Hang on...hang on.

Yuo may not like the language (though that might surprise me) but what is it about his reasoning that strikes you as moonbat?

His point is a simple one: drug use has a definite and visible societal cost. Is that somehow in dispute?

Jimmie -

1. You cannot separate his "language" from his "reasoning."

2. "Hang on...hang on:" "Anybody who uses drugs should be dragged out into the street and beaten slowly to death before a warmly applauding audience" is NOT the same thing as legitimately expressing the idea that "drug use has a definite and visible societal cost."

3. Harrell uses anecdotes - whereas Tierney attempts to use statistics - to analyze the real "societal cost" of drugs.

4. By Harrell's anecdotal logic - OR legitimate statistical analysis - a much more compelling case could be made to ban alcohol and certain prescription drugs, which have a far greater practical societal as well as pharmacological impact.

5. His reasoning is "moonbat" reasoning because it's absolutist and steeped in shrieking emotion, not logical or even reasonably passioned analysis.

6. Extrapolating the value of anecdotal evidence - "show of hands:" how many people does a given person know that have used some form of illegal drug without any major adverse consequences, in a recreational setting, while leading perfectly productive lives? Given that such measured use is common and possible in responsible adults for various illegal drugs, engineering that use out of existence is very similar to liberal social engineering methodology for more mundane substances.

All of those premises are proportionally dependent on the particular strength and danger of a particular substance, a distinction that Harrell does not make.

7. Plus, he used a bunch of naughty, naughty words.

I could go on and on to about #50, but I'm a bit tied up right now.

1) Sure I can. I just did.

2) And that was his first paragraph...the remainder of the post was nothing but noting, by anecdote, the tangible societal cost of drug use.

3) Which is more valid? Sure it would be "absolutist" to cling to one rather than the other and we're not doing that. I realize we want to be as analytical as possible about everything we can, but we also know exactly how malleable statistics can be, don't we? I find anecdotal evidence as compelling as statistics in the hand of a man who wants to use them to make a point.

4) Indeed they could, but that wasn't his point, was it? Statistics could likewise be used to ban the use of automobiles, airplanes, and super glue, but none of those are relevant to the topic of illegal drugs.

5) Were you trying to be ironic by making an absolutist statement critical about absolutism?

6) "Very similar" does not equal "the same as", though, and you're definitely savvy enough to know the difference. The overarching point here is that drugs do have a definite harm attached to them and a slippery slope to their use that is dangerous enough that we as voters have not decided to make them legal. If you're goign to weigh anecdotal evidence against anecdotal evidence, it's worth comparing the numbers of occasional recreational illegal drug users (those folks who like to toke up once a week) you know compared to how many folks whose lives have been screwed up in some significant way by the use of those drugs. That ratio goes a long way toward swaying people one way or the other in the argument.

Then again, Jeff Harrell is hardly a Libertarian, so his arguments are never going to come from that direction. On the other hand, I would expect that you'd cut him some slack to make his arguments however he sees fit, so long as he's actually making a point in the middle of his invective (which he really did).

I could say more as well, but time does fly.

I'm wondering if he's including alchohol, nicotine, and caffeine in his definition of "drugs". Because, that would be, you know, a LOT of people to drag into the street for a fatal beating.

So in his opinion, Limbaugh should be wacked too?

I assume he wants alcohol included? I know far more lives destroyed by alcohol than marijuana. Even William F. Buckley, a nice Christian conservatrive, realizes that marijuana should be legal. If marijuana were treated like alcohol, and embraced by republicans as much as alcohol is, we would see more republicans on college campuses. This guy is really being stupid, hypocritical, and logically challenged.

I'm a retired correctional officer. I was once having a conversation with an inmate and he stated that he thought drugs should be legalized. I agreed with him with one caveat. We should devise a drug tester-if we haven't already-and if we find a person laying in the gutter that we test their blood. If they are positive for drugs we call for the morgue rather than the ambulance. Sure, do drugs-just don't expect others to pay for the ER treatment.

I agree with Harmel jumping the shark, as he often does. I also don't think its healthy to claim that one side has the lock on reasoned discourse. However, at times it seems that the lunatics are running the asylum over at the DNC, and that may be the biggest difference between the two parties.

That said, this is complete and utter rubbish:

.. related point that alcohol is, at a pharmacological level, much more dangerous than many currently illicit drugs.

Actually, people who drink in moderation (1-2 drinks per day) generally live longer and are healthy than either people who are heavy drinkers or who don't drink at all. So much for the harmful pharmacological side effects.

I'd like to see a listing of "many illicit drugs" which have fewer negative physical, emotional and psychological side effects than moderate alcohol usage. I stress moderate, because the consequences of heavy drug usage of almost any psychologically active drug are far more immediate and extreme than heavy alcohol usage.

I'm pretty sure that marijuana should not included in that list. While it doesn't bother me that other people want to smoke pot (anymore than it bothers me when they want to smoke tobacco), it's a laugh to claim that alcohol is intrinsically more dangerous than either tobacco or pot. There are direct health risks from smoking pot and there are known long-term cognitive effects from moderate to heavy usage. Because TCH is oil soluble it does not leave the body nearly as readily as alcohol, which is water soluble. Consequently usage of THC at the same level as alcohol will lead to a build up of THC and to long-term health consequences of it.

If more people die because of alcohol, it is mainly due to the much larger number of alcohol users, and then from indirect effects such, as driving while intoxicated. Person-for-person driving under alcohol intoxication is no more a threat that driving under TCH or opimum intoxication, etc.

