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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
And, my dear Techie, therein lies the rub. Legalize drugs, and the cartels no longer have control of the supply.
With the exception of cocaine (which comes from coca, a plant indigenous only to the Andes mountains), all hard drugs could be manufactured here by Big Pharma for far cheaper than any cartel could make them overseas. I suspect that were cocaine to be legalized, it could even be produced cheaper than in the Andes, although admittedly there would have to be serious research done to make it efficiently in a lab.
The point being that cartels have zero competitive advantage over our own pharmaceutical industry, other than the barrier to entry into the market posed by prohibition.
JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 1:41 PM
If your kids raised right he won’t become a worthless stoner regardless of legality at some point he will be offered it. I don’t mind people who get high once in a while, but i do mind the kid who comes to class smelling like a cypress hill concert every day……..
zbunde on March 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM
JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Interesting take, but I would say it more to keep people healthy (not merely alive but I figure this is what you meant) in all ways.
Of course with everything you have to draw an arbitrary line and there will always be people on both sides of the line saying the line is to high/to low which unfortunately keep politicians and lawyers in jobs.
LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM
darktood on March 3, 2009 at 1:55 PM
darktood on March 3, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Not what I offered.
The point is it is not the poison but the dose. Just because it is easier to kill yourself w/ alcohol, or cyanide for that matter does not make MJ safe. Just like 1 bullet in the revolver is safer than 2 bullets when playing Russian Roulette, does not make it a smart activity.
LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Yeap, let’s legalize another drug with side effects of memory loss, paranoia, and lack of purposeful and productive behavior, among others. Have at libertarians.
rlwo2008 on March 3, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Odd. The US Government disagrees with you.
Toxicty of THC
3 grams per kilogram of body weight is non-fatal. So, your one-ounce example would mean that someone who weighed 9 kilograms WOULD NOT be killed by one ounce of pure THC.
So, in other words, most humans could, in theory, ingest over a half pound of THC without it being fatal.
These are serious discussions for serious times. Please keep your ignorance of the facts to yourself.
JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I ignored it because it amounts to stating the obvious – and no one cares. Cheeseburgers, ding dongs, hohos, scotch, whiskey, cigars, ice cream, and an unholy host of other things aren’t benign either. Pot isn’t terribly more malign than these, yet is a schedule 1 drug. This makes sense to you? Or are you a fan of transfat bans?
Pot Heads != Pot Users in the same way that Alcoholics != Social Drinkers. That point should be pretty obvious. But I’d love to see your quote on why Alcoholics should simply die and reduce the surplus population.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Once again, the arguments of the prohibitionist are found to be at severe odds with reality.
The Netherlands has never “legalized everything”. They have, in fact, not even legalized cannabis… they decriminalized it.
Now, you can either put up some evidence of the Netherlands having legalized everything, or you can run the risk of being called a fool.
Which is it?
JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 2:24 PM
My $0.02:
Six years ago, a young bastard high on marijuana smashed into my wife and I on an L.A. freeway, sending our car off the road and rolling multiple times.
The accident left me with a shattered neck and multiple facial fractures, and tearing off a good portion of the right side of my face and forehead.
Since the accident, my neck has been in constant pain and my face permanently disfigured (despite five plastic and reconstructive surgeries), and have not slept through the night one single night in six years, due to the pain.
To anyone who feels marijuana is “harmless” and a “victimless crime”, I invite you to come on over. I’ll take a sledgehammer to your neck and face, leave you permanently disfigured and painful, let you go six years without a night’s sleep, and then invite you to tell me how “harmless” and “victimless” you feel that situation is.
Again, my $0.02
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Again, you blame the marijuana and not the bad driver. It’s like blaming a gun for ‘killing someone’ (not a good analogy, but while I empathize with you I believe your hostility is misplaced).
If we want to use this particular premise as the reason that it needs to be outlawed, then cell phones need to be banned because they cause accidents. Alcohol definitely needs to be banned because it causes horrific accidents.
I understand your anger. I am sorry that you got into an accident. But don’t blame pot for it. That’s my 2 cents.
ThackerAgency on March 3, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Marijuana will never be legalized. It is the left rather than the right that wants it that way. Marijuana is the last bastion of Life,Liberty,and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Marijuana farmer is one fine example of pure Capitalism. He doesn’t get government subsidies,works for himself,and is not contributing to socialism/communism by paying ANY tax on it. The user is exercising his right to his own body, with what he can put into himself to make himself feel better no matter for cancer or just to relax. I have a real problem with the government telling someone they can’t grow a plant, like they would a tomatoe(Dan got run over by the liberal press), and smoke it to relax before bed.
