I would like to point out some flaws in your reasoning:

1) "About 70 percent of the visitors entering dispensaries observed by the Weekly in November were young men — corroborating D.A. Cooley's claim that the real market for all this activity is everyday users, not people suffering serious disease."

How exactly does this corroborate the DA's claim at all? All it indicates is an age group, you'd have to actually see their medical files to show that it is everyday users not those with disease. There are several diseases which hit young men more commonly than other groups.

Arguing for legalization does not necessarily mean that one wants free drugs. For instance I am all for legalizing all drugs, however I not only don't want them offered for free I want them taxed according to how dangerous they are, and for illegal dealers to be severely punished. I also believe that anyone who abuses drugs should not be able to receive state funded medical aid for conditions directly related to said abuse.

In the end your argument seems to be that you don't want democrats to receive more money from special interest groups... this seems beyond ridiculous.

As for your comments about Duncan, well from the snippet you posted it seems that he isn't inviting City councilors into his advocacy groups meetings... why should he?

Excellent questions!

How exactly does this corroborate the DA's claim at all? All it indicates is an age group, you'd have to actually see their medical files to show that it is everyday users not those with disease.

Medical marijuana is most commonly recommended for chemo. In fact, that was the biggest benefit the California voters were told about. A usage profile of 70% young men is not at all typical of the demographic of cancer sufferers. Rather, it sounds more consistent with the group most likely to use marijuana for recreational purposes, which is not at all what voters thought they were approving.

There are several diseases which hit young men more commonly than other groups.

Great! Then go ahead and name those diseases which are particularly common among young, healthy-looking men, and which are also particularly helped by marijuana use.

Arguing for legalization does not necessarily mean that one wants free drugs...

I agree. Legalization advocates claim that drug-related crime results, at least in part, from addicts' desperate need to procure their next fix. If so, then you must either provide the drugs free to them, or admit that legalization won't reduce that kind of crime, or admit that the aforementioned kind of crime is largely fictional.

I want them taxed according to how dangerous they are

Great! Then you admit that you'd probably tax crystal meth a very high rate, given its extreme danger -- which would inevitably lead to a "black market" for crystal meth. Which is exactly where we are now.

I also believe that anyone who abuses drugs should not be able to receive state funded medical aid for conditions directly related to said abuse.

Right. And this also means that drug users would turn to illegal sellers, rather than go through state-approved channels and thus lose their opportunity for state-provided healthcare. It seems to me that your own statements provide powerful evidence against your position.

In the end your argument seems to be that you don't want democrats to receive more money from special interest groups... this seems beyond ridiculous.

You're more than welcomed to explain why. I'm probably not alone in not being convinced by statements like "seems beyond ridiculous." That may be so, from your point of view — but it but it helps your readers (myself certainly included!) if you provide reasons for your conclusion.

If one believes concentrations of power tend to lead to corruption and waste, as I do, then it seems perfectly sensible to not want to concentrate all power in one organization which has no competitors, and thus few checks on its behavior — government.

So are you saying you believe increased special interest money actually improves the quality of the political process? If so, you hold a very rare position, one typically only held by lobbyists, MPs, and congresscritters. ;-)

Don't get me wrong I don't doubt that many who use medicinal dispensaries are doing so under false pretenses. I am merely pointing out that the reasoning that 70% of the visitors were young male does not preclude that they may have had valid reasons for requiring medicinal marijuana.

I don't think anyone in the legalize marijuana (or drugs) movements would say that all crime surrounding drugs would vanish overnight due to the legalization. Sure it is stated (and I agree) that drug related crime will fall dramatically, however this is not because there will be less thefts to pay for drugs or anything silly like that, but rather the drugs would be taken out of the hands of the dealers and put into the hands of regulated businesses.

"Great! Then you admit that you'd probably tax crystal meth a very high rate, given its extreme danger -- which would inevitably lead to a "black market" for crystal meth. Which is exactly where we are now."

Wrong, you see you can tax meth heavily and still keep it under the current market value and make a profit from it. Tie this in with stiff punishment for illegal dealers and for getting your drugs from an illegal source and it makes much more sense to go to a registered dealer rather than a black market one. It could be argued that black market dealers will just lower their profit margins, however with the risk involved I highly doubt that anyone would do such a thing without the immense monetary reward.

Its not that you don't want special interest groups to fund political parties that I find absurd, I know from my comment you could certainly infer that, but that is not what I was intending, sorry for being inarticulate. What I meant was that this is a ridiculous reason to object to the legalization of marijuana. To object to the removal of a ineffective prohibition based on the fact that you believe that the industry that will spring up around the removal will support one party or another is just plain anti democratic by nature.

I don't think anyone in the legalize marijuana (or drugs) movements would say that all crime surrounding drugs would vanish overnight due to the legalization.

I don't think I said they said this, either. ;-) It sounds like you also agree that drug-related theft won't be reduced, and disagree with legalization advocates who make that argument. I'll get to your point about cost reduction below...

I am merely pointing out that the reasoning that 70% of the visitors were young male does not preclude that they may have had valid reasons for requiring medicinal marijuana.

In most cases, trying to determine what's happening isn't a matter of a knock-down, irrefutable "proof". Often, the evidence is ambiguous, and one must choose between alternatives, neither of which are completely provable.

So, given the evidence of the article, and your failure to list said afflictions of young males, for my consideration, I find it far more probable these young men are recreational users, not, on the whole, victims of some plague upon the young. As the article put it, it "corrobates" the claim, though not proving it completely. As I said, sometimes we have to deal in nuances.

If you believe otherwise, that this gives no evidence to that effect, or that its far more reasonable to believe these young men are probably (since we must guess either way) mostly sick, then you're welcomed to. We're just making a different judgment call then, and I respect your right to do so, even while disagreeing. Is that, in fact, your position?

Or are you saying it's wrong to draw any conclusions at all? If so, do you apply this rule in all other similar cases, lacking hard, definitive data?

Wrong, you see you can tax meth heavily and still keep it under the current market value and make a profit from it.

An illegal meth dealer has no sales taxes, no payroll taxes, no workplace liability concerns or insurance, cannot be sued, doesn't have to comply with FDA or OSHA regs (here in the US), doesn't have pension and retirement plans to worry about — and doesn't have to pay the environmental costs for his rather nasty production process.

You think all those things can be added to the cost of meth production, and the cost won't go up? How? By achieving massive efficiencies of scale? But doesn't that imply that meth production, and use, is going UP then, with a commensurate increase in social costs?

You can believe it, but I have a hard time buying it. The market is already naturally seeking the most efficient means of meth production possible, unencumbered by government regulations. I don't see how you can slap massive taxes and regs on that and then still believe prices will somehow decrease as a result.

What I meant was that this is a ridiculous reason to object to the legalization of marijuana. To object to the removal of a ineffective prohibition based on the fact that you believe that the industry that will spring up around the removal will support one party or another is just plain anti democratic by nature.

If you think my objection is rooted in a concern about one party brand versus another, you've missed my point.

I don't favor "Republicans" and disfavor "Democrats" because of the names of the parties, or some team/sport mentality. My concerns is that unchecked government growth, to be blunt, kills people. (Alongside other less deleterious, but still unpleasant, effects on life and its quality.)

Since the Democrats here in the US often pledge to grow the government (and do so, more than their opponents, whatever is or is not being pledged) I'm naturally most concerned about that. If the Democrats promised to shrink government, and the Republicans promised to grow it, I would word it the other way around. Or if both promised to grow the government, I would then equally oppose both receiving special interest money. (I'm not cheering for special interest money to be given to Republicans either! My point is to shrink the government, shrink the influence of special interests on both parties, and leave more freedom and influence for individual voters.)

...the removal will support one party or another is just plain anti democratic by nature.

