5 ms·

"We've got a lot of people looking for reasons legalization has destroyed our society, and they are coming up empty handed". Most people looking for reasons to

by IMTDb 10y ago

"We've got a lot of people looking for reasons legalization has destroyed our society, and they are coming up empty handed". Most people looking for reasons to oppose legalization are actually not saying anything in the like of "This is going to destroy our society". If you want reasons why legalization is a bad idea. Here goes one : Legalization leads increased usage of pot amongst adults [0]. Combine this with the fact that usage (not abuse) of cannabis leads to permanent damage to the brain structure. Which negatively impact memory and cognitive abilities [1]. No one here is saying that by legalizing marijuana our society is going to the middle ages. I just don't think that it is wise to legalize one more substance that has known and proven irreversible long-lasting effects on cognitive abilites of people who are most likely going to live longer and longer. Ageism of the general population is a challenge in itself. Ageism of a population that is going to suffer from symptoms of partially altered brains on top of the cognitive challenges naturally coming with age is even more difficult. [0] : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/18/colorado-marijuana-law-report-adult-usage-increases-not-kids https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/18/colorado-mar... [1] : http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16913.full http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16913.full

gr3yh47 10y ago
alcohol and cigarettes are both much, much worse for health. And the PNAS study itself says that while they measured changes in the brain, the effect of the changes is not known from the study.
- IMTDb 10y ago
  Limited Alcohol usage (not abuse) has actually very little permanent effects on health. Alcohol abuse of course has very damaging known effects. Cigarettes mainly affect lungs and pancreas. The increased risk of cancer is reduced to that of a never smoker after 20years. I am sure cigarettes would not pass legalization laws if they were "invented" right now. They are legal for historical reasons and many countries are actively trying to fight them by increased taxation, advertising rules etc. So basically, we are creating a new product we will have to fight in the future once we measure how dangerous it is. We are playing a game of "let's fight back thats dangerous product we legalized 150 years ago when we did not know the adverse effects of it." and at the same time : "Let's legalize that new stuff that we never really could measure the long lasting effects of. It looks fun and kids love it.". The paper says that it can't precisely measure the effect of those changes to cognitive issues. They just link marijuana with modified brains. If you belive that an altered brain function exactly like a non-altered one, this is your choice. But any sound safety principle should tell you to take care with that stuff IMO. There are tons of papers measure the cognitive issues that arise with pot usage. Here is just one, but look it up. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/
  - dpark 10y ago
    > Limited Alcohol usage (not abuse) has actually very little permanent effects on health. Are you asserting that this is not true for marijuana? You believe that infrequent use is somehow definitively linked to cognitive changes despite even heavy use being poorly linked so far?
  - watchme3 10y ago
    Man you've got to pull your head out of your ass. Illegal weed creates potential for a black market and uncontrolled sale to minors. It is much easier for a kid in highschool to buy weed than get beer from the store. The massive profits just from weed sale allow for sophisticated criminal rings that fuel other crimes. You talk about taxing cigarettes, do you know what s happening as a result? Contraband cigarette sales are booming. You know what i had instant access to when i was in highschool? weed and contraband cigarettes and alcohol was the hardest to find ... I wonder why. You say weed causes permanent brain damage and slows down your cognitive functions. Do you know who fucking Michael Phelps is? Ya the guy with the most Olympic gold medals who also happens to smoke weed. If you don't want to smoke, then don't, it's as simple as that but don't fuck with progress.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    Regarding cognitive issues, the meta I've personally taken away is that, yes, there is some legitimate concern for permanent cognitive issues regarding pre-adult usage of marijuana. However, for adults, my "gut feeling" (based on knowing some people who regularly consumed what I consider a modest amount of marijuana) is that if you aren't really heavy on your usage, you don't have much to worry about cognitive wise. Chronic heavy users, of course, may run into issues. Unfortunately it's difficult to conclude much beyond "gut feeling" because data wise, the studies on long term effects are all over the map. See this evidence based review --https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037578/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037578/ I get the impression that the data just isn't too good right now. You can look up one study, but you can then look up another with a different conclusion. Part of the problem I'm sure is that the illegal nature of marijuana makes experiments difficult to conduct, and will introduce a bias in the population researchers are working with that they have to be careful to control out. Alcohol incidentally also has significant cognitive concerns for pre-adults, while not being a real issue for moderate adult drinkers. Strictly enforced age restrictions mitigate this issue to some degree. (Prohibition of alcohol was tried for a while, but it didn't work too well.)
1_2__3 10y ago
You're basing a whole lot on one study of 50 chronic users in one city. You're going to have to cite more than that if you want to rest your entire argument on that basis.
- IMTDb 10y ago
  Is there any study on a bigger cohort, on a longer timescale that says "there is absolutely no adverse effects in marijuana" ? If not, why would you want to add one more dangerous substance in the stores ?
  - soylentcola 10y ago
    Pragmatism. People ingest cannabis as well as countless other substances due to a wide array of drives and motivations. They will continue to do so (as well as turn to other, more hazardous options) despite legal status. One could argue that if the demand can't be removed, then the most sensible course of action would be to keep the entire market/economy for such things out of the criminal realm where it can be tied up in all sorts of other unsavory things (turf wars, tax evasion, money laundering, etc). Likewise, there's the well-worn concept of the "cure" being worse than the "disease". Even assuming some negative health impact of the ingestion of cannabis or other intoxicating substances, is that negative impact worse than that of criminal penalties or prison? A good comparison would be alcohol. Lots of people drink too much alcohol for their own good health. A subset of these could be classified as alcoholics. Either way, you're talking about adverse effects. Would outcomes be generally better or worse if every wino and drunk got charged with a criminal violation or put in prison for their unhealthy alcohol use? What about those who just get a bit drunk a few times per year at a cookout, the company Xmas party, and New Year's Eve? Because that's essentially how cannabis is treated when criminalized.
    - IMTDb 10y ago
      That is indeed, I think, the best argument so far in favor of legalisation.
somebehemoth 10y ago
For whatever it is worth the study you linked to does not support your statement: " I just don't think that it is wise to legalize one more substance that has known and proven irreversible long-lasting effects..." From the study you linked: "Questions surrounding the effects of chronic marijuana use on brain structure continue to increase. To date, however, findings remain inconclusive." and "Despite the observed age of onset effects, longitudinal studies are needed to determine causality of these effects." Add to that this is one study that included only 110 people and was non-longitudinal. Do you have any other studies you can point to that have demonstrated' "known and proven irreversible long-lasting effects..." in chronic marijuana users? The linked study is helpful, but trying to prove something very controversial requires more evidence.
wonder_er 10y ago
good point. So lets... throw people in jail? I'd say prohibition has destroyed our society. The onus should be on prohibitionists to defend the status quo.
- IMTDb 10y ago
  I don't remember writing anything about jail. Legalisation and penalisation are two very different issues.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    While I'm pro-legalization of cannabis, this is a fair point. Portugal's drug policy is widely lauded, yet we only decriminalized consumption; even pot is still illegal, and being caught selling is a crime.
- mhneu 10y ago
  A Nixon administration official has claimed the War On Drugs was conceived by Nixon's White House to persecute Nixon's politial opponents-- blacks and liberals. --- The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday. "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
nickik 10y ago
I simply fail to understand how anybody can accept such a argument. Individual freedom has truly been lost in large part of our society. Going down that route would mean banning alcohol and sugar, but that is not done because it discriminates against to much of the population, but disriminenting against smaller groups is fine.
- IMTDb 10y ago
  I truly believe in human freedom. I also believe that this freedom comes with responsibility : make sure that whatever you do, won't negatively impact your neighbour. In my country, all health services are paid for by the government, which means my taxes. I believe this is a good system as this allows anyone to get medical help when needed. This include people suffering form illness lead by drug abuse. EG: a liver transplant for an alcoholic costs around $100.000 and is fully paid for by the govt. I dot not want to change this as I believe in the system and I don't want my country to move to a situation where some people are just "left to die" because they made the wrong choices or are not able to pay for medical help. I don't think that this system needs one more substance to deal with. The three biggest source of spending in the system today are : (without order) Hips replacement for elders. Cardiovascular surgery due to obesity. Treatment for lungs / throat cancer. Notice how two of those are already dur to "just" unhealthy habits. And I fear that in 50 years (when I am old), we will have to provide significant resources to elders with cognitive issues caused/helped by excessive use of marijuana. I'll have to live in that world and share the limited ressources of the healthcare with those people. So I think I am allowed to voice my concerns, as I will indirectly will deal with the consequences of their choice.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    so your argument is that you are concerned about your tax burden 50 years from now? you can't be serious. what about the tax burden TODAY of paying for police, prison, and criminal justice system to enforce prohibition? what about the cost to society TODAY of prohibition?
    - IMTDb 10y ago
metaphorm 10y ago
this is from the acknowledgments section of your [1] citation > We thank Tim McQueeny for assistance with the behavioral data. This work was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse Grant K01 DA021632. in other words, the study was funded by an institution with a legal mandate to promote cannabis prohibition. the conflicts of interest makes this dubious science.
- IMTDb 10y ago
  NIDA is funded by the Us Gov. So you mean that this is a federal study. We are not speaking of a private company here.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    correct, it is a federally funded study. NIDA specifically is chartered with funding studies that support a prohibition agenda.

