Some reactions on ABC’s “This Week” to Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to ease up on prosecutions of medicinal use of marijuana in the 14 states that allow it:
“We have legalized gambling in this country over two generations. It used to be considered a sin and a crime. With no national debate and no decision moment — we just did it — we have legalized prostitution, as anyone who opens a telephone book and looks under ‘escort’ can tell you. And we’re probably in the process now of legalizing marijuana.” — Washington Post columnist George Will
“We won’t see a full legalization of marijuana until somebody figures out that if you tax it, maybe you can pay for health care.” — John Podesta, former White House chief of staff under Bill Clinton
“I wish that I believed that this was going to lead to some broader federal look at the whole futile war on drugs.” — Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker
24 Comments
It’s as if the only thing keeping “Regular” and “HLP” and “okobserver” and… (you get the idea) … from becoming total stoners is that marijuana is illegal.
The minute you can buy a joint at Abdul’s Mini-Mart will result in CONs buying tons more Twinkies and Doritos.
The only thing protecting us is the current marijuana policy.
The “War on Drugs” is as winnable and as beneficial as The “War on Terra”.
But they sure make “tough guys” and “Dudley Dorights” feel better.
A. Marijuana should be legalized and sold in liquor stores same as tequila, with THC levels clearly
B. It should be taxed, but not to the extent that street dealers can compete with it.
C. It should be sold by the baggie, not the joint, so you have to come down at least long enough to roll your own.
Sorry, “with THC levels clearly posted on the baggies.”
Pleef,
We fought the War on Drugs for over 40 years and many billions of dollars and countless lives, and it’s much easier now for a kid to score a bag of weed than a decent chocolate malt. I’d say that war was lost before it even started.
I don’t understand why conservatives aren’t all over this issue.
-From a fiscal standpoint government could increase revenues and reduce costs associated with adjudicating pot related cases and incarcerating and tracking offenders post-release.
-From a societal standpoint violence associated with the illegal trade would be reduced and police could be reassigned to investigate crimes where there is an actual victim.
-From a freedom standpoint personal liberties would be increased. No more BS asset forfeiture/seizure without a trial or conviction and Big Brother government wouldn’t be able to tell you how you can or can’t spend your recreational time.
I may be overlooking something here so any conservatives are welcome to point out the flaws in my thinking or give some arguments based on conservative ideology for maintaining the status quo.
How’d that whole “banning alcohol” thing work out again?
Marijuana
– is an immunosuppressant that inhibits the development of natural disease prevention mechanisms such as macrophages and T-cells.
– smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer. One joint has four times more tar than a cigarette.
– has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia.
1. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association
2. * http://www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/mrr/ 21.96.10.html, for information on the link between chemicals contained in marijuana and lung cancer.
* http://www.marijuananews.com/latest_research_finds_that_heavy.htm, for an article concerning the link between marijuana and cancer, with commentary.
3. Donald P. Tashkin, M.D., “Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses,” Secretary’s Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Intiative: Resource Papers, March 1997, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Pages 33-51
Regular,
No offense, but that sounds more like a nanny-state argument for maintaining the status quo rather than a conservative one.
If the Feds mandated that a Surgeon General’s warning be featured prominently on the packaging would that assuage your concerns?
Daniel
Posted October 27, 2009 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
Regular,
No offense, but that sounds more like a nanny-state argument for maintaining the status quo rather than a conservative one.
———————-
No offense, but the argument is from a point of view of scientists, not politicians or blog opinion – and, was presented as such.
Do you have a problem with the cold, hard facts that science presents?
#
Regular
Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:00 pm | Permalink
Do you have a problem with the cold, hard facts that science presents?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I have no beef with cold, hard facts. I just believe that adults should be able to make an informed decision about how to best spend their recreational time. Especially when there are products readily available to adults (alcohol and tobacco) which are far more toxic to the body than marijuana.
What this gets down to is the question of whether or not an adult should me allowed to make decisions that may cause themselves harm but cause no other person harm. We already allow the use of alcohol and tobacco by adults under these circumstances. It is hypocritical, not to mention very expensive, to continue with the status quo regarding the use of marijuana by adults.
How about a list of how alcohol F’s up your body, your life, and society for perspective’s sake.
And even reading regular’s very short list, it is messing with an individual that chose to consume. Nothing wrong with that. As long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s liberty.
So why do you want the government running your life, holding your hand, telling you you aren’t smart enough to make your own decisions?
reggie,
No offense, but the science is skewed. The DEA only permitted the drug to be used in studies that agreed to support it’s view that marijuana was a “gateway drug” that was somehow harmful and inevitably led to cocaine and heroin abuse, crime in the streets and moral decay. Try the European studies.
Daniel writes: What this gets down to is the question of whether or not an adult should me allowed to make decisions that may cause themselves harm but cause no other person harm. We already allow the use of alcohol and tobacco by adults under these circumstances. It is hypocritical, not to mention very expensive, to continue with the status quo regarding the use of marijuana by adults.
————————
Then you get back into the argument of people wanting to abuse their bodies and who will pay the cost to fix them back to health.
If you want to destroy your health and are willing to sign a waiver for health care, then by all means go for it.
I should not, however, be penalized for your decision.
Marijuana, is afterall, a drug used by choice, not by necessity.
Your choice – Your consequences – You pay for your consequences – I don’t pay for your consequences.
Sign a waiver and all is good – fair enough?
Jed
Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:12 pm | Permalink
reggie,
No offense, but the science is skewed.
—————
No offense, but without references, your statement carries zero weight.
Sign a waiver and all is good – fair enough?
Sure, but why not also alcohol, cigarettes, speeding, high fat and or high calorie diets and everything else that could be seen as bad for you or that someone else may have to pay to fix.
There is no logical argument. Cigarettes and alcohol will negate any point you try to make.
#
Regular
Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:19 pm | Permalink
—————
No offense, but without references, your statement carries zero weight.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
No offense, but I clicked on your reference links and they’re broken.
#
Regular
Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
Your choice – Your consequences – You pay for your consequences – I don’t pay for your consequences.
Sign a waiver and all is good – fair enough?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
How about this then? Since it’s really not feasible to have citizens sign a waiver before they engage in every behavior that might perceived as risky without vastly expanding an already bloated and entrenched bureaucracy….how about we offer a tax credit to those who are least likely to increase societal costs? You know, those folk who never smoke or drink and rarely leave their sister’s house.
How about that?
Hmmm…
This is where I join hands with all of my “arch nemesi(s)?” to sing a chorus of “Kumbaya”. It’s that persons body, let him (in a free society) do with it what he will…IF it does not impede your pusuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Butt out.
Most folks that I know that are dead against pot are the most neo-con hawk mutherphuqers ever. They don’t mind sending an 18 year old out to kill and be killed “with honor and prestige”, but let that same kid want a joint to smoke or a drink afterward and he’s now a criminal. Goofs.
Talk about nanny-state-pot calling the kettle-schtuff.
Educate yourselves (those that are militantly ignorant on the subject that is):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8231634812734884936&ei=ul_nSvuyLJOKqQOfq5GCBA&q=American+Drug+War&hl=en&view=2#
If you can cite “facts and data” by science, so’s will I:
http://www.amazon.com/Marijuana-Reconsidered-Grinspoon/dp/0932551130
The Harvard Crimson:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=180429
Just like any and all science, there is an opposing viewpoint.
Sorry.
Daniel
Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:49 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
Your choice – Your consequences – You pay for your consequences – I don’t pay for your consequences.
Sign a waiver and all is good – fair enough?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
How about this then? Since it’s really not feasible to have citizens sign a waiver before they engage in every behavior that might perceived as risky without vastly expanding an already bloated and entrenched bureaucracy….how about we offer a tax credit to those who are least likely to increase societal costs? You know, those folk who never smoke or drink and rarely leave their sister’s house.
How about that?
——————————-
How about end of discussion since you can’t resist personal attacks?
Where’s the blog doper WSCLark on this? Should be wonderful news – he won’t have to go sneek and hide outside to smoke his weed so his grandkids don’t get exposed.
reggie,
“No offense, but without references, your statement carries zero weight.”
It’s a matter of public record. Google it your own damn self!
Regular:
Congratulations with your scientific viewpoint toward cannabis and its health consequences, as well as citing the studies that support your argument. But do not skew the results of these studies and take them out of context; after all, “Correlation is not causation.”
For one, the statement that a “marijuana cigarette” contains four times more tar than a tobacco cigarette is irrelevant. The average tobacco smoker uses about 20 cigarettes a day. To match that tar intake, a cannabis user would have to smoke 5 joints a day. Very few even approach this amount of daily cannabis usage.
If you read the mental health study you will find that cannabis and other psychotropics can trigger the onset of schizophrenia and related disorders in those already pre-disposed to it; this does not mean that cannabis is a factor in the development of mental disorder.
Cannabis may be an immunosuppressant but it is also an antioxidant, anti-emetic, appetite stimulant, intra-ocular pressure reducer, and has been shown to induce programmed cell death in cancerous cells, helping to significantly reduce tumor size in certain cases.