CBS News: Should Pot be Legal?

[TooNormal]

LEAP speaker Judge James P. Gray, and Drug Free America advisor David Evans debate whether Pot should be legalized to reduce harms in society.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/08/national/main5578613.shtml?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea

While I might be a bit, ummm, biased it certainly seems the judge put up a better set of arguments based on something resembling facts. And of course Dave Evans dug up the usual red-herrings in the name of scaring the populace into submission. (OMG POT IS STRONGER NOW! Don't you know that shit will KILL you?!?! er.. I may be paraphrasing a bit )

I also like how "DFA Dave" never addressed any of the key points Judge Gray put to him - most likely because it would have further deteriorated his position.

Example Arguments (but certainly not all)

Arg 1) Pot has more THC now
Counter 1) Beer vs. Booze in prohibition days - why make beer if I'm going to get busted just the same? Sell booze for more money.

Arg 2) Marijuana is toxic and addictive per "recent studies"
Counter 2) Surprisingly no direct counter from Judge Gray [might possibly be addressed by "the most harmful connection to marijuana is jail" statement]


Arg 3) Marijuana is inexpensive already - legalizing won't reduce "purchase-related" crime [WTF?]
Counter 3) The drug-money problems are worse than the drug problem. Talk about serious crime, not someone stealing an iPod to get a fix [paraphrasing again].

Arg 4) Cheaper drugs will lead to more use/abuse. Example: Crack
Counter 4) In the short-term, then it will drop. Example: Holland post-legalization.

[And I'd counter argue that there's a REASON crack isn't as big a problem anymore -- the surrounding communities saw the negative impact and the culture de-glamorized crack further -- knowledge "that shit will rip you up" caused a reduction in crack use over time - but Judge Gray following that reasoning would have opened the door for "DFA Dave" to equate Pot use with hard-drugs which is what he wants to do]

Anyway.. there are a ton of good point/counter-points in there to dig through. And it's yet another example of mainstream news starting to pickup the topic in a neutral-to-positive manner.

Take a peek when you get a chance...

 

[fatigues]

Arg 4) Cheaper drugs will lead to more use/abuse. Example: Crack
Counter 4) In the short-term, then it will drop. Example: Holland post-legalization.

If heroin were legalized today and the price reduced to a tenth of what it now is (whatever that is, I wouldn't know), would you shoot up H tomorrow?

I'm guessing the number of people who say "yes" to that is a woefully small, if not inconsequential, number. The gateway drug / cheap drugs are worse/ and illegality theory of a decision to try a drug are very poorly thought out arguments. The elasticity/inelasticity of the demand for heroin, crack and crystal meth have little to do with either their price or their legality.

Still none of this is surprising. These views and arguments noted above by prohibitionists sound unpersuasive and hollow because they are, infact, unpersuasive and hollow. Those views never caused a Prohibitionist to become a prohibitionist or to favor Prohibition - those views are only trotted out by them to justify a position they have already arrived at through other means. That's why these arguments sound so hollow and appear to lack conviction in the first place. Prohibitionists are, in the end, motivated to favor Prohibition as a means of preserving the "public morals of society" and "protecting an individual from the harm he or she will do to themselves if given a free choice."

To justify that position, Prohibitions will undertake studies and fund research which reinforces an objective scientific basis for establishing "harm" to either an individual, or society as a whole. They will stridently oppose funding of research that might show otherwise, and ignore all science which underscores that the harm is less then they claim - or non-existant.

Prohibitionists have always been paternalistic, motivated by control of the individual and preservation of the status quo in society at large. They always have been; they always will be. That's how they arrived at - and why they adopted their position on drugs in the first place.

Their reasons appeal to the essential need to control society. They aim at the essence of conservatism. They resonate far better in those who are inclined to agree with them on that basis. The rest is just dressed up sophistry, really.

Put another way, if you were to tell a Prohibitionist that you smoke up because having sex while stoned is just awesome and that's why you do it, do you think he or she would be motivated to rethink their views? Hell no - they'd retrench and become more convinced than ever that they were right and were "preserving society from being harmed by immoral behaviour".

 

[Blimey]

Prohibitionists have always been paternalistic, motivated by control of the individual and preservation of the status quo in society at large. They always have been; they always will be. That's how they arrived at - and why they adopted their position on drugs in the first place.

Their reasons appeal to the essential need to control society. They aim at the essence of conservatism. They resonate far better in those who are inclined to agree with them on that basis. The rest is just dressed up sophistry, really.

Amen, brother.

 

[TooNormal]

If heroin were legalized today and the price reduced to a tenth of what it now is (whatever that is, I wouldn't know), would you shoot up H tomorrow?

Agreed. Similar to my points about the crack reference.

There will ALWAYS be psychological addiction/habituation problems in society. I don't care if it's alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, sex, video-gaming, porn, coffee, adrenaline, or work -- we've been wired from the beginning of time to seek out pleasure, and some small percentage of the population are more sensitive to that wiring and prone to excess than others for certain substances.

If we base our legality of a substance or activity solely on it's potential for habituation there would be a pretty long list of items in the "illegal" column -- and life would also be pretty dull.

Use of any of these substances may wax and wane with time, but the addiction rate to physically harmful substances will only be influenced by education and safer choices, IMO.

Put another way, if you were to tell a Prohibitionist that you smoke up because having sex while stoned is just awesome and that's why you do it, do you think he or she would be motivated to rethink their views? Hell no - they'd retrench and become more convinced than ever that they were right and were "preserving society from being harmed by immoral behaviour".

LOL, exactly. As you said, it's all about them exerting their power and morality over others. It's a recurring theme of society, whether the topic is politics, religion [as if the two were somehow separate], or generally adhering to "societal norms".

As a species we like to be around people who think like we do... and some are motivated to try and use that to develop power over others.

All good points.

Oh, and sex while stoned IS awesome - two of my favorite pleasure-seeking activities from the list!

 

[Preacher]

The whole pot is now more toxic due to higher THC levels business is something the government itself shoots down with Marinol. Pure THC that was lowered to Schedule III in 1999 due to its "excellent safety record".

 

[smellychronic]

Why do we need marijuana need to be more legal than it already is? Get your medi card!

 

[fatigues]

The whole pot is now more toxic due to higher THC levels business is something the government itself shoots down with Marinol.

Yes, but they don't really care about that. That's not their main intention. You misunderstand the essence and intent of the "Not your Father's Marijuana/Skunk is too powerful" argument.

The intention of the Prohibitionists is NOT to use this argument to convince the children of the baby boomers that "marijuana is more dangerous now than it was 30 or 40 years ago".

That's not their intention at all.

Their intention is to convince those in their 50s and 60s - the people who will, demographically speaking, put legalization over the top -- that today's Marijuana is not the marijuana they smoked 30 and 40 years ago - and so it should be feared.

The argument seeks to persuade those in their 50s and 60s who experimented long ago to discount their own personal experiences. The argument seeks to persaude them that MJ has fundamentally changed -- and consequently they should distrust their own personal exeprience which indicates otherwise.

If you read my demographic trend post, you will see that the overwhelming vast majority of those who try marijuana do so in their teens and early 20s but retain a very permissive and positive attitude towards legalization decades later. 85% of those who try MJ in their 20s will never smoke another doob in their life by the time they hit 35. Because it has been decades since they last tried it, the "Not your Father's Marijuana" argument tries to capitalize on this passage of time and their lack of recent experience to support the argument that the drug has changed and they cannot trust their own personal experiences anymore.

It's a very clever argument, so you need to see it for what it is.

The British spin is more powerful. There, the government has successfully branded MJ with a new name in the popular media by seizing upon the slang of cannabis culture. By giving it a new name, they seek to use that new name to use it to drive a wedge between past experience and present opinions. If the citizens knew and liked Marijuana and think it harmless, the Prohibitionists need first to give it a new name in order to successfully demonize it.

Hence, the British Prohibitionistis now call Marijuana: "Skunk, a powerful new version of the drug". Politics and the English Language 101. Someone read their George Orwell back in Freshman English Lit and remembered it well.

Do not underestimate the cunning of The Enemy.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Yes, but they don't really care about that. That's not their main intention. You misunderstand the essence and intent of the "Not your Father's Marijuana/Skunk is too powerful" argument.

The intention of the Prohibitionists is NOT to use this argument to convince the children of the baby boomers that "marijuana is more dangerous now than it was 30 or 40 years ago".

That's not their intention at all.

Their intention is to convince those in their 50s and 60s - the people who will, demographically speaking, put legalization over the top -- that today's Marijuana is not the marijuana they smoked 30 and 40 years ago - and so it should be feared.

The argument seeks to persuade those in their 50s and 60s who experimented long ago to discount their own personal experiences. The argument seeks to persaude them that MJ has fundamentally changed -- and consequently they should distrust their own personal exeprience which indicates otherwise.

If you read my demographic trend post, you will see that the overwhelming vast majority of those who try marijuana do so in their teens and early 20s but retain a very permissive and positive attitude towards legalization decades later. 85% of those who try MJ in their 20s will never smoke another doob in their life by the time they hit 35. Because it has been decades since they last tried it, the "Not your Father's Marijuana" argument tries to capitalize on this passage of time and their lack of recent experience to support the argument that the drug has changed and they cannot trust their own personal experiences anymore.

It's a very clever argument, so you need to see it for what it is.

The British spin is more powerful. There, the government has successfully branded MJ with a new name in the popular media by seizing upon the slang of cannabis culture. By giving it a new name, they seek to use that new name to use it to drive a wedge between past experience and present opinions. If the citizens knew and liked Marijuana and think it harmless, the Prohibitionists need first to give it a new name in order to successfully demonize it.

Hence, the British Prohibitionistis now call Marijuana: "Skunk, a powerful new version of the drug". Politics and the English Language 101. Someone read their George Orwell back in Freshman English Lit and remembered it well.

Do not underestimate the cunning of The Enemy.

Great post. Politicians are very canny at using words to control people's perception of reality. If you control their perception of something then you control the reality of that situation. Politicians always poll their catch phrases. It's all about controlling perception.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

should pot be legal?

should pot be legal?

yes...... duh lol

 

[Preacher]

Yes, but they don't really care about that. That's not their main intention. You misunderstand the essence and intent of the "Not your Father's Marijuana/Skunk is too powerful" argument.

The intention of the Prohibitionists is NOT to use this argument to convince the children of the baby boomers that "marijuana is more dangerous now than it was 30 or 40 years ago".

That's not their intention at all.

Their intention is to convince those in their 50s and 60s - the people who will, demographically speaking, put legalization over the top -- that today's Marijuana is not the marijuana they smoked 30 and 40 years ago - and so it should be feared.

The argument seeks to persuade those in their 50s and 60s who experimented long ago to discount their own personal experiences. The argument seeks to persaude them that MJ has fundamentally changed -- and consequently they should distrust their own personal exeprience which indicates otherwise.

If you read my demographic trend post, you will see that the overwhelming vast majority of those who try marijuana do so in their teens and early 20s but retain a very permissive and positive attitude towards legalization decades later. 85% of those who try MJ in their 20s will never smoke another doob in their life by the time they hit 35. Because it has been decades since they last tried it, the "Not your Father's Marijuana" argument tries to capitalize on this passage of time and their lack of recent experience to support the argument that the drug has changed and they cannot trust their own personal experiences anymore.

It's a very clever argument, so you need to see it for what it is.

The British spin is more powerful. There, the government has successfully branded MJ with a new name in the popular media by seizing upon the slang of cannabis culture. By giving it a new name, they seek to use that new name to use it to drive a wedge between past experience and present opinions. If the citizens knew and liked Marijuana and think it harmless, the Prohibitionists need first to give it a new name in order to successfully demonize it.

Hence, the British Prohibitionistis now call Marijuana: "Skunk, a powerful new version of the drug". Politics and the English Language 101. Someone read their George Orwell back in Freshman English Lit and remembered it well.

Do not underestimate the cunning of The Enemy.

I understand that just fine. However people in their fifties and sixties really should pay attention to the fact that government logic is contradicting itself.

 

[nephilthim]

I understand that just fine. However people in their fifties and sixties really should pay attention to the fact that government logic is contradicting itself.

thats prety funny given the fact were in two wars our goverment is controlled by aipac,as evidenced by censoring the u.n. goldstone report on war crimes by israel against palastines a report written by a jew and a report in which the majority of congressmen and women never even read,yet took the time to vote against.
next stop in the manufactured consent for war iran.
I can draw parallels in the propaganda spewed by those in goverment who are opposed to legalization for their own political agenda and their campaign supporters at our collective expense.
much like the the bank bailout crap which I opposed, resulted in socialization of our banking system , rewarding those that weakened the controls that were in place to prevent the crap that happened from happening specifically the glass steadman act which kept commercial banks seperate from investment banks.much like how insurance companies are regulated to have specific assets on hand to pay for the value of the policies
held.i really hope people wake up and finally realise that when it comes to some specific issues: the banking mess,war,human rights there really is no differance between the two political parties.
as far as medical mj goes there,are republicans such as rohrabacher and others who support medical users rights from federal goverment intervention,and intrusion.so i think you have to find out how your specific canidates feel about mj so you can find out you want to support next election.

 

[Tropic]

Why do we need marijuana need to be more legal than it already is? Get your medi card!

Not everyone lives in a MMJ state, or in the USA... there's a whole world out there... if the USA were to legalize cannabis on a federal/national level, it would give governments worldwide a good kick in the ass and the debate would fire up in many other countries too... think about your fellow stoners worldwide!

 

[Grizvok]

Yes, but they don't really care about that. That's not their main intention. You misunderstand the essence and intent of the "Not your Father's Marijuana/Skunk is too powerful" argument.

The intention of the Prohibitionists is NOT to use this argument to convince the children of the baby boomers that "marijuana is more dangerous now than it was 30 or 40 years ago".

That's not their intention at all.

Their intention is to convince those in their 50s and 60s - the people who will, demographically speaking, put legalization over the top -- that today's Marijuana is not the marijuana they smoked 30 and 40 years ago - and so it should be feared.

The argument seeks to persuade those in their 50s and 60s who experimented long ago to discount their own personal experiences. The argument seeks to persaude them that MJ has fundamentally changed -- and consequently they should distrust their own personal exeprience which indicates otherwise.

If you read my demographic trend post, you will see that the overwhelming vast majority of those who try marijuana do so in their teens and early 20s but retain a very permissive and positive attitude towards legalization decades later. 85% of those who try MJ in their 20s will never smoke another doob in their life by the time they hit 35. Because it has been decades since they last tried it, the "Not your Father's Marijuana" argument tries to capitalize on this passage of time and their lack of recent experience to support the argument that the drug has changed and they cannot trust their own personal experiences anymore.

It's a very clever argument, so you need to see it for what it is.

The British spin is more powerful. There, the government has successfully branded MJ with a new name in the popular media by seizing upon the slang of cannabis culture. By giving it a new name, they seek to use that new name to use it to drive a wedge between past experience and present opinions. If the citizens knew and liked Marijuana and think it harmless, the Prohibitionists need first to give it a new name in order to successfully demonize it.

Hence, the British Prohibitionistis now call Marijuana: "Skunk, a powerful new version of the drug". Politics and the English Language 101. Someone read their George Orwell back in Freshman English Lit and remembered it well.

Do not underestimate the cunning of The Enemy.

You're pretty intelligent. This is exactly what they're trying to do.

 

[Bettysmith]

Why do we need marijuana need to be more legal than it already is? Get your medi card!

Seriously dude?

 

[TooNormal]

All good points [er.. well except for the one about MJ being legal enough already... we all don't live in one of the 14 MMJ states, or in the US].

And fatigues makes some good commentary about humans as the social animal.. I've made similar commentary before, but never made the jump to the cannabis potency arguments being aimed at the older [in political power] crowd.

Votes and legislation are rarely made based on logical arguments. Those who feel strongly are trying to get you to empathize with their position. It's the rare citizen-on-the-street who puts aside party-based posturing and propaganda and actually analyzes the situation - most make their decisions based on the emotional fear, anxiety, anger, pride, compassion, etc. that are evoked when they think about the topic.

The prohibitionists use that fact to exaggerate any claims they have to spread fear amongst those who would listen. Many will overlook the facts (i.e. no documented deaths EVER for cannabis use) over the fear that a deeper truth exists (skunk will kill your children!) and can impact the voters' lives.

This is why things like MMJ's acceptance is important for us. The compassionate feelings invoked when we see seriously-ill people that could otherwise be helped with their pain are just as powerful as the fear the prohibitionists use. It sway's public opinion as we've experienced over the past 10 years -- and it's also why the prohibitionists keep trying to show MMJ in a bad light with crime around dispensaries, sales to non-patients, etc. They need to evoke fear to counter the otherwise positive, compassionate message of MMJ. And, on top of that, MMJ desensitizes the general public on cannabis as a street drug that only hardened "drug addicts" use.

California is a great example of this - I was visiting Santa Cruz a few weekends ago, and you'd have had a hard time convincing me pot was still illegal for general use if I hadn't known otherwise.

I think the key takeaways here are that pot is mainstreaming [hell the AMA agrees!] and that we should be changing the way we're talking about it.

The metered responses from those at the forefront of the anti-prohibitionist movement [i.e. Judge Gray] are a good example. Answering questions from your non-toking friends about why pot is illegal with the standard "Because Henry Anslinger was conspiring to save his financial well-being" makes us sound like we should be wearing tinfoil hats and talking about government mind-control -- they write us off as radical nutcases on the topic, not everyday people they can identify with.

The more mainstream we become, the less radical we NEED to be in order to influence change, but the more we need to be visible so we're still a relevant topic to be discussed. (Gay-rights, abortion, etc are all examples of how the dynamic changes as a topic mainstreams - nobody's standing on the street-corners with bloody hangers, or chanting "we're here.. we're queer" anymore).

We're all part of the solution, and this is a good time to try and start making change. While not all people use cannabis, most probably know someone who does whether they know it or not. The trick is letting them know [if your personal situation allows] that "we're here, we toke, get over it", and the world won't come to an end if MMJ or general legalization occurs either federally or in your home state.

I've been 'coming-out' to some of my closer non-toking friends, so I've been practicing influencing others, and find they don't react as much to the logic of my answers for the commonly regurgitated War-on-Drugs "truths", but react more to the fact that I state them calmly and matter-of-factly without sounding smug or evangelical in the process, and still ask them to identify with the ill patients, or the mother of the child who was busted for possession of something documented as less harmful than other legal substances. [Another great turn on 'what about the children' by the way].