[Vision2020] Soda vs. Marijuana

Tue Jun 11 19:04:27 PDT 2013

Actually I tend to agree with you Joe.  I think people making that argument
are shooting themselves in the foot.  The argument implies that the drug
will hook everyone.  Easily disproved.  I like how one of the psychologists
I work with explains it:  People are born with a set of "switches."
Different people have different switches "on."  Some are born with the
addiction switch "on."  If they touch a drug, they'll get addicted.  For
others only specific drugs will cause addiction.  As we grow and change
these switches will change also.  Some will get turned off, some on.  And
we never know, until we try, whether a drug will "flip our switch."  (With
apologies to Joyce, who explains the analogy better than I...)

"In general, I think no. If you're not going to restrict steaks and guns, I
don't see much sspoint in restricting anything else."  Isn't this along the
lines of a slippery slope fallacy?

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:

> The gateway-drug argument is a fallacy. Most of us started out on milk. If
> you want to establish an interesting correlation you need 4 cells of
> information: how many used Mary Jane and then heroin; how many used MJ but
> did not use heroin; how many did not use MJ but used heroin; etc. even if
> you've got a high percentage it is just two of the 4 cells of info needed.
>
> I think the issue is: Should the government be paternalistic and save us
> from ourselves? In general, I think no. If you're not going to restrict
> steaks and guns, I don't see much sspoint in restricting anything else.
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Mr. Keim -
>
> Instead of listing inifinite sources that tend to support legalizing,
> regulating, and taxing marijuana, I invite you to start your browsing at an
> organization of which I have been a member for quite some time . . .
>
> The National Organization for the Reduction of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
> <image.jpeg>
> http://www.norml.org
>
> A couple other things . . .
>
> 1 - As far as that illogical claim that 95% of those currently addicted to
> heroin got their start on marijuana . . . I would be more concerned about
> the 5% who jumped right in to heroin.
>
> 2 - My "indulgences" led more to increased sales revenue at the
> neighborhood KFC versus any increased liquor consumption.
>
> Ah, the memories:  While stationed at the Presidio of San Francisco (1977
> - 1979), my two favorite haunts were Baker Beach (about a quarter mile
> south of the Golden Gate Bridge and a two-block stagger from the government
> quarters in which Rodna and I resided) and a tavern at the corner of Fifth
> Street and Clement Avenue called the Moonshiner (whose customer base
> consisted of everything from lawyers to opera singers to Hells Angels . . .
> and yours truly).
>
> To make a long (and rather interesting) story short, marijuana was easily
> procurable at each location.  In fact, I recall several occasions where
> people would sit on the curb, outsde the Moonshiner (that had no entry
> door, just a slider that would open the entire front end), openly smoking a
> joint, watching cars (including SFPD) go by.
>
> Those were the days, my friend . . .
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting graphic, though a poor logical argument.  Sure soda is bad,
> does that mean we should A.  Ban all bad things?  B.  Legalize all bad
> things?  Isn't there room for a third option?  I won't attempt to defend
> soda.
>
> The graphic goes very light on marijuana's harms.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis
> The above page mentions positive correlations to:  female infertility,
> dependency, acute psychosis (but only when tied to an underlying mental
> disorder), chronic psychosis (in adolescence), increased suicide rate,
> gateway drug (my personal anecdotal experience backs this-most of the folks
> I meet in treatment started with either booze or pot), and loss of IQ.
> Curiously, it doesn't seem to cause lung cancer (though other cancers show
> a positive correlation), though it does have some of the other health
> issues usually correlated with smoking.
>
> The above are correlated with marijuana.  I won't argue that correlation
> equals causation.  I also won't argue that it also correlates with some
> positives:  pain relief, slows cognitive decline, The Eagles famous
> "Peaceful, Easy Feeling."
>
> Sounds to me like neither is a net societal positive...
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>> <1010437_10151481021971275_1141633502_n.jpg>
>> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>>
>> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>
>> Tom Hansen
>> Moscow, Idaho
>>
>> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
>> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
>> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>>
>> - John Lennon
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130611/ab918501/attachment.html>