Double standard persists on marijuana

Miami Herald ^ | June 04, 2007 | LYDIA MARTIN AND FRED TASKER

[blaquebyrd]

Ever heard of Prohibition or dry counties?

[HamiltonJay]

For good or ill, people from all walks smoke weed. In fact, 40.1 percent of all Americans 12 years old and up admit having tried marijuana at least once -- and 6 percent acknowledge having used it in the past month, federal drug surveys show. The FBI says 786,500 people were arrested for it in 2005, the latest figures available.

SO, lets get this straight, 60% of the people have never touched the stuff, and 94% of the people have not touched it in the last month.. but its use is as common as Beer? Oh I don't think so, this story is a complete sham.

Someone lights up a joint at my dinner party, they are promptly asked to leave and will never be at my home again. The only places I've been where pot is found are parties with people you are absolutely unsuprised if they didn't light up.

I've never looked to my left or right and seen someone I would not expect smoking pot, dragging on a J.

[M203M4]

Like sex (between consenting adults), drinking, and smoking (tobacco), MJ should be fine as far as the government is concerned if smoked on private property (including businesses, both as per the rules of the proprietor). IMO, public parks, sidewalks, roads, publicly financed stadiums, and so on, are fair game for selective prohibition of substances and activities as determined by popular local standards (as imperfect as democracy is) - it becomes our business only when they make it our business; actions performed in public space are involuntarily foisted upon other individuals. That is to say, the WOD should be ended, but the change should be short of full legalization.

And before some moron confused individual states that the above implies that rape should then be legal if committed on private property: rape, murder, theft, assault, etc are crimes with real victims (having had their negative rights infringed) regardless of location, and the role of the state to help protect individual liberty supersedes private property rights and freedom of voluntary association in such circumstances. When you endorse the notion that the government should play a role in securing POSITIVE rights, you are endorsing Marxism. If you cannot formulate a rationale for a particular law or regulation in terms of the protection of individual negative rights, the law has no place in society.

[microgood]

For historic reasons (mankind discovered fermentation 10,000 years ago), alcohol has wound itself so thoroughly into our culture that we cannot ban it.

I assume you are talking about Western Culture. In China, marijuana has been referred in documents going back 2400 years BC as a cureall medicine.

That doesn't mean we should embrace and legalize every other vice.

The way this war on drugs is being waged, the cure is worse than the disease. From no-knock searches, the militarization of the police, the corruption of police and public officials, we are basically in Prohibition II. This war of the last thirty five years has been fruitless and has endangered the freedoms of future generations.

[AntiFed]

“I can’t find statistics on people dying from pot”

Because it doesn’t happen.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

It seems like they are trying awfully hard to convince people how bad pot is, but not doing a very good job of coming up with a convincing argument.

You're exactly right, of course.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I’m sure someone will try to convince me that $800 an oz is that much better than $15 for two ozs. But I doubt it.

Is the Sistine Chapel better than a Velvet Elvis?

[Badeye]

‘I agree with you — I think they lie. They lie and say they’ve used it when they really haven’t to look cool.

So that number’s probably high.’

‘Who broke the lamp?’

“I dunno....”

The defense rests, your honor....(chuckle)

[CharlesWayneCT]

I just read a story about some kids in a traffic accident who they think were smoking pot. I couldn’t find it on the google search though.

It’s like trying to find stories about people using guns to save themselves. It happens all the time, but if you don’t pick up the local papers you’ll never know about it, because the national news doesn’t care to let people know about it. Maybe the national news doesn’t care to let people know about pot smoking dangers.

Given that you do smoke pot, and that the act of inhaling any burning fumes into your lungs increases your chance of lung cancer, above and beyond the specific tar problems with tobacco, it’s just wrong to say nobody dies from smoking pot.

Of course, people don’t smoke joints like they do cigarettes, but that’s because they are illegal and expensive.

If you made pot legal, it would be cheap because everybody can grow it, and people would smoke all the time and everybody would wander around high and causing accidents and being unproductive and boorish. :-)

[untrained skeptic]

But the argument that alcohol is bad, alcohol is legal, therefore marijuana should be legal, is equally silly.

No it is not.

Freedom does not need to be justified. Restrictions on freedom need to be justified.

Unless the government can provide solid reasoning why something should be illegal, they have no reason banning it.

Our society has decided that some recreational drug use is acceptable. Unless the government can say how allowing pot use causes more harm than already allowing alcohol use, they have no business banning it.

For historic reasons (mankind discovered fermentation 10,000 years ago), alcohol has wound itself so thoroughly into our culture that we cannot ban it.

We, as a nation, did ban it at one time. Then after seeing the effects of the ban, we changed our minds. We can ban alcohol, we simply choose not to do so because our society felt that the benefits of banning it did not justify the constrains on people's freedom.

That doesn't mean we should embrace and legalize every other vice.

Legalize does not mean embrace. There are a great many things I don't agree with that I strongly feel that the government has no right to criminalize.

Is our government there to tell us what we are allowed to do, or is our government there to place only what restrictions on us that are necessary for a reasonably functioning society and to protect members of our society from abusing acts by others?

It is the difference between having a government that serves it's people and in being ruled.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Pot Smoking linked to fatal car crashes

Driving under the influence of cannabis doubles the risk of being involved in a fatal road crash. Research in France has found that even small amounts of cannabis could double the chance of a driver suffering an accident, while larger doses could more than triple the risk.

