It's Time to Rethink Marijuana Laws

Philadelphia Enquirer ^ | July 9, 2007 | Kathleen Parker

[Eric Blair 2084]

WASHINGTON -- News that Al Gore's 24-year-old son, Al Gore III, was busted for pot and assorted prescription pills has unleashed a torrent of mirth in certain quarters.

Gore-phobes on the Internet apparently view the son's arrest and incarceration as comeuppance for the father's shortcomings. Especially rich was the fact that young Al was driving a Toyota Prius when he was pulled over for going 100 mph -- just as Papa Gore was set to preside over concerts during a 24-hour, seven-continent Live Earth celebration to raise awareness about global warming.

Whatever one may feel about the former vice president's environmental obsessions, his son's problems are no one's cause for celebration. The younger Gore's high-profile arrest does, however, offer Americans an opportunity to get real about drug prohibition, and especially about marijuana laws.

For the record, I have no interest in marijuana except as a public policy matter. My personal drug of choice is a heavenly elixir made from crushed grapes. But it is, alas, a drug.

Tasty, attractive and highly ritualized in our culture, wine and other alcoholic beverages are approved for responsible use despite the fact that alcoholism and attendant problems are a plague, while responsible use of a weed that, at worst, makes people boring and hungry, is criminal.

Pot smokers might revolt if they weren't so mellow.

Efforts over the past few decades to relax marijuana laws have been moderately successful. Twelve states have decriminalized marijuana, which usually means no prison or criminal record for first-time possession of small amounts for personal consumption. (Those states are: Alabama, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon.)

[Eric Blair 2084]

Like I said from the first post, I haven't smoked weed since President George W's dad was in office. I have no dog in this fight. You don't need to be a victim of tyranny and selective prosecution before you tell the Gubmint to leave their subjects alone unless they are harming someone else directly.

When they came for the drinkers during Prohibition, I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.

When they came for the employees of the oldest profession in the world, I did not speak out, as I had no interest in purchasing sex.

When they came for the purveyors of what was deemed to be "obscene" or "offensive", I did not speak out, as I was not a fan of entertainers like Lenny Bruce or Howard Stern.

When they came to ban the female mammary gland from TV, I did not speak out, because Brian Boitano told me not to.

When they came for the marijuana smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a marijuana smoker.

When they came for the steroid users, I did not speak out, as I was not a steroid user.

When they came for the _______ (insert nominally objectionable behavior here), I did not speak out as I was not a _________ (fill in the blank).

When they came for the pornographers, I did not speak out, as I was not a pornographer.

When they came for the people who don't wear seatbelts, I did not speak out, as I always wore my seatbelt.

When they came for the gun owners, I did not speak out, as I was not a gun owner.

When they came for the gamblers, I did not speak out, as I was not a gambler.

When they came for the cigarette smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a smoker.

When they came for the overweight and the obese, I did not speak out, as I was not overweight or obese.

When they came for the drinkers (again), I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.

Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out.

[Eric Blair 2084]

PS: I tried sticking my head in the sand like an ostrich, and now I can’t enjoy a legal product on private property.

Actually, I still can, I just have to go to one of my friends’ bars that he owns where he still let people smoke cigarettes.

[Murray the R]

About 28 percent of violent crimes involved an offender who was perceived to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Thanks, philman. That's a far cry from the bridge we were being sold here.

Funny how the nanny-staters will lump alcohol and other drugs together when they think it serves their purposes, then turn around and deny that alcohol is a drug.

[philman_36]

And nary a response in reply despite a continued presence.

[philman_36]

There fixed it for you.... what are you high? ... hehe
Ah levity...keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you've been up to.
(I did fix it myself. I should proof better.)
Damn the typos, full speed ahead! {;^)

[philman_36]

More levity!
Hey, is that pie?

Dave's not here!

[monkfan]

Apparently, they came for raw milk too. Try finding raw milk these days. It’s practically a black market commodity.

