Brack O-Bonga? (decrimninalize marijuana)

[cannon_fodder]

***

MH2010:  I realize you are not a spokesmen for the TPD (or whomever you work for) and do not mean to make you into some sort of spokesmen.  Your position is unique on the topic and your profession gives you a valuable insight.  I engaged you simply because you offered the most insightful opinion contrary to my own.

[tim huntzinger]

[DELETED ENTIRE REPLY]

[patric]

A clue as to why enforcement in Oklahoma is completely upside down, from the AP:

'Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs spokesman Mark Woodward says it's "absolutely frightening" that some people are becoming more tolerant of marijuana.

Woodward says he's seen more lives ruined by marijuana than any other drug.'

The person in that position really needs to be looking at meth and out-of-control prescription drugs before making marijuana the priority.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by patric

A clue as to why enforcement in Oklahoma is completely upside down, from the AP:

'Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs spokesman Mark Woodward says it's "absolutely frightening" that some people are becoming more tolerant of marijuana.

Woodward says he's seen more lives ruined by marijuana than any other drug.'

The person in that position really needs to be looking at meth and out-of-control prescription drugs before making marijuana the priority.

I'm no advocate of pot-smoking, but that guy is a frickin' idiot. If he truly believes that (and I think it's more posturing than honesty), he needs to get out more.

[MH2010]

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply but I've been busy.  I don't have alot of time but I will reply as best I can now.  As far as your questions go, I think it would be faster to just cite some of the reasons I think the way I do about marijuana.


The American Cancer Society "does not advocate inhaling smoke, nor the legalization of marijuana," although the organization does support carefully controlled clinical studies for alternative delivery methods, specifically a THC skin patch. In addition, the American Academy of Pediatrics believes that any change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults, could affect the prevalence of use among adolescents. However, it does support scientific research on the possible medical use of cannabinoids as opposed to smoked marijuana.

Research is not "scant". DEA had registered every one of the 163 researchers who requested to use marijuana in studies and who met Department of Health and Human Services standards.  The Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) has conducted studies "to ascertain the general medical safety and efficacy of cannabis and cannabis products and examine alternative forms of cannabis administration." The CMCR currently has 11 on-going studies involving marijuana and the efficacy of cannabis and cannabis compounds as they relate to medical conditions such as HIV, cancer pain, MS, and nausea. Still the American Medical Association does not want to legalize smoking of marijuana.

The American Medical Association continues to reject pleas to endorse marijuana as medicine, and instead has urged that marijuana remain a prohibited, Schedule I controlled substance until more research is done. If the AMA is against legalization then it stands to reason it's a good idea to keep it that way.

If THC is so good, put it in a pill. Smoking marijuana is clearly not a safe delivery system for "cannabinoids".

I also don't understand the whole reasoning of why we should legalize it just because alcohol, tobacco or gambling is legalized. Smoking marijuana is clearly hazardous to everyone's health and has no medical value.  At least you can say alcohol is a blood thinner and ingesting limited amounts of alcohol does have some medical benefit.  Gambling has no effect on you physically it is more of a social concern.

Marijuana is not harmless and it's not because it's illegal.

In 2002, the percentage of young people engaging in delinquent behaviors "rose with [the] increasing frequency of marijuana use." For example, according to a National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) report, 42.2 per cent of youths who smoked marijuana 300 or more days per year and 37.1 per cent of those who did so 50-99 days took part in serious fighting at school or work. Only 18.2 per cent of those who did not use marijuana in the past year engaged in serious fighting.  -Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office of Applied Sciences. "Marijuana Use and Delinquent Behaviors Among Youths." The NSDUH Report. 9 January 2004.


A large shock trauma unit conducting an ongoing study found that 17 per cent (one in six) of crash victims tested positive for marijuana. The rates were slightly higher for crash victims under the age of eighteen, 19 per cent of whom tested positive for marijuana.-  Drugged Driving Poses Serious Safety Risk to Teens; Campaign to Urge Teens to 'Steer Clear of Pot' During National Drunk and Drugged Driving (3D) Prevention Month." PR Newswire. 2 December 2004.

As far as the war on drugs being effective, I believe it has been when you look at how much effort is being put in to bringing the drugs into the US. The police play by rules drug traffickers do not.  The drug trade is a billion dollar industry.  Law enforcement (the people who actually fight the war on drugs) have limited budgets.

