California debating marijuana legalization
posted at 12:40 pm on February 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
More than a decade ago, California legalized marijuana used for “medicinal” purposes, leading to the establishment of pot clubs and setting off a confrontation with the federal government. Now they want to end the medical pretense and make cannabis flat-out legal for personal use. The Assembly will take AB390 under consideration, supported by those who see an economic benefit from bringing the industry out of the shadows. Critics see a whopping hypocrisy from the nanny-staters:
Smoke weed – help the state?
Marijuana would be sold and taxed openly in California to adults 21 and older if legislation proposed Monday is signed into law.
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said his bill could generate big bucks for a cash-starved state while freeing law enforcement agencies to focus on worse crimes.
“I think there’s a mentality throughout the state and the country that this isn’t the highest priority – and that maybe we should start to reassess,” he said.
Critics counter that it makes no sense for a Legislature so concerned about health that it has restricted use of trans fats in restaurants to legalize the smoking of a potentially harmful drug.
That does make for a strange conflict. California’s legislature may label trans fats more dangerous than marijuana to the public. Regulating one while deregulating the other seems very hypocritical — and calls into question whether the state has the competence to understand personal choices better than the people making them. Given this example, I’d say no.
Moving beyond that to the issue itself, California and other states will have to make some hard choices on law-enforcement policies as monies start running low in a deep recession. The Wall Street Journal makes the same point in a column today by the former presidents of Brazil, Mexico and Colombia about the war on drugs in general. They wonder whether selective enforcement and prevention might prove more effective:
In this spirit, we propose a paradigm shift in drug policies based on three guiding principles: Reduce the harm caused by drugs, decrease drug consumption through education, and aggressively combat organized crime. To translate this new paradigm into action we must start by changing the status of addicts from drug buyers in the illegal market to patients cared for by the public-health system.
We also propose the careful evaluation, from a public-health standpoint, of the possibility of decriminalizing the possession of cannabis for personal use. Cannabis is by far the most widely used drug in Latin America, and we acknowledge that its consumption has an adverse impact on health. But the available empirical evidence shows that the hazards caused by cannabis are similar to the harm caused by alcohol or tobacco.
If we want to effectively curb drug use, we should look to the campaign against tobacco consumption. The success of this campaign illustrates the effectiveness of prevention campaigns based on clear language and arguments consistent with individual experience. Likewise, statements by former addicts about the dangers of drugs will be far more compelling to current users than threats of repression or virtuous exhortations against drug use.
Such educational campaigns must be targeted at youth, by far the largest contingent of users and of those killed in the drug wars. The campaigns should also stress each person’s responsibility toward the rising violence and corruption associated with the narcotics trade. By treating consumption as a matter of public health, we will enable police to focus their efforts on the critical issue: the fight against organized crime.
This sounds like double-speak. Besides decriminalizing marijuana, which would actually remove the profit potential of the criminal gangs, one cannot fight organized crime without fighting the actual crimes they commit — and the people with whom they commit them. Imagine a world in which prostitution was illegal but the customers break no laws in procuring sex for money. Can anyone imagine successful prosecutions of the hookers and pimps if the system explicitly allowed johns to walk free? It’s absurd.
So is the notion that we need to set up a public-health system for addicts. I sympathize with the libertarian argument of personal choice, more so for marijuana than most other substances, but don’t sell me personal choice and then demand a publicly-funded support system for it. If we have to pay for the latter, then keep throwing the users in prison. The people need to carry the burden and costs of their own personal choices without making it everyone else’s problem, or else we’re back at the original rationale for the war on drugs.
California has other motives than personal choice. They see a multibillion-dollar industry that exists below the radar of taxation, thanks to its illicit status. Legalizing pot means allowing transactions to become above-board and eligible for sales and income tax. I wonder how much of that will evaporate, though, once weed gets legalized. It’s easy to grow almost anywhere, especially in California, and most users would probably start growing their own supply once the deterrent of law enforcement gets removed.
I keep meaning to schedule John Holowach for my show to discuss his film High: The True Tale of American Marijuana. I’ll try to get him soon.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
College Prof on February 24, 2009 at 6:08 PM
I don’t disagree with your comment, but you didn’t answer my question.
Somewhere along the line, your thinking changed. You say pot didn’t keep you from doing the things you did, but you don’t do it “becasue it wasn’t a good thing to do anymore.” Why?
If pot isn’t harmful, if it doesn’t/didn’t detract from your accomplishments, if it’s negatives are tiny and positives are many, then why stop? You don’t smoke it anymore, you don’t smoke it around your kids – why?
catmman on February 24, 2009 at 6:06 PM
catmman on February 24, 2009 at 6:13 PM
sandberg on February 24, 2009 at 6:08 PM
catmman on February 24, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Excellent posts. I saw high school friends’ entire personalities change as a result of smoking “herb” on a regular basis. That was in the mid ’70′s. To say it is not harmful is really advancing a simplistic argument.
kingsjester on February 24, 2009 at 6:16 PM
I told you why – I didn’t want to smoke it when I was pregnant (I never said it wouldn’t be harmful to a developing fetus) and it got too expensive. By the time my children were born, it had reached $200/oz and we had diapers to buy. That was more important. We gave it up mainly for financial reasons. I would still smoke it if it weren’t illegal and very expensive, but I just felt that I could put my money to better use once I had a family. If it were legalized, I would smoke it again. My children are now adults, so whether they choose to smoke it or not is up to them. We have had many candid conversations about it, and I have been honest with them. They have it readily available (they are both in college), but have chosen not to smoke it. That is their decision. I neither encourage nor discourage it; I just tell them what I honestly think. They know my position, but make their own choices.
College Prof on February 24, 2009 at 6:16 PM
justfinethanks on February 24, 2009 at 6:07 PM
I also don’t disagree with what your saying.
I’m not debating the “waste of time” aspect of things, I’m responding to those equating the worst aspects of alcohol abuse with pot smoking.
I’m also engaged as to why someone who thoguht pot was fine when they were younger now feels differently.
catmman on February 24, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Am I getting this right? One of the rationales for marijuana legalization is that we are losing the drug war to organized gangs and the way to beat them is to join them in order to put them out of business? Hey we could end the drug cartels in Colombia, Mexico, Afghanistan etal. by selling coke, heroin, opium, meth-amphetamine, ice, crank and other goodies at shopping malls and supermarkets.Only in California!
MaiDee on February 24, 2009 at 6:19 PM
For someone with an addictive personality, there are many harmful things. I saw a great many more friends change because of chronic alcohol abuse than from smoking pot. I grew up with alcoholic parents, so I know the harm it can cause, physically and psychologically. I don’t care to drink, but I honestly see nothing wrong with a pot buzz. I have a friend who almost died from choking on their own vomit after binge drinking, but the worst I ever saw any of my friends get after smoking pot was one big case of the munchies.
College Prof on February 24, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Stop. Just stop. You can try telling yourself you are just enjoying the taste, or the smell, but you are, in fact, getting high.
Let me ask you, would you be willing to pour a five year old a tumbler of that same scotch, and tell him it is all right, as long as he has only one?
i would hope not.
JohnGalt23 on February 24, 2009 at 6:21 PM
College Prof on February 24, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Thanks for the reply. It’s a ‘safe’ reply, but thansk for the dialogue nonetheless. It was illegal back when you did smoke it and that didn’t stop you, so I don’t know if I buy everything your saying, but your engaging and for that, again thanks.
catmman on February 24, 2009 at 6:21 PM
So instead of our state troopers kicking in doors of drug dealers we are going to swap the target to tax evaders.
Brilliant! More government in your home. Just what the revolution needed.