by IMTDb 10y ago

gr3yh47 10y ago

alcohol and cigarettes are both much, much worse for health. And the PNAS study itself says that while they measured changes in the brain, the effect of the changes is not known from the study.

IMTDb 10y ago
Limited Alcohol usage (not abuse) has actually very little permanent effects on health. Alcohol abuse of course has very damaging known effects. Cigarettes mainly affect lungs and pancreas. The increased risk of cancer is reduced to that of a never smoker after 20years. I am sure cigarettes would not pass legalization laws if they were "invented" right now. They are legal for historical reasons and many countries are actively trying to fight them by increased taxation, advertising rules etc. So basically, we are creating a new product we will have to fight in the future once we measure how dangerous it is. We are playing a game of "let's fight back thats dangerous product we legalized 150 years ago when we did not know the adverse effects of it." and at the same time : "Let's legalize that new stuff that we never really could measure the long lasting effects of. It looks fun and kids love it.". The paper says that it can't precisely measure the effect of those changes to cognitive issues. They just link marijuana with modified brains. If you belive that an altered brain function exactly like a non-altered one, this is your choice. But any sound safety principle should tell you to take care with that stuff IMO. There are tons of papers measure the cognitive issues that arise with pot usage. Here is just one, but look it up. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221171/
- dpark 10y ago
  > Limited Alcohol usage (not abuse) has actually very little permanent effects on health. Are you asserting that this is not true for marijuana? You believe that infrequent use is somehow definitively linked to cognitive changes despite even heavy use being poorly linked so far?
- watchme3 10y ago
  Man you've got to pull your head out of your ass. Illegal weed creates potential for a black market and uncontrolled sale to minors. It is much easier for a kid in highschool to buy weed than get beer from the store. The massive profits just from weed sale allow for sophisticated criminal rings that fuel other crimes. You talk about taxing cigarettes, do you know what s happening as a result? Contraband cigarette sales are booming. You know what i had instant access to when i was in highschool? weed and contraband cigarettes and alcohol was the hardest to find ... I wonder why. You say weed causes permanent brain damage and slows down your cognitive functions. Do you know who fucking Michael Phelps is? Ya the guy with the most Olympic gold medals who also happens to smoke weed. If you don't want to smoke, then don't, it's as simple as that but don't fuck with progress.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  Regarding cognitive issues, the meta I've personally taken away is that, yes, there is some legitimate concern for permanent cognitive issues regarding pre-adult usage of marijuana. However, for adults, my "gut feeling" (based on knowing some people who regularly consumed what I consider a modest amount of marijuana) is that if you aren't really heavy on your usage, you don't have much to worry about cognitive wise. Chronic heavy users, of course, may run into issues. Unfortunately it's difficult to conclude much beyond "gut feeling" because data wise, the studies on long term effects are all over the map. See this evidence based review --https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037578/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037578/ I get the impression that the data just isn't too good right now. You can look up one study, but you can then look up another with a different conclusion. Part of the problem I'm sure is that the illegal nature of marijuana makes experiments difficult to conduct, and will introduce a bias in the population researchers are working with that they have to be careful to control out. Alcohol incidentally also has significant cognitive concerns for pre-adults, while not being a real issue for moderate adult drinkers. Strictly enforced age restrictions mitigate this issue to some degree. (Prohibition of alcohol was tried for a while, but it didn't work too well.)

1_2__3 10y ago

You're basing a whole lot on one study of 50 chronic users in one city. You're going to have to cite more than that if you want to rest your entire argument on that basis.

