Digging a Deeper Hole
David Frum writes:
(CNN) -- Last week, I joined the board of a new organization to oppose marijuana legalization: Smart Approaches to Marijuana. The group is headed by former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy…
Oh dear.
In no particular order, marijuana prohibition is a moral disaster, a practical failure, a colossal waste of public funds, a destroyer of lives, a gift to criminals, an insult to the notion of individual responsibility, and a brutal assault on the idea of limited government.
It’s grotesquely appropriate, in a way, that this new group is headed by Patrick Kennedy.
The Huffington Post reports:
Kennedy admits to having smoked pot but also said that, as an asthma sufferer, he "found other ways to get high."
In 2006, he crashed his car into a security barrier in Washington, D.C., and soon after sought treatment for drug dependency. He said he was addicted to the pain reliever Oxycontin at that time and suffered from alcoholism. He added that he has been continuously sober for nearly two years.
Patrick Kennedy is to be congratulated for getting his life together.
He is, however, to be condemned for suggesting that the legal system of the United States should be organized in a way to suit the needs of a small minority unable to cope with the temptation presented by a relatively innocuous plant.
It should also be noted that, as described in the Huffington Post, Kennedy’s own problems were with a prescription drug and with alcohol. The former is, under certain conditions, legal, and the latter is freely available for anyone over the (ludicrously advanced) age of 21.
Should alcohol be banned too?
David Frum goes on to point out that marijuana comes with health risks. He’s right. Their extent can be debated, but not their existence, even if (unlike the case, say, with alcohol) nobody has ever died of an overdose of this particular drug.
Ban pot for the under-18s by all means (and have penalties for those that inhale and drive too), but everyone else should be free to decide for themselves whether weed is a risk that they want to run. Some—Patrick Kennedy types—will make the wrong decision—and they should be helped back on to the right path when they do, but to assume that most people are incapable of deciding this relatively trivial matter for themselves is not only an insult, but a further step down the road to the infantilization of a society that once knew how to think for itself.
- Comment (64)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (23)
Comments:
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
You had me at "David Frum writes ...."
Aug '12
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
This is an issue that we need to embrace. It is one which allows us to unite the libertarian wing of the party with the pro-family side of the party. The illegal drug culture fuels the gang warfare in inner cities which destroys families. Yeah, perhaps a few more suburban kids may try marijuana because it loses its stigma, but that will come at the decimation of a root cause of our inner cities' continuing rot.
Aug '12
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
This last post is by no means an endorsement of hard drugs, but rather how dealing marijuana and becoming initiated into the illegal drug culture with that drug can be addressed in a saner/more effective manner than the one we are currently practicing.
May '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
On the other hand, the illegality of marijuana attaches to it a societal stigma, which surely discourages its use.
Society functions better with that stigma in place, imo -- which keeps me hesitant to embrace what otherwise seems a compelling case for legalization.
Jun '12
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
The war on drugs has been a total disaster. The majority of gun deaths are drug/gang related since there are huge profits possible because drugs are illegal. The prisons are full up with drug offenders, most of whom are not a threat to their fellow citizens. Vast sums are wasted prosecuting and incarcerating drug offenders, protecting borders from drug importation and enforcing drug laws within the country.
Liberals want to legalize drugs so they can regulate and tax them. That is what Liberals do - regulate and tax everything.
Why is it that conservatives who believe in smaller government and personal responsibility abandon their principles when it comes to drugs? I just don't get it.
Apr '11
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
I don't think there is any support out there for legalizing meth, heroin, or crack. I could be convinced that the debilitating effects of marijuana are no worse than a few glasses of alcohol and should therefore not be treated differently, but the aforementioned drugs strike me as extremely debilitating and dangerous to consume.
Mar '11
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Valiuth
I don't think there is any support out there for legalizing meth, heroin, or crack.
This is a give an inch, take a mile thing. Once pot is down, next comes the fight to free the smack.
Sep '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Frum's best argument to his kids is that it's illegal. That's not saying much. The idea that pot is stigmatized is an absolute joke. Its illegal like speeding is illegal, but like speeding it has little stigma.
And pot isn't nearly so bad for one's health or future prospects as getting arrested for it.
This tautology, and willful blindness of the effects on individuals and society of the ongoing drug war, suggests the possibility that the lack of smoking pot causes brain damage.
Consider this: Gambling is bad for individuals and society. Not that many people were gamblers before it was legalized, but it was so easy to participate and so difficult to control they simply legalized it. Now its everywhere. Is it that bad? Well, yes for some and it has ruined many a family. But imagine that the state tried to control gambling in the same manner they do drugs.
They are creating more problems, and much bigger ones, while deterring a tiny percentage. And of course the deterrence is more effective on the children of elites than the population at large.
Sep '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
David Frum's kids have a harder time getting tobacco than weed. Frum's nice suburban kids might just be too afraid because it is illegal. However, if one of his kids does smoke weed and gets caught, the consequences are very bad indeed.
There are many who think it worthwhile to "get guns off the street". Do they have any idea how the huge black market created by the perfect storm of illegality and inability of law enforcement to control but a small percentage of ongoing illegal drug activity fosters not only a plethora of guns, but guns in the hands of violent criminals?
Most of the people the police actually catch are the least savvy, the least ruthless, the least connected to corrupt officials. Not only are they not adequately controlling drugs and the criminal element, they are picking low-hanging fruit and basically eliminating competition for bigger, badder drug dealers.
Frum can tell his kids, "If you smoke weed you will get caught and suspended from school and that's going to hurt your chances of getting into Dartmouth" That's not a sufficient reason to perpetuate this ridiculousness.
Jul '11
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
I absolutely support pot legalization. I do not support harder drug legalization although those battles have been a failure also.
May '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Yes, as long as it Jesus and Maria, LaShawn and Towanda, Jim Bob and Summer Rae, the war on drugs and ever tougher sentences sounds great to upper middle-class elites.
When it's Ashley and Jordan getting sent to Stateville and Dwight [infamous prisons here in the Peoples Republic of Illinois] and making interesting new friends for 5-to-10 years suddenly it doesn't sound like such a good idea.
Mar '11
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
As I've said before, the question of the legalization or prohibition of any substance is a prudential balancing act between the principles of freedom and public order.
I'm not a pot smoker, nor would I be were it legalized, but based on observation I think it perfectly possible for a user to have a joint on a Friday night and not be a threat to public order or their neighbors. The same cannot be said for many other illegal substances. Based on such considerations, I suppose that on pot I favor federalism and do not object to states and localities making their own decisions on the matter and observing the consequences.
Even still, while I favor a draw down in areas of the drug war (and prison reform and reform mandatory sentencing guidelines), we should also recognize that it is not as if ending the prohibition on the streetside sale of crack cocaine (which I don't favor) is suddenly going to turn dealers into suit-wearing, respectably bourgeois business owners and community leaders. The pathologies that lead to gang violence aren't going to vanish by ending the drug war; it's a fallacy to suggest that.
Edited on January 10, 2013 at 11:44amJul '11
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
As an aside, there's nothing to congratulate Kennedy for. You don't congratulate someone for doing the things they should have been doing, all along. In his case, not setting his life on fire is what he should have been doing all along. It's like congratulating someone for making sure their kids ate today.
You're supposed to do that. As Chris Rock might say.
Jul '11
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Crow's Nest:
Even still, while I favor a draw down in areas of the drug war (and prison reform and reform mandatory sentencing guidelines), we should also recognize that it is not as if ending the prohibition on the streetside sale of crack cocaine (which I don't favor) is suddenly going to turn dealers into suit-wearing, respectably bourgeois business owners and community leaders. The pathologies that lead to gang violence aren't going to vanish by ending the drug war; it's a fallacy to suggest that. · 42 minutes ago
There are a lot of great arguments for making pot legal. A weak one is the "it will reduce crime" argument. As the Nest of Crows has ably pointed out, making pot legal won't suddenly turn dealers into ice cream parlor owners, saying to themselves "Well, I guess now I have to straighten up and fly right".
Would legality reduce the kinds of violent crime associated with drug trafficking? Absolutely. To a significant degree? Let me take a wild guess here and say "No".
Oct '12
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Not making an argument for or against legalization. Just pointing out that even casual, but regular, use of weed over time changes, in negative ways, two important areas of the brain--motivation centers and working memory. Working memory is the skill we use to know where we are in a multi-step process or when we get interrupted in the process of executing a series of steps (long division is an example). Motivation includes not just motivation to achieve, but initiation of action steps in an organized plan.
There are proponents of marijuana use for ADHD, pain, and chemotherapy or medication induced nausea and vomiting. There are also viable treatments that don't have some of the long-term consequences that marijuana does. THC available in pill form, for those cases (typically nausea/vomiting in my experience) where other treatments aren't working.
So, while legalization does provide some interesting answers from the perspective of the war on drugs, it also poses some difficulties for regular users that go beyond legal problems.
Nov '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
We've already made our choice here in WA, and I am at best ambivalent, since I think we have deeper problems to wrestle with. But I will say this: every pot head I know is, well, a pot head. I don't know anyone who just smokes pot from time to time, but I know tons of people who drink a beer every so often, or have a whiskey and a cigar every so often. There IS a social stigma to pot smoking. How else would Cheech Marin gotten famous? Every person I know who smokes pot is an addict, pure and simple. Oh, I wasn't quite as ambivalent as I let on. Also, I posted this using the new Ricochet App for iPad. Got that Rob? ;-)
Nov '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
To Chris' #14: I have a nephew served 2 years in prison for robbing a drug house at gun point. He was after the weed. No he wasn't! He was after money for his heroine addiction. I got nothin' but my intuition as evidence, but I would bet my last dime bag that most drug related violence is about the really good stuff.Disclaimer: that bit about my last dime bag was humor. I have never used drugs, especially not when I was in the military. Nope. "That ain't me, I'm from buffalo."
May '11
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
This is a slippery slope. Legalize marijuana and the next thing you know people will be smoking cigarettes. Gateway drug indeed.
May '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Franco: ..... The idea that pot is stigmatized is an absolute joke. Its illegal like speeding is illegal, but like speeding it has little stigma......
At Thanksgiving dinner with his girlfriend's family, a young man is far more apt to confess to routinely driving 5 mph over the speed limit than routinely taking bong hits.
I'm not saying preserving the stigma is sufficient reason to keep it illegal, but it's something to consider. There's no question we'd end up with a more permissive culture over time with legalization.
Does "anything goes" Amsterdam work? I don't know -- I've never been there. As conservatives, though, we should be cautious, take a good look at places where "anything goes" (weed, prostitution, whatever) has been tried, and see how society functions.
I suspect the evidence is not slam dunk. But again, I'm not sure.
Sep '12
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Scott Reusser
At Thanksgiving dinner with his girlfriend's family, a young man is far more apt to confess to routinely driving 5 mph over the speed limit than routinely taking bong hits.
I'm not saying preserving the stigma is sufficient reason to keep it illegal, but it's something to consider. There's no question we'd end up with a more permissive culture over time with legalization.
Does "anything goes" Amsterdam work? I don't know -- I've never been there. As conservatives, though, we should be cautious, take a good look at places where "anything goes" (weed, prostitution, whatever) has been tried, and see how society functions.
I suspect the evidence is not slam dunk. But again, I'm not sure.
OK, but you don't seem to be taking into account (at least enough) the massive violence and death and huge costs associated when protecting the stigma. Would you be fine with calling it illegal, to signal your disapproval, but then dropping all enforcement?
And it's my understanding Amsterdam is far from "anything goes." It is a European state after all.