Jump to navigation
To Legalize?
Mike Ahlf
One of the long-recurring bits in American society has been the push by a small portion of the population - though sizing varies - to legalize (or I should probably use the term re-legalize) the growing and consumption of the hemp plant, aka pot, marijuana, and a host of other names.
Udolpho, meanwhile, states
the following:I used to be in favor of legalizing marijuana, but the persistent stupidity of marijuana zealots has beaten that position out of me, and now I am against legalization just to spite them. Experience shows that even occasional marijuana smokers are not terribly bright, and it is my belief that stupid people need to suffer.
Putting aside some pretty heated rhetoric, I'm mixed on this topic, mostly because the topic itself is mixed.
Arguments against pot:
- Its listing as a harmful agent by various government agencies.
- Its various mind-altering properties.
- The fact that drug gangs manufacture it right now.
- The fact that it can become an addiction.
- The fact that, when combined with other things (like heavy machinery) it can conceivably be dangerous.
Arguments for pot:
- Its various mind-altering properties.
- The fact that it does seem (depending on various case studies/medical studies) to offer some benefits for certain people, such as those suffering symptoms from chemotherapy.
- The fact that it has an appetite-inducing effect (worthwhile for people who have medical conditions that otherwise destroy appetite).
- The fact that most of the harmful properties come from the smoked-and-inhaled method of application, but it can be derived into pill form or "baked" (pardon the pun) into various foods or made into butter.
Arguments against pot that I think don't quite hold up under scrutiny from above:
1) the involvement of drug gangs. While this is a true statement, it's also a bit of a red herring, since legalization wouldn't mean the drug gangs would control it, but that legal producers could take over and the drug gangs would have to move on to something else. See also: Mafia and Moonshine, Prohibition.
2) The fact that, when combined with other things, it can be dangerous: we have warning labels on plenty of other things that are legal, too, most of which cause much the same problem (drowsiness or inattentiveness). Cough syrup/Nyquil, for example.
Udolpho also comes up with a few other things I question. For starters:
What are the drawbacks? Do we really need more boring, listless, unmotivated people in the world? Do we need more vacant stoners sitting around playing video games and watching the Home Shopping Network? No. And obviously it's not healthy. I am sick of taking shit for smoking a cigarette and hearing all about bogus second hand smoke hazards (if only), then hearing marijuana advocates parrot the simplisitic and as it happens wrong assertion that their drug of choice is completely harmless. Even though they're just pothead losers they need to be challenged about their idiotic beliefs regarding marijuana.
Whether marijuana smoke is more or less healthy than cigarettes is debatable, but since a lot of the harmful portion of a cigarette is chemicals added by the manufacturer, whereas marijuana is pretty much dried leaf product, there's probably a case to be made that marijuana smoke is less damaging than cigarette smoke. This, I think, is something that probably ought to be studied more, and there's probably a case to be made for people being offered cigarettes that are nothing but pure dried tobacco leaf (though the tobacco companies probably wouldn't like this, since they put most of those chemicals into the cigs to make them more addictive in the first place).
He also goes after alcohol, which is another "controlled" substance, and makes a few potshots I won't copy here. Next paragraph down, if you're wondering, but I'll feel safe enough simply pointing out for his reference that plenty of chain-smokers are also alcoholics too, so the argument there is probably just a wash.
The trouble I have overall, though, is his continued insistence that pot-smokers are inevitably stupid. I've known some who are ordinarily bright people, but have a pot habit. The problem with pot isn't that it attracts stupid people, or that it necessarily is limited to them: instead, it's that it is limited to
bored people. It's an escape for making them feel ok with being bored. Some people seem to feel a need for that.
And no, the marijuana lobby aren't stupid. Some of their arguments - about the fact that it was legal in the past and was no problem for certain very bright people (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to name just two), about the relative danger vs cigarettes, and in the tactic of trying to get it approved for medical use as a wedge toward generic use - are actually pretty bright.
But most damning for Udolpho at all in my mind is that while "Marijuana" is illegal,
Marinol - which is a synthetic version of the generally recognized "active ingredient" in marijuana, THC - is available by doctor prescription. The difference between the two? $$$$$$$$$ per dose, because a particular pharmaceutical company has patent and trademark on Marinol and makes a mint while giving kickbacks to the government. Conspiracy theory material? In some senses, yes, but as the patent system is in general
broken with regard to medicinal research, it's just one part of a larger problem.
Observations
You arguments about marijuana cigarettes being healthier because they are more natural and additive-free do not seem correct.
1) Filtered cigarettes, which is to say almost all cigarettes, deliver far less tar to the lungs than a pure-leaf cigarette would.
2) I think the cigarette companies tried to make cigarettes more addictive by having them deliver their nicotine hit more rapidly -- just as a "good" joint would try to do with its cannabinol hit.
3) There is no reason to think that cannabis leaves are somehow cleaner-burning than tobacco leaves.
Can you link in any evidence for your contentions?
While it's true that marijuana probably has as many tars and such as tobacco, very few people smoke 20 or more joints per day, whereas the average smoker does consume about a pack a day. Marijuana is not physically addictive, unlike tobacco. The issue is not, or should not be, is marijuana harmful? The issue should be, is marijuana use so harmful as to justify imprisoning those who use it? I've never seen anything to convince me that potheads are such a menace to society that they need to be locked up. Willie Nelson, Paul McCartney, and Carl Sagan may be hurting themselves. They may be hurting their families. But I don't think they are so dangerous that we should spend our taxes on feeding and clothing them. How often do you see a crime that is the result of marijuana use? Rarely, if ever. Compare that with substances that are physically addictive, such as alcohol, cocaine, and methamphetamine, which directly or indirectly cause thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of crimes each year. I think that, where are laws prohibiting marijuana are concerned, the cure is worse than the disease.
The strongest argument against pot is the last one Mike mentions: heaving machinery. As in cars. Widespread pot use would likely lead to more automobile accidents. That's about the worst thing I can say about it.
Kevin said what I was going to say about volume. It's not uncommon for smokers to take in two packs a day. It would be much, much more difficult to take in that much pot. I think Sammler does have a good point, though, that legal pot would become more addictive. The manufacturers (likely tobacco companies) would make it so. I think Kevin also does a good job of making note of the difference between pot and harder drugs (and why I support the legalization of the former but not the latter, alcohol excluded).
The only thing I really have to add is that it doesn't matter whether pot is more or less safe than legal substances. If cigarettes were discovered tomorrow there's no way they would be legal. But right now (for now) it can't be illegalized. Letting one frothing monster out of the cage does not justify letting out a less frothing one. That being said, I just don't think the case against pot is strong enough.
Raw's case is much the same as I'd make, but not quite; there's a couple things I disagree with.
#1 - "Widespread pot use would likely lead to more automobile accidents. That's about the worst thing I can say about it."
I don't necessarily think this is the case. There are plenty of cases today where people are distracted while smoking, enough that some people have tried to pass laws banning smoking in cars (usually on the same bill that would ban driving while on a cell phone).
And if so, why not make driving while under influence of Pot illegal? It can't be all that hard to tell if someone's stoned out of their gourd while driving, especially if there's the smell of it or (worse yet) a burnt joint in the car.
What scares me to this day is that while it's illegal to drive with increasingly lower and lower blood-alcohol content, people are free to go without sleep for 48 hours, or take double the dose recommended of cough syrup, and they still get to drive.
#2 - "I think Sammler does have a good point, though, that legal pot would become more addictive. The manufacturers (likely tobacco companies) would make it so."
Actually, one of the dirty secrets of tobacco additives is that the government has approved their use. Sometimes in decades-old records that would never be approved today, but they are approved. I can't see that happening with marijuana. More likely, I see someone selling seed packets.
1) I've no doubt that driving under the influence would be illegal. So's drunk driving. It still kills lots of people. Driving while stoned almost certainly kills people today, though less than drunk driving to be sure. Though it still wouldn't be as widespread as drunk driving, more pot use will lead to more stoned drivers with slower reflexes will lead to more accidents. I believe legalization will ultimately lead to more pot use. I'm not worried about the distraction of trying to smoke a joint while driving (a la cigarettes and cell phones) as they don't have to be actively smoking it to be a hazard. I'm worried about the slower reflexes and dulled mental acuity. That people are driving tired and on cough syrup does nothing to alleviate that concern.
2) So the question is whether or not they have been approved specifically for tobacco products or approved more generally. If it's the former then you're right and it's not a concern. I wouldn't know.
RAW,
Re: #2, they are (and have to be) specifically approved for addition to tobacco.
Mike, impressive responses. Thanks.
I should mention that the health risks I had in mind are related to chronic use and higher incidence of depression (I guess most people don't think of mental health when you say "health risks", but that is what I had in mind). But I also think that inhalation of marijuana smoke is probably unhealthy for the same reason cigarettes are.
Ultimately the most disgusting thing about marijuana is that it makes people apathetic and stupid; it is a purely infantile type of escape, far worse than casual use of alcohol in my view. It also contributes to what Fussell called prole shift, but I've never met a pothead who was terribly worried about society becoming crasser and less refined (far from it).
Now...why is Marinol "damning" to my point? My point regarding legalization is that you can't just make recreational drugs freely available to everyone, you would have to treat them just like you treat normal prescription drugs to keep people from misuing them. You know you can't get Demerol without a prescription either. Even the coffee bars in Amsterdam are heavily regulated and controlled. Legalization doesn't mean you're going to be picking up your pot stash at Wal-mart.
I haven't reviewed the studies, but I doubt any of them establish that chronic use of marijuana causes depression. What I would expect to find is that people who are depressed are more likely to use marijuana, as a means of self-medicating. They are also more likely to use alcohol and anti-depressants, too, but I don't think anyone's ever made the argument that anti-depressants cause depression merely because depressed people use them. That's circular reasoning.
As far as your observation that marijuana makes people "apathetic and stupid," well, maybe it does. I will say that I have a friend who is a pothead and he's also one of the hardest working people I know. He works for the city and runs his own engineering firm on the side. Even if what you say is correct, though, I still disagree with your conclusion. Apathy and stupidity are not illegal. The issue is whether marijuana is so harmful that it should be illegal. Potheads are generally rather harmless, and I see no point in spending public money to lock them up. I doubt that marijuana will be legalized, or even decriminalized, anytime soon, though, so it looks like the polity agrees with you and not me.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
