Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Jacob Sullum :: Townhall.com Columnist
Potheads, puritans and pragmatists: Two marijuana initiatives put drug warriors on the defensive
by Jacob Sullum
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Nevada is known for gambling, 24-hour liquor sales and legal prostitution. Yet the main group opposing Question 7, an initiative on the state's ballot next month that would allow the sale and possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults 21 or older, is called the Committee to Keep Nevada Respectable.

In Colorado, opponents of Amendment 44, which would eliminate penalties for adults possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, are equally certain of their own rectitude. "Those who want to legalize drugs weaken our collective struggle against this scourge," declares the Colorado Drug Investigators Association. "Like a cancer, proponents for legalization eat away at society's resolve and moral fiber."

To sum up, smoking pot is less respectable than a drunken gambling spree followed by a visit to a hooker, while people who think adults shouldn't be punished for their choice of recreational intoxicants are like a tumor that will kill you unless it's eradicated. In the face of such self-righteous posturing, the marijuana initiatives' backers have refused to cede the moral high ground, a strategy from which other activists can learn.

The Nevada campaign, which calls itself the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana, emphasizes the advantages of removing marijuana from the black market, where regulation and control are impossible, and allowing adults to obtain the drug from licensed, accountable merchants. To signal that a legal market does not mean anything goes, the initiative increases penalties for injuring people while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The "regulate and control" message has attracted public support from more than 30 Nevada religious leaders. The list includes not just the usual suspects -- Unitarian Universalist ministers and Reform rabbis -- but also representatives of more conservative groups, such as Lutherans and Southern Baptists.

"I don't think using marijuana is a wise choice for anyone," says the Rev. William C. Webb, senior pastor of Reno's Second Baptist Church. "Drugs ruin enough lives. But we don't need our laws ruining more lives. If there has to be a market for marijuana, I'd rather it be regulated with sensible safeguards than run by violent gangs and dangerous drug dealers."

Troy Dayton of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, who was largely responsible for persuading Webb and the other religious leaders to back Question 7, notes that support from members of the clergy, which was important in repealing alcohol prohibition, "forces a reframing of the issue." It's no longer a contest between potheads and puritans.

The Colorado campaign, which goes by the name SAFER (Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation), emphasizes that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and asks, "Should adults be punished for making the rational choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol?" This approach puts prohibitionists on the defensive by asking them to justify the disparate legal treatment of the two drugs.

So far they have not been up to the task. Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger has implicitly conceded marijuana itself is not so bad by implausibly linking it to methamphetamine. In a televised debate with SAFER's Mason Tvert, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers insisted "the only acceptable alternative to intoxication is sobriety."

That's fine for those who avoid all psychoactive substances as a matter of principle. But since most people -- including Suthers, who acknowledges drinking -- like using chemicals to alter their moods and minds, it's reasonable to ask for some consistency in the law's treatment of those chemicals, especially at a time when police are arresting a record number of Americans (nearly 787,000 last year) for marijuana offenses.

Despite a hard push by federal, state and local drug warriors who have been telling voters in Nevada and Colorado that failing to punish adults for smoking pot will "send the wrong message" to children, the latest polls indicate most are unpersuaded. Perhaps they worry about the message sent by the current policy of mindless intolerance.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jacob Sullum's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Just a quip...
I saw somewhere...

God made pot,
Man made beer,
Who do YOU trust?

Think that I'll second MacZed's idea...

~~SassafrasTea

on the first page even!
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&version=9



marijuana
I am conservative in most ways but in this I go libertarian. I used to suffer from migraines from the age of 9. My grandmother got them and would take to her bed. One of the things about the headaches is extreme nausea and vomiting along with the terrible and frightening pain of them. I read somewhere that marijuana could help nausea, so I tried smoking at the onset of a headache and it was like a miracle. Now I have a routine that I follow when one is striking me and it has lessened the severity and the frequency of them. I am no longer taking the pain pills all the time. In fact, I never take them anymore. The marijauna takes away the pain as well as the nausea.
The only thing is, I don't like doing something illegal. California's laws are silly because it's legal and illegal at the same time here.

LYDIA proclaims:
By the way
I would divorce my husband if he became a pot smoker (legalized).

SH: You should save him further years of aggravation and just bail now.

Marijauna and work
The major reason that some companies require drug testing is that in the 70's a speaker (whose name escapes me right now) at a meeting at the Rand corporation made the statement that companies that had workers that used any kind of drugs whether on the job or not had 5 times as many workmans comp claims as those that did not. He had no proof as no studies had been done yet the insurance industry picked right up on this fabrication. The drug testing industry was born and has been invading peoples privacy ever since. No study has ever been done that concluded this was true yet the myth is accepted as gospel all over the US.

Now who wants to keep MJ illegal?

1. The drug testing industry. Legalization would put most of those companies out of business. I say good riddance, go find something to do that actually helps people.

2. The mental health industry. All those court ordered referrals have made this industry large and intrusive. Same advice: Find something to do that really helps people.

3. The private prison industry. Take away all the non violent drug offenders and we don't need them anymore. Same advice.

4. The DEA. Here is an agency that makes it's money harassing doctors, sick people and poor farmers in foreign countries. Funny thing about that as we spend enough money Columbia and Afghanistan to buy off every small farmer in both countries so why don't we just do it? That would mean losing a lot of the toy budget. Not as many helicopters, airplanes, bombs and soldiers. It would make a lot of sense but wouldn't be near as much fun. Tranfer all these bastards to ICE or to Iraq. Let's see how bad they are when the enemy shoots back.

5. The pharmaceutical industry. Marijuana can't be patented so they want to keep it illegal. If people can get relief from a joint instead of a thousand dollar per pill prescription it may cut into their billions. If you check the funding of some of the keep pot illegal crusaders you'll see what I mean.

6. Those that would impose their beliefs on others as well as those that believe the propaganda. I don't want to smoke pot so you can't either. You people can just go to the devil if you can't learn to live and let live. I neither smoke pot or drink alcohol although I did my share of both in years past. The alcohol was a lot harder on me than the pot ever was and if I were going to pick one of them back up it would be pot.

Cops, Judges Agree, "Legalize Drugs"
And most especially marijuana for responsible adult use and distribution.

A growing group of police, judges and others with long experience on the front lines of the 35 year old "War on Drugs" has come to realize that the policy of drug Prohibition has done even far more damage to our society than the use or abuse of any drugs.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition can put a qualified cop or judge in your local civic club meeting, school or church group or business association.

A legal, regulated system for production and commercial distribution of marijuana and other drugs is certainly not without problems.

It is however, unquestionably preferable to a system which is illegal and 100% unregulated.

More information available at our non-profit educational site http://leap.cc Sincere feedback and inquiries likewise welcome via email to heath at leap.cc

Thanks to TownHall.com for inclusion of this important discussion.

About Lung Cancer
One obvious thing that should be mentioned about lung cancer.

Yes, it *is* smoke, and yes it *can* have some negative effects on your lungs.

*BUT* - - -

(Jeez, I wish they'd let us use emphasis tags!!)

Marijuana is rarely smoked continuously all day. Nicotine addicts easily chug down one, two, three, four packs per day. I like to joke that some people only need one match in the morning -- every subsequent cigarette is lit with the ending embers of the previous one -- !

Some people smoke like others drink water, or breathe.

Whereas, most people who partake of marijuana do so purely on a recreational basis. I.e., they smoke weed the way some people drink beer.

Now, sure, maybe if you chugged down the equivalent of 2 packs of marijuana all day every day, maybe you'll get some serious lung cancer. In that event, it might even be worse than tobacco. But if you chug a case of beer all day every day, you'll destroy your liver. If you drink a barrel of water all day every day, you'll over-hydrate yourself and you can die from that; there's a name for that condition that I don't remember.

Most people don't chug a case of beer a day every day, and most people don't smoke an equivalent amount of marijuana. Whereas, almost everyone who smokes tobacco consumes *at*least* a pack a day. Literally all day, every day. Therefore, you can *not* make a valid comparison between tobacco and marijuana regarding lung cancer.

More for Bob:
*I tried pot when I was in high school - three times; each time, I got away with it. I realized later how stupid and slow it made me feel.*

I drank a beer when I was a teenager & threw up all over, so what?

No one is advocating teen usage. It is easier for teens to buy drugs than cigarettes! Dealers don't check ID and any "gateway" there is comes from the fact these same "friends" can often times score harder drugs. No point in being afraid of hard drugs- the gov't is probably lying about the dangers of meth, etc. just like they lie about pot. That is one of the most dangerous aspects of this War on (people who do) Drugs...the kids have no trust in the people who spread these lies.

Millions of people use Marijuana medicinally every day. It works for them -- read the story of Angel Raich, it works MIRACLES for her. I don't believe anyone can read her story and not change their mind about marijuana prohibition.

http://www.angeljustice.org/article.php?list=type&type=6

Open your mind & realize Big Brother isn't always right. I consider myself a conservative and turning this country into a police state isn't a conservative value.

Also, check out http://www.leap.cc "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition". These are thousands of judges & law enforcement officials who are fed up with the drug war.

The Politics of pot
This page is great -- the politics of pot

http://www.drugwarrant.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=147

Full of info & quotes like:

President Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)
"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded"

and

Albert Eistein: My First Impression of the U.S.A., 1921
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."

Concerned about breast cancer?
Here is a link to a post be a guy who participated in one of Tashkin's studies -- real interesting.

http://www.drugwarrant.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=245

Cannabidiol Dramatically Inhibits Breast Cancer Cell Growth, Study Says

June 1, 2006 - Naples, Italy



Naples, Italy: Compounds in marijuana inhibit cancer cell growth in animals and in culture on a wide range of tumoral cell lines, including human breast carcinoma cells, human prostate carcimona cells, and human colectoral carcinoma cells, according to preclinical trial data published in the May issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

Investigators at Italy's Instuto di Chemica Biomolecolare assessed the anti-cancer activity of various non-psychoactive cannabinoids - including cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG), and cannabichromine (CBC) - in vivo and in vitro. Researchers reported that CBD acts as a more potent inhibitor of cancer cell growth than other cannabinoids, including THC, and noted that the compound is particularly efficacious in halting the spread of breast cancer cells by triggering apoptosis (programmed cell death).

Cannabigerol and CBC also possess anti-tumor properties, but lack the potency of CBD, they found.

"These results suggest the use in cancer therapy for cannabidiol," investigators concluded.

Previous studies have shown cannabinoids to reduce the size and halt the spread of glioma (brain tumor) cells in animals and humans in a dose dependent manner. Separate preclinical studies have also demonstrated cannabinoids to inhibit cancer cell growth and selectively trigger malignant cell death in skin cancer cells, leukemic cells, lung cancer cells, and prostate carcinoma cells, among other cancerous cell lines.

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Senior Policy Analyst, at (202) 483-5500. Full text of the study, "Antitumor activity of plant cannabinoids with emphasis on the effect of cannabidiol on human breast carcinoma," is available online at: http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jpet.106.105247v1. Additional information on cannabinoids' anti-cancer properties is available in NORML's report, "Cannabinoids as Cancer Hope," online at: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm

Marijuana & lung cancer
Bob writes: * Ounce for ounce, pot is 50 times as corrosive to lung tissue as tobacco*

More study is needed, but it looks like it's possible marijuana may help protect against lung cancer!


Marijuana smoking —“even heavy longterm use”— does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airways, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin, MD, reported at this year’s meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society.

Coming from Tashkin, this conclusion had extra significance for the assembled drug-company and university-based scientists (most of whom get funding from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse). Over the years, Tashkin’s lab at UCLA has produced irrefutable evidence of the damage that marijuana smoke wreaks on bronchial tissue.

With NIDA’s support, Tashkin and colleagues have identified the potent carcinogens in marijuana smoke, biopsied and made photomicrographs of pre-malignant cells, and studied the molecular changes occurring within them.

It is Tashkin’s research that the Drug Czar’s office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer. Tashkin himself has long believed in a causal relationship, despite a study in which Stephen Sidney, MD, examined the files of some 64,000 Kaiser patients and found that marijuana users did not develop lung cancer at a higher rate or die earlier than non-users.

Of five smaller studies on the question, only two —involving a total of about 300 patients— concluded that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer.

Tashkin decided to settle the question by conducting a large, population-based, case-controlled study. “Our major hypothesis,” he told the ICRS, “was that heavy, longterm use of marijuana will increase the risk of lung and upper-airways cancers.”

The Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program provided Tashkin’s team with the names of 1,209 L.A. residents aged 59 or younger with cancer (611 lung, 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal, 108 esophageal).

Interviewers collected extensive lifetime histories of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol and other drug use, and data on diet, occupational exposures, family history of cancer, and various “socio-demographic factors.”

Exposure to marijuana was measured in “joint years” —average number of joints per day x years that number smoked. Thus if a person had smoked two joints a day for 15 years they’d have consumed for 30 j-yrs.

Controls were found based on age, gender and neighborhood. Among them, 46% had never used marijuana, 31% had used for less than one joint year, 12% had used for 1-10 j-yrs, 5% had used 10-30 j-yrs, 2% had used for 30-60 j-yrs, and 3% had used for more than 60 j-yrs.

Tashkin controlled for tobacco use and calculated the relative risk of marijuana use resulting in lung and upper airways cancers. A relative risk ratio of .72 means that for every 100 non-users who get lung cancer, only 72 people who smoke get lung cancer. All the odds ratios in Tashkin’s study turned out to be less than one!

Compared with subjects who had used less than one joint year, the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were .78 for 1-10 j-yrs [according to the abstract book and .66 according to notes from the talk]; .74 for 10-30 j-yrs; .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs.

The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. “Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites,” Tashkin reported. “We found absolutely no suggestion of a dose response.”

The data on tobacco use, as expected, revealed “a very potent effect and a clear dose-response relationship —a 21-fold greater risk of developing lung cancer if you smoke more than two packs a day.” Similarly high odds obtained for oral/pharyngeal cancer, laryngeal cancer and esophageal cancer. “So, in summary” Tashkin concluded, “we failed to observe a positive association of marijuana use and other potential confounders.”

There was time for only one question, said the moderator, and San Francisco oncologist Donald Abrams, M.D., was already at the microphone: “You don’t see any positive correlation, but in at least one category, it almost looked like there was a negative correlation, i.e., a protective effect. Could you comment on that?” (Abrams was referring to Tash-kin’s lung-cancer data for marijuana-only smokers, 1-10 j-yrs.)

“ Yes,” said Tashkin. “The odds ratios are less than one almost consistently, and in one category that relationship was significant, but I think that it would be difficult to extract from these data the conclusion that marijuana is protective against lung cancer. But that is not an unreasonable hypothesis.”




So Doug....
Because someone might get high on pot, drive and hurt somebody, pot should be illegal for everybody? Really? Lets apply your logic elsewhere:

Alcohol - people drink and drive all the time. Should be illegal then for everybody!

Tobacco - people get lung cancer and die. Should be illegal then for everybody!

Trans-fat - makes people fat and they get heart disease. Should be illegal then for everybody!

Guns - some people shoot other people without provication. Should be illegal then for everybody!

Tall Buildings - some people fall off of them and die. Should be illegal then for everybody!

Cars - lots of people get hurt from cars being operated by people who aren't even drunk. Should be illegal then for everybody!

Airplanes - the Yankees just lost a good starting pitcher because of stupid airplanes. Should be illegal then for everybody!

Stairs - I read in the paper the other day that an old lady feel down the stairs and died. Should be illegal then for everybody!

Do you see how stupid you logic is?

Marijuana & Driving
Bob wrote so many incorrect things, I don't even know where to start. Of course we've had 70 yrs. of deceitful government propaganda shoved down our throats. I don't know of one single drug czar "fact" about Marijuana that has been proven scientifically. The gov't has commissioned many studies to "prove" one pot myth or another and each time the results have been the opposite of what they wanted so they try to bury the study or Cherry-pick through it. Here's some studies you probably didn't hear about:

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study titled "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance" (published November, 1993): "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small." and "Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution."

According to a 1994 Dutch study on "Marijuana Use And Driving" in real world conditions: "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program."

A May 1998 Australian review of 2,500 injured drivers reported that cannabis had "no significant effect" on driving culpability."

A study conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory in 2000 was reported in the London Times article Cannabis May Make You a Safer Driver.

...researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously. Although the cannabis affected reaction time in regular users, its effects appear to be substantially less dangerous than fatigue or drinking."
The study's author Rob Tunbridge said:
"If you were to ask me to rank them in order of priority, fatigue is the worst killer, followed by alcohol, and drugs follow way behind in third."
The TRL study was repeated a year later and reported in New Scientist: Alcohol impairs driving more than marijuana, which confirmed that marijuana users, though mildly impaired in certain skills, adjusted by driving more carefully and alertly. The study also indicated that alcohol users gained some of that caution if they smoked marijuana.

