I would like to point out that if alcohol & tobacco were “discovered” and popularized today, they would almost certainly be immediately criminalized. So I’m not sure they are the best argument for decriminalizing marijuana.
I think a lot of people understand that alcohol & tobacco are vices. They may use them themselves, but they’re still vices. Why add marijuana to the list of legal vices? It’s easier to say “no.”
Personally I’d leave alcohol & tobacco out of the argument, or at least be careful how I used them.
This is anecdotal but I know while I was in high school getting my hands on marijuana was ridiculously easy. If I wanted to get some beer for a party however it was MUCH more difficult. By virtue of alcohol being legal but restricted the government was actually doing a better job of keeping alcohol out of my hands than it was at keeping marijuana out of my hands.
Then of course you can add in the cost of drug interdiction efforts against marijuana, the cost of jailing people for possession and no tax income from the sale of marijuana such as the government gets from alcohol sales.
To be honest I am the complete reverse of Ravenman in that I have not heard any very convincing reasons of why marijuana should remain illegal barring the notion that any mind altering substance should be illegal and we should have nationwide prohibtion of all such substances.
As for marijuana being a “gateway” drug to me it is a “gateway” drug because it is illegal. I do not think smoking marijuana makes people more prone to trying cocaine or whatever. I think crossing the line of doing something illegal is the “gateway” being crossed here such that someone who has tried marijuana (an illegal thing) may be more willing to try another illegal thing. Beyond that I do not see how smoking pot makes anyone more prone to trying cocaine than having a beer would.
I have a decent discussion as to the historical reasons why cannabis has come to enjoy it’s present day status as an illegal drug (in the UK, but I suspect similar reasons exist for many western societies) here:
I’m personally of the opinion that legalizing medical marijuana isn’t really an entirely bad thing. However, I don’t think that enough large-scale tests on the effects of marijuana have been done to conclude one way or another whether it’s “bad for you” or not. A lot of the claims either way are hyperbole or mere assumption. The concerns as to whether or not marijuana is bad for you extend far beyond whether it can be overdosed on. There are other concerns to be weighed.
I don’t know if it’s ever been accurately determined how long marijuana stays in your system. I don’t know if it’s ever been determined at what point of consumption someone is still capable of judgement and depth perception and the like. These kinds of studies would need to be done before any kind of large-scale legalization could be accomplished.
Out of personal curiousity, has anybody done a large-scale study on the effects of medicinal marijuana versus those of legal alternatives? And, if so, could a link be provided?
That question is not really relevant as far as I can tell. I think we all agree that marijuana is not really part of a healthy lifestyle, but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether you can decide for someone that something they ingest is bad for them. If everything that was bad for us was illegal, what would be left? Sorry, no more Krispy Kreme. This is why I feel the drug war is an extreme invasion of our civil liberties. I decide what goes in my body, not you. End of story.
I’m willing to stipulate that inhaling smoke from burning leaves is bad for you. However, I don’t think that really has anything to do with the original question.
Second, levdrakon, you speak as though you believed that, if govt officials decide to ban a substance, the result of the ban will be that people do not use the substance, or that fewer people will us it.
I don’t think this is the case.
When a substance is banned, people who want to use it do so anyway.
Prohibition laws do not prevent use. They have various other effects, however, including:
> Criminal justice system puts time, money, and effort into detecting, arresting, trying, and jailing people – for manufactor or importation, for selling, and for just possessing. Control of real crime suffers.
> People convicted of substance crimes have their lives ruined through serving long prison sentences, having their property seized, having to contend with having a criminal record.
> This doesn’t apply to virtually harmless marijuana, but in the cases of alcohol and of many of the hard drugs, the banned substance is more dangerous due to being banned. A drug may be “cut” with something dangerouos. A drug may be “cut” less than normal and therefore be so powerful that overdose occurs with use of even a small amount. During alcohol Prohibition, some people were blinded and others killed by “bad booze”. When a substance is illegal, consumers don’t really know what they’re getting. Before and after Prohibition, OHOH, customers did know what they were getting: exact proof listed on bottle, no mystery additives, etc.
It is my firm belief that parents could deal more effectively with their children smoking the stuff if they didn’t have to worry about the fumb duck police getting involved. As it is, many parents I know allow kids to smoke the filthy, mind-robbing shit at home, rather than risk having them get caught doing it somewhere else. Also, parents know who’s dealing the stuff, but not many are willing to have a person they may have known all their lives go off to the slammer.
As to medical uses, I’m with those who think that anything that reduces those in pain from a disease, or from the treatments of said disease, is a good thing. I can’t understand the lack of compassion in those who would say otherwise.
Apparently, I stated my comment clumsily, though. I’m not saying that whether or not marijuana is bad for you in any absolute sense has any affect on the debate, however, we can’t conclude exactly how bad it is for you. We don’t know what long-term effects it might have. We don’t, frankly, know what the ‘safe limit’ of marijuana consumption is, and we don’t know very much of what the physiological implications of smoking marijuana are.
It is entirely relevent in knowing these things before you can legalize substances, because not knowing them can lead to significant risks for other members of the populace, and the government has a responsibility to prevent the infringements of the rights of citizens by other citizens. If someone is high on pot and gets in an accident, because we don’t have sufficient information… then how is that irrelevent at all? Show me a cite that points to a single defineable limit on reasonable marijuana use. We have one for alcohol, and if we didn’t have one, we’d have to establish one before legal consumption of alcohol could be written into our laws.
Knowing exactly how bad or how potent marijuana can be is entirely relevent to the question at hand.
Just for the record, I strongly, very strongly support the legalization of marijuana. Besides its medical applications, it absolutely disgusts and infuriates me how much money goes into “fighting” marijuana. And when I think about how much untaxed, unaccounted for money has gone into the hands of organized crime - it just boggles the mind. How many billions? How many trillions for crying out loud? That could all go away tomorrow if they’d just legalize it.
I posted from the point of view of Joe Schmoe Apathetic don’t-really-care-much-one-way-or-the-other Voter. Equating alcohol & tobacco with marijuana to me just doesn’t sell me on the idea. Why legalize another “bad” thing when it’s just as easy to check the “no” box? It’s almost like saying two wrongs make a right. I’m not buying that (as Mr. Apathetic, that is).
Personally, I’d like to go to all the tobacco farmers and say, “look, start growing pot instead. You’ll sleep better at night. People don’t get ‘hooked’ on pot. They can choose for themselves whether they want to smoke it. And if they don’t want to smoke it 'cause it’s bad for their lungs, they can eat it in brownies!”
When’s the last time you had a tobacco brownie? Never. It’s gross. People get hooked on smoking tobacco and it’s really bad for them. Pot doesn’t have to be smoked, and it’s not addictive at all like tobacco.
Basically what I’m thinking is, drunk dads beat their wives. Drunk moms beat and/or neglect their kids. Moms and dads who smoke die of cancer. And they stink.
Why on earth would I want to legalize pot if it’s “like” alcohol & tobacco?
Is my point at all clearer now? Alcohol & tobacco = bad. Marijuana shouldn’t be classed as another “bad” thing that we’re trying to legalize.
I haven’t been able to keep up with the discussion over the last few days. There’s lots of reponses, but due to time, I’m afraid I can only respond to a few.
The medical establishment has developed a process for determining whether drugs are safe and effective for use before doctors may prescribe those drugs to patients. I did a bit of Googling, and the NORML website says that the American Medical Association recommends “that adequate and well-controlled studies of smoked marijuana be conducted in patients who have serious conditions.” (i.e., AIDS wasting, MS, chemo, etc.) I fully support such studies. Let the science dictate whether marijuana is safe and effective for purposes, and compare those findings to the studies already done on existing drugs. If folks say that pot is good medicine, I say, okay, let science prove it. What’s wrong with that? I agree with your point that political processes shouldn’t determine what constitutes good medicine. Let science decide.
I hate hearing about folks who have such serious conditions that they are grasping at any possibility to relieve their pain. It is heartwrenching. But I also think that it would not be an act of compassion to promote medical marijuana as a cure-all for these people if the science would say that it is not as safe and effective as other drugs. I don’t understand why there’s such a violent reaction to putting medical marijuana to the test as conducted by experts.
I’m not convinced that pot is practically harmless because people don’t OD on it. From what I’ve read, there are, indeed, health risks associated with long term use of pot. According to the World Health Organization: "There is some clinical evidence that chronic heavy cannabis use may produce a toxic psychosis…There is better evidence that continued cannabis use may worsen the course of schizophrenia… There is suggestive evidence that chronic cannabis use may produce subtle defects in cognitive functioning, that may or may not be reversible after abstinence… There is suggestive clinical evidence that chronic cannabis smoking may also be a contributory cause of cancers of the aerodigestive tract… "Cite.
So, is that proof that pot is such a danger to one’s self that it ought to remain illegal forever? I can’t say that. But I’d love to hear a rational discussion of why the country should legalize a drug–ANY drug–for the simple reason of helping people pass the time in a state of altered conciousness. Instead of that discussion, I hear far-out arguments and self-rightous indignation about how folks who share my position are heartless degenerates who think the War on Drugs is a great success. Those kind of holier-than-thou attitudes isn’t going to sway my position. In fact, I think that sort of attitude probably unnecessarily turns some people off from being convinced of a pro-legalization view.
The same reasons that sports, games, TV, movies, and sex should remain legal: they’re fun, and they’re not harmful to any unwilling participants. If someone would rather spend his weekends drunk or stoned instead of reading a book or playing Halo, who am I to tell him his preferred form of recreation is no good?
levchakan, Yes, I see your point. It’s probably often true. I suspect, though, that not all of the guys whose heads you’re trying to get into will see alcohol, or tobacco, or both, as “bad”. Some will see one or the other or both as “bad,” but others will take them for granted as normal, regular, okay substances (for most people, most of the time) – simply because each is both legal and familiar.
Khlaes, I see your point, too – but I completely disagree with it. You believe that society’s default position toward recreational and/or mind-altering substances should be to outlaw them. Then, later, if it can be proved that a subsance is harmless (or perhaps, only a little bit harmful), it can be decriminalized or legalized. Govt won’t allow any meaningful testing? Well, that’s not your fault; you’re in favor of testing. My position is the oposite. I think the default position should be to leave things legal; the burden of proof that something should be outlawed should be on those who want to outlaw it.
Your other point is that we can’t legalize anything unless we can first pin down how much of it will make someone too impaired to drive, and until we have a reliable test to show how much someone has consumed. I disagree with this, also. I see no need at all for this knowledge, about any substance. As I said earlier, if someone is driving recklessly or erractically, he should be pulled over and ticketed or arrested, whichever seems appropriate – regardless of the presence or absence of any identifiable cause for his behavior. If he isn’t able to drive safely, that’s a problem. It doesn’t matter if substance use is or is not a factor. Maybe the reckless driver is stupid. Maybe he’s upset, or sleepy. Should we leave him on the road just because he’s clean and sober? OTOH, if someone is driving safely and sanely, there’s no justification for pulling him over.
The question you originally raised is “whether it’s ‘bad for you’ or not”. This is, as I said, off the point. If you want to raise this new question, fine, but don’t confuse the issue by claiming that it rescues the alleged relevance of the old one.
Directed to the OP: Why is marijuana still illegal? Money.
Only my (cynical) opinion, but I feel there are two major groups responsible for preventing marijuana legislation.
The first is the federal government, especially the portion of it that derives it’s livelihood from drug interdiction efforts. Enormous sums of money are collected in the form of taxes toward this end. That money supports a LOT of people, industries, and organizations of various sorts. Removing marijuana from the hit list would threaten the salaries of many government agents, police officers, drug-testing labs, etc. Anyone is directly or indirectly employed as a result of the war on drugs will strenuously oppose any suggestion of decriminalization. This has already been brought up by other posters.
The second major group I feel strongly discourages legalization has not been mentioned (much), but their reasons are the same. That would be organized (or even disorganized) crime groups. As long as marijuana is illegal, a plant that costs almost nothing to grow can be sold for an obscene profit. The average joe selling quarter ounces to schoolkids and housewives doesn’t usually benefit much, but someone does. Marijuana is a HUGE underground business which owes it’s existence to marijuana being illegal.
(Personal anecdote) I was stationed in Hawaii about 25 years back. It was reported in the news that marijuana was estimated to be the second leading source of revenue in the islands, behind tourism. Sugar cane and pineapples were a very distant 3rd and 4th. At that time it was a widely held view that the Hawaiian mafia controlled most of the marijuana business as well as a significant portion of the government. There was a joint Navy/Coast Guard/Hawaiian Police operation entitled “Operation Green Sweep” at the time chartered with eliminating marijuana farms. Every day on the news they would have pictures of Coast Guard helicopters and stories on how many plants had been seized and burned. However, the local gossip (according to 2 native Hawaiians on my ship) was that the operation was mostly designed to drive the independents out of business. The Hawaiian authorities directed the helicopters where to look. I was told that most of the “official” marijuana was grown in the middle of the cane fields. I don’t know if that was true, but I do know that the fine for trespassing in the cane fields was $5000 (according to the signs posted every few hundred feet).
So what I am saying is that marijuana will remain illegal as long as it remains profitable. And before you say that the government will make plenty of profit from it’s taxation remember that they already make plenty of profit from it without angering their conservative base. The same conservative base that would like to ban alchohol, tobacco, gambling, pornography, foul language, etc.
Oh no! Now the issue is unclear and my new question is obviously null and void! How terribly, terribly tragic! Are you honestly going to argue that equipping with the ability to harm other people is not “bad” for them?
I think it’s fairly clear that if an issue was raised in my post, regardless of whether or not it’s a “new issue”. This confusion is a bit pointless, in my opinion. Knowing how bad a substance is for someone implies knowing precisely how it affects them. If this knowledge reveals a capacity for harming others, then the issues are one and the same. I already confessed that my point was clumsily stated, at least initially.
Harping about whether or not this is a “new issue” is just another way of not answering the question.
Hazel, I see your point as well: however, I feel you have somewhat misrepresented my own. I do believe that the basis for legalization should be somewhat focused upon whether or not the substance affects someone (or those around them) negatively enough. However, I’m not saying that the default should be making them illegal, nor am I saying that the default should be legalizing them.
I’d just rather have drugs be thoroughly tested in terms of the effects they can have on the human body before they’re made available to the public at large.
Reckless driving is one thing; and there are laws that deal with such a thing. However, we impart stricter penalties on drunk driving, which I believe is entirely valid. If someone drinks and then gets behind the wheel of the car, they are knowingly endangering everyone around them, and not by virtue of their natural bodily processes or faculties; but by virtue of their ingestion of a specific substance. If someone -knowingly- endangers another person, that’s almost pre-meditation. There is a reason why we have different degrees of murder. Pre-meditation makes a crime darker.
There are more studies on the effects of pot than you might realize. Here’s a blurb from 1997 about an Australian study that I found in under a minute on Erowid. I’d be surprised if there aren’t plenty of others out there, considering how popular marijuana has become over the past several decades.