House of Eratosthenes

My wife and I signed a marijuana decriminalization petition one evening around 1980 for a group that acted like they had fallen out of a Cheech and Chong movie. They asked if we could contribute a joint or two to the cause. They were utterly shocked when we told them: “We don’t smoke pot.” They just could not imagine that anyone would support decriminalization without a more personal interest.

There’s no question that making drugs illegal creates serious problems for our criminal justice system. It clogs the courts, it corrupts police officers and government officials, and it funds some really sleazy people. All of this is true — but it turns out that there are some substantial social costs on the other side that simply don’t get any attention…

A surprising number of scholarly studies in the last 25 years have demonstrated that marijuana use seems to cause an increase in psychoses such as schizophrenia, and somewhat less dramatic mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder.

I’ve long been of the opinion that marijuana’s effect as a “gateway drug” has been discredited and dismissed prematurely, much like the Laffer Curve, the communist infiltration of the U.S. Government, and the eminent terrorist threat of Saddam Hussein’s regime. When, where and how did it become laughable and chuckle-worthy to view pot this way? Can any of the chucklers tell me? Where and how is this line drawn between Mary Jane and the “tougher” stuff?

I have also been of the view that this hallucinogen creates a lot more of what we already have in abundance, and whittles down what is unappreciated and scarce. It thrives off of, and in so doing fortifies, an addictive personality.

The arguments I hear in favor of legalization only enforce this. Statements like “We could tax it and pay off the deficit overnight” demonstrate, to me, an obvious lack of appreciation for mathematical realities and magnitudes (in addition to a lack of interest in using the proper terms). Normal people would present the same argument as something much, much milder, like “With the economy the way it is now, those tax dollars sure would come in handy.” That would inspire some Thing I Know #328 inspired indignation from Yours Truly, along with other bristling inspired by Thing I Know #335. But at least it would not carry such a palpable scorn against the timeless essential of measuring things.

As it is, I carry the uninformed opinion — and it’s been tested and re-tested, so how uninformed is it, really — that this substance knocks the Architect/Medicator balance way out of whack. It is an elixir that turns Architects into Medicators. We need more of this — how?

I still support states’-rights on this issue. But in my own little corner of the world, I’m a-votin’ no.

Ya’ now what else is a “gateway” , the original “gateway”? Milk. All, yes I said all, heroin addicts started on milk, some even on Mother’s milk. Let’s ban milk NOW!

Makes as much sense as pot being a “gateway” to harder drugs. I’ve known, and know, many pot users (contrary to another misconception, many are highly educated professionals) who have never ended up addicted to, or in the least ever used, harder drugs.

I respect your position Morgan, and those of who share your position, and it’s not as simple, as many try, to merely legalizing pot like beer or cigarettes, but the one thing I always come back to is this – how’s that “War on Drugs” working out for ya’?

Your big on doing away with programs that don’t work and rightfully so, and I agree 99% percent of the time. But what about this one? Should we just continue on wasting money and resources for what little results it achieves? There has got to be a better way. No?

Lastly, I know you enjoy a beer or two. Do you not agree that Man, since we’ve been on this wonderful planet, has a desire to alter his reality, one way or another, to some extent, for various reasons. As long as it doesn’t affect you (and that’s key), in any shape or form, why do you care?
- tim | 03/04/2010 @ 10:38
Makes as much sense as pot being a “gateway” to harder drugs. I’ve known, and know, many pot users (contrary to another misconception, many are highly educated professionals) who have never ended up addicted to, or in the least ever used, harder drugs.

Anecdotal evidence tim, do you know every single pot smoker out there? My experience with pot smokers has been entirely of the college student demographic, most of whom are the ghetto/underachieving type, does my anecdotal evidence disprove yours?

The prosecution of the War on Drugs has probably been bungled badly, like every other government adventure, but I’m not convinced that legalizing all drugs would end the drug trade nor its profitability to those like the drug cartels. The new domestic producers will have to abide by the new laws, which raises their bottom line, and the cartels can always undercut them. Then what? The new laws will have to be enforced against the drug cartels, and what will have really changed?
- KG | 03/04/2010 @ 11:28
The new domestic producers will have to abide by the new laws, which raises their bottom line, and the cartels can always undercut them. Then what? The new laws will have to be enforced against the drug cartels, and what will have really changed?

That was my question for Tim, Andy, and others who showed up to debate this topic the last time it came up on these pages. I never did receive a satisfactory response.

but the one thing I always come back to is this – how’s that “War on Drugs” working out for ya’?

…yes, and forest fires still break out every year despite our best efforts to quash those, as well. Maybe we should just give up and retire the air tankers and fire engines. Clearly the War on Forest Fires is not working.

Even if you reject the analogy, the fact remains that the “harder” drugs would remain illegal. Legalizing heroin, cocaine, LSD, and meth isn’t even on the table. We’d continue to have the same problems with those that we’re having with pot right now – you know, all these “excesses” we hear about associated with the Drug War: civil liberty violations by the police and government, excessive law enforcement resources devoted to prosecuting and imprisoning drug suspects…not to mention the crime that is generated by people desperate to find money to buy drugs. Right? Right?

(Oh? What’s that? Pot would just be the first step? News flash. Amsterdam is a freakin’ sewer. You are NOT turning American cities into that place.)

I’m with Morgan. I’ve always been against this. “Pot is everywhere already; my five year old can find it if he wants to,” they say. Really? REALLY? Even if I believed that, I’m next supposed to believe that legalizing the stuff is supposed to make this problem go away? Bringing the sale of pot out into the open, licensing dealers, and/or making a pharmacologically pure version available for sale to the public, is going to mean we’re going to have LESS of it than we do now?

Only licensed growers may produce or process it? (It will still be growing in our wilderness areas and in people’s back yards.)
Only licensed dealers may sell? (Unlicensed dealers will still exist, as they do now.)
Only certain individuals with qualifying conditions may buy? (Anyone who wants it may purchase it, just as now.)

The problem is that any restrictions you place on the production, sale, transportation, or distribution of pot…is going to lead us right back where we we are now.

And my other question that nobody’s been able to answer – if the arguments in favor of removing the existing restrictions on pot make sense, why does nobody see fit to apply this same logic to firearms?

You want to make it a states’ rights issue? Okay. I’m voting ‘no’ in this state. I certainly did when California passed Prop 15 back in 1996. Course, you’re going to have to convince the feds to start actually honoring the 10th Amendment first. Clinton’s DOJ announced it would continue prosecuting pot growers caught in this state. Heh.
- cylarz | 03/04/2010 @ 12:14
Come on KC, did I say I knew every pot smoker?

But since you brought it up, the pot smokers you know, the “ghetto/underachieving type” are they hurting anyone? (Besides themselves, yadda, yadda…)

“The new domestic producers will have to abide by the new laws, which raises their bottom line, and the cartels can always undercut them.”

And you evidence to support such a theory is…what? ‘Cause mine, to support just the opposite, is the repeal of prohibition. How many moon shiners are still out there KC?

cylarz,

Your comments deserve more time than I have this afternoon. I will try hard to answer tomorrow. ‘Cause you know I have something to say.
- tim | 03/04/2010 @ 14:28
I must have said something last time to make you think I want pot legalized – my bad. I certainly do not. I did leave a comment about this on here about 8 hours ago, but I must have done something wrong (me? never), because it still isn’t here.

In any case, cylarz, I’m with you all the way. I always have a “not that one again” moment when I hear the part about how it isn’t hurting anyone else. As if all pot smokers exist individually on odd solitary planes of existence where friends and family have no interest in what they are doing. And where society isn’t affected by an injection of more generally listless and less capable citizens.

A big difference I see between casual drinkers and casual smokers (and the booze always gets brought up, it might as well be me this time) is that casual drinkers have a time and a place. Casual smokers are more than happy to go to work high, get a little recharge on break, generally keep the ball rolling all day long. I sure as hell don’t see that tendency decreasing if it becomes legal. And that can’t possibly be a good thing for businesses that are interested in staying alive.
- Andy | 03/04/2010 @ 14:30
Good to hear, Andy. My apologies for misunderstanding you.
- cylarz | 03/04/2010 @ 14:31
A surprising number of scholarly studies in the last 25 years have demonstrated that marijuana use seems to cause an increase in psychoses such as schizophrenia, and somewhat less dramatic mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder.

Ah, those “scholarly studies”, like Keynsian economics. And anthropogenic global warming.

Bah!

Sorry, I’m for Liberty and Personal Responsibility. Education? You bet. Know what you’re getting in to.

As for “taxing it and paying off the debt overnight” … even if that were true, that has nothing to do with why I support it. It’s just none of the government’s … especially the Federal Government’s … goddam business.

Oh, and I don’t smoke it, either.

And the same arguments apply to tobacco and booze.

Legalize it. Let’s punish actual crimes against actual people, not private life behavior we don’t approve of.
- philmon | 03/04/2010 @ 15:20
First, I’m not KC, I’m KG. :p

And you evidence to support such a theory is…what? ‘Cause mine, to support just the opposite, is the repeal of prohibition.

Economics 101. Abiding by regulations costs money, hence the raising of a business’ bottom line.

I don’t think legalizing marijuana is the panacea you seem to think it is. The harder drugs will still be there and the laws against them will still have to be enforced. Personally, I am ambivalent about legalizing pot, but I’m tending towards Morgan’s position, mainly because I do not see much benefit from such a course of action.

Honestly, I don’t get how people can stand the smell of pot, it’s like having a football player stuff your face in his armpit after a game.
- KG | 03/04/2010 @ 20:57
With ya all the way, KG.

Here’s my view. I probably could get behind legalization, even full blown legal for recreational (rather than just medicinal) use. That is, IF I had some kind of iron-clad assurance or other good reason to believe…that it would stay where it belongs – in the privacy of people’s homes. In a perfect world, it would be marketed and sold only to those who can use it responsibly, as people are supposed to do with any other age-restricted product. You know, consenting adults, what people do behind closed doors is their business, and all that good stuff.

Then again, that’s not the kind of world we live in, and there’s plenty of abuse of the drugs that are already legal. If there weren’t, nobody would ever have heard of Mothers Against Drunk Driving or sobriety checkpoints. (For that matter, we wouldn’t “need” a 10-day waiting period and background check on a rusty, 60-year-old bolt action hunting rifle.) Alcohol probably kills more people in this state every year than guns do, but I digress.

My next-door neighbor enjoys toking up on a regular basis. The guy always seems half-baked most every time I talk to him, and he seems kind of lost in the purple haze the rest of the time too. But he’s a nice guy, very friendly, and even though I oppose legalization, I really do not care what he does with the stuff in his own house, garage, or backyard. I don’t even mind having the guy over for some BBQ. My only request is that he keeps the cannabis off my property and away from my family, for a variety of legal and moral reasons. I’m not going to turn him in unless he starts getting pushy, aggressive, or annoying…and pot smokers generally have a reputation for being mellow.

I also could get behind legalization if I had any reason to think it really would drive the Mexican cartels out of business…you know, the ones setting booby traps for pot gardens hidden up in the mountains. (The ones that cause innocent hikers and hunters to get injured, killed and shot at by malevolent foreign nationals.) Word is, they’ve moved their operations further away from the US-Mexico border because of better security there under the Bush Administration, but they no longer have to bother with getting bricks of cannabis past the Border Patrol because they’re already here. And problem is, they’d still making a killing selling ol’ Mary Jane to anyone who isn’t supposed to have it under the new laws. You know, the guy with the “undiagnosed” glaucoma or terminal illness. Or are those pot clubs down in Berzerk-ley now selling to anyone who asks?

Finally, I’d be willing to let these guys toke up to their hearts’ content if I weren’t later on going to be fleeced as a taxpayer in the process. Specifically, supporting these people after they become incapable of holding a job, or treating any medical conditions arising from pot use. You know, like how we today treat emphysema and a dozen different kinds of cancer brought on by decades of smoking cigarettes? As Ann Coulter said, “But back on Earth, you see, we live in a country where we don’t allow people to pay for the consequences of their actions.” It’s just like with helmet laws, though it probably would have been easier to ban motorcycles altogether.

No, a joint now and then probably won’t kill you, but thirty years’ of steady use, on the other hand….I’m sorry, but I don’t believe this nonsense about the plant being “harmless” or even less harmful than tobacco.

I don’t think legalizing cannabis would bring hasten the downfall of Western civilization any more than ending Prohibition did, but I also don’t buy into the argument that all our society’s problems with drugs are going to magically disappear just because pot is no longer illegal. I don’t even see it happening over a period of years, and it might exacerbate some existing problems or even create new ones – like making it even easier for kids to get ahold of than it supposedly is right now. (They get people to buy booze for them, don’t they?)

Tim…Phil….you guys are smart, I know you mean well, and I mean only the utmost respect toward you both.
- cylarz | 03/05/2010 @ 00:39
As long as it doesn’t affect you, in any shape or form, why do you care?

I’m far less accepting of this now than I used to be.

The older I get, the more convinced I am that if we are interconnected in any way at all, we are most concretely interconnected by means of our readiness, willingness and ability to recognize reality and respond to it. My fellow countrymen think absurd things, like we’re killing the planet and have to stop “emitting”…or that all murderers can be rehab’d if we merely wish them to be…or that wars would end overnight if only the ladies ran everything…or that socialism isn’t that bad…or there is no terrorist threat…or Obama’s gonna change us for the better, or that His health care plan will save so much money it will pay for itself.

I still think, in most aspects of the human experience, we are on an island. Or we can be on one, if we wish to be. But when it comes to living in reality, it seems difficult or perhaps impossible for one guy to opt out without yanking a whole bunch of unwilling others along for the ride. I still have an open mind about this, but this is the direction my thoughts take over the last few years, so I’m not accepting the premise of your question.

Should we just continue on wasting money and resources for what little results it achieves? There has got to be a better way. No?

Just to reiterate what I have said before: Constitutionally, the federal government has absolutely no role to play here and it is an encroachment upon our founding document, on par with or superior to any other. You’re preaching to the choir on this one. Legalizing pot, legalizing prostitution, free right turn on red — these are local issues.
- mkfreeberg | 03/05/2010 @ 07:22
I probably could get behind legalization, even full blown legal for recreational (rather than just medicinal) use. That is, IF I had some kind of iron-clad assurance or other good reason to believe…that it would stay where it belongs – in the privacy of people’s homes.

Expand that to “private property on which the behavior is approved” and I’ll go along with you. Toss in consideration for intoxication levels in public places where alchohol is not prohibited, and I’ll sign on the dotted line right now. If you can smoke or drink and behave yourself — and by that I mean obey local laws concerning peace disturbance & lewdness … it’s the associated behavior that’s bad (and in general drunken behavior is much worse than stoned behavior where pot is concerned) … the deal is, what’s against the law is against the law, and intoxication level is no excuse. Personal Responsibility.

I don’t like the idea of The Division of Pre-Crime, which laws like this essentially mimic.

Constitutionally, the federal government has absolutely no role to play here and it is an encroachment upon our founding document, on par with or superior to any other. You’re preaching to the choir on this one. Legalizing pot, legalizing prostitution, free right turn on red — these are local issues.

Obi-Wan has taught you well.

This is exactly the point. It turns out it is constitutional for states and sublocalities to have their own laws on things that don’t fall under the Constitution (see amendments #9 & #10).

And just as states and communities can oultaw it, states and communities can choose to go back to the pre-prohibition days when it wasn’t illegal. People seem to forget that Pot isn’t something that was just naturally illegal in the universe and now there are people who want to reverse the laws of nature. It was made illegal pretty recently and there are those people who are saying [John_Edwards_Voice]”why?”[/John_Edwards_Voice]

It didn’t seem to hurt the American Indians any. Probably because they were expected by their elders and tribes to be responsible Human Beings.

The whole “its gonna cost us” argument to me just underscores the arguments against socialized medicine and welfare.

Personal Responsibility. Gotta Getcha Some. 🙂
- philmon | 03/05/2010 @ 08:14
We shall not flog dead draft animals except to say we both have seen this movie before, Morgan, and we know the plot backwards and forwards… which is to say personal liberty and responsibilities, a la Phil, and personal experience, a la me. I don’t smoke it any longer due to health issues but I would if I could. I did alright in a “professional” career as a closet pot-smoker and so did my closeted friends and professional associates.
- bpenni | 03/05/2010 @ 12:46
The issue with legalization has become essentially a red herring. In the 35 years I’ve lived in California, de facto legalization has been the order of the day. It’s over, folks, they won. The only question is how we deal with the consequences – which brings me to the endless argument of the libertarians among us who say it’s nobody’s bidness what I do.

I would hazard a guess that none of the above have ever lived in an area where pot cultivation and sale under the rubric of “Medical Marijuana” is a significant part of the local economy. I have. The local level of casual criminality is staggering; whether or not weed acts as a “gateway” to the use of harder drugs is immaterial. The Mexican drug cartels have already made billions off marijuana plantations in the US, and somehow I doubt they intend the profits to be spent on community centers. Along with the importation of untold numbers of illegals to work the crop, the cartels have brought along the greater percentage of those involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and just coincidentally, I never met a tweaker who didn’t smoke pot too.

You can’t avoid it, it’s already here. A few days ago a fifth-grader in Pittsburg was busted for bringing pot-laced “candy” to school. She unblushingly admitted she knew what it was, having gotten it from her older sister who bought it at a “dispensary.” The response of the cops was to try to determine whether her sister had a prescription to buy it. Period.

The contention that marijuana is still just “a harmless social drug” that doesn’t affect non-users is bullshit. It’s got the punch of Class I narcotics in its present incarnation, and the California income from illegal marijuana is almost twice that of vegetables and grapes combined. It ain’t gonna go away, and prohibition will have about the same effect as outlawing guns will have on gangsters. Better smarten up, boys.

http://washingtonrebel.typepad.com/washington_rebel/2010/03/they-dont-call-it-dope-for-nothing.html
- rob | 03/05/2010 @ 13:03
And anecdotes lose much of their exculpatory appeal, when there is a culture built up around the use of the substance. There certainly is a culture built up around the use of pot. One consumer out of three may not subscribe to the culture…or maybe even two out of three. Nevertheless, it is still there in both perception and in effect.

The professionals who simply want to take the edge off a stressful work day, ironically enough, cause me the greatest concern. They don’t look like Cheech and Chong…they don’t live life that way…but they do borrow from some of the culture. It’s got to do with a more mellow emotional response to whatever comes along, right? Don’t sweat the small stuff, and it’s all small stuff. Things do not happen because of other things.

When I drink alcohol, the sensation I have is that the day’s work is done — and the sensation results in my consumption of the substance, not the other way around. I do not want to quaff down four beers before digging into some work I brought home. I do not have a feeling of “I should start imbibing in the morning instead of the evening, and go to work feeling this way, I’d be a much better employee.” Even if I had a problem with abusing the substance, that impression would not be part of it, consciously or otherwise.

And yet pot smokers say things like this almost as a matter of routine: I’m as good at what I do, after I smoke a joint, than otherwise…maybe even better. With some of them, I get the impression they really do believe they can do a superior job after they have partaken. Perhaps that’s even true. But if that is the case, then that is almost a satisfactory definition of an abuse problem. It’s certainly part of a good definition: “I’d have a much better time coping with this challenge if I had my stash with me.”

If I got to that point with liquor, wine or beer…it would be time for some serious action to be taken. It would be too thick of a lens through which to view life. YMMV, but it’s not an exotic or unique concept that “happy hour” keeps its appeal when happy hour is one of the final hours. I’m sure you’re hip to that much at least — playtime after work, is made somewhat less pleasurable if work doesn’t feel like work. You can’t go through life taking the edge off everything, or else you’re living less of it.
- mkfreeberg | 03/05/2010 @ 13:08
Sorry, the preceding was a response to Buck, not to WR.
- mkfreeberg | 03/05/2010 @ 13:10
Morgan,

Your describing a very small percentage of pot users and certainly not anyone I know or have ever meet (which means it’s everyone or anyone meet by KG). Small business owners, Lawyers (insert joke), former cop, Professors (insert joke)…not exactly jobs one wants to be stoned on.

KGeee,

“Economics 101. Abiding by regulations costs money, hence the raising of a business’ bottom line.”

Which certainly explains all those bootleggers that keep trying to sell their stuff to me when I walk down the street. Obviously their overhead is lower than the liquor store on the corner..

I don’t keeping marijuana illegal is the panacea you seem to think it is. The harder drugs ARE here and the laws against STILL are not working… and the debate over where do we go from here rages on…year after year…

(Just for the record, I’m agnostic about hard drugs be legalized and certainly not in the same manner as pot, if it were to be that is.)

Again, how’s that WAR on Drugs working for ya’? Yup, let’s just keep doing what isn’t working, at least it makes everyone FEEEEEL good.

“Honestly, I don’t get how people can stand the smell of pot, it’s like having a football player stuff your face in his armpit after a game.”

No doubt there’s a few whackos who like the smell of a football player’s armpit after a game…now THEY should be locked up.
- tim | 03/05/2010 @ 13:47
The professionals who simply want to take the edge off a stressful work day, ironically enough, cause me the greatest concern. They don’t look like Cheech and Chong…they don’t live life that way…but they do borrow from some of the culture. It’s got to do with a more mellow emotional response to whatever comes along, right? Don’t sweat the small stuff, and it’s all small stuff. Things do not happen because of other things.
And yet pot smokers say things like this almost as a matter of routine: I’m as good at what I do, after I smoke a joint, than otherwise…maybe even better.

I know people who do the same thing with alchohol (I’ve actually worked with one). What do you do about these people? If they’re not doing their work or its quality is not up to par, you fire their asses and don’t punish the people who can drink (or smoke) responsibly.

Part of the problem is that the only people you know are smoking are the irresponsible ones. It alters your sample. The responsible ones are understandably going to be discreet and mum about it.

Hell, I’ve been known to have a beer at lunch during a workday.
- philmon | 03/05/2010 @ 13:51
Part of the problem is that the only people you know are smoking are the irresponsible ones. It alters your sample. The responsible ones are understandably going to be discreet and mum about it.

Truer words and all that. My personal experience is with responsible, discreet users. Which is not to say I haven’t known my fair share of Cheech and Chong stereotypes, coz I have. But that was in the way-back before I grew up, so to speak. The thing that chaps my ass is ignorant people trotting out stereotypes and thinking that makes their point. I say “ignorant” in the sense they don’t have personal knowledge of the responsible user community… and how can they? They’ve never partaken and most likely never will. Yet they feel qualified to pontificate on something they know precious little about. I’m quite sure there’s something about this in your voluminous catalog of “Things You Know,” Morgan. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t… but I have neither the time nor the inclination to suss that out. You can do that for me and doubtless you WILL. That’s your rice-bowl, after all.

So… we’ll fall back on the personal and the anecdotal. I’ve shared spliffs with doctors, lawyers, nurses, cops, senior management types (directors and at least one VP), commissioned and non-commissioned officers, and maybe one Indian Chief… the list goes on. All of which were responsible and successful people, YrHmblScrb included. And like tim sez: “How’s that War On Drugs workin’ out for ya?” Answer: it frickin’ ISN’T, other than perpetuating a massive bureaucracy designed to perpetuate itself…. in addition to causing immeasurable pain among otherwise respectable members of a contributing society who had the misfortune of getting caught up in the dragnet.

Dead horse, flogged. Sometimes we just can’t resist, even when our better instincts tell us we should.
- bpenni | 03/05/2010 @ 15:07
The thing that chaps my ass is ignorant people trotting out stereotypes and thinking that makes their point. I say “ignorant” in the sense they don’t have personal knowledge of the responsible user community… and how can they?

That, Morgan, in case you missed it, is a response to your third-order effect argument concerning “mellow responses” about other stuff. BS, in other words. You know NOT from whence you speak.
- bpenni | 03/05/2010 @ 15:13
Just to clarify, I was not defending the War on Drugs. Why do you guys keep bringing that up? I thought we all agreed that this is a state/local issue, so what’s the War on Drugs got to do with it?
- KG | 03/05/2010 @ 18:19
Buck, I hope you’ll read my stuff over at the WashReb. I am absolutely clear that the issue is not between Government intervention and universal legalization, for the reason that we’re way beyond that.

Your stories and experiences mirror my own, actually, with a significant qualifier. Like you, I’ve smoked pot with a ton of high-functioning people, since I spent my life in the fastest track I could handle (and a couple that I couldn’t.) The problem with identifying a group of which you’re a member is that it’s self-selecting. Nobody I knew would have survived in that competitive environment if they hadn’t been able to take charge of their own impulses.

Unlike you, I’ve also spent a few years among the lowlife, some of it very recent, and I can guarantee you that the effects of high-grade marijuana are only too evident – and not only in the long-term, either. There is ample evidence available to the effect that heavy and long-term THC infusion is coincident with schizophrenia, and the earlier it starts the worse it gets. Imagine the shit we went through in adolescence compounded with massive disorientation. Never forget that what we smoked in the ’60s was equivalent to a 12-ouncer of ale compared to that same glass filled with Jack Daniel’s. That’s an accurate assessment of Sativa contrasted with Indica, and the underground botanists are hard at work as we speak. There is now advertised home-growable pot that is over 10 times as potent as the stuff in the ’70s, and even that was noticeably more fuckyouup than the Mexi-pot from the ’60s.

As is painfully usual, I speak from experience. I’ve lived for the last several years in the Emerald Triangle of Northern California, and I’ve seen firsthand the jaw-dropping levels of casual criminality and violence among the stoners. Seeing several generations of kids that just stopped growing up will have a powerful effect. Despite the relief of post-Polio symptoms afforded by marijuana, watching what it did to other peoples’ lives, along with the confusion it created in my own head, made me quit cold two years ago. And for those of you who still believe there are no hangover or withdrawal issues with pot, think again. I’ve had the benefits of child abuse my whole life, and depression has caused years of pain. I’ve gone on and off SSRI’s (Zoloft,) and that’s no picnic either. I have categorically never experienced the depth of suicidal ideation produced by quitting marijuana.

If you think that the “social issues” of widespread marijuana use among teenagers will work themselves out by natural selection, you’re kidding yourself. Remember the run-in with your neighbors a couple of years ago? They seemed batshit crazy, no? Picture any city street filled with people that might do any damned thing at any moment, regardless of what would seem against their own best interests. For that matter, imagine a world filled with those angry punks that tried to stop the GOP convention in Denver in 2008. Any guesses how many of those animals didn’t smoke skunk?

If you read my essay, you’ll know I don’t think Government is the answer here any more than it is anywhere else – but the level of denial about this clear and present psychosis could in itself spell the downfall of society, and I ain’t kiddin, either.
- rob | 03/05/2010 @ 18:49
Was wondering exactly the same thing, KG. I know both of these gentlemen to be pretty thoughtful and scrutinizing on other matters. High-quality object-oriented thinkers. But on this one, small-tee tim keeps wanting to come full circle back to W.o.D., and Buck gets all cranky and calls me ignorant if I don’t agree with him, even though I’ve stated repeatedly my opinion is really about my own little township.

I got a feeling if I was equally ignorant, but pre-disposed to lean more his way on this issue, I’d lose my ignorance. As it is, I consider my point proven or at least substantiated: It is a culture. Just like a culture of Hatfields, or people who’ve seen Elvis, or teamsters. Don’t say anything disparaging about one-o-mine, even though I’ve never met the guy; but he’s in my clan so you say something against him you’re saying it against ME.

It’s not reasoned, rational thinking. Buck is usually not like this.

As far as me being ignorant, let us return to my favorite paradigm: The guy in a professional job who works in a regular cubicle, in an office full of frumpy women — puts up a Sports Illustrated swimsuit calendar and refuses to take it down, until it becomes an issue for H.R. Should he be able to keep the calendar up? In my world, yeah…there are others who’d legitimately disagree. Is he insensitive? Maybe, but that’s alright. Is he nuts? I would say no…until such time as his job, house, family is on the line, and he’s still not open to compromise. Principled? I guarantee he calls himself that, in his book…

Does he have a problem? Absolutely. Can’t stop looking at women in swimsuits, and he’s about to get tossed out on his ass.

Every time I see one of these questions about “How do I get past this drug test,” I see someone like that. Your job’s on the line — you could just cease & desist your little vice there — somehow, it’s out of the question. That’s an addictive personality.

I’ll admit to being inexperienced on this. But you tell me where I’m relying on knowledge I don’t have, to come to the conclusion I came to. If a child is capable of crossing a street, but only if all the cars behave the way the child expects them to behave…that child is not really capable of crossing a street. And if the smoker can only function in a world that works according to the way he thinks it should…well. There y’go.
- mkfreeberg | 03/05/2010 @ 18:56
I think the bit about Mexican drug cartels growing and trafficking pot inside American borders is the part that frightens me the most. I’ve known people who have gone hunting, gold prospecting, etc, up in the Sierras and been fired on with automatic weapons. Fortunately both of them escaped with their lives.

This part scares the hell out of me. It’s probably one reason that I will never hunt alone while on public land. The interdiction efforts by the federal and state governments – sending choppers over wilderness areas and repelling DEA officers and the like into suspected pot gardens – ironically, the success they’ve experienced with the big drug busts has been its own worst enemy. Now, instead of having a bunch of this stuff clustered in the so-called “emerald triangle” in Humboldt county and other areas along the north coast, it’s scattered all across the state. I read awhile back that of California’s 58 counties, 56 of them are known cannabis cultivators. Some of it has even been found growing inside Yosemite Park. Is nothing sacred?

I will never hunt alone while on public land. I can just see chasing some buck through the wilderness and stumbling across one of these gardens. It’s one of my worst nightmares.

This bothers me. A lot. It tells me that even if I got my way and saw federal government officials turn our southern border into the equivalent of the Korean D.M.Z. and threw out everyone who’d overstayed his work visa, we’d still have these scum hiding in the mountains, planting pot plants on mountainsides, leaving booby traps for unwary hikers, and just assuming that a certain percentage of the crop is going to be destroyed each year by law enforcement. Oh yeah, and then there’s the part about the nasty fertilizer waste that they dump into creeks and rivers, killing untold numbers of aquatic animals.

I have also heard about the potency issues Rob speaks of. There’s supposedly a way to trick the female part of the plant into production more THC, which is the active ingredient in pot. It is what causes the “high” when smoked. The cartels know this.

To tell you the truth, if I had a good reason to believe that legalization would “pull the plug” on all this illicit criminal activity, I’d probably be willing to throw my support behind it. My fear is that the cartels would not simply go broke as everyone is hoping.

Oh, and Tim? People still make moonshine. Just thought you’d like to know.
- cylarz | 03/05/2010 @ 20:34
Buck’s entitled to his cratchitiness. I try not to go there, but I’m several years behind Buck in age, and I’m not promisin’ I won’t get there by the time I get to where he is now.

Two words.

Sowell. Tradeoffs.

I’ll expand. Tradeoffs vs. Solutions. Thomas Sowell. “The Vision of the Anointed”. Get it. Read it cover to cover.

It’s not that the prohibitionists points are wrong. It’s not that tragedy doesn’t result from people making poor choices. The bulk of the argument is principle, and principle is important. Don’t punish the strong for the sins of the weak. Don’t punish the responsible for the sins of the irresponsible.

And don’t guarantee support to the irresponsible. It encourages irresponsibility.

Raise men to be men, to take responsibility for their indulgences, and to be proud of taking that responsibility. Demonize the attitude of entitlement.

This issue is way bigger than drug abuse. Drug abuse is only a tiny part of it.

We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights.

Life.

Liberty.

The pursuit of happiness.

To the extent that one’s liberty and pursuit of happiness do not infringe on the next guy’s, leave people the hell alone.

Your liberties end where mine begin, and vice versa. Don’t blow pot smoke in my face. Don’t steal my shit. Don’t kill or maim me. Keep your noise to yourself as much as is reasonable. Let me drink my whiskey, and get smashed if I wanna as long as I don’t do any of those annoying things to you, or steal your shit, or kill or maim you while I’m flyin’ high. Or in order that I may buy another bottle. Go to whatever church you want to — or not. Otherwise, knock yourself out. If somebody attacks us, we all gotta figger’ out how to defend us, and do it.

And if I’m lazy and unemployable, it’s my own damned fault, and it’s not your obligation to support me. And vice. Freakin’. Versa.

Drug laws are a part of the Nanny State, and the cost to the Nanny State is often a justification for them.

Get rid of government entitlements and see how much drug abuse falls by the wayside. It’s the damned guaranteed government safety net, people.

Why don’t we outlaw that? Or at least get the hell rid of it.

We’re flippin’ addicted to it as a society. And it’s causing way more problems than it solves.

Charity is good and noble when practiced properly. Charity should be local and left up to the discretion of the givers. They know best when charity crosses over to enabling.

And that includes charity to poverty-stricken, un-employable, irresponsible stoners.
- philmon | 03/05/2010 @ 20:37
Philmon, you’re absolutely right. Can you tell me the name of this wonderful small-l libertarian country that you live in?
- cylarz | 03/05/2010 @ 20:40
Phil, I’m sure you’ve already done it, but you might want to hit my 42 definitions of a strong society one more time. I specifically address the goofy-juices, and I don’t say people are afraid to use them because they’re illegal. I say people see their fortunes as being tied to their ability to think straight and they don’t want to mess that up.

See, I think when people are living on the edge of…whatever. Their starving, their family starving, all those other unthinkables — they take advantage of every opportunity that comes along to get smarter. When life is too comfortable and cushy, they take advantage of every opportunity to get stupid. Right now life is exceptionally stable and comfortable, so we have Obama. And Marijuana. And we’re demanding more and more and more guarantees…we want womb-to-tomb health care. This is all bad stuff. You and I are on the same page. Our society is metastasizing. Its cellular composition is too mature, too luscious, too yummy, and it is becoming cancerous.

People don’t place the premium value on thinking-straight that they used to, because they have little to gain from it besides responsibility. It really is that simple.

Where I’m leaving the “every man for himself” plantation, is I’ve been needing to see some evidence that we really are captains of our own little vessels. I have not seen it lately. A bunch of people who can’t think straight think it’s a swell idea to vote for Obama and get this womb to tomb health care going…and the rest of us are pulled along whether we like it or not. Ditto with sitting around waiting for terrorists to talk, rather than waterboarding them like the Good Lord intended. Banning guns. Crap-n-trade.

So if that’s where it’s all headed, then my libertarian leanings are taking a back seat to something else. I say my countrymen owe it to me — and others who can think, like me — to stop thinking like little babies. It’s that, or we start licensing people to vote. One or the other, rights plus responsibilities for everyone, or limited opt-in responsibilities but limited licensed rights. But you can’t go getting stoned out of your gourd and then vote in whatever whackjob policies you want, and just order me to go along because the stoners who want all these rights but shirk all responsibilities happen to outnumber people like me.
- mkfreeberg | 03/05/2010 @ 21:01
…Buck gets all cranky and calls me ignorant if I don’t agree with him, even though I’ve stated repeatedly my opinion is really about my own little township.

I got a feeling if I was equally ignorant, but pre-disposed to lean more his way on this issue, I’d lose my ignorance. As it is, I consider my point proven or at least substantiated: It is a culture.

Note the bolded bits:

ig·no·rant /ˈɪgnərənt/
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

You ARE uninformed in this space, Morgan, and therefore ignorant in this specific instance. I took great pains to choose my words carefully. Your point is only proven within your own mind; you have neither proven nor substantiated your inference that the pot-smoking “culture” is wishy-washy and prone to consider everything as “small stuff.” It’s a presumptuous assumption on your part that ingesting cannabis leads to muddled reasoning capabilities and a general slackness of the will. I seem to recall reading that Carrie Nation and other members of the temperance movement invoked a similar argument against Demon Rum. But, Hey! It worked for them, right?

It’s not reasoned, rational thinking. Buck is usually not like this.

Heh. Au contraire. We disagree and you baldly state I’m the irrational one. And yeah, I’m always “like this.” Phil is right… it’s a function of my advanced age. Get off my lawn. 😉
- bpenni | 03/05/2010 @ 21:32
I’ll drink to that.
- mkfreeberg | 03/05/2010 @ 21:37
Philmon, you’re absolutely right. Can you tell me the name of this wonderful small-l libertarian country that you live in?

It used to be called The United States of America. There is a country still called that, and it is roughly in the same place, and I live within its boundaries. It was never perfect. But it was better than anything that came before it by several orders of magnitude.

Unfortunately, in about the last 100 years, we’ve “solved” society’s problems that were supposed to be controlled at the local level with local social control (shame), church organizations, private charity, and the county sheriff with ever-increasing moves away from such libertarianism — usually justified by sob stories about having to wear other people’s teeth and such, and cries about “fairness”. The problems have been ever pushed upward toward a top-down government, which is contrary to the original design. And that original design was pretty freakin’ good.

A lot of us are getting pretty fed up with it, and are starting to wander around with tea bags stapled to our three-cornered hats.

We’re crazy that way.
- philmon | 03/06/2010 @ 07:51
Incidentally, I once believed as Morgan and you. But in the last, say, 15/20 years, I have changed my mind. And it isn’t because I think everyone should be smokin’ pot. It’s has more to do with principle.
- philmon | 03/06/2010 @ 07:57
And I once saw things your way, too. Perhaps we’re moving in a circle.

I have lost faith in people leaving other people unharmed as they do stupid things. I still think the “you have a right to be dumb” paradigm works, and works well, to a point. As society becomes more mature, safe, and loaded up with entitled comforts and perks, this paradigm falls apart. It’s not the comfort, it’s the illusion provided by this lack of danger — the illusion that being stupid is the right way to go.

I would compare it to smoking…in a big warehouse filled with barrels of water. Nothing wrong with that, you’re hurting yourself but only yourself (discounting the secondhand-smoke theory).

As we come up with more and more ways to keep bad things from happening to the weak among us, it seems these barrels of water have a way of pickling into gasoline. I know Buck is offended right down to the quick by me conflating pot smokers into the same crowd as Obama voters. That is not my intent. But when it comes to being around pot smokers, as opposed to partaking personally, I’m not quite so ignorant. How in the world can I be. I’m a software engineer, have been one my whole life, in the last seventeen years I’ve been in Sacramento. My years on the earth so far have been 1966-2010. My goodness, how hard one would have to work to remain ignorant about pot smoking under such conditions. Most of my employment has been with small businesses, which do (did) not typically run drug tests.

And I see a lot of trends. I see this “I think the world should work such-and-such a way, and if it works some other way I simply cannot deal with it.” The brittleness. The pot smokers have no monopoly on it…neither do the Obama voters. But both groups of people correlate with it, and heavily. I’ve just stopped buying into the whole song-and-dance about “I’m not hurting anyone I just want to be left to do my own thing.” I’ve seen contrary evidence just one or two times too many. These people do not want to be left alone to do their own thing. They want the world to work a certain way.

We just don’t need any more of this. Got enough of it.
- mkfreeberg | 03/06/2010 @ 08:13
And Buck, if you’re listening to Mike McConnell on the radio right now — or his substitute host anyhow (it’s his show, doesn’t sound like his voice) — you’d better turn off the radio right now.

He’s saying exactly what I’ve been saying. It’s not just my perception. The pot smokers he knows personally, are predominantly liberal, and the liberals he knows are predominantly pot smokers. Detached, apathetic. He’s either just as ignorant, or he’s been reading here.

There’s something to this theory. That doesn’t prove it’s right, I’ll concede. But there’s some evidence out there to support it, fer sure.
- mkfreeberg | 03/06/2010 @ 11:10
The annoying guy who has been following this but keeping mum chimes in:

Pick a random guy at the workplace, and sit him down with a pen and paper and ask him to write down the names of everybody there who he thinks smokes pot. His mind will go through a process in an order something like this:

1. Who here dresses poorly?
2. Who here does just enough of his job, but little or no more?
3. Who here would I want to party with?
4. Who here lets slip just enough words like “like” and “totally?”
5. Who here votes democrat?

And his list will be pretty close to right. Exceptions to rules are all fun and good when they prop up our positions, and surely there are all those wonderful lawyers out there doing bong rips between trips to the salon and the library of congress, but I am perfectly happy generalizing. Because, like the guy in the example up there, it works most of the time.

Ignorant as Morgan may be, I’ll bet he can pretty well pick out the pot smokers at his job, and it isn’t going to be after making a list of all the tireless overachievers. And I’ll also be willing to bet that most of those pot smokers think that people don’t know they smoke pot.

Unlike the big ignorant dummy who writes this blog that nobody reads, I have been deep, deep into the pot culture. Spent about a decade there. Smoking daily at work, at home, at school. And aside from a few little nitpicks about his long-winded delivery, I would have to agree with just about everything he said.
- Andy | 03/06/2010 @ 11:30
Heh. Just for shits ‘n’ giggles… inline:

1. Who here dresses poorly? Ummm. Not me. Suit ‘n’ tie everyday, when it was called for. Collared shirt when the dress code was “casual.” As opposed to flip-flops and tee shirts on some of the coders in the org, who may or may not have indulged. We ran in different circles.
2. Who here does just enough of his job, but little or no more? Ummm, I dunno. But if rising to the position of “director” and a six-figure salary is any indication, then I suppose we did OK, despite our off-duty proclivities.
3. Who here would I want to party with? Me! In some or mebbe most cases. Subjective, to be sure.
4. Who here lets slip just enough words like “like” and “totally?” Never hoppen, Gee-Eye. Those words just weren’t in the vernacular.
5. Who here votes democrat? Never frickin’ ever.

But, Hey. Just anecdotal, as always and ever. Next? 😀
- bpenni | 03/06/2010 @ 14:48
I’ve read the 42 things, yes, and I’m with ya on most of em. But we gotta admit, it’s kind of an “if I were King”, thing. “This is how things would be.” But… of course we don’t have a King. Yet.

Morgan and I agree on probably more things than I agree with anyone on outside of my wife (and I hope I never catch him inside of my wife … buddump bump!)

It’s mainly this issue and little nitpicky things about whether W looks hotter than X or E looks hotter than F (although we both generally agree they’re all pretty hot).

And much of the anecdotal evidence he and others have presented here about correlations and destructiveness to the individual are not without merit.

But it still doesn’t mean it should be illegal. 🙂
- philmon | 03/06/2010 @ 15:22
It’s official, Buck, you are King for Life in the Land of That Don’t Apply to Me. Congratulations, the wasps are on the way.
- Andy | 03/06/2010 @ 15:53
Two things just for the record:

One, I am extremely thankful to Phil for those matters on which his opinion sometimes differs from mine, as the perspective has done me good. I’m speaking specifically of his predilection toward redheads, and as far as the perspective having done me some good I specifically have in mind a fetching young starlet by the name of Elizabeth Bogush.

Two, Andy’s exercise does not apply to me currently because I work for a very large company that engages in strict drug checking upon hire. I’m sure there’s ways past that, but I wouldn’t want to be in the position of having to find those ways. Given that, Buck’s argument about exceptions does deserve some respect I think…the guy I would put way up on the top of my list of suspects, is actually professional although a bit high-strung, which goes against the stereotype. And he knows his subject matter extremely well. But, for the reason stated above, I wouldn’t bet a lot of money he partakes.

Overall, though, Andy’s point is a valid one. Some generalizations are fair. Generally. Which is why they’re generalizations…they’re not right a hundred percent of the time, nobody ever said they are supposed to be.
- mkfreeberg | 03/06/2010 @ 16:35
Oh, and you know damned well I clicked on that link!

Still, a company that calls itself “kgb” kinda gives me the creeps.

But the the short pleated plaid skirt made up for it. And THAT’S how they’ll GET us!!!!
- philmon | 03/06/2010 @ 19:54
[…] the past few days there have been a couple of fora where this question has been “debated.” Morgan posted a link to Clayton Cramer’s Why I No Longer Support Marijuana […]
- Rob De Witt: Okay, So Now What? – Bruce Hanify | 01/07/2011 @ 08:33

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Why I No Longer Support Decriminalizing MarijuanaThursday, March 4th, 2010

Why I No Longer Support Decriminalizing Marijuana
Thursday, March 4th, 2010