According to the Canadian Senate's exhaustive 2002 report: "Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy," "Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."


Doug -- the Logic IS there --
Quoth Doug: "In dismissing opposition to legalized sale of marijuana by the Committee to Keep Nevada Respectable, you state: "To sum up, smoking pot is less respectable than a drunken gambling spree followed by a visit to a hooker..." Could it be that some of those opposed to legalized marijuana would also be in favor of some curbs on public drunkenness, gambling and prostitution?'

That very well may be true. But Sullum isn't talking about the people who advocate using the government to ban *every* little thing. (And you know they're out there!)

"Ye gadz, that fellow is ENJOYING HIMSELF! BAN IT! BAN IT!"

There are plenty of people who oppose marijuana legalization who happily light up a smoke after having a beer while pulling the handle. They're not *exactly* hypocrites, but I'd say they're pretty close.



"Despite Las Vegas’ reputation, there are hundreds of churches in Clark Co. alone."

Are you counting the Drive-Thru Marriage churches? I've heard this statistic before, but I haven't heard anyone tell me the number of *legitimate* churches, vs. the ones set up expressly for people who want to get married without a blood test or parental approval.

Besides, it really sounds to me like you just want to discount the survey because it challenges your preconceptions. "OMIGOD! HOW COULD MY PASTER BE SMOKING POT???"

We even have some judges and cops who advocate legalization. Yes, it's a minority, but the minority is growing.



"In reviewing logic, when you really don’t have any facts to back you up, a lot of times advocates are forced into what is called an “appeal to authority.”"

There are reams of facts available if you want to look them up, or if you want me to get references for you. For Sullum to re-iterate all these facts in this short little piece would leave little room for him to get to the point of his article.

For the record, if you want an appeal to authority that might hold more weight, several regular columnists on Townhall.com happen to support legalization, including Larry Elder, Jacob Sullum (of course), William Buckley, Walter Williams, etc.

Or if you really want an *authority* on almost *any* issue, just ask *me!*



"That SAFER, “emphasizes that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol,” doesn’t mean that it actually is less dangerous,"

Would you like some links to some actual studies that have indicated such? If memory serves, I think the Reader's Digest did something in 197-something which showed marijuana to be mostly harmless.

Also, in the history of mankind, marijuana has YET to claim its FIRST fatality. Where ASPIRIN kills a hundred or so people every year, marijuana has KILLED NO ONE.

EVER.

There appears to actually be NO FATAL DOSAGE.

Except to drop a six pound brick of the stuff on to somebody's head from a third story window.



"State ballot measures won’t change the overriding current federal law on marijuana sale or use."

Very true, and this is a significant problem.

However, if we can get enough states to legalize it, we can eventually get the feds to see the error of their ways. Hopefully.

We waste more than $50 Billion annually on the Drug War. That's not counting what we send overseas in the form of money, personnel, military equipment, to pressure or outright bribe other countries to "do their part."

I want to cry every time I hear about some poor farmer in some 9th world country watching his whole livlihood go up in smoke, just because the US feels the need to export their Drug War to the entire planet. And all the innocent people who are killed in cold blood, or accidentally, because the criminals have no other way to settle their differences.

All of this goes away with legalization.


"Personally, my biggest issue is that the FIRST thing an intoxicant does is impair judgement."

So does this mean you make all intoxicants illegal? Or do you assume that adults have some control over their behavior, and are responsible for it, no matter how intoxicated they might become?

Most alcohol use is occasional. A couple of beers on the weekend. A glass of wine with dinner. The same happens to be true with marijuana.

If you're going to make something illegal because of a slight impairment of judgement, then you've got a long list of things to ban.

In the meantime, all you end up doing is making criminals wealthy, and destroy what little respect for law and order that still remains in this country.



"How are we going to established “legal limits” for marijuana impairment?"

Such are minor details. Start with ZERO TOLERANCE of injesting marijuana before operating heavy machinery, such as driving an automobile. Most people go to sleep afterwards anyway.



"Drunk drivers have been vilified for more than two generations–but judges are still letting them go–at least until they’ve added manslaughter to the rap sheet–and then only sometimes."

So what? Is that an argument to bring back the 18th Amendment?

Didn't we learn anything the first time?

more for Bob
Bob, you sound like a reasonable guy, but your arguments... aren't. You wrote:

"We, as a nation, will not realize any demonstrable benefit from the decriminalization of pot; therefore, we should not do it.

The fact that we'd lower the prison populations and cut down on court workloads is not relevant. We could do the same thing by making any number of behaviors legal."

That's a specious argument and a logical fallacy. What you should be looking at is what is a legitimate use of all those police, court and jail resources, and what is not. Dangerous people belong in jail. Harmless people do not - at least not on MY tax dollar. I have as much interest in jailing drug users as I do prostitutes. "...demonstrable benefit from the decriminalization of pot..?" You bet there is, in wasted dollars and in wasted - and lost - lives. You also wrote:

"There is plenty of solid evidence that pot is a gateway drug - something like 90% of "hard" drug users got their start with a little innocent pot-smoking."

See above under "specious argument" You can't believe that. As someone else wrote, they also drank milk and breathed air.

As far as other "demonstrable benefit[s] from the decriminalization of pot," would you consider the elimination of one of the largest revenue streams for violent criminal gangs to be a "demonstrable benefit?" I would.

Would you consider a huge new tax revenue source to be a "demonstrable benefit?" I would.

Would you consider the elimination of the DEA and all the other agencies that suck up out tax dollars for this useless War on Drugs to be a "demonstrable benefit?" I would.

Would you consider the elimination of foreign aid to prop up regimes in Columbia, Mexico and elsewhere to "help" them fight drug production to be a "demonstrable benefit?" I would.


I smoked pot when I was younger, Bob, and did some other drugs as well. And guess what? Like the vast majority of folks who did, I stopped as I got older, more mature, and more successful. Now I enjoy my Miller Lite and red wine, and stay away from that stuff. If it were legal today, I still would not use it because I, again like most people, have the good sense and discipline to refrain from doing stupid stuff like that... including drinking too much.

Most people ARE reasonable like that.

When the law is no longer respectable.
Doug - it's called "personal responsibility." If someone causes an accident, they are responsible for causing it. If they are harming noone but themselves (and even that is arguable), they should not be criminally punished because they *might* cause something bad to happen.

The fact is that people do not respect laws against the use of marijuana. Why should they? Does a person who smokes pot deserve criminal prosecution, fines, community service and possibly time in jail just for using it?

We rightfully decry an increasing trend toward lack of respect for authority and for the law. Perhaps we should consider that there are too many laws against peaceful activities when we should be punishing people who actually harm others.

Frederic Bastiat, a champion of liberty and an avid opponent of French socialism wrote "No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them."

The basic American principle is to punish those who do wrong to others, and let alone those who harm noone. But now our laws - enacted by liberals and conservatives alike - seek to prohibit any action which may possibly lead to some harm to someone else sometime.

MacZed
"The gateway drug is X"

I think you're right, man. It's certainly the first drug I ever took.

Best defense is a good offense
+A for persuasive writing, a solid -D for logical thought.

In dismissing opposition to legalized sale of marijuana by the Committee to Keep Nevada Respectable, you state: "To sum up, smoking pot is less respectable than a drunken gambling spree followed by a visit to a hooker..." Could it be that some of those opposed to legalized marijuana would also be in favor of some curbs on public drunkenness, gambling and prostitution?

In bolstering support for legalized marijuana, you state: “The ‘regulate and control’ message has attracted public support from more than 30 Nevada religious leaders.” First, what constitutes a “religious leader” in your informal survey? Out of a population of thousands, 30 doesn’t seem to be a very statically significant number. Despite Las Vegas’ reputation, there are hundreds of churches in Clark Co. alone. It would seem that, out of a population of several thousand, one can generally find a few people willing to agree with almost anything. It does not, as you imply, represent the group as a whole.

Second, You say, “The list includes...representatives of more conservative groups, such as Lutherans and Southern Baptists...” Odd; to my knowledge, neither the Lutherans nor the Southern Baptist Convention have endorsed legalizing pot--publicly or otherwise. That being the case, the 30 or so, “religious leaders” you put forward could ONLY be representing a personal opinion–and could not be representing either their religion or even their own congregation as you have so disingenuously implied.

You state: “The Colorado campaign, which goes by the name SAFER (Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation), emphasizes that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and asks, ‘Should adults be punished for making the rational choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol?’” In reviewing logic, when you really don’t have any facts to back you up, a lot of times advocates are forced into what is called an “appeal to authority.” “Four out of 5 dentist surveyed say...” That SAFER, “emphasizes that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol,” doesn’t mean that it actually is less dangerous, only that an advocacy group has asserted that this is the case ...so it is a gratuitous assertion–to which someone else can make an equally valid counter-assertion, that marijuana is far more dangerous. Basically; this a more sophisticated version of the school yard taunts, “‘ Is not!’ ‘Is so!’”

One VERY significant issue, which appears to have been intentionally overlooked in your argument supporting ballot initiatives, Question 7 in Nevada and amendment 44 in Colorado, is that states voting to legalize marijuana is entirely symbolic. State ballot measures won’t change the overriding current federal law on marijuana sale or use. California passed SB 420, legalizing the sale and use of “medical marijuana,” but that hasn’t precluded federal charges (often issued by local police and sheriff departments), arrests, prosecutions, or the confiscation of the property where the violation took place (car, house, boat, etc.). At this point, all such “legalization” laws do is confuse the public.

Personally, my biggest issue is that the FIRST thing an intoxicant does is impair judgement. It always seems that the stoned or drunk driver walks away from an accident while their victims don’t. Yesterday, a man with a rap-sheet for DUIs, ran a light. Two avoid the on coming cars, he ran over and killed an old woman in a wheel chair who was in the crosswalk–getting medicine for her bed-ridden husband. He told the police that he THOUGHT he’d only had a couple of beers–albeit he was four-times the legal alcohol limit. How are we going to established “legal limits” for marijuana impairment? –Five hits on a joint or two long pulls on a bong? As a drug, marijuana affects people a great deal differently than alcohol does. While the amount of a drug in one’s system does make a difference, physiological differences appear to have a far greater impact on how the individual is affected. Both the purity of the pot and the amount of long term usage appear to play a significant role in individual intoxication. Once we open Pandora’s box, how are we going to accommodate these factors in defining our “legal limit” for impaired driving for pot smokers? Don’t put forward the canard that we’ll get tough on DUI pot smokers. Drunk drivers have been vilified for more than two generations–but judges are still letting them go–at least until they’ve added manslaughter to the rap sheet–and then only sometimes.

A lot of people with their fist in the air also appear to have their head in the sand. +A for persuasive writing, a solid -D for logical thought.



getting smart about pot
It's nice to see reason taking a front seat in the drug debates. Looks like Colorado and Nevada voters may display enough of it to put a damper on the failed War on Drugs. I hope more people open their minds on this subject. The benefits to our society for STOPPING the arrest and imprisonment of its citizens for this benign practice would be enormous. Continuation of the policy only perpetuates the criminal influence and all that goes with it.

Good article, Sullum.

David tickles my Memory Cells
... bringing up "sudafed" ...

By far the GREATEST pain-killer KNOWN TO MAN is some variety of opiate. Heroin or a derivative, I'm not sure of the details.

And is ILLEGAL. A "Schedule II" drug, meaning it can only be prescribed by a physician under the most extreme of cases.

Which ain't good enough for the Drug Warriors.

The feds watch the doctors like a bloodhound watches a fox sitting next to a hen-house. It has become such a burden on doctors to prescribe opiate-based pain-killers that ACTUALLY ALLEVIATE PAIN for their terminally-ill patents, until many don't even bother.

Too much paperwork. Too much oversight. Too much risk of losing one's license, and with it, one's livlihood.

The result? Thousands of terminally-ill patients living the last of their lives in needless pain.

No wonder there's a push to legalize euthanasia. Crazy.

Instead of making it legal to *kill* a patient in pain, why not make it legal (AND EASIER) to just give the patient the strongest pain-killers known to mankind?

WHO CARES if the patient becomes addicted? The patient is going to DIE ANYWAY!

But no, the feds with the War or Drugs won't permit it.

For Bob, there's another demonstrable benefit to legalization.

Bob - Your Arguments Fail - Here's Why
Quoth Bob: "Maybe my arguments against marijuana aren't sufficient to justify its remaining unlawful, but neither are any of the previous arguments in favor of marijuana sufficient to warrant legalizing it - AND THAT IS PRECISELY MY POINT."

So you support the status quo simply because it's the status quo? Come on, Bob, you're smarter than that.



"We, as a nation, will not realize any demonstrable benefit from the decriminalization of pot; therefore, we should not do it."

The benefits are touted all the time. I can give you some links if you're interested.

Was the nation better off before or after Prohibition was repealed? Almost everyone knows we're better off *after*, although, to a large extent, the damage has been done. Organized crime was local, weak, a minor nuisance before Prohibition. Now it's multi-national.



"The fact that we'd lower the prison populations and cut down on court workloads is not relevant. We could do the same thing by making any number of behaviors legal."

You can always *increase* prison populations by making *more* things illegal. Do we want to subsidize the prison-industrial complex? Do you own stocks in private jails? Why don't we make alcohol illegal again, cigarettes illegal, and really watch the prison population explode.

Alcohol and cigarettes are known to be even worse on a human body than marijuana. Do you want to bring back the 18th amendment? And it certainly looks like your logic is being applied to cigarettes, which are slowly becoming less and less legal.

Presuming that *in*creasing the prison population is a *bad* thing, then *de*creasing it ought to be a *good* thing. Now, how can we *de*crease the prison population without letting out violent robbers, rapists, burglars, and murderers? How about letting out the ones who's only crime was *non-violent* possession of too much weed?



"There is plenty of solid evidence that pot is a gateway drug - something like 90% of "hard" drug users got their start with a little innocent pot-smoking."

Invalid logic, Bob, plus the evidence points the other way. The only thing "gateway" about marijuana is being illegal. If you passed laws against Mothers Milk, you'd make *that* into a "gateway drug."

100% of drug users breathe a nitrogen-oxygen mix. So what? What you need to look at are the statistics of the millions of pot users who *never* use anything harder.



"The drug is too seductive to permit its open, legal use."

That's what they said about alcohol. See where that got us.



"I'm all in favor of personal freedom, so long as it is tempered with the awareness of one's obligation to the body politic and to others."

The problem with the "puritans" (to borrow Sullum's terminology) is that they keep inventing new ways to obligate their fellow man. First it's seatbelt laws, then it's helmet laws. What's next? Airbags for motorcycles?

We started making it illegal to smoke in part of an airplane and in elevators. Then the entire airplane. Then the entire restaraunt. Then in offices. Then *OUTDOORS*. What's next? Private homes?

We're slowly boiling the frog. One day we'll consider it a "personal freedom" to be allowed outside the city without a hall-pass.



"I can't be a good citizen if I insist on thumbing my nose at everyone else."

You can't be a good citizen either by forcing your ideas of morality on to people who disagree with them.

It's one thing to protect yourself from those who will do you harm -- murderers, robbers, etc. -- it's quite another to protect people from themselves. The former is a legitimate function of government -- the latter is not.



"That's what the drug reformers are really advocating - anarchy."

That is a strawman argument.

Bob
"neither are any of the previous arguments in favor of marijuana sufficient to warrant legalizing it"

I buy that argument. I'm not going to vote for a marijuana party - ever. But if it comes up for a referendum I know I'll vote against prohibition.

Bob
Look at the reality of the situation. A good example is Katrina. That is our government at its best. Now you obviously desire for that government to control your life.
The war on drugs is an absolute failure. I will continue to be.
As to sudafed? Its restriciton ranks up there with the stupidity that is airport security.
If you like all these laws, move to Russia. O' wait, they have actually gotten rid of many of them.

David - if you're a physician...
... you ought to take your reality in for a checkup.

Sudafed has come under heavier restrictions because of its utility in making methamphetamine, another "recreational" drug. You ought to know the sheer havoc meth can wreak on an otherwise healthy person; are you seriously suggesting that we should allow speedfreaking as an acceptable lifestyle?

Bringing up the spectre of secondary infections in drug users only points out the dangers of pursuing demonstrably destructive lifestyles. Are these people on Skid Row because of their drug use, or did they start using drugs when they got there? We can't tell, and maybe it's not germaine to the discussion, but I think it's evident that these addicts made some bad choices in their lives and they're actively proving that Darwin was right.

Saying that you have a right to destroy our own life if you want is a pitiful refrain. Have you no consciousness of the others around you whom you harm by your self-destruction? Plenty of motorcyclists decry helmet laws with your own words: "It's my life to risk as I choose." They ignore the cost - human as well as monetary - that they impose on others. The pregnant woman who smokes, drinks or takes drugs forgets that there's another person whose life is at risk - her child.

You say law shouldn't be an attempt to impose morality; what, exactly, do you think law is? It's legislated morality, pure and simple. Murder's immoral, isn't it? It's also unlawful, but it was immoral first; that morality was codified into law.

I'm all in favor of personal freedom, so long as it is tempered with the awareness of one's obligation to the body politic and to others. I can't be a good citizen if I insist on thumbing my nose at everyone else. That's what the drug reformers are really advocating - anarchy.

leave us alone
For those that don't want drugs legalized, I don't think you have really looked at the situation in any depth.

First, almost all money that funds gangs, organized crime and even terrorist is derived from the sell and distribution of drugs.

Second, our government spends a very large amount of money on trying to keep us from having drugs of any kind (even sudafed). This money could be directed to any other social program (such as assistance with medical care) to achieve a much greater benefit.

Third, most of the government interference in our lives and the unconstitutional intrusion into our homes, business and other aspects of what we do is justified by the "war on drugs". The other stupid, illegal interference is justified by the "war on terror" (instead of the war on Islam).

Fourth, the main reason for addicts spending our money by being hospitalized for their problems has to do with infections that they get from bad drugs and implements (AIDS, hepatitis, endocarditis). This cost the US and state governments tons of money.

Finally, the government just needs to leave us alone. If you want to distroy your life then that is your problem. Not the government. But think, if you want a narcotic for the severe pain you are experiencing then you could go to the store and buy the drug. Not call a doctor and get an appointment in a couple of weeks, sit in his office for hours and hope he gives you something that you desire (I am a physician).

Laws should be confined to keeping us from hurting one another, not some bizzare concept of morality.

UncaAlby - turn the argument around
Maybe my arguments against marijuana aren't sufficient to justify its remaining unlawful, but neither are any of the previous arguments in favor of marijuana sufficient to warrant legalizing it - AND THAT IS PRECISELY MY POINT. We, as a nation, will not realize any demonstrable benefit from the decriminalization of pot; therefore, we should not do it.

The fact that we'd lower the prison populations and cut down on court workloads is not relevant. We could do the same thing by making any number of behaviors legal.

There is plenty of solid evidence that pot is a gateway drug - something like 90% of "hard" drug users got their start with a little innocent pot-smoking.

Marijuana-law reformers are always trumpeting the benefits of smoking pot, just as NAMBLA members want everyone to believe that consensual sex between boys and men is positive and even beneficial. Evil ever only says one thing: "I am good."

I tried pot when I was in high school - three times; each time, I got away with it. I realized later how stupid and slow it made me feel. I decided then and there that I was the boss of me, and I wasn't going to turn that important job over to some lousy weed.

The drug is too seductive to permit its open, legal use.

Drugs
Drug use and prostitution will exist whether legal or illegal according to the law of supply and demand. Alcohol was once made illegal but the supply was not that much affected. Maybe the quality is what suffered but there will always be people who will profit from what people want. The war on drugs has never made a dent in the flow of drugs into the country or on drug use. Even the widespread use of legal drugs shows that our society looks for quick fixes to many problems, apply directly to the forehead. Even the overuse of legal drugs can be dangerous as we have seen people addicted for years to various prescribed drugs through the years. One problem with the war on drugs is the tying up of our courts with drug related cases to the detriment of the entire legal system which is overstrained to keep up with the flow of cases clogging the courts. The main problem with the war drugs is the high cost to tax payers with nothing to show for the investment. It is mostly a ploy for politicans to get elected by saying they are tough on drugs. The truth is that the drug problem is tough on the country and no solution has ever been found but maybe its to stop relying on failed policies and look for other solutins.

Bob - You're absolutely correct, BUT -
None of your arguments against the product itself is a strong enough argument to make the product AGAINST THE LAW.

Jerry -- MEDICARE PAY FOR IT?
No. Let the junkies buy their own crap.

Once it's legal, the price would come down anyway. The only reason junkies need to steal for money to support their habit is because the habit is so expensive. The only reason why it's so expensive is because the consumer has to pay for the producer's risk of incarceration.

Remove the risk of incarceration, and you drop the price. Drop the price, and junkies will be able to afford their habit from begging in the streets, the way winos do.

Think about it -- alcohol is at least as adicting as anything else, at least in the same general category, but you never hear about winos robbing anybody for money to support their habit. Why? Because alcohol can be acquired CHEAP. Why? BECAUSE ALCOHOL IS LEGAL.

A bit of contrast
As a retired Air Force NCO, I was asked my opinion about putting women in combat slots; I answered, "If it wouldn't materially improve our readiness and lethality, I don't see any benefit in doing it."

My attitude about legalizing pot (and other illegal drugs) is the same: If taking these drugs doesn't materially improve your life without causing harm in other areas, you shouldn't do it. I have the same opinion about tobacco - there's no minimum safe dosage.

POT IS NOT LIKE ALCOHOL:

* Ounce for ounce, pot is 50 times as corrosive
to lung tissue as tobacco

* THC can be stored in body fat and takes a lot
longer to completely excrete than alcohol

* THC suppresses testosterone and can result in
"man boobs" and damage to the testicles

* THC suppresses the immune system and makes
users more susceptible to respiratory
infection

* Smoking pot gives you the munchies, leading to
unhealthy weight gain

Plenty of people have pointed out to me that THC is useful in controlling glaucoma. Fine; treat it like other plant-based medicines and extract the pure substance until you can synthesize and standardize the dosage.

"It helps control chemotherapy-induced nausea!" they cry. The argument has the same rejoinder - put it in pill form.

Can drinking alcohol be beneficial? Of course:

* Drinking 1.5 - 2 oz. of 80-proof whiskey per
night helps lower blood cholesterol

* Red wine contains potent antioxidants that are
good for you

* Beer is good food, especially if you brew your
own and can control the freshness of what you
put in it

* The effects of alcohol are easily moderated
by drinking slowly and never on an empty
stomach

I know Justice Holmes said that if the American people want to go collectively to perdition, it was his duty to help them, but are you all so anxious to go?

This obsession with the right to poison yourselves is almost pathological. Wouldn't it be easier to just pig out on a toadstool salad and get it over with?

No, I don't have any right to judge you, but I reserve the right to judge your behavior, and it appears to me that you all have some sort of death wish.

Drug Testing
I disagree that legalization would put employment drug screening in jeopardy.

Employers are perfectly free to stipulate certain conditions of employment. Yes, even in regards to an employee's free time. E.g., the employer can have the employee sign a "non-disclosure agreement" where the employee agrees to not give company secrets to the competition. This agreement not only restricts what the employee may do on their "free time", it even restricts what may be done *after* the employment contract is terminated.

Even if a CocaCola employee is fired, he can not legally (under signed contract) give the Secret Classic Coke Formula to Pepsi.

Or a company owned by Devout Christians who don't even want their employees having anything other than Sacramental Wine.

If employers want drug-free employees, that's their perogative. If you want to argue that a little recreational drugs after hours (or beer, or whiskey, or what-have-you) doesn't really impact performance at work, you have a good case (a better case once legal), but it's a case to be taken up with the employer.

In the mean time, we still need to get the government OUT of this issue. Drugs *must* be made legal.

OH, I FORGOT AARON
When government employees are required to take drug tests, police and fire personnel are about the only ones required to submit to a drug test, then I might agree with the current policies. Until then, NO. People should not be penalized for what they do when on their own time. As long as a person shows up on time, sober and straight, and does the job they were hired to do, leave them alone.

PHYLO, FOR ONCE I AGREE WITH YOU
This "war on drugs" is one of the dumbest policies ever construed by our government. The closest thing to it was prohibition and anyone that can read a history book can see how well that worked.

I say legalize everything, sell it at state-run "liquor" stores and tax the h*ll out of it. You want to smoke dope, have at it. You want to be a junkie, it's your life, stupid. For the hard core dopers that are on heroin, are crack zombies and meth-heads, let them get their drugs and have medicare pay for it. They apparently want to kill themselves anyway so let them have at it.

It's a win-win solution for we taxpayers and society in general. People that want a quick toke or snort after work, I like a tall, cold beer myself, do not have to worry about getting busted by the law and having their life ruined.

Young people wouldn't have the stigma of an arrest record, for a little smoke, on their record for the rest of their lives. The hardcore junkies wouldn't last long, most would be dead in a short time, and drug related crimes would drop dramatically because they could get their fix for free.

We would not have jail overcrowding problems, and a court system so overwhelmed with minor drug cases that judges don't have the time to deal with serious issues.

The taxpayers win. Society in general wins. The only losers are the lost few that allow themselves to be eaten up by their habit and die young. I feel for the families, but their relatives are not my problem. I have my own to worry about.









Whooo Hooo
Going out to the garage right now to locate and dust off my old bong!! Anyone seen my black light?

NV and CO marijuana legalization
Passage of only one of these amendments will create chaos in industries that use drug tests as a condition of employment. The employee that fails need only claim having smoked pot legally in that state, and off to court the lawyers will go. For those industries, only the consistency of a federal law will work. National legalization of pot will require marketing of accurate quantitive tests as exist for alcohol use right now.

Put the gangs out of business
If we legalized marijuana and cocaine there would be almost no gang activity in this country. If there's no more money, there's no reason to join, or even form a gang in the first place.

Not only would we save a lot of money by not arresting, trying, and incarcerating so many thousands of people. Our inner city youths would actually have to find ways to become productive members of society.

The war on drugs is the dumbest domestic policy in this country.

Phylo out.

Didn't Prohibition of Alcohol
teach us anything?

It took death and mayhem on a grand scale for several years before the people finally woke up and realized that trying to ban a substance was an exercise in futility, and it actually created and fed a criminal enterprize by supporting enormous profit margins.

Today, the government can confiscate any large sums of cash you may have, without cause or subpeona, or warrant, on the assumption that you obtained said cash by selling drugs. It's a fact.

The "war on drugs" is nothing more than a means for government to invade your privacy and ignore your rights as enumerated in the Constitution. Just like the Income Tax code.

Legalize Freedom
As a libertarian meteorologist, I have to deal the Global Warming religion and the New Prohibition. Both have or had their political High Priests: Al Gore for one and Richard Nixon the other. Two of the most odious and deformed personalities to ever afflict the American Polity.

The History Channel has been running a series for quite some time called "Hooked" which deals with the etiology of the political disease known as the War Against (Some) Drugs. It does this better than any other treatment.


Nothing wrong
unless it's illegal, that is.

From my reading of the bible
there's nothing wrong with smoking pot, although a drunkenness analogy may be appropriate.

Just Legalize It Already Please
I'd sincerely like to smoke it on occasion, but I refuse so long as it's illegal.

Oh Boy, Here We Go Again!
Comparing the desparate legal treatment between alcohol and marijuana is only going to make the feds start arresting people for alcohol!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.