Freedom vs. Security

[Holiday20310401]

That makes sense but there will always be a black market.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

That makes sense but there will always be a black market.

In the US there isn't a significant black market for cigarettes, alcohol, or gasoline despite high taxes. There probably WOULD be a huge black market for cocaine and heroin because people impoverish themselves on these drugs and price doesn't get most people to quit. As for pot? Don't know, but I think given how easy it is for people to cultivate on their own there probably would be a big illegal market -- so the legal versions would never compete.

[urangutan]

Zetetic, the point of legalisation means, that you can control the market and simply outsell the Columbians. They will only develop new clientel not continue to sell to past buyers. That is no longer a market. Users must be attacked from behind because you cannot stop the flow of drugs. The idea that special police departments use the flow of drugs to trace other illegal activities is the only down side of legalisation. The forces that are behind the illegal drug trade is the mark you need to eliminate, not the drugs first that is impossible. Control the drug and you begin to control the people who use drugs, this can be used to prevent young people coming into contact with the drugs.

If the goverment cannot control the market of personel use drugs, what hope has it got if the idea that the restriction of personal use is an issue. The market is there. All the fines and all the jail time and the threat there of, hasn't done a thing to kerb the market. So the point that you are saying Didymos Thomas has made is mute. (Sorry in English the word mute is what you would use as moot.)

The point that Aedes makes is wonderful for the attack on the individuals caught but as long as there is a new person to step into the role that has been vacated, that is not fighting any war on drugs.

Funny, I have attacked the freedom v's security point twice now and I believe that I have made a case to argue against Benny himself, lest a better person stand in.

[Zetetic11235]

The only way the government can control the sale of drugs is to undersell the blackmarket competition and sell the drugs unresrictedly to their own people. This means legalization, unless you mean making some crazy undercover drug lord operation which excludes those involved from the law of the people. which is injust by any definition and definitley not worth implementing to control drug use, somthing which as a libertarian I cannot agree with in the first place (not to mention the ideological contradiciton that is found in alcohol and tobbacco). Add to this the fact that as soon as you attempt to phase out the drug, the previous supplier gets the market back, and you've got a broken system. I stated before that this would probably lead to an overall worsening of the problem due to the glareing contradiction in policy it would require and that to achieve such a glareing policy contradiction freedom must be usruped from the hands of the people. You have not addressed my criticizim.

Thus far urangatan, you have made no attempt at the fundamental issue of freedom vs security much less an attck on 'benny', whom is not really in the limelight on this one anyway. At best you have provided a system by which the government can implement futher control the people through the laws set in place by the majority and not necessarily justly so. You have not addressed the question of whether it is better to be free from constraint by others at your own peril or better to lessen ones own personal freedom in favor of security, which means taking the chance that those in power will ultimately control you and not necessarily to your own bennefit. The problem is given another dimention by the problem of the tyrrany of the majority over the minority, which it seems can only be answered by very limited powers of central government, i.e. a constitutional federal government which is not free to interperet the constitution outside of the context of the inception of the law as best approximated through study of history and the writings of the men involved in writing the constitution ie the federalist papers. It of course would be necessary that every member of the supreame court must be students of the same philosophy and writings that the founding fathers were in order to better understand their mindset, ie John Locke's writings.

[urangutan]

Zetetic, you cannot fight something you do not control. Legalization is the only way to fight the epidemic that surrounds the drug. Guns don't kill, people do, same scenario. Cocaine is not the epidemic. The sale, use and abuse is. Burn the crop and they will plant more, kill the baron and another will stand, buy the market and you rule the roost. It would be cheaper, safer and more controlled if drugs were administered at some form of medical centre, than how it is run now. It would be the same if there were dens for the partaking of drug use, administered only, than it is now and the streets will become drug freer, then free as long as this is administered correctly.

Is there any opium crops in the United States of America.
Are they free enterprise or government controlled.

If the government said that the United States will not grow poppies for the purpose of medicinal use and instead dealt directly with the lords of Afghanistan for the opium, would that not be sacrificing a freedom to develop a security. Oddly it may well be two securities. One in Afghanistan, the other a lessened opium market for the world to make into heroin to ship into the United States.

[Didymos Thomas]

Nothing is free of side effects. Marinol is very well tolerated.

You're absolutely right. However, as you say, nothing is free of side effects, and some people do not tolerate Marinol as well as smoked or eaten marijuana.

Yes, but until a different one is demonstrated to be clinically effective, cost effective, safe, and clinical indications are clearly delineated, then they all remain natural compounds with no demonstrated medical benefit. So show me the research.

Well, we do have studies on smoked marijuana that contains those other cannabanoids. I'm all for more studies.

That's ludicrous. Why aren't you making the same argument for growing cinchona trees to treat malaria instead of buying quinine, Chinese wormwood instead of buying artemisinin, and willow trees instead of buying aspirin?

Because doctors do not, to my knowledge, prescribe these things to patients. Doctors do prescribe smoked marijuana.

So what makes marijuana special, as opposed to all these other drugs that come from plants? Oh, that's right, you can get high on marijuana.

Or, you know, that doctors prescribe the plant.

I don't care if you get high as long as you're not driving or operating a jackhammer. Don't kid yourself that there are no side effects, including long-term, from marijuana, but I'm content with you assuming responsibility for it. But the fact remains that it's illegal for better or for worse -- so either go and get enough support to change the law, or accept that you live in a democracy that chooses to keep your pet chemical illegal. You might get arrested for smoking pot, you might get a speeding ticket for going 75 in a 45 zone, you might get audited by the IRS if you "forget" to declare cash income, etc. Live by the rules or violate them at your own peril.

I'm not debating the possible dangers of marijuana. I don't suggest that anyone use the drug, much less use the drug and drive a car. Just like I don't suggest people drink, much less drink and drive.

But pointing to the legal status of marijuana is not an argument that the legal status of marijuana is appropriate.

The government legally rounded up Japanese Americans during World War 2. You're familiar with the Japanese internment. Despite being legal, the process was oppressive and terrorized American citizens.

Change the law if you don't like it. And if you can't change the law, accept that your viewpoint is in the minority, and you can go move to the Netherlands if you don't like it.

Again, pointing to the legal status of the drug does not make the case.

I don't count that as oppressive or terrorizing. If you don't want to go to jail, then don't break the damned law. There is plenty of research coming out about medical marijuana, and the laws WILL change. Until then, it's illegal, it's on the books, so smoke it at your own peril.

If you do not see the oppression in patients going to prison for using a drug prescribed by their doctors, I'm not sure there is any point in having this discussion. There are states where the laws have been changed to allow for medical marijuana. The federal government still arrests patients.

The government is putting people in prison for using the medicine given to them by their doctors. That's oppressive. Could things be worse? You bet, but that's beside the point.

That's oppression and terrorization? If you want me to send you a list of citations that CLEARLY shows that marijuana use predicts future hard drug use, then I'd be happy to. What hasn't been shown (to my knowledge) is if prevention of marijuana use will prevent future drug use -- but I'd be shocked if that weren't true.

It's just as much feeble rhetoric and propaganda to claim terrorization and oppression -- you're just on the other side of the coin.

And we can make the same gateway argument for tobacco and alcohol.

But, yeah, [i]racism[i/], especially when used by the government, is oppressive. Doesn't sound far fetched to me.

If they're unjust then change them. But this is not sufficiently unjust -- in fact I think it IS justified to keep marijuana illegal EXCEPT for clearly documented medical use. I think the penalties are more unjust than the law, frankly.

The penalties are part of the law. Look up the drug scheduling and be depressed. Look at the scheduling for marijuana and LSD and other hallucinogens, even though both have medical benefits. Recent studies on mushrooms might help shift some of these laws. Hopefully.

In any case, you ignored my argument. Laws can be unjust. Just because a law is in place doesn't mean the law is justified.

Good luck proving that claim. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, for the most part all approve of marijuana being illegal. In fact the only three significant constituencies who want it to be legal are advocates for medical use, libertarians, and potheads.

I have to ask - are you familiar with the Nixon administration? or do you stick to Kissinger's accounts?

But we've gone off track with marijuana. All I have to do is show that my government is oppressive and employs terror tactics? Man this is easy:

The Patriot Act: Targeting American Citizens

You can pick which ones you like. Notice the Denver photographer being arrested, Secret Service interrogating kids. Great oppressive fun. Oh, and consider the whole Patriot Act as an example. Taking things back a few years, I'll also sight Nixon's Huston Plan. Familiar with unitary executive theory? At the very least, this all violates the Bill of Rights, therefore, oppression.

And the already mentioned Japanese internment. All sounds very oppressive to me.

Let's not forget American oppression elsewhere in the world. Did we forget Vietnam? The bombing of Laos and Cambodia? The invasion of Cambodia? Let's not forget My Lai.

I can't think of a single government that has not made a habit of oppressing and terrorizing it's own people. The US is no exception. We could change the marijuana laws and I'd still have more than enough reason to dissent. Let's hope Homeland Security doesn't detain me indefinately, without charge, without access to an attorney. Would be terribly sad, don't you think?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You're absolutely right. However, as you say, nothing is free of side effects, and some people do not tolerate Marinol as well as smoked or eaten marijuana.

And the converse is true as well. At least with marinol you don't need to worry about hypogonadism, lung cancer, COPD, asthma, or addiction.

Well, we do have studies on smoked marijuana that contains those other cannabanoids.

And we have a regulatory process called the FDA that evaluates therapies for safety and efficacy. This is basically impossible with smoked marijuana unless you make it a standardized dose, like in a metered-dose inhaler.

Because doctors do not, to my knowledge, prescribe these things to patients.

They did until the purified compounds were available. Oh, by the way, Chinese wormwood is STILL the only source of artemisinin compounds for the treatment of malaria, though people are working hard at synthesizing it.

Doctors do prescribe smoked marijuana.

No, doctors recommend it. It cannot be prescribed according to the DEA certification that we are all required to carry.

But pointing to the legal status of marijuana is not an argument that the legal status of marijuana is appropriate.

And complaining about the inappropriateness of the ban does not make it "terrorizing" or "oppressive" when people get caught violating that law. Come on, it's marijuana we're talking about. It's not like the government has banned water.

The government legally rounded up Japanese Americans during World War 2. You're familiar with the Japanese internment. Despite being legal, the process was oppressive and terrorized American citizens.

Yup. And unlike the marijuana discussion, that actually WAS terrorizing and oppressive.

If you do not see the oppression in patients going to prison for using a drug prescribed by their doctors, I'm not sure there is any point in having this discussion.

And if you don't appreciate that it's ILLEGAL for doctors to prescribe it and ILLEGAL for patients to smoke it, then I'm not sure you have much respect for the whole idea of a law.

Furthermore, you keep blurring the line between the habits of dumb college kids who like to get stoned versus the medical "needs" of patients. So let's compromise -- let's support medical marijuana, but let's make recreational use illegal. After all, that's the case for oxycontin, et al.

Would you then be content if the prosecution of people who used medical marijuana stopped provided they met strict evidence-based criteria -- but the crackdown on pot addicts continued? And I put medical needs in quotations because the medical benefit of marijuana, though real, is very small.

There are states where the laws have been changed to allow for medical marijuana. The federal government still arrests patients.

That is thanks to the supremacy clause in the Constitution. Would you like to have a constitutional convention to change that?


As for your litany of other offenses by the US government, I completely agree. I am no apologist for our government and its policies. But as for marijuana, you don't get a sympathetic ear from me. And I'm an infectious disease specialist, taking care of AIDS patients is my job, not to mention that I consult on many many people with cancer. So I do understand the medical issue quite well.

[Didymos Thomas]

At least with marinol you don't need to worry about hypogonadism, lung cancer, COPD, asthma, or addiction.

I'm familiar with the fact that chronic long term marijuana use can cause a reduction in sperm production, but I wasn't aware that use could lead to permanent defects. Any handy info around?

As for lung cancer, I've never seen anything that links marijuana use to lung cancer. However, I have seen a number of claims closer to this:
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

Not to say that marijuana does not contain carcinogens - it certainly does, including one shared with tobacco that is supposed to be especially close to lung cancer. But I have never seen a study that links marijuana use with an increased risk for lung cancer.

When we talk about COPD and asthma, I think we have to remember that ideally a doctor would be involved in the patient's use of marijuana. For example, maybe marijuana shouldn't be suggested to someone who smokes cigarettes because cigarettes are known to exacerbate these problems.

As for addiction, you know well that many FDA approved drugs are easily abused. And Marinol also has potential for abuse; you can get high off the stuff. If addiction is possible for marijuana, addiction is possible for marinol.

I'd also like to mention the issue of cannabanoids apart from THC once again. Specifically, cannabidiol and cannabichromine, an anti-convulsant and an anti-inflamatory, both suspected of playing an important role in the therapeutic effects of marijuana. I'd like to see more study on the matter, but throwing marinol into the discussion as a replacement for marijuana doesn't seem to hold up - marinol does not seem to have all of the medical benefits of marijuana.

And we have a regulatory process called the FDA that evaluates therapies for safety and efficacy. This is basically impossible with smoked marijuana unless you make it a standardized dose, like in a metered-dose inhaler.

You would know better than I would, but they do manage to standardize doses for research without the use of such inhalers.

But I see the concern. I would suggest the use of vaporizers to better regulate the dose. That way we can dose patients based on the strength of the marijuana and amount of marijuana. Should work beautifully with a decent machine.

As for the FDA:
Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine
If smoked marijuana has no medical value, then marinol could not have medical value. But being honest, apparently, is just too much.

Big pharma lobbies on behalf of the drug war. No surprise.

They did until the purified compounds were available. Oh, by the way, Chinese wormwood is STILL the only source of artemisinin compounds for the treatment of malaria, though people are working hard at synthesizing it.

Then it's high time we get a purified compound out there with more than just THC.

No, doctors recommend it. It cannot be prescribed according to the DEA certification that we are all required to carry.

That doctors recommend smoked marijuana is enough to make my point.

"Why aren't you making the same argument for growing cinchona trees to treat malaria instead of buying quinine, Chinese wormwood instead of buying artemisinin, and willow trees instead of buying aspirin?"

Because doctors do not recommend all of these to patients, but they do recommend smoked marijuana.

There is also the concern of costs. Especially in this country, prescription drugs are not cheap - but growing a plant is. We can trust people to take aspirin on their own, even though if you eat enough of them you'll die. To my knowledge, marijuana overdose is impossible.

And complaining about the inappropriateness of the ban does not make it "terrorizing" or "oppressive" when people get caught violating that law. Come on, it's marijuana we're talking about. It's not like the government has banned water.

If the law is a violation of rights, and the law is enforced, the law is oppressive.

I think we also need to look at the government's use of propaganda to support it's policy. Racism and xenophobia. Certain government elements still have no problem simply lying about the drug. Take a look around here:
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Absolute falsehood next to fact is terribly dangerous.

Yup. And unlike the marijuana discussion, that actually WAS terrorizing and oppressive.

So the United States government does oppress and terrorize it's own citizens. Remarkable.

And if you don't appreciate that it's ILLEGAL for doctors to prescribe it and ILLEGAL for patients to smoke it, then I'm not sure you have much respect for the whole idea of a law.

Nope, no respect for unjust laws.

Anyway, on a state level, the use and recommendation of marijuana by a doctor is not illegal. It's that nasty Federal law I'm particularly concerned with.

Furthermore, you keep blurring the line between the habits of dumb college kids who like to get stoned medical "needs" of patients. Would you be content if the prosecution of people who used medical marijuana stopped provided they met strict evidence-based criteria -- but the crackdown on pot addicts continued? And I put medical needs in quotations because the medical benefit of marijuana, though real, is very small.

That would be an improvement, so sure. But I'm still not convinced that the government has any right, much less any reasonable justification, for the current nature of marijuana regulation. I support a degree of regulation, but not the current status.

As for the medical benefit of marijuana - the benefit seems significant when marijuana could replace extremely expensive medications that some people simply cannot afford. Most people can afford to water a plant, though.

Thanks to the supremacy clause in the Constitution. Would you like to have a constitutional convention to change that?

No, I'd like to know what constitutional convention gave the government the right to ban marijuana.

As for your litany of other offenses by the US government, I completely agree. I am no apologist for our government and its policies. But as for marijuana, you don't get a sympathetic ear from me. And I'm an infectious disease specialist, taking care of AIDS patients is my job, and I understand the issue quite well.

Then we're in agreement - the US government uses terror tactics and oppresses the American people.

As for marijuana, the issue is two fold. First and foremost, because I support people having access to whatever medicine their doctor determines is best, is the medical issue regarding marijuana. I know your credentials and have nothing but respect for your medical knowledge, but other doctors who 'understand the issue quite well' disagree with you and see immense potential in medical marijuana. Whatever the case may be, I think we can both agree that there is need for more research on marijuana.

The second and more fundamental issue regarding marijuana laws is whether or not the government can or should maintain the current policy. I'd argue the government needs a Constitutional Amendment to ban the drug without violating the Constitution. I'd also argue that the government does not have any justification for such a measure; we're not facing a national marijuana crisis - well, unless you see things my way and consider the current laws to be a crisis, a crisis for the sick, a crisis for people who don't like to drink, and a crisis for the American tax payer who let's the government burn their tax dollars every year to feel the high of inflated departmental funding.

I am glad the initial issue has been resolved.

[Aedes]

These posts are getting long and it's late so I'll be brief.

First, the supremacy clause in the constitution stipulates that federal law ALWAYS supercedes state law when they conflict. So if a federal law is unjust and a state law contradicts it, the federal law overrules it. That's why the state medical marijuana laws cannot prevent federal prosecution. It has nothing to do with the issue -- only the discrepancy between state and federal law.

I can give supportive scientific articles that show marijuana associated with metaplastic changes in the lung (which are precancerous histologic changes), marijuana is associated with head and neck cancers, it is associated with not only sperm dysmotility but also lower testicular volume, lower sperm count, and gynecomastia.

This review article might be available for free:
Marijuana: Medical Implications - December 1, 1999 - American Academy of Family Physicians

Marinol has not been found to be addictive or abused according to the package insert. I took a look at the journal articles in PubMed and couldn't find any case-report associations between the two. You can read the package insert here:
http://www.marinol.com/images/pdf/MARINOLPI.pdf

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Then we're in agreement - the US government uses terror tactics and oppresses the American people.

We're not exactly in agreement here. The US government HAS been oppressive, it HAS used terror tactics, and it DOES do so on several fronts. However I will NOT concur with your implication that this is a general, common, or deliberate practice of the government such that we can wantonly throw those words around to complain about this or that issue.

I know your credentials and have nothing but respect for your medical knowledge, but other doctors who 'understand the issue quite well' disagree with you and see immense potential in medical marijuana.

I see therapeutic potential as well, I mean I certainly recognize its utility (as well as Marinol's) as an antiemetic and appetite stimulant in patients with cachexia. But first things first -- do the research and then write the prescriptions. Doctors, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies are known to be wrong, and without the research you can put people at great risk of harm just because you are optimistic about a drug.

I'd argue the government needs a Constitutional Amendment to ban the drug without violating the Constitution.

Does it also need a constitutional amendment to ban crack? Does it need a constitutional amendment to ban the public from owning a nuclear bomb?

I'd also argue that the government does not have any justification for such a measure

But they thought they did when they passed the law, and there are procedures to get such things revoked. If the country as a whole concurred with you, and felt any kind of urgency about it, then the ban would probably be reversed. As is, I think most Americans have no problem with the ban.

[Zetetic11235]

Urangatang, you do not think that drugs should be used, correct? If that is false stop reading here and inform me.

If the government allows for decriminization of drugs with a fine attached instead, we can use the money to pay for clinics with drugs like methodone (for those who abuse opiates) and other treatment facilities to help break addiction and research to better our ability to break chemical dependence. If we legalize drugs, we encourage use, this has been verified by every attempt to that effect. If drugs are legal, then there is still a competeing black market and still a problem if the govenment is to make enough of a profit to support the clinics for the addicts. Furthermore, as soon as the government tries to phase out, the black markets take over once again. To control all drug flow the government would have to add fuel to the fire via my tax dollars by buying up and destroying all the drugs, otherwise there is not stemming the flow of drugs. I will not allow such an effort and niether will the people. The votes lie in the pocket books of the citizens.

By the way aedes, it is very clear that there have been and still are many licentious attempts by the government and its officials to misinform the public about the dangers of marijuana. Most people watch the news before reading a medical journal or neuopsychological study on the topic. Go figure. I cannot support the war on drugs as a libertarian and the fact of blatant ideological contradiction due to the legality of alcohol.