Interview: John Holowach on High and marijuana policy
posted at 8:44 am on April 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
I’ve kept in touch with documentarian John Holowach, who produced High: The True Tale of American Marijuana, and advocates on the issue of marijuana legalization. Today, he will offer free streaming of the entire documentary at his website, TrueHigh.com, and I recorded an interview with John last Friday about the promotion. We talk about how other documentaries made his job tougher, his disappointment thus far with the Obama administration’s treatment of the issue, and what he believes will come next. We also caught up on the latest developments on the issues of the drug war:
Be sure to watch the film if you haven’t already bought it, and read my review of John’s film from last month. The film is really quite good, and while John makes no attempt to hide his advocacy for complete legalization, it does present an honest argument, which may or may not convince some people to change their minds on the policy.
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 Next »
I didn’t say he was smart. He shouldn’t have let the dude take his picture. That was dumb. But marijuana didn’t hinder the athletic performance of the GREATEST OLYMPIC ATHLETE IN HISTORY. . . faster than any swimmer ever. Maybe that was his secret. If they smoke weed, they’ll swim faster.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:22 AM
THACKER:
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/Opinion/Content?oid=82336
according to Out of Bounds by Jeff Benedict, an investigative journalist and contributor to Sports Illustrated, the NBA is loaded with felons. During the 2001-2002 NBA season, a full 40 percent of NBA players had police records involving serious crimes. These ranged from armed robbery to rape. Rape, both statutory and forceful, is a big one, only it doesn’t get much press, since the victims are generally strippers or waitresses and are routinely paid off to keep quiet.
And speaking of puke, remember Jayson Williams? Big forward for the New Jersey Nets. Funny guy, a little coked out, but funny all the same; worked as an analyst for NBC for a little while. Williams getting arrested for shooting his chauffeur, Costas Christofi, was the best thing that ever happened to Tom Tolbert (an Arizona Wildcat once upon a time), who took his place. A barely covered footnote in the coverage (while Williams tried to convince a jury it was accidental shooting; the manslaughter proceedings ended in a mistrial, and he’s going to be retried) was that a few months prior to killing Christofi, funny, goofy Jay-boy killed his dog. He had former Nets player Dwayne Schintzius over to his house and bet him $100 that Schintzius couldn’t drag his rottweiler out the door. Schintzius prevailed; Williams got out his shotgun, and blammo, no more doggie.
bloggless on April 20, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Carl Sagan smoked mad weed. Gave the world alot more than most people do.
ernesto on April 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Ouch, someone sure is angry. Sorry, don’t use any drugs except alcohol now. Guess some of us have a strong enough will to “JUST SAY NO”.
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Yeah, Mr. “My circles are round” is the anti-snark today. LOL! Ok then.
You better hope your neighbor has a strong enough will to say no too, or better yet that he doesn’t leave his psychotropic drugs laying out for the kids to find.
But hey, as was mentioned earlier by another poster, why not just make it all wide-open and available, no laws necessary for anything because it’s just a matter of saying “No”.
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Keep telling yourself that. I have mentioned before I have one friend that has his PHD in physics, so that would be Dr. Pothead to you, and another who runs his own business. I also have one that is a total waste, but to simply say it is because of the weed is simply childish.
I know it drives the “moral orels” of the world like you insane to believe some weed smokers are amazingly brilliant and successful people while you, as a strict law abider, are merely average. Just get over it, and quit giving this stupid drug more reputation that it deserves.
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM
allow more freedom by regulation.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Ask how much “freedom” a regular tobacco user has. they’ve about had all of their “freedom” regulated into oblivion – so much so that there are places where a person gets prosecuted for smoking in their own house!
As someone who supposedly supports “liberty” and a conservative who says he believes in smaller government, you seem to be all fired up about “regulation”.
The overall argument I see from most pro-legalizers is that they feel they whould be allowed to smoke whenever, wherever. The government has no business “telling them what they can do with their bodies”, yet that is exactly what you are advocating for.
There is a inherent contradiction between some legalizer advocates and their beliefs on Liberty. Perhaps you aren’t among them, but the argument is there nontheless.
catmman on April 20, 2009 at 10:28 AM
bloggless on April 20, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Well I am not personally for “taxing the hell out of it”. It would definitely raise state revenue for regular sales taxes and income taxes not just for the marijuana industry, but the industries that lose business due to the inflated prices. The only “transfer of wealth” I am seeking is from the black market to the legal market. And actually “BIG PHARMA” already sells THC in pill form. I’m surprised that someone so well versed on the topic didn’t know that. They don’t want competition.
LevStrauss on April 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM
ernesto on April 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Carl Sagan was a leftist, collectivist moron.
