Well, really now, what can you do when people insist on breaking the very reasonable rules set up by The State? It's not as though this was some nebulous accusation of thoughtcrime or facecrime; no, there was very physical contraband! Clearly, the child is a future Hero of the Republic, and will likely go far within the Party; if any TSA recruiters read this, they should take note.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh no, marijuana! Better have social services take the kid away indefinitely.
SCARY FACTS ABOUT MARIJUANA
- It is a drug. Drugs are a class of substances that include heroin and cyanide pills, which can be hidden inside false teeth for killing yourself. - Another name for marijuana is "the Devil Weed." The Devil is Satan, or Lucifer, a being purportedly responsible for all bad things in history. - Marijuana consumption, like water consumption, has been statistically associated with blindness, epilepsy, obesity, and death. - Academic elitists use marijuana to come down from their adderall highs. Be sure to note when your children consort with 'academics,' 'liberals,' or 'Juggalos.' - A side effect of marijuana is paranoia. Blackblade is going to ban me for writing this post, and I will probably be abducted and forced to live in cleveland, chicago, or baltimore.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I hope their marijuana presentations include the fact that it is significantly less harmful and less addictive than alcohol.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
I went through DARE and cannot believe how it could actually make a serious impression on anyone.
eta: Xavier-It was a wile ago but I'm pretty sure that distinction was not made. As far as I can recall DARE taught me that taking anything once would turn me into an addict forever.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It doesn't. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This would be certainly be applauded if there was any evidence that any domestic abuse was going on, right now on its own merits this does raise the troubling question of how responsible were the parents in keeping recreational substances out of reach of minors? Nothing wrong I think with having these substances morally speaking, its like the middle ground between guns and porn in severity, both you can have, both need to be secured away from where your children could unsupervised get access to it.
What if it were a gun? Or on the flipside some really embarrassing porn and the child brought it to school? Either situation can have the kid going "are my parents wrong for having this?" in one case with a firearm, the kid could be a danger to himself or others in transporting it, with the other thing, really really embarrassing PT conference.
So clearly the situation is that better situational awareness is required, 1) parents need to keep their drugs out of harms reach and be more careful, 2) society needs to be less uptight about it but on the flipside is an excellent chance to make sure the family is alright, drugs should be a warning sign but not nessasarily indicitive of anything or should require removing the child from the home, but could be an excellent staging ground to investigate and make sure of things.
Also needs more tact, I think this was a pretty well meaning system but obviously has alot of bugs and not fully thought out.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh no, marijuana! Better have social services take the kid away indefinitely.
SCARY FACTS ABOUT MARIJUANA
- It is a drug. Drugs are a class of substances that include heroin and cyanide pills, which can be hidden inside false teeth for killing yourself. - Another name for marijuana is "the Devil Weed." The Devil is Satan, or Lucifer, a being purportedly responsible for all bad things in history. - Marijuana consumption, like water consumption, has been statistically associated with blindness, epilepsy, obesity, and death. - Academic elitists use marijuana to come down from their adderall highs. Be sure to note when your children consort with 'academics,' 'liberals,' or 'Juggalos.' - A side effect of marijuana is paranoia. Blackblade is going to ban me for writing this post, and I will probably be abducted and forced to live in cleveland, chicago, or baltimore.
I think that the failure to capitalize the names of cities indicates a subversive communication to liberals . . . probably based in California (or "california").
Sam, are you one of the aformentioned "Juggalos"?
<<Sends abduction squad>>
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
People are upset that Marijuana is illegal, or that children were taken from the custody of parents that were breaking the law?
Because as much as I think Marijuana should not be illegal, I don't think lax standards against middle class families are part of the solution. Especially when the kid is living with relatives, not some random foster family.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It's more that I'm upset that I'm helping to fund a program which
A) is ineffective,
B) in this case, convinced a child to take an action which he quite likely would not have taken had he understood all the implications of it, and which achieved the benefit of...nothing, as near as I can tell.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam: I went through DARE and cannot believe how it could actually make a serious impression on anyone.
Besides perhaps trivializing marijuana to teens and children? I highly doubt it does.
DARE is a program that should have ended about the time I left middle school.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I hope there was more justification for taking the kids away than that the parents are known to smoke weed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not likely? This country's still criminally stupid when it comes to pot. That pot event alone is literally all you need in many places to get SS to swoop in and grab a kid who is in no danger and is not being neglected.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Sam, are you one of the aformentioned "Juggalos"?
<<Sends abduction squad>>
We cannot truly be certain until someone's children bring the Insane Clown Posse to school.
Wow, is that kid going to grow up confused. I can't wait until he becomes a teenager. Thank you, DARE, for the lessons in zero-tolerance, absolutely-no-shades-of-grey thinking.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the dark carnival may be once a year, but juvie is year-long!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why are people upset with DARE in this case? His parents were doing illegal drugs at home and were careless enough about it that their 11-year-old kid could get ahold of it without their knowledge and bring it to school. Aside from endangering themselves, they were endangering their kids too.
Would it have been different if there had been no DARE program there, and instead of turning it in, the kid had been caught in school giving it to a friend? It seems like the effects would be the same, except in the latter case the kid would get expelled too.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
To me its the combined package.
1) Marijuana should absolutely not be illegal. 2) The child was brainwashed into believing it was so bad that he needed to turn in his own parents for using it. If this DARE program material is like others I've read about, this brainwashing was done through scare tactics, exaggeration, misinformation, and outright lies. 3) This brainwashing was done by a program that has been shown to be completely ineffective at its actual goals. 4) A child turning in their parents evokes an emotional response from me relating to totalitarian regimes and McCarthyism. Obviously I have no problem with it for abuse cases and major crimes. However, to have it here with a crime that harms no one is just wretched.
I'm sure there are other factors as well.
Edit: Lots!
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: 2) The child was brainwashed into believing it was so bad that he needed to turn in his own parents for using it.
At least from the linked article, we don't know this. Maybe the kid was brainwashed, or maybe he was angry with his parents over something and decided to do something to hurt them.
quote: If this DARE program material is like others I've read about, this brainwashing was done through scare tactics, exaggeration, misinformation, and outright lies.
Has DARE really changed that much in the last decade? When I was in school, it was a complete joke and all of the kids made fun of it. It would really surprise me if such an inept program were even capable of brainwashing.
--Mel
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I hope their marijuana presentations include the fact that it is significantly less harmful and less addictive than alcohol.
It is not any less addictive than alcohol- addiction is a motivational disorder aggravated (sometimes) by physical dependency. And on that score, alcohol has not been shown to be more dependency forming than marijuana, although physical dependency on alcohol and its withdrawal period are much, much more dangerous.
