Narcotics Non-Anonymous
The debate about the decriminalization of marijuana started on this thread, and many of the points I'd make have been raised already. I'm sure we're all familiar with the arguments generally made for and against decriminalization. The standard arguments in favor--the libertarian argument, the "It's just not that dangerous" argument, the "We've got better things to do with our prisons" argument, the "It's unenforceable anyway" argument--seem to me considerably more persuasive than the "Highly debated Dutch schizophrenia study" argument* and the "I know people who just lie around all day and smoke dope and watch Beavis and Butthead reruns" argument, which seem to be all the other side have left. I'd broadly agree with the counter-arguments to the following claims offered here:
- Marijuana Has No Medicinal Value
- Marijuana Is a Gateway Drug
- Marijuana's Harms Have Been Proved Scientifically
- Marijuana Causes an Amotivational Syndrome
- Marijuana Policy in the Netherlands is a Failure
- Marijuana Kills Brain Cells
- Marijuana Impairs Memory and Cognition
- Marijuana Causes Crime
- Marijuana Interferes With Male and Female Sex Hormones
- Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Damages the Fetus
- Marijuana Use Impairs the Immune System
- Marijuana's Active Ingredient, THC, Gets Trapped in Body Fat
- Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents
- Marijuana Related Hospital Emergencies Are Increasing, Particularly Among Youth
- Marijuana Use Can Be Prevented
And I'm not sure all of these arguments should be entered into the debate, even if valid: The libertarian position is an extremely powerful one. I'm prepared to say that even if THC does get trapped in body fat, the decision about whether this is a price I'm willing to pay should be mine. The only counter-argument that seems to me unpersuasive is the rebuttal to the very last claim; I reckon we could wipe out pot smoking overnight if we publicly beheaded five hundred dope-smokers pour encourager les autres, but for obvious reasons this policy would not meet with my favor.
So these are well-rehearsed arguments about which there's quite a bit of medical and criminological consensus. I'm going to go further than most, though. Scroll down to David Jones' comments in the thread. He notes something that bothers me intensely: the supreme untruthfulness in this debate. Almost every adult I know has smoked dope, and what's more, most of us have enjoyed it a lot. "Enjoyment" is a positive social good. Evidence that smoking dope is enjoyable should be weighed against any putative evidence that it is harmful. And the evidence that it's enjoyable is excellent. Why is enjoyment something to be dismissed when we discuss this? It's really the heart of the matter.
I don't smoke dope anymore. I live in Turkey, and the last thing I want here is to be on the wrong side of a drug bust. I'm also very sensitive now to anything that impairs athletic performance. For the latter reason I don't drink, either, and I stay well away from anyone who's smoking tobacco. But throughout my adolescence, my college career and for many years subsequently I smoked a lot of dope. (Judith can attest to this; she always thought it was weird.) I had a terrific time, and as far as I can see, there's no harm done: If the eggs were in any way scrambled, I don't notice anyone here complaining of it.
Some of my happiest memories involve late nights--or long, halcyon sunny summer days--with my dearest friends and a bong. Many of those friends became dear friends, and quite plausibly would not have otherwise, because we smoked a lot of dope together. Alcohol disinhibits; it brings out crude, promiscuous and violent impulses. Dope does no such thing: It heightens rather than dulls the senses; it makes one far more attuned to subtleties in music, art, literature, poetry and emotion; it naturally prompts thoughtful conversation and genuine intimacy--and, famously, laughter. It's also a powerful aphrodisiac, and folks, everyone knows that, so can we please admit it among ourselves? Sure, some people get stoned and watch a lot of television. Some people watch a lot of television, period. Interesting people, when they get stoned, have even more interesting conversations.
Because it's illegal and socially stigmatized, most of us will not publicly admit to smoking dope and liking it. There is thus vastly less recognition than there should be that like wine, this drug is very much part of our culture--our literary and musical culture, in particular--and moreover a drug that makes our lives more colorful, more joyful, richer in friendship and more interesting. Not only do I favor decriminalizing it, I favor smoking it.
(For those of you wondering whether persistent rumors that I'm in the employ of the CIA are true, this should settle the matter. If I was, I sure wouldn't be after posting this.)
-----------------
*See Andreasson, S. et al. “Cannabis and Schizophrenia: A Longitudinal study of Swedish Conscripts,” The Lancet 2 (1987): 1483-86.
- Comment (56)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
Probably said all I need to say on that other thread. Actually, I probably said more than I should have said on the other thread.
So, instead, just this: you aren't CIA? That is so disappointing...
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
A grave loss to our national security, I'm sure we'd all agree. No, you said the right thing on the other thread. We all need to be more honest about this if the discussion is going to get anywhere.
May '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
Sister, that’s it. When I get off work I go for an eight mile run; I listen to a turn-of-the-70’s Stones album; I make a triple G&T. One kills my knees; one ruptures my ear drums; the last is supposed to lance my liver and drain my brain. After it all I’m at the top of my day, and that has to be worth something. From a medical perspective my menacing meniscus will probably cost the most after surgeries. And still I can’t light up.
Ann Coulter likes to bring up the “but we’re in a nanny state” defense: she’s all for legalization, as soon as she doesn’t have to pay for its medical repercussions. There are probably high societal costs. And pot will probably replace some pretty harmful hobbies. I don’t know how the balance will come out, and I don’t really care. That calculation can never be done with enough certainty to rig the scale we have in place, the one that defaults to freedom at the first tug of fool’s gold.
Jun '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
I'm not as qualified to comment on legalizing pot, since all my exposure to it has been second-hand, and all rather nasty-smelling by my estimation. At a Jefferson Starship concert in San Francisco, the second-hand smoke was so thick that it felt like it was first-hand, but I quickly moved to a different section where the smoke was not so overpowering. All I know about it is, it stinks. Put me down as a "no" on legalization.
May '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
I'll bite. I enjoyed it more in high school than college, having an older brother. It never seemed very different from alcohol and cigarettes. It wasn't much less common either (here, near the Mexican border). There are differences, though many are not necessary.
The main reason it's a health risk is because joints are unfiltered. The FDA would fix that, whether we wanted them to or not. And there's always brownies, cookies, and who knows what else once Emeril gets a hold of the ingredient. Beyond that, major risks are generally related to blending with other substances, like LSD, and to people with abnormal brain chemistry (disorders).
Sneezing kills brain cells. Intelligent people who toke generally remain intelligent, though I don't doubt the brain adjusts to regular use. People who are stoned all the time are always underachievers, but that can be viewed as being on par with alcoholics. Periodic toking, like periodic drinking, isn't a big deal when the users are responsible. I say all of this having known many stoners.
Even if legalized, weed would never be exactly like beer.
May '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
It depends on the "brand". Here in Houston, we had about as wide variety as one will find anywhere. The cheapest stuff is "skunk" weed, which does indeed stink (hence the name). On the other hand, there's "Christmas tree", the aroma of which similarly matches the name.
Incidentally, I love the smell of unburned tobacco.
Second-hand smoke from marijuana is different in immediate effect from second-hand smoke from cigarettes. The first time I ever got high was completely by accident. I went to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert and smoke drifted up the hill from every direction. "Free Bird" never sounded so good.
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
I'm pretty unimpressed with "It stinks" as an argument. My gym socks would be illegal by those standards. As would paper mills, kimchee, wet dogs, and the back seat of a station wagon after a wet dog has been riding in it.
May '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
If dope were legalized would it have an equal effect on all IQ strata? Or would the less intelligent be less able to function properly? If you know the answer to these questions, call 1-800-333-1919.
May '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
Claire: You wouldn't be posting this, unless it was part of your cover!!
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
I'm not sure where I fall on the legalization issue. However, two points:
1) Claire: I take your "Loud Music" view toward marijuana use. I feel that people who use it excessively, or drink excessively, are escaping some sadness. They are not truly happy with themselves or their life. They can't just hang out with their own thoughts. Hence, the need to alter it. People who play loud music would undoubtedly say it's just "really fun," too.
2) A difference between drinking and smoking pot. One can drink occasionally (a couple of glasses a week of red wine, for example) and not harm oneself and perhaps even do some good (recent reversatrol (sp?) studies, for example). However, every single time one draws smoke into their lungs they do damage.
Jun '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
My opinion comes from a teacher's experience and perspective. We all know that children are not born moral creatures. They have to be taught. This is why a child's first moral instruction comes in simple things like the need to share with others. Shortly after puberty most children begin to develop a capacity for abstract thinking. They also take a giant leap into the world of adult morality. Proper development includes empathy for others, deference for the needs of others over personal gratification, and a sense of duty and obligation. Unlike the world of the small child, life for a teen has become a two way street.
Early use of pot causes arrested psychological development and with it arrested moral development. I don't have the studies on hand, but any mental health professional will back me up on this. These teens retain a child's attitude; it's all about me . . . me, me, me all the time. Sometimes the condition persists into adulthood where it becomes habitual. You probably know such people.
Pot is not harmless. It's a contributing factor in our society's moral decay.
Jun '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
Marijuana is a gateway drug only because one must cross through the threshold into the underworld of crime to purchase the product. Thus begins many an association with an element of society that is nefarious and might, therefore encourage an otherwise upright individual to experience cocaine and heroin and meth...all of which have highly addictive attributes , amongst many other negatives, that could create an otherwise unwanted involvement.
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
Ursula, the people who can't hang out with their own thoughts tend to be the drinkers and the Percodan set, not the dope-smokers; dope obliges a body to hang out with his own thoughts to such an extent that those uncomfortable with introspection tend to find it unpleasant. As for harm to the lungs -- many pleasures are moderately harmful. Many of my favorite foods do me no good whatsoever and probably do me some harm. Istanbul's polluted air has got to be carcinogenic. We all weigh risks to our health against the pointlessness of a life lived exclusively in service of life-extension. Lots of things that are pleasurable just aren't that healthy.
Paules, I'll wait for the studies before I judge them. I've never seen them, and I've scrutinized the literature pretty carefully. But if you can find credible, methodologically sound studies establishing a link between smoking weed and moral turpitude, I'm open-minded. Should I take your argument, however, to be an acceptance of decriminalization for adults?
Jun '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
Claire: "Should I take your argument, however, to be an acceptance of decriminalization for adults?"
Yes, but with certain qualifications that I won't go into now. I'm afraid we're stuck with pot smoking as a societal norm. We're just going to have to suffer the consequences. But that's true of all vices, is it not?
Jul '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
I have anecdotally observed this. Ive known a fair amount of people who are caught in a perpetual adolescence. These are otherwise intelligent people who started drugs early on. I have also observed people who started drinking heavily at a particular point in their early lives seem to stay "stuck" there too. Early use of substances does seem to induce a moral disfigurement, however that should not be used as an argument against adults' use of said substances. The fight against moral decay can't effectively be treated first as a legal issue. It's a fight for hearts and minds and needs to be won with persuasion and modelling.
The biggest argument for legalization, IMHO, is the drug gangs threatening to shave a few dozen miles off of the bottom of the USA because we can't maintain order. Our drug money fuels those gangs. If we legalized drugs, we would see a dramatic drop in violence on our southern border.
Jun '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
Zoon: "I have anecdotally observed this. Ive known a fair amount of people who are caught in a perpetual adolescence."
Exactly what I'm referring to.
Jul '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
~Paules: Zoon: "I have anecdotally observed this. Ive known a fair amount of people who are caught in a perpetual adolescence."
Exactly what I'm referring to. · Jul 20 at 6:18am
right .. but this is only an argument for keeping in appropriate things out of the hands of minors. Kids shouldn't have guns, drugs, alcohol, the keys to the car, control over important decisions ... etc. Adults, who if they were properly observing the Delphic maxims, should know themselves and take nothing to excess. I personally hate being high or (too) drunk, but if an adult can do these things without harming themselves or others, their moral well being is not mine to control. The moral argument requires rational choices among real possibilities. If a man did not have the opportunity to choose what is bad, his choice would mean nothing.
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
I speak from some serious limitations -- I have never smoked marijuana. However, I do have family members, relatives, and best friends with serious experience. The high allows for some nice dream-sharing, but little reality is involved. Not a bad thing, necessarily; no reason not to manufacture a sunny outlook for oneself. But not really instrospection, do you think? More like: Sure, it would be great to play my guitar all day and get paid for it (let's talk about that for 2 hours!) but then the come-down to reality and the facts of, say, having a child and a job that's not guitar playing is a dreadful smack in the face. I should add that the expressed dangers of participating in a cycle of escaping followed by a thud back to earth (which, I'm told, is "thud-ier" each time) come from ex-pot-smokers who now try to share serious responsibilities with pot smokers. I certainly can accept this not your experience.
· Jul 20 at 5:46am
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
I’d also like to think there's a difference between people who avoid smoking, pot smoking, Oreos, meat products, do exercise, whatever, as a general rule, and people who live "exclusively in service of life-extension."
Jul '10
Re: Narcotics Non-Anonymous
Two friends of mine had a problem with pot in and after college. One felt he couldn't eat dinner without smoking up a bit. He racked up about $15,000 in credit card debt (cash advances) thanks to the habit. There was a night, after college, that I took him to the emergency room because of a panic attack. Ditto for the other friend except that was in college. Neither quit at the time. Some claim that it is not addictive, but my eyes tell me something different. A high school age kid I know of got in so deep that he dropped out and is reportedly living on someone's couch. I'm sure that person is thrilled. Some seem predisposed for these problems and others that are telling them it's harmless are doing them no favors.