Smart guy on “space stuff” though. He should have stuck to it.
catmman on April 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM
YOu have two friends that are potheads and you claim they are successful. Well, good for them. Maybe they are using pot for medicinal purposes to self medicate. I do not know. I have a friend who is obese and healty. Does that mean obesity is healthy? NO it means my friend has beaten the odds, so far. You practice anecdotal medicine much?
bloggless on April 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Works for me…and Nancy Reagan.
Here are my conditions:
1. I immediately get to shoot anyone that I feel is threatening me or my family under the influence of any drug.
2. The only tax money used is to wash the piss and vomit off the sidewalk that the addicts die in.
See…easy.
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM
I didn’t say he was smart. He shouldn’t have let the dude take his picture. That was dumb. But marijuana didn’t hinder the athletic performance of the GREATEST OLYMPIC ATHLETE IN HISTORY. . . faster than any swimmer ever. Maybe that was his secret. If they smoke weed, they’ll swim faster.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Was Phelps smoking weed during his training or the Olympics itself? Was he smoking anything or eating anything he desired?
Tell you what, give ol’ Michael a few sugar cubes soaked in acid before his next swim and let’s see how well he does.
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Okay. I watched his movie. Again, I support the legalization of drugs. However, while I agree that there is a lot of good, factual information in the video, it also strikes me as a sales pitch for the legalization of MJ.
Don’t sell me. I can get that from any MSM outlet. Just give me the facts on both sides of the issue and let me decide.
Thanks.
watson007 on April 20, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Jayson Williams. You got me. One. It must be because he was on drugs, right? Thankfully we are going to outlaw drugs again. Wait, they were already outlawed? hmmm.
Women target high profile (and rich) guys as well. I’m not saying no NBA star ever raped anyone. But in our country, the law favors any woman bringing any charge for any reason.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:34 AM
ernesto on April 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Freud was a coke addict, albeit in the safer leaf form. But it was easy for him to carry all those leaves around, since it was not prohibited, he didn’t have to ingest nor transport his drug of choice around in its smallest, most dangerous form. Prohibition makes everything more dangerous due to transportation issues. Why do you think that during alcohol prohibition beer gave way to moonshine and liquor, also the products were less safe than the liquor we can buy legally today.
LevStrauss on April 20, 2009 at 10:34 AM
The comment i was responding to made the argument that no pothead was ever any use to society. As odd his politics were(due in no small part to his yearning for humanity to get past its bullsh*t and start exploring a real destiny among the stars), he was quite the scientist.
ernesto on April 20, 2009 at 10:34 AM
LOL! I’d pay to see that.
.
GT on April 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM
See…easy.
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Not so easy unless you plan on being with your kids 24/7.
See that big guy at the mall walking behind your daughter and her friends, he just took a major hit of something you have never heard of and now he is feeling really really REALLY paranoid that your daughter is “out to get him.” You’re at work, now what?
See…easy.
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Or four bottles of wine?
I agree that Thackers choice of examples was very poor. Again, I feel that you potophobes (just kidding) are giving this kiddie drug way too much credit of influence.
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Dock Ellis pitches No Hitter for Pittsburgh on acid in 1970.
OOPS!
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Didn’t get far into the video before the stench was so thick I had to check out for a breath of fresh air . . .
Stroup sounded like a Soros, Ayers, Obama tool and yup, he fits the profile all too well.
Credibility comes to a full stop.
heroyalwhyness on April 20, 2009 at 10:41 AM
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Hell’s bells son, I think you may have hit on it; performance is enhanced by taking acid because this of this pitcher’s example.
Now of course that was just a ball game. I’ll make you a deal, the next time you get eye surgery or fly in a commercial plane, if you request that the surgeon or the pilot take a few tabs of Sunshine before they operate or fly, I’ll come over to your side of the debate.
“The eyeball/runway was small sometimes, the eyeball/runway was large sometimes, sometimes I saw the cornea/other airplanes, sometimes I didn’t.”
OOPS! would take on a whole new meaning.
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM
All I am saying is that, as a Conservative, I believe in NOT continuing to fund programs that do NOT work. All of them including the “war on drugs”.
watson007 on April 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM
I couldn’t agree more. My former roommate is a huge stoner. He’s 33, unemployed, and lives with his parents. That’s all I need to see. Oh, one other thing, his biggest plan right now is to go to art school. Make your own decisions.
Goldenavatar on April 20, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM
my point is that your arguments are based on government propaganda, not facts. There aren’t studies based on what these drugs actually do to the body because of people like you. They thought it was easier to gain more control over people and make the people think they were doing them a favor.
The Mafia lost a lot of money when Prohibition ended and they turned to other things to make money. But they couldn’t use alcohol when the government provided it.
