Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
420
If I know anything about Ricochet members, it’s that you love your weed. Half of you are probably baked right now. I can’t attend a member meetup without tripping over at least a dozen bongs and hookahs. (I don’t know how Peter Robinson gets the smell out of his fair-trade hemp poncho.)
So, happy 4/20, man. For that tiny minority of non-weedheads on Ricochet, today’s the unofficial holiday for marijuana and those who love it. The date is a reference to 4:20, which was the time of day a group of smokers called The Waldos would blaze up in 1971:
The Waldos designated the Louis Pasteur statue on the grounds of San Rafael High School as their meeting place, and 4:20 p.m. as their meeting time. The Waldos referred to this plan with the phrase “4:20 Louis.” Multiple failed attempts to find the crop eventually shortened their phrase to simply “4:20”, which ultimately evolved into a codeword that the teens used to mean marijuana-smoking in general. Mike Edison says that Steven Hager of High Times was responsible for taking the story about the Waldos to “mind-boggling, cult like extremes” and “suppressing” all other stories about the origin of the term.
Hager wrote “Stoner Smart or Stoner Stupid?” in which he called for 4:20 p.m. to be the socially accepted hour of the day to consume cannabis. He attributes the early spread of the phrase to Grateful Dead followers, who were also linked to the city of San Rafael.
Lots of Grateful Dead fans like drugs? I learn something new every day.
Marijuana is now having a larger impact on American culture due to the legalization efforts in Colorado, Washington state, and the District of Columbia. Prominent politicians in both parties are calling for the easing of restrictions and, at the very least, a decriminalization of cannabis.
Wired magazine put together an interesting video on the state of marijuana in the U.S:
I’ve never been a fan of weed and traditionally cared little about its legalization. I don’t smoke and none of my friends did either (that I knew of), so why bother changing the law? Booze is already legal; do we really need another substance to lower productivity in this lousy economy?
Admittedly, much of my opposition to weed was a cultural thing. I hate Phish concerts, dreadlocks on white guys, and Seth Rogen movies. And don’t get me started on the stomach-churning smell. Sorry hippies, but if you want to escape reality for a few hours, down a tumbler of scotch since that’s my drug of choice.
As I’ve gotten more libertarian over the years, I realized I was a big, fat hypocrite on the issue. I don’t use tobacco, eat kale or listen to Maroon 5, but I don’t want any of them outlawed except Maroon 5. Who am I to use the power of the state against people who like to smoke weed?
What does Ricochet think about the stuff? Should it be legalized, decriminalized or kept completely illegal? Has your viewpoint changed over the past few years?
Published in General
Sanctioning people for legal activities isn’t really a problem, though. It is pretty interesting in my own job (dependency, with the occasional criminal case) how many people come into court saying “but it’s legal now!” Well, sort of is, sort of isn’t. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you can drive, for instance. Also, there is this thing called “pre-release conditions,” that pretty much applies to anybody out on bail for anything. That generally entails a flat prohibition on drugs AND alcohol. When parents are involved in dependency cases, they are often told that they cannot drink at all. They have to take UA’s to prove that they’re clean and sober.
The fact is, when you have state involvement, you’re going to have penalties for all sorts of activities, whether they’re legal or not. Frankly, I see that as an argument in favor of legalization rather than against it. In my opinion, it is a net increase in personal liberty. You have a choice whether to be involved with the government, generally. You can opt out of any and all state aid, and even though it doesn’t always seem this way, criminal activity is still a choice. I don’t mind having a heavy-handed state in those areas if it means that we have more freedom for law-abiding citizens.
I don’t think you’re going to make much headway here, Fred. The differences between things like LSD, Heroin, and Alcohol (even, to a lesser extent, weed) are just too stark. The vast majority of alcohol users (myself included) do not get fall-down drunk. They will never in their lives get alcohol-poisoning drunk. In fact, the “high” of alcohol becomes less pleasant as you get more drunk. Not so with those other drugs. There is no such thing as just having one little shot of heroin or one little drop of LSD. You take those drugs to get as high as possible, and the negative effects (well. perceived negative effects) decrease the higher you get. Physiologically, they’re simply in totally different classes. You are comparing apples and oranges when you keep coming back to alcohol, so that you may as well be talking about coffee. Perhaps we could get someone like DocJay to come in here and give the actual medical differences between these things, because it seems silly to ignore them. Or maybe George Savage.
All of that does not diminish what I think are very good arguments in favor of MJ legalization, though.
There’s nothing like a good “should weed be legal” debate to highlight the effects of decades of cannabis demonization upon the masses.
