-
I’m Not Getting Married in the Morning
April 24, 2013 | 79 comments
Feature
The Right’s Reefer Madness
Succumbing to the self-indulgence of the 1960s is yet one more failure of modern conservatism.
When I pray for my enemies
these days, it takes quite a long time. Any conservative in the
modern world must learn to enjoy being hated by the right people.
But I have recently had to lengthen my list of foes, for I have
earned the loathing of a group of persons who call themselves
“libertarians.” To them it does not matter that I have recently
opposed schemes to make British subjects carry identity cards, or
various projects to lock us up for weeks without trial, or that I
am one of the most consistent advocates of the presumption of
innocence. I am cast into the outer darkness, amid wailing and
gnashing of teeth, because I think the possession of marijuana
ought to be a crime.
As one of these champions of human freedom put it in a lengthy attack on me, “As an adult, I should be able to stick whatever I damn well like into my body. Provided that I am aware of the risks, nobody is better placed to make my personal cost/benefit calculation for any given action.”
Now, I am used to abuse from what you might call the Cultural Left. I am a minor hate-figure on Twitter. Mr. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks personally abused me during an argument about drugs, shortly before taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. I am not much loved by Sir Richard Branson, the bearded, right-on genius of the Virgin Empire, whom I have teased about his stance on drugs. But the irritable denunciation I quote above came from Sam Bowman, a policy director at Britain’s Adam Smith Institute, a body that I might once have thought was on the same side as me.
When I considered his remonstrance, I was strangely reminded of another attack I once faced: a one-man roadside counter-demonstration by a smirking individual in a woolly hat who waylaid me as I left a TV appearance. He was displaying a grubby bedsheet inscribed with the (not wholly accurate) words: “Peter Hitchens is a hypocritical racist alcoholic. Spread your bile elsewhere. No one cares what you have to say.”
This was all very flattering, but I suspect his views about what he could stick in his own body, and why, were more or less identical to those of the policy director of the Adam Smith Institute.
And so I have begun to feel a little as Poland must have done as the jaws of the Nazi-Soviet pact closed, and the Wehrmacht and the Red Army held those rather awkward and tongue-tied joint victory parades in Brest-Litovsk, Grodno, and Pinsk. When incoherent basement-dwelling stoners and urgent Adam Smith worshippers are united against you, it is all very well to be noble, right, and alone, but you find it hard to avoid the conclusion that you have, nevertheless, lost the war.
SOME TIME AGO, I became aware that the supposed severity of my country’s drug laws was a sham, concealing a de facto decriminalization that had been proceeding for more than 40 years. This led me to examine a second mystery. What on earth, I wondered, could be the purpose of the repeated claims, in broadcasting, in the intelligent magazines, and on op-ed pages of major newspapers, that we were in fact enduring a Draconian prohibition regime? The authors of these arguments were clever and apparently informed. I wrote a book showing clearly that they were wrong, packed with unimpeachable historical research. It was almost universally unreviewed, though it had a reputable publisher, was ably publicized, and I am not completely obscure in my own country. After a while, the waters of silence closed over it, and it was as if it had never been written. The incessant lie about “prohibition” was merrily repeated by people who must know better, and equally merrily accepted by conventional wisdom. I eventually came to the conclusion that I had been foolishly getting in the way of a movement whose time was about to come, one in which supposed conservatives were united with radicals of the 1960s Cultural Revolution for a single end.
Their aim is the final destruction of international treaties, and then of national laws, which prevent the commercial sale and exploitation of marijuana. These laws have already been greatly undermined. In my country this has been achieved by the deliberate failure of police, prosecutors, and courts to enforce the law against possession, so that in practice marijuana is more decriminalized in London than it is in Amsterdam. In the U.S. it has been attained by the hilarious falsehood known as “medical marijuana,” originally promoted by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) as a “red herring to give marijuana a good name.”*
But this process can go no further until the United Nations and several national governments can be persuaded to abandon laws against this drug which have been in place for nearly a century. Those interested in the origin of those laws should consult Malcolm Muggeridge’s 1972 autobiography Chronicles of Wasted Time in which he jeered at the “respected citizens, clergymen, purported scientific investigators and other ostensibly informed and enlightened persons” whose apologies for hashish forced him to recall the “stupefied faces and inert minds,” resulting from marijuana use, which he had seen among students during the 1920s in Cairo. He described the legalization campaign as an instance of “the death wish at the heart of our way of life.”
What is most striking is the way in which that death wish has now spread from what might loosely have been called the Cultural Left to embrace the conservative, or neoconservative (or perhaps more accurately neo-liberal) right—so that, nowadays, British upper-middle-class newspapers such as the Times and the Daily Telegraph openly sympathize with the relaxation of the drug laws, as does the Economist, and their readers are not outraged or upset.
The left, or what remains of it, is now just a political vehicle for urban bourgeois bohemians who want to remove the remaining legal, moral, and customary obstacles to self-indulgence they embraced half a century ago, dressed up as militant rationalism. It is easy to see why they are happy with the legalization of marijuana.
The old, socially conservative left of temperance and working-class self-improvement, often rooted in the churches, has largely vanished. The ascetic, self-disciplined left of the Bolshevik sort, whether Trotskyist or Stalinist, has also withered away thanks to the failure of proletarian revolution and of its last best hope, Third World socialism.
What is really startling is that conservatism now has no moral core resistant to the idea of mass self-stupefaction. The dogma of “libertarianism,” actually a liberal idea based on a misreading of John Stuart Mill, has become a sort of substitute gospel. The only drug that Mill considered in On Liberty was alcohol, and in dealing with its nastier abuses, he resorted to some remarkably illiberal thoughts. After saying airily that ordinary drunkenness was “not a fit subject for legislative interference,” he quickly backtracked. The persistent violent drunkard, he suggested “should be placed under a special legal restriction, personal to himself.”
Of course, even in Mill’s time, alcohol was endemic, and in almost universal use, throughout Western societies. While its sale might have been severely limited, as it was rather effectively in Britain between 1915 and 1985, it was not, like marijuana, a minority taste that could still have been discouraged by firm legislative action. This, by the way, is not to say that U.S. alcohol prohibition failed because it was firm, a fallacy endlessly advanced by “libertarians” to counter suggestions for effective drug laws. On the contrary, it was feebly policed in a country with long and (in those days) unenforceable borders with two nations that did not prohibit alcohol. It also, much like current British law on marijuana, prohibited manufacture, importation, and sale, but did not prohibit possession, a combination guaranteed not to succeed.
BUT WHAT ABOUT this argument that drug legalization is a road to liberty, and that the individual’s right to fry his brains in his own home is equivalent to his freedom of speech, thought, or assembly (or even his freedom to bear arms)?
Letter to the Editor View all comments (309) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Hitchens
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/22/the-rights-reefer-madness
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 2.22.13 @ 7:04AM
The Choom Gang comes to mind.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.22.13 @ 7:34AM
Duuuuuuude, that's deeeeeep.
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 8:25AM
Far out.
Anthony| 2.22.13 @ 9:43AM
Hell, if the left were constantly stoned, the rest of us would be able to get America back on track again.
Then again, perhaps we're in the mess that we're in because the ruling class is and has been stoned out of their F'n minds for decades.
Indeed Pecos, President Choom and the rest of the Ds come to mind.
Joellen| 2.22.13 @ 10:16AM
Here's the irony, the left (i.e., Bill Mahr) will denegrate those of us who believe and try to follow GOD's laws by portrying us as escapest, or as oboma once infamously stated, "we bitterly cling to our religion"; yet those who advocate legalizing drugs and the use of drugs are NEVER condem to the assertion of escaping the world through artifical means.
IRONY
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.22.13 @ 10:45AM
The Intellectual Left has, in fact, been stoned to the gills for much of the last century. But they have been stoned on Marxism, not marijuana, a much more intoxicating drug.
7-08| 2.23.13 @ 5:48PM
"Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope."
-Freewheeling Franklin
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.22.13 @ 9:50AM
The consistent libertarian is an anarchist. He thinks he can take the Austrian perspective on MARKETS and apply the same views to MORALITY, or to whatever.
Bumr50| 2.22.13 @ 10:03AM
Smoking weed is a matter of morality?
Please explain to me why alcohol is an exception to this prohibitive insanity without using the word "tradition."
Stephie| 2.22.13 @ 11:04AM
Alcohol is legal and pot isn't.
c. j. acworth| 2.22.13 @ 11:19AM
And for a time alcohol was illegal as well, and then was made legal again. The law can always be changed, and those in favor of legalizing pot want to do it, through the democratic process we have in this country, ie. the ballot. Personally I say let it happen. Let all the stoners out there do as much weed as they want. Go ahead, people, do drugs, die and get out of the way. Make room for someone productive. I'm sick of trying to convince self-destructive people to stop destroying themselves. I've given up trying to convert the heathen.
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 12:39PM
I agree with the sentiment, however the problem is that we will have to foot the bill for their healthcare. Additionally we'll have to support them or subsidize their life until they kick it.
Stan Redmond| 2.22.13 @ 2:42PM
Spoken like a true liberal. Subsidize their lives for choices they are making. Until self destructive behavior STOPS being rewarded by the government it will continue. I'm not saying throw them to the wolves if they want help. There are private charities that do way more to help the addicted than any government program. And when they commit crimes against others then they shall be punished accordingly.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:09PM
Which is why the government should not pay for any health care costs related to their choices for those who are obese, smoke, ride motorcycles without helmets, engage in contact sports (especially the unnatural sport of soccer), ski, ride horses, ride motorcross, ride ATVs, speed drink etc. etc. etc. Stop subsidizing their lives for the choices they make.
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 3:59PM
Again I agree with the idea, however practice is a bit more dicey.
Look at all the hoopla over "Grandma's Social Security check" and Medicare with Obama's sequestration. How many of us are really going to say "let 'em die" when it's your loved one? How about your own life? Are you really going to say "don't worry about that bypass that is essential to my survival, it's my fault for smoking for 20 years"?
If they've been smoking pot regularly for 30-40 years you can almost be sure that they don't have the money squirrled away for retirement let alone footing the bill for EoL medical care costs.
atheistrepublican| 2.28.13 @ 2:00PM
and you base this claim on what, exactly?
Charlene Key| 2.24.13 @ 5:29AM
The problem is that stoners just don't die and leave the rest of us alone. They become mentally ill and a burden on the rest of us for as long as they live. I speak from the experience of a Mother who long ago lost her son to the effects of Marijuana on his brain. Although he is still physically alive, I lost him mentally to the effects of mental illness brought on by drugs, many years ago. Since that time, although I love him dearly, he has been a burden on our family, society in general and the American taxpayer. He now is dying a slow death, both mentally and physically. Takes anti-psychotic's , anti-depressant's and has no resemblance to a happy, normal life. I am sure my pain in watching my son's decline into madness, is not as deep as his own pain in living the way he has for the last twenty years.
Bumr50| 2.24.13 @ 9:59AM
Please forgive my insensitivity here, but I feel that I must ask, since you chose to post this - Do you have conclusive evidence from a psychologist and/or a physician that marijuana directly caused your son's mental illness?
Charlene Key| 2.24.13 @ 2:36PM
Thanks for asking. I found nothing insensitive about your question. I have heard from many over the years, relatives included, saying, "oh, it is just Weed and harmless, no big Whoop". Anyone who has studied the human brain, knows that the brain's of young teens are not fully developed. Kid's start smoking from peer pressure, low self-esteem, etc. at very young ages. What percentage of those develop mental illness? Is it 5%, 3%, or maybe only 1%? Who cares, if it is your child's life? My sensitivity went out the window on this issue, the first time I had to call the local police during a psychotic episode, to have my Son taken to a Hospital. All the while, scared out of my wits that a trigger happy officer would see a threat in my terrified son's eyes and kill him. Living with a loved one's mental illness, will either break you or toughen you up, so that you will not crack under the pressure.
Charlene Key| 2.24.13 @ 3:14PM
I do not understand why my first answer to your question refuses to Post. Some kind of computer glitch, I guess.
The answer is YES, my son's first court ordered commitment was at age 20. It was a State Hospital and hospital personnell told me they had seen hundreds of young men and women his age develop Psychotic behaviour after heavy pot use.
He was given Halodol and sent home after about two weeks, with NO medication or prescriptions. Because our Son was viewed as an Adult, we were denied access to his Medical records. Of course, he was no help in obtaining them due to his mental state. Our Family Doctor said, "he is like many patients I have seen and that once the VOICES start", tries other street drugs to silence them. He has been hospitalized many times over the years and each time it has been a nightmare.
Charlene Key| 2.24.13 @ 3:20PM
Sorry, I mis-spelled Hospitalised. My Son is 38 years old now, in case you were wondering.
TLP| 2.24.13 @ 4:11PM
Nobody's "wondering".
Trust me.
TLP| 2.24.13 @ 4:12PM
And, you spelled "Mispelled" wrong.
Charlene Key| 2.25.13 @ 8:43PM
I was answering Bumr50's question more fully.