Just get your facts in order, that's all.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
FWIW, following numerous studies about DARE's lack of effectiveness, my high school did not welcome any of its representatives for lectures or assemblies. A rather gutsy move from an administration I always thought was pretty spineless. They did have a lot of people in every year to talk about violence, and one motivational speaker to talk about drinking- but he wasn't from DARE.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:To me its the combined package.
1) Marijuana should absolutely not be illegal. 2) The child was brainwashed into believing it was so bad that he needed to turn in his own parents for using it. If this DARE program material is like others I've read about, this brainwashing was done through scare tactics, exaggeration, misinformation, and outright lies. 3) This brainwashing was done by a program that has been shown to be completely ineffective at its actual goals. 4) A child turning in their parents evokes an emotional response from me relating to totalitarian regimes and McCarthyism. Obviously I have no problem with it for abuse cases and major crimes. However, to have it here with a crime that harms no one is just wretched.
I'm sure there are other factors as well.
I think that lumping in the "OMG McCarthy!" in with the rest of the complaints is... well, wrong, basically.
Dare is ineffective. Marijuana should be illegal. The fix for this is that we should either give up on or develop a replacement for the dare program, and Marijuana should be legalized.
If they actually WORKED (and weren't lying about anything), I wouldn't have any problem with scare tactics being utilized in an anti-drug program. Drugs SHOULD be scary enough that kids will avoid using them until they're old enough to fully understand the consequences and make appropriate decisions about them.
If those scare tactics resulted in a kid bringing in cocaine that his parents were using, I would be absolutely fine with that. Yes, this particular instance was sad and a little silly, but that had nothing to do with what the kid did, and everything to do with the particular drug in question and an unrelated ineffectiveness of the program in general.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think that lumping in the "OMG McCarthy!" in with the rest of the complaints is... well, wrong, basically.
I went out of my way to phrase that as an emotional response from me. Not sure how that's something you can argue against.
quote:It is not any less addictive than alcohol- addiction is a motivational disorder aggravated (sometimes) by physical dependency. And on that score, alcohol has not been shown to be more dependency forming than marijuana, although physical dependency on alcohol and its withdrawal period are much, much more dangerous.
I don't pretend to have ton a lot of research on the subject, but a quick google search reveals several sites claiming that marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, and none that claim the reverse (from my 2 minute observation).
Perhaps the common usage of "addiction" is strongly biased towards the "physical dependency" aspect of the term?
Of course you never actually say that marijuana is more addictive than alcohol, you just say it isn't "any less addictive". Are you claiming that they are equally addictive? Or are you just saying that nothing has been proven one way or the other?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I went out of my way to phrase that as an emotional response from me. Not sure how that's something you can argue against.
As a complete aside from the drug situation, do you think that it can ever reasonable to describe an emotional response as "wrong"?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I hope their marijuana presentations include the fact that it is significantly less harmful and less addictive than alcohol.
It is not any less addictive than alcohol- addiction is a motivational disorder aggravated (sometimes) by physical dependency. And on that score, alcohol has not been shown to be more dependency forming than marijuana, although physical dependency on alcohol and its withdrawal period are much, much more dangerous.
Just get your facts in order, that's all.
You state that alcohol isn't any more addictive, and then you remark on how much more dangerous alcohol dependency is.
Physical dependence IS an extremely large factor in alcohol addiction. There may be some physical dependence involved with marijuana; but if so, it's marginal and hasn't been widely accepted.
Most doctors consider addiction to include both physical and psychological dependencies. As alcohol abuse creates both dependencies (and marijuana is primarily psychological), virtually every professional will categorically deem alcohol to be more addictive. Certainly, that conclusion is based primarily on how easily someone can quit, but it's still a sound assessment.
Again, you may be "hooked" as easily with either drug, but you'll have a lot harder time breaking your alcohol addiction.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Multiple people had been making comments suggesting that the McCarthy parallels are concerning (whether or not they referred specifically to McCarthy, the sentiment is there). It's not wrong to have that emotional reaction. But it is dangerous to include emotional reactions among lists of facts and actual arguments. It suggests that they have the same weight.
I've been seeing the same tendency in reactions to this article both on and off the forum, often clearly implying that the fact that the kid turned in his parents WAS inherently wrong. Given how strong the emotional reactions to this are I think it's important that we maintain the distinction.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:do you think that it can ever reasonable to describe an emotional response as "wrong"?
I'm not sure I can make any definite claims one way or the other. I think most of the time you need to identify to the person that the emotional response was based on incorrect or incomplete knowledge.
Other than that, it seems you'd usually have to venture too much into a psychoanalysis of the person, and that rarely ends well.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Multiple people had been making comments suggesting that the McCarthy parallels are concerning (whether or not they referred specifically to McCarthy, the sentiment is there). It's not wrong to have that emotional reaction. But it is dangerous to include emotional reactions among lists of facts and actual arguments. It suggests that they have the same weight.
I think you missed the fact that my post was in response to someone asking why we were upset (Tresopax).
In answering that question, emotional responses are very applicable.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Your statement was:
quote:A child turning in their parents evokes an emotional response from me relating to totalitarian regimes and McCarthyism. Obviously I have no problem with it for abuse cases and major crimes. However, to have it here with a crime that harms no one is just wretched.
Posted in conjuction with the series of the more direct factual answers, honestly I don't think it's clear that you mean "this is an emotional response that is not actually a valid reason to criticize it." In particular your use of the word "wretched."
My actual statement was that lumping in that WITH the other categories was wrong, not that the emotional response was wrong in the first place.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:If they actually WORKED (and weren't lying about anything), I wouldn't have any problem with scare tactics being utilized in an anti-drug program.
Is there one single lie on that page? Nope. Is it misinformation? Absolutely.
A lot of the "drug fact" lists on Marijuana and MDMA I've read aren't much better than the above page. Even if it does manage to scare some kids away, it's still misinformation.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You state that alcohol isn't any more addictive, and then you remark on how much more dangerous alcohol dependency is.
The alcohol comparison doesn't really prove much, regardless. It's sort of like saying driving intoxicated is less dangerous than driving blindfolded - which, while true, doesn't make driving intoxicated okay. It just means there's something potentially worse.
In the case of alcohol, I don't think there's any question that it is potentially extremely harmful when abused. It would likely be illegal too if it wasn't so intertwined with so many of our social norms. So that's a low bar to compare against.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: My actual statement was that lumping in that WITH the other categories was wrong, not that the emotional response was wrong in the first place.