If the law has increased its enforcement of meth, it's for a good reason. That shit is nasty, and I invite Tierney to take it for a year to see what it does to his body and to his mind.

Quite bluntly, Tierney was irresponsible and totally ignored what is known about the impact of long-term use of crystal meth on the addict. Here is a short tutorial on the wonders of meth for dental health.

Finally, I have to disagree with this comment of Tierney;

Today we tolerate alcohol, [...] because we realize a ban would be futile,

No, we "tolerate" alcohol, because we want to drink.

1) Yes you technically can, but you would diminsh your credibility in the effort.

2) "And that was his first paragraph...the remainder of the post was nothing but noting, by anecdote, the tangible societal cost of drug use."

Oh really?!

Can we win? How the hell should I know? But if we stop trying, if we stop trying to keep that shit off our streets, we abdicate any claim to moral superiority we ever could have had. We might as well climb back into the trees and start flinging our shit at each other again, because we’ll have lost what little virtue made us human.

That's reasonably noting the societal cost? Newsflash: that's batshit crazy exaggeration. Not to mention the two subsequent physical threats to Tierney. (one labeled "unfortunately" metaphorical)

3) I find anecdotal evidence as compelling as statistics in the hand of a man who wants to use them to make a point."

I'm sorry for you then. Let me tell you about someone I know who was in a drunk driving accident. Now let's argue that we should take cars and alcohol away, just ban them, really. Which you address ...

4) "Indeed they could, but that wasn't his point, was it? "

No. And his point was equally silly.

5) Now you're just being a semantical little ballbuster like Jaques Derrida. Deconstructionist riposte: I made no absolutist distinction about absolutism, distinction that includes that absolutism is often negative discourse is implied.

6) ""Very similar" does not equal "the same as", though, and you're definitely savvy enough to know the difference."

Which is exactly why I used very specific language ...

"The overarching point here is that drugs do have a definite harm attached to them and a slippery slope to their use that is dangerous enough that we as voters have not decided to make them legal."

That may be YOUR overaching point. Harrell's overarching point is unclear through all of the self-righteous invective and flying spittle.

If you're goign to weigh anecdotal evidence against anecdotal evidence, it's worth comparing the numbers of occasional recreational illegal drug users (those folks who like to toke up once a week) you know compared to how many folks whose lives have been screwed up in some significant way by the use of those drugs. That ratio goes a long way toward swaying people one way or the other in the argument.

It's funny you mention that, jimmie, as I was going to suggest the EXACT same ratio as a more accurate measure of the proportional cost of drug abuse. But since I don't have the numbers on that - and NEITHER DO YOU - I hardly think that either of us can use it to claim a point against each other.

Look, you're excusing his rhetoric, forgiving it, because you agree with his overarching point. Just like lefties excuse the horrible things written by Kos because he's "on their side."

I may agree to certain distinctive aspects of your - and his - "overarching point" - indeed you have NO IDEA what my comprehensive opinion on illegal drugs even is - but I will countenance neither his argument, or futile apologists like you that are willing to excuse his methods because you agree that "drugs are bad, mmm kay."

And this doesn't mention any naturally combative tone that you may have with me given the last time I spanked one of your silly arguments. Seriously Jimmie, stop making an ass of yourself by choosing this battleground, go crawl back into your rote ideologue hole.

Harrell lost his head, and gleaning "overarching points" from such a steaming pile of vulgar profanity - sprinkled with violence! - is a losing cause.

Sorry Krusty -

That said, this is complete and utter rubbish:

"related point that alcohol is, at a pharmacological level, much more dangerous than many currently illicit drugs."

That point is not rubbish, that point AS YOU'VE CHOSEN TO CHERRY-PICK IT would be rubbish. You're talking Meth, that point includes things like marijuana.

And this ...

Actually, people who drink in moderation (1-2 drinks per day) generally live longer and are healthy than either people who are heavy drinkers or who don't drink at all. So much for the harmful pharmacological side effects.

That may be the most horrible strawmen that I've ever read. The benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are only mildly germane to the discussion, at best. And assuming a non-toxic delivery system, you have no idea about the benefits of moderate marijuana usage, or the cognitive benefits of mild amphetamine usage (think caffeine).

Much of the rest of your addresses a (mostly) diff point than what I'm critiquing - Harrell, not Tierney - as well as ignores my update that includes a distinctive critique of Tierney's piece that's on solid ground.

Plus -

If more people die because of alcohol, it is mainly due to the much larger number of alcohol users, and then from indirect effects such, as driving while intoxicated. Person-for-person driving under alcohol intoxication is no more a threat that driving under TCH or opimum intoxication, etc.

Unless you back this up, it's difficult to confidently assert it.

Right now, my biggest beef with the whole legalizing drug usage is the fact that I, as a moderate drug addict (beer, Excedrin, and an occasional Citron & Tonic with a twist of lime), can afford to pay for my indulgences and excesses with (get this) MY money.

Rush and Courtney Love should be allowed to freebase Lysol all they want so long as they pay for their own treatment when they get to the point of passing out in extasy every time they pass by a freshly cleaned restroom.

I don't care what you ingest. That's your business. But in today's times, those of us who work to put food on the table are expected to work to put addicts in rehab or pay their medical bills.

If the responsibilities for usage* started and stopped with the user, life would be fantastic. But they often spill over into other people's laps, including children. I think this is where most anti-drug people base their arguments. *Usage, in this context, could mean people addicted to What's Happenin' reruns, not just drugs.

So how do you force people to accept responsibility for their actions without stepping on law abiding citizens' feet? Total legalization would see the waste of a generation. Just like lowered prices encourage greater spending, many of today's youths (or yutes, for the northerners) would find themselves addicted to some nasty shit as they conflate 'legal' with 'a good idea'. Total prohibition is draconian and steps on us mild drug users' rights. Where's the middle?

Marble -

I generally agree with your argument, but consider a parallel with unpleasant implications - what is costing more of your tax dollars? Drug rehab because of heroin, or heart disease and cancer via Marlboro and Burger King?

Are people certain that legalization would mean the waste of a generation? My avoidance of coke and smack wasn't due to the illegality (since they were readily available with virtually no risk of getting caught), but because I didn't want to deal with the adverse effects of coke and smack.

Not saying that my own anecdotal experience proves anything. Just wondering about the assumption.

Oh, and I'm sorry about the sentence fragments, but I'm so freakin' stoned right now.

Impairment? Apparently, just as in Tierney's column, it's the people who disagree with your side who are crazy, addicted, or in my case, impaired. I approvingly linked to that Kleiman piece as well, though, so perhaps I'm only trainably impaired?

Jeff Harrell has an ongoing "angry Jeff" schtick he's been on for the past three or four weeks. But clearly, if you actually read his post, he's not advocating the sort of violence in the title of his post--in fact, he advocates a "firm disapproval" of his real friend's drug use--not even calling the cops. I think a fair reading of his rant shows he actually advocates a quite humane and principled approach to friends' problems. Which is why I linked it.

Bill, we disagree on this and several social issues, but I know you're pretty articulate and usually make a lot of sense. I think drug legalization would be a nightmare and that you're badly mistaken to endorse it. I'll spare you the reasons for that right now--just suffice it to say that I don't assume that because you disagree with me, you're impaired or degenerate.

BTW, I didn't know you were so sensitive to dirty words, either--maybe you'll stop reading Ace's site and Protein Wisdom, too, which occasional indulge in bouts of potty-keyboard?

Or wait--was that part of your post just a throwaway aside you didn't really mean?

Rhetorical pot? Rhetorical kettle.

There's a place for statitical evidence and a place for anecdotal evidence. You just have to figure out where that is.

Fer example, statitistically speaking randomly firing a hand gun into a stadium full of football fans isn't all that serious - unless you have to be one of the people shot. You could argue that it should be legalized because the "statistical" risk of killing anyone is extremely low - 6 chances in 80,000 say. However that's still 6 people shot. Likewise arguing that "statistically" only a few more people will be harmed by legalizing drugs than not - but still, a few more people get harmed.

Anecdotally I can tell you that riding to the hospital with a good friend who dies en route from an overdose sucks.

well, I don't recall drug usage ever making me rilly rilly smart... or wealthy... or responsible... or employable... or popular...

in fact it made me a selfish, dirty, thievin', sidewalk-livin' scumbag... pardon my language:))

Drug rehab because of heroin, or heart disease and cancer via Marlboro and Burger King?

I am reminded of a Monty Python skit about Eye Poking stations. When asked why it was so important that the government pay for eye poking stations, the rebuttle was something along the lines of "Would you rather we spend the money on bombs?"

I understand your point but you're using OR when you mean AND. Do I want to pay for heroin addicts AND cancer patients or do I get a choice between the two? Because the cancer patients sometimes get cancer without smoking. Heart disease happens to even the healthiest of eaters. No one ever goes into drug rehab unless they do drugs. Or are stupid.

So the money I spend on treating the cancer patient might help me when, due to my families high rate of cancer, I contract it. The rehab does nothing but suck out my cash.

Now, Hubris, you are right. I have no valid data to show that we would have a 80% drug usage rate amongst teens if we legalized it. I have to make assumptions because the entirity of data is not available to me. But you can safely anticipate higher amounts of purchasing when prices go down. It's one of those odd laws of economics. And to many 'legal' means 'accepted' (see Homosexual marriage for an example). And I doubt you never had to worry about getting caught. Maybe not caught purchasing or the actual usage, but the results of your actions would surely get noticed. And I think that deterrent is effective.

What I'd like to see is a complete legalization coupled with a massive PR blitz that portrays drug users as complete losers not worthy of getting laid. If you could attach a stigma to it that shows it's not as cool as kids think, that would be a way to help.

I'm torn folks. I can't say I swing either way here. Kind of like Kerry on any available topic. Or not. I don't know.

SeeDubya -

Impairment? Apparently, just as in Tierney's column, it's the people who disagree with your side who are crazy, addicted, or in my case, impaired. I approvingly linked to that Kleiman piece as well, though, so perhaps I'm only trainably impaired?

No, just people that don't see hateful, inappropriate speech when it smacks them in the face. Maybe I'm too harsh on you, but the fact that you seemed to endorse Harrell's rhetorical stylings seems kind of odd to me. This has much less to do with the overarching and more distinctive arguments about drug legalization than it does with inappropriate punditry worthy of the nastiest Kossack.

Jeff Harrell has an ongoing "angry Jeff" schtick he's been on for the past three or four weeks. But clearly, if you actually read his post...

... he says that he wants to beat the shit out of Tierney. Twice. Only once metaphorically. In addition, his title is just nasty and evil. That's enough for me. I strongly disagree with the naive absolutism of his post, but I wouldn't bother to strongly critique his opinion if he made the argument like a rational human being.

