Posted on 06/04/2007 11:35:52 AM PDT by cryptical
At a recent backyard barbecue in Miami's Upper Eastside, a group of middle-age, middle-class folks tamely sipped berry cocktails and beers. Among them: a couple of lawyers, a couple of city administrators and an arts administrator. Somewhere between the skirt steak and the apple pie, somebody lit a joint and passed it around.
Nobody blinked. Even in mainstream, white-collar settings, smoking marijuana can be commonplace and unremarkable, like having a little wine with dinner.
Once a stamp of the arty, the marginal and the counterculture, today marijuana's popularity cuts across social boundaries. Yet several high-profile marijuana arrests have recently made headlines, highlighting the hazy double standard that exists around an illegal, potentially harmful drug that continues to encroach into the mainstream:
• In March, Lawrence Korda, 59, a Broward Circuit Court judge, was charged with openly smoking marijuana in a park in Hollywood. Korda completed a drug and alcohol program to erase the misdemeanor charge, and must take monthly random drug tests for six months and perform 25 hours of community service.
• Last month, Utpal Dighe, 31, a prosecutor in the Miami-Dade state attorney's office, was fired after police charged him with buying marijuana from a street dealer in Coconut Grove.
• Also last month, Ricky Williams, 30, erstwhile superstar running back for the Dolphins, probably ended his Miami career by testing positive for marijuana for the fifth time.
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.
One group at least modestly turning away from marijuana is middle- and high-schoolers, ages 12 to 17. The percentage who have used pot at least once dropped from more than 20 percent in 2000 to about 17 percent in 2005, federal researchers say.
''I don't know if more people are smoking or more people are admitting it,'' said Betsy Wise, a Miami stand-up comic. Wise recently started to freelance for a New York ad agency. She confided in a co-worker that a friend was delivering pot brownies to the office -- and told him to help himself.
''When I got to the agency, all but a few of the brownies were gone,'' Wise said. ``Pretty much everyone partook, right in the office. They all greeted me with smiles. I thought that was remarkable. I would have expected maybe one or two people would have been simpatico.''
More and more, weed is cropping up in the popular culture. It isn't just the domain of hip-hop records with parental-guidance labels. On cable-TV shows like Six Feet Under,The Sopranos,Entourage and The L Word, characters have sparked up casually, the way they might sip merlot, without their marijuana use being part of any plot development or morality tale.
And it isn't just cable. On ABC's Brothers & Sisters, Sally Field's character gets high. The kids on That '70s Show often emerged from clouds of funny smoke.
GOING UPSCALE
''I think there is more of a laissez-faire attitude these days about smoking pot,'' said Jenji Kohan, creator of Showtime's Weeds, about a mother who sells marijuana to make ends meet after her husband dies unexpectedly. 'One of the things that I find interesting is that there are boutique farms that are really into their strains. It reminds me of when wine started to become really popular and people started talking about this vine and that grape. Marijuana has become more upscale. In L.A., dealers have full menus of `unique teas.' ''
Not that marijuana use is a function of wealth.
For $20 on the street, a buyer can score one-eighth ounce of low-grade marijuana from Mexico, Belize or Jamaica -- enough for four or five cigarettes. For $800, the connoisseur can acquire an ounce of exotic, extra-potent marijuana grown from modern hybrids in hydroponic labs or special soil indoors in ''grow-houses'' from Pompano Beach to Coral Gables, said James Hall, director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Substance Abuse at Nova Southeastern University.
''It's like wine; you can buy an expensive one or you can buy the jug stuff,'' Hall said.
The truth is, for all of the marijuana possession arrests, police often look the other way, or let smokers go with friendly warnings.
At a Snoop Dogg concert at a Fort Lauderdale club a while back, a uniformed officer stood by unflinchingly as Snoop, and dozens in the audience, sent up telltale clouds.
''It's selective enforcement,'' said Miami musician Todd Thompson, who doesn't have a problem admitting that he gets high. ``At Langerado [a Broward outdoor music festival], there was smoking going on everywhere. I wouldn't do it in front of a cop, just in case. But cops don't always do something about a little marijuana smoke.''
Marijuana laws are a mishmash among the 50 states. It isn't entirely legal anywhere, but 12 states have at least partly decriminalized it, to the point that in Alaska there is no penalty for possessing an ounce or less at home.
In Florida, possession of 20 grams or less -- 28 grams would be an ounce -- is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine; having more than 20 grams is a felony worth five years and/or a $5,000 fine.
Over the decades, debate about whether marijuana should be legalized has remained lively.
