Roll one for your health.

August 12, 2006 12:18 PM

American Journal of Cardiologyreports that extensive use of marijuana doesn't hurt your cardiovascular system. Remember it also doesn't increase your risk of lung cancer. Previous MeFi
posted by i_am_a_Jedi (69 comments total)

I couldn't find any lay press reports about this. Must be the liberal media conspiracy. The link is to the PubMed entry for the article.

Somebody remind me why it's illegal.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 12:20 PM on August 12, 2006

Here's one person's take on why it's illegal. The short answer: because people tend to fear what they don't understand.
posted by BeerFilter at 12:28 PM on August 12, 2006

In conclusion, although marijuana use was not independently associated with cardiovascular risk factors, it was associated with other unhealthy behaviors, such as high caloric diet, tobacco smoking, and other illicit drug use, which all have long-term detrimental effects on health.
posted by Roger Dodger at 12:28 PM on August 12, 2006

Somebody remind me why it's illegal.

We must protect the nation's strategic Doritos reserves.
posted by pracowity at 12:31 PM on August 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

The reason marijuana is illegal was because the white power structure in the 1930s resented people who smoked it: Mexicans. There was also a huge push by Hearst to get it banned in order to protect his wood-based paper investments.

In the 1960s resentment towards Mexicans was replaced by resentment for the Marijuana and LSD fueled counterculture which lead to the much more stringent enforcement under Nixon.

That's my take anyway. Certainly has no medical or scientific basis.
posted by delmoi at 12:39 PM on August 12, 2006

Seriously, drug sales help terrorism.

For real.

(Naw, I'm just fucking with you.)
posted by John of Michigan at 12:39 PM on August 12, 2006

Like, awesome, man. *pffffffft*
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:43 PM on August 12, 2006

it does, however, turn you into a smelly, stupid, paranoid douchebag.
posted by keswick at 12:47 PM on August 12, 2006

This article doesn't say that marijuana has no health risks. Long term chronic use tends to cause emphysema. (And yes, I think marijuana should be legal.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:47 PM on August 12, 2006

Because it stinks. Seriously. pee-eww!
posted by blue_beetle at 12:58 PM on August 12, 2006

The healthiest thing to do: smoke pure weed (not hashish, cause it's often mixed with bad things) without tobacco.
posted by darkripper at 12:59 PM on August 12, 2006

SDB, I assume that's true only for smoked marijuana. I think legalization would spur development of cheap, portable inhaling devices and allow their controlled promotion and sale. Many of these risks are method-dependent, and illegality tends to promote the easy, quick and cheap usage paradigms.
posted by daksya at 1:00 PM on August 12, 2006

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
posted by stenseng at 1:27 PM on August 12, 2006

"Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days -- Hashish goads users to bloodlust."

"By the tons it is coming into this country -- the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms.... Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him...."
posted by stenseng at 1:27 PM on August 12, 2006

"Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug."

"Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES -- that is a matter of cold record."
posted by stenseng at 1:28 PM on August 12, 2006

Perhap the association with other illicit drug use is a clue.

It's also worth a reminder, given the post title, that according to the abstract, the study may clear marijuana use by itself from responsibility only for increased triglyceride levels and systolic blood pressures. It did not suggest that marijuana use is a healthy behavior, a state that use of the drug results in lower mortality, morbidity, or disability rates. It's also worth noting that the intial study population of those who'd admitted ever using marijuana was only 1,365. The abstract doesn't indicate what the criteria for "more extensive [than ever tried marijuana] marijuana use" was, or how many people remained after this cut.

Interestingly, another 2006 study based on level of marijuana use found low, controlled use associated with mild euphoria and heightened awareness; moderate use associated with mixed depressive symptoms and suicidal behaviour; heavy, short term use associated with manic symptoms; long term incremental use associated with psychotic symptoms; and cannabis mixed with other substances resulting in florid psychosis. The study was in a developing country which may (or may not) have influenced the incidence and severity of the disorders.

An interesting study would be to see if there's a relationship between extensive marijuana use and participation in social welfare programs. Or between extensive marijuana use and high school graduation. Generally, whether potheads end up as societal leeches. Of course, I'm not saying they do, just that it'd be interesting research.
posted by CodeBaloo at 1:33 PM on August 12, 2006

And remember that when you pirate Mp3 you're downloading COMMUNISM.
posted by darkripper at 1:41 PM on August 12, 2006

i_am_a_Jedi: You've characterized the study wrong. It says, "marijuana use was not independently associated with cardiovascular risk factors..." This means it hasn't been PROVEN to cause cardiovascular problems; it doesn't mean that it DOESN'T cause cardiovascular problems.

