Last year, I stirred up a hornet’s nest by explaining why I no longer supported decriminalizing marijuana. My reason for this was the longitudinal studies that strongly suggest that it at least doubles the risk that a person will develop schizophrenia after they start smoking pot.
Those at the greatest mental illness risk from marijuana use are teenagers and young adults. Your chances of developing schizophrenia decline dramatically by your late 20s. In the course of discussions in email, quite a number of people have made the argument that decriminalizing marijuana would actually make marijuana less available to minors than it is now.
My first reaction when I first heard this claim made by William F. Buckley, Jr. many years ago was skepticism. Generally, making something illegal reduces consumption, not because potential consumers obey the law, but because illegality makes it harder to find the product. Run an ad or open a storefront selling an illegal product, and you will not be in business very long. The harder it is to find sellers, the less competitive prices will be. As the price of a commodity rises, it usually reduces demand for that commodity. There are other, very destructive effects from making it unlawful, but no advertising and rising prices will reduce demand.
Prohibition is actually one of the better illustrations of this. Cirrhosis of the liver is overwhelmingly caused by alcohol abuse — by some estimates, 95% of cirrhosis of the liver deaths are alcohol-induced. In the years before national Prohibition took effect in 1920, a number of states had passed state-level bans on sale and possession of alcohol. And what happened to cirrhosis of the liver death rates as states passed those bans?
Unsurprisingly, cirrhosis of the liver death rates started to rise (slowly) as Prohibition came to an end. The graph of alcohol consumption for the post-Prohibition period matches up quite well with the cirrhosis of the liver death rates. The most obvious conclusion is that Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption — and its repeal started it back up again. Whether you think Prohibition was “the noble experiment” or a completely stupid nanny-state idea, it does appear that it reduced alcohol consumption. What a surprise: laws do influence behavior.
A recurring claim is that marijuana is more available to teenagers than alcohol. Why? Because alcohol, while regulated, is a legal product to sell. Those in the business of selling alcohol are terribly concerned about losing their licenses to sell, fines, even jail time — and so they have strong incentives to not sell to minors. Marijuana dealers, on the other hand, are already criminals — what is the government going to do to them for selling to kids?
This is a very logical argument. If we were making laws for Vulcans, instead of mere Earthlings, this impeccable logic would lead to a beautiful result: decriminalizing marijuana would make it less available to teenagers. There is one little problem: an ounce of experience outweighs a pound of theory. Here’s a recent Idaho Statesman article about what happened when the Boise Police Department went out to “sting” bars, restaurants, and stores by having minors go in to buy alcohol: “Two teams of police officers and 18- and 19-year-old teens visited 36 businesses over the weekend. Boise police say employees served the teens alcohol at eight of those businesses — five convenience stores, two restaurants, and a bar.” Even worse, four of the eight violations happened after employees had checked the buyer’s ID that clearly showed that the buyer was underage.
This is not just a Boise thing. I searched news.google.com for the string “alcohol sting minors” and ended up with 232 news stories. In Midland, Texas, where Walmart failed. In Ontario County, New York, where police went into 40 liquor stores and 16 bars — and had six violations. In Visalia, California, where four of seven businesses were cited for selling to minors. In Grand Junction, Colorado, where 85 businesses were tested — and ten of them sold alcohol to minors. And these particular news stories were for two days, from January 17-18, 2011.
Now remember, these are regulated, licensed businesses that are getting caught — businesses that have strong economic incentives to obey the law. They have not only criminal liability for these sales, but a large potential civil liability if they sell alcohol to someone under 21. Yet either out of willfulness, incompetence, or carelessness, lots of businesses are breaking the law.
All of us know that the bigger source of alcohol for the under 21 set — and even more, the under 18 set — is not the clerk who does not check ID, or does not check it properly. When I was younger, if I was entering a store that sold beer, teenagers would approach me, asking me to buy them beer. (I told them no.) I also know that there were plenty of other young adults who were not so particular — especially since the teens would often offer the adult the opportunity to keep the change. I see no reason to assume that this same process would not be happening outside marijuana stores.
Of course, lots of alcohol moves from the liquor cabinet or the refrigerator without parental knowledge — and sometimes with it. There is no reason to assume that parents are going to be more careful or responsible with marijuana than they are with alcohol — especially when you read news stories like this gem from the January 18, 2011, San Francisco Chronicle: “Video of a marijuana puffing toddler has led to the arrest of a Southern California desert couple. San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Lisa Guerra says she was tipped Saturday that 20-year-old Melanie Soliz and 24-year-old Blake Hightower were abusive parents who allowed their 23-month-old son to smoke pot.” Isn’t that cute? It appears that they videotaped their toddler emulating Mom and Dad by trying to take a drag on one of their pipes.
We already have a big problem with alcohol and minors — a bigger problem than we have with marijuana and minors. (Hmmm. The one that is legal is a bigger problem than the one that is illegal. But that must be just a coincidence.) If you want to argue that decriminalization of marijuana is a good idea, feel free to make that argument. But can you drop this ridiculous argument that making it legal would discourage sellers from making sales to minors?
It has always seemed very odd to me that the self-proclaimed “land of the free” should be so intent on controlling people’s behaviour. For me the first principle of freedom is that people should be free to damage themselves if they want to risk that. The concern for minors is used as a cover for justifying the prohibition of behaviour among adults that people don’t like.
Many of the readers who would support the continued prohibition of drug use would be bitterly opposed to any restriction on gun ownership, but I’m sure there are a number of accidents with guns that are available to young people in their parents’ homes. I believe a lot of states allow young people to drive from 16, whereas road safety would be greatly improved by not allowing anyone to drive before age 25. In fact, attitudes towards what young people can do are a mass of ill-thought-out prejudices, which rarely have much to do with what is truly good for the young people or for a country as a whole.
On the opposite side to this dubious concern for the young is the evident damage that drug-prohibition is doing to all countries that attempt it. Prohibition makes drugs somewhat more expensive and somewhat less available; but it generate a massive criminal class that profit from providing the drugs; it criminalises users, and thus destroys respect for the law in general. I believe that more than half the prison population of the US is there because of drug-related crime, and the evil effects of the US drugs policy on neighbouring countries is also plain to see. Mexico is becoming a completely lawless state because of the criminal gangs that supply the US drugs market.
Legalisation of all drugs, on the same terms as alcohol, would at a stroke destroy the whole basis of most criminal activity and make the whole market controllable. It would remove a great evil. The cost would be a somewhat larger number of people who would destroy themselves with drugs. That would be their choice — regrettable but entirely in line with the exercise of their own freedom.
Also, with less of a profit motive, drug dealers would have far less incentive to hang around school yards trying to get young people addicted; not too many alcohol dealers frequent school yards trying to get kids to buy booze.
I’ve been told it’s easier for a kid to buy marijuana than to buy booze. Duh!
Actually, from what I know, drug dealers don’t hang around schoolyards to find customers, except to the extent that the drug dealers are attending classes. When I was in 7th grade, I sat next to a marijuana dealer–and even then, in 1968, he wasn’t keeping it a secret.
There is an argument that the costs of having drugs illegal is higher than the cost of making them legal. We can argue that point, but my point was that this particular claim–that it would marijuana harder for minors to get–doesn’t seem correct.
The debate about legalization will eliminate the criminal element has been and is totally wrong. Look at the history. All you need to due a google search on Cigarettes, taxes, and smuggling. As taxes on a legal product increase criminal elements will see a way to generate a black market and even worst is in neighborhoods or cities where there isn’t a major organized crime, see it increase at an expodential rate. Add in looking at international side in places where drugs (or prostitution) was illegal and then made legal, you see organize crime elements fight amongest themselves for the legal store fronts or even some of the product shipping routes. Just look at California and the number of assualts, robberies, and murders that have been committed on those with the medical mj cards. You need to take off the rose colored glasses and face up to the truth. Legal or illegal organized crime will find a way to get thier fingers into something.
As to the arguement that if we legalize those in the under 18 will not have as much access, since the government will be able to control it. As the author mentions just do a google search of minors and alcohol stings, you will see that most of the local ABC boardmembers do sweeps with the police and they usually have big suprising stats of the number penalities. Yet, if you scratch the surface just a little bit deeper, dollars to donuts most of these sweeps don’t always happen on a constant basis (or at least on a large scale). Instead the only time the big sweep happens is after a major minor alcohol incident. Whether that is Jonnny QB and Mary Jane Cheerleader spreading themselves all over main street after drinking and driving, or Barbie Popular ends up getting arrested down on club street and blows something like a .14 or better BAC due to public intoxication. When the media makes a big deal out of it, the first thing the ABC board does is a game of CYA but showing that they are doing thier job.
Is it going to be any different when the ABC starts to regulate MJ? I say nope!
Kids will be kept from marijuana, when it is legal, at worst about as well as they are kept from it now. About as well as they are kept from tobacco and alcohol, now. And quite likely better than they are now, because the distribution network that doesn’t care who they sell to will be crowded out by legally legitimate sellers. Do you see shady people standing at street corners selling dram shots of shine?
That will have to be good enough for you.
For you and all the other “progressives” and “Googoo” good governmenters who brought us the idiocy of prohibition in all it’s ugly, ultimately useless forms, not to mention the derogation of the constitution inherent in trying to nationally prevent people from doing what they have a right to do, which is enjoy the recreational drugs of their choice, up until the point their swinging fist hits someone else’s nose.
Are you advocating no age restriction on the consumption of marijuana? If not, then alcohol is legal at 21, do kids drink? Or course they do, an sympathetic adult buys it for them. Cigarettes are legal at what, 18? Do teenagers smoke, of course they do. Why would the distribution market be cowed, that’s ignorant, sympathetic adults would just buy it for them legally.
