Woman gets 10 Years in Prison for Selling $30 Worth of Weed in Oklahoma

[JohnStockalypse]

It sounds like you just dismiss every question/point someone makes that doesn't jive with your world view.

To be fair, I see some of this on both sides. Let's go blaze and work this all out.

 

[franklin]

You respond to none of my points, and then insult me. Bravo.

GayVeganCrybaby. Tone it down, angry.

I am willing to listen to those who make actual counter-arguments and support them with more than anecdotal evidence, as I've shown in this thread.

Your studies were anecdotal. Science does not study literature and draw conclusions from surveys and loose correlations with a multitude of unidentified variables.

Please lay out your scientific proof that marijuana isn't a gateway drug (not that I care if it is). I know people who started out with pot, moved up the thrill ladder, and committed suicide as teenagers.

 

[GVC]

Your studies were anecdotal. Science does not study literature and draw conclusions from surveys and loose correlations with a multitude of unidentified variables.

Fair enough. Is it safe to say that I'm making a better case than Jazzspazz? Should I just resort to dismissing the academic literature in favor of personal anecdotes and knee jerk reactions?

Please lay out your scientific proof that marijuana isn't a gateway drug (not that I care if it is). I know people who started out with pot, moved up the thrill ladder, and committed suicide as teenagers.

Ugh. I may take the time, but it will likely take me several days, as I don't have internet access at my current residence (in the woods). I'm not denying that many people who move on to hard drugs do so after trying marijuana. I would guess most heroin addicts tried beer before moving on to heroin. The fact remains that an overwhelming percentage of cannabis users are not users of hard drugs (opiates, amphetamines, etc.). If cannabis use compelled people to try hard drugs, wouldn't hard drug use be more widespread?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Cheese contains opiates, rendering it extremely addictive. What should we do about cheese, especially since there are actual fatal diseases that can be attributed to overeating, whereas with cannabis there are none?

Maybe you should change cheese's, because I have never been addicted to cheese and have eaten it off and on. If cheese is addictive to you you should stop eating it.

Besides, cannabis is not physically addictive. By choosing to consume cannabis, I am exercising my liberty, not giving it up.

I don't buy that cannabis is not physically addictive. For argument sake lets assume you are right and it is not. It is still mentally and/or emotionally addictive. There is more to things than just physical addiction. Cannabis is often mixed with other drugs that are very addictive, as it is not always smoked on its own. If it was not addictive in some way, people would not want to smoke it, let alone smoke it often.

And the gateway theory? Really? Study after study comes back showing no pharmacological or statistical link between cannabis use and other drug use. Milk might as well be considered the most dangerous drug because it is often the jumping off point to use hard drugs. And, to further argue the point, one of the big problems with the current prohibition is that the market for soft (cannabis) and hard (opiates, amphetamines, etc.) drugs are mixed. That is, the dealer of cannabis is often also dealing in hard drugs, and thus the cannabis user is exposed to more options that he may not be exposed to in a legalized and regulated cannabis market.

I've addressed my hesitation to believe studies just because somebody did a study.

Beyond that, cannabis prohibition has been a boon to organized crime, just as alcohol prohibition was. Virtually all cannabis-related violence is gang/organized crime violence. Legalizing takes organized crime out of the equation, and thus would almost certainly cut down on the casualties in the worldwide War on Drugs.

Organized crime would just change what it is they are involved in, and it really would not cut down on the casualties... it would just change the name of where we associate the casualties.

Harm reduction strategies, like those being undertaken in Portugal, have been shown to lead to better outcomes, both in terms of public health and safety and financial cost. There is no rational reason for non-violent recreational drug users to be treated like violent criminals. None.

I do have much less of a problem with non-violent recreational drug users.
I'm not going to give ground though and say I think it is ok. I know nothing about harm reduction strategies as I have not looked into them yet. Thanks for the tip.

 

[GVC]

I do have much less of a problem with non-violent recreational drug users.
I'm not going to give ground though and say I think it is ok.

