Legalize it
By brendanm98 Comments (153) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Several states have legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for medicinal purposes; the drug is useful as a pain reliever, can help quell nausea and stimulate appetite, and may aid in preventing vision degeneration in glaucoma patients. Despite this, the federal government retains the right to prosecute users of medical marijuana under federal law, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich. This election voters will decide an initiative on medical marijuana in South Dakota and also vote on proposals to fully legalize possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana in Nevada and Colorado. While I certainly don't support legalization of "hard" drugs like heroin or cocaine, pot is less harmful than everyone's favorite recreational drug, alcohol, and as with alcohol it makes little sense to prohibit its use.
Gonzales v. Raich demonstrates how traditional left/right divides can become twisted when dealing with medical marijuana, forcing both sides to compromise core principles. That case hinged on the interpretation of the interstate Commerce clause, a magic and always-applicable provision allowing Congress to regulate basically anything -- including, apparently, marijuana grown and used solely by Raich within CA and in full accordance with CA law. The case is full of contradictions: liberal support for an expansive interpretation of the Commerce clause suggests federal law ought to trump that of CA, while a conservative appreciation for federalism would seem to necessitate allowing CA their more relaxed drug laws. As the amicus brief filed by LA, AL, and MS states,
From the amici States' perspective, however, this is not a case about drug-control policy or fundamental rights. This is a case about "our federalism," which "requires that Congress treat the States in a manner consistent with their status as residuary sovereigns and joint participants in the governance of the Nation." The Government apparently does not view the federalism issue in this case as a serious one. ("It is clear that Congress has the authority ...."). We respectfully disagree.
Indeed, and many libertarian-leaning conservatives likewise disagreed with the 6-3 decision finding for the government. There are legitimate medical reasons for needing marijuana, and it strikes me as unfortunate that the federal government can, if it so chooses, harass and prosecute sick people who are obeying state law.
What about marijuana as a recreational drug? Imagine, as Nas put it, smoking weed in the streets without cops harassing. The long-term harmful effects from pot are basically nil (beyond the non-trivial danger of lung cancer faced by all smokers). The short-term effects are decreased motivation and an inability to drive safely. Smoking marijuana is less harmful to the user and to society than drinking alcohol. On the other hand, there are real and significant costs to our obsession with stamping out recreational use of marijuana. In addition to strengthening gangs, this modern prohibition results in hundreds of thousands of arrests and burdens the law enforcement and judicial system.
"Anyone who currently wants to use marijuana, is using it. What our laws do is finance the activities of violent gangs and drug dealers," said Neal Levine, Campaign Manager for "Regulate Marijuana."Ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state and federal spending, the report [endorsed by Milton Friedman] says, while taxation would yield up to $6.2 billion a year.
There are legitimate concerns with legalization. For example, it would deprive police of a reason for stopping or searching individuals who may have committed other crimes. On the other hand, the criminalization of many innocuous acts (such as standing on a street corner) would similarly aid police in rooting out more serious crime. Marijuana laws ought not to be an excuse for de-facto profiling. Other fears raised by opponents of legalization include "increased marijuana use among children" or more pot-induced DUIs -- concerns specifically countered in the Nevada proposal, which "doubles penalties for selling or giving pot to minors and for vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of drugs or alcohol." (It should be noted that there are also additional reasons in favor of legalization, such as the useful properties of hemp including nutritious oils and environmentally-friendly paper.)
A good start towards fixing our outdated laws would be for the DEA to reclassify marijuana, currently Schedule I along with drugs such as heroin, LSD, and ecstasy (even cocaine is only Schedule II). If it were available with a prescription the federalism showdown over medical marijuana would evaporate. I think possession of small amounts of marijuana should be decriminalized (punishable by a fine), as some states have done. I think if states want to go farther and legalize possession, then they ought to try it out and see how it goes, and I would think regulating and taxing distribution would be a logical step here. I'll be interested to see what happens in CO and NV -- my guess is both initiatives lose, but I expect we'll see similar efforts in these states and elsewhere in the future.
Cross posted from Swords Crossed
I hated the smell in Amsterdam. There's no reason it couldn't be restricted -- hey, we already prohibit smoking pretty much everywhere!
Being a pro-government-solving-societal-problems liberal, I'm fine with more DUI checkpoints. I suppose it's only fair to include that cost with all the money we'd safe, though. OTOH, if people actually switched from using alcohol to weed to relax (not sure how likely that actually is -- I wouldn't, myself), there would presumably be fewer alcohol-fueled assaults for cops to deal with.
Voters seem to be pretty consistently in favor of medical marijuana and against legalization, so I guess that's probably what we'll have for a while yet.
There are drugs out there that accomplish the same things without the side-effects.
However, I feel about drugs in general that if someone wants to commit suicide, be it fast or slow, then they can feel free. But if they do it in a way that endangers me or mine, they won't live long enough to complete the act...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
but I have to say, I favor all possible homeopathic remedies because overprescription of synthetic drugs is out of control; when we all know older people who take a dozen different drugs every day, some of which are prescribed solely to counter effects of the others, then clearly something is wrong.
I'm definitely one of the more libertarian members here, and I think I might prefer to say decriminalization rather than legalization is the way to go with marijuana policy. There won't be a perfect solution but when you think of all the people who don't have any business drinking any amount of alcohol (for example, I know a man who loses it with less than a six-pack of beer and once shot off part of his foot as a result), then I don't think it's such a bad thing that more people will be inclined to stay home rather than drive anywhere because they're using marijuana.
And while I'm thinking about it, I still think it's an absolute right of employers and public services to demand drug-free workplaces and employees, a completely separate issue from what happens to be legal.
The FDA has outlawed it because they have found no medical benefits to do so. And the active ingredient is available in the form of a pill.
These are just hippies who want to be able to light up before they die. :-P
and a couple of ounces, to go.
I support this for different reasons but I have come to view the war on drugs as an unmitigated evil. We've militarized our police forces, created the Orwellian system of asset forfeiture, and are bankrolling our own enemies.
I'm against the "medical marijuana" nonsense because, in many cases, the therapeutic effects can be had by mere THC, without the marijuana. The creation of this "medical" use exception is merely going to create a black market in prescriptions, just like we've seen with oxycontin and used to see with valium, and confusion between legal and illegal marijuana.
Let's just legalize it and be done.
It has a few added benefits. First, and foremeost, the libertarians will be too stoned to get involved in politics so we won't have to worry about some nebulous third party challenge to our candidates. The anti-war movement will disppear along with the contents of your fridge.
An Executive Order from the President decriminalizing pot use and production "for strictly private use only". That would break people's heads from here to Tacoma...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
First, and foremeost, the libertarians will be too stoned to get involved in politics so we won't have to worry about some nebulous third party challenge to our candidates. The anti-war movement will disppear along with the contents of your fridge.
Pretty much. You only get one ounce though -- geez, how much do you need? I remember that story you did (I actually tried to find it to link to it but stuff is hard to locate since the site switched over). Cato has a boatload of links that agree with you.
I don't disagree that the distinction between medical marijuana and straight legalization is a bit blurry in practice but for whatever reason voters seem ok with the one but opposed to the other. I think it would be an uphill struggle to convince me personally to support legalizing drugs more dangerous than weed, and I bet that's representative of voters too.
Nothing 'medical' is nice. It's usually painful, difficult to administer and probably expensive as all heck. You need a prescription, too, which won't stop the addicts but will dissuade the merely curious and the underaged.
This is all a question of connotations, of course, but they apply even when the spliff would be identical under either category.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
That's the best justification of it that I've heard. The stoners will stay home. I'm almost ready to do it on that basis. Almost.
I did a lot of research on this issue for a Critical Thinking class in college a few years ago. We were supposed to present both sides of an argument, using logic alone, no emotion. So we had to study the pros and cons of all kinds of controversial subjects. I went into this one (legalizing pot) fully against it. I've always agreed with the slippery slope theory, that once you legalize pot, your basically giving thumbs up to people using any kind of drug there is.