The other argument I always here is, we can tax it. You can’t tax it too high, or you run the risk of the bootleggers returning. There are attempts at some states to prevent people by police power, to not buy alcohol or cigarettes in neighboring states were ludicrous taxes don’t exist. Once it’s legal, Police will be as unsympathetic to distribution as they are to alcohol and tobacco to underage users. The only time it becomes an issue is if the police have another reason to get involved, i.e. you’re trashing someone’s parent’s house and making a lot of noise.
So, decriminalization will simply make it easier for those already distributing to distribute. The mechanism is already in place.
No, and I don’t see people doing so with marijuana, either. Most marijuana sales (because it is illegal) are done through someone that you know (much like moonshine used to be sold, because it was illegal for being untaxed).
I’m still not sure whether marijuana triggers schizophrenia in teenagers who would not have eventually developed it anyway, whether it simply brings it on earlier, or whether teenagers who are in the very early unrecognized stages are especially attracted to marijuana.
But the only way to deal with the drug problem is on the supply side. Maybe one day we can force convicted offenders to have embedded a device which issues a painful shock when it senses the drug.
I ask the idiots, there is no better word for you, who endorse prohibition to consider this.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/114358/
We don’t have the money to continue to indulge your fetish for pretending you are preventing/punishing people from getting high.
So you are saying that these laws have no effect at all? No one is being prevented from getting marijuana, meth, alcohol, LSD, heroin, because of the various laws?
If you want to argue that the costs associated with those laws are too high for the good that they do, that’s a fine argument to make. But to argue that laws have no effect at all is absurd.
I’m saying the obvious first order costs and immediate casualties of attempting prohibition are so drastically high that any attempt at claiming any other fact is relevant than that those costs are too high, is likely to be an attempt at handwaving pro-prohibition propaganda. Which is exactly what you are doing.
How do you know that they are “so drastically high” that any other fact is irrelevant? Have you calculated what the costs would be if schizophrenia rates actually doubled? We are least talking about costs in the same order of magnitude as the drug war–tens of billions to perhaps low hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
So you are backing off your claim that laws don’t affect behavior.
Look, there might well be an argument that the costs of prohibition are too high to justify the benefits. But pretending as you did above that it has no effect on use is absurd.
With regards to the Instapundit link: We shouldn’t be inconveniencing legitimate users of cold medications, because a small fraction of them are druggies using cold medications to create meth.
I’m sure there may be similar bounds for things like marijuana, but such bounds are a little more difficult to see. Hemp, perhaps?
We already have a big problem with alcohol and minors — a bigger problem than we have with marijuana and minors.
until it becomes legal for marijuana, like alcohol, when with the constant use/abuse, as with cigarettes, the number of psychotics on the loose will increase.
Long-Time Marijuana Use Linked to Psychosis in Young Adults
The odds of developing schizophrenia are so small that it makes this point moot. Schizophrenia affects some 2% of the population. If marijuana use raised it to 4%, it’s still a very small number. Far more people are damaged by cigarettes.
No Clayton, decriminalize it because for better or worse, we own ourselves, not the state. As G.K. Chesterton put it …
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.”
And of course there is that cost/benefit calculus which asks the sticky question of whether putting stoners in jail or otherwise ruining their lives is really worth it. As a non-user, it makes no direct difference to me, bur I do think the costs of prohibition are higher than the benefits we gain. YMMV.
As another commenter pointed out, I’m not making the argument for or against in this article. I’m pointing out that the claim that decriminalization will make marijuana harder for minors to get is clearly wrong.
“I’m pointing out that the claim that decriminalization will make marijuana harder for minors to get is clearly wrong.”
I’m pointing that you are clearly wrong. The people now distributing illegal drugs have nothing to gain by preventing minors from getting them–what they are already doing is already illegal–after the first, the rest are free.
As the small but steady number of arrests for alcohol seller providing such to persons with inadequate proof of age, it is a small and manageable problem. It would be so with pot.
It’s a small but manageable problem my ass. Just because it’s only done every once in a while doesn’t mean it is managed. I had no problem getting alcohol when I was a teenager. Most alcohol is bought by sympathetic adults, not because a business sells it to a minor, same with cigarettes, both of which are harder to manufacture than marijuana.
Here is another question. You make it legal, are you going to allow people to grow it in the backyard? Or will that stay illegal in order not to compete with people who sell it, and pay taxes to the government for it? I’m not allowed to have a still in my backyard, am I?
As I read your article, I’m confused by your argument. Shall we keep it both legal and illegal? Maybe that will work?
Reading the last paragraph again might help you. Here; let me make it easy for you:
If you want to argue that decriminalization of marijuana is a good idea, feel free to make that argument. But can you drop this ridiculous argument that making it legal would discourage sellers from making sales to minors?
He’s not arguing for or against legalization.
He’s arguing against a bad argument.
No, he’s making a bad argument.
If I’m making a bad argument, explain why it is that “decriminalization will keep marijuana away from minors” approach doesn’t work for alcohol–not even close.
I’m for keeping the law on the plant just the way it is.
It’s cheaper when it’s not taxed and regulated like everything that is legal.
Follow the money. Drugs are illegal because politicans and lawyers make more money that way.
If you want the nanny state so badly, why stop with drugs? Outlaw high fructose corn syrup, excessive salt in food, potato chips. Hey, since more people drown in pools than die from all illegal drugs combined, let’s outlaw pools! Obviously you must think guns should be outlawed, right?
Socialist totalitarianism is a disease, once it starts it’s difficult to stop the spread. And in the case of marijuana it’s reached the point of absolute imbecility. Can you please give a few examples of peoples’ lives who were enriched by getting criminal records and having their assets seized because they prefer a recreational drug other than the socially acceptable alcohol?
There is no practical difference between the socialist left and the social conservatives, both want to use the federal government as a blunt instrument to impose their world view on everyone else. Where the h**l does the Constitution give the right to the federal government to control what people do with their own bodies anyway?
It’s pretty simple really. You are either for liberty and individual responsibility or you are not. Take away the prohibitions, take away to food stamps and other welfare, let people make their own decisions and live (or die) with the consequences. Or would that be too bad for YOUR business?
You don’t suppose that it might be because large numbers of Americans think that the social costs of having it legal would be larger than the social costs of having it illegal? Argue that they are wrong, but this insistence that marijuana is illegal only because of greed sounds a bit paranoid.
The federal government’s authority is severely limited, which is why the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1906, and the federal marijuana laws adopted in the 1930s, are so complicated. The states are another matter.
They aren’t complicated, they are simply unconstitutional.
You should actually read the laws. They are complicated because Congress knew that it did not have authority to directly prohibit. That’s why there’s this bizarre, complicated tax stamp strategy. It is an end-run around the Constitution via the interstate commerce clause.
“You don’t suppose that it might be because large numbers of Americans think that the social costs of having it legal would be larger than the social costs of having it illegal?”
There is no such thing as a social cost, unless you have already accepted the premises of socialism, what Clayton, did the Googoo progressives morph into? Today’s Democratic Party and the looniest of the left.
Carrie Nation was no different from Mead or Sanger at their worst, and in this effort, you’re no better.
You might want to get yourself a dictionary, and find out what socialism is. Socialism is ownership of the means of production. We live in a welfare state capitalist society where the population overwhelmingly supports government providing a safety net of services for those unable to care for themselves.
I’m not entirely happy with aspects of that system, but it isn’t socialism, and it is not going away. Why? Because Americans overwhelmingly support it. (Okay, the 10% of Americans who are libertarians want it to go away, but that’s a bit shy of a majority.)
I think large numbers of Americans have been propagandized and lied to for decades by the politicians and lawyers who make the money from this charade.
I can understand how you and other members of the bar might not agree councilor. Legalization doesn’t threaten my income, but it might make doing business in Mexico a little safer for me.
My apologies for reffering to you as a lawyer, I confused you with another poster I have run into here. Mia Copa.
Once again, my apologies for saying you are a member of the bar, I confused you with another poster I’ve run into before in the blogsphere. Your arguments against personal freedom and responsibility are still very wrong, but the inference of personal, financial gain was misguided.
A couple of years ago, I asked my 12 year old straight shooter grandson how long it would take him to score drugs in school.
“I don’t know the drug kids. … Maybe twenty minutes.”
You can’t make it much easier than it is now.
Clayton and the other Nanny-State liberal prefer not to believe that.
So, you think that if there are vending machines and stores it will be as hard as it now?
As you’re saying, we cannot enforce alcohol laws as is, nor can we enforce the drug laws either.
That is why people would like to see the drug law dropped — it doesn’t save anyone, it does not stop people from using drugs and it prevents the cops for dong more important work, for example, spending some time checking whether the alcohol laws are observed and so on.
Besides that, the taxman is far more effective at policing people than the cops ever will be — because their performance is measurable in money coming in, whereas the cops are always an expense that is never quite enough to do everything we pledged to do by making laws that need to be policed.
You really think that making something legal for sale and advertising, and therefore lower priced, is not going to have some impact on consumption? There are very few commodities whose demand is not influenced by pricing.
Is per capita alcohol use lower or higher today than during prohibiton?
Did de-facto legalization of marijuana lead to an increase in usage among the Dutch?
Why is it any of the government’s (or your) business what adults do in their own home? Is it your position that adults in this country are incapable of making their own decisions and living with the consequences? That only an all knowing government is the answer?
Substantially higher today. See http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-3/images/mann2.gif for a plot of cirrhosis of the liver deaths from 1910 forward and alcohol consumption from when it became legal to today. There is no data for alcohol consumption during Prohibition, but cirrhosis of the liver death rates are a good proxy for alcohol consumption rates. Not perfectly, but pretty good. After Prohibition, per capita annual alcohol consumption was about 1.4 gallons; by 2000, it was above 2.2 gallons.
Facts trump ideology.