The question remains, then: Does it cause cardiovascular problems? Well, it's going to be hard to prove that it does, given all of the other bad things that marijuana usage tends to be associated with. How can we isolate whether marijuana causes cardiovascular problems, if almost all of the marijuana users also engage in at least some of the following behaviors that cause cardiovascular problems: e.g., "high caloric diet, tobacco smoking, and other illicit drug use"?

A better study would find thousands of people who have used marijuana extensively but who claim (we'll take their word for it) to have never engaged in any of those other activities.
posted by Eiwalker at 1:46 PM on August 12, 2006

Societal leeches? Almost every damn schoolteacher and librarian (my own age, anyway) I know is totally chronic. Put that anecdotal observation in your hash pipe and smoke it! YOUR CHILDREN SEE THESE PSYCHOTIC DOPE FIENDS EVERY DAY!!!!!11!!!1
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:47 PM on August 12, 2006

There was a comedian who once observed something along the lines of:

"You know, a crazy drunken dude can take a gun up to a church tower and cut loose; he may not hit much, but he'll try.

"Even if you managed to convince a pothead to take a gun up a church tower, by the time he got to the top, he'd forget why he was there. He'd look at the gun and just... giggle."

The Gateway Drug theory is exactly backwards. Teenagers tend to assume that adults are lying to them. (they do this because we DO lie to them, and to ourselves, a lot, and they're pretty good at spotting bullshit.) So they hear about the Evils of Marijuana, and then when they try it, they realize, "Hey, there's nothing wrong with this! Adults are (idiots/lying to us again about something fun.)" And they then assume we must also be lying to them about the genuinely dangerous drugs, like crack and PCP. We paint pot as being deeply perilous, so why on earth would they believe us about meth or cocaine?

Banning this nearly harmless drug makes illicit use of TRULY dangerous drugs a very great deal more likely.
posted by Malor at 1:55 PM on August 12, 2006

Eiwalker - it doesn't mean that it DOESN'T cause cardiovascular problems.

A common canard is that science rarely "proves" anything. It looks for patterns. In order to 'prove' that marijuana does or does not cause X, you control all variables except the one under scrutiny, in this case, pot use and its extent.

CodeBaloo - It's also worth noting that the intial study population of those who'd admitted ever using marijuana was only 1,365.

That's good enough to rule out effect sizes above a certain threshold, e.g. if 10% of marijuana smokers will have heart attacks, then you expect that to show up in such a large sample. If pot increases heart attack risk by, say, 7%, then that may not be settled by this sample size.

Generally, whether potheads end up as societal leeches.

The annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health does inquire about employment status.

For marijuana:

Full-time employment among

Lifetime adult users: 67.4%
Past year adult users: 58.8%
Past month adult users: 58.3%
Former adult users: 70.1%
Adult non-users of this drug: 61.1%

Of course, potheads are a subset. Supply the definition and the info can be dug up.

More details on pot and other drugs here.
posted by daksya at 2:07 PM on August 12, 2006

When marijuana is shown to be more harmful than alcohol, I might start agreeing with laws against the sale and use of marijuana.

And they then assume we must also be lying to them about the genuinely dangerous drugs, like crack and PCP.

I don't think that's how it goes.

Making any popular drug illegal makes it more likely that users of that drug will use other illegal drugs -- if you have the inclination and connections to use one illegal substance, you're going to be more likely to have the inclination and connections to use others. The more illegal you make a drug (the larger the fine, the longer the jail sentence, etc.), the scarier the dealers will be.

If alcohol were made illegal, a lot of mild-mannered folk would start to make make connections (directly, through friends, through friends of friends, and so on) with people who sell alcohol illegally, and those dealers in illegal alcohol would be more likely than the average person to sell other illegal substances and would have financial incentive to get alcohol buyers to also buy the other drugs they sell. A connection for getting illegal beer would be a connection for getting other illegal drugs.

Making pot legal would group it with the alcohol trade (licensing boards, inspectors, public corporations, corner bars, corner stores, family celebrations, religious rituals, mainstream society) and disconnect it from the nasty folk selling drugs you don't want your kids doing.
posted by pracowity at 2:37 PM on August 12, 2006

marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes

Sounds like a good enough reason for legalization, if you ask me. Peace and brotherly love is only a toke away, people.
posted by Meatbomb at 2:47 PM on August 12, 2006

pracowity, I assure you with intensity, that this was exactly the thought process we had as kids... that adults were lying to us. Once we had experience that obviously disproved what they were saying about pot, it was much easier to disregard them about other things.

I can't speak for all kids everywhere, but for a particular set of white middle class kids in a small town in California, the 'pot is eeeeevil' message did a lot more harm than good.
posted by Malor at 2:55 PM on August 12, 2006

In other news, jumping off buildings doesn't kill you, but the impact might.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:08 PM on August 12, 2006

i_am_a_Jedi writes "Somebody remind me why it's illegal."

You're memory's starting to go, eh? Maybe you should take it easy with the weed.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:17 PM on August 12, 2006

daksya: I'm confused.

Isolating "pot use and its extent" by controlling all the other variables? My whole point was that this study didn't do that. Hence we can't draw conclusions about marujuana from it. Hence we can't draw i_am_a_Jedi's conclusion that "extensive use of marijuana doesn't hurt your cardiovascular system."

Or is your objection that I used the word "cause" instead of making clear that scientists are looking for patterns and most scientists don't use the word "cause" in David Hume's way to mean there is a pattern (regularity) or else they are too modest to speculate about whether the patterns exist because of underlying causes?
posted by Eiwalker at 3:17 PM on August 12, 2006

If alcohol were made illegal, a lot of mild-mannered folk would start to make make connections (directly, through friends, through friends of friends, and so on) with people who sell alcohol illegally...

Making pot legal would ... disconnect it from the nasty folk selling drugs you don't want your kids doing.

I don't know about other parts of the US but at least in the Great Pacific Northwest this is exactly a model of the way people tend to buy marijuana. That being said, most "pot dealers" - especially in the upper-lower- to middle-class socio-economic bracket - act more as liasons or middlemen between buyers and actual sellers/producers than dealers shelling out vast amounts of increasingly exotic and dangerous substances. Big difference between that and the sketchy dude on the street corner at 3am selling meth, pcp, etc.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 3:32 PM on August 12, 2006

I'm honestly surprised we have never seen a strong candidate come out with a legalization agenda. I mean, I know it's great political capital to come out hard against drugs, but really, most adults know the reality about the alleged dangers of marijuana. Let's face it, it's illegal because no one has the guts to risk their political career by saying it shouldn't be illegal. There are plenty of studies which refute nearly every argument that is typically brought up when discussing why marijuana should be kept illegal; that it makes you violent, that it's a gateway drug, that it causes significant health risks... all of these have been proven wrong (and many of these studies have been posted here in the Blue).

All we need is one gutsy politico to take a stand. Hell, if they were bright, they could get Big Tobacco to do the lobbying and sell the legalization on the premise of how much money the government could make on taxation.
posted by quin at 3:45 PM on August 12, 2006

daksya -- the point of the initial study being 1,365 was that it was the number of participants that admitted ever using marijuana. Therefore the number of participants who admit to "more extensive marijuana use" must be some smaller number. That important number and the working definition of "more extensive marijuana use" aren't mentioned in the abstract. If "more extensive marijuana use" means, say, 5-10 uses a week, and if only 15 of the initial 1,365 made that cut, the conclusions are nearly worthless.
posted by CodeBaloo at 4:28 PM on August 12, 2006

An interesting study would be to see if there's a relationship between extensive marijuana use and participation in social welfare programs. Or between extensive marijuana use and high school graduation. Generally, whether potheads end up as societal leeches. Of course, I'm not saying they do, just that it'd be interesting research.
posted by CodeBaloo

Maybe all those damn kids getting free school lunches are potheads. That would explain why they're so hungry, right?


Full-time employment among

Lifetime adult users: 67.4%
Past year adult users: 58.8%
Past month adult users: 58.3%
Former adult users: 70.1%
Adult non-users of this drug: 61.1%

Hey! That is interesting research. Looks like most potheads do not become 'societal leeches' after all. Another interesting study would be to see if you'll allow this research to change your mind or whether you'll cling stubbornly to your stereotypes about pot smokers. I'm not saying you will cling stubbornly to your stereotypes, but it would be interesting research.

On preview: This concludes my study. Survey Says: Clinging Stubbornly.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 4:43 PM on August 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

Quin -- Seems kinda obvious: insofar as a reasonable and responsible adult constituency, especially parents, is concerned "strong candidate" and "legalization agenda" are mutually exclusive.
posted by CodeBaloo at 4:52 PM on August 12, 2006

It's only obvious if you suffer from the mistaken belief that 'reasonable and responsible' adults do not smoke weed.

I personally have known policemen, stockbrokers, advertising executives, teachers, librarians, journalists, authors, editors, soldiers, musicians, construction workers, lawyers and yes, parents who all smoke pot. All of them would praise any politician who managed to strike down marijuana prohibition.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 5:21 PM on August 12, 2006

Eiwalker - Isolating "pot use and its extent" by controlling all the other variables? My whole point was that this study didn't do that

The abstract says, "In multivariate analysis, the associations between marijuana use and systolic blood pressure and triglycerides disappeared, having been mainly confounded by greater alcohol use in marijuana users."

Looks like they did do it.

ColeBaloo - If "more extensive marijuana use" means, say, 5-10 uses a week, and if only 15 of the initial 1,365 made that cut, the conclusions are nearly worthless.

The p-values for the analyses on 'more extensive users' are all less than 0.001.
posted by daksya at 5:22 PM on August 12, 2006

Seems kinda obvious: insofar as a reasonable and responsible adult constituency, especially parents,...

Actually, I would make this one of my talking points. I would roll out the studies which demonstrate that alcohol is actually far more dangerous than marijuana. Hell, if I was a father I would prefer my kids smoked weed to getting drunk.

Every year we read about some dumb kid that died from alcohol poisoning, but when was the last time anyone heard of a person ODing on marijuana? It doesn't happen.

The irony in all this is that I don't even smoke. I just get really riled up at the hypocrisy of all this. I don't have the exact figures on hand, but I remember a study which concluded that a large majority of Americans had, at some point, tried marijuana. People are familiar with this stuff. We know it doesn't kill you or turn you into a raving lunatic. Having kids should not remove someone's ability to think critically. It's a friggin' weed and it's stupid that it's still illegal.
posted by quin at 5:30 PM on August 12, 2006

I don't take any drugs but no one should say to anyone what to take or what not to take.

If some want to get cocaine, he must have the right to do so. He only have to know the danger of it. EOS
posted by zouhair at 5:39 PM on August 12, 2006

I don't have the exact figures on hand, but I remember a study which concluded that a large majority of Americans had, at some point, tried marijuana.
h
90-100 million.

quin - I'm honestly surprised we have never seen a strong candidate come out with a legalization agenda.

Roughly 35-40% of adults support legalization with the bulk concentrated on the coasts. I don't see how the Senate with its disproportionate representation of the smaller states would pass any legalization measure. Morever, pot smoking is a 'vice'. There's no empathic or critical hook here like 'slavery is inhuman'. The UK is different: Tory leader David Cameron has called for considering legalization of ALL drugs.
posted by daksya at 5:48 PM on August 12, 2006

Fuzzy Monster --
Maybe all those damn kids getting free school lunches are potheads. That would explain why they're so hungry, right?

If you're gonna try to link to me elsewhere to trip me up, please at least try to get the sentiment as close to the original as you can. If you want to dredge that up, though, the argument would be that the kid's parent -- how was it y'all put it?... oh yeah, their "welfare mommas who are getting their Cadillacs polished and free boob jobs who have ungrateful kids" -- is the pothead and spending the kids lunch money on drugs, and that is why the kids go hungry.

And even then, your attempt still wouldn't work because in that particular example, the kid's lunches are already paid for by the federal government. And now we've come full circle back to the my original comment: it'd be interesting to see what percentage of those too poor to work and need the taxpayers to pay for food, housing, and medical care for them somehow magically seem to have plenty of money to buy drugs and alcohol.

And, for what it's worth, F.M., according to the study that daksya referred to, as it applies to the unrelated discussion you brought up, 19.2% of unemployed adults over 18 are current illicit drug users. I personally see, over and over and over again (as in: several times a night) folks who won't work and feel the taxpayer should pick up their medical tab, or who calim they don't have money to get a prescription filled... who are drunk and/or come back positive for pot and/or cocaine. Broke, my ass. Social leeches.

It's only obvious if you suffer from the mistaken belief that 'reasonable and responsible' adults do not smoke weed

uh, no. It's obvious to anyone familiar with U.S. politics.

quin --
Actually, I would make this one of my talking points. I would roll out the studies which demonstrate that alcohol is actually far more dangerous than marijuana. Hell, if I was a father I would prefer my kids smoked weed to getting drunk.

As a father, I'd prefer my kids do neither. You're making an argument here against alcohol, not for marijuana.

To get back to this post, though, Roll One for Your Health, does anyone know of a study that claims marijuana has health benefits for healthy adults.

Personally, I don't currently smoke weed, but see no reason any drugs should be illegal for adults. But I also don't see any compelling reason existing laws should be changed. Everybody should be free to do what they want up to the point where freedom encroaches upon someone else's freedom.
posted by CodeBaloo at 6:16 PM on August 12, 2006

Personally, I don't currently smoke weed, but see no reason any drugs should be illegal for adults. But I also don't see any compelling reason existing laws should be changed. Everybody should be free to do what they want up to the point where freedom encroaches upon someone else's freedom.

I want you to reread what you wrote. You see no reason drugs should be illegal, but you also see no reason that the laws should be changed?

Right now, someone is being arrested for simple possession. You think that it should not be a crime, but you don't care that someone is being charged for it? We are wasting literally billions of dollars on the marijuana aspect of the war on drugs. And you see no compelling reason, even though you think drugs should be legal? Insane.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:48 PM on August 12, 2006

I wasn't trying to trip you up, C.B. I did think your comment in that other thread
was relevant in light of your 'societal leeches' comment in this one.

You're right when you say that some societal leeches drink and smoke drugs. And I agree that addictions to booze and other drugs often cause the cycle of poverty that leads some people to become burdens on society.

Luckily, marijuana is not physically addictive.

19.2% of unemployed adults over 18 are current illicit drug users. That means that 80.8% of unemployed adults over 18 are not current illicit drug users, once again disproving the notion that drug use = leeching off the state.

Many other people can and do enjoy responsible drug use and do not become societal leeches, which can be seen in the study daksya cites.

does anyone know of a study that claims marijuana has health benefits for healthy adults.

Try Googling "Medical Marijuana." I'm sure you'll find something.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:00 PM on August 12, 2006

My bad-- you said 'healthy adults.' Medical Marijuana is used for treating symptoms of sick people. But that's a good reason for Prohibition to end right there. Let sick people have their medicine.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:03 PM on August 12, 2006

"Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING."

Man, is that ever true. This one time we all made a campfire afterwards. This one other time, we decided to have a barbecue. And I don't know how many times reefer has led to a game of 1 on 1 Katamari.
posted by Sukiari at 7:19 PM on August 12, 2006

The assertion that pot smoking is a vice should be irrelevant to the consideration of whether it should be legal. If that were a fair basis for making things illegal, there would be no tobacco, alcohol, fast food, ad nauseum.

More and more, it is becoming clear that the only indisputable health risks associated with marijuana use are incarceration and increased proximity to people who conspire to break the law for profit.
posted by owhydididoit at 7:22 PM on August 12, 2006

The State: Father, Mother, teacher, Secret Lover. It doesn't matter that pot isn't really that bad for you (certainly nowhere near as bad as alcohol). The State needs to watch out for us, and prevent us from doing things and taking personal responsibility for our actions.
posted by Sukiari at 7:22 PM on August 12, 2006

Optimus Chyme -- Okay, I reread what I wrote. And I still see no compelling reason to change the law. I wouldn't be upset if it was changed, but since I don't smoke, it's just not that big a deal to me that it's illegal. If users want it legalized, more power to 'em. I just haven't seen anything yet that compels me to join their cause. Yeah, somebody somewhere is being arrested for possession. Tough. As it stands today, possession is illegal, they knew it, and chose to disregard the law.

F.M. -- Yeah, I had to go back and add "healthy" before posting. That is a use for which I support a change in laws. And that 4 in 5 unemployed folks don't use illicit drugs is irrelevant; my beef is with the 1 in 5 (which translates to very, very large number, by the way) who do... and have no qualms about forcing me to pay for food, housing, and medical care for them and their families. If we cut them loose, and freed up 20% of the money earmarked for social welfare programs, imagine how much more we could do for the other 80% who truly do need the help!
posted by CodeBaloo at 7:29 PM on August 12, 2006

Marijuana does tend to cause some people to become irrationally violent, controlling and paranoid.

It causes them in people who don't use the stuff.
posted by clevershark at 7:44 PM on August 12, 2006

I should have written, "it causes these effects..."
posted by clevershark at 7:45 PM on August 12, 2006

"Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug."

Wow. My full-of-shit meter just exploded there... how much acid would one have to take before arriving at the conclusion stated above? :-)
posted by clevershark at 7:51 PM on August 12, 2006

Okay, I reread what I wrote. And I still see no compelling reason to change the law.

Well then, it seems to me that you have problems thinking your argument through. The US currently spends upwards of $10 BILLION enforcing these silly laws, but your beef is with a small minority of unemployed people who are users?

Furthermore you conveniently ignore those people who have become unemployed as a result of the application of these laws, viz. those who have been made unemployed as a result of blanket drug testing. Not that all drug testing is bad -- there is a strong case for testing those whose tasks involve handling dangerous materials, or those involved in the transportation industry. But mandatory testing is constantly promoted by the ONDCP for virtually all types of employment.

Even in the aforementioned cases (transportation and hazardous materials) off-duty marijuana use can and will lead to positive tests even when said user has never used drugs while on the job, because the tests do not look for the actual presence of THC in the blood, but for the presence of THC metabolites (a sort of marker indicating past use) which, depending on the person's pattern of use and adiposity (i.e. how fat he/she is) can stay in the blood for a period lasting between 1 and 3 months, and is eliminated through secretions like urine.

