I Have Smoked Pot and Don’t Really Care for It
Will Wilkinson has a good essay on marijuana in The Week:
Marijuana is neither evil nor dangerous. Scientists have proven its medical uses. It has spared millions from anguish. But the casual pleasure marijuana has delivered is orders of magnitude greater than the pain it has assuaged, and pleasure matters too. That’s probably why Barack Obama smoked up the second and third times: because he liked it. That’s why tens of millions of Americans regularly take a puff, despite the misconceived laws meant to save us from our own wickedness.
The Atlantic Monthly’s Andrew Sullivan has been documenting on his blog the stories of typical, productive Americans—kids’ football coaches, secretaries of the PTA—who smoke marijuana because they like to smoke marijuana, but who understandably fear emerging fully from the “cannabis closet.” This is a profoundly necessary idea. If we’re to begin to roll back our stupid and deadly drug war, the stigma of responsible drug use has got to end, and marijuana is the best place to start. The super-savvy Barack Obama managed to turn a buck by coming out of the cannabis (and cocaine) closet in a bestselling memoir. That’s progress. But his admission came with the politicians’ caveat of regret. We’ll make real progress when solid, upstanding folk come out of the cannabis closet, heads held high.
So here we go. My name is Will Wilkinson. I smoke marijuana, and I like it.
For my part, I’ll say that my name is Matthew Yglesias. I have smoked marijuana in the past, and enjoyed it on occasion, but mostly I haven’t really liked it so I don’t expect I’ll smoke any more in the future. That said, there’s still no really compelling reason that people who do enjoy it should be legally prohibited from doing so.
Is it really true that marijuana isn’t dangerous? Well, yes and no. I’m not a libertarian. I believe in paternalist measures for the sake of public health. And smoking marijuana is not a healthy undertaking. But it ought to be put on a spectrum that includes other unhealthy things that many people enjoy—neither beer nor cigarettes nor M&Ms are good for you. My understanding is that pot is more dangerous than candy, but less so than tobacco (which is more addictive and involves similarly bad-for-you inhaling of smoke) or alcohol. I’m inclined to think that all such substances should be legal, and subject to taxation and restrictions on permitted forms of marketing, with the level of taxation roughly scaled to the actual scope of the public health issue.
167 Responses to “I Have Smoked Pot and Don’t Really Care for It”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
“My name is Will Wilkinson. I smoke marijuana, and I like it.”
My name is Petey. I smoke marijuana, and I like it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I smoke pot
And I like it a lot!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
My name is Glenn Beck, and marijuana makes me cry a little.
But that means I like it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Speaking as someone who did not enjoy marijuana and will probably never smoke it again, there is no rational basis for the criminalization of marijuana.
No. Rational. Basis. There never was.
It was criminalized in a haze of hysteria and under a cloud of corruption. It has been kept criminal as a convenience of the culture wars. It has made the law a crime against its own people.
As it stands now, the criminalization of marijuana is nothing but a subsidy to organized crime. For all we know, the cartels are paying our politicians to keep it illegal.
It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Pot is less dangerous than tobacco? Maybe if you are thinking purely in terms of the physical danger to the user. But because pot is an intoxicant, it creates a danger not present at all in tobacco–the danger that a stoned person will drive or engage in some other dangerous activity. If you smoke at home and never drive stoned, the danger is probably pretty slight (just be careful walking down those stairs, and don’t play with guns or chainsaws). But behind a wheel? A stoner is just as dangerous as a drunk.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Wow Sick of the Stupids, those are the inane paranoid rantings of someone who likes marijuana.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Dude, ditch the beasters.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
But behind a wheel? A stoner is just as dangerous as a drunk.
Nope. Marijuana is less dangerous that simple fatigue when it comes to driving.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
neither beer nor cigarettes nor M&Ms are good for you
Hang on a minute — actually, alcohol, in moderation (like 1-2 beers a day), seems to provide some not insignificant long term health benefits to many. So does chocolate, though I’m not sure I’d call M&Ms “chocolate.”
Refined sugar and tobacco — not so healthy. Smoking? Very bad. Pot? Well, who knows. Haven’t seen too many studies into the benefits yet, beyond pain and nausea relief and munchies stimulation, which are very valuable for sick people.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Tobacco is legal because of its deep history and importance in our culture and economy. Despite that history, we keep imposing more and more restrictions on tobacco in the interests of public health. It wouldn’t surprise me if we eventually ban it outright, or effectively ban it by making it so hard to obtain and consume that hardly anyone bothers. The mere fact that tobacco is still legal, and possibly more harmful than marijuana, is a very weak argument for legalizing marijuana.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I’m for legalization, but God help me if I have to hear anymore impassioned rhetoric about how marijuana is the elixir of life. I read Sullivan obsessively, but I get the point “I am an extremely successful human being and I smoke marijuana, marijuana is great, QED”. Spare me.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
The mere fact that tobacco is still legal, and possibly more harmful than marijuana, is a very weak argument for legalizing marijuana.
You’re right. It’s much more effective to point out that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine or heroin, yet it continues to be legal.
There is no public safety argument for the criminalization of marijuana.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
RWBoyd, tobacco isn’t an intoxicant? What are you on? Don’t you know all the kids smoke it for the “buzz”? Smoking makes tobacco makes people feel good; that’s why they do it. Smoking pot makes people feel good, too; that’s why they do it.
Not to mention Yale published a study evaluating the driving skills of those under the influence of alcohol and those under the influence of pot–and found that alcohol created more dangerous drivers. Pot smokers tend to become more timid with driving and think they are driving too quickly, while drinkers tend to be overconfident and drive too fast.
However, it should be noted that mixing the two seems to have a much more detrimental effect on driving skills than either one alone.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I smoked for many years; many, many years ago. The really good stuff laid me to waste on many occasions. Those advocating more widespread tolerance seldom address the public safety aspects of the plant. Testing for alcohol use is a straightforward affair. You wreck a bus with 50 people on board and blow .017 you’re screwed. You pull the same stunt high and snaring you for gross negligence is a more slippery task. I wouldn’t want to be close to someone performing any number of tasks if they were as high as I on the best I ever bought. Sure, those in very responsible positions don’t WANT to lose their jobs, hurt people, damage property. They’ll mostly self police themselves just as those that drink in their off hours do. Still, legalization, societal acceptance and the resulting increase in use will have its negative results. The same industries rising to defend alcoholics and advise them of ways to extricate themselves from drunken misshaps and penalties for having them will come to defense of stoners. You know, the stoner drilling on your teeth, flying you to Syracuse, operating that backhoe in your driveway and assembling your car. I don’t see how continually expanding the number of ways human beings can numb themselves from reality is a good thing. Maybe you should work on what it is about your reality you don’t like.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Factoid: Louis Armstrong smoked weed every day of his life from preteen to his death.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Haven’t seen too many studies into the benefits yet, beyond pain and nausea relief and munchies stimulation, which are very valuable for sick people.
It also shows some promise in the treatment of leukemia and lung and brain cancer. It used to be distributed by the US government for the treatment of glaucoma, but Bush I cancelled that program.
Odd, that something you smoke might inhibit lung cancer.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I too have smoked weed, but I do not like it. I have OCD, and weed makes my symptoms spike hard. I don’t drink alchohol for pretty much the same reason.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
No serious people are advocating the decriminalization of driving while under the influence of marijuana.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
My name is Zephyrus, and I have smoked pot, and spent the rest of the evening hiding under my bed unable to speak.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Have we now heard from every living human being who’s smoked pot and didn’t like it?
Actually, that’s a common problem for first-timers. You’ve got to power through that phase, let yourself learn how to get high, man.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I’m for legalization, but God help me if I have to hear anymore impassioned rhetoric about how marijuana is the elixir of life.
The thing is that legalization will probably put an end to all of that by mainstreaming it. Those who feel the need to evangelize for some stupid thing will move on to something else.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
And, no, pot doesn’t make you want to drive. Potentially if you want to go by the grocery store, but none of my stoner friends have the smallest desire to leave the house when stoned.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
In Quentin Tarantino’s Jackie Brown, Samuel L. Jackson comes home to find Bridget Fonda lying on the couch, smoking dope, and giggling at the TV. Disgusted, he tells her that marijuana will rob her of her ambitions.