When its one of the prime reasons I was upset, I don't know why I wouldn't include it in a direct answer to a question about why I was upset. In what way could I list it and not have it "lumped in"?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: In the case of alcohol, I don't think there's any question that it is potentially extremely harmful when abused. It would likely be illegal too if it wasn't so intertwined with so many of our social norms. So that's a low bar to compare against.
Even if its a low bar, I find it one of the best ones for these discussions when addressing people's preconceived notions. Now admittedly with the readership of this site, being disproportionately LDS, it may not be the most applicable audience.
However, a lot of the general public will buy into and repeat the "dangers" of Marijuana and MDMA and then go get hammered on the weekend. The dissonance there is stunning.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
You used language that specifically indicated it was not merely an emotional response from you, but something you implied other people should respond similarly to.
"Obviously I have no problem with it for abuse cases and major crimes. However, to have it here with a crime that harms no one is just wretched."
I was also assuming when Tres said "why are people upset with Dare" the implication was "what legitimate reasons to people have to be upset with Dare" as opposed to literally "why are people emotionally upset." But I realize that's a little more open ended.
Regardless, in general, people have a tendency to conflate emotional responses with evidence, and I think it's a lot safer to err on the side of jumping on someone for appearing to do so when in fact they understood the distinction than to risk allowing a conversation to be filled with miscommunication and false statements.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Eh, I guess I can see that. At the very least I've lost interest in debating it .
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Fair enough.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
One of the comments on the news article has it exactly right. They should have arrested the kid. It's the kid who was in possession of the weed.
Yes, common sense says that it would be stupid to bust the kid. But common sense was clearly not at play here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by theCrowsWife: Has DARE really changed that much in the last decade? When I was in school, it was a complete joke and all of the kids made fun of it. It would really surprise me if such an inept program were even capable of brainwashing.
DARE actually sort of accomplishes the inverse effect. When authority figures vastly overplay the danger of a drug, and then you go try it out one day and none of what they warned you about was even remotely as bad as the scare tactics suggested, the anti-drug movement loses credibility with you even with the drugs that matter when it comes to being scared off of.
Like meth and heroin.
Basically, we're spending millions to make the battle against substance dependency harder.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:To me its the combined package.
1) Marijuana should absolutely not be illegal. 2) The child was brainwashed into believing it was so bad that he needed to turn in his own parents for using it. If this DARE program material is like others I've read about, this brainwashing was done through scare tactics, exaggeration, misinformation, and outright lies. 3) This brainwashing was done by a program that has been shown to be completely ineffective at its actual goals. 4) A child turning in their parents evokes an emotional response from me relating to totalitarian regimes and McCarthyism. Obviously I have no problem with it for abuse cases and major crimes. However, to have it here with a crime that harms no one is just wretched.
I'm sure there are other factors as well.
I think that lumping in the "OMG McCarthy!" in with the rest of the complaints is... well, wrong, basically.
Dare is ineffective. Marijuana should be illegal. The fix for this is that we should either give up on or develop a replacement for the dare program, and Marijuana should be legalized.
If they actually WORKED (and weren't lying about anything), I wouldn't have any problem with scare tactics being utilized in an anti-drug program. Drugs SHOULD be scary enough that kids will avoid using them until they're old enough to fully understand the consequences and make appropriate decisions about them.
If those scare tactics resulted in a kid bringing in cocaine that his parents were using, I would be absolutely fine with that. Yes, this particular instance was sad and a little silly, but that had nothing to do with what the kid did, and everything to do with the particular drug in question and an unrelated ineffectiveness of the program in general.
My friend's mother smoked pot when she was a child, and in her estimation, using did contribute to her mother being a crappy, neglectful and irresponsible parent. She knows. She was there. My friend is an adult now, and she still doesn't see her mother's drug use as okay.
A lot people support the legalization of pot with the defense: "I do it, I'm an upstanding citizen and so is everyone else I know who smokes weed." I find that assessment problematic because people with actual problems will say the exact same thing. Most people claiming that they are fine are in their teens and 20s and have not hit the point where their body will claim the debt that use has taken, assuming the harmful side effects do exist. These are the kind of people who think that they are immortal anyway. It's not that all of them are wrong, it's that I can't believe them.
Is there an objective standard that we can apply to someone who uses drugs to show that there is no harm or that that the people who state that there is no harm are wrong, or that they used responsibly? Is my friend's mother the exception or the rule? I didn't watch the video- was there any information of others' perceptions of the parents' characters. I think I would want statements from their employers, the boy's grandmother or adult relatives who see the family, and perhaps parents of the boy's peers who know the parents socially.
There are lots of petty crimes that are committed by a large fraction of the population. Copyright violations, failure to obey posted speed limits come to mind. We fault the kid, because we see him as annoying because these are things he would get us in trouble for. It's only the people who truly don't perform these activities who can condemn the boy in good conscience.
Like Raymond suggested, I think we should revisit at this story and remove pot and replace it with a drug that people (nearly) universally agree is harmful to one's ability to actively parent an elementary school child. What is a reasonable response to the discovery that your parent is doing drugs and is strung out and out of their mind, now that you are old enough to notice and it clicks that not all families are like yours?
What happens if we take away the "victimless" crime of drug use and replace it with larceny, spying against the government, sexual abuse or murder. There is a line between persons or principles- where do you draw it?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Except that the victimless nature is at the heart of the issue.*
Can marijuana contribute to someone being a crappy parent? Yes. So can alcohol, tobacco, and high-fructose corn syrup. What we ought to recognize is that that although pot has negative effects, ciminilzation has been an ineffective and expensive mitigation strategy.
I want to emphasize the expensive part, because it ties in neatly with the situation being discussed. Whatever good you think may have come from busting the parents, does anyone seriously contend that it was worth the expense to prosecute them, as well as the trauma this kid is undoubtedly going through?
(I'm haven't heard of any neglect or abuse in this family. Should this turn out to be the case, my estimation would change.)
*I want to unpack this a little. Because so many instances of pot use are victimless, many instances of pot prosecution are going to have a negligable societal benefit. So, although you have instances where people are tangibly benifited by someone (a grossly negligent parent, for example) being busted, there are many many more instances of someone being prosecuted, at great expense, with little to show for it. In the aggregate, it is the victimless nature of so many instances of pot use that make the benefits of enforcement so expensive.
[ October 19, 2010, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:A lot people support the legalization of pot with the defense: "I do it, I'm an upstanding citizen and so is everyone else I know who smokes weed." I find that assessment problematic because people with actual problems will say the exact same thing.
My observations match yours. It typically seems rather obvious to me how smoking contributes in a major way to problems in the lives of people I know, yet they will typically try to say there is no connection.
In a few cases those problems are medical, but more often they are social problems. I think some people tend to think the social effects of drug use don't count as real problems caused by it - blaming society instead. But regardless of who is to blame, its usually pretty clear that the problems would not exist if the individual had chosen a different recreational activity to take part in....
quote:Can marijuana contribute to someone being a crappy parent? Yes. So can alcohol, tobacco, and high-fructose corn syrup. What we ought to recognize is that that although pot has negative effects, ciminilzation has been an ineffective and expensive mitigation strategy.
You can say criminalization is an expensive strategy but I don't think you can say it is ineffective, not completely at least - pot smoking is definitely less common than use of alcohol, tobacco, and high-frutcose corn syrup. My suspicion is that if it were legal, it would be significantly more widespread.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'd argue that reduction of use is not the end goal. Rather, mitigation of harm from abuse is the goal. Criminalization is, as you say, effective at reducing use. Unfortunately, criminalization also makes harm mitigation more difficult, because of stigmatization, and the illegal market that results.
I should add that, yes, reducing use does prevent some amount of harm. I believe that this effect has to be balanced against those I mentioned above (difficult calculus, for sure) but it's worth acknowledging the point.
[ October 19, 2010, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Criminalization of marijuana also does exponentially more harm than the drug itself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Criminalization of marijuana also does exponentially more harm than the drug itself.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Criminalization of marijuana also does exponentially more harm than the drug itself.
This is the sort of claim that's easy to make, but hard to justify though. I would think the reverse is true - criminization causes some harm but prevents more harm than it causes.
Of course, I also think it's not an issue that boils down to only two options.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Criminalization of marijuana also does exponentially more harm than the drug itself.
This is the sort of claim that's easy to make, but hard to justify though. I would think the reverse is true - criminization causes some harm but prevents more harm than it causes.
Of course, I also think it's not an issue that boils down to only two options.
There are a few more important factors: - Criminologists estimate that greater than 80% of gang revenue is derived from marijuana sales. - One of the main reasons that marijuana is considered a "gateway drug" is due to its illegal status and the pattern of lies in education (especially DARE). Many young people believe that "marijuana isn't nearly as bad as they say, maybe the others aren't" (cocaine, crank, heroine, mushrooms, etc). In this manner, alcohol isn't a gateway drug -- the gateway occurs when law-abiding citizens make a decision to break the law.
Most people agree that marijuana use isn't any more harmful than alcohol use (and may be LESS harmful). The real question at hand, as I reckon it, is whether individuals have the right to use drugs recreationally or not if they break no other laws. If the answer is yes, marijuana should be legal (and possibly a handful of other drugs). If the answer is no, we should seriously look at re-instituting prohibition. These are the only two logical scenarios. Alcohol as an important piece of "culture" is an illogical argument.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This is the sort of claim that's easy to make, but hard to justify though. I would think the reverse is true - criminization causes some harm but prevents more harm than it causes.
2. really, nope. The social utility of the prohibition against marijuana is a classic example, at this point, of counterproductive use of state resources. It incurs enormous costs and diversion of resources with the involvement of law enforcement, the justice system, and incarceration.
The united states has higher rates of cannabis consumption than the netherlands, where such activity is perfectly legal. The trillions of dollars spent waging war against a substance less harmful than tobacco and alcohol has produced no positive social effect, never measurably 'reduced harm,' given how trivial the harm of recreational marijuana use is compared to other things we may legally opt to do for ourselves, and has come only to the benefit of vile and violent black market trade and drug lords who have reduced Mexico into a borderline failed state, replete with violence and expansive criminal activity that leeches into our borders without any available mechanisms of control.
It's a claim that's easy to make because it is incredibly true.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Most people agree that marijuana use isn't any more harmful than alcohol use (and may be LESS harmful).
Pharmacologically, it's way less harmful. You can't kill yourself by overdosing on pot; pot has significantly fewer long-term health issues associated with its chronic use (it won't kill your liver, for instance), it's much more difficult to become a substance abuser to the point of significant life dysfunction with pot, and, per user, marijuana also incurs much less of a social cost in terms of dollars spent on the care of alcoholism related health problems and social endangerments (drunk driving is worse with alcohol, even accounting for the benefit of discreet home consumption of marijuana due to its illegality).
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
So I totally misremembered my facts. When Portugal decriminalized posession of most major drugs, usage fell. I really remember the outcome being more nuanced than that, but go figure.
quote:Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Tres, I wonder how many marginally more productive or socially successful people it takes to balance out one family broken by the incarceration of a parent?
I'd think an awful lot.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If the answer is yes, marijuana should be legal (and possibly a handful of other drugs). If the answer is no, we should seriously look at re-instituting prohibition. These are the only two logical scenarios. Alcohol as an important piece of "culture" is an illogical argument.
I'm cool with re-instituting prohibition. But I do think you are skipping over the "culture" argument too quickly. I neither drink nor smoke pot. The not smoking pot part has virtually never posed any sort of problem for me in everyday life. But the not drinking part tends to come up a lot, because drinking is involved in so many different activities in our culture. That suggests the social cost of not drinking is far far higher, in everyday life, than the social cost of not smoking pot. I strongly suspect that is the reason why alcohol prohibition reached a threshold to be repealed that marijuana prohibition never has.
quote:Tres, I wonder how many marginally more productive or socially successful people it takes to balance out one family broken by the incarceration of a parent?
I'd think an awful lot.
Why are we taking an approach that breaks families where drug abuse occurs? Why aren't we taking an approach aimed at fixing them?
The solution to the dilemma you are posing here is not to make marijuana legal. The solution is change the way we deal with people who commit the crime - we should not be destroying their lives over it. Instead we should be approaching them with an eye towards getting them off the habit. Unfortunately, that is not how the law has approached it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I strongly suspect that is the reason why alcohol prohibition reached a threshold to be repealed that marijuana prohibition never has.
How would it modify your theory to know that marijuana prohibition is effectively, at this point, doomed?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Instead we should be approaching them with an eye towards getting them off the habit. Unfortunately, that is not how the law has approached it.
How would you approach this if people don't want to be "off the habit"? I can't think of a good non-Orwellian approach. (The Orwellian approach would be just as damaging as our current strategy.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I hope their marijuana presentations include the fact that it is significantly less harmful and less addictive than alcohol.
It is not any less addictive than alcohol- addiction is a motivational disorder aggravated (sometimes) by physical dependency. And on that score, alcohol has not been shown to be more dependency forming than marijuana, although physical dependency on alcohol and its withdrawal period are much, much more dangerous.
Just get your facts in order, that's all.
You state that alcohol isn't any more addictive, and then you remark on how much more dangerous alcohol dependency is.
Physical dependence IS an extremely large factor in alcohol addiction.
Not really. Many alcoholics experience no physical dependency at all, and marijuana addicts also experience mild to negligible physical dependency.
Yes, alcohol dependency is extremely dangerous, physically, when it occurs. It does not occur in ever case of alcoholism, but when it does, withdrawal can be fatal. Not so for the majority of abused drugs. This has nothing whatever to do with its addictive properties.
Addiction is not dependency. You can have one without the other, and you can have both. Dependency can aggravate the severity of addiction, but addiction is a motivational disorder, with neurological causes, not a physical dependence on any chemical.
quote: Most doctors consider addiction to include both physical and psychological dependencies.
No they do not. In common parlance, we treat the word addiction as being synonymous with dependence, however the disorder and the dependency are independent of each other, which is of course why dependency lasts for a matter of days or weeks, or never occurs, and addiction is a chronic disorder.
I feel like I've said all this to you before- if so, please, don't bother answering, I'm not interested in having a debate with someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How would it modify your theory to know that marijuana prohibition is effectively, at this point, doomed?
If marijuana prohibition ever ended, that would probably depend on why it ended. If it did, though, that would give us better evidence about the effect of decriminalization in the U.S. - either causing marijuana use to go up or down.
quote:How would you approach this if people don't want to be "off the habit"? I can't think of a good non-Orwellian approach. (The Orwellian approach would be just as damaging as our current strategy.)
I am no expert on this question, but I would think a greater emphasis on forced treatment rather than lengthy periods of jail time would be better. I think the trend has been in this direction already.
[ October 20, 2010, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote: Most doctors consider addiction to include both physical and psychological dependencies.
No they do not. In common parlance, we treat the word addiction as being synonymous with dependence, however the disorder and the dependency are independent of each other, which is of course why dependency lasts for a matter of days or weeks, or never occurs, and addiction is a chronic disorder.
I feel like I've said all this to you before- if so, please, don't bother answering, I'm not interested in having a debate with someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
Wow. Self righteous much?
Mayo Clinic, the WHO, etc state that one of the main symptoms of drug dependence IS physical addiction. Do your own dang homework. Or show me a single source that states that addiction is seperate from dependence. Dependence is a PART of addiction. My father was a hospitalized alcoholic, and I had to go through 10 years of Alateen. You may be Demosthenes in your own head, but nobody's always right.
And if you're really "not interested in a debate", go elsewhere.
Show me where in the DSMIV it says so. The definition of addiction is, paraphrasing, the innability to stop a given behavior in the face of mounting and debilitating consequences. Is there a physical dependence on sex addiction? Video game addiction? No, chemical dependence is found in only some categories of addiction, and is not always present. You seem to be transposing your terms. Yes, dependence is a sign of addiction, but addiction is not a sign of dependence, they are not the same things. Lack of dependence does not contraindicate addiction. Its only when you conflate physical dependence with addictive syndromes that you make this mistake. But addiction is a motivational disorder sometimes aggravated by a congenital neurological imbalance. It is not defined by or concommitant with drug dependence, though the two very frequently occur simultaneously.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
And to be clear, I blame your alenon sponsor and group for not educating you properly. Just as I blame the mayo clinic for perpetuating the common misinformation that these terms are synonymous. Its a shame that education about addiction is so poor even among medical professionals.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
decriminalization can't come soon enough.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum: And to be clear, I blame your alenon sponsor and group for not educating you properly. Just as I blame the mayo clinic for perpetuating the common misinformation that these terms are synonymous. Its a shame that education about addiction is so poor even among medical professionals.
No one said that they are synonymous. But dependence CAN be a part of addiction. And dependence CAN be a part of severe alcohol addiction and IS a part of alcoholism. They're certainly not interchangable.
I'm a part of my family, but I'm NOT the actual family. And there can be another family WITHOUT me (ie, marijuana addiction). But that doesn't mean that I'm not a part of MY family (alcoholism).
Jeez. I'm sure you know better than the health professionals.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum: Show me where in the DSMIV it says so. The definition of addiction is, paraphrasing, the innability to stop a given behavior in the face of mounting and debilitating consequences. Is there a physical dependence on sex addiction? Video game addiction? No, chemical dependence is found in only some categories of addiction, and is not always present. You seem to be transposing your terms. Yes, dependence is a sign of addiction, but addiction is not a sign of dependence, they are not the same things. Lack of dependence does not contraindicate addiction. Its only when you conflate physical dependence with addictive syndromes that you make this mistake. But addiction is a motivational disorder sometimes aggravated by a congenital neurological imbalance. It is not defined by or concommitant with drug dependence, though the two very frequently occur simultaneously.
And if you really want to call the DSMIV into question (which doesn't make a lot of sense), they seem to classify addiction in EITHER patterns of abuse OR dependence.
"Once abuse or dependence is verified, the clinician administers a comprehensive assessment to develop a treatment plan. The assessment includes detailed medical and psychological histories from the individual. The clinician may request copies of medical records and may interview family members."
I hate how I always get goaded into doing kids' research for them. Write your own dang essays!
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: And if you really want to call the DSMIV into question (which doesn't make a lot of sense), they seem to classify addiction in EITHER patterns of abuse OR dependence.
As far as I know, the word "addiction" is not in the DSM-IV. It is not a medical term. I went through and looked for it, actually, at the request of my husband, who is a researcher and national policy writer in the field of substance abuse, and I could not find it.
So, to suggest that the DSM-IV addresses "addiction" directly is, I think, misleading. One of the major problems in the field is the lack of defined terms -- at least not widely agreed-upon terms. It is a politically charged topic with much vague language.
On first read, I also cannot make sense of the Mayo Clinic site suggesting what it was initially claimed to have suggested, but I'd have to reread it to be sure. I'll try to do that later today.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
errr...the DSM IV doesn't include a definition of addiction. (edit: Sorry, I posted this before I saw other people addressing this point)
If I remember correctly, Ori, you came up with some other weird ideas about addiction the last time it came up (I think it was that you maintained that there is no distinction between substance addiction and behavioral addiction). I asked you then where you'd gotten your info, but I don't think you ever came back on it. So, again, where are you getting this information from?
[ October 20, 2010, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:How would you approach this if people don't want to be "off the habit"? I can't think of a good non-Orwellian approach. (The Orwellian approach would be just as damaging as our current strategy.)
I am no expert on this question, but I would think a greater emphasis on forced treatment rather than lengthy periods of jail time would be better. I think the trend has been in this direction already.
Let's say someone grows a few pot plants in his basement for himself and to share with his friends. He gets busted, and has enough to get charged with intent to distribute.
How is "forced treatment" going to address the problem? He can go through the motions of a 12 step program, or something, but if he's not an addict the treatment isn't going to be suitable and b) even addicts don't get better until they want to get better.
Keep in mind this hypothetical guy didn't get pulled over driving under the influence, didn't violate parole, didn't do any of the other things that might correlate closely with addiction and the need for treatment.
What kind of treatment would make a guy not want to grow pot in his basement any more?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Not to dogpile, but I don't think you (Orincoro) addressed my previous question.
To restate the question, when you say that Marijuana is "not less addictive than alcohol", which of these are you trying to say:
1) Marijuana is more addictive than alcohol. 2) The two drugs are somehow exactly equally addictive. 3) You don't know which one is more addictive, and further believe scientists and doctors don't know either. 4) You believe that no two drugs can ever be said to be any more or less addictive than the other. 5) Something not encapsulated by the above options.
Until I know which one you are actually suggesting, I'm not sure how to respond. Talking about how physical dependence is independent of addiction doesn't really address which one is actually more addictive.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: As far as I know, the word "addiction" is not in the DSM-IV. It is not a medical term. I went through and looked for it, actually, at the request of my husband, who is a researcher and national policy writer in the field of substance abuse, and I could not find it.
As long as we're clearing the air about various misconceptions about addiction/dependence I'd like to hear your take on the division between 'psychological addiction' and 'physical addiction.' I haven't had a professor yet who didn't think that the distinction was, ultimately, a superficial holdback to earlier conceptualizations about chemical dependence.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I would be the first to agree that there are no objective definitions and that the argument is a stupid waste of time (and in some cases, intellect). Seriously, it's a disagreement about semantics.
<Cues the argument on how I just used the word "semantics" incorrectly, in the colloquial -- rather than dictionary -- usage>>
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As far as I know, the word "addiction" is not in the DSM-IV. It is not a medical term. I went through and looked for it, actually, at the request of my husband, who is a researcher and national policy writer in the field of substance abuse, and I could not find it.
So, to suggest that the DSM-IV addresses "addiction" directly is, I think, misleading. One of the major problems in the field is the lack of defined terms -- at least not widely agreed-upon terms. It is a politically charged topic with much vague language.
My understanding is that the current draft of the DSM V does include definitions of addiction, although there is considerable controversy about this and this may not make it into the final version.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I would be the first to agree that there are no objective definitions and that the argument is a stupid waste of time (and in some cases, intellect). Seriously, it's a disagreement about semantics.
But even if his definition of "addiction" is very different from mine or yours, can't one still be more "addictive" relative to the other? (Presumably with some evidence behind the claim.)
If not than you'd have to agree that a placebo is just as addictive as heroin, and that's just silly.
I was challenged to "get my facts straight", and when someone says that they need to be prepared to present the correct facts (and with sources behind them to boot).
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I would be the first to agree that there are no objective definitions and that the argument is a stupid waste of time (and in some cases, intellect). Seriously, it's a disagreement about semantics.
But even if his definition of "addiction" is very different from mine or yours, can't one still be more "addictive" relative to the other? (Presumably with some evidence behind the claim.)
If not than you'd have to agree that a placebo is just as addictive as heroin, and that's just silly.
I was challenged to "get my facts straight", and when someone says that they need to be prepared to present the correct facts (and with sources behind them to boot).
Well, people asked for facts. I know that I provided some, and I received nothing other than derision. This post would be a great example of logical fallacies, as there are several posters who seem to be poster-children (inductive, deductive, personal attack, etc).
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
based on my understanding of addiction and the definitions ive read, i think most paraphrased definitions of addiction can be slightly misleading (or at least overly simplistic). one mentioned above looks more like a description of compulsive behaviors, which do play a part in addiction but arent responsible for the entirety of the condition. others have already addressed the difficulty of defining the issue so i wont.
my thoughts on the subject: i dont know if there is an identifiable difference between chemical and physical addiction but perhaps there is. it seems conditions resulting from the addiction, such as chronic neurological imblance, can be described as a phycical dependence in that the body functions abnormally during the time of abstinence. since neurotransmitters are regulated using negative feedback the body can be affected by all forms of addiction. in the case of drug use, when the neurotransmiters are foreign, the physical dependence and/or duration of withdrawl could be considerably longer but i would argue that a neruopsycholgical dependence does constitute a physical addiction.
i cant find much literature regarding motivational disorders. im not sure if thats a newer term used to decribe a previously known condition. maybe those using it could point me towards an educational link regarding such a disorder.
also, i agree that some medical professional are poorly educated about addiction; not everyone can be a specialist. granted, addiction is a broad issue with much to know and understand but the research into addiction and its cause and implications are ongoing. already much is being discoverd which wasnt known even a few years ago. so i dont think its fair to say people are misinformed or lacking in education. they may not be current in their information but thats something discussions like this can help them with.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:This post would be a great example of logical fallacies, as there are several posters who seem to be poster-children (inductive, deductive, personal attack, etc).
I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. Are you talking about my post being full of logical fallacies? If so I'm not sure you understand what I was saying there. Hint: I'm pretty sure I am in agreement with everything you've posted on this thread.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Being a busy 5th grade teacher who just now happened upon this thread, and being a 5th grade teacher who's class is currently being taught D.A.R.E. by a police officer, I found the comments made here about D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness to be very interesting. So, . . . . I decided to go researching! I've now read through several studies and abstracts of studies about D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness and most of the studies say that it isn't very effective. Considering that it is taking up a precious 45 minute block of my instructional time every week for ten weeks, I'm understandably upset by this. It's not something that I can just stop because the county endorses it. However, I can do some more research and present the findings to the school board and let them debate with the public about whether to keep the program or not. But, one caveat to the research I've read is that it has all been primarily with white students. My school is 75% hispanic (mostly new or first generation immigrants), with a 90% poverty rate (based on school free and reduced lunch data). So I'm curious if there are studies out there to determine just how effective (or not) the program is with my school's particular population. As one study said,
quote:Although DARE has program elements that are similar to social influence approaches, it has been suggested that it’s effectiveness may be compromised because it targets the wrong mediating processes, uses instructional methods that are less interactive than more successful prevention programs, and/or that students “tune out” an expected message from an authority figure (Hansen & McNeal, 1997; Tobler & Stratton, 1997).
