The word "minor" does appear:
There is honest debate among scientists about the health effects of marijuana, but we believe that the evidence is overwhelming that addiction and dependence are relatively minor problems, especially compared with alcohol and tobacco.Oh, don't worry about the scientists! It's what you believe that really matters.
IN THE COMMENTS: Mark observes that the words "adolescent" and "under 21" do appear in the article. He's right. It's this one paragraph:
There are legitimate concerns about marijuana on the development of adolescent brains. For that reason, we advocate the prohibition of sales to people under 21.First, that doesn't address the problem of second-hand smoke imposed on others including children.
Second — and much more hilariously — it exhibits the very faith in prohibition that most of the editorial finds ineffectual and damaging and even racist. The title of the editorial is "Repeal Prohibition, Again." The main point is that prohibition doesn't work! How, then, is prohibition supposed to work on the under-21 crowd? These are the very people who are most enthusiastic about using marijuana and least likely to absorb and respond to the consequences of committing crimes. They have "adolescent brains" after all.
Third, why are "people" over 18 but under 21 lumped in with adolescents? If their brains are so badly underdeveloped, let's repeal the 26th Amendment. A better proposal would be to lower the drinking age to 18. If the Times is as concerned as it purports to be about young people getting a criminal record that messes up their lives, how about relieving them of that ridiculous burden? Instead, the Times would usher in a new era of 21-and-over people free to puff away on marijuana, while the younger people — the ones who most want to have a go at wrecking their heads and their lungs — get shunted into the black market.
Fourth, obviously, there will still be an illegal market. The under-21 people will demand it.
For an intelligent, in-depth analysis of the reality of marijuana legalization, read Patrick Radden Keefe's great New Yorker article "Buzzkill/Washington State discovers that it’s not so easy to create a legal marijuana economy." I know the NYT has a whole series of editorials on the subject planned, but so far, its presentation of the subject is exasperatingly unsophisticated. I might well go along with legalization as the better policy, but the Times approach is, to me, devoid of persuasiveness.
Posts
64 comments:
No mention that we are supposed to be a free People and do what we want if we don't harm others either.
A concept Which I don't suppose ever entered that room with all them deep thinkers.
Everything after that is bullshit.
No, but adolescent does as does 'under 21'.
A nudge to mid-term elections. Endangered Democrat legislators, if retained in their jobs, could legalize marijuana.
Republican challengers, if they are smart, will quietly but unequivocally take the same libertarian position.
I still plan to vote Libertarian. Not on the marijuana issue, but on general small government less spending balanced budget principles.
If you don't like what they do with the money and power, then don't give them the money and power.
As things stand, Republicans and Democrats both place gathering up money and power and job retention will ahead of guarding their constituents' Liberty.
@donald nailed the primary reason for drug legalization. But ...
Every time cops shake down people driving through their state by using civil forfeiture laws, every time cops dressed like storn troopers burst into a home, shooting the family dogs, only to find out it's the wrong address, every time cops "find" a baggie in the coat pocket of some inner city kid, every time the profits of illegal drug trads lead to a beheading in Juarez, every time someone turns to crime in order to afford drugs that would be cheap f legal, and every time our efforts to win the confidence of an Afghan tribal leader have to bow hefore insistence that he burn his crop of opium poppies, WE are paying the price of our wonderful war on drugs.
Individual liberty is the first and best reason for legalization, but even if we didn't care a whit for liberty, the practical costs of this foolish enterprise so far outweigh its supposed benefits that ending our second prohibition should be an obvious goal for all.
The war on drugs is a joke. My nephew is undercover narcs. They let dealers drive through the state on the way to Canada to deliver drugs. They arrest them on the return trip so they can keep the money from the sale for the police department, probably to buy military equipment.
Coming soon after marijuana is made legal: The Editorial urging more taxes on Pot because of the health issues that follow from smoking it.
Ann said:
I might well go along with legalization as the better policy,...
I've been reading here for many years and you have always been reliably pro-choice. A woman's body, a woman's right to choose and all that.
I think you need to add your bullshit tag to this post.
Or are you really pro-choice on matters other than abortion.
Perhaps some clarification is in order on your part.
John Henry
Individual liberty is all well and good, but heroin and meth will never be legal and never should. The libertarian philosophy of drugs seems to ignore research on the human brain and addiction.
As to Althouse re:lack of persuasion ... the NYT no longer tries to convince. The right (as seen in comments here going back years) will never listen or trust a word written in the Times, few average people read it, so the few remaining people's opinion is already guaranteed.
The.editorial pages haven't been any good since they lost Safire, who I politically disagreed with but who could both think and write well.
In Drudge's link to this story immediately beneath it is a link to a story whose headline is:
Paper: Obama Has Already Checked Out
Drudge has had this up for a day or two as "Feds test how stoned is too stoned to drive"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/25/federal-marijuana-and-alcohol-driving-research/12496767/
I've seen a couple other articles along the same lines in recent months. Virtually everything I have seen that is ostensibly about driving under the influence of pot is really about the influence of driving under the influence of pot AND alcohol.
Sounds like propaganda to me.
We already know that alcohol impairs driving. Lots of studies and experience with that.
We also know that pot doesn't seem to cause impairment. Not many studies and more need to be done.
The NHTSA did 2 studies in the 90's where they gave people calibrated amounts of THC (via smoking) and tested their reaction times in cars. Findings in both cases? Slight but not significant improvement in driving ability.
Australia did a similar study with similar results.
North Carolina did another, different type, study and found no impairment.
I think this pot AND alcohol studies are to propagandize not to help.
John Henry
They arrest them on the return trip so they can keep the money from the sale for the police department, probably to buy military equipment.
Were I King for a week, that is a law I would strike: Allowing Police Departments the right to keep assets seized in the so-called War on Drugs. It is totally corrupting, IMO.
I would also rescind every Executive Order that is essentially writing/re-writing a law. If it's that important to the running of the Republic, then the Legislature can bring it up and pass it.
My buddy is a cop in the inner city of Milwaukee.
Quite frequently he walks into a house/apartment so thick with pot smoke you could cut it with a knife, while children of various ages play on the floor.
Is the NYT editorial board made up of global warming deniers? Or do they just not read the NYT?
It would be nice someday to live in a world not made safe for children. Legalization of weed would be just another step in the long march to liberate Amerikan adults.
I felt that way when I was a teenager buying the newly liberated Lady Chatterley's Lover and Tropic of Cancer. They probably ruined me forever.
"No mention that we are supposed to be a free People and do what we want if we don't harm others either."
That's why I brought up second-hand smoke.
How would you like to live in an apartment that continually smelled of your neighbors' marijuana?
"I might well go along with legalization as the better policy, but the Times approach is, to me, devoid of persuasiveness."
Fortunately as an observant and free-thinking individual I'm in no need of persuasion by the NYT to form an opinion on this topic.
Donald and Lucien both succinctly summed up why drugs should be legal, and should not be illegal. Their arguments are quite sound from a rational perspective.
Of course rational people are in short supply.
The single most destructive drug in terms of health costs and inciting irresponsible and criminal behavior (from consumption) is alcohol. No doubt many if not most of the drug prohibition advocates here are boozers.
While rationality may be a rarity hypocrisy is never in short supply.
More on pot's pollution HERE.
Maybe only legalize non smokable marijuana, you know, the edibles like candy and cookies that children sneakily eat.
One of the reasons I stand with Rand (Paul) is because he is pro-choice.
He just announced that he is submitting legislation to greatly restrict federal civil forfeiture laws.
I am not sure if he submitted legislation or is going to but he is talking about leaving legalization of pot up to states. The feds would be required to respect state laws on pot. Where it is legal like CO and WA, where medical mj is legal like CA and other states and so on.
Hooray for choice.
So Crack, as our resident expert on the black community across the US, how do you think this will affect Paul's presidency among blacks?
Seems like it would help but I am just a white boy so what do I know?
John Henry
I say raise the voting, driving, drinking and toking ages to 27, to be consistent with Obamacare.
At least voting.
Maybe only legalize non smokable marijuana, you know, the edibles like candy and cookies that children sneakily eat.
Funny, NY times also has an article on the dangers of marijuana, including the edible kind. I guess 3 months makes a big difference.
"We also know that pot doesn't seem to cause impairment."
What errant nonsense. Pot, as does any mind-altering substance, affects one's judgement and cognitive ability, if perhaps only temporarily. By this logic, train and bus operators, as well as airline pilots, should be allowed to smoke before going to work.
There is no bullshit tag. What you are remembering is Thorpe "civility bullshit" tag which is about the bullshit calls for civility. Not applicable here.
Ann's right, of course, especially about the age limit. Make pot legal only if you're over 21, and you've already written off rather more than half the market. This will help how?
Also re: smoking. We haven't had to deal with the health consequences of pot smoke so far, but legalize it for real, and we will.
"Oh, don't worry about the scientists! It's what you believe that really matters."
Except when it comes to global warming -- then what you believe is all that matters? I'm confused.
donald said...
No mention that we are supposed to be a free People and do what we want if we don't harm others either.
Supposed to be, but bureaucrats and their hired thugs think they have the right to introduce violence into your life.
First, that doesn't address the problem of second-hand smoke imposed on others including children.
Exactly what is that problem?
And how about third-hand smoke?
"Third-hand smoke just as deadly as first-hand smoke"
IOW, lying is a trivial inconvenience to people who think they have the right to control and abuse people who are minding their own business.
How, then, is prohibition supposed to work on the under-21 crowd?
Same as for booze and cigs - very imperfectly, and probably even detrimentally when compared to not having age limits.
They have "adolescent brains" after all.
They'll grow out of it.
Third, why are "people" over 18 but under 21 lumped in with adolescents?
Politics.
A better proposal would be to lower the drinking age to 18.
True. Even better would be no age limit.
the ones who most want to have a go at wrecking their heads and their lungs
Cite?
Fourth, obviously, there will still be an illegal market. The under-21 people will demand it.
Gosh!
"Buzzkill/Washington State discovers that it’s not so easy to create a legal marijuana economy."
The problem is: "they are creating a legal market for the drug that will be overseen by the state."
The nanny-state creates its own nanny-problems.
The evidence does *not* support a connection between marijuana smoking and lung cancer. The only countries with studies that find a connection are those where marijuana is commonly smoked *rolled with tobacco*. In the U.S., where this is not typical, marijuana smoking is NOT associated with increased mortality from any cause and is NOT associated with lung cancer.
Key researcher to read is Dr. Donald Tashkin, who spent years looking for data showing that marijuana causes lung cancer, and wound up finding the opposite. See http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/10/study-smoking-marijuana-not-linked-with-lung-damage/
So, that's why it's a non issue for the NYT.
Right you are Ann, no Bullshit tag. That doesn't mean you can't create one, though.
In any event, on thinking further, your post didn't call for a bullshit tag. What is really needed is a "Pro-choice is bullshit"
You could create one if you were honest about it.
John Henry
Fourth, obviously, there will still be an illegal market. The under-21 people will demand it.
There's another reason why they'll still be an illegal market --- price.
The county where I live in MD has a monopoly on alcoholic beverages. They're incompetently run, and screw up business for the restaurants who must order their liquor from the county. Everyone wants the county out of the liquor business ---- EXCEPT for the fact that the county makes tens of millions per year from liquor sales.
The blue states who are pushing through legalization want to make taxes on pot another cash cow, but that's the last thing the stoners care about. But, once a government starts getting a tax stream from an activity, it'll never give it up.
Meade said...
More on pot's pollution HERE.
Another fun result of prohibition; if tomatoes were illegal, people would grow them indoors.
Ann asks:
How would you like to live in an apartment that continually smelled of your neighbors' marijuana?
Is the small of a neighbor's mj really a problem?
What about their cabbage or lutefisk? Or dirty diapers? or any of a million other smells that we all make? Are they any less offensive than the smell of pot?
Ahhhhh... but the second hand smoke some here are saying. Think of the children!
We already know that harm from second hand tobacco smoke is bullshit. Why would mj smoke be any different?
I have been reading some worries about people who may flunk drug tests because of exposure to 2nd hand pot smoke. This does not seem to be a problem. Tests have not been able to detect THC from 2nd hand smoke.
So if children are not getting enough THC to detect, why would we think they are getting enough THC to do harm?
We do need more science on this, I agree. For too long research into MJ has effectively been forbidden. What little actually has been done does not seem to indicate any particular harm.
John "pro-choice" Henry
Meade, your link doesn't work. I get some sort of graphic that seems to be made of letters mashed together.
From the title, it seems to be saying that indoor pot growing has a big carbon footprint. I assume that means it causes global warming, or at least global whatever.
If pot is legal, why will it be grown indoors? Its a weed, it can easily be grown outside. And if it is legal, we do away with much of the need for this super potent stuff. People will just grow it in their backyard or in a pot on the windowsill.
John Henry
Maia,
Even lung cancer "caused" by tobacco is not a huge problem.
Fewer than 10% of smokers get lung cancer. It requires a really bizarre definition of the word "cause" to say tobacco causes lung cancer.
Rate of lung cancer in non-smokers is about 4.5% so there is a greater risk to smokers.
Smoking anything, even being around burning leaves in the fall, doesn't do your lungs any favors.
But it doesn't "cause" lung cancer. Not in any meaningful sense of the word.
John Henry
St. George said...
In Drudge's link to this story immediately beneath it is a link to a story whose headline is:
Paper: Obama Has Already Checked Out
"Checked out" is a euphemism for "became psychotic".
And that's because, like most other politicians (I'd bet), he smoked marijuana in his adolescence, so now his poor malformed brain is completely fried and all he can do is lie in a frying pan, his two eyes silently pleading for help, as in the "this is your brain on drugs with a cup of coffee and a side order of toast" scenario.
The problem that concerns me is the studies that show pot users emotional ages "arresting" at the age they first begin their serious use of drugs.
Can you run a country based on the emotional reactions of a bunch of 16-18 year olds? (Particularly given the determination of our education system to infantilize these kids as thoroughly as possible?)
"We also know that pot doesn't seem to cause impairment."
Dude...whoa...
Donald wrote:
No mention that we are supposed to be a free People and do what we want if we don't harm others either.
But there are exceptions to all of these freedoms. You are free to drink, so long as you are old enough. You can sell cigarettes, but not to minors.
And there's a difference between personal autonomy arguments and the right to sell arguments. You can, as an individual take meth. But should someone be able to sell it to you. That's a different argument.Making some slave to you through their product might be construed as harm, and it's hard to argue that people who take meth are super healthy. So, there is harm selling products like meth to people.
If you want to cook up some super special drug mixed with all the chemicals you find under your bathroom sink, more power to you. If you want to sell it though, that's another issue entirely.
Show of hands: who here fires up a fat one before doing their taxes?
Now that the young have so much less opportunity it is important that we provide ways to sedate them.
I don't think that the NYT or other pot-proponents think of underage people as part of the issue. Perhaps this is because we've been soaked with so much "for the children" reasoning that we've come to ignore it. That line of consideration has become booooorrrring.
You can ask the pot-proponents... "Just what is that you want to do?" And they'll tell you that they want to be free. They want to be free to do what they want to do. They want to be free to... They want to be free to... without being hassled by The Man. And they want to get loaded. And they want to have a good time. And that's what they're gonna do. They're gonna have a good time. They're gonna have a party.
NOT BORING! Authoritarians are boring! Writing off the young people problem. Cost of freedom. Cost of the the tradition that was incubated in the 1960s...
Maia Szalavitz said..."Key researcher to read is Dr. Donald Tashkin, who spent years looking for data showing that marijuana causes lung cancer, and wound up finding the opposite."
I'm familiar with Tashkin, and he is quite a bit more circumspect on the matter. For example, in an opinion piece authored by Tashkin that appeared just this month (Respirology, 19(5):619–620, July 2014), he wrote:
"The relationship of cannabis use to lung cancer is also contentious. While the presence of known carcinogens in cannabis smoke and histologic and immunopathologic evidence of potentially precancerous changes in the bronchial epithelium of smokers of cannabis without tobacco suggest a possible link to lung cancer, again the evidence from epidemiologic studies is mixed. While three of these studies suggest a positive association, all three have serious limitations...On the other hand, two studies have notably failed to find a positive association with cannabis."
The truth is that there really hasn't been a lot of research in this area, one way or another. It's also probably fair to say that several notorious compounds (BOA, thimerosal) have been banned from the marketplace despite evidence of harm that is significantly weaker than the evidence that marijuana causes harm.
I dare say that the reason for this is pure politics: marijuana (and its tax revenues) is desired by significant constituencies, so there is political hay to be made by advocating its use and by downplaying or avoiding the examination of its potential dangers.
(I probably should disclose at this point that I fully support complete decriminalization of recreational marijuana use. At the same time, I think that statements downplaying the risk of such use are scientifically and ethically irresponsible.)
Regarding other risks, Tashkin goes on to write:
"The most consistent finding from the limited number of studies conducted to date...is that chronic cannabis use (after adjustment for tobacco) is uniformly associated with an increased prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis. This association is compatible with the finding by one group of investigators of widespread endoscopic and microscopic evidence of injury and inflammation involving the central airways of habitual smokers of cannabis without tobacco, including loss of ciliated epithelium and replacement by mucus-secreting goblet cells, the frequency and severity of which were comparable to that of smokers of tobacco alone."
Tell me, aside from cannabis, is there anything else in fairly wide, frequent, discretionary use that could be described that way and that would not have the usual health advocates shouting from the rooftops that such a menace must be banned, RIGHT NOW FOR THE CHILDREN? (Again, I support decriminalization. I just despise the inconsistency with which "science" is used when generating policy.)
Similarly, the actual evidence that second hand tobacco smoke is very dangerous is shockingly weak, but all the "right-thinking" people demand that tobacco must be eradicated from the public space because of its second hand impact, particularly on children.
The bottom line is that marijuana is fun and cool, at least among certain important constituencies, while tobacco is seriously uncool (except in places where a lot of people work in the tobacco industry). Sub-consciously or not -- and I am not accusing anyone of ill intent, by the way) -- that impacts the choice of studies that get performed, and that impacts the choice of policies that get advocated.
"Can you run a country based on the emotional reactions of a bunch of 16-18 year olds"
We seem to be engaged in testing that question now.
Trashhauler, Richard M:
The studies I mentioned studied impairment while driving a car. I would presume that this holds generally true but all the studies tested for was car driving.
The two NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Agency, part of DOT at the time) got 20-30 volunteers and ran them through reaction tests including driving a car on a slalom course for a baseline.
Then they had them smoke calibrated amounts of pot from the govt's Missouri farm, and repeat the tests. They did this several times, smoking more pot in between.
Reaction times actually improved slightly but not significantly (statistically) as they smoked more weed.
A second study more or less repeated the same process with similar results.
Australia, or one of the Australian states, did a similar type study with similar results, if I recall correctly.
In North Carolina they also studied the effects of MJ on driving. I forget the details now but ISTR that it involved sample blood of drivers in accidents for THC and finding no higher level than the general population.
So, if MJ does cause impairment, I am sure there are studies to prove this, right?
Perhaps you could point us to some?
That would be studies that looked at MJ alone, not in combination with alcohol and studies that measured actual reaction times and responses under varying levels of THC blood level.
So, Links please.
John Henry
"Except when it comes to global warming -- then what you believe is all that matters? I'm confused."
Yeah, the evil weed can do that to a person.
Maia Szalavitz,
Look, if you inhale smoke, smoke is what you get. I resist believing that pot smoke is, uniquely, non-toxic. Why should it be?
Michelle,
Did she say it was non-toxic? I thought Maia said that it didn't cause lung cancer. Even at the low levels that tobacco "causes" lung cancer.
I agree that taking smoke of any kind into your lungs is bad for them and not healthy. I said so before and say so again.
Taking any particulates into your lungs is bad be it smoke or dust.
But MJ smoke does not cause lung cancer.
John Henry
I have several relatives who are long time pot users. It does seem to have some negative health effects. However, the most negative effect is having to associate with criminals to get it. One person has been robbed and burglarized numerous times. I think it is because she has invited criminals into her life to buy pot from them. Having said that, I really don't care if it is legal or not.
The libertarian standard is that an individual's rights end where another human life's rights begin (e.g. right to life). This is why smoking is restricted in public spaces, because there is no reasonable ability or expectation to contain its effects. This is also why pro-choice is a degenerate doctrine.
Liberals just go with what feels good and shift the burden of responsibility to someone else. It's surprising that libertarians have argued that terminating a human life is equivalent to emancipation, which is the same defective argument used by Obama (i.e. "burden"), which grants women superior rights to commit murder for a cause other than self-defense.
That said, we are arguing about an activity which impairs normal function and may cause death, while normalizing another activity with over 100% mortality. And people still wonder where the moral hazards arise.
I went to a Steely Dan concert in New York a few years ago and some middle-aged lady in the row in front of me lit up a joint. If it had been a tobacco cigarette, I suppose she would have been dragged out by the police and fined, but in this case no one said or did anything. I for one do not understand how anyone can think that inhaling marijuana smoke deeply into your lungs can possibly have less ill effect than smoking tobacco.
The most interesting part of this is that it shows the people who write the NYT editorials are not very smart. They consistently write stuff that, regardless of the policy judgment, is intellectually weak.
"Look, if you inhale smoke, smoke is what you get. I resist believing that pot smoke is, uniquely, non-toxic. Why should it be?"
Different kinds of smoke have different levels of toxicity.
Also a heavy cigarette smoker may smoke a couple of packs a day. Pot smokers don't need more than the equivalent pot of one tobacco cigarette to stay high all day (the typical joint is thinner and shorter than a tobacco cigarette).
Anecdotal, but a friend of mine who is 60 years old has been smoking pot every day since his late teens. He was nervous about the condition of his lungs and had them looked at by his doctor and they were pink and healthy...no signs of any abnormalities.
I think most of the people with irrational notions and fears of reefer just don't have any experience with it.
Regardless, prohibition has far greater costs to society than benefits. Cartels and criminals with guns and money created solely as the result of drugs being illegal, militarized drug enforcement bureaucracies, jails filled with non violent offenders, etc.
Milton Friedman used to say that drug addiction was a tragedy for the individual, but prohibition was a catastrophe for society.
As drugs go marijuana is rather benign. Nowhere near as destructive as alcohol which kills untold thousands every year through disease, motor vehicle and other accidents, homicides committed in a drunken rage, and on and on.
" I for one do not understand how anyone can think that inhaling marijuana smoke deeply into your lungs can possibly have less ill effect than smoking tobacco."
You're right. You do not understand.
Even if the two kinds of smoke had the same level of toxicity, and the evidence suggests they do not, the volume of smoke that a tobacco smoker inhales daily is many times greater than even that of a dedicated stoner.
There is honest debate among scientists about the health effects of marijuana, but we believe that the evidence is overwhelming... yada yada yada-
You mean like the honest debate among scientists about the cause and long-term effects of climate change, but the NY Times believes the evidence is overwhelming a global cataclysm will soon overtake us unless we all adopt Stone Age lifestyles or else give open-ended consent to pay carbon taxes to our government elites? Those same government elites living in multi-million dollar homes with huge carbon footprints, riding around in huge armored gas-guzzling SUVs, and jetting off to exotic locales a couple times a year for taxpayer-funded 'conferences' (i.e., vacations) with other government elites to discuss the next batch of 'necessary' environmental terrorist regulations?
And by the way weed is indeed a dangerous drug.
I would like to know why the hell tobacco, a very addicting and health-destroying plant, is legal for individuals to grow in all 50 states while weed is not. I would venture to guess that a significant amount of productivity is lost in the workplace due to nicotine addicts having to leave their desks to suck on a cigarette 2-4 times a day.
I'm all for legalizing pot, or as others may put it, giving people their freedom, just as soon as we also give people responsibility for that freedom.
If you want to wreck your life, fine, just don't make me pay for it.
Therefore, as soon as we abolish food stamps, welfare, medicaid, medicare, and all the rest of our socialized, tax the rich and give the poor, government, I'll support legalizing Marijuana.
As to those who say what about all the other bad things that are already legal, shouldn't Marijuana be legal too because other bad things are legal? No. If I thought it was politically viable to make those things illegal until we got rid of our socialized society, then I'd be all for it. Clearly that's just dumb. That genie is out of the bottle and I don't see a reason to expend the political capital to put it back into the bottle.
However, I don't want to add to our already overburdened system. If people want to be free, great, let them bear the responsibility of their freedom. Until then, I'm opposed to Marijuana legalization in any way, shape, or form.
Oh, and I've worked against the drug cartels for a long time. We just had a major cigarette bust here in Seattle with ATFE(They added the E, most people don't know that ATF is now ATFE). But wait, cigarettes are legal! What?!
Yeah, government has a way of putting taxes on those things that are bad for you (With the excuse that we are a socialized society and they'll take care of you and therefore it's perfectly legit, see that wonderful circle politicians have made and now will do with Marijuana?).
Legalizing drugs doesn't get rid of the bad guys. Just as legalizing alcohol didn't get rid of the Mob. They adapt, they adjust, they go into a different business.
In the end, if you want freedom, I'm all for it! I support you. First, let's get rid of welfare. Once you help me do that, then I'll help you get all the dope you want and you can smoke your brains out.
I am currently one of the licensed producer processors in Washington state trying and failing to keep the retailers open and stocked. So yeah biased. That said I have never smoked nor do I plan to. But I have been around pot users for years.
We make a product we call Blewetts. They are cigarette papers stuffed with weed. We are planning to replace tobacco cigarettes over the next several years. They are healthier for you individually and it takes fewer of them. They make you feel better than a cigarette. I also think we need to replace alcohol as the inebriant of choice.
90% of the crap posted by prohibitionists is the result of ignorance. The rest is a statist impulse to tell other people what to do.
And pot smokers are better drivers stoned than sober. If they get too stoned they pull over and freak out. Otherwise they drive 5 mph under the speed limit in a paranoid haze waiting for things to jump out of the bushes or worried about that under cover cop car 3 cars ahead of them. There will never be a legitimate study showing impaired driving because that isn't how it works. Only in ignorance would you say driving while stoned is a concern.
"Repeal Prohibition, Again."
NYT: "Prohibition (of alcohol) didn't work"
NYT: "Prohibition of marijuana is no different."
NYT: "But, prohibition of guns does work."
Doesn't it? Logic and The New York Times go together about as well as real science and the New York Times.
I doubt there's anyone on staff at NYT who can read and understand a science paper that contains any significant amount of math. And, logic? The NYT does not deal in logic, it deals in emotions. "How we feel about it" is trump.
(Although they are surely correct about marijuana. Although harsh penalties may seldom be imposed, how can anyone seriously defend laws that make possession of it a felony?
"90% of the crap posted by prohibitionists is the result of ignorance. "
90% of the crap posted by supporters is the result of stupidity.
Also, 87.5% of all statistics are randomly made up.
"And pot smokers are better drivers stoned than sober."
I wouldn't be surprised to find out you're right about this. Pot smokers are destroying their mind. So they may just be really terrible drivers all the time. But when stoned, they go from god awful drivers to just awful drivers.
I'm not sure about this though. Even though their minds are wasting away and they are becoming more paranoid, schizophrenic and mentally ill by the day (Or would that be by the high?), I don't see how they could drive better while high than while sober.
On second thought, they probably go from god awful drivers when sober to somehow worse while high.
Regardless, this shouldn't determine our laws on weed. Instead, we shouldn't want to create a more burdened society. Get rid of welfare and I'll support your freedom to destroy your life anyway you choose.
It's not like they're talking about "smoking" smoking. Related thoughts
http://www.ego-vero.net/main/?p=697
and
http://www.ego-vero.net/main/?p=697
Besides politicans are catching on that the more loaded their constituents are, the more competent the politicians look:
http://www.ego-vero.net/main/?p=1072
"They make you feel better than a cigarette."
I agree. A cigarette feels absolutely nothing. A person who has smoked pot has some feelings, despite the literal meaning of the most applicable word: apathy.
Went thru the entire thread. Not one comment on the devstating effect of the war on pot in imprisoning minority populations for casual use, even though they smoke at the same rate as whites. Also, 40 years ago I never had a problem buying pot in the big city while in High School, and my kids never had a problem buying pot a few years ago while in the burbs HS. Legalizing will change access to kids how? As good libertarians, should you not demand good payback from government programs that cost taxpayes trillions over decades and have "0" impact?
This is probably one of the sillier posts I've seen here.
Post a Comment