DVD review: High: The True Tale of American Marijuana

posted at 10:55 am on March 3, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Should we legalize marijuana? Could there be a positive economic impact from doing so, as some in California’s legislature suggest? Has marijuana prohibition worked, and have the gains made validated the costs involved? These are some of the questions posed in the documentary High: The True Tale of American Marijuana, directed by John Holowach, who will join me on The Ed Morrissey Show today to discuss it.

The film includes this interview of Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron discussing the economic benefits of ending the overall drug war:

High does not disguise its pro-legalization agenda. Holowach makes an argument explicitly for legalization, and not just marijuana. While the film focuses on cannabis, it often drifts towards a complete end to all drug prohibitions. To some extent, that weakens the argument for marijuana, as part of the documentary argues that the weed provides no more harm than alcohol or tobacco — an argument that clearly won’t apply to cocaine, heroin, PCP, crystal meth, and most of the other prohibited substances.

It also occasionally argues dishonestly, as it does on comparative marijuana strength over the last 20 years. Anti-cannabis advocates say that dosage strength has doubled in that time, thanks to intensive breeding of the plant. High notes that THC levels increased on average from 2.8% to 4.7% from 1985 to 2001 (the last year for that data), but then says that it’s only increased “two percent”. It’s not quite doubled, but comparatively, the strength has increased 68%. It’s a transparently deliberate misreading of the opponent’s argument.

With all of that said, Holowach’s film proves enlightening, both anecdotally and statistically — or should I say, the lack of statistics. The government blocks research into medical uses of marijuana, which means we can’t tell what that 68% increase in THC means, if it means anything at all. Do people use less to get the same high? Do people use the same and get more high? Can smoke-based THC be used more effectively than its synthetic liquid form to provide pain and nausea relief, as many of the users of both claim? We won’t know until studies are done, but at least in the US, that won’t happen while we continue to treat marijuana the same as cocaine and heroin — and we use heroin’s cousins, morphine and other opiates, as actual therapeutic treatments.

High is most effective when it focuses on the costs of fighting cannabis, which grows naturally in the US, both in terms of economics and in more personal terms of lost jobs, prosecutions, and civil liberties. Conservatives may find those arguments more compelling than others made in this film, but Holowach gives viewers the entire spectrum of arguments from which to choose. For someone who has never smoked marijuana in his life — I really am that square — High provides a broader perspective on the issue of marijuana prohibition. Even if you oppose it, the film is worth watching, as it is entertaining, informative, and provocative.

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: 1 2 3 4

I’m down with it. Anything abused is dangerous, MJ is no different. As a Christian, I do not have a problem with MJ. That may shock many of you, but I have not been persuaded to think MJ is any more destructive than abusing double cheese burgers.

javamartini on March 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Has marijuana prohibition worked, and have the gains made validated the costs involved?

This question is at the very heart of the issue. No one will make the claim that the answer to this question is true. That wont stop people from defending it, regrettably, but the cold hard reality is that prohibition has not worked. We are now obligated to come up with a real solution.

ernesto on March 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM

I am all for the decriminalization of pot.
( I don’t smoke it myself)

But coke, meth and heroin should be the focus of law enforcement.

But you can’t tax pot, it is too easy to grow.

TheSitRep on March 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM

All I know is that it made me dumber. I used the stuff the semester before I was scheduled to take the LSAT. I watched my score on practice exams steadily drop from 39 to 32. I wised up six weeks before the exam and shook the cob webs out and scored a 42 on the real exam.

tommylotto on March 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Uhg…ernesto agreeing with me makes me want to rethink my position, heh.

javamartini on March 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM

I’m down with it. Anything abused is dangerous, MJ is no different. As a Christian, I do not have a problem with MJ. That may shock many of you, but I have not been persuaded to think MJ is any more destructive than abusing double cheese burgers.

javamartini on March 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM

True but the double cheeseburger sales will go through the roof, as will doritoes.

TheSitRep on March 3, 2009 at 11:03 AM

— I really am that square —

Trust, me, Cap’n…you haven’t missed out on anything. I’m still trying to lose my munchie weight from 17 years ago.