“Not if your ambition is to get high and watch TV,” she replies.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Pot makes anonyman fall instantly asleep, so he isn’t sure if he enjoys it or not.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
And, no, pot doesn’t make you want to drive. Potentially if you want to go by the grocery store
I see another reason to promote walkable neighborhoods!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I still remember what a wonderful half hour I spent at Baskin-Robbins one night while high.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Yes, I’ve smoked grass, found it mildly pleasurable, but once the really strong blends started emerging in the 1970s, I had to stop.
Since then more than a puff or two and I’m rendered speechless, with a strong need to be horizontal.
But I can’t handle any more than a couple drinks, either.
Both alcohol and marijuana can and are abused.
But the prohibition of alcohol came with strong side-effects, too, inluding funding organized crime.
However, the puritanical streak in our country will probably prevent the legalization of recreational drugs.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Question: what’s always missing from these discussions? Answer: any meaningful studies or statistics about marijuana. What are the adverse health affects? Other than possession, what crimes are being committed because someone smoked pot? Who knows? It’s all anecdotal as far as I can tell. “Just say no?” That’s bullshit. Why say no? As usual our government has declared war on something it really doesn’t understand.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I do think, however, that pot is not something activism helps much with. As it stands support for legalization is very generational, and it’s mostly a matter of waiting until a sufficient number of old people scared of pot die off.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Unless the laws have changed, why shouldn’t Mr. Wilkinson’s rear end be sitting in a jail cell, alongside the numerous black youths charged with possessing, buying and selling?
Is Mr. Wilkinson above the law? Or does he not buy/possess but mooches off others?
If he wants to stand up and be civilly disobedient, why shouldn’t he — a nerdy looking white guy — be treated the same as others under the law? I don’t it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I am an anonymous blog commenter possibly named Ryan, and I have never smoked pot, but I do not want my tax dollars spent on enforcing prohibitions on its use.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I’ve smoked, and some of the effects are really pleasant, like the increased perception of color, sound, taste. But it also gives me a terrible headache, and, on the whole, I’m just as happy having a Martini to relax.
But that brings me to the point I always like to make–if you were creating the world from scratch, and it was a given that there would be one legally tolerated recreational intoxicant, is there any question that you would pick pot over alcohol? What stoner ever got really high after a hard day at work, and then went home and beat up his wife? What pot-fuelled riots have ever broken out at a sports stadium? Getting stoned makes you say silly things and maybe eat a bit more Taco Bell than is really wise. Alcohol is a much more ambiguous benefit to society–and I say this as someone who likes a little alcohol now and then very much indeed. If we legalized pot tomorrow, there is no question in my mind the world would be a kinder, happier, gentler place.
That’s probably enough reason to keep it from ever happening.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Man, that pic of buds has really, really got me wanting to smoke again.
Do any commenters here live in or around Cambridge (the real, English Cambridge, not the fake one in Boston), and have a hook-up?
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
#31 above… Wilkinson IS being treated the same under the law, since there are roughly 15 million past year tokers and 800,000 arrests for cannabis each year.
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I smoked. I liked it. Then I grew up and became “responsible”.
Bad move, Al. And kind of explains a lot. If I were you, I’d reconsider.
As for me, my name is Scythia, it’s 3 in the afternoon, I just got done reading this post, and I’m about to roll up a motherfuckin’ Backwoods…
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I smoked probably once a month in college when the made-me-happy to made-me-sleepy ratio was more like 1:1. As I approached my mid 20s, that ratio became more like 1:4, and it wasn’t worth the cost or hassle (or risk, given there are some drug testing requirements in my field) to do something that put me to sleep 80% of the time. I haven’t smoked pot in close to a decade.
I get good and drunk several nights a wee–er, month though!
April 3rd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I appreciate that the lameosphere has a collective raging boner about legalizing pot at the moment, but let’s be honest, pot is a pussy drug. And of course it should be legal. But I’d like to see Will Wilkinson and others sack up and advocate legalizing 1)shrooms 2)acid 3)ex 4)crack
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Bummer. I just heard that Wilkinson won’t be getting support from the USA Swimming program for 3 months. And its looking bad for those big buck endorsements… Oh.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I’m for legalization, but God help me if I have to hear anymore impassioned rhetoric about how marijuana is the elixir of life. I read Sullivan obsessively, but I get the point “I am an extremely successful human being and I smoke marijuana, marijuana is great, QED”. Spare me.
I think what Sullivan is doing is the best things to hit the Marijuana legalization movement since the Emperor Wears No Clothes was published. The idea is not to prove how great pot is, but to show how many normal, functional people smoke it. The documentation itself is a great leap forward in bringing us all out of the closet. Poll after poll shows people support this- we need to start admitting it to each other- not just the lady on the other end of the phone.
as an aside, the QED is not: “I smoke pot, I turned out great, therefore pot makes you turn out great” rather it’s: “I smoke pot, I turned out great, therefore pot did not prevent me from turning out great.” Which is an important distinction to make.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Link to details of a black youth being imprisoned for admitting smoking marijuana on his blog?
Yes, there is a massive unjust disparity in the treatment of minority drug offenders. But trying to dig for it in obviously inappropriate circumstances is silly and counterproductive.
Oh, obligatory: I used to smoke pot occasionally, along with mushrooms, the even more occasional acid (maybe 4-5 times?), and MDMA. All were great and I think highly conducive to a robust philosophical and spiritual development. I stopped when I had kids, because I either had parental responsibility or didn’t want to leave my spouse with parental responsibility while I went off and got high. Once the kids are old enough for overnight babysitting, we’ll probably be psychedelicious again. Hopefully it’ll be legal by then, but whichever.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Question: what’s always missing from these discussions? Answer: any meaningful studies or statistics about marijuana. What are the adverse health affects?
Here’s a summary of the adverse health effects of marijuana from the National Institutes of Health.
And here’s a summary of the adverse social effects of marijuana, and marijuana addiction.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Welcome back hatsoff! Care to provide any links that don’t come from the body officially charged with maligning cannabis?
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I read Sullivan obsessively, but I get the point “I am an extremely successful human being and I smoke marijuana, marijuana is great, QED”. Spare me.
Sully does have his peculiar obsessions. Marijuana is one of them. Others include circumcision and the Pet Shop Boys.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
hatsoff:
To the health question: the government has never allowed anything resembling a rigorous scientific evaluation of the issue. Whatever reports you see issued are based on incomplete evidence, tiny sample sizes, and colored by political biases.
To the social question: Causation/Correlation. There’s a difference.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
But it ought to be put on a spectrum that includes other unhealthy things that many people enjoy—neither beer nor cigarettes nor M&Ms are good for you. My understanding is that pot is more dangerous than candy, but less so than tobacco (which is more addictive and involves similarly bad-for-you inhaling of smoke) or alcohol. I’m inclined to think that all such substances should be legal, and subject to taxation and restrictions on permitted forms of marketing, with the level of taxation roughly scaled to the actual scope of the public health issue.
Assuming “all such substances” refers just to candy, tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, I agree completely; however some “unhealthy things that some people enjoy” — cocaine, heroin, acid, for example — really are a public health issue and should never be legalized.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Ah, pot. The most glorious thing on earth until you turn 21.
I smoked with this one guy who converted a full-face gas mask into a bong. I thought my eyes were going to melt out of my skull.
Every man has to decide for himself whether that’s a good thing or not.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I hope you read this Matt, if so, made an addendum to your article.
Mariujana is harmful to your lungs if you smoke it. But there are about 1,000 other ways of ingestion. Personally, I vaporize it, so there is zero smoke going into my mouth/throat/lungs.
At the medical shop I go to, they sell candies, chocolates, cookies, all sorts of edibles. As well as teas and even ice-cream!
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Care to provide any links that don’t come from the body officially charged with maligning cannabis?
The National Institutes of Health is not “officially charged with maligning cannabis.” It’s about the most reputable source of health information in the world.
If you think the NIH’s reporting is false you are welcome to try and rebut it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
To the health question: the government has never allowed anything resembling a rigorous scientific evaluation of the issue. Whatever reports you see issued are based on incomplete evidence, tiny sample sizes, and colored by political biases.
And you know this, how?
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Hatsoff:
That’s like using EPA research to talk about the “clear skies initiative”. Or asking Brownie while at FEMA, what he thinks are great ideas for disaster relief.
