http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/kelly-marijuana-drug-war-237261
I'd be somewhat optimistic if Jeff Sessions didn't say like the exact opposite thing
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kelly (Homeland Security Secretary): Marijuana 'not a factor' in drug war
- Thread starter Piecake
- Start date
- Status
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/kelly-marijuana-drug-war-237261
I'd be somewhat optimistic if Jeff Sessions didn't say like the exact opposite thing
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
I doubt that this will lead to sensible rulings.
CrocMother
Banned
Sounds reasonable, but Sessions is on the record as saying we need to crack down on Marijuana (even medical). This administration is all over the place ideologically.
ugaboga232
Member
How do you lower demand except by providing a substitute yourself? I doubt DHS is gonna come in and force everyone to take d1/d2 blockers or to get the striatal equivalent of a lobotomy.
Yeah, and there was that time that Spicer said something like "with the opioid epidemic going on I don't think it's appropriate that we let people have marijuana."
PackAPunchedMick
Member
Based only on death rates?
I know more people that live with paranoid schizophrenia caused from Marijuana that has ruined their lives than those killed by hard drugs.
What a ridiculous statement.
I know more people that live with paranoid schizophrenia caused from Marijuana that has ruined their lives than those killed by hard drugs.
What a ridiculous statement.
ugaboga232
Member
Plural of anecdote is not data.
PackAPunchedMick
Member
General Practitioners and those at the local mental health clinic, off the top of my head i have/had 4 friends (including my brother) who were/are heavy mj users and were told when "signed" into a mental health clinic that the main factor for their paranoia was mj.
This rehabilitation alone costs millions.
Who am i to say theyre lying?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
It is true that marijuana is correlated with increased activation of schizophrenia in those biologically susceptible to the disease, but it is important to recognize that marijuana was likely not individually responsible in the cases of these individuals you know and that keeping the drug illegal does far more harm, in the aggregate, than the increased activation of schizophrenia amongst the biologically susceptible would if the drug were legal. This is especially true because the drug being illegal makes it significantly easier for younger people of the age that puts them at risk for schizophrenia activation to get access to the drug, whereas if it were legal and regulated, it would, like alcohol, at least somewhat limit the access of those under 21 to it.
People who end up with schizophrenia from heavy marijuana use are a tiny, tiny fraction of all users. Everyone who uses heroin fucks their life up.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
This is not really true. Addicts are a much higher subset of opioid users than users of other drugs, but there do exist people who use these drugs recreationally without becoming addicted.
All the while you can go buy some alcohol, get in your car and crash into people all you please.
Its mind boggling that the "war on drugs" is a thing.
Keep fuckin' that chicken.
Just decriminalize and legalize as needed. Rehab, detox programs as needed. Hell set up government centers where if you wanna get high, come get high in a safe room/environment, very controlled clinical.
All sorts of different approaches we could try and experiment with.
But naaaaaaaaaaaaaah "STOP DOING DRUGS!!!!!!"
Shake shit up, make drug dealers compete with Walmart. See how good they do.
PackAPunchedMick
Member
Oh i agree, but to claim a non issue because of the cost to the tax payer is ridiculous.
"no-one dies from marijuana, lets legalize it" is very narrow minded.
Not sure i'd like to be the person pulling the trigger on its legalisation, because the eventuality of it blowing up in their faces is likely very high, no pun intended
Alcohol and tobacco are both legal and much more damaging. Why not (at least) legalise marijuana? You may know people that got schizophrenia from it, what about the lung and liver cancer and the million other diseases that they help contribute to?
Add a schizophrenia warning to the weed bag if they have to. The people are already smoking it.
That's absolutely not true
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I could see Sessions being marginalized over time. He was probably aligned with Bannon, if the later is pushed out Sessions will be as well.
edit: Cigarettes should be banned, marijuana cigarettes too. Other than that, the plant should not be illegal.
edit: Cigarettes should be banned, marijuana cigarettes too. Other than that, the plant should not be illegal.
PackAPunchedMick
Member
I dont smoke or drink. I would ban both in a heartbeat, causes nothing but death and destruction to families and individuals.
Im also great at parties
I dont smoke or drink. I would ban both in a heartbeat, causes nothing but death and destruction to families and individuals.
Im also great at parties
I bet you don't own a TV either
Don't you know computers give you backache and can help make you unhealthy through lack of exercise?
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I bet you don't own a TV either
Don't you know computers give you backache and can help make you unhealthy through lack of exercise?
False equivalence.
Why, they're all bad for you.
As is soda. Let's ban soda. And mcdonalds. Let's ban everything! Fuck choices.
Zantetsuken
Member
I bet you don't own a TV either
Don't you know computers give you backache and can help make you unhealthy through lack of exercise?
Far from equal.
I dont smoke or drink. I would ban both in a heartbeat, causes nothing but death and destruction to families and individuals.
Im also great at parties
Thank God you guys don't run things.
ugaboga232
Member
I dont smoke or drink. I would ban both in a heartbeat, causes nothing but death and destruction to families and individuals.
Im also great at parties
Well those two drugs are probably worse for humanity than opiates/etc. so you could make a decent case. But given how easy it is to grow/make these drugs, humans will always use/abuse them because it's how we are wired. We would have to change our most basic circuits to not be susceptible to these drugs. Until we can or want to do that, it's probably best to make it difficult and easy at the same time to get, a goldilocks kind of deal so there's little black market but there are regulations to limit the more destructive sides.
Then you might also want to ban cars(deadly air pollution) and sugar.
I'm vehemently anti-smoking myself, but come on.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
You know we have regulations that forbid companies from using certain additives in food due to health concerns? People aren't whining that this means we have to ban everything as a result. We can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time; we can ban cigarettes from being sold and deal with other problems on their own merits.
LegendofJoe
Member
Fried food is bad for you as well, we should ban that form of cooking.
It's almost as if the concept of responsible moderation is completely lost on some people.
ugaboga232
Member
Moderation and self control are not concepts in the world of drugs and addictive substances. Don't expect humans to be anything but human and do things without being incentivized.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Who cares if some people will still grow the plants? The ban shouldn't be that people should go to jail for growing a plant, the ban should be that no company should be selling cigarettes. Add to this ban on smoking in any public place.
Doesn't matter that "people will grow their own!", this isn't a crusade, it's about dropping the number of smokers to negligible numbers so that it no longer remains a social problem.
Tell that to cigarettes addicts with lung cancer while tobacco CEOs are making millions as a result, and the cost is shifted to the rest of society.
We ban various substances from being added to food, but then allow corporations to sell cigarettes. A completely ridiculous contradiction that has no benefit whatsoever.
LegendofJoe
Member
The incentivization of addiction is absolutely where a line should be drawn and the government should step in. And there are a lot more industries that engage in that form of exploitation - gambling and some ftp videogames for example.
Some substances are that addictive and in many cases the addition of social environmental stimuli make it a foregone conclusion. That isn't the case for all substances with addictive qualities however. And just as above the point at which addiction sets in depends a lot on how powerful the substance is and the social environment in which it is administered.
An introvert drinking a few beers to feel more at ease in a group social situation isn't a cause for concern. That same person in a depressed state of mind using hard liquor to self-medicate is definitely a cause for concern however.
They absolutely are.
You shouldn't speak absolutely when you don't know what you're talking about.
RPGCrazied
Member
Might want to run that by Sessions who thinks differently on the subject.
dr3upmushroom
Banned
anecdotal evidence > empirical evidence.
If that's the case shouldn't CO and the west coast be full of people with schizophrenia by now?
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
Lol, no you don't. It doesn't cause schizophrenia. As someone with that heavily affecting my family line, I can safely say you're full of shit on this.
Lmao, that's an absolute lie, too.
- Status