In 2005, the Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey recorded an overall 19.1 per cent decrease in current use of illegal drugs between 2001 and 2005, edging the nation closer to its five-year goal of a 25 per cent reduction in illicit drug use in 2006. Specific to marijuana, the 2005 MTF survey showed:

Between 2001 and 2005, marijuana use dropped in all three categories: lifetime (13%), past year (15%) and 30-day use (19%). Current marijuana use decreased 28 per cent among 8th graders (from 9.2% to 6.6%), and 23 per cent among 10th graders (from 19.8 per cent to 15.2%). - Monitoring the Future, 2005. Supplemented by information from the Office of National Drug Control Policy press release on the 2005 MTF Survey, December 19, 2005.)


The Netherlands attempted to legalize marijuana then decided it wasn't a good idea.

Due to international pressure on permissive Dutch cannabis policy and domestic complaints over the spread of marijuana "coffee shops," the government of the Netherlands has reconsidered its legalization measures. After marijuana became normalized, consumption nearly tripled – from 15 per cent to 44 per cent – among 18 to 20 year-old Dutch youth.  Dr. Ernest Bunning, formerly with Holland's Ministry of Health and a principal proponent of that country's liberal drug philosophy, has acknowledged that, "[t]here are young people who abuse soft drugs . . . particularly those that have [a] high THC [content]. The place that cannabis takes in their lives becomes so dominant they don't have space for the other important things in life. They crawl out of bed in the morning, grab a joint, don't work, smoke another joint. They don't know what to do with their lives." -Collins, Larry. "Holland's Half-Baked Drug Experiment." Foreign Affairs Vol. 73, No. 3. May-June 1999: Pages 87-88.

Other studies in countries (Switzerland, Canada and the United Kingdon) where marijuana laws were relaxed show increased problems. I don't know why people thing we would be any different.

When the AMA endorses smoking marijuana as medicine and when the below studies are no longer valid then I will be good with legalizing marijuana.

Adolescents are at highest risk for marijuana addiction, as they are "three times more likely than adults to develop dependency." -"Marijuana Myths & Facts: The Truth Behind 10 Popular Misperceptions." Office of National Drug Control Policy. <http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/marijuana_myths_facts/index.html> (12 January 2006).

Marijuana is a frequent precursor to the use of more dangerous drugs, and signals a significantly enhanced likelihood of drug problems in adult life. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported, based on a study of 300 sets of twins, "that marijuana-using twins were four times more likely than their siblings to use cocaine and crack cocaine, and five times more likely to use hallucinogens such as LSD." - "What Americans Need to Know about Marijuana." Office of National Drug Control Policy. October 2003.

Long-term studies on patterns of drug usage among young people show that very few of them use other drugs without first starting with marijuana. For example, one study found that among adults (age 26 and older) who had used cocaine, 62 per cent had initiated marijuana use before age 15. By contrast, less than one per cent of adults who never tried marijuana went on to use cocaine. - Gfroerer, Joseph C., et al. "Initiation of Marijuana Use: Trends, Patterns and Implications." Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. July 2002. Page 71.

Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse reports that teens who used marijuana at least once in the last month are 13 times likelier than other teens to use another drug like cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine, and almost 26 times likelier than those teens who have never used marijuana to use another drug. - "Non-Medical Marijuana II: Rite of Passage or Russian Roulette?" CASA Reports. April 2004. Chapter V, Page 15.

[kylieosu]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by patric

A clue as to why enforcement in Oklahoma is completely upside down, from the AP:

'Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs spokesman Mark Woodward says it's "absolutely frightening" that some people are becoming more tolerant of marijuana.

Woodward says he's seen more lives ruined by marijuana than any other drug.'

The person in that position really needs to be looking at meth and out-of-control prescription drugs before making marijuana the priority.

I'm no advocate of pot-smoking, but that guy is a frickin' idiot. If he truly believes that (and I think it's more posturing than honesty), he needs to get out more.

100% agreed.

[RecycleMichael]

That guy is a real buzz-kill.

[cannon_fodder]

Thanks for the reply.  However, I don't buy your arguments and find most of the studies to be less than persuasive.  For example:

1) The "gateway drug" argument fails in that one could look at tobacco or alcohol as a gateway drug with exactly the same correlation.  Most people that use Meth smoke cigarettes.  Therefor, cigarettes increase your risk of using meth.  The gateway drug argument has been long abandoned as justification for the war on drugs.

Correlation does not equal causation.  A theme consistent in the research studies...