Uggh. Some people don’t, and try their best to, never get it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
The prohibition of pot is one part of the story of race and class in America.
Who does most of the pot-smoking in Amsterdam? Tourists, backpackers, short-term visitors, expat workers. (I’ll raise a hand here.) Most surveys suggest Americans are twice as likely to have tried weed than the Dutch — due in part, I’m sure, to the idiot drinking laws in the US.
Still, I’m reminded of the Bill Hicks line about people who do mushrooms and go on roller-coasters, then complain about throwing up.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I think a lot of people who have bad effects smoke too much. Take one hit and wait at least 20 minutes. Plus, there is an amazing variety of effects among various breeds of marijuana, and variations of effect based on the maturation of the plant at harvest. It is an amazingly diverse plant. It’s a fascinating plant to grow.
I am more productive with marijuana. Two hits and I’m cleaning house. Three hits I’d be waxing the appliances, so I didn’t go there much, in the past, when I smoked. When I did smoke (good sensimilla) I didn’t smoke in the evening because it would keep me up. I do have paradoxical reaction to drugs, but I have known a lot of people who have worked quite well while high, especially physical laborers, people who dealt with the public and needed to be at ease, and artists.
Unfortunately, I won’t allow myself to take the risk of punishment now that it’s so draconian, so I don’t smoke. And I don’t enjoy most of my work like I used to. I just do it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I am a confirmed pothead.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Why bother? One of the most ridiculous aspects of our great farce of a Drug War is that you could grant every finding and interpretation in hatsoff’s links as unvarnished truth. . you could even take the pile of correlation in the first link and grant it as causality — and marijuana prohibition would still be unjustified on the merits as a matter of principle, and deeply, deeply unjustified as a matter of cost/benefit analysis of the drug war.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “For my part, I’ll say that my name is Matthew Yglesias. I have smoked marijuana in the past, and enjoyed it on occasion, but mostly I haven’t really liked it so I don’t expect I’ll smoke any more in the future.”
———-
Someone turned you onto cocaine, huh?
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I played one of my best rounds of golf ever while high. Unfortunately, it never worked again.
As mentioned above, dosage is key. Take a drag and wait until you know the effect, then repeat as desired.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Maybe instead of “going galt” those successful pothead should go Cheech, teach us all a lesson for stigmitizing them!
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Scythia @ 37 wins this thread. Though JH at 35 does get an honorable mention.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“Of course I inhaled, that was the point” – The President of the United States.
Pot will be legal in ten years or less. There are proto Hamsterdams popping up with increased frequency here and there, where local powers have decided not to go after small time users.
I work in the Baltimore juvenile system, and though I can’t speak for other jurisdictions, I can assure you that very few if any young black pot smokers are locked up in committed placements from smoking weed alone. If they are, they were also slinging and probably have a few violent offenses.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I’m grateful for the honorable mention, but lest anyone think I was merely cracking a funny, let me assure you, I do really want some weed.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I like it and will be using it in approximately three hours, in a vaporizer. I don’t “smoke” it much anymore, as I don’t like the nagging bronchial congestion that true smoke will trigger. My wife and I sometimes bake cookies and we have an absolutely amazing time both in and out of the bedroom. At times in my life I have indeed been overly reliant on weed, and I do think it tended to act as a demotivator. But that was the choice I made, and the mood I was in, and I certainly didn’t mind being high. It’s easy as hell to look back and say, “If only I’d not be stoned, I might’ve written a great novel or discovered a new species,” but I have no evidence to support that claim. I do know that weed helped me make out with the hottest woman at my college, which was a wonderful and pivotal experience as a freshman.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
This post provides me with a quandry.
Who’s blog do I read more? Matt’s.
Who’s world-view and analysis do I believe is sharper? Matt’s.
With whom would I rather share a bag of Taco Doritos and watch BSG? Will Wilkerson.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I partook and enjoyed it, although sometimes it made me fall asleep. But then painted wings and giant rings made way for other toys. I’m looking forward to de-crim or legalization and my kids getting old enough to look after themselves, which should happen at about the same time.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
sidereal,
marijuana prohibition would still be unjustified on the merits as a matter of principle,
What principle is that?
and deeply, deeply unjustified as a matter of cost/benefit analysis of the drug war.
I eagerly await your comprehensive, evidence-based cost/benefit analysis of the drug war. And no, saying some version of “Everyone knows the War on Drugs has been a failure, dammit!” over and over again is not analysis.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I am Marijuanicus!
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I support decriminalization. But yes, i’m tired of Andrew’s testimonials that potsmokers are all vibrant, successful world-shakers.
The unmotivated, lazy stoner is a stereotype for a reason.
Pot is still a drug. I’ve smoked my share in my 20’s, and it probably exacerbated my problem with anxiety attacks. It’s up to adults to use responsibly, and I accept that.
But pro-pot advocates refuse to acknowledge a host of problems, they promote it as absolutely harmless, but it’s not. “Dependence” does occur, and if you’re genetically disposed to depression, anxiety, mental illness, or substance abuse, there is some risk, and a pot habit isn’t something I’d recommend for young people. Because there’s always a price for pleasure, pot’s no different.
And since young people are bombarded by liquor and beer and cigarette ads, how soon before pot becomes available at 7-11? Why not, if it were legal, commercial forces would capitalize on this vigourously.
Just how much more zonked, medicated, drugged, narcotized do we want our society to be? Shall we add a new drug for people to put themselves in a stupor to watch TV and eat fast food to?
Also, note to potheads: at parties, you’re really boring. There’s a certain social discourtesy to stoned people, they don’t contribute to lively conversation, the act like overgrown babies who want to go home and gorge on junk food. Boring as hell, yet they imagine themselves fascinating rebels.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
JH @ 62: Let me know how that works out for you. Thanks in advance!
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
hatsoff,
“What principle is that?”
The principle that the state does not have sufficient interest in me being a maximally productive, motivated, and healthy citizen to justify punishment, including incarceration, for my choice to compromise those qualities for personal pleasure. And this, remember, grants the entirety of the NIDA claims arguendo. If they’re overstated (and the correlation/causation sleight of hand almost certainly causes significant overstatement in the survey of social studies), then the state’s interest is even more questionable.
No you don’t. Don’t be a douchebag. You couldn’t make it more clear that you have no interest in being convinced either way, so I’m not sure what my incentive is to bother.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Got anything new to add, ‘hatsoff’, or are you just going to repeat your previous trolling in order to pick an argument on a Friday night?
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
It’s a dulling, stupidity-enhancing drug.
Confessing to a crime is insufficient for conviction. Crack-pots (nyahh-nyahh) confess to crimes all the time. There has to be other evidence. In the case of Wilkinson smoking pot, unless the police caught him in the act, the evidence has already gone up in smoke.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
A stoner is just as dangerous as a drunk.
Anybody who would write that doesn’t know anything about weed. Just ignorant.
I have smoked it and liked it at times and not liked it at other times. It isn’t harmless by any means – smoke it everyday and you will be at least a little stupider and/or less motivated, guaranteed. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal, though.
Pot is the most overestimated drug/plant in the world. The Drug War is about as counter-productive, in terms of pot especially, as could be. Legalize it. Regulate it. De-mystify it. It just isn’t that big a deal. The US *made* it a big deal in the ’30s, and so naturally, more people got interested in smoking it by the time the ’60s rolled (ahem) around. Smoking pot everyday will make you stupid, but the criminalization of pot is a hundred times stupider, especially if your goal is to reduce its use.
Grow and utilize commercial hemp too, for god’s sake. Just get on with it.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
It’s not clear to me that the schema “x has relatively similar consequences as y, therefore x should have the same legal status as y” is a valid one. You may think that we should try to keep social ills below a certain level, and it may be that adding one more factor which will increase social ills isn’t permissible as a result (even if that factor is more benign than others which contribute to social ills).
The real argument to be had here is that legalizing marijuana would be neutral or beneficial in terms of its effects on society. I’m not sure how to assess this claim. More health data would be helpful.
