It's 1920's Under The United State During Alcohol Prohibition.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='06 May 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1273199145' post='2106114']
except that the war on murder doesnt really make murder INCREDIBLY more profitable, and thus increase it.[/quote]
The validity of a law has zero to do with the criminal's profit margin.

[quote]not really.

[i]"Marijuana is currently the leading cause of substance dependence other than alcohol in the U.S. In 2008, marijuana use accounted for 4.2 million of the 7 million people aged 12 or older classified with dependence on or abuse of an illicit drug. This means that about two thirds of Americans suffering from any substance use disorder are suffering from marijuana abuse or marijuana dependence. [/i][i]If the U.S. were to legalize marijuana, the number of marijuana users would increase. Today there are 15.2 million current marijuana users in comparison to 129 million alcohol users and 70.9 million tobacco users. Though the number of marijuana users might not quickly climb to the current numbers for alcohol and tobacco, if marijuana was legalized, the increase in users would be both large and rapid with subsequent increases in addiction."[/i]

these arent "costs" of being addicted to a terrible drug. if you could link to say... hospitalizations for overdosing and treatment for withdrawal, etc(which dont exist because you actually cant overdose on pot, and it is not chemically addictive) then this might have a point.[/quote]
He raises the cost to lives in addition to financial costs. You can find those costs in the article too.

[color="#006400"][i]Important lessons can be learned from those two widely-used legal drugs. While both alcohol and tobacco are taxed and regulated, the tax benefits to the public are vastly overshadowed by the adverse consequences of their use.

Alcohol-related costs total over $185 billion while federal and states collected an estimated $14.5 billion in tax revenue; similarly, tobacco use costs over $200 billion but only $25 billion is collected in taxes. These figures show that the costs of legal alcohol are more than 12 times the total tax revenue collected, and that the costs of legal tobacco are about 8 times the tax revenue collected. This is an economically disastrous tradeoff.

The costs of legalizing marijuana would not only be financial.[/i]
[/color]
And from another article...

[color="#006400"][i]Joel W. Gray, professor of pharmaceutical economics and policy at the University of Southern California, for instance, is highly critical of any economic savings, saying that for every dollar of tax revenue generated, the government would spend $10 in "societal costs" through treatment programs, reduced workplace productivity, lower testing scores, absenteeism in schools, accidents caused by clouded judgment and other aggravating circumstances.
[url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/36179733"]Source[/url]
[/i][/color]

Is marijuana addictive? Never to the guy who says "I can quit anytime." Here is what a professional in the treatment of addictions says and an ex-marijuana user.

[color="#006400"][i]From my perspective as an addiction psychiatrist it is clear that many see only one side of this two-pronged question. They herald the benefits of marijuana and claim it is benign. Since 1982, I have treated literally several thousand individuals suffering from all varieties of addiction, including marijuana dependency and abuse. From this clinical experience, I have taken away a strong conviction that [b]marijuana is dangerous[/b].
[url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/36465700/"]Source[/url]
[/i][/color]

[color="#000080"][i]Although my last drink was January 1966 because of marijuana I was not clean and date my complete recovery from April 8, 1988 when I smoked my last joint and fully embraced a 12-step program of recovery.
...
I don't particularly like the smoke and the smell of marijuana. [b]It triggers craving in my brain which I find annoying[/b] but easily handled in my 12-step fellowship.
[url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/36180874/"]Source[/url]
[/i][/color]

[quote]as is, these costs are basically the guy counting how many people are "addicted" to this drug. its like saying the costs of chocolate being legal is that several million people eat it.

and once again, people can only be as addicted to marijuana as they can be addicted to something like chocolate. it makes them feel good, so they keep eating it. there is no chemical dependency, only the same force of habit that makes you have toast with jam and eggs every morning, because you like it. No nasty withdrawal effects like true narcotics, or even alchoholism.
[/quote]
Does it really matter how the addiction is packaged inside? It's an addiction.

There is research documenting the chemical reactions in the brain and foods such as chocolate.

[color="#006400"][i]Does chocolate affect the brain in the same way marijuana does? There are chemicals in chocolate that act like THC, resulting in production of dopamine, a neurotransmitter. However, there is no THC in chocolate, so you aren't breaking the law by eating chocolate. One of the compounds in chocolate is anandamide, which is already produced in your brain. If anandamide is already in your brain, then why don't you feel happy all the time? Well, anandamide is broken down quickly, so it isn't around long in your brain to make you smile. But chocolate may extend the feelings of well being. Piomelli's research indicates that there are two chemicals in chocolate which inhibit the natural breakdown of anandamide. This may be a reason why we like to eat chocolate! And dark chocolate contains more of these compounds than milk chocolate.
[url="http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/choco.html"]Source[/url][/i][/color]

Sounds chemical to me.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='06 May 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1273199388' post='2106117']
He only used Gambling instead of alchohol(which is by far the more similar comparison) because the effects and costs of Alchohol Prohibition would destroy his argument instead of propping it up.
the similar analogy(legalization of low level drug) failed, so he looked for for something else.
[/quote]
He did bring up alcohol. I quoted part of his mention above. Re-read the article.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='06 May 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1273210578' post='2106197']
The validity of a law has zero to do with the criminal's profit margin.
[/quote]

No, just the effectiveness, and how it actually affects the people living under or around that rule.
You know, the part that actually matters when all is said and done.

A law that is strong on paper but flaccid and weak in practice is not a good or valid law.

Profit margin drives crime. If it wasn't for the fact that trading illegal drugs is like a million times more lucrative than legal ones such as cigarettes or alcohol, then the crime based around its trafficking would cease.

If you made as much money selling marijuana as you do selling booze at a liquor store, very few people would go out of their way to murder people over it.


[quote]
He raises the cost to lives in addition to financial costs. You can find those costs in the article too.

[color="#006400"][i]Important lessons can be learned from those two widely-used legal drugs. While both alcohol and tobacco are taxed and regulated, the tax benefits to the public are vastly overshadowed by the adverse consequences of their use.

Alcohol-related costs total over $185 billion while federal and states collected an estimated $14.5 billion in tax revenue; similarly, tobacco use costs over $200 billion but only $25 billion is collected in taxes. These figures show that the costs of legal alcohol are more than 12 times the total tax revenue collected, and that the costs of legal tobacco are about 8 times the tax revenue collected. This is an economically disastrous tradeoff.

The costs of legalizing marijuana would not only be financial.[/i]
[/color]
And from another article...

[color="#006400"][i]Joel W. Gray, professor of pharmaceutical economics and policy at the University of Southern California, for instance, is highly critical of any economic savings, saying that for every dollar of tax revenue generated, the government would spend $10 in "societal costs" through treatment programs, reduced workplace productivity, lower testing scores, absenteeism in schools, accidents caused by clouded judgment and other aggravating circumstances.
[url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/36179733"]Source[/url]
[/i][/color][/quote]

So it costs money to the country.

So does eating fast food, what would you like to do there? its unhealthy and costly, do you think the long hand of the law, the big evil liberal government should reach down and ban that for cost reasons? or any reason? Isn't it kind of your lawful right to eat yourself fat, to drink yourself drunk as you see fit in your own home?


[quote]
Is marijuana addictive? Never to the guy who says "I can quit anytime." Here is what a professional in the treatment of addictions says and an ex-marijuana user.

Does it really matter how the addiction is packaged inside? It's an addiction.
[/quote]

One professional and an ex user, do not a solid argument make. I would have a hard time learning anything truthful and unbiased listening to "ex christians"

A mental dependency is not the drugs fault. overeating, alchoholism, gambling, etc these are all addictions that are for the most part mental. they do something because it makes them feel good, etc.

Heroin, cigarettes, crystal meth, these drugs take a hard hold of your body and brain, forcing you to continue using the drug, unless you want to suffer extreme sickness and pain and in some cases death.

The two are not even remotely the same. You can have a mental addiction to almost anything. but you arent going to throw up, keel over in pain, sweating profusely and possibly die trying to give it up.

[quote]
There is research documenting the chemical reactions in the brain and foods such as chocolate.


Sounds chemical to me.
[/quote]
well, duh chocolate has a chemical effect on the body, everything that goes into it does. what it doesn't create is a chemical dependency. and in that way, they are similar.

[quote]
He did bring up alcohol. I quoted part of his mention above. Re-read the article.
[/quote]

in passing, and not as Prohibition, which parallels what he is talking about.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='07 May 2010 - 02:18 AM' timestamp='1273213097' post='2106206']
No, just the effectiveness, and how it actually affects the people living under or around that rule.
You know, the part that actually matters when all is said and done.

A law that is strong on paper but flaccid and weak in practice is not a good or valid law.[/quote]
As I showed before using real numbers, the war on drugs is having success. So, I disagree with you saying the war on drugs is weak and flaccid. Repeating it over and over by legalize drug supporters doesn't make it so.

Should we lift the prohibition against robbery? It's very profitable. It's obvious laws against theft are weak and flaccid because there are robberies every day in the millions and billions. The cops are losing the war against theft.

We could ask the same questions about other profitable crimes, like human trafficking, child prostitution, counterfeiting, etc. Are none of those laws valid because they're profitable and continually violated? Maybe Abraham Lincoln should have not prohibited slavery because it was so profitable and enforcement was so bloody.

[quote]Profit margin drives crime. If it wasn't for the fact that trading illegal drugs is like a million times more lucrative than legal ones such as cigarettes or alcohol, then the crime based around its trafficking would cease.[/quote]
This is not true in the real world. I gave my examples in the other thread you read. Legalizing behavior does not eliminate crime. One would have to be naive to believe because alcohol is legal that there isn't illegal production and distribution of alcohol.

[quote]If you made as much money selling marijuana as you do selling booze at a liquor store, very few people would go out of their way to murder people over it.[/quote]
Move next to a liquor store and tell me how wonderful life is being around it, especially in a middle to low income area.

[quote]So it costs money to the country.

So does eating fast food, what would you like to do there? its unhealthy and costly, do you think the long hand of the law, the big evil liberal government should reach down and ban that for cost reasons? or any reason? Isn't it kind of your lawful right to eat yourself fat, to drink yourself drunk as you see fit in your own home?[/quote]
If you admit fast food is an equal strain on a society as narcotics (I disagree with this.), then why compound the problem? You are making a great argument against legalization. Why double the fiscal strain?


[quote]One professional and an ex user, do not a solid argument make. I would have a hard time learning anything truthful and unbiased listening to "ex christians"

A mental dependency is not the drugs fault. overeating, alchoholism, gambling, etc these are all addictions that are for the most part mental. they do something because it makes them feel good, etc.

Heroin, cigarettes, crystal meth, these drugs take a hard hold of your body and brain, forcing you to continue using the drug, unless you want to suffer extreme sickness and pain and in some cases death.

The two are not even remotely the same. You can have a mental addiction to almost anything. but you arent going to throw up, keel over in pain, sweating profusely and possibly die trying to give it up.[/quote]
I am to trust the credentials of a user named "Jesus_LOL" on a small forum in the internet sky over PhDs working the field of addictions?

That ex-user was a long time user, and his experiences are valuable as a case study. I could parade the testimonies of many more ex-users. But, you will continue to discount them as long their real world life experiences stand in opposition to your fantasies about what marijuana is.

[quote]well, duh chocolate has a chemical effect on the body, everything that goes into it does. what it doesn't create is a chemical dependency. and in that way, they are similar.[/quote]
First, you said it was all mental, i.e. psychological. I proved chemicals are involved. Now you hang your argument on your idea chocolate does not show withdrawal symptoms because it's a different kind of addiction, the same kind marijuana and Twinkies have on you. Science disagrees with you again.

[color="#000080"][i]A recent report in the New Scientist magazine suggests people can become overly dependent on the sugar and fat in fast food. Princeton University researcher Dr. John Hoebel found that rats fed on sugar became anxious when the sugar was removed. Their symptoms included chattering teeth and the shakes – similar to those seen in people withdrawing from nicotine or morphine. Dr. Hoebel believes high-fat foods stimulate opioids or “pleasure chemicals” in the brain. This theory is backed up by many other studies.
[url="http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/does-chocolate-addiction-exist/"]Source[/url][/i][/color]


And...
[color="#000080"][i]The idea that bad food can be addictive is not new. But previous studies have tended to focus on the positive reinforcement side of the equation--for example, the pleasurable "rush" you get from eating chocolate cake. "This is just part of the story," says Pietro Cottone, a neuroscientist at Boston University and a co-author of the new study, which was conducted at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. The brain also has a negative reinforcement system that causes anxiety and stress during withdrawal.
[url="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/11/09-02.html"]Source[/url][/i][/color]

If you eat enough, you could become addicted and show withdrawal signs. The difference between chocolate and narcotics is the level of consumption to reach addiction is much lower with chocolate than narcotics.

[quote]in passing, and not as Prohibition, which parallels what he is talking about.[/quote]
But you said he made no mention of it and built an entire argument around it.

Seriously, go to Imdb, Hulu, or Netflix and watch via stream Dragnet: [url="http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2424438809/"]The Big High[/url] and [url="http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2558656537/"]The Big Prophet[/url]. It's the same old song.

[God Conquers]

I vote: Get rich off shipping alcohol into a country silly enough to try to ban it.

Canada FTW.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='07 May 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1273249792' post='2106306']
I vote: Get rich off shipping alcohol into a country silly enough to try to ban it.

Canada FTW.
[/quote]
Apparently my great grandfather did.

[Lounge Daddy]

Agora! Anarchy! Action!

[Winchester]

ANGORA!

[Nihil Obstat]

ANORAK!

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='07 May 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1273249792' post='2106306']
I vote: Get rich off shipping alcohol into a country silly enough to try to ban it.

Canada FTW.
[/quote]

Worked for Joseph Kennedy, to create the Kennedy family fortune.

~Sternhauser

[Winchester]

ANGOLA!

[Laudate_Dominum]

MY BOTTOM!

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='07 May 2010 - 09:17 AM' timestamp='1273249065' post='2106304']
As I showed before using real numbers, the war on drugs is having success. So, I disagree with you saying the war on drugs is weak and flaccid. Repeating it over and over by legalize drug supporters doesn't make it so.
[/quote]

if you count success as a slightly lower amount of drug use, then yeah sure. however, over half a million americans are in jail for drug related offenses(for perspective, this is more than the total number of incarcerated people, for every crime in Western Europe, even though the USA has 100 million less people.
how is the rate of drug trafficking related murders coming along?

dont forget to count all the gang killings in USA AND Mexico, cause thats where the war on drugs has suddenly made it popular to grow and traffic drugs into the united states from.
pictures of SUV's full of people, shot up gangland style and with the drivers face literally shot off, those sort of things make me very skeptical that the drug war is a positive influence in general.

[quote name='kamiller42']
Should we lift the prohibition against robbery? It's very profitable. It's obvious laws against theft are weak and flaccid because there are robberies every day in the millions and billions. The cops are losing the war against theft.

We could ask the same questions about other profitable crimes, like human trafficking, child prostitution, counterfeiting, etc. Are none of those laws valid because they're profitable and continually violated? Maybe Abraham Lincoln should have not prohibited slavery because it was so profitable and enforcement was so bloody.
[/quote]
aside from the fact that that is inane, you are also making a poor comparison.

marijuana and the use thereof is not a morally evil thing to do. like anything, abuse of it is bad, but used responsibly, it is fine.
Robbery, human trafficking, child prostitution, counterfeiting could never be construed as anything but immoral, very immoral, acts. they are intrinsically incredibly evil acts(human trafficking, child prostitution)

also, it is not the fact that robbery is illegal and enforced that makes robbery profitable. its profitable by its own nature. there is no way cops chasing down thieves would ever increase robbery, or make it more profitable.

[quote name='kamiller42']
This is not true in the real world. I gave my examples in the other thread you read. Legalizing behavior does not eliminate crime. One would have to be naive to believe because alcohol is legal that there isn't illegal production and distribution of alcohol.


Move next to a liquor store and tell me how wonderful life is being around it, especially in a middle to low income area.
[/quote]

tell me, when was the last time you heard about an illegal distillery near you? when was the last time a home made still exploded in your neighboorhood? when was the last time anyone you knew paid for liquor distilled in a bathtub?

one would have to have the intelligence of a styrofoam cup to not realize that illegal distribution of alchohol has been radically reduced, to the point that it is now quite rare, and mostly consists of travellers wanting a few bottles of Shiraz to get through customs without duty.


[quote name='kamiller42']
If you admit fast food is an equal strain on a society as narcotics (I disagree with this.), then why compound the problem? You are making a great argument against legalization. Why double the fiscal strain?
[/quote]

i think it is worse, at least worse than marijuana and alchohol abuse(from a medical standpoint only, drunk drivers probably make alchohol much more costly to society)
fast food and obesity cause chronic health issues, massive healthcare spending and significantly reduce life expectancy.

[quote name='kamiller42']
I am to trust the credentials of a user named "Jesus_LOL" on a small forum in the internet sky over PhDs working the field of addictions?
[/quote]

taking shots at my user name is such a scummy thing to do. very nice. your sign in name isnt exactly "Dr.Kamiller42 PhD" either.

considering how many PhD's would disagree with you, i dont think that really works for you. I suppose you trust all the academics that disagree with you equally? though they have similar or higher credentials?

[quote]
That ex-user was a long time user, and his experiences are valuable as a case study. I could parade the testimonies of many more ex-users. But, you will continue to discount them as long their real world life experiences stand in opposition to your fantasies about what marijuana is.
[/quote]
im willing to bet i have much more real life experience with how marijuana works than you do, more experience with people who use it, who dont any more, those who grow it, those who sell it, etc.

but of course, i must be disqualified cause you can use google to search for "views on drugs that agree with me"
how about some with facts backing them up? you know, qualified persons and peer review? these ain't blog posts:
[url="http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving.shtml"]Cannabis and driving[/url]
[url="http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_research1.shtml"]Alchohol vs Cannabis Impairement[/url]
[url="http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth.shtml"]Exposing Marijuana Myths[/url]
[i]
[/i][size="-1"]Lynn Zimmer, Associate Professor of Sociology, Queens College and John P. Morgan, Professor of Pharmacology, City University of New York Medical School
wrote [url="http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth9.shtml"]here[/url]:[/size][i][size="-1"]
"[/size]Essentially all drugs are used in "an addictive fashion" by some people. However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities.

National epidemiological surveys show that the large majority of people who have had experience with marijuana do not become regular users.
In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week. A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month.

Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them.

There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms."[/i]


[quote name='kamiller42']First, you said it was all mental, i.e. psychological. I proved chemicals are involved. Now you hang your argument on your idea chocolate does not show withdrawal symptoms because it's a different kind of addiction, the same kind marijuana and Twinkies have on you. Science disagrees with you again.


If you eat enough, you could become addicted and show withdrawal signs. The difference between chocolate and narcotics is the level of consumption to reach addiction is much lower with chocolate than narcotics.
[/quote]

firstly, you misunderstood me, which is not surprising. of course chemicals are involved in getting high. its not all been a placebo effect since the 1960's. what i did say was that the ADDICTION is not significantly caused by chemical dependency. the ADDICTION is entirely mental.

and if you want to use the quote i posted from erowid above, that says that subjects being given 15-20 joints worth of THC daily, experienced some mild withdrawal symptoms, you might as well not bother. 15-20 joint daily is simply an astronomical number, this would be like hearing of people drinking 3 or 4 40's of whiskey every day. and to only have mild symptoms at that point?

[quote name='kamiller42']
But you said he made no mention of it and built an entire argument around it.
[/quote]

im sorry, i meant to say he made no mention of alcohol prohibition. which, last i checked, was what i said in that post, and was still true.


[size=1] sorry for all the editing, my formatting went seriously wonky[/size]

Edited May 8, 2010 by Jesus_lol

[Winchester]

BOTTOM!!

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='08 May 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1273291811' post='2106672']
if you count success as a slightly lower amount of drug use, then yeah sure. however, over half a million americans are in jail for drug related offenses(for perspective, this is more than the total number of incarcerated people, for every crime in Western Europe, even though the USA has 100 million less people.
how is the rate of drug trafficking related murders coming along?[/quote]
[color="#000080"][i]There is a common misconception that the principle costs of marijuana use are those related to the criminal justice system. This is a false premise. Caulkins & Sevigny (2005) found that the percentage of people in prison for marijuana use is less than one half of one percent (0.1-0.2 percent). [/i][/color]
[url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223/Why_We_Should_Not_Legalize_Marijuana"]Source[/url]

[quote]dont forget to count all the gang killings in USA AND Mexico, cause thats where the war on drugs has suddenly made it popular to grow and traffic drugs into the united states from.
pictures of SUV's full of people, shot up gangland style and with the drivers face literally shot off, those sort of things make me very skeptical that the drug war is a positive influence in general.[/quote]
Do you honestly believe that goes away if America legalized?

[quote]aside from the fact that that is inane, you are also making a poor comparison.

marijuana and the use thereof is not a morally evil thing to do. like anything, abuse of it is bad, but used responsibly, it is fine.
Robbery, human trafficking, child prostitution, counterfeiting could never be construed as anything but immoral, very immoral, acts. they are intrinsically incredibly evil acts(human trafficking, child prostitution)

also, it is not the fact that robbery is illegal and enforced that makes robbery profitable. its profitable by its own nature. there is no way cops chasing down thieves would ever increase robbery, or make it more profitable[/quote]
Your argument was about profitability of a crime and the costs of enforcing prohibition of a behavior. A turn into a debate about the morality of the behaviors means we agree on the futility of dismissing prohibition of narcotics on grounds of profitability and the cost of enforcement.

Anything taken to excess is bad, but not everything is equally anything. Marijuana is not chocolate or a Big Mac.

[quote]tell me, when was the last time you heard about an illegal distillery near you? when was the last time a home made still exploded in your neighboorhood? when was the last time anyone you knew paid for liquor distilled in a bathtub?

one would have to have the intelligence of a styrofoam cup to not realize that illegal distribution of alchohol has been radically reduced, to the point that it is now quite rare, and mostly consists of travellers wanting a few bottles of Shiraz to get through customs without duty.[/quote]
You have to be license to produce alcohol.

[color="#000080"][i][b]State Agents Raid Illegal Distillery[/b]

POSTED: 7:52 am CDT April 22, 2010
UPDATED: 8:17 am CDT April 22, 2010

McCOOL, Miss. -- State agents have raided an illegal distillery in McCool, arrested one man and seized marijuana and whiskey.

The Mississippi Alcohol Beverage Control served a warrant on Tuesday, where they discovered 45 gallons of whiskey in clear plastic jugs, a three-barrel still covered in insulation and a half-pound of processed marijuana in clear plastic bags inside some sheds.[/i][/color]
[url="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MSmjH4_MiL4J:www.wapt.com/news/23230450/detail.html+illegal+distillery&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en"]Source[/url]

I am not surprised marijuana was found on site. He probably thinks the prohibition against distilling without a license to be oppressive.

[color="#000080"][b]Modern Moonshine Manufacture on the Rise[/b]

Mr. CALHOUN: A lot of things that they do, it hurts our community.

NIILER: Agent Jay Calhoun disagrees. He says it's a serious crime and that some moonshiners are now selling drugs, moving marijuana and cocaine along the same smuggling routes north.

Mr. CALHOUN: And once you get in that illegal mind-set, it's easy to branch over to other crimes.
[url="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5029896"]Source[/url]
[/color]

Illegal distribution is the distribution of spirits where it is not licit. You're thinking trucks with barrels of whiskey like in Prohibition. But today, it includes the largest crime of distributing alcohol to minors. Do you really think that minimal?

[quote]i think it is worse, at least worse than marijuana and alchohol abuse(from a medical standpoint only, drunk drivers probably make alchohol much more costly to society)
fast food and obesity cause chronic health issues, massive healthcare spending and significantly reduce life expectancy.[/quote]
Again, we agree. Obesity causes stress on the system. There's no need to add to it with the inevitable problems arising from legalized marijuana.

[quote]taking shots at my user name is such a scummy thing to do. very nice. your sign in name isnt exactly "Dr.Kamiller42 PhD" either.

considering how many PhD's would disagree with you, i dont think that really works for you. I suppose you trust all the academics that disagree with you equally? though they have similar or higher credentials?[/quote]
If you are uncomfortable with your user name, you should request changing it.

I do not consider myself a PhD, which is why I did the leg work of getting the opinion of those who do hold the degree and those working on the front lines of addiction. I was a little when such work was batted away with a "Nuh, uh. Not true." rebuttal.

[quote]im willing to bet i have much more real life experience with how marijuana works than you do, more experience with people who use it, who dont any more, those who grow it, those who sell it, etc.[/quote]
I rely on multiple sources. If I thought I was a good source, I would have referenced myself. And, I know anecdotal evidence only goes so far.

[quote]but of course, i must be disqualified cause you can use google to search for "views on drugs that agree with me"
how about some with facts backing them up? you know, qualified persons and peer review? these ain't blog posts:
[url="http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving.shtml"]Cannabis and driving[/url]
[url="http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_research1.shtml"]Alchohol vs Cannabis Impairement[/url]
[url="http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth.shtml"]Exposing Marijuana Myths[/url][/quote]

I will take these one by one below...

[color="#000080"][i]While it is widely accepted that cannabis use can slow motor skills and reduce task-attention, increasing in severity with dose, research has shown that cannabis use is less likely to dangerously impair driving abilities than alcohol at similar levels of intoxication. Cannabis intoxication often makes smokers more aware of their impairment, causing them to slow down and become more cautious [b]while also worsening reaction time and attention[/b][/i][/color]

The article admits impairment while driving when smoking marijuana. "Well, it's not as bad as alcohol" is a poor argument because both are bad. Why legalize marijuana and make the roads more dangerous?

The second article is the same as the first, driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana impairs a driver's skills. If someone was arguing against the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol, I would say you have a point.

The third article does its best to paint marijuana as healthy as eating carrots using an array of subject areas. (The most ridiculous claim is marijuana use during pregnancy comes with very little risk to the unborn.) Did you want to focus on one in particular?

[quote][i][/i][size="-1"]Lynn Zimmer, Associate Professor of Sociology, Queens College and John P. Morgan, Professor of Pharmacology, City University of New York Medical School
wrote [url="http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth9.shtml"]here[/url]:[/size][size="-1"]
"[/size]Essentially all drugs are used in "an addictive fashion" by some people. However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities.

National epidemiological surveys show that the large majority of people who have had experience with marijuana do not become regular users.
In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week. A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month.[/quote]
And I wonder how many people took a drag on mommy or daddy's cigarette once and never did it again. Therefore, cigarettes are not addictive.

If so few people who have tried marijuana are repeat users, then what's the point of legalizing? Very few are using. This will make the drug war easy to fight.

[quote][i]There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms."[/i]

firstly, you misunderstood me, which is not surprising. of course chemicals are involved in getting high. its not all been a placebo effect since the 1960's. what i did say was that the ADDICTION is not significantly caused by chemical dependency. the ADDICTION is entirely mental.

and if you want to use the quote i posted from erowid above, that says that subjects being given 15-20 joints worth of THC daily, experienced some mild withdrawal symptoms, you might as well not bother. 15-20 joint daily is simply an astronomical number, this would be like hearing of people drinking 3 or 4 40's of whiskey every day. and to only have mild symptoms at that point?[/quote]
They are describing symptoms of withdrawal when administering high quantities. If something is not truly not addicting, it would not show signs of withdrawal at any level. They are admitting there is an addictive element to marijuana, even chemical. Some of those symptoms of withdrawal sound a lot like the withdrawal someone experiences when they're addicted to harder drugs. You told me that's not possible, but your article say it is.

Summary:
1. Marijuana is addictive.
2. Its addiction is chemical and psychologically based. Some say mild, but an addiction is an addiction.
3. Legalized marijuana endangers a community. Specific example of impaired drivers was provided.
4. Legalizing marijuana would not decrease the number of addicts, but increase them. (Does the U.S. not have enough addictions to deal with?)

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Winchester' date='08 May 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1273292246' post='2106679']
BOTTOM!!
[/quote]
TOP!!