Opinions - My message to anti drugs youtube channel.

[cannabis-sam]

I found a channel on youtube named rosary films which has many government made propaganda films on drug use, they're right wing christians, that provide some very dodgy scientific research.

I decided to email them to try and change their views.

I remembered to be as nice and respectful as possible so not to put their backs up and hopefully get a reasoned response.

Here's what I said:

Hi rosary.

Before I start, I understand your religious view and I apologize for the offensive user name, I'm not trying to offend, so I apologize if I have.

The aim of this email is to discuss in more detail the comments that we have both left on your videos. I would like to further hear your views on why you think prohibition is the best way to reduce the harm drugs cause. Now I'm not going to be one of the pro cannabis lobby types that believes that cannabis is a completely harmless drug, however I do believe the risks are heavily over stated.

I spend much of my time reading scientific studies on the issue of drugs, I'm not scientist but I think I'm of reasonable intelligence and I try to make my decisions based on evidence in front of me. Remember just because a scientific study says something, it doesn't make it fact straight away, to get as close to the truth as possible the study has to be based on a large demographic, peer reviewed, double blind etc.

Many of the studies cited in your videos are highly questionable to say the least, many of the videos come from government organizations that overstate the dangers of drugs to justify the policy of prohibition.

On the issue of cannabis, I do agree with you in some sense that it's medical benefits are sometimes over stated by the pro cannabis lobby as well, as it's harms being overstated by prohibitionist side. I try to take the side of "what is the truth" and i try to get my information from non biased sources.

For instance one of your videos is about cannabis causing lung cancer. However the largest study performed by Dr. Tashkin and funded by the government came back with the finding that actually cannabis users not only had no increased risk of lung cancer but that cannabis seemed to offer some protective effect, remember I'm not trying to overstate the benefits of cannabis or understate it's risk I'm just trying to get across what the largest study into the matter found.

I think your cause is not dissimilar to mine except we have different approaches, we both have safety and well being of people as our top interest in the matter, however when it comes to how to reduce the harm the most this is where we differ.

You seem to favour the current prohibitionist approach to the matter whereas I favour the route of what you would call "legalization" although from now on I'm going to avoid the term legalization as I find this gives the impression that I want a policy that lets every person of any age buy any drug they want in a supermarket or corner shop as you would buy a packet of biscuits. This is far from what I'm saying.

Now as it currently stands, we have a policy of prohibition, now the aim of prohibition is to eliminate all drug use by eliminating the supply, however if you take the example of alcohol prohibition in the early half of the 20th century the experience gained from that was, that it did not eliminate the use, or curtail the use, all it managed to do was increase the number of alcohol related deaths from dangerous forms of alcohol such as moonshine and take the profits from legitimate companies and put them into the hands of gangsters such as Al Capone.

The policy was soon abandoned, partly because alcohol was a drug used predominantly by middle class white people and the drugs that remain prohibited to this day were used predominantly by ethnic minorities such as the Chinese using opium, the Mexicans using cannabis and the blacks using cocaine. The prohibition of drugs was certainly a policy based on racism, if you so wish I can link you legitimate sources (if you don't believe me which i hope you will).

Today it's exactly the same, we havn't reduced the number of drugs on our streets, in fact since the policy of prohibition was introduced there has been a huge rise, and organized crime are making huge profits from drugs being illegal.

The Taliban get huge amounts of funding through the opium trade why? because the market is unregulated and run by criminals groups like the Taliban can take advantage of this and use drugs to fund themselves, if heroin and opium came through pharmaceutical companies like other opiates do, the Taliban would have no way of making any profit from it.

Remember I don't believe in blanket legalization of all substances, I believe all substances need to be handled differently. Cannabis and MDMA (ecstasy) I believe should be regulated in the same way as alcohol, sold to adults over 18/21 with warnings on the packets. I also believe there should be much stricter controls on alcohol, I believe alcohol advertising should be banned, and that it shouldn't be sold in supermarkets as a general good. Alcohol should be treated like a drug as well.

In Britain our government has an "Advisory Council On The Misuse Of Drugs" A year or two ago they published a study ranking the dangers of all drugs. There findings were that on a scale of harm Ecstasy was 18th most dangerous Cannabis was 11, tobacco was 8, alcohol was five and heroin was 1. (again if you wish I can link you to the study carried out by the UK's top experts on drugs) now hopefully this puts things more into perspective. We have alcohol sold so openly and commonly it causes a lot of problems, and not for one second do I agree that cannabis or ecstasy should be sold or be as socially acceptable as alcohol is. However I do believe they should be sold in licensed outlets to adults but not advertised and their use should be stigmatized.

If you look at the success that good education has had in reducing the use of tobacco, we can also apply this to drugs, if drugs like alcohol are stigmatized, warned about and their use is not socially acceptable people's use will decrease, and that's nicotine one of the most addictive substances on earth, and it's use has been successfully curtailed, not by prohibition but by good education and the same really needs to be applied to drugs.

I'm not saying these drugs are harmless, I'm saying that they are harmful and that's more reason to take them out of the black market and into the hands of industry where regulations and controls apply, do you not think that ecstasy would be a much safer drug if your FDA controlled it rather than organized crime?

I'm really tired now so I can't write any more, but I really look forward to your response and hope to hear from you soon, I'll add more tomorrow after a good nights sleep.

Have a good day and again I look forward to hearing your response and counter arguments.

Best wishes

Sam.

(This might be in the wrong section if so move it)

Reputation Comments on this post:

	A very well-written letter. Very good points throughout. TY
	I greatly admire your ability to be professional. I know I would loose my cool. I really hope you make a difference.
	Very good to be involved!
	Professional, smart. Very nice.
	Smart and Good effort.
	Nice, well written letter, even if they'll take no notice
	good, tho arguing science with christians is as usefull as punching solid concrete

[SullyGuy]

SWIM is sorry to say it, but you just cant work with these kinds of people. Fundamentalists who are religious or atheist, pro prohibition or anti prohibition cannot be reasoned with in SWIM's experience. It just ends up making SWIM mad and he gets no where usually.

SWIM likes your letter and commends your effort though! Good job!

Originally Posted by Thich Nhat Hanh

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change.

[Nature Boy]

(unrelated)

Originally Posted by SullyGuy

Fundamentalists who are religious or atheist, pro prohibition or anti prohibition cannot be reasoned with in SWIM's experience.

What's a fundamental atheist? Nearly all atheists are merely strong agnostics seeing as atheism does not work off infallible doctrine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------



Getting back to the issue. Sam, I noticed a few things in your letter that surprised me. I assume you might have mentioned these things in order to play ball in their court, they would likely ignore the email had you not, but they seemed peculiar nonetheless:

• Alcohol advertising should be banned?

• Drug use should be "stigmatized"?

I agree that some of the romance needs to be taken out of drug use but the word 'stigmatize' worries me. I suppose disencouragement is advisable but frowning upon people for partaking in a very normal human tendency seems to be as puritanical as these kooks who prattle on about abstinence-only birth control and the like. As for advertising, I'm a little bit doubtful of its efficacy to be honest. Even as a little kid watching TV, I never understood how the vast majority of advertisements would have any impact considering how mindless and uncreative they tend to be. And to think, what a huge industry advertising has become. Companies who pour millions of dollars into making useless ads deserve to have their funds seap away. Companies who can make decent ads deserve any extra sales they get. I think people tend to attack alcohol adverts because some of them tend to be generally amusing, something which other products don't seem to have the ability to be (perhaps a reflection on the mundane nature of the product). Ultimately, I don't think it would be fair to remove alcohol companies' right to advertise. It's too close to those ridiculous disclaimers you see on fast food ads.

[motorhead]

Good job on the letter, I hope they take the time to read it. Be sure to post their response. Have to agree with Sully though, fundamentalists are a tough nut to crack.

There videos are interesting in the fact that some of them are very dated! They have anti-drug vids from the 50's right through to the 90's. Some might be earlier I didn't browse them all.

Keep up the good fight.

[cannabis-sam]

To be honest I'm not expecting a huge amount I once wrote a comment explaining how prohibition is the reason drugs are associated with crime and I got a response that went.