The latest research, by the French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research, looked at 10,478 drivers who were involved in fatal crashes between October 2001 and September 2003. All the drivers had compulsory tests for drugs and alcohol. The researchers found that 681 drivers tested positive for cannabis (7%) and 2,096 were found to have alcohol in their blood (21.4%). In total, there were 285 drivers who tested positive for both substances (2.9%).

[untrained skeptic]

The argument is similar to the one made against tobacco -- companies were intentionally increasing the nicotine content to "hook" teens. There was even talk at that time about regulating nicotine content.

I never really bought into that argument against tobacco companies either.

People smoked because they enjoyed the effect that nicotine provides in such quantities. Higher nicotine levels might make cigarettes more addictive, but they also make the product more appealing to some customers even without the addictive qualities.

The argument is basically that cigarettes are evil, therefore any efforts the tobacco companies to make their products more appealing to their customers must be evil.

It is spin to justify regulation.

If marijuana is ever legalized, I wouldn't be surprised to see THC content regulated by the government as an appeasement to concerned parents.

It would be sold to concerned parents as a way to protect their kids and to protect others from harming themselves. However, since they could simply smoke more, it's really a false argument to justify control.

They need to justify controlling the THC content, so they can ban people from simply growing their own which would harm their ability to tax the crap out of it.

[zeugma]

The researchers found that 681 drivers tested positive for cannabis (7%) and 2,096 were found to have alcohol in their blood (21.4%). In total, there were 285 drivers who tested positive for both substances (2.9%).

I note that they fail to mention that you "test positive" for cannibis for a month. How does someone having smoked a joint two weeks ago affect their driving in a measurable way today?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I just read a story about some kids in a traffic accident who they think were smoking pot. I couldn’t find it on the google search though.

Yes, but wasn't the pot that hurt or killed them, it was their inability to operate a motor vehicle in a safe and responsible manner.

Given that you do smoke pot, and that the act of inhaling any burning fumes into your lungs increases your chance of lung cancer, above and beyond the specific tar problems with tobacco, it’s just wrong to say nobody dies from smoking pot.

I disagree---if the government could point to a specific example of a person dying as a direct result of smoking marijuana, they'd trumpet it far and wide. Because otherwise, all they have to convince us of marijuana's evils is that it causes black men to rape white women, and oh yeah, today's pot is stronger than hippie pot.

Of course, people don’t smoke joints like they do cigarettes, but that’s because they are illegal and expensive.

No, it's because the pot smoker does not need to smoke as much of a joint to get the desired effect of the THC as a cigarette smoker does to get the desired effect of the nicotine. A person with a decent cigarette habit might smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. There's no way in hell a person with a decent pot habit could smoke 20 joints a day.

[robertpaulsen]

"Unless the government can say how allowing pot use causes more harm than already allowing alcohol use, they have no business banning it."

First of all, are you saying pot is harmless? Second, are you saying that alcohol users will switch to pot if pot is legal? Third, are you saying that pot use will stay the same if it is legalized?

Since the answers to all three are "no", then legalizing pot will cause additional harm. Therefore, by your own logic, the government is justified in keeping it illegal.

"Legalize does not mean embrace."

Legalization, in today's society, implies societal acceptance. How often have you heard, "It's legal so I can do it and don't you dare impose your standards on me"?

"Is our government there to tell us what we are allowed to do"

We are a self-governing nation, not a dictatorship. We the people run the country. Every two years we have an opportunity to start fresh, electing all the representatives who write the laws.

[robertpaulsen]

"Is the Sistine Chapel better than a Velvet Elvis?"

Blasphemy!

Yes I know the frame is worth more than the painting, but who would dare put a value on The King?

[Dust in the Wind]

Not from the South are you? ;) $120 an oz. 1/4 for $40.

Went and got old; I guess ;) $120 an ozLb. 1/4Lb. for $40. Glad I don't toke any longer!

[tacticalogic]

We the people run the country.

Except when it involves a ballot initiative to change the laws concerning marijuana. Then it's "mob rule". You're one two-faced piece of work.

[TKDietz]

“No way you can get an 8th for 20. Not even dirt weed. Coupla grams will cost you 50...er, according to information I read somewhere.”

Where I live Mexican goes for maybe $60 to $80 an ounce (28 grams), sometimes even $50. Our local drug task force can buy pounds all day for $400 to $600, but they focus their attention on meth. From what I hear the fancy indoor grown stuff, the Blueberry, White Widow, etc., goes for anywhere from a $100 a quarter ounce on up, but I’ve never heard of anyone paying anywhere close to $800 and ounce for any kind of pot. Most everyone appears to be smoking the dirt cheap Mexican in my little part of the South. I’m in court all the time and I see lots of little evidence bags of seized marijuana. It’s always seedy compressed bud, Mexican. Either almost no one is smoking the really expensive stuff, or maybe there are quite a few who smoke it but they don’t tend to be the sort of folks who come under police radar.

I think prices vary a lot depending on what part of the country you live in, and who you know. I’ve heard of people paying as much as $40 a quarter ounce for Mexican where I live, but most pot smokers around here would think that was a rip off price.

[DouglasKC]

Did you ever notice that of PC logic: Cigarette smoking is evil and should be banned and criminalized. Marijuana is cool and good and should be legalized.

Dude, you don't get it. Tobacco is part of the "system", the culture. Pot is part of the counter-culture. It's rebellion man. Tune in, turn on, drop out. Stick it to the man! Hippies rule!