cannabisnews.com: Legalize With Caution





Legalize With Caution
Posted by FoM on August 07, 2001 at 09:28:22 PT
By Ben Domenech, NRO
Source: National Review
It is a rare thing, indeed, to find myself in disagreement with Rich Lowry. I must admit, as well, that I sympathize with the central point of Lowry's latest magazine article, on marijuana legalization. I have long thought that a compromise on decriminalization, modeled after the Dutch system, that allows for personal possession of the drug yet retains penalties for street-trafficking and mass cultivation, would be an apt solution for the current nationwide dilemma. 
Much of Lowry's piece relies on a 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine, which is, as he points out, a highly credible source, and I have no quarrel with the vast majority of figures and statistics that make up the guts of his argument. There are, however, a few important points where Lowry and I part ways — and I feel they are worth discussing here, considering their illustrative nature of the broader American political divide over the marijuana issue.Lowry terms the "gateway theory" — the concept that marijuana use leads to the use of other drugs — as "a kind of drug-war McCarthyism" that is "dusted off only by the most tendentious of drug warriors." The form of the gateway theory that he proceeds to lambast certainly sounds quite ridiculous — but in the process, Lowry ignores an important logical distinction between the variants of the gateway theory.Because a cocaine addict used marijuana first doesn't mean he is on cocaine because he smoked marijuana (again, as a factual matter this hypothetical is extremely rare — about one in 100 marijuana users becomes a regular user of cocaine).There are a number of problems with this statement. First, even accepting Lowry's statistic (and there are other studies that have produced much higher numbers), one out of 100 marijuana users is a very significant number; imagine if one out of every 100 hundred coffee drinkers got cancer, and you'll see what I mean. Second, Lowry supplies the wrong statistic for this portion of his argument: The more appropriate one to offer would be the percentage of cocaine users who originally started out smoking pot. The likelihood that a cocaine user smoked marijuana prior to ever using cocaine is actually quite high: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has reported percentages higher than 80%.This is, of course, merely coincidental data — assuming there is such a thing as coincidence — and it brings us to my third point. Proving direct causality between marijuana use and cocaine, heroin, or amphetamine use is a difficult, if not impossible, goal, considering that it relies almost completely on anecdotal evidence. The truth remains: Marijuana users are far more likely than non-marijuana users to go on to use any and all of the above substances, a fact we should not rush to ignore.Lowry then proceeds to debunk another anti-marijuana claim:The relationship between drugs and troubled teens appears to be the opposite of that posited by drug warriors — the trouble comes first, then the drugs (or, in other words, it's the kid, not the substance, who is the problem). The Institute of Medicine reports that 'it is more likely that conduct disorders generally lead to substance abuse than the reverse.Again, the substance of some of this statement is accurate — marijuana is by no means the root cause of teenage depression, rebellion, suicide, etc. But does anyone honestly believe that unlimited access to their drug of choice would be a help for these teens? That allowing them to smoke pot more freely, publicly, or often would put them back on the right track, instead of taking them down a road that could lead to heavier drug use? Lowry might as well point at a random hash-smoking denizen of junior high America and declare aloud, "Leave that child behind."The final statement where I am at odds with Lowry comes near the end of the piece:But it is important to realize that dependence on marijuana — apparently a relatively mild psychological phenomenon — is entirely different from dependence on cocaine and heroin. Marijuana isn't particularly addictive.While Lowry makes several comparisons in his piece between alcohol and marijuana, as he goes on to do here, that comparison distorts the medical truth about the differences between the two substances. It also ignores the plentiful evidence that marijuana, despite on-the-street myths, can actually be quite addictive.Alcohol is a water-soluble chemical — it is metabolized or "washed-out" of the body relatively quickly. Anyone who drinks too much will probably get sick and suffer a hangover the next day, as the stomach and liver process the alcohol, a form of detoxification that is completed within 12 to 24 hours.The culprit chemicals in marijuana consist of THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and other cannabinoids, substances that accumulate in the fatty linings of the cells in the body, and are therefore metabolized very slowly — unlike alcohol, THC is not water-soluble, so it is washed out of the body only over long periods of time. According to the SMAHSA: "A week after a person smokes one marijuana cigarette, 30 to 50 percent of the initial fat-soluble chemical deposited from marijuana smoking remains in their body; it is estimated that four to six weeks are required to eliminate all marijuana chemicals."Even if it's only a weekend habit, marijuana ingestion steadily increases the level of THC in the human body. Several recent evaluations show that heavy, long-term use causes serious dependency in users as they increase their dosage to satisfy higher tolerance levels. The danger of addiction is heightened for teens, whose changing body chemistry and physical development makes them more susceptible to the accumulation of THC and other chemicals than adults. In July, a survey of more than 75,000 high school and junior high students found that only 30.2% of teens smoked cigarettes in the previous six months, while 35.3% used marijuana or other illegal drugs.Dr. Charles Schuster, Director of Clinical Research on Substance Abuse at Wayne State University School of Medicine, has also performed numerous studies of marijuana users, all indicating a high incidence of the "abstinence syndrome," one of the chief indicators of physical dependence:Physical dependence, which is what most people mean by addiction, has been methodically scientifically demonstrated. The abstinence syndrome can occur when a state of marijuana intoxication is maintained over a prolonged period of time and then abruptly discontinued. Anorexia, anxiety, agitation, depression, restlessness, irritability, tremors, severe insomnia, sweating, exaggerated deep tendon reflexes, tremulousness of the tongue and extremities, and dysphoria have all been observed when marijuana use is rapidly withdrawn. It is important to note that these effects occur after only a few weeks of constant use and at dosages that are common among users.To sum up: Marijuana is an addictive substance. Marijuana, like most other substances, can cause serious physical harm if ingested in great amounts for a long enough time. Marijuana users are more likely to go on to use harder drugs than those who never smoked pot in the first place.Do any of these facts about marijuana, however, mean that we shouldn't decriminalize it? Of course not. Like alcohol, marijuana use is only significantly unhealthy if it is ingested irresponsibly or in great amounts, and it would hardly be consistent to allow tobacco cigarettes and ban marijuana ones merely on the basis of addictive properties. While I disagree with him about some of the ramifications of marijuana use, on this point at least, I couldn't agree with Lowry more.Some advocates of decriminalization, however, disregard many of marijuana's serious side effects in devotion to their cause. Drug use is not a thing to be taken lightly, whether in the form of alcohol, nicotine or pot, and with greater freedom will come greater irresponsibility. It would be foolhardy to ignore the serious problems that marijuana can and will cause, regardless of which side you take in this political debate. Legalize it, but do not allow the social consequences to take you unawares.Note: Don’t ignore the real effects of marijuana. Source: National Review (US) Author: Ben Domenech, NROPublished: August 7, 2001Copyright: 2001 National Review Contact: letters nationalreview.com Website: http://www.nationalreview.com/ Related Articles:Weed Whackers - Rich Lowry, NR Editor http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10521.shtmlCanada Goes To Pot - We Should Follow http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10487.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #14 posted by Dan B on August 08, 2001 at 22:24:25 PT:
without
Sorry . . . that should have read, "I know many who would be really angry without their caffeine fix each morning, whether by coffee, chocolate or cola."Oops!Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Dan B on August 08, 2001 at 22:22:31 PT:
Speaking of coffee . . .
Some of you may remember that I turned down a job selling funeral arrangements because they would have required mandatory random drug testing. I mentioned this to Rick Day, founder of Texas NORML, on his recent visit to Lubbock, and he said, "to sell funeral plots?!" Exactly.But guess what? In the break room, they not only had an assortment of caffeinated beverages for sale in the coke machine, but also two full pots of fully-leaded coffee brewed and ready for consumption. Talk about hypocrisy!Anyway, I wanted to say thanks to smileysmiles for the Idea article (quite good, very informative), and to all those who participated in the great coffee debate on this thread (I know many who would be really angry with their caffeine fix each morning, whether by coffee, chocolate or cola). Also by the way, I believe Narcosoft (http://www.narcosoft.com) will be giving away caffeine powder with some of its upcoming software shipments. Keep checking out the site for more information on that.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Gravy on August 08, 2001 at 08:22:32 PT
Yellow .....
>>But does anyone honestly believe that unlimited access to >>their drug of choice would be a help for these teens? We already do it, it is called sugar.The real gateway drug.This one is related to the absurity of this article.Let’s Get Serious About the War on Drugshttp://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan17.htmlmore anti drug war articleshttp://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20010801.shtmlhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/waddell4.htmlhttp://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=86161http://reason.com/0108/fe.gc.the.htmlhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson36.htmlhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drugtoll.htmlhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy8.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by freedom fighter on August 07, 2001 at 20:05:15 PT
Mother's Milk!
The day a baby was born,He/She suckled the mother's milk, the gateway to alllll drugs..Last thursday, I had to go to treatment bullcrappola, the "teacher" still belive that pot is the gateway.How can I possibly get this across to this old fat man that it was his mother's milk that turned him to drink whiskey?Maybe it was the author's mother's milk that caused so many misleading thoughts on gateway theory! ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Toker00 on August 07, 2001 at 19:17:03 PT
Off topic, but relevant.
I found this article at November Coalition and thought it did a very good job of describing the attrocities of the War on Drugs. If you have read it, I appologize. If you haven't, or even if you have, IMO, it would be a good article to send to every elected official in your state. You can't force them to read it, but you can ask them to please respond to each topic. You will know if they read the complete article, or if they didn't read it at all, by their response. If their response is the usual anti response, then write them back, saying you will PERSONALLY set out on a campaign to have them voted out.It is a long read, relatively, but well worth it.http://www.november.org/essay1.html?tour Peace. Realize, then Legalize.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Dr. Ganj on August 07, 2001 at 16:51:16 PT
Coffee
Imagine if the world's most popular beverage were illegal!That of course, is coffee, which contains the alkaloid caffeine. We wouldn't see bulk coffee being consumed, we have millions of people snorting powdered caffeine. Same is true with coca, where smuggling bales of leaves just isn't the way to go, so the active compounds are extracted and smuggled over the borders to make huge profits. Why can't we just let people use their drug(s) of choice in the privacy of their homes, and finally realize we can't stop people from getting high/wired/stoned, or feeling euphoric? 
http://www.hightimes.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on August 07, 2001 at 16:30:20 PT
Coffee
Without coffee I don't think I could get started in the morning. I've been drinking coffee since I was around 12. I don't think I've ever missed a day. I guess I'm addicted. Take away peoples coffee and watch out! You wouldn't want to be around me for sure.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Doug on August 07, 2001 at 15:51:12 PT
Coffee
Why is it that almost no one mentions the addictiveness of coffee? This is arguably the most popular drug in the world, and you can see it being used at every business. In fact, many businesses could not function without coffee. And look at how many people could not function without some coffee in the morning, and notice I haven't mentioned all the people who need their Coke (tm) fix many times during the day. I know people who have successfully kicked cigarettes, but still can't do without their coffee.And young people start out with coffee and the move to harder drugs, like cigarettes, alcohol, and of course cocaine, which is very similar in effect to coffee, but since they are already over-caffiinated they need something new. I don't think we should make coffee legal, it will just result in a lot of buzzed teenagers. And think about the message it sends to the children!!!!Oftten the comparison is made between marijuana and alcohol and cigarettes.  But both of those are hard drugs. A much better comparison is between marijuana and coffee, sicne they are both similar in their (lack of) destructiveness and effects.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by sudaca on August 07, 2001 at 13:45:24 PT
still needs to be addressed
There is a relation between pot and the harder drugs; you may end up buying them or consuming them in the presence of other harder stuff. Pot after all is only mildly intense to the risk taking personality. try Acid for a real mindwarp, try exstasy for some serious euphoria, try speed for uppers, etc. The illegality of pot puts the user at risk of having access to other 'harder' drugs. The Gateway theory is not a worthless observation; its a worthless conclusion. Like the sun going around the earth; it jives a bit, it has a certain attractiveness and casual observation may seem to corroborate it. But only until you see or are willing to see the rest of the picture!Marihuana users are likely to progress to "harder" stuff because pot is at the same risk level as the "harder" stuff. You risk jail, trouble with parents, loss of educational loans to go there; so might as well go all the way; plus the lies.. as for the purported addictiveness of pot; I'm confused. I don't have the syptoms the dude mentions except that I might be dissapointed that I can't enjoy when I want to. As a matter of fact I think the habit is more the issue than not.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by smileysmiles on August 07, 2001 at 12:13:47 PT
for those interested
I don't know what you cats are into and this may interest you if that's your thing.
http://www.ideajournal.com/02AutoPower.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by mayan on August 07, 2001 at 11:26:08 PT
Kids Will Be Kids
All cocaine users drank water before they tried cocaine. It is obvious that water leads to harder stuff & should be outlawed!By keeping marijuana underground they have made it the "hip" thing to do. The allure of marijuana exists mainly because it remains illegal. If it were legalized it would take most of the fun and excitement out of it. Use may initially increase for a short period but it would decrease in the long run.Kids will always rebel against authority as it is their nature. Marijuana is an easy & relatively safe way to do just that. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 07, 2001 at 11:18:54 PT:
Interesting Development
Naturally I disagree with numerous claims made in this article. The educated dissenters here all recognize them.The real news here is that, even though this writer claims medical dangers, he realizes that they are outweighed by the danger of continued prohibition. Thus, there may be problems, but certain people are willing to neglect those in favor of the greater good.This is a sure sign that we are winning. It is time to nudge the snowball over the edge of the mountain.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Jose Melendez on August 07, 2001 at 11:08:27 PT:
more malarkey?
Marijuana, like most other substances, can cause serious physical harm if ingested in great amounts for a long enough time. Marijuana users are more likely to go on to use harder drugs than those who never smoked pot in the first place.First, serious physical harm is cancer or liver disease, not sweating and whatever you think is "exaggerated deep tendon reflexes". Show me even 100,000 lung cancer cases involving marijuana but not also tobacco or some industrial particulate matter and I'll shut up. Second, altering ones conciousness with drugs is part of human history, and might very well be a human right. Statistics showing Cannabis use leading to harder drug use do not statistically correct for the herb's legal status or the advertising value of anti-drug disinformation campaigns. Sure, there is a rise in other drugs after some kids were lied to about the "dangers" of pot, and tried other drugs because weed did not kill them. God lied to Adam, and Eve tried the forbidden fruit and did not die. Both were banished from Eden, because God lied... perhaps for fear of His clones having sex and smoking pot under his roof.Everybody gets high on something.
Jose Melendez - owner/founder of narcosoft.com - Buy Sell Quit Drugs Online!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Patrick on August 07, 2001 at 10:44:56 PT
Legalization may actually lower use by kids!
Again, the substance of some of this statement is accurate - marijuana is by no means the root cause of teenage depression, rebellion, suicide, etc. But does anyone honestly believe that unlimited access to their drug of choice would be a help for these teens? That allowing them to smoke pot more freely, publicly, or often would put them back on the right track, instead of taking them down a road that could lead to heavier drug use? Lowry might as well point at a random hash-smoking denizen of junior high America and declare aloud, "Leave that child behind."Ben, the kids have unlimited access to marijuana because it is illegal. No one that I know endorsing the legalization effort supports the distribution of drugs to minors. If we continue with illegality, that is exactly what we get. Street dealers could care less how old someone is. At least with alcohol and cigarettes, it is a crime to sell to minors. Even so, the kids still find a way to get it. 30 years plus of drug war has not and will not make drugs or the desire to try them go away. Look at the following statistics in your own article… In July, a survey of more than 75,000 high school and junior high students found that only 30.2% of teens smoked cigarettes in the previous six months, while 35.3% used marijuana or other illegal drugs.Hmmm, I wonder if the sign said, " You must be 21 to buy pot." We could lower the statistic by 5 % to match cigarette consumption. I wonder what percentage of high school students smoked cigarettes vs. pot prior to 1937 the year this government unconstitutionally made hemp illegal?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment