I believe weed is generally harmless-- at least, no more harmful than alcohol-- so I support legalization (even though I do not, myself, partake…)
That said, every time I hear someone on the radio or tv wax poetic about the wonders of weed, I find it difficult to take them seriously. Most activists come across as either perpetually high or vaguely crazy. Is it just that the sample is intentionally biased towards the wackier end of the spectrum? Are there lots of reasonable, rational marijuana activists who you simply never hear from because they’re too “boring?”
The reason that there isn’t more passive, logical argument for marijuana reform is that the users with half a brain keep their mouth shut.
I know I can’t be legally discriminated against, but if I spoke out about I know I would be discriminated against. I would be fired at my job for something different, etc etc etc.
I don’t smoke, I think it should be legalized and I’ll participate in discussions about it, but it’s not an issue I care enough about to become an activist. I think this is also true for a lot of the more casual smokers. They may enjoy a smoke now and then, but what do they have to gain out of participating in activism for legalization? In general, smoking pot seems to be pretty safe, and they’re already doing it, so there’s little for them to gain. In either case, there’s a lot of risk to go along with activism. If you support it publically, there’s going to be the assumption that you partake, and if you have a job that frowns on that, you could end up looking for another one.
So, in the end, you basically end up with people who are truly passionate about it, which basically self-selects for people who are going to smoke. Yes, there are non-using hardcore libertarian types who will passionate attack prohibitions of any type, but that’s just it, it will be a part, likely even a major one, of the larger issue.
Honestly, I think this is probably why it’s not much farther along than it is. Most people who it affects are okay with how things are but there’s high risk for little reward in changing it, so the nay-sayers end up out-numbering the activists.
I’m guessing you’re probably not from Washington or a regular NPR listen/PBS viewer- otherwise you’d have Rick Steves for your list. And of course there’s Alison Holcomb, Pete Holmes, and everyone else on the Yes on I-502 sponsors list.
In personal experiences, of the people I volunteered with for the successful Yes on I-502 campaign, I’d say about 90% were fine at acting “normal” in public (not stoned while volunteering even at Hempfest events, not on crazy rants, etc) and the remaining 10% reminded me of the worst stereotypes of hippies/stoners/Greeners. Then again, none of those people were nearly as ridiculous as some of the pro-marijuana anti-502 crowd, but I won’t get into that.
•-SMILE instead of TRIAL-•
To view negative response to marijuana is basically all very uneducated of its real reason existing.
Never even 1 time has it done what alcohol does. It was actually LEGAL prior to alcohol prohibition. One of reasoning madhe illegal was black persons mainly had it and black life was more back of the bus. I am amazed never spoken is it was a creation by God and medicinally used and still is.
Never in any sermons do I hear it spoken of. Read it again completely now.
In Colorado & Washington crime has lowered and police have more time to spend on important things. I worked at a club for 5 years and plenty to say.
I generally look to the views of the person / organization who is making the forum available. If someone has a show / newspaper / blog and is against legalization, I often find they get the craziest people to argue the other side. It makes their own argument sound so much more logical. And crazy people love to go on tv.
Mind you, this is not universally true. There are responsible journalists out there.
This is the crux of the matter. Plus, “wacky” activists of any stripe are more likely to grab readers’/viewers’ attention, so it’s understandable news outlets focus on them.