I think the reason marijuana remains illegal in the U.S. and will remain illegal for some time to come is contained in the following phrase:
“Pot-smoking hippies!”
Marijuana was the drug of choice for the counterculture in the 60s. It’s been a long time since the counterculture was a viable option, if it ever was, but the schism that was created in U.S. society by it still exists. The terms of the argument have changed, but still you have conservatives hating everything pot stands for and doing their utomost to put pot smokers in jail. As the stats cited above show, somehow, despite the fact that so many DAs say, “We don’t go after individual users,” we SOMEHOW have a lot of people in jail for individually owning and smoking pot.
Once the baby boomers are in their graves maybe something will happen. Until then, not likely.
Of course the usefulness of hemp is exaggerated (e.g. hemp clothing is picky and scratchy in a way wool could never dream of). It’s like Carver and peanuts, or Henry Ford and soybeans, except that peanuts and soybeans can’t get you high.
I think it’s sad that advocates of an almost entirely harmless substance have to resort to such measures to suggest that it might not be right to imprison thousands of people for possessing plant material. Add to this the violent crimes and the huge, untaxed underground industry caused directly by the illegality of marijuana. And the loss of jobs and privacy caused by drug testing.*****
Momentum and the government’s unwillingness to reverse a policy they have steadfastly defended for years are the reasons why marijuana continues to be illegal. There is no solid argument for denying adults the ability to choose to smoke marijuana except that they do not currently have that ability.
*****: Random drug testing is particularly skewed against marijuana users; THC has a much longer half-life than most drugs, including the most dangerous ones. Many businesses may unknowingly be permitting cocaine and methamphetamine users to keep their jobs while demonizing and firing marijuana smokers. The metabolites of cocaine and methamphetamine (as well as heroin, ecstacy, PCP and so on) can only be detected a few days after use, while it is possible to test positive for THC even a month after smoking marijuana.
First off, the same companies that worked so hard to control the levels of nicotine in tobacco in order to make it more addictive will work just as hard to make Pot addictive. It’s just in their interest.
The country is too overweight anyway. More Pot means more munchies means more fat.
The damn country is already stoned on booze, dope, heroin, crack, coke, and all the rest. There are only a few of us left who are not brain damaged or stoned. If we all get stoned on Pot, we’ll be like California and try to make Arnold S. the governor. Crazy man.
All you potheads are going to end up as unemployed trailer trash on welfare or worse.
Osama bin Laden is coming, we better be awake.
Now, I don’t think we should do stupid things like put people in jail for just for smoking Pot, but I do think the rest of us had better quit partying and get down to business. Our software is full of bugs, the economy is in the toilet, the world is going to the dogs, and the most advanced civilization on earth is stoned on weed.
With all the resources we waste on drugs and drug wars, we could be putting a man on Mars and bringing him back. Hell, we can barely provide our soldiers in Iraq with 3 liters of water per day. And you want to get stoned?
If pot were legal, you’d see a lot of people growing their own, rather than relying on “companies” to supply it. Secondly, even if it were legal, I don’t think too many big-name companies would want to get involved in production or sales because of negative PR repercussions. Even if it were as legal as booze, there will still be a negative connotation in some people’s minds, and that could lead to boycotts, etc.
**
Doesn’t look like the country needs an excuse anyway.
Secondly, don’t let the stereotype fool you. Just like not every drunk sings with a lampshade on his head, not every pot smoker eats compulsively.
**
I think it might actually have a positive effect on politics. Get a group of stoners together, and you’ll often end up with long, detailed discussions, albeit occasionally interrupted by “Oh, yeah . . . what were we talking about?”
**
And you think this because why?
You might be surprised at how many successful, hardworking and intelligent people smoke pot. A good deal of pot smokers imbibe in the evening after work is done, much like a man might have a beer after he gets home. Again, the steroetype of the loser in his mom’s basement with a pipe is false. Yeah, sure, there are plenty of people like that, but they’d be losers even without pot.
**
Also, Santa Claus is watching you.
**
Not terribly advanced, are we, if marijuana can bring us to our knees?
What a great idea for the next ONDCP commercial! “Every time you smoke a joint, a soldier goes thirsty.”
Honestly, what connection do you see between the two?
Riiight, because there really IS an insanely physically addictive drug like nicotine hidden in pot somewhere. We just need to find it and pump the levels up!
Honestly, your statement makes absolutely no sense.
Cite? I actually don’t know very many overweight potheads. They seem to be in about the same shape as everyone else. I’m 6’4", 180 lbs. Am I too overweight?
Yeah! Damn Republican potheads! Oh, wait…
Right, just like famous potheads Al Gore and Carl Sagan. Destitute, I tells ya!
Being that Unix is pretty stable once configured correctly, its bugs are fixed, to my experience, more rapidly than those at MS, and there’s a reputation of *nixers being potheads, what does that say for software?
<half-hearted anecdotal evidence>
Some of the best coders I’ve ever known were potheads who could write efficient stable code while baked off their asses and make it understandable to those who weren’t.
it seems to me the biggest impediment to legalization of marijuana is enforced ignorance.
those government officials that bring down the wrath of god on any upstart politician foolish enough to ask for a reexamination of the merits of the war on pot, or at least their constituents, genuinely believe in their cause, that marijuana is the most dangerous substance on the planet (right up there with fluoridized water). and they want everyone else to believe that too. they have to carry the crusade to the masses, make everyone believe in the dangers of marijuana. and the truth is, it works.
anyone with a critical mind and a college statistics course could see right through my favorite commercial:
joe layman: oh my god! one in three? that’s so high! what a dangerous drug!
me: wow, in one study one out of three people whom police thought were on drugs had used the least expensive and most easily-gained illegal drug in the past 30 days. truly staggering. i was sure more illegal drug users smoked pot.
so that’s the big deal. people see stuff like that and don’t know enough to discount it. i was looking at the weather channel’s website once and it had an ad that said “marijuana causes higher rates of teen pregnancy” and here i thought the stuff was supposed to make you sterile! who knew you could get pregnant just by smoking? people really should learn what “post hoc ergo procter hoc” is all about. i wish there was a way to prevent such blatant misuse of statistics.
so, the question is, what do we do about it? we, dedicated to fighting ignorance the world over, see this huge gap in the knowledge of a nation’s majority. so what can be done?
I realize it is almost over, but there is a really interesting story on MTV about marijuana. I am sure it will be on again sometime soon if you wanted to keep an eye out for it.
Thank you Radon, we don’t see a lot of your ilk about these parts. The mj debates on this board are way too one sided. Too bad all of those points are so easy to shoot down.
Let me try one…
Pot is illegal because the people in charge like it this way.
Legal weed could possibly take a dent out of booze sales.
Medical mj may allow some to treat themselves without needing to buy from the big drug companies.
Law enforcement would lose funds collected from fines and seizures. Private correctional companies would lose customers.
Legal weed may not be as far away as you think. There are still a lot of people from the “Reefer Madness” generation around… and they all vote!!! The baby boomers are not afraid of pot the way their parents are.
The last poll I read was 41% in favor of legalize it and tax it, once that number creeps above 50% (or 60%) you may see some major fence jumping from our beloved politicians.
The same argument could be made against any recreational activity: Why are we wasting all this time and money on skiing, snowboarding, football, basketball, casinos, art, music, TV, and movies, instead of “getting down to business”? The $50 million it cost to make Gigli could have bought plenty of water for our troops.
A society without recreation might be a very efficient one… but would you really want to live there?
“On this site we shall build a new town, where we can worship freely, govern justly, and grow vast fields of hemp for making rope and blankets.”
Seriously, though, hemp is legal to use, so if it were as amazingly useful as people claim, it would be. We have better sources of cloth, better sources of fiber, etc. Yeah, you can eat the seeds, but so what?
Well, mostly harmless. I’m sure it impairs driving, but not as much as alcohol IMO. And I don’t think any drug is harmless for all people and under all circumstances. But I agree for the most part with the OP.
For those of like mind, legalization would be a great step forward, but would be rendered merely symbolic for employed people because of the prevalence of employer drug testing. The fact is, the actual work of effective marijuana prohibition is carried out not by your local narcs, but by the Fortune 500, most of whom require drug tests of one form or another.
Spectre, you make a good point. few people refrain from smoking because of fear from being caught by the police.
however, one has to wonder how relevant drug tests would be if marijuana were not an illegal substance. would it even be tested for? employers do not generally test for alcohol (not that they could) or cigarette smoking. nor other substances which might be considered reprehensible to imbibe. with a greater social acceptance of the drug, employers might not care unless you came to work high, or your work suffered because of your habit.
Speaking from experience as the daughter of an abusive father who was both psychologically and physiologically addicted to pot, I don’t think this holds true. He was an asshole when he was stoned and a bigger asshole when he wasn’t.
Marijuana is the biggest, stinkiest drug there is and it gives the powers that be the right to take all your rights away and strip you down, search your house or car and take you to jail.
For this reason alone I think marijuana will never be legalized, not in my lifetime anyway.
People who don’t smoke say the darndest things. Some of the most ignorant and unforgiving stereotypes have been expressed in this thread. No doubt from boomers and the like. It’s funny to me that the people who seem to need it the most will have nothing to do with it.
And in that report, they state that they only tested drivers which were not impared by alcohol!
So it’s really deceiving because it’s ignoring all the reckless drivers under the influence of alcohol. It could be that 99% of reckless drivers are under the influence of alcohol. Of the remaining 1%, 1/3 of those tested positive for marijuana.
gptta admit I’m scratching my head here… I was under the impression that marijuana was not physiologically addictive. What were the physiological effects of withdrawl?
There are many factors that impair driving. A recent study concluded that talking on a cell phone while driving is more dangerous than driving drunk - which is already less dangerous then driving drunk. Sounds like a decision people should be allowed to make.