Kid from Brooklyn on March 3, 2009 at 11:04 AM

“Hear that? That’s my skull, I’m sooo wasted!!!”

Spicolli

’nuff said

bbz123 on March 3, 2009 at 11:04 AM

“ernesto on March 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM”

i’ll call that hand — prohibition has worked — we’re the healthiest, most prosperous society EVAH and we prohibit m.j., excepting the handful of laughable “medicinal” exceptions. burden of proof falls on you to refute it. good luck …

/waiting for the ronulans to descend upon the thread en masse …

Buckaroo on March 3, 2009 at 11:04 AM

I’d really like to hear projected numbers of the following:

1. Current DEA annual funding, and average cost of incarceration and processing of people convicted of marijuana-related crimes

vs.

2. Potential taxes collected if marijuana were legalized and regulated, including sales tax, import tax, etc.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 11:05 AM

But you can’t tax pot, it is too easy to grow.

TheSitRep on March 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM

You can grow tomatoes in your backyard too but plenty are still sold at the grocery store.

dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 11:05 AM

At one point it was recognized that the U.S. government did not have the constitutional authority to ban the use of intoxicants. This is why the Constitution had to be amended for alcohol prohibition. Apparently the Tenth Amendment no longer matters.

Buford on March 3, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Does this movie get into the question consituttionality of the drug war? I NEVER understood why we needed an amendment to ban alcohol, but not for drugs.

A constitutional amendment should be put to the states that allows for the federal regulation and monitoring of food and drug safety and let’s see if the citizens want to fight the war on drugs the way we have.

WashJeff on March 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Uhg…ernesto agreeing with me makes me want to rethink my position, heh.

javamartini on March 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Im sorry man, though i suppose this momentous occasion is anecdotal evidence supporting the idea that there is true, expansive bipartisan support for reforming pot prohibition!

ernesto on March 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM

For someone who has never smoked marijuana in his life — I really am that square —

Plenty of us square people who don’t mind a bit that we’re square.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 11:06 AM

I kept the pizza place down the street from me in business for a couple years. Probably would help the economy. As long as your not one of those dirty hippie pot heads that doesn’t work.

MDWNJ on March 3, 2009 at 11:07 AM

MJ is not harmless as many future posters to come shall claim. The active ingredient that gives the high THC deposits in the brain. It is a black thick tarry substance that is not water soluble and is therefore not easily taken out of the brain and builds up over time. It inhibits electrical impulses between synapses in the brain which eventually leads to the “stoner” response. People who smoke a great deal of pot literally become dumber!

Should it become legal? I don’t really care. However, people should be educated to the facts. It is far from a harmless drug as it is advertised by the stoner community…

sabbott on March 3, 2009 at 11:09 AM

True but the double cheeseburger sales will go through the roof, as will doritoes.

TheSitRep on March 3, 2009 at 11:03 AM

And wouldn’t that be good for the economy!

I’m undecided on this issue. While I agree smoking doobs is bad for you, enforcement of the existing laws is sometimes overzealous and always expensive.

All in all, I think it would be better use of our dwindling resources to go after hard drugs and not bother with grass.

MrScribbler on March 3, 2009 at 11:10 AM

NO, NO, NO. Do we really want to encourage more ‘Driving while High’ auto deaths?

BlueforYou on March 3, 2009 at 11:11 AM

I’ll have everyone know that I wrote a letter to the editor of my college [Wake Forest] paper (that was published) about legalizing marijuana for the economic benefit. I actually went to a NORML meeting on campus and didn’t know anyone there. . . they quoted my letter in the meeting. I thought that was cool.

But to show how far ahead I was. . . this was 1993. I’d link for you, but back then we didn’t have this fancy internet stuff.

ThackerAgency on March 3, 2009 at 11:11 AM

They were surprised when I told them I wrote what they were quoting. It was strangely funny.

ThackerAgency on March 3, 2009 at 11:11 AM

sabbott on March 3, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Everytime this subject comes up on talk radio, the MJ smokers that call in always sound stupid and slow.

