LEGALIZE IT

[ConstantineX]

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

An Excerpt:
Science Daily — The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

More information! (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm)

A toke to science and progress! Let's hope more research is done, and the ban is finally lifted.

[Woolygimp]

I think there is some merit to legalizing marijuana, but as far as the other drugs including some the anxiety and depression medications such as Xanax should remain illegal.

I really don't feel like getting into an argument, but I've got plenty of personal experience to back up my claim.

Marijuana is somewhat harmless. Heroin, Cocaine, X, and Meth are not.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

An Excerpt:
Science Daily — The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

More information!

A toke to science and progress! Let's hope more research is done, and the ban is finally lifted.



[/ QUOTE ]

After becoming saddened after reading Phil153's many very good posts on the problems with marijuana, I am now joyful to hear this news. It seems strange to me that anything that brings such joy to a person could be so horribly bad. Sort of like the revelations of red wine were to me and indeed tea. I am eagerly awaiting the day that I am told that cocaine is as healthy for me as vitamin C.

[m_the0ry]

Substances are incredibly powerful tools. Each one has a responsible and an irresponsible use. Drugs are agents of social darwinism as they weed out the people who cannot responsibly live in a privileged environment.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Substances are incredibly powerful tools. Each one has a responsible and an irresponsible use. Drugs are agents of social darwinism as they weed out the people who cannot responsibly live in a privileged environment.



[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, what good does this social Darwinism do? Idiots that can’t handle drugs responsibly just give the rest of us a bad reputation and cause problems for us. In the meantime, nothing weeds them out. Nutty addicts, at least in California where I came from, are remanded to mental health upon arrest. They don’t even go to jail. Often they are out in 48 (or how many statutory ) hours they must be held for. Then they are back on the streets bugging the rest of society for money.

[chezlaw]

legalise em all.

[ QUOTE ]
Marijuana is somewhat harmless. Heroin, Cocaine, X, and Meth are not.

[/ QUOTE ]
harmfulness has nothing to do with it.

chez

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
harmfulness has nothing to do with it.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this, and I know you are being logical, but could you please elaborate. I find this discussion interesting.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
harmfulness has nothing to do with it.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this, and I know you are being logical, but could you please elaborate. I find this discussion interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we were going by any reasonable measure of harm then there would be no prohibition at all - prohibition is disasterously harmful for everyone except organised criminals.

Drugs are banned for authoritarian reasons or because there's some (mind-numbing stupid imo) idea that 'if we don't ban it then we're sayings its okay to take drugs'.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
legalise em all.

[ QUOTE ]
Marijuana is somewhat harmless. Heroin, Cocaine, X, and Meth are not.

[/ QUOTE ]
harmfulness has nothing to do with it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to make this point. I really don't know why people in favor of legalization insist on arguing it on the grounds of health impact. It makes me extremely leery of their motivation, and implies that they have the exact same mentality as the anti-legalization people, they just draw their line a little further along.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
harmfulness has nothing to do with it.

chez


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this, and I know you are being logical, but could you please elaborate. I find this discussion interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we were going by any reasonable measure of harm then there would be no prohibition at all - prohibition is disasterously harmful for everyone except organised criminals.

Drugs are banned for authoritarian reasons or because there's some (mind-numbing stupid imo) idea that 'if we don't ban it then we're sayings its okay to take drugs'.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, the drug debate and the gay marriage debate share one thing, in that they reveal this stupefying fear of being permissive. Is the slippery slope really that convincing to that many people?

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Substances are incredibly powerful tools. Each one has a responsible and an irresponsible use. Drugs are agents of social darwinism as they weed out the people who cannot responsibly live in a privileged environment.



[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, what good does this social Darwinism do? Idiots that can’t handle drugs responsibly just give the rest of us a bad reputation and cause problems for us. In the meantime, nothing weeds them out. Nutty addicts, at least in California where I came from, are remanded to mental health upon arrest. They don’t even go to jail. Often they are out in 48 (or how many statutory ) hours they must be held for. Then they are back on the streets bugging the rest of society for money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Social darwinism is incredibly important because there aren't any predators that separate the weak from the strong. Because our society has progressed to where mental capacity is more important than being able to fight off a lion effectively, darwinism must manifest itself as social penalties for making incorrect decisions. As for what good it does, drug addicts don't/can't have children that will prosper and are fertile.

[soon2bepro]

Doesn't work that way. Darwinian evolution no longer happens in humans nowadays.

As Richard Dawkins <u>explains</u> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAXYb8n3KFM), evolution needs thousands of years of continuous natural selection for any relevant change to happen. Nowadays the traits that make some of us survive longer and/or have more offspring than the others changes so fast that evolution has no time to adapt. These factors can change over the course of a couple generations or even less, whereas evolution would probably need at least 150 generations for any relevant change to happen.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't work that way. Darwinian evolution no longer happens in humans nowadays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, this is a pretty common misunderstanding even among the educated.

[ QUOTE ]
As Richard Dawkins <u>explains</u> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAXYb8n3KFM), evolution needs thousands of years of continuous natural selection for any relevant change to happen. Nowadays the traits that make some of us survive longer and/or have more offspring than the others changes so fast that evolution has no time to adapt. These factors can change over the course of a couple generations or even less, whereas evolution would probably need at least 150 generations for any relevant change to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

While many traits and species have taken a tremendous amount of time to evolve, it does not mean that all evolution works on the same timescale.