"So [youtube user name] do you believe meth should be sold to school children then"

[motorhead]

lol well I should have said the nut is uncrackable. Post their response anyways, that's a pretty detailed letter you sent them. They should put more of an effort in their response than one sentence. At the very least it will provide us with some entertainment value.

cheers

[Imafish]

you're a champion of the cause. I'm going to have to agree with the other folks when i say that a letter- even one respectfully written and with plenty of scientific evidence- is unlikely to make them admit to anything contrary to what they said last week. That said, keep it up, they cant lie to themselves forever.

[Junkhead23]

Pacman would take drugs being legal but stigmatised. Can't have everything and to be honest people shouldn't be encouraged to take drugs and what society would do that?

[cannabis-sam]

I do believe drug use should be stigmatized as drugs, like it or not, are harmful. Of course there are many that can use drugs with little ill effect but I don't think anyone can claim they are healthier due to there drug use. I do believe that ultimately drug use is something that should be minimized, of course it's people's right to make decisions for themselves but I don't think behaviors that are ultimately detrimental to health should in anyway be condoned on encouraged.

The point I made in the letter was that since the use of tobacco has become socially unacceptable in recent years and the dangers have become general knowledge use has decreased. If we then take alcohol as an example where many people do not know the dangers, or disregard them coupled with their social acceptance has lead to alcohol abuse becoming a major problem for everyone. Obviously these are two different drugs with radically different effects but the point still stands.

If drugs were legal and they shared alcohol's social acceptability, I'm quite sure drug abuse in it's various forms would cause more problems in society. Drug use is currently stigmatized and while it's use is widespread and not curtailed by prohibition the use of drugs is certainly a lot lower than the use of alcohol, and again I think this is partly down to it not being socially acceptable, I do believe if it became socially acceptable the use would rise and subsequently cause more problems.

As for alcohol advertising, I think alcohol is a powerful, addictive dangerous drug and that it's morally reprehensible to encourage people to use such a powerful drug. However arguably it could be said that many other adverts encourage negative behaviours such as adverts for junk food, and we would have to wonder where to draw the line as far as advertising goes. Advertising itself is very much something that encourages people, consciously or subconsciously to go out and do as the TV says.

As Orwell said "Advertising is the rattling of the stick inside the swill bucket"

[Greenport]

Sorry but they probably didn't even read swiY's email

Reputation Comments on this post:

Not at all encouraging and doesn't even give a very good justifaction as to why poster thinks as such.

[motorhead]

Advertising and Capitalism go hand in hand. If a product or service is legal then any company should be allowed to advertise and promote whatever good or service it offers to the public, to potential consumers. Advertising stimulates competition, which is one of the driving principles of free market economics.

Having said that governments do have a responsibility to protect its citizens. Citizens, theoretically, have a right to choose whatever they want to buy. This is were everything can get clouded and be a source of endless debate. Where do government responsibility, consumer rights, and company's rights to market their products meet on a scale of social acceptability that can possibly please everyone when it comes to the issue of mood altering substances. There's no simple answer. I don't have one, just an opinion: private companies should have the right to advertise a product now matter what it is.

Of course there should be some restrictions and regulations placed on the advertising of substances depending on there harmfulness, but an all out ban of advertising of a particular item, such as we have here in Canada of tobacco products, is just to far. In the end we have to allow the public to make there own choices, based on all possible sources of information, about what they can or cannot put in their bodies.

[Greenport]

Hey now I'm just saying that right-wing christian anti-drug groups like these aren't going to care about the opinions of drug users and pro-drug groups. They're even more hard-headed than we are

They don't want to believe it.

It's like trying to talk a hardcore catholic into believing in evolution, or the teachings of Islam. No matter how much proof you give them, they're still going to say that god made humans on the 7th day and that evolution is a theory and they 'know' creationism happened...and that the muslims are going to hell since the christians are of course the only ones that are right in their infinite wisdom...they're quite possibly the most hard-headed groups of people on the entire planet!

I don't mean to be discouraging, I was merely stating how these groups of people react to such input. It's well-written and states the facts but the facts only matter if they choose not to ignore them. They probably get hundreds of emails like this a day.

[rupert]

I'm curious to see what kind of response you will get.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by rupert

I'm curious to see what kind of response you will get.

A number of people, including myself at one point, attempted to repudiate the erroneous claims made in some of this lady's anti-drug propaganda videos. Most of these comments were polite and cited scientific research to back up their claims. Rosary's response in every instance was to tell the person they didn't understand what they were talking about or were just flat out wrong without providing any evidence or even logical reasoning.

Take a look through the comments of some of her older anti-drug uploads. Its like trying to communicate with a brick wall.


Greenport is probably right. She didn't bother to read the email. Judging from her youtube comments, she likely puts covers her ears and goes "la-la-la-la-la-la" whenever someone tries to demonstrate her perspective is terribly misguided and wrong.

[cannabis-sam]

Well I'm not giving up anyway, this channel is too big, and they're one of the few channels that are allowed to upload our long videos. They have some of the most dodgy science ever. If it wasn't so sad that people actually believe this stuff I'd find it quite funny.

[Evil GIR]

Listen, and understand. Fundamentalists are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They dont feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And They absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

I mean converted into the hate of drugs, sex and rock and roll.

[cannabis-sam]

I totally agree with you evil GIR but they've got to be reasonably intelligent people and given an intelligent reasoned argument, not all but at least some, I believe will see the light.

[rupert]

Originally Posted by Evil GIR

Fundamentalists are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with.

I recently read Amos Oz book "How to Cure a Fanatic"... I think.. his solution was to ask questions. Because somewhere their reasoning is failing.
I guess asking them to explain how they know this or how things work might make them realise they don't have the facts and slowly, very slowly, calm down a little.

[Taken]

That was very nice. Good effort. Evan if you didn't convince that persons mind I really enjoyed reading that. I really like the idea of MDMA, Cannabis and Alcohol being sold in head shops or whatever. That doesn't mean meth and crack have to be legal but hay, those wont be as big of a problem anymore right?. One thing that i find funny is that people can buy salvia extract at head shops but not cannabis. That stuff is the most powerful phsyc known not that its bad or should be illigal. That makes me think cannabis is illegal for a different reoson. What do you think?

Taken added 19 Minutes and 9 Seconds later...

Today we are in a society of people that will be more informed. As a human race we will move on and not stay stuck to these pathetic traditional ways. We have better sources of education like wikipedia. Think about slavery. Some people thought that was ok, some people like us new timers didn't, some people changed their minds. We Will Know The Truth! And the other ****** your trying to convince my stay the same or change. Ether way we will move on.

[Desertfox]

Yeah SWIM got riled up over the bullshit being spout by the morons at http://www.eurad.net/
SWIM wrote an inspired letter that he tried to keep short so they would actually read it but after all of SWIM's effort they did not even dignify it with a response. They give contact information and everything but it turns out they'll only respond to you if you support them. what bitches


Please take your time and write them a letter and then maybe with all these SWIMMERs flooding their inboxes they'll think its time to respond at the very least to one of our inquiries. Just take a gander a their website, and their supposed facts that back up their claims and you'll have trouble not wanting to write a letter trying to correct some of the misinformation they spout from their webpages.

[corvardus]

SWIM is a semi-active user on Youtube dealing with an aspect of fundamentalism and see many videos from Christians, Muslims and the like. Whilst common ground can be found and even explored at the end of the day fundamentals are too stupid to actually change their ways of thinking.

They see any contrary opinion as an attack on their faith and they wriggle like buggery to twist and turn, to spin faster than Shroedingers' a microsecond before it dies, often using fantasy the likes of which SWIM'ers around here would be proud of.

Quite often they will also only respond to those that agree with them, and depending on how stupid they are will even go so far as to censor dissent, whilst at the same time espousing free speech... THEIR free speech.

Unless SWIY is fortunate enough to find the rare gem of an "intelligent" albeit uneducated fundamentalist then your eloquent efforts are likely to be seen as the product of Satan.

[Greenport]

Glad people see my point then. The only thing you can do with people like this is either ignore them or make them look as stupid as humanly possibile, cause like someone else stated it's like talking to a brick wall.

[samsa]

Still no reply then, Sam? methinks one won't be coming at this point, unfortunately.

[cannabis-sam]

I left several comments on the channel and on a few videos asking for a reply but as a previous post said I think she's just put her hands over her ears and ignored all logic again.

[baboonfish]

i just read some of the stuff on EURAD and my personal favourite was on "How can i tell if my child is on drugs?"

and the advice was; Not when stoned - wait until they are down off "high".


All the anti-cannabis folk just say gateway gateway gateway and it annoys me.