Fwiw, it is pretty clear to me that tobacco use should be gradually phased out (except via prescription) over 15-or-so years. So maybe I should think the same about marijuana.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“But I’d like to see Will Wilkinson and others sack up and advocate legalizing 1)shrooms 2)acid 3)ex 4)crack”
Wilkenson may not, but I will. I really don’t understand why the government must be our mommy. Legalize it all, but give people proper medical advice about it. And that goes double for LSD. That’s a drug that most people really shouldn’t take. And I know, I’m one of the rare people in the Thousand Hit Club. If you can’t take having reality completely ripped away from you, LSD is a drug you should avoid.
But the surprising thing is Matt’s admission that he doesn’t smoke pot. I’d never have guessed that. But I live in Boulder, and everyone smokes pot here. Even the cops. And we have the best pot in the world. Before I ever went to Amsterdam, people here told me to not bother with the pot there because it sucks. But I had to try anyway. And you know what? The pot in Amsterdam really does suck. You really need high altitude to bring out the potency, and Amsterdam is below sea level. I smoked a strain that was genetically identical to one I can easily buy in Boulder. And it was even close. Just like fine wine needs crappy soil, fine pot needs crappy air. And we have that.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
The principle that the state does not have sufficient interest in me being a maximally productive, motivated, and healthy citizen to justify punishment, including incarceration, for my choice to compromise those qualities for personal pleasure.
So you seek to decriminalize all drugs, not just marijuana. Cocaine, heroin, lsd, all pharmaceutical drugs for which you currently need a prescription. All drugs, period, right? Good luck with that. I think the technical term for your position is “bat-shit crazy.”
No you don’t. Don’t be a douchebag.
Yes, I do. Stop evading. Produce your cost/benefit analysis.
What’s that? You don’t have one? Gee, there’s a shocker.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
@75
“You really need high altitude to bring out the potency, and Amsterdam is below sea level.”
So is it like coffee that way? (Serious question. Were I joking, I’d have asked if it were like skiing that way.)
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
It seems a little funny that anyone breathing city air might think pot was dangerous. Also kind of funny that the people who try it once and don’t like it literally don’t know what they are missing.
And OMG, driving stoned is dangerous? Try driving and talking on your phone. I am so old I can remember when even drunks tried to keep it on the road and in the lane.
Over the years I’ve discovered so many different people are pot smokers that I can’t really think it makes you do anything any more. I’ve seen bank employees, policemen, nurses, doctors, roustabouts, longshore men, athletes, musicians- what do these people have in common?- that’s right- NOTHING. Some of them have to be perfectly dressed at work, some have to do hard physical labor or show great dexterity, some have to interact well with others.
If the asthmatics knew how well it works on bronchial asthma, there would be damn near a revolution in this country. There’s big money for the drug industry in keeping it out of our hands as a general herbal medication.
Set and setting. Maybe if Matt toked up (moderately) and followed that with a string quartet, a visit to a good pastry shop, and a roll in the hay, he might like it a little more.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
The fear about legal pot is that the legal stuff will be crappy, and the black-market bud will be either crazy strong or laced.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
In the case of Wilkinson smoking pot, unless the police caught him in the act, the evidence has already gone up in smoke.
But presumably he’ll keep doing it. He’s probably careful enough to avoid any serious risk of getting caught, but one can hope.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
fostert,
Just like fine wine needs crappy soil, fine pot needs crappy air. And we have that.
I think it’s less the crappy quality of the air we have here than it is generally crappy job our high altitude atmosphere does of filtering out UV light, which has the effect of stimulating the production of trichomes.
I live in Denver which is possibly even more permissive now than Boulder is. I, too, tend to find it kind of odd when people under 40 who aren’t obviously very socially conservative don’t smoke pot at least occasionally. Actually even most the conservatives I know smoke pot.
I’ll also join you in advocating the legalization of all recreational drugs.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
You’re around the wrong stoned people. Yeah, it makes a lot of people clam up and offer nothing to conversation, but plenty of people become more talkative, lucid, and creative.
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 pm
“So is it like coffee that way? (Serious question. Were I joking, I’d have asked if it were like skiing that way.)”
Actually not. Coffee doesn’t really grow at all at low altitudes. The lowest altitude coffee I know of comes from Vietnam, but it’s still about 4,000 feet (lower than where I live). Vietnam, by the way, is the world’s second largest producer of coffee. And the coffee there is quite good, as is their green tea. Tea also seems to like high altitudes. The best tea growing region in the world is Darjeeling, which is a little higher than Boulder. But coffee also has another weird issue: it only grows in the tropics. Marijuana, on the other hand, grows everywhere. It just produces bigger buds when it’s stressed by thin air. That’s actually common in plants. When you stress them, they react by trying to reproduce more. That’s why wine growers grow their grapes in bad soil. The grapes are the reproductive mechanism, just like buds are marijuana’s reproductive mechanism.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Another thing that is funny is the claim that smoking every day will make you stupid or lazy.
When I worked my way through nursing school, I worked four nights a week and went to school and clinicals full time, which in the eyes of the nursing school faculty should be about a 60-70 hour week. I graduated with a 3.43 cumulative on about 320 undergrad credits. If you’ve done something like this you will know what I’m saying. Oh yeah, and I smoked morn and night.
Ironically, it turns out that in much of health care, nobody cares much about the facts. Who knew? Still, it was fun proving to myself that I could do stuff well and get good grades. Which is one of the real reasons to go to school anyway.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Costs: Hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars, countless lives ruined or tainted because of retarded drug laws, severely reduced budgets for education and other productive programs, millions of wasted law enforcement man-hours, and increased enrichment and empowerment of violent drug cartels outside of the U.S.
Benefits: Some amusing and memorable TV commercials. (Not the new ones. Those are just stupid.)
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
“our high altitude atmosphere does of filtering out UV light, which has the effect of stimulating the production of trichomes. ”
That’s an interesting theory. Although I think you meant to say that our atmosphere does a poor job of filtering out UV. As for you assertion that Denver is even more permissive than Boulder, I’m not sure I buy it, but I’m open to believing it. Let’s put it this way, when you’re talking to the DA about your noise complaint, will he give you your pot back when the conversation is over? They will do that in Boulder. Has Denver become that lax? I hope so, but I really don’t know.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
@ 4 Sick of Stupids
“As it stands now, the criminalization of marijuana is nothing but a subsidy to organized crime. For all we know, the cartels are paying our politicians to keep it illegal.
It would be irresponsible not to speculate.”
I no longer speculate. The last sentence should read:
It would be irresponsible not to investigate.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Several commenters have wondered if a study would show that legalizing pot would benefit society.
Off the top of my head, I will list four studies from the past that stated that legalizing provided the most benefit for society:
The India Hemp Commission, c 1898
The Panama Canal Zone study by the US Army c 1927
The LaGuardia Report, c 1943
The Schaeffer Commission, c 1970
Additionally, the American Public Health Association, c 1995, surveyed the literature and passed a motion that legalization would improve our public health.
So the answer is yes, studies have been done.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
“Although I think you meant to say that our atmosphere does a poor job of filtering out UV.”
Oops, I misread your statement. you said it right. I guess I need a bong hit. I’m way too sober to be blogging.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
I’m a mental health provider – psychotherapist. I’ve worked for years with addictions. There may be many good reasons to legalize marijuana, but claiming it is not addictive is untrue. It is, and those who are addicted to it experience destructive effects in various ways, as do the significant others of those who are addicted to pot. Demotivation, irritability and mood instability, and interpersonal detachment and avoidance, are the most common manifestations of pot addiction. Sure, some geniuses, like Louis Armstrong and Willie Nelson, e.g., smoked daily. But the pot addicts I’ve seen and worked with who have gone on smoking daily into their 40s and 50s are usually highly dysregulated emotionally, in trouble with their significant others, and socially limited to being only with other pot smokers.
NOne of this, in my view, suggest it shouldn’t be legalized. But the ridiculous claims made for daily marijuana use, like it’s no different than having a drink or two on a daily basis, are false and misleading.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
“Benefits: Some amusing and memorable TV commercials.”
Not to mention South Park and The Onion.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
“Not to mention South Park and The Onion.”
Oh, and Jazz. But heroin certainly played it’s role in Jazz as well. Just ask John Coltrane. Oh yeah, you can’t because heroin took his life.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
My experience says that an experienced user can modulate the effects of weed:
Small dose = mellow, interested in the most minor details of life, everyone is your friend.
Medium dose = senses highly enhanced – music, sex, food (especially wine, ice cream, chocolate) much more intense and pleasurable.