Just like I admitted I was wrong with Jayson Williams, you can’t admit you were wrong about LSD even in this one case. The pitcher is an ANTI DRUG spokesman so he wouldn’t be lying about it.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM
All of them including the “war on drugs”.
watson007 on April 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM
So no problems with the meth-lab next door?
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM
I see the resident potheads have not read the info provided. I for one if given the choice between seeing a doctor who is a pothead and one who is not, will go for the no-pot doc. How about you?
bloggless on April 20, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Then I’m glad you’ve really considered the policy options related to marijuana. Good to know thoughtful analysis reigns as the prevailing method to understanding drugs in this country.
ernesto on April 20, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM
my point is that your arguments are based on government propaganda, not facts. There aren’t studies based on what these drugs actually do to the body because of people like you. They thought it was easier to gain more control over people and make the people think they were doing them a favor.
The Mafia lost a lot of money when Prohibition ended and they turned to other things to make money. But they
bloggless on April 20, 2009 at 10:51 AM
The studies are PROPAGANDA from the government that wants to scare you into thinking you need their help. They aren’t allowed to study pot. They won’t even allow it for MEDICAL PURPOSES. They won’t even allow you to grow HEMP for clothes because of these ‘studies’.
I’m surprised you didn’t link to ‘refer madness’ as proof that you were right.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM
I’m open to facts GT. I have no imperial data to support my position that legalization would reduce the crime associated with the sale and distribution of narcotics. I admit that. I only use free market logic to assume that because the incentive to deal illegally in narcotics is removed that the violence that naturally accompanies this type of black market will dissipate.
If you have facts to the contrary, or even a line of thought to the contrary I am interested.
watson007 on April 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Paranoid feelings are one of the symptoms of drug use.
bloggless on April 20, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Go tell the sherrif that you are going to grow hemp like George Washington and see what happens to YOU and YOUR HOUSE and see if I’m not being ‘paranoid’.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Strange. Alcohol is legal and none of my neighbors have distilleries set up in their garages.
This argument doesn’t hold water Bishop.
watson007 on April 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Just like I admitted I was wrong with Jayson Williams, you can’t admit you were wrong about LSD even in this one case. The pitcher is an ANTI DRUG spokesman so he wouldn’t be lying about it.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Pffft, you were the one who earlier said you never lost an argument, well you lost one with Jayson Williams. There is nothing for me to apologize for because you reference a pitcher from the 1970′s who managed to throw a no-hitter while supposedly on acid; it has nothing to do with Phelps.
Here’s what you apparently didn’t see from the article: “I was zeroed in on the (catcher’s) glove, but I didn’t hit the glove too much. I remember hitting a couple of batters and the bases were loaded two or three times.”
Baseball is a team game, eight other players had to cooperate with Ellis to make the no-hitter happen. If you want to make some lame point that LSD wouldn’t affect a professional athletes performance, you won’t find me agreeing with you.
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Oh yeah, and bloggless, the study also shows that smoking pot will make you go on a crazy killing spree and jump out of windows to your death. I can show you a movie produced that says just that. It’s called ‘refer madness’. It’s not propaganda, I SWEAR! It’s factual twoof.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 10:58 AM
The dude threw a NO HITTER! Is that a fact? No hitters happen all the time? It’s EASY to throw a no hitter and the pitcher has nothing to do with it? Is that your current argument?
It said he walked 8 guys too.
But the DUDE THREW A NO HITTER! It’s like a hole in one. They don’t happen often and they are significant whether or not you give it significance.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Easy, she turns around and aims for center body mass. Or depends on the fine, upstanding pot-smoking mall security for her safety.
Quit being silly with your “scary” examples.
How about this, your wife is walking out of the store and a middle aged real estate agent who had a few too many martini/paxil cocktails at lunch after discovering her husband was boning his secretary comes looking for a parking place.
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Strange. Alcohol is legal and none of my neighbors have distilleries set up in their garages.
This argument doesn’t hold water Bishop.
watson007 on April 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM
You might be surprised how many of them make beer in their garages. The point is you CAN make your own beer and liquor under certain legal restrictions, but the methods are relatively harmless; about the worst that can happen is getting a scald from bubbling wort or pinching your finger in the capper.
Contrast that with the methods, chemicals and devices used to produce meth.
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Thacker, seek help. No really, seek help.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Researchers.html
bloggless on April 20, 2009 at 11:02 AM
YOu use a movie from the thirties as proof of what????
bloggless on April 20, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Wait, I thought in your world it is impossible for someone smoking weed to be doctor?
But to your point, is the “pot-doc” high at the time or just a known user?
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM
But the DUDE THREW A NO HITTER! It’s like a hole in one. They don’t happen often and they are significant whether or not you give it significance.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Yeah, it is quite the achievement, now how many other guys have done it without taking acid beforehand?
Again, this is just a baseball game, and although I wouldn’t feel comfortable as a batter having a crack-head throwing 90 mph fastballs at my head, it’s still just a game.
When you’re ready to have your surgeon operate on you while under the influence of LSD, you let me know. You never know, he might just discover a method to reduce bleeding or something while you’re under his knife, and wouldn’t that be significant?
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 11:08 AM
ClassicCon on April 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Well according to current studies the cognitive effects of pot remain for days, so whether she is high or not at the time may not be the only issue. But of course, that is just science. Your anecdotal stories would hold much more weight. I never said it was impossible for a pothead to become a doctor. I do believe that it is impossible for a pothead doc to be a good doctor, even though she may insist she is not impaired. Kind of like the drunk who insists he is ok to drive.
bloggless on April 20, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Bishop, it’s not even LSD that causes harm. The effects of pot can last for days. I have to laugh at how some of these folks just want to ignore science.
bloggless on April 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM
That the government lies in order to establish a policy it wants.
yeah, it’s like they are all losers, unless they aren’t, and then they are DANGEROUS. Hey Bishop, why don’t you make sure to ask your doctor if he’s drunk next time you need surgery. It would be perfectly legal for him to be inebriated and cut on you NOW. Does that SCARE YOU into thinking alcohol needs to be criminalized again?
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I think alcohol and marijuana ought to be treated more or less the same, whether that means increasing alcohol penalties or decreasing those for marijuana (I’d be fine going either direction). They are both gateway drugs for many, they both cause people to ruin their lives, and they both can adversely affect health in the long term and during developmental years. They both can be habit forming (maybe more in terms of behavior than physically), though those who partake of either regularly seem to have a range of coping, from practically no effect at all to regular diminishment of abilities. I’m all far strict enforcement of age restrictions and throwing the book at people who endanger others. Other drugs? I can’t think of another one that is the same case as marijuana.
okonkolo on April 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Hey Bishop, why don’t you make sure to ask your doctor if he’s drunk next time you need surgery. It would be perfectly legal for him to be inebriated and cut on you NOW. Does that SCARE YOU into thinking alcohol needs to be criminalized again?
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I will, thank you, but I would be comforted by the fact that inebriation is more readily noticed than the effects of psychotropic drugs, many of which are now completely synthetic compounds derived from someone’s inventiveness.
You were the one positing “proof” that a pitcher performed a significant achievement because he was tripping at the time it happened; me, I don’t think it was so significant. But you seem to have been impressed by the implications, though I doubt you would readily put your life in the hands of a pilot who just got done doing a hit or two of PCP.
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Regarding the guy (who happened to use coke)who killed his dog as a “starter kill”, -there’s a psychological term for that.
Sociopath, not “cokehead”
Some people are just evil.
There are a lot of “legal” drugs that actually do cause harm. Anti-depressants are given out like candy by docs who then fail to closely monitor their patients. (but they’re a big money maker, for pharma and the docs who get the perks for pushing these drugs)
These meds have awful side effects,not counting the ability to cause a person to snap, and these “harmless meds that are advertised on television” cause withdrawal symptoms in many people too…just sayin’
What’s legal and what’s not…It’s all about the money.
Most people I know either do not drink or drink in moderation in social settings; but I do know a few alcoholics.
Alcohol being legal does not cause an addictive personality.
If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, I honestly believe we’d just have less “criminals” and not a rush of first time users on the latest heroin sale at WalMart.
tehd on April 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Bishop on April 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM
The problem is you buy into the argument that if the government doesn’t throw people in jail over it, then everyone will be stoned ALL THE TIME.
It doesn’t hold water. I don’t want the government to advocate any drug. But the ‘war on drugs’ isn’t working now, and it won’t ever work. The government should not punish victimless crimes – ever – in a free society.
Putting Sudafed behind the counter and limiting its distribution did more to stem the tide of Meth than any forceful law enforcement raid that cost money and put law enforcement lives in danger. You people need to understand that.
I don’t use drugs – I’d pass ANY drug test you give me. If it were legal I wouldn’t either. I have used drugs (most of them) and I believe that I am better off now for having gone through it.
Legalizing drugs will add money to government coffers and free up other resources to help protect society from violent criminals. Do a study on percentage of law enforcement dedicated to drug enforcement policy. Put that percentage on ACTUAL crimes with VICTIMS and society will be better off.
I don’t advocate legalization because I want to use, or I want anyone else to use. I advocate legalization because we should be in a free society – THAT MEANS SOMETHING TO ME.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Apparently the drug warriors around here have memory problems.
The bit The Coz used to do about enhancing one’s personality was a reference to cocaine, not marijuana.
But thanks for playing.