So sorry if that bothered you.
Stan Redmond| 2.22.13 @ 2:39PM
This reminds me of a great scene in The Simpsons when the city of voting to allow the Monty Burns Casino. Ned Flanders is panicky and turns to Rev. Lovejoy and asks, "What do you thing Reverend."
"Once something is made legal by the government it's no longer immoral."
The crowd cheers!
Lyneuss Fields | 2.22.13 @ 5:07PM
Holy Gee, Stephie! That's because America's politicians aren't stupid. Look at all the money they can make in cash kick-backs from the growers. And besides, legalized marijuana would rob them of another ridicules issue to pander to all you social zealots.
http://lyneussfields.blogspot......gious.html
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.22.13 @ 11:20AM
"or to whatever." Read more carefully.
mike 3/505| 2.22.13 @ 3:49PM
We do not own ourselves.
Hogwash! If you wish to spout that fundamentally false tripe, please do,so elsewhere. You sir, are dangerous. It's that type of thinking that is empowering the statists.
JD| 2.22.13 @ 4:02PM
I agree. His is a terrible answer.
The problem with things like Marijuana is that freedom essentially requires personally responsibility, which essentially requires intelligence. It is precisely a lack of intelligence/information that has driven democratic societies to insane policies.
The preservation of the free mind is paramount.
Drugs which alter the mind drive "freedom" in horrible directions. Drugs which further form addictions rob people of their natural freedom. Prohibitions of habit-forming drugs have the same relationship with freedom as prohibitions on kidnapping - that is, they should be supported.
Larry E| 2.22.13 @ 5:22PM
This more sermon than argument. I've no qualms with those who find in narcotics a very real evil. I do, though, have a very great challenge with those who imagine that evil wasn't lurking about in our great experiment with Prohibition.
It loosed mayhem on so many levels. Made criminals of any who wished to imbibe ... and made millionaires out of common thugs. Money they then used to finance small armies and further vice.
Worse, liberty took a beating ... still is. Individual rights have endured a steady and dangerous erosion all in the name of this absurd war on drugs. If it is a war, then by comparison, the Vietnam conflict was a stunning success.
The toll on liberty, the toll on foolish people (stupidity really shouldn't be a crime), the toll on their families, the toll on tax dollars ... seems a heavy price to pay for behaviors which were once quite legal ... and caused no national "stupification".
Politicians benefit from the current madness by promising to "get tough". Police benefit by acquiring ever larger standing armies and armament ... and a loathsome disregard for individual liberty. Lawyers certainly benefit ... boy oh boy do they ever benefit. Government, on so many levels and in so many insidious ways benefits ... all at our expense.
Sorry, Peter ... but I think your confusing the obligations of personal responsibility with government oversight ... that's a dangerous and myopic conflation.
7-08| 2.24.13 @ 2:45PM
Larry,
Two in my immediate family committed suicide due to alcoholism. Even in the throes of the drug addiction that was killing them they displayed much of the consensus expounded here on “hippies,” “weed drug addicts,” and (for some reason) libertarians. Virtually everyone in the generation they spawned (mine) smoked pot in some experimental or recreational context. None of those “70’s” era pot smokers do so now (I think), none of them have ever been on welfare or food stamps, and none of them are lazy, institutionalized or taken their own life.
Not Larry,
Seriously, do any of you think that the behavior Axelrod, Obama, Pelosi, or Reid exhibits is due to being stoned? Good Lord, you people should hear yourselves – you are the exact same bunch of delusional clowns that proclaim concealed carry permits will turn your neighborhood into a Wild West shootout. I do not know what you have been smoking but I suggest you switch to pot. It might even relieve the psychosis.
Anybody that smokes pot now will continue to do so – just legally. I can only speak for myself but if they legalize pot I don’t look for me in the grocery store with a cart full of “Screaming Yellow Zonkers.”
Gary B| 2.22.13 @ 7:05AM
Maybe laws against marijuana would make more sense if they were not abused by the police who kick in doors at 3am and start shooting. Or prosecutors who abuse the law by offering informants leniency in return for fingering other people on scant evidence. Or the gang violence triggered by the profit motive. Or the overall social and financial cost of the War on Drugs.
Compare the personal and social damage and financial and property losses of alcohol abuse to that of marijuana. I say, if marijuana is illegal then alcohol should be illegal. If marijuana is immoral then alcohol is immoral. And the argument that alcohol is somehow different doesn't hold water. Finally, how many traffic deaths are caused by a driver high on marijuana compared to drunk drivers?
Gary B| 2.22.13 @ 7:13AM
Protecting people from themselves was not high on the Founders' bucket list. Protecting people from government intrusion into their lives was. Protecting people from themselves is a a tool of tyranny so, of course it's a concept near and dear to the hearts of liberals and tyrant wannabees.
Jack in Wi| 2.22.13 @ 7:40AM
I hate to join with the crowd here. But pot should be a regulated legal substance like booze. The police are far too intrusive in american life. We have far too many people is jail, for non violent crimes. The couple times I treid pot in my youth convinced me that much of what Mr Hitchens says is true. I think a more effective way to fight this vice is to treat it like booze and cigartetes, heavily taxed and heavily regulated. This country addicted to drugs legal and illegal. It is a sad state of affairs.
Harry the Horrible| 2.22.13 @ 9:43AM
Used to be pro-Drug War. But I have come to see that the drug war is more of a threat to civil rights and public safety than the druggies.
It is not worth the threat to civil rights and the prison beds to hold them to arrest, try, and imprison druggies - esp. potheads.
Hold them responsible for their behavior the same way we do drunks and let nature take its course.
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 12:43PM
The major issue there is the lack of reliable and accurate field test for sobriety like there is with booze.
Al Adab| 2.22.13 @ 1:33PM
There is qa good field test for THC and in this state any THC in the system is presumed by law to confirm impairment. Yes they know the stuff stays in the system for appx 30 days. Too bad. Don't use and drive.
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 1:45PM
That is the issue. You can be unimpaired yet test positive for THC, this causes issues for users under a system where it is legalized. We don't test for if you use Alcohol but rather if you are currently impaired by its use like during a traffic stop. With THC you cannot currently do that. How, if legalized, would you propose that users get to work under your scenario? What about on the job injuries/accidents? Actually this is how many construction firms avoid paying workman's comp or health benefits to their workers who are injured on the job. Mandatory drug testing when they are injured and the pot smokers (which many are) will fail. Thus many injuries go unreported or get reported as occuring off the job site.
atheistrepublican| 2.28.13 @ 2:05PM
No, we don't test for impairment, we test for concentration of alcohol. Impairment is legally presumed at a certain level, but can occur in some people with less, in others not until they've consumed more. It varies by individual.
Stan Redmond| 2.22.13 @ 2:46PM
It is a 'pipe' dream that the government can regulate or tax marijuana. It's just too easy to grow. Alcohol and cigarettes generally require some sort industrial factory to produce.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:11PM
If Jack is for it I am to. Unless the Jews control 90% of the marijuana industry. Then I am against it. But then Jack would be to.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 7:14AM
I think Pot should be Legal. If Alcohol can be Legal, then what's the Big Deal? Same restrictions. You can't get Buzzed, and Drive a Vehicle. You can't Smoke it in Public. You gotta be whatever the Legal Age is for other Controlled Substances, like Cigarettes and Booze.
"But, it's a Gateway Drug!"
Then, so is Beer.
Alcohol makes people angry. And, when they get angry, they lash out. They beat their kids. They Kill their Wives. They jump in their Cars and Run Stop Signs, Cross the Middle Lines, go the wrong way on the Highway.
The guy that's high is too busy trying to Complete a thought. Complete a sentence. Remember why he was telling the story that he's been telling for the last 10 Minutes, in the first place. Wondering how he got on some Political Online Forum with a buncha people who spend most of their time at the Doctor's Office. In the Rec Room. With their Chiropractor. Eating every meal 2 hours too early. And, waiting on one more number for a Bingo, with a small picture of Bobby Darin - in a frame - perched at the top of that Card, for good luck.
What was the question?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.22.13 @ 7:44AM
I am content to let both the states and the federal government regulate both alcohol, marijuana and any other substance in ways that the Constitution permits. Let the advocates for and against make their cases, and the people cast their votes in referendums or through legislators, and prepare to live with and pay for the consequences of what follows.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 8:20AM
Why the feds? Why don't they just read the Constitution and limit themselves to their responsibilities described in it?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.22.13 @ 8:32AM
I actually think that because most of what are referred to as controlled substances actually move in interstate commerce, regulating these substances is actually what the interstate commerce clause was intended to address.
For California grown marijuana (as an example, when it is not grown on federal land), I don't think the federal government can make its case to regulate it within the borders of California (assuming, of course, it hasn't crossed state lines).
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:17PM
If I grow it in my closet and smoke it in my garage it is nobody else's business.
That is also one of the things that differentiates marijuana from heroin and cocaine. Not a lot of domostically produced cocaine and heroin. If it comes in from outside the country feds have the power to regulate.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.22.13 @ 9:07PM
” If I grow it in my closet and smoke it in my garage it is nobody else's business.”
…and then don’t leave your house, perhaps. But if someone else (or you) smokes it with you and leaves under the influence, or you give some to them to smoke it elsewhere, maybe a level of government has an interest.
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 8:32AM
The feds are involved because drugs move across state lines.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 8:51AM
Except when they don't - then they are still involved.
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 10:01AM
There has to be interstate traffic for federal jusisdiction in a criminal case. For example, there have been arrests in Western Pa of gang members from Detroit who are dealing in norther Ohio and Western Pa. The feds have to resources to deal with these multi state drug rings rather than the police depts of small towns.
The real threat to our personal liberty is from the IRS, the most intrusive agency, and Obamacare that will control you health care.
Bumr50| 2.22.13 @ 10:13AM
I live near Pittsburgh, and the scourge of heroin has never been more dire.
That's why I'm not for across the board legalization. Often times, that money funds terror.
To lump cannabis in with heroin, processed cocaine, and crystal meth is absurd.
In fact, small departments would rather make a living busting people with marijuana than going after the armed, hard targets that routinely terrorize their municipalities.
Why is marijuana a Schedule 1 drug, while hydrocodone is not?
I don't view this as a black and white issue, because it's not.
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 10:34AM
How will legalization of heroin remove the scourge of the effects of heroin? Do you want to tell your children that since heroin is now legal they can purchase it at age 21 as they now purchae a bottle of wine for dinner.
Police depts bust sellers marijuana because if they are selling marijuana they are probably also selling cocaine, heroin, and stolen drugs such oxy-contin. They do not waste their time with possession of a small amount of marijuana unless you are driving a car and under the influence.
Bumr50| 2.22.13 @ 12:06PM
"Police depts bust sellers marijuana because if they are selling marijuana they are probably also selling cocaine, heroin, and stolen drugs such oxy-contin. "
Really???
Go ahead and make some more stuff up to bolster your "argument."
I said that I WASN'T for across the board legalisation, genius.
Maybe read the post before you get up on your high horse.
Enjoy another belt of Kentucky bourbon as well.
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 12:09PM
So you can't answer any of the questions, right? I read your post and it is nonsense.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 11:05AM
I see you've forgotten the cases against Farmers Growing Crops for their own Consumption, who were slapped with Interstate Commerce Injunctions, because, even by NOT SELLING their Crops, they were engaging in Interstate Commerce.
Understand?
Looking at it another way: It's why people who DON'T PAY INCOME TAXES, get refund checks.
Get it, now?
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 12:10PM
Be more specific, TLP.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 2:45PM
The Kangaroo Rat was The Spotted Owl of its day.
I believe it was during The Rapist's time in Office.
Stan Redmond| 2.22.13 @ 2:49PM
You should have heard the outcry when Spotted Owls would swoop down and eat kangaroo rats.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 2:49PM
Sorry, CJW. Wrong story.
I don't know how to explain it any better.
Under The Commerce Clause, they went after Farmers growing their Crops for their own consumption, under The Interstate Commerce Clause, under the guise that: Even by NOT SELLING IT, they were Affecting Interstate Commerce.
You gotta do your own homework.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:19PM
Wickard v. Fillburn. Look it up.
markenoff| 2.24.13 @ 8:40PM
The Earned Income Tax Credit. It's a bounty paid to keep people who don't make very much from loeaving the workforce and just going on welfare. It's not working very well.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:20PM
Wickard v. Filburn.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 4:42PM
Thank You, markenoff.
We could use a man like you, at next Friday's Contest.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 4:43PM
Yep - that was when the Commerce Clause came to mean the Congress and the federal government can do anything they want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 7:31PM
Yes, but so what is the point? The supreme court expanded the commerce clause during FDR's administration, and has recently scaled it back slightly. That has nothing to do with federal drug laws because the feds still have to prove jurisdiciton in the criminal drug prosecution.
The federal jurisdiction will expand under Obamacare because all activity, such as drugs,liquor, etc., affects the cost of health inusrance and the feds will use that to further expand its power to pass more laws making more federal crimes.