Heavy dose = unable to move or speak coherently.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
catowner,
Yes, that Indian Hemp Commission study from 1898 sure was compelling.
The lack of even a single attempt to make a serious, substantive case for legalization by the pro-legalization commenters here is further evidence that their position rests on emotion and wishful thinking rather than evidence and reason.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
But the pot addicts I’ve seen and worked with who have gone on smoking daily into their 40s and 50s are usually highly dysregulated emotionally, in trouble with their significant others, and socially limited to being only with other pot smokers.
Dan Shaw: but as a psychotherapist and mental health provider, you’re surely not suggesting the cannabis smokers you deal with are representative of all cannabis smokers in general, are you?
But the ridiculous claims made for daily marijuana use, like it’s no different than having a drink or two on a daily basis, are false and misleading.
I don’t think these claims are either ridiculous or misleading. I think some people develop problems from regularly using cannabis, just as some people develop problems from regular alcohol use.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
“For all we know, the cartels are paying our politicians to keep it illegal.”
You may not know it, but I do. The large cartels really do pay to keep it illegal. And they are very sophisticated organizations. A friend of mine worked for one until he got busted with 50 pounds in his trunk. But don’t worry, he was a mathematician and the NSA cut him a deal. He spent three hours in jail and then got a sweet job at Los Alamos. But the organization he worked for had massive climate controlled warehouses and would manipulate the supply of marijuana to control the price. If the price got too low, they’d buy back marijuana from the streets and then resell it when the price got high again. They were every bit as sophisticated as a Wall Street trading house. And they donated their money to anti-drug politicians to keep the prices high.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Hatsoff,
Pointing out that the war on drugs has yielded zero tangible benefits while costing billions of dollars and causing countless other problems is a serious, substantive case for legalization. The point is, it’s a stupid war that has not been won by any measure. It’s a colossal waste of time, energy, money, and lives. Legalizing some of the relatively harmless substances that are lumped in with heroin and crack is just one step we can take toward lessening the waste and carnage that this stupid war has wrought.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I smoke weed and I like it. In fact, I am about to go smoke some weed in a few minutes.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Pointing out that the war on drugs has yielded zero tangible benefits while costing billions of dollars and causing countless other problems is a serious, substantive case for legalization.
Or, to put it another way, why isn’t the onus on the supporters of prohibition to provide the “serious, substantive case?” At the end of the day it really isn’t about satisfying the demands of blog commenters; it’s about convincing voters. And on this score it’s clear which way the wind is blowing.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Oh, and Jazz. But heroin certainly played it’s role in Jazz as well. Just ask John Coltrane. Oh yeah, you can’t because heroin took his life.
I don’t think heroin took Coltrane’s life. Didn’t he have liver cancer?
Pot is THE jazz drug, and playing jazz (or improvising any music) is a LOT of fun – AFAIC, it’s the best non-medical use of pot. But it’s also very misleading; if you rely on it to ‘make’ you creative (?), you will be disappointed over time, because pot will actually make you more spiritually and physically logey. I am not an anti-drug crusader or anything, but no drug makes you creative, and drugs generally make you effectively less-so.
Still should be legalized and regulated.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
fostert,
Actually there’s a long standing debate as to whether it’s the increased UV or the lack of oxygen which makes weed grown at higher altitudes more potent. Let’s just say I’ve seen repeatable experiments which have convinced me that it’s the UV light. Many indoor growers these days have taken to adding UV lights to the second half of their flowering cycle in order to increase THC concentrations.
As I understand it the issue originally emerged when it was noted that the original landrace strains with the highest THC concentrations all originated from high altitude areas of Afghanistan and northern India.
Did you grow up in Colorado? As a state we’ve always been on the very lax end of the spectrum regarding the prosecution of drug crimes. And Boulder was always notoriously so (particularly in the case of cocaine in the late 80’s through the middle 90’s). But the medicalization and subsequent decriminalization efforts in Denver seem to have really sapped any remaining resolve among Denver law enforcement officers to fight marijuana. Like Boulder, pot smoking is nearly ubiquitous in Denver.
Let’s put it this way, when you’re talking to the DA about your noise complaint, will he give you your pot back when the conversation is over?
Well, I’ve been at someone’s place when the cops arrived for a noise complaint and they didn’t even bother mentioning the bong on the table or the blunt hanging out of someone’s mouth. I also happen to know a Denver ADA who has a really unfortunate habit of threatening random people he runs into with prosecution for things like leaving their dog in their car while running into a store for a coffee or something like that. He doesn’t even bat an eye at the mention of pot.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
i don’t think matt did it right…
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
“like it’s no different than having a drink or two on a daily basis, are false and misleading.”
Umm, you’ve never seen a person with serious alcohol problems? That would be amazing for someone who deals with addiction. In fact, I’m guessing most of your clients are alcoholics. I’m pretty aware of this because I’m an alcoholic. I smoke pot because it makes me drink less. And, yes, substitution isn’t the best way to solve an addiction problem, but it’s really the only way. Therapy is an addiction, too. And it’s also a form of substitution. You substitute your bar time with therapy time. Many alcoholics I know are addicted to their therapy. And some become so addicted to their therapy that they can’t go a few hours without another session. It ends up destroying their lives as much as alcohol did. But at least they can be self righteous about it. And you can make money off of their problem.
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Three comments:
1. The arguments for legalization make a lot of sense.
2. I can’t stand the smell.
3. What about its causing testicular cancer?
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
My name is Slim, I use to smoke pot, lots of it, many years ago. I loved it, but then I didn’t love it any more and so I quit. In the end, it made me stupid and clouded my judgment. I don’t plan to ever smoke it again. But that’s me and I try not to judge other peoples drug use or behavior. I just really enjoy the clarity of though I now have, something that eluded during my drug years.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
That study had an unimpressive sample size.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
“Well, I’ve been at someone’s place when the cops arrived for a noise complaint and they didn’t even bother mentioning the bong on the table or the blunt hanging out of someone’s mouth.”
Was that my place? Oh yeah, you live in Denver. But I’ve seen that scenario many times in my own house. I have a really loud system, so this is a fairly common occurrence. There was one time they actually took my pot, but the DA gave it back to me. But I think he pinched a nug. But I’m obviously in no position to complain about that.
The UV theory is really interesting, though. I’ll ask my growers about that. They tend to use sodium vapor lights in the second phase on the theory that warmer light triggers an autumn budding response. They may be wrong, but I have to say their results are quite good.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
hatsoff: “The lack of even a single attempt to make a serious, substantive case for legalization by the pro-legalization commenters here is further evidence that their position rests on emotion and wishful thinking rather than evidence and reason.”
Has this jerk been reading the comments? Dude, literally, “no” case? In any comment? Over 100 deep?
How about it is none of your business if if smoke something that doesn’t require I smoke 15-40 of them day (cigs), or destroy my liver, and makes me happy.
Go have a Jack and Coke and beat your wife (I keed).
Honestly, I haven’t smoked in several years, more by circumstance than any moral judgent.
BTW, I would note that whenever pot decrim is on the ballot, it wins.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
“I just really enjoy the clarity of though I now have, something that eluded during my drug years.”
Good for you. Sobriety might actually be the best drug. But it’s way too intense for me. My mind races way too much when I’m sober. I just can’t keep my thoughts in line. And I smoke twice the cigarettes when I’m sober. That’s the problem with bipolar disorder. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be anything that keeps it in line. But if it works for you, then stick with it. It’ll save you money, if nothing else. And if your life is better, that’s one hell of a benefit.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
The original toker’s song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md8zNkY6F2g&feature=related
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
@hatsoff #50: NIH as a whole is fine, but NIDA as an institution is seriously charged with producing and highlighting negative information about drugs.
Note: http://www.nida.nih.gov/DrugPages/Marijuana.html
“In 2006, 25 million Americans age 12 and older had abused marijuana at least once in the year prior to being surveyed.”
So NIDA equates all use with abuse – ridiculous. They can’t even spell ganja right on the page.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Pot is not as bad as its made out to be. Sure it has bad consequences but also beneficial properties. For example, in cancer patients, it can ease pain and GI symptoms.