Limerick on February 24, 2009 at 6:22 PM
No, you’re getting it dead wrong. The rationale is that prohibition of a product that has high demand doesn’t work. It never works, and it never will work. It doesn’t even in work in countries where pot smuggling can get you the death penality. You can try to control the supply of pot, but you will never be able to affect the demand for it. That means prices will go up, and it will become more attractive to criminals to go into the pot business. Prohibiting something that has high demand is like an economic finger trap: the more you fight against it, the more you get stuck. So, as long as it’s IMPOSSIBLE to keep pot off of the streets since so many people want it, it just makes sense to end the drug war so we can all benefit from lower taxes and less government.
justfinethanks on February 24, 2009 at 6:24 PM
How cheap is it in the medical marijuana clubs in Cali?
Itchee Dryback on February 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Let me see if I can clarify. Yes, it was illegal then, but it was also much cheaper and much easier to acquire. It just isn’t worth the hassle of trying to get it and trying to afford it anymore (universities don’t pay that well). If it were legal, I assume it would be cheaper. If it were cheaper and easier to get, I absolutely would smoke it again (especially since I don’t care to drink). I never progressed to harder drugs and never wanted to, and I didn’t replace it with booze, so my only vice at present is coffee.
College Prof on February 24, 2009 at 6:29 PM
JohnGalt23 on February 24, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Thanks for the presumption.
You know, I developed pneumonia when I was 12. My mom took me to an old, old, doctor. The kind of doctor who had just stopped making house calls. An old ‘horse doctor’ if you’ll forgive me. For the cough and chest congestion he gave my mom a recipe for ‘cough medicine’ – honey, lemon juice – and whisky. Yep, ‘grandpas’s old cough medicine’. Maybe the doctor and my mom just wanted me to get high…
I could ask you the same thing about mj. Of course I wouldn’t give a five year old a glass of scotch? Would you let a five year old ‘toke up a doob’.
I can enjoy adult beverage for the sake of the beverage – and not get high. Why smoke pot?
catmman on February 24, 2009 at 6:30 PM
The reduction in drug war expenses will offset the cost of testing, licensing, & enforcement (not to mention re-education and health care).
Fine….legalize the all the brain bender weed you want.
That’s when I’ll jump on the smoking ban bandwagon. Secondhand smoke and all that, seeping through the walls of your homes, is harming the children.
Limerick on February 24, 2009 at 6:31 PM
I think that how many people will grow their own is largely a function of how high the taxes are set on it, and just what the penalties are for growing your own.
If I read the article correctly, the plan is to treat cannabis the same as beer and wine. If that is the case, I would assume that there will be a provision for growing some small amount for personal use, untaxed. now, if the state sets a $200/oz tax, I suspect loads of people would teach themselves to grow. If you are talking a $10/oz tax, then most people would simply let commercial growers do all the work.
JohnGalt23 on February 24, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Anti-Cannabis arguments are about as logical and reasonable as arguments posed by typical leftists on other subjects. Reason is cast to the wind and instead they rely on their emotions.
It probably never even occurred to you that most pan handlers are alcoholics and/or mentally ill.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 6:33 PM
That’s probably true. But growing your own is like a second job. Even if it’s highly taxed, it won’t be worth the hours of time required. Plus, people who are really experts at growing will be able to offer superior product, probably. I seriously doubt “loads” of people will grow there own, even at $200/oz tax. There might be a slight increase in self growers, but since self growing requires a big up front investment, a lot of knowledge, and a lot of hard work, self growing won’t be worth it for the majority of consumers.
justfinethanks on February 24, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Chemo patients = idiots.
Got it.
TheUnrepentantGeek on February 24, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Testing, licensing, and enforcement are actually revenue streams, not costs. Many regulatory boards aren’t funded with general fund money – they’re reimbursable. Ask the Board of Registered Nursing.
TheUnrepentantGeek on February 24, 2009 at 6:40 PM
The true irony here is that I am probably one of the more conservative people who posts on this blog, but I am wholly in favor of legalizing marijuana, so I really appreciate your comment.
College Prof on February 24, 2009 at 6:43 PM
No. You’re a raving unreconstructed hippie pinko commie leftist Che loving Stalinite.
Because you disagree with people. And hate children.
Or something.
Seriously, who knew weed was such a hot button issue?
TheUnrepentantGeek on February 24, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Thanks for the discussion, everybody. It’s been real. But now I have to go perform one of the mundane chores in my life – fix supper. I didn’t want catmman or any of the other people who think I’m an idiot to think that I couldn’t take the criticism. I just have to do one of those borin, responsible things and feed my family.
College Prof on February 24, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Really? All those gov’ment employees get paid by someone, get…oh…yeah…the new plan….the rich do it.
Limerick on February 24, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Makes as much sense as spending like crazy then swearing to cut spending. Duh. Don’t spend it to start with idiot.
Now we’ll try to help education but legalize marijuana to dumb everyone down again.
Can you say one step forward, one step back? Where do you end up? Exactly right where you started.
NOw, we don;t want to know what he’s going to any longer. He should be doing them by now. If he’s doing the wrong things, then the wrong guy was selected.
johnnyU on February 24, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Then you should support legalization, which will make it much more difficult for kids to get their hands on it.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 6:49 PM
According to the ONDCP:
What America’s Users Spend On Illegal Drugs
America spends $11 billion on cannabis annually, as of 2001. This is more than on any other illegal drug other than cocaine, and represents about 1/6 of all expenditures on illegal drugs.
But this doesn’t tell the whole story, IMHO. Remember, the vast majority of cannabis consumed in the US is grown domestically. So, all the revenue from cannabis consumption goes to domestic markets, much of which is represented by organized crime. Contrast this with heroin and cocaine, where large percentages of the dollars spent on them represent dollars spent on the other side of the border. So where consumption of heroin and cocaine tends to enrich foreign mafias, consumption of cannabis tends to enrich domestic mafias.
Now, to be fair, some percentage of the domestic cannabis market is represented not by organized criminals, but by lone growers with no connection to other criminal interests. What is that percentage? Nobody really knows, which is another downside of prohibition.
IMHO, there is no way to completely wipe out organized crime, at least not while maintaining a free society. Labor rackets, shylocking, protection rackets… will all continue even after prohibition.
The point is though that none of these activities come close to providing the amount of funds, with as high a markup, as drug prohibition. I have said many times that if I were to sit down and try to figure out a way to maximize the profitability of being in organized crime, I could not come up with a better way than making drugs illegal.
JohnGalt23 on February 24, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Err … no. They’re paid via fees. For example, nurses pay fees to verify to other state boards that they’re licensed, renew their licenses in the state, etc. Any sort of entity tasked with overseeing MJ growing licenses would likely work the same way.
TheUnrepentantGeek on February 24, 2009 at 7:01 PM
I think in was you that earlier mentioned enjoying sipping old scotch…. I have a hard time believing that many people drink hard alcohol for the taste alone. It tastes like medicine to most people. That’s why people dilute it in a mixed drink. When people drink straight shots, they usually hold their breath so they don’t throw it back up again. The only person I knew growing who sipped their alcohol on the rocks is a raging alcoholic these days. He was back then, too, but he’s been deep in it’s throws in the past ten years or so and it’s probably only his wealth that has prevented him from hitting bottom.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 7:01 PM
About $50-65 per 1/8… but it’s really potent stuff. They also make treats for those who can’t smoke it; candy bars rice krispy style treats, lollipops, etc…
Califemme on February 24, 2009 at 7:03 PM
The anti-Cannabis propaganda campaign is around 80 years old now so it’s can’t be that surprising.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Get the CA taxpayers stoned, then they won’t mind paying all the taxes.
Cheech: The taxes on this California-grown weed is not too bad.
Chong: Yeah, but taxes on Brownies just hit 85%.
TN Mom on February 24, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Can we bulldoze that pathetic excuse for a state into the ocean, why do we need to wait for the “big one” to do it for us, and oh yeah its residents, save a precious few can go with it.
Viper1 on February 24, 2009 at 7:08 PM
I don’t care if this passes or not. Both sides of the debate have legitimate points.
However, if it does go through, I predict that there will be no shortage of waiters, bartenders, and pizza delivery drivers in the job market.
Hollowpoint on February 24, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Watch out for an obesity epidemic from all those stoners with the munchies.
becki51758 on February 24, 2009 at 3:58 PM
…..”hear, hear!”
try again later on February 24, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Your side must be very confused, losing an argument, (measured by logic and reason rather than emotion), to a bunch of dumb stoners. I mean, what does that say about you guys? :)
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 7:11 PM
yep kids never get alcohol
/sarc
the lunacy kills me
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 7:16 PM
I never said they didn’t, but it’s harder for them to get quantities of alcohol than MJ. They might be able to filch a little from an adult, but not much without getting caught.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 7:21 PM
FloatingRock-
you appear to passively agree with the jester’s point. so I guess you must think it does harm and does change personalities.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 7:22 PM
never said you did
take a hit
dude
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Not buying it. The pro-pot crowd says that enforcement costs too much and is ineffective. Their answer legalize and tax it. So now we have a Marijuana Board, Marijuana clerks, Marijuana Testing Facilities, Marijuana Tax Cops, Marijuana Tax DAs, Marijuana Transportation Authority, Marijuana Advertising Boards….and on and on and on.
You pot people really need to get off the saving money angle and own up to the fact that folks just wanna get high and don’t give a rat’s ass if they have to pay taxes to do so or not.
Limerick on February 24, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Shhhh you will give O some ideas.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Yes, children shouldn’t smoke pot.
But some of them do and it’s easier for them to get than alcohol. That would change with legalization.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 7:27 PM
And all that will be cheaper and more effective than prohibition. I think you fail to understand how massively expensive prohibition is and how much of a massive failure it has turned out to be. Regulation is cheaper and more effective than prohibition. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. There are very few certainties in life, but “Regulation of a very high demand product is more cost effective than prohibition” is one of them.
Think of this way: taxing pot is the only way we can guarantee liberals will pay their fair share of tax.
justfinethanks on February 24, 2009 at 7:28 PM
To some extent, yes, that’s exactly what they wanted. The intoxicating effects of whiskey, like the ability to get you to sleep, happen to also be of medicinal value.
Once again, stop. You can rationalize it all you want, you are still getting high, even from just that one drink.
You doubt it? Tell me, what about studies that show reaction time suffering after just one drink? Feel a little more talkative during that drink, a little more friendly? How about that lowering of your inhibitions? Do you really think those are all just coincidences?
Of course they are not. They are a result of the same fact that prevents you from giving that 5-year old a tumbler of scotch (abesent medical reasons)… the fact that people drink ethyl alcohol to get high. Not necessarily drunk, but high. Just like one smokes pot to get high. They may indeed like the taste, the smell, the tactile experience of holding live fire in their hand (all real experiences of the cannabis smoker). They need not smoke so much cannabis that they are Stoned, man. But just like the casual imbiber of any ethyl alcohol, they are, in fact, getting high. And to deny that you are getting high from drinking that 18-year old scotch is nothing more than a rationalization, and a pretty weak one at that.
JohnGalt23 on February 24, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Think of it this way: I’d just as soon plant the growers.
Guess that is clear enough.
Limerick on February 24, 2009 at 7:30 PM
None of it will evaporate because they could require a license to possess. A license that is renewable every year. Just like driving.
Troy Rasmussen on February 24, 2009 at 7:31 PM
blockquote>California debating marijuana legalization<
Should be California wants to increase testicular cancer rates.
Why would California want this?
Tax monies.
canditaylor68 on February 24, 2009 at 7:31 PM
So … I’ve provided an example of a typical regulatory board that pays for most of its positions via fees for services and your response is that you’re not buying it. Why? Do you want more boards that run this way?
I’ve given you evidence and you cite a hypothetical bureaucratic waste that somehow overcomes the tax revenue this would generate even with fees for licenses and etc?
This will be a significant net gain for the state’s coffers. You’re fooling yourself to claim otherwise. The real argument lives on whether or not it’s worth the potential costs.
TheUnrepentantGeek on February 24, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Tell that to the Federal deficit.
Argue away. I’ll keep my right to plant corn and kill weeds.
Limerick on February 24, 2009 at 7:36 PM
I really don’t think you understand the main thrust of the pro legalization argument. It’s not that pot is a wonderful thing that everyone should do or that pot is harmless (though is is certainly more harmless than currently legal drugs). It’s that prohibition doesn’t work. Despite prohibition, it’s our country’s number one cash crop. A single study pointing out a possible increase in the likelihood of cancer if you get stoned EVERY WEEK doesn’t exactly change that.
justfinethanks on February 24, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Are you using a random word generator now?
The federal deficit is what it is because of out of control social programs, not sensible regulatory boards.
TheUnrepentantGeek on February 24, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Are you arguing that tax collection and regulation bureaucracy always costs more than the taxes collected? If that were true our deficit would be far higher.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Toke is cheap.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on February 24, 2009 at 7:45 PM
…What’s more, if that were true our government would no longer be able to fund itself, let alone enforce Cannabis prohibition laws.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Get on the Cannabis.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on February 24, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Legislators confront bomb threat.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on February 24, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Joint session held.
Okay, okay. I’ll stop. It’s too easy, anyway.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on February 24, 2009 at 7:53 PM
I am trying to find the logic and reason in your response to my post. I tend to be open to legalizing pot but every time I run into the subject of legalization I run into guys like you …then not so much.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 7:53 PM
So the answer is to inject government and levy taxes.
Nice.
Limerick on February 24, 2009 at 7:53 PM
You can never have enough. /sarc
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Ok fine, legalize it and tax it at 50% but, you have to pass a pee test to vote.
boomer on February 24, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Regulation in place of prohibition is less government. Less. There is really no way around it. This is something conservatives should rally around.
justfinethanks on February 24, 2009 at 8:01 PM
justfinethanks–thanks for your response. Again I reiterate my original statement that one doesn’t defeat drug dealers by becoming competitive drug dealers. And just because a drug is popular doesn’t mean we throw in the towel. If we legalized the very popular crystal meth which destroys the brain it would, in my estimation, be catastrophic.
Even pot legalization involves risks-some of which, admittedly will take years of lab studies to prove (as was the case of cigarettes which drastically abridged the lives of millions).
1 As with cigarettes smoke is ingested into lungs which probably means higher incidences of cancer, heart disease and COPD and other fatal lung diseases.
2 There seems to be some mental retardation attendant with pot smoking but whether this is transitory confusion or a permanent condition, admittedly, has not been scientifically proven yet.
3 Pot smoking appears to affect some smokers with disorientation similar to alcohol with consequences for driving and other situations which call for split second decisions.
4 Should California adopt pot legalization and other states not, the Golden State would be an attractive magnet for those who wish to come here to “get high” and bring back large stashes to their own states.
5 There is no question that pot addiction would skyocket with legalization with the associated problems listed above.
6 There would probably be age restrictions and supply restrictions attached to legal pot sales-meaning there still would be loopholes to be exploited by gangs. Gangs could even legally buy pot and resell it at great markup to minors, for example.
Dozens more reasons I can think of as well.
MaiDee on February 24, 2009 at 8:06 PM
The pro legalization arguments are some of the lamest and disingenuous ones that I’ve found regarding any controversial topic. Its all intellectual bullshiit that never addresses the realities or problems in actually legalizing a stupefying substance. Just my opinion, but really people..make a case for legalizing that actually might address the real world.
Itchee Dryback on February 24, 2009 at 8:16 PM
I haven’t gone through all 400+ comments so this may have been covered:
I take issue with those who say that tobacco is worse than pot. A cigarette does not alter my brain. In that I mean that I can drive while smoking a cigarette and it does not do to my brain what alcohol or even a joint will do. When you say the health risks are higher for those who smoke cigarettes, you do not include the people who have been hit by people who were high.
Such as myself. A pretty bad car accident I had 10 years ago was caused by an individual who was HIGH while driving…I STILL pay for it, physically, to this day. So don’t even tell me that smoking a cigarette is worse than smoking pot.
And I’m in agreement with some on here: We can’t even get a handle on those who drink and drive, it’s insane to add to that mix.
SerenityFL on February 24, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Are you sure it has not been proven? Have you read FloatingRocks posts? ;)
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Pardon me if this has been discussed already, but how would they begin to police this if people use it while driving?
anniekc on February 24, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on February 24, 2009 at 8:24 PM
They are outlawing talking on cellphones. Next will be smoking so don’t worry.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Well, the facts point to that nothing will make “drug dealers” go away, ever. So long as there is demand for drugs, there will be drug dealers. Prohibition will never end that. You can even buy drugs in thailand or China, where you can get the death penality for trafficking. If enough people want something, the market will find some way to give it to them, legal or no. That’s just how things work.
I think it does. We’ve followed the same policy on pot for seventy years and we have nothing to show for it. It’s a futile effort. There’s just nothing you can do to decrease the demand for pot.
You can’t really compare the demand for pot for the demand for meth. Prohibition of harmful drugs can work, so long as demand is low and the market is small. These situations discourage criminals from entering into the market because there isn’t enough profits to be had. It still happens, but in this situations prohibition can be proven to be more effective.
This doesn’t matter, prohibition doesn’t work. Plus individuals already have the right to harm themselves in a variety of ways, such as through booze or cigarettes. Clearly self harm is legal.
Of course, that’s why we legalize booze but make it illegal to drive under the influence. These “think of society” arguments are pretty weak. After all, banning cars would prevent all auto deaths. Are you in favor of that?
I really don’t understand the problem with this one.
There actually is question of that. Besides, even treating addiction with tax dollars is less costly than enforcing prohibition with tax dollars, so we would be saving money. People can get addicted on all sorts of things, even video games, yet there is no clamor to ban those.
This point is nonsense. Right now, it is easier for a minor to buy pot than buy booze. Because the pot dealer down the street doesn’t care who he sells to. The liquor store owner DOES care, because he can lose his liscence if he sells to the sixteen year old. So instead that sixteen year old turns to the drug dealer right outside the liquor store. If you legalize it, you make it HARDER for teens to get it because you eliminate the street dealers.
And not a one of them will change the fact that prohibition doesn’t work and the drug war is a massive failure and a waste of twenty billion dollars a year to this cash strapped nation.
justfinethanks on February 24, 2009 at 8:25 PM
Regulate it like tobacco.
You can legally grow it and possess it, but it’s illegal to sell it without a license.
BacaDog on February 24, 2009 at 8:30 PM
This is a really lame point too. It’s saying “Oh, sure. You might have a point philosophically, but you aren’t thinking about the REAL WORLD.” Except we do have a real world precedent for ending prohibition: ending alchohol prohibiton, and of course, society didn’t crumble.
The real intellectual BS comes in when prohibitionists insist that booze prohibition was TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Sure, it’s an extremely potent example of how you can’t stop people for using a product that has high demand, but it DOESN’T COUNT. Totally, totally nonsense and dishonest. Just read this damn book on booze prohibition. If by the end of you don’t see the striking parrelels between failed booze prohibition and failed pot prohibition, you are just too far gone to ever understand the truth.
justfinethanks on February 24, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Why jump on me? What did I do to offend you?
Nothing.
And this just further illustrates a point I made earlier. Your argument is based on emotion and bias. You don’t have a reasoned logical counterargument so you resort to personal insults. Nobody here familiar with my posts over the past few years thinks I’m retarded, even if we may agree on some issues.
You may think you’re scoring points with others but you’re only making yourself seem petty and small.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 8:33 PM
FIF Me.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 8:35 PM
You have still not proven me wrong using any logic yet you act as if you have the corner on it.
You potheads kill me.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 8:40 PM
I’m not an expert on the topic but I think it works the same way as with alcohol. They pull somebody over and give them a sobriety test, (walking the line, touching the nose while standing on one foot), and if they fail they take them in for a test.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Again—-
you appear to passively agree with the jester’s point. so I guess you must think it does harm and does change personalities.
I realize that pot throws off one’s cognitive abilities but come on.
If you would learn to stay on target maybe my derision of your truly pathetic attempts at debate would not be seen as petty but rather deserved.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Prove that you’re wrong about what? That stoners are all dumb and retarded? If that were true, why is it that those of us here are capable of following your arguments and refuting them so easily without resorting to personal insults as you have?
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 8:47 PM
All this pro-pot talk is just Libertarians in the Looking Glass. They argue more government and more taxes are good for you.
I say we cook that white rabbit.
Limerick on February 24, 2009 at 8:52 PM
I notice that you quoted everything in my comment from above… well, except you omitted the little smiley face at the end. But I’m sure it was only an honest mistake. /sarc
Keep it up, your irrationality and hatred is scoring me points.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 8:53 PM
I w i l l s l o w down for you.
I even put it in bold for you.
You must agree with this statement based on your previous comment. Correct? You still have not addressed this point. You keep going off point. I promise you that if you give up pot this would not be the case.
I understand that comprehension and pot don’t mix but please try.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 8:54 PM
One cannot score points when shooting blanks.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Where is the smiley face?
lol
Potheads kill me
I definitely am now tilting towards continuing the status quo.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 8:57 PM
You should know, you’re the one scoring points for me. :)
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 8:58 PM
I see the brain cells are still in neutral. Oh well.
So much for “pot is safe”
You make that quite obvious.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 8:59 PM
How many times does this have to be explained to you?
1) REGULATION is less invasive and reflects less government intervention than PROHIBITION
2) CONSUMPTION taxes are much less invasive than INCOME taxes. You can use the increase in CONSUMPTION taxes and the money saved from ending the drug war to decrease INCOME taxes.
justfinethanks on February 24, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Put that bong down and listen to the President.
getalife on February 24, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Huh? You’re not even quoting the same comment, liar:
Verses in the second quote you provided just now:
Whereas here’s the original quote, in its entirety with the original smiley face:
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 9:05 PM
FloatingonAir
Let us try again. I made the point:
You avoid and obfuscate yet totally avoid the whole point. Is this how you debate or do you just not get it? Is this a learning disability or years of marijuana abuse?
Let us see if you can answer directly because up to this point you have exhibited no ability to do so.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 9:05 PM
I see your still consumed by emotion. I don’t think that’s going to change, so I’m done with you for now.
But thank you for demonstrating the real reason MJ is still illegal: irrational hatred and bias.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Oh so smiley faces mean you are making crap up and posting bs. How does one tell the difference between your posts with smiley faces and the ones without?
Actually I was referring to the one that was logical for the argument. I do understand your inability to grasp the concept.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Actually emotion has nothing to do with it. I tend to be for legalization but as I noted earlier it only takes a few minutes with a pothead to realize pot is not a good thing.
You may be only anecdotal evidence but evidence none the less.
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 9:11 PM
I keep looking at it but still no smiley face.
Wait a minute
hit,hit,hit
Now I see it
: )
Jamson64 on February 24, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Children are not adults. MJ has been shown to affect the development of children. There are many things in life that adults engage in that are not appropriate for children.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 9:14 PM
As stated before, that’s not even the same comment that you quoted before, but assuming you already realize this and are being funny, that’s not a bad attempt. :)
At any rate, I’m going to listen to the Baraxist Obamunist’s stupid speech now.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Sorry, it will be a while before I’ll have time to try and sort out your “logic”.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 9:22 PM
I’ll review it later though.
FloatingRock on February 24, 2009 at 9:24 PM
“Nobody messes with Joe”
Sounds like a Neil Kinnock line…
BKennedy on February 24, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Watching Obama’s speech, it is clear that the Congress and Barry H. are both on medical weed already.
Delusional happy crap vagueness posing as stentorian determination.
Dude, where’s my country?
profitsbeard on February 24, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »