Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7245)

miceelf 12-18-2011 07:59 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 235008)
Also more expensive. It is an affectation of the coastal apparatchiki.

homegrown vegetables are an elitist affectation?
Good grief.

Sulla the Dictator 12-18-2011 08:49 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235014)
homegrown vegetables are an elitist affectation?
Good grief.

Organic more generally is what I'm talking about. And I'm right. Price shop between Whole Foods and your normal grocery store.

miceelf 12-18-2011 09:08 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 235015)
Organic more generally is what I'm talking about. And I'm right. Price shop between Whole Foods and your normal grocery store.

I am not that into organic either, but hey, the invisible hand at work.

I will say that buying vegetables is something that was a big adjustment when I left home.

stephanie 12-18-2011 09:56 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235014)
homegrown vegetables are an elitist affectation?
Good grief.

Heh.

popcorn_karate 12-20-2011 05:59 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234996)
Marijuana is not really a medicine.

not true. The latest of many studies showing medical benefits shows it reducing the growth of cancer tumors.

get over it, churchlady.

SkepticDoc 12-20-2011 09:51 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
http://www.gwpharm.com/Sativex.aspx

Wonderment 12-20-2011 11:16 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

The latest of many studies showing medical benefits shows it reducing the growth of cancer tumors.
I don't like to make jokes about cancer, but that is very funny.

apple 12-21-2011 10:22 AM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jjwfromme (Post 235004)
Nah. Check out Leo Strauss's Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Heidegger also influenced Hannah Arendt, in fact they had an affair. But obviously that wasn't a bad influence on the author of *Eichmann in Jerusalem*...

What's your point? That you can't be a fascist/Nazi if you date a Jew, or if you influence one? He was also taught by the Jew Husserl, but he wasted not even a second to replace him at the academy when the latter was removed for being Jewish.

At the very least, Heidegger was an opportunistic Nazi.

SkepticDoc 12-21-2011 12:10 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
The bottom line is that very few medical conditions have shown any real benefit from cannabis, those that do, just need a very small amount
(Canadian medical studies, can look up citations if requested).

Most proponents just want to get "high" and the practice of Medicine is being prostituted by a few that want to make a quick buck.

Look up "cannabis hyperemesis syndrome", some people actually get sick from it and the addiction is so great that they persist in spite of the evidence (I know it is a small percentage...)

The picture is muddled when people like the the late Carl Sagan and his last wife advocate the legalization, just as with alcohol, a few will abuse it and suffer. Would Society be better off regulating it? It would be great to get Mark Kleiman to discuss the issues.

Ocean 12-21-2011 01:00 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SkepticDoc (Post 235144)
The bottom line is that very few medical conditions have shown any real benefit from cannabis, those that do, just need a very small amount
(Canadian medical studies, can look up citations if requested).

Most proponents just want to get "high" and the practice of Medicine is being prostituted by a few that want to make a quick buck.

Look up "cannabis hyperemesis syndrome", some people actually get sick from it and the addiction is so great that they persist in spite of the evidence (I know it is a small percentage...)

The picture is muddled when people like the the late Carl Sagan and his last wife advocate the legalization, just as with alcohol, a few will abuse it and suffer. Would Society be better off regulating it? It would be great to get Mark Kleiman to discuss the issues.

It would be much better that those who want to use marijuana for momentary pleasure purposes, the same that they use alcohol or other psychotropic substances with no health benefits and with toxicity potential, were more honest and stopped looking for medical excuses to advocate its legalization.

AemJeff 12-21-2011 02:39 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235146)
It would be much better that those who want to use marijuana for momentary pleasure purposes, the same that they use alcohol or other psychotropic substances with no health benefits and with toxicity potential, were more honest and stopped looking for medical excuses to advocate its legalization.

except that that would be a losing argument. "I want to get high" carries no moral freight. "I should have a right to do [whatever] in private mostly convinces only others with the specific desire to do [whatever]. People use the arguments most likely to have an effect.

Ocean 12-21-2011 02:57 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 235149)
except that that would be a losing argument. "I want to get high" carries no moral freight. "I should have a right to do [whatever] in private mostly convinces only others with the specific desire to do [whatever]. People use the arguments most likely to have an effect.

If it's a losing argument, too bad. I'm just saying that I wish people were honest and had the balls to say what they're advocating for instead of coming up with excuses.

popcorn_karate 12-21-2011 02:58 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SkepticDoc (Post 235144)
The bottom line is that very few medical conditions have shown any real benefit from cannabis, those that do, just need a very small amount
(Canadian medical studies, can look up citations if requested).

The idea that it is a medical panacea would be as ridiculous and Wonder's evidence-free beliefs on the subject.


Quote:

Originally Posted by SkepticDoc (Post 235144)
Most proponents just want to get "high" and the practice of Medicine is being prostituted by a few that want to make a quick buck.

i agree with that. of course, i don't see any real downside to 10,000 people using the herb as long as 1 person gets to use it as medicine when they need it. I just watched "Weed Wars" the other night. It showed a family with a child that has the most severe form of epilepsy. He has had seizures every day since he was a few months old. After his first dose of CBD (the other main psychoactive ingredient besides THC) he went 4 days without an attack. think about that - the first days in 4 years that this family didn't have to quickly deal with a seizure by using rectal injection into their 4 year old son.

nope thats not medicine. Wonder wants to make sure that kid keeps having seizures and daily rectal injections that don't work rather than have his worldview challenged. Personally, i call that violence in the name of your beliefs.

AemJeff 12-21-2011 03:06 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235151)
If it's a losing argument, too bad. I'm just saying that I wish people were honest and had the balls to say what they're advocating for instead of coming up with excuses.

Understood. My point is simply that their goal to accomplish an specific aim, and they try to frame the debate in the terms most likely to do that. It's perfectly reasonable to respond by pointing out that those arguments are less honest than some other alternatives.

Ocean 12-21-2011 03:08 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 235154)
Understood. My point is simply that their goal to accomplish an specific aim, and they try to frame the debate in the terms most likely to do that. It's perfectly reasonable to respond by pointing out that those arguments are less honest than some other alternatives.

Yes, I got it.

Wonderment 12-21-2011 03:09 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Wonder wants to make sure that kid keeps having seizures
I give up.

stephanie 12-21-2011 03:44 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 235149)
except that that would be a losing argument. "I want to get high" carries no moral freight.

I don't agree. I think trying to wedge in recreational use as part of a medical use exception (and by prescription) mostly does harm to those who have a legitimate medical use -- as it makes it all seem fraudulent -- and to the whole issue and the law. If it's all a joke with no serious attention paid to the real reason most who favor legalization do, then all who would advocate legalization lose credibility, both those who want recreational use and those who are focusing on the genuine medical uses.

I do agree that "I want to get high" carries no moral freight in our political dialogue. However, the costs of laws against marijuana are much greater than any resulting benefits is an argument that could have a lot of appeal, especially when fleshed out. Arguments about the low levels of resulting harm along with the privacy argument are also ones that I think have some weight, especially in combination.

Ocean 12-21-2011 03:53 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 235161)
I don't agree. I think trying to wedge in recreational use as part of a medical use exception (and by prescription) mostly does harm to those who have a legitimate medical use -- as it makes it all seem fraudulent -- and to the whole issue and the law. If it's all a joke with no serious attention paid to the real reason most who favor legalization do, then all who would advocate legalization lose credibility, both those who want recreational use and those who are focusing on the genuine medical uses.

And in addition there seems to be confusion between advocating to legalize marijuana, the plant itself, to be smoked/ingested like it is for recreational use, and the medical use of substances that are derived from the most active components of the plant. Those two are very different. The medical use of substances derived from marijuana isn't being questioned here at all.

Quote:

I do agree that "I want to get high" carries no moral freight in our political dialogue. However, the costs of laws against marijuana are much greater than any resulting benefits is an argument that could have a lot of appeal, especially when fleshed out. Arguments about the low levels of resulting harm along with the privacy argument are also ones that I think have some weight, especially in combination.
Yes, those are arguments that carry weight on their own. I don't know where the exact breakdown of risk/benefits fall, but at least, those are legitimate arguments.

Baz 12-21-2011 05:36 PM

Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235146)
It would be much better that those who want to use marijuana for momentary pleasure purposes, the same that they use alcohol or other psychotropic substances with no health benefits and with toxicity potential, were more honest and stopped looking for medical excuses to advocate its legalization.

Don't think cannabis is toxic...on the list of harmful substances it's way down the list. No reason for it being illegal other than politics and stupidity.

Ocean 12-21-2011 06:30 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 235179)
Don't think cannabis is toxic...on the list of harmful substances it's way down the list. No reason for it being illegal other than politics and stupidity.

Baz, this topic has been overly discussed in previous threads. From a medical perspective there are significant risks related to the use of this drug, and the alleged medical benefits can be better achieved by isolating and purifying the active compounds like it's done with many other medications.

If you want to argue that aspect, politics and stupidity are present on both sides.

If someone wants to advocate for its recreational use, then go ahead, but don't use excuses or make up medical virtues which are, in reality, outweighed by the risks.

Want to make the use of marijuana legal, the same as alcohol? Fine, but don't try to make it a panacea, because it's not.

Some here are about to start reporting cases about people being able to walk on water after smoking pot. Unfortunately, as a physician I happen to see the other side of the coin. It's true that it's not among the most toxic drugs, not by far, I just can't come around to accepting claims about its medical use.

miceelf 12-21-2011 06:43 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235182)
Baz, this topic has been overly discussed in previous threads. From a medical perspective there are significant risks related to the use of this drug,

more so than alcohol?

Ocean 12-21-2011 06:59 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235184)
more so than alcohol?

No, probably alcohol is even worse, but we really don't know what the consequences would be if we had an equal number of people using it.

For a long time now, my point has been that we really don't need more substances with addictive potential and very little if any health benefit available. Even if some people can use marijuana very sporadically, recreationally with minimal risk (similar to very moderate amounts of alcohol), unfortunately, there's a group of people that due to their circumstances are likely to use it frequently in spite of negative consequences.

As I've said before, my concern is about the vulnerable populations (young people, poor, mentally ill) who bear the tragedy of addictions.

miceelf 12-21-2011 07:11 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235186)
No, probably alcohol is even worse, but we really don't know what the consequences would be if we had an equal number of people using it.

For a long time now, my point has been that we really don't need more substances with addictive potential and very little if any health benefit available. Even if some people can use marijuana very sporadically, recreationally with minimal risk (similar to very moderate amounts of alcohol), unfortunately, there's a group of people that due to their circumstances are likely to use it frequently in spite of negative consequences.

As I've said before, my concern is about the vulnerable populations (young people, poor, mentally ill) who bear the tragedy of addictions.

That makes sense and is probably the most feasible response to the if alcohol why not weed argument, although I wonder.

I have also come to wonder whether substance use is a cause or simply a marker.

Ocean 12-21-2011 07:50 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235187)
I have also come to wonder whether substance use is a cause or simply a marker.

I don't think it matters. In either case, it just makes things worse.

Baz 12-21-2011 08:00 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235182)
Baz, this topic has been overly discussed in previous threads. From a medical perspective there are significant risks related to the use of this drug, and the alleged medical benefits can be better achieved by isolating and purifying the active compounds like it's done with many other medications.

If you want to argue that aspect, politics and stupidity are present on both sides.

If someone wants to advocate for its recreational use, then go ahead, but don't use excuses or make up medical virtues which are, in reality, outweighed by the risks.

Want to make the use of marijuana legal, the same as alcohol? Fine, but don't try to make it a panacea, because it's not.

Some here are about to start reporting cases about people being able to walk on water after smoking pot. Unfortunately, as a physician I happen to see the other side of the coin. It's true that it's not among the most toxic drugs, not by far, I just can't come around to accepting claims about its medical use.


Ocean, I've seen the negative effects cannabis can have on people...including friends and family. But even they don't argue it should be illegal or criminalised. What good did cannabis prohibition have on them...no good.

I'm absolutely shocked that you're ignorant of the medical benefits of cannabis...

Edit: And btw I come from a poor working class area which had huge drug problems...the drug laws do absolutely nothing to eradicate drug addiction or help people. In my opinion it makes it much worse.

stephanie 12-21-2011 08:08 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235187)
That makes sense and is probably the most feasible response to the if alcohol why not weed argument, although I wonder.

Ocean said what I think on the "alcohol is worse" argument. It probably is, but the reason alcohol is legal is not that there's some minimum threshold of the harm -- which alcohol would likely break, in fact -- it's that our social use of it makes making it illegal impossible, as we've seen. It's also that our social use of it makes making it illegal basically unthinkable, the kind of thing that seems to invade practices that are so widely thought to be acceptable and generally positive and within the sphere of private choice that to attack them in that way creates disrespect for the law.

I don't think marijuana is in quite that position in our culture, but it may have gotten close enough that the same types of arguments weigh in favor of making it legal, but the mere fact that it may be less harmful than alcohol is not the question. And, also, as Ocean said, alcohol is the drug that causes the most harm because it is so widely used and it is so widely used because it's been legal (among other things).

Apart from the "it's like alcohol" argument, which I don't find compelling, I think there's a simpler argument -- the prohibition (or at least, the criminalization and penalties involved, the encouragement of a drug trade) causes a variety of harm. It seems almost certain to me that the harms of reducing the penalties would not be as high. It might make sense to approach this in a gradual fashion, however (although not by pretending what is not medical use is).

Quote:

I have also come to wonder whether substance use is a cause or simply a marker.
If I understand what you are saying, I assume it depends.

That is, I think there are populations in which substance use is more prevalent because of the problems within the communities -- people who have crappy lives might well be more likely to use drugs. But there are also individual factors that lead people to be more prone to addiction. I strongly believe that availability and legality make a difference. It doesn't actually matter to my position on marijuana (other than preference for the gradual, see what happens, approach). It does matter to drug policy more generally.

Ocean 12-21-2011 08:42 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 235197)
Ocean, I've seen the negative effects cannabis can have on people...including friends and family. But even they don't argue it should be illegal or criminalised. What good did cannabis prohibition have on them...no good.

Baz, I appreciate your comment. I hope you do realize that we're not talking about criminalizing or legalizing marijuana, but that the topic has been about safety.

Quote:

I'm absolutely shocked that you're ignorant of the medical benefits of cannabis...
1. Starting a paragraph in the way you did, does very little to advance effective communication.

2. If you are going to advocate for the use of some substance, you need to bring more than a youtube testimonial. Otherwise we might as well discuss testimonials of those cured by exorcism, homeopathic treatments or snake oil.

3. You may not have read what I commented regarding the possible use of substances derived from marijuana for medical purposes. But I did address that point.

4. We have discussed the relative toxicity of various drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) at other times. The fact that there are drugs that are more toxic than marijuana doesn't make marijuana safe. Why add more toxic substances to our list?

We're trying to identify all kinds of environmental factors that have potential negative effects on our health, even if small. You're aware of discussions about the use of cell phones, pesticides in our food, radon in the soil under our homes just to mention a couple of them. It looks like people want to know about health risks from all kinds of environmental agents. Why are we trying to close our eyes to the risks involved with the use of marijuana?

Let's present the facts as they are. Ultimately, it's about risk/benefits. It's true that once a substance is illegal it's a lot more difficult to make it legal again. I don't worry so much about that, except that I ask, why bother?

If there are good reasons for legalization, related to the tragedy of trafficking, then let's talk about that. Or if we want to discuss the right to use substances in private, as long as we're not harming others or causing an undue burden to society, we can do that. But leave medical use separate. The medical uses can be easily made available to even a greater degree of effectiveness by isolating the active compounds.

Of course, there are those who jump all around, blabbering about the medical establishment (OMG!), and big Pharma (OMG!), and government dictating private lives (OMG!) and start to conflate all kinds of different issues mixing them with unresolved childhood issues with authority figures and heavily blinded by the denial that comes with addictions and codependency.

That's all bullshit which shuts off meaningful debate. I'm done with that kind of nonsense.

Quote:

Edit: And btw I come from a poor working class area which had huge drug problems...the drug laws do absolutely nothing to eradicate drug addiction or help people. In my opinion it makes it much worse.
Again, we're not talking about drug laws or criminalization. I'm against criminalizing use. Using marijuana is either a hobby without consequences, or a mistake that can contribute to ruin a person's life, but not a crime.

Baz 12-21-2011 10:17 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235207)
Baz, I appreciate your comment. I hope you do realize that we're not talking about criminalizing or legalizing marijuana, but that the topic has been about safety.

Silly me!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235207)
2. If you are going to advocate for the use of some substance, you need to bring more than a youtube testimonial. Otherwise we might as well discuss testimonials of those cured by exorcism, homeopathic treatments or snake oil.

3. You may not have read what I commented regarding the possible use of substances derived from marijuana for medical purposes. But I did address that point.

Point taken on the Youtube testimonial, it was a clip taken from a bbc documentary so don't be too hard on me. But just so we are clear, do you think there's any evidence of cannabis having medical uses or have you just not loked into it in depth?

Edit: Good book you may want to read considering you're in the medical profession Ocean. "Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine" by Dr. LESTER GRINSPOON, M.D. Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235207)
4. We have discussed the relative toxicity of various drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) at other times. The fact that there are drugs that are more toxic than marijuana doesn't make marijuana safe. Why add more toxic substances to our list?

But it's already on our list Ocean, thats the thing.

In the clip I linked to, the former chief science advisor on drug policy to the British government states cannabis isn't toxic as far as we know, there's no destruction of cells, etc. But we are both agreed that using it shouldn't be a crime which is what I thought you meant previously.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235207)
We're trying to identify all kinds of environmental factors that have potential negative effects on our health, even if small. You're aware of discussions about the use of cell phones, pesticides in our food, radon in the soil under our homes just to mention a couple of them. It looks like people want to know about health risks from all kinds of environmental agents. Why are we trying to close our eyes to the risks involved with the use of marijuana?

I'm definitely not trying to close eyes regarding the risks involved with using marijuana, I think they should be illuminated more but in greater context and more rationally. But if we honestly go all the way down the road of risk/benefits then alot of the stuff on our supermarket shelves should be part of this debate also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235207)
Of course, there are those who jump all around, blabbering about the medical establishment (OMG!), and big Pharma (OMG!), and government dictating private lives (OMG!) and start to conflate all kinds of different issues mixing them with unresolved childhood issues with authority figures and heavily blinded by the denial that comes with addictions and codependency.

That's all bullshit which shuts off meaningful debate. I'm done with that kind of nonsense.

If you go back and look at the beginning and history of cannabis prohibition you might be surprised at some of the things you discover Ocean. But that's for another day.

Ocean 12-21-2011 10:56 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 235222)
Silly me!



Point taken on the Youtube testimonial, it was a clip taken from a bbc documentary so don't be too hard on me. But just so we are clear, do you think there's any evidence of cannabis having medical uses or have you just not loked into it in depth?

The evidence that cannabis has some medical use only tells me that it's a good idea to identify what active components have medical properties, so that they can be used as medication, minimizing the possibility of other unintended uses or toxicities.

Quote:

Edit: Good book you may want to read considering you're in the medical profession Ocean. "Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine" by Dr. LESTER GRINSPOON, M.D. Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School.
Thanks.


Quote:

But it's already on our list Ocean, thats the thing.
Whose list? Not mine.

Quote:

In the clip I linked to, the former chief science advisor on drug policy to the British government states cannabis isn't toxic as far as we know, there's no destruction of cells, etc. But we are both agreed that using it shouldn't be a crime which is what I thought you meant previously.
Yes, that's correct. When I was younger, and actually until some years ago, I was much more pro-legalization of drugs. I was looking at it from the perspective of public health in general, drug wars, and individual liberties. However, over time I realized that since some illegal drugs should not be legalized at all due to their high toxicity and dangerousness for users and others, some of the rationale for legalization was nullified. Drug traffickers would move on to whatever the market is. You legalize one, they'll push another.

In terms of public health, I became more sensitive to what I've been defining as vulnerable populations. Those are the people that get sacrificed by addictions, whose lives and their family's are ruined. These are the casualties of addictions. Of course, there are casualties of trafficking, of law enforcement, etc., but I don't know how to solve one problem without making the other worse.

And lastly, the individual liberties argument is the one I'm currently less sensitive to, but also it's the one that would be easier to solve by decriminalizing use and possession of small amounts for personal use.

Not an expert in the topic, except for the negative consequences of addictions. As I've openly said before, that's the perspective that I bring to the topic.

Quote:

I'm definitely not trying to close eyes regarding the risks involved with using marijuana, I think they should be illuminated more but in greater context and more rationally. But if we honestly go all the way down the road of risk/benefits then a lot of the stuff on our supermarket shelves should be part of this debate also.
Yes, there is a Food and Drug Administration which tries to establish some minimal standards of safety. And there's a difference between regulating food which as a group is a necessity for survival, and regulating a substance used mostly for recreation. But, I agree that junk food should be discouraged, as we do these days.

Quote:

If you go back and look at the beginning and history of cannabis prohibition you might be surprised at some of the things you discover Ocean. But that's for another day.
Why do you think I would be surprised? I could also say that you would be surprised if you saw what I see everyday in clinical practice. But do I know? No.

It doesn't matter why cannabis was prohibited, there should be a valid reason to remove that prohibition. There may be such reason, but medical use isn't it.

Interestingly, I keep being pushed to taking a position that's far more extreme than what I would take in real life, because many in this forum seem to dismiss the risks. Among those who express an opinion on the subject there's only a few that are willing to look at the issue in a relatively unbiased fashion.

I decided to be very open about what my bias is: clinical experience with people for whom marijuana has turned out to be a problem, associated with mental illness. I have chosen to be an advocate for them and not for the well to do people who want to use it for fun without having to risk legal consequences. But, again, I support that it be decriminalized so that they can have fun without restrictions. Let's just be honest about it.

SkepticDoc 12-21-2011 11:06 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
I used to have a slightly lenient view, direct experience has shown the adverse effects in users:

A friend who is an excellent CRNA smokes frequently, if I call her on the phone while she is using I know exactly why they call it "dope".

Recently a young Medicaid patient was admitted to the hospital for nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain, after the $100,000+ medical workup (labs, Gastroenterologist, Surgeon and X-rays) the only abnormality was the marijuana in her system.

A middle aged patient, pop music empresario, claimed he had to smoke because of his musician clients. He never remembers his appointments, forgets to get labs done as scheduled and his 30 days prescriptions last him 90 because he forgets to take them as directed. When I ask him if he takes his medications: "I never miss a dose!", has no response when I point to the pill bottle date- 3 months ago...

I struggle with supporting Republican plans for drug testing Public Assistance recipients

Ocean 12-21-2011 11:16 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SkepticDoc (Post 235230)
I used to have a slightly lenient view, direct experience has shown the adverse effects in users:

A friend who is an excellent CRNA smokes frequently, if I call her on the phone while she is using I know exactly why they call it "dope".

Recently a young Medicaid patient was admitted to the hospital for nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain, after the $100,000+ medical workup (labs, Gastroenterologist, Surgeon and X-rays) the only abnormality was the marijuana in her system.

A middle aged patient, pop music empresario, claimed he had to smoke because of his musician clients. He never remembers his appointments, forgets to get labs done as scheduled and his 30 days prescriptions last him 90 because he forgets to take them as directed. When I ask him if he takes his medications: "I never miss a dose!", has no response when I point to the pill bottle date- 3 months ago...

I struggle with supporting Republican plans for drug testing Public Assistance recipients

Well, I end up seeing those whose psychosis or mania is triggered by use of marijuana, or develop anxiety or panic attacks (withdrawal symptoms), or are so stoned that lose motivation to do anything to get out of the hole they're in.

I also know a whole bunch of people for whom it doesn't have such terrible effects, but only god knows how their use interact with the medications that they take for their other problems. Or they use marijuana with narcotic pain killers, a couple of other sedatives and a few drinks, and then well, we mostly find out when one of those happens to be a celebrity.

And then there's those who use and are healthy and have no problems, and think that it isn't a problem for anyone because it isn't a problem for them.

The argument for legalization has to reside elsewhere, not from a medical perspective.

jjwfromme 12-21-2011 11:58 PM

Re: Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by apple (Post 235132)
What's your point? That you can't be a fascist/Nazi if you date a Jew, or if you influence one? He was also taught by the Jew Husserl, but he wasted not even a second to replace him at the academy when the latter was removed for being Jewish.

At the very least, Heidegger was an opportunistic Nazi.

Sure, Heidegger had/has some things to answer for. But that doesn't mean he wasn't an influence on Strauss and the Neoconservatives--and a number of other people as well: Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, and Hannah Arendt. My point is that Moreno isn't making an absurd claim. You'd have to pull out a lot more details on what he means. You can't just dismiss his claim on the grounds that Heidegger wuz a Nazi!!1!!11!!

Wonderment 12-22-2011 01:01 AM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Although I favor legalization for several reasons we've discussed in the past (trafficking, individual freedom and the persecution of users), I definitely agree with you and SDoc on the health problems associated with marijuana use.

Decriminalization would have been a proper first step toward legalization in my view, and I support decriminalization efforts in my state and elsewhere.

Medicalization, however, has been a huge mistake. "Medical" marijuana is a fraudulent industry, and the physicians who practice the scam by writing pseudo-prescriptions should be ashamed of themselves.

The only defense I can think of for such a violation of an oath to administer proper patient care is that in an environment of harsh criminal persecution, a "prescription" protects a patient from the injustice and abuse of incarceration. Such a defense doesn't pass the smell test nowadays, but it may have provided some legitimate motivation for early advocates of the "medical" approach.

I don't take such a dim view as you, however, on the consequences of legalization. I'd expect an uptick in marijuana addiction and recreational usage, but we'd have to see what the implications are.

Done properly, legalization could led to less toxicity in the product, more awareness of the harmful effects (accurate warning labels on packaging and advertising), healthier delivery systems (vapor, etc.), better treatment and recovery programs, and if we're lucky, (I admit this part is quite optimistic) a replacement of some alcohol abuse with the generally far less harmful marijuana abuse.

sugarkang 12-22-2011 03:42 AM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235245)
and if we're lucky, (I admit this part is quite optimistic) a replacement of some alcohol abuse with the generally far less harmful marijuana abuse.

I believe this is the one part that has the best chance. If I'm not mistaken, pot use is up and drinking is down among youth.

Baz 12-22-2011 08:18 AM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235229)
I decided to be very open about what my bias is: clinical experience with people for whom marijuana has turned out to be a problem, associated with mental illness. I have chosen to be an advocate for them and not for the well to do people who want to use it for fun without having to risk legal consequences. But, again, I support that it be decriminalized so that they can have fun without restrictions. Let's just be honest about it.

Well I still don't see how you're advocating for people who suffer mental illness from using cannabis. As Wonderment said, if it was legalized and regulated we could spend some of that money wasted on the drug war to better address those issues that concern you. I'd just rather give these resources to people like yourself and others who could do the things we know that work in reducing addiction and preventing teenagers who are susceptible to adverse effects from using cannabis.

Ocean 12-22-2011 09:09 AM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 235262)
Well I still don't see how you're advocating for people who suffer mental illness from using cannabis. As Wonderment said, if it was legalized and regulated we could spend some of that money wasted on the drug war to better address those issues that concern you. I'd just rather give these resources to people like yourself and others who could do the things we know that work in reducing addiction and preventing teenagers who are susceptible to adverse effects from using cannabis.

But you probably also know that it doesn't work that way. The resources used today in enforcing drug prohibition will not be directed to health care or prevention. I actually think that it isn't as much about health care but about education and prevention of the conditions that lead to addictions, any addictions. It's a vast topic.

Wonderment 12-22-2011 03:40 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235265)
But you probably also know that it doesn't work that way. The resources used today in enforcing drug prohibition will not be directed to health care or prevention. I actually think that it isn't as much about health care but about education and prevention of the conditions that lead to addictions, any addictions. It's a vast topic.

Not so sure. You can earmark tobacco funds, environmental cleanup funds and drug war peace dividend funds for specific purposes, like research on addiction, education and early intervention, recovery programs, etc.

We've made a lot of progress already in reducing tobacco addiction and reducing many of the worst outcomes of alcohol addiction (highway fatalities, violent crimes under the influence, etc.). Road safety and general good alcohol citizenship is addresed through tighter controls on minors, designated driver programs, "responsible" drinking advertising and awareness of the many bad health outcomes of heavy alcohol use. Violence reduction comes from education and zero tolerance (more restraining orders, obligatory anger management classes and counseling, alcohol-banned for convicts with priors, mandatory recovery programs, etc.)

We also have the benefit of being able to study other countries where prohibition has been repealed.

Ocean 12-22-2011 07:23 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235274)
Not so sure. You can earmark tobacco funds, environmental cleanup funds and drug war peace dividend funds for specific purposes, like research on addiction, education and early intervention, recovery programs, etc.

Not so sure. Tobacco funds are part of a settlement with tobacco companies, aren't they? I don't know exactly where all the environmental clean up funds come from, but many of them come also from settlements with companies that produced toxic waste. Where are the "drug war peace" dividend funds going to come from? Is the department of justice going to divert to other departments, or how would that work?

Quote:

We've made a lot of progress already in reducing tobacco addiction and reducing many of the worst outcomes of alcohol addiction (highway fatalities, violent crimes under the influence, etc.). Road safety and general good alcohol citizenship is addresed through tighter controls on minors, designated driver programs, "responsible" drinking advertising and awareness of the many bad health outcomes of heavy alcohol use. Violence reduction comes from education and zero tolerance (more restraining orders, obligatory anger management classes and counseling, alcohol-banned for convicts with priors, mandatory recovery programs, etc.)
Yes, I'm all for initiatives to mitigate the damage caused by substances of addiction that are used recreationally. Do we need more?

Quote:

We also have the benefit of being able to study other countries where prohibition has been repealed.
Unfortunately, our country has some unique features that aren't shared by other countries, especially in how patterns of substance use are distributed in the population, or criminality, or other socioeconomic characteristics.

Frankly, I think that people have to rethink this problem. It isn't just about being for or against prohibition/criminalization/legalization, but rather about how to minimize the damage and how to get the best results. People seem to be too entrenched in camps that no longer fit the picture, IMO.

Wonderment 12-22-2011 07:40 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Just in the nick of time: a new Kleiman diavlog on drugs. Haven't listened yet, but the topic headings are already making my blood boil.

Baz 12-22-2011 08:26 PM

Re: Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235280)
Frankly, I think that people have to rethink this problem. It isn't just about being for or against prohibition/criminalization/legalization, but rather about how to minimize the damage and how to get the best results. People seem to be too entrenched in camps that no longer fit the picture, IMO.

I'm getting a little confused about you're position here Ocean. You're for decriminalization of cannabis use, which means anybody can use it without fear of prosecution, which means all those poor and vulnerable communities will have full access to cannabis, but without the programs that "might" come about from legalization and regulation.

Don't forget about the revenues that would be generated from legalization and regulation. Undoubtedly a high tax would be placed on cannabis if it were legalized and regulated so there will be more resources available even if the resources were not diverted from the drug war to programs to educate etc.

You're position doesn't help anyone as far as I can see Ocean...it's just "cannabis does damage to some people" "lets hope people just stop using it" therefore...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.