2) "42.2 per cent of youths who smoked marijuana 300 or more days per year and 37.1 per cent of those who did so 50-99 days took part in serious fighting at school or work. Only 18.2 per cent of those who did not use marijuana in the past year engaged in serious fighting."

First - 300 or more days a year?  REALLY?  A high school kid that smokes pot 300+ days a year would be in the very upper echelon of users.  I suggest the sample here is heavily skewed.

Second, I wholeheartedly agree that marijuana can be abused just like any recreational activity.  Clearly getting drunk, gambling, or even eating bacon and eggs for breakfast more than 300 times per year would be bad for you and likely lead to behavior problems.  I'm not arguing smoking pot is good for people and particular not for youths.

Third, correlation does not mean causation.  It is highly like the same youths who use marijuana more than 300 days per year have other social issues.  Certainly including a lack of parental involvement and extracurricular activities (300+ days a year?).  Lets look at kids whose parents wouldn't notice there son/daughter smelling like smoke and stoned most days and correlate that with the kids who get in fights.

And 15 is high school.  I'm guessing a large percentage of kids who end up trying marijuana do so by age 15.  Sounds amazingly young to me now, but it is a sophomore in high school... I certainly fall into that bracket.  And nonetheless, I do not advocate legalization of drug use by children to any degree.

The over riding theme you should pick up on in the stats mentioned is that correlation does not equal causation.  

3) The AMA is not the center of our drug policy.  The AMA is as political as the ABA.  I will take their advise on the health effects of smoking marijuana and still agree that smoking anything is bad for your health.  

4) Limited budgets?  The United States spends about $50,000,000,000.00 a year on the war on drugs.    Enough to make the war on drugs itself a VERY significant industry.

For comparison, all the hiphop/rap shows, album sales, and TV deals netted about $10 Billion last year.  Porn is a $14 Billion industry. The US Wine industry produces about $25 Billion worth of product.  We can throw in mobile ring tones, games and image sharing services to reach $50 Billion.  

That's a damn big budget.  Certainly a large enough industry to have some political power.  If the budget currently available hasn't had any impact on the problem at all (per the data I shared above), I don't imagine doubling or tripling it would  really get the job done.

5) My argument is not that alcohol or gambling is without problems, I use those "vices" as comparison because most things in our society that can serve a recreational purpose can be abused.  Alcohol and gambling are the best known examples.  MOST people partake to some degree and MOST people do not have a problem with it.  Some do.

However, we have decided that as a society it is not worth the effort to banish these substances and with some restrictions trust that MOST adults are capable of negotiating it for themselves.

See, ie, prohibition.  Dry counties.  States without gambling.  All of course farces.

6) And finally I am NOT arguing that marijuana is harmless.  Kids should not be allowed to use it (just as they should not smoke, drink, go to strip clubs, gamble, or a litany of other adult activities).  It is bad for all people to smoke anything.  And can be abused to an extent destroying a persons life.

I agree with all those things.  

I merely think pretending that our current policy is stopping kids from smoking marijuana is willful ignorance.  I think pretending that everyone who wants to smoke pot gets something less than as much pot as they want is sad.  Just like Oklahoma pretending alcoholics take Sundays off is pure fiction.
- - -


Our current drug policy consumes an enormous amount of resources and has had a minimal impact on the underlying problem.  Like all drugs (alcohol, prescription, or otherwise) marijuana use should not be encouraged and is subject to abuse.  However, the policy of a schedule 1 ban is without justification and in my opinion creates more problems than it solves.

In 8 days Barrack Obama takes office.  That will mark 3 straight presidents who admit to having smoked pot.  If any of the three were to have been caught at any juncture they almost certainly would not have ascended to such a position.  The difference is not that they smoked pot or not, the difference is that were not caught.  Three presidents in a row, all former pot smokers...  

If we are in to correlation, I then propose we all smoke pot to increase our chances of being President.  

[]

- - - -

Are you in agreement that the current course of action is not working?  That is to say, decade to decade the use rates of marijuana are holding fairly steady (you can pick peaks and valleys to show it is either radically rises or falling over a given period, but since the war on drugs began...)?

You define the problem as ancillary issues to the use of marijuana (health issues, correlations with violence, crime and other problems).  What changes in policy do you propose to help the situation?

[MH2010]

If your saying marijuana is not harmless then where should it be classified?