Also, you may want to rephrase or explain "changes so fast that evolution has no time to adapt." because I am having trouble with it.

And where did you get the 150 generations number from?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Idiots that can’t handle drugs responsibly just give the rest of us a bad reputation and cause problems for us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Give us a bad reputation? To who, other animals? Aliens? As Chez points out, black markets for illegal drugs do more harm for us then drug users could ever do.
[ QUOTE ]
Nutty addicts, at least in California where I came from, are remanded to mental health upon arrest. They don’t even go to jail. Often they are out in 48 (or how many statutory ) hours they must be held for.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then get rid of such organizations if they aren't doing their stated purpose. In a free market this is relatively easy, with government provided services not so much.
[ QUOTE ]
Then they are back on the streets bugging the rest of society for money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Legalization would make drugs a lot cheaper. I've never seen someone beg for money to feed their cigarette habit while they've been legal. Anywhere you make them illegal however (or put really high taxes on selling them legally) black markets come in, and prices rise.

Regardless, privatization of streets solves this problem.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Social darwinism is incredibly important because there aren't any predators that separate the weak from the strong. Because our society has progressed to where mental capacity is more important than being able to fight off a lion effectively, darwinism must manifest itself as social penalties for making incorrect decisions. As for what good it does, drug addicts don't/can't have children that will prosper and are fertile.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, based on this logic, drug abusers are being selected against and therefore drug abuse should be extinct soon?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
While many traits and species have taken a tremendous amount of time to evolve, it does not mean that all evolution works on the same timescale.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about humans beings. You may get some minor change over 2 or 3 generations, but it doesn't stick or expand if the natural selection process isn't kept for many many generations.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, you may want to rephrase or explain "changes so fast that evolution has no time to adapt." because I am having trouble with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that because of enviromental, technological and cultural changes, in a few generations time, the genes that made the fittest may now make for the weakest, or whatever. So the genes don't keep getting passed on more than the others the way it does in darwinian evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
And where did you get the 150 generations number from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, that was off the top of my head, but from my understanding of evolution, a couple of generations or even a couple dozen just aren't enough for any relevant evolutionary change to take place.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is some merit to legalizing marijuana, but as far as the other drugs including some the anxiety and depression medications such as Xanax should remain illegal.

I really don't feel like getting into an argument, but I've got plenty of personal experience to back up my claim.

Marijuana is somewhat harmless. Heroin, Cocaine, X, and Meth are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how I can easily, safely, and legally buy benzos off the internet, but have to scrounge around forever to find a friend with a shady pot connection...wtf?

(It's not the same after college /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[Rduke55]

So why aren't humans evolving anymore?
When did this happen?

SOme researchers think if anything, it's been speeding up recently.

[ QUOTE ]
the genes that made the fittest may now make for the weakest, or whatever. So the genes don't keep getting passed on more than the others the way it does in darwinian evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

But since those "weakest" traits aren't being selected against, doesn't that just mean something like that they're more neutral in our current environment? This is not in opposition to darwinian theory.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, that was off the top of my head, but from my understanding of evolution, a couple of generations or even a couple dozen just aren't enough for any relevant evolutionary change to take place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Think about isolated populations. Think about drastic changes in the environent. Think about disease resistance, metabolic changes, population migrations, etc.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't work that way. Darwinian evolution no longer happens in humans nowadays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, this is a pretty common misunderstanding even among the educated.

[ QUOTE ]
As Richard Dawkins <u>explains</u> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAXYb8n3KFM), evolution needs thousands of years of continuous natural selection for any relevant change to happen. Nowadays the traits that make some of us survive longer and/or have more offspring than the others changes so fast that evolution has no time to adapt. These factors can change over the course of a couple generations or even less, whereas evolution would probably need at least 150 generations for any relevant change to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

While many traits and species have taken a tremendous amount of time to evolve, it does not mean that all evolution works on the same timescale.

Also, you may want to rephrase or explain "changes so fast that evolution has no time to adapt." because I am having trouble with it.

And where did you get the 150 generations number from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, even for slow-acting change, its not like it just hums along for a few hundred thousand years and then presto, evolutionary change. Of COURSE evolution is still 'working in humans.' How could it not? Its working in all things that are imperfect replicators, at all times.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
SOme researchers think if anything, it's been speeding up recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd definitely like to know more about that. Can you cite any sources?

[ QUOTE ]
But since those "weakest" traits aren't being selected against, doesn't that just mean something like that they're more neutral in our current environment? This is not in opposition to darwinian theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of they are being selected against, some aren't. But As long as they're not strongly being selected for, they won't survice and reproduce more than the other genes, which is what makes large evolutionary changes possible.

I feel kind of stupid explaining this to you, because I'm sure you already understand it, but it seems to me like maybe you making a mistake along the line. A major evolutionary change only happens after many, many generations of small steps towards it. Natural selection is what drives a population towards this particular change. Be it longer legs, more accurate vision, larger brain capacity, or whatever. If completely different traits are selected for in every consecutive generation, you're not going to get very far, because over a single generation there's so little that can reasonably mutate without dramatically altering the chances of survival. So if any major evolutionary change is to naturally take place in such an scenario, it'll be on based on random chance alone, not natural selection.

