Legalize It

[Barry]

The difference between the way pot and alcohol are treated under the law has been a pet peeve of mine for many years. Those of us who don't drink, but have a taste for the bud shouldn't have to look over our shoulders while others are free to booze it up publicly until their hearts are content:

Nov 17, 2008, 09:55AM
Legalize It
Russ Smith
With a recession in sight, the case for legalizing marijuana and taxing it for government revenue seems more practical than ever.

Any American, given about a minute, can tick off a list naming examples of disgrace in our 21st century society. You pick your hobbyhorse, I’ll pick mine, and let the free-for-all begin. It’s mind-boggling, at least in this corner, that there’s still actually a debate among politicians and citizens over the issue of medicinal marijuana use. In 1982, as a young man not yet 30, my mother was slowly dying of brain cancer, and one day she asked if I could purchase a small quantity of pot to relieve the pain of chemotherapy.

I hadn’t used the illegal substance for several years, but it wasn’t hard to find, and so on a visit to our house she was given a small bag of Mexican grass, and for the first time in her life she toked up. It wasn’t to her liking and so that experiment ended, but, after years of worrying about this sort of drug use among her five sons—my parents swallowed all the scare tactics from the government and media in the 1960s—she’d come to realize that in the scheme of things, smoking marijuana wasn’t, in the vast majority of cases, likely to derail a person’s life. As for her fellow cancer patients, Mom said, “Look, we’re dying, it’s not as if puffing on a joint [I’d never heard her say that word and was slightly taken aback] will be the ‘gateway’ to heroin.” None of my friends and acquaintances who are physicians disagree with that simple statement.

It’s my opinion that not only should marijuana be freely available to those suffering from ravaging diseases—as if the plant is any more harmful than the other drugs dispensed several times a day—but it ought to be legalized and sold at pharmacies and maybe even convenience stores. I understand this is an issue that no politician will touch—in the early 1990s Baltimore mayor Kurt Schmoke, once considered a rising star in national Democratic circles did himself no favors by advocating decriminalization—but if you suspend immediate judgment and think about it, who would it harm?

Consider this: In 2007, according to the FBI’s “Uniform Crime Report [http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7698], cited by The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), a record number of 872,721 people were arrested for marijuana violations, and 89 percent of those Americans were nabbed for “personal use.” Violent crime ebbs and flows, often depending on locale, but someone please explain to me why people who favor smoking pot, which is arguably much less dangerous than excessive consumption of alcohol, are the prey of police officers across the country? Maybe it’s a matter of low-hanging fruit, but the waste of time in arresting offenders, court appearances and in many instances, incarceration, is a crime in and of itself. Does it make any sense at all to jail a 23-year-old, throwing him into a prison population that will likely result not in “rehabilitation,” but a needlessly disrupted life?

One significant fact that would grab the attention of federal and local office-holders (at least in private), charged with juggling budgets, is the vast stream of revenue each of the country’s 50 states would realize as a result of selling marijuana, like cigarettes, on the open market, with every pack or pouch of pot fetching several dollars in “sin taxes.” The government could regulate the potency and purity of the marijuana, and sell it for a reasonable, if high, price, nearly obliterating the black market, thus further making a significant dent in the ranks of those who profit from manufacturing and selling large amounts of the drug. Like alcohol and tobacco, vendors would be prohibited from selling marijuana to those under 21, and the requisite health warnings would be prominently placed on each unit sold.

It’s an unfortunate reality that the political bureaucracy, even if there was an eventual consensus on legalizing marijuana, would take years to implement such a dramatic change—one can only imagine the ballot propositions, constitutional amendments and the like that would have to be traversed, not to mention the harrumphing of cultural conservatives who’d like to lord over the private lives of citizens—and so any economic windfall is in the future. Which is a shame, since given today’s perilous financial climate, a new infusion of cash, every single day, would help shorten a recession. Then again, if legislators acted now the benefits could be realized in time for the next, and inevitable, economic downturn.

As for the “morality” of legalizing marijuana, I just don’t want to hear it. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity can stuff it. No one would force people to start smoking the stuff, just as no one forces people to take a drink, indulge in a tobacco habit or pop anti-depressants.

As Barack Obama prepares to occupy the Oval Office in January, this modest (in my opinion) proposal is worthy of his consideration, especially if he does intend to follow FDR’s example and set forth a very ambitious agenda for the first year of his presidency, before he begins his 2012 campaign. I’m not naïve and don’t expect Obama will even give a moment’s thought to the subject—hell, if he lifts the embargo on Cuba next year, that’ll be amazing, and long overdue, enough.

Nevertheless, the legalization of marijuana is an initiative that shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand: correcting the travesty of arresting harmless and non-violent citizens, plus the monetary gain is extraordinarily compelling. All that’s needed is a group of politicians with vision and guts to bring the issue to the forefront of debate in the United States.
http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and ... alize-it-2

[piston]

We have the "medical marijuana" law in Maine since 1998 but it cannot be prescribed in its natural state:

Medical marijuana patients cannot go to a pharmacy for medical marijuana. Pharmacies can only dispense medications that are "prescribed." Unfortunately, medical marijuana is classified by the federal government as a Schedule I drug which means that it cannot be "prescribed" by any health care professional.

Under Maine's medical marijuana law, doctors may only "recommend" marijuana, and that allows patients to grow their own medical marijuana for their private use. The state of Maine does not provide information on the acquisition of marijuana. Therefore, the State of Maine will not assist in getting seeds or plants to start growing medical marijuana.

Yet, the "usable amount" to be used for such a purpose is clearly limited to 2 1/2 ounces or six plants. Simarly, the medical conditions permitting a physician to certify (not prescribe) the legitimate use of pot are also expressly stated:

Under Maine's medical marijuana law, a person may be recommended marijuana for the following rather serious conditions:

Persistent nausea, vomiting, wasting syndrome or loss of appetite as a result of:
Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) or the treatment thereof; or
Chemotherapy or radiation therapy used to treat cancer;
Heightened intraocular pressure as a result of glaucoma;
Seizures associated with a chronic, debilitating disease, such as epilepsy; or
Persistent muscle spasms associated with a chronic, debilitating disease, such as multiple sclerosis

The whole issue of there being no provision for prescriptions is becoming pretty interesting, however, because one can now obtain marijuana pills, i.e., get the same effect without having to smoke and inhale this stuff. With the existence of such pills, the matter is no longer simply an analogy with alcohol or tobacco but with legal prescription drugs and, frankly, opiates are more potentially dangerous, I assume, than marijuana pills. Ask Heather Locklear. She knows all about the potential effects of legal prescription drugs!:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 9457.story

[Barry]

I'd probably think of something else to discuss with Heather Locklear.

[Ralph]

I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I know that many who use marijuana recreationally do not go on to dangerous, addictive substances. But many do. It seems to be a gateway to those drugs. Does criminalization work? I don't think so but opening the door to a free market is another matter.

I definitely would strike all restrictions on the medical use of marijuana.

[karlhenning]

With the existence of such pills, the matter is no longer simply an analogy with alcohol or tobacco but with legal prescription drugs and, frankly, opiates are more potentially dangerous, I assume, than marijuana pills.

By all means, legalize and distribute the pills.

Cheers,
Karl

[Ted]

Even if you consider weed a "gateway" drug, Alcohol kills more each year than all other drugs the marijuana gateway may lead one to) (opiates, schedule II stimulants like methamphetamine, cocaine, hallucinogens, they all pale in comparison to the socially acceptable and legal drug known as Alcohol--after all Alcohol is in the bible--both the old and new testaments, I don't believe Moses or Christ ever took a toke off a joint. But wine....it flowed no differently than all the blood shed in the name of God
Another example of the idiocy of the human race (of which I am a charter member)

[karlhenning]

Even if you consider weed a "gateway" drug, Alcohol kills more each year than all other drugs the marijuana gateway may lead one to . . . .

I don't understand; is that supposed to be an 'argument' for decriminalizing marijuana? It has the look simply of reinforcing the good sense in regulating alcohol.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Ted]

I could suggest you re-read my post Karl, but instead I'll simply say that I was pointing out the lunacy of making Cabanas illegal while the far more deadly drug Alcohol isn't.

[karlhenning]

I could suggest you re-read my post Karl, but instead I'll simply say that I was pointing out the lunacy of making Cabanas illegal while the far more deadly drug Alcohol isn't.

Re-reading your post, Ted, will not make the illegality of Cannibis "lunacy."

Making cabanas illegal, we agree heartily, were lunacy.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Ted]

Sounds like the two of us are prime examples of the effects of Cabanas****

[piston]

Chronicle Book Review: "Dying to Get High: Marijuana as Medicine," by Wendy Chapkis and Richard J. Webb (2008, NYU Press, 244 pp., $22.00 PB)

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #543, 7/18/08
Phillip S. Smith, Writer/Editor


In "Dying to Get High," sociologists Wendy Chapkis and Richard Webb have written a sympathetic yet academically rigorous account of the contemporary controversies surrounding medical marijuana. They trace the use of marijuana as medicine in the US, its decline as a medicine in the early 20th Century, its removal from the pharmacopeia in 1941 (just four years after it was banned by federal law), the continuing blockage of research into its medical benefits by ideologically-driven federal authorities, and the renaissance of medical marijuana knowledge today, much of it derived from -- gasp! -- patients, not doctors or researchers.

As sociologists, Chapkis and Webb have a keen eye for the broader social, cultural, and political forces surrounding the issue of medical marijuana, from the rise of the pharmaceutical and medical establishments to the "culture war" contempt for marijuana and users among many Americans. But as much as middle America may disdain pot-smoking hippies, it seems that it is marijuana's location on the wrong side of the modern scientific and pharmaceutical discourse that most hinders its acceptance as a medicine.

Pot is a plant, not a pill. It is an herbal medication, not a chemical compound. It is a "crude plant material," not a "pure drug." All of this, Chapkis and Webb suggest, make it difficult indeed for the medical and scientific establishment to wrap its head around medical marijuana. And when scientific bias is coupled with cultural disdain and fear of widespread "abuse," that the federal government remains resistant to medical marijuana is hardly a surprise.

Chapkis and Webb deliver a resounding, well-reasoned indictment of the political and (pseudo) scientific opposition to medical marijuana, and their succinct discussion of the issues surrounding the controversy is worth the price of admission.

But "Dying to Get High" is also an in-depth portrait of one of the country's most well-known medical marijuana collectives, the Wo/Men's Access to Medical Marijuana (WAMM) collective in Santa Cruz, California, and it is here that the authors are really breaking new ground. They go from the big-picture sociology of medical marijuana in the past century to narrowly focus on ethnography of a patient collective, describing in loving detail the inner workings, dynamics, and tensions of a group with charismatic leadership -- Mike and Valerie Corral -- more than 200 seriously ill patients, and the specter of the DEA always looming.

Their account of the emergence and permanence of WAMM is both moving and enlightening. Rooted in the fertile soil of Santa Cruz, already well-tilled by previous social movements such as feminism, gay rights, and AIDS activism, WAMM may only have been possible in a place that friendly to radical movements and that familiar with activism around issues of medical care and social justice. Chapkis and Webb chart its formation, its growth, its conflicts and problems, and the humanity of its suffering members.

They also tell the story of the 2002 DEA raid on the WAMM garden and its devastating impact on members. But that raid and its aftermath were not just a blow to the sick and dying, they were a call to arms, impelling WAMM into ever more overtly political action to protect itself and the broader movement.

More broadly, Chapkis and Webb do a great service by dissecting WAMM, looking at how it works, how it handles dysfunction, and how it provides a service far beyond mere medical marijuana to its members. WAMM is perhaps the model medical marijuana collective, and it has many lessons to offer the interested reader.

Would a WAMM-style collective work elsewhere? Chapkis and Webb emphasize the importance of the cultural and political backdrop in Santa Cruz in making WAMM possible, but I think the very emergence of WAMM as a successful collective makes the possibility of similar collectives coming into being elsewhere all the more likely. After all, even California as a whole is not as radicalized as Santa Cruz or San Francisco, but similar collectives are popping up in Santa Rosa and the San Fernando Valley, among other places.

In any case, Chapkis and Webb provide plenty to chew on, for those who want to pick up some historical knowledge and debating points, for those interested in the genesis of the contemporary marijuana movement, and for those who are pondering the viability of similarly radical approaches to health and self-organizing.

[TopoGigio]

Everybody can create a mix'explosive drink without any drug'deal...the
marvels and dangers of experimentation are at hand...as ever.There is
a big interest in the benefits of the drugdealing and more at the criminalization
of the citizen for political&military control.Some horrific drugs are a good curtain,
but we are only at the beginning of the understanding of the humble killer coffee,
and so on.
The power is not fond of legalization,but people is fond of drugs and
weapons and so on.
Prison only for the real criminals, is far far far away of the reality...

[Bro]

Prison only for the real criminals, is far far far away of the reality...

I'm all for decriminalization,.... but we don't need folks toking up on the Subway trains. Just what America needs, another reason to get high.


Bro


PS. "killer coffe", huh ?

[Mark Harwood]

The effects of cannabis when smoked are different from those when it is eaten. Also the dosage from cannabis pills would be less self-limiting due to the longer delay in the onset of the effects.
I frequently saw students who were entirely unable to study because of their intake, either the previous night or on that day. They were smokers. Cannabis has a great potential to be used harmfully, and it blighted their lives.
On the other hand, I found a fantastic way of using it & used to do so enthusiastically. Then my mental health collapsed. Hmmm.
I may be a libertarian in general, but on a small number of issues I am not. I cannot support the criminalisation of adults using drugs, but the supply of certain substances to juniors needs to be prevented.

[BC]

I've never been a regular user and don't use the stuff at all nowadays, but the illegality of cannabis has always struck me as silly and counterproductive.

In the UK the argument has been hijacked by research suggesting that, for a small number of adolescents, using cannabis MAY increases the incidence of schizophrenia. Interesting to see no mention of that here -- it's obviously a local argument. This has caused the government, who a few years ago reclassified cannabis to a less dangerous (though still illegal) category of banned substance, to reclassify it back again. The argument that cannabis should be treated as more dangerous for everyone because it is dangerous for a tiny number of susceptible youngsters is bizarre enough, but it indicates how easy it is for the media to generate hysteria about this subject and put pressure on governments.

What seems obvious to me is that for some people the argument unwittingly takes this oddly irrational form:

Cannabis is illegal. Therefore people using it are criminals. Making it legal would be changing the law to suit criminals. The law should not be changed to suit criminals. It would just encourage them to do the criminal thing.

On the other hand, alcohol is legal. It is no business of the state to interfere in people's right to enjoy themselves doing something enjoyed by law abiding citizens.

Or, in brief, cannabis is illegal ergo it should remain so. Alcholol is legal, ergo it should remain so.

[living_stradivarius]

Cannabis is illegal. Therefore people using it are criminals. Making it legal would be changing the law to suit criminals. The law should not be changed to suit criminals. It would just encourage them to do the criminal thing.

[Ted]

Or, in brief, cannabis is illegal ergo it should remain so. Alcholol is legal, ergo it should remain so.

Interesting take... so according to that logic, Pres elect Obama should be on a slave ship heading for a cotton field in Georgia.

[Steinway]

Marijuana should be legalized and restricted, like tobacco to the sale of minors.

Take the profit out of selling it will reduce its desirability to the drug dealers and will open up our jails to real criminals.

I also think that a strong case for consideration is the legalization of stronger drugs like heroin, to be sold under the auspices of the government to those morons who continue to use it.

Once the profit element is gone, the consumption will be reduced and the number of people going into the courts, the jails and breaking the law for money to feed their addiction will be a positive result for society.

It's not an easy answer but it certainly should be studied with vigor.

[piston]

Good points, Cliftwood. We can get a little personal here, can't we? One important reason why I tried pot in the early seventies was the mystery surrounding it: guys with pot looked so cool to a lot of high school students! They knew something we didn't know, a bit like secret societies in the 19th century. They were initiated! But did I like it, even after several attempts over a time span of a couple of years? I'll tell you that at some point it felt as though I had a hole in my stomach, and I was becoming paranoid, and I started shaking on occasions. Nope. 'Twas not the great stuff I though it would be because of the "aura" surrounding it.

But, medically, I can't say. I'm not on chemio and as an orderly I have carried in my arms young adults with multiple sclerosis whose only pleasure in life was cerebral, intellectual, not physical. Even if it was shown that pot does not physically contribute to their well-being, I'd still support medical usage because why deny people pleasure if they can find it there?

And I'm not a veteran of foreign wars either and never pass judgment if Desert Storm or 'Nam vets feel it's a necessity in their lives. But society, especially governments, cannot discriminate as I do. They apply law across the board and use a multitude of restrictions to deny people the pleasure of living....

[karlhenning]

What seems obvious to me is that for some people the argument unwittingly takes this oddly irrational form:

Cannabis is illegal. Therefore people using it are criminals. Making it legal would be changing the law to suit criminals. The law should not be changed to suit criminals. It would just encourage them to do the criminal thing.

On the other hand, alcohol is legal. It is no business of the state to interfere in people's right to enjoy themselves doing something enjoyed by law abiding citizens.

Or, in brief, cannabis is illegal ergo it should remain so. Alcholol is legal, ergo it should remain so.

That has the look of a cartoonish strawman. Allow me to suggest only one de-cartoonifying element.

Abuse of alcohol can be treated; in extreme forms of abuse, perhaps destruction of the liver is irreversible. Perhaps there are ways even of managing that condition.

Extreme abuse of marijuana messes with the brain. I've known half a dozen pot-heads over the years, and maybe they weren't the brightest bulb in the carton to start with, but excessive use of their "drug of choice" subsequently resulted in personalities which were not a great social improvement on Terry Schiavo.

So I should like to read medical opinions on the mental condition of marijuana abusers, and on the prospects of redeeming brains from that cloud of substance abuse, before I can sign on to the idea of legalizing the substance.

There; is that irrational?

Cheers,
~Karl

[BC]

Karl, no, it isn't a "straw man" argument (*): it's no more than a caricature (and perhaps a reductio ad absurdum) of a specific prejudice that seems to me to power much of one side of the debate. Like all caricatures it functions on the basis of recognition: if you don't recognise it, it won't work for you.

I'm not suggesting that there are no people who oppose the legalisation of cannabis on more thoughtful and valid grounds than the ones I'm making fun of: by implying that I am you have constructed your own straw man.

Incidentally, in reclassifying cannabis to a less dangerous category, the UK government reclassified it from category B to category C. This was subsequently reversed and is now in the more dangerous B category again. Experts agree that if you use of alcohol were not already established in our culture, i.e. if it had been invented now, it would be a category A drug.


((*)A straw man argument takes the form: my opponent [who actually believes Y] believes X [where X is plausibly similar to but not Y, and easier to refute]. I can refute X, therefore I have discredited my opponent's belief [in Y].

My argument takes the form: SOME people who believe Y do so because they believe X. X is absurd. Those people who believe Y as a consequence of believing X have no rational basis for their belief Y.

The key difference is that the straw man argument seeks to discredit those who believe Y by misrepresenting Y. I on the other hand seek to discredit only those who believe X, which I have revealed to be absurd. People who believe Y (that cannabis should remain illegal) but not X (because to legalise it would be to change the law for the benefit of criminals) are not touched by my argument: I'm not trying to conflate the two invalidly).