What I found out when I started digging into it was that we, as a nation, spend an AMAZING amount of money on enforcing the anti-drug laws as they apply to marijuana. And the funny thing about it was, most of the criminals that were tracked down, charged and convicted of these crimes were guilty of no crime other than the marijuana use. So, they weren't all a bunch of crimelords who just happened to get busted on marijuana. The heavier drugs lead to crime, there were all kinds of statistics on that, but marijuana is less addictive than tobacco and less "potent" than alcohol. No one is going to go rob the 7-11 to get enough money to get a fix of pot.
I still have issues with it in my moral center, but I cannot deny that the economical benefits to our nation would be instantly felt.
-Life is tough, but it's tougher when your stupid.-
John Wayne
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
I'm all in favor of ending federal drug laws, primarily on Constitutional grounds.
But I hate this medical legalization movement. Who ever heard of medicine you have to smoke? I'd rather see the active, relevant ingredient identified, synthesized, and distributed in pill form, if it actually helps people.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Ever tried to take a pill on an upset stomach?
I don't like smoke as much as the next non-smoker, but really, the main ways of ingesting chemicals are via pill or other food-like method, via smoke and via injection. Given that someone can't keep food/pills down, smoke is definitely a better option than needles.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
How about liquid?
I hear you about the pills. When my face swelled up last year, I got to the point when I was having real trouble keeping down my antibiotics and pain relievers. Ended up in the hospital.
The problem with smoking is that it's known to be unhealthy in itself!
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Neil- I'm with you on the medical legalization. Why blow smoke up my rear? Just tell me your legalizing it because you want to legalize it. I realize that it DOES have some medical benefits, but it is so ridiculous to me that the same people who want to persecute anyone and everyone who ever wanted a tobacco cigarette now want to use a marijuana cigarette as medicine. What? You don't think the smoke inhaled from that one is bad for you lungs also? Hello McFly?
-Life is tough, but it's tougher when your stupid.-
John Wayne
A pack a day seems an average amount for a habitual smoker. No way could anyone smoke that same amount of MJ every day-- they'd get distracted and just wander off, or eat their entire fridge contents, before burning through that much weed.
Hm, anyone know how many ounces of tobacco are in the average pack?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
joints are worse than cigs, so you can smoke fewer and still put yourself at risk of cancer: "Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day." Personally I'd take that factoid with a grain of salt, as these studies aren't cited for me to examine, but I guess that's the official line.
the largest study done on the subject strongly suggests there may be compounds in cannabis that protect against lung cancer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR200605...
I know, I was skeptical, too, when I first heard about it, but the research at first blush does look pretty sound.
There are compounds in fresh air that protect against lung cancer, too, except that Al Gore has labeled them "pollutants."
It's the compound game. There are thousands of compounds in marijuana when it is burned. Some of them are interesting compounds from a cellular perspective and some of them are toxic compounds. Expect the debate to rage onward amongst biochemists who love to toke up.
IMO, the only major detriment to legalizing marijuana is DUI tests. There has to be an effective way to measure intoxication. As stated above, it is less addictive then tobacco and usually the effects are more benign then those of alcohol.
Enforcing mariquana laws is nothing but a money pit when legalization could provide alot of income to the government and legitimate business that they are currently shut out of. Not only do you increrase income and shut out drug dealer/traffickers, but you also free up alot more of our prison space and enforcement resources to go after criminals far more dangerous than your pot smokers.
Enforcement is completely ineffective anyway. It's easier now for a high school kid to get pot then it is for them to get alcohol, which is legal but regulated. I say pot and alcohol should be considered equals. Can't drive while on it, can't sell it without a license, and can't sell or give it to minors.
If someone wanted to be the President of the United States and decided to tell the world that they smoked pot three or four times a week recreationally, would you vote for them? Why or why not?
Legalize drug use along with a constitutionally protected right of society (individuals, corporations, organizations, institutions) to decide if and how it may want to discriminate against drug users. Let deterrence be a social rather than law enforcement issue.
John E.
I don't think marijuana is that scary a drug, but I don't want the guy driving my kids school bus, or the pilot of my airplane, or the teacher in my kids classroom smoking pot.
I think people should have the right to smoke pot, but they don't have a right to whatever job they want, especially in jobs where having a sharp mind and quick reflexes is a must-so the employer should have the right to fire their behinds or refuse to hire them, if they choose to smoke.
probably mostly humorous but...
legalize it, subsidize it, tax it, and make it a law that only American grown weed is legal...
keeps the immigrants south of Laredo looking longingly north into the weed pastures, empties the county jails to make more room for illegals' sleepovers on their way back home as they are deported...for a nice change.
I see the social downsides of acknowledging (making legal) a behavior a darn good percentage of the baby boom generation continues to do..but I think a great deal of wasted money could be better spent...
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
...for many of the same reasons already posted here. But another reason is that by making it illegal, the government has also made raising hemp illegal as well, and I'd like to see that change. Hemp is a variant of Cannabis and looks almost identical to marijuana in the fields (the main reason for making it illegal...), but it contains very low amounts of THC, to the point where you could smoke a ton of the stuff and not get high. It's got a whole lot of uses, and hemp products are a growing industry here, despite having to be imported. It makes an excellent renewable resource, and was once an important crop in this country, so I'd love to see it return.
First, the whole idea of "medical marijuana" is horse-hockey. IF it has medicinal value then isolate the active ingredient, synthesize it and put it in a pill, capsule, injection, liquid. Oh, wait, we do, its called THC and it is readily available by prescription; only "problem" is that you don't get high from a THC pill. "Medical marijuana" is a ruse, a farce, a way to play on the sympathies of the voter so that people can get high.
Now, on the other things that illegal drugs drag along I agree with streiff. It has militarized our police force and all of the other things he points out. At the same time we have to deal with the consequences of "recreational" drug usage. Automobile "accidents", spousal and child abuse, etc.
So, I'll go along with legalization provided that if the "recreational" use (and there is no such thing, zero, nada, zilch as "medical" use) of drugs results in injury to any other party the user gets life in prison with no parole. Death to another party is an automatic death penalty. Period. You use drugs and kill yourself, fine; you use drugs and kill someone else you forfeit your life. Similarly, the import, distribution and sale of these substances carries the death penalty.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
. . . is pure bovine feces. The fact is that there is a legal, regulated prescription medication, under the trade name of Marinol, which provides the active ingredient in marijuana for medicinal purposes.
I understand the libertarian arguments on legalizing pot for recreational use, even if I don't agree with them, as being intellectual and (usually) honest, but the "legalize for medicinal purposes" argument has always been simple foot-in-the-door bovine feces.
All of the compounds in Marijuana have been identified and it is only the people who like to smoke it who are convinced that there is something more there than meets the eye. :)
This phony war on drugs this county's been waging at the tune of 20 billion a year (and according to (William F. Buckley places America's direct and indirect costs of this "war" at more than $200 billion a year.) with a worldwide annual drug trade of $500 billion! "Just say no" isn’t going stop that.
The drug trade provides an economic incentive for children and teens to drop out of school and earn fast money. It accounts for 50 percent of all street crimes and perhaps 30 percent of the prison population.
Drugs should be viewed as a health care problem and not a law enforcement problem, Tax drugs, and use the money for drug treatment and additional police protection.
Drug legalization would free up prison spaces, vacancies that could be used to lock up violent criminals. Law enforcement agencies estimate that over half of today’s crimes are drug-related...
Some people say, well, what about the harm to society? Drug abuse would have to increase well over fivefold to match the deaths caused by cigarette smoking!!!
Alcohol prohibition failed. From 1919 to 1933, crime grew; alcoholic consumption increased, and organized crime strengthened. Following the repeal of prohibition, crime fell as did alcohol consumption.
After the repeal of prohibition the constitution was not amended to go after drugs directly! I would question the constitutionality of this war on drugs! Seems to me the federal government did this on their own!!!