[ QUOTE ]
Why not? Think about isolated populations. Think about drastic changes in the environent. Think about disease resistance, metabolic changes, population migrations, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of these happen often enough on a large scale, nor make for a major change to be selected for. I guess a major event like an extremely contagious, world wide, short-term mortal disease or a severe change in all of earth's natural enviroment could change the way things are going, but that's not the point.

Did you watch the video? Really, Dawkins is a much better professor than I am. And you don't seem to be attacking my arguments (or his for that matter).

[AlexM]

Marijuana vs. cancer = old news

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000228/marijuanas-active-ingredient-targets-deadly-brain-cancer

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

Doesn't work that way. Darwinian evolution no longer happens in humans nowadays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Baldwin effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_effect) for the win!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Doesn't work that way. Darwinian evolution no longer happens in humans nowadays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Baldwin effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_effect) for the win!

[/ QUOTE ]

Dawkins talks about a concept of the 'evolution of evolutionability.' This reminded me of that.

[soon2bepro]

it doesn't work that way at all because nowadays being a better learner doesn't mean you'll survive longer and it especially doesn't mean that you'll have the greatest number of offspring /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
it doesn't work that way at all because nowadays being a better learner doesn't mean you'll survive longer and it especially doesn't mean that you'll have the greatest number of offspring /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you can say that no traits will be consistently selected over enough generations to cause any change in frequency. I don't know if there are or not, but I don't see how you can just dismiss it. A possible candidate: the desire to have as many children as possible. In many populations, this would be selected against, because you are less likely to have grandchildren if your birth your way to starvation. But human populations haven't been like this for a while, and there is no reason to think they will be in the future. I'd also think that the qualities that allow people to successfully attract fit mates are pretty homogenous over time, its just the more superficial ones that change with the trends. Bear in mind that nice cars, a good job, nice clothes, are all really representations of the same skill and attribute.

[soon2bepro]

Do you really think people with nice cars, good jobs and nice clothes are the ones who have the largest number of offspring? Think again...

Anyway. In some general senses maybe there can be progress (though much slower that it'd be in the wild), but it's clearly not going to be like this for most specific, unique traits. So no major changes will happen naturally. Even if they do, they'd take so long by that time humans will have probably altered themselves enough to make that change irrelevant.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think people with nice cars, good jobs and nice clothes are the ones who have the largest number of offspring? Think again...

Anyway. In some general senses maybe there can be progress (though much slower that it'd be in the wild), but it's clearly not going to be like this for most specific, unique traits. So no major changes will happen naturally. Even if they do, they'd take so long by that time humans will have probably altered themselves enough to make that change irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The speed of the change is usually proportional to the strength of the selection pressure. I would probably agree, intuitively at least, that humans are subject to far fewer and far weaker selection pressures than most animals.

Also, yes, I do think those are the people having the most kids. I don't mean the Fortune 500 CEO's, I mean the 23 year old with the Trans-Am and the boss tats.

[CallMeIshmael]

Soon,

Evolution != natural selection

Evolution = changes in gene frequencies = natural seletion + genetic drift + mutation + sexual selection + recombination + probably a few other things not on the top of my head


Now, even if we assume that natural selection is 100% gone for humans, that doesnt preclude evolution from happening


However, I believe the assumtion that natural selection is 100% gone for humans stands on very shaky ground. It is most certainly NOT true is certain parts of the world where resources are still limited.

However, even in our society there are still many possible ways that NS could be acting. Random examples off the top of my head:

- Aversion to fatty foods...fatty foods once presented a great benefit to our ancestors leading them to enjoy thier taste, however their abundance in our culture now renders this trait unfavourable; are people who dislike fatty foods more likely to live to procreation? Are they more likely to be able to find mates? Perhaps, perhaps not.

- What about intelligence? Intelligent people today often choose to remain in an adolescent type phase until their mid-20s (college grads, perhaps beyond), while the less intelligent often procreate at a much younger age.
(http://www.jstor.org/view/00223808/di950958/95p0009z/0) shows a negative correlation between education and fertility. Intelligence itself correlates with the decision to pursue more education. Does this mean intelligence is at a relative fitness disadvantage? Perhaps, perhaps not. There could be many outside factors.


These are just two examples off the top of my head, and I dont claim that either are all that great. But there is certainly much room for natural selection, even in our environment.

[latefordinner]

I love it when people clim that evolution isnt working because traits they don't like aren't being selected against as if they could know in advance what traits are useful or not

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd definitely like to know more about that. Can you cite any sources?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gregory Cochran has something coming out about it. Bruce Lahn talks about it in the brain a lot, especially relevant here is the ASPM gene 6000 years ago. Also there are some indicators that brain size is changing as well (getting smaller surprisingly) but that's pretty new.



[ QUOTE ]
But As long as they're not strongly being selected for, they won't survice and reproduce more than the other genes, which is what makes large evolutionary changes possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depending on population size neutral variants can hang around a long time.

[ QUOTE ]
but it seems to me like maybe you making a mistake along the line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure I'm not. Someone asked me about why I don't like the preponderance of Dawkins in the popular evolution literature and this thread gives a pretty good example why. soon2bepro seems pretty intelligent and clearly has thought about these things but it seems like Dawkins is essentially his only source on evolution so he has a biased and very narrow view about how evolution works.

