Violence and illegal drugs!

[Bill Glasheen]

Bill, I used to think *I* argued to argue.... but here you are advocating a libertarian nanny state, for what I can tell... establishing that people with good judgment can use MJ without harm then advocating its complete illegality... claiming that MJ has some minor negative effects and should be illegal and agreeing tobacco has major negative effects and should be legal... and admitting through your story that it can be used safely like alcohol, or destructively like alcohol. I just want some consistency! You want to legislate good choices or not??

* I want full disclosure. I don't want poop in a box with a pretty bow.

* I prefer limiting legislating on what people consume.

But just because I have libertarian tendencies doesn't mean I don't have opinions. I don't have to like something or approve of something even though I may not choose to legislate its use.

* I disagree wholeheartedly with anyone who says MJ is harmless. It isn't. It is what it is. Go get high for all I care. Been there, done that. I have no use for it any more. And I don't think it's particularly useful or good for anyone except maybe for cancer patients. But that's just my opinion.

* I believe alcohol can be safe and even beneficial when used properly by SOME people. The same cannot be said for MJ. At least the data don't support that. And let's not forget that the European settlers used alcohol to screw up the Native Americans. Alcohol and some people just don't mix... It is what it is.

* I'm not a fan of tobacco, but it's fine by me so long as you keep it the hell away from me and my kids, and pay increased premiums on your health insurance because of your choice. Smokers cost commercial insurers more. And yes, nicotene enhances mental acuity - unlike alcohol and MJ. And yes, it kills. And yes, government benefits from Big Tobacco because we kill off the smokers shortly after they retire (more or less). And government makes BIG money on Big Tobacco by taxing it to reduce its consumption. Oh joy... The government I want less of is made richer and more powerful by something it shouldn't be legislating on. Government now is addicted to tobacco. Now can you see how screwed up this whole economic incentive thing can get?

* Don't tell me we can just unleash everything and educate people to mitigate the consequences thereof. Sorry, it just doesn't work in the pure sense. Methamphetamine is nasty stuff. So is oxycontin. So are many meds that really need to be prescribed by an MD who knows what the hell he is doing and knows how to dose it when you need it.

* People like to invoke things we all agree on (like public health) when talking about theories which allegedly are the best approaches for handling things like addictive substances. Theories are fine and all. But interpretation and execution is something else.

Life just isn't very simple. But my love of my children most definitely is. My world right now revolves around them - as it should. The day you have your first child, Ian, you will understand. That day may happen; one never knows...

Bill

[benzocaine]

N.O.R.M.L. Likes to remind us that it was a law that people were to grow Hemp in Jamestown VA.

The reason for this is because the settlers were hell bent on growing tobacco instead of the cash crops that they were there to grow origionally.

Also, the hemp those guys grew had hardly any THC in it.. so who would want to smoke it?

[Bill Glasheen]

You make a good point, Ben.

From the "Been there, done that" crowd... There is "schit", there is "good schit" and there is "reeeaallly good schit." How high you get and the quality of the high varies tremendously from plant to plant. And that has to do with the concentration of THC in the dried leaves and the combination of myriad analogues of THC that coexist with it.

Any good reefer head will tell you that prescription THC just doesn't do it. We're still quite a long ways from fully understanding the effect of all these various chemicals on the brain and alterations in brain chemistry as a result of regular consumption. Some good friends of mine are doing research on that today at Medical College of Virginia. That kind of research is going on all over the world. One day we'll understand a lot more about cravings and addiction through this kind of research.

The early settlers grew hemp because it was cheaper and easier to make rope and material from hemp than it was from cotton. Cotton is very labor intensive and strips the soil of nutrients. Back then we didn't understand how to treat land. We just farmed it until it wouldn't yield and then moved west. But hemp could yield rope and thread for material cheaply and easily.

Today's pot is not your great grandfather's pot. All the smart heads in college applied what they learned in their agri-tech training and learned to breed and select for more and more potent yield. The average ounce of pot back in the early 1970s was a real hit-and-miss proposition. Chances were pretty good that it was some domestic stuff that wasn't going to get you high and a complete waste of 20 bucks. But then came Panama Red

Panama Red, Panama Red,
He'll steal your woman then he'll rob your head.
Panama Red, Panama Red,
His white horse Mescalino, comes breezin' thru town.
Bet his woman's off in bed with ol' Panama Red.

You just don't know when Red's in town,
he keeps well hidden underground.
Everybody's gettin' crazy fallin' out 'n' hangin' round.
My woman said, "Hey Pedro, you're actin' crazy like a clown."
Nobody feels like workin' Panama Red is back in town.

- New Riders of the Purple Sage

And then came Acapulco Gold. And then came Maui Wowi. And it got better, and better, and better... The difference between what your ancestors grew and what kids can get today is like the difference between cheap beer (if you were lucky) and vodka.

I'll never forget the first time I smoked some pot that actually caused electrical sensations throughout my body, and made me sit senseless for hours. And I knew it wasn't laced with anything because I knew who grew it. It's pretty amazing what science and a desire to get high can come up with.

Actually it's a bit scary...

No, it isn't this.



But this is no longer your father's Oldsmobile.

Sure, I have my vices today. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why Metablade appears put off by calling a vice a vice. It is what it is.

I like caffeine. I like driving fast. I like eating healthy, working out hard, and getting together with big people so I can get beat on. (I'm addicted to endorphins.) I like eating obscenely hot Mexican and Indian food, and love a great wasabi nose blast. (Did I mention that I'm addicted to endorphins? ) And I like what any other male likes that gets him into more trouble, but he'll go there anyway. I love a great beer (Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout), fine red wine (dry, please), Dom Perignon, and hot sake. But I choose not to drink because I'd rather be the designated driver and let others around me safely have a good time. That floats my boat; it's the sheepdog in me.

I control my vices today; I don't let them control me. That's a discipline which some have, and some don't.

When Homer was a very old man, he talked about how wonderful it was finally being free from the tyranny of sex. Go figure...

- Bill

[-Metablade-]

Sure, I have my vices today. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why Metablade appears put off by calling a vice a vice. It is what it is.
- Bill

I would argue that your concept of "Vice" may differ from mine.
To me, a "Vice" is relative to the society in which considers it a Vice.
And I have observed that this concept can fully morph and change as time goes by and the particular society changes.

An example:
In some countries, the following are or were considered "Vices", and at various times in various places, punishable by death:

Dancing
Drinking Coffee
Reading books
Listening to music
Talking about certain subjects
Enjoying intimacy with your spouse

I feel that Vices are purely social/mental meme constructs,
and as such that they do not exist outside human social circles.

[Bill Glasheen]

Frankly from a strictly scientific point of view (looking at neurotransmitter activity), I could see how any of those things you mentioned could be called vices. But we could go on and on about that...

Don't get me dancing, brother. The folks outside my office will start talking. Again... And I do like to dance.

The problem lies not with the word or the activity. The problem lies with the emotional baggage associated with words. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call a spade a spade.

I can remember visiting Russia back in 1993 as part of a scientific expedition. This was just after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Previously other professional groups had gone over there, and had varying degrees of success in their communication. The translators had a talk with us before we went. Apparently things got very confusing for the Russians when psychologists were using phrases like "mentally challenged." What does this mean, mentally challenged? I do not understand! They said "Just say retarded."

No problem.

A vice is a vice.

A rose is a rose by any other name.

- Bill

[-Metablade-]

Don't get me dancing, brother. The folks outside my office will start talking. Again... And I do like to dance.

LOL! I'd honestly like to see that...

Me too.
Though those people witnessing said blasphemy of said artistic expression would probably not call it that.
"Epileptic spasms" maybe..

A vice is a vice.

A rose is a rose by any other name.

- Bill

You see, my point is that i'd argue that there isn't even a Rose.... (Says Metablade through a mouthfull of Granola bits, alfalfa sprouts and Tofu..)

[Bruise* Lee]

"Assassin of youth"

thats an interesting title really because the word "assassin" comes from the word "Hashish" , which is a concentrated potent form of marijuana - something the "thugs" used to consume before getting worked up into a frenzy to go an commit "thuggery" - a technique that the followers of Kali performed to kill people in which they took a knotted scarf and strangled them.

[IJ]

Bill, it sounds as if you're against pot and its legislation. Are we.. agreeing?

I'm not advocating THC, nor am I suggesting that it be OTC like benadryl. I've just said that it's completely illegal, almost impossible to legally even study, and in that regard, its more tightly regulated than cocaine! The risks do not justify that. And our current and past experiments in prohibition have had underwhelming results.

I would suggest that pot could be released in a controlled way. People act for some reason as if it's either illegal completely or handed free to children. Perhaps it would be like abortion--you can't get one in CVS or Sav-on but you can obtain it legally. A standardized product could be distributed in the least harmful way (a filter, or altered to reduce toxins, i dunno about poisonous herbs as i abhor tobacco, perhaps even oral so the respiratory harm is minimized) and, by making it legal, we would have control over the THC content and your concerns about its increasing potency. Advice, counseling, and treatment could be linked to its purchase and it would be priced to whatever ruined the violent, life and future ruining, criminal mind generating, extremely expensive and unstoppable illicit drug trade. And yes, the government can make some tax money on it to pay for the results--right now, I see TONS of drug users in hospital and right now *I* pay for them directly by my taxes as their infections from unsafe needles, failed livers, damaged hearts and lungs, and so on--and all the purchase money is coming from theft and the poor for the most part and going for lovely villas in Bogota instead of treatment and prevention.

Does anyone know what social disaster is or is not being wrought in the netherlands by a little reefer?

Still eager for any consistent proposed law that works from sound principle to a list of legal and illegal drugs, striking MJ and approving etoh and tobacco.

[Jesse Taub]

This is a hard argument to have rationally, because there are so many preconceptions and biases held on both sides, so I will try to be brief:

In my opinion, at some point it comes down to personal responsibility. Good citizens need to take responsibility for their own decisions so that the government doesnt have to make decisions for them.

"this drug is unhealthy so it should be prohibited but it has these desirable effects so it should be permissable."

Ultimately no one knows better than you what's in your own best interest, least of all the government. Being responsible means making decisions while understanding and accepting the possible consequences.

Personal responsibility on all fronts is a virtue that I wish were more highly valued by our society. I find in many areas of our lives we are too eager to appear blameless at the expense of our liberty.

[-Metablade-]

Nicely said, sir!

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian

We aren't far apart on our thinking.

Why does everyone say it's illegal to do research on pot? A very dear friend of mine was doing her dissertation at MCV in the department of neurology, and her topic was the static and dynamic aspects of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology with the use of THC. Let's please pull this argument off the table. On the contrary, let's emphasize the fact that there are perhaps hundreds of articles in the peer-reviewed research already, and the volume is growing. Furthermore, this more and more is becoming the fuel for a more-informed debate. No longer will people need to base their decisions on the lifestyle of "Deadheads."

Jesse and Metablade

In principle I agree with you. But the practice always creates problems. This is the discussion (not argument) I was having with Dana.

In medicine we see something called supply-induced demand. John Wennberg of Dartmouth is famous for his research showing that there were for instance many more tonsillectomies in Boston than there were in New Haven, and yet people were no more healthy in Boston because of it. His Darmouth Atlas of Healthcare documents how equivocal medical practices vary widely - mostly due to the variability in concentration of specialists and subspecialists who perform these equivocal procedure (hence the term supply-induced demand). This supply variability essentially costs us billions in unnecessary healthcare in the country.

The availability of a substance will drive its use. If you make pot more available, it will be easier for my kids to get it and comsume it. Laws do not stop kids from having sex. Laws do not stop kids from raiding someone's bar, or bribing someone to buy beer at the 7-Eleven. Laws do not stop kids from drinking and driving. Laws do not stop kids from selling their ridlin to other kids who want to abuse it.

Pot is easy to hide. Pot is easy to grow. (Many people even grow it indoors) It's a bloody weed in many parts of the country as it is. I had friends who would plant pot in the middle of large cornfields (not their own), and harvest it before the corn was harvested. Basically you can conceal it in plain sight, and the barrier to production on any level is slim to none.

You think it's easy to make moonshine...

There are similar issues with methamphetamine. Any fool can make the stuff. And with crank, the permanent effects on brain chemistry (never mind brain deterioration) are so profound that you basically kill the moral fiber of the individual long before they physically die. Having pseudoephedrine readily available in drug stores in large volumes has created this problem. Limiting the supply or putting it behind the counter has helped.

I am libertarian as well. But call me a pragmatic libertarian. What really goes on when you act can be very different than what you expect.

Be careful what you wish for.

- Bill

[Jesse Taub]

Bill,

I'm straying from my central point here, and I'm just responding to a few of your points in the interest of continuing conversation.

As you say, laws don't stop kids from having sex, drinking, etc. And similarly, laws do not stop kids from smoking pot, meth, etc. As you say, pot is easy to grow, and let me tell you, it aint hard to find on any college campus.

However, I have to contend that avaiability will not necessarily result in overuse of a particular substance. In european countries where it is socially acceptable for minors to drink alcohol with dinner, there is usually considerably less beinge or "irresponsible" drinking. Many european countries have no legal drinking age, or a drinking age considerably lower than 21.

The same argument can be made about marijuana in the netherlands.

As for speed, I'll say this: Speed IS widely available through legal methods. Ritalin and Adderall prescriptions are given away like candy to college students.
"Uh, so like...I cant concentrate. Or something."
"Two blue pills twice a day!"
With this in mind, Ritalin and Adderall are made of, as it says on the bottle, "Amphetamine Salts." While not exactly d-N-Methylamphetamine, I'm convinced these analogues are only slightly less neurotoxic than their more notorious cousin. That said, despite their availability, relatively few youths choose to take amphetamines with any regularity.

In the case of areas of high rates of meth abuse, i would disagree, Bill, with the direction of your causality. Where there's a will, there's a way, and if there's demand for speed, someone will make it. No guarantees, but i'm not convinced legalizing methamphetamine would result in skyrocketing rates of abuse. I will, however, guarantee that if meth were legal there would be a huge reduction in the number of fatalities and serous injuries in cases where some poor schmuck decides to cook his own meth and ends up blowing himself up.

Edit: Further evidence that demand influences supply and not vice versa is the legality and availability of Dextromethorphan, Salvia Divinorum, and Datura. These substances, varying greatly in their potency and their toxicity, are all perfectly legal to buy and sell, yet their rates of use are extremely low, suggesting that people use drugs because they are looking for specific effects, not because they are there.

Ultimately however, we're all dealing in "what ifs" and I would be arrogant to consider my opinion any better than educated speculation.

[Gene DeMambro]

I always get nerevous when people write

In european countries where it is socially acceptable for minors to drink alcohol with dinner, there is usually considerably less beinge or "irresponsible" drinking.

without referencing a public health study or somethign along those lines.

Yes, speed is widely available through legal methods: You go to a doctor, who does a physical exam and takes a ful medical history. Then said doctor diagnoses a medical condition that amphetamine is a legitimate medical use for and writes a prescription. When that prescription runs out, you go to said doctor to get a new one. And what legitimate medical use speed (made in some chem student's bathroom) is good for?

but i'm not convinced legalizing methamphetamine would result in skyrocketing rates of abuse.

The ultimate "What if" and unsupported.

I will, however, guarantee that if meth were legal there would be a huge reduction in the number of fatalities and serous injuries in cases where some poor schmuck decides to cook his own meth and ends up blowing himself up.

Rates of deaths due to the bathtub lab exploding goes down...but rates of death and disability due to drug addiction go up. And the upside is....?

Gene

[Jesse Taub]

So...i did give the specific caveat at the end of my post that I'm only speculating. you accuse me of speculation as though I had presented my opinion as anything else.

My observations are my own; of the nature of alcohol consumption in europe and every other observation made. I presented them as such. I gave them because I had the time and interest to do so. I do not have the time or interest to dig up studies to support my case, and so i provided the speculation disclaimer.

sorry if this wasnt clear enough in my initial post

[Bill Glasheen]

Perhaps I can give an example that "the gang" can comment on and research. It is a bit of a repeated measures study.

In this country during the Vietnam era, it was argued that if a kid is old enough to be drafted, then he's old enough to vote and old enough to drink. Cool! So just when I reached the age of 18, I got to vote and I got to drink beer.

Eighteen-year-olds still can vote. Why they don't in numbers that match middle-aged men and women with families is a fascinating fact to ponder. But they can if they want to...

We no longer have a draft.

Meanwhile, the drinking age was raised year by year just behind me. When I was first having parties while teaching karate at UVa, I had a readily-available supply of hard stuff. Over the years with the changing ages, I had to abandon the practice. College campuses sobered up a bit. When I went to college, you couldn't get anyone to show up at a meeting unless beer and munchies were available. The laws changed. Now you need to be 21 to drink. UVa got hit with mega lawsuits after a bunch of fraternity boy packed into the back of a U Haul truck got in an accident before they made it to their destination at a nearby women's college. Alcohol was found in the bloodstream of the driver. Now you can't serve alcohol at ANY University function on University property. Our UVa scramble style Pep Band used to get a donation from Anheiser Busch for each time they played "The Budweiser Song" at a football game. Cool tune, BTW...

When you say Bud
You've said a lot of things nobody else can say
When you say Bud
You've gone as far as you can go to get the very best
When you say Bud
You've said the word that means you'd like to do it all
When you say Bud
It means you want the beer that's got a taste that's number one
When you say Bud
You tell the world you know what makes it all the way
When you say Bud
You say you care enough to only want the King of Beers

There is no other one
There's only something less
Because the King of Beers
Is leading all the rest

When you say BUUUUD-WEISER
You've said it all!




Now they don't even have a Pep Band at football games. They have a stupid marching band... (See Virginia Pep Band)

Beer and munchies served? What's that? Faculty mixer? What's that?

Why? What data supported this? Why does Jesse think having alcohol readily available to kids in Europe is fine (by his perception), and why did this country abandon the younger drinking age experiment?

- Bill