And dodging questions is good exercise. Please note I did not ask for two data points when alcohol was legal. Your facts, by your own admission, do not address prohibition.
I think the one who takes the time to write articles about a subject that is neither on a ballot or before Congress as a bill is the one carrying on the ideological crusade.
I didn’t dodge the question. You asked,
I provided you data that demonstrated that alcohol consumption per capita is higher now (much higher) than it was at the end of Prohibition, and the cirrhosis of the liver death rate, which is a proxy for alcohol consumption, argues that during Prohibition the alcohol consumption rate was lower than it was at the end of Prohibition.
The facts didn’t fit your beautiful little model, so you accused me of dodging the question. I did not. The facts don’t fit your model, so you pretend that the facts don’t matter.
In a legalization situation, consumption control is generally social control. Illegalization destroys that social control system. It withers away from disuse and politically caused infantilization. So when you re-legalize, you get a spike in bad outcomes (cirrhosis in the case of alcohol) in the time period between the removal of the legal prohibition and the re-establishment of social control. Note in your own chart the recent increase of alcohol consumption combined with a continued decline of cirrhosis in both men and women.
I expect marijuana to have a similar trajectory. If we are knowledgeable about this, attempts to social engineer an ethic of responsible, moderate use might shorten the period of bad effects.
I think you’ve identified something real, Clayton, but your time-sense is off and that weakens your point. Legalizers should be better about addressing the need to quickly re-establish social controls in order to minimize bad effects but it is unclear whether ultimately social controls are inferior to the legal control system they compete with in mitigating bad outcomes.
If hash is so expensive now because it’s illegal, why do the local kids smoke it constantly in the park now?
And what is your stance on the fact that we already have too many laws that we cannot or will not police right now?
What’s the point of a law that is not heeded or enforced?
I am a Libertarian, and I know that if drugs were legal use would increase, especially with kids who are stupid enough to smoke candy and bath salts.
Rather than simply “think about the children”, you have to weigh all the affects of legalization (and our current prohibition) on their own merits and flaws. There is no perfect solution, but time has shown that government cannot legislate against immoral private behavior without abolishing the civil liberties that this country was founded on.
I’ve written on this subject on my own blog, which I will link to below, but here are some bullet points to consider for those who are in favor of keeping drugs illegal…
- Prohibition does NOT eliminate supply
- Prohibition creates gang violence
- Prohibition distorts normal free markets
- Prohibition drives people from mild drugs to strong drugs
- Prohibition CREATES drugs like crack
- Prohibition is responsible for tens of thousands of murders every year
- Prohibition destroys inner-cities,
- Prohibition turns citizens into criminals
- Prohibition PROTECTS large drug cartels
- Prohibition criminalizes those who aren’t hurting anyone (the majority of drug arrests are for simple possession).
- Prohibition creates a precedent for the government to regulate private behavior simply because they believe it is undesirable. If fact, Prohibition HAS done just that, leading to smoking bans, seat-belt and helmet laws, gambling bans, trans fat bans, gun bans, etc. Eventually leading to today when the government is regulating the thermostats in our homes and what light bulbs we can use. Once you give the government permission to criminalize private behavior, the government simply will never stop.
http://morgue-toetag.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-all-drugs-should-be-legalized.html
I once knew an expert, a PhD is statistics, and a Psychiatrist, who did comparative studies between alcoholism and marijuana addiction. His research, funded by the government, was censored.
Both drugs work differently on the brain, in many ways alcohol is worse, but one of his findings, in my view, the most important, has never been debated. His long term studies shown that habitual use of alcohol, a toxin, causes heightened defensive mechanisms in the brain. A skid row bum needs a fifth to get high, a debutant needs only a whiff. However long term use of marijuana increases sensitivity. Pot heads need only a whiff to get high.
As a citizen he opposed marijuana use on this fact, and another. Most people control their intake of alcohol: the ball game, the picnic, but not in Monday morning rush hour traffic. However, there is no internal control, self discipline, with marijuana. If the guy in the backseat lights up, the pot head driver becomes stoned by the fumes.
Self discipline and liberty are opposite sides of the coin of life. I oppose marijuana use in general, on this basis.
I have to agree with #12. R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. This is also the reason why I oppose smoking regular tobacco in public places. If a person next to me wants to have a drink, all of the chemicals in the drink are contained within that individual. At worst I might have to deal with bad breath, or a bit of drunken rudeness, but all I have to do is walk away. With any form of smoke related product, whether it be tobacco or marijuana, I have to deal with all of the fumes and toxins. To me it’s like having someone pee in your face. Disgusting. On many occasions I’ve had to be in rooms filled with smoke or waiting at a train station only to walk away with my lungs and throat feeling like they’re on fire. I don’t know how much marijuana smoke I’d have to breathe in to get a buzz, but I really don’t want to find out. The problem with marijuana users is they loose control of themselves, their sensibilities, and lose their grip on reality. They could care less about anyone around them. The Constitution may grant us certain inalienable rights, but it does not give you the right to violate my rights or my space with your crap.
From someone who obviously has never smoked the “G”. Here’s a clue. There are chronics around you every day running their own successful businesses, raising wonderful children and having a damn fine time of their lives without “losing control” of themselves or their grip on reality. Smoke a bone a couple of times with some good friends. Have a freakin brownie and pass out on the couch. Not going to make you psychotic, schizo or any other psychiatric hogwash. There’s no causal relationship noted in the mentioned studies. Perhaps the only thing keeping these folks from going compeletly bat-ass nutso is the fact that they’re coping by smoking pot!
If Bubba refers to me, he is correct, I never use pot. But he is wrong about causal relationship, a term of science. The scientist found that street grass varied widely in potency, some was literally grass, devoid of any drug content. The government was forced to grow a controlled garden, a source of constant, known potency. The relative effects between alcohol and pot was measured by the error rate in driving simulators, correlated to known personal history of substance use, with various amounts of immediate consumption. Skid row drunks drive better than pot heads at low intake levels. As intake increases, they both drive poorly.
One difference is that booze enhances risk taking, a drunk “can” take a high speed curve. But crashes. However the pot head mellows out and drives slowly, albeit with lousy reaction times. He crashes with a smile.
I do not want either driving next to me, in rush hour, cutting on me in an OR, taxiing my plane full of jet fuel, or engineering a nuclear reactor. My friend and I were black belts, we sparred against each other, practicing lethal moves. Death was very near, thus accidents were verboten.
I do not want wide spread marijuana usage in our society.
Option 1 = total prohibition with $B spent and prisons filled.
Option 2 = airline pilots and nuclear plant operators allowed to be high.
Thus ever was the argument of the prohibitionists, those who never met a law they didn’t like. If you want more personal liberty by repealing laws you are an all out anarchist. Talk about apples and basketballs.
I don’t recall anyone who advocates ending prohibition making the case that driving while intoxicated should be allowed, or flying, or running nuclear plants, or making it legal for minors.
Yet no prohibitionist has yet to point out where in the Constitution the federal nanny state is given the right to even have an opinion on this.
There may be some who take the occasional drag and are just fine. Those are not the ones I worry about. Like alcohol, marijuana effects different people in different ways. Why would I want to take the chance that the individual who can’t handle it be the one I have to deal with? Pot has ruined enough lives that taking the chance to me is not worth it and although many believe that some good things have come from the stuff, it doesn’t offset the bad. Another problem that is not often mentioned is that marijuana use often leads to harder drugs and worse addictions. Like many drugs the affect can lessen over time until a drag is no longer enough. Again some may never get that far, but many do and those that do end up in a world of misery and it’s society that has to deal with it (usually some taxpayer funded program). And no, I’ve never so much as inhaled a single puff. I don’t need it and don’t want it. If you need to get high, try skydiving, bunjy jumping, or cliff diving. You’ll get a bigger rush and YOU’LL be in control not the drugs.
Bubba, you are doing a great job of making the case for keeping pot illegal.
But I’m sure that wasn’t your intent.
Oh here we go, the credo of every pothead. Sign it from the mountain, brother!
Anytime you question marijuana use, some pothead will tell you story about someone, either themselves or someone they know, living in complete an utter utopia while still being pot smokers. “They own their own business” is the most common attempt at deflection I hear. Yeah, the business of selling pot, maybe. Yet, every time I meet someone who is a casual user, they live bitter lives and blame everyone else for their problems, but will staunchly defend their pot use.
The vast majority of people that smoke pot aren’t going to become mentally ill. I don’t doubt that there are a lot of people who smoke pot and manage to live pretty functional lives. I notice, however, those people I know in that category generally started smoking pot as late teens or adults. Those that started in junior high seem to not be socially maturing very well.
The longitudinal studies demonstrate that people with no mental illness symptoms or precursors who started regularly smoking marijuana were twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as similarly matched people who did not.
That’s not proof positive, of course–but when you use a psychoactive drug, and then discover that there is such a relationship (in multiple studies, in multiple countries), it should make you just a bit concerned.
So you have been smoking it for many years, and haven’t had any problems. The percentage at risk seems to be small. But the costs to those who do develop schizophrenia are enormous, and to the society as a whole, since we end up caring for them.
I haven’t seen any studies on it. But I’m willing to bet that 90% of those people arrested for violation of the drug prohibition laws have had their lives far more negatively affected than those who haven’t.
Needing a whiff of weed to get high among chronic users is absolutely false. Resistance to weed is notorious among those who use it.
A person who smokes once a month is going to get blasted on some good weed while the guy sharing it with him who smokes every day will be much less high.
My own experience growing up showed no comparison with weed and alcohol. Drinking is far worse and people who do so gradually seem to go nuts as well. I’ve seen people do the most awful and violent things on alcohol and never any equivalent from smoking.
Kids who smoke weed laugh at the idea that it is illegal while alcohol is not only legal, but pricewise compared to weed, they’re practically giving it away.
