The Virtue of Quasi-Legal Status for Marijuana
Speaking of marijuana legalization polls, the question of course arises as to whether we should legalize pot. On this, I’ve come to stand with Mark Kleiman who conveniently repeated his gospel yesterday:
Substantively, I’m not a big fan of legalization on the alcohol model; a legal pot industry, like the legal booze and gambling industries, would depend for the bulk of its sales on excessive use, which would provide a strong incentive for the marketing effort to aim at creating and maintaining addiction. (Cannabis abuse is somewhat less common, and tends to be somewhat less long-lasting, than alcohol abuse, and the physiological and behavioral effects tend to be less dramatic, but about 11% of those who smoke a fifth lifetime joint go on to a period of heavy daily use measured in months.) So I’d expect outright legalization to lead to a substantial increase in the prevalence of cannabis-related drug abuse disorder: I’d regard an increase of only 50% as a pleasant surprise, and if I had to guess I’d guess at something like a doubling.
So I continue to favor a “grow your own” policy, under which it would be legal to grow, possess, and use cannabis and to give it away, but illegal to sell it. Of course there would be sales, and law enforcement agencies would properly mostly ignore those sales. But there wouldn’t be billboards.
That beautifully-crafted policy has only two major defects that I’m aware of: it wouldn’t create tax revenue, and no one but me supports it. On the drug-warrior side of the argument, even those who can read the handwriting on the wall won’t dare to deviate from the orthodoxy. As we did with alcohol, the country will lurch from one bad policy (prohibition) to another (commercial legalization). I just hope the sellers are required to measure the cannabinoid profiles of their products and put those measurements on the label.
I support it too! But if it is true that we need to choose between the current regime and an alcohol-style regime, I would certainly prefer commercial legalization. The public health harms would be real, but they’d be more than offset by the benefits—gains to non-abusive users, increased tax revenues that could fund worthwhile endeavors, resources currently devoted to a senseless criminalization scheme could be repurposed. This would also be an area in which America’s tradition of federalism and localism could be put to good use. In many parts of the country, people probably wouldn’t want to see any pot stores or “coffee shops” and they could, presumably, decline to license any even if federal law permitted such licenses in general.
448 Responses to “The Virtue of Quasi-Legal Status for Marijuana”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I think Mark is, or knows, a home-brewer… This is reminiscent of the status of home beer making.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
…a legal pot industry, like the legal booze and gambling industries, would depend for the bulk of its sales on excessive use, which would provide a strong incentive for the marketing effort to aim at creating and maintaining addiction.
As opposed the currently illegal industry, which doesn’t possess such incentives?
I don’t see any reason you couldn’t come up with some kind of system whereby weed is taxed and regulated — and those regulations include strict controls on advertising. Even if Big Pot manages to put up a few billboards I doubt it would affect usage rates one way or another. Most people don’t need a billboard to inform them of the existence of cannabis.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“a legal pot industry, like the legal booze and gambling industries, would depend for the bulk of its sales on excessive use”
What does that mean? What’s excessive use? Is it clear that the bulk of beers being drunk in America at the moment are not beers 1 through 5, but are beers 6 through 20, or some such? Or that the bulk of them are consumed by alcoholics? Which of the beers I have had during my lifetime were the “excessive” ones? I mean, I went to a bachelor party a while back and I had a LOT of beers. But I WANTED to have a lot of beers. Because I wanted to get drunk. I didn’t drive a car afterwards. I didn’t punch anybody. So were those beers excessive? Which ones? Was the eighth one the first excessive one? The third? Or were they all excessive because they were all intended for drunkenness?
But we take for granted that “the bulk” of them are used excessively? Why not, say, 10 percent of them as excessive? Three percent? Why “the bulk”? Is there some methodology at play here? Seems important. Please explain.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
The country would be more than happy to have good quality standardized pot available to adults with a tax stamp on each purchase.
Nice crystals with sticky resin, available at your local neighborhood cannabis club.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
If, as widely predicted, the violent- and property-crime rates rise and state and local government budgets are severely strained as the economy worsens, law enforcement is going to be “repurposed” away from drug-possession arrests and trials without any statutory changes.
Rewriting drug laws, however, will require a generational changeover. Too many oldsters, repentent hippies and God-botherers will never, ever, accept decriminalization or legalization. And the corporate element most likely to support and best equipped to exploit legalization, the tobacco industry (one firm actually test-marketed reefer-friendly rolling machines in the early ’70s), is in disrepute and steep decline.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
The public health harms would be real, but they’d be more than offset by the benefits—
Ah yes, faith-based public policy.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The elimination of the black market and its attendant violence combined with, as Matthew writes, the repurposing of billions of dollars thrown at an obviously failed war makes a strong pramatic case for decriminalization. Not to mention the disgustingly paternalistic nature of almost all drug laws.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
This argument against having marijuana be sold legally is also an argument against having capitalism at all. Corporations will always try to manipulate consumers to demand their products excessively. Fill in the blank above for any industry you like. Take snack food as an example: it’s completely true that the food industry tries to get people to eat more of their products than would be healthy, but it’d be absurd to suggest that it be illegal.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
This is reminiscent of the status of home beer making.
Or venison.
Of course there would be sales, and law enforcement agencies would properly mostly ignore those sales.
Picking up from the earlier thread, that doesn’t really address the black economies in places like eastern Kentucky, where the growing often takes place in secluded spots on NPS land.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I’m not sure that anything needs to change. We already have a system where local police forces can simply choose not to enforce marijuana laws. Marijuana may technically be illegal here in Boulder, but you won’t get busted for it. It’s possible that a cop might tell you to put your bong down while he’s talking to you, but that’s about as heavy handed as they’ll get. I’ve literally had a cop pick up a bag of my pot, inspect it, say “that’s nice stuff”, and then hand it back to me. And I wasn’t even nervous about it because I knew damn well he wouldn’t even think about busting me. It’s not like I was smoking a cigarette indoors. That would be a serious crime.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Kleiman just really doesn’t have the true idea how much hard liquor and cigarettes are regulated at this point. Nothing except magazine ads for cigarettes and the occasional billboard for liquor. Imagine marijuana in VA, you know its going to be only sold through state runs stores just like hard liquor.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
My question is this: is using marijuana everyday (or nearly everyday) “abuse” of the drug by definition?
No one accuses my friends prescribed to adderall or xanex or clonazepam or lunesta as being “drug abusers” because they use it everyday. And it’s absolutely outrageous that otherwise extremely healthy people (with good insurance) can walk into a doctor’s office and walk out with a slip of paper that allows them to get a bottle of 60 of these pills for like $5.
That is the real public policy issue we should be looking into.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
We sure do need more ways of dulling reality.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
YES!!!
I agree with this wholeheartedly, and I would point as well that legalization would mean the end of locally grown kind-bud and the advent of mass produced, genetically engineered, chopped, reconstituted marijuana “cigarettes” available by the carton in your local gas station.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
eastern Kentucky, where the growing often takes place in secluded spots on NPS land
Surely you mean US Forest Service land here, as the amount of National Park Service land in eastern Kentucky is very small.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I think the fact that it’s a natural product makes legalization-with-taxation tricky, but no trickier than for tobacco. (In other words, extremely tricky, with tons of evasion, but not so leaky as to be not-worth-doing.) We’d need to standardize some manufactured pot product and keep the unprocessed stuff illegal.
Having said that, I don’t support it. I think stoners are knuckleheads–not for using it, but while they’re using it.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
This is a little off subject, but people have been talking about home brewing. A friend of mine spent two months in Saudi Arabia. He said that most people he met there were home brewers. You can’t buy alcohol there, but you can buy malted barley, hops, and yeast. Mix that with water, and you have beer in a few weeks. You don’t go to bars there, you just go to a friend’s house for dinner and beer. The only strange part of the story is that he somehow got a tourist visa to enter Saudi Arabia. That’s almost impossible for a non-Muslim. I tried, and was shot down immediately. Somehow, he slipped through.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
The elimination of the black market and its attendant violence combined with, as Matthew writes, the repurposing of billions of dollars thrown at an obviously failed war makes a strong pramatic case for decriminalization.
You’ll have to establish some criteria for success and failure before you’re in a position to declare the “war” a failure, let alone an obvious one.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Given the nightmare of Prohibition, calling the legalization of alcohol “bad policy” seems truely dickish.
The truly serious public policy problem with marijuana is that it’s very, very bad for your lunch and respiratory tract to smoke it. (If you’re a cancer patient, the risk is probably outweighed by the greater negative of your csncer and chemo symptoms.) Of course, there are better options, such as vaporizers.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Marijuana also may be very, very bad for your spelling, although I swear I haven’t been indulging.
I meant “bad for your lungs,” pot is actually very, very good for your lunch.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Matt, it’s important to note that something akin legalization already exists in the state of California. Prop 215 and medical marijuana laws in the state of California have created a de facto legalization of marijuana (on the state, if not national level) in participating counties. While medical marijuana laws are written only for those that require pot medically, the nature of the law allows pretty much anyone to purchase their weed at a dispensary with a medical marijuana card.
Similarly, we don’t have to just speculate on the effect of pot advertising. If you’ve ever been to Los Angeles, you’d know that there are plenty of marijuana ads. While these are considerably less prominent than a corporate giant like RJ Reynolds might produce, they are presumably increasing revenues for participating dispensaries. Your assumption that legalization would increase demand may be true, but a regulated industry means the government could also regulate advertising.
