Marijuana legalization has always formed a good nexus for me – tying in my libertarian streak of wanting the government not to involve itself in private lives of individuals (I part ways on economic issues) with my sense of support for fiscal restraint.
A number of years ago, I remember reading an article on Ron Dellums, back before he was Oakland’s Mayor, when he was a powerful figure on Capitol Hill. He was the defense cutting guru, and in order to make the case for wasted money in defense, he had to become an expert on defense systems. The reason he chose this area, however, is unusual. He chose it because he wanted to find money to free up for social programs, which was his priority.
In order to stop the bleeding, we have to find ways to cut spending at all levels of government. The amount of money that we spend on processing relatively minor offenses in this state is appalling and marijuana prosecutions was one of the worst. Because it was a misdemeanor for simple possession of less than an ounce (which is a huge amount for the casual user), every arrest had to go through the costly court system process.
And yet, it was the only misdemeanor that was more like an infraction. It was a fine. That is it. But the offenders faced arrest, a court appearance, a criminal record, and they had to go through the system. We have to pick and choose. If we spend money dealing with marijuana offenses, we have less money to deal with actual dangerous criminals.
Even before Prop 19 goes into effect, marijuana has been decriminalized in California. It is now the equivalent of a speeding ticket, and actually the fine is probably a quarter of a speeding ticket at $100.
“I am signing this measure because possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is an infraction in everything but name,” said Governor Schwarzenegger. “The only difference is that because it is a misdemeanor, a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury trial and a defense attorney. In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket.”
The Governor got it right, but we need to take it the rest of the way, and there is no good or legitimate reason not to.
Rich Rifkin’s Davis Enterprise column makes a strong argument, on the grounds that adults should be allowed to make adult decisions and adult mistakes.
He writes, “Going in, it’s obvious to me that prohibition has failed and that the secondary problems – black markets, profits for gangs, violent crimes and robberies, bloated prisons, costly and ineffective law enforcement and a lack of institutional safety standards for the products – created by outlawing social drugs are worse than the drugs themselves.”
He continues refuting arguments that opponents have put up, noting that there are a number of safeguards in place that protect employers and communities by allowing them to adopt any “appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.”
“In light of the failures of prohibition, maybe it’s time we allow adults to make adult decisions for themselves. Perhaps we should return to our founding creed that states we have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness,” he writes. “I’m not personally a marijuana smoker or drug user. Prop. 19 won’t change that. However, I do enjoy a good cup of coffee. Caffeine may be addictive, but drinking it makes me happy. I’d like to retain my right to pursue my own happiness.”
The arguments I have heard against Prop. 19 fail, I think, to understand the dynamics of marijuana smoking as it exists now. There is a lot of fear-mongering on things that I do not believe will be nearly the problem that some people think.
Opponents have even argued against the newly-enacted SB 1449, on the grounds that reducing possession to an infraction would discourage people cited for the offense from seeking state-funded drug treatment, as provided for drug offenders under a ballot measure passed in 2000.
But who needs state-funded drug treatment for marijuana, which is generally not addictive? The state is facing an epidemic of meth addiction and still faces challenges with other so-called harder drugs, so why not shift money and resources to deal with drugs that are actually posing a risk to public safety, rather than focusing on a drug that generally does not?
Now I do know people who habitually smoke marijuana, but for those rare people, I see little need for state-funded treatment.
Moving beyond the issue of treatment – and my general view of drug laws is that we should move away from criminality and towards a health-based approach – I have not seen an argument about marijuana legalization that does not apply to alcohol.
In fact, the idea that marijuana would be more accessible to kids is demonstrably false. It is actually much more difficult for kids right now to get alcohol or cigarettes than to get marijuana. Authorities have been able to limit sales to minors of both drugs, but because marijuana is available on the black market, it is readily available to minors.
Is second-hand smoke a concern, yes, but just as cigarettes are legal but restricted in use, so too will marijuana.
