Sign the Resolution for a Federal
Commission on Drug Policy
Contents | Feedback
| Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Information for Drug
Policy Reform Activists
Pot (Drugs) are Dangerous - How to Deal with the Argument
by Clifford A. Schaffer
You have heard the argument before:
Pot is dangerous. It causes cancer, auto accidents, grows hair on your palms,
and makes you go blind.
This is a guide on how to deal with this argument in all sorts of easy ways. Some of
these arguments were developed during debates with doctors, so some of them assume that
the opponent is a doctor.
General Discussion
First, it is generally pointless to get tied up in debating the details of health
issues or, in general, any supposed danger of drugs. The reason is that you get so wound
up in trading scientific references that you never get to the real bottom line -- prison.
Dr. So-and-So (who the audience doesn't know anyway) says X, Dr. Whositt, says Y -- so
what?
Net result -- you convince nobody. Once you have won your main point, and established
that criminal punishment is not an effective approach to the problem -- no matter what you
have assumed about the dangers -- then you can go back and, at your leisure, knock down
their health evidence as well.
My approach -- conceding all their evidence up front -- does a complete end run. They
expect me to argue that pot doesn't cause cancer, etc. When I don't, and jump to the
bottom line policy issue (prison), they are completely disarmed. They really don't know
what to do. They never thought about their logical non-sequitir (Because XXXXX is
dangerous, therefore prison is the solution) and are completely unprepared to deal with
arguments which address the logical disconnect. Once they are sitting there with a stunned
expression on their face -- knowing they have been completely cut off -- then I come back
with the mop up campaign of addressing the health risks and comparing them with other
health risks for which we do not put people in jail. By that time, they will be doing
little but nodding their head and agreeing.
I remember one debate in which my opponent showed up with a whole stack of medical
references on the harmful effects of drugs. A few minutes into the debate he closed his
folder and never opened it again. Of course, as always, he conceded and agreed with me.
The Specific Responses
Now for the specific responses:
- Ok, you convinced me. Let's assume everything you say is true and it grows hair on your
palms besides. How many millions of people do you suppose we ought to throw in prison for
best results?
- Let's assume all the evidence you presented is 100 percent accurate. The evidence you
presented shows that pot is perhaps three times as carcinogenic as cigarettes. What does
this mean in terms of policy? Does it mean that the penalties for pot should be three
times the penalties for cigarettes? Then, of course, there should be even higher penalties
for cigars and chewing tobacco, right?
- So the argument is XXXXXX causes cancer. Therefore, the law is really based on trying to
prevent people from doing things which might give them cancer, right? Should we have laws
against staying out in the sun too long, eating cheeseburgers, or smoking tobacco?
- The reasons you have stated never did have anything to do with why the laws were passed
in the first place. Please answer two questions: Why were the drug laws passed in the
first place? When did the concerns over cancer become the reason behind the laws?
- If your concern is really the carcinogens, then we can just require that the active
ingredient be distributed in its pure form. Or what if someone only uses it by distilling
the active ingredient (a simple process) and thereby takes no carcinogens? Shouldn't they
be free from penalties?
- Gosh, you convinced me. Let's solve the problem right away. We will elect you King so
you can do _anything_ you want. And ... every pot smoker in America is lined up outside
your door with a bag of dope in one hand and a signed confession in the other. Now what?
- Every major study of drug policy agreed that prohibition only multiplied the bad effects
which already exist with drugs. For example, overdoses become more likely because users
don't know what they are getting; there are no standards for drug purity so there is
greater harm from contaminants, addicts are less likely to receive effective treatment,
etc. The more you assume about the harmful effects of drugs, the more imperative it
becomes to address them in a non-criminal manner.
- Your evidence states that pot may be a problem while driving. Let's assume (for the sake
of argument) that this is true. Do we attempt to solve the problem of drunk driving by
throwing wine and beer drinkers in jail? Why not? (Can you say "misapplication of
resources"?)
- The argument that pot was found in the bloodstreams of any group of people who died from
any cause is not indicative of anything other than that they might have used pot some time
within the last two months before they died. It does not say anything about all the people
who may have pot in their bloodstreams and still be alive and well. It doesn't even say
anything about _why_ they died. For comparison purposes, as any competent doctor knows, we
need control groups.
- We must be wary of false comparisons (as any competent doctor should know). For example,
we had one previous example in which large numbers of people were dying with pot in their
bloodstreams. It was called Vietnam. Pot smokers had a high death rate, but it had nothing
to do with pot.
- Pot causes cancer. Therefore, the best approach to the problem is to put millions of
people in prison. This is the basic argument. Can you say "non-sequitir"? Where
did you get the idea that if something is a health hazard, we ought to throw people in
prison?
- Name all the other health problems for which prison is the recommended treatment.
- Please make a list of the comparable health problems caused by say, alcohol, and then
match the health problems with the appropriate criminal penalties.
- Then maybe you can tell me why every major study of drug policy in the last fifty years
recommended decriminalization. (See the list of Biggest Studies of Drug Policy on my web
page.)
- You know, we can dispense with all the details and cut to the bottom line. Rather than
argue the details of what it _might_ cause, we can take a look at the
actual stats on what it _does_ cause. When we look at the official stats,
such as deaths from any pot-related cause, the numbers are trivial in comparison with the
damage done by alcohol and tobacco. We are spending 99 percent of our budget on one
percent of the real drug problems.
If Your Opponent is a Doctor
16) Hey, Doc! What is the first rule of addressing a health problem? First, do no harm.
Right? Putting people in prison does significant harm long before they are likely to get
cancer.
If my opponent is a doctor I will hammer him on points just like the one above. If he
is really concerned about pot as a health issue then, by God, he ought to be ready to
address that part of the problem as he would any other health issue. Would he put people
in prison for non-marital sex in order to prevent venereal disease? Obviously he wouldn't.
Hit him with his own values and evidence.
And, if he is a doctor, I would hammer him repeatedly on the fact that he really didn't
know anything about the subject. Like:
So tell me why the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs said that
prohibition was the worst thing we could do for drug-related health problems. You haven't
read it have you? The big problem here is ignorance, Doctor. It is one thing to read some
medical literature about the harm these things can do and it is quite another to make the
leap to an effective public policy. Your problem, Doctor, is that you have read some of
the medical evidence but haven't read the evidence on drug policy. Ignorance is a shameful
thing in someone with as much education as you have.
In short, if I am in a debate with a doctor, he will fall before I am done -- because
he is a doctor. I will goad him into reading the CU Report by taunting him, calling him
ignorant, cajoling him, or anything else I have to do. I will force him to either read
what I have read or look like a public fool. Once they read it, they always concede. For
example, see my much earlier post "Cliff Converts Doc". It was written by a
doctor who fought me tooth and nail and then wound up telling everyone that I was right.
Excerpts of my debate with him are posted on my web page.
Contents | Feedback
| Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Information for Drug
Policy Reform Activists