One recurring theme with the discussion of “drugs” is how absolutely binary some insist on making it, when the subject is anything but. They’re also usually the folks that uncritically lump cannabis in with other banned and regulated substances. While they may in some slight sense grasp the hypocritical irony of a society that accommodates, even promotes, the consumption of ‘acceptable’ substances, they’re usually also a lot of the same folks keeping the Carrie Nations/Henry Waxman “I’ll tell you what’s good for you cause I know best” prohibitionist spirit alive and kicking (others in the arse on every occasion possible).

It’d be nice to take the money trick aspect off the table. Oh, here’s a news flash – there’s going to be really, really big numbers involved, either way you go – legal or illegal. Discussing, however, cannabis, and making such patently ignorant statements about how legalization will simply enrich those currently enjoying the results of the revenue stream being generated miss the point that the commercial landscape following legalization would probably more closely resemble the current model for alcohol and cigarettes, with home growers being analogous to home brewers of beer.

If you’d like to see an actual documentary on cannabis-biz as it’s actually occurring today, check out this Canadian production. You may be disappointed in a few aspects, though – there’s no steamy jungles, or Spanish, or clandestine boats or planes (well, ok, in one quick segment). It does give you the idea, however, that the ‘drug kingpin’ sterotype a lot of people run around with in their heads is a bit off, actually being a lot closer to George and Mabel three houses over than to Al Pacino as ‘Scarface’.

The completely distorted concept of the cash flow isn’t the only thing in the prohibitionist basket of red herrings – possibly the biggest is the unwarranted conflation of cannabis with other, truly dangerous and harmful substances, paired with the hysterical and fright inducing claim that the demon weed is an iron clad, guaranteed, one-way greased skid ride straight to hard core drug use, destined to play out an endgame in a refrigerator box under a freeway overpass somewhere. Ah….no. It’s more likely that a certain percentage of society will turn out to be so irresponsible, so self-destructive, so pre-disposed to take such a life trajectory that they’re going to do so by any means possible, despite any attempts to deter them, wether there had ever been a cannabis plant on the face of this planet or not, if the Indians had never noticed the stimulating properties of tobacco, or if Og hadn’t played a trick on Ug with some fermented fruit juice, only to find Ug kinda liked it. . .and turned out Og did too. Using that line of logic, that something should be banned for everybody because of ‘bad side effects’, then when does Ice Cream make the list? It makes people fat, doesn’t it? And that leads to all sorts of other health problems, with their attendant costs, doesn’t it? People don’t really ‘need’ to have it, do they?

Well, actually, no, they don’t. Then they don’t ‘need’ to have the luxury of a bowl or two to enjoy, either! And funny thing, they actually don’t – because unlike every other substance being discussed, pot is the only non-addictive one. Psychologically, yes, to a small degree, on the order of ‘yeah, I’d like to do that again’ – but not on a physical level, resulting in the cravings experienced by addicts, even of nicotine or alcohol, not to mention other, more dangerous substances.

But, but, you don’t expect me to sit still and let a pothead fly the plane I’m about to get on, or put my kid on a bus with a stoner bus driver! Not any more than I’d expect you to get on a plane with a drunk (or hung over) pilot or put your kid on a bus with an alcohol intoxicated operator. Throwing out lines of text from the criminal code is not synonymous with throwing common sense out of the window. Society already requires that people in positions of additional responsibility are themselves responsible with their personal conduct, and the legalization of marijuana would do absolutely nothing to change that. Personally, I’d rather fly (or ride) with someone completely ’straight edge’ – but I’d most certainly prefer to get on a plane at 8 am with a couple of pilots that shared a joint the night before at 10pm, then got a good night’s sleep, than two bozos that hit the hotel bar for ‘a few beers’, and were both in bed by 10. But that’s just me.

Still, the slippery slope doesn’t really apply, because it’s only really the prohibitionists that I hear discussing things as an ‘all or nothing’ approach. I have yet to come across anything other than the ‘ideologically pure’ libertarian position of anything and everything being legal, with the individual being the only one responsible for their actions, advocating the legalization of things such as cocaine and its derivatives, opium, and its derivatives, and meth-amphetamines, and its equivalents. Little L libertarian test: Q – Should heroin be sold from vending machines like bubble gum? A – only if the vending machines are privately owned. Otherwise, people advocating the legalization of Cannabis generally are only talking about Cannabis. Just Cannabis. And sometimes the response of bringing up other drugs reminds me of what it would be like to go up and talk to someone about house paint, and suddenly find them enraged that I suggested he do unnatural things with his pet collie or something.

Wind Rider on December 8, 2008 at 9:06 AM