

You should avoid trying to tie morality to effectiness. They are two different animals. If you are arguing that the current system is not functioning well, I think you will be hard pressed to find someone here who agrees. A solution to this is the real argument. It becomes make it better, or worse. Some of us think that it can only get worse, some of us think it can be made better.

2) There is sufficient evidence to indicate that chronic use of marijuana increases the risk of schizophrenia in teens who have a genetic predisposition to developing the disorder. There is not sufficient evidence to assume the same is true of teens who do not have such a predisposition.

There are several studies from the last few years that argue predisposition is not required. These studies are based on physical long term evidence. Two I can think of that I saw were ten year or more databases.

3) There is sufficient evidence to recommend marijuana as a treatment in nausea. It appears to be more effective and no less safe than other treatments.

Is it the THC or pot? And I am not so sure that the attendant risks are worth the cure for the larger aggregate. "We have cured the patient, he no longer suffers from cancer. The funeral is in two days."

4) There is at least some evidence to indicate marijuana may be useful in treating chronic pain, refractory schizophrenia, and other illnesses. More study is needed to find out if it is a safe and effective treatment.

See above.

5) Marijuana is thus not without medical use and is incorrectly classified as Schedule I and should be reclassified as Schedule II, drugs with medical use and significant abuse potential. States that wish to experiment with full blown legalization should do so, weighing the costs and benefits in order to make decisions. The federal government should not prevent this process.

Legalization is not Decriminalization. This is one of the prime deceptions by the "pro" lobby in the U.S.

It is easy enough to pull source references from the links I gave you. Where there is an interesting point and citation, just see what it is. Not hard, nor time consuming. In news articles, a simple google search, or if you have access to an academic search engine, finding the source material is a snap.

Have fun.

[Blankbeard]

I'm going to have to rearrange your links to group them according to which study from the the primary literature they reference. I am assuming you are aware of the different types of literature and why primary literature is the best. That's what I'm drilling down to.

http://www.herald.ie/lifestyle/health-b ... 61898.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12616543

http://drthurstone.com/new-research-und ... psychosis/

These all reference the same study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21363868

The Dr Thurstone link also discusses previous studies so I dug up a review article that discusses this line of research up to 2009.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748375

Review articles can save a lot of time by letting us know what the state of knowledge is at the time of publication. What you'll see is that the state wasn't in any way concrete. Let's look at the german study. I'd like to direct you to this comment so you know I"m just making stuff up:

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d195 ... d=21502264

The measure they used isn't meant to be used in the way they used it. Further, they aren't clear on what criteria they used to convert the subject's yes/no responses into "subclinical psychotic symptoms."

So the news articles are wrong. The study didn't find that smoking marijuana doubled the incidence of psychosis. At best, you could say that it suggests an association between cannabis use and "sub-clinical psychotic symptoms" however that term is defined. Overall, it's a weak study. Let me point to a couple newer studies on the same issue:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21466750

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21676285

Notice the tentative language used. This is still an area that needs more study. We can't say for certain if or how or when cannabis use affects a growing brain yet. Eventually, someone's going to have to do a really well designed control study (or god forbid an RCT that's double blinded) to get good data on this subject. Regardless of the outcome, this does not support our current drug policy. We have many medications that are currently known to do precisely what the claim here is. Anti-psychotics, ADHD medications, sedatives, and opiates are all known to trigger or worsen psychotic episodes. All are legally used, many in children, all in adults. No drug comes without risks. Benefits should be weighed against risks by doctors and patients not by acts of Congress.

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv ... _psychosis

http://www.justice.gov/dea/docs/marijua ... n_2011.pdf

http://www.justthinktwice.com/content/f ... ction.html

The Australian link has a couple interestingly titled resources that are 404'd. I didn't dig for them because these are tertiary references.

The problem I have with all of these documents is that they are policy documents, not actual evidence that the policy is correct. Position statements from the AMA or APA are guidelines but this is a contentious area. There is clear evidence that in at least some cases we have a useful drug. It may end up being too problematic to use. More research is needed to determine that. But these policy documents don't even acknowledge that human knowledge evolves or that any evidence exists that doesn't support them.

and a dated countered argument...

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lib ... nc1g_7.htm

I'm not sure why you included this link. It's of very limited value when there is a half century of research following it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055315/

Ok, this is primary research. Good Unfortunately, it doesn't really support you.

COMT mutants have abnormalities in the regulation of certain neurotransmitters in the brain. This makes them more likely to develop analogs of psychiatric disorders. They're more like the teens with genetic predispositions than normal individuals. So this finding is consistent with what I've posted.

I will say that I think it's a poor idea for anyone who is still developing physically to take a drug at all, legal or illegal, unless the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. And people with viral infections should not be prescribed antibiotics.

Again, thank you for posting your sources. I don't think they are high quality but hopefully you can see why I disagree with you.

[Blankbeard]

I'm going to skip your physics questions because they are both irrelevant (epidemiology is no where near as straight forward as physics) and have many answers (Hire a twelve year old to hold it. Use a vacuum above it. Define the object as the origin of the coordinate system and declare all movement relative to it) of varying levels of offense to physicists.

Now let's ask some similar questions about communicable disease.

If you have an infection spreading through a biological population[/url], what will happen if you do nothing?

It depends on the disease. The common cold burns itself out every year. HPV remains relatively constant. It depends on how the disease is transmitted, how long it takes to effect a host, the level of susceptibility in the population, the severity of the effect, the chance of successful transmission, whether or not hosts can be reinfected, and a host of other factors. People spend their entire careers studying epidemiology. There's no single answer that covers all or even most situations.

Epidemiology does not work that way.

What must you do to hold the infection at some specific level?

Disease specific. And the way to figure out what to do is with experiment, not acts of Congress. Congressmen are not experts at anything other than getting elected.

What must you do to cure it?

Disease specific. Some currently have no cure. Some you wait out. Others you medicate. Very few diseases are treated with flashbang grenades though. Take two of these while I execute a no-knock raid and shoot your daughter is also not usually medical advice.

There is no evidence that current drug policy is suppressing the number of drug users. User levels are remarkably stable over time. There is no evidence that the majority (let alone all) of people who currently do not take any given drug would do so if there were no criminal penalties.

Countries where possession is either legal, decriminalized, or where laws are unenforced do not see usage rates approaching 100%. They have lower levels than the United States.

[GIThruster]

There is no evidence that current drug policy is suppressing the number of drug users.

That's nonsense. 9 times as many people use alcohol as smoke dope. Most people don't have the lack of inhibition it takes to violate the law and use drugs that are illegal. Only a small percentage of the populous will ever try an illegal drug. If you make cannabis legal, about 9X as many people are going to try it, and cannabis induced psychosis will accelerate a full order magnitude. It's very simple math you're certainly able to comprehend, but you're unwilling to comprehend.