Freedom vs. Security

[urangutan]

I am not about whether drug use is alright to do or not Zetetic. I am simply stating that to fight the problems of the drug market and that is the real problem, then it is being fought on the wrong front. Do you care that a person can sit at home or in the pub ( you call it a bar or saloon) and get so intoxicated that they are legless. I imagine that it may be a concern however, provided that the person does not get violent or go out driving it is pretty much their choice isn't it. Many see this same scenario in the world of drug use.

The real problems with drugs is it is our youth that are most vulnerable to it and the streets that the wars and crime for the control and sale of it are fought over. You cannot eliminate that without fighting the drug trade on its own ground. So far all you have is an overcrowded prison system with no clear objective reached.

All the scientific reasoning in the world will not stop the lure of drugs, just like all the law enforcing will not stop the trade and crime that is tied to it, so you are not fighting the problem, you are using a boot to put out a forrestfire. The spending for this fight is spread across the community, from medical treatment, law enforcing, repairs to the community, awareness programs, insurance premiums for damage, etc.... etc.... .

People have had enough of costs. A program like that suggested, can fund itself and minimize outside expenses. America is not renowned for a passive approach to its problems and in the land of free against the choice of security, I don't know how anyone can then turn around and argue with this and not be a hypocrit to what they say they believe. By argue I mean blattantly disreguard, not offer a better solution and if you have one I am all ears.

The way this battle is being fought the only people who are protected are the criminals who have rights that must be observed. It is like a triage station in the Russian front.

[Jazzman]

Come on -- terrorize? The worst 99.999% of us will ever know of the Patriot Act and similar measures is inconvenience at the airport security points. That's not to defend the Patriot Act, which I feel is unconstitutional and an egregious potential abuse of power. But seriously, do you wake up every day feeling terrorized?

Since I don't live in the US I possibly can't really join in but anyone is afflicted by such laws. There limit your freedom and your rights against the authorities even if you are not specificly in conflict with that law.

[urangutan]

The problem with this sort of arguement Jazzman is it applies across the board. Why should I give up a freedom for the purpose of security, simply for the greater good
You do not go aroung killing for the sake of it freely, do you.
You do not drive irradically in busy streets, do you.
You do not take illicit drugs freely, do you.
You cannot speak generally about a conceptual ideal, without being a hypocrite.

Freedom is nothing if you do not have security. I am not saying I agree with the conditions that have arisen in the United States of America, since the eleventh of the ninth but has there been great retaliation to the communities in America since then, by the people. Have numerous members of the community simply disappeared, because of their nationality, not affiliation, nationality or religion. I suspect not. The people did not open up a retaliative front against a scapegoat at home. Their ire was satiated in this direction, because they knew that the government and the law enforcers would relieve them of this, be it as a duty or a burden.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

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.

That is true. However, there is a similarly ignorant and dangerous attempt on the part of marijuana apologists to deny its medical risks and addictive potential -- which are clearly documented in the medical literature. It is not a "safe" drug. No, it's not as bad as tobacco, cocaine, heroin, meth, or ecstasy, but all that means is that these others are worse, not that marijuana is ok.

Alcohol is sort of in the same category as marijuana in my mind. In fact the medical benefits of alcohol (when consumed appropriately) are probably far greater than the medical benefits of marijuana. In some studies moderate alcohol consumption has lowered the relative risk of cardiac events by 40% (as compared with fairly meagre medical benefits from marijuana). On the other hand, the downsides of alcohol, like cirrhosis, liver cancer, withdrawal, dementia, and violence are terrible.

So promoting safe and appropriate use is difficult when you're walking on a razor's edge. The government finds it easier to just be absolutist about it. The way they are with everything else that they don't understand, splitting things into good and evil.

Originally Posted by Jazzman

Since I don't live in the US I possibly can't really join in but anyone is afflicted by such laws. There limit your freedom and your rights against the authorities even if you are not specificly in conflict with that law.

You don't have the "right" to violate laws, though. We have the right to change them. And if you're speaking about moral rights, i.e. is it acceptable to violate an unjust law, then you MUST accept the inevitable legal consequences of that choice.

And considering that the ban on marijuana is really not that onerous, it seems to be grossly disproportionate to regard this as oppression or terrorization.

[Jazzman]

Originally Posted by Aedes

You don't have the "right" to violate laws, though. We have the right to change them. And if you're speaking about moral rights, i.e. is it acceptable to violate an unjust law, then you MUST accept the inevitable legal consequences of that choice.

I don't doubt that but I didn't agree that the Patriot Act is just irrelevant for 99% of the US population.

And considering that the ban on marijuana is really not that onerous, it seems to be grossly disproportionate to regard this as oppression or terrorization.

It's not a terrorization but it's a discrimination and therefore kind of an oppression.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Jazzman

I don't doubt that but I didn't agree that the Patriot Act is just irrelevant for 99% of the US population.

It's relevant in principle, because it's a step towards unchecked executive power. But in practice, very few of us will EVER be directly affected by it.

It's not a terrorization but it's a discrimination and therefore kind of an oppression.

That's like saying that murderers are oppressed and discriminated by laws against homicide.

Some crimes are worse than others. I agree that the downsides of marijuana do not justify this degree of prosecution by our laws or our law enforcement. However, it IS illegal, it became illegal by legitimate means, and the people who are "oppressed" by it, for the most part, are those who willingly violate that law without any need to do so.

[Jazzman]

Originally Posted by Aedes

It's relevant in principle, because it's a step towards unchecked executive power. But in practice, very few of us will EVER be directly affected by it.

As I said, not directly but indirectly

That's like saying that murderers are oppressed and discriminated by laws against homicide.

Some crimes are worse than others. I agree that the downsides of marijuana do not justify this degree of prosecution by our laws or our law enforcement. However, it IS illegal, it became illegal by legitimate means, and the people who are "oppressed" by it, for the most part, are those who willingly violate that law without any need to do so.

The discrimination results from the fact that for example alcohol isn't illegal although it's far more dangerous. Marhuana is illegal because it's the drug of alternative people.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Jazzman

The discrimination results from the fact that for example alcohol isn't illegal although it's far more dangerous.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. They are different things, with different susceptible populations, different benefits, different risks, different economies. As I've mentioned the medical benefits of alcohol FAR outweigh the medical benefits of marijuana -- it's not even close. However, because of the dangerous effects of alcohol and our inability to identify who is most susceptible, it has not been openly advocated in policy statements and practice guidelines. Nonetheless, if moderate alcohol consumption can lower the relative risk of our most common cause of death by 40%, that's a bit better than marijuana's variable effect on nausea and anorexia in chronically ill patients. And frankly, we don't need marijuana as an antiemetic -- there are MUCH more powerful ones out there.

Basically alcohol is not illegal has mainly to do with its cultural and culinary history. This is not the case in Muslim societies that wholly or partially observe sharia, because alcohol and marijuana are BOTH illegal under those systems.

Marhuana is illegal because it's the drug of alternative people.

That's not the history of the ban. And considering 50% of the population tries marijuana at some point in their life, it's hard to call it the drug of alternative people -- it's only exceeded by caffeine, alcohol, and maybe tobacco (less than 1/3 of Americans smoke cigarettes, though many more than that have tried it).

[Zetetic11235]

I would say that the implimentation of drug laws is not only a restriction of freedom, but security as well. Perhapse we have a smaller percentage of people using hard drugs than if it were illegal to do so, but look at who is enabled and who profits:those who have complete and utter disreguard for the law anyway. Leagalize drugs, undercut gang funding, undercut guerrilla groups in south america. You legalize these drugs and make them subject to FDA regulation as far as quality and you keep the price reasonable. More people will try them, the same people will use heavily because they are self medicating or have very addictive personalities. I think this is along the line of what uranguatang was suggestying, somthing with which I wholeheartedly agree and have stated multiple time in this and other forums. You legalize drugs, you cut down te prison population, make drugs taxable disable gang activity significantly and undercut profit for guerilla groups and other less than friendly foreign manufacturers.

[Didymos Thomas]

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'm familiar with the US Constitution. My issue isn't with the Supremacy Clause, but whether or not the Federal Government has the right to ban a particular substance, like marijuana or alcohol, without a constitutional amendment. The first drug laws were changes in the tax code, and not outright prohibition. Nixon's drug laws went a step further, a step that seems to me to be unconstitutional.

That said, the Constitution also allows the states to legislate matters not addressed in the Constitution, the document which tells the Federal government what it can do. And as far as I know, prohibition is not addressed in the Constitution (barring a Constitutional Amendment). States rights; but I guess that's lost favor since the Civil War.

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.

You went to Harvard, man, I'm not trying to dispute your claims when the claims are medical. I just wasn't so sure on the link between marijuana use and hypogonadism and lung cancer. Hypogonadism because I am not aware of any permanent damage from the use of marijuana and lung cancer because the link doesn't seem so cut and dry as tobacco use.

The links you give do work for me, thanks.

Marinol has not been found to be addictive or abused according to the package insert.

Whoever wrote the thing should take a walk with me some time. What I have seen doesn't make the cut for scientific evidence, perhaps, but is enough to convince me that Marinol can be abused. Addiction is a little trickier.

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.

Well, the practice must be deliberate - the government doesn't accidentally round up thousands of American citizens.

If the US government passes any law that is oppressive that affects thousands of citizens I don't see how we could describe the oppression as anything other than general, common and deliberate.

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.

Absolutely - which is why we need more research on marijuana.

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?

No and no. Both of those present a clear danger to every American.

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.

Their justification was racism, xenophobia and the hope of felonizing a particular portion of the population.

You can look up poll numbers about marijuana as easily as I can. The vast majority of Americans do not think marijuana is a dangerous drug, support for outright legalization is somewhere around 30-35%, a number which has consistently grown over the past few decades, support for medical marijuana also has a significant majority, a bit over 70% if I recall correctly.

But to the main point of the thread - the deliberate, general oppression of the American people, let's take a look: Nixon's Huston Plan was a forerunner of the Patriot Acts. Same principle. Today, any citizen can be detained, held indefinately, without legal counsel, and all without charge. Any citizen. That's you and me, too Aedes.

Edit:

That's not the history of the ban. And considering 50% of the population tries marijuana at some point in their life, it's hard to call it the drug of alternative people -- it's only exceeded by caffeine, alcohol, and maybe tobacco (less than 1/3 of Americans smoke cigarettes, though many more than that have tried it).

Actually, that is the history of the ban, to an extent. The first laws against marijuana were justified in this way - politicians claimed marijuana use made Mexicans and African Americans violent, and caused them to sexually assault white women. Mr. Hearst also had his newspapers run fabricated stories to support those claims.

Nixon is the father of the modern war on drugs. He used the drug laws to felonize a portion of the population that strongly opposed his administration. The counter culture movement of his time was viewed to be closely related to marijuana and drug use; not exactly untrue. The counter culture was also identified as the same group leading the protests against the Vietnam War and general dissent against Nixon; Hunter S. Thompson is a good example here. Nixon took criticism very personally.

Any way, you know that many Americans use marijuana regularly. Meanwhile, laws are in place to send those marijuana users to prison. Thus, the marijuana laws affect a large portion of the population. The laws are obviously deliberate, and the government commonly enforces the laws, laws which felonize the actions of a large portion of the American population.