Pros and Cons of social drugs

[Berzerker]

wrt the OP, the social costs of drug use are obviously negative since there are people out there who use and do stupid, or even evil things they ostensibly wouldn't have done without the drugs. The pleasure people may derive from drug use is obviously a positive, but if all these drugs (especially alcohol) disappeared "society" would benefit. But thats the problem, we live in a world where drugs do exist and we are human. So the question, for the utilitarian minded person (not the libertarian) becomes, does the overall negative consequences of drug use justify taking away our freedom and does prohibition increase or decrease pathologies related to the existence of drugs?

The argument for prohibition requires that the policy actually reduces some pathology. This is based on the premise that prohibition reduces drug use by scaring people away from it, therefore we should see fewer stupid and evil things done by drug users. Well, just as with comparing tobacco to pot, the cemeteries are full of people who died because of prohibition. Homicide rates doubled under alcohol prohibition, declined 13 years in a row following repeal leveling off at about half the rate under prohibition, and doubled again under the modern drug war. A simple question: when was the last time you heard of alcohol dealers shooting up the streets over marketshare?

The statistics dont show the benefits of prohibition, they show the opposite...

[bipolarbear]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You don't have an argument, so you've fallen back on "well I'm just going to stick to my opinion" BS.

I don't believe marijuana to be carcinogenic.

I don't believe marijuana use is anywhere near that of cigarettes.

I believe that there are healthier alternatives to inhaling combusted marijuana, and as such I believe that the perceived health risks are thus largely, though obviously not completely, circumvented.

I believe that given the absolute lack of evidence of deaths from marijuana toxicity, coupled with the extreme and unrealistic measures one would have to go through to overdose on THC (THC Extraction), that marijuana is a safe substance.

I believe that too much of anything can kill you but that with marijuana you have to be both skilled and determined to actually facilitate the toxic chemical reaction.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't believe marijuana to be carcinogenic.

Why, if it contains most of the same carcinogenic substances as cigarettes?

I believe that given the absolute lack of evidence of deaths from marijuana toxicity

Have any real studies been done (with reliable sampling techniques) to determine that marijuana is or isn't carcinogenic? In the absence of evidence the best assumption is that if a chemical is a carcinogen in cigarettes, it's a carcinogen in marijuana.

I believe that too much of anything can kill you but that with marijuana you have to be both skilled and determined to actually facilitate the toxic chemical reaction.

No one but you is talking about someone dying because they smoked too many joints (in the short term). It's a strawman. I'm arguing that marijuana joints ought to have the same long-term effects as cigarettes (based on the assumption that the doctor's assertions are correct) because they contain many of the same cancer-causing substances. Therefore, it's just as stupid to smoke MJ as tobacco.

[Berzerker]

Why, if it contains most of the same carcinogenic substances as cigarettes?

Carcinogens are defined by what chemicals induce cancer in lab rats genetically bred for susceptibility to cancer, that doesn't translate into cancer in humans. Therefore we need to look at the actual results in humans and not depend on lab rats.

I'm arguing that marijuana joints ought to have the same long-term effects as cigarettes

Then support the argument, all you've done so far is argue the long term effects should be the same, not that they are the same. They are obviously not the same, so you got a problem with your argument...

[bipolarbear]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I don't believe marijuana to be carcinogenic.

Why, if it contains most of the same carcinogenic substances as cigarettes?

Read the thread.

I believe that given the absolute lack of evidence of deaths from marijuana toxicity

Have any real studies been done (with reliable sampling techniques) to determine that marijuana is or isn't carcinogenic? In the absence of evidence the best assumption is that if a chemical is a carcinogen in cigarettes, it's a carcinogen in marijuana.

Well, "real" is a pretty ambiguous term. We very likely share different definitions of what constitutes a "real study" and a "fake study", though is likely some overlap.

BTW that quote had nothing to do with cancer.

I believe that too much of anything can kill you but that with marijuana you have to be both skilled and determined to actually facilitate the toxic chemical reaction.

No one but you is talking about someone dying because they smoked too many joints (in the short term).

But we are debating whether or not marijuana poses a significant health risk (or at least I thought we were). I don't see how stating my own belief on the subject is a straw man argument, I can though see where it can act as a Red Herring. The question I was responding to was this one

Do you have any justification for the fact that MJ is less harmful than tobacco? At all?

You go on to mention carcinogens, but that's not the heart of the question.

I'm arguing that marijuana joints ought to have the same long-term effects as cigarettes (based on the assumption that the doctor's assertions are correct) because they contain many of the same cancer-causing substances. Therefore, it's just as stupid to smoke MJ as tobacco.

What doctor are you talking about?

Here are some selectively mined links from El Goog...

This one is interesting
Donald "Thrashin" Tashkin of UCLA brings the big hurt with a bionic elbow!
Thrashkin's manager Sciam Sam throws a steel chair into the ring!
SciD Vicious and David "Superstar" Geffen pin the Marijuana Cancer Connection in the tunbuckle while "Thrashin" Tashkin works his magic!
(This one actually links alcohol to cancer.) "Diamond" Dan Ford with 2X4 to the ribs!
Anju "Superfly" Preet with a high flying missile dropkick off the top rope!
SciD Viscious tags Preet and now it's a double team massacre in the squared circle!
Erowid storming the ring with an all too expected interference!
Good Lord! Flying into the ring from up in the Rafters it's The Fox offering a rare show of support for his rival Thrashkin!
Even the folks at home could feel that anecdotal kick to the groin by Thrashkin!
No man can survive the crippling pain of Erowid's UMASS SASSAFRASS hold!!
Whoah Nellie It's "Hurricane" NORML with haymaker!
Robert "The Human Stampede"TM Melamede with (actually kind of seriously here) brass knucks & a slobber knocker to the cheek!


Hey it may well cause cancer, but the evidence isn't there, and the evidence that is around suggests that THC actually counteracts the effects of the carcinogens present in the smoke. Ideally there would be more research in overall on the subject, but MJ is schedule 1, and thus nearly impossible to acquire for studies.

Regardless of that though, as has been said many times before in the thread, MJ smokers consume much less cannabis smoke than cigarette smokers do. I don't have any conclusive evidence to back this up, but by and large the collective anecdotal reports I have heard (as reliable as those can be) and what I have seen shows me that marijuana is consumed in smaller quantities than cigarettes.

Bottom line, there needs to be more research before we can say anything conclusive. Until then we're just stuck here with speculation (a.k.a. trolling and pseudo intellectual masturbation)

[Arrian]

I don't believe marijuana to be carcinogenic.

It's a reasonable thing to believe, given the fact that you're putting a bunch of smoke in your lungs. That ain't good for ya, any way you slice it.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

and the evidence that is around suggests that THC actually counteracts the effects of the carcinogens present in the smoke.

Magic Jane.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by bipolarbear
Well, "real" is a pretty ambiguous term. We very likely share different definitions of what constitutes a "real study" and a "fake study", though is likely some overlap.

Give me a study, I'll either accept it or point out its methodological flaws

But we are debating whether or not marijuana poses a significant health risk (or at least I thought we were). I don't see how stating my own belief on the subject is a straw man argument, I can though see where it can act as a Red Herring. The question I was responding to was this one

You go on to mention carcinogens, but that's not the heart of the question.

Yes it is. As cancer is the heart of the health risk for cigs, so it is for MJ.

What doctor are you talking about?

Our doctor. Strangelove.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

There's tremendous sampling bias there, especially since:

The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

The rest of your links all seem to be about the same study, so I'm not going to read them all...

Hey it may well cause cancer, but the evidence isn't there, and the evidence that is around suggests that THC actually counteracts the effects of the carcinogens present in the smoke.

No, it's a hypothesis. There are many possible reasons, that's the one Tashkin hypothesized. No one [in the scientific community] would accept it without a lot of further testing.

[Berzerker]

As cancer is the heart of the health risk for cigs, so it is for MJ.

Give me a study, I'll either accept it or point out its methodological flaws

the burden of proof is on you, it is your assertion and you've done squat to back it up.

[Elok]

Oh boy, we've reached the "burden of proof tennis" stage of the debate! I agree, childish bickering is greatly preferable, so: VJ, you smell like a linebacker's jockstrap.

[Berzerker]

okay, no burden of proof for people claiming pot causes cancer like tobacco

and it comes in a 6-pack... Brilliant!!!

[Elok]

BoP is a stupid idea to begin with. Both sides invariably assume their own position as the default (it being the position they are accustomed to think of as sensible). They then attempt to resolve the disagreement by arguing over which side is making the extraordinary claim, using mostly rhetoric and naked assertions. In other words, BoP never does anything but send the argument into an eternal cycle of fact-free babble.

At least, that's how I've seen it work on 'Poly. In the time typically spent telling the other person to dig up his own damn studies, you could conduct a whole freaking experiment yourself. If you don't want to support your claims with evidence, you need to either shut up and go away or else be someone like me who tries to win arguments via browbeating and posturing. Enough of this "prove it!" "no, YOU prove it!" "no, YOU prove it!" back-and-forth.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
or else be someone like me who tries to win arguments via browbeating and posturing.

No you don't.

[Elok]

Shh, I'm being self-deprecating.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok
BoP is a stupid idea to begin with.

Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!