6 ms·

The Reason Pot Is Still Illegal

41 points by elleferrer 12y ago

n0rm 12y ago
any TL;DR?
- meepmorp 12y ago
  RTFA.
- elleferrer 12y ago
  tl;dr: Pot is illegal because of the money coming in from big Pharma companies to keep it down, since they will lose money once legalization occurs. Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America (CADCA) is hypocritical in it's war against marijuana while choosing to ignore the dangers of opioids and related prescription drugs. Also, law enforcement is lobbying hard to keep the status quo since property seizures from pot activities are a major source of income to law enforcement since the Reagan administration. "Legalizing marijuana could, however, hurt the bottom line of drug companies that make money off drugs like Oxycontin and Vicodin."
  - refurb 12y ago
    I find the "bottom line" argument to be pretty weak. Marijuana is not going to replace pain killers like Oxycontin or Vicodin.
    - blacksmith_tb 12y ago
      Not as prescribed, no, but as an alternative recreational drug is less far-fetched. What surprises me more frankly is that no large corporations appear to be gearing up to enter the legal pot market (think BT developing solar power; can't hurt to diversify...).
      - refurb 12y ago
        If that were true, that legal marijuana leads to less abuse of "harder" drugs like opioids, then the drug companies should be happy about that. They might have been able to make more money off their drugs when people abused them, but not really anymore. It's a pretty big social issue now and companies are trending pretty lightly in this area.
chx 12y ago
This is complicated as usual. There are quite a few people who gain power (think police) and/or wealth (think private prisons) from the War on Drugs.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  Hell, it's a public jobs program at this point. There's a lot of good-paying work in saving people from themselves.
drakaal 12y ago
While Marijuana may have uses for medicine. As a recreational drug, I think the in ability to easily check when you consumed it, or to have a high as a result of just burning off fat. (it is fat soluble, and you can end up high even years later if you burn enough calories) Makes it harder to enforce responsible use than say alcohol. I don't think we want pilots, surgeons, or police doing their jobs while high, and since the buzz could come quite a long time after consumption that would always be a risk. Hemp is often promised to be this miracle product that will solve all of our problems, but visiting places where hemp is legal we don't see massive quantities of it. We import cotton, and bamboo, but you don't see many hemp t-shirts. We even import paper, which is one of the things Hemp is pretty decent at. But we don't see much Hemp paper. Turns out ink doesn't stick to it as well as it does to Wood pulp and cotton blends. The real reason Pot is still illegal is that it is dangerous to those who aren't consuming it. A stoned Doctor might not smell of it, might not have any real outwards signs, and then could get the giggles when he nicked an artery. Edit: Years may have been a stretch. Looks like 7 days has been shown in a lab, and the CDC thinks weeks. http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/17/one-toke-many-hits-exe.. http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/17/one-toke-many-hits-exe.... http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm
- hamiltonkibbe 12y ago
  Is the fact that alcohol use is easily detected in a field-administered test all that keeps surgeons from doing surgery drunk?
  - drakaal 12y ago
    No, but easily defined rules about how long between a drink and the surgery is. Just like pilots. You can drink and be a pilot, just not 8 hours before. How long you have a high varies wildly, and under stress old highs can come back. Edit: And if you think you can come up with a combination where you didn't die an hour after your drinks and are still drunk 8 hours later, here is a calculator http://touchcalc.com/calculators/bac http://touchcalc.com/calculators/bac
    - 12y ago
buckbova 12y ago
This isn't the only country where pot is illegal and I doubt it's "big pharma" behind every country where the drug is prohibited.
- LeeHunter 12y ago
  But when other countries have tried to loosen their drug enforcement policies it is the US that has historically leaned against them very hard with the big sticks of trade sanctions and development aid.
refurb 12y ago
I'll bet the reason why the drug companies are funding anti-drug organizations are simpler than what the author is suggesting. They aren't doing it because they think marijuana will steal all their market share. Companies like Purdue produce prescription drugs that can be easily abused. Purdue pulled some really stupid moves that made it a whole lot easier for abuse of their product. They are funding the anti-drug coalition because it makes for good PR. "What is Purdue doing about drug abuse??" "In addition to encouraging the appropriate use of our pain medicine, we are also funding community programs to help stop our children from using illegal drugs."
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Making pain relievers "a whole lot easier for abuse" is a good thing. Many people would like to obtain IV solutions, but due to monetary/legal restrictions, have trouble doing so. Instead, they must use other products and convert them into a IV solution. By removing the "anti abuse" parts, Purdue can ensure less people are harmed performing an improper injection.
justinator 12y ago