This talk about the freedom to inject drugs into your body as a form of liberty is stupid. If you are really worried about federal intrusion on your liberty, you should be concerned about the IRS, the most intrusive and abusive agency and Obamacare which will control you health care, not to mention Obama's claim to have the power to kill American citizens he deems part of the war on terrorism.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 7:41PM
You're not getting it.
If they can go after you for NOT DOING SOMETHING?
They can go after you for ANYTHING.
Capiche?
CJW| 2.23.13 @ 9:11AM
Tim
You mispelled capiche. It is capisce. The ch gives you k sound in italian. capiche is ok is you speak jersey/newyawk. I know what you're thinking about making a word with the k sound using ch, don't go there.
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 11:08AM
What kind of a sick person, runs around telling people that they spelled words wrong?
It's Un American.
It's Un Patriotic.
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 11:11AM
And, don't Fuch with me.
Capisce?
CJW| 2.23.13 @ 11:51AM
You could not resist.
You mispelled f----
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 4:45PM
F---?
Chicken.
markenoff| 2.24.13 @ 8:38PM
You misspelled Fluke
markenoff| 2.24.13 @ 8:37PM
You misspelled THC
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 2:42PM
The Feds are involved because THEY CAN'T TAX IT.
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.22.13 @ 10:49AM
Because that would deprive the Common Man of the guidance of his (political/intellectual class) Betters. Also, it wouldn't be any fun, and the chattering classes might have to admit to themselves that nobody really needs them, which would be a bummer.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 10:06AM
I doubt someone high on pot is going to go snatch some old lady's purse. He might grab her nachos though.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 11:08AM
Oh, he'll grab her purse.
He just won't run away, as he's forgotten why he wanted it, in the first place.
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 2:21PM
Someone else mentioned this elsewhere, I can have a drink or two and not be drunk. You cannot smoke a joint, bowl, or bong and not be stoned.
Alcohol doesn't make people angry, it only removes what little controls said individual has in place already. Pot smokers are just as impaired on the roads, I saw a person literally run a red light and jump the car off the end of a road after they smashed through the big sign that had a
Joellen| 2.22.13 @ 7:51AM
Tim, good chuckle from you early in the morning, but the case is made by Mr. Hitchens, and oh what a mess we've made.
And as Pecos Pete correctly stated the Choom Gang comes into mind, and just who is now THE POTUS, but the top duuuude of the choom gang, and boy what a mess we've made.
Gary B| 2.22.13 @ 7:59AM
Mr. Hitchens has not made his case. His evidence is anecdotal and doesn't stand up to common sense. And, regarding the traitor in the White House... if it were not for rampant political correctness and his being the perfect useful idiot, he wouldn't be there.
Job| 2.22.13 @ 1:38PM
Agree he hasn't made a case here. His righteous nobleness blabbered about pseudo intellectual, libertarian, Nazi-soviet, Bolshevik ascetic , wooly hat enemies.
Now hear this: marijuana is one of the greatest pharmaceutical drugs known to man.
Everything in moderation.
Now check that last sentence and see if the word everything has some kind of clause that excepts marijuana, heroin, Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, and mad hatters in wooly hats.
The only exception I can think of is Islam, I don't think we need it in moderation...hmm
"Go ahead, people, do drugs, die and get out of the way. Make room for someone productive. I'm sick of trying to convince self-destructive people to stop destroying themselves. "
I'm tired of footing the bill for the 2 million people we have incarcerated in this country . As far as the worlds murder rate is concerned we are #63 with 6 murders per 100,000 yet somehow we are #1 in incarceration in the world with an absurd 715 per 100,000 incarcerated. Other absurdities that don't add up are we are number 1 in gun ownership and crime and #63 in murders and# 57 in rapes but that’s for another day.
Walk the walk righteous noble folks and decriminalize crimes of morality. How can we claim we want smaller government if we want over 2 million people incarcerated 30% for morality.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:25PM
Your crime stats are misleading for at least three reasons; 1) it assumes every other country in the world reports their stats accurately (China), 2) it assumes that non-incarcerated populations in other countries are not prisoners of their governments (N. Korea, Cuba), and 3) it assumes our incarceration rates are a result of harsher laws when, in fact, there our other countries where harsher laws lead to fewer incarcerations (what do you think the penatly for possession of cocaine is in Saudi Arabia?).
Job| 2.22.13 @ 4:05PM
I agree they are misleading but think that much can be ascertained by the numbers nonetheless.
Yes one must take into consideration the meaning of the statistics that are offered by prison industrial, slave industrial, and totalitarian nations.
In the case of the US I still think you can look at the statistics and decide things like gun proliferation is a deterent to violent crime and not a cause. And that 2 million prisoners that i'm supporting, feeding, gold standard health caring and educating, for 40 grand a year is absurd.
what is 40 grand times 2 million gimme the misleading statistic for that..
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 4:44PM
You spelled "Aspertain" wrong.
Job| 2.22.13 @ 6:13PM
and numbness...:)
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 7:43PM
You spelled " Numbnuts" wrong.
markenoff| 2.24.13 @ 8:42PM
So you can make conclusions (much can be ascertained) from statistics you admit are misleading? If the statistics (your premises) are misleading it is very unlikely they will lead to valid conclusions.
Job| 2.25.13 @ 12:56PM
ever play poker? cos if you have you'll get this.
Bumr50| 2.22.13 @ 8:04AM
Are you still trying to sell the argument that alcohol is somehow different? It's MUCH more dangerous of a DRUG than marijuana.
Ask any medical professinal or law enforcement official worth their salt.
Keeping it illegal simply because some who want it legalized have MAY have more nefarious intentions on a global scale is irrelevant.
It's hypocrisy at it's finest, and runs counterintuitive to a freedom-seeking, small government agenda.
You have every right to make this argument, just don't DARE try to cloak it in a framework of somehow being good for small government conservatives.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 11:14AM
Ask anyone who they'd rather have in the Foxhole with them?
The guy who just caught a buzz on some weed, and will be coming down in a little while?
The Drunk, who's useless til tomorrow?
Or, Pesco, who throws in the Towel after the first Analogy.
Pecos Pete| 2.22.13 @ 11:47AM
I wanna be in the Foxhole with the Colonel.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 2:51PM
So, obviously, you'd rather be with the Drunk.
Understood.
mike 3/505| 2.22.13 @ 4:22PM
I shoot more better, gooder, accurately when I've had a few.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 4:45PM
Why do I think that you Drive Better, too?
mike 3/505| 2.22.13 @ 5:05PM
I fly better too....difference between peacetime & wartime rules.
Peacetime: 12 hours, bottle to throttle.
Wartime: 12 feet bottle to throttle
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:26PM
The pothead would forget where the foxhole was.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 4:46PM
He'd probably jump in a Manhole.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 8:11AM
Well Mr. Hitchens, the loathing you have for Libertarians is mutual from this Libertarian.
I despise your nosy self-importance. So it's up to you (or some other statist) to determine what I should put in my body for fun or medicine? No thanks.
I detest the results of your nosiness. Militarized police, no-knock raids the Stasi would be proud of, erosion of our 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment Rights. The damage isn't contained to the U.S., the drug war in Mexico has claimed more lives than we lost in the Koran War. I hate that all this is being funded by my taxes.
Prohibition has never, ever worked. It didn't work for alcohol - arguably a more dangerous substance than marijuana, and it hasn't worked for drugs.
Don't like pot? Don't use it - I don't. But mind your own damn business you loathsome busy body.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.22.13 @ 9:54AM
This is what I don't like about libertarians: arrogance, moral anarchism, exaggeration. Your arguments could easily be used to justify the free flow of cocaine, or of worse things.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 10:16AM
Snort all the coke you want, I don't care. You are still responsible for your actions.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.22.13 @ 10:42AM
How about certain forms of pornography? Or of sex? That okay, too?
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 10:55AM
Among consenting adults, sure.
Are you a child who needs the government to tell you right from wrong and protect you from yourself?
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 11:15AM
Maybe he's Bob Menendez?
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.22.13 @ 11:19AM
Why the qualification "consenting adults"?
"You are still responsible for your actions."
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 11:37AM
Why the stupid questions? Why do you want to be treated like a child?
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.22.13 @ 1:11PM
Avoiding the question I see. That's what hyper-libertarians always do when confronted with a reductio ad absurdum of their views.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 2:01PM
That was a real question?
The same reason we don't let kids drink liquor or vote - kids and too immature to weigh the risks.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.22.13 @ 3:25PM
So you are imposing your values on other human beings? Already, we see a qualification of hyper-libertarianism, contrary to your earlier position:
"Prohibition has never, ever worked....But mind your own damn business you loathsome busy body."
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 4:18PM
You have not told me why you have such a desire to be treated like a child by the Nanny-state.
Job| 2.22.13 @ 1:43PM
yes
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 12:51PM
Ahhhh but you aren't. WE are.
The taxpayers will have to foot the bill because you're too dysfunctional to work or can't get a job. We'll be the ones paying for your healthcare for as long as you live, even when it gets expensive because you've destroyed your body with drugs.
Even if you made drug users ineligible for public assistance you'd still be footing the bill. They are going end up in jail/prison anyway because of theft, prostitution, or even murder.
Jrk| 2.24.13 @ 12:16AM
But we are already footing the bill. Then we are footing the bill for imprisonment and enforcement. Sex can be just as dangerous as drugs. Maybe it cant kill you as quick but dangerous none the less. So are we gonna allow the government to regulate sexual behavior. How about divorce? It leads to a whole host of societal problems. Maybe we should imprison people who cheat on their spouse? All kinds of behaviors affect society and cost us money so why just stop at drugs?
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 10:15AM
Good point. If you don't like guns don't buy them but let me keep mine.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 10:18AM
One of the problesm I have with the typical libertarian position on drugs is they can't separate pot from cocaine, crack or heroin. Cocaine, crack and heroin, if I understand it correctly, cause physiological changes to the brain which trigger addiction. Pot, if it does the same thing, does so on a lot less intense scale. I've never heard of a "pot whore" (though I did have a fraternity brother who would clean other guys bongs in order to smoke the accumulated resin). My question for the libertarians is always would you want your sister, daughter, niece etc. to be a crack whore?
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 10:28AM
I have no need of the government to prevent it. Are you so helpless, you need the federal government to prevent you and your family from abusing dangerous narcotics?
If prohibition worked, there would be no heroin addicts of either sex.
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 1:01PM
So OP4 how would you prevent your family from trying and/or becoming addicted to Heroin, Meth, and Crack/Cocaine? You as the sole resource for prevention, no police, no schools, church, just you when your kids can get it at the local gas station/quick mart?
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 2:02PM
Why no church or schools?
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 3:22PM
You claim not to need government, schools recieve government funding. Churches? Because many Libertarians seem to hate religion and religious conservatives almost as much as Government.
So have you figured out how to keep your family off drugs in a society where they are legal and easily obtainable out of your own resources?
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 3:59PM
Yes, I do not need the government to raise my children for me. On the other hand, our church, and the parochial school I send my children to have been helpful.
Drugs are illegal and easily obtainable right now. The difference is negligible.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:32PM
The federal government has the responsibility to prevent dangerous people and substances from coming across our borders. I expect them to keep heroin, cocaine, nuclear weapons and terrorists from crossing into our country. The fact that they don't do a very good job of it does not mean that it is not their responsibility (I would argue that it is one of the few areas where the feds have not only the Constitutional power but the Constitutional duty to act). Apparently your perspective is that the government should do nothing in any of these areas.
Are you so helpless you need the federal government to prevent you and your family from being killed by terrorists?
markenoff| 2.24.13 @ 8:45PM
I'm not worried about me or my family. I'm worried about those you admit will break into homes in order to get things to sell to support their habit. I'm afraid they will break into my house and my wife or I will have to shoot them.
Obviously someone somewhere in the US is so helpless that they could not prevent themselves from becoming addicted to heroin and/or cocaine. So even if I and my family don't need protection they do.
Job| 2.22.13 @ 1:46PM
My question for the libertarians is always would you want your sister, daughter, niece etc. to be a crack whore?
this is the same vacuous argument being used to take our guns by the one while sitting in the middle of the children from Sandy Hook.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:28PM
Explain why. Owning a gun does not make you more prone to violence. Doing heroin or crack even once makes you more prone to addiction. Not a sinilar argument at all that I can see.
Job| 2.22.13 @ 4:15PM
hmm ok fill in the blank with the words in parentheses.
It is the, my poor little _____ .
( child, sister, daughter, neice),
will die if we don't crack down on ______.
fast cars, guns, drugs, alcohol, helmets, vacuous argument.
Job| 2.22.13 @ 4:16PM
(fast cars, guns, drugs, alcohol, helmets, damn TAS no edit funtion)
markenoff| 2.24.13 @ 8:53PM
Still not a good analogy. Fast cars, guns, alcohol, helmets and damn TAS no edit function are not physically addicting. Heroin and crack are. Ok, a small percentage of those who use alcohol will become alcoholics. But if you put 100 people in a room and have each of them drink a six pack maybe 2 will exhibit physical withdrawal symptons. But if you put 100 people in a room and have them smoke crack or shoot smack they will all exhibit physical withdrawal symptoms.
Crack cocaine, cocaine and heroin all have the same characteristic in that they rob you of your free will. Which is why libertarians, who are supposedly all about free will, should not support the "whatever I want to put in my body is my choice" position because with these drugs it quickly becomes no longer the individual's choice.
Job| 2.25.13 @ 1:27PM
we disagree. were from the government and were here to help doesn't work no matter how you burp it up.
some folks are doomed to fall into the business of crack, heroin, injecting bath salts, drinking methanol alcohol, drano, toad licking or any number of things that are bad for them and the all seeing intrusive big government approach can't stop them without making matters worse.
Larry E| 2.22.13 @ 8:14AM
This more sermon than argument. I've no qualms with those who find in narcotics a very real evil. I do, though, have a very great challenge with those who imagine that evil wasn't lurking about in our great experiment with Prohibition.
It loosed mayhem on so many levels. Made criminals of any who wished to imbibe ... and made millionaires out of common thugs. Money they then used to finance small armies and further vice.
Worse, liberty took a beating ... still is. Individual rights have endured a steady and dangerous erosion all in the name of this absurd war on drugs. If it is a war, then by comparison, the Vietnam conflict was a stunning success.
The toll on liberty, the toll on foolish people (stupidity really shouldn't be a crime), the toll on their families, the toll on tax dollars ... seems a heavy price to pay for behaviors which were once quite legal ... and caused no national "stupification".
Politicians benefit from the current madness by promising to "get tough". Police benefit by acquiring ever larger standing armies and armament ... and a loathsome disregard for individual liberty. Lawyers certainly benefit ... boy oh boy do they ever benefit. Government, on so many levels and in so many insidious ways benefits ... all at our expense.
Sorry, Peter ... but I think your confusing the obligations of personal responsibility with government oversight ... that's a dangerous and myopic conflation.
Bankrupt_R_Us| 2.23.13 @ 8:48AM
Wait until someone you love starts smoking marijuana in jr high, goes on to use the addictive drugs, needs methadone daily, is unable to hold a job plus extorts methadone money from his parents and moves back home, permanently.
Are you willing to take a chance YOUR child turns out like this?
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 4:54PM
We're not talking about that.
We're talking about Adults.
It'll have the same Restrictions as Alcohol.
Only, the Pot Smoker will Come Down in a couple of Hours, and be back to normal, while the Drunk will Stay Drunk, until tomorrow morning.
It really is, no more complicated than that.
The biggest difference between Pot and Booze?
The Ugly Girls never get any better looking, when you're High.
Jrk| 2.24.13 @ 12:21AM
Living increases your risk of dying so.....what is your point? I dont want my daughters to abuse drugs but I'm under no illusion that being illegal makes drug use something I dont have to worry about.
Cobalt| 2.22.13 @ 8:14AM
Peter Hitchens is a former atheist, and is the author of six books including "The Rage Against God." His brother was Christopher Hitchens, a devout atheist.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.22.13 @ 9:55AM
And therefore?
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 10:19AM
Sounds lika an ad hominem argument to me.
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 4:55PM
You spelled "Homo Men" wrong.
Maxwell| 2.22.13 @ 8:15AM
When I was in college (University of Akron, Ohio) in the late 60's money was as tight as a clam's ... backside. Drugs, would rather have food in my stomach. I never did see the benefit of 'getting stoned'. Why? It was more fun to take the Duck (Ducati) out of Rt. 77 and give it a high speed tune up.
I now have to have my ankles rebuilt because of all the track & field I did in high school, at University and for thirty years afterwards. Doctor fix-it asked me, Maxwell, you use drugs, I said, never did. He said, you are a first! Doctors in New York City must see mostly liberals. I did have on my very best clothes with my Springfield Armory Firearms long sleeve t-shirt. Really, everyone loves me.
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 4:56PM
You spelled "Acorn" wrong.
Bumr50| 2.22.13 @ 8:15AM
Moe troubling to me than the fact that there are so many people on the right that are against marijuana legalisation is the fact that people choose to use their positions of influence (not huge, but much larger than, say, MINE) to write articles like this when WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH VOTERS.
As useful as some may find it to be to "define ourselves" in this way, has it occurred to anyone that maybe we need to reinforce our commonalities in a clear, concise message rather than attempt to define what we won't put up with?
I'm in the tent no matter what.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 8:28AM
"Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies which emphasize individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
You are either for freedom or against it. The author of this nonsense is obviously against it.
If the Republican Party wants to rebuild their popularity, I strongly suggest they re-examine their policies that oppose freedom.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 10:24AM
Freedom is not anarchy.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 10:30AM
Laws that prevent us from hurting other people are necessary. Laws to prevent us from hurting ourselves are stupid and degrading.
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 1:15PM
Since you obviously didn't read the whole article, the author addresses your statement and proves it invalid. The problem is your assertions are made in a bubble.
You never just hurt yourself by using drugs. You hurt those who care about you, you hurt those that depend on you, and you hurt society as a whole since it must pay for your poor choices.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 2:03PM
I did read it and saw no "proof" of anything except Mr. Hitchens' love of the State.
Jrk| 2.24.13 @ 12:24AM
You can do the same by cheating on your spouse. So do we make cheating illegal? Is that the rationale, if it hurts emotionally, people who care about us?
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 11:17AM
You spelled "Archie" wrong.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:34PM
What I really meant is that freedom is like Jughead. Or Moose. Definitely not Veronica.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 4:48PM
Nice.
You really need to get to The Contest, next Friday.
markenoff| 2.24.13 @ 8:55PM
You spelled Countess wrong. And she wants me to come by Friday but my wife objects.
Al Adab| 2.22.13 @ 8:28AM
Another example of the Libertarian error in believing there are no consequences. Yes, federal government action should be limited to enumerated matters; yes the states have the power to regulated and legislate (they are different) in this and other such matters. Yes, this is a matter of self indulgence and it would do many well to ask where all the ADD and other learning disabled children have come from over the last forty years. No less than tobacco, this is a public health matter and under social pressure tobacco use has declined greatly over time. Social strictures, which once regulated much of our collective behavior, do work. It's time to apply them to this as well.
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 8:39AM
Al Adab
The volume of crime associated with drugs is unbelievable. Many burglaries are done to rob to get money for drugs, usually cocaine and heroin. I have seen burglaries where guns were stolen and sold for a few hundred dollars and drugs. It is easy to view marijuana, or weed in the current parlance, as just having a beer, but most drug users started with weed and graduated to more serious drugs. Maybe the persons had an addictive type personality.
Mere possession, not sale, of a small amount of mj, less than an ounce or 30 grams, is a minor offense, 30 days non reporting probation, and many times not even prosecuted by the police, if it is a first time offense.
Larry E| 2.22.13 @ 8:43AM
CJW, you seem immune to the basic arithmetic of risk. People steal to support habits often because of the high cost of purchasing illegal drugs.
Remove the risk, reduce the cost. Know many people burgling homes to finance their beer addiction?
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 9:05AM
So legalize all drugs and see what happens? May reduce burglaries, but then what? You would need a state to legalize all, or most, drugs and see the results. Beer is a poor analogy. Try again. You seem immune to reality and discuss this as an intellectual exercise of risk and reward, without considering the effects of drugs.The criminals steal because it is easier than working, and many do not work.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 10:35AM
All drugs were legal in the U.S. prior to 1914. We somehow managed to survive to that point with drug stores selling Laudanum to any adult who asked for it. Even back then, alcohol was a bigger problem than any other drug.
Al Adab| 2.22.13 @ 10:50AM
We could, as many note, legalize everything and tax it to death. Still, the public safety and health dangers outweigh any potential up side to that approach.Whether the enforcement efforts are well managed is another issue altogether.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 11:03AM
Were narcotics (legal and widely available) a public safety issue during the McKinley or Taft Administrations?
Al Adab| 2.22.13 @ 11:45AM
It was in many ways the widespread use of such as laudanum and coca during that period which made the country aware pf the public health risks. So in that sense yes it was a public health issue.
The deleterious effects of opiates become known with such as Wilberforce suffering from medical mistreatment. The book Confessions of an English Opium Eater helped alert the public to the dangers. Often it is only after widespread use of medical drugs or treatments that we realize the dangers and side effects.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 12:04PM
And were the casualties and costs on par with the massive drug war we are now waging?
Al Adab| 2.22.13 @ 12:33PM
OP4:
No as people were willing to adhere to and obey the laws (for the most part) until the Civil Rights Movement legitimized civil disobedience and the "hippie" culture (for want of a better term) decided that principle applied to any law not simply unjust ones. There are always unintended consequences. Why invite more?
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 12:43PM
We have a long history of ignoring laws we don't like - Prohibition and the income tax are the biggest examples.
Now there are so many laws and regulations, we don't even know when we are breaking them. It breeds contempt for the concept of the law in general.
Al Adab| 2.22.13 @ 1:38PM
Many causes for the widespread contempt of the law and yes those are some of them.
Has anyone knowledge of how many brand names for legal MJ the tobacco companies have copywritten pending legalization as distinct from decriminalization? Again however I would remind you that it is the children of the drug users who significantly suffer the consequences of the parents use. Those suffering with ADD and various learning disabilities due to parental drug use had no choice.
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 4:58PM
You spelled "Laundromat" wrong.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 10:29AM
I can drink a couple of beers and not get addicted. I cannot shoot up a couple of times and not get addicted.
I would postulate it is not the "high cost of purchasing illegal drugs" that leads to these crimes but that fact that someone addicted to crack or heroin to the point where they would burglarize a home, taking the chance that they could be shot by the homeowner or arrested and thrown in jail, cannot hold a job that allows them to buy anything, including drugs. I just don't see a heroin user at the end of the week saying, "Gee, my paycheck from my job at (wherever) covers my rent, food, transportation and utilities but there's just not enough left over for my smack do to the high cost of purchasing drugs. I could go without smack. Nah, I'll just go break into a few houses until I get enough to cover my smack."
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 10:30AM
...due...
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 5:00PM
You spelled "Prostitute" wrong.
Am I the only one who thinks this is funny?
Cause, I'm thinkin that I am.
Jrk| 2.24.13 @ 12:27AM
you know alcohol is addictive right?
markenoff| 2.24.13 @ 8:57PM
To a small percentage of those who drink it. Heroin and cocaine are addictive to everyone who tries them. It is the nature of the drugs.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.22.13 @ 9:00AM
I think when one closely considers the example of alcohol prohibition, it is not the template for drug legalization that many consider it to be.
The sale, use and possession of alcohol is still highly regulated by state, federal and local governments, as well as private entities, such as employers. Where and when it can be sold, who it can be sold to, how and where it can be consumed, what activities can be performed following consumption; all of these and many other aspects are prescribed or proscribed by law, and taxes levied and collected to finance the enforcement of these regulations (along with other government activities).
When someone is making the case for marijuana legalization, to the extent that I hear these ideas addressed by its advocates, helps determine how seriously I consider any proposal.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 10:45AM
Sounds more like you are making the case for repealing 90% of the laws related to alcohol.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.22.13 @ 12:46PM
"Sounds more like you are making the case for repealing 90% of the laws related to alcohol."
Such a case could be made, though I don't think I've made it in the post above.
I think the important point to take from it is that alcohol regulations evolved at various levels of government occasionally for rational and constitutionally consistent reasons.
There have been others who have objected to regulation since the founding of this republic (and before), as one of the first major uprising by citizens after the ratification of the Constitution was the Whiskey Rebellion, which was a resistance to one of those regulations in the form of a tax.
Though the show of force by Washington and the troops mustered quashed the insurgency, it did not end the controversy surrounding the regulation/ tax. Some of that controversy continues to exist today, as the reality shows about moonshine distillers demonstrate.
Ultimately, the dissatisfaction with that specific tax was resolved at the ballot box, when it was repealed during the Jefferson administration, not necessarily because it was felt unconstitutional or in opposition with the philosophical underpinnings of our republic, but because a majority of those lawmakers elected didn’t want it anymore.
CJW| 2.23.13 @ 9:45AM
Albert
I live about 20 miles from the site of the Whiskey Rebellion. It is still a popular topic here. They are several books by local authors, and 5K races and picnics with T shirts about the Whiskey Rebellion. At our gym, several persons wear Whiskey Rebellion shirts.
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 10:49AM
The argument seems to be that because alcohol is legal then all drugs should be legal. There is no distinction made between the effects of alcohol and the effects of drugs such as heroin. To say some abuse alcohol therefore we must let people have the opportunity to abuse heroin is stupid.
Private use of marijuana will probably be legalized.
As for the libertarian argument, I generally favor the libertarian principle of limiting government intrusion in our lives, but we should focus on real issues such as thei ntrusion in our lives by IRS, the over-regulation of business, and Obamacare that will control you healthcare.
hoosiertoo| 2.22.13 @ 11:06AM
Libertarian here:
I'm under no illusions about consequences. Along with personal liberty (the only kind that really matters) comes personal responsibility. As an ooccasional user of alcohol (whiskey, meet rocks) and even less occasional user of tobacco (cigars with whiskey) and the substance currently under discussion, I take care to act responsibly at all times; I have to. I don't ask anyone to shield me from the consequences of my own choices. Since I object to subsidizing the poor choices of others, why would I?
Bumr50| 2.22.13 @ 8:35AM
How cynical must you be to think that anyone "on the right" that thinks marijuana should be legal has as their goal the dissolution of international treaties?
I'm confused.
Are you arguing to make me aware of the fact that groups like NORML have more nefarious goals?
This smacks of those who would shun homosexuals from the GOP because there are groups of homosexuals that have much more ambitious goals than those they've stated publicly.
Tina B| 2.22.13 @ 8:56AM
Commenting on the often brilliant Peter Hitchens reported input from the folks in the medical profession. The relationship between weed and mental problems is probably identical to that between alcohol and mental problems. That is to say almost everyone has tried one or the other. Hence they are related. Duh.
Having said that, my thoughts, always very clear to me and apparently those with whom I communicate on a regular basis, are that Timmy is right once again. He has pretty much nailed my arguments too. I first smoked a joint in the parking garage of my off campus housing apartment my freshman year at University of Cali at Santa Barbara, circa 1967. I was seventeen. I think better now than at any time since my final college days, in the early 90s.
The best mental refresher for me has been unloading the stress from 22 years teaching and the 9 years prior as a teaching asst. And the 5 years prior to that as a pool bartender and waiting tables at a Holiday Inn near Disney. The stress of working with and for total imbeciles, now that is mind bending.
It took a year of what I call "detox" from the leftist circle that is the school system just to begin to think clearly again. In addition to that, the stress of horribly rude children, to each other not to me, loudly asserting themselves day in and day out, was mind altering. (continued)
Tina B| 2.22.13 @ 8:57AM
The school systems growing tendency of pacifying the worst behaviours
while taking almost no notice of the best. It's called PBS, positive behaviour system, and it was mind warping.
The master/slave treatment of staff by admin who seemed to be empowered by the fact that a common curriculum was coming and that all teachers would be forced to teach it or "adios, m.f." was mind-blowing too. I was left alone' being one of the last two old-timers to retire, and because I had actually been there since 1982 and lived through 7 previous admins. My stress came from watching others rise or fall according to the whims of small minded fearful principals. And because I taught math which doesn't change with presidential administrations, like science and history seem to.
Stress causes mental damage folks. Let's see how quickly we can outlaw mentally damaging stress, the kind delivered by morons who become leaders like youknowwho and bosses like some my late hubby and I have had. Only then we can work on those body damaging things like too much tobacco, alcohol, and if you smoke way too much, marijuana.
There, I think I completed that thought quite nicely.
As did Timmy.
Bumr50| 2.22.13 @ 9:03AM
Who's Timmy?
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 11:29AM
I don't know this Timmy guy, but he sounds Brilliant. I bet he's Hilarious, or at least he thinks he is.
I can't believe that anyone could dislike that guy.
Has anyone actually seen him?
I bet he looks like The Edge, when he puts on his Pea Coat, and his Skull Cap.
His wife is probably Smoking Hot, and Emails him pictures of her Asss, when she's out in California for a Week. I bet he wonders who the Mexican Bellboy is, that he can clearly see in the Mirror, holding the Camera.
I don't know who he is, but I can't imagine life, without him.
Jacob McCandles| 2.22.13 @ 1:24PM
The Edge/Mexican Bellboy. That's some funny stuff right there.
SUBVET| 2.22.13 @ 1:38PM
She's in CA visiting SANCHO..........
Moe Blotz| 2.22.13 @ 8:08PM
Timmy probably looks like this (_!_)
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 11:59AM
I gotta tell ya.
That was Funny as Hell.
And, you're Banned!
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:37PM
I thought it was Tiny?
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 4:54PM
All right.
Now I hate you.
markenoff| 2.24.13 @ 8:59PM
I understand your dialectic. You either love someone or you hate them.
Miles Glorious| 2.22.13 @ 9:26AM
Bless you!
SUBVET| 2.22.13 @ 10:55AM
Hang out 50.......you can't miss ol TLP.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.22.13 @ 9:56AM
With some of the hill tribes in South East Asia, a privilege of old age was to be able to smoke opium (in the absence of pensions, Social Security and Medicare, its analgesic properties helped lessen the pain of aging).
As a result of her being battered for decades by the leftist education monopoly, though I generally am not an advocate of any drug legalization, I would not object to legislation allowing exemption to any state, federal or local marijuana use laws for Tina B.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 11:32AM
I don't suppose you know the number of the American Equivalent of these Asian Retirement Opium Dens, do you?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.22.13 @ 12:50PM
Surreptitiously follow your father -in-law some night, and see if Singha can't lead you to some locations.
Even if it turns out not to be an opium den, you still might have a good time, and learn some useful information.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 2:56PM
No.
I'll just end up in a Card Game, with him taking all of my money, again.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.22.13 @ 9:18PM
No doubt. Those folks of an Asian persuasion frequently have an enjoyment of gambling.
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 11:43AM
More like "Stealing" if you ask me.
Tina B| 2.22.13 @ 2:20PM
I do love you ACJ, you understand. And I haven't figured out a way for it to be decriminalised for just adults who have retired from the public schools, or grey-blonde 60-plus women from England, Cali and Florida, widows who miss their funny hubby and come to TAS for humor and conservative gun totin' logic and wisdom.
To my friends here who disagree, you are still as wise and funny as you were yesterday, before Mr. Hitchens inspired me to pontificate about my dance with the illegality or criminality of smoking a bit of reefer as an otherwise highly responsible adult might do.
SUBVET| 2.22.13 @ 11:01AM
WOW Tina........Santa B. in the 60's...let me see that would make you about 65 give or take a yr. or 2.
Teachers pension.........good girl.....you still live in CA ?
Tina B| 2.22.13 @ 2:23PM
Nope. My crazy hubby drug me to Florida from Cali. I must say I am probably alive because of that move, if you know what I mean. Southern Cal was not a good place for a wild woman with a young son. I totally mellowed out in Fla, eventually.
Russel| 2.22.13 @ 9:08AM
If I'm not mistaken , is Hemp still illegal ? . Wonder what political forces are behind that , considering what a superior resource it is , from clothing ( much stronger than Cotton ) to rope , on and on . Smoke it and get a headache . Research WHY weed was originally outlawed . One theory was to minimize the Hispanic vote . Another more capitalistic reasons ( above ) . Regardless , the cost of enforcement is outweighing these reasons nowadays , outweighed by tons . That smell still isn't as potent as that of a politician whose state may have a legal cash crop ( other than tobacco , which has become almost an Albatross ) .
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:38PM
It was outlawed by the Illuminati and the Elders of Zion to preserve their cotton monopoly, obvioulsy.
Bumr50| 2.22.13 @ 9:09AM
I've read this piece four times now, and from a purely objective point of view I've found it to be a disjointed, unsubstantiated piece of garbage.
Seriously. You've done MUCH better.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 11:35AM
Remember..........he's probably Stoned while he's writing it.
I know I would be.
I'd find Timmy, and we'd Fire It Up!
Archie| 2.22.13 @ 1:05PM
In college, “Timmy” was the name a certain dorm friend of mine gave to a certain smoking apparatus. I know nothing more about it than that.
Tina B| 2.22.13 @ 2:24PM
Silly guy. You are Timmy. Fire it up.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:39PM
The best part of this article is the comments.
GobBluthe| 2.22.13 @ 9:11AM
There is nothing conservative about current drug laws. Especially the asset forfeiture laws.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 11:22AM
You mean funding a $2.5 billion dollar federal militarized police force (the DEA), scrapping the Bill of Rights, and treating adults like children isn't Conservative?
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 12:36PM
What drugs do you propose to legalize, and what type of control or regulation over the sale and use of the legalized drugs?
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 12:56PM
There's a good question. I'll go with the Federalist solution. No federal laws, dissolve the DEA, trim the FDA and let the states handle it as they see fit.
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 1:08PM
But that is in most respects the case now. The states otlaw drugs, and most drug prosecutions are in state court. Back to the same question, what drugs should each state legalize and how to control or regulate it.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 2:07PM
That absolutely isn't the case right now. In states that have legalized pot under various schemes, the DEA goes right on breaking down doors and prosecuting users and distributors.
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 3:07PM
What are you talking about? Every state has a Drug statute that specifies what drugs are illegal. Go to any state courthouse and most of the cases are drug cases. Getting rid of the DEA does not get rid of the drug laws in each state. Now you have federal and state drug laws. So you get rid of the feds, you still have the states. Just like each state has its liquor laws, some states have 18, some 21 for drinking; some states have state liquor stores only, such as Pa, other states have supermarkets selling liquor.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 4:00PM
Then why is this guy looking at a decade in federal prison for obeying CA law?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....1358135500
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 7:07PM
You either do not understand or refuse to understand a simple concept. Each state has statutes prohibitng possession/sale of drugs, and so does the fed gov.
Do you really think that states do not have such laws?
CJW| 2.23.13 @ 9:43AM
The question in the Calif case is whether the feds have jurisdiciton. The feds have outlawed conduct that is not outlawed by the state. The feds will argue that growing/manufacturing will affect sales of marijuana interstate crime. This can easily be resolved if Congress and Obama amend the fed statutes to prohibit prosecution for growing of mj for personal use in states that do not outlaw it.
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 11:57AM
NOTHING can be "Easily resolved by Congress and Obama getting together and getting something done".
You must be new around here.
And by - "here" - I mean: Earth.
And you spelled - Omaha - wrong.
tminus1| 2.22.13 @ 9:16AM
I have to confess dismay at the support shown in these comments for marijuana. Perhaps those drawing analogies to alcohol would benefit from reviewing the results of this study:
http://tinyurl.com/bb8fwwe
Then again, perhaps not.
Bumr50| 2.22.13 @ 9:42AM
No study can replace real world experiences.
If you think that alcohol is less dangerous of a drug than THC, you are seriously self-deluded and are looking for ANY evidence to support your illogical conclusion that "Drugs are bad...mmm kay."
I could throw a hundred studies at you to "prove" that alcohol is worse for the human body than cannabis consumption, yet you'd probably still search and search for "evidence" that fits your obviously limited worldview.
In fact, I'm POSITIVE (as are you, if you'd admit it to yourself) that I could unearth mountains of psychiatric study that would leave the reader with the strong impression that alcohol should be made illegal immediately.
The argument is about personal freedom first and foremost, but thanks for highlighting the lengths to which some people will go to reinforce their stereotypes.
Here's one that supports "my" argument:http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774.full
Even though I have no problem with alcohol consumption.
tminus1| 2.22.13 @ 10:43AM
As I said, perhaps not.
The study you cite states only that marijuana is less harmful, not unharmful. And its conclusions are ringed with provisos based on the limited data available to its authors.
But given your wide real world experience, perhaps you will advise the state of Colorado how to solve this problem:
http://tinyurl.com/bb8fwwe
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 11:38AM
See?
Just like I told ya at 6:00 this morning.
And, now I've even got a 50 Year Old Bum to back me up.
Thank You, Mr. Bum.
Anthony| 2.22.13 @ 9:28AM
Well Mr. Hitchens, it's hard for me to agree with you that Orwell was that wrong given the fact that Newspeak is the official lexicon of the world and American left.
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 2.22.13 @ 10:01AM
Many of you AmSpec regulars know, I've been in the restaurant biz for almost 15 years. I've worked with people who've taken every type of drug known to man. I can safely say that I've worked with more people who DO smoke weed, than DON'T. I can also say, with all such vices that people in my business have, the potheads have always been the best servers, cooks &, yes, managers. WAY more so than the alkies, pillheads & cokeheads, who never last long in ANY restaurant I've ever worked in.
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 2.22.13 @ 10:06AM
(cont'd.)
Many of my fellow AmSpec regulars will disagree with me on this, but I think pot (& pot ONLY) SHOULD be legal & regulated/taxed like alcohol. For 2 reasons: One being that you don't see news stories about Brett the NeoBeatnik robbing Granny or breaking into her house so that he could get 10 bucks for a dime of weed. Nor have I ever heard of any case where a defendant has said, "Well, Your Honor, man, like I was SOOOO stoned after those 50 bong rips that I shot everyone in the 7-11 when they caught me stealing a candy bar. Those munchies get FIERCE, ya know Your Honor dude?" The second reason is simple. Weed is THE SINGLE largest bulk cash crop produced by drug cartels worldwide. Why else can they afford to lose a few million lbs a year to seizure & still keep trucking? Its weed that enables the cartels to have the funding to grow, refine, process, transport & distribute the rest of their "products" like meth, coke, heroin & ecstasy. By legalizing JUST WEED, the size of the revenue stream that would be affected is enormous.Then the cartels would have a whole hell of a lot harder time financing corruption, buying guns from the Hezbos & building SUBMARINES to transport their remaining drugs.
As I said before, I'm sure that many AmSpec regulars who've come to respect my opinion may be a little taken aback by my opinion on this subject. However, this is simply how I feel about weed & what we, as a country, can do about it. At least as far as our laws are concerned.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 11:41AM
That's because the Potheads are FOCUSED
Not immediately, I might add. But give'em 15 Minutes, and they'll be sharp as a knife. (Though I don't recommend letting them handle any Knives)
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 4:00PM
"Weed is THE SINGLE largest bulk cash crop produced by drug cartels worldwide. Why else can they afford to lose a few million lbs a year to seizure & still keep trucking? "
Your own premise is insufficient to support yur conclusion.
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 2.22.13 @ 10:30PM
I meant to say they can lose some without breaking a sweat BECAUSE its such a large part of their business.
Suffice to say, it IS their largest bulk cash crop. Maybe I should've just left it at that.
markenoff| 2.24.13 @ 9:10PM
Your conclusion remains unsupported. You have provided no proof that it is the "THE SINGLE largest bulk cash crop produced by drug cartels worldwide" Just because they lose a lot of it to enforcement efforts does not prove your conclusion to be true.
Can they not lose a certain amount of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines, which they do, without "breaking a sweat"?
Might the relative quantities of the marijuana they lose versus they other drugs they use actually argue against your conclusion; ie; marijuana is such a small (in terms of profit) part of their business that they can lose it ALL without breaking a sweat?
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 1:32PM
Been there, done that too. I can tell you most users of pot can function to a certain degree but most of them cannot perform complex jobs. I've done restaurant work, except the manager position, and it really doesn't require you to be firing on all braincells.
Let me ask you this, would you want your neuro/heart surgeon or airplane pilot high on pot while the operated on you or were landing your plane?
Most (not all) functional potheads work in industries, restaurants and construction being two of them, that don't often require too much skill or constant mastering of new concepts.
That is my experience.
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 2.22.13 @ 2:12PM
As a chef, I think that job has its own "hazards." Like pushing out food when 50 people get sat in 30 minutes. Pot or not, THAT'S the kind of thing that would make most people unfamiliar with the industry blanch in terror.
And I DO agree with the point you're making about docs & other such jobs. And we even have our own saying in the biz when it gets, as we call it, sh*tshow busy. That saying being, "its just food. we ain't curing cancer here!"
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:42PM
When I was in college I was not allowed to get in the car with my buddies to go to our job at a 4 star resturant until I had done my pre-work "b"s. And the head chef was known to carve apples into pipes for breaks out back.
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 2.22.13 @ 10:38PM
Ah yes! The HEIGHT of culinary ingenuity:
THE APPLE BONG!!!
MAN, just reading that makes me chuckle! With us, it was a quick one-toke in our double walk-in cooler. It was us line cooks & sous chefs who were the stoners. Our exec chef was the Italian pretty boy version of Gordon Ramsay with a FEROCIOUS coke habit. The guy was a 1st class train wreck with his 1980's style food & his "fuhgeddaboutit" persona. He last about 6 month before the owners canned him!
holmegm| 2.22.13 @ 10:21AM
"For Soma is loose among us in many forms, from “ADD” medications given to small children, to marijuana effectively legalized under the laughable cover of “medical” use, to the millions of “antidepressant” prescriptions now being written throughout the advanced world."
Mr. Hitchens, you are conflating things that shouldn't be conflated. You lose people unnecessarily when you do that.
Depression and ADHD are real. I used to share your faux sophistication in thinking that they are not, but they are. While it is certainly theoretically possible that they are over-diagnosed, very few people would be qualified to make that determination. (Thought experiment: are "too many" prescriptions written for heart medications? Right, you don't know. Neither do I.)
Ironically, you later acknowledge - and even rely on! - the existence of mental illness. But only, apparently, when it is caused by drugs. Hmm.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 10:22AM
One thing Hitchens pointed out that is a growing problem is the tendencey to treat every non-conforming behavior with drugs whose side effects, both known and unknown, can be more dangerous than the behavior being controlled. I especially dislike the eagerness of public education officials to push drugs on kids for "ADD" or "ADHD". They tried to convince one of my sisters to drug her son when he was in elementary school as a condition of him staying in the school. He went to live with another sister who was homeschooling her kids and did quite well in that environment eventually going off to college.
Simon Templar| 2.22.13 @ 11:44AM
“As an adult, I should be able to stick whatever I damn well like into my body. Provided that I am aware of the risks, nobody is better placed to make my personal cost/benefit calculation for any given action.”
This is the false premise that all of this babble stems from and from which it originates. Take it apart and the whole nonsense falls like a house of cards.
I should be able to stick whatever I damn well like into my body.
No, you are not. Society or the people or community has a right to define what is acceptable behavior and what is legal behavior and what is not. It is illegal to stick a gun into your body and kill yourself. Doing any sort of harm to yourself will result in an intervention and potential lock up and psychiatric evaluation. It is illegal to stick alcohol or any controlled substance in your body while you are driving a motor vehicle. It is not legal to swallow poison, you will be considered unstable and locked up for evaluation. Having intercourse with an animal is not legal. Quite a few things that you stick in your body are not legal and you do not have a right to stick whatever you damn well like into your body. Your first statement was simply stupid and false.
You knowing the risk as a prerequisite is absolutely irrelevant and ridiculous as well as your statement about being the best person to determine it. See above examples. It is not about your personal cost alone.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 11:57AM
"Society or the people or community has a right to define what is acceptable behavior"
Agreed.
There outta be a law - Disagree.
Your next step - police armed as soldiers smashing down doors - Disagree.
Simon Templar| 2.22.13 @ 12:02PM
No, that is not my next step. I personally believe that drug use should be decriminalized and treated as a health and mental health issue. Those that push and provide these substances should be prosecuted. The point I was making was that the above statement is a false premise and is a poor argument for legalization or even decriminalization.
Al Adab| 2.22.13 @ 12:39PM
In other words, those who knowingly adopt the use of illegal substances should be viewed as victims of disease? Sorry Simon. We often agree but not on this issue although you are correct about the pushers and sellers who often target the kids under 18, as their primary market.
Decriminalization as you propose is not the same as legalization and somewhat reflects a compromise in the positions. Nonetheless it does nothing to lessen the public health issue which the welfare state costs us all.
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.22.13 @ 12:22PM
Government has no history of success in treating mental illness, addiction, or anything else requiring subtlety or tact. Government has an absolutely miserable record dealing with regulation of intoxicants, intoxication, and the recreational imposes of the masses. Government should stick to punishing those who cause actual harm to other people and other people's property.
Is suicide wrong? Yes. Does passing a law against it help? No. Should "assisted suicide" be legal? Oh, HELL, no …. because of the strong possibility that it will become a cover for murder.
Junkies are sad, wasted people. Charities that reach out to them are an excellent thing. Laws that kick them when they are down are not.
g wayne| 2.22.13 @ 11:56AM
I started w/pot at about 16, then moved to cocaine, then crack. I was headed for 3 possible outcomes. Jail, homelessness or death. Finally took getting arrested to get my thinking right and by the grace of God I quit. Everyone I know that used heavy drugs started w/pot. It is most certainly a gateway drug. It dulls your senses, makes you unproductive, and inhibits a person from acheiving the most they can. I have about 8 alcholic drinks per year without getting drunk. I can not smoke one joint and not get high. To compare the 2 is either foolish or naive. The large # of people in prison due to drug sales is evidence that the war on drugs is working. No one said it would be easy. Those of you that call yourselves libertarian can not likewise say you are conservitive. There is nothing conservitive about legalizing a known drug that has harmful effects. Your motto seems to be "prevent crime, legalize everything". Your anarchy has dulled your senses. I suspect in the end you will get your way. Hope your children and grandchildren are not effected by this soon to be legal substance. Maranatha.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 11:58AM
"The large # of people in prison due to drug sales is evidence that the war on drugs is working."
Really? That is a an odd metric of success.
Simon Templar| 2.22.13 @ 12:17PM
Actually it is a common one and used by many sociologist and criminologist. Do a little reading.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 12:28PM
So it's used by people who earn their living on the government side of the drug war?
What would losing the drug war look like? Less than 3% of the adult population incarcerated? Fewer than 2 million people in prison? (Over half for non-violent crimes)
Simon Templar| 2.22.13 @ 12:04PM
Thank you for your post. Your actual experience with this is truly enlightening and sweeps away many of the myths and wishful thinking surrounding it.
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 2:07PM
"It is most certainly a gateway drug. It dulls your senses, makes you unproductive, and inhibits a person from acheiving the most they can. I have about 8 alcholic drinks per year without getting drunk. I can not smoke one joint and not get high. To compare the 2 is either foolish or naive."
This is exactly my experience with pot. We mock the the truth with "Drugs are bad...mmmmkay?" but any honest person who has used pot and other drugs will tell you its absolutely true. However many people cannot admit to themselves, let alone others, what it has cost them or even those around them. Current pot users are typically in denial about what it has really cost them.
Job| 2.22.13 @ 2:15PM
BS
Job| 2.22.13 @ 2:16PM
some folks need to be tee totalers too.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 3:00PM
Don't you mean: THC totalers?
Job| 2.22.13 @ 4:18PM
TLP totalers is what i meant to say.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 5:25PM
I hate those guys.
naql| 2.23.13 @ 3:10AM
I started smoking thirty years ago and never stopped. I earned two college degrees and learned a second language along the way. I've raised three great kids. I started a business twenty years ago that's still in business today and has employed hundreds of professionals. After passing the business off to a family member and taking a break, I went back into my highly technical profession. I was consistently promoted and rated an exemplary employee... all while being high most of that time. Pot doesn't make you stupid and lazy; being stupid and lazy makes you that way. There's no shortage of either of those types, and I would warrant that many more of them drink milk than smoke pot, yet I am not going to make the assertion that drinking milk makes you dull and unproductive.
This article and many of the comments contain untruths that are not substantiated by research, particularly if you look at research not funded by organizations with a vested interest in prohibition. Prohibition is not only a failure, it's based on faulty premises and is immoral in itself. You may need a Nanny State to keep your appetites in check, but many of us don't.
Tina B| 2.23.13 @ 9:28AM
What an eloquent and credible post, naql.
You dispel the absurd claims that pot makes the smoker hungry and useless, and make a good case for the smoker who remains productive, kind, fair-minded, creative, and responsible. The law breaking aspect of pot has worried me about as much as the lawbreaking aspect of many of the actions of many of my so-called law abiding colleagues. Two wrongs do NOT make a right, and that is not part of the equation.
Just statin' the facts, ma'am.
Simon Templar| 2.22.13 @ 11:57AM
When something is legalized it comes with the implicit message that it is acceptable, it is a new norm, and it becomes a right.
The reason why many conservatives are against its legalization is founded on this principle or reality. You are essentially sanctioning the act of getting high, as the substance is not a food, has no health benefits, and is used solely for this purpose. This is also why it is called a gateway. This is the distinction and the difference between it and other substances. Decriminalization is an entirely different matter. In many countries these substances are considered health and mental health issues and are treated as such but still are not sanctioned. The providers of these substances are prosecuted not the user or "victim" who is now suffering from addiction, and yes, is harming not only himself but society very directly.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 12:02PM
Ah, now we need express permission from the government for ever action we take!
So the conservative argument against legalization (of anything) is that of an absolute totalitarian statist.
Congress and the states could save a lot of time by just passing laws telling us what is permitted instead of prohibited.
Simon Templar| 2.22.13 @ 12:14PM
Are you really that simple minded? This is a self governing nation and the people decide what is acceptable through their representation. No one ask for permission from any government or ruling class.
No, the conservative argument is not absolute totalitarian statism. Our laws governing many of these type of things came from the people originally via their experience with such matters and the desires of communities to define and monitor themselves. This is why we have some areas that are dry and others where one can purchase alcohol as an example. apparently your another one of these 'I am God' Libertarian with about a one second attention span before you start calling people Nazi and statist. No other ideas or opinions are acceptable or permitted even if they lean in your direction or essentially agree with you with some nuances. who is the totalitarian? Who does that sound like, familiar?
A LIBERAL.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 12:23PM
I am a consistent Conservative. I don't believe an all-powerful federal government should be involved in my day-to-day life at all. They shouldn't be in charge of my health care, my finances, my guns, or anything else.
I don't make an exception to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments because I don't like hippies.
Al Adab| 2.22.13 @ 12:42PM
OP4:
That is the libertarian position not the Conservative one. Conservatives recognize that there exists moral absolutes which government is obligated to respect (not maintain by force) in order to support the general welfare meaning public order.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 12:48PM
What government? The Feds?
So it's okay to make exceptions to the Constitution for "moral absolutes"? Then the only difference between Conservatives and Progressives is defining those moral absolutes.
hoosiertoo| 2.22.13 @ 1:10PM
Exactly.
Stan Redmond| 2.22.13 @ 1:24PM
BINGO.
Both sides define moral absolutes. Sort of... The progressives define them one week then change the next week to know the conservatives, who tend to stay consistent in their beliefs. I tend to favor any decisions that limits the government as much as practical.
And why the big deal with chooming up all day everyday. You can be president!!! Pass the toke dude.
Al Adab| 2.22.13 @ 1:47PM
OP4:
The Constitution through the enumerated powers and the limits it imposes recognizes those moral absolutes. It presupposes a cultural consensus, which we today may have lost, concerning right and acceptable behavior in the public square. The further enumerated rights which government may not infringe include religion, press, firearms, property and so on. I do not propose exceptions to the Constitutional limits but rather point out that once there was agreement on what he moral absolutes were. Today it seems relativism rather than absolutes reflects the public view to, I believe, our societal detriment.This is simply one issue of many symptomatic of the overall disease.
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 3:13PM
OP4
I answered you above. Each state has a statute dealing with illegal drugs. The feds should be involved only in interstate drug dealing. But most drug prosecutions are brought by the state prosecutors, not the feds. Is your objection is that the feds should not be involved or that neither the feds or state should be involved?
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 4:17PM
My objection is to you naivete. I linked to a story above of a CA dispensary owner who pbeyed all CA drug laws, never crossed state lines with his products - but is being prosecuted by the Feds and faces a decade in federal prison.
Holder and Obama have yet to indicate that the federal response to legal marijuana will be any different in CO or WA. Their response in WA will be particularly interesting. If I understand their statute, the state will own the dispensaries - will the Feds seize their stash? Will WA state police arrest DEA Agents for the theft of state property?
CJW| 2.22.13 @ 7:14PM
You are dense. I said is that the each state has its drug laws, and the feds have drug laws. You seem to not understand a simple concept. If the feds are prosecuting him then they believe he violated a fed law and they will have to prove in court the violation and jurisdiction for the crime. You may remember the cops who beat up Rodney King were acquitted in state court, then prosecuted in fed court on civil rights charges growing out of the same conduct.
What exactly is your point? Do you really think the states do not have laws outlawing drugs? Do you think if the fed laws were all repealed that there would be no state laws?
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 9:55PM
I answer your comment about "most drug prosecutions are brought by the state prosecutors" and you ask what is my point.
CJW| 2.23.13 @ 9:24AM
You did not answer the question but just cited the story of one man indicted by the feds for growing as evidence there are more fed prosecutions of drug laws than all the states. Growing even under state laws is considered manufacturing.
The questions are do you really believe that each of the 57 states do not outlaw drugs, and if the fed laws were all repealed that there would be no state laws to outlaw drugs?
I am not sure what your argument is other than the feds drug laws should be reapealed.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.23.13 @ 10:40AM
OP4;
I read the article you linked to at the Huffpo. As it didn’t provide a link to the case against Davies, I’m rather limited in knowing what the federal government’s motivation was in pursuing this case. But if I might contribute some thoughts to the debate, I’d like to point out the following.
Assuming that Davies was complying with California law, and presuming that despite the volume of marijuana he grew and stored, that there is no evidence that any of it was diverted to interstate illicit traffic, he was aware that there were still federal laws against the activity he was engaged in. As I noted previously above, I think from a point of view of federalism or constitutional conservatism, I think one can make a case that federal government involvement might properly be limited to where the interstate commerce clause is validly implicated. Still, from a rule of law standpoint, there is currently a valid federal statute which proscribes his conduct, and he was aware of it.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.23.13 @ 10:41AM
As a result, I don’t find a lot of sympathy for Davies’ position. Had the majority of American voters or their legislators altered or abolished the current drug law prior to Davies’ growing and warehousing marijuana, there would be no case against him. He engaged in his conduct knowing it was in violation of federal law, but apparently with the calculus that he was not likely to be prosecuted, not in a Rosa Parks or Gandhi-like attempt at civil disobedience to draw attention to the absurdity or the injustice of the situation. His motive was personal profit, and while I support basing markets on this, when one knowingly engages in a form of commerce with a product one knows violates federal law, exposure to federal prosecution is one of the costs of doing business.
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.22.13 @ 12:29PM
I can't speak to the situation in England; maybe things there justify Mr. Hitchen's position. Here in the United States, at least from what I can see and read about, this "viewing with alarm" is not justified. Pot smoking may be a youthful rite of passage, but largely because it is an outlaw activity. Remove that glamor from it and most people will grow as tired of it as they grow of getting plastered every weekend. And with the passing of the War on Drugs maybe, just maybe, we could revive the idea of a civil right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
Stan Redmond| 2.22.13 @ 1:19PM
The elites in government are high on power and money. They can kill us with drones, raid our houses at will with SWAT team and kill our dogs, raise our taxes, confiscate our property, regulate our lives to death, and now, when and how we die. And conservatives are going to waste their time taking on the marijuana lobby?
Obama scares me a hell of a lot more than some pothead eating fritos. Pick a fight worth winning that will save money and personal freedoms rather than a multi billion dollar boon doggle against marijuana that expands government power.
No. I'm not a user of pot. My drug of choice comes in 12 ounce brown bottles made from Hydrogen Hydroxide, Humulus Lupulus, Hordeum, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Bumr50| 2.22.13 @ 2:02PM
We (the "right") are HORRIBLE at choosing our battles.
Stan Redmond| 2.22.13 @ 3:07PM
One big problem is the 'right' assumes they are dealing with reasonable people in good faith.Progressives liberal democrats are liars and thieves.
OP4| 2.22.13 @ 2:12PM
Thank you - I'm not a pot smoker either.
By supporting the War on Drugs, we have created an instrument of oppression out of our worst nightmare. Federal law enforcement agencies are now armed like an occupying army and are loyal only to the Executive Branch.
This is worth it how?
Who Knows?| 2.22.13 @ 2:43PM
“…the conservative mind must surely be sympathetic to the use of law to protect the young from danger, even from themselves and from their own selfishness, which is always at its height during the perilous years of adolescence that so many of us come to regret so much.”
Outstanding article!
For better or worse, human beings are all about “I”, their self---so, selfishness is necessarily the animating reality: we are all Narcissus.
I’m currently absorbing “I Am a Strange Loop”, by Douglas Hofstadter, which is blowing my own “self” conception. Talk about recurring self-references, back and back and back on one “self”!
About marijuana, and all mind altering drugs, including “spirits” in a liquid form, known as alcohol---
Consider peyote. It is pretty well known that the people who swallow it do so as a holy ritual. Life for them did NOT allow for lots of time to do this.
Fast forward to 2013, when technology has made it possible for little work to produce lots of stuff, and oops! So much free time, so few do or die conditions---Narcissus will always find ways to avoid boredom.
Huxley’s “Doors of Perception” also need noting. All religions use drugs. However, there are supposed to be “lions at the gate”, and only a prepared person should be allowed to “taste infinity”.
Who Knows?| 2.22.13 @ 2:44PM
A personal admission---
I was sucked in to sucking grass when old enough to handle it, age 25---and, I STILL suffered mightily from the bliss it brought. In 1972, when 30, and teaching at an Oxnard continuation high school, I’ll never forget this kid of maybe 15, visiting with his parents, who confided to me that he didn’t see how life was worth living without drugs, because after spending so much time so high---well, you know?
Another Huxley book is “Island”, a utopian novel. It “uses” drugs, the proper way, only for those ready and able to handle them. As a matter of fact, when I read it, at 30, I’d already been conventionally “ruined” by a couple of years of absorbing Buddhism, especially Zen, starting with “The Book- on the taboo against knowing who you are”, by Alan Watts.
So, when Mason Rose, an old ex-USC running back, who’d courted some famous Hollywood star (Gloria Swanson?), and was a practicing Wilhelm Reich therapist—friends with Mickey Rooney, among others---was interviewed on radio, and announced he was starting a commune, named “Island”, based on that book: hey, the answer to my anti-conventional prayers!
Like all communes, of course this one ended up being a joke---but, I have no regrets, and look at the year I spent living in it as a post-graduate very unconventional education.
Who Knows?| 2.22.13 @ 2:44PM
Lastly---we’d get lots of radicals as visitors. Apropos the marijuana article, one group featured a foursome, led by a bearded white “guru”, and they had a black kid of around five with them. While driving around, the child said, “I’m stoned, John”. Never forgot it! I’ll bet he didn’t turn out as a rocket scientist.
Job| 2.22.13 @ 7:26PM
thanks WK for some valuable insight
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.22.13 @ 3:58PM
Actually, not all communes fail and become jokes. America has a history of communalism (as opposed to Communism), and while many fail a number have become strong communities, at least for a while. The Mormons are the obvious example, and they also exemplify a pattern of splinter-sexy Christian (or pseudo-Christian) groups; such tend to be started by a single charismatic leader, and (at least at first) dabble in unconventional sexual patterns (such as polygamy). The Oneida Colony of New York and the Amana Colonies of Iowa are examples.
Several Communes begun in the Late 1960's were extant and running thirty years later. They keep quiet, mostly, and are well thought of by their more conventional neighbors. Spider Robinson has referred to a couple in his writings.
Just a historical note...
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:59PM
I think we have enough trouble with kids and too many adulst spending time glued to iPods or playing video games or incessantly texting and twittering.
Real Deal| 2.22.13 @ 3:50PM
Another thing is that the "old hippies" who've moved on and don't smoke anymore really don't understand how much more powerful today's pot is over the stuff they smoked in the 60's and 70's. Heck even than during my day in the 90's.
hoosiertoo| 2.25.13 @ 4:44PM
That's not a problem. Quality up - overall cost down. The one-hitter is much more cost effective than the fatties we used to have to roll up. What's not to like? OTOH, legalization will cut down on adulterated product and make smoking even safer.
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:50PM
I was gonna clean my room until I got high
I was gonna get up and find the broom but then I got high
my room is still messed up and I know why (why man?) cause I got high, cause I got high, cause I got high
I was gonna go to class before I got high
I coulda cheated and I coulda passed but I got high
I am taking it next semester and I know why, (why man?) yea heyy cause I got high cause I got high cause I got high
I was gonna go to work but then I got high
I just got a new promotion but I got high
now I'm selling dope and I know why (why man?) yea heayy cause I got high cause I got high cause I got high
I was gonna go to court before I got high
I was gonna pay my child support but then I got high they took my whole paycheck and I know why (why man?) yea heayy cause I got high cause I got high
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:53PM
I wasn't gonna run from the cops but I was high
I was gonna pull right over and stop but I was high
Now I am a paraplegic and i know why (why man?) yea heayy cause I got high cause I got high
cause I got high
I was gonna pay my car note until I got high
I wasn't gonna gamble on the boat but then I got high
now the tow truck is pulling away and I know why (why man?) yea heyy because I got high cause I got high cause I got high
I was gonna make love to you but then I got high
I was gonna eat yo ***** too but then I got high
now I'm j***ing off and I know why, yea heyy,
- cause I got high cause I got high cause I got high
I messed up my entire life because I got high
I lost my kids and wife because I got high
now I'm sleeping on the sidewalk and I know why (why man?) yea heyy cause I got high cause I got high cause I got high
I'm gonna stop singing this song because I'm high
I'm singing this whole thing wrong because I'm high
and if I dont sell one copy I know why (why man?) yea heyy,
- cause I'm high cause I'm highcause I'm high
markenoff| 2.22.13 @ 3:53PM
Afroman has the last word
Commander Kelly | 2.22.13 @ 4:14PM
Great article. See my post "Marijauna and Pate in California" only here...
http://americanconservativeinl.....pot.co.uk/
Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 2.22.13 @ 4:21PM
I'm not a fan of marijuana and most definitely understand that it impairs peoples judgement, but given the fact that it is the number one money maker for organized crime organizations and street gangs in the United States and that much of our prison population has been locked up for narcotics possession related offenses (probably while they were on probation or parole) I cannot see the logic in continuing the prohibition against marijuana in the United States. We've spent untold billions fighting a drug war for three decades, a war that we have been losing for three decades. Our prison population is larger than ever, our law enforcement agencies our more intrusive upon the average citizens private lives than ever before and our street gang problem and the violence it brings is worse than ever. Somethings got to give, somethings got to change. You want to talk about public employee unions well the most influential public employees union in the state of California is the prison guards union and they are always calling for more facilities to be built and more guards to be hired. The justice system has become a full fledged industry in and of itself in this country and the lobbyists for this industry don't care that we have more people in our prisons than the Soviet Union had in its heyday.
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.22.13 @ 5:20PM
"it is the number one money maker for organized crime organizations and street gangs in the United States"
The only problem I have with the above post is; how do we know this? And why should we believe it? Given the nature of the issue, there simply cannot be any data untainted by an agenda, and given the nature of the agendas involved, I don't believe that the data is close enough to objective reality to be useful.
In short, I don't expect either the Criminals or the Drug Warriors to be even remotely honest.
And that is another reason for ending the War; in the absence of any useful information, my default position is to avoid passing laws, or to repeal those that exist. Then, after a few years of the drug business operating in the open, and in the scrutiny of the News Media, scholars, etc., we can revisit the issue.
Job| 2.22.13 @ 7:02PM
scrutiny of the news media???? and the scholars??? Don't forget the Motion Picture Academy and the Harper Valley PTA.
naql| 2.22.13 @ 6:04PM
What a polysyllabic load of horsesh1t.
Job| 2.22.13 @ 7:33PM
Tim I got this one. You spelled psychodelic wrong.
TLP| 2.22.13 @ 7:50PM
Nice.
naql| 2.22.13 @ 10:57PM
I'm sure Job appreciated the hand.
Next time we need a Hand Job, we'll think of you.
TLP| 2.23.13 @ 12:09PM
So, you're saying that we should look for you, when we want a Blow Job, and a Rim Lick?
Got it.
Ask Anna how those Genital Warts are working out for her.
Tina B| 2.22.13 @ 9:29PM
Nitey nite guys. Love yaz.
A lot of worthy arguments have been made on both sides. Food for thought. Food for my "mental munchies." hahaha.
bluecollarbytes| 2.22.13 @ 10:35PM
Cannabis use is to some the same thing as alcohol is to others- relaxation.
It isn't irretrievably tied to any 'counter culture'. It an be abused as alcohol can be, but not to the deadly extremes of the booze.
Bankrupt_R_Us| 2.23.13 @ 8:13AM
re: He has been shocked by the number of friends, colleagues, and acquaintances who have confided similar tragedies involving their children to him since he wrote about Henry.
Ditto situation for a friend of mine.
Her only grandson starting smoking marijuana as a teen and three times they have called 911 to have the police come and get him - and every time he wound up at the state hospital after talking to St. Michael the archangel for his daily instructions.
This young man is handsome and charming and often seems normal. He uses his SSI money to wine and dine pretty girls and they oblige in the customary way - he has fathered three out of wedlock babies.
His mother/grandmother pay all his bills, including child support. He is permanently lost, though his daily psychiatric drugs plus their actions have prevented a 4th psychotic episode. What will happen when they are gone?
Tina B| 2.23.13 @ 9:49AM
So your friend's grandson is a mess because of weed???
In your description of behaviours (SSI $ is not given to potheads no matter how stoned they get) it would appear the boy has the same problems as many enabled malcontents who can't adjust to a typical life of hard work accompanying a life of joy and the satisfaction of a job well done.
Smoking pot as a young teen is a symptom, not a disease or a cause of disease. I am sure it would be detrimental to developing worthwhile habits for any teen, just as cigarette smoking and imbibing alcohol regularly would be.
Bill8472| 2.23.13 @ 1:25PM
I guess I'd agree with the libertarian view that anyone has the right to put anything he wants to into his body.
What he doesn't have a right to is a market that produces and distributes whatever it is he wants to stick into himself. I don't have a real problem with a heroin junkie who injects poison into his bloodstream; I have a big problem with a murderous system of production and distribution that creates murder victims, rip-offs, burglaries, thefts, whores, pimps, and the police forces who have to devote their attention to such folks.
So yeah, inject as much dope as you want into yourself, just don't expect me to support the building of a market that caters to your sick wishes.
BL in AK| 2.23.13 @ 2:14PM
Gonna have to agree with TLP and Tina B on this one. My first hooter was in 9th grade in Daly City, CA along with my first six pack of beer. It was the syndicate brown weed of the late 60's early 70's that was available. Went to college in the late 70's early 80's within the Emerald Triangle of Mendocino, Humboldt, and Trinity counties at the beginning of the "CA green bud" revolution. Alot of the communes like WK's were located in this region as well and have evolved into the plantations now producing KGB (killer green bud). The concentration of THC from the brown syndicate weed to KGB is the difference from the 60's. The health studies conducted use a joint consumption unit of brown weed when in actual world, all one needs is a puff, one hit of KGB to feel the buzz effect and continue on their day like nagl stated above. The studies continue to use a joint because of the same amount of tobacco in a cigarette for comparison sake. They should focus their studies on the THC vs nicotene concentrations and their similar/different effects on health. Depending on what industry you work in, pre-employment drug testing has gained traction for both good and bad reasons. But the character of a person is built throughout their lives and strong work habits and productivity is realized early on as the determining factor in remaining a contributor to the good of society.
BL in AK| 2.23.13 @ 2:16PM
cont'd
Folks who are chronic users of drugs are gonna get around those tests. I was on one jobsite working with a drilling crew for some time and one day the driller was removed from the job by his supervisor. Little did I know after working around him and his crew for 2 weeks he was addicted to herion.
Charlene Key| 2.24.13 @ 1:06PM
We have NO history of Schizo-affective disorder or Paranoid-Schizophrenia in our family history. My son was primarily a heavy Pot user during his teen years. A lot of the weed he was exposed to was, I am sure, laced with Speed or Crank (basically Meth). His first psychotic episode and court ordered commitment was at age 20.
The state hospital doctor's told me that they had seen hundreds of young men and women my son's age, come in with mental illness related to drug use, primarily Marijuana.
He was put on Halodol and after a little over two weeks sent home with NO prescription or medication. Because our son was considered an Adult, we had no access to his Medical records or Information and he was too far out of his mind to co-operate in getting them. Our family doctor concurred that the psychotic episodes were brought on through heavy Marijuana use. Our Doctor also stated he had seen many users who develop psychosis then turn to self-medicating with other drugs along with pot. Once the voices start, they seek to silence them by experimenting with other drugs. I believe our Son dabbled in them all. Further Psychotic episodes and Hospitalizations resulted in him being put on powerful anti-psychotic's and anti-depressants. Our son is now 38 years old and lives on medication. He has isolated himself from the outside world and feels hopeless.
tgf| 2.25.13 @ 3:07PM
Well, seems you have made a hash of this. For those not keeping score, America is high on a daily basis. Mostly on pharmaceutical drugs, which are legal. Most of the mass murders have some form of anti-anxiety medication in their systems. It's easy to document the damage that alcohol has caused for years.
Cannabis is far down the list in terms of problems caused. But it's not legal! And there is an astounding amount of ignorance of what it is, and what it does. As evidenced by many of the comments posted here, as well as the article itself.
Bill8472| 2.25.13 @ 5:33PM
You're missing a valuable point. There's a difference between taking pharmeuticals, which are intended to assist the person in accommodating himself to the demands of ordinary life, as opposed to recreational drugs, which are intended to assist the person to avoid the demands of ordinary life and instead to enter a world of delusion and dysfunction.
hrgfue | 2.25.13 @ 7:52PM
Kickoff to you with the online store 2013
Charlene Key| 2.25.13 @ 8:38PM
I was replying to Bumr50's question, not to you.
WaffenSS| 2.25.13 @ 10:01PM
I admire the steps Chairman Mao used to rid China of opium use................he ordered them shot. Step up to the ultimate high.
Freedomist | 3.1.13 @ 1:38AM
Where do I start? If the author knew multiple schlerosis patients, as I do, who are greatly aided by cannabinoids, he wouldn't call medical marijuana a "hilarious falsehood". And when more than 50% of Americans agree that cannabis should be legalized, not just decriminalized, what does this say about the authors' view of democracy? And when legal substances, including tobacco, alcohol and legal drugs, account for 99% of all deaths caused by substance use, and cannabis causes 0%, coupled with the long list of successful people who use cannabis, the authors' arguments are unpersuasive. www.freedomactivist.net/cannab.....tml#deaths and www.freedomactivist.net/cannabissmokers.html
drmaddogs| 3.1.13 @ 5:03AM
While your article has many good points, I feel they are somewhat simplistic, and avoiding many issues relevant. I too am conservative, some might say way far to the right and Libertarian and a couple other political influences because like many issues, this one is far more complex than simply assigning a Huxley like observance of Cannabis.
Devoid in the article is the competition to Cannabis (Mj), Alcohol and real time comparable modeling.
America already has its 'Soma' in the form of Alcohol. Advertising does not make the attempt to make aware the public to the risks of that poison. Virtually, because it is accepted by regulation, many tens of thousands of teenagers have no idea they will have extreme reactions whereby in a couple months of steady use, they will become, to all intents and purposes, Alcoholics. Hundreds of thousands(Millions?) take years to develop that less than inspiring, one drink and complete personality change.
drmaddogs| 3.1.13 @ 5:04AM
One;'then whom needs another poison in society'.
I propose to you, if a legal competitor to Alcohol existed, Alcohol consumption would drop. So would hangovers. wife beatings, child abuse, severity in auto accidents. While you say Mj causes oblivion, Alcohol causes insanity.
But why have another poison accepted in society?
There will always be a 'relief valve' people use I'm sure you would agree. Each 'valve' has it's 'better applications', without competition, individuals cannot decide which one best suits their own personality, the market thus forces your example of Brave New World -Alcohol on society today.
"These laws have already been greatly undermined", by whom and how were they originally promulgated by? Whom were the actual writers, the authors, the Political advancers. In todays paradigm of regulation, all people see nearly all regs written by commercial interests, to 'help'... legislators, as the legislators usually have no working knowledge of the issues, and certainly need education on the market forces 'best' enabled by regulation.
drmaddogs| 3.1.13 @ 5:05AM
Was that the case in the 60's and 70's, just as now? I think so. The U.S. made the international Drug Laws in most part. Great was the influence of "Favored Nation Status" and Foreign Aid qualifications for those that complied, and comply they did. In what was the fastest acceptance ever of any 'declaration', by the U.S.. Not because of 'righteousness', but because it was a relatively small effect on peoples daily lives and the subsidization of 'Aid' was so large and well appreciated by leading economic concerns(Political persons) that pocketed most of the Aid.
America bought acceptance of those laws which the United Nations and several national governments are being persuaded to abandon.
This is not about "Bolshevik sort, whether Trotskyism or Stalinist". It is not about England or failure of Prohibition tactics, or society marginalizing or even Freedom.
It is about dollars and power. Everything else is just an excuse, including social engineering, moral compassing between 'Oblivion' and insanity, political advancement by choosing sides... or even writers of articles for self promotion.
All fall second place to power and money, or money and power. Inextricably intertwined.
Mj is the straw man, Competition issues are the horse seldom flogged.
Trillions of dollars in derivatives are at risk in competition. When it comes to the God Almighty dollar, which is morally Bankrupt, so there is no comparable influence on any issue.
drmaddogs| 3.1.13 @ 5:08AM
Your article is about morality, social right and wrong, but avoids those economic factors installed in the 60' 70's and as far back as the 30's.
How can moral equivalence be measured against the backdrop of a Trillion dollars spent on Drug Prohibition as it stands today.
Now this is where the rubber meets the road, the gradient actualized, the infrastructure of prohibition is made aware and obvious.
It is always about the money... not taxation which is a small part. After all, whatever people use, the use of one or another, consumption of taxed commodities does not rise dramatically with competition, there are only so many dollars to be afforded for any purpose. Again who gets the money?
Few detractors for reversal of Prohibition are willing to admit where the money is, is going towards, to whom it it going to. Most say the money in Prohibition must be spent, while completely ignoring the obvious markets. When considering the markets affected, then they are unwilling to face the amount of influence competition represents. Vast percentages of people like things the way they are, too infused with the Soma of Alcohol and acceptance of lack of information.
drmaddogs| 3.1.13 @ 5:10AM
Hemp seed is 1-2% better than corn or soy, in all departments of use. Corn is in every food product pipeline, other than Fish, How much money and politics are in food. Taking into account that one third of U.S. exports is food, much subsidized for Aid products, just how much influence does corn have on markets? 40% of corn production goes to fuel, while 40% of America goes to bed 'food challenged'.
Is there really a comparison between the availability of food, or lack, in a monetary sense with the, admittedly true, promoted health advantages in Pharmaceutical medicines versus Delta ( and CBDs)? Perhaps a hundred billion is vested in psychoactive medicine markets, but is totally dwarfed by the food markets.
One might abandon Soma, when the real concern might be Soylent Green.
Trillions and trillions of dollars support Mj prohibition... and thus Hemp... and thus food competition markets.
"Wheels within wheels" does not give justice to whom is simply "behind the curtain". Those behind the curtain have no moral compass, they have money. It's always about the money behind the curtain.
drmaddogs| 3.1.13 @ 5:11AM
Your article does not look behind the curtain, It does not truly address competition. One does not take on mega-monoliths of food production, the Primary Dealers to the Federal Reserve that funds food production monoliths. One does not take on an Administration for collusion with market makers in the food Paradigm(food is the largest, while Pharmaceuticals are actually the smallest, though most profitable by dollar vested. Above Pharmas is clothing, feed stocks for animals and several others where market dollars are measured).
So it would be nice for you to approach the trillions of dollars on market valuations influence in the scheme of Prohibition. It would not have the sexy and demagoguery involved aspirations your regular writing tries to evoke. It would not be a safe issue, for you to address, or the publisher to print.
But it might be the moral thing to do. Providing your not too afraid of whom is behind the curtain of Prohibition. Just a heads up, they are not afraid of you. Your article fits right in.