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug. To be on the Schedule 1 list the following is required:

1.The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
2.The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3.There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Now here are the requirements for the other schedules:

Schedule II

1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
3.Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Schedule III

1.The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
2.The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3.Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

Schedule IV

1.The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
2.The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3.Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.

Schedule V

1.The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
2.The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3.Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Given these definitions where should it be placed?  Or should it not be scheduled at all?

I never mentioned causation.  No one has been able to show the exact reason why people use marijuana or other drugs.  However, studies can show correlations.  Your correlation argument is a joke. I'm sure all the presidents drank milk also.  So in your argument then drinking milk will increase your chances in becoming the president.

The studies I have listed show direct correlations in marijuana smoking and increased drug use/dependency later in life.  I'm glad you try to discredit the studies by making them a punchline.

I completly agree that the US spends alot on the war on drugs. However, that budget is terribly mismanaged.  We need to do a better job stoping the drugs at the borders before they make it in.  

If the US wanted to get serious about the war on drugs, we would build a wall along the Mexico and Canada borders and expand the border patrol to man check stations all along the borders.  But that is an argument for another thread.

[Hometown]

If the War on Drugs has become a $50 Billion industry, then there are many people employed by the industry collecting regular paychecks that have a vested interest in seeing that the industry is perpetual?  

Question:  What happened to the illegal liquor business and crime associated with prohibition after legalization?

[MH2010]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

If the War on Drugs has become a $50 Billion industry, then there are many people employed by the industry collecting regular paychecks that have a vested interest in seeing that the industry is perpetual?  

Question:  What happened to the illegal liquor business and crime associated with prohibition after legalization?

It's still there. It just moved over to raquetering, illegal drugs, extortion ect.

[cannon_fodder]

I did not merely glaze over the correlative studies, I surmised that they had little value past face value.  

Saying "someone who smokes marijuana 86% of the days in a year is more likely to be a criminal" says nothing more than the face value.  I accept the finding that a student who smokes marijuana 300 or more days a year would have social issues, but argue that the reasons that cause or enable a youth to smoke marijuana SIX DAYS A WEEK are probably as influential as the marijuana use itself. I have never argued that youthful use or adult abuse is a good thing.

The presidential quip was using the SAME LOGIC as the studies you have sighted.  100% of the past three presidents have used marijuana, a perfect correlation.  Therefor, marijuana use makes one more likely to be president of the United States.

You easily mocked that logic, and rightfully so.  Clearly there was something more substantive in their lives than the marijuana use that led to their achievements. Yet you failed to see the same effect when the statistics showed you what you wanted to see.

Correlations that show marijuana use in a negative light are fine, if they show marijuana use in a positive use they are just punch lines.
- - -

Stopping marijuana at the border simply won't work as it might for heroine, cocaine, or other foreign grown drugs.  While certainly a large amount is imported, Marijuana is the United States' largest cash crop (more than corn and wheat combined by some estimates).  And this isn't a new trend, the last census before the civil war showed 8,327 hemp "plantations" (> 2,000 acres) in the US.   Hemp being a generic term, it still indicates the land available for THC rich marijuana production.  Basically, most our land is well suited for domestic production.

If you stopped 100% of the imported marijuana, domestic producers would be able to increase production.  Supply would probably go down and correlating demand decrease... but it would not stop the use of marijuana.

How much alcohol was produced illegally during prohibition?  99% or so.  But most people could still get exactly as much as they wanted.  Which is the boat we are in with marijuana.
- - -

I would place it as a schedule III drug if it has to remain a criminal offense.

Schedule III

1.The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
2.The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3.Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.


#2 is clearly a dubious point.  The medical use has been proven to the State of California and some other entities.  But primarily the use is recreational. However, I stand by the fact that the abuse and dependence potential is low.

If we are worried about pure definition, Tobacco should definitely be a schedule I drug:

1. THE most abused drug in the USA.
2. No medical treatment and causes more medical problems than anything but poor eating
3. No medical supervised use is deemed safe under medical supervision.

Alcohol is close by.  What is one acceptable and the other not?  I'm not arguing that tobacco or alcohol should be felonies nor that marijuana is perfectly safe.  Merely pointing out the disparity in the drug classification.

Report after report, study after study... from the general population to US troops in the canal zone.  Studies concluded that recreational marijuana was not worth the trouble of making it illegal.  Eventually it was decided that lazy Mexicans and drug crazed Negros (it caused Negros to laugh out loud at white people!) dictated that it should be banned.

There never was a good justification for banning hemp production or marijuana use.  The AMA stood against the ban and 3,000 MDs were prosecuted for prescribing marijuana use after the ban (at which point the AMA decided it was on the side of the DEA and has been since)...

Bah!  I could ramble on.  Basically, classifying marijuana as a schedule 1 drug is a unjustified.   It wastes resources, destroys lives, and encourages criminal activity.  The harm CAUSED by the war against marijuana exceeds the harm caused by the perceived threat.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

quote:Originally posted by Hometown


Question:  What happened to the illegal liquor business and crime associated with prohibition after legalization?

It's still there. It just moved over to [racketeering], illegal drugs, extortion ect.

Illegal drugs?  Like marijuana?

In all seriousness, you do see the parallels between marijuana and alcohol don't you?

Both have legit uses in industry and have large industrial impacts (FORD actually once made a car from Hemp plastics and powered it with diesel hemp oil).

Both can be used recreationally by responsible parties.

Both have the potential for abuse.

Both are readily produced domestically and easily distributed.

"Wars" against each of them have been futile.  

Prohibition of each has encouraged violent gangs and profits to frequently violent operators.

Alcohol, after prohibition was repealed is now controlled and heavily taxed, marijuana remains available equally to all parties and not regulated or taxed.  THC content or possible lacing agents is unknown.  Who profits from it or where it will end up is up in the air.  

During prohibition alcohol had many of the same problems we now associate with marijuana.  It was unregulated in quality (100 proof?  Poisonous?).  It spawned massive gang activity who used the profits to support other crime and destroyed communities.  And while government spent much money trying to eradicate it alcohol remained available to anyone who wanted it.   Hell, even presidents drank alcohol during prohibition.  

Make it legal and it spawns big business.  Huge tax revenues.  Sponsorship and ad money for many industries.  Markets for farm products.  Recreational hobbies (I home brew).  Organized crime associated with it nearly disappeared.  And people who end up abusively using alcohol can get help with little stigma.  

Please tell me you see the similarities.

[MH2010]

There is no use for smoking marijuana and does not compare to alcohol. Your premise that alcohol and marijuana are the same is wrong.

As far as "medical" uses for smoking marijuana goes, Medical marijuana already exists. It's called Marinol.

Marinol, is widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.

Drugs are far more addictive than alcohol. According to Dr. Mitchell Rosenthal, director of Phoenix House, only 10 percent of drinkers become alcoholics, while up to 75 percent of regular illicit drug users become addicted.

Even accepting, for the sake of argument, the analogy of that alcohol and marijuana is the same, alcohol use in the U.S. has taken a tremendous physical and social toll on Americans. Legalization proponents would have the problems multiplied by greatly adding to the class of drug-addicted Americans. To put it in perspective, less than 5 percent of the population uses illegal drugs of any kind. That's less than 16 million regular users of all illegal drugs compared to 66 million tobacco users and over 100 million alcohol users.

According to a 1995 article by Dr. Robert L. DuPont, an expert on drug abuse, the health-related costs per person is more than twice as high for drugs as it is for alcohol: $1,742 for users of illegal drugs and $798 for users of alcohol. Legalization of drugs would compound the problems in the already overburdened health care, social service, and criminal justice systems. And it would demand a staggering new tax burden on the public to pay for the costs. The cost to families affected by addiction is incalculable.

If private companies were to handle distribution—as is done with alcohol—the American consumer can expect a blizzard of profit-driven advertising encouraging drug use, just as we now face with alcohol advertising. If the government were to distribute drugs, either the taxpayer would have to pay for its production and distribution, or the government would be forced to market the drugs to earn the funds necessary to stay in business. Furthermore, the very act of official government distribution of drugs would send a message that drug use is safe. After all, it's the U.S. Government that's handing it out, right?

According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, approximately 10.1 million young people aged 12-20 reported past month alcohol use (28.5 percent of this age group). Of these, nearly 6.8 million (19 percent) were binge drinkers. American society can expect even more destructive statistics if marijuana were to be made legal and acceptable.

If marijuana were widely available under legalization, they would no doubt be easily obtained by young people, despite age restrictions. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, almost half (109 million) of Americans aged 12 or older were current drinkers, while an estimated 15.9 million or 7.1% were current illicit drug users.

[cannon_fodder]

First, your addictive study is for "all illicit" drugs.  It has little bearing on the issue at hand. Yet another example of finding data to prove your point instead of using data to formulate an opinion.

Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco performed a study on 6 common drugs and had the following conclusion (with 6 being the lowest rank on the scale) -

quote:
Substance   Withdrawal   Reinforcement   Tolerance   Dependence  Intoxication
Nicotine         3             4             2           1            5

Heroin           2             2             1           2            2

Cocaine          4             1             4           3            3

Alcohol          1             3             3           4            1

Caffeine         5             6             5           5            6

Marijuana        6             5             6           6            4

http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com/most-addictive-drugs.html

In other words, Marijuana is less addictive than caffeine or alcohol, and nicotine is more addictive than cocaine.  The highest addiction rate I was able to locate was espoused by Brown University or 10%, of which a fraction would be dependent users (think non-functioning alcoholics).  Essentially, the "addictive" argument is a total farce UNLESS we are calling for other common substances to be banned.  

Likewise, the cost of treatment figure given is for "all illicit drug users."  It has no value on the discussion at hand.  120,000 people a year enter marijuana rehab, of those it is estimated 90% are ordered rehabs (school, court, etc.).  I would argue that the number and the methodology is not an accurate reflection of either the volume nor cost of marijuana addiction and treatment.  Those persons may or may not have an actually "problem" with marijuana use but if court or school ordered they attend rehab (proud graduate of alcohol rehab in undergraduate because my roommate had a party in my room and though I wasn't there school policy dictate I attend an alcohol seminar.  Had it been marijuana I'd be part of the 90% statistic.)

If marijuana is banned because it is addictive, then there are several substances on the list that should be banned also.  Until alcohol and tobacco are banned as harmful schedule 1 drugs, the argument for banning marijuana because it is addictive simply doesn't work.

- - - -
I think we are somehow skirting the issue(s) that divides us. Perhaps we need to define them but I fear they are nearly universal.

We agree that excessive marijuana use can be harmful.
We agree that excessive alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or prescription drug use can be harmful.

We agree that children should not use marijuana.
We agree that children should not use the above list.

We agree that the marijuana trade involves many criminal elements and encourages violence in the search of profit.
We agree that prohibition made alcohol more dangerous, caused more crime, and generally increased drinking problems.

We agree that marijuana (THC) has medical purposes in stopping nausea, increasing appetite, and reactions with pain receptors other medicines (opiates) do not engage.  
We agree that self medicating with any prescribed substance is not healthy.



- - -

Do we agree that:

Statistics show that marijuana use is consistent with levels when the war on drugs started.

Marijuana is readily produced domestically.

Marijuana, currently, is readily available to anyone who wants it.  Including school children.

Marijuana accounts for more arrests than any other single offense in the United States.

The war on drugs is a $50,000,000,000.00 per year industry with all that it entails.  

The gateway drug theory has long been debunked (95% of alcoholics first drink was beer, 90% of crackheads first drug was beer... first illegal drug was marijuana.)

Casual Marijuana use has proven to have no negative impact on life span (Sidney, S. The British Medical Journal, Sept. 20, 2003; vol 327: pp 635-636. Citing a study by UC California and a separate study in Sweden.  Summary available at: http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill).  Primarily because normal marijuana use entails about 1/20th the smoke of similar smoked products (primarily tobacco).  Literally, no deaths in the US from marijuana use:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/6/429

Unregulated drug use is far more dangerous than regulated drug use (alcohol as an example).
- - -

I guess I'm having trouble on the bigger issues.  I get the feel that you believe marijuana to be all the things the DARE ads or the ads from the 1950s say it is:  amazingly addictive, leads to crime sprees for pot money, people get violent when high, causes all sorts of health issues, and leads to prostitution, crack use, and crime sprees.  While I've never seen a person that is stoned (on marijuana) be violent, never heard of someone committing a crime for pot money, and never knew of anyone who repeatedly tried "to quit" marijuana and failed.  Sure it can be abused, isn't good for you, and shouldn't be used by kids... but if that is our basis even then marijuana should be down the list of problems.

If you believe marijuana to be all the things a good cop is supposed to believe and have never actually known a "pot head" or tried the drug yourself, then we are probably at irreconcilable positions.  If the hippies, ravers, "ganstas" (read: not gang members), neighbors, professionals, and Presidents that I know to smoke(d) pot are somehow not representational of a normal pot smoker then please explain it to me.  

Sorry to be long winded (repeatedly), I'm trying to see where the difference lies and am afraid it is in the base understanding of what a normal marijuana user is.