Said Howard Finkelstein, Broward County public defender and legal guru of the ''Help Me Howard'' segment on WSVN-Fox 7: 'We're making war on our own people. We take good fathers and lawyers and doctors and wives and make them outlaws. We're playing a stupid and harmful game of `gotcha.' ''
Some support for legalization comes from the belief that it's not dangerous to health, says Dr. J. Bryan Page, professor of anthropology and psychiatry and an expert on substance abuse in the University of Miami Department of Psychiatry.
''A student I knew claimed to be part of a group who all had grade-point averages over 3.6 who were very regular users,'' he said. 'She wanted me to study them to counter all the `Just say no' stuff.''
White House drug czar John Walters, not surprisingly, sees it differently. In April, his office released an analysis from the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project that said the level of THC -- the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana -- has more than doubled since 1983, from 4 percent to 8.5 percent.
`WAKE-UP CALL'
''This new report serves as a wake-up call for parents who may still hold outdated notions about the harms of marijuana,'' his announcement said.
The increased potency is from the exotic new hybrids and sophisticated indoor growing techniques, says Nova Southeastern's Hall.
Marijuana-related emergency-room visits increased from 45,000 in 1995 to 119,000 in 2002, the most recent comparison available, federal drug officials say.
Added Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse: ``Science has shown that marijuana can produce adverse physical, mental, emotional and behavioral changes, and -- contrary to popular belief -- it can be addictive.''
Norman Kent, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer and board member of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, scoffed: ``More people died last year from eating spinach than smoking pot.''
(future update:).....millions of citizens now are free to enjoy pot legally while they absorb a single web page for hours on end...LOL
Then again, I can go buy a carton of cigarettes and smoke them at home, while if I buy a bag of pot from some balck marketeer, I can get a ticket for $100. And I live in one of the less penalized states in the nation.
But the tobaacco smokers have it rougher.
Why would THC content be regulated? I can buy Everclear in my state, and in most states stuff like Bicardi 151 is legal. Both having proofs that can get you extremely drunk extermely quickly.
The difference being you can actually overdose and die from alcohol.
Be that as it may, we the people run the country. That's the point.
As I said, for the same reasons given to regulate nicotine. Parents believed that nicotine content was being elevated by the tobacco companies, not to improve taste, but to hook teens. I recall there was talk about classifying nicotine as a drug and regulating it.
My guess is that the same would be done to THC if marijuana is ever proposed to be legalized -- if for nothing else than to get the votes of parents.
Ah, but you found the truth. The rest of us, I guess, are too dunb. We just can't be trusted to know what's right. So, who do you have in mind to make these decisions? Get rid of the representative republic and elect you King?
"Examples include:"
Add to your list:
medical benefits of marijuana
marijuana is harmless
marijuana affects no one but the user
legal marijuana would only be smoked by adults in the privacy of their home
marijuana use would not increase -- it would actually decrease
And my favorites:
the government will make billions off of taxing marijuana
the gangs will go away
the prisons and courtrooms will empty
the cops will go after the "real" criminals
no more no-knocks and forfeitures
On and on. Tell me about being lied to. Tell me about agendas.
If it were more complicated than that, why is tobacco still legal?
The goobermint cares only about ONE THING - their cut.
Everything else is peripheral.
They’ve made it illegal to make alcohol at home.
Beer, yes.
Spirits, no.
It takes a little more refinement to make alcohol and tobacco requires significantly more cultivation than marijuana.
There’s a reason they call it “weed”? It grows everywhere and anywhere with minimal hassel. As such, it would compete directly with established revueue streams like alcohol and tobacco.
Now the goobermint wants to tax home-made fuels (biodiesel and alcohol). Another “interstate commerce” infringement?
The only reason you get away with some things and not others is because our goobermint, while overreaching, is still incompetent at the core.
You never described a ballot initiative as "mob rule"?
!!!!
A+, Bobby boy.
Sure. But I didn't coin the phrase. I usually put it in quotes and/or reference the fact that it came from another poster.
What's up? Why is this so important to you? What's your point? Why are you wasting my time with this?
You pop up in this thread like a Whack-A-Mole and immediately pounce on my post. Your comment had nothing to do with the discussion. With anyone else, I'd hit abuse. With you, I'll give you fair warning.
If you have something to add to this marijuana thread, I'm willing to listen.
So as long a somebody else said it first, you can repeat it all you want, and don't bear any responsibility for it? I don't think so.
What's up? Why is this so important to you? What's your point? Why are you wasting my time with this?
You pop up in this thread like a Whack-A-Mole and immediately pounce on my post. Your comment had nothing to do with the discussion. With anyone else, I'd hit abuse. With you, I'll give you fair warning.
Would it be different if I'd posted something to the thread before you got here?
If you have something to add to this marijuana thread, I'm willing to listen.
The subject of the thread is the double standards that are applied. I'm just pointing out one of them.
In reasonably low quantities, yes.
If you abuse it, especially by smoking it, it can be harmful.
All recreational drugs are also harmful in that they encourage non-productivity.
Second, are you saying that alcohol users will switch to pot if pot is legal?
Some might, but not a lot. However, those that smoke pot will likely consume less alcohol overall. I know that back when I used to smoke the stuff on occasion I would definitely drink less on those occasions than I would have otherwise.
In my limited experience, those who really need to give up alcohol because of what it is doing to their health won't give it up for something else like pot.
I really wouldn't expect that legalization of pot in addition to the current legalization of alcohol would have a significant overall health penalty or benefit. I'm leaning slightly towards benefit, but that is mainly because I've never seen pot use destroy someone's health.
I've seen two friends destroy themselves with alcohol abuse, though both seemed to have set themselves on a path of self destruction, and I'm not sure that if alcohol had been unavailable that either of them wouldn't have simply found another way to destroy themselves.
Since the answers to all three are "no", then legalizing pot will cause additional harm.
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.
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"?
Rationalization makes a lame argument to justify something. Opposing something because others will make broad rationalizations is just as lame.
However, the biggest problem with that argument is that people who aren't going to take personal responsibility for their own actions are unlikely to be swayed by pot being legal or illegal. They will do what they want and find a way to rationalize it.
Some might be effected by fear of punishment, but other than those facing regular drug tests at work, few people really fear being significantly punished for smoking pot.
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.
Yes. But one of the inherent flaws of democracy is that many people have a tendency to want to use the government to force their will and their views on others. Be very, very careful what you ask your government to do.
When it really comes down to it, the government is a horrible tool to try and dictate moderation and moral behavior.
Our government isn't good at teaching personal responsibility, and heavier handed government actually teaches less personal responsibility, not more.
The more we have depended on the government to dictate what is right and wrong rather than teaching our youth to take responsibility for their own actions, the more our society has degraded morally.
I haven't touched pot for a years, and even when I did smoke it was only occasionally.
If it were legal, I might go back to smoking it occasionally, and it would likely curb my drinking on those few occasions where I get together with friends and relax.
I personally have no problem with recreational drinking or even recreational pot use. However, we are always responsible for our own actions, and we can't blame alcohol or drug use for actions we should not take. If drinking to much puts you in a state of mind where you do stupid, harmful things, then it is your responsibility not to drink that much.
Our government should be limited to mainly regulating actions that are harmful to others such as driving under the influence.
I actually oppose legalization until we have a good way to test for impairment while using pot. Right now we don't have a good way of measuring how impaired someone is that has been smoking pot.
However, it isn't the drug users that are lobbying against research on how pot effects people and how to measure how impaired someone is, it is the anti-drug lobby. Research into marijuana has not supported the anti-drug movement's claims in the past, so instead of trying to accurately study and regulate it, they instead obstruct research because they have already decided they know what is best for us all.
Marijuana was legalized in Alaska in 1975 (adult use, at home, 4oz max). A 1988 University of Alaska study found that teenagers in Alaska used marijuana at more than twice the national average. Alarmed by that statistic, Alaskans re-criminalized the drug in 1990. Ten years later, Alaskan teen use was within 1% of the national average.
So, if legalizing marijuana would double the numbers of teens using it, would you still favor it?
Same study (sample size, methodology, control, etc.)?
What happened to the level of alcohol use among teens during that time?
What does "used" marijuana mean in the context of that study. Did twice the number try it?
I agree that doubling the use of recreational drugs among teens is a bad thing. But do your statistics really show a doubling of the use of recreational drugs?
So, if legalizing marijuana would double the numbers of teens using it, would you still favor it?
If legalizing marijuana would double the overall use of recreational drugs by teens, I would oppose legalizing it.
However, after some searching, I can't seem to find a link to this study on the web.
If you have more information on where I might find this study I would be interested in reading it so I can better evaluate its credibility and applicability.
So in 2000, Alaskan teen use was within 1% of the national average, despite the fact that a judge threw out the 1990 recriminalization vote in 1993?
I have no idea. Nor do I know what happened to the level of pizza use.
"What does "used" marijuana mean in the context of that study. Did twice the number try it?"
Twice the percentage. I forget the exact number, but it was something like, nationwide, 5% of teens 12-17 were smoking marijuana at least once per month and 10% of Alaskan teens 12-17 were smoking marijuana at least once per month.
Correct. The issue wasn't settled by the state Supreme Court until 2003 (Noy v State).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.