Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[Bronco70]

I have friends who use marijuana in a recreational manner, and have for years, without ever "graduating" to narcotics. Does anyone really believe that the key to eliminating hard drug addiction is to keep pot out of people's hands? If we were able to curb all non-medical marijuana use, would abuse of cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. cease? Would it decrease? I have a difficult time believing that.

Again, I believe that legalizing and instituting a well regulated system has myriad benefits; increased tax revenue, less marijuana related crime, less burden on our judicial system and prisons, and a greater ability to control access (including making it more difficult for minors to obtain), among many others. Or is it better to hang your hat on a small handful of people who might use, but not if it's illegal?

 

[colton]

I think after I went to bed last night GVC asked me in the thread to spell out when civil disobedience is justified (sorry for not locating his post to quote it).

Coincidentally, just a few days ago I re-read the LDS statement on governments, written by Oliver Cowdery in 1835 and included in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants as section 134. https://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134?lang=eng.

My opinion fairly closely matches what is said in that statement. I'll quote some things:

2. We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

5. We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6. We believe... that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror...

7. We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief...

11. We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property...

Executive summary: a just government has certain responsibilities towards its citizens. A partial list of these responsibilities is found in the the quoted verses: to secure free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life; to protect the citizens' inalienable rights (in Thomas Jefferson's words, these include life, liberty, pursuit of happiness); to protect the citizens' free exercise of religion; and to allow for redress of wrongs. If the government fulfills those obligations then the citizens' obligation is to respect the laws enacted by the government... even if one does not personally agree with those laws.(*) If not, anarchy reigns.

For me it is clear that the government (the southern states' governments in particular) was not fulfilling its obligations towards blacks prior to the civil rights movement, and consequently civil disobedience was absolutely warranted. I hold the individuals that did so in the utmost respect.

However, I think it's a big stretch to say that if a government doesn't allow an individual to use marijuana, the government has failed so much in its basic obligations that civil disobedience is the answer. Therefore if one really believes that the marijuana laws are bad, one should work to change the laws while still obeying them.


(*) I will readily admit that although this is my belief in theory, my beliefs in practice don't always follow suit. So I'm not 100% consistent; such is life. (As someone else brought up in the thread, speeding on the highway is an easy example of this.)

 

[Nate505]

I know there isn't 'data' or 'proof' that its a gateway but think about it...

As a teenager what do you start with?
Cigs, Alcohol, Weed

Not in any order but that is the majority of what Teenagers/Highschoolers use right..

Well after using all that you graduate to harder drugs or at least try them.

So if the point is that most people do a more socially acceptable, more available, and more mild psychoactive drug before a less socially acceptable, less available, and stronger psychoactive drug then yes I'd agree. But to me that isn't much of a point, more like common sense.

For example, the first time I went to an amusement park I didn't go right to the Tower of Doom (the ride that lifts you up about 100-200 feet and then drops you straight down) and ride that first. I think I went to a merry go round, then a Ferris Wheel, then a roller coaster. By that time I decided that the Tower of Doom was too extreme for me so I didn't ride it (I'm not a fan of the full on free fall effect...I also tend to like old wooden roller coasters over the newer metal coasters that are bigger and faster). But regardless, the progression of rides when from mild to more thrilling, because most people tend to not like experience anything full on.

So for anyone who is willing to user heroin or coke (which is not me), I imagine the process that went through their lives is that they came across pot first, as pot being the most widely used illegal drug means it's the most available. They probably knew the general effects of pot, that it's not extremely addicting or extremely powerful for most people, and also a lot more socially acceptable than taking heroin, and tried it. And I also imagine if they guy had some heroin they would rightfully be frightened to try it, so they would try the more mild drug first.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

So if the point is that most people do a more socially acceptable, more available, and more mild psychoactive drug before a less socially acceptable, less available, and stronger psychoactive drug then yes I'd agree. But to me that isn't much of a point, more like common sense.

For example, the first time I went to an amusement park I didn't go right to the Tower of Doom (the ride that lifts you up about 100-200 feet and then drops you straight down) and ride that first. I think I went to a merry go round, then a Ferris Wheel, then a roller coaster. By that time I decided that the Tower of Doom was too extreme for me so I didn't ride it (I'm not a fan of the full on free fall effect...I also tend to like old wooden roller coasters over the newer metal coasters that are bigger and faster). But regardless, the progression of rides when from mild to more thrilling, because most people tend to not like experience anything full on.

So for anyone who is willing to user heroin or coke (which is not me), I imagine the process that went through their lives is that they came across pot first, as pot being the most widely used illegal drug means it's the most available. They probably knew the general effects of pot, that it's not extremely addicting or extremely powerful for most people, and also a lot more socially acceptable than taking heroin, and tried it. And I also imagine if they guy had some heroin they would rightfully be frightened to try it, so they would try the more mild drug first.

Not really getting the analogy. The reason some one smokes pot is completely different than the reason someone shoots heroin. I find most people smoke pot just to relax and chill. People who do heroin are taking it (I assume) usually because they are depressed (extremely), then find themselves even more depressed after they have done it (dependency).

Also, F wooden roller coasters. The last one I rode killed my balls.

 

[CONAN]

I think an argument could be made for pot being a gateway drug, but I'd say it's more the "gateway environment" surrounding pot that leads to worse things.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I think an argument could be made for pot being a gateway drug, but I'd say it's more the "gateway environment" surrounding pot that leads to worse things.

I'm going to tailor that thought and say the gateway environment is close to 100% the problem with hard drugs and that the original and reigning gateway drug is alcohol.

In other words, your chances of doing hard-drugs skyrockets when around others that do them. I've done my share of partying and the issue has never come up of whether to do something or not because most people aren't juggalos.

 

[GVC]

However, I think it's a big stretch to say that if a government doesn't allow an individual to use marijuana, the government has failed so much in its basic obligations that civil disobedience is the answer.

You listed "the pursuit of happiness" as an inalienable right of citizens. I'd say someone's choice of recreation falls well within that category. If said persecution/prosecution is founded on mis- and dis-information, and results in individuals being deprived of even more of their inalienable rights, while acting as a subsidy and catalyst for organized crime, I'd say it's pretty ****ing repressive.

And anarchy prevails with the current policy regime. The same can not be said for countries that have moved to decriminalize (Portugal, the Netherlands, Switzerland), where harm reduction strategies have been far more effective than prohibition, while also being less expensive and repressive.

edit: The "even more inalienable rights" would be liberty and life in this case, due to incarceration and death by cartel violence respectively. I hope you take the time to wade through the bad editing and bias, and watch The Union with an open mind.

 

[Gameface]

Something else to say about drug prohibition and enforcement/prosecution. I have never been removed from my car during a simple traffic stop. On the other hand, in "high crime" neighborhoods people are routinely asked to leave their vehicle, asked if the vehicle can be searched, patted down, much more scrutinized in general. With marijuana use being fairly widespread, the people who undergo this heightened level of law enforcement also experience a higher level of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for simple possession. I'm not assuming intent, but the reality is that our war on drugs is being fought primarily against poor black people. That doesn't do anything for crime, justice, social well-being at all. What it does do is disenfranchise even further people already on the outside looking in. It draws a line in the sand between law enforcement and the community they "protect." It has so many horrible side effects it pains me greatly. All in the name of protecting people from themselves.

Using marijuana is harmful, therefore if you do it we'll lock you up in prison...so that you stop harming yourself. The punishment simply doesn't fit the crime. In the end we're all punished in this civil war we call the war on drugs.

 

[Nate505]

Not really getting the analogy. The reason some one smokes pot is completely different than the reason someone shoots heroin. I find most people smoke pot just to relax and chill. People who do heroin are taking it (I assume) usually because they are depressed (extremely), then find themselves even more depressed after they have done it (dependency).

Also, F wooden roller coasters. The last one I rode killed my balls.

The analogy is that in general people don't do the most extreme thing they can do without trying something else in the same category first, partially for safety purposes but also because experiencing any reaction to the extreme at first is uncomfortable to most people. It's why I'd try a little bit of a food I'm not sure about instead of scarfing a ton of it down.

Nobody really wakes up and says "I'm going to go skydiving tomorrow" if they haven't done related extreme crap like that (like bungee jumping). Nobody says "I'm going to climb Mt. Everest" without climbing a regular 14teener beforehand. And anyone who is going to do any sort of drug in the first place is going to start with the more mildly psychoactive one before taking one that is ridiculously psychoactive. Heck, it tends to work the same way with booze just in its own category of being a drug. Most people who first drink start of with beer or wine coolers. They don't just start taking shots of Everclear.

And wooden coasters are great. They give you a nice sense of lift when they are made well.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

The analogy is that in general people don't do the most extreme thing they can do without trying something else in the same category first.

Nobody really wakes up and says "I'm going to go skydiving tomorrow" if they haven't done related extreme crap like that (like bungee jumping). Nobody says "I'm going to climb Mt. Everest" without climbing a regular 14teener beforehand. And anyone who is going to do any sort of drug in the first place is going to start with the more mildly psychoactive one before taking one that is ridiculously psychoactive. Heck, it tends to work the same way with booze just in its own category of being a drug. Most people who first drink start of with beer or wine coolers. They don't just start taking shots of Everclear.

Everything you named has the same effects though. Beer has the same effect as Everclear (for the most part). Climbing mountains is climbing mountains is climbing mountains. Weed and heroin are two completely different things, even they both may be labeled "drugs".

And for the record. I have sky dived and never bungee jumped. Personally terrified of the idea of being tied at the feet and jumping off of something.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

Friends are a gateway into alcohol, which we all realize is a gateway into weed, which is a gateway into crack cocaine. I suggest that what we need to do is monitor these children's relationships early. If they start forming friends with a "bad apple" then we'll cut the ties, nip it in the bud. Being in college is also a gateway into all the above, which leads me to believe that something needs to be done to our collegiate system. I would restrict all social habits from forming in public universities where there is no happy smiling.

- Craig

 

[freakazoid]

Jason Christ's name ring a bell ? (Not the REAL Coach but from Montana?)

This guy has called me no less than 6 times in the past 3 years looking for Physicians to help him with his business. At first he said what it was for but just last week he called and said he has a telemedicine business now. When I let him know our company won't provide services for Physicians that deal with Maryjane he said its a medicine, ect.

The guy is shady and gives Medical Maryjane a bad name. If you are interested just google his name and see what comes up....

LOL, Yeah, I know who he is. Dude has gotten filthy rich off of MM. If I remember right, he had a big part in getting medical marijuana legalized in Montana in the first place, though. No doubt he abused the hell out of the system, but to be honest, I probably have a different view on things, since I believe in legalizing it outright anyway. I used to drive through Helena fairly regularly, and there was a huge greenhouse right on the side of the highway that was completely full of pot plants. I honestly thought whoever owned it wasn't too bright if they couldn't figure out that they'd be the first ones hit when the feds decided to start cracking down. All they would have had to do was cover up the windows so you couldn't see it, but it was obvious that they were rubbing it in the faces of law inforcement and those against it. Sure enough, they were one of the first ones raided. I'm pretty sure that was one of his grow houses.