From TFA: > Prescription opioids, a line of pain-relieving > medications derived from the opium poppy or produced > synthetically, are the most dangerous drugs abused in > America, with more than 16,000 deaths annually linked to > opioid addiction and overdose. But, that's wrong. http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm "There are approximately 88,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.1 This makes excessive alcohol use the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation.2 Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) annually, or an average of about 30 years of potential life lost for each death.1 In 2006, there were more than 1.2 million emergency room visits and 2.7 million physician office visits due to excessive drinking.3 The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion.3"
- adventured 12y ago
  And of course cigarettes are far more dangerous health wise than alcohol. With the cigarette being the drug delivery method, as an beverage is the delivery method for the alcohol. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/healt... "More than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)" "Life expectancy for smokers is at least 10 years shorter than for nonsmokers"
Scitr 12y ago
"Overall, we find that the impact of decriminalization is concentrated amongst minors, who have a higher rate of uptake in the first five years following its introduction." http://scitr.com/a2a http://scitr.com/a2a "Early initiation of cannabis use and regular use during adolescence are particular risk factors for later problematic cannabis and other drug use, as well as mental health problems, delinquency, loss of cognitive capacity and educational achievement, risky sexual behavior and criminal offending." http://scitr.com/a29 http://scitr.com/a29 http://scitr.com/a2b http://scitr.com/a2b
MichaelGG 12y ago
What a terrible, lying, article. "Prescription opioids ... are the most dangerous drugs abused in America" That's patently untrue. Alcohol is far more harmful, as is smoking. Their opiate death counts probably also include deaths from combinations of drugs. And, the antidote for opiate overdose (Naloxone) is difficult to obtain. The article goes onto say that painkillers are "overprescribed". What does that even mean? Sounds like they're simply disagreeing with somebody else's choice to use opiates. Which is thing they're arguing against with pot. The article further spins Zohydro as some terrible thing, when it's really just the removal of a denaturing agent from hydrocodone tablets. But the article states it as "ten times stronger than OxyContin", which is a nonsensical fabrication.
- cmdrfred 12y ago
  Many Americans do not consider alcohol or tobacco a "drug", while this is patently illogical, this may be more of a poor use of language than an outright fabrication. As for opioids and their over prescription I ask you to look into the case of Florida and the "Pill Mills". You don't see drug companies lobbing to shut these down, nor do you see them refusing to sell their products to these obviously corrupt organizations.
  - vacri 12y ago
    It's not patently illogical, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. People rarely call sucrose or fructose drugs, yet they're chemical compounds that you put into your body to alter your mood.
    - cmdrfred 12y ago
      Not many people take sucrose to get impaired, the intent of an alcohol drinker (despite the protestations that they "like the taste", "are a wine connoisseur" or "drink socially") is to get drunk. Tobacco users are simply addicted, and use the drug to return to a state of normality.
      - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
rayiner 12y ago
The reason pot is still illegal is because public opinion just shifted in favor of legalization last year, and the attitude among likely voters (skew older than the general population), probably is still against. See: http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports... The real reason isn't lobbyists. The real reason is soccer moms and dads and baby boomers, who vote in droves, who are convinced that pot will make their kids sit around and mastrubate all day. The ones that hold monthly anti-drug assemblies in school where they shriek "just say no!" at the top of their lungs.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  I think this is an important point. Though it is worth considering where they get convinced of those things (and the answer to that is still more complex than "follow the money").
- snitko 12y ago
  Voters don't decide anything. They don't vote for laws, they vote for politcians which after being elected have very little incentive to serve the voters and all the incentives in the world to serve the corporations. It's almost unseen for a politician to lose his job, and it's easier and more profitable for him to lie throughout his term than to do good for his voters. However you wanted it to be otherwise, politics still obeys economic laws, and the incentive for a politician will always be in the wrong place.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The marijuana situation is a great example of precisely why that assertion is wrong. Public opinion shifts, and within a couple of years, places all over the country are decriminalizing. You think the corporations have let up in the last couple of years? What's the more rational explanation of the data?
    - snitko 12y ago
      And how long did it take? And how many staes is it legal in? Surely, at some point politicians have to bend in and go with the voters, but it takes such a long time and so many people suffer in the process, that you start asking yourself, is this democracy thing worth all the people to rot in jail for victimless crimes?
tptacek 12y ago
If corporations are the primary influencer in cannabis public policy, why aren't they taking to the airwaves to influence public opinion? That's what corporations do when they want to influence other public policy issues; they ran commercials all through the health care debate.

