DEA to reschedule marijuana?

[Jhhnn]

You are regurgitating nonsense.
1. The link between schizophrenia and cannabis is not poorly understood. It is quite well understood compared to virtually every other epidemiologic risk factor in medicine. It is not completely understood, and I would like more research to make it better understood. Nonetheless, because it is not fully understood does not make it unimportant. I don't care if you feel that the amount of risk and amount of certainty of that risk makes it outweighed by other factors. It is, however, idiotic to say that it is irrelevant.

The claim of irrelevancy has not been made. Your claim that the link between cannabis use & schizophrenia being causal & well understood is bullshit-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_and_psychosis

2. I disagree that legal restrictions on marijuana use, production, and distribution are wholly ineffective at deterring teen use of marijuana. I agree completely that the current laws are horribly bad at reaching this goal, and horribly expensive to enforce. It's a compelling argument to change them. It doesn't necessitate a stance that no laws regulating marijuana as criminal can be effective. My stance is that they can be, and that it ought to be the approach we take. I might be wrong. No way to know for certain without trying one or the other and living with the results.

We already know the effects of making cannabis illegal- over 600K arrests per year for nearly 20 years & the provision of enormous revenue streams to organized crime. It seems clear that no amount of law enforcement short of a repressive police state can curtail use. It's also clear that a free people will not accept that nor should we.

3. I find your argument about origins of cannabis laws flawed, but admittedly I am not well researched on this, and I don't particularly care. Cannabis has been illegal for a long time. I only care about whether a. the pros of legalizing cannabis outweigh the cons and b. the reasonableness that the intent of laws surrounding cannabis (criminal or regulatory) matches the effect

Funny that. Earlier you offered that you didn't care about the pros & cons of current cannabis law. What you seem to care about is merely the latest in a long string of dishonest rationalizations based on fear of the unknown.

Cannabis prohibition has always been a wedge issue, a way to otherize groups outside the White mainstream- blacks, latinos, beatniks, hippies, poor people- & has created bureaucratic kingdoms based on repression of those groups. It's also been a rich source of funding for pseudo scientific grant whores for at least 40 years.

 

[interchange]

The claim of irrelevancy has not been made. Your claim that the link between cannabis use & schizophrenia being causal & well understood is bullshit-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_and_psychosis

You are using wikipedia as a reference source in a scientific argument? Really?

But what is even clearer is that you didn't read the damn wikipedia page other than the opening line (citation, WSJ, a real quality medical journal). LOL. If you omit the first line, you could hardly have picked a better source to support my claims.

Nonetheless, I did chose my words poorly. I'll rephrase it a little more precisely to my intended meaning: that schizophrenia and cannabis use are related is well understood. The causality element of the relationship is supported by higher quality epidemiologic medical evidence than almost any other bit of medical knowledge that relies on epidemiologic evidence.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post. I have stated clearly that the only con to legalization of marijuana use that compels me to want to prevent it from being legalized is its association to risk of development of schizophrenia. That I have listed other cons because I was requested to do so is not important. I don't believe that the other cons outweigh the pros.

It is also my belief that criminality of marijuana is an important deterrent. I recognize, as you do, that it is impossible for any criminal or civil legislation to prevent people from using cannabis. I wish it were possible, but since it is not, I have settled on the idea of deterring its use among at-risk youth in the most cost effective manner that is least intrusive on the liberty of people who have legal capacity to use it, and I certainly do not want to prevent it from being used in any medical application which is merited. In medical application, I wish it to be held to a standard of benefit, risk, and purity that is required by the FDA for any other drug.

 

[crashtech]

People can make themselves believe almost anything.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are using wikipedia as a reference source in a scientific argument? Really?

But what is even clearer is that you didn't read the damn wikipedia page other than the opening line (citation, WSJ, a real quality medical journal). LOL. If you omit the first line, you could hardly have picked a better source to support my claims.

Nonetheless, I did chose my words poorly. I'll rephrase it a little more precisely to my intended meaning: that schizophrenia and cannabis use are related is well understood. The causality element of the relationship is supported by higher quality epidemiologic medical evidence than almost any other bit of medical knowledge that relies on epidemiologic evidence.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post. I have stated clearly that the only con to legalization of marijuana use that compels me to want to prevent it from being legalized is its association to risk of development of schizophrenia. That I have listed other cons because I was requested to do so is not important. I don't believe that the other cons outweigh the pros.