The Left “Progressives” want to “legalize” it(there was no legality issue before the fascism of the FDR administration)when in fact they would actually be re-legalizing it, only difference is this time around they want to put yet one more tax on the populace, the end game being re-elected, not for any concern for the “folks”. So no, no need to legalize as the government shouldn’t be involved in personal gardening and personal medicinal(and I use that loosely, cancer is cancer, a headache a headache, no difference as far the right to liberty)use of anything. This issue is “Ground Zero” for anyone that claims they are gun-ho for the Constitution. This is an issue of “Personal Freedom” protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. Enough with the taxes already. We left England over this issue awhile back. Finally, let’s please call it Cannabis(Latin) rather than “Marijuana” Semantics, ya know…
adamsmith on March 3, 2009 at 2:37 PM
If ending prohibition destroys the organized crime involved in illegal substances why is the mafia still involved in alcohol based businesses like nightclubs, liquor distribution companies etc.
I’m not big on drinking and drugging but I wouldn’t be against legalization if people were honest about why they want it. The cartels will not disappear if you legalize drugs just as the mafia didn’t disappear after prohibition ended. They will, like the mafia, take over the legitimate drug dealing businesses through “taxes.”
Pot smokers are a drag on society and will continue to be so. Anyone who claims 30 and 40 year olds who get high on a regular basis don’t burden the rest of us either doesn’t know any pot smokers or is a pot smoker unaware of the weight he puts on his friends and family who are constantly loaning him cash, getting him home safe and watching his kids.
If legalization proponents simply said ” I have the right to make bad decisions” I’d agree with them. The constant romantization of childish pseudo-addiction is tiresome.
Now I know that a bunch of you will claim you smoke pot and are productive etc. If that’s true why are you home arguing with people over legalization? I work from home and don’t have the time to spend hours in the Hot Air comments, but it seems most legalization proponents do.
Rob Taylor on March 3, 2009 at 2:38 PM
The Designated Hitter rule?
I’m against it.
JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 2:42 PM
What substance that he was high on would you have me blame?
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 2:44 PM
JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I cited the same study, and I agree if you eat 1% MJ (less than ditch weed)you will have a difficult time OD’ing, just like if you drank 1% alcohol you would essentially be drinking water.
Also as I stated several times (2:03)not the poison but the dose(refuting MJ is safe arguments). You also seemed to not read the conversion I present for 100% MJ and how little it would take to OD compared to alcohol.
Reading is a good thing feel free to partake.
LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Pot doesn’t drive cars into people, people drive cars into people.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Math ain’t your strong suit, is it?
3000mg/kg at 1% isn’t 3mg/kg at 100%… it’s 30mg/kg at 100%.
Besides, the 3000mg/kg was not for 1% cannabis… it was in fact for pure THC.
So, not only is math not your strong suit, but reading comprehension suffered as well.
Do your homework next time.
JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Rob Taylor on March 3, 2009 at 2:38 PM
.
I have, he wasn’t a burden on anybody. Losers are losers whether they smoke, drink or just wine.
darktood on March 3, 2009 at 2:51 PM
javamartini on March 3, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Here’s Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross riffing on Miron’s fourth point in “America’s Longest War” -
IIRC, Miron said half of all police corruption cases involved drugs.
-
deesine on March 3, 2009 at 3:00 PM
JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 2:49 PM
even if I misplaced a zero still .07 ounces
From the abstract
The non-fatal consumption of 3000 mg/kg A THC by the dog and monkey would be comparable to a 154-pound human eating approximately 46 pounds (21 kilograms) of 1%-marihuana or 10 pounds of 5% hashish at one time.
From the actual study http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc1e.htm
The group used synthetic Delta 9 and A’ THC and a crude marihuana extract (CME) of carefully define composition. Delta 9 THC was more potent than Al THC. CME was less potent than a similar quantity of A’ THC.
Not 100% THC
Interestingly, the LD50 for males was 1400 mg/kg while for females it was 700 mg/kg by the oral route. The minimal lethal dose orally was between 225 and 450 mg/kg.
It goes on, but the point is
1 THC can kill
2 measure for measure it is more lethal than alcohol
LincolntheHun on March 3, 2009 at 3:02 PM
For you and Thacker to imply that pot played no role in the accident is disingenuous at best. What do you base that conclusion on? His previously-clean driving record? The false idea that he usually swerved in and out of freeway traffic doing 105 mph, as he did the night he hit us? You choose not to see–it doesn’t mean the truth isn’t right in front of you.
