Freedom vs. Security

@Aedes,

Quote:

Well, there is always a risk of false arrest -- but frankly never having touched illegal drugs I don't particularly fear it.

All well and fine, but you're not the only American.

There are millions of Americans who frequently have cause to fear such arrest.

Quote:

Yup. And I'd argue that the marginalization of the educational system and social programs is, as we might say in medicine, an ex vacuo type of severe oppression on the part of the government.

The government maintains many criminal policies, the War on Drugs being one example.

Quote:

So change the law -- or accept it if you fail. It's a democracy -- you have the opportunity to try and change the law. If it doesn't work, and you're outnumbered, then you can leave, you can change your behavior, or you can accept the risk. I'd love handguns to be illegal, but that's not going to happen either.

Yeah, the Constitution has some things to say about firearms, and in light of the most recent SCOTUS decision, that hope is dead - at least for several decades.

I still don't buy this argument. Law or not, laws can be oppressive - even in Democracy. It's possible for a majority to oppress a minority. Not to mention the fact that some states have changed their laws, and are then harassed by the Federal government - look at the marijuana dispensary raids in California.

You're in the medical field, doesn't it seem oppressive that Americans are locked up for their medicine, prescribed by a doctor?

Quote:

I'm not overly concerned by the stresses faced by recreational drug users who can choose to behave otherwise, so I don't have much sympathy for a claim of oppression.

Religious practitioners have the choice to change their style of worship - should we have no concern for those persecuted for their faith? I know this example is extreme, but the argument is the same.

Either way, you may not be overly concerned, but your lack of concern does not translate into the current laws being anything other than oppressive.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Personal use laws are injust, there is no way you can defend them unless they are aimed only at rehabilitation and not punishment. To throw one in jail for personal use does nothing to help anyone involved. Drug use is rampant in prisons, and it is a burden to the tax payers to keep throwing thousands of people caught with a joint in hand in prison for 1/2 to 3 years (standard class D felony in many southern states for either first or second offense marijuana possesion, more for harder drugs).
I think the answer is decriminalisation of personal use, but keep a fairly large fine, say $500 set fee which will be justified as 1) A tax for under the table monetary exchange, 2) To help pay for public rehabilitation centers along with the money saved from the new aquisition of funds once a chunk of the prison population is eliminated thanks to the decrim. Also we can defer the money currently being used by the horribly failed anti drug ad campaign to the rehabilitation centers. Personally, it seem to me a contradiction of policy to keep alcohol legal while throwing a couple guys with a joint in jail and taking their money as 'drug money' without proof of its status as drug money. Ades, you seem more concerned with drugs such as heroin that are administered via i.v., but this is not even one of the most common; Heroin Abuse in the U.S. cites 2.4 million, however, I have seen estimates around 50% marijauana use among college students( I can dig up the sites if you want, I limit to .edu and .gov), meaning that a good percent of the most educated people in our society have smoked marijuana at some point in their lives(if you can even trust the statistics at all), and coccain is second on the list. Both of these drugs have potential heath risks, though certainly coccain more than marijuana. My point is that many of the people who use drugs are people who are potentially sucessful contributing members of society(most of the presidential candidates in the last decade) because many drug users are wealthy or more highly educated especially as far as coccain use goes. George Bush and Obama sniffed a bit of ol saint nick as it were, and they seem to have come out ok...although I am not so sure about Bush:). I suppose that the lesson to learn is that harder drugs are the playthings of the rich and the death of the poor. That being said, the fine is probably a bigger deterrent for inner city peoples and thus more effective in adressing the issue in the inner city...or is it? It also drives up the price of the addiction and probably the prevalence of crime since they need more money. This is a very sticky situation..perhapse a fine for those who can pay it, this will affirm that they are more likely to have the money to support their addiction, and rehab for those who can't pay, as they are in more danger of commiting a crime to support their addiciton. The problem here is that the party has to be willing to get better or the rehab is just more wasted tax payer money.

As for selling and trafficing, keep those illegal, and gradiate them with respect to risk of use and ammount(ammount is already generally done to a reasonable degree i.e. 1-10 lbs 10-20 lbs and up). I think that alcohol should be used as a guage of risk, if it is similar to alcohol, it should be legalized, if it is greater, then it will be gradiated by ammount of risk and this will be used to determine penalty. Note that I also do not agree with any type of socialized medicine, health risks are the sole responsibility of the person partaking of the drug, however, there should be an ernest attempt to educate the potential users if real effects of drug use.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

I'm glad we finally disagree about an issue -- it's good to stir things up Wink

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Law or not, laws can be oppressive - even in Democracy.

This one doesn't strike me as such. Medical marijuana should be available, particularly if people can conduct studies that convincingly show medical benefit. In fact I routinely prescribe tetrahydrocannabinol (marketed as Marinol) as a mild antiemetic and appetite stimulant. If marijuana or its derivatives can be well studied, then the parameters for controlled use can be set and it can undergo an evidence-based review. But whiny college kids who say they're smoking pot so that they don't get glaucoma 40 years later -- sorry, doesn't count.

Quote:

You're in the medical field, doesn't it seem oppressive that Americans are locked up for their medicine, prescribed by a doctor?

Well, you're oversimplifying it here. No patient is going to jail because I give him amoxicillin for an ear infection or because I give him codeine for pain. Patients who go to jail for prescription drug abuse are almost exclusively patients who "doctor shop" in order to get multiple prescriptions for narcotics and benzodiazepines -- and this IS illegal and should be illegal -- they are taking advantage of loopholes in a medical system that lacks perfect transfer of information. Some of them collect prescription drug prescriptions to sell on the street (in the city I live in Klonopin is sold on the street routinely, and it's not hard to trick a doctor into prescribing it). If I'm working at some walk-in clinic in the middle of nowhere and I don't have access to a patient's records from elsewhere, then it's nearly impossible for me to check on what other prescriptions they take -- and believe me we encounter this all the time.

However, insofar as it is possible to appropriately and inappropriately prescribe things, I agree with you that the honus is on the doctor to avoid egregious and inappropriate prescriptions, esp for things like HGH and anabolic steroids. I have no problem refusing certain meds to patients if it's not indicated.

Quote:

Religious practitioners have the choice to change their style of worship - should we have no concern for those persecuted for their faith? I know this example is extreme, but the argument is the same.

Sure, and for all the Native American kids who are going to use peyote for an occasional ritual, and for all the Jewish kids who are going to have wine during Passover, there should be tolerance and permission for this kind of use.

Quote:

Either way, you may not be overly concerned, but your lack of concern does not translate into the current laws being anything other than oppressive.

No, but your characterization of them as such doesn't make them oppressive either. I don't hear anything in what you're writing that sounds even unjust, let alone oppressive or "terrorizing". I have ZERO pity for reckless kids who get arrested for pot. They don't need to do it, they know what the law is, so they have to assume the potential consequences for their actions. That's not oppressive, that's just learning to live within the laws of a country -- and that is part of adulthood. And whether it's an administrative waste for the government to pursue such crimes or prosecute them as they do is a different matter.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

This thread has gotten way off topic, does anyone want to add anything of value to the original problem? Any insights? The war on drugs might be wholly ineffective and in fact even more harmful than helpful, however, that is not what this thread was intended to discuss. If you want to debat the litigation concerning the war on drugs, go start a new thread, otherwise, please redirect your conversation to the original problem. I know I threw a post in on the afformentioned tangent, however, I am much more interested in whether anyone has somthing to say about the subject of the thread.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Quote:

This one doesn't strike me as such. Medical marijuana should be available, particularly if people can conduct studies that convincingly show medical benefit. In fact I routinely prescribe tetrahydrocannabinol (marketed as Marinol) as a mild antiemetic and appetite stimulant. If marijuana or its derivatives can be well studied, then the parameters for controlled use can be set and it can undergo an evidence-based review.

I'm familiar with the product. Marinol isn't always tolerated very well. Plus, THC is not the only active cannabanoid in marijuana.

And why pay big pharma top dollar for for Marinol when you can grow the stuff in the back yard? Sounds like a way to keep big pharma well funded, and rip off the people a little more. Sounds oppressive.

Quote:

But whiny college kids who say they're smoking pot so that they don't get glaucoma 40 years later -- sorry, doesn't count.

Why does the drug have to have medical use? What's wrong with getting high? We can get drunk, but not high? Strikes me as odd that I can destroy my liver and drink myself to death, but I can't smoke a joint, eat too much, and rest assured I'm not going to overdose.

Medical use isn't the only issue. We also have to ask why in the world government has the right to ban something. If that something is so dangerous that our society depends on it (China banning opium before the Opium Wars seems sensible to me, for example), sure. But marijuana? The fear was from government propaganda and Mr. Hearst trying to protect his timber investment from hemp. Alcohol and tobacco are clearly more dangerous than marijuana, yet marijuana is legal. This is hypocritical, and the only result is that the government has one more thing to arrest me for.

Quote:

Well, you're oversimplifying it here.

No, I think you missed where I was going - which was easy to do, I didn't say where I was going. Medical marijuana patients go to jail, go to prison for years at a time.

Quote:

Patients who go to jail for prescription drug abuse are almost exclusively patients who "doctor shop" in order to get multiple prescriptions for narcotics and benzodiazepines -- and this IS illegal and should be illegal -- they are taking advantage of loopholes in a medical system that lacks perfect transfer of information.

You're talking about people I know, brother. Couldn't be more right. They are killing themselves.

Quote:

Some of them collect prescription drug prescriptions to sell on the street (in the city I live in Klonopin is sold on the street routinely, and it's not hard to trick a doctor into prescribing it).

Some, but that's a very small slice of the pie. Most of that stuff comes up through Mexico, or some other foerign place where drug controls are lacking. Ship it in, big bucks.

Quote:

Sure, and for all the Native American kids who are going to use peyote for an occasional ritual, and for all the Jewish kids who are going to have wine during Passover, there should be tolerance and permission for this kind of use.

Why only Native American kids? Why can't I follow whatever religion I please? As an adult American citizen, I have the right to worship as I want to.

Quote:

No, but your characterization of them as such doesn't make them oppressive either. I don't hear anything in what you're writing that sounds even unjust, let alone oppressive or "terrorizing".

Medical marijuana patients going to jail.

The use of racism to reinforce government propoganda about certain drugs.

Big business lobbying to adjust government policy on certain drugs.

This is a matter of how far the government can go, and under what circumstances.

Quote:

I have ZERO pity for reckless kids who get arrested for pot. They don't need to do it, they know what the law is, so they have to assume the potential consequences for their actions. That's not oppressive, that's just learning to live within the laws of a country -- and that is part of adulthood.

I'm not sure what your argument is. Laws can be unjust. I don't know about you, but I have pity for people who are prosecuted under unjust laws.

Quote:

And whether it's an administrative waste for the government to pursue such crimes or prosecute them as they do is a different matter.

That depends on the motivation. If the government uses those laws to felonize a portion of the population as a way to manage those eligible to vote, I'd say that is oppressive. Mr. Nixon was more than a crook.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

The war on drugs was focused on the wrong end of the scale. The legalization of drugs is not designed to just allow drugs in a free trade. The biggest problem with drugs is not the physical abuse one does to themselves but the instances of crime that feed the sydicates and streets with the flow of money. Remove dealers and propogaters that you object too like the whole of Columbia, by dealing with let's say Bolivia. There can be conditions tied to this trade deal, the product can be monitored for quality and no chemical interferences, plus you have the added bonus of limiting the clientel to those who are addicted or on the drug. Therefore you can begin to phase out introduction of drugs to new and young users. Funny that Didymos Thomas, mentions Afganistan and opium. This is a separate problem and really doesn't need to be about drugs at all. Maybe you could look at the argument that the outside world has. Why is it that an American (USA), product is allowed to be legal across the world. Massive American conglomerates reeping the rewards of trade. Don't misunderstand me I am not blaming America for the problem of smoking tobacco.

Zetetic11235, you asked to have the topic redirected then how is this. Giving up the freedom of free trade for the product of opium that is directly grown in Afganistan, through an encouragement program as it is about the only product that will grow there well but the condition is that other countries like Australia and I guess the USA agree not to grow the poppies for pharmacutical purposes and deal directly with Afghanistan. This will help kerb the problem of illicit deals being run out of that neck of the woods. In return adding some form of stability within the region, which can be referred security back towards the United States of America and dwindling marketable opium for the purpose of drug trafficing.

Line this concept up with Benjamin Franklins idea about freedom and security and I could well imagine that the entire idea seems a little less solid. Freedom v's Security. Security one, Fredom nil.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

You're talking about specific restriction of economic freedom to build stability in a region which has become instable for many reasons aside from opium trade in order to stem the flow of opiates from that region, however you fail to address the fundamental problem didymos raises, ie whether it is correct that the government can restrict the personal use of anything at all.

Im not sure that I understand the solution you pose in the first paragraph, are you suggesting legally shipping in drugs to guarantee quality for those who are now using and then restrict the use of the drugs to only these people? If so, how could this help? It still means that someone else is dealing with Columbiam coke in America illicitly and selling it on the street to new users, who in turn buy it form the legal source(unless that quality control process drives up the price too much) it forms a bizzare dichotomy in the business that doesn't seem the do much at all, rather it enables users without eliminating the illicit drug trade completely.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm familiar with the product. Marinol isn't always tolerated very well.

Nothing is free of side effects. Marinol is very well tolerated. I've only had one patient discontinue it because of side effects, and I actually didn't believe him -- because he didn't develop the side effects until he learned that it was a marijuana derivative, and it was almost certainly an adverse placebo effect.

Quote:

Plus, THC is not the only active cannabanoid in marijuana.

Yes, but until a different one is demonstrated to be clinically effective, cost effective, safe, and clinical indications are clearly delineated, then they all remain natural compounds with no demonstrated medical benefit. So show me the research.

Quote:

And why pay big pharma top dollar for for Marinol when you can grow the stuff in the back yard? Sounds like a way to keep big pharma well funded, and rip off the people a little more. Sounds oppressive.

That's ludicrous. Why aren't you making the same argument for growing cinchona trees to treat malaria instead of buying quinine, Chinese wormwood instead of buying artemisinin, and willow trees instead of buying aspirin? Why isn't that oppressive? In all these cases the active compound has been identified, purified, and it's administered in a standardized way in which the quality and the actual dose are known.

So what makes marijuana special, as opposed to all these other drugs that come from plants? Oh, that's right, you can get high on marijuana.

Quote:

Why does the drug have to have medical use? What's wrong with getting high?

I don't care if you get high as long as you're not driving or operating a jackhammer. Don't kid yourself that there are no side effects, including long-term, from marijuana, but I'm content with you assuming responsibility for it. But the fact remains that it's illegal for better or for worse -- so either go and get enough support to change the law, or accept that you live in a democracy that chooses to keep your pet chemical illegal. You might get arrested for smoking pot, you might get a speeding ticket for going 75 in a 45 zone, you might get audited by the IRS if you "forget" to declare cash income, etc. Live by the rules or violate them at your own peril.

Quote:

But marijuana?

Change the law if you don't like it. And if you can't change the law, accept that your viewpoint is in the minority, and you can go move to the Netherlands if you don't like it.

Quote:

the only result is that the government has one more thing to arrest me for.

They wouldn't if you didn't choose to smoke it.

Quote:

Medical marijuana patients going to jail.

I don't count that as oppressive or terrorizing. If you don't want to go to jail, then don't break the damned law. There is plenty of research coming out about medical marijuana, and the laws WILL change. Until then, it's illegal, it's on the books, so smoke it at your own peril.

Quote:

The use of racism to reinforce government propoganda about certain drugs.

Big business lobbying to adjust government policy on certain drugs.

That's oppression and terrorization? If you want me to send you a list of citations that CLEARLY shows that marijuana use predicts future hard drug use, then I'd be happy to. What hasn't been shown (to my knowledge) is if prevention of marijuana use will prevent future drug use -- but I'd be shocked if that weren't true.

It's just as much feeble rhetoric and propaganda to claim terrorization and oppression -- you're just on the other side of the coin.

Quote:

Laws can be unjust. I don't know about you, but I have pity for people who are prosecuted under unjust laws.

If they're unjust then change them. But this is not sufficiently unjust -- in fact I think it IS justified to keep marijuana illegal EXCEPT for clearly documented medical use. I think the penalties are more unjust than the law, frankly.

Quote:

If the government uses those laws to felonize a portion of the population as a way to manage those eligible to vote, I'd say that is oppressive.

Good luck proving that claim. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, for the most part all approve of marijuana being illegal. In fact the only three significant constituencies who want it to be legal are advocates for medical use, libertarians, and potheads.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Why doesn't the government just tax illegal drugs like crazy and allow them to be legal. When I mean 'like crazy' I mean like enough for incentive to have the potheads forced to stop due to financial conflicts. And instead of the government having to loose money to keep the criminals at bay they could gain money.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Why doesn't the government just tax illegal drugs like crazy and allow them to be legal.

Tax something enough and you'll get a black market to undersell the legal market.

The tax on cigarettes, however, has a very important twofold purpose. The ostensible purpose is to defray the cost of caring for patients with smoking-related illnesses (which include very common things like pneumonia and asthma). But the main reason is that it discourages teenagers from smoking -- very few people begin smoking after their teenage years, so you can really drop the number of smokers by preventing teen smoking.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

That makes sense but there will always be a black market.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

That makes sense but there will always be a black market.

In the US there isn't a significant black market for cigarettes, alcohol, or gasoline despite high taxes. There probably WOULD be a huge black market for cocaine and heroin because people impoverish themselves on these drugs and price doesn't get most people to quit. As for pot? Don't know, but I think given how easy it is for people to cultivate on their own there probably would be a big illegal market -- so the legal versions would never compete.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Zetetic, the point of legalisation means, that you can control the market and simply outsell the Columbians. They will only develop new clientel not continue to sell to past buyers. That is no longer a market. Users must be attacked from behind because you cannot stop the flow of drugs. The idea that special police departments use the flow of drugs to trace other illegal activities is the only down side of legalisation. The forces that are behind the illegal drug trade is the mark you need to eliminate, not the drugs first that is impossible. Control the drug and you begin to control the people who use drugs, this can be used to prevent young people coming into contact with the drugs.

If the goverment cannot control the market of personel use drugs, what hope has it got if the idea that the restriction of personal use is an issue. The market is there. All the fines and all the jail time and the threat there of, hasn't done a thing to kerb the market. So the point that you are saying Didymos Thomas has made is mute. (Sorry in English the word mute is what you would use as moot.)

The point that Aedes makes is wonderful for the attack on the individuals caught but as long as there is a new person to step into the role that has been vacated, that is not fighting any war on drugs.

Funny, I have attacked the freedom v's security point twice now and I believe that I have made a case to argue against Benny himself, lest a better person stand in.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

The only way the government can control the sale of drugs is to undersell the blackmarket competition and sell the drugs unresrictedly to their own people. This means legalization, unless you mean making some crazy undercover drug lord operation which excludes those involved from the law of the people. which is injust by any definition and definitley not worth implementing to control drug use, somthing which as a libertarian I cannot agree with in the first place (not to mention the ideological contradiciton that is found in alcohol and tobbacco). Add to this the fact that as soon as you attempt to phase out the drug, the previous supplier gets the market back, and you've got a broken system. I stated before that this would probably lead to an overall worsening of the problem due to the glareing contradiction in policy it would require and that to achieve such a glareing policy contradiction freedom must be usruped from the hands of the people. You have not addressed my criticizim.

Thus far urangatan, you have made no attempt at the fundamental issue of freedom vs security much less an attck on 'benny', whom is not really in the limelight on this one anyway. At best you have provided a system by which the government can implement futher control the people through the laws set in place by the majority and not necessarily justly so. You have not addressed the question of whether it is better to be free from constraint by others at your own peril or better to lessen ones own personal freedom in favor of security, which means taking the chance that those in power will ultimately control you and not necessarily to your own bennefit. The problem is given another dimention by the problem of the tyrrany of the majority over the minority, which it seems can only be answered by very limited powers of central government, i.e. a constitutional federal government which is not free to interperet the constitution outside of the context of the inception of the law as best approximated through study of history and the writings of the men involved in writing the constitution ie the federalist papers. It of course would be necessary that every member of the supreame court must be students of the same philosophy and writings that the founding fathers were in order to better understand their mindset, ie John Locke's writings.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic, you cannot fight something you do not control. Legalization is the only way to fight the epidemic that surrounds the drug. Guns don't kill, people do, same scenario. Cocaine is not the epidemic. The sale, use and abuse is. Burn the crop and they will plant more, kill the baron and another will stand, buy the market and you rule the roost. It would be cheaper, safer and more controlled if drugs were administered at some form of medical centre, than how it is run now. It would be the same if there were dens for the partaking of drug use, administered only, than it is now and the streets will become drug freer, then free as long as this is administered correctly.

Is there any opium crops in the United States of America.
Are they free enterprise or government controlled.

If the government said that the United States will not grow poppies for the purpose of medicinal use and instead dealt directly with the lords of Afghanistan for the opium, would that not be sacrificing a freedom to develop a security. Oddly it may well be two securities. One in Afghanistan, the other a lessened opium market for the world to make into heroin to ship into the United States.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

Quote:

Nothing is free of side effects. Marinol is very well tolerated.

You're absolutely right. However, as you say, nothing is free of side effects, and some people do not tolerate Marinol as well as smoked or eaten marijuana.

Quote:

Yes, but until a different one is demonstrated to be clinically effective, cost effective, safe, and clinical indications are clearly delineated, then they all remain natural compounds with no demonstrated medical benefit. So show me the research.

Well, we do have studies on smoked marijuana that contains those other cannabanoids. I'm all for more studies.

Quote:

That's ludicrous. Why aren't you making the same argument for growing cinchona trees to treat malaria instead of buying quinine, Chinese wormwood instead of buying artemisinin, and willow trees instead of buying aspirin?

Because doctors do not, to my knowledge, prescribe these things to patients. Doctors do prescribe smoked marijuana.

Quote:

So what makes marijuana special, as opposed to all these other drugs that come from plants? Oh, that's right, you can get high on marijuana.

Or, you know, that doctors prescribe the plant.

Quote:

I don't care if you get high as long as you're not driving or operating a jackhammer. Don't kid yourself that there are no side effects, including long-term, from marijuana, but I'm content with you assuming responsibility for it. But the fact remains that it's illegal for better or for worse -- so either go and get enough support to change the law, or accept that you live in a democracy that chooses to keep your pet chemical illegal. You might get arrested for smoking pot, you might get a speeding ticket for going 75 in a 45 zone, you might get audited by the IRS if you "forget" to declare cash income, etc. Live by the rules or violate them at your own peril.

I'm not debating the possible dangers of marijuana. I don't suggest that anyone use the drug, much less use the drug and drive a car. Just like I don't suggest people drink, much less drink and drive.

But pointing to the legal status of marijuana is not an argument that the legal status of marijuana is appropriate.

The government legally rounded up Japanese Americans during World War 2. You're familiar with the Japanese internment. Despite being legal, the process was oppressive and terrorized American citizens.

Quote:

Change the law if you don't like it. And if you can't change the law, accept that your viewpoint is in the minority, and you can go move to the Netherlands if you don't like it.

Again, pointing to the legal status of the drug does not make the case.

Quote:

I don't count that as oppressive or terrorizing. If you don't want to go to jail, then don't break the damned law. There is plenty of research coming out about medical marijuana, and the laws WILL change. Until then, it's illegal, it's on the books, so smoke it at your own peril.

If you do not see the oppression in patients going to prison for using a drug prescribed by their doctors, I'm not sure there is any point in having this discussion. There are states where the laws have been changed to allow for medical marijuana. The federal government still arrests patients.

The government is putting people in prison for using the medicine given to them by their doctors. That's oppressive. Could things be worse? You bet, but that's beside the point.

Quote:

That's oppression and terrorization? If you want me to send you a list of citations that CLEARLY shows that marijuana use predicts future hard drug use, then I'd be happy to. What hasn't been shown (to my knowledge) is if prevention of marijuana use will prevent future drug use -- but I'd be shocked if that weren't true.

It's just as much feeble rhetoric and propaganda to claim terrorization and oppression -- you're just on the other side of the coin.

And we can make the same gateway argument for tobacco and alcohol.

But, yeah, racism[i/], especially when used by the government, is oppressive. Doesn't sound far fetched to me.

[quote]If they're unjust then change them. But this is not sufficiently unjust -- in fact I think it IS justified to keep marijuana illegal EXCEPT for clearly documented medical use. I think the penalties are more unjust than the law, frankly.[/quote]

The penalties are part of the law. Look up the drug scheduling and be depressed. Look at the scheduling for marijuana and LSD and other hallucinogens, even though both have medical benefits. Recent studies on mushrooms might help shift some of these laws. Hopefully.

In any case, you ignored my argument. Laws can be unjust. Just because a law is in place doesn't mean the law is justified.

[quote]Good luck proving that claim. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, for the most part all approve of marijuana being illegal. In fact the only three significant constituencies who want it to be legal are advocates for medical use, libertarians, and potheads.[/quote]

I have to ask - are you familiar with the Nixon administration? or do you stick to Kissinger's accounts?

But we've gone off track with marijuana. All I have to do is show that my government is oppressive and employs terror tactics? Man this is easy:

The Patriot Act: Targeting American Citizens

You can pick which ones you like. Notice the Denver photographer being arrested, Secret Service interrogating kids. Great oppressive fun. Oh, and consider the whole Patriot Act as an example. Taking things back a few years, I'll also sight Nixon's Huston Plan. Familiar with unitary executive theory? At the very least, this all violates the Bill of Rights, therefore, oppression.

And the already mentioned Japanese internment. All sounds very oppressive to me.

Let's not forget American oppression elsewhere in the world. Did we forget Vietnam? The bombing of Laos and Cambodia? The invasion of Cambodia? Let's not forget My Lai.

I can't think of a single government that has not made a habit of oppressing and terrorizing it's own people. The US is no exception. We could change the marijuana laws and I'd still have more than enough reason to dissent. Let's hope Homeland Security doesn't detain me indefinately, without charge, without access to an attorney. Would be terribly sad, don't you think?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You're absolutely right. However, as you say, nothing is free of side effects, and some people do not tolerate Marinol as well as smoked or eaten marijuana.

And the converse is true as well. At least with marinol you don't need to worry about hypogonadism, lung cancer, COPD, asthma, or addiction.

Quote:

Well, we do have studies on smoked marijuana that contains those other cannabanoids.

And we have a regulatory process called the FDA that evaluates therapies for safety and efficacy. This is basically impossible with smoked marijuana unless you make it a standardized dose, like in a metered-dose inhaler.

Quote:

Because doctors do not, to my knowledge, prescribe these things to patients.

They did until the purified compounds were available. Oh, by the way, Chinese wormwood is STILL the only source of artemisinin compounds for the treatment of malaria, though people are working hard at synthesizing it.

Quote:

Doctors do prescribe smoked marijuana.

No, doctors recommend it. It cannot be prescribed according to the DEA certification that we are all required to carry.

Quote:

But pointing to the legal status of marijuana is not an argument that the legal status of marijuana is appropriate.

And complaining about the inappropriateness of the ban does not make it "terrorizing" or "oppressive" when people get caught violating that law. Come on, it's marijuana we're talking about. It's not like the government has banned water.

Quote:

The government legally rounded up Japanese Americans during World War 2. You're familiar with the Japanese internment. Despite being legal, the process was oppressive and terrorized American citizens.

Yup. And unlike the marijuana discussion, that actually WAS terrorizing and oppressive.

Quote:

If you do not see the oppression in patients going to prison for using a drug prescribed by their doctors, I'm not sure there is any point in having this discussion.

And if you don't appreciate that it's ILLEGAL for doctors to prescribe it and ILLEGAL for patients to smoke it, then I'm not sure you have much respect for the whole idea of a law.

Furthermore, you keep blurring the line between the habits of dumb college kids who like to get stoned versus the medical "needs" of patients. So let's compromise -- let's support medical marijuana, but let's make recreational use illegal. After all, that's the case for oxycontin, et al.

Would you then be content if the prosecution of people who used medical marijuana stopped provided they met strict evidence-based criteria -- but the crackdown on pot addicts continued? And I put medical needs in quotations because the medical benefit of marijuana, though real, is very small.

Quote:

There are states where the laws have been changed to allow for medical marijuana. The federal government still arrests patients.

That is thanks to the supremacy clause in the Constitution. Would you like to have a constitutional convention to change that?

As for your litany of other offenses by the US government, I completely agree. I am no apologist for our government and its policies. But as for marijuana, you don't get a sympathetic ear from me. And I'm an infectious disease specialist, taking care of AIDS patients is my job, not to mention that I consult on many many people with cancer. So I do understand the medical issue quite well.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Quote:

At least with marinol you don't need to worry about hypogonadism, lung cancer, COPD, asthma, or addiction.

I'm familiar with the fact that chronic long term marijuana use can cause a reduction in sperm production, but I wasn't aware that use could lead to permanent defects. Any handy info around?

As for lung cancer, I've never seen anything that links marijuana use to lung cancer. However, I have seen a number of claims closer to this:
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

Not to say that marijuana does not contain carcinogens - it certainly does, including one shared with tobacco that is supposed to be especially close to lung cancer. But I have never seen a study that links marijuana use with an increased risk for lung cancer.

When we talk about COPD and asthma, I think we have to remember that ideally a doctor would be involved in the patient's use of marijuana. For example, maybe marijuana shouldn't be suggested to someone who smokes cigarettes because cigarettes are known to exacerbate these problems.

As for addiction, you know well that many FDA approved drugs are easily abused. And Marinol also has potential for abuse; you can get high off the stuff. If addiction is possible for marijuana, addiction is possible for marinol.

I'd also like to mention the issue of cannabanoids apart from THC once again. Specifically, cannabidiol and cannabichromine, an anti-convulsant and an anti-inflamatory, both suspected of playing an important role in the therapeutic effects of marijuana. I'd like to see more study on the matter, but throwing marinol into the discussion as a replacement for marijuana doesn't seem to hold up - marinol does not seem to have all of the medical benefits of marijuana.

Quote:

And we have a regulatory process called the FDA that evaluates therapies for safety and efficacy. This is basically impossible with smoked marijuana unless you make it a standardized dose, like in a metered-dose inhaler.

You would know better than I would, but they do manage to standardize doses for research without the use of such inhalers.

But I see the concern. I would suggest the use of vaporizers to better regulate the dose. That way we can dose patients based on the strength of the marijuana and amount of marijuana. Should work beautifully with a decent machine.

As for the FDA:
Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine
If smoked marijuana has no medical value, then marinol could not have medical value. But being honest, apparently, is just too much.

Big pharma lobbies on behalf of the drug war. No surprise.

Quote:

They did until the purified compounds were available. Oh, by the way, Chinese wormwood is STILL the only source of artemisinin compounds for the treatment of malaria, though people are working hard at synthesizing it.

Then it's high time we get a purified compound out there with more than just THC.

Quote:

No, doctors recommend it. It cannot be prescribed according to the DEA certification that we are all required to carry.

That doctors recommend smoked marijuana is enough to make my point.

"Why aren't you making the same argument for growing cinchona trees to treat malaria instead of buying quinine, Chinese wormwood instead of buying artemisinin, and willow trees instead of buying aspirin?"

Because doctors do not recommend all of these to patients, but they do recommend smoked marijuana.

There is also the concern of costs. Especially in this country, prescription drugs are not cheap - but growing a plant is. We can trust people to take aspirin on their own, even though if you eat enough of them you'll die. To my knowledge, marijuana overdose is impossible.

Quote:

And complaining about the inappropriateness of the ban does not make it "terrorizing" or "oppressive" when people get caught violating that law. Come on, it's marijuana we're talking about. It's not like the government has banned water.

If the law is a violation of rights, and the law is enforced, the law is oppressive.

I think we also need to look at the government's use of propaganda to support it's policy. Racism and xenophobia. Certain government elements still have no problem simply lying about the drug. Take a look around here:
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Absolute falsehood next to fact is terribly dangerous.

Quote:

Yup. And unlike the marijuana discussion, that actually WAS terrorizing and oppressive.

So the United States government does oppress and terrorize it's own citizens. Remarkable.

Quote:

And if you don't appreciate that it's ILLEGAL for doctors to prescribe it and ILLEGAL for patients to smoke it, then I'm not sure you have much respect for the whole idea of a law.

Nope, no respect for unjust laws.

Anyway, on a state level, the use and recommendation of marijuana by a doctor is not illegal. It's that nasty Federal law I'm particularly concerned with.

Quote:

Furthermore, you keep blurring the line between the habits of dumb college kids who like to get stoned medical "needs" of patients. Would you be content if the prosecution of people who used medical marijuana stopped provided they met strict evidence-based criteria -- but the crackdown on pot addicts continued? And I put medical needs in quotations because the medical benefit of marijuana, though real, is very small.

That would be an improvement, so sure. But I'm still not convinced that the government has any right, much less any reasonable justification, for the current nature of marijuana regulation. I support a degree of regulation, but not the current status.

As for the medical benefit of marijuana - the benefit seems significant when marijuana could replace extremely expensive medications that some people simply cannot afford. Most people can afford to water a plant, though.

Quote:

Thanks to the supremacy clause in the Constitution. Would you like to have a constitutional convention to change that?

No, I'd like to know what constitutional convention gave the government the right to ban marijuana.

Quote:

As for your litany of other offenses by the US government, I completely agree. I am no apologist for our government and its policies. But as for marijuana, you don't get a sympathetic ear from me. And I'm an infectious disease specialist, taking care of AIDS patients is my job, and I understand the issue quite well.

Then we're in agreement - the US government uses terror tactics and oppresses the American people.

As for marijuana, the issue is two fold. First and foremost, because I support people having access to whatever medicine their doctor determines is best, is the medical issue regarding marijuana. I know your credentials and have nothing but respect for your medical knowledge, but other doctors who 'understand the issue quite well' disagree with you and see immense potential in medical marijuana. Whatever the case may be, I think we can both agree that there is need for more research on marijuana.

The second and more fundamental issue regarding marijuana laws is whether or not the government can or should maintain the current policy. I'd argue the government needs a Constitutional Amendment to ban the drug without violating the Constitution. I'd also argue that the government does not have any justification for such a measure; we're not facing a national marijuana crisis - well, unless you see things my way and consider the current laws to be a crisis, a crisis for the sick, a crisis for people who don't like to drink, and a crisis for the American tax payer who let's the government burn their tax dollars every year to feel the high of inflated departmental funding.

I am glad the initial issue has been resolved.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

These posts are getting long and it's late so I'll be brief.

First, the supremacy clause in the constitution stipulates that federal law ALWAYS supercedes state law when they conflict. So if a federal law is unjust and a state law contradicts it, the federal law overrules it. That's why the state medical marijuana laws cannot prevent federal prosecution. It has nothing to do with the issue -- only the discrepancy between state and federal law.

I can give supportive scientific articles that show marijuana associated with metaplastic changes in the lung (which are precancerous histologic changes), marijuana is associated with head and neck cancers, it is associated with not only sperm dysmotility but also lower testicular volume, lower sperm count, and gynecomastia.

This review article might be available for free:
Marijuana: Medical Implications - December 1, 1999 - American Academy of Family Physicians

Marinol has not been found to be addictive or abused according to the package insert. I took a look at the journal articles in PubMed and couldn't find any case-report associations between the two. You can read the package insert here:
http://www.marinol.com/images/pdf/MARINOLPI.pdf

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Then we're in agreement - the US government uses terror tactics and oppresses the American people.

We're not exactly in agreement here. The US government HAS been oppressive, it HAS used terror tactics, and it DOES do so on several fronts. However I will NOT concur with your implication that this is a general, common, or deliberate practice of the government such that we can wantonly throw those words around to complain about this or that issue.

Quote:

I know your credentials and have nothing but respect for your medical knowledge, but other doctors who 'understand the issue quite well' disagree with you and see immense potential in medical marijuana.

I see therapeutic potential as well, I mean I certainly recognize its utility (as well as Marinol's) as an antiemetic and appetite stimulant in patients with cachexia. But first things first -- do the research and then write the prescriptions. Doctors, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies are known to be wrong, and without the research you can put people at great risk of harm just because you are optimistic about a drug.

Quote:

I'd argue the government needs a Constitutional Amendment to ban the drug without violating the Constitution.

Does it also need a constitutional amendment to ban crack? Does it need a constitutional amendment to ban the public from owning a nuclear bomb?

Quote:

I'd also argue that the government does not have any justification for such a measure

But they thought they did when they passed the law, and there are procedures to get such things revoked. If the country as a whole concurred with you, and felt any kind of urgency about it, then the ban would probably be reversed. As is, I think most Americans have no problem with the ban.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Urangatang, you do not think that drugs should be used, correct? If that is false stop reading here and inform me.

If the government allows for decriminization of drugs with a fine attached instead, we can use the money to pay for clinics with drugs like methodone (for those who abuse opiates) and other treatment facilities to help break addiction and research to better our ability to break chemical dependence. If we legalize drugs, we encourage use, this has been verified by every attempt to that effect. If drugs are legal, then there is still a competeing black market and still a problem if the govenment is to make enough of a profit to support the clinics for the addicts. Furthermore, as soon as the government tries to phase out, the black markets take over once again. To control all drug flow the government would have to add fuel to the fire via my tax dollars by buying up and destroying all the drugs, otherwise there is not stemming the flow of drugs. I will not allow such an effort and niether will the people. The votes lie in the pocket books of the citizens.

By the way aedes, it is very clear that there have been and still are many licentious attempts by the government and its officials to misinform the public about the dangers of marijuana. Most people watch the news before reading a medical journal or neuopsychological study on the topic. Go figure. I cannot support the war on drugs as a libertarian and the fact of blatant ideological contradiction due to the legality of alcohol.

2 Replies

Freedom vs. Security

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know