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 11:32 AM
So, is it your position that use of cannabis is either the moral, legal, or utilitarian equivalent of murder?
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Well, one argument being used in support of decriminalizing or legalizing pot is that it would take money out of gangs and reduce crime. However article from the Telegraph shows the opposite to be true. The idea of using Free-Market to deal with the drug & crime issue sounds wonderful. However, we forget that gangs are free-marketeers as well. They will adapt and crime will not drop.
Also, Pro-Pot libertarians say that legalizing pot or drugs in general will reduce the size of government. The problem is that they conveniently forget what the effects of legalizing drugs will do to our healthcare system. Lets not forget that there isn’t a single government program that Democrats don’t like other than the military. You can bet their bottom dollar that some enterprising Democrats will see a rising crisis in the need to help those who become addicted. If anything, I would fully expect to see the size of government grow rather than shrink if drugs were legalized.
IMHO, the argument that legalizing drugs will reduce gang violence and shrink the size of government is seriously flawed and ignores human nature of a gangbanger and a politician.
GT on April 20, 2009 at 11:52 AM
As a matter of fact thoughtful analysis does prevail. It is my personal experience and observation that marijuana use is harmful. I didn’t arrive at that conclusion without any evidence. I arrived at it by observing many friends suffering from using it. I would expect any reasonable person to use his or her own experience to determine the truth of any claim. And from my own observations the claims, “Marijuana is not harmful,” and “Marijuana is not a gateway drug,” are blantantly false. The only people I’ve ever heard claim that are users of the drug. Here in Michigan before the election there was great debate about legalized MJ for medical use. During the whole campaign I never once heard a doctor arguing for legalizing. However I have heard them arguing against it. The people I know who have stopped using freely admit that the drug is debilitating and enfeebles the mental faculties of the user. Exactly what policy options are going to stop that?
Goldenavatar on April 20, 2009 at 11:56 AM
No, you don’t have that straight, and I expect that ignorance is, at least in part, deliberate.
Nobody is, I think, claiming that legalization will lead to users or addicts changing their employment habits. But what will happen is the amount needed to maintain a habit/addiction will go way down. Bill Buckley once claimed that the markup on illegal drugs, due to risk premium, was 5000%, meaning the cost of maintaining a habit under complete legalization would be 1/50th (2%) of what it is under prohibition.
So, what does that mean to the macroeconomy? An addict having to engage in $200/day of criminal activity to maintain a habit today, under prohibition, will have only to engage in $4/day in criminal activity to maintain the same heroin addiction.
Now, why in the world wouldn’t we prefer the latter.
The Department of Justice themselves in a 1994 study maintained:
and:
IOW, the idea that drugs, aside from alcohol, in and of themselves cause violence, is a blatant strawman, and a pretty threadbare one at that.
Some of them, in fact, will. Some of them will simply become working stiffs. Some of them will go into other, less easy and profitable, criminal activities.
The point is even those who follow other criminal activities will not be as well funded, nor will they be involved in a market where the “victims” are unwilling to assist in their arrest/prosecution.
No. Our neighbors to the south will get out of the drug business altogether, because they simply will not be able to compete with Phillip Morris, Smith Kline, and all the legitimate American corporations who will be able to take normal profits from providing what were previously illegal drugs to the American public. Just like the mafia couldn’t compete with Budweiser, Jack Daniels, and Ernest and Julio Gallo in the alcoho business without the price supports provided to them by prohibition.
No, I really doubt that you do get it. But once again, I suspect that ignorance is deliberate.
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 11:59 AM
oooohh….I got a tan from that one. (/sarc)
Argument still applies. Which begs the question, how much have you intensified your personality today?
.
GT on April 20, 2009 at 12:03 PM
I’m a homebrewer myself. It’s lots of fun. The legal restrictions: 1) you can’t sell it, and 2) you can “only” brew 100 gallons per year. Home distilling remains very dangerous, and very illegal.
I don’t see where this fits into the rest of your argument. Prescription opioid painkillers are legal with a prescription, yet it remains against the law to operate heavy machinery under their influence. A pilot with a toothache cannot legally pilot a plane if he’s on codeine (and even were it not illegal, what airline would permit it?)
Alcohol is legal. People who drive drunk get incarcerated; people who show up to work drunk get fired. Life goes on. Please save the scare tactic propaganda for the middle-schoolers.
hicsuget on April 20, 2009 at 12:04 PM
The question isn’t whether or not it is harmful; the question is whether or not the government should use the legal system to prevent people from using it. Lots of harmful things are legal. Candy rots your teeth. Jogging damages your knees. I’ve seen lots of people screw up their lives and enfeeble their mental faculties by messing around with religion, but I don’t argue in favor of Prohibition on Sunday School.
There’s a word for a person who seeks to ban everything he personally dislikes: totalitarian.
hicsuget on April 20, 2009 at 12:12 PM
I don’t advocate legalization because I want to use, or I want anyone else to use. I advocate legalization because we should be in a free society – THAT MEANS SOMETHING TO ME.
ThackerAgency
Funny, I don’t remember “…life, liberty, and the pursuit of a mellow high” on that document.
SKYFOX on April 20, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Pursuit of happiness?
galenrox on April 20, 2009 at 12:23 PM
And since driving 120 mph on I-95 makes me feel happy and gives me a rush, it is therefore constitutional.
GT on April 20, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Unfortunately, absolutely none.
I’ll celebrate my 4/20 when I get back to Vegas.
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Have a safe trip.
.
GT on April 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Bad analogy–unlike pot, driving 120 mph on I-95 poses a danger to others.
hicsuget on April 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Actually I think speed limits are unconstitutional too. They are arbitrarily set. If they want to keep people ‘safe’ by lowering the speed cars can drive, they COULD just put restrictors on the cars themselves that keep them from going over 70 mph (the way they do with catalytic converters now).
They aren’t interested in keeping people safe. They use that for REVENUE.
Speed doesn’t kill people. Bad driving does. Cars are designed to go that fast and designed to withstand crashes too. Speed limits don’t keep us safe, they generate revenue.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Germany doesn’t have speed limits, and Montana didn’t either until recently. Going through the desert of NM and Texas should not have speed limits either. Get through to civilization as fast as you can would be safer than driving the speed limit in that environment.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Hey, according to libertarians, as long as I don’t actually hurt anyone its okay.
But I’m so glad you brought up about what poses a danger. I run a company that uses a lot of powertools and heavy equipment. Ever considered that the guy who toked a bit of White Widow and enjoyed a few lines on Sunday night might pose a danger on Monday morning to himself and those around him if I let him use that equipment on the jobsite? (not to mention him driving himself to work that morning)
GT on April 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM
So you didn’t come to those conclusions without evidence, you came to them based on anecdotal evidence, which is the practical equivalent of coming to those conclusions without evidence. Marijuana is harmful, as are many things, holding one’s breath for too long, working too much, eating fast food, running without stretching, etc. If you work too much, you can put yourself in a significantly early grave, if you smoke weed when you’re too young you’ll make yourself retarded, if you smoke too much weed you might wake up one day and you’re fifty and you haven’t accomplished anything with your life. Life is about making those decisions, and more importantly making them for yourself.
Now on the gateway drug argument, it’s not true, it’s been studied, and it’s not true. It is true that the vast majority of harder drug users used pot in the past or still use pot, but that’s a post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The vast majority of pot users do not use harder drugs. Along with this, your dismissal of positions of individuals because they are pot users is also a logical fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. If some aspect of their arguments were reliant upon their personal opinions, their personal normative value judgments, or anecdotes, fine, you can dismiss what they’re arguing based on the fact that none of those are logical arguments, but if, for example, I present you with statistics like 56% of drug users only use marijuana, 20% of drug users use marijuana and another drug and 26% of drug users use only drugs other than marijuana, meaning that 73% of marijuana users don’t ever use any other illicit drugs, if I were to then tell you that I personally smoke marijuana those statistics would remain exactly the same and what they mean would remain exactly the same.
http://www.hdap.org/drugfaq.html
Ultimately I know about those arguments because other people care about them. I don’t. One of my biggest problems with universal health care is that as soon as it’s the government’s responsibility to provide everyone with health care, the government has a claim to regulate absolutely everything we do because of the impact it has on one’s health. Frankly, I don’t think it’s any of my business if you live healthily or not, that’s up to you and the people you choose to let into your life (friends and family). If you have a problem with substance abuse, obviously that’s a problem, deal with it or crash and burn. Once you swinging your fist reaches my face we have a problem.
So if you drive stoned, there’s no excuse. If you commit a crime because you’re on drugs or you’re addicted to drugs and need to buy more, shouldn’t be any excuse at all, you chose to get high and you made the choices that led to your drug addiction. But once it’s accepted that the government can dictate to you how you have to live because of its impact on your health or whether you’re making good use of your life then you’ve surrendered every freedom to the government and it’s just a matter of time before they make use of that surrender.
galenrox on April 20, 2009 at 12:54 PM
That comment is proof positive that smoking pot destroys brain cells and increases paranoia.
GT on April 20, 2009 at 12:55 PM
No. Sale or any other provision of it is. It’s only because my son was arrested and spent the night in San Diego’s municipal lockup that he was finally “scared straight”. All the screaming and vomiting and having to watch his rather bizarre cellmate did for him what all the parental guidance, family counseling, academic probation, drug abuse counseling, etc. had been unable to. He was crying and scared shitless when he finally got hold of us.
He’s clean and back on the dean’s list after 6 years off of it. I highly recommend the night in jail for all users. Then they can view first hand where they either are or are headed. As a parent, the result was the best $10K I’ve ever spent (bail, lawyer, drug tests). We still test him — he has to pee in my presence into a container I provide, and then we do the expensive test for the whole range (MJ, cocaine/heroin,…). No cocaine, luckily, unlike his girlfriend’s best friend, whom I have a picture of off of my son’s old MySpace site doing a line using my son’s ASB card… But he was so close to deciding to try the stuff when he was arrested…
If I could find the guys who sold him the stuff, I’d do a little vengeance, because the six years my son lost were six years of hell for both myself and my wife. I’m not sure how to take 18 years off these dickheads’ lives without taking the rest, but if I could, I would.
unclesmrgol on April 20, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Germany does too have speed limits. Most of their speed limits are lower than for equivalent roads here in the States. Only some of their highways have no speed limits.
hicsuget on April 20, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Then you either don’t know many cannabis consumers, or are simply talking out of your arse.
Oh, OK. They are productive members of society, but you don’t like what they have to say.
Got it.
Ernest Hemingway…. didn’t he commit suicide?
But let’s take a look at just a small sample of cannabis smokers who have inarguably reached the height of their profession.
Sir Richard Branson – Founder of Virgin Atlantic. Multi-billionaire. Adventurer. Pot smoker.
Sir Michael Jagger – Lead singer and driving force behind the Rolling Stones. Onetime LSE student. Knighted for contributions to the British Empire. Pot smoker.
Sir Paul McCartney – One time Beatle. One of the wealthiest men in the UK, and pioneer both in music and the music industry. Regular cannabis user.
Michael Phelps – Olympic champion. Holder of 12 gold medals. Advertising superstar, even in light of his cannabis usage.
Peter Lewis – Founder, Progressive Insurance. Billionaire. Cannabis user and activist.
Dr. Kary Mullis – Biologist. Nobel Prize laureate. Consumer of both cannabis and LSD.
The list goes on, but I think you get the point. All of these folks didn’t just achieve, but achieved higher than anyone most, stoner or otherwise could even hope to do.
Perhaps you not knowing any stoners who reached the height of success has more to do with who you know, rather than what cannabis smokers can achieve.
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Then fire him. I’m not against drug testing for jobs where it matters. Even if it were legal, I wouldn’t use–I’m a defense contractor, and I might run the risk of divulging military secrets while under the influence. But just because some people ought not to use it does not mean it needs to be a crime when anybody does.
hicsuget on April 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM
You’re wasting your breath. The fact that pot effects people differently is irrelevant to those with a strong cultural aversion to free choice. Its not really their fault. They insist on using government to enforce cultural mores. They argue the validity of those mores…as if that mattered. The law, and what should be law, given the scope of our government need pay no mind to cultural anything.
ernesto on April 20, 2009 at 1:03 PM
If only it were that simple. Ever tried to fire a union worker?
.
GT on April 20, 2009 at 1:04 PM
I’ve worked in management at a UAW factory before–I know it’s not easy. But while we’re daydreaming about how a legitimate government would look, we can imagine a day when coercive unions would be illegal.
hicsuget on April 20, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Hmmmmm…..cultural mores.
I take it then that you believe that the government had no business arresting Mary Kay LeTourneau.
Free choice, right?
.
GT on April 20, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Unfortunately, I have to deal with the “here and now”.
GT on April 20, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Go tell it to Doc Ellis.
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Um…no?
You’re acting as if our age of consent laws pay no mind to the legal rights of the individuals involved. Smoking a plant infringes on no one elses right, however those rights may have been interpreted by any US court or legislature. Its a flawed comparison and you know it.
I stand by what I said. The federal government is in no way given the authority to see that cultural ideals are enforced. A marijuana free society is a cultural ideal, and a minority one at that. Why should the federal government, bound by the constitution to defer all powers not given to it to the states, go about looking after culture?
ernesto on April 20, 2009 at 1:13 PM
These threads are proof that Marijuana doesn’t cause damaged thinking: irrational opposition to it does.
-
deesine on April 20, 2009 at 1:16 PM
In the here and now, can you fire him if he fails a drug test? If not, what difference does it make to your situation whether or not MJ is illegal? If so, why would decriminalizing pot use change that?
hicsuget on April 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I’ve been around some regular users whose brains were quite fried. One kid in my dorm back in college picked up the nickname “Stoner Kevin.” He wanted to be a math major; he was soon forced to reconsider his career path.
But remember, “marijuana is harmful” is not the same argument as “marijuana needs to remain illegal.”
hicsuget on April 20, 2009 at 1:20 PM
ClaasicCon, that is liking asking the sun not to shine.