[ QUOTE ]
A major evolutionary change only happens after many, many generations of small steps towards it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it can happen a lot faster than you think it does. Mayr's work on speciation, Eldridge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium kind of introduced this idea (although even in Darwin's writings there was some discussion of something like it), Dawkins talks about things like this (he referred to "variable speedism" - PE being one type) in The Blind Watchmaker (someone correct me if I'm citing the wrong book - it's been a while).

Why do you think that it needs to take so long for changes?

Also, I'm having trouble reconcinling some of your views. Ignoring "quick" evolutionary change for a moment, you said that evolutionary change, specifically with natural selection, takes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of years, (and I agree with you for a lot of stuff) however, then you state that humans are not being acted on by natural selection - but this view is is based on what? Forty (or less, depending on who you are talking to) thousand years? How would you know that based on such a small snip of evolutionary time.

[ QUOTE ]
If completely different traits are selected for in every consecutive generation

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean here or how it's related to my views. I'm not talking about one generation (although some sunflowers are thoguht to have speciated in a few dozen generations).

[ QUOTE ]
So if any major evolutionary change is to naturally take place in such an scenario, it'll be on based on random chance alone, not natural selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you referring to when you talk about "random chance"?

[ QUOTE ]
None of these happen often enough on a large scale, nor make for a major change to be selected for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whaaa?!?!? Populations of people don't move around that much? (there have been several major migrations to the US in the past 500 years or so that have drastically changed allele frequencies in the population)

There haven't been disease epi- and pandemics over the past fivehundred years that have removed large portions of the population and drastically changed allele frequencies?


Also, look at this for some ideas:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/05/30_aids.html
[ QUOTE ]
I guess a major event like an extremely contagious, world wide, short-term mortal disease or a severe change in all of earth's natural enviroment could change the way things are going, but that's not the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution = changes in gene frequencies

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is what a lot of people don't seem to get.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]

The speed of the change is usually proportional to the strength of the selection pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget population size! (which is often inversely correlated with selection pressure - but we can't ignore drift, etc.)

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The speed of the change is usually proportional to the strength of the selection pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget population size! (which is often inversely correlated with selection pressure - but we can't ignore drift, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

wow...this discussion went adrift! But now that we're here, I may as well point out this: Chimps 'more evolved' than humans (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/416/1)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The speed of the change is usually proportional to the strength of the selection pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget population size! (which is often inversely correlated with selection pressure - but we can't ignore drift, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, and I apologize for the omittance.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you watch the video? Really, Dawkins is a much better professor than I am. And you don't seem to be attacking my arguments (or his for that matter).

[/ QUOTE ]

I watched the video. Dawkins says that he cannot predict how humans might evolve, and that most likely we will become extinct without evolving into a new species, as do most species.

He talks briefly about how medical advances have removed some selection pressure from humans, but admits that if a genetic variation underlies a cause for some part of the population to have more offspring, then that is natural selection at work. Then he goes on to dismiss that as unlikely because of the rapidly changing social and cultural environment that humans have created for themselves.

His dismissal is not convincing to me in the least.

I'll tie this back to the original post on drugs. There is a strong natural tendency for humans to use drugs. Prohibiting drug use simply leads to black markets, so I agree with the legalization crowd.

That natural tendency to use drugs is tied to our genetic makeup, and some people have it strongly, some people don't. This genetic basis is subject to natural selection.

Now, tell me this: who is more likely to pop out a bunch of babies: someone with the tendency to drink alcohol and use other drugs, or someone without that tendency. I think that it is clear that the sub-population that is more likely to be under the influence of alcohol/drugs is more likely to have unprotected sex resulting in multiple unplanned babies.

Natural selection for alcoholism has probably been at work ever since humans first brewed beer. No wonder I like it so much.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
As for what good it does, drug addicts don't/can't have children that will prosper and are fertile.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this? From what I've seen, drug addicted women seem to be more likely to have children than women who are not addicts. And these women are more likely to have more children than women who are more prosperous.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Legalization would make drugs a lot cheaper. I've never seen someone beg for money to feed their cigarette habit while they've been legal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that legalization will make the prices will come down, but you'll still end up with people begging on the streets for their next "fix" (not for marijuana, of course, but for "harder" drugs). For instance, a meth addict has a very hard time keeping a job, and would still need to beg for money if the prices were to come down.

Alcohol is legal, but there are plenty of winos begging on the street, trying to scrounge together enough for their next bottle.

I'm all for legalization, but not because I believe that it will have much effect on the number of beggars on the street.

[Friedrich888]

any change that occurs in less time than one generation is not going to be dealt with by biological evolution but by social evolution. Social Darwinism is the unproven idea that social evolution and biological evolution operate in the same manner. If anything we have very many social customs that are designed to prevent social darwinism from occurring. All welfare programs for example.

[godBoy]

A lethal injection would absolutely cease the ability of a cancer to spread.

I think more research needs to be done - so that people can receive the benefits of a drug without the other effects.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think more research needs to be done - so that people can receive the benefits of a drug without the other effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like "enjoying themselves"?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
A lethal injection would absolutely cease the ability of a cancer to spread.