Again, my offer still stands. Spend six years in my shoes, and see if your feelings change.
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 3:07 PM
and what of alcohol? do you support banning that? as it is surely more impairing to your driving ability than pot…id assume given whats happened you’d want dangerous substances out of our hands…starting with the most dangerous, alcohol.
ernesto on March 3, 2009 at 3:13 PM
I feel nothing but sympathy for you, believe me, but your argument on this issue is invalid because it is a pure emotional appeal. When I lived in Santa Ana, CA I witnessed a man get murdered with a handgun right outside my apartment window. I suppose I could run around going “Let’s see how you feel when you witness a life get extinguished before your very eyes, then we’ll talk whether or not owning a handguns is a ‘right.’” But that would be meaningless BS, and totally manipulative. In fact, I still support handgun legalization because I know full well that restricting gun laws wouldn’t have saved that young man’s life.
What happened to you sucked, but it absolutely ZERO bearing or whether or not pot should be legalized, just as a single handgun murder doesn’t mean we should go around banning handguns.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 3:15 PM
freakin Hot Air. Wow.
Brains on March 3, 2009 at 3:17 PM
A lot of abstract arguments that seem to be little more than avoidance and denial of reality imo.
Lets say legislation was just passed legalizing pot as soon as the specifics and framework of regulation can be put into place. For lack of any other system, the suggestion is to model it after alcohol.
What are the regulations and systems overseeing alcohol production and sales? Whats the first step in mirroring that system to pot?
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Anyone can just grow handguns? How does that work?..just plant the bullets?
s/
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 3:23 PM
You are still misstating the study.
The experiment in question found that 3000 mg of THC/kg of body weight to be non-fatal, not 3000 mg of 1% cannabis.
Once again this can be proven mathematically by the amounts stated in the next phrase:
154 lbs. = 70 kg.
21 kilos of 1% weed = 21000 g @ 1% = 210 g of pure THC
10lbs. ( 4.54 kilos) of 5% hash = 4545 g @ 5% = 227 g THC (rounding error)
210 g pure THC, consumed by a 70kg man is, in fact, 3g/kg of body wight, or 3000 mg/ kg of body weight.
Once again, do your homework before posting outrageous claims.
JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Prohibitionists are the reality deniers. They want laws to reflect the way the world SHOULD be, rather than think about the way the world actually is. There are ZERO instances in history of prohibition of a high demand product working successfully. It just doesn’t work, and it never will, not matter how forcefully prohibitionists put their head in the sand.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Hey, is there anyone here who doesn’t take illegal drugs that would take them if only they were legal?
Kevin M on March 3, 2009 at 3:25 PM
What the hell are you trying to say here? The fact that pot is a goddamn PLANT, while guns are a manufactured product, is an argument FOR legalization of pot, not against it. What kind of BS insanity is it to make NATURE illegal? What, did God screw up on this one, and now we need the nanny state to correct mother nature’s mistake?
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Personally, I would support banning it (I don’t drink anyway), but that’s not going to happen (Prohibition’s attempt notwithstanding). Given the tremendous cost to society that alcohol has shoved and continues to shove down innocent victims’ throats, I don’t believe that it makes any sense to open the floodgates to even more substances that impair driving and cognition.
If you’d been maimed for life by a pot-smoking-impaired driver, do you think you might feel differently than you do? Again, walk six years in my shoes before you answer.
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 3:28 PM
How can any intelligent, moral person advocate legalizing crack cocaine? Or meth?
jgapinoy on March 3, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I don’t see any reason not to believe you: a victim of somebody else abusing pot. F*ing suks, that puke should be prosecuted, harshly.
It seems the point of this line is that if legalizing pot means one more accident/death to some abuser per year, then it’s not worth it, keep the status quo. This line appeals to me, but I feel fails to take into account the existing negatives/cons of the current situation. I suppose it becomes a balance of possible incidents/deaths per year increase versus the existing ills of prohibition.
I’m glad more and more people are seeing that pot is no more harmful than alcohol and tobacco, and that to significantly treat it as if it is equals life ruining incidents as well.
-
deesine on March 3, 2009 at 3:31 PM
He got ninety days in jail, and, because of jail overcrowding, served eighteen.
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Ed: So on one hand you say the film is misleading, misrepresents the facts, and lacks important information. Then you turn around and say its informative and interesting. What gives?
chicagojedi on March 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Hmm. Does High examine this link of MJ to schizophrenia, or
this link to testicular cancer, or this link to lung cancer and respiratory ailments, or this link to amputation.
