Research helps dispel marijuana myths

Sober Talk ^ | Thursday, August 1, 2002 | By BECKY CLARK, MSW, CSW

[Behind Liberal Lines]

As we endeavor toward a more lucid and informed discussion of substance abuse, let's deconstruct the mystique of marijuana and recognize it for the dangerous drug that it is.

Marijuana is a substance that's worthy of our concern. It is the most prevalent of all illicit drugs used in the country. The 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported that 34 percent of Americans have used marijuana in their lifetime and 5 percent are current users.

[FreeTally]

"Chronic" is the street name for marijuana.

Oh, that's so 1993.

[philosofy123]

Nothing worong with saying it is bad. I don't somke the stuff because it is expensive, and illegal. The point i am making is WE MUST TAKE THE PROFIT OUT OF THE DRUG TRADE. This would make it not so cool to do drugs. Now for example, there are people who get drunk until they cannot walk, after legalizing drugs, I am sure there will be drug heads who are so smashed that they cannot see straight? But at least we can save thousands of black kids who grow up on the trade, and reduce the crime associated with dealers turf protection war.

[A2J]

By doing research instead of just making stuff up. You should try it sometime.

If by "research" you mean getting stoned to the point that you are worthless to your family, friends, and employers, then I'm not interested.

And your "research" is documented where?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Trust me. There are far more pro pot people than anti pot people in Ithaca.

I still find it interesting that the pro pot crowd here is so unwilling to accept or employ standard conservative/libertarian argument that notes the safety of the substance should generally be irrelevant to our right to consume same. Instead, they have a nervous breakdown and claim it's "lies all lies."

You don't see too many conservatives or libertarians trying to argue that tobacco isn't bad for you when the advocate for its continued use. You don't see a lot of posters trying to claim that fatty food is GOOD for you. Or that booze isn't addictive. Instead, they fall back on the perfectly legitimate notion that even if its bad for them it's "their body, their choice" so to speak.

To be candid, I find this unwillingness disturbing. It is almost a tacit admission that, if something IS bad for you, it should be banned.

[KDD]

In contrast to this article, here are THE FACTS

[general_re]

Bad cut and paste. Meant to post column and source name.

Well, hell - that would have saved me some time. If the IJ is agin it, I'm fer it ;)

[Wolfie]

If you would READ the article you would find that it mentions the fact that marijuana today is far more powerful than it was in your "high school drug classes in the 70's."

Its not af act, its pure myth:

Self-Serving Comparisons: Marijuana Potency

[William Terrell]

What are marijuana advocates so afraid of?

Using a plant that grows wild all over the Earth, and placed here by God for the use of mankind, to destroy freedoms previously protected by the Constitution, spread corruption in the form of booty among the law enforcement offices and terrorize and suborn innocent and productive Americans.

Every point in the article you posted is either a blatant or contrived lie. If the effect of the plant's use are so obvious and well documented, why lie? What are the anti-cannabis people afraid of?

[KDD]

If there is anything there you do not understand, just ask.

[A2J]

So much for the theory that pot use makes people more mellow.

It's amazing how those who claim that libertarians represent more than anti-drug law idiots can't see that their own integrity goes up in smoke when their golden calf of marijuana is ridiculed.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

The point i am making is WE MUST TAKE THE PROFIT OUT OF THE DRUG TRADE. This would make it not so cool to do drugs.

I can respect your argument.

The thing I find disturbing is that so few of the pro pot people posting here can concede that you can make it legal but make the dangers of the substance clear (ie, make it not so cool).

Its almost as if they not only want it legalized but they don't want it criticized.

To be blunt (no pun intended), some of their behavior IS starting to look like the behavior of addicts: "There's no problem...it isn't addictive...I use all the time with no problem..." etc., all with an incredible indignation and anger at anyone who even SUGGESTS its a problem.

[sweet_diane]

"if something IS bad for you, it should be banned."

does that mean they'll be coming for my chocolate soon?!?! I tend to spend too much time on FR and it's not too good on my eyes... . OH MY!

[A2J]

Using a plant that grows wild all over the Earth, and placed here by God for the use of mankind,

Please don't implicate God in your crimes.

Using your logic, which apparently has been affected by the "plant," then God is guilty of being an accomplice in every rape that happens for placing sex on earth "for the use of mankind."

[A2J]

Every point in the article you posted is either a blatant or contrived lie.

And your evidence to the contrary is...

[GeekDejure]

Pass the bong

C'mon, Squeezy . . . I've been holding the bong out in your direction for about an hour now . . . My arm's gettin' kinda tired !!! ;-))

[A2J]

To be blunt (no pun intended), some of their behavior IS starting to look like the behavior of addicts: "There's no problem...it isn't addictive...I use all the time with no problem..." etc., all with an incredible indignation and anger at anyone who even SUGGESTS its a problem.

To the pro-potties, "DENIAL" is just a river in Egypt.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

It's amazing how those who claim that libertarians represent more than anti-drug law idiots can't see that their own integrity goes up in smoke when their golden calf of marijuana is ridiculed.

Alluding to your #36, judging by the caliber of your sentence construction, it's obvious you've been soaking in gin for the last 12 hours.

[William Terrell]

Again, how would you know?

Well, for one thing, it policy of the courts for use the prison/treatment option when one is found in possession of as small a quanty as 3 grams, and suprise!, the great majority of people opt for "treatment". This is a matter of public record. How is it you don't know; don't you ever venture out to actually do research on your position in an issue?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

"if something IS bad for you, it should be banned... does that mean they'll be coming for my chocolate soon?!?!"

That's sort of my point. Conservatives or libertarians don't try to argue, for example, that "the statisics showing that people who eat too much choclate get fat and have zits are LIES LIES." They argue that, despite certain conceded potentially unhealthy aspects of chocolate that it shouldn't be banned because people have the FREEDOM to use it.

When its marijuana, however, they don't allow themselves to make the concession. They cling stubbornly to the concept that marijuana is the greatest thing on god's green leafy earth.

Once the "freedom" theory is abandoned for pot in favor of the "aint bad for ya" theory it opens to the door to the logical and rhetorical position that we should abandon the "freedom" theory in other areas and look solely at whether or not its bad for you.

And that opens the door to the exact place the socialists, liberal, etc., want us to go.

In other words I think we may have found FR's own "useful idiots." ;-)

[Behind Liberal Lines]

toi