legalized marijuana ... what will CAP do ?

[SarDragon]

I'd be more inclined to attribute the event(s) to poor decision making than an inherent badness in marijuana.
In that respect, it's the same as alcohol.

I've been drinking for about 45 years, and have managed to have zero incidents with long term consequences, and only three short term - a night in the drunk tank in college, and two instances of DUI where nothing happened. The alcohol wasn't at fault. My decision making was.

Should I ever choose to partake in marijuana, I will ensure that the conditions are appropriate, so that there are no measurable consequences. Pretty simple.

[starshippe]

   heres a link to some info on marijuana use in india. it describes a society that, for the past several thousand years, has wished for its citizens to use marijuana to help live without fear, without anxiety, free to, to coin a phrase, pursue happiness. a noble concept, indeed.

   http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201106/history-cannabis-in-india


bill

[jimmydeanno]

the conservative viewpoint is about "tradition" and "established culture", and the evidence simply doesn't support the traditional and established view on marijuana. Period. End of story. Done.

I love liberal arguments. The liberal side is "tradition and established culture is wrong and needs to change because WE say so." The 2nd liberal argument is that "everyone does it a little, and it does not hurt like alcohol, so why not?"

These 2 arguments have failed when given over the general American populace time and time again. They make no sense. Change for change sake is beyond worthless, and no, not everyone has tried or does pot. Nathan, you live in one of the most conservative states in the union where you are in the very tiny minority of liberals. Kansas has one of the lowest drug use rates in the nation, and also one of the lowest crime rates, so the "established culture" seems to be working there...

Conservative thinking is supposed to have a basis in empirical rationalized thought, which I think is what Nathan is arguing for.

[starshippe]

   for those with an interest in the history of marijuana, i offer this link to "the first twelve thousand years," which does an exceptionally well referenced job of reporting on the interaction between humans and marijuana since the end of the last ice age.

   http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/first12000/abel.htm

   if ur interests are mainly in the legal aspects in the usa, u might jump to section 13....

   http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/first12000/13.htm

   i find the arguments of dr woodward, of the ama, particularly convincing, but thats just my opinion.

bill

[cm42]

Cite please: What drug can you obtain legally, without prescription, that is more psychoactive then marijuana?

Depends on what you mean by "more psychoactive than marijuana". Two quantitative measures would be toxicity and addictiveness. Unfortunately, alcohol and nicotine are worse than marijuana in both cases. Toxicity is especially telling, as death rates from marijuana overdose are nonexistent. What exactly do you propose?

You also continue to compare it to other substances as if that is relevant.  Just because one potentially bad idea thing is already legal doesn't mean the courts or the legislature have a mandate to make things worse by adding to the pile of bad ideas.

The principle here is not that we're making more bad things legal and thus increasing the total "bad ideas". The principle is that prohibition of certain substances can cause more problems than it solves. We previously learned that lesson with alcohol, and we are currently learning it with marijuana.

Further to the comparison, there is absolutely no reason to use cannabis other then self-intoxication and impairment.

As opposed to alcohol and cigarettes?

That's not to say that plenty of people don't binge drink, especially in college, but there is a connoisseur component, and it is entirely possible and not uncommon to drink alcoholic beverages your entire life, in moderation, and never once even be buzzed, let alone drunk.  People don't smoke weed for the appreciation of the craftsmanship of a fine wine, they want to get stoned, and stoned quickly, that or their job at the mine isn't getting the lung cancer fast enough.  That fact alone means they have an impaired ability to make good judgement.

You should publish these studies of how you have come to these conclusions for the entirety of human-kind.

[Eclipse]

^ You don't get to redefine the meaning of the words to make your argument, however the comparison you make negates most of the rest of your point.
If nicotine and alcohol were more psychoactive than cannabis, no one would bother with cannabis.

Prohibition only causes more problems when people ignore the law and then hurt themselves with the mental math used to justify their positions.

[cm42]

^ You don't get to redefine the meaning of the words to make your argument, however the comparison you make negates most of the rest of your point.
If nicotine and alcohol were more psychoactive than cannabis, no one would bother with cannabis.

How can I redefine something you haven't defined in the first place?

Prohibition only causes more problems when people ignore the law and then hurt themselves with the mental math used to justify their positions.

So prohibition wouldn't be a problem if everyone would just obey it. Brilliant.