The schizophrenia link is personal — my son had that happen. Luckily, he stopped, and the behavior appears to have abated.
God made the “Destroying Angel” mushroom. Nobody sells them in stores, and if you gave one to someone else, you would probably be arrested for murder. God has spoken thusly:
I’m sure that such honor doesn’t include either toking or eating “Destroying Angels”.
unclesmrgol on March 3, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Yes, but the difference is that it’s not illegal to grow “destroying angel” mushrooms in the US. All I want is for MJ to be just as legal as that. Because it would be awfully Goddamn arrogant to make nature illegal.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 3:50 PM
That was abstract and evasive of the issues involved in actually legalizing pot in a way that mirrors alcohol.
An argument could be made that the ones who want yet another dangerous drug legally available are the ones who want to live in a world where people conduct themselves in a way that SHOULD be their behavior.
Its a rather false claim that there are ZERO working models of prohibition working. You would have to define “working” otherwise its just a lame tactic.
Anyway, why not address how the regulations for legal pot would be created?
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Some religions use cannabis or peyote in a ritual manner. The Supreme Court has recognized some leeway for this by putting restrictions on the DEA.
dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Huh?
“making nature illegal?? Is that some sort of appeal to emotions or something?
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 3:56 PM
The ones who want it made legally available are the ones who realize that pot is ALREADY available. Pot is our number one cash crap, despite its illegality. That’s reality. And yet society still stands.
That’s true, but what I said was that there are zero examples or prohibiting a HIGH DEMAND product working. Free markets are so powerful, they work with or without the government’s approval. If enough people want pot (and obviously a ton of people do), the free market will always find a way to give it to them. Always, every time. No matter what you do, no matter what restrictions that you put on it, you will never, ever be able to stop the sale and consumption of an extremely high demand product. Even in North Korea and China, where you can get the death penalty for trafficking, drugs are available. It’s unstoppable, and the sooner you come face to face with that reality, the better. I don’t know where people get this bizarre notion that you can make something go away by making it illegal.
We already have working models and with medical pot dispenseries in CA. If you want complete details, you can read AB 390 assembly bill here.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 4:06 PM
No, no its not. It would be equally insane to have the cops bust down your door in the middle of the night because you are growing ferns in your home.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Wouldn’t it suck to know that the reason for the overcrowding is because of incarcerating abusers who haven’t harmed anybody else?
-
deesine on March 3, 2009 at 4:18 PM
How many people have been maimed or killed by fern smoking drivers?
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Is your only argument playing the victim card? If you have to resort to personal emotional appeals without looking at the reality of the situation, you are no better than Cindy Sheenan dancing on her son’s corpse to oppose Bush. The accident also wouldn’t have happened if cars were made illegal, do you think that’s a good idea?
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 4:28 PM
About as many as have had their lives ruined or ended by gang activity fueled by illegal fern dealing.
dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 4:29 PM
But that works both ways.
Can you think of a high demand product that became even MORE in demand when restrictions were eased? Is that the smart route to take?To your question..there was a huge popular demand for legal stimulants like ephedrine until problems were manifested in the population. There were legal restrictions put in place, the use and demand fell sharply with no ill effect on the “right” to use it.
The argument for it was the same…”People just use it for safer driving..or for studying”, whatever the claim was made that it was harmless when people behaved like they should. Reality rarely has people acting like they ‘should’.
True. But no one is claiming that its 100% stoppable, and thats not the goal of the laws.
The example of the “Medical Marijuana” outlets is a joke. They are little more than a joke and everyone knows it.
But on that “working model”, if legalizing is to take the profit and incentive of criminal amounts of cash from the substance, why are the prices in those clubs from $40-55 a 1/8 oz? Thats about $320 -$440. an oz. I thought it was the criminal element and not that very same free market that you realize is a force to be reckoned with, that would make it cheap and not attractive to crime.
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Presence of emotion does not equal absence of truth. How many fern-smoking accidents can you name? Does marijuana impair driving, or not? The reason you attack my emotions is that you cannot refute my argument. Either point out where I am wrong, or shut up.
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 4:35 PM
“I didn’t inhale, but I digested”-Hussein Obama.
Then I dumped all over America. If you think Global Warming is an issue, wait ’till you smell my turd.
JoeySlippers on March 3, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I don’t see how that’s relevant, and don’t really understand what kind of point your trying to make.
Not really the same because there were other products that had the same effects as ephdrine, but didn’t have the same health effects, and were legal. If there were some sort of product that had the same effect as pot, but was totally legal, we wouldn’t even have this discussion.
Because at the moment the dealer on the street and medical pot places get their supply from the same source. Most growers don’t bother getting a proper licesne because they know it’s just saying to the feds “I’m growing pot RIGHT HERE.” Maybe if the feds stopped doing their raids, and growers could grow legally without the fear, legal sources could see their prices drop. Read the whole legalization bill, it addresses all of your concerns.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 4:38 PM
I agree.
It seems like the tactic taken on subjects like these are just that…no believable answers for the problems likely to be encountered with legalization…so change the subject to the abstract or philosophical.
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Beg to differ, but respectfully so. My brother has been smoking pot since he was in his mid-teens, which would have been in the late 1960′s. Yet he holds down a full-time job, and is, in fact, their best and hardest working employee. Licensed in his field, he continues with every state requirement for annual additional classes to keep his knowledge up to their standards and state laws, and requalifies each year, and naturally gets re-licensed each year.
He’s 53, had a bad accident last year that nearly killed him, lost his spleen and part of his stomache and eroded his esophagus, and the doctors said he would never work again. After coming out of a long coma he listened patiently to the doctors’ reasons why he should never work again, then promptly set about with diet and exercise to regain his strength and muscle tone. Today he is back to working full-time, as the doctors declare him their ‘miracle’ patient.
Having been disabled since 1998 with a rare and very aggressive form of rheumatoid arthritis that also attacks my vital organs, I wish I could use pot to dull the unrelenting and severe pain and inflammation caused by the RA. Since being diagnosed we tried every treatment option and many different cocktails of drugs, but all have failed. Prednisone and pain killers are the only things that work, making it possible for me to still be self-sufficient, just. I’ve been told that medical marijuana would make a huge difference for me, but the darn stuff makes me so nauseous it just isn’t an option.
But I’ve also known two cancer patients who used it to ease their plight and dreadful pain, and it truly worked wonders for them. One survived and beat the beast, but the scarring and stuff left him in constant pain, which the pot eases greatly, making it possible for him to work rather than live like a zombie on pain killers. The other’s was terminal, but the pot made his final days tolerable.
No one will ever convince me that pot is bad for anyone who uses it wisely. Just like alcohol, there are people who, for some genetic reason or other psychological reasons, are substance abusers. But because a few abuse the substances isn’t a valid reason for denying others the access to those substances if the substance would improve their lives positively. That’s like saying we should deny everyone the right to own and operate a car because a few careless and reckless people cause accidents that kill other people. It’s not a reasonable argument at all, IMHO.
I say legalize it, and take the power away from the drug cartels who are destroying lives along the borders. Let any who wants to grow their own for medical reasons do so under reasonable limits, and the rest purchase it from state licensed stores, just like some states such as Oregon have state licensed stores for alcohol.
KendraWilder on March 3, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Yes. Both are plants that can be grown in the home. Two primary differences exist:
1. One will get you high if you smoke it, the other won’t(to my knowledge).
2. One will get your door broken in and you arrested, the other won’t.
Insanity.
MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 4:42 PM
I’m not refuting your argument because you DON’T HAVE AN ARGUMENT. All you are saying is one time a stupid stoner smashed into me, therefore we should make it illegal. Well, hell, if we get to use that logic, I once sprained my back because someone spilled soap on the floor, so we should do away with Dove.
What happened to you doesn’t change the fact that prohibition doesn’t work. Obviously, the prohibition of marijuana didn’t help you one lick, so why are you still promoting this failed policy?
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 4:44 PM
The only reason anyone could possibly promote our current failed drug war is by being economically retarded. It stems entirely from a fundamentally limited grasp of history, supply and demand, and the meaning of personal liberty. As I have told you many times before, we have an actual, real world precedent for legalization: booze legalization. And if you think that they aren’t the same, and that they aren’t failures for identical reasons, you need to politely remove yourself from the conversion for being so jaw droppingly ignorant and/or dishonest.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 4:50 PM
The point I was trying to make was that using either extreme of that logic is little more than a weak argument. They’re both valid…but weak.
There are other legal substances to get buzzed on too. Why bother with all the bureaucracies and government personnel and technologies yet to find their way into existence just so a small percentage of the population can get a pot buzz?
Are you saying that the buzz is so unique that all that is worth it?
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Where are all these people who are casual users who are getting their doors broken? I just don’t see it or hear about it anywhere in the real world. Does it happen by mistake?..yeah, I’ve heard of a few. Is that an honest representation of the lives of your average pot smoker. No.
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Not like pot. Nothing is quite like it.
