Up in Smoke Top 10 List
Friday, March 21, 2008 at 02:21PM What is it about marijuana that drives people to such extreme disagreement with one another? Clearly it isn't a party line thing as you have a democratic governor threatening vetoes and a republican mayor threatening jobs. Watching the fireworks from both republicans and democrats alike over the recent marijuana bill leads me to believe we've become lost as a nation. We've gone from a nation who's laws were designed simply from protecting one person from causing harm to another person to laws which seek to protect us from ourselves and to attempt to force by law the morality of the lawmakers.
I don't smoke, not even legal cigarettes, I do enjoy the occasional beer or glass of wine however, yet if you wish to smoke a cigarette or a joint I see no harm in your doing so. I do see harm in forcing money from my pocket to punish someone else who is not harming me in any way for something I see nothing wrong with their doing.
The argument has been made that supporting decriminalization of marijuana sends the wrong message to kids and that lessening the punishment would make it easier for kids to access pot. I've news for you folks, along with pot, kids drink too even though that is illegal behavior for anyone under 21 years of age. Is the answer to roll back prohibition? Outlaw drinking because the thought of a school teacher enjoying a glass of wine with dinner or a parent having a beer while watching a game on TV might give kids the wrong idea? It must be double talk to say kids shouldn't drink beer while sitting back enjoying one yourself right?
Let me back up a minute here and explain my background which may help explain my view. I served as a national president to a Fraternity. I ran the entire organization from top to bottom. And as most who have ever been to a college campus can tell you, there is drinking. In some cases under age drinking and yes even drugs. Now as the president, I could easily have yelled and shouted and closed chapter after chapter for the slightest allegation but what good would it have done? College kids, 18, 19 and 20 years old are by all means adults. Closing their fraternity chapter down wouldn't change their behavior. It wouldn't make them change into something they weren't. They would simply be running wild as nongreek students instead of under the banner of a fraternity or sorority.
Instead, myself and the other national officers serving the fraternity under me took the time to travel the country visiting our chapters one by one and having leadership seminars. We spoke to them about responsibility and of consequence for ones actions. We encouraged safety and responsibility. And we spoke to them as adults making them aware that their behaviors are their own to choose. The result was they listened.
When it comes to smoking pot though, instead of looking to allow mature adults to make up their own minds and teaching children about responsibility and consequences for their actions we suddenly fall into a puritanical mindset. We seek to criminalize behavior that we see as immoral and seek to attack or punish anyone who dare speak out in support of such behavior.
I'd like to leave you with a top 10 quotes related to marijuana and drugs which I hope will get you all thinking.
1) No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed, and love of power. – P. J. O'Rourke
2) Left-wing politicians take away your liberty in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either way, government gets bigger and you become less free. – Harry Browne
3) Alcohol didn't cause the high crime rates of the '20s and '30s, Prohibition did. And drugs do not cause today's alarming crime rates, but drug prohibition does. – US District Judge James C. Paine, addressing the Federal Bar Association in Miami, November, 1991
4) Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison. – John Hardwick
5) If the government can't keep drugs away from inmates who are locked in steel cages, surrounded by barbed wire, watched by armed guards, drug-tested, strip-searched, X-rayed, and videotaped – how can it possibly stop the flow of drugs to an entire nation? – Ron Crickenberger
6) I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control. – George L. Roman
7) I favor free trade in drugs for the same reason the Founding Fathers favored free trade in ideas: in a free society it is none of the government's business what ideas a man puts into his mind; likewise, it should be none of its business what drugs he puts into his body. – Thomas Szasz
8) I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my value system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal. – Milton Friedman
9) Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments … Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils.? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs. – Von Mises
10) The War on Drugs is a price support system for terrorists and drug pushers. It turns ordinary, cheap plants like marijuana and poppies into fantastically lucrative black market products. Without the War on Drugs, the financial engine that fuels terrorist organizations would sputter to a halt. – Ron Crickenberger, Libertarian Party Political Director 2/4/02
Reader Comments (25)
Let me ask YOU a question. Why are YOU so fired up about pot legalization? What posesses YOU to be so extreme and passionate about this issue, unless you or your buddies are in fact toking, or want to use the stuff, legally?
That said, I also don't see the point in wasting millions of hard earned tax dollars to punish people for a crime that does no harm to me or anyone other then themselves.
We've created a black market that raises billions of dollars a year for terrorist organizations. Let me ask you this, Republicans want to stop terrorists right? What better way then by cutting off billions of dollars of income to them by allowing Americans to grow what is essentially a weed right here in the good old USA. Not to mention the farm jobs it would create.