Certainly from a consumer perspective, there are certain advantages of quasi-legalization, mainly lack of taxation. On the other hand, with quasi-legalization, you get no government revenue from taxation. If sellers remain outlawed, the government presumably has a responsibility to uphold laws prohibiting marijuana sales. This law enforcement effort will cost considerable revenue. The costs of avoiding law enforcement increase the cost to the consumer without any taxation benefit. Furthermore, criminalizing sellers forces sellers to become criminals. If you’re participating in any unregulated industry, you have no recourse to law enforcement, so you have to carry a gun, protect your merchandise and generally behave like a thug. This is why drug cartels are run by criminal organizations and not cuddly hippie communes. The medical marijuana laws in California have probably led to something close to quasi-legalization, except that sellers are not, at least under state law, criminals. This has resulted in fairly decent, upstanding dispensaries.
In short, if you want an industry that provides taxation revenue, you have to legalize. If you want an industry that isn’t run by criminals, you have to legalize. And yes, if you want to regulate the industry, ban advertising and provide warnings to consumers, you have to legalize.
Still, you’re getting warmer, Matt. Good article.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I think we’ve discovered why MattY posts the things he does.
One downside to the plan is that professionals would come up with stronger strains, so sales of that would continue. And, many people wouldn’t grow it but instead would continue to buy it. And, the plan would eventually be extended to other drugs.
P.S. I’ll bet if we sweeped CAP HQ for bongs their accuracy/intellectual honesty rate would rise a good 2%.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I think the fact that it’s a natural product makes legalization-with-taxation tricky…
I think this is true, but not insurmountable. Most weed users would prefer to know what they’re getting, and would likely appreciate some consistency and accuracy in labeling. That leaves the door open for specialists and entrepreneurs, the vast majority of whom (I suspect) would gladly pay taxes in exchange for the imprimatur of the state, and the ability to avoid prison. Of course the state could just turn a blind eye to the commerce (and continue to keep cannabis sales illegal) but then it would be needlessly leaving a lot of tax revenue on the table. Most governmental units are hardly in a position to be doing that.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I think the financial benefits of a commercial majiuana regime outweigh its potential negative consequences. If legalized, the price of marijuana would decrease so greatly that the government could tax it hundreds of percent, and the drug would remain affordable. Combine that with the resources that would no longer go towards enforcement of existing laws, and it’s a goldmine.
As far as the negatives go, they just aren’t that significant. People don’t smoke and get violent or engage in life threatening behavior (with the possible exception of “high driving.” Some might become lazy (then again, if you want to be lazy, you’re going to be lazy; excessive weed use might be more of a symptom than a cause). To my knowledge, marijuana doesn’t cause cancer the way tobacco does. So the negatives mainly have to do with an advertising culture that might pervert the existing spirit of the drug. And, all things considered, isn’t that possibility worth accepting considering the possible benefits to the public coffers?
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I’m a big liberal/lefty type for the most part, but unless there’s a clear and large social harm (not merely individual) by an activity, then the government should allow it. The government can heavily tax it (while avoiding creating a black market), and regulate its sales to be limited adults, and can even regulate its advertisement, but I think that should be the limit of the governments role.
Sure, heavy or irresponsible use of marijuana is unhealthy, but so are a lot of things: television, videogames, food, the internet, sex, not to mention alcohol and cigarettes. Any social harms from marijuana use is pretty limited and certainly would be far from the worst thing that’s currently legal and would more than offset by tax revenue, and the social good it provides a lot of responsible people.
I’d also argue that marijuana as an illegal substance is MORE of a social harm than as a legal substance. We spend a lot of money and enforcing its illegality, we use up a lot of jail space, and it’s a nice revenue stream for criminals.
Our current policy on marijuana is clearly irrational and arbitrary. If we deem that marijuana is harmful enough for it to be illegal, that we should have a much bigger nanny state, and I think most people agree that such a thing is wrong. Not only is wrong in a fundamentally wrong, but it’s also ineffective.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
The whole “war on drugs” is a complete waste of money & time, just as prohibition was in the 1920s. The illegality of drugs is what makes the black market for them so profitable, which is why the “war” is self-defeating.
My solution: legalize subject to 3 condition:
(1) Drug use can’t be used in court as an excuse for any criminal act.
(2) “Rehab” is not taxpayer responsibility.
(3) Sale to a minor is punishable.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
One downside to the plan is that professionals would come up with stronger strains, so sales of that would continue.
Almost certainly, legalization/decriminalization would tend to mean an lessening of the current trend toward increasingly strong weed. One of the drivers of increasing cannabis potency is the fact that our draconian drug laws make it desirable to carry or possess less product. And that in turn means there’s a strong incentive to grow more powerful strains. I suspect nearly all cannabis users would welcome the increased variety and choice (including the choice of less mind-bending stuff, if that’s what you want) that would accompany the end of prohibition.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
“Of course there would be sales, and law enforcement agencies would properly mostly ignore those sales.”
The ideal policy on marijuana is one that will “of course” be ignored, and one that law enforcement will not enforce? I understand your motivations here, but if you’re comfortable with sales (which this line suggests), why not follow the tobacco route and allow sales but severely restrict advertising?
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I’m not comfortable with this position, though I can see its utilitarian benefits. I don’t want to create a special nanny-state category of things where it’s deemed not-harmful for citizens to consume, but we-don’t-really-like-it so we continue to legally restrict its sale.
Seems to be overstepping the appropriate role of the state to me.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“We’d need to standardize some manufactured pot product and keep the unprocessed stuff illegal.”
We already do that. And we already have brand names. The “Blueberry” is different from the “White Widow”. Anyone who has smoked both can tell you that. I prefer the White widow myself, but many people really like the Blueberry. My favorite was the “Diamond Dip”, but that grower is out of business now. And no, he didn’t get busted. He made his money and got out. And he made a hell of a lot of money. He’s a stock trader now. He turned millions into even more millions. As for processing, there’s really not much to do besides separating the buds from the leaves. Seeds are a thing of the past. Plants are mostly cloned now. Yes, you do need to do some sexual reproduction, but you do it in a separate location if possible. You really don’t want any males screwing up your product.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Let me re-write this where it makes some sense:
I’m a big liberal/lefty type for the most part, but unless there’s a clear and large social harm by an activity (not merely individual harm), then the government should allow it. The government can heavily tax it (while avoiding creating a black market), and regulate its sales to be limited adults, and can even regulate its advertisement, but I think that should be the limit of the government’s role.
Sure, heavy or irresponsible use of marijuana is unhealthy, but so are a lot of things: television, videogames, food, the internet, sex, not to mention alcohol and cigarettes. As an example, I had a friend who became addicted to World of Warcraft. He lost his job and put on a couple hundred pounds. His weight is eventually going to cost the state a lot of money. Any social harms from marijuana use is pretty limited and certainly would be far from the worst thing that’s currently legal and would be more than offset by tax revenue, as well as the real amusement it provides to a lot of responsible people.
I’d also argue that marijuana as an illegal substance is MORE of a social harm than as a legal substance. We spend a lot of money on enforcing its illegality, we use up a lot of jail space, and it’s a nice revenue stream for criminals.
Our current policy on marijuana is clearly irrational and arbitrary. If we deem that marijuana is harmful enough for it to be illegal, that we should have a much bigger nanny state, and I think most people agree that such a thing is wrong. Not only is it fundamentally wrong, but it’s also ineffective.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
The whole anti-pot debate is ridiculous. I don’t even drink so I am not exactly a big drug proponent but I can certainly recognize idiocy when I see it. At least medical ganja should be legal. All sorts of worse /addictive drugs are legal with a prescription, hell Morphine is Opium… but that is okay, poppy seeds are okay on bagels but we can’t even buy rope made of hemp. How does that make sense?
I suffer from horrible migraines that are stubbornly resistant to mainstream pharmaceuticals. I have a friend in CA who is has a similar problem and she legally uses MM and it is sometimes her only salvation when nothing else works. Sadly I live in IN where MM isn’t even on the radar so I continue to suffer – oh, and have I mentioned my legal prescription pills are rationed by my insurance company so if I have a spate of migraines I run out and I have NO medication.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“Yeah, except we can’t all live in college towns.”
No, but you can elect people who choose not to enforce the law. Ten miles from here is Nederland, and there ain’t no college there. And I smoked pot with the Sheriff there. I’ve smoked pot with some judges, too. My biggest coup was smoking pot with a Federal Prosecutor. It all comes down to who you elect. You can elect people who don’t give a shit, too.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Yeah more people would smoke pot if it was legal and that means that more people would abuse it (such as that is). I’m cool with that. My big problems with semi legal pot is asymmetric enforcement. If it is illegal at all it will be illegal for poor people more. It will still serve as a “got you”. Like the way oral sex is illegal in lots of states but only enforced if someone’s gay.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
“but we can’t even buy rope made of hemp”
That’s a shame, hemp rope is really good rope. The sisal rope is crap. And don’t even get me started about the synthetic stuff.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Yes, you do need to do some sexual reproduction, but you do it in a separate location if possible. You really don’t want any males screwing up your product.
Words I have long lived by, and not just in the context of growing marijuana plants.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
The “grown your own” stance isn’t as stupid as prohibition, but it’s ridiculous nonetheless. Not everyone has the time or inclination to grow their own, just like most people are going to buy tomatoes at the store instead of growing their own produce. At least prohibitionists are consistent, if consistently idiotic. What sense does it make to fine and/or arrest someone for growing pot for someone else, when you’re saying it would be fine to grow it for yourself? That’s a prehistoric philosophy. Nowadays, we have things called “specialization” and “commerce.”
