All the pot smokers I know have jobs. One of them runs a successful business and recently bought a house. They’re not rocket scientists; they’re just like everyone else I know, except they also smoke pot. I’m sorry if those people are a “secret army” to you, but the people you mention are just as invisible in my experience.
The stereotype of the shiftless pot smoker does have some basis in reality: pot tends to make you lazy while you’re high. People who are high all the time will be lazy all the time, just like people who are drunk all the time will be clumsy and slur their speech all the time, but those aren’t typical drinkers or pot smokers.
Well sure. We’ve certainly had different experiences, or we just view people who do the same thing in a different light in terms of how much ambition they have, how successful they are, etc. Nothing wrong with that.
In answer to the original question, I guess I really do not care if it is legal or illegal. I still believe that it is far from a healthy activity, and do not see much, if any, benefit that comes out of it. I can’t really say whether it is better or worse than alcohol or other common comparisons, not having tried it.
It’s a recreational activity; what kind of benefit would you expect to find? Watching baseball, listening to music, reading novels, and eating dessert don’t provide much tangible benefit either, but no one expects them to - the primary benefit is a subjective feeling in the mind of the user. We might all be healthier if we could never eat another slice of pie or scoop of ice cream, but we’d surely be less happy.
Interesting … in the realm of the senses transient happiness is enough reason in and of itself for almost anything to be embraced, and the pleasures of marijuana stand on level footing with fresh baked apple pie and ice cream as morally weighted pleasures.
Where does cocaine stand relative to a thin sliced, rare roast beef sandwich with fresh tomato and lettuce on a sourdough roll, and a slice of red onion?
True story: A few weeks ago, a friend of mine got high for the first time and literally flipped out for an hour and a half. In my limited experience, marijuana is simply too diverse in the way it affects people psychologically. There are some individuals who smoke and are happy while others get paranoid and schizophrenic-like. The drug seems to affect people so differently, its extremely difficult to ascertain whether it should be legalized or not.
That’s not unique to marijuana or illegal drugs, and in fact it may be an argument in favor of legalization. If the stuff was legal and could be quality-controlled, it might not get mixed with other drugs so much.
If marijuana was made an over-the-counter medicine, then it would be an over-the-counter medicine. First, though, the FDA would need to approve that based on the medical merits and demerits (if there are any) of marijuana–just as they would with any medication.
So you’ve changed your mind about self-medication? Perhaps you should clarify what you meant by “It doesn’t seem a healthy stance to take to allow people to self-medicate when at all possible” and why you feel that way.
No, you’re assuming my stance is anti-marijuana. My stance was that it is a drug and should be treated as a drug. If that drug is found to be one which should require a prescription, then it requires a prescription and one shouldn’t self-medicate. If it is found to be no more potent nor of need to be restricted than Listerine and cough drops, then so be it. But that comes down to the FDA and medical establishment to make the initial decision, not the individual.
And if they decide that it serves no medical purpose (for which there isn’t something better and cheaper already) and it remains illegal, again I have no issue.
No, I’m just trying to figure out what you meant by these contradictory remarks. In one post you said people shouldn’t self-medicate, but now you seem to be saying you’re fine with OTC medications. If I have a headache and I decide it’s bad enough to merit an Advil or two, I’m self-medicating.
So I guess what you really meant was “It doesn’t seem a healthy stance to take to allow people to self-medicate when at all possible unless the FDA approves”.
Do you think drugs should only be legal when they serve a medical purpose? Why? Would it be all right to extend that to other products - for example, if I proposed that skis should be outlawed because skiing serves no medical purpose (for which there isn’t something better and cheaper already), how would you feel about that?
I anticipate that the tobacco companies will swoop in, pocket some Congressmen, and stymie appropriate regulation of Marijuana.
Pass meaningful campaign finance reform, discourage marijuana use, encourage the scientific study of same, and make the weed unsexy with an advertising ban and mandatory sale through the Post Office (who couldn’t market the stuff even if they wanted to) and I might change my mind.
Admittedly though, I’d oppose a ban on thinly sliced, rare roast beef sandwiches with fresh tomatos and lettuce on a sourdough roll, and a slice of red onion, because I enjoy them. Hey, at least I admit it.
What, is some intern going to sneak a “no tagbacks” rider into the bill at 2 AM?
I would favor such a ban, because tomatoes are the Osama bin Ladens of the al-Qaeda salad network. Anyone who eats tomatoes is undermining our troops’ valiant effort in the War on Seedy Glop.
… oh yeah, and taxes. Gotta have taxes on legalized Marijuana.
Marley:
Um, Prohibition on alcohol showed that once a drug becomes widespread and legal, making it illegal won’t work. [Response: Yeah, and marijuana prohibition doesn’t work now either. Counter-response: So ease up incrementally.]
If Marijuana is legalized its use will be widespread and existing social stigma (such as it is) will evaporate. I doubt whether re-criminalization would be feasible.
The point: When Marijuana was legal, it’s use was not widespread.
Why would Phillip Morris oppose regulation of its product?
An unregulated, lightly taxed and massively advertised business is more profitable than a regulated, heavily taxed business.
2001:
----- I would favor such a ban, because tomatoes are the Osama bin Ladens of the al-Qaeda salad network.
[backpeddles] No! My love for roast beef is about freedom! [/backpeddles]
Society has been easing up incrementally on marijuana for some time, as it’s now been decriminalized in some places, allowed for medicinal purposes in others, and so on. Since many now-illegal drugs were legal until about a century ago, even if you’re correct about irreversibility, I think it puts the debate in a different perspective. Since they’ve already been legal and are now illegal, doesn’t that mean that banning them is doomed to failure and that legalization is the way to go?
This still needs a cite.
[quote]
The point: When Marijuana was legal, it’s use was not widespread.
[quote]
Can I get a cite for that too?
And Phillip Morris and other cigarette companies are now: a) unregulated and lightly taxed, b) regulated and heavily taxed. Not to mention massively publicly unpopular. What makes you think, with the permanently cripplied public image they have, that they could lobby to have marijuana unregulated when unrelated cigarettes turned out the way they did?
