Twaddle, your re-inventing 'social nihilism' demonstrating a poor understanding both of what motivates us, and dare I say it, yourself. I am a political nihilist in the true sophist tradition. I'll take that 'and proud' to do so.
That said, your truly deluded if you think I am a committed OR addicted Pot smoker. Such is the way of prejudice, you use the belief 'i might be one of those' to justify that I must be one of those yet even you couldn't tell one if you fell over one.
They whom consume and enjoy are indistinguishable from non-pot smokers by no more than they enjoy pot. Whereas those who think pot smokers should all be in jail are indeed delusional and dangerous; not so much because I (and many others) believe you could ever be effective in achieving that goal, but that ON EVIDENCE better men than you have tried and failed to put all the pot smokers in jail.
The USA has spent over a hundred billion dollars trying very hard this past decade.. and still haven't managed to do better than knock over a few percent who it seems turn out to be recidivists, so what show have you got?
Just which part of prohibition can you declare "working"? Cannabis is so prevalent that you could argue one would have accomplished better results in reducing uptake if you had just made it compulsory.
As to your reference to shooting the messenger... get real. Your quite the sad sack if you believe that I would want to shoot you or anyone else, simply because we disagree. If by 'shooting' you mean left without any semblance of sustainable argument ie: lifeless; bereft of reason then I'll happily take 'good shot mate!'.
I think you will find the following useful in assisting you understand why I support for the greater part ALL, subject to a few caveats, the recommendations in the SUICIDE paper you drew my attention to; noting that as a supporter of evidence based interventions and therapies abstention and pandering to a 'higher power' are the least effective. Hence the last sentence below is particularly cogent.
A common, but misleading, description of nihilism is the 'belief in nothing'. Instead, a far more useful one would substitute 'faith' for 'belief' where faith is defined as the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." A universal definition of nihilism could then well be the rejection of that which requires faith for salvation or actualization and would span to include anything from theology to secular ideology. Within nihilism faith and similar values are discarded because they've no absolute, objective substance, they are invalid serving only as yet another exploitable lie never producing any strategically beneficial outcome. (sounding a lot like prohibition there Leonard!) Faith is an imperative hazard to group and individual because it compels suspension of reason, critical analysis and common sense. Nietzsche once said that faith means not wanting to know. Faith is 'don't let those pesky facts get in the way of our political plan or our mystically ordained path to heaven'; faith is 'do what I tell you because I said so'. All things that can't be disproved need faith, utopia needs faith, idealism needs faith, spiritual salvation needs faith. F**k faith.
Prohibition is a faith based intervention. After fifty years of trial (and error) it has been found wanting. Give me replicable evidence.... and remove the constraint to its delivery. (see http://www.unesco.org/most/dplaniel.htm )
As for Gab. Nahas, he is a proven liar and bespoke 'god fearin man' - his tenure as an academic is purely political. He was the very same scientist who claimed cannabis caused human chromosomal damage... and the truth is? Millions have used it for centuries and there has been NO evidence ANYWHERE of any reproductive or otherwise chromasomal damage. As the 1998 NZ House of Representatives Health Select Committee found in its report on cannabis harms, "they are largely overstated". Nahas is a practicing and accomplished "enemy of cannabis". see http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/nanahas.html
But thats not a case for lying to our kids.
Lets not let the truth get in the road of a good story!
On 10/23/07, Leonard G Mills <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
A predictable response Blair
As I would have expected from any of the committed (addicted?) 'Pot' smokers that I have contact with, you also predictably describe any information that fails to meet YOUR criteria as 'Exceptional high quality scaremongery' or to put it another way.... you endeavour to "shoot the messenger"
before you leap to any conclusions about what motivated me to become actively
involved in this 'Winnable war on drugs'
People who advocate the free use of marijuana ARE 'social nihilists' ..... either unwittingly or deliberately
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Mental illness rate soars among users of 'skunk' cannabis
Exceptional high quality scaremongery Leonard. It sells newspapers.
TThe Daily Mail item is so full of holes... teh science of small numbers misrepresents reality. There has never been, and there is unlikely to be anything but a correlation in the science covering thousands of research papers - however you and others will likely be lead by this. As might Jim Anderton.
The only way to tell a cannbis user from a non-cannabs user is 'by the use of cannabis'. There is no other distinguishing factor.
Skunk (hydroponic or otherwise) is not new, nor is more dangerous. It is stronger. Like Wine is to Beer. The increased mental health admissions are best explained by alcohol misuse, especially in UK where young woman are increasingly binge drinking. (as they are here too). Given there a millions of users of cannabis in the UK most of whom use it in moderation, the incidence of mental health issues surrounding cannabis are for the greater part associated with its illicit status. Ramping up the arrest and the humiliation (gee, mental health 'labeling' if it wasn't half obvious) has not been shown to be effective now, in the past and highly unlikely in the future. While a softer and more respectful policy base (ie: legal regulation) may in itself be difficult to justify in your mind... prohibition is harder to justify except to the clinically insane and the receptive ning nongs who are taken in by this garbage 'science' reported as facts.
Have you any idea how many psychologists actually believe that cannabis 'treatment' works. It doesnt because? The DSMIV as it applies to cannabis interprets ANY use as Misuse, thus is gravely flawed. It would rank even a 'medical user' as nuts. Sad but true.
However, thanks for keeping me and my colleagues informed.
I'll copy you, if you so wish, any significant critiques on the Daily Mail item in due course.