Pot is almost certainly less harmful that beer, which itself a pretty benign product. Is Budweiser really doing something so evil by selling and marketing beer that we should outlaw it? (Of course, they should be sent the firing squad for making terrible beer, but that’s a different argument. Substitute “Sierra Nevada” for “Budweiser” above if that helps.)
By the way, major parts of California now have “pot stores” all over the place (although a recent state supreme court ruling means they’re going to have to reorganize as true co-ops). So far the world has not come to an end.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
carrie, you need to leave Indiana and move to Colorado. I know it’s blasphemy for a Coloradan to suggest that another person might move here, but I’ll make an exception for you. You’ll learn what a Rocky Mountain High really is. Let’s put it this way, we Coloradans don’t even think about smoking pot when we go to Amsterdam, their pot is crap. High altitude increases the potency, and they’re below sea level. And some of their strains were developed in Colorado. More of them were developed in California for sure, but California is a bigger state.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Anyway, if Kleiman gets his way, it won’t eliminate the black market in pot at all. People will still buy and sell forbidden weed, and the associated violence and corruption won’t go away. It’s just that people with a little dirt in their yard, or a grow room, and the time to devote to their hobby — in other words, fairly affluent white people — will be insulated from the black market.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“My biggest coup was smoking pot with a Federal Prosecutor.”
My ultimate goal is to smoke pot with the President of the United States on the roof of the White House. To my knowledge, only Greg Allman has done that. With Jimmy Carter, of course.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Um, citation needed. Do you really think that over 50% of the revenue for the booze (does that include beer and wine?) industry comes from only that which is consumed beyond the point of intoxication (the author doesn’t define “excessive use,” so I’ve chosen the point of intoxication as a convenient threshold)?
Comment #8 is exactly on the mark. If we banned the sale of any substance/thing that some people thought could be marketed in a manner that encourages “excessive use,” then basically nothing would be legal to sell and we would be left with an essentially agrarian economy where mutually-beneficial exchanges are illegal.
That being said, any policy that makes marijuana more legal than it is today is superior to the current policy.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“To my knowledge, only Greg Allman has done that. With Jimmy Carter, of course.”
But who knows? Maybe Laura Bush did it too, although not with Greg Allman or Jimmy Carter. She certainly has smoked cigarettes there.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
fostert, every time I’ve heard that story it was about Willie Nelson smoking pot on the roof of the Carter White House. And the story never includes Carter smoking with him. Willie says he snuck up there to smoke after playing some state dinner or something.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
For a first cut, I’d propose looking at spending on the “war on drugs” versus illegal drug use rates.
Well, don’t keep us in suspense. Show us how that data supports the claim that the “war” is a failure.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Yeah more people would smoke pot if it was legal and that means that more people would abuse it (such as that is). I’m cool with that.
I’m not. I think a higher rate of drug abuse would be a bad thing.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
hatsoff, ask and ye shall receive: Federal Drug War Spending vs Past Year Use Rates.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
LOL – CO is beautiful, if I ever ditch IN, that is a top choice – good to know there are added bonuses.
On the commerce side of the equation, my friend also tells me her MM is cheaper than her pharma pills. Her pills cost ~$50 a ‘dose’ without insurance. Her pot costs <$10. It saves her insurance company a fortune since she needs less of her pharma drugs. Put that in your health care cost pipe and smoke it.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
On this, I’ve come to stand with Mark Kleiman who convenientl
As other’s have said, it only demonstrates the stereotype that typical left liberal hates commerce more than he loves freedom.
Re: home brewing the Saudi Arabia – I used to home brew a lot in college, but since living in hawaii I’ve generally not had A/C or a basement, so I never had a space where the temperature was both consistent and below 70 degrees. And I prefer lagers, whose yeast generally does not tolerate a temp no higher than the mid 50’s. So I’m guessing your friend had a lot of minimally aged ales, which can be ok (esp if you can’t get anything else), but are generally too sweet for my tastes.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Her pills cost ~$50 a ‘dose’ without insurance. Her pot costs <$10.
If she’s smoking anywhere near $10 worth in one “dose,” then she has Michael Phelps’ lung capacity.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
hatsoff, ask and ye shall receive: Federal Drug War Spending vs Past Year Use Rates.
I asked: Show us how that data supports the claim that the “war” is a failure. Do you have an answer to that question?
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Just legalize it. Perhaps some people who smoke so much they get the green couch, will be exposed to some two hitters who will teach them how to do it right.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
but about 11% of those who smoke a fifth lifetime joint go on to a period of heavy daily use measured in months
Also on this: considering nicotine and alcohol addictions are measured in *decades* this is a pretty poor metric.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Hatsoff, I didn’t say anything about what the data supports. Since you were apparently too lazy to Google if for yourself, I pointed you to the data. Draw your own conclusions.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
but about 11% of those who smoke a fifth lifetime joint go on to a period of heavy daily use measured in months
I believe “a period of heavy daily use measured in months” is better known as “college.”
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Hatsoff, I didn’t say anything about what the data supports.
Then, contrary to your claim, you weren’t answering my question.
Since you were apparently too lazy to Google if for yourself,
It’s not my job to google data for other people’s claims.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“fostert, every time I’ve heard that story it was about Willie Nelson smoking pot on the roof of the Carter White House. And the story never includes Carter smoking with him. Willie says he snuck up there to smoke after playing some state dinner or something.”
Well, if Willie did it, it certainly wouldn’t surprise me. Willie doesn’t do anything without smoking pot first. Nor would it surprise me if Laura Bush did it. But Greg Allman did do it. And, yes, Jimmie Carter did smoke pot when he was president. He was more of a whiskey drinker, but pot was in the mix. As for other presidents, I’d guess Clinton and Johnson. Lincoln and Washington for sure, but it was legal back then. Although the pot was much less potent back then. Plant genetics has come a long way.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
“As for other presidents, I’d guess Clinton and Johnson.”
Oops, I forgot Kennedy. Given the fact that he’s the only president known to have taken LSD, I’m sure he smoked pot too. And he fucked Marilyn Monroe. Doesn’t get better than that, does it?
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
It all comes down to who you elect. You can elect people who don’t give a shit, too.
I think it’d be a lot better to only have laws that we enforce, rather than this half-assed system wherein one has to know where the local sheriff stands on the issues, or whether to trust local vs. state vs. federal law enforcement, worrying about whether we’ve found the one cop or prosecutor who wants to make an example out of you, etc. Just legalize it and get rid of this silly system where if you live in one town you smoke pot with the judge, but if you live in another —- where the laws on the books are exactly the same — they through your ass in jail for having a joint.
And I say this as someone who tried pot maybe 3 times in college and hasn’t had a puff in more than 10 years.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Adam Villani,
If the problem is inconsistent or capricious enforcement of the law, the solution is to make enforcement more consistent, not to repeal the law. But I strongly doubt your claim that inconsistent enforcement is a serious problem, anyway. All laws are subject to this problem to some degree. I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s a particular problem for drug laws.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Hatsoff, how can look at the data showing drug war spending vs. usage rates and not conclude that the War on Drugs (the purpose of which I can only conclude would be to reduce drug use) has been a failure? Not only has it not accomplished its goal, but it has also wasted hundreds of billions of dollars, created a black market the likes of which gangsters and criminals could only dream of and left innocent victims in its wake (”collateral damage”)…how is this not an abject failure?
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
On the down side, smoking pot is not consequence free some people have problems with it or abuse it. There are potential health concerns.
On the plus side smoking pot has at least some situational health benefits, it can be a lot of fun, prosecuting it is expensive, keeping it confined to the black market prevents drug revenues.
Really the biggest problem with marijuana being illegal is that marijuana generally makes peoples lives better. Either through recreation, relaxation, or health outcomes. In general I think the benefits outweigh the costs. I can say without exaggeration that marijuana has made my life better. It makes a lot of people’s lives better. In big and small ways. The notion that something ought to be proven consequence free before it gets the blessing of being permitted by the state is an absurd standard.
Hatsoff, why should marijuana be illegal?
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
If the problem is inconsistent or capricious enforcement of the law, the solution is to make enforcement more consistent, not to repeal the law.
That’s *a* solution, but it’s not *the* solution. Have you ever entertained the concept that perhaps bad laws should be repealed? And that perhaps the current drug laws are bad laws?
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Hatsoff, how can look at the data showing drug war spending vs. usage rates and not conclude that the War on Drugs (the purpose of which I can only conclude would be to reduce drug use) has been a failure?
Because that’s a stupid definition of “failure.” If the murder rate increases does that mean the “war on murder” has been a failure and that murder should be decriminalized? The relevant question with respect to drug use is not whether the war has caused a reduction in use but what would happen to drug use if the war were discontinued.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I think we’ve discovered why MattY posts the things he does.
Let’s speculate on why Wackadoodle is such a sad blogwhore, shall we? Or better, just ignore him.
Adam V: yeah, I meant USFS land.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
That’s *a* solution, but it’s not *the* solution.
What superior alternative solution do you propose?
Have you ever entertained the concept that perhaps bad laws should be repealed?
But your complaint was not that the laws are bad but that they are not being enforced consistently. If you want to make the argument that the laws are bad regardless of how well or badly they are being enforced, then make that argument. But it’s a different argument.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Really the biggest problem with marijuana being illegal is that marijuana generally makes peoples lives better. Either through recreation, relaxation, or health outcomes. In general I think the benefits outweigh the costs.