That's fine. I don't much care whether people think drugs are good or bad. I'm concerned with what policy best suits individuals and communities. The current policy is extremely expensive and is aimed at users, not dealers (and certainly not the cartels). Those are the people who are caught, prosecuted and imprisoned. If someone sells to minors, drives while under the influence of cannabis, or commits violent crimes under the influence of cannabis, there should be government/society imposed consequences. If I grow cannabis for my own personal use, there shouldn't be.

 

[One Brow]

The only serious part was about vouchers in Utah. The left screams about freedom this and that until it hits their pet projects. We wanted freedom of school choice, lower school costs, etc. and the left crushed it. They pulled every ridiculous tactic in the book, including demonizing Milton Friedman over his legalize mj stance. If that wasn't pure hypocrisy then I don't know what is.

If the school that accept vouchers agree to behave like public schools (every student must be accepted, the same disciplinary procedures, etc.) I could support a such a movement. However, vouchers allowing schools to select students based on various criteria amounts to government-supported segregation. That lacks a great deal of appeal.

 

[GVC]

Please lay out your scientific proof that marijuana isn't a gateway drug (not that I care if it is). I know people who started out with pot, moved up the thrill ladder, and committed suicide as teenagers.

I was going to edit my earlier post, but I'll just go ahead and make a new one.

1. It sounds like these people were sick, and didn't get the help they needed. Using terms like "thrill ladder" does a disservice to those with serious psychological disorders. The negative stigma attached to many completely normal attitudes and behaviors of young people, and the way they are often handled by families, schools and communities, lead to some terrible outcomes, like suicide. I have my doubts that prohibition, and the lies that are perpetuated by the government propaganda machine, do little to help people overcome their problems with depression and addiction.

2. Even if there were a strong gateway effect, so what? There has now been (some contend) ample time and evidence to judge whether legalization/decriminalization of cannabis leads to higher use of these substances (in Portugal, the Netherlands, and other European countries). The studies have not shown any statistically significant uptick in use post-legalization/decriminalization. So, again, even if there is a gateway effect, prohibition of cannabis likely does very little to curb the move toward hard drugs, since it does little to slow the use of the initial substance, cannabis. Further, as evidenced by some survey data, teens have an easier time getting their hands on cannabis (and other illegal substances) than they do on alcohol and tobacco. It isn't too much of a stretch to assert that if you were to legalize and regulate cannabis like tobacco, that teenage use would go down. Whether an adult decides to consume cannabis, cocaine, meth, etc. is not really any of my concern until he becomes violent, dangerous or parasitic (although the cost of walking them through the criminal justice system and imprisoning them for years is almost certainly higher than whatever societal cost their addictive lifestyle imposes on the outside).

 

[One Brow]

Forget the studies, I have seen it in someones actual life.

Thus saith homeopaths.

 

[Archie Moses]

Why are guys like GVC and NUMERICA pissed off all the time? Seriously, levity is the best. Come watch me do stand-up Friday.

 

[One Brow]

Organized crime would just change what it is they are involved in, and it really would not cut down on the casualties... it would just change the name of where we associate the casualties.

If you dry up a source of funding, you reduce teh damage they can do.

 

[GVC]

Why are guys like GVC and NUMERICA pissed off all the time?

What makes you think I'm pissed off all the time? I would guess most people who know me consider me a pretty easy going, even keeled fellow.

 

[GVC]

On second thought, I'm probably going to bow out pretty soon. Sorry Franklin, but there's wood to be cut, a lawn to be mowed, and grass to be smoked. Color me de-motivated.

 

[JohnStockalypse]

On second thought, I'm probably going to bow out pretty soon. Sorry Franklin, but there's wood to be cut, a lawn to be mowed, and grass to be smoked. Color me de-motivated.

Just keep opening that gateway dude.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Thus saith homeopaths.

Did you just randomly pull a "big" word out of the dictionary to see if it fit.
So you pull one small sentence out of all of the posts and try to make some brilliant move by connecting me with homeopathy?
I don't even have a response for you.

