The Red and Black

Originally posted by

J.L.

I have never before used marijuana. It is the truth, yet I believe that it should be decriminalized. The reasons why I believe as such are due to several factors. First, the government spends billions of dollars of taxpayers money to try to fight it which obviously does not work. Secondly, based on recent data, it is impossible to be physically addicted to it. Thirdly, it is impossible to overdose on marijuana; you would die from smoke inhilation before you would ever die from overdose. From looking at the facts, it would make much more sense to legalize marijuana and then criminalize alcohol.

Alcohol causes many more deaths than marijuana. People can become addicted to it, and they can overdose on it. If alcohol is legalized, then marijuana most definitely should be.

If we legalize marijuana it will vastly increase our country's income and we reduce drug related crimes in nearly half. Also it will get less youth to try it for it's forbidden mystery behind it.

Originally posted by

Michael Covington, UGa AI Center

If marijuana were safe, I would want it legalized. It isn't, so I don't.

The medical evidence is building up that marijuana is considerably more dangerous than anyone suspected 30, 20, or even 10 years ago.

Look for example at the work of Jim van Os and colleagues in the Netherlands, where cannabis is legal. (My own research group collaborates with theirs to a limited extent, helping them analyze data.) They've found that using cannabis substantially increases a person's risk of serious mental illness.

Recreational users have some serious misconceptions about cannabis.

One myth is that "marijuana never killed anyone," which people recite at me like a mantra. That is demonstrably false (I personally know of 2 suicides to which it contributed, and of course it causes automobile crashes, just like alcohol).

Another myth is that marijuana is not addictive. That was thought to be the case as recently as 10 years ago. But look "cannabis addiction" today and you'll find that it's a widely recognized problem.

The third myth is that marijuana is a short-term intoxicant. Actually, it lingers in the body for something like two weeks after use, and plenty of people report that the influence of the drug is perceptible for days. That means they're not doing their best mentally and are probably not safe to drive, either.

I am willing to agree with you that marijuana should not be considered "safe" by any means. But that is not the point that is being made in the article. If you look at the article, the main point that is being made is that criminalization is simply not the most effective way to try and attack usage and abuse of the drug.

The billions of dollars that are being spent on criminalization only raise the costs to consumers. But as has been pointed out in the article and on this message board, people do not choose to smoke or not because of laws and those that do choose to smoke are not really affected by the price. Marijuana prohibition has failed to solve the problems of marijuana abuse.

A much more effective way of attacking marijuana abuse is through changing people's perceptions about the drug. There is a myth that it is "safe" out there, but like alcohol when used improperly marijuana can lead to serious health issues. If people were better educated about some of the side effects of usage and better understood the risks, then their consumption patterns would most likely change. And if they did not, then there is no reason to believe that the drug being illegal would change those patterns either.

Also as a side note, of course if marijuana were decriminalized, regulations, similar to those of alcohol and tobacco, would have to be put in place. Nobody would argue that a 5 year old smoking or people driving after smoking is a good thing.

Also as a side note, of course if marijuana were decriminalized, regulations, similar to those of alcohol and tobacco, would have to be put in place. Nobody would argue that a 5 year old smoking or people driving after smoking is a good thing.

But the extent of the restrictions is matter better left up for people with more authority than I. Congress and local governments with the help of experts will be apt at deciding these matters- sorry I did not finish that post before

I appreciate the legitimate and researched criticism and would be interested in hearing what you have to say about my response.

Originally posted by

Michael Covington, UGa AI Center

If marijuana were safe, I would want it legalized. It isn't, so I don't.

The medical evidence is building up that marijuana is considerably more dangerous than anyone suspected 30, 20, or even 10 years ago.

Look for example at the work of Jim van Os and colleagues in the Netherlands, where cannabis is legal. (My own research group collaborates with theirs to a limited extent, helping them analyze data.) They've found that using cannabis substantially increases a person's risk of serious mental illness.

Recreational users have some serious misconceptions about cannabis.

One myth is that "marijuana never killed anyone," which people recite at me like a mantra. That is demonstrably false (I personally know of 2 suicides to which it contributed, and of course it causes automobile crashes, just like alcohol).

Another myth is that marijuana is not addictive. That was thought to be the case as recently as 10 years ago. But look "cannabis addiction" today and you'll find that it's a widely recognized problem.

The third myth is that marijuana is a short-term intoxicant. Actually, it lingers in the body for something like two weeks after use, and plenty of people report that the influence of the drug is perceptible for days. That means they're not doing their best mentally and are probably not safe to drive, either.

I do not beleve that it is unsafe I DO beleve that your body has things that take in THC(the stuff that makes you high) that is why you dont get hangovers like with alcohol.it is only unsafe if it is mixed with other drugs. it can cure depression.Peace!

Originally posted by

Sarah

I find the idea of marijuana causing mental illness ridiculous. I've seen the study you referenced, and all it did was link a higher use of marijuana among those already psychotic. It's well known that mental illness patients self-medicate heavily before treatment.

My understanding is that Van Os's group considered the self-medication hypothesis and has been finding evidence against it.

I should emphasize that it is not their goal to impeach cannabis. Their research area is the neurochemistry of psychosis. They would have been quite happy to find cannabis harmless, but that's not the result they got.

BTW, there is also a fantastically high rate of tobacco addiction among people with schizophrenia, and the reason for it (neurochemical or whatever) is quite mysterious.

Originally posted by

Sarah

I find the idea of marijuana causing mental illness ridiculous. I've seen the study you referenced, and all it did was link a higher use of marijuana among those already psychotic. It's well known that mental illness patients self-medicate heavily before treatment. Correlation does not equal cause, good sir. There are thousands of marijuana users who live happy and healthy lives. Those who "kill themselves because of that deadly reefer" were unbalanced, mentally ill, and in need of help. Marijuana was to soothe their anxiety, not cause their illness.

Actually, the reason for the high rate of tobacco addiction among schizophrenics is not the least bit mysterious to anyone with the most basic knowledge of that mental illness. Schizophrenics suffer from chronic fatigue. Nicotine counteracts fatigue (the reason for it's skyrocketing use during the industrial revolution). Thus, schizophrenics who use nicotine, and thus realize that it gives them the energy to move around without feeling completely exhausted, continue to use it. Continued use, even for a mere week, can and often does lead to addiction.

Still mysterious? Perhaps you need to take some time off from your research job and return to the psychology classrooms you slept in as a student.

Originally posted by

Sarah

Actually, the reason for the high rate of tobacco addiction among schizophrenics is not the least bit mysterious to anyone with the most basic knowledge of that mental illness. Schizophrenics suffer from chronic fatigue. Nicotine counteracts fatigue (the reason for it's skyrocketing use during the industrial revolution). Thus, schizophrenics who use nicotine, and thus realize that it gives them the energy to move around without feeling completely exhausted, continue to use it. Continued use, even for a mere week, can and often does lead to addiction.

Still mysterious? Perhaps you need to take some time off from your research job and return to the psychology classrooms you slept in as a student.

No, schizophrenia does not ordinarily produce chronic fatigue (although its symptoms are so varied that it's certainly possible). Medications for schizophrenia often produce chronic fatigue, and one of the hypotheses is indeed that nicotine counteracts that. Another hypothesis is that nicotine counteracts schizophrenia itself, a little, though it's not very potent. In any case, as I said, the neurochemistry of this is not well understood. I never said tobacco causes schizophrenia; I don't know of anybody who claims that.

I'm getting tired of being insulted here, apparently by undergraduates, when all I'm doing is discussing science. I'm a UGa senior faculty member (teaching as well as research), not a stranger who just wandered into the web site.

You're a moron.

Originally posted by

Jay

Here we go again.

Out come the statistic-spouting hippies ranting and raving about their "rights" and the FDA "fanatical one-sided war."

Look, hippies, Jerry Garcia is dead. Deal with that fact.

If you'd actually look at research rather than spout off what others have told you about research, you might be a bit more informed.

Originally posted by

Jay

Here we go again.

Out come the statistic-spouting hippies ranting and raving about their "rights" and the FDA "fanatical one-sided war."

Look, hippies, Jerry Garcia is dead. Deal with that fact.

If you'd actually look at research rather than spout off what others have told you about research, you might be a bit more informed.

Jay, I appreciate your opinion. However, I don't think that classifying the author as a "hippie" is correct at all. I see no evidence that an obviously educated person who has highly researched the topic at hand and put forth a convincing argument should be categorized as a "hippie" in the negative tone you seem to be giving him.

Unless, of course, by hippie you mean someone who is intelligent, liberal, socially aware, and could think of more than one 60's reference other than Jerry Garcia. Then yes, you're probably right.

I completely agree with Sara.

Originally posted by

Jay

Here we go again.

Out come the statistic-spouting hippies ranting and raving about their "rights" and the FDA "fanatical one-sided war."

Look, hippies, Jerry Garcia is dead. Deal with that fact.

If you'd actually look at research rather than spout off what others have told you about research, you might be a bit more informed.

Originally posted by

Michael Covington, UGa AI Lab

Having cited scientific evidence that marijuana is dangerous, I should make it clear that I'm not necessarily 100% in favor of the "war on drugs" as presently conducted.

There are still questions to be asked about whether the present criminal penalties are effective and appropriate, and whether some kind of limited decriminalization might reduce the overall damage to society, vs. having a totally underground, illegal, multi-million-dollar marijuana industry (which probably enjoys being illegal, like liquor bootleggers 75 years ago).

These are sociological questions I'm not qualified to pass judgment on. Not all morality or wise behavior can be legislated.

I also think that if we continue to rely on government to ban or restrict dangerous drugs, it's time to ask some hard questions about tobacco and alcohol.

Citing scientific evidence doesn't make something true. Look at the amount of evidence contrary to that you've cited.

I could do a survey and demonstrate that homosexuals engage in homosexual intercourse at a vastly higher rate than heterosexuals. This shouldn't lead you to conclude that homosexual intercourse causes one to become homosexual anymore than findings that many mentally ill people use marijuana (especially when you compare that number to the number of non-mentally ill people using the drug). Same with the tobacco schizophrenia link you purport exists.

Again, I think you ought to consider putting your research on hold and return here for a bit more education.

Originally posted by

Michael Covington, UGa AI Lab

Citing scientific evidence doesn't make something true. Look at the amount of evidence contrary to that you've cited.
...
Again, I think you ought to consider putting your research on hold and return here for a bit more education.

Huh?? Matt, I don't think you understood a thing I wrote. What are you smoking?

Originally posted by

Michael Covington, UGa AI Lab

Matt, I don't think you understood...

Sorry, I mean Jeff, not Matt. (My mistake. The original sender's name is not visible on the screen when I'm typing a reply.)

Originally posted by

Michael Covington, UGa AI Lab

Having cited scientific evidence that marijuana is dangerous, I should make it clear that I'm not necessarily 100% in favor of the "war on drugs" as presently conducted.

There are still questions to be asked about whether the present criminal penalties are effective and appropriate, and whether some kind of limited decriminalization might reduce the overall damage to society, vs. having a totally underground, illegal, multi-million-dollar marijuana industry (which probably enjoys being illegal, like liquor bootleggers 75 years ago).

These are sociological questions I'm not qualified to pass judgment on. Not all morality or wise behavior can be legislated.

I also think that if we continue to rely on government to ban or restrict dangerous drugs, it's time to ask some hard questions about tobacco and alcohol.

Pretty neat how you deleted all of the substance of my argument, then made a childish remark at the remainder. To say I'm unimpressed again would be an understatement.

I think you ought to own up to the fact that this is a moral issue to you, even if the issue of it's morality to you is entirely dependent on the fact that it is regulated by law.

Also, if marijuana isn't safe, then what is safe? Is pointing to a few incidents of injury or death resulting from use of something really convincing support for an argument that something is notably unsafe? A significant number of people die each year due to eating crackers and other dry goods. Hell, we saw our own president lose his ability to breathe (albeit temporarily) due to his consumption of pretzels. Would it really be rational to conclude based on this evidence that crackers and pretzels are unsafe to the point of warranting prohibition and intense education (often consisting of fabricated lies in the case of D.A.R.E) on the subject of dry goods?

I'm sorry, I'm not being very articulate. I just think you're being a bit too short sighted with your study of the subject to think your conclusions ought to be given any weight.

Originally posted by

Michael Covington, UGa AI Lab

Having cited scientific evidence that marijuana is dangerous, I should make it clear that I'm not necessarily 100% in favor of the "war on drugs" as presently conducted.

There are still questions to be asked about whether the present criminal penalties are effective and appropriate, and whether some kind of limited decriminalization might reduce the overall damage to society, vs. having a totally underground, illegal, multi-million-dollar marijuana industry (which probably enjoys being illegal, like liquor bootleggers 75 years ago).

These are sociological questions I'm not qualified to pass judgment on. Not all morality or wise behavior can be legislated.

I also think that if we continue to rely on government to ban or restrict dangerous drugs, it's time to ask some hard questions about tobacco and alcohol.

Mr. Covington,
I think many of the bloggers here are having a hard time establishing where you stand on the use of MJ. Please correct my interpretation, but I see that the studies you site consider heavy users of Marijuana. I think this offends some of the people here because they like to think that they can use MJ in moderation and still live a productive and healthy life. Now, I would agree that daily use of MJ is likely going to hinder a persons overall potential for success(in school, work, w/ intimacy etc.). However, I think it would be wise to note that the theme of the article assigned to this blog is decriminalization in favor of education and risk management. Because there really is not enough study of the health/mental/emotional/psychological effects of MJ, we cannot condemn its use all together which is what I feel you have tried to do.
Let us use the alcoholic as an example. For this person, no amount of alcohol is safe for him to use. This doesn't mean that you or I cannot enjoy a drink at the end of a long day in a responsible manner. Having had that drink, I may not perform as well on my morning jog or it might take me an extra cup of coffie before I start working productively, but none the less to assign some grim level of danger is unfounded. The same goes for someone who wants to take a big toke from his bong when he gets home after a long day delivering pizzas. I may not want to partake, but he has every right to do so if it makes him happy. I really dont think you can assume this act will result in "damage to society" as you put it. And come on... Do you really believe a study that links smoking pot with going nuts. I bet you caught your dad smoking weed in the back yard and you are just projecting hate on all of these college kids. Go complain to your cat, maybe he'll listen.

Originally posted by

Mojo

Let's get this straight...

You're willing to spend billions, imprison millions and walk a fine line on public trust because weed may have health consequences?



Side note: From a medical sense, putting anything in the body is bad; food, drink, breathing is a calculated risk. It's unfair to exploit medical philosophy in such a manner or rely on the misinformation that may cause.

Let's be fair, millions aren't being imprisoned for MJ. In actuallity maybe 1% of MJ criminal violations result in prison terms. That's because MJ possession is, in most cases, a county ordinance violation. Ordinance violations are handled in recorders court(i.e. traffic tickets) not superior court(prison sentencing guidlines). So you likely wont even spend the night in jail. You could probably pay the fine over the phone with a credit card the same as a speeding ticket or for J-walking. Only the big time drug traffic types are up for prison time.
In my opinion, mj tickets serve as a welcome form of county revenue. And if you like things like public sanitation and street lights, you may reconsider your views as well. Just smoke your weed at home.

Originally posted by

Mojo

Let's get this straight...

You're willing to spend billions, imprison millions and walk a fine line on public trust because weed may have health consequences?



Side note: From a medical sense, putting anything in the body is bad; food, drink, breathing is a calculated risk. It's unfair to exploit medical philosophy in such a manner or rely on the misinformation that may cause.

The word moron won't even start to convey how misinformed you are. If you get caught with 1 gram of cannabis, which is a minuscule amount, anywhere in Georgia you get arrested and locked up no questions asked. You do get to be bailed out, but you do still get taken to jail. This is very much unlike a traffic ticket where you get it then are allowed to go on about your business.

You then have to go to trial not some bullcrap recorders court. You go to an actual courtroom with an actual judge. At that point, You can decide if you would like to fight it or plea guilty. If you do plea guilty you get at least one year of probation. Once on probation, any little tiny thing you do can land you in jail. Also, you have to pay $160 a month and visit a probation officer three times a month. At each meeting you are required to take a piss test. If you fail the test for ANYTHING, including prescription drugs, you go to jail. You can fail a drug test from eating the wrong food by the way. Don't believe me? Here watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62vN6rtU2_U

If you do somehow avoid getting in trouble throughout the entire year you get free from probation. If you get caught a second time with the same amount you then go to jail for a year. That is how the law is written. It isn't a MMS(mandatory minimum sentence) so some judges will be nice and grant you probation again for a longer period of time. You still will be incarcerated though for a period.

So before you begin talking out of your ass at least do a little bit of research.

-B

Originally posted by

Smarter than the Average American

It is not the use of Marijuana as a "drug" that is keeping it from being legalized. Rather, it is the use of its stalks (ie: hemp) that the U.S. does not want it legalized. Hemp is a material that is cheaper and stronger than cotton which, if legalized, would possibly end the cotton industry. This would be disastrous to the U.S. economy and politicians know it. So toke in private...at least for a few more decades.

Smarter Than The Average American,
You may not be firing on all neurons if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by

Smarter than the Average American

It is not the use of Marijuana as a "drug" that is keeping it from being legalized. Rather, it is the use of its stalks (ie: hemp) that the U.S. does not want it legalized. Hemp is a material that is cheaper and stronger than cotton which, if legalized, would possibly end the cotton industry. This would be disastrous to the U.S. economy and politicians know it. So toke in private...at least for a few more decades.

My neurons are working fine. Well, at least fine enough for me to be graduating Magna cum Laude with a degree in Biochemistry (a semester early). Maybe if you did some reading yours would work better.

Originally posted by

S.C.

I find our society to be extremely hypocritical when it comes to the subject of the "War on Drugs". It's ok for people to drink to the point of not only being obnoxious in public places, but potentially dangerous to themselves and others as well, (as long as they're 21....a supposedly responsible adult). And it's fine that a large portion of society are prescribed all sorts of anti-anxiety/anti-depressants, narcotic pain killers and sleeping pills, which ARE addictive, but smoking marijuana, is criminalized because it "might" be bad for your health? I know people who stay so F'd up on their Doctor-recommended and prescribed meds they can't function properly on a daily basis.....but because it's legal, it's acceptable. Where's the logic in all this??

S.C.,
There is a drug discrepency in our country. And I agree with you that it seems hypocritical, but you must remember what country we live in. The legal drug biz is a multi-billion dollar industry many times over. That is a major economic incentive. MJ revenue is probably about 1% of that.
What we need to be more concerned with is not "how come we can't smoke weed?", but where is this wide spread drug use taking us. Why are first graders taking speed twice a day?(abstract example) And why do parents think this is ok.
It creates a personal acceptance at an early age that a magic pill will make me better. So instead of solving our problems we look for some "chemical balancing". Some go to the doc, but many people use various self-medicating substances. Its six in one, half dozen in the other.
I honestly dont care one way or another if MJ is legalized or decriminalized. It won't make that much of an economic impact. Most likeley the widespread quality will improve and that will be all. People won't start offing themselves at a greater rate and the federal government wont end reducing the deficit. There won't be a significant increase in the percentage of the population who uses drugs either.
Also, it is nearly impossible to determine if MJ will ever become legal here. Its just not that popular. 15% of people smoke pot. And they do it in a closed door subculture that just isnt that outspoken. Not to mention they are all way too high to get off their couches to start some social movement.
My advice... Do something productive like exercise and homework. Get high on Friday night.