End the War on Pot

[Cylnar]

by Nicholas D. Kristoff, New York Times
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/opinion/28kristof.html?src=me&ref=general

LOS ANGELES

I dropped in on a marijuana shop here that proudly boasted that it sells "31 flavors." It also offered a loyalty program. For every 10 purchases of pot — supposedly for medical uses — you get one free packet.

"There are five of these shops within a three-block radius," explained the proprietor, Edward J. Kim. He brimmed with pride at his inventory and sounded like any small businessman as he complained about onerous government regulation. Like, well, state and federal laws.

But those burdensome regulations are already evaporating in California, where anyone who can fake a headache already can buy pot. Now there's a significant chance that on Tuesday, California voters will choose to go further and broadly legalize marijuana.

I hope so. Our nearly century-long experiment in banning marijuana has failed as abysmally as Prohibition did, and California may now be pioneering a saner approach. Sure, there are risks if California legalizes pot. But our present drug policy has three catastrophic consequences.

First, it squanders billions of dollars that might be better used for education. California now spends more money on prisons than on higher education. It spends about $216,000 per year on each juvenile detainee, and just $8,000 on each child in the troubled Oakland public school system.

Each year, some 750,000 Americans are arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Is that really the optimal use of our police force?

In contrast, legalizing and taxing marijuana would bring in substantial sums that could be used to pay for schools, libraries or early childhood education. A Harvard economist, Jeffrey A. Miron, calculates that marijuana could generate $8.7 billion in tax revenue each year if legalized nationally, while legalization would also save the same sum annually in enforcement costs.

That's a $17 billion swing in the nation's finances — enough to send every 3- and 4-year-old in a poor family to a high-quality preschool. And that's an investment that would improve education outcomes and reduce crime and drug use in the future — with enough left over to pay for an extensive nationwide campaign to discourage drug use.

The second big problem with the drug war is that it has exacerbated poverty and devastated the family structure of African-Americans. Partly that's because drug laws are enforced inequitably. Black and Latino men are much more likely than whites to be stopped and searched and, when drugs are found, prosecuted.

Here in Los Angeles, blacks are arrested for marijuana possession at seven times the rate whites are, according to a study by the Drug Policy Alliance, which favors legalization. Yet surveys consistently find that young whites use marijuana at higher rates than young blacks.

Partly because of drug laws, a black man now has a one-in-three chance of serving time in prison at some point in his life, according to the Sentencing Project, a group that seeks reform in the criminal justice system. This makes it more difficult for black men to find jobs, more difficult for black women to find suitable husbands, and less common for black children to grow up in stable families with black male role models. So, sure, drugs have devastated black communities — but the remedy of criminal sentencing has made the situation worse.

The third problem with our drug policy is that it creates crime and empowers gangs. "The only groups that benefit from continuing to keep marijuana illegal are the violent gangs and cartels that control its distribution and reap immense profits from it through the black market," a group of current and former police officers, judges and prosecutors wrote last month in an open letter to voters in California.

I have no illusions about drugs. One of my childhood friends in Yamhill, Ore., pretty much squandered his life by dabbling with marijuana in ninth grade and then moving on to stronger stuff. And yes, there's some risk that legalization would make such dabbling more common. But that hasn't been a significant problem in Portugal, which decriminalized drug use in 2001.

Likewise, medical marijuana laws approved in 1996 have in effect made pot accessible to any adult in California, without any large increase in usage. Special medical clinics abound where for about $45 you can see a doctor who is certain to give you the medical recommendation that you need to buy marijuana. Then you can visit Mr. Kim and choose one of his 31 varieties, topping out at a private "OG" brand that costs $75 for one-eighth of an ounce. "It's like a fine wine, cured, aged, dried," he boasted.

Or browse the online offerings. One store advertises: "refer a friend, get free joint." And the world hasn't ended.

One advantage of our federal system is that when we have a failed policy, we can grope for improvements by experimenting at the state level. I hope California will lead the way on Tuesday by legalizing marijuana.

Pretty self-explanatory. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920s and it doesn't work now. Take the profit out of crime, save the money now spent on this losing, useless battle and gain a new source of taxes. Win-win, folks.

[Tessera]

The major difference is that the prohibition of alcohol back in the 1920's was hurting an already established industry. Where as for the time being, there isn't any gigantic industry based upon marijuana. There -used- to be, a couple of hundred years ago... when hemp fiber was a huge cash crop. Everything from ropes to muslin cloth was made from hemp back in those days. It has even been alleged that the very first American flag was made of hemp cloth. And... George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both hemp farmers.

Alcohol prohibition didn't last very long, thanks to the economic pressures from the licensed beverage industry back at that time. But it is that very same industry which has desperately tried to keep marijuana illegal for the past 80 years or so. The legalization of alcohol would negatively impact the sales of alcoholic beverages. That's almost a certainty. And that is why pot continues to be illegal: because the lobbyists from the licensed beverage industry continue to grease the palms of our corrupt politicians.


FACT: from a health standpoint, marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol.

FACT: more people die each year from alcohol and alcohol-related illnesses and accidents than from all of the illegal drugs COMBINED. Look it up for yourselves, if you doubt me.

FACT: it is not possible to become physically addicted to marijuana. Psychologically, yes... but physically, no. Alcohol, on the other hand, is massively addictive -- both physically AND psychologically.

FACT: it is not possible to overdose and die from marijuana consumption. To consume the amount of THC that is considered an overdose would require you to smoke more than 12 kilograms of pot within 24 hours... something which is simply not humanly possible. On the other hand, it is quite possible to consume a fatal does of alcohol and in fact, many many people have died from so-called "wet brain," which can occur when your total blood alcohol level goes higher than about five percent.

FACT: the worst known health effects associated with habitual marijuana consumption are short-term memory loss, respiratory illnesses (due to the smoke) and rare cases of throat and lung cancer (also due to the smoke). There are no other documented health hazards as a direct result of habitual marijuana use.

FACT: on the other hand, the worst known health effects associated with habitual alcohol use are severe liver disease (cirrhosis), jaundice, gout, heart disease, gradual bone loss, serious kidney malfunctions, alcohol-induced psychosis (often leading to increased aggression and violence), dead and dying brain cells, blood toxicity, severely impaired motor coordination in the brain (often leading to serious automobile accidents), chronic depression, chronic fatigue, impotence, pernicious anemia, tooth loss, severe gastritis, gastric and duodenal ulcers, loss of appetite... and... need I continue..? Booze will kill you, period. And I should know -- because it damned near killed me.

FACT: the legalization and taxation of marijuana will result in quit a few benefits and FAR less negative consequences, as opposed to the legalization of alcohol.

FACT: marijuana is a naturally growing herb and it has quite a few proven medical uses. Alcohol, on the other hand, is an artificially fermented and often distilled byproduct, which has almost no practical medical uses whatsoever. The major exception would be that consuming SMALL amounts of red wine every day can help to increase your longevity, thanks to a particularly rare chemical compound which is primarily found in fermented grape juice. That's it, folks... there are no other legitimate beneficial uses for alcohol. It's a potentially deadly poison... not "medicine."


So then, with all of the above facts and many more to consider, how can it possibly be that marijuana is still illegal in most modern countries..? The simple answer is: because of MONEY and COMMERCE, as usual. There is already an enormous international industry built upon alcohol. There is no major industry built upon marijuana... YET. So with all of that money and power behind them, the alcoholic beverage industry has pushed and pushed and pushed to keep marijuana illegal in most modern nations. And that includes disseminating a ton of disinformation about pot to the masses... such as the lies about pot being "a gateway drug" and all of that other ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated horseshit.

The legalization of marijuana is long overdue. And I really don't care about the resulting consequences to the licensed beverage industry. Anheuiser-Busch, Seagrams and the rest of them can bloody well go to hell.

Booze kills hundreds of thousands of people every single year. Pot doesn't. Those are the facts -- and those are my honest feelings about this issue, for whatever they're worth.

[Cat]

Anheuiser-Busch also sold out to a foreign company.

[Cylnar]

Well, the corporate alcohol industry wins again - Prop 19 failed. But California at least maintains its (frequently DEA-raided) medical marijuana dispensaries. Here in Arizona, it looks like our Prop 203, legalizing medical marijuana, is being defeated by a very slim margin. Perhaps it will pull through once all votes are counted. Still a damn good showing for a solid red state where Republicans have swept all statewide offices. Better luck next time.

[Will Never]

Inhaled marijuana smoke has 33 carcinogens, which, true, is less than tobacco smoke.  However,  the estimated 25 billion dollar tax revenue legalized and regulated marijuana would generate really isn't worth the 200 billion dollar healthcare costs that our already strained healthcare system would incur as a result of its legalization.  Both tobacco and marijuana are significantly more carcinogenic than alcohol, but alcohol and tobacco are addictive.  Out of the three, tobacco is surely the worst.

However, the bottom line is that none of this shit is good for anybody or the healthcare system that would have to reimburse the problems all of them cause.  I wouldn't be upset if all of these drugs were banned, and I speak as someone who uses one of them regularly.   

[Tessera]

Inhaled marijuana smoke has 33 carcinogens, which, true, is less than tobacco smoke.  However,  the estimated 25 billion dollar tax revenue legalized and regulated marijuana would generate really isn't worth the 200 billion dollar healthcare costs that our already strained healthcare system would incur as a result of its legalization.

Then prohibit alcohol, if taxpayer money is what you are the most concerned about. Alcohol kills more people each year than all of the illegal drugs combined.

It is unfair to make criminals out of people who are electing to imbibe a LESS harmful recreational drug. Marijuana is less harmful as compared to tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin... and safer than many prescription drugs, for that matter.

So either legalize marijuana, or else prohibit alcohol. Pick one. Because the current system is completely irrational, and totally unfair to millions upon millions of marijuana smokers.

[Cylnar]

Inhaled marijuana smoke has 33 carcinogens, which, true, is less than tobacco smoke.

How many carcinogens does the smog-filled air of a large, densely-populated city like L.A. or NYC have?

However,  the estimated 25 billion dollar tax revenue legalized and regulated marijuana would generate really isn't worth the 200 billion dollar healthcare costs that our already strained healthcare system would incur as a result of its legalization.

People are already smoking pot, dude. Lots and lots of them. People who aren't inclined to smoke marijuana are unlikely to become stoners just because cannabis becomes legal - I've smoked tobacco cigarettes from time to time (when drunk :laugh:) but have never been a "smoker".

Current law makes cannabis users criminals for smoking a substance known to be less harmful to the lungs than tobacco - by your own quote - and less harmful to the rest of the body, to the mind and to other people than alcohol, by lots of evidence. Both the other two substances are legal, because they are manufactured by huge corporate industries with lots of pull. And that, sir, is precisely the reason those industries (especially the alcohol industry) have kept weed illegal. They stand to lose millions, if not billions, of dollars from the competition.

Both tobacco and marijuana are significantly more carcinogenic than alcohol, but alcohol and tobacco are addictive.  Out of the three, tobacco is surely the worst.

Depends on your definition of "worst". When a tobacco smoker gets behind the wheel, the nicotine actually makes them slightly more alert and responsive, lowering reaction times, then a non-smoker. It's also been shown to slightly improve the speed (if not necessarily the acuity) of other thought processes. It ravages the lungs and causes cancer though, which is bad. Alcohol makes people drive like shit - no other drug is responsible for the deaths of more people other than the user. Alcohol is a great deal less addictive than nicotine - only heavy, regular users, or those from certain genetic backgrounds, are at real risk of becoming alcoholics. Heavy users may also destroy their livers.

Marijuana users, on the other hand, are often paranoid when they get behind the wheel, so they drive like grannies. Or if they tend to be nervous behind the wheel when sober, they calm down when high. I'm acquainted with individuals of both types. And it carries no physical addiction risk of all. I know folks who used to smoke pot regularly and just put it down one day, for one reason or another, and never looked back.

However, the bottom line is that none of this shit is good for anybody or the healthcare system that would have to reimburse the problems all of them cause.  I wouldn't be upset if all of these drugs were banned, and I speak as someone who uses one of them regularly.  

Banning vices (drugs, prostitution, etc.) just drives them underground and allows criminals to thrive as they service the illicit need. Prohibition in the 1920s basically gave the Mafia in America its start; they were pretty small-time before that. The "war on drugs" including marijuana has cost untold billions of dollars in direct costs of enforcement, countless man-hours of police and federal agents, hundreds of thousands of people incarcerated (at great taxpayer expense) for the nonviolent crime of possession, and many, many lives lost or ruined due to the criminal drug trade and the ruthless, sociopathic scum such trade attracts and breeds. Better to bring vices above ground: regulated, taxed and controlled.

[Tessera]

I know folks who used to smoke pot regularly and just put it down one day, for one reason or another, and never looked back.

And now you know another such person... ME.  

I was a heavy pot smoker throughout most of my youth. I started smoking pot back when I was around 13 years old (!) and finally stopped smoking it when I was 29 years old. On average, I would say that all during my pot smoking years, I consumed about an ounce or more of pot per week. So that's an ounce (or more) of pot every single week, over the span of roughly 16 years of regular and habitual use.

So why did I stop..? Simple: I got tired of the expense. When I first began smoking pot, I could pick up an ounce of decent Colombian for about 60 bucks or so, give or take. But by the time I got into my 20's, I was smoking "skunk weed" and similarly esoteric strains of Indica which were costing somewhere in the range of $200 - $300 per ounce. I just couldn't justify that kind of expense anymore... so one day, I finally announced to my ex-wife and my friends that I was quitting. I put my trusty old brass pipe into my dresser drawer... and it has sat there unused ever since.

I simply quit... cold turkey. And I haven't smoked pot ever since.

Did I have any withdrawal symptoms..? Well no... not really. I missed the feeling of being high for a little while, but it wasn't anything major. Quitting pot caused more of a psychological withdrawal than a physical one, at least in my case. And that feeling only lasted for about two weeks... if even than long. There was certainly none of the climbing the walls and going out of my mind type of withdrawal that I experienced when I quit drinking several years later.

What I'm trying to say here is that I have all sorts of personal experience with pot and several other drugs. Oodles. More than I care to remember, to be honest.

And of all the drugs that I have ever imbibed (or even abused in a few cases), pot was by far the least invasive and least addictive of them all. And by the term "invasive," I mean that it caused me the least amount of personal problems... aside from the afore-mentioned expense. It didn't alter my mood in extreme and negative ways (like alcohol does), it didn't degrade my ability to drive a car or operate heavy machinery (I was a forklift operator once), it didn't give me a chronic racking cough (like cigarettes do), it didn't cause me to feel any serious withdrawal symptoms whenever I ran out (unlike both cigarettes AND booze)... in fact, it didn't cause me any significant secondary symptoms of any kind.

When I smoked pot, I just got high... so what..? Sure... pot gave me "the munchies" and it also increased my libido slightly. I suppose we could refer to those symptoms as "side effects." Well, so far as the munchies go, that's not a problem for an eternally skinny ectomorph like me. And so far as the increased libido is concerned, let's just say that I kept the women in my life smiling.  

I will mention one other effect that habitual pot smoking has on people who smoke it. Being that THC is a hallucinogen, and being that hallucinogens often have the effect of causing the individual to THINK a lot more intensely about certain things than they normally would, I have found that habitual pot smoking can induce the user into experiencing an elevated mind state, in which they tend to have less respect for authoritarians and authority figures. Which in turn may very well be another reason for why the assholes who make our laws do not want pot to be legalized. Think about it.

[GameOn]

Well, sad to say, we lost here in California.  Prop 19 lost by a healthy margin.  Hopefully, it is a starting point to build off of.  It should be back on the ballot again in the next election.  Insteresting thing I heard (w/o verification) was that a poll showed about 45% support for decriminalization across the NATION.  That would put the whole US on par with the CA vote.  I think more of you lazy ass other states need to propositions of your own to legalize.  Part of the reason we lost here in CA was the dickhead US Attorney General saying he was going to vigorously assert federal law against us if we passed the Proposition.  If more states followed suit, the feds can't make CA out to be some rouge state. 

Then prohibit alcohol, if taxpayer money is what you are the most concerned about. Alcohol kills more people each year than all of the illegal drugs combined.

While you are absolutely right, from what I have observed it's kind of a non-starter argument.  A lot of people who oppose legalization of pot would also say, "Sure! Both alcohol and pot are dangerous.  You should be trying to criminalize both, not legalize both!"

Look, I'm totally with you.  But, if you're trying to convince everyone (or at least a perdominance of people) to legalize pot, you gotta stay away from alcohol analogies.  (Recognizing that you probably still don't drink).

On that note, here is a great article that I think you will get a kick out of.  Name says it all:

Alcohol more dangerous than crack or heroin
http://www.vancouversun.com/Alcohol+more+dangerous+than+crack+heroin+study+finds/3762783/story.html

[Tessera]

Look, I'm totally with you.  But, if you're trying to convince everyone (or at least a predominance of people) to legalize pot, you gotta stay away from alcohol analogies.

The point behind that comparison is that it is HYPOCRITICAL for people to oppose the legalization of marijuana, whilst simultaneously supporting the continued legalization of alcohol.

My position is that we should either legalize both -- or prohibit both. But to legalize the more dangerous drug and prohibit the less dangerous drug is downright irrational. It seethes with hypocrisy and double standards. And it is completely unfair to keep arresting pot smokers and slapping them with penalties and criminal records, when the corner liquor stores continue to flourish all over America. The pot smokers are actually choosing the -less- dangerous drug... and yet they are the ones being made into criminals by our bonehead legislators.

Like I said earlier in this thread: alcohol kills people every single day. But pot doesn't. Alcohol is horrendously addictive and it ruins lives all over the world by the millions. But pot doesn't. So why is booze legal, and pot is prohibited..? Obviously, the true reasons have absolutely nothing to do with any concerns about the individual's health. No... there is obviously something else at work here.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what that "something" might be. 

I just want people to understand that nearly all of the arguments that you have heard which are against the legalization of marijuana are completely saturated with hype, disinformation, gross exaggerations and just plain old MISGUIDED BULLSHIT.

Alcohol more dangerous than crack or heroin

From a physiological standpoint, that is absolutely true. Long-term alcohol abuse ravages all parts of the body simultaneously. Crack and heroin do not. Neither does pot.


Here... just watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHU1X1PED4

Yep.

[Will Never]

Heroin, crack and methamphetamine were found to be the most harmful to the individual. Alcohol, heroin, and crack were the most harmful to others.

I agree with the spirit of what that articles says.  Alcohol's damage to others far exceeds its damage to your body, which surfaces only with long term heavy abuse.  However, I am wondering if the reason for alcohol's higher collateral damage is that it is way more accessible than cocaine, meth, and heroin at this time.

[Tessera]

Will,

That question leads us into the irrational assertion made by some people that if we legalized pot and other drugs, then the number of people using them would increase.

If that is so, then why don't most people smoke cigarettes..? Cigarettes are a drug... a perfectly legal drug. In fact, they have always been legal. And they are also more addictive than heroin.

And yet, the number of smokers worldwide is actually DECREASING.

So to assume that by legalizing a particular drug, you will increase its use, is not supported by any actual facts. Alcohol is legal, but most people are not drunks. Tobacco is legal, but most people do not smoke.

And let's also remember that of the three... alcohol, tobacco and marijuana... the least harmful (and least addictive) of them all is pot. So once again, we're left with an irrational argument.

Watch that video that I linked... it's from an old stand-up routine by Bill Hicks. And in that performance, he pretty much sums up why some drugs are legal, and others aren't. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with any concerns about public health and safety. It's all about the MONEY. The current system is oppressive, immoral and revolting and it needs to end.

[Abd Al-Azrad]

The thing about Bill Hicks talking about what's good and bad for you is that Bill died of cancer which was caused by...  you guessed it if you said SMOKING.  But I certainly can agree that life would be easier if we all had to mellow out instead of being angry.  I'd support replacing alcohol with marijuana.  But I also have my doubts that could ever really happen.  Alcohol is the most profitable drug, also one of those truly addictive drugs.  Another one of those old expressions I have is "One of the things you shouldn't do is call an alcoholic a piss tank to his face."

A lot of people think that alcoholism only exists if the person drinks regularly every day, but addiction is addiction and the severity of the addiction doesn't make you any more or less addicted.  You can become addicted to any stimulant, including marijuana.  But that's one of the first things a marijuana smoker likes to spout, "You know I could quit at any time I wanted to, I just choose not to."  I know a guy who "quits" every other week.

[Tessera]

The thing about Bill Hicks talking about what's good and bad for you is that Bill died of cancer which was caused by...  you guessed it if you said SMOKING.

Bill Hicks died of pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is hereditary and is not caused by smoking. Look it up, if you doubt me.


Incidentally... comedian Andy Kaufman died from lung cancer... and he never smoked a day in his life.

When it comes to cancer, the world is not as cut-and-dried as you apparently believe it to be.

As a matter of f act, the majority of cigarette smokers do NOT die from smoking. That's the truth.

The number one cause of cancer is... genetics. 

[Will Never]

The biggest risk factor of all is age.  The older you get, the more likely you are to develop most kinds of cancer.   The reason for that is due to cancer's etiology: DNA damage.  The older you get, the more DNA damage you accumulate from external factors over time.  

Probably the cancer with the biggest genetic component is breast cancer.

[Tessera]

The biggest risk factor of all is age.  The older you get, the more likely you are to develop most kinds of cancer.  

Yes, although not for the exact reasons you stated. The actual reason is because our immune system tends to become less and less effective as we age.

Right now, you have cancer cells in your body. We all do. They tend to pop up here and there as a normal consequence of a "proofreading error," when our cells undergo normal mitotic division. Normally, those "bad cells" are detected very soon by our immune system, and they are then destroyed by white blood cells (and antibodies).

But as we age, that mechanism tends to slow down -- just like everything else in our bodies. And sometimes, cancer cells can have the chance to "take root," for lack of a better term... and become malignant.

So the most significant relationship between aging and cancer has to do with diminished effectiveness of the body's immune system. It is less able to suppress and destroy cancer cells.

Your overall chances of developing a specific type of cancer are largely determined by genetics, as I said in my previous post. Pancreatic cancer, which sadly killed Bill Hicks, tends to run in families. Former President Jimmy Carter lost several members of his immediate family to pancreatic cancer, for example. Its cause is chiefly hereditary.

[Will Never]

But as we age, that mechanism tends to slow down -- just like everything else in our bodies. And sometimes, cancer cells can have the chance to "take root," for lack of a better term... and become malignant.

Indeed.  And even worse, the abnormal cells simply "evolve" to a point so that WBCs no longer recognize them as foreign.  That's how benign tumors can become malignant.  The immune system can limit the spread of the abnormal cells but continued division results in more mutations.  Once some of the cells lose whatever trait is allowing the body to recognize them as abnormal, they continue to thrive while the benign cells die.  Eventually, all that's left are those malignant cells which are then free to proliferate unabated. 

[Tessera]

Very true.

Well anyway, I am not aware of any clinical research which shows an abnormally high rate of cancers being associated with marijuana. No more so than with any other kind of smoke... including the smoke from urban smog and industrial pollution. Which, incidentally, is a very real and serious danger in this day and age.

In short, we're not going to see a sudden increase in exotic cancers as a direct consequence of legalizing pot. There is no hard evidence which would support such an assertion.

An ironic side note is the fact that marijuana has been clinically proven to be of significant benefit to cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy. It tends to lessen their suffering.