So, on this basis, do you find the US Democratic Party be more "anti democratic" than their opponents? After all, they are the most avidly in favor of the very charge you just leveled — of wanting to direct all special interest money to one's own party?

Well I don't happen to think that drug related crime due to the cost of the drugs will decrease. I think the belief that they are over reported and thus it appears to be a more serious issue than it actually is.

Sure illegal dealers can sell for less than registered businesses, but its a risk reward scale that you are ignoring. The risk to an illegal dealer is much higher than a reputable one, the illegal dealer can't advertise, and can't draw clients in traditional manners, the illegal dealer could also end up with fines, imprisonment and is under constant threat of death just by acting as an illegal dealer, and thus the illegal dealer would need to make a higher profit margin to get over this risk. Would you accept a job for minimum wage if you could be arrested at any moment, robbed, or killed, just for doing your job?

You claim Democrats increase the government more than Republicans, can you back that up? You see I can cite specific examples of every republican president since Hoover increasing the government.

Could marijuana help with autism?
Interesting. I wonder if it's related to upregulating oxytocin which tends to be deficient in some types of autism. The article seemed to make it sound like it was more about getting the kid to eat, though. Odd.

And until all recreational drugs — "designer" or otherwise — are completely free, there will always be addiction-related crime.

First, addicts by and large tend to vote for socialism.

420-Guy:

Well I don't happen to think that drug related crime due to the cost of the drugs will decrease. I think the belief that they are over reported and thus it appears to be a more serious issue than it actually is.

I agree, and also think such crimes are overhyped for political reasons -- that is, to appeal for legalization on both grounds of pity and crime reduction. So I think its an important point to highlight, and an important argument to deflate, given that we both think it's misleading.

Sure illegal dealers can sell for less than registered businesses...

BTW, I want to recognize you and appreciate that you've conceded a point here. That is to your credit, IMO, and says many good things about you. Not because you agree with me (heck, we might both be wrong now) but rather because it speaks to a concern for the facts, rather than, as you referenced elsewhere, a preference for verbal tricks.

but its a risk reward scale that you are ignoring.

Oh, I'm not ignoring it at all. That risk/reward basis is already being (and has been) considered. I have just come to (apparently) a different conclusion than yours, on that point.

Drug crime exists because many are already finding it worth their time to sell illegal intoxicants, despite the risk, or sell legal intoxicants more cheaply than the taxed and regulated versions. Look at the US's long history of "moonshining", for example. I see no particular magical reason that would change if we substituted a different intoxicant, taxed at the prohibitively high rates you just suggested.

If you have stronger contrary evidence for your alternative conclusion, feel free to mention it.

Would you accept a job for minimum wage if you could be arrested at any moment, robbed, or killed, just for doing your job?

There's a difference between profit and price. A meth dealer, if I'm not mistaken, can churn out quite a bit of product at prices which affordable enough (apparently) for most buyers. But this doesn't mean he himself is earning minimum wages! A paperclip is a very inexpensive item. Yet the man who created the paperclip probably died a wealthy and powerful man.

I suspect you may have a point here, though: it might be possible to produce meth as cheaply as, say, the pseudophed which is a primary ingredient. That would probably be beneath market costs today. (As I mention, there might be economies of scale.)

But in that case, I would suspect usage rates would go through the roof. Hence your point about danger-scaled taxation. But when you propose that, that means the drug isn't being sold at minimum cost, again. Which opens up the exact market we have today. By those who already are willing to break the law.

Look, gambling is illegal and very cheap to do legally in most places. (How much does a slot spin or Powerball cost?) But I still see stories on the news here, fifteen minutes away from a casino, about people and businesses busted running illegal poker games.

You claim Democrats increase the government more than Republicans, can you back that up? You see I can cite specific examples of every republican president since Hoover increasing the government.