Legalization doesn’t suggest encouragement or endorsement? Children who abstain from drugs do so for a number of commonsensical reasons. They don’t do drugs because they consider them stupid, harmful, and offensive to the morals and values of their parents and friends. As a deterrent, the fact that drugs were illegal ranked near the bottom.
I can't find the link to the study right now but a recent Center for Disease Control study shows that teenage cigarette consumption grew in the last three years...a period of shrill anti-smoking ads, price hikes, lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers, and the deionization and death of Joe Camel. The attack on cigarettes probably makes them more alluring to the authority-defying attitude possessed by young people. The same is true for drugs!
The drug war creates hostility between the police and some minorities. America imprisons, for drug-related crimes, a disproportionate number of blacks!
The drug war corrupts. "Supplier countries," like Colombia and Mexico, find their judicial and political institutions riddled with corruption. Our U. S. police departments, the DEA, the border patrol, and other drug-fighting institutions ripe for bribery!
Draconian laws against drugs lead to unjust results. Like 20 years because you’re driving in a friend’s car in Michigan and unbeknownst to you there are drugs in the trunk... you busted for transporting?!?
legalize all drugs! Including cocaine, heroin, LSD and all other drugs. If stupid people wish to do stupid things, a free society allows this.
comment Cross posted at Swards Crossed
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
Steve wrote:
Drugs should be viewed as a health care problem and not a law enforcement problem, Tax drugs, and use the money for drug treatment and additional police protection.
No, absolutely not! If recreational drugs are legalized, and someone gets so messed up on drugs he can't function or hold a job, it's his problem, not the taxpayers. If he's going to starve to death because of his own weakness and stupidity, let him starve.
To some extent I could go either way:
We either view all vice-related consequences such as addiction, emphysema, psoriasis of the liver, obesity, etc as general public health problems and manage them the same as we do heart attacks, bone cancer, and Alzheimer's...
Or we separate out all vice-related consequences and let those so inflicted make their own way to find and pay for treatment. Because to be honest, I'm not real interested in seeing any of my tax dollars used to subsidize triple bypass for people who couldn't stop chowing down on bacon and eggs into their late 60's.
Instead of paying for that bypass and then complaining and trying to subsequently outlaw bacon, people keep their money, are personally accountable and everyone is free to do what they want.
And that holds true for more than just bacon!
I can go for not taxing drugs and keep it a commercial venture!
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
I think that drugs being illegal keeps a certain, significant percentage of people from ever trying them.
And more people trying drugs leads to more people addicted to drugs. And more people addicted to drugs means leads to more lives destroyed: of the people who are addicted, their friends and families, and anybody they hurt to get more drugs or hurt while under the influence of drugs.
That doesn't sound like anything worthy of an experiment to me.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
While I think (almost) all drugs should be legal, I have to take exception to one of your arguments regarding marijuana.
Marijuana is not harmless. It causes a deterioration in willpower and initiative. It is not known to what degree that deterioration is permanent, since these things are so difficult to study. It's an apple-oranges comparison with the harmful effects alcohol (though it would be hard to cast the non-addictive marijuana's side effects as being worse than alcohol's).
Never the less, people ought to be able to eat, drink, or smoke whatever they want.
My standard is not whether ingesting the substance will harm you or even raise the likelihood of your harming someone else, but will it make you unable to distinguish right from wrong, real from unreal. Alcohol impairs the ability to act and judge, but it doesn't insert fictions, or make you believe something that undrugged you know to be untrue. It may make you say or do things you normally would not, but those are things you already believe or would like to do on some level, except that undrugged, you know better.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
Marijuana is not harmless. It causes a deterioration in willpower and initiative. It is not known to what degree that deterioration is permanent, since these things are so difficult to study.
Fair points; I'm certainly not advocating for marijuana use =) and I agree with the initiatives that it should be restricted to adults 21+ which at least means that users are more likely to get fired from their job than flunk out of school. Yeah, I know, everyone already smokes weed starting when they're 12 or whatever the latest study shows but I do think it's important to discourage teens from using weed, and to some extent legalization does make that more difficult (as with alcohol).
I am surprised(pleasantly) that this many conservatives are for legalization.
I also believe reefer should be legal because we should have the freedom to choose.
Alcohol is legal. That is the way it is. It is not going to change, refer to Prohibition. So let’s assume that is the bar, alcohol is the most potent drug that can be legal. Nicotine, caffeine, OTC medications, are below alcohol as far as potency and how physically and mentally taxing on an individual it is. Heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine,and some other hardcore drugs are above the bar. They are too destructive to individuals and society as a whole and have no legitimate applications to justify their legalization. Some would say alcohol fits in more with the effects of the above the bar drugs (effects on people and society), which may be true, but alcohol is legal.
Where does marijuana fit in? Some say it is already illegal, so it must be in with heroin and cocaine. If you look at crime statistics, as far as motivations for criminal behavior, you will not find marijuana high on that list. People generally do not steal to support a marijuana habit. People generally do not become violent or act irrationally due to marijuana use. The drug most often used before or during the commission of property or violent crimes is alcohol. The only crimes related to marijuana are possession, dealing and production.
I am not advocating the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. It may have medicinal qualities such as increasing the appetites of cancer and AIDS patients or to lower pressures on the eyes of glaucoma patients. I am advocating the legalization and regulation of marijuana for recreational use.
We have freedoms in this country. We have the freedom to choose. We can choose to drink, if we drink irresponsibly we have to deal with the consequences. We can choose to have unprotected sex, but we have to deal with the consequences. We can eat what we choose to, if we eat irresponsibly we have to deal with the consequences. We can choose to smoke cigarettes, but we have to deal with the consequences.
Smoke a fatty!
'Let's go to work and drink a beer to professionalism!'
If you've been around these parts for a while, you'll notice that the author, brendan98, is not a Conservative or a Republican. He's one of the Loyal Opposition™ here.
This is what you would call a countercultural diary here on RedState, written by one of our frequent countercultural gadflies.
I am talking about the positive responses. Maybe I shouldn't have used conservatives. I guess it is the libertarians.
Maybe because it is a conservative site.
Maybe I'm just stoned.
'Let's go to work and drink a beer to professionalism!'
And its really a significant problem: libertarians like to imagine all sorts of scenarios where things should be free and easy and they don't really grasp what that means in terms of public policy. Especially the Health and Human Services Department of our government.
If the libertarians want to abolish the restrictions on pot, I'll go along with it as long as they also agree to cut the HHS budget by 2/3rds.
With freedom comes responsibility.
If libertarians who want to legalize pot are successful in doing both things, I will vote for it, and I will say: "OK." If libertarians are effective enough that they can really accomplish both, or think they can, I will suspend my judgment about the legalization of marijuana and allow that it might be a positive decision.
It'll certainly take a lot of money out of the government's purse and put it back into their pockets. But I want no whining, and no freakin' complaining. You like to smoke? Don't expect me to pay the disability bills.
Almost. Because I don't think pot has such a terrible effect on people except that it is a real motivational inhibitor and becomes a kind of lifestyle in and of itself. I think most people have experimented with the drug and the ones who have found it to be unsatisfactory to their daily functioning have quit. And lots of people have become psychologically dependent upon it, which really makes me worry.
The problem for me is that I don't want to see people claiming "pothead disability" because they became so demotivated to fix their own lives or just give it up and get back to work that the government is going to be forced to subsidize them. If the government makes it legal, my feeling is that lots of people who are not currently on the government dole will roll over in their beds, eat a twinkie and a bag of nachos, and claim that the weed that the government allows them to buy has contributed to their "disability."
Of course, there are plenty of people who would say that we could pay for those happy, amotivational, stoned folks easily if we weren't fighting this insane "war on marijuana".
Every social program in Massachusetts I've seen so far of import has been sitting there on the radio, broadcasting how people who normally wouldn't consider themselves government dependents should give it a try. I think that once you legalize dope, you're going to create a new class of people who are professionals at that.
