October 21, 2015

I shouldn't have...

... left those "Weedsburg" photographs at the top of the blog for so long.

Creates the wrong impression.

Those were the recent photographs I had... after a drive and a long walk to look at fall foliage. You might think fall foliage is photogenic, but what looks pretty in person may come out of your camera looking rather dull. The shop — where they didn't mind my taking pictures — was, by contrast, really interesting.

Leaves versus leaves, and marijuana won, being more photographable.

But I'm sorry to create the wrong impression. I'm not a big marijuana legalization advocate, though I did change my position on the subject fairly recently, because I think substance-boosted disinhibition is important, though overdone.

ADDED: I changed my mind about legalization in March 2015 as a result of reading something written by Paul Johnson about Henrik Ibsen:
There was one aspect of Ibsen’s vanity which verged on the ludicrous... He had a lifelong passion for medals and orders. In fact, he went to embarrassing lengths to get them...

[T]here is ample evidence for Ibsen’s passion since he insisted on displaying his growing galaxy of stars on every possible occasion. As early as 1878 he is reported to have worn all of them, including one like a dog-collar round his neck, at a club dinner. The Swedish painter Georg Pauli came across Ibsen sporting his medals (not the ribbons alone but the actual stars) in a Rome street. At times he seems to have put them on virtually every evening. He defended his practice by saying that, in the presence of ‘younger friends’, it ‘reminds me that I need to keep within certain limits.’ All the same, people who had invited him to dinner were always relieved when he arrived without them, as they attracted smiles and even open laughter as the wine circulated....
In the comments, back in March, John Stodder said: "I like Paul Johnson. I like Ibsen. I like legalizing marijuana. I like Ann Althouse. However, I do not understand the connection. I feel like I've been outrebounded!"

I said — after laughing at "outrebounded" (an inside joke back then) — "Here's a clue: freedom and democracy depend on our disinhibition; we need to be able to laugh at authority."

31 comments:

Big Mike said...

Sometimes your posts seem to come from the perspective of an unreconstructed 70's era hippie (or incompletely reconstructed, anyway). Not unexpected for a BFA grad, but somewhat unexpected for a tenured Con Law professor. Hence my response and doubtlessly others.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...freedom and democracy depend on our disinhibition...

So does getting laid. At least my getting laid does. Though mostly on other people's disinhibition. And by disinhibition I mean she has to be totally wasted. But not in an unable to consent sort of way.

tim maguire said...

This post may be too much inside baseball. How did that Johnson passage about Ibsen change your view of marijuana legalization? It doesn't obviously relate, it doesn't seem to hold any great insights about power and/or personal choice, the relationship of the citizen to the state. What was your view on legalization then? What is your view now?

tim maguire said...

Strike that last part, on more careful rereading, it seems you are a moderate supporter of legalization. But I still don't get the connection between that and the Ibsen story.

C Stanley said...

So if i understand the relevance of the Ibsen story, people began to laugh at him after they became disinhibited by alcohol. And we need to be disinhibited in order to laugh at authority figures, and drugs can facilitate that so we shouldnt allow the government to prohibit the use of those drugs.

That assumes a lot of things though, without much evidence. Does the disinhibition from drugs really serve the purpose of keeping government authority in check? I'm highly skeptical. It can just as easily be used by government to keep people complacent.

David Begley said...

Outrebounded?

Basketball players?

Gahrie said...

I support the legalization of marijuana because prohibition never works, and the war on drugs has greatly distorted the government.

ndspinelli said...

Vanity post. They occur when Mrs. Althouse feels the need for attention, even more than the obsessive need. It's her way of saying, "Look @ me, I'm smarter than you."

EMD said...

And yet this woman is afraid of Libertarians. Hahahahaha.

EMD said...

I favor legalization. I wonder if one of the benefits will be less marijuana fetishism, which is weird.

Laslo Spatula said...

" I wonder if one of the benefits will be less marijuana fetishism, which is weird."

More fetishism here in Seattle.

And still odd to see billboards advertising marijuana stores.

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

Alcohol is often brought up in the campus rape hysteria, but can one consent to sex while stoned?


I am Laslo.

tim in vermont said...

Alcohol is the great procurer, pot the great enhancer.

Laslo Spatula said...

Can a woman on psychological pharmaceuticals ever consent to anything?

Because not having sex because you are on anti-depressants would seem to cause depression, and the snake eats its own tail.

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

What if the woman is on a placebo, and just thought she was drugged: what is the status of her consent?

I am Laslo.

Stanley Smith said...

Ah, it's all great, until someone DUI kills you.

Laslo Spatula said...

"What if the woman is on a placebo, and just thought she was drugged: what is the status of her consent?"

Related: the 'This is Great Shit' Oregano Effect.

I am Laslo.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

But I guess it is all blamed on the alchohol so it is all good, right?

How did the prohibition of alcohol workout? Why did we think it would work any better with marijuana?

Prohibition has never worked.

tim in vermont said...

Nobody is talking about prohibition. I am just saying that there is a lot of "pot is harmless" nonsense out there. We should go into this with our eyes open and with the law enforcement tools to keep dangerous killers off the road.

Rusty said...

we need to be able to laugh at authority."

Unless it's the current resident you're laughing at.
Then it could land you in jail.

Gahrie said...

tools to keep dangerous killers off the road.

Self driving cars will solve this problem within the next twenty years.

tim in vermont said...

Self driving cars will solve this problem within the next twenty years.

I hope so. I am deleting my post above because it is too personal.

eric said...

If I were seeking power over people, I'd think it'd be easier with a drunk and stoned population as opposed to a sober one.

tim in vermont said...

If I were seeking power over people, I'd think it'd be easier with a drunk and stoned population as opposed to a sober one.

Right, then you tell that that that is the true meaning of freedom, that and meaningless sex.

sydney said...

I have been told that marijuana dispensaries now outnumber pharmacies in Colorado. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Axiom: you cannot legislate morality. (Corollary: use of the tax code for social engineering is rife with unintended consequences.)

Do you *really* want a "War on Drugs?" Fine. Anyone found with any quantity of proscribed drug gets stood against nearest the wall and shot. That will eliminate drug use by all and sundry (except, of course, those involved in enforcement).

damikesc said...

I support legalization in spite of the reality that potheads are useless morons.

Smilin' Jack said...

"Here's a clue: freedom and democracy depend on our disinhibition; we need to be able to laugh at authority."

What's more laughable than the War on Drugs? I giggle whenever I hear the term "controlled substance". The substance isn't controlled; you are.

BN said...

"I changed my mind about legalization in March 2015 as a result of reading something written by Paul Johnson about Henrik Ibsen."

Yeah, yeah, that's what everyone says.

Seriously, though, that does explain the vote for the Won. You're just kind of "blowin' in the wind," huh?

"...we need to be able to laugh at authority."

But if they legalize it, then there will be nothing to laugh at any more... except... well... the absurdity of it all.

And isn't that the real pot of point? ...uh... I mean...




BN said...

uh... I mean...

something... I forgot what.