So I'm sorry but I'm not the one wanting to use it legally. I'm just a guy sick and tired of my hard earned dollars being wasted to punish people for something I see causing no one harm.
You must be smoking something REALLY good if you don't think pot causes harm. All varities of drugs, legal and illegal cause great harm to individuals, families, and cultures. Alcoholism is already rampant and destroying lives every day. No, prohibition didn't work but is there a line to be drawn anywhere? Why stop at pot - do you support legalizing crack or heroin? How about crystal meth? Why not make it a free for all? Do you think that would do any "harm"?
By the way - the terrorist support argument just doesn't hold water (not even bong water). Oil profits make their way to terrorists as well and that's a legal product. Terrorists could open a hot dog stand if they wanted to and use the profits to build IEDs. So what? That's a cheap scare tactic.
I am not surprised that stoners would be pushing hard for legalization. I am absolutely stunned any responsible parent would take such a stand.
Quit the stereotypical labels like "stoners." There are LOTS of us out here that support decrim and don't look or act the slightest bit like the "stoners" in your imagination.
"All varities of drugs, legal and illegal cause great harm..."
Key word there is legal. People look for ways to get a "high". Kids resort to things like huffing which is very dangerous using a 100% legal product. What's the answer? Should we ban everything that may cause anyone harm? Make sure all corners have rubber padding so we don't get hurt? People will do stupid things and will do things that cause themselves harm. It isn't my responsibility nor yours to make sure they are responsible. Nor should we punish the majority who ARE responsible.
Do you have any DUIs or DWIs on your record? Assuming you don't should you lose your right to have a glass of wine with dinner because maybe your next door neighbor can't control his behavior and has 2 DUIs?
"By the way - the terrorist support argument just doesn't hold water (not even bong water)."
The terrorist argument comes directly from an anti drug ad. The government built the argument that by buying drugs you directly support terrorism. My response to that is as I said, if we could grow our own we would A) cut out that market and B) create US farming jobs. Both of which are positives in my opinion.
"I am not surprised that stoners would be pushing hard for legalization. I am absolutely stunned any responsible parent would take such a stand."
So is President Clinton a stoner? Was Carter a stoner? Both men lead this country and smoked pot.
I think you'd be shocked at how many people actually smoke pot. I know a NH lawyer who smokes. I know electrical engineers who smoke. I know a number of people consider the well off in society who smoke pot.
Secondly, responsibility is not something that can be forced upon someone against their will. This is something any parent should know. I teach my children the danger of smoking, the danger of drinking and even the dangers of eating junk foods. It is up to them to make their own life choices once they become adults. Other adults should also be able to make those choices for themselves without you or I forcing our views on them.
Where do YOU draw the line. Clearly drugs are bad so they should be illegal in your opinion. What about poor diet? Should we be forced to eat regulated meals picked out for us by government nutrionalists? After all eating junk food causes obesity and ruins lives. What about Alcohol? Would you want to resort back to prohibition because alcohol has actually killed people making it a far more dangerous drug then pot (FACT: No one has EVER overdosed on Marijuana)... so how should that be handled in your perfect world?
When we live in a world where you and I are forced through our tax dollars to pay for someones erection pills while at the same time making possession of a couple of joints a crime punishable by $2,000 and jail, ruining their professional and personal lives
then clearly somethings wrong here. Wouldn't you agree?
BTW - you already have the government deciding what is healthy for you and what isn't. Ever heard of the FDA? Granted they do an very bad job of it but I don't hear any proposals to abolish it. Are you in favor of that?
I draw the line on being able to control ones own actions. Pot delays actions but does not alter them, similar to booze.
If you cannot control your actions after being given a regular dose of a drug then you become a danger to others. Smoking a joint or drinking a beer does not turn someone into an out of control danger to society therefor the government has no right to prevent those who wish to partake in either from doing so. Preventing one from causing harm to themselves is NOT the duty of the government.
Now it's your turn, where do YOU draw the line? Clearly if you think pot should remain illegal you think wine, beer, booze, cigarettes, trans fat, etc etc etc should likewise all be illegal right? Where do we stop?
A while back my son and I got into a discussion about what the government should attempt to legislate relative to our free will. We talked about things like pot, harder drugs like opiates, trans fats, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. He brought up a good point...we have asthma, as do millions of other Americans. Among the triggers - perfumes, colognes, scented hair & body products, smoke (woodstoves, campfires, cigarettes, cigars, pipes, etc.). Shall we advocate for the government to legislate bans on these items because of the harmful effects they have on millions of people suffering from asthma? My son played soccer for many years and sustained a number of injuries on the playing field, including a separated shoulder, which led to a suprascapular nerve entrapment, which led to surgery, physical therapy - thousands of dollars in medical costs - and his soccer 'career' is over. Should the government further legislate youth sports so we can avoid such injuries and expenses? Maybe we can bubble wrap our kids to protect them?
These may sound like ridiculous examples of how much more intrusive the government could become...but, that's the direction we're moving in.
You ask where do we draw the line? Let's begin with decriminalizing marijuana. And as citizens and voters, we need to really be aware of what our elected officials are attempting to do to 'protect us.'
As I do not support a change in the existing law, that implies I prefer the line right where it is now. You two are the ones who want to start it moving so my question to you is - where do you stop? I have answered your question. Now you answer mine. You may find it somewhat difficult to mesh your theoretical world with real life. Crack on sale at Walgreens or at a state run drug outlet? That's the logical progression you lead us to with your reasoning. Do you support this? Yes or No?
Stop with your nonsensical comparisons to sports injuries and high fat foods. We are talking about drugs here. Alcohol is legal, pot is not. You want to legalize pot. Pot is then legal but crystal meth is not. Your logic says it must be. So, crystal meth is legal but cocaine is not. This is an undeniable logical progression you will not address. Until you do so, your argument is limited to one drug which you have already stated is so darned popular it just has to be legal. But then your wish for this change in the law isn't some high minded quest for libertarian purity. It's just looking to relieve you of the inconvenience of the law getting in the way of a good time.
Thankfully, this change in the law has no chance of happening here. That bill is DOA in the Senate.
If it can be proven that someone who smokes crack can control their actions then by all means make it legal. Personally I don't know the effects of crack and I've never watched anyone smoking it so I don't know the answer myself. Pot however has the same effects as alcohol which is 100% legal.
Now back to you, you stated you want to keep the line where it is now... why is that? Simply saying because beer is currently legal and pot isn't is NOT an answer. Why should one foreign substance be outlawed and not another? If pot came in liquid form and was served in bars would you suddenly say it's ok? (for the record they actually do make a Hemp beer and it is 100% legal http://www.ndsn.org/mayjun97/hempbeer.html )
What is OK and not OK is never an all-or-nothing decision. Civilized societies make these decisions and encapsulate them in law. This society has done so via their elected representatives. If there is a majority in favor of drug legalization it will happen. Legalizing this one drug has happened in one house of the NH legislature. Congressman Barney Frank has proposed it on the federal level. Let's see how that bill does. Let's see what happens to it in the NH State Senate. And let's see how many pro-pot members of the General Court no longer have their seats come 2009. Of course, if we really do have a pro-pot majority in NH and the Senate kills the bill, maybe some of them will lose their seats. The issue is out there, one vote has been taken. More will come. Then the people have their say later in the year. Maybe some of the pro-pot House members will come out in favor of complete legalization of all narcotics, as you have. I hope so. Then we can see how that works with the voters. Maybe this isn't an issue for the legislature. Maybe it's a constitutional issue. Has any convicted drug user tried making this case? Maybe one should try. I have to believe there are plenty of lawyers who would love to handle this one. Maybe we can get it to the Supreme Court and then who knows!
All of these possibilities make for some interesting discussion and debate, such as this one. I've certainly enjoyed it. I eagerly await further action at both the state and federal levels.
I believe in 3 strikes so I'll give one more shot here....
First off, my view is that any narcotic that does not prevent one from controlling their own actions should be legal. Drugs that cause hallucinations for instance prevent people from knowing what is real and what isn't while under their influence. Therefor I would not support legalizing them. So stating I believe ALL narcotics should be legal is an incorrect statement.
Now I ask you one last time... why exactly should booze be legal and yet pot not? Simply saying that's the way the current law is doesn't cut it and quite frankly that's a cop out answer. I want you to think and give a real reason why YOU think booze is ok and yet we should put people in jail and ruin their lives because they smoke a joint. I want to understand why you feel the line where it stands now makes sense. Explain that please.
But, to your second question, as I say - this becomes a cultural issue, not a matter of strict theoretical interpretation. Strictly theoretically, I might be inclined to agree with your stand. But when theory meets the reality of what moving that line would mean I must oppose further loosening of drug laws. Yes, alcohol is destructive as well but its a drug that is socially acceptable in our society, for adults anyway. Overdue it and drive while drunk and you end up with the jail/life ruined scenario you mention. The line can only be drawn where a society will allow it to be. This culture accepts alcohol use and will not tolerate prohibition. This culture considers pot smoking to be stepping over the line and does not support legalization (with the exception of certain legislators in our general court and you and some others). It's a step towards more and more drug use in our population. We already have far too much. I include alcohol as well as prescription meds in that statement. Less drug use must be the goal and changing the laws to lessen the penalties for use of what is currently illegal sends exactly the wrong message. It isn't the message most parents want their kids to hear. Speaking of kids, let's get rid of the Ritalin as well. We are training an entire generation to be drug dependent from a very early age. It's one of the reasons this society is in big trouble.
Just say no - to this legislation and drugs in general.
Good point. Allow me to amend my statement by giving further definition of my meaning of the word legalize.
A legalized drug would be one that any adult can purchase over the counter.
Other drugs such as some of those you mentioned would be controlled drugs. If a doctor can show that a mind altering drug can help a patient then they should be able to prescribe that drug (yes ANY drug).
Now let's dive into your logic regarding why beer is ok and pot not... it seems to me that it comes down to what is socially acceptable. Am I reading you correctly?
Being that's the case I would have to argue back that society sees nothing wrong with pot usage. As evidence of this I submit the fact that we have elected two presidents who have been known to smoke pot (Clinton and Carter). One of which even won a second term. We also have a front runner for a national party who likewise has admitted to smoking pot in his past (Obama). If drugs were socially unacceptable as you imply then the fact that someone was a user would disqualify them from consideration for public office. Clearly that is not the case.
Further more your arguments that drugs bad/dangerous and there should be far less legal drugs is exactly what Democrats use as their logic on why guns should be banned. I don't buy it for the gun argument and I don't buy it for this one either.
As for the drugs and guns analogy. It doesn't fly. There is a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. There is no such right to grow and smoke dope.
"As for the drugs and guns analogy. It doesn't fly. There is a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. There is no such right to grow and smoke dope."
Very true. The second amendment specifically gives us the right to bear arms. Just as the 18th criminalize alcohol and the 21st restored the right. Article I section 8 lists the specific duties of the federal government not prohibited or additionally tasked to it in any amendments. And of course there's the 10th ammendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Given all those facts about the Constitution can you please show me where it gives the government the power to criminalize marijuana?
The other argument technique is to insulate oneself from being labeled a User, or from critique in general, so one says "I'm actually a mother of three and I'd support legalization..." or "I'm actually a non-smoker - not even cigarettes." Frankly, I find the protestation against usage a bit hard to believe. But further, if one really is a mother of children or a stringent, lifelong non-smoker (as many legalizers claim) either one is urging legalization on Purist, and horribly mistaken, philosophical grounds, or one hasn't thought through all the consequences, or both. Zealotry in the name of legalizing drugs makes no sense for a non-user, unless they are blinded by a desire to eliminate all laws that regulate human behavior, and I concede some of these fanatics do exist, though they prefer "incrementalism" and chipping away at drug laws, like last year’s legalization of “hemp.” Surprise, surprise, now we’re making it easy to possess pot. Guess what we’re doing NEXT year?
The other technique is saying there's no harm in taking drugs, including pot. This is again laughable on its face, and I challenge you to watch the Intervention TV show, in which there is very real harm done not only to the users themselves, but to their families, their co-workers, their neighbors, and (gulp - I know libertarians hate THIS word) to their town/city and to Society at large.
Legalization would have immediate consequences to thousands of people who will believe pot is "harmless" rather than a drug that significantly and immediately reduces the user's judgement. Beer doesn't do that, and if offered a crack pipe, a person with one or two beers under his/her belt still knows enough to say "NO WAY." I wonder what happens to even the one-time pot user in that case?
Finally, legislators going to Concord saying “Hmm, what do we legalize today?” are in fact making war on society and making war on parents trying to raise kids in a sane society. The idea that legalization means less government is a false bargain. All laws take up resources to prosecute. But to draw from that the crazy idea that if we had no laws, there would be no need to prosecute the offenders, is to turn law, justice and society on its head. But of course, that’s the very intention of libertines, isn’t it?
Sure:
"insure domestic Tranquility"
"promote the general Welfare"
and in a general sense,
"secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
Our state constitution urges "morality and piety" and states (in article 3a) "When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others;"
The right to regulate a substance that turns its users into instant idiots, or perhaps users of worse drugs while under that drug's influence, is well within the rights of Society, and our state and Federal governments, specifically, under both constitutions.
And every generation up until now would have readily agreed, finding those who disagree either dangerous anarchists, subversives who wished to undermine our nation, or simply madmen.