I think you’d have a very hard time supporting that claim. Do the professional communities of public health scientists and social scientists agree that the benefits of using marijuana outweigh the costs?
Hatsoff, why should marijuana be illegal?
Because it’s harmful.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Adam Villani- I totally agree. But the current system works perfectly fine for me. And it can work fine for everyone if they just vote the right way. It happened in a weird way in Boulder. Homeless people figured out that they could get some free meals and a place to sleep if they got themselves arrested by smoking pot. So they stood in front of the court house smoking joints. The jail got so overwhelmed that Boulder had no choice but to decriminalize pot. The original intent was simply to keep homeless people out of their jail. And as jails go, it’s a pretty nice jail. I know, I’ve been it a few times. I was even it with the guy who claimed to have killed Jonbenet Ramsey so he could avoid the jails in Bangkok. I’ve never been in a Bangkok jail, but I’ve met some people who have. It doesn’t sound pretty. When you’re eating cockroaches because it’s better than the food, your reality is pretty bad.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Hatsoff,
In order to be intellectually honest you need to explain why it’s acceptable for marijuana use to be prohibited but alcohol and cigarette use to have essentially no restrictions.
It is very clear what the least harmful of those three substances are, both to an individual user and to society. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars, crowd our prisons, and aid organized crime just to outlaw a substance that’s effectively a less addictive, more powerful cigarette. Please explain why you are in favor of this policy.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
“Hatsoff, why should marijuana be illegal?
Because it’s harmful.”
Again, what other harmful substances do you favor banning? Certainly you’d agree there are a lot of very harmful legal substances in existence. In fact, several of these are many times more harmful. Should we outlaw beer?
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Well, that’s that. Mr. hatsoff has settled the question once and for all.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
You really don’t want any males screwing up your product.
I read that comment out to my wife (Wellesley grad, nach), who said, ‘That’s pretty much a universal truth, isn’t it?’
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Adam, don’t grant him that “it’s harmfull” bullshit. Beer can certainly be harmful and so can pot, but on the whole, I wouldn’t call beer a “harmful” substance. Consumed moderately, it’s good for your health. It’s delicious. It gives millions — hell, billions — of people a lot of pleasure. It’s dangerous when consumed in excess, but it’s a lot harder to overindulge than with, say, vodka. Beer has its harms and its benefits, but that doesn’t mean it’s “harmful” on the whole. I think pot is a similar case.
The problem is, prohibitions don’t place any value on enjoyment. They’re puritanical assholes, basically.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
“When you’re eating cockroaches because it’s better than the food, your reality is pretty bad.”
I guess I should note that fried cockroaches are available in Bangkok. I’ve had them, and they’re not very good, the grasshoppers are much better. Bangkok is the only city I know of that actually has a law against the raising of cockroaches. You don’t pass a law against something unless it’s a real problem. Except for Oklahoma, of course. They have a law against whaling. I can’t imagine there was ever a big whaling industry on the Red River.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Why do should childbirth be illegal?
Because it’s harmful.
Childbirth is much more harmful than marijuana. Of course it has greater benefits too. But simply invoking that something is harmful as a reason for why it is illegal is foolish. It is insufficient. Everything is harmful. Now predictably you’d object to me using childbirth as a comparison since it is sort of necessary. How about swimming? Or skiing? Both are more dangerous than marijuana use. Both are primarily recreational. Both are legal.
And when I say that the benefits outweigh the costs I of course can’t prove that. Nor could I with skiing. When your dealing with a recreational benefit, it’s going to be impossible to quantify. What I do know is that relatively few people have problems with marijuana and most of these problems are not particularly serious. In exchange for this risk a great many other people get more enjoyment out of life. I think it works out in marijuana’s favor. But I can’t prove it. Nor can you prove the opposite. I would also like to add that typically the burden of proof is on those that would use state power to ban something. So why should marijuana be illegal?
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
“Adam, don’t grant him that “it’s harmfull” bullshit. Beer can certainly be harmful and so can pot, but on the whole, I wouldn’t call beer a “harmful” substance. Consumed moderately, it’s good for your health. It’s delicious. It gives millions — hell, billions — of people a lot of pleasure. It’s dangerous when consumed in excess, but it’s a lot harder to overindulge than with, say, vodka. Beer has its harms and its benefits, but that doesn’t mean it’s “harmful” on the whole. I think pot is a similar case.”
I am a great lover of beer, don’t get me wrong. My point is that his only logic for his position is that marijuana has potentially harmful consequences in some circumstances. Which is true, I see no reason not to grant that. And also true of a number of other things, including beer and McDonald’s. So it’s an intellectually dishonest position to favor banning exactly one of them.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
In order to be intellectually honest you need to explain why it’s acceptable for marijuana use to be prohibited but alcohol and cigarette use to have essentially no restrictions.
I think your premises are false. It’s marijuana possession rather than use that is generally prohibited (along with sale, distribution and manufacture). There are certainly lots of restrictions on the sale, distribution and manufacture of alcohol and tobacco, which obviously restricts possession, and there also strong restrictions on the use of those drugs. And the trend seems to be toward more restrictions, not less. There is also a strong and growing social stigma to tobacco use, and perhaps to alcohol use also.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:06 pm
“It’s marijuana possession rather than use that is generally prohibited (along with sale, distribution and manufacture). There are certainly lots of restrictions on the sale, distribution and manufacture of alcohol and tobacco, which obviously restricts possession, and there also strong restrictions on the use of those drugs.”
You’re correct here. But you dodged the point. Why is it ok to have some restrictions but allow the limited use of some addictive, potentially harmful drugs (alcohol, nicotine) and not another, roughly if not less harmful one? If you do not favor banning all possession and use of all addictive, potentially harmful drugs, including legal ones, why not? What’s the difference?
“There is also a strong and growing social stigma to tobacco use, and perhaps to alcohol use also.”
Which is fine, since they are in fact addictive, potentially harmful drugs. But this is irrelevant as to why marijuana shouldn’t fall under the same category of legal drugs with strong and growing social stigmas.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Again, what other harmful substances do you favor banning?
I don’t think could list all of them. Give me an example, and I’ll tell you whether or not I think it should be banned (though you really need to identify the precise act you’re asking about).
Certainly you’d agree there are a lot of very harmful legal substances in existence. In fact, several of these are many times more harmful. Should we outlaw beer?
No, I don’t think so. I think there’s a good case for greater restrictions on the sale, distribution, advertising and use of beer, though.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
“I think there’s a good case for greater restrictions on the sale, distribution, advertising and use of beer, though.”
It is objectively true that alcohol is a potentially harmful, addictive drug that causes a lot of deaths per year and many times more illnesses. Your rationale as to why marijuana should be completely outlawed is that it is harmful. Using that same logic would clearly lead to the conclusion that no use of alcohol or nicotine should be permitted, at all. Your position doesn’t make sense. Either they should both be legal, or they should both be illegal. Which is it?
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Why is it ok to have some restrictions but allow the limited use of some addictive, potentially harmful drugs (alcohol, nicotine) and not another, roughly if not less harmful one?
You haven’t shown that marijuana is “roughly if not less harmful” than alcohol and tobacco. (Simply saying this over and over again is not likely to convince anyone).
But even if marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol and tobacco that wouldn’t mean it shouldn’t be subject to greater restrictions, given its very different social, economic and cultural status. If alcohol and tobacco were not already deeply entrenched in our culture and economy, if they were new substances that had just been discovered and the government was deciding how to address them in law and policy, then I think they would almost certainly be subject to much greater restrictions than they actually are in the real world, perhaps even stronger restrictions than the ones we impose on marijuana.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
It is objectively true that alcohol is a potentially harmful, addictive drug that causes a lot of deaths per year and many times more illnesses.
No kidding. And if marijuana were subject to no greater restrictions than alcohol is, it would probably also cause a lot more death and illness.
Your rationale as to why marijuana should be completely outlawed is that it is harmful. Using that same logic would clearly lead to the conclusion that no use of alcohol or nicotine should be permitted, at all. Your position doesn’t make sense. Either they should both be legal, or they should both be illegal. Which is it?
It’s a false dichotomy. First, you haven’t shown that marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol and tobacco, and second, laws have to take into account social and economic realities. If we were starting from a blank slate and figuring out how to regulate all three drugs from scratch, then we might decide to impose similar restrictions on all of them. But we’re not starting from scratch.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
“You haven’t shown that marijuana is “roughly if not less harmful” than alcohol and tobacco. (Simply saying this over and over again is not likely to convince anyone).”
You’re right, mostly because anyone not already convinced of that is pretty unlikely to be convinced. It’s something that’s common sense. Look at the number of deaths each substance causes. The number of serious illnesses. The level and length of addiction. On all of these measures marijuana is far below the others (except for maybe addiction, that’s probably fairly similar). I don’t know why you would think it is more harmful. Please explain.
“But even if marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol and tobacco that wouldn’t mean it shouldn’t be subject to greater restrictions, given its very different social, economic and cultural status.”
That’s fine. But “greater restrictions” doesn’t necessarily mean “no use or possession allowed at all”. It can mean “no advertising on TV at all”, “not for sale at gas stations”, or any number of things.
“If alcohol and tobacco were not already deeply entrenched in our culture and economy, if they were new substances that had just been discovered and the government was deciding how to address them in law and policy, then I think they would almost certainly be subject to much greater restrictions than they actually are in the real world, perhaps even stronger restrictions than the ones we impose on marijuana.”
This is a reasonable point. I think the tobacco lobby has a lot to do with this. But the point I’ve been trying to make is this: if you believe what you said in that paragraph, then you should be in favor of “much greater restrictions than they actually are in the real world, perhaps even stronger restrictions than the ones we impose on marijuana” being applied to currently legal harmful substances. The whole point is to advocate for the state of things that you would prefer in an ideal world. And if in an ideal world you would prefer all harmful substances have the same restrictions that marijuana has, that’s fine. That’s a logical, defensible position. I strongly disagree, but it’s intellectually honest. What isn’t honest is to support wildly varying restrictions on different substances just because that’s the way things are now.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“And if marijuana were subject to no greater restrictions than alcohol is, it would probably also cause a lot more death and illness.”
This is clearly not true, at all. It is physically impossible to die from a marijuana overdose. Stoned driving is significantly safer than drunk driving. The only illnesses caused are the same ones cigarettes do, and only then with a certain method of ingestion and with extreme levels of use that are very rare among typical users but very common among cigarette users.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Adam V: yeah, I meant USFS land.
Thanks, just a peeve of mine.
Just to be clear, the other “Adam” posting here is a different person. Not that I object to him or anything, I just wanted to be sure that people weren’t confusing the two of us.
I’m not going to bother arguing with Mr. Hatsoff any more; I have better things to do with my day.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
You’re right, mostly because anyone not already convinced of that is pretty unlikely to be convinced. It’s something that’s common sense. Look at the number of deaths each substance causes.
Another utterly specious argument. You can’t determine the harmfulness of a drug simply by counting deaths and ignoring differences in their availability and legal status. Alcohol causes more deaths than strychnine. Does that mean alcohol is more harmful as a drug than strychnine? Of course not. Ditto for marijuana. If you think you can make a clear, compelling empirical case that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco then do so. But even if you could do that, it wouldn’t resolve the legal/regulatory questions anyway, for the reasons I’ve explained above.
That’s fine. But “greater restrictions” doesn’t necessarily mean “no use or possession allowed at all”.
No, it doesn’t necessarily mean that. But it might mean it. And marijuna laws are not “no use or possession allowed at all,” so your premise is false anyway.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
“You can’t determine the harmfulness of a drug simply by counting deaths and ignoring differences in their availability and legal status.”
I guess I didn’t spell it out. I meant that the average regular user of alcohol or nicotine is much, much, much more likely to have a death or illness due to the substance than an average user of marijuana, even norming for availability and legal status. This isn’t actually a debate people are having; it’s a fact.
“And marijuna laws are not “no use or possession allowed at all,” so your premise is false anyway.”
This is a pretty pedantic distinction. Yeah, if you’re taking your last hit as the cop walks up to you and you don’t have any left at all, technically you’re not violating any laws, though you’ll probably still be harrassed. But in usual circumstances if you’re caught in the process of using you’re also in possession, so the distinction is pretty moot because you’re still going to jail. And yes, where I live they take you to jail, and it’s a $530 fine, mandatory anti-drug classes, and a year of probation and drug testing for being caught with any amount at all.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
This is clearly not true, at all.
There you go again. Show me how this is “clear.” Just saying it is worthless. Where’s your evidence?
But the point I’ve been trying to make is this: if you believe what you said in that paragraph, then you should be in favor of “much greater restrictions than they actually are in the real world, perhaps even stronger restrictions than the ones we impose on marijuana” being applied to currently legal harmful substances.
No, that doesn’t follow at all. As I said, I think there’s a strong case for greater restrictions on alcohol (and tobacco). The trend over time has been towards greater restrictions of these drugs. And I expect restrictions will increase further in the future. That does not mean it would be politically, economically or socially feasible to restrict alcohol and tobacco to the same degree that we restrict marijuana.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
“And if marijuana were subject to no greater restrictions than alcohol is, it would probably also cause a lot more death and illness.”
Illness, maybe. But death? No way. You can’t kill yourself with pot. When you get really stoned, you can’t find your bong. I’ve put myself really close to death with alcohol, but it’s impossible to do that with pot. And let’s make this clear: if I’m 0.40 with alcohol, I’m still walking. For most people, that’s death, but I’m fine until I reach 0.60. At that point, I need medical attention, but it still won’t kill me. With pot, I smoke the most potent forms of pot available on this planet. If I smoke too much, I can’t find my bong when it’s right in front of me, so I can’t smoke any more. How could I possibly kill myself with it? Yes, it’s possible that long term use might give me cancer. But the pack of cigarettes I smoke every day will probably do me more harm. But the Radon I was exposed to will probably kill me faster. Unless the Sun does it first. I already have Melanoma and no health insurance, so I’m guessing that’s what will kill me. In the end, it doesn’t really matter, we all die anyway. Even the Buddha died. From food poisoning.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I meant that the average regular user of alcohol or nicotine is much, much, much more likely to have a death or illness due to the substance than an average user of marijuana, even norming for availability and legal status. This isn’t actually a debate people are having; it’s a fact.
Then show me the data that proves this assertion to be a fact. The claim is absurd on its face. How can you possibly know what would happen to the risk of death or illness from marijuana for the “average user” if marijuana were as available as alcohol and tobacco? You can’t.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
“There you go again. Show me how this is “clear.” Just saying it is worthless. Where’s your evidence?”
Do I really need to go dig up a study that says it’s physically impossible to have a fatal overdose of marijuana? Are you doubting this? Because if so, I really can’t argue with someone who just consciously denies reality. I feel like you’re asking me to prove gravity exists.
“That does not mean it would be politically, economically or socially feasible to restrict alcohol and tobacco to the same degree that we restrict marijuana.”
So basically, your position is that even if laws exist that you don’t agree with, and that you wouldn’t have supported, you’re not in favor of changing them to what you think the logical position is. Because it wouldn’t be “feasible”. It sounds to me like you just don’t like things changing too much or too fast, because it’s scary or something. Which is actually a core conservative principle (real conservatives, that is, not the modern GOP). I just don’t see the harm in saying what would be ideal, even if it can’t be done right now. But instead you take a safe, mainstream position, perhaps because your ideal is far out of the mainstream and you wouldn’t be taken seriously if you actually advocated for it.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:59 pm
One of the drivers of increasing cannabis potency is the fact that our draconian drug laws make it desirable to carry or possess less product.
I’m not familiar with these areas, so maybe MattY could chime in. Does everyone at CAP smoke a large quantity of bad stuff or a small quantity of good stuff before they think up their ideas? Do they pipe pot smoke through the ventilation system in order to maintain their keen reputation for intellectual honesty?
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Illness, maybe. But death? No way. You can’t kill yourself with pot.
From the National Institutes of Health:
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:02 pm
“How can you possibly know what would happen to the risk of death or illness from marijuana for the “average user” if marijuana were as available as alcohol and tobacco?”
Not sure if you’re aware, but marijuana is significantly more available to minors than alcohol in most places. And in large parts of the country marijuana already is significantly available that we have a lot of “average users”, in the tens of millions. I would venture to say the number of marijuana users is probably not that far off from the number of cigarette users. And there are certainly a lot of people that have readily available access to marijuana and use it multiple times a day. So we can look at them and see that their rate of death and illness is a lot lower. Unless you want to argue that they’d suddenly start dying if they could get better-regulated stuff from a pharmacy instead of the guy in the next apartment building.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Ultimately, there’s this concept with pot: you ask yourself “did I smoke pot?” If you can’t answer this question, you’re really stoned. Amazingly, it really is possible to smoke so much pot that you become sober again. But as sober as you might be, you still can’t find that bong. You need a sober assistant to get that high.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I’m not familiar with these areas–
Crystal meth™: motivating Wackadoodle’s inane, obsessive blogwhoring since 2003.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Do I really need to go dig up a study that says it’s physically impossible to have a fatal overdose of marijuana?
No, you need to dig up a study that supports the claim of yours in question. Namely, that it is “clearly not true” that if marijuana were subject to no greater restrictions than alcohol is, it would probably also cause a lot more death and illness.
So basically, your position is that even if laws exist that you don’t agree with, and that you wouldn’t have supported, you’re not in favor of changing them to what you think the logical position is.
No, that’s not my position. My position is what I said it is.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“Cancer of the respiratory tract and lungs may also be promoted by marijuana smoke.”
Right, I already said it has the same illnesses as tobacco does. Although there are ways to use it that don’t involve smoking that eliminate those risks.
But with alcohol a lot of deaths are from alcohol poisoning. As in, you ingest enough of the substance and you die. Marijuana does not have this property. You fall asleep long before you could ever possibly ingest enough to kill yourself. So there are zero deaths caused by an overdose of the substance, compared to quite a few for alcohol. I suppose you could bring up an article of some car crash, but in general the more marijuana you use the less likely you are to do anything other than sit there, which is certainly not the case with alcohol. So again, a lot fewer deaths.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
“No, that’s not my position. My position is what I said it is.”
Your position, as stated, is that if alcohol were a new drug just discovered it would probably have similar restrictions as marijuana. This is probably true. I took that to mean that in your perfect world, alcohol would in fact have those restrictions, since you favor those kinds of restrictions on harmful substances. But we can’t enact those restrictions for a number of feasibility reasons, so you don’t support them. So my conclusion was:
“So basically, your position is that even if laws exist that you don’t agree with, and that you wouldn’t have supported, you’re not in favor of changing them to what you think the logical position is.”
Let me know where my logic falls apart here.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:18 pm
With all the stupid things hatsoff has said, this one struck me as particularly revealing:
I don’t think could list all of them. Give me an example, and I’ll tell you whether or not I think it should be banned (though you really need to identify the precise act you’re asking about).