I think more research needs to be done - so that people can receive the benefits of a drug without the other effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very little research can be done so long as it is outlawed. What research that does exist quite clearly shows that candy bars and alcohol are far worse for you. And I don't smoke pot, but pretending it's so lethal, addictive, or harmful is ignoring reality.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I love it when people clim that evolution isnt working because traits they don't like aren't being selected against as if they could know in advance what traits are useful or not

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great quote /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[spino1i]

I think marijuana is a very harmful drug -- I have seen firsthand what it can do to people's personalities. It just sort of turns everyone lazy and they never do anything with their lives. I do not think it should ever be legalized, I think that would harm the world a lot.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think marijuana is a very harmful drug -- I have seen firsthand what it can do to people's personalities. It just sort of turns everyone lazy and they never do anything with their lives. I do not think it should ever be legalized, I think that would harm the world a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of personal choices in this world are harmful. Why do you single out cannabis to prohibit? Why not prohibit other harmful behaviors? Surely you advocate for prohibition of tobacco, which is a proven mass killer, if you advocate prohibition of cannabis? Do you advocate prohibition of over sized unhealthy fast-food meals? Those will kill you too, likely faster than cannabis will. Perhaps we should prohibit lazy behavior in general, since it seems to offend you so.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think marijuana is a very harmful drug -- I have seen firsthand what it can do to people's personalities. It just sort of turns everyone lazy and they never do anything with their lives. I do not think it should ever be legalized, I think that would harm the world a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you're entitled to a species comprised of hard workers for your benefit, right?

[Benjamin]

The first large study done to investigate the effects of decriminalization in the Netherlands on cannabis use found the same level of use there as in San Francisco. Story (http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html)

[ QUOTE ]
“In the United States, marijuana policy is based on the assertion that strict penalties are the best way to inhibit use,” said Reinarman.

The study’s findings cast doubt on that scenario, he said. Despite widespread lawful availability of cannabis in Amsterdam, there were no differences between the two cities in age at onset of use, age at first regular use, or age at the start of maximum use.

The study found no evidence that lawfully regulated cannabis provides a “gateway” to other illicit drug use. In fact, marijuana users in San Francisco were far more likely to have used other illicit drugs--cocaine, crack, amphetamines, ecstasy, and opiates--than users in Amsterdam, said Reinarman.

“The results of this study shift the burden of proof now to those who would arrest hundreds of thousands of Americans each year on the grounds that it deters use,” said Reinarman.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have been spending tens of billions of dollars every year since the 1980s on the Drug War. It has had no effect on the availability of drugs. Availability and quality of cannabis in particular is better than in the 1980s, by far, despite the massive amount of money spent waging war on the millions of citizens in the US who partake.

What exactly is the point of this war? It continues because the jobs of the bureaucrats, law officers, prison keepers and builders, and elected officials depend on it.

It is a destructive waste of money that fuels the black market and criminalizes a large portion of our population. It needs to be stopped.

[Benjamin]

Another study (http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/korf-e.htm) on the Dutch decriminalization policy found no problems compared to other European countries which have a prohibition policy like the UK.

[ QUOTE ]
From international comparison, it is concluded that trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. Consequently, it appears unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use.

The vast majority of cannabis users has never tried hard drugs. Moreover, with regard to the problematic use of opiates and drug related health problems, the Netherlands ranks relatively low within the European Union.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
It just sort of turns everyone lazy and they never do anything with their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Error of correlation versus causation.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It just sort of turns everyone lazy and they never do anything with their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Error of correlation versus causation.

[/ QUOTE ]
also a judgemental error. Being lazy and never doing anything with you life sounds pretty good to me. What am I supposed to do with it? and why is some sort of frenetic activity a good thing?

chez

[m_the0ry]

Given that we make the sweeping (and incorrect) assumption that marijuana makes anyone who smokes it lazy and inactive;

Hypothetical,

Bob just got aquitted of rape because of lack of evidence but just like O.J., everyone knows he committed the crime. Furthermore, he expressed no remorse for the victim and explicitly stated in a book he wrote that he 'hypothetically' wanted to rape more people.

Bob gets very lazy and does nothing when he smokes marijuana.

Should Bob be allowed to smoke marijuana?


;;;;;;;

Hypothetical,

Mary is an anorexic. She has no appetite and constantly does aerobics because of a hopeless addiction to endorphin. Doctors have warned her, to no avail, that she is causing damage to her body because of malnutrition and overexercising.

When she smokes marijuana, she gets hungry and lazy.

Should Mary be allowed to smoke marijuana?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that we make the sweeping (and incorrect) assumption that marijuana makes anyone who smokes it lazy and inactive;

Hypothetical,

Bob just got aquitted of rape because of lack of evidence but just like O.J., everyone knows he committed the crime. Furthermore, he expressed no remorse for the victim and explicitly stated in a book he wrote that he 'hypothetically' wanted to rape more people.

Bob gets very lazy and does nothing when he smokes marijuana.

Should Bob be allowed to smoke marijuana?


;;;;;;;

Hypothetical,

Mary is an anorexic. She has no appetite and constantly does aerobics because of a hopeless addiction to endorphin. Doctors have warned her, to no avail, that she is causing damage to her body because of malnutrition and overexercising.

When she smokes marijuana, she gets hungry and lazy.

Should Mary be allowed to smoke marijuana?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Yes.

As to the first question:

I believe that seized marijuana ought to be rolled into joints and supplied to persons in prison. They would get what they want and the prisons would be less violent places.

It always amazes me that Hollywood persists in portraying marijuana as a violence inducing drug. For example, in Eyes Wide Shut, Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are having a perfectly happy conversation until they share a joint, then they get into an all out fight. In reality, I’ve never seen this happen with marijuana.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I think marijuana is a very harmful drug -- I have seen firsthand what it can do to people's personalities. It just sort of turns everyone lazy and they never do anything with their lives. I do not think it should ever be legalized, I think that would harm the world a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people do respond to marijuana this way. Others only use the drug during leisure time and lead normal, productive lives.

Some people who use alcohol beat their wives, drive drunk all the time and can't hold a job (or don't even try).

In spite of what you may have been told, some people use cocaine responsibly. Not everybody who uses cocaine becomes an addict, although cocaine is a pretty addictive drug.

Some people devote their entire lives to surfing or skiing, to the point that they never hold a steady job, or hold only menial jobs way below what their abilities would allow. Does this mean surfing and skiing should be banned?

Drug laws are the result of the fallacious belief that, if we think the world would be better off if a particular substance didn't exist, we can legislate it out of existence.

What actually happens is that a black market develops, usually with a considerably higher price than the commodity would have if it were legal, and it becomes a cash cow for the criminal element. Because a drug dealer who gets ripped off can't call the police, the only way for the dealer to deal with getting ripped off is violence, so generally the drug trade ends up in the hands of the most ruthlessly violent dealers.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
What actually happens is that a black market develops, usually with a considerably higher price than the commodity would have if it were legal, and it becomes a cash cow for the criminal element. Because a drug dealer who gets ripped off can't call the police, the only way for the dealer to deal with getting ripped off is violence, so generally the drug trade ends up in the hands of the most ruthlessly violent dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would think that we would have learned from our experience with alcohol prohibition. It really is amazing how the Drug War blights our society.

And yet, people still nod in agreement when the politicians and the police chiefs get up on the podium about how we need to crack down on drugs, and how important it is to allocate X million (or billion in total) dollars in tax money. They arrest and imprison a segment of our population. At the same time they convert poor neighborhoods to black market war zones.

Then they use the presence of the black market war zones to justify spending another 1.2X million dollars the next year.

[CORed]

Another thing. Methamphetamine is arguably the most destructive drug in common usage. It is fairly easy to make, but it's manufacture involves the use of flammable liquids, corrosive chemicals and poisonous gases. So, given that there are people around stupid enough to use the stuff, where would you prefer it to be manufactured: In a chemical plant in an industrial area, by people who know how to handle hazardous materials safely, or in the apartment next door to yours, by a brain-damaged addict who doesn't have sense enough not to spill a can of Coleman fuel next to the water heater?

[johnnyrocket]

yesss, def legalize it

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing. Methamphetamine is arguably the most destructive drug in common usage. It is fairly easy to make, but it's manufacture involves the use of flammable liquids, corrosive chemicals and poisonous gases. So, given that there are people around stupid enough to use the stuff, where would you prefer it to be manufactured: In a chemical plant in an industrial area, by people who know how to handle hazardous materials safely, or in the apartment next door to yours, by a brain-damaged addict who doesn't have sense enough not to spill a can of Coleman fuel next to the water heater?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. This is true. Undoubtedly, with a hypothetical liberalization of drug policy, its manafucture would be industrial. But this would require a much greater overhaul of government, indeed, of the psyche of the American people. It concerns the ethics of the thing - how could the FDA reconcile the fact that industry was selling a dangerous and potentially lethal product? Surely it can't be regulated as a typical pharmaceutical drug, because one is using it for pleasure, not healing. Even the advantages of an industrial approach would pale, to same people, in comparison with stomaching the fact that the gonvernment was essentially condoning the distribution and sale of poison (which IMO meth is). For alcohol, we gloss over the fact by believing that alcohol is dangerous, but only in EXCESS (and excess generally requires a long, protracted history). This sort of dissonance cannot work for crystal meth - far too many communities and scientists are aware of how dangerous the drug is. I can't just pick up a capsule of potassium cyanide for personal use, either. If this sort of paternalistic sentiment faded, fundamentally the US would quite a different incarnation of what it is now, in all sorts of political spheres. You have to appreciate that.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Undoubtedly, with a hypothetical liberalization of drug policy, its manafucture would be industrial.