From a purely anecdotal point of view, my students are enthralled with the program. I don't see the non-interest that was expressed in one of the studies. My students are very interested in the police officer, his life, his duty, and are interested to know more about what he has to teach.
Xavier said,
quote:If this DARE program material is like others I've read about, this brainwashing was done through scare tactics, exaggeration, misinformation, and outright lies.
Just to comment on this, having experienced five of the ten lessons so far in the D.A.R.E. program, there haven't been any scare tactics, exaggeration, misinformation, or outright lies presented in my classroom. The police officer has been very factual, and enjoyable in his delivery style.
Just thought I'd add my own personal very up-to-date observations of D.A.R.E. from a teacher's point of view!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:having experienced five of the ten lessons so far in the D.A.R.E. program, there haven't been any scare tactics, exaggeration, misinformation, or outright lies presented in my classroom.
Good to hear. I'm curious though, what exactly do they say about it to get kids not to do it then? Is the illegality emphasized?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:This post would be a great example of logical fallacies, as there are several posters who seem to be poster-children (inductive, deductive, personal attack, etc).
I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. Are you talking about my post being full of logical fallacies? If so I'm not sure you understand what I was saying there. Hint: I'm pretty sure I am in agreement with everything you've posted on this thread.
No, not yours . . . I actually meant "thread" not "post".
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Has the illegality been emphasized? No. Mentioned, yes. Basically what has been said are the legal ages for buying cigarettes and alcohol, and that other drugs are either legal (medical) or illegal. So far the emphasis has been on the physical results of tobacco and alcohol abuse (two lessons) and how to identify peer pressure (three lessons). Actually, much of the time has been spent on answering questions that the kids have that have run the gamut from "have you ever shot anyone" to "what do I do if I find something in the playground or in the field." The program is also incorporating information about gangs and violence, an issue of great importance in my region.
I can easily see that this program would be very ineffective in middle school grades because of the differences in kids' maturity and the overwhelming need to conform. Fifth graders haven't been quite bowled over by that need yet and are still more children than adolescents and are more open to the curriculum. I do notice that many of the meta-analyses of D.A.R.E. are a bit old and that the program has been revamped quite a bit in recent years, so what you (universal you) may have experienced may be quite different from the way the program is conducted now.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Keep in mind this hypothetical guy didn't get pulled over driving under the influence, didn't violate parole, didn't do any of the other things that might correlate closely with addiction and the need for treatment.
What kind of treatment would make a guy not want to grow pot in his basement any more?
I would think it would have to be some combination of treatment and punishment that varies according to the specific case, and be designed to fix his problems rather than get moral retribution for what he did. In a basic case like that, I'd think something comparable to what we do with people who are caught driving under the influence might be appropriate - forced classes to inform him, some fines or jail time (but not excessive), and monitoring/limitations for some period of time. You would have to include traditional punishments and increase punishments for repeate offenders, but you don't have take the zero-tolerance approach that many states use that seem more aimed at blunt deterrance rather than fixing the psychological issues that lead to the desire for substance abuse.
And if someone is growing weed in his basement illegally, gets caught and punished for it, receives education about why he needs to stop, knows that there will be harsher punishments if he does it again, and nevertheless still decides to keep growing weed in his basement simply because he enjoys the experience, then I would think that in itself demonstrates either a need for serious intervention or that he has a complete disregard for the law.
It should be noted that underage cigarette smoking remains illegal, but has significantly declined due to the county's effectiveness in educating underage youth about why smoking is a bad idea. That's going to be the most effective method to make a guy not want to grow pot in his basement any more: preventing it by doing an effective job of showing him why it is not in his interest to do it. Making pot legal would send the opposite signal.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... I'd like to hear your take on the division between 'psychological addiction' and 'physical addiction.' I haven't had a professor yet who didn't think that the distinction was, ultimately, a superficial holdback to earlier conceptualizations about chemical dependence.
I find it hard to discuss because it seems impossible to pin down what is meant by the terms in a consistent way. That is, "substance dependence" has a standardized definition, and I can assess the research literature based on that definition. I find it hard to assess research literature about "psychological addiction" because whenever I try to compare studies, they are using different definitions and thus hard-to-impossible to compare (apples and oranges, or at least apples and pears). So I'd end up talking out of my ass, based mostly on my my own preconceptions about the topic, and I try to avoid that.
My best answer would then be "I am not even sure what people mean by the term, and so I cannot systematically assess it in any reliable or repeatable way."
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: My understanding is that the current draft of the DSM V does include definitions of addiction, although there is considerable controversy about this and this may not make it into the final version.
Right. The conversations behind the scenes are amazing. I was responding to a claim about DSM-IV, so I limited it to that. But as for the next version -- well, careers are on the line, and for good reason.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I am no expert on this question, but I would think a greater emphasis on forced treatment rather than lengthy periods of jail time would be better. I think the trend has been in this direction already.
One of the problems is that it is problematic for the courts to recommend treatment which doesn't have a process to assess and report on its validity. AA isn't well-studied in the research literature, because it is a loose conglomeration of mostly anonymous volunteers. How would you do [a good] outcomes study? What is out there research-wise seems to suggest the general approach works very very well for a subgroup of problem users of various substances, and it may make things worse for other subgroups.
Most centers that bill themselves as treatment centers do not track outcomes in a scientific manner. Sometimes even the best-looking places don't even consistently track their own numbers. So making referrals as part of a mandated system becomes excruciatingly problematic, since you could well be mandating something ineffective or even counter-productive -- and then the court is responsible.
The politics and history of substance abuse diagnosis and treatment is Byznantine. We are in pretty dark ages, still.
[ October 21, 2010, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
It's worth noting that Alcoholics Anonymous is not set up to be a research-validated system. It is set up (insofar as there is a consistent setup) to be a voluntary, individually participatory group meeting for persons at at least a certain stage of readiness to change. And for that, it seems to do very very well.
I would not like to see AA criticized for [not] being something it was not intended to be, especially given that it seems to be quite good at what it does intend to be, and for a certain group of people. I also would not like to see it formally treated as something it is not, particularly when treating it inappropriately in that way is done by a public agency representing me as a citizen of the community, and in the guise of appropriate action in an area for which my professional obligations require me to object vociferously.
