News War On Drugs

  • Thread starter JOEBIALEK
  • Start date
60
0
Holland has decriminalized marijuana and harder drugs.

They've seen a drop in violent crime, lower teenage use, and since they've opened free drug clinics they've seen fewer problems with hard drug use.

It's pretty obvious that the US drug laws are terrible. And they're used as tools to oppress racial minorities.
 
217
0
TRCSF said:
Holland has decriminalized marijuana and harder drugs.

They've seen a drop in violent crime, lower teenage use, and since they've opened free drug clinics they've seen fewer problems with hard drug use.

It's pretty obvious that the US drug laws are terrible.
I agree....


And they're used as tools to oppress racial minorities.
If this is true, it is not clear by any means. There are a lot of white people who use drugs and in fact crank has taken over the midwestern states and it seems to be mainly affecting white people.
 
466
4
Personally, I think that the "soft drugs" (non-physically addictive drugs, such as marijuana) should be legalized, while the "hard drugs" (physically addictive drugs such as cocaine, meth, and heroin) should be kept illegal. From what I understand, many people make the transition from the soft ones to the hard ones simply because of their proximity to one another. If they were separated into legal and illegal markets, that would most likely decrease the incidence of people using marijuana as a "gateway drug" to other ones.
 
60
0
Townsend said:
If this is true, it is not clear by any means. There are a lot of white people who use drugs and in fact crank has taken over the midwestern states and it seems to be mainly affecting white people.
There are certainly white people who use drugs. In fact, drugs are equally used among all races and economic classes. That makes sense. It's all about biochemistry, we all share the same biochemistry. A rich white guy is going to become just as addicted as a poor black woman.

The difference is, that poor and black people, especially black people, are far more likely to be arrested and imprisoned for it. That's not the drugs, that's the laws and the way racist authorities abuse them.

If you want one extreme example, look up Jasper, Texas.
 

Art

Pengwuino said:
The exact same Constitution that allowed Prohibition... Every generation sinec has drawn its laws farther and farther away from the actual meaning of the Constitution if you do study history at all.
Ahem, wasn't the US constitution amended to allow prohibition. I think you will find it was the 18th amendment and was repealed by the 21st amendment.
.
 

Art

My vote is to legalise the soft drugs if only to show consistancy as alchohol is legal, then decriminalise the use of hard drugs so police and courts aren't tied up catching and punishing drug victims and then have a massive crackdown on drug dealers. Places such as Singapore do not have a drugs problem because the possible gains from dealing drugs are massively outweighed by the penalties if you are caught.

In reply to those who think depriving them of illegal drugs infringes their individual rights I suggest they consider the effect drug addicts exercising their rights has on the rights of the people who are raped, murdered and robbed as a direct result of the effects of the drugs or in the addicts desperate search for funds to feed the addiction. Plus of course they shoould consider the medical resources consumed in treating the addicts which deprives the rest of the population of staff and resources which could have been used to treat them.
 

vanesch

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,007
16
Art said:
My vote is to legalise the soft drugs if only to show consistancy as alchohol is legal, then decriminalise the use of hard drugs so police and courts aren't tied up catching and punishing drug victims and then have a massive crackdown on drug dealers. Places such as Singapore do not have a drugs problem because the possible gains from dealing drugs are massively outweighed by the penalties if you are caught.

In reply to those who think depriving them of illegal drugs infringes their individual rights I suggest they consider the effect drug addicts exercising their rights has on the rights of the people who are raped, murdered and robbed as a direct result of the effects of the drugs or in the addicts desperate search for funds to feed the addiction. Plus of course they shoould consider the medical resources consumed in treating the addicts which deprives the rest of the population of staff and resources which could have been used to treat them.
Amen :approve:

One point, though: so-called soft drugs aren't so "soft". Marihuana is known to trigger schizophrenia in potentially pre-disposed subjects. I know one case personally, which made me look a bit into it, and indeed this is a known medical effect.

http://www.drugwatch.org/DWNews_V8_N1_2003.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Art

vanesch said:
One point, though: so-called soft drugs aren't so "soft". Marihuana is known to trigger schizophrenia in potentially pre-disposed subjects. I know one case personally, which made me look a bit into it, and indeed this is a known medical effect.
Reminds me when the Rangers FC goalkeeper was diagnosed as schizophrenic. At the matches the Rangers fans started singing 'There's only two Andy Gorams' :rofl:
 
14
0
That document is full of misleading statements... although I do know that it causes schizophrenia in people who already have the condition, isn't it pretty rare? I've never read any statistics on that.

First off, the
“Since the 1970s, there has been an aggressively orchestrated effort to use [the medicinal marijuana] issue as a ramrod to legalize marijuana. People in the medical-marijuana movement are putting on white coats and expressing concerns for the welfare of the sick. People who truly are concerned about those suffering from serious illnesses need to see this movement for what it is: a hoax.”
part is just bull****. As a member of the CannabisCulture forums, I can say with first-hand experience that many people have been known to donate their own marijuana to those who need it.

It is likely that most are not aware that a carefully controlled 1994 study found that two marijuana cigarettes were as harmful as 28 tobacco cigarettes, and that after alcohol, marijuana is the psychoactive substance most frequently found in the blood of motorists involved in traffic accidents
Most are not aware? This sounds like falsely alarming the public again. EVERYONE who I try to argue with about legalization says this. I accept this, but wonder if, used with a vaporizer, how much that figure would go down. Vaporizers only heat the marijuana up to a point where THC vaporizes, so there is still most of the marijuana left in the vaporizer, and not in your lungs. Also about the driving thing, what they DON'T tell you is that most of those marijuana related accidents ALSO involve alcohol. There's actually a reason why the legalizers most famous quote is "know the real facts."

A study done in 2000 found that the risk of heart attack for those over age 40 is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking a joint.
Oooh, scary, seeing as an obese man who has sex is something like 100x more likely to have a heart attack.

July 13, 2002, the Washington Times reported that crime in England and Wales had surged by its biggest yearly jump in a decade. Topping a national list of the 20 worst areas for street robberies was Lambeth, the London borough where the government stopped arresting pot smokers. Police said many were after money to purchase drugs — heroin, cocaine, and marijuana.

And so... THEY MAKE DRUGS EASIER TO GET!
Do you actually think that marijuana leads people to stealing/crime to feed their "addiction"? They just pointlessly threw marijuana in there. There is a general rule of thumb the legalizers all believe in (as witnessed from prohibition). At first, the use would slightly rise, making it easier to get. But then (we see this in the Netherlands now, as pot-smoking there is less deviant than here) they get bored with it, and use drops. My point is, does it really matter if it makes it easier to get if it makes use go down?

I suggest everyone read the legalizers bible (mine anyway):
http://www.norml.com/index.cfm?Group_ID=5515#alleg1
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vanesch

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,007
16
KC9FVV said:
That document is full of misleading statements... although I do know that it causes schizophrenia in people who already have the condition, isn't it pretty rare? I've never read any statistics on that.
I saw it happen to someone I personally know. That's no statistics of course, but it changed my view on the subject. Now, it can be that he was predisposed, but it was clearly a joint that triggered the first crisis - now he's in a closed institution.
 
217
0
vanesch said:
I saw it happen to someone I personally know. That's no statistics of course, but it changed my view on the subject. Now, it can be that he was predisposed, but it was clearly a joint that triggered the first crisis - now he's in a closed institution.
Yikes...... I've never heard of this before.
 

Art

vanesch said:
I saw it happen to someone I personally know. That's no statistics of course, but it changed my view on the subject. Now, it can be that he was predisposed, but it was clearly a joint that triggered the first crisis - now he's in a closed institution.
Alcohol can also be a trigger for episodes. This was the case with a friend of mine who spent several weeks in hospital suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Luckily in most cases it is easily controllable with antipsychotic drugs.

It seems hallucinogenic drugs and alcohol reduce the minds ability to discern reality in people who are already tottering on the brink.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
14
0
vanesch said:
I saw it happen to someone I personally know. That's no statistics of course, but it changed my view on the subject. Now, it can be that he was predisposed, but it was clearly a joint that triggered the first crisis - now he's in a closed institution.
That's unfortunate. Does anybody know of a link for statistics on this?
 

Art

KC9FVV said:
That's unfortunate. Does anybody know of a link for statistics on this?
There is a general acceptance that more people who take marijuana are schizophrenic. the difference of opinioin is centered on whether marijuana is the cause of this or whether people susceptible to schizophrenia are more likely to take marijuana, which is similar to the arguments the cigarette companies used to make to explain the high incidence of lung cancer in smokers.
Psychiatrists began to wonder if cannabis could actually cause psychosis as well as make established psychosis worse. A famous study interviewed 50,000 conscripts into the Swedish Army about their drug consumption and followed them up. Those who were heavy consumers of cannabis at 18 were six times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia over the next 15 years than those did not take it.

This year, Dutch epidemiologist Jim Van Os published the results of his study, in which 7,500 people were interviewed about their drug consumption and followed up for three years. Once again, regular consumers of cannabis were more likely to develop psychosis than those who didn't. Two other studies with similar findings are in progress.
http://www.mentalhealthcare.org.uk/schizophrenia/causes/cannabis/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
210
0
At the matches the Rangers fans started singing 'There's only two Andy Gorams
Lol I think you will find that was Celtic fans signing that one... haha
 
173
0
vanesch said:
Amen :approve:

One point, though: so-called soft drugs aren't so "soft". Marihuana is known to trigger schizophrenia in potentially pre-disposed subjects. I know one case personally, which made me look a bit into it, and indeed this is a known medical effect.

http://www.drugwatch.org/DWNews_V8_N1_2003.htm [Broken]
BS, pure lies, there is nothing in pot to trigger schizophrenia
that is caused by a chemical inbalance in the brain that mostly
strikes people in the late teens thru their 20's
there is simply no cause and effect relationship
now it is true some people with schizophrenia abuse drugs and sometimes
the drug abuse is a early sign of the schizophrenia
BUT THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT from being a cause of the schizophrenia
you are stateing that a symtom is a cause, learn the difference

BTW that site is pure propaganda, from the anti-drug people, without proof of any real data as there are none, thanks to the goverments bann of such studys BECAUSE THEY DONOT WANT THE TRUTH TO SHOW THEIR LIES
:surprised
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Art

ray b said:
BS, pure lies, there is nothing in pot to trigger schizophrenia
that is caused by a chemical inbalance in the brain that mostly
strikes people in the late teens thru their 20's
there is simply no cause and effect relationship
now it is true some people with schizophrenia abuse drugs and sometimes
the drug abuse is a early sign of the schizophrenia
BUT THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT from being a cause of the schizophrenia
you are stateing that a symtom is a cause, learn the difference

BTW that site is pure propaganda, from the anti-drug people, without proof of any real data as there are none, thanks to the goverments bann of such studys BECAUSE THEY DONOT WANT THE TRUTH TO SHOW THEIR LIES
:surprised
Yes, just like smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. It is just that people with a propensity for lung cancer take up smoking. :rofl:

Are these more lies? http://www.mentalhealthcare.org.uk/schizophrenia/causes/cannabis/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vanesch said:
Amen :approve:

One point, though: so-called soft drugs aren't so "soft". Marihuana is known to trigger schizophrenia in potentially pre-disposed subjects. I know one case personally, which made me look a bit into it, and indeed this is a known medical effect.

http://www.drugwatch.org/DWNews_V8_N1_2003.htm [Broken]
Cigarettes are known to trigger [ahem] lung cancer. What's the saying... name your poison?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Art said:
Yes, just like smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. It is just that people with a propensity for lung cancer take up smoking. :rofl:

Are these more lies? http://www.mentalhealthcare.org.uk/...auses/cannabis/ [Broken]
Great minds, Art...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kyleb

Art said:
Yes, just like smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. It is just that people with a propensity for lung cancer take up smoking. :rofl:
So if I found a higher incidence of depression in those who watch daytime television, would you argue that daytime television causes depression?
Art said:
Are these more lies? http://www.mentalhealthcare.org.uk/...auses/cannabis/ [Broken]
No, that is a bad link. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Art

kyleb said:
So if I found a higher incidence of depression in those who watch daytime television, would you argue that daytime television causes depression?
If they were 6* more likely to suffer from depression than people who didn't watch daytime TV (as is the case between cannabis and schizophrenia) then I would strongly suspect a cause and effect.

kyleb said:
No, that is a bad link. ;)
? Try it again http://www.mentalhealthcare.org.uk/schizophrenia/causes/cannabis/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kyleb

Art said:
If they were 6* more likely to suffer from depression than people who didn't watch daytime TV (as is the case between cannabis and schizophrenia) then I would strongly suspect a cause and effect.
Suspecting would quite resonable in such a case, concluding is a whole different ballgame.
Art said:
? Try it again http://www.mentalhealthcare.org.uk/schizophrenia/causes/cannabis/ [Broken]
The link to the article works fine now, but but the attempts at conlusions within it are rather lacking.

Oh, and as for your "?", check your previous link. It was incomplete so it didn't lead anywhere but to an error page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
173
0
some people with schizophrenia self medicate with pot
that is not a cause of the schizophrenia
that is an effect of the schizophrenia
your dog is chasing it's tail looking for something to blame on pot
lets do some real research not just tell tall tales
millions of people smoke pot some have schizophrenia
what is the over all % of those millions of smokers who have schizophrenia
less then 1%
"The lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia is commonly given at 1%; however, a recent review of studies from around the world estimated it to be 0.55%14. The same study also found that prevalence may vary greatly from country to country, despite the received wisdom that schizophrenia occurs at the same rate throughout the world. It is worth noting however, that this may be in part due to differences in the way schizophrenia is diagnosed. The incidence of schizophrenia was given as a range of between 7.5 and 16.3 cases per 100,000 of the population."
and if you like swedish studys how about this one
""It has been noted that the majority of people with schizophrenia (estimated between 75% and 90%) smoke tobacco. However, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have a much lower than average chance of getting and dying from lung cancer. While the reason for this is unknown, it may be because of a genetic resistance to the cancer, a side-effect of drugs being taken, or a statistical effect of increased likelihood of dying from causes other than lung cancer22. It is argued that the increased level of smoking in schizophrenia may be due to a desire to self-medicate with nicotine. A recent study of over 50,000 Swedish conscripts found that there was a small but significant protective effect of smoking cigarettes on the risk of developing schizophrenia later in life.28 Whilst the authors of the study stressed that the risks of smoking far outweigh these minor benefits, this study provides further evidence for the 'self-medication' theory of smoking in schizophrenia and may give clues as to how schizophrenia might develop at the molecular level.""
BUT NO CLAIMS TOBACCO is a CAUSE OF THIS schizophrenia???
 
60
0
Look, there's no scientific evidence that smoking pot causes schizophrenia. That's a forty year old urban legend, right up there with it causes infertility.

The active ingredient, delta-9 THC, was studied twenty years ago by the FDA and approved for treating cancer patients for nausea. They did all the studies for safety in human consumption. The only real side effects they found was that it produced a mild sense of euphoria, an increased appetite, bloodshot eyes, etc. I think all their information is available to the public on-line, feel free to look it up yourself.

For crying out loud, this thread reads like a 1980's after school special.
 
Maybe lung cancer causes smoking?
 

Related Threads for: War On Drugs

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
61
Views
8K
Replies
30
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Top