41 points by elleferrer 12y ago

n0rm 12y ago

any TL;DR?

meepmorp 12y ago
RTFA.
elleferrer 12y ago
tl;dr: Pot is illegal because of the money coming in from big Pharma companies to keep it down, since they will lose money once legalization occurs. Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America (CADCA) is hypocritical in it's war against marijuana while choosing to ignore the dangers of opioids and related prescription drugs. Also, law enforcement is lobbying hard to keep the status quo since property seizures from pot activities are a major source of income to law enforcement since the Reagan administration. "Legalizing marijuana could, however, hurt the bottom line of drug companies that make money off drugs like Oxycontin and Vicodin."
- refurb 12y ago
  I find the "bottom line" argument to be pretty weak. Marijuana is not going to replace pain killers like Oxycontin or Vicodin.
  - blacksmith_tb 12y ago
    Not as prescribed, no, but as an alternative recreational drug is less far-fetched. What surprises me more frankly is that no large corporations appear to be gearing up to enter the legal pot market (think BT developing solar power; can't hurt to diversify...).
    - refurb 12y ago
      If that were true, that legal marijuana leads to less abuse of "harder" drugs like opioids, then the drug companies should be happy about that. They might have been able to make more money off their drugs when people abused them, but not really anymore. It's a pretty big social issue now and companies are trending pretty lightly in this area.

chx 12y ago

This is complicated as usual. There are quite a few people who gain power (think police) and/or wealth (think private prisons) from the War on Drugs.

oldmanjay 12y ago
Hell, it's a public jobs program at this point. There's a lot of good-paying work in saving people from themselves.

drakaal 12y ago

While Marijuana may have uses for medicine. As a recreational drug, I think the in ability to easily check when you consumed it, or to have a high as a result of just burning off fat. (it is fat soluble, and you can end up high even years later if you burn enough calories) Makes it harder to enforce responsible use than say alcohol. I don't think we want pilots, surgeons, or police doing their jobs while high, and since the buzz could come quite a long time after consumption that would always be a risk. Hemp is often promised to be this miracle product that will solve all of our problems, but visiting places where hemp is legal we don't see massive quantities of it. We import cotton, and bamboo, but you don't see many hemp t-shirts. We even import paper, which is one of the things Hemp is pretty decent at. But we don't see much Hemp paper. Turns out ink doesn't stick to it as well as it does to Wood pulp and cotton blends. The real reason Pot is still illegal is that it is dangerous to those who aren't consuming it. A stoned Doctor might not smell of it, might not have any real outwards signs, and then could get the giggles when he nicked an artery. Edit: Years may have been a stretch. Looks like 7 days has been shown in a lab, and the CDC thinks weeks. http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/17/one-toke-many-hits-exe.. http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/17/one-toke-many-hits-exe.... http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001143.htm

hamiltonkibbe 12y ago
Is the fact that alcohol use is easily detected in a field-administered test all that keeps surgeons from doing surgery drunk?
- drakaal 12y ago
  No, but easily defined rules about how long between a drink and the surgery is. Just like pilots. You can drink and be a pilot, just not 8 hours before. How long you have a high varies wildly, and under stress old highs can come back. Edit: And if you think you can come up with a combination where you didn't die an hour after your drinks and are still drunk 8 hours later, here is a calculator http://touchcalc.com/calculators/bac http://touchcalc.com/calculators/bac
  - 12y ago

buckbova 12y ago

This isn't the only country where pot is illegal and I doubt it's "big pharma" behind every country where the drug is prohibited.

LeeHunter 12y ago
But when other countries have tried to loosen their drug enforcement policies it is the US that has historically leaned against them very hard with the big sticks of trade sanctions and development aid.

refurb 12y ago

I'll bet the reason why the drug companies are funding anti-drug organizations are simpler than what the author is suggesting. They aren't doing it because they think marijuana will steal all their market share. Companies like Purdue produce prescription drugs that can be easily abused. Purdue pulled some really stupid moves that made it a whole lot easier for abuse of their product. They are funding the anti-drug coalition because it makes for good PR. "What is Purdue doing about drug abuse??" "In addition to encouraging the appropriate use of our pain medicine, we are also funding community programs to help stop our children from using illegal drugs."

MichaelGG 12y ago
Making pain relievers "a whole lot easier for abuse" is a good thing. Many people would like to obtain IV solutions, but due to monetary/legal restrictions, have trouble doing so. Instead, they must use other products and convert them into a IV solution. By removing the "anti abuse" parts, Purdue can ensure less people are harmed performing an improper injection.

justinator 12y ago

From TFA: > Prescription opioids, a line of pain-relieving > medications derived from the opium poppy or produced > synthetically, are the most dangerous drugs abused in > America, with more than 16,000 deaths annually linked to > opioid addiction and overdose. But, that's wrong. http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm "There are approximately 88,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.1 This makes excessive alcohol use the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation.2 Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) annually, or an average of about 30 years of potential life lost for each death.1 In 2006, there were more than 1.2 million emergency room visits and 2.7 million physician office visits due to excessive drinking.3 The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion.3"

adventured 12y ago
And of course cigarettes are far more dangerous health wise than alcohol. With the cigarette being the drug delivery method, as an beverage is the delivery method for the alcohol. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/healt... "More than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)" "Life expectancy for smokers is at least 10 years shorter than for nonsmokers"

Scitr 12y ago

"Overall, we find that the impact of decriminalization is concentrated amongst minors, who have a higher rate of uptake in the first five years following its introduction." http://scitr.com/a2a http://scitr.com/a2a "Early initiation of cannabis use and regular use during adolescence are particular risk factors for later problematic cannabis and other drug use, as well as mental health problems, delinquency, loss of cognitive capacity and educational achievement, risky sexual behavior and criminal offending." http://scitr.com/a29 http://scitr.com/a29 http://scitr.com/a2b http://scitr.com/a2b

MichaelGG 12y ago

What a terrible, lying, article. "Prescription opioids ... are the most dangerous drugs abused in America" That's patently untrue. Alcohol is far more harmful, as is smoking. Their opiate death counts probably also include deaths from combinations of drugs. And, the antidote for opiate overdose (Naloxone) is difficult to obtain. The article goes onto say that painkillers are "overprescribed". What does that even mean? Sounds like they're simply disagreeing with somebody else's choice to use opiates. Which is thing they're arguing against with pot. The article further spins Zohydro as some terrible thing, when it's really just the removal of a denaturing agent from hydrocodone tablets. But the article states it as "ten times stronger than OxyContin", which is a nonsensical fabrication.

cmdrfred 12y ago
Many Americans do not consider alcohol or tobacco a "drug", while this is patently illogical, this may be more of a poor use of language than an outright fabrication. As for opioids and their over prescription I ask you to look into the case of Florida and the "Pill Mills". You don't see drug companies lobbing to shut these down, nor do you see them refusing to sell their products to these obviously corrupt organizations.
- vacri 12y ago
  It's not patently illogical, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. People rarely call sucrose or fructose drugs, yet they're chemical compounds that you put into your body to alter your mood.
  - cmdrfred 12y ago
    Not many people take sucrose to get impaired, the intent of an alcohol drinker (despite the protestations that they "like the taste", "are a wine connoisseur" or "drink socially") is to get drunk. Tobacco users are simply addicted, and use the drug to return to a state of normality.
    - WorldWideWayne 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

The reason pot is still illegal is because public opinion just shifted in favor of legalization last year, and the attitude among likely voters (skew older than the general population), probably is still against. See: http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports... The real reason isn't lobbyists. The real reason is soccer moms and dads and baby boomers, who vote in droves, who are convinced that pot will make their kids sit around and mastrubate all day. The ones that hold monthly anti-drug assemblies in school where they shriek "just say no!" at the top of their lungs.

dllthomas 12y ago
I think this is an important point. Though it is worth considering where they get convinced of those things (and the answer to that is still more complex than "follow the money").
snitko 12y ago
Voters don't decide anything. They don't vote for laws, they vote for politcians which after being elected have very little incentive to serve the voters and all the incentives in the world to serve the corporations. It's almost unseen for a politician to lose his job, and it's easier and more profitable for him to lie throughout his term than to do good for his voters. However you wanted it to be otherwise, politics still obeys economic laws, and the incentive for a politician will always be in the wrong place.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The marijuana situation is a great example of precisely why that assertion is wrong. Public opinion shifts, and within a couple of years, places all over the country are decriminalizing. You think the corporations have let up in the last couple of years? What's the more rational explanation of the data?
  - snitko 12y ago
    And how long did it take? And how many staes is it legal in? Surely, at some point politicians have to bend in and go with the voters, but it takes such a long time and so many people suffer in the process, that you start asking yourself, is this democracy thing worth all the people to rot in jail for victimless crimes?

tptacek 12y ago

If corporations are the primary influencer in cannabis public policy, why aren't they taking to the airwaves to influence public opinion? That's what corporations do when they want to influence other public policy issues; they ran commercials all through the health care debate.