[ October 21, 2010, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It should be noted that underage cigarette smoking remains illegal, but has significantly declined due to the county's effectiveness in educating underage youth about why smoking is a bad idea. That's going to be the most effective method to make a guy not want to grow pot in his basement any more: preventing it by doing an effective job of showing him why it is not in his interest to do it. Making pot legal would send the opposite signal.
Oh?
Dealers don't ask for ID. Dispensaries do.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Not to dogpile, but I don't think you (Orincoro) addressed my previous question.
To restate the question, when you say that Marijuana is "not less addictive than alcohol", which of these are you trying to say:
1) Marijuana is more addictive than alcohol. 2) The two drugs are somehow exactly equally addictive. 3) You don't know which one is more addictive, and further believe scientists and doctors don't know either. 4) You believe that no two drugs can ever be said to be any more or less addictive than the other. 5) Something not encapsulated by the above options.
Until I know which one you are actually suggesting, I'm not sure how to respond. Talking about how physical dependence is independent of addiction doesn't really address which one is actually more addictive.
Mostly 4. What I meant to express specifically is that the statement: "alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana" is untrue in regards to addiction. For some people, and addictionology research has not reached a conclusion as to why this is, marijuana is dependency forming and highly addictive. For others it is not. Same for alcohol. Individual biology, physiology and psychology determine the individual's relationship with a given substance- a minority people in the world are physically incapable of opiate dependency due to some as yet incompletely understood property of the chemical receptors in their brains- others are completely unaffected by marijuana for similar reasons. Still others have highly adverse physical or psychological reactions to exposure to those chemicals, and some experience euphoria and in others almost immediate addictive syndromes result.
So yes, no two drugs can be judged on a scale of addictiveness because addictiveness per se is a function of highly individual interactions, and cannot be generalized. Those who seek to claim that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol should do so by pointing out that it is pharmacologically very mild, and does not present risks of overdose as with many other drugs, even legal drugs. It is folly to suggest however, that it is not more addictive. For certain people, it simply is the worst thing they could possibly do to themselves.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So you can't say that acetaminophen is less addictive than heroin?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Heck, based on that logic, I don't think you can say that arsenic is more deadly than peanuts.
Not surprisingly, no one I'm aware of who actually works in this area talks about things that way.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Next up, on Classic Movie Night: Peanuts and Old Lace!
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Actually, I've done both acetaminiphen and heroin. I'm ashamed to say it, but acetaminophen gets rid of my headaches better. I take three even though the bottle says to take two. I'm out of CONTROL.
<Hangs head in shame.>
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Eh, he complains that other people aren't referencing facts, and then you throw a wall of them at him. He still makes outlandish claims without any support that fly in the face of every actual expert.
On a different note, have you ever watched Dora the Explorer? I've got a silly song stuck in my head from that crazy show! I don't know why I ever thought of it....
Herb, Going in to an argument with Ori, you've got to manage your expectations. Yes, he's doing that. It is what he does. I think it would be better for you if you realize that this is going to happen and figure out what you're looking to get out of it, if you can reasonably expect anything like that to come out of it, and focus on that during your interactions.
It can be tempting to get into talking about the person, but in most cases, this doesn't get you very far, especially with someone like Ori, who isn't going to change and whose behavior that you're going to be criticizing is pretty well known to the people here.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: So you can't say that acetaminophen is less addictive than heroin?
Considering that acetaminophen is not psychoactive? I think it's safe to say heroin is the bigger problem- not that a dangerous acetaminophen addiction couldn't happen, but it's unlikely to happen without the presence of opiates such as in several prescription drugs.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Heck, based on that logic, I don't think you can say that arsenic is more deadly than peanuts.
Not surprisingly, no one I'm aware of who actually works in this area talks about things that way.
No? Do they wildly distort and simplify carefully qualified statements in order to mock those who make them? HM? Ass.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So yes, no two drugs can be judged on a scale of addictiveness because addictiveness per se is a function of highly individual interactions, and cannot be generalized.
What. No, this isn't at all true.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Please don't direct profanity at another poster Orincoro.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Ok - I realize that this has gotten into a debate about addiction, but I'm curious about a couple of other things.
A couple of people have asked, but not one has really answered, how does this situation change if what the boy brought in was a more serious drug. Would we think D.A.R.E. was failing kids if the kid had brought in a stash of Crack, Meth, or Heroine? Or is D.A.R.E. not really the problem? Are we really upset that CPS was removing a child from a home where nothing "truly dangerous" was taking place (and while marijuana is illegal, I think almost all of us can agree that it doesn't present the "immediate danger" to a child that is usually required as justification for removing the child from the home)?
Those both seem to be totally separate issues that have somehow morphed into a discussion of "should weed be legal" and then "is weed addictive" and then "what is addiction?.
On the "should weed be legal" question. I am sort of on the fence with this issue, but I tend to lean towards legalization because most of the data I've seen doesn't show weed to be dangerous enough that I believe the government has the right to stop people from using it. HOWEVER, one of the biggest reasons I've heard for legalizing it is so that we can a) tax it and b) get it away from drug dealers, thus taking away it's ability to be a "gateway drug". My little brother always counters this argument though, saying that since marijuana already has such a successful distribution method in place, people would STILL use illegal channels, even once legalized, because they would be cheaper. Thus, even if we did legalize it, it would STILL be a "gateway drug" simply because our efforts to tax and control it (and probably set a minimum age on it) would drive people to the illegal dealers anyway. It would just be harder to fight dealers because mere possession wouldn't be enough for an arrest anymore. That means we'd just be making it easier for drug lords to get rich.
Personally, I'd like to believe that most citizens given the option of obtaining the substance legally, would do so. However, we do still have problems with illegal tobacco and alcohol being sold to avoid taxes, and those have been legal for ages! Is it really reasonable that people would abandon their usual dealers just because they can now buy it at 7-11?
Also, on the subject of how "safe" weed is. I remember reading in several places, that marijuana is actually more than twice as damaging to your lungs as tobacco, and introduces 3 times the number or carcinogens into the bloodstream. I don't have sources on this, because these aren't things I've read recently, but for those of you who seem to be doing alot of research, is there any truth to this? If so, it seems like it really could be problematic for public health.
Lastly, what do you think the rules ought to be on use if it's legalized? For instance, can you smoke it in restaurants? Can you smoke while driving? Is there some equivalent to a "blood alcohol level" that can be obtained to determine whether or not you are driving under the influence? How do you handle those questions?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Would we think D.A.R.E. was failing kids if the kid had brought in a stash of Crack, Meth, or Heroine? Or is D.A.R.E. not really the problem?
Dare is a problem independent of what this kid did. Don't look at individual instances; look at what the statistics say.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)