cannabisnews.com: Legalize with Confidence





Legalize with Confidence
Posted by FoM on August 09, 2001 at 09:26:05 PT
By Richard Cowan, MarijuanaNews.com
Source: National Review
I respond to Ben Domenech's "Legalize With Caution" not because I think that he has too low an opinion of marijuana, but rather because — like many reluctant anti-prohibitionists — he underestimates the harm done by marijuana prohibition. Frankly, I was surprised that he defends the "gateway theory." I still think that it was best described by Bill Buckley almost 30 years ago when he defended my call for conservatives to support the legalization of marijuana in the December 6, 1972 issue of NR when he called it "Post Pot Ergo Propter Pot." 
"After That Therefore Because of That" is actually a textbook logical fallacy. It is perhaps the worst of the prohibitionist arguments, but it continues to confuse even people as bright as Mr. Domenech.When Rich Lowry pointed out that most marijuana users do not use cocaine, Domenech argues, "The more appropriate (number) to offer would be the percentage of cocaine users who originally started out smoking pot."First, I cannot imagine anyone ever using hard drugs without having first tried marijuana, but that is not always the case. Even if there were such an absolute correlation, that would still not prove causation. The Institute of Medicine Report points out that because "underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, "gateway" to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."As for Domenech's comment, "Imagine if one out of every 100 hundred coffee drinkers got cancer, and you'll see what I mean." Actually, because coffee is so widely consumed, and cancer is such a major cause of death, far more that one percent of coffee drinkers do get cancer, but that is not causation. Post Starbucks Ergo Propter Starbucks.However, the more important point made by the IOM Report is that the real-world connection between marijuana and hard drugs is that they are sold in the same markets. "It is the legal status of marijuana that makes it a gateway drug."The foundation of all Dutch drugs policies is what they call the "separation of the markets," and that is one reason for their cannabis-only "coffee shop" system. One result is that there are very few young Dutch junkies. In other words, marijuana prohibition is actually counterproductive and creates the "gateway" between marijuana and hard drugs. Legalization would remove that connection. Freedom works.As for marijuana being "addictive" — the IOM report does not support the dire description by Dr. Charles Schuster, former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, a highly politicized prohibitionist propaganda organization. Schuster himself has said that "the likelihood of that occurring in people is much less than with drugs such as cocaine and heroin."The IOM report says that A distinctive marijuana withdrawal syndrome has been identified, but it is mild and short-lived." Two prominent British scientists recently wrote in the London Times that "For some users, perhaps as many as 10 per cent, cannabis leads to psychological dependence, but there is scant evidence that it carries a risk of true addiction. Unlike cigarette smokers, most users do not take the drug on a daily basis, and usually abandon it in their twenties or thirties. Unlike for nicotine, alcohol, and hard drugs, there is no clearly defined "withdrawal syndrome" — the hallmark of true addiction — when use is stopped." Dependence is not addiction. I know thousands of marijuana smokers, some are such heavy users that they might be described as "dependent," but I know of no non-medical users who have ever had serious problems when they had to stop suddenly. People may become "dependent" on anything that they really enjoy, but when they are dependent on something illegal their problems are made worse by prohibition, not helped. And that is the whole point.Domenech should not worry that legalization will worsen the problems that rightly concern him. On the contrary, the Dutch experiences with tolerating marijuana use, and virtually all human experience with freedom, tell us that coercion is usually counterproductive. He should not fear that marijuana prohibition is somehow an exception. Note: Don’t ignore the real effects of prohibition.Source: National Review (US) Author: Richard Cowan, MarijuanaNews.comPublished: August 9, 2001 Copyright: 2001 National Review Contact: letters nationalreview.com Website: http://www.nationalreview.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:MarijuanaNews.comhttp://www.marijuananews.com/Legalize With Caution - Ben Domenech, NRO http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10553.shtmlWeed Whackers - Rich Lowry, NR Editor http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10521.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on August 11, 2001 at 08:56:14 PT
Crankshaft
  On a semi-related note... has anyone been reading the comic strip Crankshaft lately? The link below is to a specific comic in the middle of the ongoing storyline, but it shows that the two artists think cannabis is evil and dangerous but smacking your child around is OK:http://www.ucomics.com/crankshaft/viewcs.cfm?uc_full_date=20010803&uc_comic=cs&uc_daction=X  If this sort of one-sided propaganda is allowed in the comics, it should at least find a place in the editorial section where it belongs.
Crankshaft
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by aocp on August 09, 2001 at 20:49:00 PT
Re: Patrick
I apologize for coming off haughty, my friend. I know in my heart the pure intentions of all of us that are united in our opposition to the inherent evil that is the drug war. I am merely trying to reduce the chances the antis have of misrepresenting our views to the general public.It is very aggravating to have to spoonfeed the public our views b/c there are those who feel the need to lie and cheat to achieve their ends, b/c they know their rhetoric would not stand up under the sunlight that is truth. It angers me to no end. The term of legalization scares me b/c it can be spun to the antis ends. Regulation can be shoved down their collective throats until they cry uncle, however, and this is simply why it appeals to me. I tire of playing fair. If they wish to leave legal alcohol/tobacco out there to play with, i say use it.I hope i have not turned you away with my emotional side and pray that we may see true freedom sooner than later. Out.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Patrick on August 09, 2001 at 16:51:01 PT
aocp
aocp please accept my apologies for using "Legalization" out of the "proper context."I only meant to touch the nerve of those that desire to keep letting, nay demanding, that our law enforcement dollars be used to incarcerate anyone in possession of marijuana. Having been locked up myself, for getting caught smoking hashish, I am well aware of the illegality of marijuana and I did not intend to interfere or diminish your particular fight against cannabis prohibition.Once again, I apologize. How about I just stick with...End Marijuana Prohibition Today!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by aocp on August 09, 2001 at 16:25:53 PT
Re: Patrick
Whilst working today, i decided to add this to my mandatory inclusions to my particular fight against cannabis prohibition:DO NOT USE THE TERM LEGALIZE BY ITSELF.It is a loaded term that the antis will bend any which way they can to keep the non-thinking potato-chip-eating, tv-watching general public from realizing what we're actually saying. And unfortunately, this very same public is so damn apathetic that it's very easy to keep them in the dark and fumbling for meaning while we try to enlighten them as to what we really mean. Therefore, i propose:USE THE TERM REGULATE IN PLACE OF OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH LEGALIZE AS THIS IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO SPIN.Example: Joe Schmoe wants to know what regulation means. Okay. Jenna Bush gets busted for trying to buy booze underage. She is not only white, but also the daughter of the prez. This does not impede the IMPACT OF TRUE REGULATION OF DRUGS from flat-out working. Q.E.-freaking-D.Fight that, antis. A phat C-Note says that nothing pisses them off more than intelligent stoners. Oops.Oh, and enforcing and streamlining regulation standards (esp. for age requirements and the applicable consequences for breaking them) could be made soooo much better without cops out hunting down sick, dying people or even just consenting adults who use cannabis!! Show me different or just shut the hell up, antis!!! I'm really sick of your stuttering BS!!!So, like i said above (sorry about the length), PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE bring REGULATION first and foremost b/c we're not just fighting the antis, but also general apathy of the public that we need to reach the most. Out.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Patrick on August 09, 2001 at 12:57:15 PT
Wisconsin needs Legalization Support. 
My rantings from the following article:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1454/a07.html?999"The La Crosse Common Council's Committee of the Whole Tuesday voted against changing a first-time marijuana conviction from a crime to a misdemeanor.La Crosse County Circuit Court Judge John Perlich and four other judges had requested an ordinance that would allow the option of making first-time marijuana possession an ordinance violation instead of a crime."Crime translates into JAIL!"Police Chief Ed Kondracki has disagreed with the change, saying that decriminalizing possession would send the wrong message."Which message is that Chief, and to whom? A message to all American citizens and beyond that smoking marijuana is a crime requiring jail time?Assistant District Attorney Todd Bjerke spoke against the change at the meeting. The current system gives officials a chance to educate first offenders on the dangers of drug abuse, he said."The "real danger" folks, is that they will lock you up for harming no one, including yourself? We should be teaching every young person the dangers of drug abuse to begin with. If we were to provide the truth about what effects various drugs will have upon the average person, you might be surprised at just how many people would still choose not to consume certain drugs.How does locking people up teach our citizens the dangers of drug abuse? It gives the Government an open opportunity to place you in irons. Drugs = Leg Irons. Pretty effective picture so far right? There is more. It gives the Government an opportunity to get ones undivided attention and cram propaganda and lies down the offender's throat. The opportunity to violate your person by requiring samples of hair and urine. The opportunity to mingle with rapists, muggers and other violent elements in society. The opportunity to learn the criminal justice system from the inside out. And finally, the opportunity to discover that the wonderful feeling you get from smoking marijuana and having a pleasant experience with your friends and family, can come to a screeching halt with you butt being placed behind bars. Oh wait, there is actually more. The opportunity to attend drug rehab classes that rehash the same old worn out lies with the exception of the Drugs = Handcuffs lesson. The opportunity to be marked as a criminal in a manner that it makes it even more difficult to obtain an education, find a job, or become a wonderful contributing member of the human race. Just Remember, Don't Drink and Drive!And what did this wonderful drug abuse education do for this particular citizen?Taught me to fear and despise my own government. Especially, when it relentlessly erodes the Constitution. What "right" grants the Supreme Court (top of one branch of 3 mind you) to decide on the medicinal value of a natural substance. To grow or consume a natural herb has become a criminal offense, while man made substances continue to poison our Eco-system. By what earthly or godly right do these 9 robes get the final say on medicine whether it is Western or Eastern medicine or Southern or Northern for that matter? Well, in asking the above question, I found the answer to what gave them the "right."Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution assigns the Supreme Court judicial power and jurisdiction in all cases, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make. That clause gave them the "right." However, we do have checks and balances right? That same part of Section 2 also reveals one of the Supreme Court's checks in our system. Congress can change the frickin laws! So, how can we get Congress to change things besides doing it very slowly?VOTE!If you haven't got the facts on Marijuana yet, you haven't been reading both sides of the story.Vote to Legalize Marijuana! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Tom Clark on August 09, 2001 at 11:17:26 PT:
NIDA debunks marijuana gateway theory
(a letter to the National Review Online)To the Editors:Re: Richard Cowan’s “Legalize with Confidence,” 8/9/01: The marijuana gateway theory was explicitly tested and rejected by some of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s (NIDA) star researchers, led by Dr. Ming Tsuang of Harvard University. In their study, “Co-occurrence of Abuse of Different Drugs in Men” (Archives of General Psychiatry, November, 1998 at http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/issues/v55n11/toc.html) they found no statistical support for the hypothesis that “…shared genetic and environmental influences operate through their influence on marijuana abuse, which in turn influences the abuse of every other category of drug.” Of course, NIDA was careful not to release this particular finding, which lends support to Cowan’s characterization of NIDA as a “highly politicized prohibitionist propaganda organization.” Thomas W. ClarkResearch AssociateHealth and Addictions Research, Inc.Boston, MA The writer is the Boston representative to NIDA’s Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG), which tracks illicit drug use trends in the U.S., http://www.nida.nih.gov/CEWG/CEWGHome.html (Note: I take Alan Leshner, head of NIDA, to task for misrepresenting the findings of Tsuang’s study at http://world.std.com/~twc/leshner.htm.) 
Naturalism.org
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment