Is something illegal necessarily immoral? (Cannabis)greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
I have been having a bit of a time figuring this out: I have been under the perception that violating the laws of our country is inherently immoral, as it would be immoral to be a irresponsible, and potentially dangerous citizen. That assumes all our laws are there for our protection and moral benefit.The primary concern of mine is whether or not cannabis smoking is immoral, as I've been led to the conclusion that it isnt something that is physically harmful (no more harmful than inhaling most other types of smoke such as tobacco) and may change perception and motor functions but not nearly as bad (or dangerously) as getting drunk.
I have looked a bit at the backround of the law and it seems that making cannabis illegal was an anti-mexican immigrant measure, and subsuquent support of the law was based on falsified information about the dangers of smoking it, while ignoring and suppressing scientific research into the actual effects of the drug.
the above are perceptions and information I have gathered in a very un-organized and undocumented way, so im not saying my information is necessarily true or accurate, so please share the information you have.
So, to conclude im curious at to the morality of smoking "pot"
-- Louey Young (Dwarfex@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003
Hi Louey,In general as long as a law isn't promoting something that is immoral, such as abortion, it is generally the 'render unto Caesar' attitude... all governments ultimately have their authority from God. (Catechism starting at 2238) Leaders and laws that are not immoral are deserving of respect and compliance. Even in the case of an immoral law, such as legalized abortion on demand, you are to work within the law as much as possible to effect change and can never do something immoral (you can't kill someone because you believe abortion is murder). Passive resistance is okay, getting people to boycott companies is okay, but actively causing damage to others person or property would not be okay. Armed revolt not okay.
I have never smoked pot, but I expect that as far as impairing function for driving I would guess it is similiar to being drunk. Having seen people high or on acid I wouldn't want to have them driving any more than someone drinking. Probably it is possible to have levels where you are more or less impaired based on amounts used.
I've heard that marijuana was made illegal because hemp as a product competed too well with petroleum products. What is truth is hard to say. I expect it would be moral to work to legalize marijuana on a prescription basis for the sake of pain relief, but I don't think it should be distributed as joints. I suppose working to legalize it as a whole MIGHT be okay (IF smoking marijuana isn't considered immoral in itself) but I would expect probably not "moral" to purposely violate the law when the law itself isn't immoral.
-- Marcia Dietrich (marciadietrich@yahoo.com), December 08, 2003.
In Ireland we have a very long tradition of disrespecting the law and attempting to overthrow any Government ever placed over us. Little wonder when the laws were usually out to destroy our Faith and eliminate our culture. As for Pot smoking I have been doing it for nearly thirty years and the worst it ever made me do was smile and giggle. The only way it will harm you is if you get hit on the head by a large block out a thirty storey window....but like everything else from food to drink it should be taken in moderation.....I don't know about the states but in much of Eurpoe it is now pretty well De Facto legal.
-- Padraig Caughey (padraigcaughey@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.
Hi Louey,One thing that needs to be considered is that smoking pot (like drinking to drunkeness or other drug taking for recreational purposes) puts oneself into the 'near occasion of sin.' Any substance which hampers our self-control is morally dangerous because of the acts we might commit while under the influence - acts which we may not have engaged in otherwise had our wits not been undermined by chemicals.
-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 08, 2003.
I forgot to add -It could be argued that pot might leave you doing nothing more than sitting around giggling, which is hardly immoral, but I think it needs to be considered who and where your money goes to when you buy pot. They aren't exactly the kind of folks concerned with morality, to put it lightly...
-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), December 08, 2003.
The quick answer to the question is: No. Morality is not equal to "civil law". Plenty of civil laws have been immoral or have out- lawed things that were perfectly moral and ethical.Just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily make it immoral, though breaking the law does have consequences and a whole raft of ethical issues in and of itself.
But if the question is: is a banned drug illegal but moral? Then the answer would have to go to the effect of the drug itself.
If it's a mind-altering drug it probably is immoral - insofar as it weakens the will and adversely affects the mind's capacity of reason, it impairs good judgement and right reason... which is why getting drunk is immoral even if alcohol taken in moderation is OK.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 08, 2003.
JmjHello, Louey.
Here at the forum, we discussed this subject at length earlier this year. Rather than send you to the old thread, which is awfully long and contains some things that could mislead you, I'd like to quote from it -- even though just quoting is going to be a bit long. I want to do this in part because your opening post indicates that you have been informed wrongly about the physical dangers of smoking marijuana.
On the morality of it ... QUOTATION #1 (from myself):[Someone] wrote: "casual use of pot does not involve sin."
I disagree, and my argument goes like this ...
(1) It may not be true where you are, but in most places in the world, the use of marijuana is against the law.
(2) The banning of potentially dangerous substances is not an unjust act by a legislature.
(3) For this reason, an anti-pot law is not unjust.
(4) Everyone must obey every just civil law. To disobey is a crime (civilly) and a sin (theologically).
(5) Therefore, disobeying an anti-pot law is a crime, and it is sinful.
END QUOTATION #1
On the physical dangers of it ... QUOTATION #2 (from Frank, who is quoting "WebMD Medical News"):"Today's Cannabis Stronger, With More Carcinogens, Than in the 1960s
By Jeanie Davis, Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD WebMD Medical News. SOURCES: News release, British Lung Foundation • Mark Britton, MD, chairman, British Lung Foundation."Nov. 12, 2002 -- Strong words of warning for those who smoke pot: British researchers have found that smoking pure cannabis harms your lungs as much as tobacco does. Smoking three cannabis joints a day causes the same damage to the lining of the airways as 20 cigarettes. In fact, the tar from a joint contains 50% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco, says the report, published by the British Lung Foundation.
"These statistics will come as a surprise to many people, especially those who choose to smoke cannabis rather than tobacco in the belief that it is 'safer' for them," says Mark Britton, MD, chairman of the British Lung Foundation. The report surveys all current medical and scientific research into the direct effects of smoking marijuana -- both alone and with tobacco -- on the smoker's respiratory health.
"Among the findings:
The cannabis smoked today is much more potent than that smoked in the 1960s -- more than 15 times as potent. People who smoke cannabis have significantly more respiratory symptoms such as chronic cough and mucus production, wheezing, and acute bronchitis. Smoking three or four cannabis cigarettes a day causes the same degree of damage to the lining of the airways as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day. Cannabis tends to be smoked in a way that increases the puff volume by two-thirds and the depth of inhalation by one-third. There is an average fourfold longer breath-holding time with cannabis than with tobacco. This means that there is a greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and smoke particulates such as tar than when smoking a similar quantity of tobacco. As with tobacco smoking, the research also shows a possible link between cannabis smoking and emphysema."A survey earlier this year showed that 79% of children believe that cannabis was 'safe,' according to the British Lung Foundation's news release. Only 2% understood correctly that there are health risks associated with smoking pot."
END QUOTATION #2
On a variety of negative consequences of smoking "pot" ... QUOTATION #3 (from myself):[Preliminary note: Here I am speaking to a visitor named Jordan, who had expressed a position that certain people, and society in general, are harmed more by the jailing of convicted pot-users than by the use of pot itself.]
Jordan ... I think that you see the negative effects of this jailing to be:
(1) the criminal record that those jailed will have to carry,
(2) the punishment that they must undergo, and the danger to which they must be exposed, in jail,
(3) the "halting of young lives" [your words], cutting short their education or their careers,
(4) the painful damage done to families who temporarily lose a member.That is definitely a strong list of negative effects you have, Jordan. To counter these things, I need to present arguments showing that "pot-users and society are more harmed by the use of marijuana (and by the failure to jail users) than they are harmed by the incarceration of convicted users." Here is what I found to be true, and I think that it proves my point:
(1) Most pot-users experience an increased heartbeat (sometimes even double normal). For the few that have coronary defects, this could lead to heart attacks -- fatal or detrimental to users and to society, who must care for them (sometimes at taxpayers' expense).
(2) Most pot-users, in their state of intoxication [literally, poisoning in "toxins"], experience some some loss of coordination, greater distractability (less alertness, lack of concentration), a poorer sense of balance, and slower reaction times. Many of these people then try to function in the world, driving, doing manual labor, etc.. Their impaired physical condition can lead to accidents in which they or innocent people in society are maimed or die. Their condition will lead them to do their work more poorly (with more accidents), this being detrimental to them and to society.
(3) Some pot-users suffer from one or more of these, because the most active chemical, THC, alters the way the brain works: impaired short-term memory, paranoia, suicidal thoughts, anxiousness, intense hunger, and sleepiness. None of these is good for the user or for society. They can cause problems in school, at work, and in friendships. The hunger ("munchies") can lead to unhealthy weight gain (e.g., the "stoner's spare").
(4) Most pot-users experience a lowering of inhibitions, which can lead them to greater willingness to do embarrassing things in public or to engage in risky behaviors. Of the latter, non-marital sex acts are the most common. For example, unmarried adolescents who have used marijuana are four times more likely to have been pregnant or to have gotten someone pregnant than those who have never smoked pot. Imagine the tremendous practical problems resulting from these unexpected pregnancies -- and that's without even talking about the emotional and spiritual effects. Again, detrimental to users and society.
(5) Most pot-users cannot perform at sports nearly as well as when sober, because their timing, speed, and coordination are impaired. This is detrimental to individuals and to teams (society).
(6) For many pot-users, smoking results in a loss of interest in the way they look and how they are getting along at school or work. Detrimental to users and society.
(7) The respiratory health of some pot-users is impaired, because the amount of tar, carbon monoxide, and cancer-causing chemicals inhaled in marijuana smoke are far greater than that inhaled in the same amount of tobacco smoke. Smoking five joints a week is believed to be equivalent in damage/danger to smoking a pack of cigarettes every day. Detrimental to ...
(8) Honest, regular pot-users will admit that marijuana is addictive. When the drug is not available, there are withdrawal symptoms, like drug cravings, decreased appetite, nervousness, irritability, stomach pain, aggression, and anxiety. Detrimental to ...
(9) Teenagers who frequently use marijuana are almost four times as likely to commit a violent act -- either against people or property -- than those who don't, and the are five times as likely to steal things. Detrimental to ...
(10) Many pot-users end up becoming "loners" or can be friendly only with other users, some of whom can lead them into even riskier behaviors, such as mixing in drinking or harder drugs. Detrimental to ...
(11) Published July 2, 2003, referring to research: "Regular cannabis users are at greater risk of developing mental illness later in life ... One study found that the risk was seven times higher for heavy users, said Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry in London. ... A recent Dutch study of 4,000 people in the general population showed that those taking large amounts of cannabis were almost seven times more likely to have psychotic symptoms three years later. ... Another study, in 1987, of 50,000 Swedish Army conscripts, found that those who admitted at age 18 to having taken cannabis on more than 50 occasions, were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia in the following 15 years." EXTREMELY detrimental to users and society.
(12) Finally, quoting from [an] article that [Jordan himself] mentioned ...: "... heavy marijuana users often abuse other drugs, such as alcohol and amphetamines, which also might have long-term neurological effects." Detrimental to users and society.
And so, Jordan, although there indeed is suffering and loss involved in the jailing of convicted pot-users, I think that any rational person, having read my 12 points, would conclude that I have proved my case "in spades":
Pot-users and society are much more seriously harmed by the illegal use of marijuana (and by the failure to jail users) than pot-users and society are harmed by the incarceration of convicted users.
I think that it is easy to see, then, why the Catholic Church supports society when laws are passed to curtail and prosecute the use of the dangerous substance called marijuana."
END QUOTATION #3
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.
I simply hate it when pot-heads preach the "party line" about their favorite little puffin stuff. Virtually none of it is true, which is so amazing considering that so many of them fancy themselves masters of critical thought.As my Jesuit spiritual director once said:
Pot: the quick trip to stupid.
I think that sums up JFG's post quite nicely.
-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.
Oh. I do have to ask though--uh, what about laws that, while not asking anything immoral, are simply absurd? For example, it is illegal to wear suspenders in Nogales, AZ.Or what about other things, like speeding a few miles to stay with traffic, or j-walking?
-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.
Speeding and jay walking would both come under the commandment "Thou Shalt not Kill" - willingness to take unnecessary risks with human lives. Not wearing suspenders is a bit more difficult to support (no pun intended) from scripture.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 08, 2003.
We don't have a duty to speed to "stay with traffic." I have been driving for almost 35 years, driving right at the speed limit and ignoring others. From the time I was little, my Dad taught me that it is every driver's duty to avoid breaking the law (speeding).So, since I drive at the speed limit, I consider it the duty of others to "stay with" me (or fall behind, if they wish to drive more slowly). I ignore most folks who improperly pass me, but ... when a police officer passes me on the freeway (driving above the speed limit, but with no lights and sirens in use), I blow my horn at him in protest. Laws mean things!
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.
John no objective medical expert of any credibility would agree with your "12 points". Your claims are at best gross exaggerations with little or no regard to the the body of evidence that exisits on this issue .Louey IMO look elsewhere for objective medical information.
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.
Kiwi, what objective medical experts have you been reading? Who pays them? Do they work for a drug company? Do they frequent websites in favor of de-criminalizing pot or dope?It seems to me that we can at least agree that tobacco is a less potent weed than canabis... and even so, it's addictive and bad for your long term health.
For John's points to be wrong he'd have to have made a basic error in biology. But so far I've seen no evidence proffered that pot isn't more deadly than tobacco. Maybe you're right. If so, I'm all for learning a thing or two. What websites or books can you refer me to that are "objective"? What medical experts exist to back up that claim?
I did a quick websearch on Yahoo. Here's an interesting link http://health.yahoo.com/search/healthnews?lb=s&p=id%3A50485
It seems "researchers" in the UK have discovered that it's harmful for the lungs. So at least at first view, John's not made this stuff up out of thin air.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 09, 2003.
Jmj
Hi, Kiwi. You wrote:
"John, no objective medical expert of any credibility would agree with your '12 points.' Your claims are at best gross exaggerations with little or no regard to the the body of evidence that exisits on this issue."They are not my "claims." They come from research that I've read in the past. Although most of what I stated is not accompanied by links to source, I believe that I did include a link or two, to which you can add what Skoobouy just provided.
I had to laugh when I saw that you referred to the "12 points" that others have published (and that I posted) as "gross exaggerations." I laughed because there could be no more "gross exagerration" than your irresponsible first sentence. Let's look at it again:
"John, no objective medical expert of any credibility would agree with your '12 points.'"
How could you possibly know that there is NOT EVEN ONE "objective medical expert of any credibility" who would agree with what I posted?
Obviously, you don't know. First, you don't know if there are any such experts. Second, you don't have the ability to judge any experts' "objective[ness]." Third, you don't have the ability to judge any experts' "credibility."
So where does that leave your first sentence? Belly up.
You just invented it, simply because you hold beliefs contrary to mine and because you have read some "objective" and "credible" "experts" [possibly folks that desire to smoke what is now illegal] who say things different from what I posted from others' research. My friend, I suggest that, in future, you temper your language greatly (to appear more believable).God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.
I beg your pardon, Joe S. I gave Skoobouy credit for the link you provided. JFG
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.
Hi Joe Smoking pot isn’t good for you, of course it isn’t but that’s not the issue. Johns claims are not backed up, they’re gross exaggerations and I could go through each of them and point out why but it’s a laborious task that Im not prepared to do. I think most common sense objective people can already see John is presenting an agenda based “scientific” view.John takes a preconceived view that pot is an evil substance( although conveniently ignores cigarettes and alcohol) and builds up evidence to suit his misconception. Im willing to bet given the exaggerations provided John has no personal experience of using pot and has little or no experience in viewing first hand the effects this has either on himself or his peer group. More importantly he lacks the medical knowledge or even scientific research skills to distinguish between fact and fiction. Those who have studied a wide range of evidence simply cannot agree with the exaggerated claims he makes. The challenge for John is to email his “12 claims” to an expert in this area of medicine to get them endorsed (as I said an impossible thing for John to do as no doctor in their right minds would endorse his thoughts) or provide evidence that supports each and every exaggerated claim he makes.
The truth is nothing boils Johns blood more than a law breaker, and he will find whatever evidence he can to UPHOLD THE LAW! He’s extremely Puritan in many regards, not much of a risk taker our John! Life a serious business indeed, not much time for a misspent youth by the sounds of it, Bless him! His story about cruising at 59 mph on the highway giving “speeding” cops a blast on his horn is a very amusing image indeed, oh my.
To be honest Im not prepared to spend hours and hours of time trading different medical opinions and Im not going to continue this as John and I will just end up trading insults, nothing is more certain and I wish to try and avoid confrontation. All I ask Joe is you read widely and as you say consider the source carefully.
I personally don’t think the health risks posed by occasional use of pot itself make it a moral evil. “Occasional use is subjective in itself . The “occasional use” given in the article you provided of “3-4 joints a week”, is in my experience a relatively heavy intake. Joints are often smoked in a group situation and shared, a single joint will get a group of say 5 people fairly stoned. In my experience and that of my wider peer group smoking 3-4 whole joints per week by yourself is anything but occasional use, its a fairly regular use of pot, similar to smoking many packs or cigarettes or many many beers.
Anyway its very difficult to compare the health risks of different drugs what is clear is that both smoking either pot of cigarettes is not good for lung function and that there is a clear established link between smoking cigarettes and cancer and heart disease.
Scientific evidence of health risks from pot to say “lung function” have a very narrow focus and don’t take a holistic view of cost/benefit analysis to the health of a person IMO. Often evidence from non- scientific media construes and misuses scientific information making conclusions not warranted by the evidence provided. Take the yahoo article you have provided and look at what the articles author and compare it with what the researcher said:
Regularly smoking three or four joints a week, even for less than six years, can impair lung function and rob the body of antioxidants that protect cells against damage that can lead to heart disease and cancer.
"Smoking cannabis on a regular basis actually depletes your lung of protective antioxidant substances...and this may have chronic long-term implications for young individuals," said Dr Sarah Nuttall of the University of Birmingham in central England.
The use of the word “can” by the author in regard to her final conclusion , (that it leads to heart disease and cancer) is simply not justified and is misleading. The researcher clearly uses the word “may” indicating the possibility that something may happen as opposed to the author merely indicating that it is able to happen. What is need is much more research to provide conclusive proof for making such a statement .
Anyway please Joe have a read of the following articles which are from British Medical Journal and The New Scientist. I strongly suggest you go to source evidence or specialist medical/scientific publications rather than yahoo. Its like studying theology through yahoo articles, not good practice..
God Bless you Joe at least you’re always willing to be open to discussion and listening to what others believe even if we disagree very strongly. Im certainly open to meaningful discussion but I’m not prepared to discuss the “12 claims of JFG” until he substantiates them, they’re worse than worthless IMO.
"Current debates on cannabis policy are dominated by attempts to establish the potential health costs of use of cannabis. While accurate assessment of the potential harms of cannabis is desirable, it is at least as important to estimate the costs which are usually ignored of current cannabis controls.
High costs of control noted decades ago Perhaps doctors have often led the search for less harmful drug policies because the premier axiom of medicine is "first, do no harm." In 1893 Britain's Indian Hemp Drugs Commission concluded that excessive use of cannabis was uncommon and that moderate use produced practically no ill effects. In 1926, Sir Humphrey Rolleston, then president of the Royal College of Physicians, chaired a committee that recommended against criminalising opiates.2 Similarly, Dr W C Woodward, counsel to the American Medical Association, testified in Congress in 1937 to the lack of evidence justifying criminalisation of cannabis3 and several other commissions in Britain, Canada, and the United States have come to similar conclusions.4 In 1972, an American presidential commission concluded that marijuana "does not warrant" the harmful consequences of "criminal stigma and threat of incarceration."5 In 1978, President Carter told Congress that "penalties against the use of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of a drug itself; and where they are they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana."6 Unfortunately, little has changed since President Carter uttered these words. The UK Police Foundation's review of cannabis policy in 2000 was the most recent senior international committee to reach the same verdict: "Our conclusion is that the present law on cannabis produces more harm than it prevents."7
Social costs Beyond the substantial fiscal costs of enforcing the prohibition of cannabis, the social costs of such policies are considerable. Around the world each year, the lives, education, and careers of hundreds of thousands of people are damaged by the stigmatising experience of arrest. Families face lost incomes and emotional stress. Many cannabis users are already socially disadvantaged, so for them criminal penalties for possession of cannabis often entail additional costs, including disruption of relationships and loss of housing and employment.8 Current cannabis controls drive a wedge between parents and their children, health professionals and their patients, teachers and their students, and police and their communities. It is impossible for the many young people who use cannabis today to obtain reliable information about the concentration of psychoactive ingredients or the purity of samples they purchase, or even about less harmful ways of using the drug. Consequently, current cannabis policies are inimical to desirable public health outcomes. Other serious costs are borne by communities. Despite its criminalisation, the use of cannabis has become so normalised that it is seen throughout most Western nations. Prohibition in the face of strong and consistent demand inevitably results in supplies being provided from illegal sources. The unregulated black market brings consumers of cannabis into direct contact with sellers of other illicit drugs. For example, in identical surveys of random samples of experienced marijuana users, 55% of respondents in San Francisco reported that they could buy other illicit drugs where they bought cannabis. In Amsterdam, where cannabis sales are regulated and rarely attract criminal sanctions, only 17% could get other illicit drugs from their source of cannabis.9 Allocating police to enforce the laws against cannabis reduces resources available to enforce laws against more serious crimes. The riches available in black markets increase the risk of serious corruption. During the last decade, royal commissions in two Australian jurisdictions concluded that police corruption was rampant and linked to drug prohibition.10
Liberalising control does not increase use The justification for cannabis prohibition is that it is supposed to reduce demand and supply, thereby reducing use and thus overall adverse health consequences. But demand, supply, and use have all varied widely over time, quite irrespective of controls. Evidence suggests that use is not increased by less intensive control. In the 11 American states that effectively decriminalised cannabis use in the 1970s, use has not risen beyond that experienced by comparable states in which it is prohibited.11 Similarly, the Netherlands for all intents and purposes decriminalised cannabis 25 years ago, but the prevalence there has remained roughly parallel to that in Germany and France and well below that in the United States.12 The major barriers to reconsideration of the punitive prohibition of cannabis are political, not scientific or legal
There is an increasingly widespread view that international attempts to control cannabis by prohibiting its use have failed and cannot be remedied. Numerous professional associations in medicine, public health, law, and criminology have recognised this failure and the enormous collateral costs of prohibiting cannabis and have recommended consideration of less harmful regulatory alternatives.13 The Single Convention (1961), the treaty providing the major legal framework for international prohibition of cannabis, states that "a party [government] shall, if in its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render it the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare, prohibit [the use of cannabis]."14 Where is the compelling evidence that protection of public health and welfare is "most appropriately" served by the present laws on cannabis? Regulation of cannabis would not breach any nation's international treaty obligations. The major barriers to reconsideration of the punitive prohibition of cannabis are political, not scientific or legal. The belief that more intensive law enforcement will achieve better public health outcomes represents a triumph of hope over experience
All drugs have risks. Cannabis is not harmless, but adverse health consequences for the vast majority of users are modest, especially when compared with those of alcohol or tobacco,. Attempts to restrict availability of cannabis by more intensive law enforcement have been expensive, ineffective, and usually counter productive. The belief that more intensive law enforcement will achieve better public health outcomes represents a triumph of hope over experience. If we discovered that a drug we had been using failed to relieve patients' symptoms and produced unpleasant side effects, would any of us increase the dose? It is time to acknowledge that the social, economic, and moral costs of cannabis control far exceed the health costs of cannabis use. The search should begin for more effective means to reduce the harms that can result both from cannabis and from our attempts to control it."
Alex Wodak, Craig Reinarman, Peter Cohen British Medical Journal
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 14, 2003.
Hi thought Id post these two articles as well, a bit long maybe but food for thought, both from the New Scientist, a respected scientific magazine.
Take Care and God Bless folks
Health officials in Geneva have suppressed the publication of a politically sensitive analysis that confirms what ageing hippies have known for decades: cannabis is safer than alcohol or tobacco.
According to a document leaked to New Scientist, the analysis concludes not only that the amount of dope smoked worldwide does less harm to public health than drink and cigarettes, but that the same is likely to hold true even if people consumed dope on the same scale as these legal substances.
The comparison was due to appear in a report on the harmful effects of cannabis published last December by the WHO. But it was ditched at the last minute following a long and intense dispute between WHO officials, the cannabis experts who drafted the report and a group of external advisers.
As the WHO's first report on cannabis for 15 years, the document had been eagerly awaited by doctors and specialists in drug abuse. The official explanation for excluding the comparison of dope with legal substances is that "the reliability and public health significance of such comparisons are doubtful". However, insiders say the comparison was scientifically sound and that the WHO caved in to political pressure. It is understood that advisers from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse and the UN International Drug Control Programme warned the WHO that it would play into the hands of groups campaigning to legalise marijuana. One member of the expert panel which drafted the report, says: "In the eyes of some, any such comparison is tantamount to an argument for marijuana legalisation." Another member, Billy Martin of the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond, says that some WHO officials "went nuts" when they saw the draft report.
The leaked version of the excluded section states that the reason for making the comparisons was "not to promote one drug over another but rather to minimise the double standards that have operated in appraising the health effects of cannabis". Nevertheless, in most of the comparisons it makes between cannabis and alcohol, the illegal drug comes out better--or at least on a par--with the legal one. The report concludes, for example, that "in developed societies cannabis appears to play little role in injuries caused by violence, as does alcohol". It also says that while the evidence for fetal alcohol syndrome is "good", the evidence that cannabis can harm fetal development is "far from conclusive".
Cannabis also fared better in five out of seven comparisons of long- term damage to health. For example, the report says that while heavy consumption of either drug can lead to dependence, only alcohol produces a "well defined withdrawal syndrome". And while heavy drinking leads to cirrhosis, severe brain injury and a much increased risk of accidents and suicide, the report concludes that there is only "suggestive evidence that chronic cannabis use may produce subtle defects in cognitive functioning". Two comparisons were more equivocal. The report says that both heavy drinking and marijuana smoking can produce symptoms of psychosis in susceptible people. And, it says, there is evidence that chronic cannabis smoking "may be a contributory cause of cancers of the aerodigestive tract".
From New Scientist, 21 February 1998
Let's be adult about this Politicians will just have to bite on the bullet--dope will be decriminalised
When Olympic officials decided last week to give errant snowboarder Ross Rebagliati his gold medal back, the cheers drowned out the boos. It was a minor scandal involving a minor sport, but it spoke volumes about the world's shifting relationship with its favourite illicit drug. A decade ago, Rebagliati would have been ostracised regardless of whether cannabis was on the list of his sport's banned substances. What's changed today is that our attitudes towards illegal drugs are becoming more sophisticated and discriminating. After thirty years of research into the harmful effects of cannabis, there can be no hidden dangers left to discover. We know that it is plain nonsense to regard cannabis as a performance-enhancing drug, just as it is a myth to think the substance rots the brain or leads inexorably to harder substances.
And despite the anti-dope propaganda that circulates in the US, most people are thankfully well aware that no great social disaster has befallen the Netherlands, where cannabis has been sold openly in coffee shops for years. It would take a perverse mind to twist the data from Amsterdam into a argument for continued prohibition (see The Dutch experiment).
While no sensible person believes cannabis is totally safe, even police chiefs back moves to decriminalise the drug. Only the politicians still seem irrationally terrified by the idea of any relaxation in the law: they think they can continue in the old way, lumping all drugs together. Before anyone decides what decriminalisation should mean in practice, however, we must take a hard look at every aspect of cannabis, from its long-term effects on the brain to the social effects of legal reform. If there is to be change, how far should we go? At one extreme, we could go Dutch, at the other, we might decide to do little more than rationalise the existing legal penalties and allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to people with serious illnesses. And if reefers are to be doled out on the NHS, for example, what information should go on the side of the packet? Or should we wait until researchers have figured out how to put cannabis into aerosol devices?
Such complexities are why Britain's House of Lords was right to defy Home Secretary Jack Straw recently and launch its own inquiry--and why US drugs supremo Barry McCaffrey was right to commission the US National Academy of Sciences to report later this year on the harmful as well as the medicinal effects of cannabis.
Conversely, the pressing need for an open debate about cannabis is precisely why the WHO was so wrong to bow to political pressure and expunge from a recent report an informative if controversial comparison of the harms caused by different drugs including alcohol (see our news section).
Of course, ever since the splendidly named Indian Hemp Drugs Commission of 1894, independent panels have been politely saying that the evils of cannabis have been exaggerated--and politicians have been politely ignoring them. Change is looking more possible now because the forces pressing for legal reform come with unprecedented levels of popular support.
In Britain, Tony Blair and his Cabinet can always discard the opinions of the House of Lords, but they are fools to ignore opinion polls in tabloid newspapers which suggest a majority of the nation is now in favour of legal change. And the US government may have already met its Waterloo on the dope issue. In recent months, it has been locked in a bitter and futile dispute with the states of California and Arizona which have independently ruled that doctors should be allowed to prescribe marijuana with impunity. Even in America, threatening vulnerable patients and their doctors with legal action is no vote winner. Something will have to give, and the best bet is that California and Arizona will triumph in the end. If they do, it will be the beginning of the end for outlawing marijuana because where the US government goes, the rest of the world will quietly follow.
None of this, of course, means cannabis is as safe as some of its advocates claim. But neither, as our special report shows (see A safe high?), are the opposing claims of the world's biggest funder of research into marijuana to be taken at face value. Campaigners and pressure groups can be forgiven for trading propaganda, but we should expect world famous scientific organisations like the US National Institute on Drug Abuse to evaluate honestly the research that has been done.
David Concar From New Scientist, 21 February 1998
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 09, 2003.
JmjKnowing you, Kiwi, as well as I do, I have to believe that you screwed up again out of ignorance, rather than dishonesty/deception. What am I talking about?
Last time, you made an outlandishly inaccurate statement: "John, no objective medical expert of any credibility would agree with your '12 points.' Your claims are at best gross exaggerations with little or no regard to the the body of evidence that exists on this issue."
I promptly ripped those two sentences to shreds, ending with these words: "My friend, I suggest that, in future, you temper your language greatly (to appear more believable)."
Unfortunately, you didn't admit that you had been wrong to write those two sentences. (That's understandable, as young macho guys like you need to "save face.") But besides not admitting error, you didn't even learn to "temper your language greatly (to appear more believable)" in your new post. Your intemperate language -- especially in its unwarranted insults of (and incorrect guesses about) me -- therefore leaves you even less "believable" than you were before.If it doesn't take too long for me to write this post, I may take a few minutes to point out the ways in which your comments about me are inaccurate and/or unjust. If I don't get around to it, though, let this paragraph serve to let others know that you are quite daft! Puffing on a little "weed" while writing your last post, maybe? Or was it the Foster's Lager talking? You are one helluva funny guy, Kiwi! In your last post, you stated the following: "Im not going to continue this as John and I will just end up trading insults, nothing is more certain and I wish to try and avoid confrontation." That is quite a hilarious falsehood, since it was preceded by a torrent of insults that you should have expected to draw me even further into "confrontation." [Go back up and read, if you doubt me!]
But of even greater significance than what you wrongly said about me personally -- and about what I posted (above) -- is the fact that most of your message is merely a stack of opinions that are far from being what you tried to portray them as -- undisputed facts from "objective" and "credible" "medical experts."
(1) You copied-and-pasted a big chunk of text and identified it as coming from the "British Medical Journal" [BMJ] -- by Wodak, Reinarman, and Cohen. These are your idea of "objective medical experts"? Only one is a medical doctor, and he runs part of an Australian hospital, spending his time detoxifying abusers. One author runs a pro-drug-use research center at a Dutch university (where "pot" is legal)! And the last is a sociology professor at a liberal California university! I have no reason to consider them "objective, credible medical experts."
Since you copied the words of Wodak, Reinarman, and Cohen from the BMJ, some (perhaps many) readers of your post could come away thinking that a prestigious medical journal is now supporting the legalization of cannabis/marijuana use. But the actual fact is that the BMJ was not taking a position on this. Rather, it allowed the opinions of Wodak et al to be published and then immediately, in the same issue, to be opposed (refuted, I'd say) by a gentleman who writes eloquently against the Wodak position (and who would probably agree with the "12 points" I listed). [If anyone would like to examine the BMJ "point/counterpoint," make sure you can view a PDF file and go here.] This is why, Kiwi, I opened this post by saying that you "screwed up," for you failed to show that the BMJ had not endorsed the Wodak position, but had published a rebuttal.
(2) You copied-and-pasted another couple of chunks of text and identified them as coming "from the 'New Scientist,' a respected scientific magazine." Come now! People are too intelligent to accept your adjective "respected" as having any meaning other than a self-serving one. Respected? By whom? By you? By drug users? I have looked at "New Scientist." It is an ordinary science magazine, not capable of determining if cannabis is safe, but just passing along the opinions of others. A little digging makes it clear that the magazine's publisher and writers are liberals in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana. I don't accept them as "objective" and "credible" "medical experts" -- the standard by which you wanted to measure any evidence posted on this thread.
I've taken too much time, so I won't go through all the "personal" stuff that you got wrong. I'll just confine myself to a few zingers ...
----- "John takes a preconceived view that pot is an evil substance ..."
Your imagination says so. I never did. You don't know my "view." In fact, if "pot" were safe and legal, I'd use a bit of it once a week.------ "John ... conveniently ignores cigarettes and alcohol ..."
How foolish of you to expect me to bring extraneous matters into this thread about marijuana! It had nothing to do with "convenience," but with self-discipline -- not going off on tangents! Why not ask me about cigarettes and alcohol, instead of assuming that I embrace them wholeheartedly?----- "I'm willing to bet given the exaggerations provided John has no personal experience of using pot and has little or no experience in viewing first hand the effects this has either on himself or his peer group.
You'd lose both bets, my dippy dingo. I'm ashamed to have to admit that I know about this subject with some degree of intimacy. I may be 52, but I was young and foolish once too -- such as age 16-to-23 at the peak of the "flower-child" movement. So get off your high horse and learn from your olders (and betters) for a change!----- "The truth is nothing boils Johns blood more than a law breaker, and he will find whatever evidence he can to UPHOLD THE LAW!"
This is contradicted by my statement that I ignore almost all speeders who pass me, because I cannot stop them and cannot influence them. Some cops, though, are affected by having a citizen blow his horn at them. Apparently unlike you, they still have active consciences that help them to respect the law.----- "He’s extremely Puritan in many regards ..."
It's not that I am "puritan," but that you are "libertine." You want to sin -- or at least to have Christian morality "redefined" to make current sins OK! A "puritan" wants there to exist a stricter moral code than there currently is. That means I'm not a "puritan," because I'm happy with the Catholic moral code!----- "... not much of a risk taker our John! Life a serious business indeed, not much time for a misspent youth by the sounds of it, Bless him!"
Very brilliant of you to say that there is "not much of a risk" in reprimanding a cop! You know nearly nothing about me, so how could you know about my risks? I've risked driving alone through 49 out of 50 U.S. states. I've risked traveling alone to Mexico, Canada, to several European nations (including behind the Iron Curtain in 1980), and to the South Pacific. I flew alone to Haiti and had to find my way to where Mother Teresa's sisters and brothers were, to work with them. I walked alone, for a mile at a time, in Haiti and provided dentistry assistance on people with tuberculosis and AIDS. Gee, do you think any of that was "risky"? I could go on, but I hope I've shamed you enough by now. Kiwi, please slink silently away for a change!God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.