Posted on 03/26/2009 10:13:28 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
The romance with weed is never-ending for California marijuana devotees. Now, they claim their beloved drug can save the state by solving its unrelenting budget nightmare.
State legislation is afoot to legalize and tax marijuana to backfill the state budget. But, like the grandiose daydreams of a stoner, the reality of this plan would be far different from its vision. I won't go all “Reefer Madness” on you or claim that hemp T-shirts are a slippery slope to damnation. The problem with marijuana legalization is simpler and worse.
California cannot afford more stoned people, especially stoned young people. We need a lot fewer stoned people.
Prevention experts understand the problem with legalization: The greater the access to an intoxicant, the more abuse there will be of that intoxicant. Alcohol isn't the most dangerous drug in the world because it's worse than heroin or cocaine. It's the most dangerous drug because it's so easily accessible. You can get large quantities of it anywhere, and cheaply, too. Underage drinking is a big problem because kids can get alcohol so easily.
Legal marijuana would mean more access to marijuana. The number of marijuana users would spike, including teens.
Problems related to marijuana use would spike. Marijuana lobbyists argue that if a dangerous drug such as alcohol is legal, then marijuana should be, too. I've never understood that. With all the problems we have with alcohol, why would we want to legalize another intoxicant?
Right now, there are 127 million alcohol users and 14 million marijuana users in this country – because one is legal and the other isn't. But, most alcohol users don't get intoxicated. About one-fifth of alcohol users binge drink or regularly drink heavily.
The serious problems from alcohol occur when people get intoxicated. With marijuana, you get intoxicated every time you use it. That's the whole point. Marijuana intoxication and alcohol intoxication may be different, but both are bad for society.
Marijuana intoxication means cognitive impairment, grandiosity, short-term memory loss, difficulty in carrying out complex mental processes and impaired judgment. It severely hurts your ability to perform at school and work. It saps initiative and drive. It increases confusion. In other words, it makes you stupid.
An increase in stoners among California's young people and work force would be very bad for the state. Right now, we're in a recession in which people without college degrees are losing jobs twice as fast as people with college degrees. Our future economy will be based on innovation, education and highly skilled labor.
But we're already not producing enough college graduates for our future work-force needs. With many more stoned teens and young people, the problems of an unskilled, uneducated and unmotivated work force will get worse.
Stoned people can't learn or work very well. Marijuana is the loser drug: That's the big problem with it.
What about the idea that California can balance its budget by legalizing marijuana and taxing the heck out of it? You haven't been paying attention to special-interest politics if you believe that.
Moneyed special interests run policy in this state. Look what happened when California criminal justice policies made prison guards one of the most powerful lobbies in the state. The union quickly began dictating policy in its own interest.
The alcohol industry is so powerful in California that beer taxes haven't increased in nearly 20 years; the last time they were raised was by a minuscule amount and the industry almost killed that. A wealthy marijuana industry will soon co-opt policy-makers and dictate how much tax we charge, where we sell the product and who gets to buy it. Why would a marijuana industry be different from any other special interest?
Personally, I don't think the marijuana lobby believes its own arguments. When I talk to legalization proponents, it usually boils down to their angry demand that people should be left alone to get stoned if they want to. That libertarian sentiment shows a complete disregard for the public good. If legalizers can't understand that, elected policy-makers certainly should.
The disingenuousness of the marijuana lobby becomes clear on the subject of medical marijuana. For marijuana lobbyists to push both recreational marijuana and medicinal marijuana at the same time is duplicitous. It's nakedly obvious where their real desires lie.
Recreational drug use and medical drug use have nothing in common. If pharmaceutical lobbyists pushed recreational and medical use of the same drug, they'd get hauled before Congress and slammed by state attorneys. But the marijuana lobby sees nothing wrong with its tactics.
How about a little more candor from marijuana romantics? Like the panhandler standing on a street corner with a sign that says, “Why lie? I just want a beer.”
There is a specific difference between them, though.
An antihistimine is specifically taken to curb a dysfunction.
Alcohol and pot are specifically taken to induce a dysfunction.
I’m not sure you see the logic.
I'm pretty sure the prescription drugs will land you a DUI charge.
But frankly, I would be just as angry with someone who caused an accident while yakking on their cell phone as I would with someone who's had a few too many beers.
Wouldn't you?
No everyone who causes and accident should be treated as though they caused an accident. Of course some people are inattentative, but many are just poor drivers. I happen to think poor drivers should be punished for being poor drivers. Maybe not the same as drunkards and dopers, but punished nonetheless. It would encourage them to be better drivers.
An egregious example is the old guy who drove through the Santa Monica farmers market and killed all those people, and then got off with a slap on the wrist.
I’m upset at all accidents. However, a cell phone is not something used to induce a dysfunction, with no other benefits.
Pot and alcohol are taken to induce a dysfunction alone.
Alcohol and pot are specifically taken to induce a dysfunction.
A distinction without a difference, in practical terms.
What a great marketing campaign, get hot chicks stoned.
So you would argue that someone who kills someone in self-defense should be treated the same as someone who pre-meditated their killing? As you would say, that would be “a distinction without a difference, in practical terms.”
Pot and alcohol are taken to induce a dysfunction alone.
True, but the crime you're referencing here isn't the taking of drugs, but the driving of the car while impaired. So while a person may take an anithistamine for a legitimate purpose, they make a choice to drive while their faculties are possibly impaired.
That seems just as premeditated to me.
I don't think that analogy holds up.
Murder and killing are not the same acts, necessarily, and killing in self-defense is certainly not the same act as murder.
Driving impaired is driving impaired, regardless of the substance.
The issue is a Libertarian wet dream, and they don't understand why this is not a Conservative agenda, and never will be.
The antihistamine use is extended to drunkards, too, and would protect them if only they weren’t drunk.
I’m not arguing that those who drive drunk can’t be given the same allowance we give others for talking on a cell phone, while taking antihistamines, etc. My problem is with their compounding the problem with something meant only to pervert their rational abilities alone.
You are saying that killing someone from inattention is the same as killing someone from drunk driving.
I don't think you understand those are the same argument and that you are inconsistent.
Lots of violent crimes are committed because of the illegal drug trade. Murders, kidnappings, brutal beatings...etc..
I have been playing with the argument of decriminalizing drugs, but only if you register as a user. If you want to smoke pot, fine; register as a user. Any employer can ask if you are a registered user, as well as your insurance company.
Those who believe that government must make our decisions for us must be the Obama voters on this forum. There’s a lot of them.
I did not say that. I said the ACTS weren't the same. Killing someone while defending yourself is a different act than premeditated murder.
I would even argue the results AREN'T the same: in one, an innocent person is killed; in the other, a guilty person.
You are saying that killing someone from inattention is the same as killing someone from drunk driving.
"Inattention" can mean many things. Stick with the antihistamine analogy: killing someone by driving impaired after taking antihistamines is the same as doing so while drunk.
I can see your point. I don't really agree, though.
The idea that legalization would somehow improve the economy is silly. We need legalization to save the Constitution from the shredder and to deprive violent drug cartels of a major source of revenue.
I can see why they want to tax it, tobacco taxes are not keeping up with the declining sales of cigerattes fast enough for the budget.
I don’t want to have to deal or try to converse with someone that is somewhere off in space.
—
Hey now. Obama did it the other day .. talking to the folks in the Space Station. They’re still scratching their heads over his jokes, Tang etc.. Who’s stoned? ;-)
On the bright side, stoned people are content as long as they have a roof, food, and TV. Much less demanding. I say we pass it out like candy. Keeps them away from the voting booths.
I heard that's already legal.
Just don't try smoking it.
But seriously. Anyone who wants to legalize pot is a LIBERAL.
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.