The Shotgun Blog
« Brussels Journal | Main | Giant joint »
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Another useless study from the UN: marijuana use
It would be nice if the National Post reported why this report is useless rather than simply summarizing the findings. The dramatic headline: Canadian pot use four times global rate. What this actually means: in 2004, almost 17% of Canadians "smoked marijuana or used other cannabis products."
No information tells us how often people smoke pot, if there are any negative consequences or implications, or even if the 17% use pot regularly. Hell, maybe "cannabis products" includes wearing hemp T-shirts.
Is 17% even high? (Most would agree alchohol is more dangerous that ample amounts of weed anyway). And why are we comparing ourselves to global levels, as if that's worth looking at. Is it of any interest that Zambia and Ghana have similar levels of pot use? Hardly...
Posted by Patrick McGee on July 10, 2007 in Western Standard | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e009900a2c8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another useless study from the UN: marijuana use:
Comments
Top of the morning, sub-commander Yanni.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-10 8:28:56 AM
If I was a more suspicious person, I'd suspect that a small group of people are attempting to hijack this blog with the intent of rendering it
useless for the purpose of reasoned debate.
Just my humble opinion.
Posted by: RI Chang | 2007-07-10 8:47:34 AM
You make the comment that "Most would agree alchohol is more dangerous that ample amounts of weed anyway". Well, let's not get carried away here. There is ample scientific evidence that pot is a gateway drug leading to the use of hard drugs (despite what the pot pushers tell us). Pot less dangerous than alcohol? I don't think so.
Posted by: John Luft | 2007-07-10 8:58:21 AM
Maybe the NP is ready for de-tox?
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2007-07-10 9:18:37 AM
You're mistaken, John Luft. The studies show that a high percentage of users of harder drugs had smoked pot in the past. This is not a causal link and could be explained in many other ways. Perhaps those who are willing to risk smoking crack or shooting heroin are also more likely to have thought nothing of smoking pot in the past.
Insisting on a causal link here is like saying childhood leads to heroin addiction. 100% of heroin users were once children, after all.
Even if the gateway argument is correct, perhaps it can be explained by the fundamental dishonesty of our 'war on drugs'. Kids only hear the bad things that drugs do, and that doing drugs at all will ruin your life. When they see smart, creative people smoking pot or doing mushrooms and LSD, they know that they've been lied to, and they wonder what other lies they've been told in the name of a war on drugs.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2007-07-10 9:42:43 AM
...but but, I didn't inhale...
Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-07-10 10:10:04 AM
Actually, this has been studied to death.
There are a few groups that people fall into.
First, those who have never tried.
Then there are those who tried once (whether they inhaled or not is besides the point).
Then there are those who tried and who went on to try other drugs--but they did not get addicted, and eventually stopped altogether.
Then there are those who tried, and who went on to try other drugs, and decided that moderate useage every so often, or after work, or on weekends, is the cat's meow!
Then there are those, who try everything, like it all, and who eventually get adicted to something. They are the heroine addicts. They are the crack addicts. They become alcoholics too. And the just get addicted, and relish in getting high on whatever they can get their fingers on. You see them getting their legal drugs, as well as their illegal drugs. They think they are as good looking as the day they first had their first puff. They collect welfare, steal, do not work, and end up in jail, or on some dissabled pension, on the streets, and lobbying the government for more money to support their addictions.
The thing is, even they classify what they take as hard or soft. Marijuana is considered a soft drug--for what reason I have no idea. Seems to me all drugs could be hard depending on just how much you take. personally, I prefer to have my brains thank-you very much. I fall into the category of people, who do not have an addictive personality, when it comes to drugs. No thanks is what I say. Sure, I like some wine now and then, and on occassion, a martini is the cat's meow. Thing for me is that with all that is so very wodnerful to experience in the world, I do not understand why someone would want to go and ruin it all, by clouding up their minds, and getting so stoned that they cannot remember anything.
The question is whether or not we should go in the direction of those other nations, who have severaly controlled drug useage, just so we can take the steam out of illegal drug useage, or whether we should work harder at getting everyone who does drugs, in jail. Somehow I do not believe that by imprisoning one third of our population, that we are going to correct anything. The other questions are whether certain drugs need to be taken off the criminal code, and controlled through the food and drug act. Marijuana may be that drug. If people had an option that was controlled, maybe they would not go that step farther. As for whether or not it would lead to greater useage, I doubt it, because those people like myself, who do not do drugs, are not going to do it, no matter how available, or how legal it is.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-10 11:33:56 AM
"The studies show that a high percentage of users of harder drugs had smoked pot in the past."
Ya and those who enjoy crafted micro beer and good wine once drank water...must be a "gateway drink" right?
If you believe that mythology, you probably believe your Girlfriend's story about "pillow pants".
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=61382
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2007-07-10 11:44:58 AM
RI Chang: No more suspicion is needed, your humble opinion is right on.
Posters don't need to prove maturity but their posts give them away. A well managed blog would insist on staying on topic and not allow school yard banter and name calling.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-07-10 12:08:40 PM
The gateway isn't the pot so much as it's the criminals who grow and distribute the stuff. The same criminals also deal in all the other illegal drugs and are able to market it to the potheads.
Perhaps this is an argument legalizing pot. Get the criminals out of the loop. But efforts such as decriminalization are foolish. They make pot smoking easier and more attractive which mostly benefits the criminals who wind up with a bigger market.
Posted by: JR | 2007-07-10 12:31:39 PM
Sorry potheads. Pot IS a gateway drug.
"New research confirms that marijuana is a gateway drug for most teens who use it.
Some will tell you marijuana is a harmless drug, but the Journal of the American Medical Association isn't one of them.
Young people who smoke marijuana are two to five times more likely to move on to harder drugs. That is the formal opinion of researchers, who published their conclusions from a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)."
I think I'll take their word for it rather than yours.
Posted by: John Luft | 2007-07-10 1:11:19 PM
I agree with legalizing it too. It's one less money maker for the criminal elements. It may be less cool to smoke it when it's legally available, the element of excitement from doing something illegal is gone, won't have the same appeal for the younger set.
If it's a gateway drug and sold by the same hard drug criminals, at least there will be less chance of contact with them and sales pitches made for the destructive drugs.
Legalizing alcohol put the moonshiners out of business and our government is raking in the money, which comes back to the taxpayers in some form.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-07-10 1:22:46 PM
By the way, I'm not a "pothead", would never touch the stuff but it seems it would be worth a try to legalize it and monitor the results, human nature being what it is, it might curb it considerably.
Anyone have any stats on how Holland is doing?
Looks like usage in Canada tops their open/legal policy on pot.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-07-10 1:35:58 PM
Holland is a pot-lovers paradise. Sit down in any number of pleasant coffee shops, buy some weed or hash, roll it, smoke it, make new friends and just relax knowing that The Man ain't gonna hassle you. There are, or were, a couple of somewhat similar places (you can't buy it, only smoke it) in Toronto and Vancouver.
Legalize it baby!
Posted by: JP | 2007-07-10 2:25:45 PM
Oh yeah, using Amsterdam as a "model" is real bright. Except that Amsterdam's city council is in the process of revisiting many of the radical left wing, ultra liberal policies because the dark side of those policies are beginning to manifest themselves. I am astounded by the breathtaking stupidity of pot legalization. Truly amazing.
Posted by: John Luft | 2007-07-10 2:39:08 PM
Luft--
I went and found the study your article http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/news-left.htm?aid=49) refers to in the UBC library (it's available online here http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/289/4/482?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=marijuana&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT for $15), and found that they grossly misinterpreted the results of the study. The real results are exactly what I described originally.
Let's break this down.
People who smoke pot are 3-5 times more likely to try other drugs. The study uses several sets of identical twins (one who smokes pot and the other who does not) to try to rule out genetic predisposition to drug use or addiction, but this does not begin to explain the social and cultural factors at work.
http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2003/218/1
As this article suggests, smoking pot can be an indicator of future drug use, but the study in the JAMA is not by any means proof that it causes that drug use.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2007-07-10 2:49:26 PM
JP wrote: Holland is a pot-lovers paradise. Sit down in any number of pleasant coffee shops, buy some weed or hash, roll it, smoke it, make new friends and just relax knowing that The Man ain't gonna hassle you.
Not any more. New anti-smoking laws will mean many will have to close, which is just as well. The smoke stinks worse than tobacco.
Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-10 3:20:55 PM
Thanks LizJ, for confirming my suspicions.
Posted by: RI Chang | 2007-07-10 3:54:18 PM
Great chain of events there. Legalize pot and then ban smoking in public places. PERFECT, another control tactic.
Alcohol has caused untold misery and deaths too and continues to do so.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-07-10 3:54:50 PM
Luft,
The "gateway" theory is just a systems theory. Systems theories cannot explain that which is psychologically and physically based. Fact remains, of those who are addicts, most will do whatever they can get, because they have addictive personalities in the first place.
The theory that all you have to do is take one puff of some drug, and you are addicted, is BS. There have been times when I have had more than my fair share of wine, and then yuck! I cannot even look at the stuff for weeks without getting nauseated. I am not an addictive personality, therefore no matter what I might try, I will never get addicted. I don't smoke either, and cannot stand to be around smokers. And yes, I tried smoking and have failed to turn up and addict. And people say cigarettes are THE most addictive things on the planet.
Those people you are referring to, are those who are that way inclined in the first place. There is no distinct quality in drugs that makes people addicted to the drugs. There is a distinct quality in SOME people that makes them addicted to drugs.
Therefore, only a certain percentage of the population will ever get an addiction--the rest of us will look at them and shrug our shoulders.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-07-10 4:30:48 PM
LizJ -
It would be helpful if those advocating legalization and speculating on the effects of the new laws would have on young people, would explain whether they themselves have any children.
John Luft -
I agree with you 100% and I would add an observation to differentiate "pot" or any other drug use, from supposedly "more dangerous" alcohol consumption.
With "pot" etc. I believe there is basically no "benefit" or satisfaction UNTIL one becomes "high" (i.e. impaired), whereas, with alcohol there is a continuum of "benefit" (i.e. enjoyment) from the first sip of some nice liquour or wine, on down to the point where you have drained the keg of beer lying in a pool of urine beneath it. So, with alcohol, you don't "have to" get drunk in order to enjoy the experience, including merely the taste, whereas with drugs, I think any fair testimony would reveal that "impairment" is the entirety of the "benefit."
This fact makes (any) "normal" illegal drug use infinitely more dangerous for everyone (especially children) than (all) "normal" alcoholic beverage use.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-07-10 6:18:04 PM
Excellent point, Conrad!
But the whole point of getting "high" is in order not to deal with life - but escape it. Pity that so many people have empty lives (by their own choosing, usually) that they resort to fleeing the beauty that life has to offer us.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-10 6:41:08 PM
OK you're all a bunch of puritan prudes. Instead of getting all Nancy Reagan-like and self-righteous, y'all should be thinking about how to bilk all us stupid stoners. If all us dim-bulb potheads bought our stash from The Man instead of some crook with a grow-op, think of all that tax revenue. BILLIONS! Then you guys could spend our loot on anything you wanted: State-of-the-art abortion clinics for some, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles for others. So listen to us mush-brained joint-bogarters when we tell you: Take our money, please!
Posted by: JP | 2007-07-10 6:59:00 PM
"the first stop is in Bogata to check the Columbian fields..."
"Sweet Moroccan pipe dreams
Golden Acapolco nights"
"We're on a train to Bangkok..."
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-10 7:02:32 PM
The Marakesh Express???
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-10 7:06:23 PM
obc
A Rush fan!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-10 7:08:57 PM
Limbaugh?
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-10 7:19:07 PM
obc,
LOL!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-10 7:20:50 PM
h20 ~
Right back at you! LOL!
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-10 7:23:06 PM
h2o & obc,
Are you guys high right now? Rush, man. Coooool.
Posted by: JP | 2007-07-10 7:29:14 PM
JP,
Does a litre of wine count?
In a goda da vita baby!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-10 7:30:57 PM
I'm high on life. I don't need any artificial boosters for my flight.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-10 7:31:43 PM
obc,
I'll buy you a couple of beers!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-10 7:33:47 PM
If you're buying, I prefer red wine, kind Sir.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-10 7:34:38 PM
obc,
GLADLY! Mon ami!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-10 7:34:54 PM
Reality is for people who can't handle drugs ;-)
Posted by: JP | 2007-07-10 8:05:10 PM
. . . or choose not to - because they have a purpose in life they are trying hard to fulfill.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-10 8:10:04 PM
obc,
There's a great exchange between Samuel L Jackson and Bridget Fonda in the movie "Jackie Brown". Quoting from memory, it goes something like this:
SAMUEL: Bitch, you sleep until noon every day, get high and go to the beach. Don't you know that that shit will destroy your ambition?
BRIDGET: Not if my ambition is to sleep in every day, get high and go to the beach it won't.
Posted by: JP | 2007-07-10 8:43:59 PM
My point exactly. Just waste your precious life away on drugs and you've wasted your precious life away. You'll have a few laughs along the way, but nothing to remember on your death bed - and probably no one to remember you either.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-10 8:47:42 PM
What I like is the juxtaposition of OBC's post. Read together "the loon flies high before he posts on a thread about a UN study on marijuana".
Back down to earth yet, OBC?
Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-10 8:47:43 PM
Gotta think with obc and h2o posting back to forth like that, that the hand cream's running low. (I apologize for that image. Really I do.)
Back on topic...it's interesting how this issue exposes the split between the libertarians and the social conservatives. And how the social conservatives tie themselves in knots trying to justify the consumption of distilled and fermented spirits (i.e. the creation of man) while denigrating the consumption of a PLANT. Made by (if you belief in such things) GOD.
BTW, anyone care to discuss cigarettes as a gateway drug?
Posted by: truewest | 2007-07-10 8:57:03 PM
truepest ~
Your last post is as nonsensical as they come - but what could one expect from someone stoned.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-10 9:00:25 PM
Oswald,
It's okay. I understand. With the hand cream running low (and with you all liquored up) I'm sure it's starting to chafe. Can't blame you for being a little grumpy. Tell h2o to spit in his hand. Not the same, but it might help.
Posted by: truewest | 2007-07-10 9:10:36 PM
Just when one thinks truepest can sink no lower, he does.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-10 9:12:51 PM
truewest,
"..denigrating the consumption of a PLANT.."
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
exactly
Posted by: JP | 2007-07-10 9:22:35 PM
Ah - another pothead! That explains a lot.
Posted by: obc | 2007-07-10 9:23:50 PM
Pot may or may not be a gateway drug. I'm more interested in weighing its benefits and its faults. There are those who would wring their hands at the effects of long term chronic use (the holes in the brain theory) and those who would point to the applaud the medical benefits for those with MS and cancer. There are also many who would decry the secondary crimes impelled by the illegality of pot. Why not some sane discussion rather than the belaboring of a point that seems irrelevant. After all tobacco would seem to be the gateway drug for pot. I can't see how very many pot smokers can inhale weed smoke without first having become inured to tobacco smoke.
Posted by: DML | 2007-07-10 11:44:43 PM
Let's not forget that alcohol is a drug. Oswald, would you say you're wasting your life with your excessive consumption of alcohol? A litre is certainly more than enough to wind up intoxicated. Will you remember anything? Will you have friends to remember you?
It's really quite amusing to see people trying to discuss the effects of drugs they've not tried. "Wasting your life" and "not remembering anything" are thrown about quite a bit, and I'm sure that's true for addicts, but what about the roughly 50% of Canadians who have tried drugs (other than alcohol) and continue to lead productive and successful lives?
Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2007-07-11 3:26:57 AM
John Luft sneers: "Sorry potheads. Pot IS a gateway drug."
Funny shit John..... calling someone who uses no recreational drugs at all a "pothead"
Say hello to "pillow pants" while you're seeking your personal truths...he probably knows where the magical "gateway" drugs are kept.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2007-07-12 8:01:07 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.