home

Reefer Wisdom

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 05:19:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

From an editorial in the Columbia Spectator, Don't Fear the Reefer:

We’re happy that the New York Legislature voted last month to reform the arcane Rockefeller Drug Laws. We look forward to seeing judges give fairer prison sentences to nonviolent men and women convicted of selling or possessing narcotics. Yet while these laws are a step in the right direction, they don’t go far enough. A key component of any rational drug policy must include the legalization of marijuana.

....Marijuana isn’t that dangerous or addictive, and enforcement falls disproportionately upon the poor. It’s time to legalize it.

[Link via Drug War Rant.]

< Trading Drug Money for Oil Wells? | The Peace Corps List of College Volunteers >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Reefer Wisdom | 36 comments (36 topical)
    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 09:55:15 PM EST
    Amen

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 09:59:41 PM EST
    Well, you know, Osama sells pot - haven't you seen the ads? And that's why you must go to prison for having a dime bag longer than Ken Lay will ever go to prison for stealing billions of dollars from millions of people. I remember one Newsweek interview from the Enron era when Bush pretended to view this as unjust...

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:31:51 PM EST
    Legalization will come when the 18-30 year old demographic ages and becomes the new government. Minds are far too closed in the older population.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 10:46:42 PM EST
    I'd say "marijuana enforcement falls disproportionately upon the poor, upon members of ethnic and cultural minorities, upon social, labor and political activists, upon beatniks, hippies and non-conformists of all kinds, upon musicians, poets and other threats to the civic and economic order." That's a list of constituencies that ought to be important to the Democratic Party. why do Democrats continue to play along with and dignify a program that is designed to jail and disenfranchise Democrats?

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 05:24:40 AM EST
    "[W]hy do Democrats continue to play along with and dignify a program that is designed to jail and disenfranchise Democrats?" Because Democrats helped pass those laws and because no one is going to stand up in the House or the Senate and argue in favor of legalization of a drug they have spent years demonizing as "the evil weed" until the groundswell of support for doing so is large enough to quell their fears about what doing so would do their chances at re-election.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 05:45:57 AM EST
    Phil, I hope you were being deliberately disingenuous. The Dems were always the weak sisters to the Repubs fire breathing about drugs, wimpily trying to seem tougher by raising penalties higher. Penalties falling mainly upon the very minorities the Dems once courted. Almost every minority voter convicted of possession is a voter forever disenfranchised. The value of this to the Repubs was shown with Katherine Harris removing so many African American voters from the rolls for drug convictions (many of which were fradulent) in Florida in the 2000 election. The Dems have been shooting themselves in the foot like this for over 30 years. While the Repubs sat back and laughed at their antics. But the Dems won't swallow the crow they've heaped on their plates for this; they'd rather maintain their loser's sense of ideological and moral 'purity' about their stances on illicit drugs rather than admit they made a mistake about supporting increasingly punitive drug laws. That's why I'm doubtful there will be a Democratic Party in 5 years. One last thing: Many African American leadership organizations are beginning to wake up as to how the drug laws are used to render them politically impotent. I expect that they, not the moribund Dems, will shake things up.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 05:50:29 AM EST
    et al - I am going to go back to Monday's Open Thread, and ask the same question. And I again give the same disclaimer. I don't care if you smoke pot, just keep it away from kids, and don't endanger others. (Also keep it away from me and mine.) Given that mere use and possession can totally mess up your life, why use it? It is like playing in traffic. If you do, sooner or later, bad things will happen. CA posted that people do it to feel good. Okay. But I still don't see a rational person thinking that the reward - cost factor is worth it. We know that many people can drink alcohol and never become addicted. Some become alcoholics. Is pot the same? And if it is, what is the short term and long term effects on the user? And can the addicted person function like someone on cigarettes? Or are they more like an alcoholic? And why should society legalize another drug that harms society and the individual? Or is the cost of not legalizing it more than the cost of. Your turn.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#8)
    by Pete Guither on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 06:34:53 AM EST
    Poker player, According to government statistics (SAMHSA), 46% (roughly 100,000,000) of Americans have used an illicit drug in their lifetime. The figure for marijuana users is over 90,000,000. Considering that many people have used marijuana, as one of my commenters said: "WHERE ARE THE CASUALTIES? Where are the birth defects? Where are the male breasts? Where are the fried-egg brains? Where are the amputated limbs from "circulation problems"? Where are the shuffling legions of demotivated pot-slaves? Where are the pitiful addicts, searching for roaches in the gutter, or slumped in doorways? Where is the spike in lung, and other, cancers? Where are the armies of the memoryless, the unemployable, the lost?" The truth is that the "cost" is just not that high for marijuana use. Sure there are some that become dependent, but it's a mild dependency, and most of those have other problems as well. For the casual user of marijuana, it's no different than casual use of alcohol (and, as George Carlin said, "you don't puke on your shoes.") Marijuana is much less addictive than alcohol or tobacco. Part of the reason that there are low health risks from using marijuana is that most people use it casually -- maybe heavier use when they're younger, but they tend to stop or reduce their use on their own without any attempt to quit. Some people like beer. Some like scotch. Some like chocolate. Some like a double-shot mocha. Some like a steak with lots of greasy fat. The question is not why it should be legalized -- the question is why it should be illegal. What possible value is there in locking people up for doing something that they enjoy and doesn't harm others? Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could. - William F. Buckley, Jr.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 06:35:12 AM EST
    rousing chorus of Peter Tosh