You are woefully uninformed on the subject, I regret to say.
posted by clevershark at 8:07 PM on August 12, 2006

Meanwhile.
posted by nanojath at 8:24 PM on August 12, 2006

Sorry to cause such regret. But when you say I have problems thinking my argument through, perhaps you're right. Maybe your sagacious counsel is needed: how, exactly, does the cost of drug testing affect my position that, while I wouldn't care if it was legal, I have no problem with it being illegal?

And about the poor souls that lost jobs because of drug testing, same reply as for the poor sap getting busted for possession... did they not know use was illegal? Regardless, it doesn't change the point I made in that particular regard: if they can afford to drink and use illicit drugs, they have no business begging for free food, housing, and medical care at taxpayer expense.
posted by CodeBaloo at 8:32 PM on August 12, 2006

Oh, and you might not have known, CodeBaloo, but all that money getting spent in my previous link is also being paid for by your taxes. To say nothing of the lost revenue that could be had if pot was regulated and taxed.

I'm not particularly jazzed about the prospect of welfare slags selling their food stamps to buy drugs (I used to live in a neighborhood where I could observe this exact process going on)... or cigarettes, or alcohol, but I don't really see that it has anything to do with whether marijuana should be illegal. It should be legal because it being illegal is costing huge amounts of money while doing absolutely nothing about the negative impacts of its use (which certainly exist and are certainly exaggerated by the proponents of its illegality).
posted by nanojath at 8:54 PM on August 12, 2006

I don't really see that it has anything to do with whether marijuana should be illegal

Agreed. The social welfare connection was brought into the disussion by someone else.

It should be legal because it being illegal is costing huge amounts of money while doing absolutely nothing about the negative impacts of its use

That's the most reasonable argument for legalization. And perhaps the cost of marijuana prohibition should be cause for concern. But for me, it isn't... it's just not that imporrtant an issue.
posted by CodeBaloo at 9:12 PM on August 12, 2006

No, the most most reasonable argument for legalization is that it's my fucking body. That anyone in secular, democratic countries is authoritarian enough to be comfortable with the state dictating what they can put into their bodies is beyond me.
posted by spaltavian at 9:16 PM on August 12, 2006

As a father, I'd prefer my kids do neither.

Sure, that's a given. But once kids hit college, what we want and what actually is going to happen are a fair distance from one another.

You're making an argument here against alcohol, not for marijuana.

Funny, cause while I don't smoke, I do love my bourbon.

I'm making an argument against alcohol because we famously tried banning that once and it didn't work out really well. Alcohol has demonstrably bad side effects, yet we tolerate it's legality. Marijuana has limited negative side effects, and in fact may actually be beneficial to some, and yet it's considered the 'devils weed' or whatever. This is the hypocrisy I was bitching about earlier.

Even if we accept it as a vice drug, think of how much we could bring in in taxation, not to mention the ten or so billion we spend every year trying to keep it illegal. Sure, one in five unemployed people use illicit drugs, but even if we actually managed to win the war on drugs and prevented every controlled substance from hitting the streets, do you really think that would stop people from getting high? Shit, they would be drinking gasoline and huffing paint thinner. Some people just want to be high. There is little we can do to stop this. (Look at the former Soviet Union for examples of the lengths people will go to to find some kind of mind altering experience.)

The only roadblock I can see to legalizing marijuana is a roadside test. Assuming that one day it is decriminalized, I expect that it will be treated in much the same way that alcohol is today, which is to say that I don't want people driving on it. We have reliable breathalyzers to tell us when someone is under the influence of alcohol, we need something similar for THC. That is the only point I'll get behind with regard to keeping it illegal.
posted by quin at 9:19 PM on August 12, 2006

Quin -- Once my kids hit college, they'll be adults.

Somebody driving impaired would constitute their right to do what they want encroaching on someone else's right... which means you & I are on the same page. But as it stands today, though, I don't think a roadside "potalyzer" is widely available, so it's a moot point.

As for people getting high other ways if the war on drugs was ever won and drugs were eliminated, I'm sure you're right.

Let's assume that the proposition that illegality is part of marijuana's appeal is correct. And that part of the reason kids are drawn to it is because parent's say to stay away from it. I don't really buy either of those, but some in the thread might. Now, if pot's legalized, what becomes of the attraction to its illicit nature? Does it magically evaporate? Or (and this would be my bet) is the attraction to the illicit nature of marijuana replaced with an attraction to the illicit nature of some other illegal substance?

Perhaps it is kept legal -- and this is just a wild hair -- so that when kids are tempted by that attraction, the item they're attracted to is relatively benign.
posted by CodeBaloo at 10:26 PM on August 12, 2006

Spaltavian -- It's beyond me, too. But nonetheless, I am. Who knows, maybe it has something to do with my mental image of a stoner. Blame Cheech & Chong. Or perhaps it's because the stuff I want to put in my body hasn't yet been outlawed. When they outlaw coffee, maybe I'll join the fight. Yeah, yeah, I know I should be upset on principle alone... but I'm not.
posted by CodeBaloo at 10:37 PM on August 12, 2006

If you have time then Cannabis, Forgetting,. and the Botany of Desire (pdf) is from a really fascinating talk Michael Pollan, of Botany of Desire fame, gave in Berkeley. He speaks about the history, science, and effects of the plant.

Now, what’s the use of these drug plants in evolutionary terms? Well, one of the more interesting theories that was proposed by Steven Pinker, the brain scientist, is that our attraction to plant drugs is the coming together of two distinct adaptive traits. We have a system of brain rewards, such that anytime we do something very heroic or useful, our brain is flooded with chemicals that make us feel good, and that’s very adaptive. We also have this big brain designed for solving problems. So you bring the second trait to bear on the first, and you figure out a way to trick the brain into triggering its reward system. It’s a pretty good theory.

posted by euphorb at 11:48 PM on August 12, 2006

CodeBaloo,

When they came for marijuana,
I was silent;
I did not toke.

When they came for coffee,
there was no one left to speak out.
posted by Leather McWhip at 12:08 AM on August 13, 2006

And perhaps the cost of marijuana prohibition should be cause for concern. But for me, it isn't... it's just not that imporrtant an issue.
posted by CodeBaloo at 9:12 PM PST on August 12

So basically you don't give a shit about any law, no matter how unjust, no matter how wasteful or stupid, so long as you're not arrested for breaking it?

You are a class act and I thank god every day that you registered here to share your highly moral opinions.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:29 AM on August 13, 2006

@Eiwalker:

I intentionally mischaracterized the content of the study with the FPP title. I considered it necessary in light of the extreme mischaracterization of marijuana that every citizen in the US is exposed to through government propaganda. "Devil Weed" indeed.

My position on this issue is derived from these points which I view as unchangeable:

1. Humans have pursued mind-altering experiences since time immemorial. From sweat lodges to opium, the "pass-out game" to laudanum, people have a desire to have these experiences. You cannot legislate this out of them.

2. Prohibition of something that people desire creates a black market economy for it. Along with the unregulated black market, comes crime and criminals. Marijuana is currently worth more per weight than gold. Heroin is worth more than uranium. The US drug laws are directly responsible for the mayhem and deplorable conditions along the US-Mexican border that the drug cartels are involved with.

3. Drug addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal problem. We should treat it like we treat all other medical conditions. If people commit criminal acts while under the influence, treat them the same as people who commit criminal acts not under the influence.

4. People should be allowed to put whatever they want into their body, whenever they want. They should have the proper health information available to them. Let them be responsible for their own actions.

Legalize, tax, and treat.

If we legalized drug use, regulated the industry, and collected taxes, a fraction of the tax revenue generated would cover the cost to treat any potential addiction.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 7:41 AM on August 13, 2006

Canada's more open-minded about it than the US, faint praise that that is.
posted by owhydididoit at 10:46 AM on August 13, 2006

So basically you don't give a shit about any law, no matter how unjust, no matter how wasteful or stupid, so long as you're not arrested for breaking it?

Wow, you're awesome. You got all that from only my saying I haven't seen any evidence that compels me to work for changing the laws regarding recreational marijuana use? Immm-pressive! Been studying those Colbert interviews closely, eh?

Oh well, you tried your best. Don't feel bad, though. They say Babe Ruth struck out 1,330 times while building his 714-homeruns record. Chin up, you'll get 'em next time, Slugger.

You are a class act and I thank god every day that you registered here to share your highly moral opinions.

Why, thank you. That's so sweet. And with an equal amount of sincerity, I'd like to let you know that your opinion means {*sob* *sniffle*} so very much.
posted by CodeBaloo at 10:57 AM on August 13, 2006

"If we legalized drug use, regulated the industry, and collected taxes, a fraction of the tax revenue generated would cover the cost to treat any potential addiction."


Problem with legalization is, then all those drug dollars are on the official books. Much easier (and more profitable) to maintain scarcity through prohibition, and put those grey and black market dollars to use funding the shadier and unofficial areas of US foreign policy...
posted by stenseng at 12:48 PM on August 13, 2006

You got all that from only my saying I haven't seen any evidence that compels me to work for changing the laws regarding recreational marijuana use?

Yes. Shorter CodeBaloo: I'm too ignorant to know about the failure of the war on drugs and too lazy to bother finding out, so who cares?

And with an equal amount of sincerity, I'd like to let you know that your opinion means {*sob* *sniffle*} so very much.

To be fair, your opinion hasn't meant much to me since I found out you were nothing more than a shady third-rate spammer and con man.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:19 AM on August 14, 2006

The reason marijuana is illegal was because the white power structure in the 1930s resented people who smoked it: Mexicans. There was also a huge push by Hearst to get it banned in order to protect his wood-based paper investments.

This is the position that most of the serious historians of US
drug policy take as well.

In the 1960s resentment towards Mexicans was replaced by resentment for the Marijuana and LSD fueled counterculture which lead to the much more stringent enforcement under Nixon.

I think it's far more instrumental than simple resentment.
Nixon was under threat politically. The Vietnam War was
rapidly losing support, and there was a real fear of crime in
the inner city, where race riots were exacerbating racial
fears leading to enormous levels of 'white flight'.

Because most acquisitive crime is notoriously difficult to solve
-- basically, if you don't catch them in the act, you're shit out
of luck -- the crime statistics looked awful. Rising levels of
crime, accompanied by falling rates of detection.

So basically, Nixon adopted the approach that had been
utilized by John D. Rockefeller in New York state a few years
earlier: -

- Conflate the issues of illicit drug use and acquisitive crime
by arguing that the majority of acquisitive crime is caused
by drug use.

- Increase the sentences for drug users, to be seen to be
'tough' on crime.

- Heroin addicts are an easy target. Locate the dealer and
they'll show up several times a day to score. Similarly, any
major concert will yield scores of marijuana possession
busts. By scooping up these 'fish in a barrel', government
is able to reverse the crime stats downward trend of large
numbers of unsolved cases, and replace them with ever
increasing numbers of 'major felons' who are put behind
bars for their involvement in what is effectively a victimless
crime, equivalent to drinking under prohibition, or betting on
sports.

And of course, this strategy was so effective, US politicians
have gotten completely dependent upon it. The laws have
grown ever more permissive in terms of who can be scooped
up, what assets can be seized, etc. So you now have the
situation where tends of thousands of people languish in
prison for committing offenses that the last two US
presidents were also guilty of having committed when they
were a little younger. The only difference being that they
either had the good fortune not to be caught, or the family
connections to make it all go away if they ever happened to
be caught.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:53 AM on August 14, 2006

Personally, I don't currently smoke weed, but see no reason any drugs should be illegal for adults. But I also don't see any compelling reason existing laws should be changed.

You might feel somewhat differently if you found yourself in
prison for possession.

The major compelling reason for changing the law, in my view,
is that of proportionality.

As you say, there is no good reason why any drugs should
be illegal for adults -- any more than say, other risky adult
activities, like mountain climbing, motorcycling, high risk sex,
etc.

However, only one of these activities has the potential to
ruin your career, see your children taken into the care of
the local authorities or have you incarcerated for significant
periods of time.

Unless you can point to evidence that says consuming illicit
drugs is in inherently immoral or causes serious social harm,
then the laws against possession of illegal drugs
are both immoral in principle and unworkable in practice.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:07 AM on August 14, 2006

nanojath writes: I'm not particularly jazzed about the prospect of welfare slags selling their food stamps to buy drugs (I used to live in a neighborhood where I could observe this exact process going on)... or cigarettes, or alcohol, but I don't really see that it has anything to do with whether marijuana should be illegal.

CodeBaloo responds: Agreed. The social welfare connection was brought into the disussion by someone else.

No, C.B., you brought it into the discussion. No one mentioned social welfare until you wrote the following:

An interesting study would be to see if there's a relationship between extensive marijuana use and participation in social welfare programs.
posted by CodeBaloo
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:52 AM on August 14, 2006

No, C.B., you brought it into the discussion.

You're right, Fuzzy Monster, it was me. I apologize pointing in the wrong direction.

You might feel somewhat differently if you found yourself in prison for possession. The major compelling reason for changing the law, in my view, is that of proportionality.

PeterMcDermott -- Of course I'd feel differently. But if I found myself in prison for possession, my beef would be more with the manufacture of evidence and the judicial system since I wouldn't place myself in a position to be imprisoned for possession.

Proportionality is a reason, just not reason enough to make me want to actively work for changing the law. Similarly, the law also requires me to wear a seatbelt. With fines and costs, violators (here, at least) pay several hundred dollars if convicted of violating this law. There is no valid reason for the state to mandate adult seatbelt use. Yet, while I may feel government is overstepping its bounds it bit or being unreasonable, seatbelt use laws are just not a big-enough deal for me to take up arms against. Nor is marijuana use.
posted by CodeBaloo at 3:01 PM on August 14, 2006