A Sign of What Do-Gooders Can Accomplish

[The_Squid]

It's odd that the group which is most vociferously in favour of banning tobacco smoking also seems to be most vociferously in favour of decriminalizing marihuana smoking.

Please cite where anyone here advocates a ban on tobacco smoking.

[Argus]

Please cite where anyone here advocates a ban on tobacco smoking.

I wasn't specifically referring to this web site. I was referring to the amorphous, mostly leftyish mass of do-gooders out there who seem to favor both policies.

[Black Dog]

Forced treatment for addicts and the mentally ill, life at hard labour for smugglers, major dealers, and minor repeat dealers.

And how effective would this be? How expensive? How enforceable?

[Black Dog]

It's odd that the group which is most vociferously in favour of banning tobacco smoking also seems to be most vociferously in favour of decriminalizing marihuana smoking.

No, not really.

[The_Squid]

I wasn't specifically referring to this web site. I was referring to the amorphous, mostly leftyish mass of do-gooders out there who seem to favor both policies.

No one on this website is advocating for that, yet you thought it was important to the debate to bring it up. So what does it have to do with Cybercoma's post which you quoted?

Please cite any lefty-ish dogooders who advocate banning tobacco.

[cybercoma]

It's odd that the group which is most vociferously in favour of banning tobacco smoking also seems to be most vociferously in favour of decriminalizing marihuana smoking.

Really? I advocated banning tobacco? This is news to me.

In any case, your implied argument is that the positions are inconsistent. This assumes that the health risks with smoking tobacco and smoking marijuana are the same. They're not. One study confirmed that the average cigarette smoker's lungs are damaged far more than the average pot smoker's lungs (source). Heavy marijuana use could be problematic, but it's exceedingly rare to find someone who smokes as much pot as the typical cigarette smoker. Moreover, many pot smokers use a water pipe which eliminates many of the cancer-causing tars in the smoke. There are many other studies that have shown that the average pot smoker faces far less negative health outcomes than tobacco smokers.

In other words, comparing the two to each other is simplistic. It's not inconsistent to hold both positions.

Regardless, I don't believe cigarettes should be banned nor do I even think a ban on cigarettes would be effective. Public education has done far more to reduce the number of smokers than a ban ever would.

[WestCoastRunner]

Vancouver has been quite innovative in their approach to dealing with the issues in the DTES and that does include the needle exchange program much to the horror of many people across Canada .

We all know that 'forced treatments' for addicts does not work in the long term so the following programs are voluntary:

Vancouver's Downtown Community Court: As the first of its kind in Canada, Vancouver's Downtown Community Court pioneered the innovative approach that brings together justice, health and social services in one location – a purpose-designed courthouse.

• A high number of offenders in downtown Vancouver have health and social problems, including alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, homelessness and poverty. The court takes a problem-solving approach to address offenders' needs and circumstances and the underlying causes of their criminal behaviour.

Drug Treatment Court of Vancouver: The Drug Treatment Court of Vancouver (DTCV) is a specialized court that provides an alternative approach to the mainstream court process for individuals who commit criminal offences to support their addiction to cocaine, heroin or crystal methamphetamine. Participation in the DTCV is voluntary and requires participants to take part in a supervised 14 month intensive day treatment program through the Drug Court Treatment and Resource Centre (DCTRC).

Vancouver has one of the most aggressive approaches to harm reduction resulting in drastic reductions in drug usage, transmission of disease etc and yet the conservative govt continues to try and shut down these harm reduction programs. That just simply does not make sense to me and the majority of people living in BC.

Vancouver has based their approach on the 'Four Pillars': harm reduction, prevention, treatment and enforcement.

This is a very good article worth reading.

Edited November 19, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[On Guard for Thee]

Forced treatment for addicts and the mentally ill, life at hard labour for smugglers, major dealers, and minor repeat dealers.

Forced treatment and labor camps. Hmm, which era of European history does that remind you of?

[Argus]

And how effective would this be? How expensive? How enforceable?

Let's try it and see.

[Argus]

Regardless, I don't believe cigarettes should be banned nor do I even think a ban on cigarettes would be effective. Public education has done far more to reduce the number of smokers than a ban ever would.