"Hey, too stoned to work? Come on over friend, we can help."
And so I think it should remain illegal.
There are lots of problems with legalizing marijuana that go far beyond the simple thesis that "it's a safe drug." There are a lot of people on medication for psychological problems in this country who have been thankfully spared the exposure to marijuana because it is illegal. You're going to dreadfully complicate the lives of a lot of healthcare professionals (leading to higher healthcare costs) if you make marijuana as legal as alcohol (which, trust me, is enough of a problem for people who are sick.)
I just don't understand why, when there are only 24 hours in a day and we're already spending so much money on healthcare, people are rushing to take this unregulated drug and bequeath it to everyone in the country legally. I see it as a real recipe for problems that people have not anticipated.
I think that any move to legalize pot would increase insurance costs both for automobiles and health care, and would decrease productivity in the overall economy by a significant degree. Stoned people don't work very well, they don't think clearly, and they make a lot of mistakes on the job. And there are libertarians here on RS who want to give that as a gift to the country?
I really disagree that that is the best course for our country in this increasingly competitive century.
Even The Onion, which is probably the most leftist/libertarian humor magazine in this country, knows that marijuana is a drug that makes you stupid. Jim Anchower has been a fixture on their pages for years and The Onion has been absolutely brilliant in their portrayals of the Stoned Life. It's one time when I'm perfectly willing to bow down and say: "You guys are gods. Your comedy is truer than the truth."
Doesn't mean people could use it on the job. Alcohol is legal, but that doesn't mean you could use it on the job. I'd lose my job if I came to work drunk. Drunk people make a lot of mistakes too, especially if your job involves physical activity.
I believe that marijuana should be legalized and taxed, just as alcohol is. Will there be an increase in the amount of marijuana used? Probably. Will there be an increase in the amount of people driving stoned? Probably. But we already have those problems with alcohol. I have seen alcohol end the lives of several relatives, who destroyed their families along the way. Yet it is legal.
As long as we hold abusers accountable for their actions, I believe that citizens should be allowed to do dumb or self destructive things (like eating too many of the Reese's peanut butter cup that I am eating as I write this).
Doesn't mean people could use it on the job.
It has to be the funniest statement I've ever heard. I've known literally a half a dozen people who have "used it on the job" for the precise reason that it can't be detected except through a blood test. My friend ****** used to drive around in New Jersey high as a kite and completely impervious to police because he wasn't "drunk."
What are you talking about, man? Smoke a joint before work and there is absolutely nobody who is going to make you take a blood test. If you're drunk, OTOH, it's pretty obvious the minute you open your mouth. That's one of the reasons alcohol is legal and marijuana isn't. With pot, nobody can tell you're a complete addict until you screw up so badly that they have to ask serious questions.
Glossy, bloodshot eyes, driving way below the speed limit (which I don't think should be grounds for a police stop, but I've seen stoned drivers & that's what happens), & functioning in slow motion. Still doesn't mean people should go to jail for it. If police had access to a device that could somehow measure levels of THC at a moment in time, would your view change?
Most drunks do this too. It is one of the things cops look for. They just might not stay in their lane or stop for stop signs, either. So really, you don't have a problem with drunk driving either, unless they kill somebody.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
leap in logic. If that's something cops look for, then great! I just wasn't sure; I was more thinking of the "little old lady" driving too slow. Not every drunk goes too slow, though, some go too fast. Don't just leap to the personal attack of "you don't have a problem w/ drunk driving." Of course I do, I have a problem w/ anyone driving under the influence of anything, including not enough sleep (which is just as bad & has the same potential to do harm, IMO). That has nothing to do w/ my belief that legalization/regulation is a much better idea than prohibition/incarceration.
Glossy, bloodshot eyes, driving way below the speed limit (which I don't think should be grounds for a police stop, but I've seen stoned drivers & that's what happens), & functioning in slow motion. Still doesn't mean people should go to jail for it.
Don't just leap to the personal attack of "you don't have a problem w/ drunk driving."
There's nothing personal about it. Hey, I got the idea you were advocating "no jail" for those who drive stoned. If you believe nobody should go to jail for driving in this condition on marijuana why should they go to jail for driving in this condition on alcohol? Driving too slow is not indicator of especially safe driving. People who drive too slow because they are stoned or drunk kill plenty of people by driving onto the freeway in the wrong direction, ignoring traffic signals, and drifting into oncoming traffic. If you are driving somewhere under the limit at 2am, expect to be pulled over by any cop that sees you. They are pretty safe assuming it is a drunk and not a little old lady driving at that time of night.
Some drunks drive too fast, but I believe they are a small minority of drunks. I don't think any of the really, really blotto drunks who are several times the limit and who kill the most people in auto accidents drive too fast. If they tried they'd be lucky to get about a half a block before crashing.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
but I think it should be legal to drive drunk or stoned. You should just have to deal with the consequences the same as when you're sober.
However, I understand that everyone else has accepted the argument that handing out a DUI doesn't fix the damage he can do behind the wheel.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
I typed in such a way to make my point unclear. Apologies. Of course a stoned driver should go to jail. I meant one shouldn't be jailed for simply smoking pot. No one should drive under the influence of anything, period.
we have enough substances out there already to numb oneself from reality. If someone needs medicine, it should be prescribed by a doctor (it happens everyday). Other than medicinal purposes, I see no good or benefit to society that marijuana has that would make me push for its legalization.
________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
This is about the best thing that I've ever seen come from the recreational use of marijuana. And that ain't saying much, folks:
I must say, I am genuinely surprised at the (almost) complete support for legalization/regulation of marijuana shown here among the comments. I visit Redstate from time to time, and was immediately interested when I saw "Legalize It" at the top of the recommended blogs.
I expected to see vicious attacks on the author and his ideas, & was curious as to how those attacks would be formulated (i.e. what they would be based on, moral or practical grounds). I'm extremely happy to see I was wrong.
In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit I am not a Republican; I'm a registered Independent. I used to be a Republican, and I still hold on to some conservative ideals, chief among them fiscal responsibility. IMO, there is nothing fiscally responsible about our nation's "War on Drugs", specifically marijuana. For more info on this, I suggest watching the documentary "Grass", narrated by Woody Harrelson. The movie does a great job of showing how marijuana became illegal. It also helps explain how marijuana became so stigmatized in our nation.
The truth is, marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. Smoking pot is not physically addictive (mentally addictive, sure). It does lead to different things for different people. Some sit in their parent's basement at age 40 and waste away their life on junk food, video games, and a general lack of productivity. Some get high and create music, or art, or perhaps even literature (although the lit produced may be in need of a bit of editing). And then there are some who work hard all day, pay their taxes, and then come home and smoke some pot to relax. And these citizens, who aren't harming anyone, have to worry about getting arrested and facing public shame and perhaps job loss or expulsion, as would be the case for me.
I've smoked pot for almost 7 years now, in varying degrees of quantity (and quality, for that matter). I've done well, maintained my goals, and am now close to realizing my dream of not being broke! And yet, with one mistake, one misdemeanor arrest for possession, I would face an uphill battle I can't even imagine.
Sorry for the long post (first ever), I got a bit carried away. Bottom line, I'm glad to see arguments based on rational thought and facts, as opposed to emotions and party line kow-towing. The truth is, there really isn't a lot of difference between most people in our country. Yet, the media and partisan pundits would have us believe we are the most divided generation of Americans in years. The sad truth is that the most polarizing individuals have the loudest voices & get the most attention.
These kinds of posts have a way of bringing the jonesers out of the woodwork. But I have to tell you that the day Woody Harrelson makes public policy and health policy in this country is the day I leave:
I suggest watching the documentary "Grass", narrated by Woody Harrelson. The movie does a great job of showing how marijuana became illegal. It also helps explain how marijuana became so stigmatized in our nation.
Marijuana is "stigmatized" in this nation because the people who believe in its legalization and widespread use are a group of people who richly deserve stigma.
You can also have a good time salivating over the website of the New Jersey Weed Man. I don't know whether Corzine and McGreevy endorse him or not...
Marijuana is "stigmatized" in this nation because the people who believe in its legalization and widespread use are a group of people who richly deserve stigma.
The users who recommended this diary or posted comments supporting legalization aren't crazy hippies, they're thoughtful conservatives (and some libertarians, to be sure) who feel that our current policy on marijuana does not represent an efficient use of resources.
the day we let Woody Harrelson handle anything sharper than a tennis ball we should start questioning our sanity.
I expected to see vicious attacks on the author and his ideas
Can you give an example of that happening in the past? This is not a vicious place, as far as I see, but perhaps I'm just operating out of my own ultra-vicious viewpoint, and don't realize the tender folk I'm crushing.
Maybe I'm doing it with this very post! Like a forester unaware of the ants he's crushing, I may have unwittingly been vicious and mean all over the place.
I bet I need counseling. Maybe Mrs. Nachos can take me on as a class project.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
I must take issue with one comment, though. There is no evidence that could prove marijuana legalization would lead to increased insurance for everyone or lead to decreased productivity. There are certainly pro's & con's to both sides of this debate, but the pro's of legalization/regulation, I believe, significantly outweigh the con's.
There's a bottom line here; marijuana use will never go away. Individuals will always use marijuana. The question is, who's going to profit from it? Right now it's criminals; it could be our nation's tax coffers.
I sympathize w/ those who believe legalization would lead to worthless, lazy individuals hoping to get at the "government teat", if you will. I think these types of individuals exist right now, and will be sucking on the "government teat", regardless of whether pot is legal. They'll get there any way they can figure, or they'll get arrested and we'll end up paying for their incarceration anyways. I'd like to see an economic study on who costs taxpayers more, a jailed individual or one relying on social services. I know jailing individuals costs a lot of money, & brings w/ it the stigma of being an "ex-convict".
These are all tough questions to ponder; my ire stems from the fact that there is no attempt made at our nation's highest levels to answer these questions as definitively as possible. However, it is true that a simple economic cost/benefit study couldn't account for intangibles (like the stigma & lost opportunities involved w/ being an "ex-con").
How many people have heard this from friends who smoke it? It's always the same thing, dude:
"There are pros and cons, the legalization of marijuana would be great [zzzz, snore], and man, when you toke it, you just know that you're pretty much the same as the other people living off the government teat, cep't let's ponder it dude, 'cause it's just costing taxpayers more and I have this great stash that I learned how to grow, and who is going to profit from it? Man, if I could do some math when I wasn't stoned I'd be able to put it all down in facts and figures but damn, that's too hard."
C'mon. This isn't an argument, it's a list of the High Times Bullet Points.
to attack a student struggling to formulate a sound argument based on gut feelings, but it's much harder to refute a policy analysis that a leading economist like Milton Friedman and 500 of his colleagues agree with. Or reasoning put forth by a conservative thinker like William F Buckley [see also].
C'mon, your post isn't a rebuttal to the rationale for legalization/decriminalization, it's a high school stoner impression from open mike night.
but was it really an obvious struggle to formulate?...Damn, maybe I shouldn't be smoking right now :)
to denounce me as a "pothead" than to argue why I am wrong rationally? The only government "teat" I live off of comes in the form of student loans, which I'll pay back w/ interest (which keeps creeping higher & higher).
Btw, the reason I expected a vicious response to the article is that, sadly, it is the norm when someone bucks the conventional wisdom of (insert political party). It wasn't meant as an attack on Redstate posters, as I don't generally read the comments here often enough to form that kind of opinion. It was a generalization, & if I offended, I apologize.
Also, Woody just narrated the documentary, he didn't write it. Just b/c someone you don't like (or respect) espouses a certain view doesn't automatically make that view worthy of criticism. Argue it on the merits.
And the truth is that I'm opposed to legalization, but not because of the abstract reasons that people write in the pages of High Times to keep the stoners thinking while they're packing their bowls.
The real reason that I'm opposed to it is that I have several friends from high school that I watched vegetate into their couches smoking pot. One of them was a really brilliant kid as a sophomore who could have been handed the keys to a successful restaurant chain and employed thousands of people and contributed to the economy in New Jersey and instead he wound up driving a freakin' towel truck for a company that did bed linen and washed uniforms for people. It was an easy job and it gave him plenty of time to smoke between the stops, and I've never heard from him since.
I've also had a friend from a prestigious University who smoked it for ten years and became so ineffectual and befuddled that one day he just disappeared and decided to Walk the Earth -- this was a guy who had a 1600 SAT score and was one of the most brilliant people I've ever met, now he's wandering around somewhere in America and nobody knows what he's doing, and nobody cares.
But hey, the high was good, right?
people do what they're gonna do, regardless. I feel bad hearing that some friends of yours wasted their God-given gifts to be lazy & smoke pot. However, that doesn't mean it should be criminal. It just doesn't make sense
comes from the weed. Get off the stuff, and your perspective returns.
Pot screws people up.
But hey, it's your ... uh, wow, what was I talking about?
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
before I smoked pot, believed when I quit smoking pot for a while (about a year and a half), & still believe it now that I smoke again.
I have my perspective. If you disagree w/ my belief, fine. Argue it on the merits. Don't say I can't have a rational belief b/c I smoke pot from time to time. IMO, the costs (both social & economic) of prohibition outweigh the benefits.
I'm for legalization. It has side effects, but so does everything.
I think pot does awful things to the mind, and among them is making you think everything that happens was bound to happen. Nothing you can do about it, so why try? Toke up, be happy.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
I just believe in fate; I believe self-destructive people will be self-destructive. I just don't see it (i.e. one's destructive tendencies) as grounds for the continued prohibition of pot.
That Self-destructive People should be given every chance to destroy themselves in ways that won't destroy the people around them...
...It clears the way for me and mine and makes our lives just that much easier.
But then, I have been accused of being a hard-hearted man who was born out of wedlock...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
If it werent for dope, Harrelson would have absolutely nothing to do except star in films produced by Jane Hamsher | of | Natural Born Killers fame.
Is that Woody or Weedy?
that "Double Dragon" wasn't a quality film?!?! C'mon, that had Oscar written all over it.
Natural Born Killers was good though, in a psychotic, disturbing, "Am I really seeing this?" sort of way
What "house gonzo" means...
I can only speak from what I'm seeing here, and all I'm seeing from Kowalski is hatred for the idea of legalization, with no rational reasoning behind it. Btw, I'm great at math Kowalski, Bachelor's in Finance to show for it.
Not meant as a personal attack, Kowalski, just addressing your concerns.
Short version: there was probably nothing personal about it meant from kowalski.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
it's arithmetic. At least that's what us engineers always thought. And you don't even want to know what the math majors would do with that statement. Whew.
Actually, Kowalski's reasoning is pretty solid. You'd see it if you weren't stoned.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I really didn't see much reasoning beyond some links to jokes, a nice "Quote" of what pot smokers think, and what seemed like a heartfelt feeling that pot wastes a person's potential. I belive if someone is gonna waste their potential, they're gonna waste it regardless of what's available to them in the form of substances, legal or illegal.
No matter what I huff or smoke or inhale, if I want to waste my potential, it's not the drug, dude! It's just some kind of karmicwhoojawhatshamachallit.
someone who believes strongly in personal responsibility wouldn't suggest that a person who makes a decision to spend their life stoned is a... victim?
I'm being somewhat snarky, of course, and I fully support efforts to keep weed out of the hands of teenagers. Still, this does seem like an odd argument for you to make on a conservative site.
they're not victims. They're just doing what they want to do, & if they're not gonna let anyone stop them, no one's gonna stop them.
or implied the drug didn't have any effect on the end result, I said they were going to do it regardless of what was available to them. Alcohol can handle that job just fine on its own.
