Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[GVC]

OK, I haven't read the other studies that have been posted in this thread, but this NIH website is one of the first that popped up for me when I did some searching just now.

It's the first, so it must be the best...Prohibitionists talking about the dangers of the prohibited substance. At least it's a steady paycheck.

 

[colton]

Another gem from that site, Colton:
Hilarious.

Are you disputing the citation?

Among students surveyed in a yearly national survey, only about one in seven 10th graders report they are current marijuana users (that is, used marijuana within the past month). Fewer than one in five high school seniors is a current marijuana user (10).

(10) National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Survey Results on Drug Use from The Monitoring The Future Study, 1975-1997, Volume I/Secondary School Students. NIH Publication No. 98-4345. Printed 1998.

Or do you know of a different study?

Fact: It's been a while since I was a teen, but I grew up in Maryland and not only did I never try marijuana, but 0% of my friends ever tried it (that I know of, of course). It doesn't surprise me at all to learn that most teens are not users. Why does it surprise you so much?

 

[GVC]

I started out in this thread by saying right away that I had mixed feelings on this issue. But you are changing that.

Like log, you seem to be valuing conformity over justice.

Who gets to make that determination? For now, the oligarchs and prohibitionists with their access to the media, schools and lawmakers. It has nothing to do with someone agreeing or disagreeing with me, it has to do with rational policy that respects personal liberties. The law shouldn't punish those who aren't hurting anyone. Is that so hard to understand?

And that's the point: No one made me God. We can't rely on some invisible man in the sky to tell us what the policy should be. We can examine the facts to the best of our ability, and make policy decisions that don't strip people of their basic liberties without cause.

 

[TroutBum]

How about everyone stop following the laws that I think are stupid? Or Logan? Nate? Salty? Trout? Tell you what... let's all figure out what laws any one of us thinks is stupid, and then none of us follow them. Or else the others will call him a mindless authoritarian.

I can't tell you how much I agree with this.

Here's my law:

 

[colton]

It's the first, so it must be the best...Prohibitionists talking about the dangers of the prohibited substance. At least it's a steady paycheck.

Gotcha. You can't trust anything that NIH says about marijuana use, because they think it is harmful.

Your logic is seriously flawed here.

 

[GVC]

Are you disputing the citation?

I'm disputing the scientific value of the website. It's pure propaganda.

edit: And to your earlier question, I've already linked to a pdf (from anti-prohibitionists, so take it for what it its) citing numerous independent peer-reviewed papers. The overwhelming majority of the literature doesn't support the assertion that driving while high is as bad as driving while drunk. It's absolutely absurd.

 

[billyshelby]

I do ice cream every now and then. I'm comfortable with the risks. If they made ice cream illegal, I probably wouldn't get myself arrested eating ice cream. But I'd find it. And I'd eat it as I waited for the crazy world to figure out I'm just eating ice cream over here.

 

[GVC]

Gotcha. You can't trust anything that NIH says about marijuana use, because they think it is harmful.

Take a look at the site, and then do a quick search on any number of academic databases for articles about the topics they're pretending to know something about. Is the NIH even trying to be fair? Are they purposely misleading people? Would that be appropriate for a government agency to do? In the name of science?

 

[colton]

Like log, you seem to be valuing conformity over justice.

Who gets to make that determination? For now, the oligarchs and prohibitionists with their access to the media, schools and lawmakers. It has nothing to do with someone agreeing or disagreeing with me, it has to do with rational policy that respects personal liberties. The law shouldn't punish those who aren't hurting anyone. Is that so hard to understand?

And that's the point: No one made me God. We can't rely on some invisible man in the sky to tell us what the policy should be. We can examine the facts to the best of our ability, and make policy decisions that don't strip people of their basic liberties without cause.

And by "we" you apparently mean "GVC", because you are completely disregarding the opinion of others who have as far as I can tell tried to do just that.

If the issue were really as clear as you make it out to be, then it should be simple to get the laws changed.

 

[GVC]

If the issue were really as clear as you make it out to be, then it should be simple to get the laws changed.

1. Historical inertia.

2. HUGE resources devoted to government propaganda.

3. A relatively small number of people are affected by the law (albeit at an extremely steep price to the tax payer).

These things matter. Democracy isn't some terminal point, it's something that's worked at.

 

[GVC]

And by "we" you apparently mean "GVC", because you are completely disregarding the opinion of others who have as far as I can tell tried to do just that.

I've yet to see a single sensible argument why cannabis should be illegal. No one's even tried to make one in this thread. I'm just reacting to the "civil disobedience is always bad" mantra. Like I said, I have trouble respecting people who value conformity over justice. I'm all for a discussion about the merits of cannabis prohibition.

 

[colton]

I'm just reacting to the "civil disobedience is always bad" mantra.

Which NO ONE has said. Nice straw man there.

In fact, I specifically said it's idiotic to equate drug use with the Civil Rights movement. Clearly I do feel that there have been occasions where civil disobedience has been called for.

Like I said, I have trouble respecting people who value conformity over justice.

And I have trouble respecting people who think they are the sole arbiters of justice. So I guess we're even.

(from the previous post)

1. Historical inertia.

2. HUGE resources devoted to government propaganda.

3. A relatively small number of people are affected by the law (albeit at an extremely steep price to the tax payer).

These things matter. Democracy isn't some terminal point, it's something that's worked at.

Here's the issue: I would have no problem if you were saying "Due to the historical inertia and propaganda, no serious studies have been done to see if marijuana use is harmful on an individual and on a societal basis. Therefore we should do some, and change our laws if the studies find marijuana use to do more good than harm."

But that's not at all what you are saying. What you are saying more closely approximates, "I like smoking marijuana. Therefore everyone who says it is bad must be mistaken. I should keep doing whatever I like regardless of what opinion the medical, police, and legal communities have to say about it."

If my view is conformity, then your view is anarchy.