Controlled experiments confirm reverse tolerance to THC. From “Sexually dimorphic alterations in locomotion and reversal learning after adolescent tetrahydrocannabinol exposure in the rat,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology 32:5, 515-524, abstract:
What is experience compared to an unclear generalization about teen age rats such as “Evidence of reverse tolerance to THC was seen in early adolescent animals only.”
Your only point, buried in an otherwise irrelevant paragraph.
An experiment using the experience of someone who smoked weed virtually every day for 15 years would of course be trumped by someone in a lab coat giving shotgun blasts to adolescent rhesus monkeys; I wonder if they played Bob Marley to intensify the experience?
In brief, you know what you know, and that takes precedence over scientific studies.
Reply to author’s post below (no reply link there)
Yes, often time it does trump scientific studies. Global warming is a perfect example. As for rodent studies, it’s very well known that their metabolic systems differ from those in humans. I’ve run into this before with the greenies manufacturing anti-phthalate propagnada.
While I have absolutely no aversion to blasting scientific studies, I feel the need, at this moment, to point this out: The plural of anecdote is not data.
“If the guy in the backseat lights up, the pot head driver becomes stoned by the fumes.”
That would be false. In many years of performing drug tests on people, that was on occasion raised as an excuse by someone who I’d just tested positive; “Oh, I was in the same room with someone who lit up, and…”
It would require sitting in the same vehicle with Cheech and Chong, with the windows all rolled up, to receive any sort of significant exposure.
False. Scientific studies show that passive second hand marijuana smoke cannot even trigger drug test detection at 50 parts per million in the urine, unless you are in a closed room full of smoke for 4 or more HOURS. This research was done to test the claims that a person tested positive for pot use because he went to a concert. The claim that someone in a car will get high from another smoking a joint in it doesn’t hold up based on the evidence.
Life,Liberty,and the Pursuit of happiness. Our founding fathers grew it and probably smoked it. Since the 1930′s our government with the help of Hearst,Dupont and Mellon have waged a war on the most versatile plant in the world. JustAl, is right it is all about the MONEY. So we are to keep hemp cannabis illegal because a few teenagers get schizophrenia, sounds ridiculous to me! I know lets make pharmaceutical drugs illegal because that is becoming a major problem with our youth. They can go right to their parents medicine cabinet and get high. Oh yeah I forgot to many government officials own vast amounts of stock in these companies, so that will not happen. Just my take, have a great day America.
*sigh* Not this tired garbage again!
Until the U.S. Government in the first decade or two of the 20th century accidentally bred pot to be far more potent than it ever had been (they were trying to cultivate a better rope product), you could get about as high on pot as you can on tobacco.
No, the cowboys and Pilgrims didn’t sit around tokin’ on a number, getting buzzed on locoweed. The stuff as we know it did not exist then.
Are potheads ALL this stupid?
Well said.
Actually, all people are this stupid–not just potheads. Lots of people who are looking for an excuse to do X will read stuff that tells them X is wonderful, and they won’t make any effort to research any other side of the question. Potheads (and ideologyheads) do at times seem to have a bit of a religious fervor about this, but alas, that isn’t limited to marijuana.
Of course, the same argument can be made about those who want to “outlaw X”.
Oddly enough, I used to be on your side. The data became too overwhelming.
Wrong. Cannabis had been the pharmacopaea long before the last century. The AMA testified to its legitimate medical uses during the Congressional hearings that led to it being outlawed. Mexicans out west and blacks in the jazz scene smoked ‘reefer’ and “marijuana”. They certainly didn’t use it to make rope.
Claiming that cannabis didn’t get anyone high before the 1920s is the real garbage.
It was not a significant part of American culture until the 1920s. It came in with Mexicans fleeing the Mexican Revolution. Certainly cannabis has been used for its intoxicating effects in other parts of the world.
Hence the large numbers of schizophrenics there, right?
About 1.5% of the adult population suffers from schizophrenia. The studies that have shown a causal relationship generally find that regular users of marijuana roughly double their risk of developing schizophrenia. (There are studies showing that alcohol has similar risks.)
In a population of 200,000,000 adults, doubling the schizophrenia rate would mean doubling the number of schizophrenics from about three million to about six million? That’s not “a few teenagers,” and you should think carefully about the costs in terms of disability payments, court costs (think Loughner’s trial), and medical care (much of it covered by Medicaid). Ignoring those costs so you can get high sounds ridiculous to me.
Wow, doubling the number of schetsophrenics is a scary thought. Of course, your argument only holds water if 100% of teenagers start smoking pot regularly once prohibition ends. Is that seriously your contention?
I doubt that 100% would start smoking pot. But I can tell you that raising kids in a place where marijuana is effectively lawful creates enormous pressure on kids to conform. My daughter tells me that when she was 13, her friends and her would be smoking joints on the street, and the police would just wave at them. My nephew decided to stop buying LSD when he was 12, and the dealers started beating him up because he wasn’t buying anymore. Live in the Bay Area for a while, and you can see what this wonderful future you want is like.
So, by riding off on a personal tangent you admit that your previous post was BS?
Care to explain why the Mexican government made it illegal in the 19th century? Was is that same list of characters at play there also? They did it because they believed that there was an increase in insanity, leading to murder, caused by it. Our laws against it appeared after large numbers of Mexicans escaping the chaos of the Mexican Revolution brought this habit with them. Maybe the Mexican government was wrong, and the U.S. government was wrong–and it is just a coincidence that we now have evidence of a causal connection between marijuana regular use and mentall illness. But your explanation just collapsed.
Care to explain why the Mexican government just de-criminalized position?
Probably for the same reason it is likely to happen here: a generation has grown up of people who smoked pot, didn’t develop any serious problems, and doesn’t much care that it is pretty dangerous to a fraction of their peers.
I sympathize with Mr. Cramer’s misgivings concerning the decriminalization of marijuana but must respectfully disagree. This is certainly not because I believe that pot is harmless. Like any other chemical added to the human body it will cause physical damage (both foreseeable and not foreseeable)to different people in different degrees. Naturally the same thing can be said about (legal) alcohol.
This is just one of those areas of public policy where there are simply NO GOOD OPTIONS! Whatever course we follow will result in some sort or private and public damage. It is fair to say that forty years of marijuana prohibition (actually seventy-one years) has resulted in the useless expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, the unnecessary imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of Americans, a huge expansion of the federal police power and the staggering enrichment of the most bottom-feeding type of international criminal. Our current policy has been a well-intentioned disaster which has done hardly anything to staunch trafficking in marijuana except drive up the price and enrich the suppliers and dealers.
Decriminalization of pot will undoubtedly create more casual users and consequent medical issues. This is a bad option. However our current policy is worse and responsible policymakers should at least try to minimize public harm even if they cannot solve the problem. Decriminalization will lead to harmful consequences but these will be not nearly as bad, when taken as a whole, than our current policy.
BTW – I also believe that one of the chief obstacles to a sane marijuana policy has been the miserable job done by pro-marijuana advocates. Far too many supporters of reform come off as selfish, aging adolescents who only want pot made legal so they can get as baked as they want. They make absurd claims as to the beneficial aspects of the drug (and there are some) and supercilliously mock those who have genuine misgivings about marijuana use. If supporters of legalized pot would spend more time making better policy arguments and less time coming off as cooler-than-thou hipsters (or cranky libertarians) we might make some progress.
This is what I am looking for: intelligent and rational discussion that acknowledges the serious risks. And yes, a lot of those arguing for decriminalization refuse to admit that there are any risks. Even the discussion of the risks is worthwhile, because it may cause some to back off from use.
While many who oppose decriminalization argue that there aren’t any beneifits.
Which benefits are those? I suppose there might be a case for its use with glaucoma and those suffering the nausea of chemotherapy. Marijuana was part of the medical tool chest in Mexico in the 19th century, and I don’t really see a problem with its use for that purpose. But the 20somethings I mention in the article–was it glaucoma and chemotherapy that is why they are smoking pot?
Are there really that many teenagers with serious health problems that need pot? Or is this just an elaborate ruse for making an intoxicant available?
Oh, aside from actually moving the country closer to it’s stated ideals of liberty there’s the little matter of $2B per year (and that doesn’t include the expense of the courts, the prisons, the lawyers, or the same expenses at the state and local levels).
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2011summary/pdf/fy11-dea-bud-summary.pdf
So, yes, the benefits are hardly worth mentioning.
Those who advocate the continuation of a failed policy ‘for the children’ generally fail to mention the impact of this failed policy on our southern borders. Legalizing marijuana won’t make those problems vanish – there are other drugs that likely will never be legalized – and the attraction to import cocaine heroin and other narcotics illegally across our southern border won’t vanish by legalizing marijuana. But it will help there – and elsewhere.
What it can do is ease the danger – and ecological damage – caused by those who are raising crops of marijuana in our national parks and forests. This is no minor problem. Gangs of thugs – legals and illegals – are growing marijuana in very sensitive areas of our forests. They are well armed and think nothing of shooting a few deer or elk – for fun or food. And God help the hunter or hiker that stumbles onto one of these growing tracts.
Legalizing marijuana will have the added effect of making lots of space available in our state and federal prisons for more dangerous criminals – criminals that actually are a danger to life and limb. This will also free up police resources to go after dangerous criminals.
As for protecting our children and young adults against drug use – the best deterrent is education – and that starts at home. Don’t look for our schools to help in this regard. I suspect that anyone who uses and abuses marijuana would be at risk to the same abuse with alcohol or any other easily attainable drug. I know more than a few people that fit that category. Drug of choice is whatever is handy. Net effect is the same in any case. One wasted human.
How many people do you think are sitting in state and federal prisons because of marijuana? Possession charges have to be vanishingly small, unless they plea bargained sale or possession for sale down to possession. There are a fair number of people in prison for various charges involving meth, heroin, cocaine, but unless you are proposing completely legalization of all illegal drugs (a position that is complete non-starter with nearly all Americans), you are not going to make much of a dent in prison populations this way.
How effective can education in your home be in a society where marijuana is the norm among not only kids, but adults? I ask because I used to live in one of those places, in California.
You blame the dangerous world for your daughter taking drugs, but my parents never had to — I was brought up to think and stand up for myself and to respect my life and that was a key theme of my upbringing.
At not time was I ever allowed any lame excuse like ‘he made me do it’ or ‘I had to do it to fit in’ other such weasel lies, and had the neighborhood been as rough as yours, my parents would have moved.
Sorry Clayton, but the failure to protect and educate your daughter properly is not our problem — your daughter decided to smoke a joint in front of the cop (who decided not to enforce a law you want to keep(…)) and you decided to move to a drug riddle slum and expose your child to those influences whilst not teaching her how to cherish her own free will.
This is the problem — I told you before that at heart, in this topic, you’re acting like a patronising leftie who wants to run other people’s lives for them because they are too feckless to do it themselves’ properly’ and thus must be parented by the state from cradle to grave.
Conservatives don’t have this statist mindset, we believe that people are the smiths of their own fortunes, and that freedom is what makes (and keeps) mankind human.
The same way we do with tobacco and alcohol.
I actually agree that the idea that legalization won’t lessen the usage by teens.
But, given what we know about the proven health problems associated with legal drugs of choice and our tolerance of those effects, like tobacco and alcohol, the mental health issue to me isn’t a rational justification to keep it illegal for adult useage. I see it as grasping at straws to justify prohibition.
And let us remember that this is one study. More are needed to shore it up.
See #26 below. No more than 3.7% of state prison inmates are convicted of marijuana possession or trafficking felonies–and not all of those convicted of a felony actually goes to prison. Yes, it would free up space, and I would certainly agree that marijuana possession isn’t important enough to use prison space. But you are overselling its impact.
Several fatal flaws in your argument but lets start with this: Cirrhosis of the liver is a disease that is chronic and occurs over a long period of time. If rates were noticed to increase following legalization it was most likely do to aggravated conditions resulting from rot gut booze during the prohibition years. We would not see an increase in cirrhosis of the liver due to legalization for decades later. Any increase in the immediate years following repeal of prohibition was due to consumption during prohibition.
Oddly enough, those scientists who study cirrhosis of the liver and alcohol problems are not in agreement with you.
And here’s some pages from a book called Ethanol and the Liver: Mechanisms and Management that discuss the apparent limited lag time between increased alcohol consumption and cirrhosis of the liver mortality rates.
I know that the libertarian ideology is beautiful: laws don’t do anything; government can go away; everyone will be happy. But facts are stubborn things, and when ideology and facts collide, one of them has to give.
CLAYTON CRAMER, he’s the guy who is in total denial of the history of cannabis and the great part it played in the founding of our country, despite his protestrations the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were both first drafted on hemp, as well as our first flag by Betsy Ross, and the first paper mill by Benjamin Franklin made to produce paper from hemp, not wood pulp. And the Guttenberg bibles also from hemp, and the new Canadian auto the Kestral EV interior and body from hemp. Cannabis could create millions of jobs in thousands of American industries if the government would just let it. All these politicians talk the talk but so far only Ron Paul walks the walk with his bill HR1009 that would legalize once again the growing of natures most versatile plant on planet Earth.
I agree that marijuana prohibition is bad policy but take a pause for the cause man. Always remember that you can’t escape the Law of Unintended Consequences so we can be sure that legalization will bring it’s own unique set of problems. Also remember that the use of hemp as a job-producer in areas like clothing and as a paper substitute are limited because it would have to compete with artificial fabrics and the replacement of paper with electronic media. Like far too many advocates of legalization you make hemp sound like the legendary schmoo from “Li’l Abner.”
It’s enough that prohibition is bad policy and legalization will help solve the problems that these policies have caused.
Well said. Legalization is not a panacea. Jobs will actually be lost by legalization, ie far fewer lawyers and correctional officers would be needed. The entire DEA could (and should) be abolished. And tax revenue will be debatable depending on the home grown vs RJ Reynolds model.
But, hundreds or millions if not billions of dollars would be saved rather than wasted on enforcement. And thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens would be allowed to continue to contribute to society as best they can rather than being a drain on the criminal justice system.
All of this is very true–but there are costs as well. Likely, millions more schizophrenics–and that alone is a major social cost. Would it be more than the savings on prisons and criminal justice? Hard to say for sure. I do wish there was a bit less certainty from pushing for decriminalization. Those commenters who recognize that there are likely to be social costs are way ahead of those who spout nonsense about the Declaration of Independence being printed on hemp paper.
Yes, it’s a shame there isn’t as much “certainty” as the studies funded by the same government that wants to keep it illegal finds in their conclusions. You sight theoretical studies as an excuse to continue an expensive, intrusive, and failed system. Where are the “millions of schizophrenics” in the parts of the world that don’t practice prohibition?
Was the US over run with schizophrenics before prohibition was started?
Is a more powerful federal government really the answer to all of society’s ills? What is the “social cost” of a continued erosion of liberty, and the ever growing sense of dependence on a nanny state?
I “cite” studies that have been done of real people–sometimes rather large populations. These are not theoretical studies.
They are there. They are present just about everywhere.
Marijuana was not widely used in the U.S. until the 1920s.
Who said anything about the federal government? Nearly all drug enforcement is at the state level.
I hope this is not a surprise, but nearly all Americans believe the government has a responsibility to provide a safety net.
Competing against artificial fabrics made from petroleum, I guess that would upset a few Arabs and other oil producers that have been getting disgustingly wealthy on Americans. The fact that hemp makes a better quality fabric than cotton or any of the artificial fabrics doesn’t count either. I suppose you think the only use for paper is newspapers, no other use at all, no sir, of course paper plates, drinking cups, books, shades, cartons for all kinds of boxes, shopping bags, computer paper, etc, they don’t count in your world as paper products. CHAMBERS Canada is building cars out of hemp, go to youtube and search Ford hemp car, he was building them back in the thirties. An acre of hemp will produce 4 times the ethanol as an acre of corn, the government just raised the mandatory 10% ethanol added to gasoline to 15% that means the price of corn will go up and make the poor Mexican women have to pay even more for their tortillas, there are some of your unintended consequences. We need hemp, but when we have small minded folks making ludicrous myopic observations it only helps to hold back progress.
Nope. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written on parchment, not hemp paper. The Gutenberg Bibles (many of them, at least) were printed on vellum, not hemp. The rest of your claims sound like they came out of the same toking session.
Making snide remarks won’t make you right, especially from a guy who still thinks a gun is to only tool that will make him a man.
You are wrong about the Constitution and D. of I. yes they are on parchment but they were first drafted on hemp as I posted, you can lie and hide behind your snide remarks if you think that will make you feel better, but the truth will set you free.
And your childish remarks about the rest of my easily verifiable claims serve to only make you look even more foolish. Time to grow up little fella.
While hemp was often used for making paper, it was not using for smoking. That’s a pretty reason introduction to the U.S.
What happened to your Gutenberg Bible claim?
Dear Mr. Caliente:
You are obviously a true believer. I think that I am too. However your posts keep making the point I hoped to make at #14 above concerning the terrible job that advocates of decriminalization have done. Your own rather snide and smarter-than-thou attitude concerning the virtues of marijuana is exactly the thing that has continuously turned off moderates from engaging in any discussion about pot. Most advocates for legalization don’t argue, they hector. Calling those whom you want to convice either stupid or myopic virtually guarantees thst they won’t listen to you. (I know that there are cars with hemp interiors but come back and see me when the Canadians develop a hemp engine block.)
Trust me – I am on your side on this and am appalled by the lack of progress that has been made on this issue over the last forty years. However your attitude is something I have seen all too much of from “pot advocates.” They claim to want the drug to be legal yet prefer to preen and posture like smug and semi-educated college students (no matter what their age) rather than engaging in constructive action and genuine debate. If you want pot made legal then drop the lofty contempt for those like Mr. Cramer who want to talk rationally and sanely about this. Otherwise you might confirm my lurking suspicion that most marijuana advocates aren’t really serious and really want it both ways – They really want the drug to remain illegal so that they can contineu to talk down to everyone as “rebels” always do while still enjoying the fact that marijuana remains readily obtainable for personal consumption.
CHAMBERS you are correct, I am not as eloquent as I’d prefer to be, for that failing I readily admit guilt, it is just so damned frustrating when I encounter guys who claim to know what they are talking about obviously have an agenda or just don’t know what they are talking about. I am much to my chagrin more of a street fighter than a debater, thank you very much for pointing this failing out to me, I have been aware of it for a long time but every so often when I encounter characters like this CRAMER fellow I just jump in and you are correct it does the cause of truth no good what so ever. Thank you again, Carlos Caliente
TO: Carlos Caliente
Thanks for your kind words. I have been arguing this issue in private and in public for over thirty years and probably have had more of a chance to work on my arguments than most people. Mr. Cramer makes some valid (and no doubt sincere) points but I too disagree with his overall conclusions.
Another point to consider – Advocates for the decriminalization of marijuana must also consider the effect of tobacco legislation at the state and federal level. For the last thirty years we have been moving closer and closer to outlawing tobacco as a “controlled substance.” (Many in the Food and Drug Administration are in favor of this as are our national health agencies.) The only reason we don’t go “all the way” (in my view) is that so many states are dependent on tobacco tax revenues to keep them solvent.
Many who would ordinarily support decriminalization of marijuana are faced with the paradox that they also favor criminalizing tobacco. In my state, as in many others, you can’t smoke in any public or commercial building including bars and taverns. This is something that marijuana advocates must contend with. A lot of people ask “How can you make one drug (cannabis or THC) legal while we are trying to stamp out the use of another (nicotine)? If we could somehow resolve our punitive and schizophrenic attitude toward tobacco we could probably do something about decriminalizing pot.
Anyway – Thanks for the compliment and good luck to you.
You make a good point, Chambers: we are likely to illegalize tobacco about the same time that we decriminalize marijuana. The case for restricting or banning tobacco is comparable to the case for keeping marijuana illegal. One of the reasons that I can’t take liberal (as opposed to libertarian) pot decriminalization advocates seriously is that the same forces pushing to make pot legal are about three steps away from banning tobacco.
In California all you do is get a pot card, a prescription from a doctor, cost about 100$.
Then you go to the Dispensary,where you sign about 20 pages worth of disclaimers,Then you show your ID and script, Then you enter the equivalent of a Swiss bank Vault, (armed guards,bullet proof glass)once inside you make your purchase as you would any other store, and your on your way.
And no I don’t buy for anyone but me, I follow the spirit and letter of the law.
All that said ,in Cal. it’s de-facto legal already,
Good day,
Robert
Your argument for prohibition is based on health outcomes of people who willingly choose to use these substances. This is the same reasoning that the left uses to control our intake of salt, transfats, fast food, soda and so-on. The logical end for your argument is for the government to control everything that goes into our bodies as well as regulate and control our choices to do other dangerous activities like play football, go skiing or rock climbing.
Nanny state do-gooderism, whether it be protecting us from transfats or from the “dangers” of marijuana, is still statism and still against liberty.
You can’t be an advocate of individual liberty and personal responsibility while simultaneously advocating government intervention to stop people from harming themselves.
If you want to be a nanny-state do-gooder, then just come out and say so, but don’t try to wrap yourself up in “the public health” as an excuse.
Question:
Would legalizing “recreational” drugs end the illegal traffic in those drugs?
Sure…by making it legal! My point was that the claim that decriminalization would reduce access of minors is contradicted by the experience of alcohol, which is legal, regulated–and highly available to minors.
Women get harassed and even fined for naturally feeding and nourishing their children the way God made ‘em to via their breasts in public when the baby gets hungry and ya’ll are worried about freakin’ drugs being legal? Men with man-boobs (and believe me, some guys have a real set of hooters) can go shirtless and yet women can’t go topless even though their breasts actually have a purpose and a J_O_B to do?
Oy! *facepalm*
How many freedoms do ya’ll need to be free btw? Should we be allowed to fornicate in public because it’s our right to eff? Should we be allowed to walk down the street nude because that’s how we were made? Should we be allowed to urinate and defecate anywhere because we’re only human?
Where does it freakin’ end?
There is some excellent evidence against marijuana legalization in the comments. Namely the number of pro-legalization commenters who reflexively spilled their routine talking points without bothering to address any of the issues that Mr. Cramer raised. This indicates serious permanent brain damage from an obvious cause.
Maybe not brain damage, but addiction, some to marijuana, some to ideology.
And maybe because there is a lot more at stake in this issue than Rostrom or Cramer care to admit. Anybody can find fault with anything if they try hard enough, hell they killed Jesus didn’t they, so finding fault with cannabis for some narrow minded myopic self righteous no it all grouchy old men is a no brainer.
You keep making Mr. Rostrom’s point here.
ROSTROM has no point, only an opinion, obviously you have been hanging out with your White Supremist buddies a little to long up there in the boonies of Idaho where nonsense is seen as sense.
You never really answer a direct question as a man, only as an ideologue. For some reason you fear the truth just as your other gun tottin White Supremist buddies do. You shamefully choose to ignore comments that cotradict your ridiculous claims about the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, the Guttenberg bibles, the many uses of hemp, the cars being built by the Canadians, as well as Henry Ford, the paper mill built by Ben Franklin to process hemp, the flag made by Betsy Ross, the ethanol fuel it can produce quadruples corn, the health benefits of hemp as food which contains all essential Omega3′s and fatty acids, the lies told by Hearst and Du Pont, the lies told by the DEA, the lies told by all petroleum producers and plastics manufacturers, ignoring the biodegradible qualities that make hemp a superior form of plastic.
CLAYTON CRAMER you are the one who keeps making my points very clear for others to see who is the blind man and who is the enlightened man. And for that I thank you.
White Supremacist buddies? Huh? As I said, you are making my point.
“There is some excellent evidence against marijuana legalization in the comments.”
There is no such evidence either in the comments or in the original post.
“Namely the number of pro-legalization commenters who reflexively spilled their routine talking points without bothering to address any of the issues that Mr. Cramer raised.”
He made claims, as do the studies, where the evidence does not show what is claimed. There is exactly as much evidence that some persons using marijuana and other recreational drugs are trying to self-medicate pre-existing conditions as that the recreational drugs are causing the conditions. Mr. Clayton’s claims are conclusory and circular. They don’t hold water.
“This indicates serious permanent brain damage from an obvious cause.”
Pray tell what would that be? For myself, I have done no recreational drugs in the entirety of my life excepting alcohol, and that in moderation. I am intent however, on seeing my tax money no longer wasted trying to keep people from doing what they have a right to do, which is enjoy themselves as they see fit, up until the point it is picking my pockets or breaking my knees–and it’s Clayton who wants to pick my pockets here.
No conservative he.
Exactly as much evidence? Really! If the studies in question were only examinations of how many people smoke pot and whether they have mental illness problems, you would have a serious criticism. But the studies in question were longitudinal. They surveyed a large population, checking for evidence of prodromal symptoms of mental illness. If those who started smoking pot did so because they were prone to mental illness, there would have been signs before hand. That’s part of why those longitudinal studies are so worrisome.
Talk about pocket picking: the costs of schizophrenia treatment exceeds $50 billion a year (and most of that is coming out of your pockets as a taxpayer). The cost of Social Security disability payments exceeds $8 billion a year. That’s coming out of pockets as a taxpayer. The other costs associated with increasing rates of mental illness shows up in running jails, prisons, and homeless shelters (where many mentally ill people show up). Those are coming out off your pocket also.
Which brings up another great point.
The only health care the tax payer should pay for is his own and that of our veterans. The point is, if you put the government back into the box it’s supposed to occupy your point about public expense of health related issues goes away, just like the prohibition being discussed.
While you are at, explain why the government should not be in the public school business. That should be just about as effective a persuasive tool.
Americans are not libertarians at least not at the ideologue purity level that you are at. Very few people anywhere are.
Reply to post below (no reply link available there)
The government shouldn’t be in the education business, free or otherwise. Test scores and literacy have plummeted since the ill advised creation of the department of education.
Any other diversions from your losing position on prohibition?
This may be a surprise to you, but the U.S. Department of Education is not the only government involved in public schooling. State and local governments are by far the biggest players in this field, and have been more well over a century now. But keep arguing for your libertarian utopia. Let me know when 10% of the U.S. population agrees with you.
Fortunately, from the point of view of consistency, you and some of your fellow prohibitionists have rolled out the standard arguments and ad hominem attacks we’ve all grown accustomed to.
It must truly be convenient when those who oppose your point of view are “brain damaged”. I’m actually surprised that a thinking person like yourself prefers to have the state make so many personal decisions for you.
What nonsense on stilts. Speaking from first and second-hand experience, it is possible to smoke marijuana pretty much all day every day for decades and drive a car anywhere at any time. Never had an accident, never got stopped, never got a ticket. If you’re a bad driver don’t blame it on the marijuana. Where’s the big uproar about the more addictive legal drink coffee? There is no overdose possible from marijuana, unlike the deadly poison alcohol, which kills tens or hundreds of thousands per year in the country. Legalizing it wouldn’t make that much difference because far fewer people want to smoke it than wish to drink alcohol. Alcohol and cigarettes kill people; marijuana is a lot safer drug to use or abuse. End of story.
Don’t confuse the statists with actual real world experience. They find their artificial studies easier to manipulate and justify their precious nanny state. You sound like the kind of guy who would point to all of the snow and cold and say it isn’t caused by global warming! I mean, just look at the studies!
Just wondering in ten years or so, how many weed smokers will develop lung and throat cancer, emphysema, or other diseases from long deep hits off of non-filtered joints and bongs. Personally, I gave it up decades ago and now prefer the occasional glass of a quality small batch bourbon.
I suspect that the “occasional” glass like the “occasional” toke isn’t going to destroy too many people. There are people for whom “occasional” means, “What time is it? Time for another!”
But I guarantee just one arrest can and does ruin the lives and careers of otherwise useful, successful and competent tax payers.
Heck of an intoxicant, if it doesn’t impair your ability to drive. (Are you sure your supplier might not be cutting it with lawn cuttings?) Of course, I used to know someone who claimed that he was a better driver drunk or stoned than most people were sober. (Of course, he was smoking a joint at the time.)
Oddly enough, most pot smokers claim that marijuana makes them so paranoid of driving that they drive much below the speed limit, and therefore they are safer drivers. A friend tells the story of the day that he picked up a bunch of stoned friends, and they started panicking about the outrageous speed he was driving on city streets in Los Angeles. Yes, he was driving 25 miles per hour!
Perhaps because alcohol is legal, and there is no penalty to buying, possessing, or using it? Do you suppose that might expect why fewer people want to smoke it than wish to drink?
How many people are in prison for marijuana possession? I dug around a bit, and found this 2002 Dept. of Justice report on state felony convictions, p. 2: 2.0% were for marijuana trafficking, and 1.7% for possession of marijuana.
Since most states do not regard possession of small quantities of marijuana as felonies, I suspect that many of these possession felony convictions are actually possession for sale charges that were bargained down. This is still a large number, since it is out of just over one million convictions total. That would mean at most 20,000 inmates for trafficking, and at most 17,000 inmates for possession. Remember that many of those convicted of felony do not go to prison. (Many go on probation of some sort.) It is not clear how to determine how many are actually going to prison. There are tables showing average sentences for those locked up, but again, it is hard to know what the percentage is that are actually locked up. I know that many states regard marijuana possession as not worthy of limited prison space.
So, an injustice to a few is fine and dandy? How much money have we as a nation spent in this prohibition against a deciduous plant? How much money has the trial lawyers association made from it? How much money has the DNC gotten from those trial lawyers. How much of your income has been derived from it?
Again, I misspoke when referring to you as a member of the bar. My mistake and apologies.
This inability to understand concerns about intoxicants except as some sort of financial reward is most unfortunate.
As is the inability to confuse the role of government with that of a nanny. It is not, and has never been, the role of government to protect citizens from themselves.
There is no intoxicant as strong or as damaging as power and the self righteous elite have had way too much.
JustAI, here are a couple of points to consider:
1. Clayton Cramer is refuting the claim that our prisons are over-crowded marijuana convictions. And he’s right: legalizing marijuana isn’t going to affect the prison populations all that much!
2. To ask Clayton Cramer how he feels about these “innocents” in jail is rather stupid. Since he feels that using marijuana is worthy of prison time, and there ought to be a law against it, it would follow that he would not consider any of these people “innocent”.
And, I would have to agree with Cramer on this point: if you use, or traffic, marijuana, you are guilty of it. Whether or not there should be a law against it, is an entirely different matter–but so long as such laws exist, anyone who is caught involved with marijuana will suffer legal consequences, up to and including prison time. “Justice” in this case only hinges on whether or not the original law is just.
I, for one, am open for “legalization” of everything: that is, I would like to see a dramatically different societal structure, where governing bodies are put together by private individuals. I don’t expect to see such a restructuring in my lifetime, though, because it may take my entire lifetime just to convince people that such a government can potentially work.
I also think that using marijuana is unjust–and that, while there should be no laws against it per se, the use of it should be grounds for firing, divorce, and so forth. For that matter, I see our entire common-law “justice system” as largely unjust, but there isn’t much we could do about it at this time, but live with it.
Using any drug or alcohol, whether it is legal or not, will enhance any
pyscho/medical problems in the individual. One psychologist told me once, drugs and alcohol are ‘symptom’ not the cause. But abuse can enhance mental health problems already present, particularly when they try to give it up?
The problem with ‘pot’ or ‘weed’ is now it is grown in such a way, that its chemical contents are much stronger now than they where in the 1970s during the happy weed days.
I reckon we should be able to grow three plants, (naturally in the garden – not hydroponically style) and use it for personal use. But should be licensed to do so. ($100 pa per plant?) And that young people (like teenagers going through that natural mental instability that all do at one time) should like alcohol users be wise to remember, that smoking dope doesn’t improve their mental perception of life permanently, it is just a temporary mind blowing perception of what life is NOT about.
Buying pot is becoming very expensive, and young people are being encouraged to become sellers to fuel their own habit. Putting them in touch with the real big boys, and when the police put pressure on the little guys they become part of the criminal system.
God – it is herbal. And if they legalise it, the government would make a bit of money from legal sales, like in CA. It’s just the moral aspect of it. Do we need another legal drug on the streets, like alcohol?
Well we do, and that’s that. Anyone viewed ‘Traffic’ the movie? It had a strong social/political message to impart. Prohibition doesn’t work. It makes things worse actually, and we have to work around that.
At one time, this was widely believed to be true. The evidence now suggests that marijuana and alcohol are both symptom and cause. People with mental problems often self-medicate–but people with no previous symptoms develop mental illness problems after starting to use alcohol or marijuana.
Determining whether any particular person’s problems were because of alcohol or marijuana is impossible. There are genetic factors in play that mean some people will develop schizophrenia or severe bipolar disorder anyway. There are others who have that genetic component, and for whom these drugs cause it to develop. Pretending that there is no problem is simply not possible with the number of different studies that have been completed.
For some people, the evidence has to be wished away, because pot is such a fundamental part of their lives that they can’t imagine not having it. (And unfortunately, many of these worshipers are intent on seeing others use it, to become “enlightened.”) For others, the ideology that says that drug laws are bad, and therefore drugs can’t ever be harmful, because that might justify laws, requires them to pretend that marijuana is not a problem.
Even if there is a case for decriminalizing marijuana because of the corrupting effects on the criminal justice system, acknowledging that marijuana is a significant risk to young people–rather than pretending that marijuana is a harmless substance that brings “enlightenment” (as Carlos seems to be saying)–would do wonders for your cause.
There is a religious fervor to the marijuana worship movement to which even alcoholics do not feel the need to succumb.
People develop syphilis and AIDS as a result of their choices as well. Are you going to treat them as criminals for their behavior?
You’ve got a problem with marijuana and you keep trying to dress up your prohibitionist statist tendencies as a health argument. If you truly cared about people’s health and weren’t trying to turn them into criminals you’d be for legalization.
Instead you’re plainly using your health arguments as an excuse for your persecution of “the other”. Give us a break, your flimsy excuses to desire to control other people’s lives and behavior are completely transparent.
The Guardian had an article, a while back, saying that the cannabis trade had helped keep Canada from the worst of the financial crisis. Let’s look at that. If true, Canada (with its Conservative minority government) is seeing significant economic benefits from the growing and sale of weed and specifically the deadly BC Bud. Now this could be total serendipity but then again, since this sort of weed trade is an entrepreneurial exercise and since it is truly unregulated, what do we really have here? Are free enterprise conservatives, perhaps, looking the other way while a successful trade blossoms? So to speak? I guess, other than the poor saps in jail for it, I approve.
Maybe everyone on the prohibition side should just give up trying to strangle one of the few successful (home owned) industries that we have. And after all, prohibition is a progressive idea. Just another in the long line of misguided progressive ideas that have unintended consequences that turn out to be worse than the disease they are attempting to cure.
You should inject an * when using the phrase “Conservative Canadian Government”. They are still well to the left of Blue Dog Democrats and RINOs in the USA.
If you don’t think that daily alcohol use by minors won’t result in mental health problems and brain damage, you are not being intellectually honest.
Your arguments were all used by alcohol prohibitionists.
Try again.
Addressing all those who possess the “libertarian” streak when it relates to marijuana and recreational drug use.
Two metaphorical functions you perform in a free society. Your the vanguard fronting the vanguard of those many call “useful idiots”.Meaning those that seek to undermine liberty in a free society. How? By reveling and endorsing vice as an unalienable right in your pursuit to happiness.
The other function is your vainglorious pose as sacrificial lambs ready, to have your metaphorical throat slit on this pathetic altar of aberrant liberty, expressing the most emptiest of promises that my freedom to imbibe and indulge is the equivalent too a Patrick Henry, Rosa Parks, Audie Murphy, or Fredrick Douglas.
I suggest John Wilkes Booth be your poster boy for the self indulgent. I’m pretty sure he was quite high (maybe on your euphemistic “hemp” you fellows find so endearing), as he shouted “sic semper tyrannis”, as he manifested fully his “rights”.
Privacy laws give you all the rope you need too hang yourself privately. Do so at your leisure if this is the road too your pursuit of happiness.
Publicly the law should first and foremost protect the public from the above weeping “victims” and the lawless and “those” who traffic in those circles seemingly preferring them as company to keep.
I’ll be your huckleberry.
Please tell me, Mr/Ms hallmonitor, what give you the right to determine what a “vice” is? There are people in this world who would define virtually any activity as a “vice”, but here at PJM we are blessed with the one true diviner of ultimate truth, or so it would appear.
The only “victims” I see weeping are the ones like you, who see the death grip of self righteous statism being not only challenged but loosing credibility daily.
So, next time, rather than blathering rhetorical platitudes and alluding equivalence of the subject at hand with violence and racism (as per your Rosa Parks and JWBooth statements), bring some shred of relevant proof that what people take into their own bodies in the privacy of their own home is ANY business of the government or you.
The only thing your post established is that you don’t like people being able to do things that you consider a “vice”. And that personal liberty scares the hell out of you.
1. Because this is not a libertarian society, and never will be. We get stuck socially with the consequences of bad individual decisions.
2. Once you make something legal, you dramatically expand its availability to minors–who generally do not have all the rights that adults do. Although I am sure that like any good libertarian, you will argue that they should.
How original, failing to effectively counter any of my arguments you make one up that is ridiculous prima-facie from whole cloth and imply it to be mine. Now that’s planning ahead.
Very interesting comments on this subject. I’m sure it will be debated to death. Something has to give and I suspect it will be on the side of legalization.
I’m 63 so I’ve been around for some time. I have friends I’ve kept in touch with since the 50′s and 60′s. Some are drinkers – some are tokers – and some do both and have been doing so for a very long time. A few do neither and are often the least interesting! I stick to beer – mainly a few during a round of golf – and an occasional glass of wine before bedtime.
I can tell you this: I’d rather sit down and have a conversation with anyone but the drunk. One old friend is quite the alcoholic – he admits to what he’s doing but has no plans to change. I can’t stand being around him when he’s drinking. He’s everything a drunk should be – except rational. I can’t deal with irrational very well. Even when he’s sober it’s a challenge for him to carry on an intellegent conversation. He didn’t used to be that way. He was one of the smartest of all my friends – not now.
An ex-girl friend that has been toking since before we ever met is still at it all these years – as nice as pie and as pleasant a woman as you’d ever meet. Smart as a whip and does what society expects of her – goes to work and pays her taxes and bothers nobody. We enjoy long talks on the phone and I visit when I’m in the area.
I’ve got an ex-wife that does both – she’s as mean as a junk-yard dog and likely will never change. She has very few friends left and doesn’t seem to care. Our kids don’t lift the phone to talk to her after 4PM – all she does is bitch at them.
As for those here arguing about the agricultural aspects of hemp – different subject – but something that is certainly in the + side of the ledger in this never ending argument – and a HUGE plus in my mind. I agree that hemp should be grown here. Bio-fuels are a big reason why food prices are climbing – we are paying farmers to convert food to fuel – dumb and dumber! If – as claimed – hemp is capable of producing 4 times as much as corn from an acre of land it seems time to drop our prejudice of the hemp plant. Talk about a plant that has the potential to impact our reliance on foreign oil! No wonder it has so many foes! It can be made into biodegradable plastics – produce biofuels – clothing and even health products – just to name a few of the benefits. Read the first few sentences of that Wiki article – whats not to like about an environmentally friendly crop?
Lets see – who are the enemies are of hemp production? : Big Oil – textile growers and producers – farming – and the Federal Government to name a few. No wonder that it’s future here is not clear. We import gobs of hemp products but aren’t allowed to grow it here – a myopic Fed can’t distinguish between hemp as a crop and cannabis that goes into the bong. There are differences. The THC levels of hemp is very much lower than that of modern day cultivated cannabis. Bottom line is that’s good for the American consumer is not so good for these groups – and I’m sure there are more enemies lined up against it as well – it’s just not as apparent to me. It’s time to put We The People first in line – not Big Business.
Remember this – things get done in Foggy Bottom in the name of Big Business more often than they do in the name of We The People – no matter what you’d like to think. If something gets done in the name of We The People all you have to do is look at the unintended consequences – more than likely that was the aim in the first place.
You don’t suppose that the enemies of marijuana might include a lot of former pot smokers and their families? I certainly know a lot of former potheads who strongly oppose decriminalization. I have seen a number of friends and relatives whose mental illness problems started within a couple of years of their pot smoking. It might be a coincidence–except for those studies that support a causal connection.
I am as sure as you are that continuous and long-term marijuana use has physiological and psychological effects in many people. Anytime the human body absorbs any sort of hallucinogenic substance it is going to have SOME effect. Everyone has a different number of cannabinoid receptors in the brain (so I’m reliably told) and some people can smoke bags of the stuff without damage while others are harmed after the first joint. I know several persons who began using pot in their teens and (thirty years later) it has irreparably damaged their lives.
During alcohol Prohibition the amount of drinking and alcoholism in the U.S. actually did decline by about 10% to 15%. Yet the social costs in violence, disrespect for the law and general corruption outweighed these good effects. As I said above I do not think that decriminalization is a panacea that will solve every problem related to marijuana. However I believe that we have accumulated enough evidence to demonstrate that the damage that marijuana prohibition is now doing to society as a whole outweighs the damage that legalization would do (even to the young and the vulnerable)in the future. We have to face the inescapable fact that not every user can be “saved” from the consequences of their actions. It’s awful and depressing but there it is. Legalization would also encourage more medical research into the effects of marijuana and give us a much better chance of coming up with something that can be used to ameliorate it’s harmful effects. Legislation and social policy can only do so much. These are limited resources and we should use them in the way which has the best overall effect on society.
I have a lot of libertarian friends who do well until they get to the issue of legalizing drugs. They use a ton of worn reasons why it would work, not the least of which is collecting taxes, reducing demand (silly on its face), reducing crime, reducing amount of prisoners in our jail and the granddaddy of them all- We legalize alcohol so why not drugs?. I disagreed and as a police detective faced with the reality of drug use and abuse every day, I decided to explain why it won’t work. To this end, I wrote a piece on my blog called “peeling the onion”.
http://truthandcommonsense.com/2009/06/08/peeling-the-onion-the-argument-over-legalizing-marijuana/
The point of the post is much like that of the author’s here, we aren’t Vulcans. We don’t act rationally or logically most of the time. Our base impulses drive most of our behavior and drug use is one of them. (Whether it be alcohol, pills, dope, weed, crack or meth.)
Add to this the fact that long term use of marijuana is actually damaging the brain’s functions, and you don’t have to hang around dopers for long to verify that!, you have a pretty good argument that it is a good idea to keep the lid on.
If you are a decent person smoking a little weed on the weekends with a glass of wine and a steak, I’m not going to kick your door down. But sadly, you are in the minority. Most weed smokers get a lot more wasted, drive cars, handle equipment, get into fights, get robbed or rob somebody (the issue is about cash. Dope ain’t free, even if it was legal), show up to work stoned, and generally mess up. Not all dopers are cute like Jeff Spicoli.
Worse, chronic use during the school years limits the ability to learn. Trust me, I grew up around them. Some made it through, most are stuck in low in jobs because they didn’t graduate, go to college, etc. They may make money at a lower end job, but they somehow manage to scrap enough cash together to buy their weed by Friday.
The point here is what my granddad taught me a long time ago. “Wish, just because you can, don’t me you should.”
Tell me five things dope smoking does FOR you! Not if you have cancer it makes you tummy feel better. Real things. Does it make you smarter, faster, stronger, more adept at learning? Does it make you more musically inclined (not make you THINK you are more inclined- there is a difference!). What does it do FOR you? Worse, what would it do FOR your younger brother, or son, or wife, or daughter?
No, legalizing is a bad idea pushed by people who like to light up and not worry about getting hassled by the cops. They don’t think beyond themselves to the greater good of the society. Prohibition was awkward and poorly thought out. Using it as an excuse to legalize dope is a shell game at best. You have to decide what you want from your fellow citizen. Drunk and stoned driving? Lazy? Making your taco at the ‘Bell while toking on a joint? How about so ill educated he goes on food stamps and welfare so you get to pay his way- while he smokes his dope.
Just a few things that go wrong. Read the post for other problems.
I just linked to your blog from my blog, because your article makes a number of very good points–such as the fact that even advocates generally support keeping criminal sales to minors–and that means that most of the crowd that right now goes to prison for trafficking will continue to go to prison for trafficking. There might indeed be some reduction in traffickers going to prison, but it isn’t going to be enormous gain that advocates like to pretend.
Well that settles it then. Archer says it’s bad for you and cites a paper he wrote as proof. We can call it the Archer amendment to the Constitution that allows the government to determine and then tax you to death to stop citizens doing things that are “bad for them.”
Gee, all of this wasted effort in debate, we should outlaw that, since it probably isn’t good for you.
I don’t consider weed prohibition to be for the greater good of society, when weed was outlawed using junk science and William Randolph Hearsts racist editorializing in the 1930s and lobbying by Dow chemical that stood to gain finacially from it being made illegal. The AMA of the time OPPOSED the prohibition of Cannabis.
And if prohibition was poorly thought out, why should prohibition be supported? Because you don’t like stoners? Get real.
The fact that welfare recipients might smoke dope ignores the fact that they often drink too. Do you advocate alcohol prohibition based on the same criteria of economic success? If not, why not? Is it because YOU like to have a drink once in a while, so the same criteria cannot be applied? Thats pretty hypocritical.
Why is personal use by adults of YOUR provenly lethal drug just fine, but marijuana not? Do you think the poor are too stupid and you are wise and just? Pretty bigotted quite frankly. You sound like Wm Hearst justifying how we need to outlaw weed because the negros and mexicans smoke dope and who likes THOSE people?
And, as a matter of fact, I DO want pot legalized because no responsible adult SHOULD have to worry about being arrested and made a criminal because he smoked a joint in his own home or used responsibly in public, like we expect of users of alcohol to behave.
If you are NOT willing to ban adult alcohol consumption given it’s proven negative health effects, your argument to keep pot prohibion for adults falls apart as inconsistent.
Using “it’s for the CHILDREN” as the excuse is straight up liberal nanny state bullshit. It’s the same emotionalism used by the idiots in San Francisco to ban Happy Meals and Bloomberg in NYC to restrict salt in restaurant menus.
And if you want a consider cost savings, think of the money saved by society in not having to pay the TOTAL bill for enforcement, not just incarceration. 70% of the DEAs budget alone is spent on marijuana prohibition enforcement. Not to mention the cost of National Guard personnel who are used in support of domestic pot eradication.
I’d rather they focus on meth and cocaine.
One mroe thing: there are plenty of non-users who don’t make much of themselves with their lives. What business of yours is it in deciding *who* gets to be lazy or for what reason? Who appointed you the work ethic kommissar?
While one might rightfully criticise the self defeating arrogant attitudes in the discourse of pro-legalization advocates, your presentation of the anti-legalization argument is a mirror image of that attitude and approach.
Myths and Facts About Marijuana:
PJM would do better to have drug war commentary written by someone who is skeptical of government claims like Ethan Nadelmann than to have commentary written by someone who goes looking for studies to justify their preconceived biases.
Fact: The plant was here before mankind.
The plant will probably be here after mankind.
As a very wise man told me,” If you are at war with reality, you will lose.”
To me, it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not. I’m going to find it, buy it or grow it until I no longer wish to.
Is a person who takes a drink an alcoholic? NO.
Is a person who takes a toke a “pothead”. NO
After reading all the comments, including my own, I think it’s time I quit smoking it.
This author is legally retarded. Marijuan doesn’t cause any sort of mental disorders, and actually has been proven to stimulate brain cell growth and promote creativity… It’s actually perfect for teens in my opinion, as long as they are taught to use it responsibly like it has always been intended for. If anything ciggerettes, alcohol, and prescription drugs are the problem…. not an herb that has been proven to reduce cancerous tumors by half…
Marijuana does NOT cause schizophrenia. The rate of marijuana use has increased by leaps and bounds over the past 50 years while rates of schizophrenia and related disorders have remained stable since they were first identified. Schizophrenics self-medicate because schizophrenia is a living hell. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating this ridiculous notion that schizophrenics are to be blamed for their unfortunate conditions. Schizophrenics already suffer from societal rejection every single day of their lives. They don’t need you to demonize them even more.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559,00.html