It is also my belief that criminality of marijuana is an important deterrent. I recognize, as you do, that it is impossible for any criminal or civil legislation to prevent people from using cannabis. I wish it were possible, but since it is not, I have settled on the idea of deterring its use among at-risk youth in the most cost effective manner that is least intrusive on the liberty of people who have legal capacity to use it, and I certainly do not want to prevent it from being used in any medical application which is merited. In medical application, I wish it to be held to a standard of benefit, risk, and purity that is required by the FDA for any other drug.

I linked wiki for the summary of findings of various studies.

This bit is extreme doublespeak in light of your willingness to lock up adult users & providers-

I have settled on the idea of deterring its use among at-risk youth in the most cost effective manner that is least intrusive on the liberty of people who have legal capacity to use it.

So you just restrict the legal capacity to use it by keeping it illegal. Nice bit of circular logic with a veneer of undeserved reasonableness. Making the provision of cannabis to youth illegal by legal retailers is the only deterrent we really have. It exploits the profit motive in ways that illegal cannabis cannot.

A huge factor in all of this is states that have already legalized, particularly CO. State & local authorities have always been the foot soldiers in the War on Marijuana. Without them, enforcement attempts are futile, particularly now. As part of the State Constitution, A64 is basically written in stone. The DEA can't possibly enforce the law at a low level for a lot of reasons & CO State authorities can only enforce state law. The Obama DoJ caved so that reasonable regulatory structures could be created & commerce shifted to legal channels more capable of restricting teen access than black market channels ever will be.

Legal possession utterly confounds attempts to dry up illegal commerce any other way. Users won't become snitches because the cops have nothing on them. The smell of cannabis in any form is no longer grounds for state level warrants, either.

Following our success, more states will follow, obviously- they already are. By all reasonable metrics, that success is real. You're already on the wrong side of History & no amount of fear mongering will change that. If your concerns are real, then you'll work with that as best you can because further legalization is inevitable & desirable to the majority of people in this country. It's coming through, like water from an irrigation gate running into a cornfield.

 

[interchange]

I linked wiki for the summary of findings of various studies.

Then thank you for supporting me.

This bit is extreme doublespeak in light of your willingness to lock up adult users & providers-

I am willing to put someone in jail for knowingly breaking the law. I am in favor of reforming the laws to act as a deterrent without locking people up, though.

So you just restrict the legal capacity to use it by keeping it illegal. Nice bit of circular logic with a veneer of undeserved reasonableness. Making the provision of cannabis to youth illegal by legal retailers is the only deterrent we really have. It exploits the profit motive in ways that illegal cannabis cannot.

Not sure what's circular about that. If unpasteurized milk were not illegal here and I we were to pass a law about it, then there wouldn't be very much caring. If the President of France were to suggest it, I think he would be assassinated in record time. The cultural context of something are highly relevant to the statutory decisions. No different for cannabis. This is no vacuum.

A huge factor in all of this is states that have already legalized, particularly CO. State & local authorities have always been the foot soldiers in the War on Marijuana. Without them, enforcement attempts are futile, particularly now. As part of the State Constitution, A64 is basically written in stone. The DEA can't possibly enforce the law at a low level for a lot of reasons & CO State authorities can only enforce state law. The Obama DoJ caved so that reasonable regulatory structures could be created & commerce shifted to legal channels more capable of restricting teen access than black market channels ever will be.

Legal possession utterly confounds attempts to dry up illegal commerce any other way. Users won't become snitches because the cops have nothing on them. The smell of cannabis in any form is no longer grounds for state level warrants, either.

Following our success, more states will follow, obviously- they already are. By all reasonable metrics, that success is real. You're already on the wrong side of History & no amount of fear mongering will change that. If your concerns are real, then you'll work with that as best you can because further legalization is inevitable & desirable to the majority of people in this country. It's coming through, like water from an irrigation gate running into a cornfield.