In this argument we must always remember that it’s available now to everyone on a thriving black market that the DEA and all law enforcement is powerless to stop, or even curtail. It is in fact corrupting the judicial system.
Enforcement in the face of this massive amount of drug use is similar to lions hunting gazelles, they catch the slowest ones every time. Except that drug dealers and cartels are not innocent gazells -they are are strong and powerful thugs who must safeguard their networks. Law enforcement is nipping at their heesls, but only catches the least ruthless, least connected, least intelligent. They are doing nothing but thinning the herd of weaker networks, resulting in stronger more ruthless networks thriving.
If a law isn’t working, then the law is a bad law. That is, you could say that pornography is harmful yoiu could try to outlaw it, but you won’t ever be able to stop it and you won’t be able to keep someone who wants it from having it. You can go around endlessly arresting horny men who have transgressed, and their ‘porno-dealers,’ but unl;ess you are making real progress, it doesn’t accomplish the supposed goal of the law. If you have to incarcerate too many people, or if you can pick and choose who you incarcerate on an ad hoc basis, you are disrupting your society in an extremely negative way.
Laws should not be so ambitious as to try change human behavior. That’s not what they are for. Laws are there for an orderly society, and they must conform to the mores of that society. Every totalitarian state has tried to do this, and it always ends up with millions killed and millions more in concentration camps.
The drug war, more than any other policy, has put America on the path of totalitarianism. The argument is much more important than making jokes about Phish and Maroon 5.
Okay, so two deaths linked to marijuana in how long of a time span?
Okay. So as to the cookie case, when the products in question were tested, they were shown to contain as much THC as was on the label. The clerk who sold the cookie warned the person who bought it to cut it into six pieces.
As to the murder case, you can link it to marijuana. But claiming its because of it is a case of post hoc ergo proctor hoc.
It’s not a sanction Fred it’s a quid pro quo. That happens on business over legal behavior all the time.
It’s not a punishment. It’s a deal.
Ryan M-“I don’t think you’re going to make much headway here, Fred. The differences between things like LSD, Heroin, and Alcohol (even, to a lesser extent, weed) are just too stark. The vast majority of alcohol users (myself included) do not get fall-down drunk. They will never in their lives get alcohol-poisoning drunk. In fact, the “high” of alcohol becomes less pleasant as you get more drunk. Not so with those other drugs.”
There are a lot of half-truths here. The high of weed also gets less pleasant for the majority of users after a certain point, the other drugs also. It is difficult to control LSD doses in an illegal environment, but the goal is NOT to get as high as possible, believe me. Even with heroin, there is “too high” and there’s dead, so heroin users must also be careful in dosing.
Further, these three drugs are very different, as you say, and I suspect you are using a different standard for alcohol than you are with other drugs. Alcohol, being accepted generally, gets to hide behind the absurd notion that people drink for ____ but not to get drunk. People smoke pot to get ____ but not to get ‘baked’ or ‘zombied’ or whatever. The point is, people drink to feel the effects of alcohol and it’s usually better that these effects are not pronounced, especially when alcohol is concerned (it’s dangerous) This is not equvalent with weed. In the case of heroin, it’s only dangerous to the person who uses too much.
Too much LSD can be dangerous to others, but usually not.
It’s not a real argument if one side can cite the gravest of consequenses using outliers in regard to drug use, and when real statistics are used about alcohol, casually say, most people don’t get alcohol poisoning or get falling down drunk. Pick one or the other.
First, watch yer French! (HA!) You can’t say the murder case is not a product of the marijuana since you are ignorant of the man’s medical and mental history beforehand. Only family and friends would know if the drug altered his personality to the point of homicide. You don’t want that to be true so you dismiss it.
But, that said, we all know that there are happy drunks and mean drunks, too. I made my own family confession just a few days ago.
The truth is that Colorado’s law for packaging and labeling is less about an informed consumer than it is about covering the state’s rear when it comes to lawsuits. Take this mandatory warning: “This product was produced without regulatory oversight for health, safety, or efficacy.”
Potency tests are required although I don’t think the new consumer has any idea what they say. One thing that is not required is a contaminate test. All you have to do is slap another label on it that says, “The marijuana product contained within this package has not been tested for contaminants.”
Except that I’m not doing that at all. If you’re trying to sincerely argue that Heroin and Meth are comparable to alcohol, then I’m not sure there is any point in having the discussion. I was actually arguing in favor of Marijuana (even though people smoke to get high, pretty much always, as distinctly opposed to alcohol), but saying that I have no problem with keeping many drugs illegal.