I suppose I misspoke in my previous post; most people learned the lesson of prohibition and alcohol.

[Nathan]

^ You don't get to redefine the meaning of the words to make your argument, however the comparison you make negates most of the rest of your point.
If nicotine and alcohol were more psychoactive than cannabis, no one would bother with cannabis.

Just like how if acetominophen actually worked, people wouldn't bother buying ibuprofen. Or if Call of Duty 3 was any good, people wouldn't have bothered buying Battlefield 3. Or Miller was any good, people wouldn't bother with Coors. If Kias were really that good, people wouldn't bother with Hondas.

Basically, you're just showing a profound ignorance about this subject, which is unfortunate, since you've attacked the academic approach, which people like me utilize after having a few years studying psychology and the behavior of drugs on the brain. The academic approach would show you WHY you're wrong, so let me help you figure it out.

If you break down "psychoactive", you're saying it's a substance that enters the brain and affects behavior and emotional status. Alcohol does this, St. John's Wort does this (with results about as good as any prescription antidepressent), and so forth. Comparing marijuana to alcohol is somewhat like comparing Ritalin to Percocet. Both are psychoactive, yet the effect on the brain is quite different, and people abuse these drugs recreational for completely different effects.

While alcohol is a depressant, marijuana can affect a person in multiple ways, because it affects the brain in totally different ways. And while alcohol is PURELY recreational, marijuana has been shown to be helpful in managing depression, eating disorders, anxiety, multiple sclerosis, morning sickness, and other various issues.

Prohibition only causes more problems when people ignore the law and then hurt themselves with the mental math used to justify their positions.

I'm curious, if there were to be a ban against all unhealthy foods (because it's just a way for people to hurt themselves recreationally for no real reason), would you support it? There's literally no difference in the logic.

[Eclipse]

Again, unrelated comparisons just to try and make the argument.

Thankfully this will continue to be a non-issue for CAP for the long-term future.

[Nathan]

The "I'm right, you're wrong" argument stops working when you're six. The comparisons are completely warranted if you actually know anything about the subject beyond what the 1950's propaganda videos told you.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Again, unrelated comparisons just to try and make the argument.

How is it unrelated? The concept is very much the same.

Earlier you said that people who drink can be connoisseurs, but people who smoke weed are just looking to get high.

What about the connoisseurs of Cigars? Are they just looking for a buzz?

From my very limited knowledge, I know that MJ can be grown in dozens of different ways, and anything from the soil, to the nutrients, the lighting, the season, and plant genetic mix can apparently make the plant more potent/taste differently.  There are names for these various breeds much like there are names for hookah tobacco mixes.

So besides some long heard mantra of "Drugs are bad, mkay?", what about MJ makes it so much worse than regular tobacco or alcohol?

[lordmonar]

^ You don't get to redefine the meaning of the words to make your argument, however the comparison you make negates most of the rest of your point.
If nicotine and alcohol were more psychoactive than cannabis, no one would bother with cannabis.

Prohibition only causes more problems when people ignore the law and then hurt themselves with the mental math used to justify their positions.

?

Let's ask Mexico how prohibition is working out for them.  Columbia, Ecuidor?

Prohibition does cause problems....you don't stop something simply by making it illegal.....where there is a demand you will find a supplier.

If you want to reduce the drug trade you have to attack the DEMAND side of it not the supply/logistics side of.

As for cannabis vs alcohol....the mental gymnastics used to ban one and promote the use of the other simply astounds me.

[FARRIER]

The most conservative counties in the State of Colorado voted the measure in. Here in Colorado, to some it was recreational use, to others it was the idea that prohibition doesn't work and the costs associated with it. In regards to the medical use, a good friend of mine has a MJ prescription for chronic pain due to spine issues. It's use has negated the need to take a pain killer for the pain, and then the anti-depressant required for living with the long term chronic pain.

Getting to the point, how will CAP deal with the legalization. Looking at it from an individual use, if people are taking it for chronic pain issues, they have probably stopped most, if not all participation in Emergency Services. Working around Cadets and Aerospace Education activities, no one is going to use it around youth.

Another relevant point, people take prescription medications to function on a daily basis. Some with the same potency as MJ. Opening a prescription bottle and taking your medications with a glass of water has no stigma. Employers still require not to be under the influence when operating equipment, which can effect employment, regardless if prescription or MJ. As far as driving your vehicle, you can be cited for driving under the influence of drugs, prescription or illegal.

: - )

[JeffDG]

Getting to the point, how will CAP deal with the legalization.

The ACTUAL point is...How will CAP deal with what legalization?

Nowhere in the United States is marijuana legal in any way, shape or fashion.  With or without a prescription, it's is still illegal to posses, use, or distribute.

[Nathan]

Getting to the point, how will CAP deal with the legalization.

The ACTUAL point is...How will CAP deal with what legalization?

Nowhere in the United States is marijuana legal in any way, shape or fashion.  With or without a prescription, it's is still illegal to posses, use, or distribute.

Which, AGAIN, no one is arguing.

But considering that there are actual challenges (rather than just debates) occurring, and the general trend toward the liberalization of many social issues, it seems that we are far closer to legalization than we ever have been. And the point I have been making is that CAP (and many organizations, really) may not be in a good position to react to the change.

When you operate on the policy that "drugs are bad" because "drugs are illegal" (two different things), we don't really have a way to handle drugs NOT being illegal anymore. CAP would have no justification for the continued demonizing or banning the use of the drug when it would allow something like alcohol to be consumed at CAP activities (which is why the comparison between alcohol and marijuana IS relevant).

I had been saying for a while now that we never should try to establish a moral value on the drug use itself, but rather say that breaking the law is bad, and with all drug use there comes a health risk. Then we would HONESTLY present that health risk based on credible evidence, as well as risk to career paths that they may be interested in taking. Then, if (and probably when) marijuana does become legal, we don't have to change our drug presentation ONE IOTA. We simply continue to tell them that breaking the law is illegal, and present an honest assessment of the risks of using marijuana, as we currently do with nicotine and alcohol.

It's a much more logical way to prevent the problem from ever occurring, rather than covering our ears and pretending that this problem doesn't exist.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I'm on board with Nathan's post 100%.

[Eclipse]

But considering that there are actual challenges (rather than just debates) occurring, and the general trend toward the liberalization of many social issues, it seems that we are far closer to legalization than we ever have been. And the point I have been making is that CAP (and many organizations, really) may not be in a good position to react to the change.

There is currently no "challenge" occurring that affects CAP in anyway, that is the primary fallacy of this entire discussion, nor will there be one in the foreseeable future.  Propagating the idea that there is a challenge at all is actually just a back-door way of pushing the agenda by insinuating it is inevitable, and therefore we must prepare for it, which in turn raises the idea that it is a forgone conclusion.

I had been saying for a while now that we never should try to establish a moral value on the drug use itself, but rather say that breaking the law is bad, and with all drug use there comes a health risk.

Right, because relativism means everyone goes home with a T-shirt and no one feels bad.

[Flying Pig]

But considering that there are actual challenges (rather than just debates) occurring, and the general trend toward the liberalization of many social issues, it seems that we are far closer to legalization than we ever have been. And the point I have been making is that CAP (and many organizations, really) may not be in a good position to react to the change.

There is currently no "challenge" occurring that affects CAP in anyway, that is the primary fallacy of this entire discussion, nor will there be one in the foreseeable future.  Propagating the idea that there is a challenge at all is actually just a back-door way of pushing the agenda by insinuating it is inevitable, and therefore we must prepare for it, which in turn raises the idea that it is a forgone conclusion.

I had been saying for a while now that we never should try to establish a moral value on the drug use itself, but rather say that breaking the law is bad, and with all drug use there comes a health risk.

Right, because relativism means everyone goes home with a T-shirt and no one feels bad.

Perhaps CAP will have the ability to set a slightly higher standard than the weakest link view of the rest of the nation.  There are several LE agencies that are "no tobacco" agencies.  If you get caught smoking, chewing or doing anything related to using tobacco.... you are fired.  Even off duty.  I dont see a 501(c)(3) volunteer organization having issues with making MJ restricted, even if it did become legal. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

I can see the tobacco argument. If you physical health is important to the agebcy .

[Flying Pig]

That, and I believe it has to do with the insurance rates they get by having a no tobacco policy.  Regardless of the reasoning behind it, you accept the job knowing the requirements.  You dont like that stipulation, then there is a whole list of other agencies you can apply too.  Just like CAP. You dont like our rules, dont join.