There are extremely dangerous drugs in our country, like crystal meth (which I've seen the affects of first hand, & it is awful). My point is, pot isn't one of them. So why waste all this money & jail people for it?
I find it very interesting that this blog is listed near the top of the list. I read it with great interest as it is a topic that I find greatly important.
We are living in a country where rapists are let free after a year or two and people selling a few bags of marijuana sit in jail for 10+ years. It is simply wrong.
The law that has made marijuana illegal dates back long ago. As many of you probably know, it was mainly pushed into legality by the cotton industry at the time as hemp (also in the marijuana plant family) is a more robust and useful fiber. Anyway, the bottom line is that millions upon millions of dollars are wasted every year by our government trying to crack down on a drug that is PROVEN to be far less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol.
If marijuana were made legal... PERIOD, it could be taxed (more money for the govt.), less crime would be committed (lots of gang crime is over drugs and marijuana) and the country would be better for it.
My question to you is simple. I notice a lot of people commenting on this blog in support of this notion. Why not support candidates that believe in this? As you know, many "Republicans" (I will not call them conservative for I am a socially liberal, financially conservative) call marijuana "evil" and are against it.
If we can truly get CONSERVATIVES back into the Republican party, I know a lot of friends that would consider voting for them. Unfortunately, what we have now are a bunch of candidates that are far too extreme to ever appeal to people like me. Thanks for listening.
Let the revolution be televised.
in full. That's why I'm no longer a Republican. It seems there are rarely candidates who approach issues w/ common sense. It's a shame you have to pander to every potential extreme under each "party sun" to be an electable candidate.
To the libertarian legalizers and the dope-devotees in this thread:
If you can get enough people together who want to smoke it legally to legalize it, that's democracy and what can I do?
But I'll tell you this: the day I see my taxes go up to pay for "motivational disabilities" caused by legalized marijuana, and the continued problems educating people in this country to take jobs that they would normally be able to do if they weren't stoned, but are regarded as legitimate by the health care profession in this country and are therefore paid for by my tax dollars is the day I have the right to come and live in your house, take all your food, and confiscate your car for my own uses.
So go right ahead, legalize it. Smoke all you want. But don't come knocking at my door when you want money to treat the sickness.
missing the point of the majority of these threads, but I'll respect your opinion and let it drop. And you're right, if we could get enough people together, the law would have to change. My feeling is that a lot of individuals either aren't educated fully on the issue or are too lazy to vote, so who knows? I doubt it'll happen anytime soon; it almost happened when Carter was campaigning (he spoke out in favor of legalization until someone in his camp got busted for coke & national sentiment changed. Sorry I'm not backing this up w/ a link, but PTI is starting & I'm too distracted to look now). It would take a sea change in the national discourse, there are too many more important issues today to worry about
Of course. For those you that haven't hung out with or smoked marijuana yourself you may be under the mindset that they are stoned 24/7. That is simply not the case.
Many many adults smoke small amounts of marijuana at the end of the day in the privacy of their home. It is no more harmful to the public than drinking a few beers (which is legal).
I would never want the public to be burdened by additional health costs from this. But in all honesty, I find it hard to believe that that would even happen. Marijuana simply is NOT that harmful. I'm not saying it is harmLESS by any means but in the scheme of things, be mad at cigarettes and alcohol before you get mad at marijuana.
You know, there are people who have been pushing legalization for precisely that reason: tobacco is so destructive, and marijuana "isn't" so why not make pot into a cash crop and just get everyone into hemp and mellowness at the same time? That's pretty much one of the biggest arguments for it that I have seen, but at the end of the day all of those people are still *stoned*. And they go to sleep stoned, and they wake up coming down from being stoned. That's not my imagination, that's biochemistry.
take issue a bit. I can speak from personal experience, I have never truly felt woozy (or whatever) the day after smoking, beyond a few extreme instances. I can guarantee, a hangover is multiple times worse. I have definitely felt woozy the day after drinking on almost every occasion I've imbibed a bit too much.
Depending on who's statistics youu believe... Marijuana is already the 2nd - 5th largest cash crop in America. The problem is, unlike corn or soybeans, we don't tax it.
Also... Despite your post to the contrary, at the end of the day I'm not *stoned*. I get tested monthly - as does everyone in my company - because we are a "drug-free" company. I have no problem with this, as before you even fill out an application you know that we don't hire drug users. Just because I favor legalization of drugs doesn't mean that I use them. I just believe that our drug laws are counter-productive.
If we're going to shrink government in this area, we must shrink it in others, too.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Which would mean abolishing everything that falls under the "General Welfare" mispresentation.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Energy, NASA, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment of (fill in the blank), for starters.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
In fact that sounds like a good morning's work. I am a believer in a good lunch, but after that we should be able to do in the IRS, Interior (now all its real jobs have gone to Homeland Security), the EPA, and I am not sure what most of those people at Commerce do, but I am pretty suspicious about it.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
The people at Commerce are responsible for making sure the Chinese are able to get their hands on any of our missile technology they are interested in.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
from Education, as it is a constitutionally mandated responsibility of the Federal Government. So some of them might be able to keep their jobs. But most of them have to go.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
If the stoners are so convinced of the benefits, I want to see the tax burden *shrink* not rise. That's the acid test (no pun intended.) I mean it.
it would shrink, but that's one of those things I just don't know for sure. Other, smarter individuals do think so, though (see above post w/ a few links to studies).
I'm so strict I can't post on this thread. I do _try_ to be nice.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
but then I am in general one of those meanies who thinks way too many people are receiving disability checks that shouldn't be.
Basically I sometimes think one problem is our society makes the safety net a little too cozy for some people, and frankly I think people who make decisions to use and abuse drugs and alcohol need a little boot out of the net, and need to be allowed to hit the bottom.
But then what? Whose problem do they become? In one way or another, these people will still end up someone's problem, whether they end up in jail or among a city's homeless. I don't think we (the taxpayers) will stop having to pay for them either way (I realize we don't directly pay benefits to the homeless, but they are a drain on resources such as police, etc...(
Then again, they could get their act together and go on to a better life as a result of treatment, family, whatever.
But, simply using pot is not going to put one on the track to self-destruction. Booze? Sure. Crack, coke, meth, heroin, prescription drug abuse? All possible. Pot? I just don't see it. The farthest a true pothead will fall is usually to some menial job (like Kowalski's friend he spoke of) where they can keep smoking pot & being lazy.
So when do we start to sue the manufactures out of existence? Do we do that the day after it is legalized or do we wait a couple weeks? Then, once they have been litigated out of business, do we offer manufacturers immunity from product liability suits to assure that legal sources are available? Or should government just go into the business of production itself?
What about second hand marijuana smoke? I know marijuana smoke is amazing stuff, with no health risks and lots of health benefits (just like tobacco used to be 150 years ago), but is it equally amazing for the 5 year old kids who will be breathing it in at home every time their parents toke up?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
smoking in the same breathable air their kids are in are obviously bad parents, & likely being bad at parenting in other arenas. They don't need legal pot to be bad parents.
As far as producers, I don't think manufacturers would be successfully sued. They may face troubles & legal fees, which sucks, but it's not a good reason to keep jailing people & wasting money. I would prefer the Gov not produce, but simply tax (heavily, I might add; it would still be cheaper than street price) & regulate (efficiently, I would hope, but that's living in fairy tale land)
Should we be locking people up for that offense? Like it or not kids will be exposed to it, and there will be absolutely nothing the authorities can do about it once it is legal. Feel free to toke up and blow smoke into your 3 month old baby's face. That's always great for a few laughs.
You have to be smoking something if you think a product as dangerous as marijuana (which IS more dangerous than tobacco) isn't going to be a lawsuit magnet. We can't even have plastic bags in this country without about 50 warnings on them not to use them as a crib toy, or an inflatable raft, or a hot air balloon, or an airbag replacement.
But someone who tokes up their whole life on commercially packaged weed and then finds he has cancer or has no brain cells left won't have get a dime... Right.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
child abuse, & if a parent was found giving a child alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana they should face legal consequences.
I said I don't believe any suits will be successfull, not that they won't be tried. Of course they'll be sued. I just don't think the courts or juries would give them a victory. The consequences of smoking pot would be well documented, there would be no "you lied to me about the effects", which is how tobacco got hit (and even those damages are still being debated in court to this day). People tried to hit gun makers, & they failed for much the same reason. I'm sure the gun co's had to spend some money dealing w/ it, but it doesn't change my bottome line belief that legalization/regulation is a better idea.
2nd hand smoke... not 1st hand. Nobody is giving the child a joint. They are just inhaling the pot smoke from their parent's smoking. There would be nothing illegal about that. Do you think being exposed to pot smoke every day as a kid is growing up might have some impact on their development and health? People seem pretty sure that 2nd hand tobacco smoke has negative effects on kids, adults, and anybody else in the room, which is the rationale for it being banned practically everywhere in public, and that isn't intoxicating like marijuana is.
The tobacco suits are based on product liability, not fraud. It doesn't matter how well documented the effects are. Those cigarettes have had warnings on them for over 40 years, and people who drop dead today are still suing the tobacco companies. Don't forget the states sued the tobacco companies to supposedly recoup medical expenses, as well.
Labeling is not an adequate defense to product liability, anyway. If I make a garbage disposal that blows up every once in a while, sending shards of steel into everyone in the room, it isn't enough for me to slap a label on there to that effect. I am still liable in a court of law. Cigarettes have been found to be inherently defective. Firearms and fast food have not (yet). Once they are found to be defective, you will see the same thing happen in those industries.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
to my post, I was talking about 2nd hand smoke. That would be enough, & it could be detected. Of course it would do developmental harm.
As far as the lawsuits, a defective garbage disposal & tobacco lawsuits are entirely different things, based on entirely different tort theories. I'll post back later after looking some things up on Westlaw, but if I remember correctly, the gun co's have basically received indemnity on a lot of these suits...they aren't gonna happen.
There is child abuse, & if a parent was found giving a child alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana they should face legal consequences.
Look back to my post, I was talking about 2nd hand smoke.
"Giving a child alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana" has nothing to do with 2nd hand smoke... so I'm not really sure where you were "talking about 2nd hand smoke." If you give it to them, there is nothing 2nd hand about it.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
on the issue:
Any parent smoking in the same BREATHABLE air their kids are in are obviously bad parents, & likely being bad at parenting in other arenas.
I was talking about 2nd hand from the start. I realize not every parent is a decent human being, & so unfortunately there would be some bad cases. However, that is no different from the state of things today, w/ pot illegal. There will always be bad parents, & the kind of parents who would risk giving their kid a contact high would likely do so regardless of whether pot was legal.
I don't think this is grounds for wasting billions & ruining lives through incarceration; I believe it would be a net gain (fiscally) for our country to adapt its drug laws re: marijuana.
I've posted this before, but this CATO article (from 1989!) does a good job of dissecting the pros and cons of drug legalization:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=981&full=1
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I have read quite a few very well researched books which indicate that the cost of nearly all prohibition, but especially that of a mild drug like pot, is greater than the benefits of prohibition.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I don't want to offend anyone here more than I absolutely have to, so please try not to take this personally. But I cannot believe -- absolutely cannot believe -- that with the Speaker of the House on the top of the front page, the Kossacks calling for outright, preemptive sabotage of Republican GOTV efforts, and with just ten days remaining before a critical midterm election that may very well be decisive to:
1) The fundamental national security policy of this country
2) The continued progress we've made in the federal judiciary
3) The maintenance of our continued economic success
4) And about 30 other things you can name
With all of this, we're sitting here in one of the more popular blogs in recent memory on RedState seriously debating legalizing marijuana.
I have to get this off my chest, right now and right here: I'm disappointed in myself for recommending this blog. I did it because I thought that the idea would be laughed right out of circulation and that the thread would die of starvation quickly and miserably. I hope I can express, without insulting the author or the people here who have lent their support to the concept expressed in the title, that I think it is a colossally stupid idea.
Despite what Woody Harrelson and High Times magazine want you to believe, marijuana is a Schedule I Controlled Substance for a good reason. It's a cheap and devastatingly effective intoxicant/euphoriant/hallucinogen with very little medicinal value of its own. All of the good-sounding arguments for its legalization that I've ever read were written by stoned people.
There. I have spoken my peace. If I have offended anyone with my words, please try not to take it too personally. I will never -- ever! -- join in a debate about legalization on RedState again. My vote on any such initiative is absolutely graven in stone.
[Side note: If you check that Kos link, you'll see that sabotaging Republican GOTV was a pretty popular idea over there for a while, until someone else started to question its wisdom.]
In the course of making a somewhat ridiculous stand against this poppycock idea, at various points in this thread I mentioned the Department of Health and Human Services. It turns out that they have a good website about marijuana that you should read with your children. I support mandatory, random testing in high school, BTW.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I will never, ever, under any circumstances vote for legalization of mj.
And if you promise me that you'll tax it and control it, I'll laugh in your face. You can control it no more than you can control those tomatoes I grew in my garden, let alone tax it.
And Kowalski, your problem was that you were 'discussing' this issue with at least one stoned person. That just ain't gonna work, man.
People who are high, or who have fond memories of being high, can't see this issue for what it is.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I will never -- ever! -- join in a debate about legalization on RedState again. My vote on any such initiative is absolutely graven in stone.-Kowalski
I will never, ever, under any circumstances vote for legalization of mj. - itrytobenice
And those two statements are pathetic and more than a little sad. To someone who has studied the pros and cons of the issue it's is as though you were saying. "I don't care what you have to say, I am ignorant and obstinate and I want to remain that way no matter what!"
It is not like the drug policies we have had for the last eighty years has worked so well, has it? I think that those who want to try no change in a many decades failed policy have the onus upon them to tell us why?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
How do you define whether a policy 'works?'
Is there no room for right and wrong?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Neil, its not sad that someone would have an opinion different from mine after careful study of the issues, it is sad when someone, because of ideology, or what they have been taught, is close minded and not willing to even explore other sides of the issue.
My experience is that on many issues conservatives will study and read up more than any liberal. But on some issues, (and this is one of them), they are happy just to go with party slogans and whatever Rush says. On some matters conservatives can be just as died in the wool as liberals.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Are you open minded on EVERY POSSIBLE ISSUE or have you, as William F. Buckley says in describing a characteristic of conservative thought, come to some conclusions on some things after 5000 years of human history? I suspect you have. But we won't accuse you of being a mind-numbed ditto-head slogan adherer! We'll just keep an open mind on that and give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you have studied up sufficiently on say, slavery remaining illegal.
later
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
The two statements given were indeed very close minded. Also, I have to go by my experience, It has been my experience that a great many conservatives do not study this argument at all, or if they do, they read something that only reinforces their opinion.
This has been my experience. It is evidenced by the kind of things Kowalski wrote. There are many many different ways that we might change our current prohibition, it can be a little, or a lot, or a combination. But some people are adamantly opposed to any change, and they either give no reasons, or very specious ones.
It's not that I am so sure of my own beliefs, I am just certain that what we have been doing is not working.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Most laws on the books are broken and the violators are prosecuted when caught. That people violate laws does not mean the law isn't working. Most people do not want recreational drugs to be sold legally at the Wal-Mart so they have laws prohibiting it. Most criminal laws are based on ancient laws about which most people are "closed-minded" in the same sense that they are closed-minded about what 2+2 equals. Like not touching a hot stove.
Your posts contain closed minded thoughts, and good for you. You are on your way to a reality mugging that will bring you into the fold of redstate believers!
Just a little rhetorical flourish at your expense 8! kidding bro
I actually am not totally closed to ideas on changing the war on drugs strategy, but I don't want to discuss it 2 weeks before an election!!
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
It strengthens gangs, wastes our tax dollars, and yes, even ruins the lives of decent people. There's no ancient law upon which this prohibition is based, marijuana was legal and accepted until relatively recently. The cost of the drug war is simply too high to offset the costs of people misusing weed. That's why so many prominent and respected libertarians and conservatives are ready to consider legalization.
That was also my position on adultery and sodomy as crimes. Have them on the books to make a statement, but don't enforce them unless its blatent in your face or in conjunction with a another more serious crime.. I certainly agree with you that we shouldn't spend big bucks on it.
more later
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
To someone who has studied the pros and cons of the issue it's is as though you were saying. "I don't care what you have to say, I am ignorant and obstinate and I want to remain that way no matter what!"
To someone who has studied the pros and cons of the issue and come to a different conclusion than you, it's as though you were saying, "I've thought this through and now no one else can possibly be as smart as me on this subject and now they really should just go along with me, 'cause I studied this in debate class."
Well, gee whiz. Aren't you special.
I haven't posted much on this subject, but you are presumptuous in the extreme to assume that I made up my mind without ever having thought about it. Did it ever occur to you that I have had experiences that you haven't had? Seen things that you haven't seen? Know things that you don't know?
I didn't think so. Go back to your debate class.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
But I threw it out when you sad phlegmatically That you would Never be for legalization in any way.
That indicated to me a closed mind, Oh and BTW what I said still stands, since you have also studied the situation, I think the onus is upon you to defend the continuation of many decades of failed policies which have led to mass drug use, one of the largest criminal populations in the world, and a huge and powerful organized crime.
Well, lets here it.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
You threw it out when I didn't agree with you. You're so very sure you know the answer. There is just that little niggle in your mind; maybe there's a 1% chance that there is something you haven't figured. So you're going to see if I'll sit here and wear out the keyboard arguing with you.
I think the onus is upon you
But today is opposite day, so it's on you. Go ahead. You argued both sides, after all.
If I ever feel like giving you cliff notes for your debate team, I'll let you know, but it's not today.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I've never smoked marijuana in my life. I never plan to.
Pretty much all my links were to respected libertarians or conservatives arguing for legalization. There are many, many more such articles. Plenty of thoughtful conservative posters gave insightful comments in the diary about why they support legalization.
Nobody think weed is "good" anymore than drinking is "good" -- at best, it's a harmless way to relax, at worst, it impairs your judgement and you harm yourself or someone else. For the record, you're far more likely to hurt someone while drunk than while stoned. I enjoy drinking responsibly and I don't need the government to hold my hand and tell me that I can't. Prohibition didn't work, and if you look at the statistics our fight to stamp out recreational use of marijuana isn't working either. That's why so many people are ready to support legalization, not because they are stoned hippies wanting to get high but because they care about how our government uses our tax dollars. Plenty of conservatives (and liberals) disagree, and that's fine, but in my opinion this is a legitimate and serious topic for discussion.
to Kos. I check that site out from time to time as well; the problem w/ Daily Kos is that it's so big, it incorporates all spectrums of the left (& libertarian, for that matter), & some of those folks are, to put it nicely, crazy. They would be happier in Europe, I suspect. Anyhow, by the time I got there, one of the first rec'd diaries I saw was this
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/27/214552/83
A bit nicer to see than advocacy of sabotage. Check out the poll at the end as well. Granted it's worded like a push poll, but the majority agree that sabotage is just wrong.
and end prohibition entirely, and not just for cannabis, that has been debated elsewhere.
What I want to comment on here is Raich vs Gonzales. There were only three members of the Supreme Court who voted against this lunatic reading of the commerce clause, and only one of them is now on the Court.
While conservatives may believe that, generally, Roberts and Alito are more conservative than O'Connor, on federalism, I rather doubt it. Federalism was very important to her, and on this topic her influence on her colleagues (especially Kennedy) was generally very positive. Both Roberts and Alito have spent time working in the federal government, and they were certainly not appointed to stand up for federalism. Recall that the winning party in this travesty was the Bush administration.
I fear that if this case came up today, Clarence Thomas would be casting a very lonely vote for the Constitution.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Oh you're absolutely right. Justice O'Connor would never place an undue burden on our federalist system. Not ever.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
But she attracted the reputation of being a 'centrist' because she fairly consistently sided with conservatives on some issues and fairly consistently sided with liberals on others.
Her strong stances on federalism and property rights in Raich and Kelo in her final term were not aberrations.
As I said, I fear the court has lost two of its three federalist votes. It is not yet clear what it has gained. But I am not optimistic.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Is her inconsistency. She gained the reputation of a moderate by using a magic 8 ball to arrive at her decisions, and her opinions had just as much sound reasoning behind them as those of the same device.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
That she did not reach the same conclusions as you would have done is not the same as saying she had no reasoning skills; that the principles which guided her were not your principles is not the same as saying she is unprincipled.
I have no particular brief for O'Connor. I don't agree with all the principles that guided her decision making. But the nearest thing you could find as a theme for the Rehnquist Court - on which O'Connor, most of the time, made the majority, was federalism.
I fear that has been lost.
I suggest you check out Ken Starr's book on the post-Warren Court. I think you will find it instructive.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Quentin, you can't read her convoluted church-state opinions and come away thinking she grants much deference to states and localities as matter of principle. If ever there was an outcome based jurist, its her. I thank God she wanted conservatives to win half the time at least.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Than I do for the lefties on the bench. I almost never agree with them, but at least they are more consistent and have some principles. O'Conner was not and did not. There's nothing consistent or principled about a decision with a time limit on it, for example, is there? The right decision right now isn't going to be the right decision in 25 years? That is just an absolutely ridiculous way to interpret the constitution (as if actually interpreting that document mattered to her in the least).
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
and I agree that she made some that are absurd. But so did Scalia, including Raich.
And Ken Starr HAS studied all the decisions, and his conclusion is that, overall, she was pretty consistently for federalism. Where the Rehnquist Court (which, for obvious reasons, Starr argues could be called the O'Connor Court) abandoned principles like federalism and private property it was often others, such as Kennedy and Scalia, who created the left wing majority.
On race, abortion and church/state issues she leans to the left.
I suppose that you could just about argue that Breyer has a consistent principle or two - mostly that the role of the Court is to defer to Congress.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Doesn't mean O'Connor is. I don't think it is accurate to say we've had any kind of federalist court at all, with or without O'Connor . A federalist court wouldn't leave the "constitutional right to abortion" in place, just for starters, and they had O'Connor's reliable vote on that issue. Striking down Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban in Carhart doesn't seem to be the epitome of federalism to me.
There is only one serious federalist on the bench, and that is Thomas. I think it's too soon to say anything about the new guys, but my hopes are not particularly high. Justices like Thomas are a very rare thing.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
In fact, this is pretty much where I got on. I fear Thomas may have a lonely ride from now on. On the specific issue of federalism, I am not optimistic about Roberts or Alito. Too much time working for the federal government. On other issues this Court may prove more conservative than before.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I don't see how legalizing marijuana would suddenly get rid of the amount of money being spent on keeping it illegal right now. When it becomes legal, it'll take just as much force ( or more ) to make sure people still aren't growing it in their own home, aren't buying from an out-of-area source which avoids taxes and that the drug being used isn't tainted in some way. You'd have to find a way to deal with that issue, of it being mixed with something else, or else you have to legal other sorts of drugs. Until there is a proven, cost-effective way to legalize it while maintaining it only sold by a "license dealer", so to speak, it should be kept illegal.
And it's purely practical: it's really easy to hide a stash of it, which already makes it a problem on the high school level*. I'm also concerned that DUI checkpoints will become even more common; they'd have to be. And, yeah, I'm not jazzed on people toking up in the next booth over while I'm trying to eat (and not think of cigarettes).
Jeebus, I'm getting old.
Anyway, I can live with people gaming the system if it means better quality of life for chemo/glaucoma/AIDS patients. I can also live with an implicit double standard, so there you go.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*Not that I'd know anything about that, of course.