That isn’t it at all. First of all, regulation will involve less bureaucracies than prohibition. Second of all, it isn’t just “Pot should be legalized because I want to get high,” it’s “Pot should be legalized becasue a massively significant chunk of the US population wants to get high.” It’s so significant, that prohibition just doesn’t work.
Here’s a rule of thumb when it comes to politics: don’t give the government more power and just ASSUME they will use is responsibly. In fact, assume that they will abuse it quite regularly, like the government does with drug raids, as can be seen here.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 4:59 PM
You keep making the same claim, and that is the one of pot legalization being like alcohol….but you keep avoiding dealing with it in an honest and realistic way.
How would regulating pot be like alcohol?
Wait!… I know you’ll just avoid this again.
I’ll ask another question.
How is alcohol regulated? Whats involved and how is it done?
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 5:01 PM
The only justice in legalized pot is that all the wippies (wanna-be-hippies) will now pay directly in their beloved Socialist Govt fund.
They are always whining for more Govt programs and free cash. Now they can pay for it.
Montana on March 3, 2009 at 5:03 PM
My argument is that we should KEEP it illegal, to decrease the liklihood of another stupid stoner doing the same thing to someone else. The fact that prohibition does not eliminate bad behavior does not mean it does not decrease it.
Irrelevant. Were you smoking the Dove? Does it impair your driving when you do?
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Uh, I never avoided it. Did you miss the link to the AB 390 Assembly Bill? It is very will written, covers all the major bases of pot regulation and answers all your questions. I know it’s a bit of a long read, but its obviously necessarily very thorough. But even if you disagree with it at points, it doesn’t change the fact that regulation is better and more cost effective than prohibition.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 5:06 PM
I see. Pot harms you = obviously we need to keep it illegal and forget all other considerations. Dove harms me = doesn’t mean a damn thing in regards to its legality, because, uh, you don’t smoke soap.
Lame, lame, lame. This is PRECISELY the argument that anti 2nd amendment people make against guns. “Well, if guns were illegal, X murder wouldn’t have happened,” or in cases were handguns are illegal, they say “Well, imagine how many MORE murders would happen if you did make handguns illegal.” When you and I both know that 1) That’s not true, and 2) It’s totally irrelevant.
Your personal story, while sad, doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not pot should be legalized. Your story doesn’t change the fact that prohibition of a high demand product doesn’t work and never will.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM
So what?
Now your off in la la land again imo. Wasn’t it you, who just a few posts back saying something about it being simplistic to have a world view where things are not like they actually are, but how you think they should be?
I thought that was you?
Massively significant? Does that include immature juveniles and teenagers? If so.. kindly subtract them from the number. Their opinions don’t count. How massive is it now?
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I’m not going to waste any time trying to debate a stoner. Things only make sense to these guys when Pink Floyd is playing in the background.
To finalize the attempted thought you typed: the founding fathers didn’t make lots of things illegal. If you want to interpret this as some kind of endorsement, go right ahead, but don’t call me for your bail money.
It works like this: breaking the law is immoral. Period. If you don’t like that, try changing the law, but you’d have to change the underlying morality first. Otherwise, a legislative body could decide, say, that killing Jews is legal. No? It’s happened before!
stonemeister on March 3, 2009 at 5:17 PM
No it doesn’t. Stating allusions to regulations has nothing to do with the mechanics of implementing those regulations.
Your claiming that lends me to think that you don’t understand what my question was.
Let me ask again…how are the mechanisms that regulate alcohol relatable to pot? If you don’t understand what I’m getting at…I don’t see how an realistic discussion can take place.
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM
So, it has big implications in terms of economics. Demand for an illegal product will drop to near zero if there is a legal equivalent. If there is no legal equivalent(as is the case with pot), demand will stay pretty much the same.
Massive enough to account for 21,865 metric tons of pot trafficked in the US each year. (estimated, obviously) This isn’t La La land, this is reality. Pot is here, and we can either profit from it or we can continue to fight a lost and pointless war against it. Those are the only two options.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM
What are my questions? Your answer to this will help us both understand the level of understanding of our respective positions.
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 5:24 PM
You think it’s just me? Thousands of others have similar stories, and you know it. Marijuana use impairs driving and cognition.
Not at all. Using a gun can protect my life, family, and business (from drugged out stoners, for example). Does marijuana have similar protective benefits? Name them.
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 5:24 PM
…and there’s no field test for the level of intoxication, giving special rights to the pot smokers imo.
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 5:26 PM
So does alcohol.