They use scary examples, because they are, seemingly without exception, scared. They only offer fear, because they are, at their core, scared. They are scared, because they have been told to be scared. And being so inculcated with fear, they are too scared to question those who tell them to be scared.
Fear is a fine way of ruling children and liberals. Conservatives should be made of sterner stuff.
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 1:22 PM
You’re missing the point.
As an employee, how would you feel working next to a guy who smoked a roll of White Widow and enjoyed a few lines the night before? “Safe” isn’t the word I’d used.
GT on April 20, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Well, I wouldn’t want a surgeon to operate on me with feces on his hands either.
So I suppose your solution to that is to outlaw the wiping of one’s arse?
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Well, I wouldn’t want a surgeon to operate on me with feces on his hands either.
So I suppose your solution to that is to outlaw the wiping of one’s arse?
JohnGalt23
Just how many fatties did you have to consume to come up with that brilliant analogy?
SKYFOX on April 20, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I don’t think I’m missing the point. If I were his coworker, I’d want his druggie ass fired. If I were his boss, I’d want his druggie ass fired. If I were his spouse or dependent child, I’d want his druggie ass to quit using so he doesn’t come home one day minus a few limbs. But I don’t see any of this as an argument against legalization.
Drugs are illegal now, but that doesn’t stop people from using. Alcohol will remain legal for the foreseeable future; what’s to stop one of your workers from drinking on the job? And some people, sober or stoned, are just too stupid and irresponsible to be trusted with power tools or behind the wheel of an automobile. Are we going to criminalize stupidity too?
hicsuget on April 20, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Let’s see what the Highway and Transportation Safety Administration has to say on the matter.
NHTSA Drug Effects Fact Sheet – Marijuana
Now, would you like to post links to confirm your claim that the effects last days?
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 1:35 PM
The effects certainly last until the next day–you sleep much better and as a result have a great next day.
jonknee on April 20, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Ok. So, if I share ajoint with someone, it is your position that that is the equivalent of murder. Do I have that right?
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 1:43 PM
You’d be shocked to find out the number of doctors, lawyers and politicians who smoke marijuana regularly. I’m sure that some of your friends smoke pot as well, they just choose not to share that aspect of their lives with you.
rokemronnie on April 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Doc Ellis threw a no-hitter in the big leagues while tripping on LSD.
Since “being in the zone”, achieving a free floating state, is a goal of many athletes in search of high performance, I can see how the use of a mind or mood altering substance might help some jocks get in the zone. I’m not recommending it but can understand how it happens with some people.
rokemronnie on April 20, 2009 at 2:29 PM
HAHAHAHA! San Diego really knows how to prosecute the drug laws. Hey, tell your son to tell the fellas at the OB wall ‘Hey’ for me. He’ll know what I mean.
They have cliffs that are SHORT distances from the parking lot there where pot pipes are carved directly into the stone. You don’t even need paraphenalia. Just take your pot and your lighter and pack the pipes in the SD cliffs.
HAHAHA your son doesn’t tell you anymore. I can go to San Diego and find the good stuff within a half an hour and I don’t even know anyone there. I found sheets of acid within a day there in the 90′s.
Yeah, scared straight in San Diego. LOL! That made my day. HAHAHA!
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM
What? As opposed to the inference that if you are in favor of legalizing marijuana, you must want for your surgeon to take LSD before operating on you?
Please. if anyone sounds like stoners around here, it is the half-wits arguing in favor of a prohibition that has so clearly failed for such a long time.
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM
You seem to blame them more than your son. Does he not have free will?
It looks like you’re displacing anger at your son towards his suppliers.
rokemronnie on April 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Further, I’m curious… you were in favor of a night in jail to “scare” your son “straight”. Tell me, would you have been in favor of imprisonment for five years to scare him straight?
I don’t know your son or his circumstances, but the fact is that you couldn’t, as a parent, control your son’s behavior, so you needed the force of the state to do it for you. The problem is that when you rely on the state for such control, you necessarily ask it to control the behavior of free men who have no such trouble controlling their own behavior. Most of the cannabis consumers in California are perfectly responsible people, but because your son can’t be trusted to be responsible, you insist that all those millions of people be turned into criminals.
JohnGalt23 on April 20, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Seems like a no brainer. End Prohibition.
ronsfi on April 20, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Bonnie_, you’re at least obligated to put forth logical arguments in this debate; the logical fallacies you promulgate are of the ilk used by the Jeneane Garofalos of the world use when they shout “racist!” at every opportunity. It is, in other words, another form of “Shut Up!”.
Thacker: I guess “Drug-user!” is the new “racist!”.
Another example:
RD on April 20, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »