Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Propaganda of the Marijuana Lobby: A Con Job
We’re all being conned. As legalization of marijuana is being pushed forward in the US, we are discovering how little we really know about the drug, and the information we do have is not widely publicized:
Despite being a substance that targets the brain, if and how long-term cannabis use alters brain structure and function remain unknown. There are some known adverse effects. It acutely impairs mental functions and may exacerbate depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and use of other substances. Whether it is more harmful than substances such as alcohol or nicotine is still undetermined. On the plus side, there is conclusive evidence that cannabis provides relief from symptoms related to chemotherapy and multiple sclerosis. Other potential benefits remain unknown.
Ten states have already allowed the recreational use of cannabis. According to an op-ed piece by Alex Berenson, the pro-marijuana groups have changed the discussion by talking about medical marijuana and the relief it can provide, rather than focusing on its recreational use.
Studies that are not widely publicized explain that the effects on children and teenagers can be long-term:
When marijuana users begin using as teenagers, the drug may reduce attention, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions. Marijuana’s effects on these abilities may last a long time or even be permanent.
Developing brains, like those in babies, children, and teenagers are especially susceptible to the hurtful effects of marijuana. Although scientists are still learning about these effects of marijuana on the developing brain, studies show that marijuana use by mothers during pregnancy may be linked to problems with attention, memory, problem-solving skills, and behavior problems in their children.
Following the states that have legalized marijuana to date, casual use doesn’t seem to have increased substantially. But for people who are heavy users, the increase in use is alarming:
…the number of Americans who use cannabis heavily is soaring. In 2006, about 3 million Americans reported using the drug at least 300 times a year, the standard for daily use. By 2017, that number had increased to 8 million—approaching the 12 million Americans who drank every day. Put another way, only one in 15 drinkers consumed alcohol daily; about one in five marijuana users used cannabis that often.
The potency of the drug has also increased. Rather than the 2% THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) of the 1970s, marijuana is routinely 20-25%.
Even more alarming than this data is the lack of information on the link between mental illness, violence, and the use of marijuana:
In 2017, 7.5% of young adults met the criteria for serious mental illness, double the rate in 2008.
None of these studies prove that rising cannabis use has caused population-wide increases in psychosis or other mental illness, although they do offer suggestive evidence of a link. What is clear is that, in individual cases, marijuana can cause psychosis, and psychosis is a high risk factor for violence. What’s more, much of that violence occurs when psychotic people are using drugs. As long as people with schizophrenia are avoiding recreational drugs, they are only moderately more likely to become violent than healthy people. But when they use drugs, their risk of violence skyrockets. The drug they are most likely to use is cannabis.
According to the National Academies of Sciences, US scientists can only receive access to “research-graded” cannabis, so they don’t conduct studies on the marijuana that is actually being used recreationally by the public.
Needless to say, the marijuana lobby is not interested in funding or encouraging research on their product. Due to the lack of research, we have no credible assessment of the damage that is being done to our children. The relationships between mental illness, psychosis, and violence are still unclear. And no one really knows the effect on crime statistics.
If you think the opioid crisis was a tragedy, just wait and see the results of widespread marijuana legalization.
Are you as concerned as I am?
Published in Culture
Two things:
1. People don’t smoke pot the way they smoke tobacco cigarettes. The patterns of consumption are completely different. So you’re comparing apples to oranges
2. That being said, what you stated is actually an argument for legalization. Free markets solve problems. In legal, developed marijuana markets, we see a diversity in consumption options. Candy, lousenges, confections, topical creams, etc.
Lots of people like pot, but don’t enjoy smoking. Lots of people also want to consume pot in a safe and responsible manner. They like alternatives to smoking. And free markets deliver those alternatives.
Actually, yeah, the hold it in a lot longer. The facts are, we don’t really know what the long term effects on the lungs of modern weed is. Going to take some time. Tobacco is much more studied.
You make take it as such. I was making a point about smoking joints and ill effects. Pot is not harmless. Period.
As a libertarian, fundamentally, you care about avoiding coercion, then maintaining civilization. Conservatives like me, tend to care first about maintaining civilization, then ensuring liberty. First principles lead to different outcomes.
Yes. They also smoke in different patterns.
For example, tobacco smokers tend to smoke throughout the day. In the car on the way to work. Various smoke breaks throughout the day. And then (except for people with kids), all evening.
People don’t smoke pot like that. For one thing, it’s intoxicating, so smoke people don’t stop midmorning at their office jobs, go out and smoke a joint.
Most people smoke in the evening or on weekends, the way you’d have a glass of wine or a beer at the end of the day.
Yeah. We know. It’s not harmless. Neither is a glass of wine. The poison is in the dose, whether its pot, Tylenol, or chicken wings.
Yeah, that’s the thing about conservatives. “Maintaining civilization” is a limitless excuse to use coercive violence to interfere in people’s lives.
The phrase “maintaining civilization” is classic statism: state a goal so nebulous that it can be used to rationalize any particular policy preference somebody can come up with.
And I need to correct you. I fundamentally care about individual rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights always come first.
Yeah. I’ll confirm that I was not stoned when I wrote that.
What violence?
I believe it’s called “government.”
About my not using them, or not wanting to regulate them? The answer, to both questions, is yes.
Well now, how are those Rights Secured?
And, when Articles of Confederation proved too feeble a government to secure rights and liberty, the order is reversed:
Note, the first things are about maintaining civilization. Without civilization, there can be no liberty or preservation of rights. Both are needed. A balance of power between the people and the government is needed. That is why we moved to the Constitution.
And yet somehow the phrase “maintaining civilization” wasn’t do be found in any of those sections you quoted.
Try it with a plate of Ho-Ho’s or Moon Pies.
LOL. The dangers of being the grammar police.
The word “their” shows ownership as the possessive form of they—such as how “my” is the possessive form of “me”: … The word “they‘re” is simply a contraction (they+are=they‘re). Don’t let the apostrophe fool you: “they‘re” is never used to show possession. It is always only a shortened version of they+are.
Ya know for someone who has recently started to snark for misspelling and grammatical errors, you might want to rethink things.
“lousenges”
As I admitted above, I was in fact not stoned when I wrote that.
Tough issue for me. Certainly, there was fear-mongering in the past about the drug’s affects just as its effects are being squashed by pro-pot lobbies today. In my ministry to inner-city boys, I’ve seen first hand how disgusting the drug (and all drugs like alcohol) is. Yet, I’m very libertarian when it comes to drugs. Its just a shame. The drug like most others is pure evil in my mind but whether legalized or not, regardless of any science, people will flock to it for various reasons. You will never be able to keep the man from destroying himself if that’s what he intends.
LOL. We all have certain presuppositions that we extrapolate to an absurdity. As a conservative I acknowledge my reliance on western civilization as a bedrock can be taken too far. But Libertarians presupposition that government does violence to its citizens is ridiculous. No wonder you guys despise every police agency in the country.
I don’t think you’re talking about the same sort of conservatism that we have had in the U.S. over the past 50 years or so. I think you’re also mis-defining libertarianism, just as badly as @fredcole mischaracterizes conservatism in post #63.
Conservatism, at least in my lifetime, has emphasized individual rights, and has been very much influenced by libertarianism in that regard. Conservatism does not allow for the “needs of society” to run rough-shod over every private preference. Yes, there is an appreciation for tradition and order, but that doesn’t mean a conservative cannot recognize an individual right to use illicit drugs. I keep seeing more and more conservatives who, like me, think that banning drugs is another form of government overreach.
Where libertarianism is concerned, there is a difference between saying that people have a right to do things, and saying those things are the right things to do. Far from being “moral relativism,” the whole essence of libertarianism is the moral idea that we have a legal right to be left alone, as long as we’re not immorally violating others’ rights. A small government movement, like what we call conservatism in the U.S., fits pretty well with that.
I am sorry, I thought it was obvious. See underlined:
That is about maintaining civilization.
You may disagree, of course, but I think this is enough of topic that I am willing to drop it here.
Like I said, you’re conflating the political alliance between conservatism and Libertarianism into a single entity which is for political digestion but has no philosophic accuracy. And no, I don’t think I’ve “mis-defined” Libertarianism.
I’m attempting to be accurate about what we call conservatism in the United States, in our time-frame.
Politicians have no interest in being accurate. What you’re doing is picking up their language. Do you think that Fred Coles and I share many of the same philosophic underpinnings? There aren’t many we share. I think we’re about as far apart as possible.
I’m not sure what politicians being accurate has to do with it, or which politicians language I’m supposed to be picking up. I think you can give me the benefit of having my own thoughts, and not just picking things up.
I don’t know very much about you or Fred Cole, so I won’t speculate on which underpinnings you may or may not share.
If you’re new, to Ricochet, welcome Josh. I didn’t realize you weren’t familiar with our personalities. Yeah, we’re a pretty diverse group of “conservatives” here. But let me ask, where are you getting your definition of what it means to be a conservative?
I think it’s been a year or two now, but I don’t read every comment. I don’t think Fred Cole identifies as a conservative.
I’ll answer your question on my sources of information, and I hope you’ll return the favor.
My family are almost all conservatives, of varying degrees of religious and political commitment. I was raised among conservatives, and live among them still, for the most part. So much of it is via osmosis. My father typically votes Republican, but has been known to vote third party. He was once a delegate to the Constitution Party convention (don’t recall which year). I voted Const. Party in 1996, actually. I began listening to Rush Limbaugh sometime around 1990, and listened (job permitting) until I grew to prefer Dana Loesch (she used to broadcast from my area). Then, of course, there are those dreadful internet debates (at other forums), that I have actually found helpful in refining my view of things. Throw in a few books, of course. Economics in One Lesson, Freedom and Federalism, The Federalist Papers, The Conscience of a Conservative, Madison’s Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, and maybe a few others. I’ve read enough to have a cursory knowledge of the founding period, up to the outbreak of the Civil War. I have not yet had the privilege of reading Burke, or Kirk, or Buckley.
What about yourself?
I’ve been unavailable all day, so I’m just catching up. What an excellent discussion, looking at the problem from many different directions. I certainly can’t improve on the points, although I’m thinking them over. I still come back to the point about inadequate research, no matter whether others think that’s relevant or not. How are people supposed to make intelligent decisions if they don’t have access to information? I know that most people may not be interested in the research data, and won’t make the effort to check it out, and if they’re inclined to smoke pot, they’ll accept the information that most supports their inclination or shouts the loudest. I also know it’s not our job to protect or take care of people (I appreciate aspects of the Libertarian argument), but is anyone bothered by the fact that the tobacco industry lied for years and so many people died from lung cancer in the meantime?
I wonder if it also indirectly calls into question the role of the FDA. Should we have a federal agency that has the power to accept or refuse drugs to go on the market? All of these are interconnected regarding the roles and power of government and personal freedom. In some ways, I’m more perplexed than ever! But you’re giving me a lot to think about. Carry on!
Josh, thanks for such detailed response. If you don’t mind, I’ll have more time tomorrow for a similarly detailed response. Stay tuned ;)
Indeed I do disagree.
All those things look to me like they are about instituting a government among men to protect their individual rights. Which makes sense, because ensuring those individual rights is the entire reason for government. (See: The Declaration of Independence.)
Noticeably absent from both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the words “maintaining civilization.” In fact, the word “civilization” doesn’t appear in either document.
I don’t want the government to “maintain civilization,” because that’s so non specific that it can be used to justify just about anything.
So a couple of things about this:
Those lies were called out more than half a century ago. In the US, we have had warnings on cigarette packages since 1966.
Only if you think it’s the job of the government to protect or take care of people.
Look, if you want to have public information campaigns to dissuade people from smoking cigarettes, or smoking pot, or eating Tide pods, that’s fine.
My problem, where I draw the line, is with government prohibition. You can rationalize it all you want, but people are gonna do what they’re gonna do.
Look at it this way: We can’t keep drugs out of prisons. How are you gonna successfully prohibit a substance that teenagers can grow in their closet? (And not the smart ones either.
There’s no way prohibition can work in a free society. We have tried. And tried. And tried and tried and tried. And it has been nothing but an unmitigated disaster.
You’ve got that backwards. We start with the presumption of individual liberty. Those demanding the imposition on that liberty are the ones who have to explain why.
Two other things:
I need to correct this.
You’re using the present tense. To the extent that this were ever true, it was true about pre-2015 conservatism. It doesn’t hold true anymore.
You’re damn right it’s radical. Freedom is radical. It goes against the despotism and authoritarianism that man has lived under for thousands of year.
The United States of America is the most radical experiment in freedom in human history. It has proven itself by its unparalleled success.
First, that’s interesting to hear a conservative in 2019 talk about libertarianism not having a moral core.
Second, I’m told all the time in the pages of Ricochet how libertarians are utopians and are wrong for having a moral core and standing on principle.
Third, between conservatism, progressivism, and libertarianism, its actually libertarianism that has a consistent set of values and ideas, and sticks to them.
Sure.
While I suppose there may be a conservative case for drug bans, what really surprises me about the OP is that it seems to presume nothing can be allowed, until government deems it safe for us. I thought one of the foundations of common law, which I believe conservatives generally endorse, was that everything is presumed legal, unless expressly forbidden. So in order to ban something, you must make a case for it. The burden of proof seems to be reversed, in the OP.
Until it doesn’t. Libertarianism is as consistent as the libertarian, I’m afraid.
Also, since we’re piling on you for grammar and spelling mistakes, you’re missing an apostrophe in “it’s” up there. =P