MadisonConservative on March 3, 2009 at 5:26 PM
I’m not really making “allusions to regulations” as much as I am making allusions to prohibition. Booze prohibition is a striking example of how you can’t stop people from using a high demand product just by making it illegal. Reality doesn’t work that way.
What do you mean by “relatable” exactly? Alchohol obviously shows how you can effectively distribute a controlled substance through liscened retailers and use it to aid in tax revenue. Are you somehow implying that the methodology used to regulate booze won’t work for pot. If so, why do you think that?
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Well, do you think I’m the only person who slips on soap? There are countless people who harm themselves with this sudsy scourge! We need to rid the world of Irish Spring before it’s too late!
Legalizing pot has the protective benefit of cutting off a major revenue source of organized crime, thereby reducing border violence.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 5:33 PM
The la la land comment was in reference to your claim of legalization having less bureaucracies involved than the present system.
Your claim that its pointless is little more than your opinion based on a bias imo.
A third option is education.
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Well, that’s just a fact. It takes a fraction of the amount of money and effort to regulate a high demand product than it does to attempt to end its use, sale and distribution outright. Any economist can tell you that.
Maybe, but it’s the kind of bias anyone gets when they have even a basic understanding of economics and prohibition.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 5:39 PM
As well as reducing the violence, and perverse incentives, in urban neighborhoods where the most powerful financial force is the drug business.
dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 5:39 PM
I will admit, it does appear to have impaired your cognition…or could that be the marijuana use? Do you really not see the difference between slipping on soap and smoking a mind-altering substance? Are you really that dense?
Oh, that’ll make all the victims of impaired pot-smoking drivers feel so much better.
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 5:41 PM
I don’t smoke. And if your whole argument is X harms people, therefore it is bad, there is no difference between banning pot and banning soap in your weird little world. Because hey, they both harm people right? Again, the car was a major factor in your injury, why don’t you lobby to ban driving?
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Wow, you really are that dense. According to your logic, we shouldn’t ban anything just because ‘it harms people’. Should we legalize murder then, because banning it hasn’t stopped it? By your logic, think of how much damage we could do to the gangs if we legalized murder–all their profits from paid gang hits would be gone!
Does driving a car impair one’s ability to drive? No. Does marijuana use? Yes. Less marijuana use, fewer maimed people. Again, the fact that we cannot eliminate something by prohibiting it does not mean it does not decrease it.
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 6:00 PM
so does heroin.
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 6:01 PM
The distinction of course is that since the demand for comitting murder is extremely low, prohibition can actually be effective in reducing the murder rate. Plus, this is isn’t applicable since murder obviously has a victim, unlike getting stoned alone in your home.
But driving a car increases the liklihood that you will harm someone several fold, just as smoking pot while driving will. If everyone took public transportation, biked, or walked, we would prevent a hundred deaths a day. Yet you aren’t interested in applying the same logic to pot that you do to cars, despite car driving to be much more harmful.
Except prohibition doesn’t really effectively decrease pot use, or even pot use while driving. Pot is our NUMBER ONE cash crop. It rakes in more than wheat and more than corn, despite its illegality. The drug war is over and drugs won (not that we had any chance of winning in the first place). It’s time to admit it finally so we can stop spending my tax dollars to continue pursing a failed policy.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Then we’re discussing two different things.
I mean ‘relatable’ as being somehow interchangeable or equally applicable.
The question is again avoided.
Is this willful ignorance?.. I don’t mean stupid or dumb, I mean “ignorance” as in the ability to ignore. Just askin’
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 6:08 PM
I’m not really avoiding your question, I just don’t quite understand what your point is. Believe me, I’m trying to address them. And I noticed that you didn’t actually address my own question which is:
Are you somehow implying that the methodology used to regulate booze won’t work for pot? If so, why do you think that?
Please answer that so that I can understand what you are getting at.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 6:11 PM
You’re claiming that its a fact, but what is that based on?
Your explanation is simplistic imo. The resources that are in place and result in pot arrests are going to be there anyway. Very few pot arrests are the result of special forces that are dedicated to only pot. They happen in the course of law enforcement in general. On the other hand, the added systems and bureaucracies which would have to be established for the specialized tasks of regulation, testing and enforcement would obviously be an addition to the forces and regulating bodies…which do yet not exist.
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 6:18 PM
Maybe that understanding is a little too basic?
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Yeah, because Milton Friedman (RIP), Mark Thornton, and virtually every other economist on the planet want to legalize it because of their limited understanding of economics.
You fail to appreciate just how terribly expensive it is to prohibit something that has high demand. We did it before, with booze prohibition. Quick transition from prohibition to regulation, and as expected, we saved money.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 6:28 PM
My point is, the claim to regulation of pot is any way comparable to alcohol is so very simplistic, that I can only arrive at the conclusion that the position taken has not been arrived at through the process of rational thought.
I’m claiming willful avoidance because the couple of posts I’ve given which ask for specifics, have been avoided like the plague.
Let me try again.
In order to use alcohol as a model, what is the first thing that would need to be established on the path to regulating pot like alcohol? Step 1…square 1?
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Appeal to Authority fallacy. What do economists have to do with an understanding of applications of regulations doing with substances for public consumption?
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 6:35 PM
If Obama should grab ahold of this issue he could use the slogan:
DOPE and Change
JeffVader on March 3, 2009 at 6:37 PM
So it’s just a numbers game–only prohibit the crimes that are RARELY done, and leave the more common ones unchecked. By that logic, if murder becomes more common, we should legalize that, too.
Again, is driving a car mind-altering? Does it impair your ability to drive? No. Does marijuana? Yes.
Which is it, prohibition decreases what’s prohibited, or it doesn’t?
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Correct.
The methodology doesn’t exist that could regulate pot in the same way as alcohol.
Itchee Dryback on March 3, 2009 at 6:39 PM
OK. So you are comparing, with a straight face presumably, smoking a flower, to the intentional taking of a human life.
And you are calling other people dense?
You’re just like the left trotting out Michael J. Fox to argue in favor of funding for Parkinson’s Syndrome, and then claiming “You can’t argue with him, because he has Parkinson’s. You must feel sad for him.” Just because you got injured by some fool who abused his freedoms does not give you the right to implement bad policy without criticism.
The fact is that even with cannabis illegal, you got injured. Keeping it illegal might decrease casualties on the road, but at the price of funding organized crime, filling our prisons, corrupting our police, and increasing our taxes. But you refuse to consider this, don’t you, because you have grown to be bitter because of your injuries. Well, my liberties are not contingent on your fears.
And if you got injured because someone was going 105 mph, that sounds more like an argument for outlawing cars that go over 60 mph, than an argument for outlawing cannabis.
JohnGalt23 on March 3, 2009 at 6:39 PM
I’ve avoided nothing, I’m just trying to understand what precisely you are grasping at. If you want a complete run down of how pot can be legalized (the “specifics” you falsely claim I don’t provide), you can read AB 390. It provides ALL of the specifics.
When I invoke booze prohibition, I am merely giving a real world example of why the prohibition of a high demand product doesn’t work. Prohibition of pot and booze doesn’t work for the precisely the same reason: you can’t take away what the public wants. It’s not any more complicated than that. Tell me why this doesn’t answer your question.
Quit accusing me of avoiding questions and answer my own: Are you somehow implying that the methodology used to regulate booze won’t work for pot? If so, why do you think that?
Uh, I’m nothing saying that legalizaiton is right because hordes of people who are way smarter than you think it’s right. I’m merely refuting your claim that a pro legalization stance stems from a “too basic” understanding of economics.
And please don’t tell me you don’t understand that this is fundamentally an economics issue? Economists know why prohibition is breathtakingly retarded because they understand how futile it is. How there are ZERO examples of prohibiting a high demand product actually working, and how invasive it is into citizens lives. This has EVERYTHING to do with economics. And it shouldn’t be surprising that both right and left wing economists are rallying for legalization.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Why exactly do you think that we can succesfully regulate some substances (alchohol, tobacco) but not marijuana? You haven’t explained what properties of MJ make it more difficult to regulate.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 6:54 PM
I never said they were. Your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, as the saying goes. Smoking pot harms people–innocent people. Liberty ended where their nose (or any other body part) begins.
And what mind-altering substance do you suppose he blamed for not realizing how fast he was driving?
EyeSurgeon on March 3, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Ah, and now we strike at the heart of the matter. It isn’t that it’s harmful, because obviously there are lots of other things that are more harmful (like driving), it’s that it is mind altering. Well, I’m sorry to inform you that if that is your only actual beef, you have no argument. Because it isn’t illegal to think in a certain way. Far as I’m aware, you can have any kind of mind that you please.
Prohibition only really works on items of low demand. But again, since murder is a crime with a victim, isn’t comporable to getting stoned in your home anyway.
justfinethanks on March 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Personal liberty is constrained to the set of things that can be done while driving a car?
If people had to go to a club to smoke and in exchange for some weed they hand over their driver’s license and car keys for a sufficient number of hours, does that work?
dedalus on March 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »