Obama to legalize pot?

Drug czar (0.00 / 0)

Apparently, it's legislatively MANDATED that the drug czar, whoever it is, supports the war on drugs. Which seems absolutely crazy to me, but in that light, it's hard to make that objection to Ramstad.

---

by: Chris O. @ Thu Dec 25, 2008 at 07:55:23 AM UTC

While I appreciate your argument... (0.00 / 0)

...I'm not exactly sure what your logic for making cannabis "socially unacceptable" is. Can you explain? Is there some inherent quality about marijuana and it's use that justifies attaching a stigma to it?

---

by: holotone @ Thu Dec 25, 2008 at 19:34:43 PM UTC

It's a drug. (0.00 / 0)

There are risks involved with smoking pot. It inhibits driving, for one. For teens and young adults, it can get in the way of school, or work.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 01:48:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Risks? Sure. (0.00 / 0)

Certainly people shouldn't drive while under the influence.

But there's risks all over the place. Prescription pain killers are a LOT more risky. So is wine. And Marlboros.

Excluding marijuana (which humans have desired and consumed for many thousands of years) from any sort of regulation system, rather than controlling it in a regulated market, turns regular people into criminals and worsens the risks associated with its use.

---

by: jamsterson @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 02:56:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I should ask you... (0.00 / 0)

...why make it socially acceptable? I'm genuinely curious. I'm aware of its medicinal qualities, and I don't have a problem with it being used legally as a prescription medicine to treat pain...but why should we legalize it?

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 01:50:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

difficult to get? (0.00 / 0)

One strong argument to legalize (i.e., regulate) is in order to protect the children.

According to government surveys, schoolkids consistently report that marijuana (illegal) is easier to obtain than alcohol (regulated).

One out of every three of your colleagues probably smoked pot in 2008. Do they deserve handcuffs, a night in jail, legal bills, and criminal records? Is that the public policy you favor?

---

by: jamsterson @ Thu Dec 25, 2008 at 20:26:54 PM UTC

No... (0.00 / 0)

...I said I favored decriminalization of possession. That's different than legalization.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 01:49:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

misdemeanor = 6 months in jail (0.00 / 0)

Ah - I was confused by the "turning it into, say, a misdemeanor for possessing small amounts".

A misdemeanor is a criminal charge, punishable by a $500 fine and 6 months in jail. And, the potential for the triggering of loss of various federal benefits such as student aid, low-income housing, etc.

Would you favor turning personal possession of mj into a violation, sort of like a seat belt violation, for which there's a token monetary fine but no criminal record and no actual arrest, but rather a ticketing?

Most people do, aside from political figures afraid of taking a "soft on crime" hit.

---

by: jamsterson @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 02:52:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

possession = violation? (0.00 / 0)

Definitely.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 03:39:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, yes... (0.00 / 0)

We should be attacking the demand for drugs, eliminating customers through treatment.

This sounds, though, like you are simply replacing the word "arrest" with the word "treatment" in the war on drugs.

But better that we have a culture and social structures that understands the implications of drug use, and acts accordingly. One should not have to go through treatment to discover to learn some of the basic life skills that non users take for granted, and that are better learned up front.

Treatment is expensive, and not an altogether reliable way to deal with addiction. It is necessary, of course, as necessary as any other form of life-saving medical procedures, and given a move to universal health care, it should be accessible to all. Prevention is a much better tactic to head off drug problems.

But I still come back to the role of the family and community needed to instill a sense of personal responsibility when using psychoactive substances. Too many people put things into their bodies without having a clue what the outcome is going to be--in either the short term or the long term. And too many people rely on bad information to make personal choices about substance use. And once a vulnerable person has embarked on the wrong path, it is difficult to find their way to recovery.

I can understand the desire to remove the legal consequences for personal use. After all, if I want to rearrange the structure of my brain chemistry, and I am the only one who pays the consequences, then the state has no compelling reason to intrude upon my privacy. The libertarian and constitutional arguments for drug legalization are compelling.

But when my choice to use psychoactive substances begins to impinge on my community and family, then consequences become more than personal, and the state gains a compelling reason to intervene--like the DUI. How the state intervenes in these instances seems to be the crux of the issue with where to go with pot abuse. And the issue of social unacceptability seems to be key here.

The social unacceptability issue begins with the hippy factor, that the culture warriors find so quick to point to. Then there is the plain prejudice that one drug of choice (alcohol) is better than another (pot). As long as strong political forces view pot as socially unacceptable, not much will change, regardless of what Obama and his administration may or may not do. But those that push for legalization have a huge barrier to cross here, building an atmosphere of acceptability in an environment built upon misinformation--both for and against pot use.

What I find intriguing, though, is the constant refrain that attempts to minimize the effects that pot has on human cognition and brain function. Sure, just as there are people who can have a few drinks occasionally and not become alcoholics, or suffer negative consequences from it, there are those that can indulge in light pot use and not have it alter the course of their lives.

But on the other hand, any attempt to minimize or ignore the potential that pot has for some individuals to radically change their lives, as with the alcoholic or any other drug addict, denigrates any other arguments put forth towards legalization or decrim.

For every attempt someone makes to suggest that pot smoking is benign overall, I can show you a person whose life has been drawn through hell and back again by the personal and public consequences of pot abuse. I deal with people on a daily basis whose lives have been irrevocably altered, and many destroyed, by pot use--and not because they were arrested. The arrest then becomes an avenue by which healing can begin. One should not ignore the gratitude that exists among many in the recovery community for the role that an arrest played in their lives.

So let's deal with the issues of pot use and decrim/legalization on a rational basis, one that acknowledges the risks, as well as understands the benefits. But ultimately, we need to grow social awareness and structures to frame how pot use can be brought out of the closet and dealt with in a pragmatic fashion.

---

by: JC @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 06:22:06 AM UTC

Patient/Caregiver (0.00 / 0)

I'm a Montana medical marijuana patient and caregiver and as such I'm a bit biased on the subject. My first objection to this article was about the author's idea of decriminalization; if it is decriminalized, that would entail no punishment whatsoever, not even a misdemeanor; I could be completely wrong here.
I see no reason to culturally shun cannabis other than to make fun of peace-loving hippies; dirty though they may be, they are people too. In my humble opinion, cannabis should be taxed and regulated just like alcohol and tobacco as it is actually the least harmful of the three.
I want to mention that cannabis is a bit of an odd duck as drugs go; there are no physical withdrawal symptoms and I personally have seen no evidence of psychological withdrawal, including my own binges and purges when I was younger. Along those same lines, it is not physically addictive, and is reputed to be psychologically addictive but I too challenge that based on my experience.
The only harms that I have found to come out of cannabis use are respiratory issues involved in smoking, short term memory disarrangement, and a phenomenon known in the cannabis culture as couch-lock, in which you are stuck to where you are sitting with the occasional exception of going to the kitchen for snacks and beer.
I no longer smoke as a rule, I vaporize and use edibles, so I have no respiratory issues. As far as the short term memory problem, I have simply learned to dose myself appropriately depending on the situation, this seems to prevent issues from arising. The final issue of couch-lock is not relevant with me as I prefer sativa dominant hybrids which give a clear, euphoric high as opposed to indica based strains which give a heavy narcotic high resulting in couch-lock. Then again, what is so bad about eating a snickers, staying home, maybe watching a movie, and falling asleep?

I see no reason that cannabis, regulated and taxed, should not be available to adults.
I would also argue that parents or legal guardians should be able to give their children edibles or tea to help with sundry problems that we currently just prescribe harmful medications that turn them into little zombies. I know this may seem extreme, but please keep and open mind; this article should be a good start http://www.cannabisculture.com...

---

by: zlessley @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 16:52:20 PM UTC