Ladies and gentleman, the prohibitionist mindset. Name me a substance, I’ll tell you whether I think you ought to be thrown in prison for using it. There are so many of these substances that you ought to go to prison for that I can’t even list them all.
By the way, re: the pot-cancer connection: Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection, from the WaPo a couple of years ago.
Here’s the first 3 grafs:
Here is some information on the safety of pot. As you can see there, the CDC lists thousands of deaths every year attributable to alcohol, and a zero to marijuana. Once in a while — as in, a couple times a year — pot will be listed on a toxicology report as a potential cause of death, but it’s always in combination with other, actually lethal, drugs.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Hatsoff – Like many things, Cannabis is only harmful if not used in moderation. If I used it for my migraines in the small amount required for efficacy, the only side effect would be some drowsiness and maybe whatever harm came from junk-food munchies.
On the other hand, my ‘legal’ medication gives me heart palpitations, the sweats and a small chance of nerve damage or heart problems. If I decide to have children, I need to stop taking it at least 6 months in advance due to the propensity for birth defects and it is excreted in breast milk.
Now I ask you – which is more harmful???
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“You need a sober assistant to get that high.”
Either that, or you could just take some LSD. But don’t do it unless it’s Sandoz recipe or the more sophisticated Hog Farm recipe. Owsley Stanley knew what he was doing. But even then, you should understand a simple fact: LSD will decay and become poisonous if it’s subjected to two molecules. Those molecules are oxygen and water. Those are really common in air, which is pretty damn common. So be careful.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
fostert quotes himself more than Petey does. But in fostert’s case, I can see why: “Man, that’s a good point, I’ll quote it. … Wait, wasn’t I the guy who said it in the first place?” (cue bong gurgling noises)
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
In future studies on the harm that marijuana does, they ought to make sure that the pot is pesticide free.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:40 pm
This used to be called decriminalization and was possibly the most widely suggested model for marijuana policy during the days when there an entrenched culture of marijuana users. Of course it was a pipe dream. It’s still a pipe dream. We will continue with our policy of quasi decriminalization. That being sellers of a certain size, midsized and under, individual propagators and lower class users will continue to face criminal sanction. No state senators daughter will face jail if by stupid chance she ever faces charges and that’s good enough.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Half of all people who regularly use illegal drugs only use marijuana.
If marijuana were legal, the next biggest category of illegal drug users would people folks who abuse prescription drugs. More people illegally use prescription drugs than use cocaine, heroin, lsd, pcp, etc. put together.
What effect do laws against marijuana have on its availability? How many people are deterred from abusing marijuana? Is marijuana harder or easier for children to obtain than hard liquor? What impact does minor recreational use have on someone’s overall health?
Flip it around: given that production and distribution of marijuana is subject to stiff legal penalties, what impact do laws against marijuana have on the incomes of criminals? Absent criminalization, how much more expensive is marijuana to grow and distribute as compared to tobacco? Is the reduction in marijuana use gained by criminalization worth the increase in power gained by criminals?
I personally do not think that society will be able to “get tough” on marijuana. I think it is a mistake to have a policy that simply funnels wealth to criminals at the expense of law-abiding citizens. Full legalization would allow for better regulation of marijuana and would take away a significant amount of revenue from crooks.
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
This used to be called decriminalization and was possibly the most widely suggested model for marijuana policy during the days when there an entrenched culture of marijuana users.
This sounds like someone writing from the year 2050, in some drug warrior’s wet dream where we’ve eradicated the demom weed. It’s still called “decriminalization” and there is still definitely “an entrenched culture of marijuana users.”
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Presumably this is an accurately quoted excerpt from the Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, formed in 1970:
And then there’s this DEA ruling:
If there’s someone on the edge of single-handedly smoking 1,500 lbs of marijuana within 15 minutes, I think it should not only be legal but televised.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
El Cid,
Presumably this is an accurately quoted excerpt from the Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, formed in 1970: …
Brilliant. So your “presumably” accurate quote from a 40-year-old report suggests that marijuana would not lead to immediate death in humans from “profound central nervous system depression” unless it was consumed in enormous quantities over a short period of time. And this is supposed to be evidence of what? That marijuana is harmless?
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 pm
jeez, is there a more self-centered or lazy POV on this issue than “I don’t support legalization because stoners are ‘knuckleheads’?”
right, because of your ill-informed personal views and limited personal experience, peaceful, otherwise law abiding people should continue to be thrown in jail and billions should continue to be allocated trying to eliminate something that simply can’t be eliminated. gee, thanks for enlightening us.
its funny how many people who have led highly sheltered lives try to put their $.02 in on this issue and come off sounding like just plain idiots. talking about all of the ‘black market violence’ of the pot trade. hehe, yeah, ok. it is a literal drop in the ocean compared to the violence of the hard drug trades, or the attendant violence which results from alcohol abuse (by those in whom alcohol triggers violence, which is not most people).
I can’t believe that there are people who think there’s even still a debate to be had with regard to pot. it is the safest recreational drug known to man, and that includes caffeine. and for anyone who wants to call me a “knucklehead” or claim that I’m stupid or an idiot or whatever, I’ve used pot, at my own rate of choosing, for over 15 years. I have a 150 IQ, I can factor polynomial equations in my head, I have a very accurate memory, and I’m plenty motivated about the things in life I care about. spare us all your sanctimony and ignorance.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Your position, as stated, is that if alcohol were a new drug just discovered it would probably have similar restrictions as marijuana.
No, if alcohol were a newly-discovered drug, I think it would probably be subject to greater restrictions than it is in the real world.
This is probably true. I took that to mean that in your perfect world, alcohol would in fact have those restrictions, since you favor those kinds of restrictions on harmful substances.
I didn’t say anything about restrictions on either alcohol or marijuana in my “perfect world.” If you would stop attributing to me positions I have not expressed and respond to what I actually wrote I wouldn’t have to keep wasting time correcting your misrepresentations.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Who the fuck do you think you are, asshole? You think I’m conversing solely with you, nitwit?
Do you have some problem with scientific studies carried out 40 years ago? Some fresh Manhattan Institute / Liberty University research fresh off the presses showing that contrary to prior actual scientific medical reports, large mammals died when shown subliminal pictures of pot?
You got something? You got something? Something that shows how this Nixon-empaneled commission on drug abuse was just all corrupted by the Freemasons and the Pot Illuminati so’s we need to just th’ow out this damn old sh*t and replace it with, you know, all them newer tests done outside Area 51 that showed that cows injected with a damn gram of THC turned out to be serial killers! That’s why they’s all these cattle turnin’ up bloodless and skinned out there — it’s them reefer madness cows from that secret research!!!
‘Well, la-di-frickin’ da, so’s you posted the damn conclusions of some “scientific” studies by some gay-ass pointy head types with their stupid white lab jackets dancin’ around their damn stupid “labs” while they look at monkeys and rats and whatnot! I don’t need yer damn science, I gotta argument, by God!’
You got nothing. You got weak fucking sarcasm and zero to say about an entirely factual post that there’s no, none whatsoever, ordinary level of toxic exposure to marijuana or THC which can be realistically said to lead to death.
If that’s not what you want to disagree with, then don’t fucking respond to my post with your arrogant little empty shit as if I’m supposed to dialog with your nitwit ass about your justinian concepts of harm. Fuck you.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:36 pm
One of the weird things about the internet is people like hatsoff, with their kindergarten arguing style. What did they do before the internet? Wander around bus stations arguing with themselves? And is it therapeutic for them now to have the internet to argue on?
For the rest of us, though, it reminds me of nothing so much as a long car trip with a really tedious little brother.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
You know I don’t see why I should be the criminal
How can something with no recorded fatalities be illegal
And how many deaths are there per year from alcohol
I just completed Gran Tourismo on the hardest setting
“…a legal pot industry, like the legal booze and gambling industries, would depend for the bulk of its sales on excessive use, which would provide a strong incentive for the marketing effort to aim at creating and maintaining addiction.
Um, citation needed. Do you really think that over 50% of the revenue for the booze (does that include beer and wine?) industry comes from only that which is consumed beyond the point of intoxication (the author doesn’t define “excessive use,” so I’ve chosen the point of intoxication as a convenient threshold)?”
50% of all alcohol in the United States is sold to people who drink four or more drinks per day on average. Next 30% are people who average between two – four drinks per day on average.
This is from Kleiman’s discussion with Megan McArdle which is really interesting (13:35). Kleiman also points out some of the little known benefits of prohibition. Full of increasing tidbits about drugs (like the difference between the street and research prices of cocaine and the such).
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
El Cid wins the thread with post #115. See, it wasn’t all bad that it went on this long.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
DTM,
In large part hatsoff is relying on the logic that we can’t PROVE that ending the war on drugs would not have the terrible effects that hatsoff is hypothesizing.
I’m not “relying” on any such thing. I’m pointing out that those who claim that the war on drugs has been a “failure” need to explain what they mean by that statement in clear empirical terms and produce evidence to support the claim.
OK, but what is the best way to estimate what would happen if the war on drugs were discontinued? Certainly it is not to assume there would have been some massive increase in drug use if not for the war on drugs. So absent that assumption, it seems the best estimate in light of this data is that we could reverse spending on the war on drugs, maybe all the way to zero (meaning ending the war), and it would similarly have no significant effect on usage rates.
Huh? Do please explain you think how the data supports a “best estimate” that we could “reverse” (by which I assume you mean “reduce”) spending on the war on drugs, “maybe all the way to zero,” without having any significant effect on usage rates. Your hypothesis seems to be that the war on drugs has no significant effect on either the supply of drugs or the demand for them, which is absurd on its face. Do you also think the much weaker legal restrictions we impose on alcohol and tobacco have no significant effects on the usage rates of those drugs?
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
El Cid,
Who the fuck do you think you are, asshole? You think I’m conversing solely with you, nitwit?
Fuck you, you fucking fuck.
Do you have some problem with scientific studies carried out 40 years ago?
There has been a great deal of research on the health effects of marijuana over the past 40 years. Obviously, none of that research is reflected in a report that is 40 years old. Not that your “presumably” accurate 40-year-old quote tells us anything useful about the overall safety of marijuana use, anyway. All it suggests is that human beings would need to consume enormous quantities of marijuana over a short period of time in order to suffer an imminent death from profound central nervous system depression. To which the obvious response is, so what?
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I think hatsoff is mixner.
Anyway, screw Mark Kleiman. In that bloggingheads, right after he points out that 50$ of the booze goes to people who drink 4 or more drinks a day, and 30% goes to people who have 2-4 drinks a day, he says, “so 80% of their revenue is from problem drinkers.” Two to four drinks a day doesn’t make you a “problem drinker.” Hell, 2 a day is probably the ideal amount for your health.
McArdle also makes the excellent point, which Kleiman doesn’t really have a response for, that all the advertising by Anheiser-Busch doesn’t induce more people to drink, it just induces more people to drink Budweiser. People have enjoyed drinking beer for millenia. In fact, people drank a lot more alcohol hundreds of years ago, before the advent of anything like mass-market advertising. So the notion that booze companies survive by turning us all into alcoholics is bullshit.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Well, then, c’mon shitweed, out with your god damn fresh, hip current studies which prove that toxicity levels (LD-50) for marijuana on humans are significantly (and better be astoundingly) lower for that ancient 40 year old data by those freak fake scientists wearing powdered wigs and testing by candle-light and alchemy.
C’mon. Ought to be easy. C’mon douchebag. Out with it.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
If the drug war had no other ill effect, the sheer quanities of family dogs that have been shot dead by America’s cops should be a clue that the whole thing is a disaster. Why do they always shoot the dog? Is that something they teach in the police academy?
And then there are the innocent grandmothers shot by cops who then plant drugs at their home (Kathryn Johnson), and the innocent people (as in, they weren’t really drug dealers) in prison for shooting cops who break down their door and act and appear just like home-invading criminals (Ryan Frederick).
But hey, if it means fewer people will get high, you’ve got to break a few eggs, right?
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
El Cid,
And then there’s this DEA ruling:
At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around
1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette.
Another utterly irrelevant quote. You conveniently neglected to quote the preceding text explaining that the only health risk this quote addresses is the risk of death from marijuana toxicity. It is completely irrelevant to the overall health risks of marijuana consumption. You would also need to smoke huge numbers of cigarettes to die from tobacco toxicity. The primary health risk from marijuana, tobacco and alcohol is not the risk of poisoning, but other kinds of physical harm.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I’ve been arguing for such an arrangement for years, and the number of stupid arguments against that I’ve run into – completely excluding the arguments of those who want to keep marijuana fully criminalized – is astounding. “Grow your own” would discriminate against people who live in apartments. Not everyone who couldn’t grow their own would have friends who’d be willing to give you dope, or sell it to you on the sly. It’s enough to make my eyes roll to the back of my head.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
DTM,
First, I am waiting for you to prove to me the benefits of the war on drugs outweigh the known costs. Because if we are being rational policy makers, you do in fact have that burden of proof.
In that, you have the burden of proving the same thing about every law and policy you support. I assume you support laws against murder, theft, and tax evasion, for example. Prove to me that the benefits of those laws outweigh the known costs.
I don’t find it absurd at all,
Seriously? You think lengthy jail sentences for drug crimes, and whatever other drug-related policies the phrase “war on drugs” si supposd to refer to, have no significant effect on the supply of or demand for drugs, and hence no significant effect on usage rates? Can you find even a single drug policy expert who agrees with you?
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
DTM,
Again, it wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t have significant effects.
You didn’t answer the question. Do you think the legal restrictions we impose on alcohol and tobacco have no significant effects on the usage rates of those drugs, or don’t you? For example, if alcohol and cigarettes could be freely marketed, advertised and sold to children, you seriously think that wouldn’t have any significant effect on the usage rates of those drugs by children, do you?
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Dickhead — I didn’t fucking claim that it did. You are the bigmouth douchebag claiming that your snark would dismiss as irrelevant long-standing studies — which are still relied on by scientists today — regarding marijuana THC / toxicity was either outdated or wrong for the purposes of your argument.
So, your little douchebaggy tone about ‘presumably’ and how it was, OMG, like, 40 years ago with icky old scientists was nothing more than a temper tantrum about how you didn’t think my post directly addressed the argument you were making because obviously this whole fucking blog and every commenter revolves around you.
I’m starting to agree with the mixner hypothesis from the narcissistic evidence alone. Maybe a bit of HeiGou as well.
Anyway, here, here’s some more stupid science, this time from OMG a whole 5 nearly years ago, a 2004 review of the relevant pharmacological effects of cannibinoids. (Neuroendocrinology Letters, Nos. 1/2 Feb-Apr Vol.25, 2004.)
And in the section treating toxicity (yeah, like why would a buncha damn pharmacological researchers care about sh*t like that?), it repeats what I posted above, and then goes on to discuss the different effects which you wanted to discuss:
Something for everyone! Possible psychological effects in particular situations! Possible lower learning potential (yet difficult to distinguish from other confounding causative variables) though caution is warranted due to the minimal predicted rates of impact! Feel free to cite from this study.
So, since I happened to post on the toxicity of marijuana on a discussion of harmfulness, it’s maybe important for less douchebaggy and lower narcissist-level discussants to realize that the relevant citation for the toxicity research is the same as what I cited quickly earlier: “51 Thompson GR, Rosenkrantz H, Schaeppi UH, Braude MC. Comparison of acute oral toxicity of cannabinoids in rats, dogs and monkeys. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1973; 25:363–72.”
But since 1973 is so god damn long ago, feel free to pointlessly sneer about it.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
By the way, re: the pot-cancer connection: Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection, from the WaPo a couple of years ago.
A more recent study did find a link between marijuana and lung cancer:
Another study found a link between marijuana use and testicular cancer:
Of course, cancer is just one class of diseases. Other health risks of marijuana researchers have found include respiratory diseases, heart disease, damage to the immune system and neurological damage. See the NIH source I cited earlier.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
DTM,
I very much agree the proponents of those legal prohibitions also have the burden of proof.
You’re a proponent of those legal prohibitions, correct? So produce your proof. If you are unwilling or unable to do that, you’re not in a position to demand proof regarding other laws. That’s called a “double standard,” DTM.
Again, these are empirical questions which I am not willing to answer in an a priori fashion.
I didn’t ask you to do that. I asked you if you believe that the legal restrictions we impose on alcohol and tobacco have no significant effects on the usage rates of those drugs. Do you believe that or don’t you? For example, do you believe that legal restrictions on the marketing, advertising and sale of alcohol and tobacco to children has no significant effect on the usage rates of those drugs by children? Yes or no?
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
El Cid,
Dickhead — I didn’t fucking claim that it did.
Fuckwad douchebag asshole, you didn’t fucking claim that it did what?
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
It’s the use of “absurd” combined with the double standard regarding evidence that puts me into the Mixner hypothesis camp.
Also, “hatsoff” seems to be displaying some symptoms of not knowing the difference between costs and benefits.
Either it’s Mixner or the Cato intern who replaced him fresh off his trolling training seminars.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Fuckwad douchebag asshole, you didn’t fucking claim that it did what?
Oh yeah, classic Mixnerology.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
ballsoff:
ballsoff earlier:
*the subject of the post I made and to which dickhead here had to snot off at as though not only was I not addressing douchebag’s desired points but somehow this research cited was found in the sands of the desert next to the shattered visage of Ozymandias, and has since been disproven by the hipsters of the newer cooler labs which stretch far away…
That, loudmouth shit for brains.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:35 pm
DTM,
We’re not talking about those laws,
We are talking about those laws. We’re talking about the laws comprising the “war on drugs,” and laws restricting drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, and laws against murder and tax evasion, and all other laws too. YOU claimed that “rational policy makers” have the “burden of proof” to prove that the benefits of a law outweigh the known costs. Yet you refuse to abide by the very standard you demand of others. That’s called “hypocrisy,” DTM. You’re a hypocrite.
I don’t know. I haven’t looked into those issues enough to form a firm belief either way.
Then by your own argument, you should oppose laws that restrict the marketing, advertising and sale of alcohol and tobacco to children. YOU said “I don’t see why I should be supporting continuing these policies” unless “as a rational taxpayer and citizen” you are shown “proof” that costs of the laws are outweighed by the benefits. Where is the “proof” that the costs of laws restricting the sale of alcohol and tobacco to children outweigh the benefits?
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 pm
I don’t follow. Can you elaborate?
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
DTM,
You’ve already admitted that you have no proof that the benefits of the laws that ban the sale of alcohol and tobacco (and marijuana and cocaine and heroin and all other drugs) to children outweigh their costs. And you said that unless you are given “proof” that the benefits of drugs laws outweigh their costs “I don’t see why I should be supporting continuing these policies.”
Therefore, you don’t “support continuing” laws that ban the sale of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs to children.
DTM thinks it should be legal to sell drugs to children.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Oh, Mixoff, is there really so little for you to do in your Arizona sprawlburb?
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
That would be immoral. Children have no dependable source of legal income, so drugs should of course be made available to them for free, in their public schools.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Wow, 147 – now 148 – posts.
Obviously everyone here but me has smoked pot.
And trust me, when I told people that in the (real) joint, nobody believed me there either.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Oh, Mixoff, is there really so little for you to do in your Arizona sprawlburb?
This is another dead giveaway. Since Mixner’s leave of absence the number of 100+ post comment threads has dropped dramatically, yet here we are already over 140 and asshatsoff/mixner is still energetically dumbing it up with arguments so circular nobody is certain that up or down even exist anymore. The indefatigability would be almost admirable if it didn’t imply such deep ennui.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
“Of course there would be sales, and law enforcement agencies would properly mostly ignore those sales.”
Except when they didn’t like the look of you for whatever reason and decided to pay attention to what you were selling. Arbitrary and capricious law is fun.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Obviously everyone here but me has smoked pot.
Well, there is a lot of dope around here, but it goes by the name “hatsoff” and smoking it is not recommended.
Ba dump bump!
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 am
I wonder if you guys could maybe give me some advice. I smoke what we call “Hoovers” or “Hooners”. That’s a cigarette made with about one-third good bud and two-thirds tobacco from a Camel Light, rolled in a Zig-Zag 1 1/4. I smoke about ten of those a day, inhaling them and holding my breath.
Could this have anything to do with the fact that my left lung is starting to collapse? It hurts like hell, and I don’t know what to do. Could the two be connected?
I’m not a doctor, so I thought maybe you smarter people could give me some advice.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 am
“DTM thinks it should be legal to sell drugs to children.”
It’s a hell of a lot easier to sell your children and buy drugs. And the drugs last longer with no kids around to bring me down!
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 am
There is a danger connected with drug use, and I have certainly had some dangerous experiences with acute underdose.
That’s when the level of blood in your drug-stream becomes dangerously high. As the level of blood rises higher and higher, the danger of sudden consciousness and its consequences becomes a concern. Everyone should know the signs of acute underdose: Alertness, ability to concentrate, extreme orientation, and finally, rational thought and physical co-ordination. When that level of underdose is reached, quick action is the only thing which can prevent a tragedy. A well stocked medicine cabinet is the best defense, and if it’s somebody else’s, so much the better.
To prevent the tragedy of sudden underdose, we have a strict drug-test at my business. It consists of three facets:
1) You should be capable of working stoned.
2) You must contribute some of your own drugs, and not mooch mine all the time.
3) If you have a good connection, don’t keep it to yourself, let us know about it.
Only employees who can pass all three phases of the drug-test are considered suitable, and at low risk for underdose.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
“Obviously everyone here but me has smoked pot.”
Thw way my chest feels, I think pot has smoked me!
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 am
In answer to Sam M’s question: half of all the alcohol drunk in the United States is drunk by people whose average alcohol consumption is at least four drinks a day. About half the cannabis is consumed by people who average more than a joint a day. That looks like excess to me. Moderate drinkers and smokers can’t maintain big markets.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 am
“You haven’t shown that marijuana is “roughly if not less harmful” than alcohol and tobacco. (Simply saying this over and over again is not likely to convince anyone).”
updated 6:43 a.m. ET, Sat., March. 24, 2007
LONDON – New “landmark” research finds that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or Ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17760130/
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 am
Why are you guys feeding the troll.
hatsoff. It is impossible to be intellectually honest and not recognize the failure of the War on Drugs.
Period.
Full stop.
Go fuck yourself.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
hatsoff == mixner
Yup, he’s back.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
I’m glad Mark Kleiman dropped by, even if his posting time shows that maybe he needs more sleep. I do have a question, which I raised earlier, if you’re still around: what makes you think that marketing has any effect on the number of problem drinkers or the total consumption? Doesn’t the historical evidence show that people drank a lot more alcohol before there was any such thing as mass-market advertising?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
DTM,
Again, I really don’t have a firm opinion either way, having not studied the issue in depth.
Well make up your mind. Laws against selling drugs to children are part of the war on drugs. Do you oppose the war on drugs, or do you have no “firm opinion either way” because you don’t have any “proof” of whether its benefits outweigh its costs?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 am
Does DTM also oppose drunk-driving laws? Where’s his proof that the benefits of these laws outweigh their costs?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:49 am
So now the standard of ‘what children are allowed to do’ must apply to consenting adults? Gosh, I guess I’m against driving, because I don’t think 5 year olds should be given drivers’ licenses.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:57 am
beowulf,
updated 6:43 a.m. ET, Sat., March. 24, 2007
LONDON – New “landmark” research finds that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or Ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study.
So you agree with this, do you? Rather than weakening restrictions on marijuana, we should be strengthing restrictions on alcohol and tobacco? That’s the opposite of what the “war on drugs is a failure” crowd are arguing.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
DTM = mixner = charles = El Cid = Mark Kleiman
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
It would be awesome if I were Mark Kleiman. Unfortunately, I’m not an academic. However, If I were mixner, I’d shoot myself just to prevent the generalized public annoyance.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
DTM,
By the way, I wouldn’t include all laws relating to psychoactive drugs within our “war on drugs”. I would rather define our “war on drugs” as the complete prohibition of certain psychoactive drugs (outside of limited medical contexts), as enforced by criminal law in the United States, and both criminal and military efforts overseas.
It doesn’t matter what you define it as. You demanded “proof” that the benefits of a law ouweigh its costs for you to “support continuing” it. Where is your “proof” that ANY drug law passes this test?
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I would rather define our “war on drugs” as the complete prohibition of certain psychoactive drugs (outside of limited medical contexts), as enforced by criminal law in the United States, and both criminal and military efforts overseas.
So all we would need to do is relax the prohibition a little bit, so that it is no longer “complete” prohibition, and the war on drugs would be over? Is that it?
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Welcome to DTM’s world, a world in which….
Tobacco companies are free to install cigarette machines in public schools, offering children free cigarettes to get them addicted to nicotine at an early age so they become lifelong customers.
TV commercials extolling the joys of smoking crack cocaine and shooting up heroin are broadcast during Saturday morning cartoon shows.
Cops watch helplessly as falling-down-drunk bar patrons get into their cars and drive away on to a crowded highway.
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I’m not sure what you are hypothesizing.
I’m not hypothesizing anything. I’m pointing out that under your definition of “war on drugs” all we would need to do to end that war would be relax current laws a tiny bit, so that the prohibition is no longer “complete.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Well, there is a lot of dope around here, but it goes by the name “hatsoff” and smoking it is not recommended.
On the contrary, it looks like everyone in the thread has been smoking him.
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“charles”, who is almost surely Mixner, shows up and posts at 11:35am and 11:37am in a HSR thread…
What does “HSR” stand for? Anybody know?
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
DTM,
(a) I am unwilling or unable to defend in substance any of our drug laws
No, we have established that you don’t even “support continuing” (your words) any of our drugs laws. Not even laws that ban the sale of drugs to children. Not even laws against drunk driving. Not even laws that ban demonstrably false claims of fact in advertising (”Yes, kids, smoking crack is GOOD for your health!”). The position you’ve painted yourself into here is utterly absurd, as I’m sure you’re painfully aware.
hatsoff is also unwilling or unable to defend in substance any of our drug laws
No, you haven’t established that. I never agreed that your ridiculous “PROVE to me that the benefits of the law outweigh its costs” is an appropriate standard for determining law and public policy.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Mixner appears to have at least three personalities on the go here, so he’s really the last person who should be talking about drugs.
Did you only get a three month supply of Seroquel, kid?
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Late to the conversation, but Kleiman’s idea is madness. It has much of the worst of the current regime without any of the advantages of real regulation or control. You’d have tons of people with quasi-legal grow operations in their house, selling illegally at a price that was still inflated by the semi-black market nature of the traffic. Because sales were illegal you’d have people using violence to control the market, terrible working conditions, etc.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:12 am
DTM,
Yeah, what a ridiculous standard for public policy, the benefits outweighing the costs. What was I thinking?
No, your stated standard is “proof” that the benefits outweigh the costs. And yet you admit that you cannot provide “proof” of this for any drug laws, or even for laws against murder and theft. By your own argument, you should be an anarchist. But of course you don’t really believe your own argument, do you? It was just something you foolishly came up with to try and justify your opposition to the “war on drugs,” apparently oblivious to its obvious implications for laws that you do support. You’re always shooting yourself in the foot like this, DTM.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:52 am
False. I am unwilling, not unable, to obey your demand to address red herrings such as murder and theft.
“I could tell you if I wanted to. I just don’t want to. Neener, Neener!”
Could you be any more pathetic and juvenile.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:53 am
Could you be any more pathetic and juvenile.
Well, he could be posting under seven different nyms in three threads in one day, Mixner.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
This thread reminded me of the classic Onion headline:
“Drugs Win Drug War”
March 24th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Very nice site!
March 24th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Very nice site! [url=http://aixopey.com/qqaxrt/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
April 10th, 2009 at 4:05 am
Very nice site! cheap cialis http://apxoiey.com/aoxrxx/4.html
April 10th, 2009 at 4:06 am
Very nice site! [url=http://apxoiey.com/aoxrxx/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]
April 10th, 2009 at 4:06 am
Very nice site!