~~~Arguement to keep all Pot Illegal~~~

[Lucky]

Then what do you tell the kids who expect dare and get a government sponsored endorcement to "stop saying no it is ok to smoke pot!" instead. isn't that a bit dangerous?

Im not going to get involved much in this thread, I intensly argued this just last week and let all my feeling known. I would like to point out however, something about DARE. In kids that have been exposed to the DARE program (and related to it, project SMART), its been shown that they have a HIGHER probability of trying drugs/alcohol/cigarettes than kids who were not exposed the program.

When our own anti-drug programs are so deceitful that they end up steering kids towards drug use, something is wrong.

Link

When comparing those students who had gone through the Affective course with those students who had gone through other types of courses, the statistics were devastating.

The evaluation went on to state, "Compared to Controls, those receiving the Affective program had 20.1 and 86.4% increases in tobacco use, 30.9 and 42.4% increases in onset of alcohol, and 47.3 and 74.2% increases in marijuana use at post-test 1 and 2, respectively" (Ibid, p. 145, emphasis mine).

In a study completed by the Center for Prevention Research at the University of Kentucky, "Researchers found increased use of marijuana one year after DARE" (Journal of Health Communication 3 (4), 1991, as quoted in the Research Council on Ethnopsychology, "Experimental Mysticism, DARE").

Cuddy declared, "Similarly, Stanford University Professor Richard Blum's large-scale study of children who went through non-directive decision-making programs took up with tobacco, marijuana and alcohol more than students not in the programs" (USA Today, 10 September 1991, p. 10A).

Another study, this one published in January 1990, "Assessed the use of five gateway substances after DARE: marijuana, beer, wine, hard liquor and cigarettes.

"DARE students showed elevation on all five substances two years after the course; control-group subjects were elevated on only three" (Research Council on Ethnopsychology, p. 3, emphasis mine).

"No preventive effect of the affective education program was observed. By the final post-test, classrooms that had received the affective program had significantly more drug use than controls" (No. 17, 1988, p. 135).

Think DARE and programs like it are good for our kids? Think again.

 

[A5]

Legalize it and tax the hell out of it, like they do with cigarettes now. At least the government will make some money to spend on real problems then.

Edit:
I would like to add that DARE is a pathetic excuse of a program. I wasn't paying enough attention during the sessions to learn anything, so I can't really debate about the information they give out.

 

[gopunk]

Im not going to get involved much in this thread, I intensly argued this just last week and let all my feeling known. I would like to point out however, something about DARE. In kids that have been exposed to the DARE program (and related to it, project SMART), its been shown that they have a HIGHER probability of trying drugs/alcohol/cigarettes than kids who were not exposed the program.

When our own anti-drug programs are so deceitful that they end up steering kids towards drug use, something is wrong.

does this mean that dare makes kids do drugs, or that the kids that are exposed to dare were more likely to do drugs in the first place?

 

[EXman]

Gonad I agree I was hungry when I smoked pot ! but you are introduced into the drug culture and your inhibitons are relaxed to trying other drugs when you are high. Heck my good friend in highschool said " these shrooms makes me want to throw this pot away! you can disagree about the gateway to hard drugs if you asked a Crack addict or a Shroomhead what was the first illicit drug you tried the numbers support Marijuana far outweighs the competition. Kind like this hypothetical comment "Cocaine drove me to Pot" not a very likely story.

 

[Cougar]

Originally posted by: gopunk


i'd rather go down being right but not listened to, than go down being wrong but listened to

True, True.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: gopunk
Im not going to get involved much in this thread, I intensly argued this just last week and let all my feeling known. I would like to point out however, something about DARE. In kids that have been exposed to the DARE program (and related to it, project SMART), its been shown that they have a HIGHER probability of trying drugs/alcohol/cigarettes than kids who were not exposed the program.

When our own anti-drug programs are so deceitful that they end up steering kids towards drug use, something is wrong.

does this mean that dare makes kids do drugs, or that the kids that are exposed to dare were more likely to do drugs in the first place?

ah, what? DARE is implemented all over the country in all sorts of atmospheres. Im not sure what you are trying to say. The studies quoted above have had control classes in some instances.



And one final quibble:

EDit : I live in KY so it is like Super pro pot and Hemp and all that jazz.

"Pot" and Hemp are completely different subjects with vastly different reasons for being illegal. Do not confuse hemp with "Pot". Hemp should be made illegal NOW, there really aren't any arguments against it exept perhaps that loggers and paper producers dont want to be competitive against other fibers.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: gopunk
Im not going to get involved much in this thread, I intensly argued this just last week and let all my feeling known. I would like to point out however, something about DARE. In kids that have been exposed to the DARE program (and related to it, project SMART), its been shown that they have a HIGHER probability of trying drugs/alcohol/cigarettes than kids who were not exposed the program.

When our own anti-drug programs are so deceitful that they end up steering kids towards drug use, something is wrong.

does this mean that dare makes kids do drugs, or that the kids that are exposed to dare were more likely to do drugs in the first place?

ah, what? DARE is implemented all over the country in all sorts of atmospheres. Im not sure what you are trying to say. The studies quoted above have had control classes in some instances.

what i'm trying to say is this: correlation does not prove causation.

 

[LordMaul]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
If you want marijuana, you can get it now with no problems. Why not tax the sales that exist now anyway?

Not to mention the jail space we'll save, along with the cost of prosecuting and housing the offenders. Police will also be able to focus their attention on real crimes.

DUMBFVCK. It's illegal, so it is a real crime.

No matter what, if you did something and it says in some law book that you aren't supposed to, you fscking broke the law.

 

[Lucky]

what i'm trying to say is this: correlation does not prove causation.

So what are you looking for? What information, studies, or statistics do you need?

Cuddy declared, "Similarly, Stanford University Professor Richard Blum's large-scale study of children who went through non-directive decision-making programs took up with tobacco, marijuana and alcohol more than students not in the programs" (USA Today, 10 September 1991, p. 10A).

Another study, this one published in January 1990, "Assessed the use of five gateway substances after DARE: marijuana, beer, wine, hard liquor and cigarettes.

"DARE students showed elevation on all five substances two years after the course; control-group subjects were elevated on only three" (Research Council on Ethnopsychology, p. 3, emphasis mine).

 

[Ben50]

EXman, I think you have written a good paper considering there is very little evidence to support either side of the arguement. I think the government avoids funding more studies on marijuana because it doesn't want to know the "truth" about it. The less people know about something, the easier it is to put ideas in their head about it. If we had a lot of evidence that supported one side or the other, then it would be a clearcut decision on whether pot should be legalized. Unfortunately the government is content to keep us in the dark about its real effects.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: EXman
Gonad I agree I was hungry when I smoked pot ! but you are introduced into the drug culture and your inhibitons are relaxed to trying other drugs when you are high. Heck my good friend in highschool said " these shrooms makes me want to throw this pot away! you can disagree about the gateway to hard drugs if you asked a Crack addict or a Shroomhead what was the first illicit drug you tried the numbers support Marijuana far outweighs the competition. Kind like this hypothetical comment "Cocaine drove me to Pot" not a very likely story.

You are making my point here. Legalize pot and you will be exposed to the 'drug culture' no more so than alcohol or tobacco exposes someone to it. And unfortunately, after you realize you have been lied to about how 'bad' pot is, you get curious if you've been lied to about how bad the other drugs are as well. Plus you have to consider that people who are inclined to turn to drugs start at the easiest to obtain. Just because someone smoked pot before doing something harder doesn't mean it 'drove' them to it.

 

[EXman]

thanks Ben I need that!

 

[Vic]

Any argument that ever says anything to the effect of "What about our children?" is one that I already know is completely founded on BS. No one wants to legalize pot for use by children. Just to argue the ridiculous point though, I can easily say that the current illegal nature of pot makes it easier for children to obtain than they could the more-regulated alcohol (in most cases). Which brings up my next point, the hypocracy of having a relatively benign intoxicant like pot illegal while an extremely addictive and poisonous substance (cigarettes) and an extremely powerful intoxicant (alcohol) both remain legal. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: LordMaul

DUMBFVCK. It's illegal, so it is a real crime.

What? If it's legalized, it isn't a "real crime"

No matter what, if you did something and it says in some law book that you aren't supposed to, you fscking broke the law.

Not if they take it out of the law books.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: EXman

That article is an absolute joke. Those are the weakest arguments I've ever heard in my entire life. Obviously written by a person that knows nothing about marijuana other than "Drugs are bad, mmmkay."

and you sparkling adomonishment of my paper was pretty weak itself. Least Gonad said why... Gonad If Pot is legalized the more people will try it and then those people become 104% more likely to try Hard drugs that is all.

Theres no need for me to be specific why its so weak, because its obvious that everyone else will do it for me. Well written, but you cant win a losing battle, and your grade has nothing to do with being right.

I will give you a few quick examples.

Marijuana has been proven unsafe and addictive.

Who told you that? Unsafe? How? Addicitve? No way!

In the Netherlands, after drugs were made legal, there was a 33 percent increase in gun deaths, almost all of them drug related.

Drugs are not legal there. Weed is. People are not going to get shot over a legal product, but they will still get shot over crack. Youre just using plain improper logic here.

Therefore, somebody that smokes marijuana and drives would be a hazard to public safety at the very least.

So does closing your eyes and driving, but that doesnt mean we should make blinking illegal. I can list a million things that are unsafe and stupid to do while driving, weed would be no different than any other of them.

our problems will continue and evolve into a new pro-drug society with a skewed sense of morality.

Your morality is not my morality, or anyone elses, and your mention it shows your roots. Drugs are bad mmkay!

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Lucky

what i'm trying to say is this: correlation does not prove causation.

So what are you looking for? What information, studies, or statistics do you need?

well i'd like some well designed studies with control, comparison, and random assignment. frankly, i don't see anything in any of the studies to indicate random assignment. not to mention blum's study just sounds flawed. they put three types of alcohol in there... so for all we know, that study could just show that dare students use a wider variety of alcohol.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: EXman
Gonad I agree I was hungry when I smoked pot ! but you are introduced into the drug culture and your inhibitons are relaxed to trying other drugs when you are high. Heck my good friend in highschool said " these shrooms makes me want to throw this pot away! you can disagree about the gateway to hard drugs if you asked a Crack addict or a Shroomhead what was the first illicit drug you tried the numbers support Marijuana far outweighs the competition. Kind like this hypothetical comment "Cocaine drove me to Pot" not a very likely story.

This is ONLY because cannabis use is by far the most commonly used (therefore most easily available) 'illicit' substance.

Ask all those people who went from pot to something harder if they smoked cigarettes before ever smoking pot. The vast majority would have.
But, cigarettes aren't 'illicit'.

At one point in this country alcohol was an 'illicit' substance. Want to take a bet, during the 30s, what was the most commonly used 'gateway' drug? Of course it would have been alcohol.

'Illicit' is just a word the goverment gives a substance they do not want us using.
Cannabis, although arguably less physically harmful and addictive than tobacco and less socially destructive than alcohol, is only 'illicit' because the goverment cannot control your access to it. The finest cannabis in the world can be grown in your closet with a mere few hundred dollars worth of supplies/seeds.

 

[EXman]

one who hasn't an open mind I feel is the one full of it. Anyways that was just a small part of my paper.

Any argument that ever says anything to the effect of "What about our children?" is one that I already know is completely founded on BS

Now actually I have to have sources. It is my opinion about kids though. But if you legalize Pot you are fooling yourself if you do not think the kids perception of Pot will change. Kids are very impressionable wouldn't you agree. It is not BS it is reality.

 

[gopunk]

Who told you that? Unsafe? How? Addicitve? No way!

http://www.drdrew.com/Topics/article.asp?id=202

 

[BD2003]

So one quack "doctor" conflicts with the consensus of 90% of everyone else and all of a sudden its unsafe and addictive?

 

[EXman]

The finest cannabis in the world can be grown in your closet with a mere few hundred dollars worth of supplies/seeds.

watch out bro people will look you up and try to find your closet.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: BD2003
So one quack "doctor" conflicts with the consensus of 90% of everyone else and all of a sudden its unsafe and addictive?

you want to explain why you call him a quack and why you put "doctor" in quotes? and btw, can you show me that he disagrees with 90% of all medical professionals in the field of addiction medicine?

here is his info:

Dr. Drew is now the medical director for the Department of Chemical Dependency Services and the former chief of service in the Department of Medicine at Las Encinas Hospital in Pasadena, CA. He continues to run a private clinical medicine practice and has just been named clinical assistant professor of Pediatrics at Los Angeles Children's Hospital.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: gopunk
Who told you that? Unsafe? How? Addicitve? No way!

http://www.drdrew.com/Topics/article.asp?id=202

Damm, I'm replying to this thread again. OK, just once more.

Its very rare for marijuana users to become physically dependent on the drug. Out of hundreds of smokers I knew (and know) only one was physically addicted to it, and I met him in an inpatient rehab facility. Phychological dependence is another matter, and its entirely possible for one to become mentally addicted to it though. Based on my own experiences, however, I think its likely that a high percentage of people who become mentally addicted are predisposed to it via an "addictive personality". I certainly fit that category. Doesnt matter if its alchohol, cigarettes, weed or heroine its easy for me to become mentally addicted because I ackwnoledgely have a weak spot for all of those substances.

And if you refer to his statment referencing suicide to mean unsafe, then I'll disagree with that as well. He might have had patients commit suicide on it, but that certainly doesnt prove that pot did it.

 

[EXman]

So one quack "doctor" conflicts with the consensus of 90% of everyone else and all of a sudden its unsafe and addictive?

go read in my paper who supports the pot effort and who doesn't there is a big differance and all the doctors and groups of medical doctors are anti pot it. (yes I know alot of Doctors are pro pot but I do not see any medical societies or groups coming out and say so.

your arguement is very poor...

I am glad some of you had some good points though but now its off to bed
after I smoke a "J" just kidding!

 

[BD2003]

I cant take anyone seriously I see at 2AM on MTV, regardless of his credentials. Besides, being on TV makes him an official role model, so its not like as a doctor its a good idea for him to go spouting off about weed other than condemning it. Besides, addicts pay his bills.

I live amongst potheads, and I have known dozens my entire life, and I have never ever once seen any of the above symptoms. The key here is, he wouldnt be treating someone if they didnt have serious underlying problems to begin with.

Ive seen some coke and heroin addicts, and I've definitely seen drunks and its a sorry sight, but I've never seen a marijuana addict.