I'm pretty sure you could whittle this down to 1 line and it would look identical to the very first thing I said in this thread.

I have an opinion on what the law should be, and the basis of that opinion is scientifically grounded in something I am trained in. I'm no politician, nor am I a political activist. I think I get more traction by sharing my opinions in an anonymous internet forum rather than with my vote or with political action. I am leery of the latter because it could make me a public figure, and that interferes with the work that I do.

Most likely I'm going to take my leave of this thread here. It seems you are resigned to the Donald Trump school of debate rather than actually attempting to understand my position. I imagine you are going to keep talking. I'll let you. Don't let me hold you back from your temper tantrum.

 

[zinfamous]

I agree with you that cannabis use should be limited/severely restricted from minors due to developmental issues, as with other drugs.

Those that support legalization all seem to agree with this, so I'm not sure how you think that it isn't part of the platform. Further, legalizing this under heavy regulation isn't going to suddenly increase use among minors--it's not like minors don't already have plentiful access to weed whenever they want it.

In fact, it's typically considered far easier for a minor to procure an illegal substance like weed than it it is to obtain regulated drugs like alcohol and tobacco. This isn't a simple assumption--we well know what prohibition did for alcohol sales and popularity, and we've long known that creating a black market for any illegal drugs simply increases access for those that want it.

You seem to accept that there are plenty of benefits to the drug, far outweighing the negative effects across society and, as a professed libertarian, believe that adults should be able to make their own adult decisions about their own lives. Your primary complaint is that minors using the drug could potentially infer severe developmental problems, and so should be restricted from the drug until the defined age. Further, legal and regulated substances tend to eliminate the black markets where they once thrived, and thus reducing access to those substances for minors. Supporting legalization, therefore, further protects the one minority class (young people that might potentially develop schizophrenia) that you claim needs protection from themselves.

So, if you were to examine demographic data that supports the argument that legalizing and regulating substances actually reduces use and removes greater access to these substances from minors, would you then support the argument for legalization?

 

[interchange]

Well, you are not Jhhnn, so I will respond because, also, you have raised some good points and done so far more politely.

It seems where we disagree is on what is more likely to restrict access to cannabis from minors: legalization to adults or criminalization with significantly altered structure of law. Both of us agree that the current laws surrounding cannabis do a poor job and cost a lot of money and are disproportionate in punishment to people who would be better off left alone. Now, I don't sympathize with that last one as much, because people aren't breaking the law unknowingly and for any reason other than pleasure or profit.

Both of us recognize that, regardless of laws or regulations, we cannot remove cannabis from the hands of minors. The only questions are: which reduces use in this group the most, what are the economic costs, what are the human costs, and how do we weigh these variables with their impact on civil liberty? I think we disagree on the values of these variables and the equations used to weigh them, but I am satisfied that we agree on what they are and want to understand the values better. That's all I can hope for.

I don't think that my position that criminality lessens use can be assumed to be wrong. Speeding is illegal. It doesn't stop people from speeding, but I believe less people speed because of the law and its enforcement, and also that people who speed often go slower than they would still if it were not illegal. This is not an argument to support laws against speeding or if our speed limits are rational. It is merely an argument that laws have an effect.

I do not believe that the benefits of cannabis far outweigh the negative effects of it. I do not think that cannabis is good for society, though I believe it is good for some members of society. All I was saying is that this, to me, does not justify our liberty to decide on our own being infringed.

I do believe that protecting minors from use on the basis of their later risk of schizophrenia development, even if they discontinue use before adulthood, is reason enough for it to be criminal if laws are effective.

As far as prohibition as an example goes, it's a poor one. It happened nearly 100 years ago with a much different substance. And that was going from legal to illegal and not the other way around. We already did that with cannabis, and more recently than with alcohol to boot, so there's no reason to compare this to prohibition.

For the record, if cannabis were currently legal I would not be in favor of criminalizing it. I believe that action would have similar effects as you describe to prohibition of alcohol, which would be bad.

Nonetheless, cannabis is currently mostly illegal. My vote is for it to remain illegal but with a much different set of laws surrounding it.

I would be happy to hear data supporting the idea that legalization will lead to less use by minors. If I could become convinced that this is the case, then 100% I would be in support of the argument for legalization. I don't expect to become convinced, but you may make me more ambivalent than my current stance, which is fine by me since I'll probably sleep better because I believe legalization is inevitable anyway.

RE: whether this is contrary to my stance as a libertarian on principle, I say resoundingly no. Hopefully it is tenable to disagree with this aspect of the platform and yet still be a libertarian.

I think that the government absolutely has the authority, and in some cases, responsibility to govern civil liberties. Just as I believe that our government absolutely has the authority, and in some cases responsibility to wage war. Just because I support the authority/responsibility, doesn't mean I want us to declare war on Canada, and it also doesn't mean that I feel we have waged war appropriately and responsibly in the past.

Just this morning, I woke up in a house governed by many, many building codes. I am required to pay insurance on it. I took a shower and am required to restrict my use of water. I put on clothes; I'm required not to be naked in public. I got in my car, another piece of machinery governed by so many regulations. I am forced to pay insurance on it. I got on the road. So many laws to follow. I can't run a red light even though I can see for miles and no one is around because there is a camera there. I stopped at McDonald's for breakfast. Can't have trans fat. Wanted to bring some cheese as a snack. Can't have it if it ain't pasteurized, etc. etc.

My civil liberties are restricted in many ways and in many ways with far more impact than not being able to smoke marijuana. And in many of those ways, purely to protect me from harming myself rather than others.

I believe that the government has its way with us far too often, and I believe those regulations are often corrupt, ineffective, and place barriers not just on freedoms but also on ability to enter business, etc. Those are why I'm libertarian, but I'm also glad that the government has the right/responsibility to erect laws that might infringe my freedoms in some limited fashion because it helps society as a whole, and there's a lot of crap I don't want to have to worry about protecting myself from.

 

[OutHouse]

Dear Interchange M.D.;

which of these will not kill you.

Tylenol
Water
Morphine based Prescribed drugs
Marijuana
Alcohol
Tobacco

 

[OutHouse]

I think that the government absolutely has the authority, and in some cases, responsibility to govern civil liberties

no no no

you are not libertarian in any shape or form. The role of government and actually the first duty of government is to protect our civil liberties not govern or restrict them.

Article VI is intended to assure that the rights and liberties of citizens are secure.

 

[interchange]

no no no

you are not libertarian in any shape or form. The role of government and actually the first duty of government is to protect our civil liberties not govern or restrict them.

Article VI is intended to assure that the rights and liberties of citizens are secure.

So you're saying I should be allowed to leave my house nude, drive drunk 100MPH, not be insured, or build a house using asbestos, faulty wiring, and lead paint?

 

[Darwin333]

So you're saying I should be allowed to leave my house nude, drive drunk 100MPH, not be insured, or build a house using asbestos, faulty wiring, and lead paint?

No because that effects other people. Doing drugs only effects the person doing them, leaving out all the societal stuff that just about any other habit can cause. I've known people addicted to certain hobbies to the point of ruining their families finances and their relationships.

As far as crime that may result from addiction like robbery and stuff, we already have laws for that. If you want to tack on additional jail time if they were hopped up on drugs that's fine but a person should own their own body. If they do own their body they should be free to put whatever they want into it as long as it doesn't physically harm anyone else, like not being able to smoke indoors due to 2nd hand smoke.

 

[interchange]

No because that effects other people. Doing drugs only effects the person doing them, leaving out all the societal stuff that just about any other habit can cause. I've known people addicted to certain hobbies to the point of ruining their families finances and their relationships.

How does being naked in public affect other people differently than smoking marijuana in public? I'm offended by marijuana smoke far more than I'm offended by nudity.

And if your threshold for governing civil liberties is in that it may harm someone else, then it shouldn't be OK for me to drive a little drunk right? Like .07 drunk?

If I want to build a house made from asbestos, I should be able to do that right? I'd be the only one living in it.

 

[OutHouse]

So you're saying I should be allowed to leave my house nude, drive drunk 100MPH, not be insured, or build a house using asbestos, faulty wiring, and lead paint?

get back to me when you understand what civil liberties are.

 

[fskimospy]

How does being naked in public affect other people differently than smoking marijuana in public? I'm offended by marijuana smoke far more than I'm offended by nudity.

I personally don't care about public nudity either, so that should be legal too.

And if your threshold for governing civil liberties is in that it may harm someone else, then it shouldn't be OK for me to drive a little drunk right? Like .07 drunk?

If I want to build a house made from asbestos, I should be able to do that right? I'd be the only one living in it.

I'm pretty sure that just about everyone realizes that you have to draw a line as to when a behavior becomes dangerous enough in order to regulate as almost anything we do carries SOME risk to other people.

Forgive me if you have already addressed this, but how are the effects of making pot illegal not much much worse than the evils that pot might visit on society from increased use? Even if you did away with the incredibly harmful incarceration policies there are still tons of horrible effects. For example, drug cartels get somewhere around 40% of their revenues from selling weed, which is billions of dollars a year. Even setting aside the violence that surrounds the drug trade in the US, all that money pretty directly translates to corruption, violence, etc, in a neighboring country we share a very large border with. We aren't just hurting our country by making pot illegal, we're destabilizing others.

 

[interchange]

I personally don't care about public nudity either, so that should be legal too.

OK. Agree with you on that. I'm not gonna make a push to legalize it though, cause there are some fugly people in America.

I'm pretty sure that just about everyone realizes that you have to draw a line as to when a behavior becomes dangerous enough in order to regulate as almost anything we do carries SOME risk to other people.

Other people like minors and risks like schizophrenia?

Forgive me if you have already addressed this, but how are the effects of making pot illegal not much much worse than the evils that pot might visit on society from increased use? Even if you did away with the incredibly harmful incarceration policies there are still tons of horrible effects. For example, drug cartels get somewhere around 40% of their revenues from selling weed, which is billions of dollars a year. Even setting aside the violence that surrounds the drug trade in the US, all that money pretty directly translates to corruption, violence, etc, in a neighboring country we share a very large border with. We aren't just hurting our country by making pot illegal, we're destabilizing others.

I believe that lots of reforms in laws short of making it legal can do a lot to help with that. And if it doesn't, I am not particularly caring since it is people willfully engaging in illegal activity knowing the risks of doing so. And changing our laws solely to offset another country's corrupt government shouldn't be a priority. Maybe there are other ways than making it legal to help with that. Donald has a few, lol.

What about my asbestos house example? Should I be able to do that? I can keep coming up with these scenarios all day long. You're gonna find yourself in support of a lot of things you never thought about if you keep it up.

 

[interchange]

get back to me when you understand what civil liberties are.

Get back to me when you can explain to me why my examples aren't civil liberties and your example of cannabis use is.

 

[fskimospy]

OK. Agree with you on that. I'm not gonna make a push to legalize it though, cause there are some fugly people in America.

Other people like minors and risks like schizophrenia?

Well a risk like schizophrenia is a personal risk, and are you saying that minors are risking secondhand pot smoke? I mean I guess, but that seems like you're really reaching.

I believe that lots of reforms in laws short of making it legal can do a lot to help with that. And if it doesn't, I am not particularly caring since it is people willfully engaging in illegal activity knowing the risks of doing so. And changing our laws solely to offset another country's corrupt government shouldn't be a priority. Maybe there are other ways than making it legal to help with that. Donald has a few, lol.

We aren't changing our laws solely to help another country, having an unstable neighbor directly harms our country. Revenues that organized crime get in both the US and Mexico directly harms our citizens as well. Innocent bystanders are injured or killed by drug related violence, children of people killed are left as orphans, etc. If you remove 40% of the money from the drug trade you're probably going to end up with considerably less violence long term.

I also don't get the whole 'if they are committing crimes then I don't care about them' aspect of it. We have made a public policy (marijuana prohibition) that creates large monetary incentives for people to engage in criminal behavior, which of course leads to more people becoming criminals. To then turn around and say that we shouldn't evaluate this legislation negatively due to that because you don't care about people who are criminals ignores the strong role that the legislation had in creating that situation to begin with. It's circular reasoning.