Marijuana does not cause the violent reactions as alcohol does. Violence surrounding the use of alcohol is extremely high, but it is almost non-existent among pot users, who generally become lethargic and subdued.
Marijuana does not have the health side-affects of alcohol or cigarettes. That is not to suggest that sustained long-term use of marijuana will not result in problems, but side-effects have not prevented alcohol or cigarettes from remaining legal.
Marijuana will impair driving abilities, but alcohol is probably far worse in impact and has led to the death of millions over the years, and yet we allow it to be legal.
Bottom line, yes there are harmful societal impacts from marijuana, but those have not prevented alcohol or cigarettes from being legal drugs.
Other arguments have suggested that the real problem is the conflict with federal law. But courts have not struck down Proposition 215, medical marijuana on those groups. If legalizing a controlled substance were a violation of such laws, the courts would have thrown out Proposition 215. But they have not.
For instance, a friend pointed out in an email that David Musser in August argued that the Controlled Substance Act and the supremacy clause in the US Constitution affirm federal law as the supreme law of the land and therefore Proposition 19 violates federal law.
However, the emailer pointed out language in the Act itself that would seem to suggest otherwise:
“No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.”
So is not Prop 19 a violation of the last language, where there is in fact a “positive conflict” between State and Federal law.
But that is not how the court has ruled, rather they ruled that the states do have the right to take away all state criminal penalties for marijuana possession, sales, cultivation, and other facets of marijuana production and sale.
What the state cannot do is take away federal penalties for these laws and thereby prohibit the federal government from enforcing the law. This is what happened with Proposition 215, in which the federal government under Clinton and Bush administrations continued to enforce the law even though the state did not. And now under Obama, the federal government has decided not to enforce said laws.
In other words, California is not violating any laws or rules by legalizing marijuana. All they have done is removed state legal procedures. If the federal government wants to go after the average pot user, they can do so. My guess is that they would act as they did under Prop 215, and go after big distributors rather than the average user.
It will not produce the taxes that some proponents are arguing, but it will free up the criminal system in California to allow them to go after actual criminals rather than casual pot users.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Just heard on the radio that the DOJ has declared they will still enforce the Federal maryjuana laws in California.
dmg: “The Governor got it right, but we need to take it the rest of the way, and there is no good or legitimate reason not to.”
That is a matter of opinion. It certainly is not mine.
dmg: “He continues refuting arguments that opponents have put up, noting that there are a number of safeguards in place that protect employers and communities by allowing them to adopt any “appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.””
Now this is totally illogical. It is not OK for the state to regulate the use of marijuana, but it is OK for communities to regulate it “for protection of the public health and welfare”. Now why would it be not OK for the state to regulate pot smoking bc pot smoking is ostensibly “safe”, but OK for individual communities to regulate pot smoking that is ostensibly “safe”. You cannot have it both ways. LOL at the tortured logic being used here that.
dmg: “He writes, “Going in, it’s obvious to me that prohibition has failed and that the secondary problems – black markets, profits for gangs, violent crimes and robberies, bloated prisons, costly and ineffective law enforcement and a lack of institutional safety standards for the products – created by outlawing social drugs are worse than the drugs themselves.””
This is a bogus argument. Law enforcement has always had the authority not to go after pot smokers, and has dmg has pointed out a number of times, many police officers do not go after pot smokers. Now that the Governator has made possession of one ounce or less of pot akin to a traffic ticket, this boat won’t float.
dmg: “But who needs state funded drug treatment for marijuana which is generally not addictive?”
You have got to be kidding? Tell that to the shop owner who has his storefront destroyed by George Michael, who the judge said had a serious cannibas addiction. Caffeine can be addictive, shopping can be addictive, but somehow marijuana smoking cannot be? LOL
dmg: “Now I do know people who habitually smoke marijuana, but for those rare people, I little need for state funded treatment.”
You just sank your own argument. And by the way, where is the valid statistical proof that marijuna addiction is “rare”?
dmg: “Moving beyond the issue of treatment – and my general view of drug laws is that we should move away from criminality and towards a health-based approach – I have not seen an argument about marijuana legalization that does not apply to alcohol.”
Sounds an awful lot like you want to legalize all drugs? And I believe that is what the agenda is of those political forces pushing so hard to legalize marijuana.
dmg: “In fact the idea that marijuana would be more accessible to kids is demonstrably false. It is actually much more difficult for kids right now to get alcohol or cigarettes than to get marijuana. Authorities have been able to limit sales to minors of both drugs, but because marijuana is available on the black market, it is readily available to minors.”
Now let me get this straight. Your argument is that while marijuana is illegal, kids are more likely to smoke pot, than if we legalize it – bc there will be no more black market? And how has that worked for keeping kids from smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol? I would suspect more kids have smoked cigarettes and drunk alcohol than have smoked pot. And that is bc kids copy what their parents do. Your “demonstrably false” argument just doesn’t work.
dmg: “Is second-hand smoke a concern, yes, but just as cigarettes are legal but restricted in use, so too will marijuana.”
We are trying to end cigarette smoking, bc we know it was a huge mistake to encourage it. But somehow encouraging the inhaling of burning pot leaves instead of burning tobacco leaves is better for kids and adults to inhale second hand? LOL
dmg: “Marijuana does not cause violent reactions as alcohol does. Violence surrounding the use of alcohol is extremely high, it is almost non-existent among pot users who generally become lethargic and subdued.”
Driving through a store front window is not violent?
dmg: “Marijuana will impair driving abilities, but alcohol is probably far worse in impact and has led to the death of millions over the years, and yet we allow it be legal.”
Tell that to the store owner who had the front of his shop destroyed by George Michael. Marijuana has a multiplier effect if taken in conjunction with alcohol and prescription drugs. We already have a serious DUI problem in this country. Why would we want to add to it?
dmg: “Marijuana does not have the health side affects of alcohol or cigarettes. That is not to suggest that sustained long-term use of alcohol will not result in problems, but that has not prevented alcohol or cigarettes from remaining legal.”
There is plenty of research to the contrary.
dmg: “Bottom line, yes there are harmful societal impacts from marijuana, but those have not prevented alcohol or cigarettes from being legal drugs.”
So you admit marijuana use is problematic, but yet want to encourage it? Addiing to the mix of problems already caused by alcohol and cigarette use is going to improve things? LOL
dmg: “Other arguments have suggested that the real problem is the conflict with federal law. But courts have not struck down Proposition 215, medical marijuana on those groups. If legalizing a controlled substance were a violation of such laws, the courts would have thrown out Proposition 215. But they have not.”
This is a bogus argument as well. The feds have failed to enforce all sorts of federal laws and regulations against criminal activity. That doesn’t make those activities somehow suddenly “legal”.
dmg: “In other words, California is not violating any laws or rules by legalizing marijuana.”
Yes it is. The feds have just chosen not to enforce their own laws. So what else is new?
dmg: “It will not produce the taxes that some proponents are arguing, but it will free up the criminal system in California to allow them to go after actual criminals rather than casual pot users.”
This is a totally bogus argument, as previously discussed.
[quote]Just heard on the radio that the DOJ has declared they will still enforce the Federal maryjuana laws in California.[/quote]
Bummer man. Are these the same Feds that are enforcing our borders?
E Roberts Musser ,
I’ll agree with everything that you just schooled David Greenwald on , this guy doesn’t get the danger that people will be put in from a legal drug , plus all the costs that will come with it !
ERM: Tell that to the shop owner who has his storefront destroyed by George Michael, who the judge said had a serious cannibas addiction
You really need to stop using this argument. He wasn’t impaired by marijuana, he was impaired by the combination of marijuana and prescription drugs. It is illegal to drive impaired by anything. That won’t change. No judge is an expert on addiction via cannabis. Hardly any valid addiction experts consider marijuana to be truly addictive.
You weaken your case when you persistently use fallacious and tenuous arguments. But there really is no rational argument to continue criminalizing casual marijuana use by adults anyway. I am curious as to how you would explain to a young adult that his or her casual consumption of marijuana, in the privacy of his or her own home, should result in any sanction whatsoever? Why should there be even a fine for it?
Dude, don’t pass the reefer to Elaine or Ava!
Don Shor ” I am curious as to how you would explain to a young adult that his or her casual consumption of marijuana, in the privacy of his or her own home,….”
No one smokes marijuana in a vacuum, and others living in that home may be involuntarily exposed to this addictive drug through second hand smoke without having any say in the matter.
Within the text of the above article, DMG indicates that “… pot users….generally become lethargic and subdued….” when under the influence*. That “atmosphere” sounds like a recipe for disaster, especially if there are younger brothers or sisters (or anyone with a respiratory deficit, for that matter) in the home. As I have indicated previously, this issue is a big loser for anyone who cares for children and is a responsible parent.
________
*In contrast to alcoholics who become more violent.
Steve: No one smokes marijuana in a vacuum
That is an interesting generalization. So how do you plan to explain to an adult (any age) who lives in a situation where nobody else cares, that their use of marijuana should be criminal? I imagine there are many households in Davis where consenting adults cohabit and marijuana use is voluntary and acceptable to all housemates. Many households have no younger sisters or brothers in the home. What is your answer to them about their casual, consensual, private use of marijuana?
pot users….generally become lethargic and subdued
Some do, some don’t. Again, it isn’t very useful to generalize, nor should such generalizations lead to policy. Also, to compare casual pot users to alcoholics is a strange leap. A more apt comparison would be the person who smokes some pot after work, compared to the person who drinks a glass of wine after work. Why should that behavior be criminal?
I care for children and am a responsible parent, by the way.
In August, the Enterprise published an op-ed by David Musser, arguing against Prop 19. Yesterday, a reader of my columnn asked me to address the point Mr. Musser mounted regarding the conflict of state and federal law. Because I am not a lawyer, that’s a stretch for me. However, I called a cousin of mine who teaches Constitutional Law at one of the best law schools in these United States and she explained the issue.
Here is (part of) my response to that reader. Mr. Musser writes:
[i][b] The Controlled Substances Act is the federal government’s existing ban on drugs, passed by Congress in 1970. Currently, marijuana is one of the narcotics covered under this ban. Article 6, paragraph 2, of the U.S. Constitution is the supremacy clause affirming federal law to be supreme law of the land.
In other words, Proposition 19 on the Nov. 2 California ballot, which would decriminalize marijuana, arguably has no legal basis because it violates federal law. [/i] [/b]
Think about Prop 215 for a moment, which legalized medical marijuana in California. If having a state legalize a controlled substance in any respect were, as Musser claims, a violation of federal law, then the courts would have thrown out 215 and similar measures passed in many other states. But the courts have not done that. Moreover, they have affirmatively rule that 215 et al. don’t violate the CSA.
A lawyer I spoke with (a cousin of mine) explained to me that when state laws conflict with federal law, the state laws can be overturned for one of four possible reasons: express preemption, conflict preemption, obstacle preemption or field preemption. (You can look up what each of these means, if you’re interested.) She then said that the language in the CSA gives states a lot of latitude, except with regard to conflict preemption.
Here is the operative language from the CSA: [quote] No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together. [/quote] In a case known as San Diego County vs. San Diego NORML, the court ruled that states have the right to take away all state criminal penalties for marijuana possession, sales, cultivation and so on. What states cannot do is take away federal penalties for these “crimes” and prohibit federal agents from enforcing federal law. If Prop 19 did that, it would then violate the CSA due to a conflict preemption. But 19 does not do that.
Nevertheless, I concede the point that this will put Californians in a precarious legal situation if for some reason the feds go after them, when they are living within the bounds of California law, but not federal law. Mr. Musser continues:
[i] [b] For this reason, Prop. 19’s passage would set a dangerous precedent. If approved, California and other states would be able to use the law to pick and choose which federal laws they will follow, and which ones they will not. [/i] [/b]
I believe Musser’s conclusion here is hyperbole and wrong. First, the precedent was set a decade ago with Prop 215 and many other similar laws in other states. Second, the California law does not conflict with the language or intent of the CSA. And third, if a law in California violates the Constitution or preempts a federal statute, the federal courts will throw out that law and all of the dangers foreseen by Musser will be for naught.
For my reader’s benefit and my own, I went on to address every claim/argument mounted by Musser. I won’t repeat that analysis here. But suffice it to say his arguments are weak and easily defeated by reason.
Don Shor “I care for children and am a responsible parent, by the way.”
So am I. I believe that those of us within this select group are concerned about the adverse impacts of second hand smoke on children (be it tobacco or marijuana) and we will be the key swing voting bloc in the defeat of Proposition 19. Most of us recognize that Prop 19 is a big LOSER for unconsenting adults and children within the home.
Don Shor ,
“””””He wasn’t impaired by marijuana, he was impaired by the combination of marijuana and prescription drugs. It is illegal to drive impaired by anything. “”””””
This is what happens when safe prescriptions are taken, and then legal liquor , or maybe legal marijuana , or illegal drugs are taken together .
Higher medical costs , abusing the 911 system , yes David this won’t save counties , cities , and state coffers money ! Isn’t that your goal ?
Ava, I won’t blow smoke in your direction if you don’t use your fireplace this winter. Your smoke from one log in the fireplace has more particulates than an ounce of marijuana and I doubt that anyone can smoke an ounce in an evening. Higher medical cost than alcohol or tobacco? Hogwash!
Haze: [i]” those of us within this select group are concerned about the adverse impacts of second hand smoke on children (be it tobacco or marijuana) and we will be the key swing voting bloc in the defeat of Proposition 19.” [/i]
Prop 19 will [i]reduce[/i] the amount of second hand smoke children are exposed to. So if that is your concern, you should be in favor of 19.
There are two reasons for this outcome: 1. Heretofore, smoking unprescribed marijuana in a private, adult-only smoking club has been illegal. Because of that, pot-smokers who are parents could only smoke pot in their homes. But if 19 passes, those smokers who have children living in their homes will have a legal, safe option outside of the house; and 2. Prop 19 explicitly makes it illegal to expose children to marijuana smoking.
If you would read the text of the proposition ([url]http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_”Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010″_(California)[/url]), you would understand how wrong your argument here is.
[i]”This is what happens when safe prescriptions are taken, and then legal liquor, or maybe legal marijuana, or illegal drugs are taken together.”[/i]
Since alcohol is much more dangerous than marijuana, why are you not calling for prohibition of alcohol, too?
Also, I’d be interested in knowing if there have been any people ever killed by drivers who are high on marijuana alone? The prohibitionists point to one or two very odd cases of drug-abusers who took pot and many other drugs and caused problems, and they make the strange conclusion that pot was the problem. But why are they not pointing to thousands and thousands of deaths on our roads every year from people stoned on pot?
According to the federal government, roughly 15.2 million Americans smoke marijuana every month ([url]http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/marijuana/marijuana2.html[/url]). If stoned drivers are as great a danger as AVA and ELAINE think they are, why are there not millions of Americans being killed on the roads by them?
Approximately 17,000 Americans are killed by drunk drivers every year ([url]http://www.car-accidents.com/drunk-driving-accidents.html[/url]). Approximately 0 Americans are killed by drivers who are stoned on marijuana are killed every year. It’s quite obvious that alcohol is a far greater danger and health hazard than marijuana is. But AVA and ELAINE want to keep alcohol legal and make the safer drug illegal? That’s irrational.
My expectation is that once it becomes legal, marijuana usage will double. That will make our society much safer. Why? Because the users who switch over to marijuana will drink far less. They will substitute away from the hard drug, alcohol, in favor of the less dangerous drug, pot.
[quote]Legalize it, don’t criticize it Legalize it, yeah, yeah, and I will advertise it Some call it tampee, tampee Some call it the weed Some call it marijuana, marijuana Some of them call it ganja, ganja Every man got to legalize it, and don’t criticize it Legalize it yeah, yeah, and I will advertise it Singers smoke it And players of instrument too Legalize it, yeah, yeah That’s the best thing you can do Doctors smoke it, nurses smoke it Judges smoke it, even the lawyer too So you’ve got to legalize it, and don’t criticize it Legalize it, yeah, yeah, and I will advertise it It’s good for the flu, a good for asthma Good for tuberculosis, even umara composis Got to legalize it, don’t criticize it Legalize it, yeah, yeah, I will advertise it Birds eat it, ants love it Fowls eat it, goats love to play with it So you’ve got to legalize it, don’t criticize it Legalize it, yeah, yeah, and I will advertise it Keep on telling you, legalize it [/quote]
[i]”Also, I’d be interested in knowing if there have been any people ever killed by drivers who are high on marijuana alone?”[/i]
I don’t know if this is the definitive study on the subject, but I found this story ([url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990325110700.htm[/url]) from Science Daily:
[b]University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents[/b] [quote]Recent research into impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver’s risk of causing an accident — unlike alcohol, says Smiley, an adjunct professor in the department of mechanical and industrial engineering. While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol’s effect on judgment. Drivers on marijuana remain aware of their impairment, prompting them to slow down and drive more cautiously to compensate, she says.
“Both substances impair performance,” Smiley says. “However, the more cautious behaviour of subjects who received marijuana decreases the drug’s impact on performance. Their behaviour is more appropriate to their impairment, whereas subjects who received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner.”
Smiley, who has studied transportation safety for over 25 years, drew her results from a “metanalysis” of existing research into the effects of marijuana on driving ability, combined with traffic accident statistics in the United States and Australia. Previous studies showing stronger effects often combined “fairly hefty doses” by researchers with driving immediately after consumption, likely exaggerating the drug’s effects, she believes.
While Smiley does not advocate legalizing the drug, she says her results should be considered by those debating mandatory drug tests for users of transportation equipment such as truck or train drivers, or the decriminalization of marijuana for medical use. “There’s an assumption that because marijuana is illegal, it must increase the risk of an accident. We should try to just stick to the facts.”
Smiley presented her findings at a symposium of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in Florida in February. Her paper was also published in Health Effects of Cannabis, a publication of Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in March. [/quote]
Rich Rifkin: “My expectation is that once it becomes legal, marijuana usage will double. That will make our society much safer. Why? Because the users who switch over to marijuana will drink far less. They will substitute away from the hard drug, alcohol, in favor of the less dangerous drug, pot.”
So you admit legalization of pot will cause a doubling in usage? But somehow that will make citizens stop using alcohol? LOL They’ll just use the two together, with a multiplier effect (George Michal case as an example of what can happen).
Now how is having our populace twice as stoned on pot going to not effect productivity at work; kids ability to learn in school; traffic accidents; citizen health?
To Don Shor: I’m sure in the trial of George Michael there would have been EXPERT testimony of his cannibas addiction and is the reason the judge said what he said.
[i]”So you admit legalization of pot will cause a doubling in usage?”[/i]
That’s what happened following the end of Prohibition in 1933. The volume of alcohol consumed doubled.
[i]”But somehow that will make citizens stop using alcohol?”[/i]
Stop? I never said that. But it will clearly [b]reduce[/b] alcohol consumption. That’s why the companies which make booze are funding the campaign against Prop 19.
People who don’t want to get high don’t drink alcohol now or smoke pot now and will continue to not drink and not smoke once pot is made legal. I am one of those.
But for those who do like to get a buzz, the wider availablity, lower price and legalization of pot will have a substitution effect with alcohol. Some drinkers, some times, will switch to marijuana. That is a net positive, because pot is a much less dangerous drug than alcohol.
[i]”They’ll just use the two together, with a multiplier effect (George Michael case as an example of what can happen).”[/i]
Your usage of the George Michael case is wrong. Mr. Michael’s accident was caused by his abuse of a legal prescription drug called Amitriptyline. That drug causes “tiredness, drowsiness, blurred vision, fainting, dizziness and hallucinating.”
It’s funny that you cannot find a single case of someone driving impaired on marijuana killing anyone. Not one single case. If your great concern is with people who get high and are thus dangers to others, you should be for banning alcohol, which kills 17,000 Americans every year. Yet not once in your endless repetition about the George Michael story have you called for banning really dangerous drugs, like alcohol or Amitriptyline. That tells me you cannot be objective. Your bias on this subject has clouded your thinking.
RR: “But for those who do like to get a buzz, the wider availablity, lower price and legalization of pot will have a substitution effect with alcohol.”
Proof (pun intended)?
RR: “It’s funny that you cannot find a single case of someone driving impaired on marijuana killing anyone.”
This boat won’t float. From norml.org: “Marijuana is the most common illicit substance consumed by motorists who report driving after drug use.10 Epidemiological research also indicates that cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug detected in fatally injured drivers and motor vehicle crash victims.11”
The footnote reference (11) is to the Dept. of Transportation.
RR: “Your bias on this subject has clouded your thinking.”
And you are not biased on the subject?
[i]And you are not biased on the subject?[/i]
Not at all. I don’t use pot or sell it; and I am not an anti-drug crusading zealot. I just look at the facts objectively.
You clearly are not clear-minded on this topic. If you were and you applied your logic to alcohol, you would be an alcohol prohibitionist, too. But you don’t, and that exposes your lack of objectivity.
[i]”… cannabis is the most prevalent illicit drug detected in fatally injured drivers and motor vehicle crash victims …”[/i]
Notice three things about that statement:
1. It does not say that cannibis use caused any of those accidents; and
2. It does not say how commonly cannibis is found in the blood of people in accidents. It might be that in 3 in a million cannibis is detected, while it is 2.9 in a million that cocaine is found. But with alcohol, which you don’t want to make illicit, it is 990,000 in a million; and
3. Cannibis is the most widely used illicit drug, so of course it should be the highest detected among that small range of drugs. If you were to test all people who won the lottery or hit a hole in one on a golf course or scored perfect on their driver’s exam, you would find that the most detected illicit drug in their systems would be marijuana, just because that is the most prevalent illicit drug in our culture. Marijuana detection would not be responsible for those holes in one or wins in the lottery and so on. Just like marijuana use is not the reason for vehicular deaths.
This issue sure does bring on the emotion among those who are fearful and uninformed about marijuana. I say it that way because the more one actually KNOWS about the effects of marijuana, the more obvious it is that making any herb, and particularly this herb, illegal is patently stupid policy making. I am confident that if the federal or state government were to commit resources to studying the effects of marijuana in a scientifically rigorous manner, the “debate” would end. The University of Toronto results would be verified and the conversation would shift from prohibition to responsible behavior by degree in the same way we put pressure on our friends not to drive while texting, web-surfing (far more dangerous behavior) or under the influence of prescribed drugs.
The Creator (God, Jehovah, Nature, etc.) put marijuana on the earth. What makes anyone think they can or should outlaw its very existence anymore than outlawing the cultivation of dandelions or wild mountain onions?
RR: “Not at all. I don’t use pot or sell it; and I am not an anti-drug crusading zealot. I just look at the facts objectively.”
LOL
RR: “Notice three things about that statement: 1. It does not say that cannibis use caused any of those accidents;…”
No more than you can prove alcohol “caused” an accident…
daveheart: “The Creator (God, Jehovah, Nature, etc.) put marijuana on the earth.”
The Creator (God, Jehovah, Nature, etc.) put diseases on the earth too, but I wouldn’t call them a blessing…