[TigersEye]

I was about 16 when it first occurred to me that alcohol was probably about the most powerful of all intoxicating drugs. I'm 52 now and nothing has changed my mind about that. Different drugs are powerful in different ways but alcohol is potent across a wide range of effects.

FWIW I don't recommend taking/using any drugs as intoxicants. Never have not even when I was 16. Discussing what I know to be true about them is not an endorsement regardless of what small minds say.

[TigersEye]

"If the fact don't fit you must ignore it."

[lolhelp]

There is an article in todays “Telegram” about a British study that concludes that heavy pot smoking leads to schizophrenia when the smokers are in their 40’s and 50’s.

[Murray the R]

There is an article in todays “Telegram” about a British study that concludes that heavy pot smoking leads to schizophrenia when the smokers are in their 40’s and 50’s.

Did that study rule out the possibility that in one's 40s and 50s schizophrenia leads to heavy pot smoking?

And even if the alleged causal link exists, what should we conclude from that? It's also true that heavy use of the drug alcohol at any age leads to negative mental and physical health effects.

[robertpaulsen]

"would you logically conclude that FR is not a conservative forum?"

Do the drug threads define the forum?

[robertpaulsen]

That's a THC study, not marijuana. That's like saying if a chemical compound in gasoline diminishes tumors then it's OK to drink gasoline.

Personally, I liked the study that showed smoking marijuana actually prevents cancer. THAT'S the study you should be referencing.

""We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

[robertpaulsen]

"similar to booze and dry counties"

A "dry" county only means they don't sell it there. You can buy it elsewhere and bring it home.

"This should at most be done at the local level by city councels"

Would that work?

Let's even bump it up to the state level. If 5 states legalized cocaine, would that present a problem to the other 45? Would cocaine be smuggled from the "wet" states to the "dry" states, making it next to impossible to enforce?

Prior to Prohibition, about half the states banned alcohol at the state level. That didn't work too well, since alcohol was being smuggled. The federal government passed the Webb-Kenyon Act making the interstate transportation of alcohol illegal. That didn't work either. Finally, Prohibition was passed.

What didn't work for alcohol will work for easily concealed drugs like cocaine or heroin or meth? Let's not kid ourselves.

[majormaturity]

There have been numerous studies and they have concluded that pot smoking is not even in the same league as cigarettes. First, most pot smokers don’t smoke 20 joints a day. Second, the amount of tar is less and there is no nicotine. Additionally, the pot does not contain traces of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and over 100 other additives and byproducts that cigs do. But on the question of why pot is illegal, read “The Emperor Has No Clothes” by Jack Herer (available at Amazon). The real reason has to do with DuPont and Hearst wanting to force everyone to use timber to make paper. Until the late 1930s, paper was made from hemp (our Declaration of Independence is written on hemp paper). DuPont developed a way to make paper from trees and Randolph Hearst owned thousands of acres of trees, so they conspired to get Congress to ban hemp so trees would have to be used. It comes down to the old story of the rich wanting to get richer, so they got Congress to outlaw hemp and, whalah — paper is now made from wood.

[bird4four4]

Finally, Prohibition was passed. What didn't work for alcohol will work for easily concealed drugs like cocaine or heroin or meth? Let's not kid ourselves.

Yep, prohibition didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.

[halfright]

>>The recreational drug users are big losers anyway, so who cares?

You don’t drink? Alcohol is a recreational drug. Legal yes, but still a drug.

[TheKidster]

What didn’t work for alcohol will work for easily concealed drugs like cocaine or heroin or meth? Let’s not kid ourselves.

You should read your own words. You’ve nailed my whole argument in a nut shell. What didn’t work for alcohol hasn’t worked for drugs like cocaine, or heroin or meth or pot, i.e. prohibition.

[robertpaulsen]

Then allowing each state (or worse, the local level) to decide if drugs should be legal isn’t the solution. Why did you even suggest that when you now admit you know it wouldn’t work?