[/ QUOTE ]

More importantly, with higher-quality, safer, cheaper imported drugs, fewer people will even want meth.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another thing. Methamphetamine is arguably the most destructive drug in common usage. It is fairly easy to make, but it's manufacture involves the use of flammable liquids, corrosive chemicals and poisonous gases. So, given that there are people around stupid enough to use the stuff, where would you prefer it to be manufactured: In a chemical plant in an industrial area, by people who know how to handle hazardous materials safely, or in the apartment next door to yours, by a brain-damaged addict who doesn't have sense enough not to spill a can of Coleman fuel next to the water heater?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. This is true. Undoubtedly, with a hypothetical liberalization of drug policy, its manafucture would be industrial. But this would require a much greater overhaul of government, indeed, of the psyche of the American people. It concerns the ethics of the thing - how could the FDA reconcile the fact that industry was selling a dangerous and potentially lethal product? Surely it can't be regulated as a typical pharmaceutical drug, because one is using it for pleasure, not healing. Even the advantages of an industrial approach would pale, to same people, in comparison with stomaching the fact that the gonvernment was essentially condoning the distribution and sale of poison (which IMO meth is). For alcohol, we gloss over the fact by believing that alcohol is dangerous, but only in EXCESS (and excess generally requires a long, protracted history). This sort of dissonance cannot work for crystal meth - far too many communities and scientists are aware of how dangerous the drug is. I can't just pick up a capsule of potassium cyanide for personal use, either. If this sort of paternalistic sentiment faded, fundamentally the US would quite a different incarnation of what it is now, in all sorts of political spheres. You have to appreciate that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a lot of these objections are more traditionalist than anything else. They are using it for pleasure, rather than healing? There is no line separating the two. All medical treatments are ultimately geared towards alleviating suffering and increasing pleasure. Why must you have some subnormal function of some system before you are entitled to suffering-reducers or pleasure-enhancers? We could ALWAYS be happier, or suffer less. The person with cancer suffers more than I do, to be sure, but it isn't as if there is a digital categorization here.

A large number of medications (most? all?) are poisons. Chemotherapy meds are the most obvious example. Yet, we still use them, because, if used carefully, they provide more happiness than suffering. If meth could be used in a similar way (I've never taken meth and I don't know if this is possible) then what is the difference? I will anticipate your response as having something to do with normalizing some subnormal condition. I think this is arbitrary and unimportant.

[m_the0ry]

The DEA and the FBI don't even want America to be drug free. If they did, they would offer to redirect all of the funds to drug education in public schools. There is nothing more effective in preventing hazardous drug use than the truth.

In middle school and high school my home in suburban Oregon (no it's not farmland near Portland, contrary to popular belief) was in a nexus of sorts for meth use. I was oblivious of this until I read a newspaper article outlining how meth was becoming a huge problem. It described how meth triggers only slightly less dopamine than heroin and its stimulant properties made it incredibly addictive. The article included an amazing series of 'before' and 'after' pictures of people who had a file prior to meth use and an updated picture after the meth use. The physical difference was absolutely disgusting and really disturbed me.

I was a freshman in high school and prior to me reading that article methamphetamine was just another drug that was across the magically arbitrary 'illegal' boundary. I had no reason to differentiate between meth and pot because I had heard so little about it. Then it struck me. Why is the media the one distributing drug *facts* and not the government? If the truth is so terrifying that it makes me never ever consider methamphetamine use, why isn't some bureau somewhere barraging me and the rest of the public with the staggering death toll for cigarettes; why doesn't someone just speak the compelling truth about the addictive potential of methamphetamine or cocain or heroin?


Looking back on it, I've learned everything about which drugs NOT to do from erowid.com, research papers, and Requiem for a Dream. I learned nothing from the war on drugs. I learned nothing from dare. And I bet 99% of the people you find addicted to coke or meth had no idea what they were getting themselves into the first time they did it because the government would rather spend billions feeding the 'DEA' and 'FBI' to perform drug raids than educating the public.

The war on drugs is only second to the Iraq War when it comes to the worst policies in the history of western civilization.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that legalization will make the prices will come down, but you'll still end up with people begging on the streets for their next "fix" (not for marijuana, of course, but for "harder" drugs). For instance, a meth addict has a very hard time keeping a job, and would still need to beg for money if the prices were to come down.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but lower prices would cause less people to need to beg for money. I didn't mean to imply begging for drug money would vanish, just that it would be less.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm all for legalization, but not because I believe that it will have much effect on the number of beggars on the street.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same here, just responding to someone whos argument consisted of "don't legalize harder drugs because people who do them end up on the streets begging for drug money".

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Same here, just responding to someone whos argument consisted of "don't legalize harder drugs because people who do them end up on the streets begging for drug money".



[/ QUOTE ]

First, If you think it was I who was arguing that hard drugs shouldn’t be legal because people end up on the streets begging for money, you got it wrong. I only stated the fact. I drew no conclusions from the fact that people beg for money when they want hard drugs.

Now, my real question. Even if the government magically made all drugs legal ( which I support ), why would meth prices come down? Legit companies would sell pot, but no company in their right mind would sell meth. They would be subject to a nightmare of liability issues, and the upside of sales wouldn't be worth it. Where as selling pot, would also have liability issues, but since more people smoke pot, than smoke cigarettes, the upside would be worth it for companies.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, my real question. Even if the government magically made all drugs legal ( which I support ), why would meth prices come down? Legit companies would sell pot, but no company in their right mind would sell meth. They would be subject to a nightmare of liability issues, and the upside of sales wouldn't be worth it. Where as selling pot, would also have liability issues, but since more people smoke pot, than smoke cigarettes, the upside would be worth it for companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

By that logic, why would anyone sell alcohol?

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
It concerns the ethics of the thing - how could the FDA reconcile the fact that industry was selling a dangerous and potentially lethal product?

[/ QUOTE ]

By admitting to themselves that many products and activities are dangerous and potentially lethal.

Tobacco is the most obvious one, but every person's life is fraught with danger.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't just pick up a capsule of potassium cyanide for personal use, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can pick up any number of products that will kill you quickly if you so desire. Guns are an obvious choice.

[CORed]

Well, if I were king, dictator, or whatever, I would have a category of recreational drugs, which would be regulated much like liquor is now, with licensed sellers and manufacturers, and taxed, at least enough to pay for the regulatory apparatus, and maybe enough to generate some net revenue. Also, I might require warning labels. If employers want to test for drugs, and not hire people who use certain drugs, that is their prerogative, likewise if insurance companies want to charge higher life, health, or car insurance premiums, or refuse to insure users of certain drugs entirely.

Also, as I stated before, drug users should be accountable, both criminally and civilly for their behavior while under the influence of drugs. This idea is not for the government to encourage the use of drugs, on the contrary, if they want to run PSA's telling people what the risks of drug use are, as they do now with tobacco, I can live with that. The idea is to acknowledge that some people are going to use drugs, and manage the consequences of that reality in a rational way.

I think the model of how we currently deal with alcohol is a pretty good model for all drugs. We might think the world would be a better place if methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin or alcohol didn't exist (not me in the case of alcohol: They will have to pry my beer bottle from my cold dead hand), but we can't legislate these substances out of existence, so we need to manage them in a rational manner. I agree that politically speaking, it doesn't look like this is going to happen any time soon. The government and folks like the Partnership for a Drug-free America, have done such a good job of brainwashing most people that they can't see that most of the problems related to illegal drugs are the result of the illegality, not the drugs.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It concerns the ethics of the thing - how could the FDA reconcile the fact that industry was selling a dangerous and potentially lethal product?

[/ QUOTE ]

By admitting to themselves that many products and activities are dangerous and potentially lethal.

Tobacco is the most obvious one, but every person's life is fraught with danger.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't just pick up a capsule of potassium cyanide for personal use, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can pick up any number of products that will kill you quickly if you so desire. Guns are an obvious choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just chug a bottle of antifreeze. That'll do the trick.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Marijuana vs. cancer = old news

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000228/marijuanas-active-ingredient-targets-deadly-brain-cancer

[/ QUOTE ]

This apparently breakthrough research on treating cancer is about 7 years old? What's the followup on this? More recently they've discovered it works for some Lung Cancers as well as Brain Cancers? This should be Huge news. Have they been allowed to research this on humans? If so, what were the results? If not, why the hell not?

PairTheBoard

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
First, If you think it was I who was arguing that hard drugs shouldn’t be legal because people end up on the streets begging for money, you got it wrong. I only stated the fact. I drew no conclusions from the fact that people beg for money when they want hard drugs.


[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, you didn't state that, I figured that's what you were implying.
[ QUOTE ]
Even if the government magically made all drugs legal ( which I support ), why would meth prices come down?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's on a black market. They have to spend a lot of money defending themselves from police knocking down their doors. If they get caught dealing they're screwed by current laws. They also don't have access to legitimate arbitration and courts, which usually leads to more violence. They also can't operate in the same effecient manner legitimate businesses can (ie, you don't see sneaker dealers selling shoes on strett corners do you). All of these not only drive up costs and in effect prices, but also the risk associated with dealing. Since there's more risk involved (a) On average more intelligent people move on to legitimate businesses, leaving less intelligent people with on average less efficient business models and (b) those that do participate want more money to make up for the added risk, passing those costs on to the consumer (Would you rather make $50,000 doing something legal or doing something illegal, how much more money would you have to be making to make up for the risk associated with doing something illegal?)
[ QUOTE ]
Legit companies would sell pot, but no company in their right mind would sell meth. They would be subject to a nightmare of liability issues, .

[/ QUOTE ]
What liability issues?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
It's on a black market. They have to spend a lot of money defending themselves from police knocking down their doors. If they get caught dealing they're screwed by current laws. They also don't have access to legitimate arbitration and courts, which usually leads to more violence. They also can't operate in the same effecient manner legitimate businesses can (ie, you don't see sneaker dealers selling shoes on strett corners do you). All of these not only drive up costs and in effect prices, but also the risk associated with dealing. Since there's more risk involved (a) On average more intelligent people move on to legitimate businesses, leaving less intelligent people with on average less efficient business models and (b) those that do participate want more money to make up for the added risk, passing those costs on to the consumer (Would you rather make $50,000 doing something legal or doing something illegal, how much more money would you have to be making to make up for the risk associated with doing something illegal?)


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good reply and answered my question. I actually thought of this after making my post.

[ QUOTE ]
Legit companies would sell pot, but no company in their right mind would sell meth. They would be subject to a nightmare of liability issues, .


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What liability issues?



[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking of liability as a result in defects in marketing. You would have to be extremely careful marketing meth. Any improper instructions or failure to warn people sufficiently would get a company in big trouble. Cigarette companies have been routinely sued. Vendors of Alcohol are routinely sued. It’s just that there is such a demand for Alcohol and cigarettes that the financial reward is greater than the risk of law suit.

I’m assuming this would also be the case for Marijuana, but I’m assuming it would not be for meth. These are big assumptions on my part and I’m pulling them out of my ass. So maybe there wouldn’t be a problem.