1> Marijuana is immoral and wrong because it’s illegal.
2> Marijuana is illegal, so it should stay illegal, because it’s immoral and wrong.
Repeat steps as necessary. :rolleyes:
As illogical and headsplody as that circle is, the unfortunate part is that there are a lot of low IQ people for whom that is the be-all, end-all of the situation.
About as infuriating as;
1> Marijuana is a Schedule I drug with no medicinal value. Therefore we will not authorize studies into it’s medicinal value.
2> There have been few, if any studies as to it’s medicinal value, therefore it there is no proof that it shouldn’t be a Schedule I drug.
Only time for a quick note to say I’ll be back to the discussion later, up to my ass in alligators now, so don’t have the time to provide the thoughtful responses this discussion deserves. )And to hope Chimera’s post isn’t a reference to my participation to date…)
Speaking of public health, the article linked above reminded me of another one I read about legalization and suspected, correlated, declines in alcohol abuse. I couldn’t find the article, and searching for it turned up some exaggerated-looking claims. The gist of the idea is that marijuana and alcohol are substitutes, which is odd, given marijuana’s reputation as a drug that leads to other drugs. I found a respectable-looking blog article on the subject.
It slowed ME down. I sampled all of those and went “this is awful!” and went no further. If I had known what hard cider tasted like when I was younger, I might have drunk a lot more alcohol. But not to excess, because THAT doesn’t feel good either. I have never understood people who don’t listen to their own bodies.
Look, it’s a simple thing, really. We have hundreds of people locked up in jail whose only crime was smoking pot. These people, if pot were legal, would be productive members of society, raising families, working at jobs, perhaps creating new ideas and products we might all enjoy. We KNOW from empirical evidence that marijuana is a relatively harmless drug, far more harmless than alcohol. What a waste it would be if we put everyone who drank in jail, in terms of human life and social productivity.
But no, we lock people up for smoking pot. It’s insanely stupid. We pay enormous amounts of money to cage people who would otherwise get along fine in society. What a stupid waste of money and human life.
And sure, some small percentage of people will get addicted to pot, hell, some small percentage of people will get addicted to just about anything. All the serious science we have indicates that medical treatment is a lot more effective for them (and for us) than incarceration. So do that! Be smart, don’t be stupid.
There will be people actively advocating for the overall stupidity of keeping marijuana illegal, because it’s to their financial benefit. The private prison industry LUUUUURVES the War on Drugs, especially marijuana, because it gets them a relatively tame supply of prisoners who can be cheaply housed and thus, profited from. So do the federal agencies that are charged with conducting the War on Drugs. So do Republicans … they see it as a way of suppressing the Democratic vote, as most pot users vote Democratic.
These people want to encourage the rest of us to do something stupid and harmful to the general public good because it benefits them personally. You know what they call a person who encourages someone to do something harmful to himself for that person’s financial benefit? A con man.
Right. We can quit wasting resources chasing pot smokers since that really isn’t protecting us from anything. Meanwhile, we have a perfectly good Clean Air Act, if only frackers weren’t exempted. It isn’t a one-for-one proposition, but we could then devote more resources to regulating fracking (without :eek: increasing the overall size of government) and protect the public from a very real and serious threat to their health and well-being, not to mention their land and financial futures.
Pot laws look pretty dumb by themselves. In context of other laws, they make our priorities look silly and unprofessional. It makes sense if you ask which laws allow for the oppression of the poor and minorities though. That makes America look tawdry, but I guess it is and probably always has been.
“You mean the law was abused, not the drug itself.” That logic, applied to many threads here, would bring them to a simple, screeching halt. The best example is the “Stupid Guns News of the Day”. Every one of the incidents cited could probably also be categorized as “oh, a law was broken, that’s not the gun’s fault.” We could apply it to DUI, also. I’m not for disarming the populace, either, but I am in favor of some legislation/restrictions (eg trigger locks, no sanctioned sales to convicted violent felons, outlawing the production or ownership of vest-piercing ammo, etc. Does this mean felons won’t get guns? No, but the law is still worth something, I’d argue.
“Are you concerned that kids will suddenly find greater access? Because at that point, I’d assume that kids will have as much access as they do to alcohol.”
I’d predict that overall there probably would be some increased access (or why are proponents celebrating, if it won’t effect access?). Again, I grant that overall pot is less harmful in almost every measurable way than ETOH. We do have laws to try to protect/prevent exposure of children to alcohol, and some similar measures might be worth a look regarding pot as well, such as the previously mentioned child-resistant packaging. Maybe we don’t need THC-infused Fizzy Izzies. How about a nice camomile tea, instead? Adults will still drink it, but younger children would less likely to. If banning Joe Camel’s enticements to children was a worthy public health effort, should we be similarly discouraging our youth from abuse of pot (and/or other drugs/ETOH)?
I don’t think those are “Reefer Madness” questions. I would want the cost/benefit analysis done scientifically, and dispassionately, with an eye on how similar efforts with similar public health issues have succeeded or not. I do think there is a lot of noise on both ends of the spectrum, and proponents of pot who meet concerns about potential for child exposure who respond only with “well, it’s never been fatal” are just guilty as the Carrie Nation prohibition types on the other extreme of the spectrum.
And I know this thread started out with a simple 'legalize or not" question. I am absolutely not for incarcerating people whose only crime was possessing or smoking pot. I agree that is stupid as hell.
Increased access for adults, not teenagers or children. Drug dealers don’t ask for ID. Since they are already operating outside the law, why should they give a shit? On the other hand, clerks working legally at the 7-11 are much more afraid of breaking the law and getting hit with huge fines for selling to minors, so they are much more likely to ask for ID.
While acknowledging that the plural of anecdote is not data, it was much easier to get weed than alcohol for pretty much everyone in my social group in my teens. This leads to making connections with the black market, which in my experience has more of a gateway effect than the drug itself.
So, if you really care about the children, get that shit out of the hands of criminals and put it in the hands of someone who actually cares about regulations. Prohibition has failed utterly. Follow the lead of tobacco and use social pressure to make it uncool instead of making it something that the cool rebellious kids do.
Well, hard to say that over 18s might not make a lot of the pot downwardsly available. I think again, though, my point is missed. I’m not arguing against legalization, in fact I think we are agreeing that legalization brings the benefit of (hopefully, at least) added controls. What should they be, if any? In fact, rereading your post, you are echoing many of the arguments I’ve already made. I think we agree almost completely.
It won’t affect access in any practical way. Anyone who wants it can get it. What they’re celebrating is that they won’t go to jail for something they’re going to possess anyway.
I think we’ve been discouraging folks from marijuana for a long time. That effort hasn’t been helped by hysteria about children any more than fighting smoking was helped by it. However, actually telling kids about the risks of smoking cigarettes and enforcing the laws regarding age appears to be working, slowly. Giving them info on the actual risks will probably go a long way, too. Alcohol is the one that really makes this calculus hard. Teenagers seem to kind of have a ceaseless love for it, actual children have health problems from it rarely.
No, the guilt is not equal. The prohibition has ruined peoples lives needlessly. Numerous studies have come to the conclusion that the worst thing that happens to you if you smoke marijuana is that they put you in jail for it.
The potential for child exposure is there, but it’s overblown, to say the least. Again, jell-o shots are readily available, attractive to children, and contain a toxin that can kill an adult tonight – not to mention a child. If you’re going to get up in arms about THC infused edibles, you’re ignoring much more dangerous threats to children in order to fixate on an incredibly minor one.
Ok, but if someone makes Alice B. Toklas brownies, are they going to jail under your proposed regime? If the toddlers are your concern, how do you propose to protect the children?
I’m not fixated, we’re having a discussion.
Child resistant packaging? If dispensaries are selling brownies, maybe in single-serving sizes in such packaging? Maybe not manufacturing some versions of edibles?
No obvious answer for if people bake their own brownies, or leave jello shots lying around, etc. I’m trying to explore reasonable harm reduction, if such is needed, not proposing that there are absolute solutions.
“No, the guilt is not equal.” What I meant to say is that they are just as guilty of distortion, not that the harms are equal.
I will not claim pot is harmless. I had a good friend and mathematical collaborator whose life and mathematical career were severely damaged by use and, yes, dependence, on pot and stronger drugs. On the other hand, how many lives have been destroyed by alcohol and tobacco? If the laws were effective, I might be in favor, but the main function at this point seems to be ensuring that young black males spend lots of time in prison, while sparing virtually all white users. The real question on the table is which does more harm. Drugs or illegalization of drugs. Maybe a case could be made for harder drugs, although I doubt it.
A month or two ago, David Brooks, in an op-ed piece in the NY Times, argued against repealing the pot laws. I have no great respect for him in any case, but he really hit bottom on this one. He said that when he was in college, he and his dorm mates smoked pot regularly, but eventually realized that it wasn’t doing them any good and all quit (so there goes much of the addiction and gateway claims). This purported to be an argument against legalization. What he never explained how society would have been better served had he and each of his dorm mates spent 10 years in the clink. Or how he would have been better served for that matter. Stupid hypocrite. Only others should go to jail for the offense.
As far as driving under the influence, well the evidence is scarce but it seems all-in-all less harmful than alcohol or the use of cell phones. And much less than driving while texting.
And, although it is off-target, I will mention that my sister used coke for a couple of decades (I think she has stopped) and it never occurred to her–white and upper middle class–that she could have arrested and imprisoned for it.
These laws are evil and ineffective and should be scrapped. One bout of prohibition should have been enough.
In regards to child-resistant packaging: I realize that in many cases it may be a good idea. I would also strongly be against mandating it by law. It’s fine to make it a default thing but people should be able to request assistance removing packaging at the dispensary.
Remember that medical marijuana is supposed to be for people who are sick. Not everyone is equally able to handle difficult packaging. It’s often given to people who are actually very very sick and miserable, such as people undergoing chemotherapy. In my case, it’s not legal in my state, but it is very helpful for treating my chronic pain and nausea in a way that I haven’t been able to duplicate with any other available medications (either they do not work as well, or have major side effects). However, my illness makes it difficult to impossible to handle “child-safe” items. Think of people who are very elderly, or dying. Do they really need to fumble with heavy packaging because, by law, it can’t be distributed to them any other way? That’s a strong market for the edible versions – people who are already very sick and can’t inhale from a vaporizer well.
Keep in mind also there are a lot of very dangerous prescription drugs that we do not mandate child-resistant packaging now. While I have to specially request it, I have to get my prescriptions without the child-safe lids, because my hand problems make them not just child-safe, but fluiddruid-safe. When they’ve made a mistake and I got home with the wrong lids, and I have nobody else around, I’ve literally had to hack apart bottles to get at my pills. This is dangerous.
I don’t have kids and kids aren’t entering my home; I don’t need child-safe packaging. I don’t need the government making me even more dependent on others, thanks very much.
I see your point. My wife is fond of edibles. One particular wafer (?) is in a container that she’s has to have me open. Thing is, you can always put it in something else.
May I point out something? When I was in Junior High school, age 14, I could get marijuana from any number of peole. EVERYONE knew someone who knew someone. But could I buy alcohol? NOT EVEN. Open your eyes, people. Legalizing marijuana will PREVENT kids from being able to get it so easily. And “gateway drug”? I call it a “get-away drug”. I have known tons of people over the years who had hard drug and/or alcohol problems and having marijuana available keeps them away from the harder stuff. And lastly, I’d be willing to bet that legalizing would wipe out the national debt. It’s only illegal because certain folks, certain powers that be, make a fortune on it remaining illegal. They’ll be all in favor of legalization once they figure out that they can probalby make MORE money by legalizing. Then it suddenly won’t be so bad, after all. It’s all about the allmighty dollar. Just like everything else, it always was, always will be.