IMTDb 10y ago
Is there any study on a bigger cohort, on a longer timescale that says "there is absolutely no adverse effects in marijuana" ? If not, why would you want to add one more dangerous substance in the stores ?
- soylentcola 10y ago
  Pragmatism. People ingest cannabis as well as countless other substances due to a wide array of drives and motivations. They will continue to do so (as well as turn to other, more hazardous options) despite legal status. One could argue that if the demand can't be removed, then the most sensible course of action would be to keep the entire market/economy for such things out of the criminal realm where it can be tied up in all sorts of other unsavory things (turf wars, tax evasion, money laundering, etc). Likewise, there's the well-worn concept of the "cure" being worse than the "disease". Even assuming some negative health impact of the ingestion of cannabis or other intoxicating substances, is that negative impact worse than that of criminal penalties or prison? A good comparison would be alcohol. Lots of people drink too much alcohol for their own good health. A subset of these could be classified as alcoholics. Either way, you're talking about adverse effects. Would outcomes be generally better or worse if every wino and drunk got charged with a criminal violation or put in prison for their unhealthy alcohol use? What about those who just get a bit drunk a few times per year at a cookout, the company Xmas party, and New Year's Eve? Because that's essentially how cannabis is treated when criminalized.
  - IMTDb 10y ago
    That is indeed, I think, the best argument so far in favor of legalisation.

somebehemoth 10y ago

For whatever it is worth the study you linked to does not support your statement: " I just don't think that it is wise to legalize one more substance that has known and proven irreversible long-lasting effects..." From the study you linked: "Questions surrounding the effects of chronic marijuana use on brain structure continue to increase. To date, however, findings remain inconclusive." and "Despite the observed age of onset effects, longitudinal studies are needed to determine causality of these effects." Add to that this is one study that included only 110 people and was non-longitudinal. Do you have any other studies you can point to that have demonstrated' "known and proven irreversible long-lasting effects..." in chronic marijuana users? The linked study is helpful, but trying to prove something very controversial requires more evidence.

wonder_er 10y ago

good point. So lets... throw people in jail? I'd say prohibition has destroyed our society. The onus should be on prohibitionists to defend the status quo.

IMTDb 10y ago
I don't remember writing anything about jail. Legalisation and penalisation are two very different issues.
- icebraining 10y ago
  While I'm pro-legalization of cannabis, this is a fair point. Portugal's drug policy is widely lauded, yet we only decriminalized consumption; even pot is still illegal, and being caught selling is a crime.
mhneu 10y ago
A Nixon administration official has claimed the War On Drugs was conceived by Nixon's White House to persecute Nixon's politial opponents-- blacks and liberals. --- The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday. "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

nickik 10y ago

I simply fail to understand how anybody can accept such a argument. Individual freedom has truly been lost in large part of our society. Going down that route would mean banning alcohol and sugar, but that is not done because it discriminates against to much of the population, but disriminenting against smaller groups is fine.

IMTDb 10y ago
I truly believe in human freedom. I also believe that this freedom comes with responsibility : make sure that whatever you do, won't negatively impact your neighbour. In my country, all health services are paid for by the government, which means my taxes. I believe this is a good system as this allows anyone to get medical help when needed. This include people suffering form illness lead by drug abuse. EG: a liver transplant for an alcoholic costs around $100.000 and is fully paid for by the govt. I dot not want to change this as I believe in the system and I don't want my country to move to a situation where some people are just "left to die" because they made the wrong choices or are not able to pay for medical help. I don't think that this system needs one more substance to deal with. The three biggest source of spending in the system today are : (without order) Hips replacement for elders. Cardiovascular surgery due to obesity. Treatment for lungs / throat cancer. Notice how two of those are already dur to "just" unhealthy habits. And I fear that in 50 years (when I am old), we will have to provide significant resources to elders with cognitive issues caused/helped by excessive use of marijuana. I'll have to live in that world and share the limited ressources of the healthcare with those people. So I think I am allowed to voice my concerns, as I will indirectly will deal with the consequences of their choice.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  so your argument is that you are concerned about your tax burden 50 years from now? you can't be serious. what about the tax burden TODAY of paying for police, prison, and criminal justice system to enforce prohibition? what about the cost to society TODAY of prohibition?
  - IMTDb 10y ago

metaphorm 10y ago

this is from the acknowledgments section of your [1] citation > We thank Tim McQueeny for assistance with the behavioral data. This work was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse Grant K01 DA021632. in other words, the study was funded by an institution with a legal mandate to promote cannabis prohibition. the conflicts of interest makes this dubious science.

IMTDb 10y ago
NIDA is funded by the Us Gov. So you mean that this is a federal study. We are not speaking of a private company here.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  correct, it is a federally funded study. NIDA specifically is chartered with funding studies that support a prohibition agenda.