Bill, we disagree on this and several social issues, but I know you're pretty articulate and usually make a lot of sense. I think drug legalization would be a nightmare and that you're badly mistaken to endorse it.

Where in my post did I endorse drug legalization? I do endorse conditional legalization of certain substances, but you assume way too much about my position, and I'm not formulating that argument here.

BTW, I didn't know you were so sensitive to dirty words, either--maybe you'll stop reading Ace's site and Protein Wisdom, too, which occasional indulge in bouts of potty-keyboard?

"Potty keyboard" is not the same as spittle-flecked, obscene rant that intimates violence. On their face, cuss words don't typically offend me. 50 of them in a few paragraphs, used with earnest, angry vigor ... well that can be unhinged and pretty unpleasant. I've never seen anything like that on Ace's or Jeff's site. Try to recognize the distinction that I'm making.

Marble -

I was just suggesting the cancer, etc. thing as a related argument. But -

So the money I spend on treating the cancer patient might help me when, due to my families high rate of cancer, I contract it.

Actually, it's nailing you by making your insurance premiums and expenses when YOU get cancer much, much, much higher.

As for you swinging either way, yeah, I heard that about you.

Man, I can't help but think some times that this issue would vanish overnight were everyone involved required to simply smoke just one joint.

SaaM,

I should have expected The Man to resort to "economic theory." Narc!

As one of my early speech teachers told me, "Wisdom isn't found in the lungs." Yelling louder (and cussing more) doesn't equate to strong argument. On balance I'm more against Tierney's side than the other guys, but find his extreme rhetoric off-putting. (I hate it when the people I agree with talk like jerks...that whole guilt by association thing!) There is, as Bill linked, a reasoned critique to be made, but that first one sure wasn't it.

When are they going to give green tea drinkers/supplementers a break on insurance premiums? I mean, really. I am saving all you people money and do I get any thanks for it? I do not.

Take a break Harrell. Smoke some weed or something.

You know, I think the blogosphere would be a much happier place if everyone just took a deep toke before posting.

This is one of the major areas where righties are just not dealing with reality. The War on Drugs has enormous negative unintended consequences. Check out Drug Crazy by Mike Gray for a well-written and solidly researched look at the problem.

TallDave -

Is there a book - or topic - that you haven't read up on?

It's funny, a lot of the stuff Harrell rants about are caused more by drug laws than by drugs themselves.

The Drug Warriors could do a lot better by taking all that money they spend on incarceration and spending just a third of it on education (real education, not the commercials with the egg, the crazy woman, and the frying pan or the kid smoking a joint). There are a lot of drugs that are really bad for you, and people should know about them.

People are going to do stupid and self-destructive things regardless of what kind of laws we pass. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Is there a book - or topic - that you haven't read up on?

Hehe, I'm sure I have serious knowledge on less than 1% of the subjects out there. I tend to blog or comment on things I'm interested in, and I always plug books I like, so it probably seems like I've read more than I have.

Actually, I get most of my nonfiction book recommendations from other bloggers, especially Glenn. Insty always amazes me with the number of books he's read.

"This is one of the major areas where righties are just not dealing with reality. The War on Drugs has enormous negative unintended consequences."

Exactly correct! Well stated, TallDave.

As for you swinging either way, yeah, I heard that about you.

I was young, needed the money, and Goldstein had some awesome red pills he found behind a sofa.

I should have expected The Man to resort to "economic theory." Narc!

And I readily admit that I don't have all the info and really am guessing using a metric I am familiar with.

I agree wholeheartedly that the War on Some Drugs We Find Icky is a gigantic waste of our money. But to completely legalize everything from tar heroin to "Huffing Krylon" seems just as bad (although the metallic gold supposedly gives a wicked rush!).

Of course, 'seems' doesn't really make a forceful argument, does it? ;)

Bill,

have you lost a friend to a drug overdose? A 24-year-old friend accidentally OD'ed on heroin last week after being clean for more than a year. Given that recent loss, I found Jeff's "absolutism" in line with my anger and sadness.

Sorry for your loss. I've never lost a friend to a drug overdose, but yes, I've seen drugs do terrible things to people that I know. While that may be explanatory of his motivation, it in no way justifies a rant calling for people that use drugs to be beaten to death. Especially when responsible light drug users have nothing to do with the choices, circumstances or weaknesses of the deceased.

I've gradually been forced into agreeing with the idea the state should treat drug addiction as a medical condition rather than a criminal weakness of character. It may be a weakness of character, but regardless people are going to do stupid things like ride motorcycles without helmets and jump into the nets at baseball games, as some nut did yesterday. We could prevent a lot of deaths by ensuring that drug addicts who are trying to live productive lives can do safely, preferably under medical supervision, without fear of being prosecuted.

Sharp,

That bothered me for a long time, too, till I realized we don't have to make them completely legal, any more than alcohol or nicotine or Prozac is completely unfettered from legal liability.

Also, drug use does not have to be condoned by any profession, corporation or organization. No one wants to be operated on by a surgeon who just smoked an ounce of Maui Wowee, like in the anti-drug commercial -- but then neither would you want one who'd just downed a fifth of Glenmorangie, which he can legally do.

We tried making alcohol illegal. It's time to admit it doesn't make any more sense to do it for drugs.

Bill:

You're talking Meth, that point includes things like marijuana.

Marijuana is still more pharmacologically harmful that alcohol, so the point still holds. I admit I singled out meth---mostly because Tierney was irresponsibly defending that nasty shit. I didn't get that you really weren't defending Tierney until seeing your response...

That may be the most horrible strawmen that I've ever read.

Oh, really!? Let's review. I single out the comment

related point that alcohol is, at a pharmacological level, much more dangerous than many currently illicit drugs

as utter rubbish. I point out that

Actually, people who drink in moderation (1-2 drinks per day) generally live longer and are healthy than either people who are heavy drinkers or who don't drink at all. So much for the harmful pharmacological side effects.

This "horrible strawman" is addressing the "alcohol is ... much more dangerous than many illicit drugs" comment, the part I was singling out as rubbish. Explain to me how this is a strawman? It directly addresses my objection to one of the points made in your quoted material. Doesn't look like any strawman I've ever seen. Your comment on caffeine, being a legal stimulant, was not germane to this discussion.

You also claim

And assuming a non-toxic delivery system, you have no idea about the benefits of moderate marijuana usage,

I'm aware of it's limited beneficial effects as well as its larger set of harmful effects. This link contains a nice summary of the health effect of various active agents, including alcohol and THC.

Later on I say:

If more people die because of alcohol, it is mainly due to the much larger number of alcohol users, and then from indirect effects such, as driving while intoxicated. Person-for-person driving under alcohol intoxication is no more a threat that driving under TCH or opimum intoxication, etc.

to which you say

Unless you back this up, it's difficult to confidently assert it.

Here is a reference on a drug study on the effects of THC on driving. THC doses of 0, 100, 200, 300 mcg / kg were used in the study.

[...] The study demonstrated that marijuana impairs driving performance as measured by an increase in SDLP; all three THC doses significantly affected SDLP relative to placebo. The driving performance decrement after smoking marijuana persisted almost undiminished for two hours after smoking while drug plasma concentrations, perceived "high" and heart rate elevation had decreased. Marijuana's effects on SDLP were compared to those of alcohol obtained in a very similar study by Louwerens et al. (1985, 1987). It appeared that THC's effects on SDLP were equivalent to those associated with BAC's in the range of 0.03-0.07 g %. [...]Thus, driving impairment cannot be predicted by prevailing plasma concentrations of THC or THC-COOH.

Note that THC is fat-soluable so measuring it's content in the blood stream would not be expected to correlate with psychokinetic inhibition. In any case, the psychokinetic effects are comparable to alcohol, but are longer lasting and in fact persist after the "high" is no longer experienced.

To summarize (a disclaimer that I'm not some anti-drug fanatic): I think it's a mistake to prohibit the use of marijuana. I'm basically a libertarian on this point. The line should be drawn where the harmful effects from the drug exceeds the harmful effects of its prohibition. I am pretty sure that MJ falls under that line.

Krusty -

the moderate benefits of moderate alcohol use IS a TERRIBLE strawman, as benefits of moderate use have little to do with the impact of abuse. Mild pot use calms people down. Mild stimulant usage makes people smarter and more productive. Thus, the moderate benefit of mild alcohol use means about nothing in the context of charting the bad effects of drugs vs. alcohol, in the context of abuse.

Plus, you declaring that my point that "alcohol is pharmacologically worse for you than many drugs" to be RUBBISH is STILL unsupported rubbish - you have failed to demonstrate that marijuana is pharmacologically more harmful than alcohol use, yet you still assert it. In fact, you citing a study with equivocal results on how impaired THC users are when driving is cherrypicking another only tangentally related point. "pharmacologically more harmful" is related to acute behavioral affects, dependence, acute toxicity, long-term toxicity and dependence, how many cells and organs are affected, and a whole host of other factors.

Studies have shown the long-term use of cannabis to be safe. In contrast to many other medicinal drugs, the long-term use of cannabis does not harm stomach, liver, kidneys and heart. The long-term consequences on cognitive function are also a major topic of discussion with regard to adult cannabis use. The first longitudinal study examining the development of cogntive functioning conducted in the U.S. did not find any influence of cannabis use (Lyketsos et al. 1999). This was confirmed by a later Canadian study (Fried et al. 2002) "Marijuana is not a completely benign substance. It is a powerful drug with a variety of effects. However, except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications. (…)

http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_longterm.htm

Bill:

the moderate benefits of moderate alcohol use IS a TERRIBLE strawman, as benefits of moderate use have little to do with the impact of abuse.

Since when does pharmacology have to apply only to abuse? If that is what you were interpreting the sentence to mean, no wonder there was a disagreement.

I was discussing the pharmacological effects when used responsibly. If one were to argue for the legalization of marijuana, you would certainly want to start with responsible use, rather than the most extreme abusive case. In any case, at the abuse level, you are no longer talking about just pharmacological effects, but rather also the toxicological effects.. Had the statement been

.. related point that alcohol is taken at high levels much more dangerous than many currently illicit drugs,

I would not have questioned it.

Here is a short sketch of why the pharmacological effects of responsible (moderate) use of THC are expected to exceed responsible use of alcohol. I'm not going to argue heavy use on either of these, since I have pointed out that this is outside the scope of my original comments, or indeed of the whole "legalization of drugs" argument.

If we compare moderate use of alcohol to moderate use of MJ, the biggest difference is that alcohol has a half-life on the order of 30 minutes, whereas THC has a half-life on the order of 7 days.

If you were to take one to two dose levels of alcohol per day, you would observe no build up of alcohol in your body, and would experience no (known) long-term detrimental effects at all Thus "taken within guidelines," alcohol has zero known negative side effects, and has been shown to lead to an increase in life-expecancy on the order of one to two years. THis makes alcohol as safe a drug as you can imagine.

On the other hand, because of the ~ 7 day half-life of THC in the body (not just bloodstream), just one to two doses of THC per day will lead to a buildup of THC in the fatty acids in your body. To prevent this buildup, you would need to limit your intake to one to two doses per week.

I am baffled that your site claims no cognitive impairment based on two studies of the hundreds which show the opposite result. Their conclusion is totally at odds to the predominant results of studies on THC. For example, the NIH consensus study is located here and contains a summary of the best science on the pharmacological and toxic effects of THC. Here is a quick link to a summary of its known pharmacological effects.

Harmful side effects of THC include cognitive effects such as impairment of short-term memory, psychokinetic inhibition, psychoactive effects such as modifying emotional responses to stimuli, endocrine effects such as suppression of the production of testosterone, etc.

Reviewing the facts, I am pretty sure the science on the side of my statement, "Marijuana is still more pharmacologically harmful that alcohol."

Pharmacology does not only relate to abuse, you are correct. The potential negative impact of pharmacology mostly does, with weed, booze or aspirin. Furthermore, I'm not "(claiming) no cognitive impairment based on two studies of the hundreds which show the opposite result," I merely offered up one sample contrary article.

Furthermore your statement:

"Reviewing the facts, I am pretty sure the science on the side of my statement, "Marijuana is still more pharmacologically harmful that alcohol.""

... is totally unsupported here, I'm sorry. I'll take three examples from your "facts" out of what would need to be a very complex discussion:

1. You mention the negative endocrine effects of marijuana, but ignore the fact that alcohol mimics many of those EXACT SAME effects, including the suppression of testosterone and aromatization of testosterone (in men) into estrogens. Your failure to note this is either unware or disingenuous.

2. THC is mainly absorbed in fat tissue and smoking it impacts the lungs and heart, whereas alcohol travels like water and affects about every cell in the body.

3. Alcohol - a toxic substance - exerts negative effects on every major organ, including the "stomach, liver, kidneys and heart," as well as causes short and potentially long-term cognitive impairment similar to marijuana.

Thus, while you can dredge up plenty of negative science on marijuana, you simply cannot be "pretty sure the science" is on the side of your "statement," that "Marijuana is still more pharmacologically harmful that alcohol.""

In fact, for you to assert such a statement based on what you've presented here is terribly weak. I'm not asserting (that one study aside) that pot DOESN'T cause cognitive impairment, though it's mostly been found to be reversible, and likely isn't a lot worse than long-term xanax or alcohol use.

The issue is whether is causes more ill effects to your body as a whole than alcohol. Your argument doesn't touch that.

Bill:

1. You mention the negative endocrine effects of marijuana, but ignore the fact that alcohol mimics many of those EXACT SAME effects, including the suppression of testosterone and aromatization of testosterone (in men) into estrogens. Your failure to note this is either unware or disingenuous.

Why does everybody in your world have to be "unaware" (=ignorant) or disingenuous?

Alcohol: for one hour with moderate usage, due to its water solubility and short half-life.

THC: chronic with moderate usage due to its oil solubility and long half-life.

There's simply no comparison between these two: Moderate alcohol consumption has no effect on testosterone at any clinically relevant level.

2. THC is mainly absorbed in fat tissue and smoking it impacts the lungs and heart, whereas alcohol travels like water and affects about every cell in the body.

First, I thought we were going ignore the elephant in the living room.. smoking as a method of drug delivery. I was trying to not conflate smoking MJ with THC consumption, because direct toxic effects of inhalation of MJ smoke detract from the question of "clinical THC use".

In any case, your argument is nothing more than pseudoscience. (Is this from your pro-drug web site again?) How in the world would you even get high from MJ if this statement were true? It would also mean that we would quickly die from malnutrition because many vitamins and nutrients are fat-soluable, and we depend on our bloodstream to deliver them to the rest of our body (not just lungs and heart).

In reality, after inhalation of THC via MJ smoke, the THC is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream (via the fatty acids that are part of the bloodstream, and are primariy responsible for the delivery of of fat-soluable vitamins and nutrients) and rapidly spread throughout the body and the brain. With repeated exposure to THC (e.g. daily) within the half-life of the drug in these tissues, THC builds up and becomes persistent in these tissues at clinically relevant levels.

You go onto say

Alcohol - a toxic substance

Nope. Only at high levels. Many substances that have beneficial effects and no toxic effects when taken within their safe dosage range, display toxic effects in high dosages. This includes even so-called poisons like arsenic, or boron which act as essential nutrients at ultra-low levels. It also includes water, which when at ingested at high levels, displays toxic effects. Alcohol, in high dosage levels, has all of the toxic effects that you describe.

Many of the toxic effects are associated with alcohol consumption at a rate greater than the liver can process its metabolites. For example, one dose of alcohol is considered to be 14 g. The dosage level at which observable damage to the liver occurs is about 40 g. This represents about three drinks per hour. Note that the recommended dosage is one (14 oz ethanol) drink per hour, and a maximum of two drinks per day. This recommended level is safely below the toxicity level with respect to the liver. Note that irresponsible drinking does very nasty things to your body and your cognitive function. I don't discount that at all.

I agree that there are cognitive effects from moderate alcohol consumption similar to the effects from THC. The big difference is that the THC effects are persistent with moderate usage, whereas with the alcohol, the effects wear off (at a clinically relevant level at least) after about an hour. Given a choice between a persistent negative side-effect and a short-lived one, I'll pick the short-lived one.

I'm not asserting (that one study aside) that pot DOESN'T cause cognitive impairment, though it's mostly been found to be reversible, and likely isn't a lot worse than long-term xanax or alcohol use.

Actually, you would have to mean "alcohol abuse". Taken at safe dosage levels, there is absolutely no evidence of any long-term impairment from alcohol consumption.

Again the catch-22 for THC is that being oil-soluble is that, taken at the same dosage rate it inevitably builds up in the body, including in the brain, and potentially can lead to long-term cognitive side effects. I didn't mention this before only because the jury is still out whether there are any long-term (post-withdrawal from THC treatment) cognitive effects from moderate THC consumption.

Thus, while you can dredge up plenty of negative science on marijuana, you simply cannot be "pretty sure the science" is on the side of your "statement," that "Marijuana is still more pharmacologically harmful that alcohol.""

I can "dredge up"--though that's hardly the right word for finding literally hundreds of research articles documenting negative pharmacological side effects from THC--plenty of "negative science" because that's what the bloody science is telling us! There are lots of harmful and persistent (see "THC=fat soluble") pharmacological side effects associated with moderate THC consumption.

It's primary because of the chronic nature of the pharmacological effects with THC usage that I would grade

Sorry, clicked the post rather than preview buttton. Last paragraph:

It's primary because of the chronic nature of the pharmacological effects with THC usage that I would grade THC to have more harmful pharmacological effects than alcohol (the strength of the effect = intensity * time).

This was not meant to be a whitewash of alcohol nor a demonization of THC. THC is a "strong drug" principally because it is molecularly complex. This means that there are many more metabolites from THC than from a relatively simple chemical like ethanol. This also means that there is a potential for more side effects from THC, especially when it is used in conjunction with other drugs such as alcohol.

In spite of that, I think the case for prohibition of THC is very weak. As Bill points out, there are plenty of regulated drugs which have as many (or often many more... ever read the potential side effects list) for these other drugs, even when used responsibly. The idea that we should proscribe medical usage of THC is just plain ignorant in my opinion. The argument for disallowing recreational use is also very weak, because it ignores the social consequences of prohibition of MJ. In my opinion, just like with alcohol, prohibition has turned out to be ineffective because it has caused greater harm than it has prevented.

On the other hand, we shouldn't demonize alcohol, aspirin or caffeine simply to try and make the case for THC look better (I don't think Bill is doing this, but I do think some of the pro-drug websites do it regularly). Putting forward a misleading case for THC does not help those arguing for its legalization, rather it just serves to discredit them in the scientific community.

Fini.

I will have to address this comment in depth later. My assertion was not "pseudoscience," (I'll find a better-worded cite, I promise) and though you offer more detail, you once again focus on THC's cognitive impairment - though making a better argument that focuses on persistent impairment relative to acute impairment from alcohol use.

My use of the word "dredge" was not meant to negatively connote the idea that you couldn't find many studies on pot, it was to negatively imply that they are useless without a direct comparison to alcohol.

You also haven't discussed what the "safe dosage levels" for THC are as a comparative, presumably because you don't know them.

So look at these collectively, and you will find my problem with your argument:

1. You outline how pot is bad for you on a cognitive basis, and rightly mention the dangers of the common delivery method (nevermind ingestion).

2. You compare the cognitive impairments of alcohol, and declare them lesser because of duration.

3. you outline the fact that moderate alcohol use that doesn't reach toxicity is perfectly safe.

4. You do NOT identify a safe dosage of moderate weed use.

5. You do not address rates of moderate consumption vs. abuse for alcohol - vs. moderate consumption vs. abuse for marijuana - addictive properties and usage - merely pointing out that moderate usage is a-ok - FOR ALCOHOL.

6. You do not compare the effects of regular alcohol consumption considered abuse (easy to do, 3 drinks per night) vs. THC abuse (?).

And yet you come to the conclusion that marijuana is so much pharmacologically worse for an individual - and presumably society - than alcohol.

I'm sorry, you aren't offering an apples to apples comparison, and thus I don't think that you have nearly the goods to issue such a declarative. Your entire argument seems to rest on persisting cognitive decline because "moderate" (which remains undefined) THC use has fat soluble action, yet you haven't even established toxic dosages.

And thus you haven't even discussed what alcohol does to the rest of the body, like the liver, for example, an organ largely unstressed by THC. With common usage, not the mild non-toxic usage that you point out is perfectly safe.

Sorry, you've not convinced me. An argument that would tip the scales against booze for me is how it's used, not how it's ideally used. We'd also need to set benachmarks for terms like "moderate."

Bill:

My assertion was not "pseudoscience,"

That would have to suggest there is a reputable study demonstrating your assertion. Care to deliver?

You also haven't discussed what the "safe dosage levels" for THC are as a comparative, presumably because you don't know them.

[There's that "don't know" again. ] Actually, it's easy to calculate. One to two joints per week should be completely safe: Weekend weed smokers should suffer no more long-term effects from usage than a moderate drinker. Note for non-recreatational use (medical treatment) a much higher dosage is likely indicated before the side effects outweigh the benefits.

5. You do not address rates of moderate consumption vs. abuse for alcohol - vs. moderate consumption vs. abuse for marijuana - addictive properties and usage - merely pointing out that moderate usage is a-ok - FOR ALCOHOL.

Except in highly addictive chemicals like heroin, addiction is not a primarily a physiological phenomenon so much as a complex social-psychological one. There really is no good way to address this question. Even if you made pot legal, there would be differences in the addiction rate due to differences in sociological pressures, etc. Also how do you separate drug abuse as a form of self medication from drug abuse resulting from dependency? Is there even a difference? I think that this is a muddy enough issue that it doesn't shed any light on the safety of pot vs. alcohol argument.

6. You do not compare the effects of regular alcohol consumption considered abuse (easy to do, 3 drinks per night) vs. THC abuse (?).

The data simply isn't there to make a relevant conclusion. You'd have to legalize pot then study its social consequences.

And yet you come to the conclusion that marijuana is so much pharmacologically worse for an individual - and presumably society - than alcohol. My complaint was with the bad science and how it undermines the "legalize pot" movement.

Negative pharmacological side effects is a much different question than the social relevance of these side effects. At the bottom of the second (post-truncation) comment, I spell out some of the consequences I see from arguing from a position of poor science , but also state emphatically that I don't support the prohibition of recreational pot usage.

Sorry, you've not convinced me. An argument that would tip the scales against booze for me is how it's used, not how it's ideally used. We'd also need to set benachmarks for terms like "moderate."

Here I can only address alcohol consumption. An "apples to apples" comparison would have to wait until pot became legalized.

Here is a summary of alcohol use in this country:

About 35% of the adult US population abstains from alcohol use, about 60% are occasional to moderate drinkers, and about 5 to 7 % are diagnosable with alcohol abuse or dependence (NIAAA, 1997). Of the some 16 million Americans who meet the diagnostic criteria for abuse or dependence, only about 1.5 million seek and receive treatment (SAMHSA, 2003).

This means that 8-11% of alcohol users are considered to be addicts and about 1% of the alcohol users is being treated for an addiction.

Exact data for marijuana are impossible to obtain due to its illicit nature. Numbers I've found suggest between 1.5 and 3 million casual pot smokers. The number addicted is also tenuous. The only solid number we have is the number seeking treatment which is around 120,000, or about 3-5% of the users are being treated for addiction. If you can find better numbers, I would be interested. Although the number is higher for MJ than the comparable number for alcohol (suggesting a higher incidence of addiction), it doesn't mean very much as a comparison due to the very different psychological and sociological issues for alcohol versus marijuana usage. The same comment applies to the "gateway drug" argument (1/5 of MJ users go on to try harder drugs).

Care to deliver?

I'm rather busy at work today, it will have to wait.

Weekend weed smokers should suffer no more long-term effects from usage than a moderate drinker.

You just advanced my case for me by outlining approximately safe benchmarks for marijuana. Now determine what percentage of weed users abuse that drug vs. what percentage of booze users abuse alcohol, and we're on to something.

Except in highly addictive chemicals like heroin, addiction is not a primarily a physiological phenomenon so much as a complex social-psychological one.

Addressed the pyschological nature in earlier comment, and fair enough.

The data simply isn't there to make a relevant conclusion.

You advance parity between our arguments, again.

Negative pharmacological side effects is a much different question than the social relevance of these side effects.

Agreed, but less than a soft, equivocal "social" construct is a harder construct that would address common behaviors (rates of ingestion) of these substances when decreeing a pharmacological comparison. As they aren't both liquids or inhalables with varying strengths, common usage is just as important as effect.

An "apples to apples" comparison would have to wait until pot became legalized.

Or could be extrapolated from medicinal studies, assuming they can thwart federal law.

The rest of your stats are on the right track, but as you say, it's difficult to do what I demanded of you re: making apples to apples comparison.

Bill:

Now determine what percentage of weed users abuse that drug vs. what percentage of booze users abuse alcohol, and we're on to something.

A rough number is 3x more marijuana users substance abuse compared to alcohol as a percentage of users. But as I pointed out, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

For example, there is a statistic that there are benefits in terms of heart disease from as low a dosage rate as one alcoholic drink per week (reference on request). At this very low dosage level, the positive effects are not primarily pharmacological, but rather probably have to do with the stress reduction associated with alcohol consumption. Some people likely take a few drinks a week because of this psychologically self-medicative effect.

Similarly, you can't ignore the psychoactive component of THC, which is to say that users do find it mildly therapeutic for certain psychological disorders. Individuals who use it therapeutically are also self-medicating. It is unfair to compare these individuals with the larger population of alcohol users who use it in certain social contexts (i.e., a glass of wine at a party).

It's my conjecture that most people who are drug addicts who eventually kill themselves or die of an overdose don't die from the drugs so much as from the underlying mental illness that has driven them to addiction. To the extent that this is a valid observation, placing people in jail for drug use is a particularly heinous act.

Anyway, it's been an interesting and challenging discussion. I've had a bit more time today because I was running some simulations (which take a while to run) and could hop back and forth between work and quasi-work. Now I have to make sense of my results. Later!

Good discussion. You scored some very good points, I have to concede.

All I know is that the quasi-spiritually religious (but not religious in the religious sense of the word) Alcoholic Anonymous and The Big Book book of spiritual but not-religious religious guidance receives butt-loads of federal funding to "cure" those who suffer from the disease called alcohol.

A federally-funded religious but not-really-religious program that has a proven 70% relapse rate within five years of joining (this % does not include those who commit suicide) is another example of the bogus War on Drugs meme.