Does Anybody Argue That Drug Use Isn't Bad For You

[kcdodd]

I just have one question. How many people die every year due to marijuana per se.

[williatw]

The fact 91% of people don't use illegal drugs but the vast majority use alcohol seems to demonstrate that prohibition does keep most drugs out of the hands of most people. Most people are law abiding and if a drug is illegal, they will have nothing to do with it. Conversely, legalizing a drug makes people interested and want to try it.

Seems pretty obvious that prohibition does indeed keep most drugs out of most people's hands.

The only thing it "proves" is the overwhelming majority of people don't use illegal drugs. Your belief that the reason is drug prohibition is merely a supposition. The thought that the only thing that keeps me and most of the people I know from being crack-heads, or intravenous heroin users or for that matter peodophiles are the law & armies of jack-booted body armor wearing thugs kicking doors in or ready to if needed is ridiculous.

[GIThruster]

How would you generate data like that?

If you look at deaths do to Meth use, and consider Cannabis as a gateway drug, do those Meth deaths count as Cannabis deaths?

If someone commits suicide, and the suicide is result of the way they've screwed up their life using Cannabis, does that count as a Cannabis death?

If someone is caught in the crossfire between rival drug groups fighting over territory in the US or in Mexico, does that death count as a Cannabis death?

I could multiply the examples but I think there is some serious trouble with the question. It doesn't have a simple answer. Nor does the death toll complete the issue of the price paid for Cannabis. There is a multitude of other costs involved, including various forms of quality of life, self-actualization, etc.

[GIThruster]

The only thing it "proves" is the overwhelming majority of people don't use illegal drugs. Your belief that the reason is drug prohibition is merely a supposition. The thought that the only thing that keeps me and most of the people I know from being crack-heads, or intravenous heroin users or for that matter peodophiles are the law & armies of jack-booted body armor wearing thugs kicking doors in or ready to if needed is ridiculous.

You're misunderstanding and misquoting me in several ways. I did not say "proves" I said "demonstrates". I did not say the "only thing" that stops people form illegal drug use is its legal standing and I did not liken it to sexual crime. Your hyperbole is off topic and an irrelevant observation.

Most people will not use illegal drugs simply because they are illegal. Only those willing to live with crimnal status are willing to routinely violate the law, and that is the vast minority--about 9% of the adult populous.

[kcdodd]

How would you generate data like that?

If you look at deaths do to Meth use, and consider Cannabis as a gateway drug, do those Meth deaths count as Cannabis deaths?

If someone commits suicide, and the suicide is result of the way they've screwed up their life using Cannabis, does that count as a Cannabis death?

If someone is caught in the crossfire between rival drug groups fighting over territory in the US or in Mexico, does that death count as a Cannabis death?

I could multiply the examples but I think there is some serious trouble with the question. It doesn't have a simple answer. Nor does the death toll complete the issue of the price paid for Cannabis. There is a multitude of other costs involved, including various forms of quality of life, self-actualization, etc.

No, only direct cause. So, the examples you gave would be deaths due to meth, suicide, and gun violence per se. I would think it should be a relatively easy question.

[GIThruster]

Precising the way you stipulate, I can't see how you'd arrive at a useful bit of data. Rather, it looks like a good way to misrepresent the situation to others.

[kcdodd]

It's a very simple question. If you can't answer, then say so. Just don't try to justify your non-answer. If I asked how many people died each year due to heart disease, or anything else, I think you could find the answer it if you wanted to. They tend to keep those records.

[ladajo]

Only if Prohibition is really keeping anyone who wants to try drugs away from them.

And it's not.

So speaks the all knowing Oz.

Just what makes you think you know what other people have in their heads?

I bet you let your kids play with loaded guns by themselves.

Will you say the same thing to GiT?
He claims to know what law abiding citizens think.

And really ladajo an ad hominem?

I would say it was more snarky than ad hominem.

GIT tends to quote statistics when he speaks for others. Unlike stating,"Only if Prohibition is really keeping anyone who wants to try drugs away from them. And it's not.". That is a very presumptive statement on what folks are thinking for themselves. It argues that nobody pays attention to the law. Whereas statistics clearly show that about half of folks never try any drugs in their lives. So assuming for them that it is not the law that keeps them from doing it is the same as assuming they all avoid drugs because of the laws. They choose for various reasons, and it can be fairly certain that some are not doing it because of the law, and others because they think it is bad for you, and others because etc., etc.. As surveys have shown.

In any event, stating that "law abiding citizens" stay away from "illegal things" is not thinking for others. By definition, if you are law-abiding, you do not do illegal things.

I would be more interested in the 91% number. MSimon would say it is less than 50% who do not use illegal drugs. Having studied the statistics myself, and posted about them here, I can say that Simon is wrong for sure. He poorly misrepresents. His argument is based in the "ever tried" or "lifetime" numbers, but would have folks believe that it is current users.
The other point that Simon ignores and misrepresents routinely is the clear data that drugs users die younger than non-users. I have also posted about this here with real data in the past. Simon would have everyone believe that using drugs is good for you.

[ladajo]

I just have one question. How many people die every year due to marijuana per se.

How many die from assault rifles? How many die from being shot? How many of those that die while being shot are committing a crime when they get shot?

How many pot users also use other drugs? How many die as a result of using those drugs?

How many people started with pot, then got into other drugs? Then died?

How many people die because of a drug user and his/her actions?

How many people don't die, but ruin their lives due to drug addiction and use? How many of them become burdens to society and need to be supported by others?

[GIThruster]

It's a very simple question. If you can't answer, then say so. Just don't try to justify your non-answer. If I asked how many people died each year due to heart disease, or anything else, I think you could find the answer it if you wanted to. They tend to keep those records.

Don't be obtuse. You can look for an answer just as easily as anyone else. The fact is, the data point you're looking for has no useful function. You haven't even said what "direct" means. If Cannabis causes cancer in the user and the user dies, is that a Cannabis death or does that qualify as "indirect"? And how do you propose one parse out the cancer deaths caused by Cannabis amongst those who use tobacco? Obviously, one cannot do that so the data you're looking for is unobtainable.

As soon as one tries to answer the question you pose, a multitude of such problems occur. What about the case of a family that dies in an apartment fire that was started by a careless 12 year-old doper in another apartment? Isn't that a Cannabis death?

Data and statistics do not apply in the general sense you're assuming by asking for data that does not exist.

[paperburn1]

one hundred fifty seven deaths directly caused by smoking weed.documented by law enforcement and the US government.march 2002 Strangely 71 of those came out of kansas city and Washington DC.... Indirect deaths have yet to be decided by the parameters of the group. have no curre4nt data but it does how that it occurs http://www.drugwatch.org/

[TDPerk]

""Only if Prohibition is really keeping anyone who wants to try drugs away from them. And it's not.". That is a very presumptive statement on what folks are thinking for themselves.

Not even slightly so. Everyone who wants drugs can get them without much delay. Therefore, Prohibition is having no good effect. The statement makes no presumption as to why someone may not want a drug.

"It argues that nobody pays attention to the law."

They may or may not, there's certainly no moral obligation to obey it. It is as moral a thing as Bloomberg's ban on large sodas.

"Whereas statistics clearly show that about half of folks never try any drugs in their lives."

Neitther did I, although I had more than one opportunity for it. I had that opportunity because Prohibition is useless both in my personal experience and in statistics as to the societal ubiquity of drug use.

"So assuming for them that it is not the law that keeps them from doing it is the same as assuming they all avoid drugs because of the laws."

No, you have created no chain of logic there to follow.

"They choose for various reasons, and it can be fairly certain that some are not doing it because of the law, and others because they think it is bad for you, and others because etc., etc.. As surveys have shown."

Some may state they refrain from taking drugs because it is illegal, but the statistics as to the use of drugs and the fraction of the population who actually become addicted are such that even if they claim the laws are the reason, it can in fact only be true they would not have taken them anyway.

Addiction rates are at a near constant, and that since observations have been made. Since the prohibition of drugs began in 1915, it has had no perceivable net good effect.

But it has cost a lot.

[ladajo]

Why is it beyond you to think that there are folks that want to try drugs, but do not because it is against the law?

[GIThruster]

Why is it beyond you to think that there are folks that want to try drugs, but do not because it is against the law?

I started using at age 13. For years I believed that drug use was "normal" despite that it alienated me from the vast bulk of those around me. It wasn't until years after I had quit all the drugs that I realized what had been happening.

Most of the people I knew in high school flat out refused to have anything to do with illegal drugs, despite they would drink beer or liquor at a party. That's because most people are not willing to become criminals in order to use illegal drugs.

This is just common sense, folks. Only actual drug use will pervert you to come to a different conclusion.

And look at the converse: I rationalized my drug use by the fact my teachers in high school were using. I got high with my teachers literally hundreds of times. When you look sensibly at the issue, it was in large portion my teachers' fault for portraying illegal drug use as normal and acceptable. Had I had very different teachers, who weren't involved in illegal activities, odds are good I would never have so dabbled and all my adult life would be different. It was for example, the direct influence of drugs that pursuaded me to give up my dreams of becoming an astronaut. I have thus sacrificed a specific quality of life and self-actuualization, because illegal drugs were easy to get hold of and commonly accepted as "normal".

[ladajo]

Exposed non-users are more likely to cite legal reasons for illicit drug refusal than other groups.

From page 6.

Also, I would tend to place "ethical" in the same bucket as "legal" when it comes to rationalizing the choice.

www.dshs.state.tx.us/sa/research/adult/Notuse.pdf