 

[JohnStockalypse]

I don't even have a response for you.

How about this:

 

[Jazz Spazz]

If you dry up a source of funding, you reduce teh damage they can do.

Maybe minimally, but you also have to factor in the damage, or effects that come from legalizing it.
When you legalize something, that means businesses will focus on it's production. It will be out there for cheaper, and will negate the illegal side of things, but it will also be everywhere... every drug store, corner market, liquor store, etc. Instead of being smuggled into the country bit by bit, it will be trucked in. Instead of people buying it for large amounts of their check, they will be able to buy a lot more for fairly cheap. Usage will increase dramatically. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, kids will sneak it from their parents stash, or have someone else buy it for them.
If you are a user, and this is what you want, more drug for your dollar I can see why you want this to happen.

Illegal drugs will still be out there, we will just have more of the hard drugs out there. We would be changing the field to step one being coke, or crack or something instead of pot. Pot would then be lumped in with cigarettes and alcohol.

I just don't think legalizing it is going to solve the issues people think they will.
It's also not a one to one comparison to say it worked in Portugal.
Portugal is in a different situation, under different laws, with different citizens.
There may be some similarities, but it is definitely not one to one.

 

[GVC]

Usage will increase dramatically.

Why hasn't this been the case in countries that have either legalized or decriminalized cannabis? Can you provide any support of any kind for this assertion?

 

[GVC]

And, although I realize you refuse to be persuaded no matter how overwhelming the evidence, the effects of alcohol prohibition on organized crime, alcoholism, and other social ills shouldn't be forgotten. The policy was a complete failure.

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/31267826

 

[JohnStockalypse]

Gun laws, also a failure.

 

[franklin]

1. It sounds like these people were sick, and didn't get the help they needed. Using terms like "thrill ladder" does a disservice to those with serious psychological disorders. The negative stigma attached to many completely normal attitudes and behaviors of young people, and the way they are often handled by families, schools and communities, lead to some terrible outcomes, like suicide. I have my doubts that prohibition, and the lies that are perpetuated by the government propaganda machine, do little to help people overcome their problems with depression and addiction.

I agree except that something like thrill ladder does a disservice or was used inappropriately. Some have mental issues, some form chemical issues through dependency, and some climb the thrill ladder for one reason or another. If anything, to label them all as psychological cases does a disservice to those with true impairments.

2. Even if there were a strong gateway effect, so what? There has now been (some contend) ample time and evidence to judge whether legalization/decriminalization of cannabis leads to higher use of these substances (in Portugal, the Netherlands, and other European countries). The studies have not shown any statistically significant uptick in use post-legalization/decriminalization. So, again, even if there is a gateway effect, prohibition of cannabis likely does very little to curb the move toward hard drugs, since it does little to slow the use of the initial substance, cannabis. Further, as evidenced by some survey data, teens have an easier time getting their hands on cannabis (and other illegal substances) than they do on alcohol and tobacco. It isn't too much of a stretch to assert that if you were to legalize and regulate cannabis like tobacco, that teenage use would go down. Whether an adult decides to consume cannabis, cocaine, meth, etc. is not really any of my concern until he becomes violent, dangerous or parasitic (although the cost of walking them through the criminal justice system and imprisoning them for years is almost certainly higher than whatever societal cost their addictive lifestyle imposes on the outside).

"So what?" is my position. I doesn't matter much to me if something is a temptress or not. I just want to make sure you're backing up that Spazz is half assed crazy for making the gateway position. As far as I know it's quite undecided and probably always will be. There are too many variables to form anything but a loose correlation at best. I don't put much stalk into the Portugal and Netherlands cases, although they are worth looking at. There are just too many variables and too short a time frame to consider it anything higher than an interesting correlation. Pot use went down in the 80's and 90's in the US too, I believe, and people are trying to correlate that with medical marijuana use. It's probably as simple as something like no appeal to the children of stoners.