Glenn Beck

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's a bit tricky when you can't see that everyone else has the same thing, so next time I'll just switch Pangloss and bascule or something.

[Pangloss]

That would be kinda silly, since I am bascule. I thought everyone knew...

[Phi for All]

That would make *me* Pangloss. (shrugs) Whatever, just remember that two wrongs don't make a right, Cap'n.

[ydoaPs]

That would make *me* Pangloss. (shrugs) Whatever, just remember that two wrongs don't make a right, Cap'n.

 

But 3 lefts do.

[Mr Skeptic]

I do advocate it, Mr. Skeptic. I am simply pointing out that claiming that the laws are at fault here is wrong. These people chose to risk jail time for a stupid high.

 

How can it be anything but the laws, responsible for people being in jail? It's pretty simple: if you don't prescribe jailtime for some activity, then that activity does not lead to jailtime.

 

Here is a rather complete statistical breakdown of drug use.

 

If you scroll down to table 1.26a and onward there are the pertinent numbers for 2005 and 2006. 1.27a in particular shows that the unemployment/underemployment/non-employment rate among pot smokers is 29.9% (part-time+unemployed+other divided by total) in ages 26+. Given that the retirement age (65+) has the lowest usage rate (7.2% lifetime), don't think that retirement contributes that much to "other" either.

 

From those tables I can only conclude that using marijuana within the past month compared to withing your lifetime, decreases your chances of being unemployed. So recent marijuana use --> employment.

 

I'm not, that was their parents choice.

 

As for what parents tell their children, I am simply going by what I know of habitual pot smokers, and those parents left behind to fend for the family. They, like you, fail to properly assign blame for the plight of the family and children. To them the parent in jail is a victim of the system rather than an idiot that couldn't get their priorities in order.

 

Well I certainly didn't see jailtime listed as a possible side effect of smoking pot. In countries where smoking pot is legal, it doesn't seem to lead to jailtime. I conclude that making pot illegal leads to pot smokers landing in jail. Ie, they are in fact a victim of the system, unlike what you claim.

 

So you agree that making drugs legal won't keep these people out of prison? What's the point of making drugs legal then?

 

No. I'm saying criminals tend to end up in jail. You are making an awful lot of people criminals, and wanting to put them in jail. I see little benefit in this.

 

They were in large part those who felt they were the victim of the law, rather than of their stupid spouse/parent. Most raised their children to make the exact same mistakes they made and wind up in the exact same predicament as their parents.

 

Running through the play list of your average urban radio station will also give you a good clue of the target population's thoughts on who the heroes and villains are in the drug war. And this cuts across race and ethnic barriers in the ghettos and poor populations, too.

 

And asking the folks in jail whether a leaf threw them in there or a cop did, the usually say it was the cop. Silly people, playing the victim.

 

Sure we do, but those standards have little to do with what you teach them about drug use and personal responsibility.

 

Yeah? I'm pretty sure if a parent got caught teaching their kids to use drugs they'd end up in prison (even if the drugs are alcohol and tobacco).

 

The irony is that if Glaxo or Phillip Morris started selling marijuana people would like them... but selling actual medicines and cigarettes have them equally hated.

 

But that was OT.. on the reduction in pimps and prices and prostitution: I wouldn't be so sure about that. The prostitutes I dealt with as a social worker needed to turn tricks to afford bread and beer, much less marijuana, heroin, etc.

 

The interesting side effect of legalizing prostitution is a great many prostitutes could be out of business or remain under the thumb of black market pimps... and the price would sky rocket. See what happened in Nevada with legalized prostitution. I won't link you to "menus" for these brothels, but suffice it to say they are prohibitively expensive, and black market prostitution still exists.

 

If that is true then perhaps your faith in the free market's ability to lower prices is misplaced. Or, the heavy regulations have allowed things to be even worse. I think the problem is that they legalized brothels, not prostitution. Essentially, now the pimps have legal protection.

 

You would be hard pressed to argue that computer use is as dangerous as drug use. You haven't proven your point beyond pure emotion that jail time is more damaging than having a drug addicted parent in the home.

 

Granted, I am arguing the same line, but I have considerable experience with both.. and in most cases the children were better of with dad (or mom) in jail.

 

But if it were illegal, then it could lead to jailtime!

 

So does recreational drug use.

 

Oh? Who's rights does recreational drug use infringe on, that aren't also infringed on by alcohol or tobacco?

 

But you aren't. You are kidding yourselves. The parent that risks their wives and children's lives for marijuana have given clear evidence already that they are not suitable to be parents.

 

Going back to your previous computer example, if the government were to outlaw computers under penalty of jail time I would stop using computers. I wouldn't start arguing for the repeal of the law, but I wouldn't be so calloused as to jeopardize my children's safety by using computers before the law is repealed.

 

And I would give the middle finger to the government and use them anyways. I don't appreciate the government telling me what to do, even if it is because they think they know what's good for me.

 

There are a laundry list of reasons why not living with a drug user is better than living with one. For marijuana, one of the most common (ubiquitous) effects on children is the mental damage caused to their parents by continual use... not to mention the increased likelihood that the children will become early users... which in turn exacerbates the chances of psychological damage on the child in later life... leading to troubles for that child's children, and so on.

 

OK, yes we all know there are bad effects. That isn't the question and never was. How does that compare to this?:

The Psychological Impact of Incarceration:

Implications for Post-Prison Adjustment

 

It never was a question of whether pot has any bad effect at all, it is whether the situation is improved at all by criminalizing it. Also, don't forget to factor in that people currently both use pot and go to prison, so remember to add the pot effects to the prison side of the equation as well.

 

Then legalize it. I am just telling you it's a very bad idea and the reasons for legalization are spurious and based on faulty assumptions.

 

That's funny, I thought the reasons for making it illegal were spurious and based on faulty assumptions.

[bascule]

I'm not a pure libertarian any more than I am a pure conservative. I do find, however, a purity in true libertarianism that supports every-man-to-his-own-vice "freedom" as at least a true libertarian wouldn't want to saddle me with the health care bills of a substance abuser.

 

Ignoring me, I guess? I find the supposedly-libertarian "healthcare argument" extremely odd. It would apply to any high-risk activity.

 

What other high risk activities should be made illegal to keep healthcare costs down? Should we ban skydiving? White water rafting? Driving a scooter? Driving a car? Eating red meat? Smoking cigarettes? Drinking alcohol?

 

As a real libertarian, I support all of these activities, and at the very least state-level control of what "substances" are deemed legal or illegal. Do you, in general, support states rights over stronger federal control, especially for things which aren't explicitly called out in the Constitution such as "controlled substances"?

 

I would have said you're a faux libertarian of the Glenn Beck variety, but in the context of this thread, it would seem Glenn Beck's faux libertarianism is more real than yours.

[ydoaPs]

That's funny, I thought the reasons for making it illegal were spurious and based on faulty assumptions.

I thought the reasons for making it illegal were racism and a smear campaign aimed to remove hemp as a competitor in the marketplace.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From those tables I can only conclude that using marijuana within the past month compared to withing your lifetime, decreases your chances of being unemployed. So recent marijuana use --> employment.

 

What I got out of it is that over half the 20-30yo and 35-55yo populations should be jailed because they got happy, sleepy, and hungry.

[ParanoiA]

Here's the Stossel article I was talking about titled "Keep Your Laws Off of My Body".

 

The prohibitionists say their rules are necessary for either the public's or the particular individual's own good. I'm skeptical. I think of what Albert Camus said: "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."

 

And the data I mentioned earlier, addicts compared to responsible users, is apparently government provided. (I wish they would link this stuff though)

 

But Jacob Sullum, who wrote "Saying Yes", says, "If you look at the government's own data about patterns of drug use, it clearly is not true."

 

The data is remarkable: 8.5 million Americans have tried crack, but there are only 359,000 regular users. (The government defines "regular use" as using a drug at least once in the past 30 days.) More than 12 million tried meth, but only 314,000 still take it. The story is similar for heroin. Most people who try these "instantly additive drugs" do not get "hopelessly addicted." They give them up on their own.

 

As Sullum puts it: "The vast majority of people who use illegal drugs do not become heavy users, do not become addicts; it does not disrupt their lives. In fact, I would argue it enhances their lives. How do we know that? Because they use it."

 

Here's a link to Sullum's book on Amazon, which sounds interesting to me but I doubt I can get to it anytime soon.

[Pangloss]

That would make *me* Pangloss. (shrugs) Whatever, just remember that two wrongs don't make a right, Cap'n.

 

Rofl!

 

-------

 

Regarding this subject, I've seen some reporting the last couple of days, in particular from ABC News, about marijuana use leading to heroin addiction. One of the points that was raised that I thought was interesting was the notion that by telling people that marijuana is addictive, and then having teens discover that it is not, that they then distrust reports that heroin is addictive, and figure it's okay to try it. It doesn't help that it's cheaper than marijuana or oxycontin.

 

"The interesting part too is when you start going to the schools and school events. You go back towards the bleachers, areas, you used to find little empty bags of marijuana, now you are actually finding the glassine stamps on the ground," said DEA Agent Bradley Cheek. "Which means these kids have escalated from marijuana to heroin."

 

Note also the comment below the article on this page, in which the user says that they don't know of a single hard-drugs user who didn't start with marijuana. I wonder how accurate that is.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/heroin-suburbs-rise/story?id=10230269

[ParanoiA]

Note also the comment below the article on this page, in which the user says that they don't know of a single hard-drugs user who didn't start with marijuana. I wonder how accurate that is.

 

I've heard this before, but I can't passed the obvious: we walk before we run. I'm sure we start with mild drugs before heavier ones. Also, I've always wondered if people are thinking "illegal" when they consider the question of what they started with. I suspect alcohol as the gateway drug, since it's far more accessible for kids, being legal and all. But most people don't think of it as a "drug".

[Sisyphus]

If caffeine were illegal, it would be the most common gateway drug.

[ParanoiA]

And if marijuana didn't exist, do we really believe the heavier drugs would be an esoteric indulgence? Somehow without this magical "gateway" drug, access to the heavy stuff is occluded? I guess I just don't understand the significance of pointing out marijuana as a starting point. The subtending logic implied by that notice just doesn't check out.

[Phi for All]

Doing drugs responsibly, abusing drugs, doing them and then deciding you don't need them, never doing them at all, it's all a test of your character like most anything life throws at you. We hear about the small percentage of abusers because they end up doing something stupid that makes them a statistic.

 

Most people who do drugs don't steal, or wreck their cars, or assault someone, the same way most people who drink alcohol behave themselves. This tells us that it's not the drugs, or some magical gateway, that leads people to abuse. Some people need to test their character to a greater degree than others before they figure out who they are in relationship to society. Many never do and a lot of them have never done drugs.

 

The federal government shouldn't be trying to legislate away our right to take chances with our bodies that don't directly involve the safety of others. We already have intoxication laws that will protect us from drug users. I think we should start by legalizing marijuana and see how that goes. Eventually we should realize that even the hardcore drugs used regularly by such a small percentage of the population are not worth the heavy cost of keeping them illegal.

[padren]

It's worth noting that when marijuana is hyped as an incredibly addictive, hardcore drug to scare kids off, it's those government agencies that are doing these kids an incredible disfavor - giving them an entirely unrealistic scale for what to expect if they do try heroin or meth.

 

If they've been force fed all manner of propaganda that says marijuana is this horrible beast of a drug that will destroy their lives instantly with just one puff how are they to really be vigilant against those that actually do have much higher risks? (Like Vicodin )

 

 

If there is a gateway aspect to marijuana, it's due to the factors created by it's prohibition: from the hyperbole of the dangers, to the acclimation of illegal transactions, and the horrible boom and bust cycles of availability in small towns (due to erratic effectiveness in law enforcement) that gives drug dealers the opportunity to push other drugs (especially 'make it anywhere' meth) the average smoker normally has no interest in.

 

 

 

 

As a side note: it may be worth considering the issue of "altered state escapism" as a phenomenon outside of drug use, that is simply enabled by drugs and is technically a social activity, not inherently a criminal one.

 

There are genuine issues to be considered within that scope - people who's lives and health suffer or their children suffer due to excess, people who are a threat to the welfare of others due to their excesses (DUI, etc), and the effects on young people. This would cover everything from alcohol to pharmaceuticals (legally prescribed or otherwise) controlled substances and even huffing glue.

 

As a society we need to explore those issues and how we feel about them, and draw a drug policy as one aspect of the conclusions we come to from that endeavor. Otherwise, it will always be disjointed, hypocritical, and highly disruptive.

[Sisyphus]

That's really an education issue, rather than a legality issue. I happen to think the education tends to be counterproductive, also. If you wildly exaggerate the danger of something in a way that kids can see for themselves isn't accurate, they're not going to take you seriously when you talk about the real dangers.

 

This is very similar to the problem with abstinence-only sex ed, incidentally.

[Phi for All]

That's really an education issue, rather than a legality issue. I happen to think the education tends to be counterproductive, also.

Imagine taking a class where you could elect to sample various drugs after learning their chemistry and discussing the scientific studies on their effects. Those who chose not to take a particular drug would be encouraged to observe those who did. All done in a controlled environment where any dangers were mitigated.

 

How would that kind of education affect drug use?

[Mr Skeptic]

For completeness it should include interviews with addicts and ex-addicts. Something a bit more down to earth than just statistics.

[Royston]

And if marijuana didn't exist, do we really believe the heavier drugs would be an esoteric indulgence? Somehow without this magical "gateway" drug, access to the heavy stuff is occluded? I guess I just don't understand the significance of pointing out marijuana as a starting point. The subtending logic implied by that notice just doesn't check out.

 

I would imagine people who experiment with so-called hard drugs, are predisposed to experiment, it's just cannabis is more readily available, and is considered softer, so it stands to reason this will be the first drug they try.

 

I agree with Padren, in that some people who supply cannabis, also supply other drugs, if the customer fancies a change, (or even talked into it) it's available, and this could be another reason for this 'gateway' label.

 

As for stats, well they're a bit sketchy (but better than a survey of anecdotes.) There is a difficulty in getting the data, which is explained near the beginning, and although this article is talking about drug problems, the same difficulty extends to people who use drugs, and don't have any problems i.e getting stats on the number of cannabis users, or amphetamine users for example.

 

http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/faqs/faqpages/how-many-people-are-addicted

 

While the data on new notifications helps track how many people are newly seeking help for their drug use, it does not indicate how many people are addicted or having problems with drugs in total. To find this we have to find out firstly how many people are in treatment as a whole and then how many people are having drug-related problems but not seeking help.

 

However, cannabis does seem to be a lot more popular, and figures for people with problems is really quite low, so it appears that many are using cannabis but not experimenting with harder substances.

[Pangloss]

If caffeine were illegal, it would be the most common gateway drug.

 

Sure but it's not much of an entertainment drug, though, right? Personally I've never been able to detect any physiological impact from caffeine -- none of any kind. But I know people do "take" caffeine for the perception of wake-up or increased energy, so maybe it's just me.

 

I could see alcohol being a gateway "drug".

 

 

It's worth noting that when marijuana is hyped as an incredibly addictive, hardcore drug to scare kids off, it's those government agencies that are doing these kids an incredible disfavor - giving them an entirely unrealistic scale for what to expect if they do try heroin or meth.

 

This is what I was getting at earlier -- I think it's an interesting observation and it suggests that a different approach may be called-for. If they're seeing cheap heroin readily available, and they know the government lied to them about marijuana, then they're probably thinking "Hey, why NOT try it?" and getting instantly hooked.

 

(Although I wonder about the accuracy of the "instantly hooked" meme that's so common in heroin discussion.)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Doing drugs responsibly, abusing drugs, doing them and then deciding you don't need them, never doing them at all, it's all a test of your character like most anything life throws at you. We hear about the small percentage of abusers because they end up doing something stupid that makes them a statistic.

 

Here's the problem: What if we live in a society in which most people fail tests of character, and we just don't know it because they haven't had access? And what if there's nothing we can do about that lack of character in the short term? Do we (a) give the masses a way to make things worse and bring us all down to a deeper level of fail, or (b) steer them clear of that danger while we build up their character to a place where they can resist that sort of thing? In a sense, aren't we choosing (a) without ever really trying the second half of (b)?

 

I realize that's predicated on a big "if", and that what's being suggested here is the legalization of marijuana, not heroin, but if the power of some drugs is such that, once taken, they cannot be resisted without a monumental effort of character, don't we have to consider the overall tangible detriment to society? Otherwise who will run the factories, consume movies, operate the power plants, and breed the next generation of (hopefully higher-character) children, etc? I don't mean to be crass about it, but isn't that what it amounts to?

 

Put another way, I guess what I'm suggesting is sure, go ahead and legalize marijuana. But at the same time, let's decide as a society that the reason we're not also legalizing heroin (etc) is for the benefit of society, NOT because of the kind of moral hypocrisy that played a role in keeping marijuana illegal for so long.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[Phi for All]

Here's the problem: What if we live in a society in which most people fail tests of character, and we just don't know it because they haven't had access? And what if there's nothing we can do about that lack of character in the short term? Do we (a) give the masses a way to make things worse and bring us all down to a deeper level of fail, or (b) steer them clear of that danger while we build up their character to a place where they can resist that sort of thing? In a sense, aren't we choosing (a) without ever really trying the second half of (b)?

Well, with the access they have now and a hideous lack of education, the government statistics show that only about 4% of the people who've tried crack become regular users (per the Jacob Sullum article ParanoiA linked to in post #58). Only 2% for meth users and similar numbers for heroin. This tells me that our nation's character is pretty good in this regard. Legalize drugs and use the prison money saved and new taxes earned on real education and I'll bet the statistics will remain about the same. I can live with numbers like that for "highly addictive drugs".

[bascule]

Something of note: Portugal completely abolished all laws against possession of any drug (including heroin, meth, coke, etc). Rather than spending money jailing drug abusers, the country invested in therapy programs to help drug abusers kick the habit.

 

The program has been a success by all measures, and as a result of the new laws drug use actually dropped (contrary to the popular assumption that legalizing drugs will lead to massively increased usage).

 

Would the same thing happen if we legalized drugs in America? It's hard to say...

[Sisyphus]

Sure but it's not much of an entertainment drug, though, right? Personally I've never been able to detect any physiological impact from caffeine -- none of any kind. But I know people do "take" caffeine for the perception of wake-up or increased energy, so maybe it's just me.

 

Really? I think it is just you. Maybe you just don't notice because the effects of moderate use (i.e., feeling alert and upbeat) aren't generally outside ordinary experience?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Effects_when_taken_in_moderation

 

And while it's very common to "medicate" with it, I wouldn't say it's not recreational, too. I enjoy it various forms, and decaf is definitely not the same.

[padren]

Here's the problem: What if we live in a society in which most people fail tests of character, and we just don't know it because they haven't had access? And what if there's nothing we can do about that lack of character in the short term? Do we (a) give the masses a way to make things worse and bring us all down to a deeper level of fail, or (b) steer them clear of that danger while we build up their character to a place where they can resist that sort of thing? In a sense, aren't we choosing (a) without ever really trying the second half of (b)?

 

I realize that's predicated on a big "if", and that what's being suggested here is the legalization of marijuana, not heroin, but if the power of some drugs is such that, once taken, they cannot be resisted without a monumental effort of character, don't we have to consider the overall tangible detriment to society? Otherwise who will run the factories, consume movies, operate the power plants, and breed the next generation of (hopefully higher-character) children, etc? I don't mean to be crass about it, but isn't that what it amounts to?

 

Put another way, I guess what I'm suggesting is sure, go ahead and legalize marijuana. But at the same time, let's decide as a society that the reason we're not also legalizing heroin (etc) is for the benefit of society, NOT because of the kind of moral hypocrisy that played a role in keeping marijuana illegal for so long.

 

Well, when marijuana does get legalized, Marlboro starts producing chronic packs and inevitably buys up Doritos - will we trust them any more than when Big Tobacco was getting sued left and right for advertising to minors and such? Even if you don't see people smoking on TV like you used to, there will be the 15-18 TV shows that even now appear to cater exclusively to the really frick'n high crowd sponsored by their subsidiary snack franchises.

 

It's not individual character that concerns me so much as the macro scale issues of parents letting their kids be babysat by the television and total disregard for corporate conduct (being against their conduct, without actually applying legislative pressure to change the conduct is still complicity) that worries me.

 

This is a highly anecdotal biased opinion on my part and not something I am mentioning as objective fact, but it's really the area of this topic I find most concerning. While I don't think it warrants the illegal status of marijuana our current self destructive love affair with fast food with no regard for the health effects does at least raise in my mind, that you may have a valid point.

[bascule]

I realize that's predicated on a big "if", and that what's being suggested here is the legalization of marijuana, not heroin, but if the power of some drugs is such that, once taken, they cannot be resisted without a monumental effort of character, don't we have to consider the overall tangible detriment to society? Otherwise who will run the factories, consume movies, operate the power plants, and breed the next generation of (hopefully higher-character) children, etc?

 

Except marijuana is less addictive than alcohol, alcohol is legal, and society still operates. There are many surgeons, pilots, crane operators, etc. who are addicted to alcohol, but this addiction doesn't impair their day job, because they do their day job while sober and drink during their time off.

[Pangloss]

Really? I think it is just you. Maybe you just don't notice because the effects of moderate use (i.e., feeling alert and upbeat) aren't generally outside ordinary experience?

 

Yah could be. I'll happily remove myself from the data set, then. Too bad I can't assume I'm also immune to more serious drugs.

 

 

Well, with the access they have now and a hideous lack of education, the government statistics show that only about 4% of the people who've tried crack become regular users (per the Jacob Sullum article ParanoiA linked to in post #58). Only 2% for meth users and similar numbers for heroin. This tells me that our nation's character is pretty good in this regard. Legalize drugs and use the prison money saved and new taxes earned on real education and I'll bet the statistics will remain about the same. I can live with numbers like that for "highly addictive drugs".

 

If it's accurate. Asking people whether they're addicted doesn't really strike me as the best way of determining whether they are.

 

Are there any quantitative studies on addiction rates? (I don't know, maybe they could base it on something physiological?)