Public education? Or bans on smoking? Come off it. Smoking has gone down because the government imposed huge taxes and because you can't smoke almost anywhere now. The zealotry of those who have gone after smokers has pushed them out of virtually anywhere outside their living rooms, and in places, the zealots are working on that too.

And while smoking pot might not be AS dangerous it certainly isn't healthy, with newer studies suggesting long-term potheads have lower IQs due to brain damage caused by the smoking.

[Argus]

We all know that 'forced treatments' for addicts does not work in the long term so the following programs are voluntary:

We all know that? I don't know that. My cousin, who ran away from the Royal Ottawa after finally being convinced to commit himself to detox, and who was dragged back there by the police, doesn't know it. He's been sober and off the pills for many years now.

[Argus]

Forced treatment and labor camps. Hmm, which era of European history does that remind you of?

Today?

[cybercoma]

Public education? Or bans on smoking? Come off it. Smoking has gone down because the government imposed huge taxes and because you can't smoke almost anywhere now. The zealotry of those who have gone after smokers has pushed them out of virtually anywhere outside their living rooms, and in places, the zealots are working on that too.

And while smoking pot might not be AS dangerous it certainly isn't healthy, with newer studies suggesting long-term potheads have lower IQs due to brain damage caused by the smoking.

So what's the point you were trying to get at? Because you're not making a hell of a lot of sense right now.

[cybercoma]

We all know that? I don't know that. My cousin, who ran away from the Royal Ottawa after finally being convinced to commit himself to detox, and who was dragged back there by the police, doesn't know it. He's been sober and off the pills for many years now.

How many times does it have to be said that personal anecdotes are not generalizable evidence?

[Argus]

So what's the point you were trying to get at? Because you're not making a hell of a lot of sense right now.

That people on this issue aren't exactly thinking straight. The stuff in your drugs of choice can often be as or more dangerous than tobacco.

[Argus]

How many times does it have to be said that personal anecdotes are not generalizable evidence?

You don't like personal anecdotes don't make universal statements like "forced treatment does not work". Such a statement is flatly and completely contradicted even by personal anecdotes.

In any case, lots of people are forced into treatment. I have seen nothing to suggest it doesn't work.

http://www.addictiontreatmentmagazine.com/addiction-treatment/forcing-addicts-into-treatment-work/

Myth #3: You have to want drug treatment for it to be effective.

Virtually no one wants drug treatment. Two of the primary reasons people seek drug treatment are because the court ordered them to do so, or because loved ones urged them to seek treatment. Many scientific studies have shown convincingly that those who enter drug treatment programs in which they face "high pressure" to confront and attempt to surmount their addiction do comparatively better in treatment, regardless of the reason they sought treatment in the first place.

http://www.waysidehouse.org/index.asp?SEC=8749B141-0CA5-40A8-BF47-BB97F1E279B7&DE=9546BA50-47BF-4284-BD49-DBCFFEDBFA72&Type=B_BASIC

Conclusions and Recommendations

In general, our review of 11 empirical studies of compulsory substance abuse treatment supports the use of the criminal justice system as an effective source of treatment referral, as well as a means for enhancing retention and compliance. However, the divergence among these results--with five of the studies reporting a positive relationship between legal coercion and treatment outcomes, four reporting no difference, and two studies reporting a negative relationship--leads to a number of additional conclusions

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/treat/consensus/anglin.pdf

t

t

Edited November 19, 2014 by Argus

[cybercoma]

That people on this issue aren't exactly thinking straight. The stuff in your drugs of choice can often be as or more dangerous than tobacco.

Except the research is starting to show that the health outcomes for the average pot smoker versus the average cigarette smoker are different, particularly in regards to developing cancer and pulmonary function. Are there carcinogens in pot? Yes. Combustion creates carcinogens. There are carcinogens in your BBQ meats. What needs to be examined is the actual outcomes in a controlled way. That's what matters. It appears that the average pot smoker faces less negative effects, but there needs to be a lot more work done in this area. Hell, they've even shown that cannabinoids can shrink tumours in mice.

Like I said, you're assuming that smoking pot and smoking cigarettes are exactly the same, when they're not. There's already been demonstrable differences in outcomes between pot smokers and cigarette smokers. That doesn't mean pot is healthy or even good for you, but it appears from early research that it is indeed better for you than cigarettes (which are about as bad for you as it gets). Obviously not smoking pot or cigarettes is the healthiest option.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's odd that the group which is most vociferously in favour of banning tobacco smoking also seems to be most vociferously in favour of decriminalizing marihuana smoking.

What is odd is that you are mixing the apples and oranges in such a way. Legalizing MJ would not allow you to smoke it any old place you chose to. Bans on tobacco smoking have to do with keeping smoke away from people who choose not to smoke. The same rules would apply to pot. They are doing so in the states because they have learned busting people for pot is ineffective, unenforceable, and expensive.

[Big Guy]

A good number of those who purchase marijuana use it in cooking or other ways to ingest the THC for various health reasons. While the speed of getting the drug into your system is slower then smoking it still has the same general benefits.

I do not know of anybody baking nicotine cookies or muffins.

[jacee]

A good number of those who purchase marijuana use it in cooking or other ways to ingest the THC for various health reasons. While the speed of getting the drug into your system is slower then smoking it still has the same general benefits.

Actually it's better for body pain that way, or using a vaporizer.

It's the cannabinoids (not the THC) that provide relief from body pain.

.

[WestCoastRunner]

Myth #3: You have to want drug treatment for it to be effective.

Virtually no one wants drug treatment. Two of the primary reasons people seek drug treatment are because the court ordered them to do so, or because loved ones urged them to seek treatment. Many scientific studies have shown convincingly that those who enter drug treatment programs in which they face "high pressure" to confront and attempt to surmount their addiction do comparatively better in treatment, regardless of the reason they sought treatment in the first place.

http://www.waysidehouse.org/index.asp?SEC=8749B141-0CA5-40A8-BF47-BB97F1E279B7&DE=9546BA50-47BF-4284-BD49-DBCFFEDBFA72&Type=B_BASIC

Your myth #3 is a quote from a drug treatment center that is a for profit company. Do you seriously believe that "Virtually no one wants drug treatment."

You are saying that every single addict who has sought treatment for drug/alcohol addiction is doing it for someone other then themselves.

Plenty of drug addicts seek treatment because they can no longer stand the life they live and they are choosing to abstain so they can have a better life.

Edited November 20, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[WestCoastRunner]

Conclusions and Recommendations

In general, our review of 11 empirical studies of compulsory substance abuse treatment supports the use of the criminal justice system as an effective source of treatment referral, as well as a means for enhancing retention and compliance. However, the divergence among these results--with five of the studies reporting a positive relationship between legal coercion and treatment outcomes, four reporting no difference, and two studies reporting a negative relationship--leads to a number of additional conclusions

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/treat/consensus/anglin.pdf

This report is over 15 years old. Research and treatments for people with addictions have come a long way since then.

[WestCoastRunner]

In any case, lots of people are forced into treatment. I have seen nothing to suggest it doesn't work.

http://www.addictiontreatmentmagazine.com/addiction-treatment/forcing-addicts-into-treatment-work/

Quotes from your article above:

"In as many as 85 to 90 percent of interventions, the addict agrees to enter treatment."

"Although it can be effective, involuntary treatment is not without challenges. After all, most treatment centers are not lock-down facilities where clients are physically forced to stay against their will, so the addict has to decide at some point whether they are willing to do the work of recovery."

"Because ambivalence and outright resistance are common, many treatment centers are well-equipped to help addicts recognize the importance of staying in treatment. For example, they may use motivational interviewing to help the addict connect with their own desire to stay clean or call upon family or employers as leverage. Once the addict is clean and sober, their thinking clears and they are often more willing to commit to the rest of the treatment process."

[Big Guy]

To jaycee - I agree with you but my reference was to the benefits in coping with depression and anxiety - an area with far more consequences than pain. The alleviation of physical pain is another benefit which you have already pointed out.

[Argus]

This report is over 15 years old. Research and treatments for people with addictions have come a long way since then.

Which means what, that it won't work now when it worked then?