What about my asbestos house example? Should I be able to do that? I can keep coming up with these scenarios all day long. You're gonna find yourself in support of a lot of things you never thought about if you keep it up.

I sincerely doubt you will be at all successful in that but you're welcome to try.

As for your asbestos example, of course government should be able to regulate if it is used in construction. I'm not even remotely close to being a libertarian, btw. I'm fully in favor of regulations on the sale of marijuana as well, I just find that policies which make it entirely illegal are causing far more harm to our country than good.

 

[cliftonite]

OK. Agree with you on that. I'm not gonna make a push to legalize it though, cause there are some fugly people in America.



Other people like minors and risks like schizophrenia?



I believe that lots of reforms in laws short of making it legal can do a lot to help with that. And if it doesn't, I am not particularly caring since it is people willfully engaging in illegal activity knowing the risks of doing so. And changing our laws solely to offset another country's corrupt government shouldn't be a priority. Maybe there are other ways than making it legal to help with that. Donald has a few, lol.

What about my asbestos house example? Should I be able to do that? I can keep coming up with these scenarios all day long. You're gonna find yourself in support of a lot of things you never thought about if you keep it up.

Alcohol and tobacco have potentially horrible side effects yet they should be legal because they already are? Makes no sense.....

 

[umbrella39]

Someone here has not only become what he hates, has become far worse...

 

[Jhhnn]

Interchange carefully cherry picks his information to make a point, & not a very good one.

If cannabis use were a cause of schizophrenia, then we should see a strong relationship between the two however we look at it. What we see is, in fact, a reverse correlation between cannabis use & schizophrenia-

schizophrenia-

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schizophrenia_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2004.svg

cannabis-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_cannabis_use_by_country

 

[crashtech]

Consider if you will that medical doctors are part of a highly authoritarian structure that gives them great power over the people they treat. They can be answerable to their peers when something really egregious happens, but usually punishable errors are errors of commission, not omission, so most doctors tend to treat on the conservative side.

So it's not surprising that an MD would not be in favor of allowing people to use cannabis. It's allowing patients or prospective patients to essentially prescribe themselves a drug. No, no, can't have that, especially for recreational use! It is unfortunately an ingrained belief amongst doctors that they ought to be the ultimate arbiters of what medications we put in our bodies.

Even if we were to stipulate the risk of cannabis exacerbated psychosis, there are many widely prescribed drugs, even OTC drugs, that pose far more serious safety risks than have been shown with cannabis. So using this as a reason not to allow consenting adults the choice has little merit, to the point of actually being window dressing for what is almost certainly just a learned, ingrained authoritarian stance.

That the good doctor considers himself a libertarian is a commendable thing, however as it pertains to this issue, I believe a bit of institutionally induced blindness might unfortunately be in play.

 

[umbrella39]

Hepatitis, cirrhosis, liver cancer, pancreatitis, stroke, cardiomyopathy, seizures, cerebellar degeneration, subdural hemorrhage, depression, anxiety, increased risk oral cancers, adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and stomach, chronic kidney disease, etc etc etc.. Brought to you by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States and their fanboys...

 

[Ns1]

I'm with interchange here guys - marijuana is hella dangerous, can't let the .000000000000000000000000000000000000000028739439824% risk of schizophrenia fuck the status quo up.

Gotta lock up all those dopers, it's the only way.

Now, where's my beer?

 

[MrPickins]

For the record, if cannabis were currently legal I would not be in favor of criminalizing it. I believe that action would have similar effects as you describe to prohibition of alcohol, which would be bad.

We're already experiencing those effects with its current prohibition...

 

[VRAMdemon]

I support regulated legalization, but I'm not yet prepared to dismiss concerns...

If you want to keep marijuana away from kids, it seems, the best thing you could do is legalize it. Drug dealers don't check ID's. The owner of a legitimate business, who is fearful of losing his license to sell marijuana if he is caught selling to minors, will check ID'S. Looking at our history of prohibition. The minute that you prohibit something, you lose all control over its use. Prohibition is not control.

If my 17 year old daughter wants alcohol, she really has no resource to obtain it without the help of a 3rd party. Marijuana, not so much, she could get it on her own, from multiple sources in the school parking lot.