I recognize that we are basically on the same side on this issue, but that doesn’t measn your comment is accurate. I’m not trying to argue heroin and meth should be legal -at least not here – I’m saying that your response to Fred’s statistics -tallking about deaths caused by alcohol overdose (and other factors) is immensly greater than deaths attributable to weed ingestion/overdose. Your response was basically most people don’t overdose on alcohol or get “falling down drunk”. The fact remains that alcohol is much more lethal, by a factor of 114 according to the video, than weed.
What standard would you like to use? Most people – in fact NONE, (or maybe two?) die from weed or get falling down ‘stoned’ from weed.
You say yourself these drugs are all different, so you can’t apply the same standards to them as though they are the same in effect or in health matters, which I think you are doing.
Anyone who says they don’t drink to get ‘high’ is lying to themselves. The effect of relaxation of alcohol is a ‘high’.
So you are one of those O’Doul’s drinkers? I finally encountered one! I’ve seen O’Doul’s in liquor stors but never knew anyone who used the stuff.
Imagine, four pages of comments already!
I hate the stuff and will stay away from it legal or not. However, the overwhelming failure of the War on Drugs convinces me that a free nation should not militarize against its citizens in a optional pursuit. The prohibition of alcohol, a much more dangerous drug, with its subsequent black market and attendant crime increase is lesson enough. We can do more good with it legal than illegal.
Anyway, Buckley was right. His argument in the 70s convinced me then. To me, the conservative position should be to stop the war on drugs and to focus on public policy that will yield better results.
I like to drink. I enjoy a tasty IPA or pint of stout. A nice margarita is pleasant with a good burger or Mexican meal. Papa Toad loves to make gin and tonics in the warm weather. We like rum in our egg nog.
In my lifetime, I also have enjoyed some kind bud. A toke or two on a sunny day at the beach is a pleasant joy, and the idea that weed must make you lazy and desire to eat Doritos is belied by the sight of skiers stomping down a mogul run after riding the gondola.
Some people drink and get fat. Some people abuse weed.
The state should not waste its time and my money going after either alcohol drinkers or weed tokers, unless they are endangering others.
More people are killed by drunk drivers than by stoned drivers.
There are several problems with this debate. Proponents make claims based on studies of an illegal activity which relies on self reporting. That in and of itself is problematic.
Even the few long term studies are inconclusive because THC levels have increased dramatically over the last 20 years.
The most reliable of the studies put out do not indicate marijuana use is safe. The argument is always in its comparison to other controlled substances. It can cause a six-fold increase in schizophrenia, a 19% higher chance of lung disorders compared to non-smokers, and there is evidence that it has an immunosuppressive effect and should actually be avoided by persons with AIDS and HIV. It may lessen the effects of chemo but actually hurt the body’s ability to fight disease.
So … safety is the standard?
Pretty much. That’s why your favorite restaurants and supermarkets have health inspections, since policing food poising after the fact is kind of useless.
You think that opposing SSM makes the right look silly. Opposing pure drug and food laws even more so.
You don’t think that people drink alcohol in relatively small amounts? At virtually every place I go where people are drinking – as an adult, anyway – the vast majority of people stop drinking even before they would need a ride home, much less before they are fall-down drunk. What I’m saying is that there is a much larger gray area than with other types of drugs (even MJ). My comment was not in response to Fred saying that people can die from alcohol; I’m well aware of the dangers of alcohol. Nor was I suggesting that Marijuana is the same as those other drugs. Quite the opposite. What I was saying is that we cannot continue comparing Heroin/Meth to Alcohol because they’re simply not in the same class.
Purity laws are different from prohibition.
According to Twitter reports (so, yeah, take it for what it’s worth) at least 64 people from yesterday’s 4/20 gathering in Vancouver were admitted to one local hospital from consuming marijuana in food.
Ah, but as with so many of these issues, often the actual debate boils down to which level of government is best-equipped to perform the task.
Opposing federal drug and food “purity” laws may be entirely justified if state and local authorities can do a better job.
In a nation of over 300 million people, cultural standards of “purity” may indeed vary between jurisdictions.
(Don’t get me started on the question of health/safety/environmental “inspectors” having the right to search private property without a warrant…)
a) “Move Like Jagger” is a guilty pleasure of mine. I hate that I like that song.
b) In many ways, the power of the state will be used more on weed smokers after “legalization”, because administrative regulators don’t need to meet nearly the same standards of proof as does criminal law enforcement agencies.
Just look at tobacco. It’s not a criminal offense to possess the substance, but the number of places where one can legally light up (or even purchase the product) decreases every year.
Up here in the People’s Republic of Ontariostan, all tobacco advertising is banned. That includes a corner store merely letting customers know which brands are available, or their prices! In fact, all tobacco products must be kept behind nondescript steel cabinets, and the clerk isn’t even allowed to advise a customer on the selection. The customer must already know the name of the brand they want, and the size of the pack they want, and they must ask for it by name.
(The only exception is for specialized tobacconists, where one must be over 18 years of age just to walk through the door.)
Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that “legalization” frees marijuana enthusiasts from the cudgel of the state. A health & safety inspector can potentially ruin a business-owner’s day even more easily than a cop. The cop, after all, needs probable cause.
I don’t mean to inflame the argument (fwiw, I think Fred always takes legalization arguments too far), but I have trouble understanding these arguments from science. What does a “six-fold” increase in schizophrenia mean?
Does it mean among the population of regular pot users, there are six times as many schizophrenics as in the normal population? Is it cause or effect? Do we know?
Does it mean, if your risk of developing schizophrenia is 1% or 10%, if you smoke pot your risk is suddenly 6% or 60%? Is it a one-time use that increases the risk or regular use?
Hope I’m not being obtuse, I’m just trying to understand.
I also don’t think comparing pot smokers to non-smokers is a fair comparison wrt lung disorders.
I also find the use of outliers to be problematic. Alcohol consumed during pregnancy causes fetal alcohol syndrome. It’s a horrible effect on an innocent bystander that the law doesn’t address as far as I know. That some people suffer ill effects isn’t a “good enough” standard to deny others the use of a product.
Indeed, going solely by the criteria of the Controlled Substances Act, tobacco should really be a Schedule I controlled substance, and alcohol should be at least a Schedule III controlled substance.
Note that the Controlled Substances Act doesn’t even take the potential harm/toxicity of a substance into account.
Western – If they take the general population and find that there are 5 schizophrenics in 1o,ooo then there would be 30 in the same number of pot smokers.
And of course it’s fair to compare pot smokers to non-smokers since they judge tobacco the same way. That’s elementary control group science.
The Muppets version is way better.
Define “relatively small amounts”. I would agree with alcohol having a larger gray area since I’ve seen a lot of variance in alcohol tolerance levels, depending on the person, what they’re drinking, and other factors. Not having dealt with marijuana, I’d be interested to know if the same rules apply there.
Two observations, here – My principal objection to the legalization effort is that advocates almost invariably propose that the government tax usage, a’la tobacco and liquor, yet have no answer to the objection that the government is now directly benefiting from behaviors that are fundamentally unhealthful. I have yet to see any proof that as tobacco use has declined, that government taxation rates have declined also. In fact, just the opposite: tobacco is just as addicting to the government as it is to individuals. Once vices such as smoking and drinking became revenue streams, then they never go away. Ever.
Second. As a 1981 graduate of San Rafael High School, San Rafael CA (Go Bulldogs!), I can attest to the truth of particular details in the original post. There really is (or was, last time I visited) a stature of Louis Pasteur in the front of the school. As a freshman, I had a senior track man tell me the story behind the “4:20” flashing on the scoreboard at track practice on April 20th, 1978. Interesting being an incidental observer to a bit of history…
< devil’s advocate mode = on >
Yabbut, you do concede that tobacco use has declined.
The defenders of vice taxes would argue that’s evidence that punitive tobacco taxes “work”.
< devil’s advocate mode = off >
Of course there’s a huge correlation vs. causation question, but that’s neither here nor there, right? ;-)
Here is where you and I differ. Once we eliminate the welfare state, I’m fine with legalizing all drugs and allowing 300 million uneducated immigrants to enter our country. On the other hand, once we legalize all drugs and allow 300 million uneducated immigrants to enter our country, you are fine with eliminating the welfare state.
Well, except that tobacco is a “legal” product, so it clearly isn’t really judged the same way as marijuana.
First of all, I know people disagree with me here, but there is such a thing as responsible use of marijuana. Smoking too much or too often is not responsible.
My main fear is with kids. So much of the media and music that kids listen to (especially rap) espouses carefree pot smoking. Kids will need more information about how abuse of marijuana, especially as a young person, will probably make them more unhappy overall and may even cause stunted brain development. Eventually, my hope would be that kids have role-models of adults who smoke pot responsibly so there can be more honest discussions about it. Lumping pot in with meth and saying all drugs are bad isn’t a good method.