I'm doing a debate paper on the legalization of marijuana. It's a group project with two group members being for it, and two being against it. Thing is the group is graded as a whole so we're doing collabortive research.

Basically what I want to know is, what do you think are some good reasons to/not to legalize marijuana?

And before you call me lazy, I've already done a lot of research on my own. What I'm looking for here is a fair account of popular ideas on the topic. So fire away!

Just my opinion.

2.) Government can get some cash out of it, via taxing (Hey, they tax Cigs and Alcohol, why not Weed.)

3.) If legalized, the product itself would also be safe, and to a degree trustworthy. Some weed company would most likely not lace it with stuff

Yeah okay, there's more but right now but Im too lazy to try and make up some more.

quote:

---

We were all impressed when Maradon! wrote:
You know that there is now a drug called Marinol that duplicates the medicinal effects of marijuana, without forcing patients to inhale carcinogens along with it

---

How safe is it, though? I mean, there are people out there who will argue that marijuana is natural, and therefore "better for you" than any pill or shot.

And since my post is too old to edit, I thought about it a bit more and decided that I guess legalizing it would be okay if it had laws to go with it...

quote:

---

Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Emily who doth quote:
How safe is it, though? I mean, there are people out there who will argue that marijuana is natural

---

Uranium and arsenic are also natural

quote:

---

Katrinity had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
I'm with Em on this one. If they are going to legalize Marijuana, it should be like the controlled drugs, Oxycontin, Oxycodone, Duragesic, etc. That way you can get it legally but you have to have a prescription from a doctor that follows very regulated guidelines.

---

But then the illegal drugs thing would still be a problem, but even more so then because the patients could resell it. (Yes it happens, I know people who deal Ritalin through this method.)

The consumption of marijuana is, for the most part, as victimless a crime as drinking is. That is to say, it is harmful only to the person consuming it if proper precautions are taken and general common sense is followed. Granted, it is harmful. Granted, the legal drugs Americans are allowed to take create problems of a significant nature.

However, the criminalization of marijuana has created a black market for the substance that is far more dangerous than the substance itself is. And, considering the amount of government money spent each year to combat that market and its influence, it is also more costly.

A couple seconds worth of looking through Google brings up a site claiming that 25% of imprisoned persons in the U.S. today are in prison due to drug-related offenses. That is probably incredibly skewed, as most such reports are, and "drug-related" could certainly be a wholly large number of actual crimes... but it is still rather obvious, given the mandatory drug sentencing laws (stricter in practice than some violent crimes), that there is SOME large number of people imprisoned for drug-related crime.

The basic argument on this sort of thing is basically "we can reduce crime by eliminating the black market, make money by taxing it instead of losing money on trying to stop it, and generally reduce the 'prohibition' feel of the entire thing by making it legal."

Given that you've already researched this, of course, I'm just repeating common knowledge to you... but it is the only really effective argument I've heard for legalization, so it might as well be said again.

quote:

---

So quoth Katrinity:
I'm with Em on this one. If they are going to legalize Marijuana, it should be like the controlled drugs, Oxycontin, Oxycodone, Duragesic, etc. That way you can get it legally but you have to have a prescription from a doctor that follows very regulated guidelines.

---

I don't know how much regulation it would need really. They could easily sell that as an over the counter drug, and the government could make a great deal of money from it.

In comparison to something like alcohol, it's effects really aren't that bad.

quote:

---

Maradon! wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
You know that there is now a drug called Marinol that duplicates the medicinal effects of marijuana, without forcing patients to inhale carcinogens along with it

---

Ever tried a Marinol cap? They take forever to kick in, then it's lights out as they hit you like a freight train. Most people prefer to be functional, and it's a hell of a lot easier to control the dosage when absorbing the THC into your lungs. It is possible to vaporize the THC without actually smoking the weed, which eliminates the carcinogens as they remain in the unburnt plant material.

I don't and wouldn't use either, but just my thoughts. if someone wants to go get drunk, let them. if they want to get high, let them.

Pretend that the US is a big game of SimCity. Well, pretend that it's SimCity the way I played it: your goal is to get as much money as possible by the time you've filled up every square on the map with a building or road. A neo-mercantilist state, if you will.

If one were foolish enough to try the same approach in the real world, the goal would translate to maximizing your country's GNP. It's not just to put more money in government pockets, either: the more the people produce, the more wealth is fed back into the system, and the more the people prosper. And all of you who are now saying that no one can enjoy the new "improved" country because there are no basic freedoms--yes, I feel the same way.

Now, let's consider the claim that recreational marijuana use is a victimless crime. There is certainly no obvious victim such as there is in hitting someone upside the head. [this text would be replaced with statistics about productivity loss while under the influence in a real paper.] So as you can see, a large-scale escalation of marijuana use--even under regulation--would drive GNP down, resulting in a lower overall quality of life.

Of course, real life isn't scored entirely by the increase of wealth, but a certain quantity of productivity is necessary for a nation to remain in the first world. Are individuals competent to make the decision to smoke for themselves, or in other words to weigh the burden their existence places on society against the contribution they make? Not bloody likely. pound pulpit argument weak

Here's a statement on the subject by, what I believe is an indiana republican/libertarian, Paul Hager.

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. ...for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded"

-- Abraham Lincoln

Following is a copy of my response to Jennifer Stabb, one of the coordinators of the Indiana Drug-Free Regional Office. I've had some dealings over the past couple of months with the Governor's Commission for a Drug-Free Indiana and Ms. Stabb centered around the Bloomington HEMP/NORML chapter's efforts to put together a panel discussion on the topic, "Marijuana Re- Legalization". I had figured that, as they were presumably the most well informed of the marijuana prohibitionists, they would make excellent panelists. Over a period of several weeks, the executive director of the commission, Joseph Mills, and several of his minions gave me what can best be described as "the runaround." People who I contacted left me hanging and when I finally was able to get some answer they were invariably busy or "not willing to participate at this time." When one starts getting the same phrase back from different people, one's suspicions are aroused.

I actually encountered Ms. Stabb on the occasion of a public meeting that was intended to "celebrate" the unveiling of the regional "plan". She was friend6y enough initially: I was sartorially resplendent in one of my three-piece suits and looked every inch the stolid, professional community activist -- you know, head of the rotary club, that sort of thing. We talked Democratic politics (Governor Evan Bayh is the first Democratic Governor of Indiana in more than 2 decades and many of the people in Drug-Free Indiana are political appointees) briefly, which showed that I was one of the "good guys." Somewhere in our conversation I indicated that I was with Bloomington HEMP/NORML. From that moment, she became very stiff and uncomfortable -- her reaction wouldn't have been much different if I'd said that I was with the Charlie Manson fan club. Attempts to discuss the commission's policy on marijuana were met with canned responses about the commission's "charter" and how it prevented them from evaluating the law. She would never quite make eye contact and seemed to be immensely relieved when she found an excuse to terminate our meeting.

My last encounter with Ms. Stabb was over the phone. It was on the occasion of her calling me back after I had requested if she knew of anyone who would be willing to argue for the prohibition side in our panel discussion. In our earlier conversation she was friendly enough but when she called me back it transpired that she had spoken to Joseph Mills, or so I gathered from her repeating the "not willing to participate at this time" phrase and saying that it covered everyone on the commission. Now that she had received t+big boss' imprimatur, she became the quintessential self-important bureaucrat: she became deprecating and supercilious, she laughed inappropriately and derisively, and rejected any discussion of Drug-Free Indiana policy as being a "dY,Q in which she would not participate. She did, however, say that she would send me some of their marijuana "information".

I received the information in the mail and was appalled, thought not very surprised. I prepared the following response which I sent off this morning. I thought I would share it with alt.drug readers.

Comments are, of course, welcome.

----

28-Aug-1990

To: Jennifer Stabb, South Central Coordinator, Drug Free Indiana
From: Paul Hager, Research Coordinator, Bloomington HEMP/NORML
Subject: Literature received from you.

Dear Ms. Stabb,

Thank you for promptly sending your marijuana/cannabis literature. I apologize for not being equally prompt in my response, but I felt that it would be best if I gave this material thorough scrutiny and I wanted to be able to provide citations, where appropriate, for my comments. I've broken things down into categories of harmful effects claimed by your material and what the research actually shows.

Dr. Robert Heath

The "Drug Awareness Information Newsletter" entitled "Why Marijuana is not a Soft Drug" by Biernson and Moulton contains a presentation of work done by Robert Heath that purports to show that long-term, heavy use of marijuana leads to damage. Here's what they say about the "world renowned" work of Dr. Heath:

"The following is a _typical_ [emphasis mine] experiment performed by Dr. Heath. For 6 months a monkey smoked the equivalent (for a human) of 1.5 joints per day. The monkey was allowed to recover for 6 months, and then was sacrificed. Brain waves were measured from electrodes embedded in the brain. The brain waves became severely distorted after 2 months of smoking, and remained severely distorted until the monkey was sacrificed, 6 months after smoking had stopped."

The newsletter goes on to describe the "serious damage" found in the brain of the autopsied monkey.

The "brain wave" anomalies Heath apparently claims to have found do not comport with studies done of human subjects (e.g., see "Marijuana, Memory, and Perception" by Dornbush, Fink, and Freedman, 1971), which have shown that cannabis increases alpha waves (often associated with a meditative or creative state). This effect lasts only as long as the cannabis intoxication. No lasting effect has ever been scientifically validated.

The source quoted by Biernson and Moulton is not an authoritative scientific source nor the good Dr. Heath himself; it is Peggy Mann, author of a lurid bit of propaganda called "Pot Safari". The writers of these anti-marijuana propaganda books borrow from each other and purvey myths and bad science in an unending roundelay. The books actually have a lot in common, both structurally and intellectually, with pseudo-scientific books dealing with UFOs or the Bermuda Triangle. Before I give you the straight dope on Dr. Heath, I'll share with you a typical example of one of the propaganda books. This one is "Marihuana Today" by George K. Russell.

"Heath demonstrated with objective measurements of brain wave patterns that the intake of less than two marihuana cigarettes a week for three months (a total of only 20 marihuana cigarettes!) caused serious, and quite possibly permanent, alteration of brain function in these experimental animals.

"In these tests, one _group_ [emphasis mine] of animals was made to inhale cannabis smoke three times daily, five times a week, for six months (heavy dosage level); a second _group_ [emphasis mine] inhaled somewhat less than two marihuana cigarettes a week for six months (moderate dosage); a third _group_ [emphasis mine] received daily intravenous injections of delta-9-THC for six months. Control _animals_ [emphasis mine] received cannabis smoke devoid of THC. Brain wave patterns were monitored regularly during the six month test period."

The words I italicized were in order to emphasize that Mr. Russell is deliberately misleading the reader. You see, each of the "groups" was actually a group of one. Here is what the Institute of Medicine, "Marijuana and Health" had to say about Heath:

"[descriptions of brain alteration] These changes appear dramatic but they must be interpreted with caution. The three studies are based principally upon examination of two limited brain areas in three treated monkeys, two receiving marijuana smoke and one intravenous delta-9-THC; a fourth treated animal was added to the last study and more brain areas were analyzed in it (Heath et al., 1980). Further, although the material was evaluated 'doubleblind' after electron micrographs had been made, it would appear that fixation, tissue preparation, and photography were carried out before these safeguards against bias were applied. It is possible that unknown but systematic differences occurred between experimental and control animals in fixation and preparation fixation and preparation of tissue or in selection of samples for micrography. In addition, it should be noted that at least one of the changes noted, clumping of vesicles (Harper, et al., 1977) is a normal variant in the synaptic morphology of the axon terminals in mammalian brain (Sipe and Moore, 1977) and does not represent a pathological change. Also, these studies have not been replicated and, because the basis of the study for interpretation is such a limited sample, it is concluded that no definitive interpretation can be made at this time. However, the possibility that marijuana may produce chronic, ultra-structural changes in the brain has not been ruled out and should be investigated."

If you are used to reading scientific papers, you will note that Dr. Heath and his co-workers don't come out looking very good in the above assessment. He didn't eliminate bias and his experimental sample was inadequate. He failed to realize that some of the "abnormality" he found was actually "normal". Though couched in the detached, objective language of the scientist, the report makes clear that the Institute of Medicine panel didn't think very much of Dr. Heath's work. And, they could have really slammed Heath, had they been so inclined. It turns out that another area of systematic experimental bias could have been described. The smoke inhalation studies failed to control for carbon monoxide. This, by the way, explains the anomolous result of the heavy and moderately dosed monkeys showing no apparent dose response to THC. ("Dose response" means an effect that correlates with the dosage such that the greater the dose, the greater the response.) All in all, Heath's work is so flawed that it is of essentially zero value in assessing marijuana health risks.

In sharp contrast with Heath's findings are two human studies that showed no brain damage or atrophy at all (Co, Goodwin, et al., "Absence of cerebral atrophy in chronic cannabis users", JAMA, 1977 and Kuehnle et al., "Computed tomographic examination of heavy marijuana smokers", JAMA, 1977). None of the material I received references these studies. Why?

Effect of marijuana on reproductive cells

Included in the material you sent was a one page AIby Dr. Gabriel Nahas that summarizes his work on chromosomal breakage and his belief that marijuana would adversely affect "sex cells". It should be pointed out that Nahas' work involved somatic (not sex) cells _in_vitro_ (i.e., in a test tube or petri dish) and his work has never been replicated. If you will carefully read the paper you will see that all of the studies mentioned were with lymphocytes or lung cells. Nahas then jumps from mentioning these studies to concluding that cannabis affects "sex cells" _in_vivo_ (i.e., in the body). A careful, critical reader would see that Nahas was making an unwarranted leap. In fact, in December, 1983, Nahas, under pressure because of the questionable extrapolations he made from his work, backed away from his conclusions. In other words, the material you sent has been renounced by Nahas himself! Demonstrating chromosomal breakage of cells in vitro is hardly as significant as the tone of the paper would lead a reader to believe. Similar results could be obtained from testing aspirin or caffeine.

Some laboratory work has been done on the effect of marijuana on reproductive cells. Human studies have, to date, failed to demonstrate adverse effects in actual populations (for example, see the Costa Rica study, Coggins, et al.). The few laboratory studies that have been done that suggest adverse effects have been flawed by failure to control for experimental bias and have had small sample sizes.

Animal studies have, however, demonstrated interference with hormone production and/or normal reproductive cell development. Lest you conclude that this validates the idea that marijuana poses a special threat to users, I will give you some information about how these studies were done. Typically, very high dosages of THC were administered over a period of weeks or months to test animals. For example, 10 mg/kg THC administered to young male rats slows development of testes, prostate and seminal vesicles.

If you do a simple comparison of this dose versus the ED50 ("effective" or intoxicating dose), you'll find that the dosage administered is several hundred times the intoxicating dose. Another experiment using mice involved "intraperitoneal injections of delta-9-THC, cannabidiol, or cannabinol at doses approaching or exceeding the LD50" (Institute of Medicine, 1982 reporting on Zimmerman, et al., 1979). The LD50 is the dosage required to kill 50% of dosed animals. The result of the experiment was that 2.4% to 5.0% of the sperm produced was "abnormal".

Most significantly, the adverse effects (again, found only in the animal studies) are reversible; that is, normal function returns within a month of discontinuing the dosing.

The idea of dosing experimental animals at very high levels is a common way to test for _potential_ health effects in humans. Often, a dose response is established by doing regression analysis on a few data points obtained by such studies. This analysis is then _validated_by_epidemiological_studies_ on human populations. For example, among the most well established dose response relationships is that between cancer and ionizing radiation. Animal studies and studies of human populations (chiefly Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, radiation workers, radium workers, etc.) have led to the simple formulation that one cancer results from a population dose of 10000 man-REM. In other words, for every 10000 people who each receive one REM (or 1000 milli-REM), one cancer will result. The dose response is linear in that if 10000 people each receive two REM, two cancers will result, and so on.

What research tells us about cannabis can be pretty much summed up as follows: animal studies show some slight cause for concern, human studies do not.

Amotivational syndrome and behavior change

Perhaps of all of the "evils" associated with cannabis, none is as widely known as "amotivational syndrome". This scientific sounding name disguises the fact that the "amotivational syndrome" has never been substantiated. Interestingly, one of the pamphlets you sent is at odds with both itself and the rest of the material.

"Personality and Behavior: MARIJUANA" by Christina Dye presents the intriguing picture of someone who obviously did some research and then had trouble integrating it into the usual anti- marijuana party line. As a consequence, she ends up generating subtle contradictions. For example, the following quote from the "Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, 1982" [actually, the report is entitled, "Marijuana and Health"] is included in the pamphlet:

"Interpretation of the evidence linking marijuana to 'amotivational syndrome' is difficult. Such symptoms have been known to occur in the absense of marijuana. Even if there is an association between this syndrome and use of marijuana, that does not prove that marijuana causes the syndrome."

This excerpt casts some doubt on whether or not there really is such a thing as "amotivational syndrome" -- and yet, later on in the pamphlet, Ms. Dye lapses back into orthodoxy with a lengthy discursive section on the "amotivational syndrome". At her conclusion, she refers back to the National Academey of Sciences study and then characterizes amotivation as "... something of a chicken-or-the-egg situation", thus undermining her previous statements. Clearly, Ms. Dye is suffering from severe cognitive dissonance on this subject.

If Ms. Dye had expended just a little more effort, she could have uncovered a great deal of evidence disconfirming the "amotivational syndrome". The last of the Jamaica ganja studies, written up as a monograph entitled "Ganja in Jamaica," used an objective scale to measure productivity of the ganja smokers versus the non-smokers. Though the results failed to meet the 0.05 significance level required for statZ.Wk1validation, every single one of the ganja smoking groups outperformed the non-ganja smokers. Had they been amotivational, they should have consistently underperformed.

Other examples abound. Two survey studies published in the early 70's are typical: "Personality Correlates of Undergraduate Marijuana Use" by Hogan, Mankin, Conway and Fox, and "A Comparison of Marijuana Users and Non-Users" by Zinberg and Weil. There was no difference in terms of GPA or other indices of motivation.

In Hogan, et al., the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) personality test was given. Users scored low on the following scales: Socialization, Responsibility, Communality, and Achievement via Conformance. On the other hand, users scored high on Achievement via Independence and Empathy, which the researchers concluded meant that they would have the sort of "achievement motivation necessary for success in graduate school" and that they were socially perceptive and sensitive to the needs and feelings of others. The non-users correlated negatively on the above noted scales which means that when the users scored high, non-users scored low and vice versa. The researchers noted that the non-users test results gave evidence that they were "perhaps too deferential to external authority, narrow in their interests and overcontrolled."

Zinberg and Weil failed to find evidence of personality change that could be attributed to marijuana use. Interviews with "chronic" users of marijuana revealed that they were "bitter about society's attitude toward marijuana" and "that being defined as a deviant and law-breaker for something they could not accept as criminal had driven them into increasingly negative attitudes toward the larger society".

In addition to the survey studies, numerous longitudinal studies have been done over the past 20 years. A number of them are cited in "Marijuana and Health", the same report referenced by Ms. Dye. They are fairly uniform in demonstrating that the personality characteristics anti-marijuana advocates associate with marijuana use are pre-existing in childhood and actually can be used to PREDICT future ABUSE of drugs, including marijuana. Perhaps the most definitive of the longitudinal studies was by Shedler and Block, printed in the May 1990 issue of "American Psychologist". Entitled "Adolescent Drug Use and Psychological Health -- A Longitudinal Inquiry", it followed 101 subjects over a 15 year pY.k1 from age 3 to age 18.

Shedler and Block demonstrated rather conclusively that moderate drug use (marijuana) actually correlated with psychological health. Absolute abstainers and heavy users showed similar maladjustment on a number of personality indices. This validated similar results obtained in earlier studies (e.g., Hogan, et al., above) and lends confidence to the results.

Incidentally, Shedler and Block had some rather harsh things to say about simple-minded drug education programs of the "just say no" variety. Here's a sample:

"Current efforts at drug 'education' seem flawed on two counts. First, they are alarmist, pathologizing normative adolescent experimentation and limit-testing, and perhaps frightening parents and educators unnecessarily. Second, and of far greater concern, they trivialize the factors underlying drug abuse, implicitly denying their depth and pervasiveness."

Marijuana and supression of the immune system

The paper by Guy Cabral first offers up the usual anecdotal accounts (i.e., not scientifically valid) and follows with references to animal studies of the familiar ultra-high dosage variety. No epidemiological data has ever been generated to support a rise in infections stemming from marijuana use. Moreover, numerous studies have shown NO immune system suppression, including Gupta et al., 1974; Petersen et al., 1975 & 1976; White et al., 1975; Cushman and Khurana, 1977; and, McDonough et al. 1980. Why weren't these studies included in the information packet?

There are two studies that might well be an interesting addition to your marijuana information packet. These studies (Kaklamani et al., "Hashish smoking and T-lymphocytes", 1978; Kalofoutis et al., "The significance of lymphocyte lipid changes after smoking hashish", 1978) demonstrated that cannabis smoked as hashish actually stimulated the immune system.

Marijuana psychosis and panic reaction

So-called "marijuana psychosis" or "toxic psychosis" is described in some of the material you sent. A very small number of cases of this "psychosis" have appeared in the Western medical literature over the years. A review of these cases invariably reveals a prior existing condition (such as diagnosed schizophrenia) or other drug use.

In apparent conflict are reports of "toxic psychosis" coming from Asia and Africa. There, the reporting physicians are wont to identify cannabis as the culprit for any psychotic episode. In India, for example, it is apparently common practice to diagnose a person admitted for a "psychotic episode" as suffering from "marijuana psychosis". Independent Western researchers have found no basis for this description and attribute it to such factors as the doctors' class-based rejection of their culture's marijuana use. (Note: "Ganja in Jamaica" has some particularly good material on how class affects perceptions of marijuana use.)

In his book, "Marijuana Reconsidered", Lester Grinspoon offered up an intriguing hypothesis that has never been tested. Given that 65% of American soldiers in Vietnam used marijuana at least once and a fairly high percentage were regular users, is it possible that marijuana protected the troops from psychoses? Here is what Grinspoon had to say:

"The psychiat.kincidence rate for U.S. Army troops in Vietnam was reported to be 12 per 1000 strength per year during the calendar years 1965 and 1966. This rate is much lower than that recorded for both the Korean War (73 per 1000 strength per year July 1950 to December 1952) and World War II (between 28 and 101 per 1000 strength per year September 1944 through May 1945). During World War II, 23 percent of all cases evacuated for medical reasons were psychiatric cases; the percentage for the comparable group in Vietnam has been aproximately 6 percent."

Grinspoon went on to posit other factors contributing to the decreased incidence (changes in rotation policy, better training, rapid treatment of wounded in forward areas). Unfortunately, this idea that marijuana might actually protect users from psychoses or neuroses is not the sort of thing likely to be researched in an environment that tends to sanction and report only anti-marijuana studies.

"Panic attacks" associated with marijuana are mentioned in Ms. Dye's pamphlet, among others. While Ms. Dye makes it appear that such occurances are common, it is more accurate to say that some users have occasionally had the experience of feeling anxious, paranoid, or confused. This is very seldom a problem. "Marijuana and Health" says that, "The frequency of such reactions appears to be higher when the setting for use is not a favorable one; for example, when the user sees the environment as threatening." Such an environment might be one in which users can lose their jobs for casual use at home or one in which drug warriors are seeking to amend the state constitution to make it easier to confiscate the property of a "drug criminal". That kind of environment could induce feelings of paranoia in a person who had never smoked marijuana.

Frankly, a "panic attack", if it were severe enough, would probably put the individual off of smoking marijuana. This would suggest that the "problem", such as it is, is self-limiting. It should also be mentioned that cannabis has demonstrated some anti-anxiety potential (Regelson et al., 1976; Nakano et al., 1978, using Nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid). This further reinforces the idea that setting is an important factor in determining how a person is going to react to the drug.

Gateway drug

I was surprised to see that several of the pamphlets still championed the "gateway" idea. For example, the pamphlet "The Facts About MARIJUANA" says, "Research shows that marijuana is the _gateway_ [italics in original] into further illegal drug useage." Ms. Dye's pamphlet says, "Today, of course, most people recognize the old marijuana myths as baseless in fact: Smoking marijuana doesn't inevitably lead to violent crime, heroin addiction, prostitution or insanity." I draw your attention to the "heroin addiction" part of the statement. Ms. Dye apparently couldn't quite bring herself to say outright that the whole "gateway" idea is baseless but she certainly came perilously close.

Some studies have shown a _negative_ correlation between marijuana and use of other drugs, including alcohol. Zinberg and Weil (cited above) found that marijuana users were actually less inclined to use other drugs, including alcohol. The Costa Rica study showed that the marijuana users had almost no alcoholism. (The book "Licit and Illicit Drugs", by Brecher, reports that during alcohol prohibition, as alcohol became more and more expensive, legal cannabis became an attractive alternative. Hashish was cheap and readily available in New York city which had 1200 hash parlors by the late 1920's. Perhaps such success as Prohibition enjoyed can be explained by the availablity of cannabis as an alternative intoxicant.)

If marijuana were truly a "gateway" drug, it could be expected that making it legal would result in a massive increase in the use and abuse of hard drugs. This experiment has actually been performed in the Netherlands where personal possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana or hashish is no longer prosecuted. There, use of heroin has DECLINED over the past decade.

In my recitation of the preceeding, I am not arguing that marijuana protects a population from going on to harder drugs; I am, however, pointing out that a claim that marijuana is a "gateway" drug must explain away a large body of disconfirming evidence. The reality is that societal and behavioral factors are the determinates of drug abuse. The longitudinal studies cited above demonstrate that USE of marijuana does not predispose one to ABUSE of marijuana or any other drug. Simple-minded "gateway" explanations are not scientifically valid and have no place in either policy making or drug education.

Marijuana and automobile accidents

Another item cited in your anti-marijuana literature is a reference to research that has shown that "tracking" is impaired 4 to 8 hours after initially smoking even though the person feels subjectively "sober". Your literature didn't quite report this accurately, so it left the impression of significant impairment in many areas -- which has not been demonstrated. "Tracking", by the way, describes the act of following a moving stimulus. In contrast with marijuana, alcohol impairs coordination, motor control, and reaction time from 36 to 48 hours after intoxication (as reported in a recent issue of "Scientific American" in the "Science and the Citizen" section). Alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. Why?

Simulators (a form of impairment tester) have shown that a person heavily intoxicated by marijuana is impaired to a similar degree to a person intoxicated by alcohol at the 0.08% to 0.1% BAC level. Accident surveys have also shown some evidence that marijuana will potentiate accidents at a rate similar to alcohol. This latter evidence remains inconclusive, however. For example, while studies of fatal accidents have shown a similar proportion of drivers under the influence of THC and of alcohol, 85% of the THC-intoxicated drivers also had alcohol in the blood, thus making it difficult to place the primary blame on marijuana. Nonetheless, I think it is fair to go by the simulator data and say that marijuana should be treated the same as alcohol as far as driving a car is concerned. It should also be noted that antihistimines and tranquilizers (both legal) significantly impair performance. These drugs are seldom included in the calculus of accident prevention and legal penalty. Why?

Instead of focusing on the irresponsible use of marijuana, and excluding consideration of the irresponsible use of legal drugs, it makes more sense to develop strategies that make it less likely that people will drive while impaired. The Japanese manage to consume large quantities of alcohol but have only 20% the rate of accidents of the U.S. The Japanese accept public intoxication and make special provision for getting an intoxicated person home (free taxi service for inebriates, for example). If it is possible for another country to develop a policy that reduces deaths and accidents from intoxicated drivers, why isn't it possible for the U.S. to do the same thing?

Marijuana and cancer

Sir Percival Potts, in the late 18th Century, observed that chimney sweeps often developed cancer of the scrotum. From this he drew the inference that some property of the soot and/or creosote, to which the sweeps were exposed, was the cause of the cancer. We now know that he was correct. Reactions in hydrocarbon combustion byproducts produce compounds that are carcinogenic.

Before I get too embroiled in all of this, I should state that this whole argument is really a red herring. The animal studies have never demonstrated that the active constituents of cannabis are carcinogenic apart from the smoke. Cannabis need not be smoked. For example, "bhang" is a drink; so is cannabis tea. Cannabis may be eaten as an ingredient of food or dessert. If users have accurate information about the cancer risk from smoking then they can choose to eliminate that method of taking the drug, if they so desire. Why should the state be concerned beyond providing the necessary information?

If people choose to smoke marijuana, despite some level of cancer risk, then what? Certain factors must be borne in mind, chief among these that carcinogens present in the smoke are effectively filtered by water pipes or similar delivery systems. Such "paraphenalia" are illegal in many states. Why? Is it to render marijuana smoking artificially more dangerous? That seems to be the only plausible explanation. Consider, too, that the Berkeley marijuana carcinogenicity studies which concluded that marijuana was 1.5 times more carcinogenic than tobacco are based on the following assumptions:

1) marijuana leaves a. with tobacco leaves;

This assumed that a marijuana smoker would smoke as much as a tobacco smoker.

As to the first assumption, the marijuana "buds" have 1/3 or less carcinogenic tars than the leaves, but "buds" are not compared. Users will almost invariably prefer smoking "buds" to leaves. A cigarette smoker generally consumes over a pack (20 cigarettes) a day, whereas even a heavy marijuana smoker is unlikely to smoke more than 5 to 7 marijuana cigarettes a day. Another factor to include is that the more potent forms of marijuana available today require that less of it needs to be smoked in order to achieve the desired effect, which means that less carcinogenic smoke needs to be inhaled.

Marijuana and the lungs

As indicated in the previous set of comments, this is all a red herring but I'll play the game. As it happens, according to the work of Dr. Donald Tashkin, of UC*1 the effect of marijuana is something of a mixed bag, unlike the effect of tobacco which is uniformly negative. Although marijuana does act as an irritant to the large passageways (Tashkin et al., 1980), it also acts as a bronchodialator (Tashkin et al., 1974 & 1975). This has led to suggestions that cannabis might be a useful treatment for asthma or emphysema.

Tashkin has done some long term studies of heavy marijuana smokers but curiously, none of the subjects has gone on to develop lung cancer, thus far. In line with this, surprising results have come out of studies in Jamaica (Rubin and Comitas, 1975) and Costa Rica (Hernandez-Bolanos et al., 1976) which found no difference in chronic respiratory disease between marijuana smokers and non-smokers. It is possible that cannabis may offer some protection to users but I personally remain skeptical; it seems counterintuitive. Other studies that have shown an increase in respiratory disease are confounded by the fact that the marijuana smokers were also tobacco smokers. For now, the jury is still out.

Odds and ends

There remain some items that were mentioned in the anti- marijuana literature that I have not yet addressed. This includes such items as the unsubstantiated claim that marijuana has caused an increase in the suicide rate. Where this "fact" came from is anyone's guess. There is also the litany of "marijuana impairs short term memory" which is never qualified by stating that this impairment is a feature of being intoxicated and wears off with the intoxication. I've actually encountered educated, otherwise knowledgeable people who have accepted this misleading statement, which is often juxtaposed with references to Dr. Heath's brain damaged rhesus monkeys, as meaning that the impairment is permanent.

As for the continued use of the invidious comparison of THC and DDT: why not compare THC and Vitamin A, which would be equally valid but not as sensational?

One of the pamphlets mentions that marijuana is a "schedule I drug". This is true. Do you know what "schedule I" means? It means that the drug has no medical value and is especially dangerous! This is a travesty! The recent discovery of receptor sites in the brain for cannabinoids got a bit of news coverage. The following excerpt from the UPI is typical of the reporting:

"The discovery should enable researchers to decipher marijuana's mysterious abilities and could give scientists important new insights into how the human brain operates, experts said.

"The work could result in new drugs to treat diseases by _mimicking_marijuana's_long-known_medicinal_benefits_ [emphasis mine] without producing unwanted narcotic effects, researchers said."

The ugly little secret seems to have slipped out: marijuana DOES have medical value.

"Marijuana and Health", which both Christina Dye and I reference, seems to waffle a bit in its conclusions. For example, the conclusions section, page 5, says, in part:

"The scientific evidence published to date indicates that marijuana has a broad range of psychological and biological effects, some of which, at least under certain conditions, are harmful to human health."

With all of the qualifications, marijuana doesn't come off sounding so bad. In another place, however, marijuana use is said to justify "serious national concern"

1I1e1 politics helps to explain this inconsistency. I say "clearly" because another part of the study, the part conducted by the "Committee on SubsW9 Abuse and Habitual Behavior", was disavowed and suppressed when it recommended that possession or private use of small amounts of marijuana should no longer be a crime (for a reference, see "Time" magazine, July 19, 1982).

Final thoughts

This has run on long enough. It's a lot of stuff to wade through, particularly if you want to check up on my sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a phone call.

The last time we spoke, in reponse to my suggestion that we meet and discuss Drug Free Indiana's position on marijuana, you stated that you "didn't want to debate" the issue. I consider this reaction to have been unwarranted, particularly as your job carries with it a certain responsibility to be receptive to public input.

Presumably, you have finished reading my responses to the anti-marijuana literature. You are now confronted with a problem. I've seriously called into question every major item that is used to justify treating marijuana differently from alcohol. I've indicated that the "harmful" effects of marijuana mentioned in the literature you sent are either myth or exaggerated. If there is no rational basis for treating marijuana differently from the more harmful legal drug, alcohol, then what remain.J=UIchoice is to either to begin to research this topic on your own and go wherever the facts lead or to suppress this unpleasant information and go on as before. I offer this caution: if you can ignore the information I've given you, it means that you are willing to be treated similarly when it is you who are arguing for the truth.

Here's another way to evaluate your current position and your options. Heath's work is essentially worthless. Why would material that has been known to be invalid for at least 8 years still be given out to people? How about Nahas' test tube studies? Same objection. Do you understand my point? If your cause is just, why not pass out accurate information? Would accurate information "confuse" the public? Is it possible that in the case of marijuana, you are on the wrong side?

The proverbial ball is now in your court.

Hope this helps.

quote:

---

And now, we sprinkle Maradon! liberally with Old Spice!
Uranium and arsenic are also natural

---

And delicious, too!

quote:

---

Everyone wondered WTF when DS wrote:
Lots of crap

---

Man you can smell the bullshit a mile away in that post.

quote:

---

Iulius Czar's fortune cookie read:
Doesn't it bother you that some these louts are drawing more in welfare than they will ever produce?

---

This is something that bugs me too. It isn't even a money thing, really, but just that everybody is saying 'tax it and make a nice bit of money.' Well, would that nice bit of money be enough to offset the costs of rehab for the folks who take it too far, the cost of welfare that a lot of users will be on (don't tell me they wouldn't, either; anybody can go hit the bong, but a respectable buisiness owner looks a little less respectable if he's out partying and getting stoned, same as he would if he were out partying getting drunk. unless somebody invents the pot counterpart to fine wine)? Eventually, that's going to add up. What if we lost money? I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it's kind of a danger to be aware of, isn't it? Unless you can think of a better reason for across-the-board legalization.

Good thinking! As a matter of fact, we could reduce our prison population to zero if we'd only do away with law entirely--wouldn't that show what a wonderfully progressive society we are? Look, everybody: we don't have anyone in prison, so we must be very advanced and all lead wonderful lives!

quote:

---

How.... Bloodsage.... uughhhhhh:
My favorite logic always rears its ugly head in these types of threads: the "laws only create criminals" thesis.

Good thinking! As a matter of fact, we could reduce our prison population to zero if we'd only do away with law entirely--wouldn't that show what a wonderfully progressive society we are? Look, everybody: we don't have anyone in prison, so we must be very advanced and all lead wonderful lives!

---

So where do you stand on the issue? For or against legalizaton?

sarcastic voice, with hands flailing
Oh, but now we're all Opressive To The Less Fortunate.

quote:

---

Quoth Reynar:
So where do you stand on the issue? For or against legalizaton?

---

I think it's ridiculous even to contemplate legalization, frankly.

The "OMG alcohol is legal; weed should be, too!" works both ways: it's just as easy to say, "You've already got one legal drug, so make do with that if you're so pathetic you need to get high to get through your day."

Other than making a bunch of lowlifes happy, there really is no upside to legalizing the drug or encouraging widespread use. And, please, no one mention Amsterdam--trust me that it won't be worth it. Small, meaningless socialist countries can get away with things others can't.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Tarquinn gently hums:
Amsterdam isn't a country.

---

It's a city in Holland--I changed my next sentence in mid-thought and accidentally left out the Netherlands reference.

My bad.

{edit: tpyo}

[ 09-02-2003: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]

1.) Is it okay to let people hurt themselves? Or, more precisely, should society act to protect people from their own willfulness and/or idiocy? Frankly, given the amount of research done on the subject, I believe it's pretty much a given that, for most people at most times, drugs of any sort are in some fashion at least slightly harmful. If you take 4 tylenol a day, even when you don't have a headache/backache/etc, you can actually slowly cause damage to your liver. Even if marijuana isn't physically addictive/damaging, it does have mentally-addictive properties which can damage your ability to lead a "fully-productive and well-adjusted lifestyle." Well, as I have heard stated in various fashions with varying amounts of profanity from various people who drink/smoke tobacco/smoke marijuana/leap from rooftops onto trampolines, "Who cares? It's my life, I'll do with it as I see fit."

Well, there's that argument. Then there's also the argument that when people hurt themselves, they hurt everyone else by being nonproductive. I've never seen much of a rule that says people have to be productive, but the fact is there. At the very least, a day spent inside smoking pot and playing videogames is a day not spent doing things that may have a productive return to society (though one would imagine that to be very unlikely). Moreover, any physical harm that a person may contribute onto himself under the influence of ANY drug, be it alcohol or PCP, will generally be covered by a hospital if need be - which is paid for by the general public. So yes, you are in a way paying to help save the lives of the drunken idiots of the world. Keeping drugs illegal provides a disincentive to use them, and thus keeps too many people from being on them and thus doing stupid things that other people have to pay for.

=+=

2.) What is the value of a drug-free existence? Now that's an argument for the ages. One of the major reasons most people are opposed to certain laws is that anyone interested in the activity will simply break the law, incurring public spending to capture, process, and incarcerate them. However, it is generally important to note that the reason people oppose the drug war is because they view the costs involved to be not worth the return. The VALUE of such expenditures is a completely subjective point. If you yourself use drugs or see no problem with it, of course you see the costs of fighting the war on drugs as too high. If you REALLY, REALLY dislike drugs, the money spent in fighting the drug war is all very well-invested. Obviously, since the government keeps putting money into it, they think it certainly is. And they passed the law, so they're in charge of that distinction.

It's a matter of idealism vs. pragmatism, really. Sure, it might be nice to have a world where everyone was happy and free-spirited, and did not need chemicals or dangerous activities to enjoy themselves. But, how much will you be willing to pay to try to create that existence? Is it worth losing some privacy, or some choices that you might otherwise have? Well, to some it is. To some it isn't. To some, there isn't even a question there.

*Shrug.* Economics only applies to down-to-earth matters. An idealist has no price - once he has one, he's not really an idealist anymore. And there are idealists on both sides of the matter.

[EDIT - Typo.]

[ 09-02-2003: Message edited by: Drakkenmaw ]

Pro:

* reduced crime rate, since people don't need to do it all underground
* higher government control over what exactly gets sold to people

Con:

* might give people the opinion we're all potheads.

(Actually I can't think of any right now...)

Ofcourse it leaves the points of "makes it easier to grow into harddrugs" open, but since that's a debatable item I don't think it's going to do any good

quote:

---

ACES! Another post by Azizza:
Man you can smell the bullshit a mile away in that post.

---

Wow, what a wonderfully informed post! You conjecture that the information I bring to the table is a load of crap, without an offer of alternative OR evidence that proves my information wrong.

Heres an idea, Azizza. The next time you try to call bullshit on something, bring some goddamn proof, because as it stands now, you are just whining and screaming i'm a liar.

Now I don't like being called a liar. And for the part, I don't believe that I am a liar. So obviously, one of us, is being a jackass. Now, if you can prove that the jackass is me, you get a cookie. And if you can't, you will shut your goddamn pie hole.

Some people say that there's not much difference between being high and being drunk. Ok, then you don't need to get high, you can just go get drunk. One's as good as the other, right? Same kind of messed up, right?

No? Then that drunk=high argument doesn't work. They are two different states, with different risks. Hell, I don't think we know half as much about what marijuana does to you as we do about booze. It's totally different.

And it smells bad.

quote:

---

Drysart had this to say about (_|_):
Guys you can't legalize marijuana because when you smoke it, it makes you pregnant!!! Didn't you guys see that commercial?!

---

omfg i will never smoke marijuana. EVER.

Dont do marajuwana or you will get date raped. guys that need to do that can use other illegal drugs anyway.

quote:

---

Drysart wrote this stupid crap:
Guys you can't legalize marijuana because when you smoke it, it makes you pregnant!!! Didn't you guys see that commercial?!

---

So won't drinking! GASP!

For starters, I can tell you right now that marijuana will instantly cease to be "cool". Proponents of marijuana legalization will go out, buy a pack of joints, and start work lobbying to get some other drug legalized.

You'll never see a party or a rave or a high school dance where everyone passes around a joint. A big part of the draw of drugs is that you aren't supposed to do it - the actual effect is often tertiary. Instead, everyone at a party will have a joint and they'll be passing around a tank of CO2 or tabs of acid or extacy instead. I'm not talking about the "gateway drug" theory, which I feel is an unfounded assumption, I'm talking about the fact that, often, kids are more interested in the fact that the drug is forbidden and exotic. Domesticate and permit it, and it will instantly lose it's appeal.

I'd like to state, though, that I'm still largely in favor of legalization (although I'd never touch the foul smelling shit), I just thought this was a point nobody had brought up yet.

[ 09-03-2003: Message edited by: Maradon! ]

quote:

---

Maradon! said this about your mom:
I'd never touch the foul smelling shit.

---

I agree whole-heartedly. It smells TERRIBLE. People burning rubber produce a less-foul smell.

As for the "gateway drug" thing, I'd generally suggest keeping the argument away from other substances. That gets into arguments where people are basically arguing to legalize everything and anything, which gets exceedingly difficult to rationalize. Plus, it provides incredibly easy pseudoarguments connecting marijuana, which may be easy to rationalize, with something like crack - which is, obviously, not so fun to have to argue for.

Besides, there is little actual evidence suggesting that such a thing will happen. Mostly just random self-designated experts saying that it will. So, it might be interesting to request a historical proof that indicates a leap to more hardened substances. The fact that it likely would happen nonwithstanding, it'd be a good way to shore up that side of the argument.