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#10)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 06:41:28 AM EST
    The issue isn’t how addictive or not any drug is. The issue is how you make it your business to control what I do with myself. ‘It’s not a war on drugs, it’s a war on personal freedom.’ -B.Hicks

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 07:01:56 AM EST
    PokerPlayer, I respect your right to choose to shield yourself and your children from a substance of which you do not approve. That is your right as a person and as a parent. However, under what authority does the federal government presume to illegalize a substance on the grounds that it may be harmful to the user?

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 07:09:24 AM EST
    Jim, there's an aspect of your comment that I believe few may have noticed, but it bears some scrutiny. With regards to laws...ours are not written in stone. Bad ones do hang around like rotten fish stink, but sooner or later, society changes and so do the laws. That is, unless certain sections of society benefit greatly from the preservation of bad laws. Usually, they are represented by the organizations charged with enforcing those laws and receive remuneration for that enforcement. In which case, all manner of obfuscation and sophistry are used by them to rationalize what becomes increasingly onerous and indefensible. What's worse is when they use taxpayer dollars to attempt to defeat democratic attempts to change those laws, as have the previous and present Administrations. At that point, you have democracy only in name, not practice.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 07:11:08 AM EST
    Big Mac's harm society and the individual Jim, should they be illegal?

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 07:39:21 AM EST
    Responsible drug use harms neither society or the individual. Problems arise with drug abuse, with marijuana abuse being a miniscule problem compared to alcoholism. Incarceration and/or fines have proven not to be a deterrent, as millions of Americans use marijuana. Our resources would be better spent making treatment available to those who want it, and truly educating children about the risks associated with drug use (not the DARE type scare tactics we call educatiuon). Our foolish war on marijuana has made a mountain out of a molehill, not to mention being totally ineffective. The heart of the issue is freedom, we should all be free to live as we see fit, as long as we don't harm others. The Hicks quote posted by pigwiggle says it all.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 07:51:25 AM EST
    Poker Player "Is pot the same? And if it is, what is the short term and long term effects on the user?" Fair questions unfortunately we may never have these answers. The current administration(and past administrations) continue to block research into this drug (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6839761/site/newsweek/ -Thanks Pete). Instead, what we hear is that there are no legitimate use of this drug. Let’s look at the data, not the conjecture.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#16)
    by tps12 on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 07:54:55 AM EST
    Keeping marijuana illegal is a key strategem in the ongoing War On Boring People Who Listen to Bad Music.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#17)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 08:07:53 AM EST
    I’m hoping if I repeat this enough I might affect some subliminal conditioning you all will take to the voting booth. It shouldn’t matter if I am a productive member of society. Society isn’t the end product of my existence but rather a byproduct. The legality of my actions shouldn’t be judged by their affect on society but rather by their DIRECT affect on an INDIVIVUAL. Here lays one of my chief objections to state sponsored social projects. It necessarily empowers the state to regulate actions that would otherwise affect only me.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 08:40:31 AM EST
    Pigwiggle, you'll get no argument from me on the issue of personal responsibility governing social action. I am in agreement. But the main problem, as you have put it, is (almost) subliminal. Most people have been mentally gelded with regards to even considering this issue. Like Pavlov's dogs, they bark and growl and foam against the idea when it is forwarded at all, not even recognizing how they've been conditioned to respond. Yet at it's core is the fundamental philosophy of the founding of this nation. I've heard otherwise intelligent people make the absolute dumbest, ignorant remarks regarding laws about illicit drug usage, and when you point out the origins of those laws, i.e. how so few if any of them have any basis in science but are chock full of 19th and 20th century prejudices, they still refuse to consider how they've been propagandized; nobody likes to admit they've been had.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 09:51:30 AM EST
    et al - There is a certain amount of shooting the questioner in your answer. Remember I said I don't care. I just can't figure out why you would break the law for a mild high that, accoding to you, is not addictive.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 10:04:19 AM EST
    Jim, It's a better, safer high than alcohol. Less impact on society and the individual. The fact that alcohol is legal and MJ is not is hypocritical. I enjoy a hit at night rather than a drink. It is MIND EXPANDING, and THAT is why I like it. It is also why it is illegal. If I'm going to recreate with stuff like this, I would rather stimulate my brain than deaden it.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#21)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 10:08:16 AM EST
    “I just can't figure out why you would break the law for a mild high that, accoding to you, is not addictive.” For a smart and careful person the chance of getting caught is minimal. And you know, screw the man; I’ll do what I please.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 10:10:23 AM EST
    Jim, the question could just as easily be asked like this: What would prompt many of our parents and grandparents to break the alcohol prohibition laws of their day? They were decent, upright people, no? So why did so many of them go to speakeasies? Why did some brew their own 'shine? They knew the trade was in the hands of the Mob, but many did go. Many did drink. Repeatedly. They risked some contact with the law. (But not as much as a cannabist does today.) If that question of why did our parents and grandparents do it were answered honestly, it would answer yours.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 10:42:03 AM EST
    CA posted that people do it to feel good. Actually, he posted that people do it in their pursuit of happiness. Many do not understand that happiness and feeling good are diametrically opposite states of being. And that the pursuit of feeling good will not lead to happiness. I've come to believe that there is a certain measure of maturity needed to understand this.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    I
    just can't figure out why you would break the law for a mild high that, accoding to you, is not addictive
    I guess I don't think much of the law, when one harmful substance is legal and another that is less harmful isn't. The law doesn't respect me, so why should I respect the law?

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    "Given that mere use and possession can totally mess up your life, why use it? It is like playing in traffic. If you do, sooner or later, bad things will happen." Yeah, well thanks for your concern. Now get the f*ck out of my garden.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 12:51:28 PM EST
    So...feeling bad leads to hapiness?

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 03:18:37 PM EST
    No, feeling bad does not lead to happiness, but that is another thread. CA's comment certainly looks like an attempt to define pot smoking as a pursuit of happiness and therefor suggest that it is our inalienable right to do it. By that logic, I would have an inalienable right to steal CA's car, if doing so would make me happy. Probably CA was less than serious when he wrote it.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 03:43:18 PM EST
    Given that mere use and possession can totally mess up your life, why use it? It is like playing in traffic. If you do, sooner or later, bad things will happen. CA posted that people do it to feel good. Okay. But I still don't see a rational person thinking that the reward - cost factor is worth it. Use and possession of marijuana can only mess up your life because of the illegality of the substance, not its properties. If masturbation were illegal, could get you years of prison time, cost you your job and forfeiture of your possessions, then the cost factor of spanking the frank wouldn't be worth it, either. We know that many people can drink alcohol and never become addicted. Some become alcoholics. Is pot the same? No. Alcohol is a poison to the body. It has a measurable level of toxicity (drink enough of it and you die.) Marijuana has no toxicity whatsoever. Furthermore, our brains have chemical receptors that are specifically configured to accept the THC (pot's active ingredient) molecule. It's as if our brains and marijuana buds evolved into a co-operative relationship. And if it is, what is the short term and long term effects on the user? Short term: distortion of time perception, insatiable desire for carbohydrates and sugars, enhanced feelings of sexual pleasure, difficulty with short-term memory, and an increased appreciation of humor. Long term: a tendency to enjoy noodly-guitar jam bands. And can the addicted person function like someone on cigarettes? Or are they more like an alcoholic? Far more functional than an alcoholic or even a tobacco-addict. No stoner needs a break from work every hour to stand outside in the cold for a hit. And why should society legalize another drug that harms society and the individual? Because marijuana does not harm society or the individual. While it is true that a miniscule minority of marijuana users have a problem with psychological dependence, they do not cause any societal harms like those associated with tobacco, alcohol, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, OxyContin, etc. Dependent marijuana users are more of an indication that there are a small subset of humans prone to self-destructive compulsion than an indictment of any alleged harmful properties of the plant. Indeed, if it weren't marijuana, this subset would be addicted to sex, porn, gambling, religion, Krispy Kreme, voting Republican, or any other of a host of societally-harmful behaviors. Or is the cost of not legalizing it more than the cost of. Incredibly so. The costs are: * Tax dollars wasted * Peaceful people imprisoned * Cops corrupted * Families destroyed * Civil liberties eroded * A potentially lucrative industrial crop ignored * Sick people needlessly suffering * Businesses wasting money with drug testing * and much more... see StopTheDrugWar.org But ultimately, it comes down to the fact that marijuana is a harmless and completely natural plant. What right does the government have to criminalize nature? In a tyrannical society, all things are illegal until the state can show reason why they should be legal. In a free society, all things are legal until the state can show just cause to criminalize them.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#31)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 05:02:09 PM EST
    “Furthermore, our brains have chemical receptors that are specifically configured to accept the THC (pot's active ingredient) molecule. It's as if our brains and marijuana buds evolved into a co-operative relationship.” This is true for other substances that have been shown to be physically addictive, i.e. potentially fatal withdrawal. “And why should society legalize another drug that harms society and the individual? Because marijuana does not harm society or the individual.” So, one more time- “I’m hoping if I repeat this enough I might affect some subliminal conditioning you all will take to the voting booth. It shouldn’t matter if I am a productive member of society. Society isn’t the end product of my existence but rather a byproduct. The legality of my actions shouldn’t be judged by their affect on society but rather by their DIRECT affect on an INDIVIVUAL. Here lays one of my chief objections to state sponsored social projects. It necessarily empowers the state to regulate actions that would otherwise affect only me.”

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 26, 2005 at 07:35:41 PM EST
    I was serious when I said I thought people use in the pursuit of happiness and I did mean that I think that the use of mind-altering drugs is an inalienable right. I don't use them, but I have no problem with others using them. If you drive impaired, I have a problem with that and there are laws to take care of that just like there are laws to take care of you if your pursuit of happiness leads you to steal my car. It's not rocket science. Radical Russ has captured the argument that makes the most sense to me. What he wants to use in the privacy of his home is none of my business. And should not be controlled by the government.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 06:55:48 AM EST
    By that logic, I would have an inalienable right to steal CA's car, if doing so would make me happy
    . How foolish an argument. Stealing your car does harm to you. What someone imbibes in the privacy of their bedroom does no harm to you.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 08:39:39 AM EST
    et al - Okay, I hear you. But I still find it very difficult to think a rational person would risk going to jail unless the need to use is very deep. But hey, play in the traffic with my blessings. justpaul writes - "However, under what authority does the federal government presume to illegalize a substance on the grounds that it may be harmful to the user?" The same reason they arrest and imprison bank robbers, build roads, establish rules for commercial aviation, etc. For the common good. et al - Someone compared smoking pot to going to speak easy's during prohibition. Well, they didn't put you in jail for years and years for drinking bathtup gin and dancing the Charleston.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 11:52:41 AM EST
    Uh, friend...there were arrests and incarcerations for alcohol possession; please see Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure From the article: Before Prohibition and the Harrison Narcotics Act (1914), there had been 4,000 federal convicts, fewer than 3,000 of whom were housed in federal prisons. By 1932 the number of federal convicts had increased 561 percent, to 26,589, and the federal prison population had increased 366 percent.[44] Much of the increase was due to violations of the Volstead Act and other Prohibition laws. The number of people convicted of Prohibition violations increased 1,000 percent between 1925 and 1930, and fully half of all prisoners received in 1930 had been convicted of such violations. Two-thirds of all prisoners received in 1930 had been convicted of alcohol and drug offenses, and that figure rises to 75 percent of violators if other commercial prohibitions are included.[45] We look at these figures, and fail to understand that by the standards of the day, these numbers were met with the same degree of incredulity by readers then as many here experience today when we see the prison numbers reach 2 million.

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    From this months High Times magazine.. "The Dutch don't love cannabis, the dutch love freedom."

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 07:31:22 PM EST
    I use it because I am not a fan of alcohol, too fattening, too much hangover and too hard on the body. Pot on the other hand, nice buzz, not fattening (i eat fruit when stoned) and not bad on the body. Been to a ton of weed parties and never once saw a fight break out, lots of confusing conversations but never a fight....

    Re: Reefer Wisdom (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:32:46 AM EST
    I notice how silent the usual prohibitionist opposition has been lately. Gentlemen? Direct questions have been answered as directly, and cogent arguments have been offered; any ripostes?

    Reefer Wisdom | 36 comments (36 topical)