420: who here supports the prohibition of marijuana? And why?

Great Debates
21

All of the above is fine with me. I am a smoker, and I started with full knowledge of what I was getting into. You are not responsible for my choice, nor should you be responsible for my choice (with one exception: see below).

That’s a reasonable question. I think we could work something out in that regard. This is somewhat akin to the recent movement of employers to deny insurance to smokers. If I, as a smoker, were to be denied insurance on the basis of it being a risky behavior, then I think people with sedentary lifestyles (read: obese) or people who engage in high risk behaviors should also be denied insurance. On the other hand, if I am a buyer of insurance I am assuming risk along with everyone else. I may have to subsidize risky behavior, but I am also insuring myself against catastrophe, so it’s a fair tradeoff. Possessors of insurance would be exempted from my proposal.

Some of you may be thinking that this isn’t fair, that I’m smacking the poor far harder than others with my proposal. Well, yeah. Just because something is available doesn’t mean that it is appropriate to live beyond your means. I’m not capable of affording luxury cars, for instance, and as a result I show economic restraint. If I’m so poor I can’t afford insurance I surely can’t afford to pay for illegal drugs. It’s a question of priorities.

22

You seem to be assuming that those numbers will hold as the people get older; in reality people’s attitudes might well change as they age, very likely in a socially-conservative direction. If all it’s getting is 60% of people under 30 in Alaska, that’s not a good sign for legalization.

23

This strikes me as a fundamental attributional error.

The legal issues of marijuana (ahem) weed out a lot of responsible, law-abiding people, thus many users are people who would be on the fringes of society anyway. In other words, the substance is not the problem: those people would most likely be irresponsible even if pot did not exist.

The same is true for alcohol. Many people use intoxication as an excuse for latent behaviors, meaning that Frank doesn’t become an asshole because he drinks-- Frank IS an asshole who uses booze as an excuse for doing what he wants to do anyway.

It strikes me as grossly unfair to declare that because a small minorty may chose to become losers, that the vast majority of responisble people should be denied something which isn’t the cause in the first place.

It’s much like saying that because some kids become hyper on sugar, we should ban all candy, when we really should be condemning parents who do not teach their kids self-control.

I’m sure there will be many people who post to point out they know pot smokers who are responsible, hard-working people. For every “stoner” you know, I’d bet there are ten smokers who quietly fly below the radar, imbibing on weekends and such, but run their own businesses, pay their bills and always remember to call their mothers on their birthdays.

But that’s immaterial. Pot use does not make a person a loser any more than abstaining makes one responsible. A person’s character controls their actions, not an intoxicant.

24

I don’t remember asking the government to be my nanny. I’m also willing to bet you know a whole bunch of responsible users. You just don’t know they light up.

25

Well, unfortunately all of the users I know use are the jobless, break engagements because I’m suddenly interested in staring at the ceiling, types. But I’m happy to admit that might not be the norm.

26

3 years prior, the overall support was 41%. We’ll know soon enough. The next ballot is in Nevada, 2006.

27

But Homebrew’s point (and mine as well) is that this may not be true. It may be more accurate to state: “Well, unfortunately all of the **people who I know are **users are the jobless, break engagements because I’m suddenly interested in staring at the ceiling, types.”

Just like gay people (what a bad analogy), there are plenty of people “passing” as “normal” (read: nonusers) who are, in fact, users. You just don’t know about it.

I smoke pot, and have gotten many nice compliments on several of my posts here, for both writing style and good advice. I often smoke pot with three lawyers, two college professors, two registered nurses, a dentist, several businessmen and a broker. You would never guess that any of them are users, nor does using in moderation affect their job performance, relationships or lead to staring at the ceiling instead of working hard, long hours. They certainly stare at the ceiling for moments while smoking. And laugh, and talk, and get the munchies and debate and love. But they all manage to be some of the most productive members of society I know.

And there are others who are worthless lumps who can’t hold a job. But they’re worthless lumps even on the weeks or months when there’s no pot to be had and they’re stone cold sober.

28

I don’t know enough about marijuana to have an informed opinion here.

However, the following arguments are not persuasive:

“Marijuana is just as harmful as [tobacco | alcohol | pick-your-own-poison]; therefore, since it is legal, marijuana should be too.”

Nonsense. There may be practical reasons that prevent us from criminalizing tobacco, even though it is harmful. That doesn’t mean we are then foreclosed from criminalizing all other harmful products. The argument against marijuana should stand or fall on its own weight.

“The government is not my nanny.”

Er… yes, it is. It undertakes to feed you if you can’t afford to feed yourself; to pay your medical expenses if you cannot afford to pay them; it intervenes to force your employer to pay you a minimum wage instead of letting you and your employer negotiate between you. We may well explore if keeping marijuana is an appropriate exercise of the government’s nanny role; we cannot proclaim that the government is not a nanny when it serves that role in many other areas.

Beyond that, I am ready to be educated. All I know is the general sense from anti-drug ads that marijuana is a Bad Thing. If it’s a bad Thing, I think it should be outlawed.

29

People I know who smoke pot.
I know a parts manager who never misses work.
I know a dead beat dad who is a total stoner.
I know a Surgeon that only uses occasionally while already drinking and relaxing.

None of this means anything.
There are drunks and then there are people you drink sometimes.
There are potheads and then there are people who occasionally smoke to relax a little.

My personal experience is stoners are less dangerous than drunks.
Stoners kick back on couches and smoke, hang out, take it easy, etc.
They like to stay over the night, mellow people.
Drunk are more likely to pick a fight, get behind the wheel, etc.
When I request keys at parties, I have never had a stoner attack me. I have had drunks that needed to be restrained trying to get their keys back.

(Disclaimer: I don’t smoke and I am not a member of NORML but yes I did inhale more than once in the past)

30

I assume you mean “bad enough”, right? Simply being on the negative side of benefit/harm isn’t enough to be outlawed in your opinion, is it? There has to be some line to cross. Where’s yours?

I admit I’m not real sure where my line is. I’m pretty sure pot is below it though, and I have no problem with it being legalized. I’m also pretty sure heroin is above it, because it’s too easy for users to OD on it. But where exactly my line ends I have to admit I cannot say.

31

Bricker, I agree with you. Those arguments don’t hold much water with me either. However, I believe it’s written somewhere nifty (Constitution/Bill of Rights, perhaps?) that any rights not specifically allocated the gov’ment are assumed to be those of the people. Therefore, I think the gov’ment, or its agency, should have to prove substantial harm before taking away one of our rights.

And there just isn’t proof there. It’s not even clearly impairing when driving, although I will admit I’d rather see DUI laws encompass marijuana, 'cause I’m a worrywort.*

So it’s not that I want to make something legal because it’s not as harmful as something else that is legal. That, as you point out, is nonsense. But what I think is that something was made illegal that shouldn’t have been, because there was no evidence, and continues to be no evidence, that it causes substantial harm, either to individual users or society as a whole. Part of how we can tell this is true is that we, as a society, have decided that the harm done by alcohol is not substantial enough to warrant making it illegal. Since the harm pot does is less, then it, logically speaking, is not harmful enough to warrant making it illegal.

Legalizing marijuana would simply be undoing what is, in my uneducated eyes, a bad law to begin with.

And it does deem unfairly picked upon. I could take a walk around the neighborhood and pick at least half a dozen plants out of grannies’ yards that would get you SERIOUSLY messed up, psychedelically speaking, and definitely kill you if I gave you too much, but no one’s made Angel’s Trumpet or Morning Glories illegal. It’s all just too weird for me to figure out. But it makes me want to get out my tinfoil hat, because it’s clearly not illegal because someone’s trying to protect us from dangerous plants, or no one would be buying Mistletoe at Christmastime!
*(But in my experience, it’s the ACT of smoking in the car more than being high that affects driving ability. Often people choose to pass around a joint which is hot (hotter than tobacco) and falling apart (the ashes don’t stay put, nor does the ember stay in as well as tobacco) and burning your fingers (usually no filters) and needing to be relit often because it goes out…or passing around a one hitter, which needs to be repacked and lit often, or a bowl and lighter, and everyone’s giggling and chatting a lot…it’s all just very distracting, and I’d be surprised if these things - which aren’t tested for in a lab setting - didn’t affect the ability to concentrate on the road.)

32

Airman – I understand the argument of people taking their own risks and not wishing to subsidize those whom choose to take risky behavior. Wouldn’t a better solution be simply strict penalties to those whom lie to their health care provider regarding their usage? Then their insurance rates would go up, factoring in (more or less) the actual risk that they are taking.

Brian

33

Whoa, there are lots of people who self-medicate, knowingly or not; whether it’s pot, drink or cigs. Before I started working for the man, it cost me $600 per month to insure my family. That was 3 years ago.

Recently I’ve been drinking Guinness (beer) yes I know it’s legal… like a fiend and I’m not a drinker. Stop at the doc and it turns out I’m low on iron…guess what Guinness is high in? Now sure, had I known I was low on iron, I could have taken vitamins or altered my diet; but I didn’t know; I just craved Guinness, which was costing me $13.00 a week and made me feel better. If I didn’t have insurance, i wouldn’t have gone to the doctor, I would have assumed I needed more rest and kept drinking the pints.

Now compare that to my previous $150 per week for insurance, what do you think was the best allocation of priorities and resources? If I can only afford enough money for a nickel bag which makes me feel better, and I can’t afford medical insurance EVER, and the emergency room is my “family doctor”, how are my priorities screwed?

All jobs don’t offer insurance and in many cases people suck it up and go to work, using whatever means they can afford to steel themselves.

34

How well did the US do managing alcohol during Prohibition?

35

And why should one man be able to pick his poison with impunity while another is subject to arrest, job loss, and other legal problems simply because he has a different, but no more harmful, preference? Is that just? Is it something you would expect from a country that claims to value freedom above all else?

Do a search for “marijuana” in GD (and, to a lesser extent, GQ; Hell, even read some of Cecil’s old columns on the subject. The Perfect Master himself supports legalization!). You’ve got over five years worth of material to work with. The debates from 2000 or so were the most interesting. After that, the volume of debates on the subject began to drop off because there were so few people still arguing for criminalization.

You can also check out web sites on the subject, but be warned that pro-pot web sites can go just as overboard in their glorification of the drug as anti-pot sites do in their condemnation, so many of the past debates here have been fairly effective at sorting through the bullshit of both sides and getting as close to the truth as possible.

You really need to read more on the subject. Those ads tend to be even less truthful and more misleading than political mudslinging ads.

36

So you think that all OTC medicines should be illegal as well?

I’m for legalization of marijuana, as long as it is subjected to the same sort of restrictions as cigarette smoking. I’m allergic to pot smoke. But I don’t really care if other people smoke it, as long as they don’t do it around me, or drive while stoned.

37

I’m not sure this question is subject to a rigorous answer. How would you quantify “bad enough?” What units, what measure, would you use?

I’d say that I’m sure heroin is above the keep-it-illegal line, too. But I don’t know enough about the effects of pot to definitively place it on the other side of that line.

Well, no. That’s not the correct legal standard.

You may argue that it should be… but it isn’t.

The government, unless it is infringing on a suspect class such as race, need only proffer a rational basis for a particular law in order for it to pass constitututional muster.

Again, that line of inquiry is irrelevant. Let’s say for the purposes of argument that Morning Glories and Angel’s Trumpet are both equally harmful. The law may act to outlaw Morning Glories - there is a rational basis for such a law. You can’t point to the fact that we’d don’t outlaw Angel’s Trumpet as a reason to squash the MG law.

There are plenty of things I’d expect from a country that valued freedom above all else. This country would look much more libertarian than it does. There would be no restrictions on the ownership of handguns. People would be able to pay their workers whatever they pleased. Owners of restaurants would be able to refuse patrons on the basis of race.

In fact, we do NOT place “freedom” above all else here. We seek to balance freedom with what we believe are reasonable restrictions on personal freedoms in the name of protecting and aiding society.

Given that marijuana is illegal right now, the burden of persuasion falls to those who would change the status quo.

With all due respect, telling me to develop my own cites is not really the way a debate works. I’m not taking a position in the debate, but I am interested in reading the pro- and anti- sides in this debate and watching them develop arguments. If you cannot advance at least a summary of the data, with citation, that you believe supports your position, I cannot see how I will be moved to adopt your position.

38

Providing a social safety net is not the same as restricting individual liberty. Governments are supposed to provide for the common good and protect liberty. Criminalization of recreational drugs has done more to limit liberty in this country than almost anything else. How many young men are needlessly in prison for supplying something people want? How many lives have been ruined because of some busybodies want to control other people?

39

I couldn’t disagree more with this statement. The burden of proof is always on the shoulders of those wanting to restrict liberty no matter the current situation.

40

Assertion not in evidence.