You're certainly right about Hoover, who was both a big-government "Progressive" and a Republican. (In the early part of the 20th century, there were "progressives" in both US political parties, including Republicans like TR and Hoover.) And today there are some Republicans who are more pro-big-government than some Democrats. But I'm making a statement about the trend overall.

For example, Democratic candidates typically promise more things from the government: Free healthcare or health insurance, lower-cost student loans, free housing (HUD), etc. They also favor more regulation. Both these require more government power, and the later (regulation) decreases the net amount of freedom everyone in society has. More laws = less available options.

Advocating higher taxes on anyone -- including even the rich -- also means the government controls more money, which, thus means the government has more power (since economic power is a kind of power, too).

Ryan!

Tim: First, addicts by and large tend to vote for socialism.

Ryan: But applied specifically to marijuana, this seems to beg the question. Unlike drugs like crystal meth, the main argument against marijuana doesn't seem to be addiction.

You're right: I should have said "frequent drug users", not merely limited to "addicts", which is misleading, especially regarding pot. What I meant was that most the people I know who use drugs (except alcohol) recreationally, even occasionally, tend to skew far more towards supporting a powerful state.

I don't propose a specific mechanism, though I probably could if I thought about it. It's more a personal observation.

As one of my friends commented; "the reason that marijuana is a gateway drug is because of the people it leads you to meet when you buy it."

Heh. :-)

To be clear, I'm open to marijuana legalization (undecided), but not to the legalization of those drugs which undermine free will via strong addiction.

There are those like Dalrymple who argue against your assertion about addiction and free will:

Sorry. Hit 'post' too soon. In any case, as I tried to make the point earlier; how do you account for such a predominantly male clientele based on recreational use?

Are young people more likely to prefer marijuana as a form of medication?

I don't know. But normal demographic trends among recreational users don't seem sufficient to account for what's described. SOME kind of filtering is going on here.

Hey Tim,

Urg. ... looks like my earlier comment got eaten when I tried to stop submission. Quick recreation;

There are those like Dalrymple who argue against your assertion about addiction and free will:

You posted on that topic earlier, citing Darymple and a number of ex-junkies wrote in to excoriate his view. People seem to die from withdrawl. That sounds serious to me. Perhaps withdrawl can be lessened through nutrition or drugs like naltrexone. Probably there's significant variability in terms of severity. But some people seem to have severe withdrawl symptoms, and the worst case scenarios seem most relevant.

I had trouble finding statistics which spoke directly to the point, however;

According to the report, the five metropolitan areas that accounted for the largest number of newly diagnosed AIDS cases between 1996 and 1998 among all Gay and bisexual men of color were New York, (3,673), Los Angeles (2,811), Miami (1,554), Washington, D.C. (1,251), and Chicago (1,075).

http://www.aegis.com/news/wb/2000/WB000103.html

Perhaps trends have changed, but more new cases may indicate the demogrphic skews younger in LA.

Another area of much concern is the rising rate of AIDS diagnoses in the young adult (ages 20-24 years) population. There has been a steady rise in cases among this age demographic, especially in males.

http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/Fall08/hivinfection.htm

Around the turn of the millenium, AIDS was the #1 cause of death for men 25-44, suggesting a fairly young demographic at that time. You'd have to be sick for a while to die of the disease. There seems to have been some aging of the demographic since then.

None of these statistics are conclusive re: the topic at hand. They may point the wrong direction. But there's clearly some kind of demographic filtering going on, or you wouldn't have so many guys at this clinic, given the gender ratios for recreational drug use. (and what constitutes 'young?')

Regarding the psychadelic leaf ad... I agree that marijuana is treated differently than cocaine. Perhaps if someone made a 'snow' themed ad for cocaine the DEA would have something to say to whatever doctor's office answered the phone? Overmedication in response to drug seeking behavior could get a doctor in trouble for most drugs. My point here is that the punative legal mechanisms for keeping doctors in line exist and seem relatively effective with other drugs, but are simply not being employed in regards to marijuana.

Best to you.