Should we legalize (ill.) drugs and use the tax revenue to fund drug education?

[Dirk]

No. People who sincerely believe drug normalization and legalization would sap drug cartels and erase the phenomenon overnight don't have their fingers on the pulse of reality. There is no fundamental distinction to be made whether one purchases drugs from a seasoned criminal or a licensed vendor; the social costs remain very much the same. I am convinced, if drugs are made legal, we will be reminded of why they were made illegal. A drug dealer in a suit and tie is a drug dealer nonetheless.

[Dirk]

No. People who sincerely believe alcohol normalization and legalization would sap rumrunners and erase the phenomenon overnight don't have their fingers on the pulse of reality. There is no fundamental distinction to be made whether one purchases booze from a seasoned criminal or a licensed vendor; the social costs remain very much the same. I am convinced, if intoxicating liquors are made legal, we will be reminded of why they were made illegal. A bootlegger in a suit and tie is a bootlegger nonetheless.

I didn't write the above parody because I think drug legalization is a panacea. Indeed, legalization alone may well be worse than the current situation. However, redirecting the money and effort currently spent on using law enforcement to curb drug use would be much better spent on treatment.

The long-term consequences of prolonged alcohol abuse can and, in many cases, do eclipse those of marijuana. However, I believe it is important to recognize not everyone who drinks alcohol does so to get drunk. The same observation can't be made about marijuana and, in that manner, it is linked with more lethal drugs not unlike heroin more so than it is alcohol and tobacco even if it results in fewer deaths (which would change if it were commercially available).

[Dirk]

No. People who sincerely believe alcohol normalization and legalization would sap rumrunners and erase the phenomenon overnight don't have their fingers on the pulse of reality. There is no fundamental distinction to be made whether one purchases booze from a seasoned criminal or a licensed vendor; the social costs remain very much the same. I am convinced, if intoxicating liquors are made legal, we will be reminded of why they were made illegal. A bootlegger in a suit and tie is a bootlegger nonetheless.

I didn't write the above parody because I think drug legalization is a panacea. Indeed, legalization alone may well be worse than the current situation. However, redirecting the money and effort currently spent on using law enforcement to curb drug use would be much better spent on treatment.

The long-term consequences of prolonged alcohol abuse can and, in many cases, do eclipse those of marijuana. However, I believe it is important to recognize not everyone who drinks alcohol does so to get drunk. The same observation can't be made about marijuana and, in that manner, it is linked with more lethal drugs not unlike heroin more so than it is alcohol and tobacco even if it results in fewer deaths (which would change if it were commercially available).

Dude, you are totally talking out of your ass.  Not everyone that smokes weed does so to get stoned.  And no, it can't be "linked" (whatever that means) to heroin easier than alcohol.  And yes, of course if more people are getting stoned, a few more people will fall off hotel balconies and die from being stoned (about the only way people die from smoking weed), but the lives saved by people that would have got drunk, but got stoned instead will be statistically noticeable.

I'm "totally" not. It only takes three joints a day to do the same damage to your lungs as 20 cigarettes. What will become of pack-a-day smokers who transition from tobacco to marijuana when the latter is commercially available? The act of getting high is what compels people who use marijuana to do so. The "medical marijuana" strawman has been discredited. And, as for your last appeal, you say that is if people don't have the option to abstain completely from all of it.

[Dirk]

I'm "totally" not. It only takes three joints a day to do the same damage to your lungs as 20 cigarettes. What will become of pack-a-day smokers who transition from tobacco to marijuana when the latter is commercially available? The act of getting high is what compels people who use marijuana to do so. The "medical marijuana" strawman has been discredited. And, as for your last appeal, you say that is if people don't have the option to abstain completely from all of it.

None of this is convincing at all unless you cite your sources.

Here's a good summary of the effects of marijuana on respiratory health. It's not good, but there's no clear 3:20 ratio of damage like you're claiming: [insert link here]

Medical marijuana is of course a real thing, here's a summary of its efficacy on neurological disorders, particularly MS: [insert link here]

Marijuana as a gateway drug is also not well established: [insert link here]

I would be more than pleased to share my sources. However, I am not permitted to do so until I arrive at the requisite "20 post" threshold. Not even the links in your quote.

I don't consider marijuana a "gateway drug." However, it is easy for me to understand why it is frequently referred to as such because smoking marijuana to get high is fundamentally indistinguishable from using any psychoactive drug to get high. Alcohol may be more lethal than marijuana but not everyone who drinks alcohol does so to excess. And those who do oftentimes abuse drugs as well.

[Dirk]

I for one can't wait for these links.....<Google Fu>

So, there was a poorly done study that came out in 2007 that said 1 joint is equal to 20!!!!omg!!111one cigs.  There is another study (oddly by the same guy, Richard Beasley, in the same place, NZ...this time with many more people in the study....several hundred even!) that says it's a 1:2.5 to 1:5 ratio.  Both of those are more than 7 years old.

But lets, for the sake of argument, say it's 1:5 (it's not, but whatever).  How much do you think most pot smokers smoke?  I don't know, but one would assume they aren't smoking as much weed as cig smokers smoke cigs.  Some, sure, but not most.  Also, these are joints the study is referring to, and that is a common way to smoke, but it's obviously not the only way.  Any device that uses water as a filter is going to be MUCH safer than cig smoking, you can't game a study enough to show otherwise.  Vaporizers are even safer.  Consumables even more so.


and the fact that you said "The "medical marijuana" strawman has been discredited." is enough to mark you as someone that doesn't know what they're talking about on the subject.  You might as well have said Bigfoot is real, the CIA killed JFK or GMOs are bad for you.

I find your passive-aggressive rhetorical flourishes strangely endearing.

However, medical marijuana is already legal in all 50 states. It's called Marinol and clinical trials have demonstrated it to be as effective as natural cannabinoids.

Because all of the data I've seen appears to be inconclusive, I believe there's no compelling reason to abandon the status quo. Even if it isn't particularly popular.

As for Bigfoot, JFK and GMOs, I accept the statuses quo as well. Bigfoot is a hoax; Oswald acted alone; and GMOs are nothing to fear.

[Dirk]

If the evidence is inconclusive, why ban it in the first place?  Shouldn't the onus be on the ones wanting to ban something to prove that it needs to be banned?

Not necessarily. Drugs have been determined to be a public health hazard.

It's like you're pretending the societal consequences of having a black market don't exist. Even if someone was against weed you still have to understand that the problems are only made worse with prohibition.

You say that as if people don't have the option not to purchase illegal drugs. If an individual can't be bothered to settle on a legal alternative, that's a roll of the dice they'll have to take. The conventional wisdom is that fewer people will do drugs if they're illegal. I'm not certain I wish to know if it's true or not. I accept the finding among some that use will rise if drugs are legalized.

[Dirk]

No. People who sincerely believe alcohol normalization and legalization would sap rumrunners and erase the phenomenon overnight don't have their fingers on the pulse of reality. There is no fundamental distinction to be made whether one purchases booze from a seasoned criminal or a licensed vendor; the social costs remain very much the same. I am convinced, if intoxicating liquors are made legal, we will be reminded of why they were made illegal. A bootlegger in a suit and tie is a bootlegger nonetheless.

I didn't write the above parody because I think drug legalization is a panacea. Indeed, legalization alone may well be worse than the current situation. However, redirecting the money and effort currently spent on using law enforcement to curb drug use would be much better spent on treatment.

The long-term consequences of prolonged alcohol abuse can and, in many cases, do eclipse those of marijuana. However, I believe it is important to recognize not everyone who drinks alcohol does so to get drunk. The same observation can't be made about marijuana and, in that manner, it is linked with more lethal drugs not unlike heroin more so than it is alcohol and tobacco even if it results in fewer deaths (which would change if it were commercially available).

Ah, the old 'gateway' drug argument. If you can't find a rational reason why marijiuana should be banned, blame it something else. 'Marijuana is so dangerous because it leads to other drugs which kills people. See how dangerous marijuana is?'

"If you can't discredit someone, paraphrase them incorrectly."