WashJeff on March 3, 2009 at 11:12 AM

sabbott on March 3, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I don’t think anyone is saying it is harmless. You could find anything that is legal to be harmful. Like the previous poster who said cheeseburger.. etc. Any junk food taken in large amounts over a long period of time will kill you. I personally think what they should do is legalize it, and have the same fines and jail time as alcohol. DWI..DUI..ect.

MDWNJ on March 3, 2009 at 11:13 AM

NO, NO, NO. Do we really want to encourage more ‘Driving while High’ auto deaths?

BlueforYou on March 3, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Driving while drunk auto deaths didnt stop its legalization. That argument has no basis in reality. Besides, driving drunk is damn near impossible, driving high is about as difficult as driving tired…problematic, yes, but nowhere near the danger posed by drunk driving. not even close.

ernesto on March 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM

I think that prohibition works, at least a little.

It didn’t work when I was in college and smoking all day, every day, wake and bake.

But then I grew up and got responsible and stopped doing any sort of illegal drugs. Mainly because I had too much to lose. However, I don’t mind when I get a cold, just so that I can down a bottle of Nyquil…

However, if marajuana were made legal tomorrow, I would probably start smoking again because I like it much more than beer.

myrenovations on March 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM

The editor created a title for me instead of using my own. His take?

Legalizing Marijuana Makes Cents.

ThackerAgency on March 3, 2009 at 11:15 AM

68% THC is pure sunshine. If you wanna get lax and complacent about your life, and apathetic to what’s going on around you and constantly off your guard like a dulled pencil, then MJ is the drug for you.

No one has ever died from THC overdose and never will.

I’m not sure where I stand on either declassifying or legalizing the stuff. People are more susceptible to being controlled under its influence. Great review. Thanks.

RepubChica on March 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Its better for the Economy being Illegal, Forbes wrote a piece on this a few years back.

Govt. will tax it, regulate it and spend money on buildings and other govt. stuff.

Now the money is in the private sector stimulating the economy and giong into Investment and savings, instead of the Govt.

jp on March 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM

There are obvious potential benefits to legalizing marijuana and there are obvious potential negative social consequences as well. If legalization could be joined with law (possibly requiring a Constitutional Amendment) putting the right of social (as opposed to legal) institutions to protect themselves from harmful effects of the drug use ahead of a right for individuals to use, then perhaps the negative social consequences could be flexibly mitigated as required by circumstances.

John E. on March 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Legalize it, who is going to grow it commercially? You think that Big Tobacco has legal issues, imagine what Big Weed will face.

Techie on March 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM

I’d really like to hear projected numbers of the following:

1. Current DEA annual funding, and average cost of incarceration and processing of people convicted of marijuana-related crimes

vs.

2. Potential taxes collected if marijuana were legalized and regulated, including sales tax, import tax, etc.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Agreed… I think this one is really a no brainer even for hard core Conservatives. MJ should be legal, taxed, like booze and other “addictive” substances. We have a lot of items that should be barred or banned, but are not, and in a free Country can not be… MJ, in my view, is another…

Mark Garnett on March 3, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Ok so if we legalize it we can make money

So economics trump morality?

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:18 AM

I am as conservative as they come and smoke daily. My experiences with all sorts of legal and illegal substances have only strengthened my belief that keeping it illegal is not only damaging (costs, inprisonment etc) but just plain dumb.

Hurricanes on March 3, 2009 at 11:18 AM

68% THC is pure sunshine. If you wanna get lax and complacent about your life, and apathetic to what’s going on around you and constantly off your guard like a dulled pencil, then MJ is the drug for you.

RepubChica on March 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Sounds like what’s needed when following the financial markets.

dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 11:19 AM

There will be no strong “tax” revenue from MaryJane. People will grow it in flower boxes or in fields way out in the middle of nowhere. It’ll be a return of bootlegging complete with them durn Revenue agents.

Techie on March 3, 2009 at 11:19 AM

part of the documentary argues that the weed provides no more harm than alcohol or tobacco — an argument that clearly won’t apply to cocaine, heroin, PCP, crystal meth, and most of the other prohibited substances.

Sorry Ed, but that’s just transparently false. Alcohol contributes to more social ills than all those sunstances combined.

CTD on March 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Look of all the “drugs” that could be decriminalized, the chronic is the one I’d probably be in favor of, but I don’t buy the “huge new tax revenue stream” arguement, and I don’t think it’ll lower prices much.

(On the harder side of drugs, I don’t think that legalization would really lower prices at all. It’s a question of supply and cartel control.)

Techie on March 3, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Sure, some people will grow their own, but a lot of science is put into growing the really good stuff and most people won’t want to put that much effort into it. They want to grab a pack at the Quickie Mart instead.

myrenovations on March 3, 2009 at 11:22 AM

However, if marajuana were made legal tomorrow, I would probably start smoking again because I like it much more than beer.

myrenovations on March 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM

ROFL

I can see the ad’s:

MJ… Less filling… “Feels” GREAT!

A NASCAR event sponsered by ZIG-ZAG and EASY-WIDERS…

The Surgeon Generals Warning: Will mess you the F-up and give you the muchies, big time… (printed on each pack)

Mark Garnett on March 3, 2009 at 11:22 AM

I’ve got a proposition for them. Legalize drugs. But you attack me or my family while high, I get to blow your fucking brains out, no questions asked. Sounds like a win-win to me. You get to run around in an altered state of mind, I get to protect myself and my family.

GarandFan on March 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM

CTD on March 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Really? How many Mexican beer cartels are there?

BohicaTwentyTwo on March 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Oh missed that part where when we legalize it we can control it better.

Another question since we have a myriad of laws preventing teenagers from buying, having or consuming alcohol how is it that every year thousands of teenagers die from alcohol?

Bonus question Were you legal the first time you had alcohol? I sure as hell was not. Doubt most people were either.

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM

And I must add that usage of it (sunshine) can very easily lead to abuse and deep psychological dependence….

RepubChica on March 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM

BohicaTwentyTwo on March 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Really? How many Mexican beer cartels are there?

None, because beer is not illegal. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

CTD on March 3, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Actually, since the S&P just cracked the 700 floor, maybe I should go down and see that guy behind the 7-11.

Techie on March 3, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Sorry Ed, but that’s just transparently false. Alcohol contributes to more social ills than all those sunstances combined.

CTD on March 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM

There are more alcoholics than meth heads but on a per-person basis meth/coke/heroin are more debilitating and will kill a person sooner. Most alcoholics function at some level and die in later years from a chronic condition–few overdose.

dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Mark Garnett on March 3, 2009 at 11:22 AM

And the product tie-ins: Buy two boxes of Hostess Twinkies, get one MJ stick free!

myrenovations on March 3, 2009 at 11:25 AM

GarandFan on March 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Let’s add booze and I’m with ya…

Mark Garnett on March 3, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Fox News reporting that the “driver” of the Ca train that wrecked last year tested positive for mj.

Tom

marinetbryant on March 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Anything abused is dangerous,
javamartini on March 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM

So we should ban anything that can be abused?

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Every time this issue some up it is always brought down by “health concerns” or “driving” concerns, First when did the government get the job of defining my health habits? If they can tell me not to use pot, what is next, No Burger King? No If pot bad for you, sure, so it Cigarettes, Alcohol, Sky diving, and a million other things, The fact that is could kill you is not a reason to ban it. That is a PERSONAL choice, you have to make, and take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for.

As far as the driving goes, I only have 1 phrase for that. PUNISH THE ABUSE, NOT THE USE

the_ancient on March 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Mark Garnett on March 3, 2009 at 11:22 AM

And the product tie-ins: Buy two boxes of Hostess Twinkies, get one MJ stick free!

myrenovations on March 3, 2009 at 11:25 AM

ROFL… Oh we could go on this for awhile…

Mark Garnett on March 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM

prohibition has worked — we’re the healthiest, most prosperous society EVAH and we prohibit m.j.,

Buckaroo on March 3, 2009 at 11:04 AM

So the fact that prohibition has not destroyed the economy is all the evidence you need to proclaim that it is working?

Can you cite a single statistic that shows that marijuana use has dropped, one iota, due to prohibition?

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:28 AM

I tried this once before, but I’ll try one more time on a drug thread.

Far too many Americans who use pot and so on up the drug food chain, don’t see any of the carnage that arises in the distribution chain. I think it’s time to impose some serious financial penalties on possession and use.

Keep the current criminal scheme in place for dealing.

But for possession and use–use to be established by, say, two blood tests–I suggest a scheme of punitive financial penalties. For a first time offense, provide for a fairly stiff fine, graduated, say, according to previous year’s adjusted gross income or current net worth. Any later offense would result in a significant fine tied to a percentage of net worth.

Parents would be responsible for minor children. And make whistleblower rewards pretty lucrative.

The idea is to reduce demand. Our country is completely in denial about the havoc this is creating in drug manufacturing countries. If potential users start reading and hearing of reports of significant loss of wealth in fines, they may be much less likely to try it.

For current addicts, offer a six-month amnesty window to come forward for treatment to get clean.

For someone of little or no net worth, consider some kind of work camp. Give them a chance to get out of their environment and, perhaps, pick up a vocation.

I’m just spitballing, but something has to change because our country just laughs about the demand side of the equation. Yet the domestic and international costs of our demand are incalculable.

Have at it. All the same. I’d love to see Sean Penn cough up 10% of his net worth for a second possession and use offense. Finally, we could put the paparazzi to good use sniffing out drug use of society’s biggest tools.

BuckeyeSam on March 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Fox News reporting that the “driver” of the Ca train that wrecked last year tested positive for mj.

Tom

marinetbryant on March 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Tested positive because he was smoking while stoned or because he smoked the night before and it was possible to detect it?

myrenovations on March 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Regardless of how you see the proper federal role and so forth, the need people feel to use chemicals to alter their state of mind is stupid and represents a fundamental weakness on their part.

Each of us possesses the ability to enjoy life to the fullest without chemical assistance.

If you get high, I don’t respect you. Whatever happens with the law, that will always be true.

calabrese on March 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Legalize it, who is going to grow it commercially? You think that Big Tobacco has legal issues, imagine what Big Weed will face.

Techie on March 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Large commercial operations would start quite literally over night. Guaranteed.

jonknee on March 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Fox News reporting that the “driver” of the Ca train that wrecked last year tested positive for mj.

Tom

marinetbryant on March 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM

And if it was legal, it should carry the same laws as alcohol. Obviously being illegal didn’t stop him.

MDWNJ on March 3, 2009 at 11:30 AM

sabbott on March 3, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Have you seen the medical evidence regarding what alcohol and tobacco do to the body?

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Anything abused is dangerous,
javamartini on March 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM

So we should ban anything that can be abused?
MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Anyone want to tell me what is the “safe dose” for MJ?

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:30 AM

I’ve got a proposition for them. Legalize drugs. But you attack me or my family while high, I get to blow your f***ing brains out, no questions asked. Sounds like a win-win to me. You get to run around in an altered state of mind, I get to protect myself and my family.

GarandFan on March 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM

That already exists, at least in most states. Might as well have the stuff go through FDA testing, so that there will be less “tainted” bud with PCP, LSD, and other additives that make the user more susceptible to bad trips.

MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 11:31 AM

NO, NO, NO. Do we really want to encourage more ‘Driving while High’ auto deaths?

BlueforYou on March 3, 2009 at 11:11 AM

So you want to ban alcohol as well?

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:31 AM

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Anyone want to tell me what is the “safe dose” for MJ?

Any dose is safe. It’s impossible, in practical terms, to overdose on pot.

CTD on March 3, 2009 at 11:32 AM

As a psychologist who specializes in teens and young adults, I am constantly confronted with the hypocrisy at the heart of the cannabis laws in this country. Kids get brought in by parents with Budweiser stickers on their parents’ cars, so that I can “fix” their stoner son…only to find that I’m facing a social-smoking youth who is decent, smart, and relatively high-functioning (pun unintentional, but left in for being just too irresistible!). Trouble is that the parents’ expectations are crushing the life out of him. If this sounds like a somewhat idealized scenario, I assure you it is not; while varying in some particulars, the essentials describe a situation I’ve seen again and again in my practice (which, admittedly, comprises a probably disproportionate share of relatively affluent middle class families).

I’ve seen kids who will spark a bowl with some friends to giggle at “Monty Python,” or make their “Halo 3″ sessions more immersive on a Saturday night, and I’ve seen kids who can’t miss their daily wake-and-bake without feeling “off” all day. In the former case, I would submit that THC serves a bonding and recreational function which is no more intrinsically damaging than the beers so many of us liberated from our parents’ coolers back in the day…less so, actually, from a hepatic perspective. In the latter (“wake-and-bake”) case, the kid is clearly medicating himself for something (typically some variant of social anxiety), in an unhealthy way which threatens to escalate (the oft-cited “gateway drug” effect). THC in this case is to the kid’s real problem(s) as a runny nose is to a cold. To treat these kids as psychologically equivalent (not to mention criminal!) is toxic folly.

My libertarianism is insufficiently ideologically “pure” for me to extend this reasoning to heroin and PCP (which, while possible to use in moderation, are FAR less likely to be so used, and which represent dire costs to society and to that clear majority of users who will become abusers). But the decriminalization of THC is quite simply a no-brainer to me. Those who abuse it can be treated, as they are now. Indeed, they’ll be far more likely to seek treatment if they don’t have to worry about getting busted in the process. Those who use it in a controlled fashion can live their lives, support the pastry and gaming industries, and cease to clog our jails.

And, lest this be in any way unclear, I’m not saying that teens should be allowed to purchase weed, any more than they are currently allowed to purchase single-malt scotch. An underaged smoking citation has enough of a deterrent value without adding criminal possession to the potential future-killing consequences of getting busted, though.

Noocyte on March 3, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Ok so if we legalize it we can make money

So economics trump morality?

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:18 AM

um, I don’t know. . . what is the social benefit of a lottery? Seems to me it’s immoral and also a monopoly of the government. . . and the only thing involved with it is money.

When was the last time you bought a lottery ticket? Answer that and then ask your question again.

ThackerAgency on March 3, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I’ve got a proposition for them. Legalize drugs. But you attack me or my family while high, I get to blow your fucking brains out, no questions asked. Sounds like a win-win to me. You get to run around in an altered state of mind, I get to protect myself and my family.

GarandFan on March 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM

You don’t really get MJ do you? Reefer Madness was propaganda. No one is going to come after your family because they took a bong hit. Quite the opposite really, offer an attacker a bong hit and you’ll probably just end up watching Adult Swim together.

jonknee on March 3, 2009 at 11:34 AM

True but the double cheeseburger sales will go through the roof, as will doritoes.

TheSitRep on March 3, 2009 at 11:03 AM

LOL!!!!

jcheney on March 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM

One of the reasons why MJ is easy for children to get, is because the consequences of selling to children are not much greater than the consequences of selling to adults. They will both wind up with you in jail.

If MJ were legal, stores would have to worry about protecting their licenses, which they would lose if they got caught selling to children.

Stores don’t sell alcohol and tobacco to children for just this reason. I’m not saying that none do, just that the incidence is very low.

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Noocyte on March 3, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Good post.

myrenovations on March 3, 2009 at 11:36 AM

You can grow tomatoes in your backyard too but plenty are still sold at the grocery store.

dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 11:05 AM

It all depends on what the tax rate is.

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Anyone want to tell me what is the “safe dose” for MJ?

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Do people overdose on MJ? Enough of it will delude a user into believing nonsense is profound but I haven’t heard of people consuming toxic quantities.

dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Ok so if we legalize it we can make money

So economics trump morality?

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Everything that you believe is immoral should be banned?

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Anyone want to tell me what is the “safe dose” for MJ?

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:30 AM

I have heard of plenty of alcohol related death’s from alcohol poising, i have yet to hear or read of a mj death from overdose.

MDWNJ on March 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM

It all depends on what the tax rate is.

MarkTheGreat on March 3, 2009 at 11:36 AM

True that. People go to restaurants because the food is better or they are too lazy to cook at home. They’ll shop for MJ in the same way the buy all sorts of premium coffees, but too-steep a tax rate would keep the black market in business.

If one takes, tax revenue + freeing up police + freeing up jail space, it is likely to offer some economic benefit.

dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 11:42 AM

With pot, it is not a dose thing. When smoking (either bong or joint or bowl) a fuzzy feeling hits you and even the most hardcore smoker knows that when the fuzzy feeling hits, you are done smoking. Just relax.

Pot is not a binge drug. Although you might binge eat afterward.

myrenovations on March 3, 2009 at 11:43 AM

MDWNJ on March 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM

There have been a few sketchy studies (sorry can’t cite) purporting a relationship between smoking MJ and its toxins causing lung cancer, but even in those cases the users had long term use of both weed with nicotine.

No long term user of MJ (and only MJ) has succumbed to lung cancer as far as I know.

RepubChica on March 3, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Regulate THC content and smack a filter on the end. Tax the hell out of it.

cadams on March 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Like all laws, marijuana prohibition is not intended to protect the abuser.

Speakup on March 3, 2009 at 11:46 AM

ThackerAgency on March 3, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I never asked about the social benefit of MJ or anything else. Like Cicero said “All laws are rooted in morality” (he was a guy back in ancient Rome you can find out more on Wikipedia), so it would follow that if a law is rooted in morality (commonly accepted but you would have to go to law school or take a few course in legal history to confirm and despite your relativism it would be a bit cruel to make you suffer like that) then the belief is that MJ smoking is immoral.
You may need to reread this a few times, feel free to take the time to do so.
And if you want to discuss smoking as a social benefit I will be happy to administer the discipline.

And if you want to discuss personal things I will be happy to answer the last time I bought a lottery ticket right after you tell me the last time you wet the bed.

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:46 AM

As much as I have enjoyed smoking pot in the past, I don’t feel strongly one way or the other about legalizing it. I think there are strong and valid arguments on both sides.

And I really have no idea what I want to see happen with heroin, coke, etc. Perhaps, if I hadn’t been such a stoner, I would have forumlated a policy on this by now…

myrenovations on March 3, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Ed-I think you should ask Mr. Holowach to illustrate the example of Hawai’i.

Back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, pakalolo (their word for pot) became hugely popular. Then the so-called war on drugs began. It made pakalolo much more difficult to obtain or to grow.

As a result, the locals migrated to another drug, namely crystal meth or ice. And the rest is history. The Aloha State has had one of the worst ice epidemics in the world over the last decade. And law enforcement can’t do much about it, as their hands are tied by the ultra-Left Hawai’i Supreme Court, which has repeatedly refused to let law enforcement use the same tools that their counterparts in most other states use to catch the traffickers.

The court’s rationale? Such police methods would be an “invasion of privacy”.

All one needs to do is watch a few of the locally-set episodes of “Dog The Bounty Hunter” to see how ice has turned Hawai’i into a drug hellhole.

Del Dolemonte on March 3, 2009 at 11:48 AM

It can’t be regulated.
There is no parallel to alcohol.
The price for “medical pot” is about the same as street pot. Why do you suppose that is? Where theres huge profits crime will take over.
Theres no way to regulate dosage.
Drug users would have special rights when compared to drinkers…etc. etc. etc.

Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 11:49 AM

A better way to fight drug abuse may be to increase fines and leave the laws in place.

Maybe 5k for a doob, 10k for a gram of coke.

Speakup on March 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Stimulus!

I’m down for legalizing. Too expensive to prosecute this and not worth the effort. Legalize with harsh penalties for abusing it just like alcohol.

Dash on March 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:46 AM

I’m interested in your morality argument: are you starting with the premise that anti-mj legislation is moral or that all laws are moral?

-

deesine on March 3, 2009 at 11:51 AM

MDWNJ on March 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM

No long term user of MJ (and only MJ) has succumbed to lung cancer as far as I know.

RepubChica on March 3, 2009 at 11:44 AM

And any others

Let’s set up an experiment I drink 1 ounce of pure alcohol and you take 1 ounce of pure THC. Just have you funeral arrangements made first.
MJ is not safe, it is just not likely to kill you as normally administered, and for that matter Russian Roulette is safe 5 out 6 times.

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:52 AM

I am all for the decriminalization of pot.
( I don’t smoke it myself)

But coke, meth and heroin should be the focus of law enforcement.

But you can’t tax pot, it is too easy to grow.

TheSitRep on March 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM

As a cannabis advocate I’d like to point out that decriminalization is definately a step in the right direction, but legalization is optimal. I think that decriminalization (reduced to a civil infraction such as running a red light) is completely irrational. I’d put cannabis up against alcohol any day statistically. I challenge anyone to watch a 30′s era anti-marihuana film and still agree that America got the truth of the matter. Well folks, it’s still happening today. I’m take comfort in the fact that the issue is rapidly becoming mainstream. Minus the fact that it’s manfesting under liberal rule.

whiskeytango on March 3, 2009 at 11:54 AM

I don’t care. I won’t hire someone who smokes it… or anything else drug wise. There are enough stupid people in the world, without dealing with legalizing something that makes you dumber.

Once you legalize it, you have to legalize everything. And Amsterdam would know, aren’t they trying to “clean up” after they legalized everything.

upinak on March 3, 2009 at 11:55 AM

deesine on March 3, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Please re-read
Like Cicero said “All laws are rooted in morality” (he was a guy back in ancient Rome you can find out more on Wikipedia), so it would follow that if a law is rooted in morality (commonly accepted but you would have to go to law school or take a few course in legal history to confirm and despite your relativism it would be a bit cruel to make you suffer like that) then the belief is that MJ smoking is immoral.

I said neither

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:56 AM

@ Del Dolemonte

a-hem — PARTS of the island have suffered from pakalolo, and, not so mysteriously, those same parts from ice. as you point out, if we didn’t have the llls completely unfettered out here it would be a completely different story — hence the actual lesson would appear to be ban pot, ice, AND squishy judges!
:-)

Buckaroo on March 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM

I said neither

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Indeed you didn’t, this is your chance…

deesine on March 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Not only has the war on drugs been lost, the war on crime has been lost. We keep passing all these laws and yet our prisons are always full. The solution is obvious, decriminalize everything and you’ll have no crime, then we’ll all live in a happy world full of unicorns and leprechauns.

clearbluesky on March 3, 2009 at 12:01 PM

And those who want to “legalize it”… please take a gander.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,503645,00.html

Yeah… legalizing it sure makes people think straight!

upinak on March 3, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Tested positive because he was smoking while stoned or because he smoked the night before and it was possible to detect it?

myrenovations on March 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Posting while stoned

DarkCurrent on March 3, 2009 at 12:02 PM

A better way to fight drug abuse may be to increase fines and leave the laws in place.

Maybe 5k for a doob, 10k for a gram of coke.

Speakup on March 3, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Maybe an even better approach to fight drug abuse is to recognize it for what it is, substance abuse — a health problem. Minus the abuse, what’s the problem?

deesine on March 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM

NO, NO, NO. Do we really want to encourage more ‘Driving while High’ auto deaths?

BlueforYou on March 3, 2009 at 11:11 AM

how do you get into an accident at 20 mph dude?

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on March 3, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Let’s set up an experiment I drink 1 ounce of pure alcohol and you take 1 ounce of pure THC. Just have you funeral arrangements made first.
MJ is not safe, it is just not likely to kill you as normally administered, and for that matter Russian Roulette is safe 5 out 6 times.

LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Absolutely Ridiculous. why don’t you give 1oz of pure caffiene or nicotine a try. No really, please do. What you need to consider is a lil’ something called the LD50…. Observe….

At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.
“9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.”
“Opinion and recommended ruling, findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision of DEA administrative law judge”, Sept 6 1988
http://www.norml.org.nz/page54.html#Toxicity

whiskeytango on March 3, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4