Posted on 03/25/2010 3:21:41 PM PDT by Zakeet
OK, so what is the 5000 year history you refer to?
“Show me the studies that validate the gateway theory.”
Ok but why? They are very easy to find. It took me one minute.
“A major focus for concern has been the extent to which marijuana use leads to the use of and dependence on “hard” drugs. There has been a longstanding debate over whether this association is due to the criminalization of marijuana use, forcing the user to seek suppliers who deal in other illicit drugs, or whether marijuana conditions the user to try other drugs.
(To facilitate the ease of reading, understanding, and flow, this following statement was also copied to here, but because it is also referring to the study below, I left it there, as well.) Since marijuana is legal and widely available in the Netherlands, the findings from both studies, clearly indicate that marijuana serves as a gateway for use and abuse of other addictive drugs in adolescents whose central nervous system is still not fully developed.
A study was reported from Australia of a volunteer sample of 311 young, adult, monozygotic and dizygotic, same sex twins discordant for early cannabis use i.e. less than 17 years [ 1 ]. The outcome measures included subsequent non-medical use of prescription sedatives, hallucinogens, cocaine or other stimulants, and opiates leading to abuse or dependence on these drugs. Abuse and/or dependence on cannabis or alcohol were also outcome measures. Twins who used cannabis by age 17 had odds of other drug use or alcohol dependence plus drug abuse from two to five times higher than those of their discordant twin. These associations did not differ between monozygotic and dizygotic twins. The findings indicate that early use of cannabis is associated with increased risks of progression to other illicit drug use. Since the subjects were twins neither genetic nor environmental factors were likely to have produced the results. However, since marijuana use is illegal in Australia the study was unable to establish whether having to obtain the drug from dealers involved with other illegal drugs exposes the marijuana user to other illicit drugs.
A similar study was conducted in the Netherlands, where out of a group of 6000 twins, 219 same sex pairs were chosen, one of whom had begun using marijuana before age 18 while the other twin had not [ 3 ].
1 ] Lynsky MT, Heath AC, Bucholz KK, et al. Escalation of drug use in early-onset cannabis users vs. co-twin controls. JAMA 2003; 289: 427-433
3 ] Lynsky MT, Vink JM, Boomsa DI Early onset cannabis use and progression to. other drug use in a sample of Dutch twins. Behav Genet 2006; 36: 195-200
So there is already quite a bit of "nanny state" intervention as you term it.
No, I do NOT term the above as "nanny state interventions". They are laws concerning public behavior that endangers or interferes with other individuals, not someone's mental capacity.
You said you supported government intervention for those who are "deliberately destroying their mental capacity". I ask again, what interventions do you propose for the hundreds of thousands of alcoholics who are doing just that?
______________________________________
¹"In the Netherlands the total number of heroin addicts amounts to approximately 25,000."
http://opioids.com/heroin/holland.html
²"For example, numbers like heroin addiction. You can find numbers that go from 255,000 up to the one I'm currently using, 980,000, if I remember the last time we updated it, and those are all valid scientific studies."
--Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey, Oct 4, 2000
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/symposium/panelmccaffrey.html
Like I said, you can find what appear to be reputable studies to support both sides of the issue. That’s why I side with the ones that match my personal observations.
I think I could support a law that criminalizes the consumption of alcohol by physically determined alcoholics.
There is a hotel in where is it? Washington state? Which “treats” alcoholics by supplying them with alcohol. I think that should be illegal, too.
“They are laws concerning public behavior that endangers or interferes with other individuals, not someone’s mental capacity. “
The problem is, unless we are trust fund babies with a huge personal infrastructure in place -
we are all going out in public.
Working. Having kids. Being in places of responsibility. Voting. Crossing the street. Entering relationships. Setting examples. Transacting business.
In the Libertarian mindset, every man sits upon his island, affecting pretty much nobody. It is a lie.
Considering that there are 15 or so million past month pot smokers and 2-3 or so million past cocaine users (which is the next most used illicit drug after pot) the simple math blows the gateway theory out of the water. If the gateway theory meant anything, there should be way more than that.
The vast majority of my friends/acquaintances use alcohol. The vast majority are sane, productive, rational. I do know a couple of what I consider to be functioning alcoholics.
A plurality of my former (liberal) friends used marijuana. A majority of them went on to harder drugs, had mild to serious mental issues, and were less and less productive until they became just about inert. Except for the few that quit.
I wouldn't claim any drug is benign or completely harmful. People are benign or harmful. That being said, the majority of people I know that imbibe in hard alcohol have major problems, while the majority of pot users I know are responsible productive citizens. So I guess my anecdotal evidence cancels out yours.
Alcoholics need alcohol to dry out with. Alcoholics can actually die if they withdraw without it.
By "physically determined alcoholics" do you mean alcoholics sitting in their own homes deliberately destroying their mental capacity, thus interering with a decent society? Is that the behavior you want criminalized?
Given the chance I guess you won't be voting for Sarah Palin then? She grew up in the grow capital of Alaska and probably didn't smoke just a little. I am a little disappointed in famous potheads like Sarah and Arnold when they cave in to conservatives. They had no issue with pot until they ran for office.
You are assuming Sarah Palin smoked pot. I think she should be allowed to speak for herself, huh? Is it fair to call someone a pothead just because they grew up in Alaska?
If she did in the past, but quit, I have no problem with it.
Yes, I believe that suicide should be legally discouraged, although if successful, it’s obviously not punishable. It is self murder. Exceptions of course, like sacrificing oneself to save another, like killing a criminal to save another, same idea.
That alcoholic sitting in his house destroying his own mental capacity, that you describe, how did he get that alcohol? Does he work a job? Or is he on welfare? Or is he a lucky trust fund alky?
Even in this case, how does he cash his check? Does he have lackey go get his money and spend it for him, or does he go out on the roads? Oh, he lives within walking distance of his bank and liquor store, does he? Is that his barf you are slipping on? Is that his pee you smell? And allow me to note few of us are within walking distance of these places. I guarantee you he is on the roads. Hope he has a chauffeur!
Is that your harmless alcoholic threatening people who walk by? Passing out on the sidewalk for you to enjoy? Is that him exposing himself? Is that him in his DTs, shooting at the neighborhood road signs, thinking he sees bugs?
Where are his kids? Who is taking care of his aged parents? Is he paying his bills?
Did he leave something on the stove? Oh great, now the house is on fire. Has he mowed his grass lately? There goes the neighborhood.
How’s he doing at the job? Hope it has NO level of responsibility WHATSOEVER.
No one just sits in his rooom and drinks himself to death without every interacting with anyone or shirking a great deal of legitimate responsibility. Of course every alcoholic does not do all of the above. But it’s all part of the package, because we don’t all live on individual islands.
Drunk, stoned, tweaking, on acid - no, it should be illegal to do that to yourself. Cause when you do it to yourself, we are all paying a price at one point or another. Regardless of libertarian utopian fantasies.
And, I have no doubt a lot of them and smoke pot with them. Isn't that the reason you want to legalize marijuana?
Anyone with brain should realize we have enough legal ways to get intoxicated and don't need to lose any more lives by legalizing new ways for citizens to become high. Marijuana legalization diminishes the quality of life for all and that is why it has been disaster in nations and states that have done so.
Damn straight!
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude!
Holland is one of the more successful states in the nation. Alaska isn't exactly a poor place like many southern states that practice prohibition in some counties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.