Health Discussion Forums
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Having lived through the 60’s I have done most drugs. But stopped when I decided it was important for me to graduate from college some year. So I haven’t smoked dope for about 3+ decades. So it’s hard to imagine someone smoking enough dope to get lung cancer assuming you need to smoke the equivalent of 3 packs of tobacco. Which in todays dope prices might be at least $1500+ per day and some serious dedication. Even Bill Maher might be challenged to smoke more than a 8+ozs of dope a day. Anyway legalization seemed like a great idea 3+ decades and sounds even more sensible now.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Zephyrus: Very very very funny. I did laugh out loud. Hiding under the bed unable to speak. Really quite remarkably true.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Mixner/hatsoff gets off from pointless contrarianism. Trolling is his addiction.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
fostert,
They are definitely spot on about using high pressure sodium lights for the flowering part of the cycle. The “warmer” red/orange part of the light spectrum emitted by HPS lights encourages fruiting in many varieties of plants. The standard indoor methodology calls for MH lights (metal halide) during the vegetative stage and HPS lights (or HPS + MH) for the flowering stage, although fluoros or CFLs are increasingly being used for vegetation as they are far more efficient.
In any case, if your connect has any interest in info about UV tell them to look through the OG archives or ICMag. They should know what I’m talking about.
Oh, I thought I would mention that DAs across the state were absolutely freaked out by a CO Supreme Court decision a couple of years ago. A couple outside of Ft Collins were busted with a ~30 plant grow. They both had expired medical marijuana cards so they were not in compliance. They were also not officially registered as care givers for anybody else. The charges were dropped by the DA because the couple were going to make a medical necessity affirmative defense and so their grow equipment and the ruined plants were returned to them. They ended up suing for the value of their destroyed plants. Best of all, they used the DEA’s utterly absurd estimation of the value of a pot plant as the basis for calculating the damages. They were eventually awarded about $250,000 which was upheld by the state’s Supreme Court. Now somebody in Aurora is now suing that city for almost $350,000 in a similar circumstance. The potential financial liability for busting a grow makes it very, very difficult to justify right now.
I plan on doing Nedfest and RockyGrass this summer. Maybe I’ll run into you. We could smoke a fatty.
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
“healthy” is a relative term. if you are smoking pot instead of cigarettes – its healthy. healthy as can be. if you are smoking pot instead of shooting heroin – its healthy. if you are smoking pot instead of drinking alcohol – its healthy. if you are smoking pot to get your appetite back – its healthy. if you are smoking pot because it relieves your glaucoma – its healthy. if you are smoking pot because it helps you sleep – its healthy.
you know, Mr. Fancy Inside the Beltway Journalist Pundit Prodigy – you should really know more about this issue. you write about it a lot, and obviously don’t know much about it, somehow, still! do some damn research!
April 4th, 2009 at 2:06 am
“I really don’t understand why the government must be our mommy.”
Because a third of our country is NAMs, and NAMs need the government to be their mommy and daddy. The kinds of mildly irresponsible behaviors that white guys with 135 IQs can engage in and still be successful can have crushingly negative consequences for a NAM with an IQ of 90.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:03 am
I’m not sure what kind of evidence hatsoff expects to be shown. I mean, you can look at the economic and political development of Mexico and realize that they are slowly losing the battle for political control against organized crime funded entirely by the US drug trade, but how are you going to conduct a control experiment? You can observe that in the Netherlands, they treat Heroin addiction as a illness not as a crime and provide free access to addicts and as a result they don’t have a problem with violent gangs in their inner cities, a prison population that is 25% of the rest of the world combined and have seen more progress reducing its usage, but maybe black people are just rotten, you know?
Examining this cost/benefit of the drug war is not like publishing budget numbers. The availability of decent control experiments is pretty limited. You need to do an extensive study to determine what the sociological causes for the problems we see in the US. You’re not going to get that in a blog comments section. I just find it difficult to believe that anyone could have any legitimate concern for all the millions of people who have been negatively effected by our drug war and not think the case was pretty compelling. You should start off by watching The Wire.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:51 am
The taxation shouldn’t track public health because there is a maximum level of taxation that can be imposed without a black market. You may be able to have a higher tax on pot than you can on tobacco even though tobacco is worse for you.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Pot has extremely useful properties as a drug for various reasons, it also has serious drawbacks considering the similarity to tobacco. I think pot should be legalized to move the enforcement issue to more potent damaging drugs — crack, freebase cocaine, and meth.
Even as a legalized substance, marijuana would be as least as regulated as tobacco, and would still present an enforcement problem — underage usage and operating various things while intoxicated.
However, it is sort of frustrating to see ridiculous arguments about the “wonderous nature” of marijuana due to useful properties, as opposed to a serious discussion about what legalization will entail.
Cocaine and opium also have amazing therapeutic uses — the functional groups in both have been used to create numerous modern pain-killing drugs; yet, no one talks about using the natural form of these drugs as some “magical elixir,” as someone noted.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Pot has extremely useful properties as a drug for various reasons, it also has serious drawbacks considering the similarity to tobacco. I think pot should be legalized to move the enforcement issue to more potent damaging drugs — crack, freebase cocaine, and meth.
Even as a legalized substance, marijuana would be as least as regulated as tobacco, and would still present an enforcement problem — underage usage and operating various things while intoxicated.
However, it is sort of frustrating to see ridiculous arguments about the “wonderous nature” of marijuana due to useful properties, as opposed to a serious discussion about what legalization will entail.
Cocaine and opium also have amazing therapeutic uses — the functional groups in both have been used to create numerous modern pain-killing drugs; yet, no one talks about using the natural form of these drugs as some “magical elixir,” as someone noted.
P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!
April 4th, 2009 at 10:12 am
The country seemed to do ok when you could buy whatever drug you wanted. No big drug cartels seizing neighboring countries. No mass graves of drug competitors — and families — found in the desert. You could buy heroin from the druggist on the corner. In the 18th and 19th century, it’s more than likely that Granny-quiet-in-the-corner was Granny-gooned-on-laudnanum.
Of course, there’s a horrible vacuity to the chemical life. But if we’re going to spend money regarding drugs, it should definitely be money spent to get people off of them.
April 4th, 2009 at 11:00 am
I blaze dank.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I’m not opposed to people using it, so long as it’s not behind the wheel or on the job. But as for me: the very smell of marijuana makes me ill – literally, I get headache-y and nauseous, so I have neither tried it nor do I plan to. Perhaps I’m allergic?
April 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I have not used any drugs for 22+ years, but I support anyone who chooses to use drugs responsibly. However, if you use drugs to the addiction stage you should not be punished for this, or incarcerated, but helped to recovery. Incarceration is not the answer, it’s treatment.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
The evidence, such as it is, suggests that tobacco smoke is much worse for you than marijuana smoke. Since marijuana smoke is heavy greasy and full of tar, this is surprising. However, while levels of tar are a good indication of the dangerousness of different brands of cigarettes, it is likely to certain that carcinogenisis is largely due to small quantities of extremely carcinogenic chemicals (e.g. Benzo-A-Pyrene sp???).
Now part of the difference is that data on marijuana consumption are hard to come by (it’s technically illegal you know). The results are retrospective with lung cancer patients and a control group matched for age etc asked to recall their marijuana consumption. There was not a statistically significant correlation in the one study I recall.
Now it is true that most deaths from cigarettes are due to heart attacks. It is not known what causes this. It could be nicotine so using nicorette to quit smoking might be pointless (or worse). Notably Obama doesn’t smoke pot but he does chew nicorette (so do I — I am a pathetic nicotine junky).
There is no evidence that marijuana causes heart disease either.
April 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
tinsoli,
Pointing out that the war on drugs has yielded zero tangible benefits
You didn’t “point out” that. You asserted it. You have produced no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion. Since the assertion is absurd on its face, this isn’t terribly surprising.
Robert Waldmann,
There is no evidence that marijuana causes heart disease either.
Marijuana Linked to Heart Disease and Depression
Quote:
April 4th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
mpowell,
You can observe that in the Netherlands, they treat Heroin addiction as a illness not as a crime
In the Netherlands, possession of even small amounts of heroin for personal use is a crime punishable by up to a year in prison. Small-scale dealing is a crime punishable by up to a year in prison for the first offence, and longer sentences for repeat offenders. Importing and exporting is punishable with imprisonment from 12 to 16 years.
April 4th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I have what I feel is the one argument against hatsoff and all the other legalization opponents. As part of this argument, I will grant all bad health effects they can come up with, all bad social effects they can come up with. And I will give a response:
Who cares?
If someone wants to poison themselves, let them. It is not your problem. So long as they do not get behind the wheel or operate machinery while high, it is not society’s problem, either. We apply this standard to cigarettes and to the most destructive drug of all history, alcohol. Hell, we even use it for guns, which are actually made to kill. Maybe it’s time we use some common sense and logic.
If someone wants to kill themselves with a drug, we should not care. They may just be someone the world is better off without.
April 4th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
“I eagerly await your comprehensive, evidence-based cost/benefit analysis of the drug war. And no, saying some version of “Everyone knows the War on Drugs has been a failure, dammit!” over and over again is not analysis.” – hatsoff
It’s amazing how easy this stuff is to find if you just take the time to look for it. Here’s the cost/benefit analysis you have requested. Also, take a look at the list of endorsing economists. It’s got some pretty prominent names attached to it.
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html
April 4th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
If someone wants to poison themselves, let them.
No, I won’t.
Does your radical libertarian position on drug policy extend to all other areas of public health and safety also? Do you favor the elimination of OSHA, consumer product safety laws, FDA regulation of food and pharmaceutical drugs, FAA regulation of airplanes, health codes for restaurants and grocery stores, etc., etc.? If someone wants to take a chance on a product that may not be safe, “let them.” That’s your mantra, right?
April 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Who’s hiding behind emotion now, hatsoff?
What you seem to ignore is that with food, and airplanes, and the workplace, and medicine, there is far less of a voluntary element. People need food, they need transportation, they need medicine, they need to go to work and earn income.
They do not need marijuana or any other recreational drug.
I also find it rather amusing that you did not attempt to engage with my argument about the harmful effects of other legal items, particularly alcohol. If you need any primers on the harmful effects of alcohol, just go to a dive bar and start debating with the wrong drunk.
April 4th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
It’s amazing how easy this stuff is to find if you just take the time to look for it.
Then produce it.
Here’s the cost/benefit analysis you have requested.
No it isn’t. It estimates only the law enforcement and tax revenue costs of marijuana prohibition. It offers no estimate of the benefits at all. And it offers no cost or benefit estimates for any other kind of drug or for the “War on Drugs” overall.
April 4th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
People need food, they need transportation, they need medicine, they need to go to work and earn income.
So what? If individuals should be free to consume whatever dangerous “recreational” drugs they like, why shouldn’t they free to consume whatever other products and services they like? According to you, if they make bad choices we just shouldn’t care, because “they may just be someone the world is better off without.” And your premise isn’t true, anyway. No one “needs” to eat in restaurants. No one “needs” to fly on airplanes. No one “needs” to buy toys for their children.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
On the other hand, hatsoff, you do not seem to consider some of the costs of our drug policy. They are effectively hidden, as they take place in other countries.
For instance, the article linked in the post itself gives great attention to large scale violence in Mexico and other parts of Central America that are generated by the drug war. If you want to keep marijuana and other drugs illegal, you are effectively saying, “I am willing to have thousands of foreigners die so that my concerns about drug use in America are assuaged.” This may not necessarily be your goal, but it is the concrete result.
One cannot wonder if your perspective on the issue would be somewhat different if you lived in a country where people like “The Soupmaker” were part of everyday life.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“No one “needs” to fly on airplanes.”
That’s right, hatsoff, people can just walk on their business trips from New York or Los Angeles. Or to go see their parents in another country. That makes real sense.
What you seem to be afraid of is people taking responsibility for their actions…what a pity.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
that’s some great stuff hatsoff — you are absolutely right… people don’t “need” transportation, medicine, work or income. In all cases they might make life more enjoyable as defined by the ability to choose between more courses of action.
However, there is no reason top go back to the Jeffersonian Ideals of individuals living as an farmers, with the same technology that existed B.C.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
expatriate,
If individuals should be free to consume whatever dangerous “recreational” drugs they like, why shouldn’t they free to consume whatever other products and services they like? According to you, if they make bad choices we just shouldn’t care, because “they may just be someone the world is better off without.”
April 4th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Hatsoff,
You seem to be very reluctant to engage with the issue of the effects of the drug war upon foreign countries. Maybe that’s a bit more difficult than complaining about one statement I made.
Also, how are you helping people by imprisoning them with more dangerous criminals?
April 4th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“No it isn’t. It estimates only the law enforcement and tax revenue costs of marijuana prohibition. It offers no estimate of the benefits at all. And it offers no cost or benefit estimates for any other kind of drug or for the “War on Drugs” overall.” – hatsoff
Tax revenue is a benefit, not a cost. It’s money that is currently being used to smuggle the goods that could instead be used to help support the government. See Section IV of the paper I linked for an explanation. Until such time as you provide alternative evidence, similar cost/benefit effects for other prohibited drugs besides marijuana should be assumed. Thus, we can make a general assumption that the War on Drugs is a failure by extrapolating from the microcosm of the failures of marijuana prohibition considering that marijuana is the single biggest factor on the War on Drugs. Also, the primary focus of debate has been about legalizing marijuana, not other drugs.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
So now hatsoff is saying “Put the carrot down and back slowly away from it…sure, you grew it in your own garden, but you didn’t have it inspected by the FDA.” (@ 132)
Looks to me like hatsoff is suffering from his trolling addiction. I saw in Reader’s Digest where some people have died from sitting at the computer for too long. And what would happen if hatsoff kept trolling while he was driving? I’m thinking we need to have a law.
Probably the best thing would be to force hatsoff to get treatment when that trolling addiction gets out of control. No need to split hairs here, waiting for the trolling comments to get obviously florid- just set a reasonable limit, like ten comments a day, and after that- off to the looney bin. That’s still a lot more slack than you get under zero tolerance.
Sure, we all assume the trolls are paid to troll- but think of how sad it would be if they were real people, locked in some Dr. Demento universe that makes them do what they do. We need to realize they may be sick out-of-control people who need counseling and boundaries.
I’m not saying lock him up- that would be cruel and wasteful. I am saying hatsoff has more mental problems than any pot smoker I’ve ever known. Let’s not let his addiction grow to the point where it becomes fatal.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
David C,
Tax revenue is a benefit, not a cost.
You have misunderstood your own citation. The tax revenues in question are revenues foregone through prohibition. Those foregone tax revenues are counted as a cost of prohibition. They would be a benefit of legalization.
Until such time as you provide alternative evidence, similar cost/benefit effects for other prohibited drugs besides marijuana should be assumed.
As I said, the paper you cited does not estimate the benefits of marijuana prohibition. Only the costs. I have no idea why you think you are justified in assuming that the cost/benefit effects of prohibition are similar for all drugs.
April 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Hats off to serial catowner-no pun intended.
As to you, hatsoff, I’m still waiting for responses to my alcohol and foreign countries arguments.
April 4th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Hi Hatsoff,
While I was out having a fun Saturday with the kids, you appear to have been at your computer all day being obstinately contrary. I’d agree with several others above that trolling seems to cause amotivational syndrome.
Why don’t we create an easy reference list of the pros and cons of cannabis prohibition, granting your seeming conviction that mere use is negative in and of itself.
PROS:
Some undetermined number of people do not use cannabis or use less than they otherwise would.
Moral crusaders feel good.
CONS:
Appreciable contribution to absurdly high rates of incarceration and judicial supervision.
Disproportionate incarceration of minorities.
Steady erosion of a proponderance of amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Police militarization and attendant casualties.
Police corruption through “testilying”, asset forfeiture, and temptation to take part in black market or rip off drug dealers.
Cannabis products that may be adulterated and are unlabeled for strength. Relative lack of alternative low-strength or non-smoked products.
Foreign policy that creates undesirable outcomes in source/transit countries.
Black market violence.
Everybody- please add the cons; I honestly can’t think of any more pros to cannabis prohibition even granting hatsoff’s priors.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
widow,
I was out having a fun Saturday with the kids
You have my sympathies.
Do or don’t you have a serious cost-benefit analysis of marijuana prohibition? A simple list of what you what you imagine to be pros and cons of the policy is not a serious cost benefit analysis.
April 4th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
As others have pointed out already. What about the externalities (or lack there of) when cooked/ingested?
April 4th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Hatsoff, you mean that my list of cons is imagined if there is not a formal cost/benefit analysis out there that explicitly incorporates them? Just how would you value, say, degradation of the Bill of Rights for such an analysis anyway?
April 4th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Hatsoff, you mean that my list of cons is imagined if there is not a formal cost/benefit analysis out there that explicitly incorporates them?
No, I mean your list of cons is imagined if you can’t produce evidence for them. And of course, simply showing that the cons you list are real would not demonstrate that they outweigh the pros. For that, you’d need to provide some sort of serious cost-benefit analysis that assigns a value to each of them.
If the case for legalization is so clear and compelling, if legalization would clearly be a better policy than prohibition, why are you having such a hard time demonstrating that with facts and evidence and empirical analysis?
April 4th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
If we were debating the existence of god, hatsoff would be the believer who insists that it is on the non-believers to disprove the existence of god.
April 4th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
hatsoff: “The lack of even a single attempt to make a serious, substantive case for legalization by the pro-legalization commenters here is further evidence that their position rests on emotion and wishful thinking rather than evidence and reason.”
This is our friend hatsoff last night, I’m sure, in his/her mind there still haven’t been any “substantive” remarks 150 comments deep.
Dude, it’s simple–is jail appropriate for weed users, and/or is jail appropriate for alcohol users?
And please explain any distinction you make.
April 4th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Just to note: comment 146 says it all about Mixner.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:08 am
And, you know, in general?
April 5th, 2009 at 2:27 am
Well, hatsoff, according to you I didn’t win the great cost-benefit ratio wumpus hunt. I wash my hands of you and turn my attention to persuading the 14% of “don’t knows” that stand between the status quo and electoral majority to support ending cannabis prohibition. See ya on the flipside.
April 5th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Спасибо за эту информацию, однако осмелюсь внести долю критики, мне кажется автор перестарался с изложением фактов, и статья получилась довольно академичной и “сухой”.
April 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Hatsoff’s whining about the failure to produce a cost benefit analysis is just meant to distract from his / her failure to answer questions about the distinction between alcohol and marijuana and the effects of our policies upon foreign countries.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
wash my hands of you and turn my attention to persuading the 14% of “don’t knows” that stand between the status quo and electoral majority to support ending cannabis prohibition. See ya on the flipside.
I’m not sure where your 14% comes from. Of course, simply because a majority of Americans supports a position doesn’t mean it is likely to become law. Majorities have long favored stricter gun control, but that hasn’t translated into actual changes in gun laws. It’s not just a matter of how many people support a position, but how strongly they feel about it. Support for tougher gun laws is widespread but relatively weak, whereas opposition to tougher gun laws is more limited but also more passionate. So the opponents tend to have more political influence. It’s the NRA types who control the issue.
I suspect the same is true with respect to the legalization of marijuana. Supporters are mostly rather ambivalent while opponents tend to feel more strongly. I agree with Nate Silver that marijuana is unlikely to be legalized until support for legalization reaches a supermajority rather than just a simple majority. Silver thinks that if the current trend continues rather than stalling or reversing (a big if), this might happen around 2022 or 2023. You’ve probably got a long wait for that flipside.
The irony is that I don’t even care much if marijuana is legalized. The current law isn’t particularly strong on simple possession, anyway. Possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use rarely results in jail time. And any plausible change in the law is likely to be very limited. Even if it were no longer prohibited, marijuana would almost certainly be regulated much more strongly than alcohol and tobacco. In fact, it might even become harder to obtain than it is now, if it’s taxed and controlled strongly enough. You’re not going to see a weed section in your local grocery store. And legalization of harder drugs like cocaine and heroin and lsd is just wildly plausible.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
…just wildly implausible.
April 5th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I tried marijuana back in my youth. I don’t like it in social situations…turns my verbal brain off. The only situation it was really really fun (a situation I, alas, wasn’t in often) was sex. Maybe that’s why the right-wing hates it so much?
April 5th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
The Fool hits the bong and digs it.
I now understand young Matthew’s crappy taste in music.
April 5th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Contrary to what some biological luddites said above, it is perfectly to possible to hit the bong and have what is, even by yuppie standards, a successful career.
I smoked dope all through grad school, had a huge GPA and was awarded fellowships, got an excellent, high-paying job that entails lots of high level analysis and serious ass-kicking hours and responsibility, and I’ve risen close to the top of my field.
And I did it while smoking dope almost every day.
I know lots of other people with similar stories: people who are saving your life when you end up in the emergency room, counseling you when you have psychiatric problems, running major corporations, advising your government, enforcing your laws, drilling your teeth, teaching your children, saving the earth etc. etc.
April 5th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Contrary to what some biological luddites said above, it is perfectly to possible to hit the bong and have what is, even by yuppie standards, a successful career.
I’m sure that is possible. Just as it’s possible to smoke tobacco every day and still live to be 100. It doesn’t alter the fact that research has found that marijuana has serious adverse health effects. This includes adverse neurological effects. Marijuana use is also associated with lower educational outcomes and lower career success.
April 5th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
14% of respondents in the latest round of cannabis polling said “don’t know”. I saw Silver’s analysis too, and he relied on a simple straight-line projection from current trends. However, the legalization issue is now breaking into the foreground, for once, putting the 14% into play.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:48 am
White Widow, self-respecting moral crusaders who have done the math don’t feel good about prohibitions. The mentally weak (and who among us has unlimited mental strength?) might, but honestly, how can that belong in the ‘pro’ column?
There is an advantage to the prison guards’ union, for example, that they employ more during prohibition, but I’m not sure the courts are all that willing to recognize that. So we have to get Congress involved. Here are some ways I think most people can help:
1. Prohibit the Federal Reserve from paying interest on excess reserve deposits. That disrupts the economy.
2. Stop using depleted uranium. It’s absurdly toxic and its toxicity has been absurdly ignored for 60 years.
3. Start shopping mortgage cram-downs and the Employee Free Choice Act around in especially hard-hit Republican enclaves, to see if they would be willing to trade any earmarks like aid to fix their problems.
4. Offer a public choice of universal health care, including preventative (i.e., no deductibles, no co-pays) care — which has a bang-per-buck ratio of 1.40.
5. Simplify the tax code to be highly progressive, with the lower bracket of 0%, and the upper bracket of whatever it takes to pay for all this, with the cusp set such that 95% of the people get a tax cut. Teacher salaries should be doubled, class sizes should be halved, double the physical plant space should be built, research science should be robustly funded at the colleges and universities, and in general the education budget shouldn’t look like a blip on the radar compared to the defense budget.
6. Try to get the atmospheric concentration of CO2 back to 350 ppm. Mostly this can be done by subsidizing wind power and lithium. Wind energy should be subsidized with a floating subsidy, such that wind always costs a fraction of the least expensive fossil fuel.
7. Lithium subsidization should be performed primarily though orders of plug-in hybrid vehicles, because transportation is about half the carbon budget.
8. We can also use technology like http://ice-energy.com/ to balance the load from intermittent wind.
9. Alcohol and nicotine prohibition makes a lot more sense than marijuana prohibition. However, it seems to me that if you had to pick one of the three, marijuana would not be it. All the victimless crimes (”crimes against society”) should be charged only in proportion to their actual harm (local District Attorneys may need our help with these aspects.)
10. Banking reform should include strong anti-trust actions to create reasonably sized, competitive banks. Usury should be eliminated, as a means of breaking up the largest of the banks. Anti-trust laws should be firmly enforced against any monopolies or collusions.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Отличная новость ! Подняло настроение…
April 6th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Очень неплохо! Надеюсь увидеть у вас ещё посты на эту же тему!
April 8th, 2009 at 4:11 am
Огромное спасибо за интересуню информацию. Автор молодец что часто обновляет блог новыми статьями…
April 11th, 2009 at 5:15 am
Странно, почему никто не обсуждает эту публикацию ? Тема ведь интересная…
April 14th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I do not know what many of you think but the subject of marijuana/cannabis legalization is a thorny one indeed. Although pot is widely used, almost as much as cofee/alcohol/tabacco. . An interesting site I have found on this subject is http://LegalPot.com. If you wanna know more about this topic visit this link (i liked the section on growing your own pot a LOT).