Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 9:58am

Steven Crowder and Bad Arguments for Pot Decriminalization

Via the Right Scoop comes this video from Steven Crowder, exposing some of the more ridiculous argument from those who support the decriminalization (or legalization) or marijuana:

Please note that Crowder does not address the constitutional issue surrounding federal marijuana prohibition. In fact he goes out of his way to emphasize that there are legitimate arguments to be made that this is not an issue that justifies federal intervention. But as the video highlights, none of the people he interviewed brought up the constitutional argument. Instead, his interviewees relied on tropes that are untrue. He also makes a point about prohibition that I have often made: namely, that the 18th Amendment prohibited the use of a substance that was already legal and widely used by most Americans. Marijuana legalization would make available a previously criminalized substance used by a minority of Americans.

Like Crowder, I believe that the constitutional arguments against federal marijuana prohibition are, at a minimum, compelling. But if you are going to take up the cause of decriminalization, at least make better arguments than these people.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
114 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bonchamps
Wednesday, November 28, AD 2012 4:12pm

Ok. Well, seeing as how I’ve been discussing this on my own latest post, I may as well move the discussion here.

There are many arguments against marijuana prohibition. What I find fallacious is the idea that all of these arguments are merely “tropes.” What these kids are expressing, I believe, is based on their own personal and seemingly extensive experience with the drug itself. You can say it isn’t scientifically accurate, but that’s not quite the same as saying that it has no connection to reality.

When you have teenagers admitting they are regular users of the drug who obviously aren’t psychotic, it isn’t so easy to sell the argument that marijuana always and necessarily causes some sort of permanent damage. I smoked it myself in high school and so did virtually my entire peer group. Very few psychotics in that group. Most of us used it casually and lightly at parties; some were dedicated potheads who probably weren’t too brilliant to begin with.

Ultimately I reject the idea of a nanny state. Let’s say marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol. My personal experience doesn’t bear this out (having witnessed and been involved in dozens of violent situations due to alcohol and never one related to pot), but I’ll accept the statistical findings. It still isn’t as dangerous as crack or meth, not even close. It might cause a person to have certain problems but when people compare marijuana to alcohol, they’re thinking of the danger posed to society, which in most people’s experience is about equal. So I don’t believe there is any moral imperative to outlaw the drug. Using coercion to force people to make the right choices is a violation of human dignity.

That said, I also believe in localism. If cities, counties and states want to control a substance, I don’t object. In this pluralistic federal republic we ought to be able to find alternatives if we don’t like the way things work in one area.

Finally, I object to the use of my tax dollars for prosecuting people who are doing what I believe they ought to have a right to do. Even if people don’t end up in prison for marijuana use, their lives can be disrupted in all sorts of ways by the state. In keeping with theme of my post, organic, natural society imposes penalties on irresponsible drug users as well – drug tests by current and potential employers have deterred far more people from smoking pot that I have I known than Puritanical arguments against intoxication. I do believe that “freedom works”, and that a free society can still impose costs and risks upon such behavior that are probably far more fair and effective than the intrusive nanny state.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, November 28, AD 2012 8:40pm

Spicoli, you might discipline yourself by composing a piece of commentary which does not make use of the first person singular.

Bonchamps
Wednesday, November 28, AD 2012 9:40pm

Oh, that means a lot coming from the most pedantic and pompous blowhard to ever grace these comboxes.

Foxfier
Admin
Wednesday, November 28, AD 2012 10:29pm

. He also makes a point about prohibition that I have often made: namely, that the 18th Amendment prohibited the use of a substance that was already legal and widely used by most Americans. Marijuana legalization would make available a previously criminalized substance used by a minority of Americans.

It’s worse than that– one is a plant used by a small number of folks, the other is a substance that can be made on accident with most food stuffs, has been used in all but a few known cultures and has been seriously proposed as a reason that civilization exists.

Totally. Not. Similar.

Bonchamps
Wednesday, November 28, AD 2012 10:57pm

Why does the number of people even matter?

I don’t care if only 10 people want to smoke pot. The question still remains, should they be persecuted by the state for doing so?

Windy
Windy
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 2:00am

Foxfier, marijuana was legal and used by many, many societies for many, many reasons and in many, many ways for 12,000 years under the name of hemp or cannabis. It was only made criminal, and began being commonly called marijuana, in 1937 and the criminalization was done by a conspiracy between Anslinger, Hearst and DuPont, for the reason of greed, to demonize it to congress and the American people. Marijuana “is one of the safest therapeutic substances known to man, and safer than most common vegetables” – DEA Judge Young, 1988. People really should do ALL the research before discussing this subject.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 5:30am

Plus, they can tax the hell out of weed.

“Prohibition” likely is worse than the scourge it is meant to end.

The US may as well devolve into the “Land of the Lotus-Eaters.” See The Odyssey.

Youths might as well “turn on and tune out.” Once Obama’s completed the confiscations and/or destruction of the evil, unjust private sector, there will be nothing for you.

Roger_Murdock
Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 5:39am

Pretty weak tea. Let’s take a few of the arguments made in the video one at a time and see how they hold up.

Hypocrisy – “some people support legalizing cannabis, but want to ban big gulps!” I suppose that’s true, but the problem with most of these left vs. right hypocrisy charges is that they can be turned around on the accuser. The “conservatives” who think that, e.g., a mere tax on soda would be an outrageous example of the “nanny-state” run amok, but who have no problem with the complete criminal prohibition of cannabis are also hypocrites. You either believe in liberty or you don’t.

Cannabis vs. alcohol – sorry, but you’re way off on this one. Cannabis is not just safer than alcohol. It’s much, MUCH safer, and by every objective metric. Alcohol is toxic. People can and do die from alcohol overdose every year. And because alcohol has a large number of dangerous drug interactions, it also plays a role in many fatal poly-drug overdoses. Cannabis is non-toxic. It is incapable of causing a fatal overdose. Alcohol is the third-leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. It turns out that drinking poison isn’t good for you. Cannabis use is not associated with increased mortality. Alcohol is addictive. In fact, you can be so addicted to alcohol that you can literally die FROM WITHDRAWAL. Cannabis is not physically addictive in any meaningful sense. If you want to talk about “psychological addiction,” be my guest (of course, that’s also possible with alcohol… or sex, or shopping, or video games, or a thousand other things that humans find pleasurable), but let’s at least acknowledge that there’s no cannabis equivalent to delirium tremens. Alcohol, as a disinhibitor, is a MASSIVE contributor to violence. It’s involved in something like HALF of all violent crimes and 70% of domestic abuse cases. (Stop and think about those numbers for a second.) Cannabis has never been linked to violence. If anything, it DECREASES the risk of violence by pacifying the user. While they can be overstated, there’s a reason we have the stereotypes of the “belligerent drunk” versus the “mellow stoner.” I know which one I prefer to be around.

Few people go to jail for marijuana possession (they’re in jail for “distribution”) – Let’s assume that’s true. Who cares? It’s sort of like arguing that “we hardly ever burn witches at the stake” in an attempt to justify a law against witchcraft. The fact that ANYONE is in jail for marijuana possession is an outrage. And the argument that many people are actually in jail for “distribution” (as opposed to possession) doesn’t do much for me. Locking someone in a government cage for the “crime” of growing a plant or engaging in a mutually-beneficial exchange for its sale is equally barbaric.

Legalizing pot won’t reduce crime (because criminals will find another way to make money) – Sorry, but this is economically illiterate. It’s pretty simple. Cannabis prohibition empowers and enriches criminal thugs by giving them a monopoly on a lucrative market. And black markets are inherently violent because of things like unenforceable contracts, large cash transactions, the inability to use the courts or the police to challenge intimidation, etc. Prohibition fuels violence because it IS violence. It’s the policy of sending men with guns to arrest and incarcerate the sellers of (certain) drugs and their customers. That will ALWAYS produce reactive violence.

Marijuana and drugged driving – Again, cannabis is not alcohol. Alcohol is a massively-impairing disinhibitor that promotes risk-taking behavior. Cannabis is a mildly-impairing euphoriant. Drunk drivers tend to underestimate their impairment level and frequently drive FASTER than they would when sober. People who consume cannabis are much more likely to overestimate their impairment level and either refuse to drive or compensate adequately for their impairment by driving more slowly and cautiously. Drunk driving is a huge source of traffic fatalities. “Stoned driving” simply isn’t. And alcohol and cannabis are SUBSTITUTES. States that legalized medical marijuana saw a 9% decline in traffic fatalities compared to non-mmj states, a result that appeared to be largely attributable to a decline in drunk driving deaths. In any event, the whole drugged driving argument is a red herring. It’s illegal to drive while impaired, and cannabis relegalization won’t change that.

The conservative case for reform – Finally, if you don’t like the arguments that “the left” uses on this issue, that shouldn’t be too much of a problem. There are plenty of “conservative” arguments that work just fine. Conservatives are supposed to believe in principles like limited government, individual liberty, respect for the 10th amendment, and opposition to the nanny-state. And conservatives are supposed to want to to end hugely-expensive government programs with a proven track record of failure. It’s pretty hard to square any of those with support for the war on (some) drugs. At the end of the day, the question is not whether cannabis is “harmless.” (Very few things in this world are.) The question is not even whether the benefits of cannabis outweigh its risks. The question is who decides in a free society: adult citizens for themselves or politicians and bureaucrats for all of us.

Bonchamps
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 6:01am

Nice work Roger. Especially on the last paragraph.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 6:10am

Almost all stoners I have encountered, heavy, routine users of marijuana, are guilty of the same offense Papillon was guilty of:

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

I would cheerfully beat the tar out of anyone who attempted to have my kids get involved with this tribute to human stupidity.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 6:13am

Besides, anything which inspired those hideous Cheech and Chong movies should be banned as a matter of public mental health!

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 6:16am

There are already multiple stringent restrictions placed upon tobacco and alcohol; I see no reason why a combination of those restrictions could not be placed upon pot. No smoking in public places, no sale or distribution to minors, no driving under the influence, and tax it to the skies. But if you smoke it in your own home, on your own time, with your own friends, that’s no one’s business but yours.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 6:18am

Which I’ve NEVER done, by the way, and wouldn’t start doing even if pot were legal. But in light of the fact that Illinois state law already hugely restricts smoking the still perfectly legal substance of tobacco, it seems to me the same restrictions could easily be applied to marijuana.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 6:25am

“and tax it to the skies.”

One of the illusions of proponents of marijuana legalization Elaine is that it would eliminate the illegal sale of it. “Taxing it to the skies” would ensure that the illegal sale of it would continue to flourish. As to driving under the influence, I found this study to be significant:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/02/09/smoke-and-mirrors-driving-while-on-marijuana-doubles-ones-chances-of-a-serious-car-crash/

Many DUI offenders I have represented were also smoking marijuana. Most did not get caught for the marijuana because consent is normally withheld for the blood test.

Roger_Murdock
Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 6:53am

Donald: Ok, so you found a study which suggested that marijuana DOUBLES your risk of a serious car crash? How about a little context? Let’s assume the study’s findings are accurate. That’s comparable to the risk increase you get from driving 5 mph over the speed limit. (So the penalties for both should be similar, no?) Also, driving with a BAC of 0.08 (right at the legal limit) increases your crash-risk 11-fold. And driving while texting evidently makes a crash 23 times more likely. (Take the Oprah pledge!) Again, a recent study showed that the passage of a medical marijuana law was associated with a 9% DECLINE in traffic fatalities.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-11/todays-study-debate-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-fatalities

And again, no one is suggesting that it should be legal to drive while dangerously impaired by ANY drug. That is a completely separate issue.

WK Aiken
WK Aiken
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 6:59am

Fast and Furious. $70B a year to the Mexi Cartels. 800,000 people a year in jails around the country. Inner city crime. Gangs. And I can still have a pound of weed on my front porch by day’s end with one phone call. Yep. Sure works for me!

How many drive-by shootings have there been lately over bootleg hooch?

Roger_Murdock
Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 6:59am

“One of the illusions of proponents of marijuana legalization Elaine is that it would eliminate the illegal sale of it. ‘Taxing it to the skies’ would ensure that the illegal sale of it would continue to flourish.”

Well, sure if you set the tax rate high enough, I imagine that it EVENTUALLY becomes the functional equivalent of prohibition. But that rate has to be pretty darn high to get there. Right now many states have astronomically high taxes on cigarettes. But we don’t see rival cigarette cartels engaging in shoot-outs over turf. Is there a “grey market” for untaxed cigarettes? Yes, but it’s only a very small FRACTION of the much larger market. (And legal sales continue to generate a tremendous amount of tax revenue.) And the problems associated with that grey market are much, much smaller than the problems associated with the black market for illicit drugs. Similarly, do we still have moonshiners? I guess (if you can believe everything you see on the Discovery Channel). But what share of the alcohol market do you think they control? Now compare the current situation to the one we saw during alcohol prohibition.

Donald R. McClarey
Reply to  Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 7:02am

“And again, no one is suggesting that it should be legal to drive while dangerously impaired by ANY drug. That is a completely separate issue.”

If that is the case, then that would indicate that if marijuana is eventually decriminalized throughout the country then it would have to be regulated. What sort of regulations would you be in favor of? The same that apply to alcohol? The same that apply to prescription drugs? What impact would this have on the continuance of a black market in marijuana following decriminalization?

In regard to driving and marijuana we really don’t know how many automobile accidents it causes each year in this country, because it is so rarely tested for, unlike alcohol where if there is the slightest odor, out comes the breathalyzer.

“Is there a “grey market” for untaxed cigarettes?”

Actually there is a thriving illegal trade of cigarettes from low tax states to high tax states. This is also comparing apples to rock salt. We have a very large legal apparatus to sell cigarettes. No such apparatus exists for marijuana. I suspect that few large companies would wish to get involved in the cannabis trade and bear the social stigma, along with the law suits, that would doubtless be aimed at a company that would wish to provide legal marijuana, especially since marijuana is probably a carcinogen like tobacco. The “sin taxes” on marijuana would likely be far higher than the “sin taxes” on cigarettes as a result.

Don Curry
Don Curry
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 7:05am

Ok let’s tax prostitution and legalize that too! It’s all about the money with some of you legalizers. Freedom ! Liberty ! Get real ! I was a drug case prosecutor for 17 years. 90% of the cases I had involved defendants who began using pot before selling it or using or selling hard stuff. Oh I know…you can find someone who smokes on the weekend and say, “Why not let the guy smoke?” The answer, like in many aspects of life, is that when you BALANCE out the good and bad, legalizing pot and and now say to the kid or young adult who has NOT used, “Oh we were wrong, go ahead!,” you in effect say, “It’s ok.GO AHEAD.” Oh ..and stop with the “we will regulate it and keep it from kids !” Never works. Pot users get probation here, with some community service. Sellers, young and first timers get drug court. Take away the risk of punishment and you encourage it ! I don’t want my kids to walk to the grocery store and see “Joe’s Pot Shop” next to the Kroger’s Grocery store, or see adds for it on TV or billboards. If you could promise me the dopers would stay in their own home and never get out, and never cause family problems, wrecks, their own physical problems, get fired because of drug use, never go to the hospital and make me pay for their drug treatment…sure let ’em smoke themselves to death. But that doesn’t happen. And by the way…fellow “Catholics,” It is a sin to use drugs !! So,read this about the effects of pot. And hiow can you say what you do when it is now shown that kids are in rehab more for pot than booz ! Read something and fight this crazy legalization crap.
http://www.casacolumbia.org/templates/PressReleases.aspx?articleid=358&zoneid=61
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/early-marijuana-use-linked-to-to-i-q-loss/

Malcolm Kyle
Malcolm Kyle
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 7:23am

When we regulate something we do NOT automatically condone it’s use; the regulations concerning alcohol and tobacco are there to protect us from the vast increase in criminality that would otherwise exist if these substances were prohibited.

A regulated and licensed distribution network for all mind altering substances would put responsible adult supervision in between children and premature access to drug distribution outlets (illegal street dealers). Regulated and licensed distribution would reflect and respect society’s values, thus preventing children obtaining easy access to these dangerous substances. What we need is legalized regulation. What we have now, due to prohibition, is a non-regulated black market to which everybody has access and where all the profits go to organized crime and terrorists.

If you support prohibition then you support bank-rolling criminals and terrorists. There’s simply no other logical way of looking at it.

Roger_Murdock
Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 7:24am

“Almost all stoners I have encountered, heavy, routine users of marijuana, are guilty of the same offense Papillon was guilty of.”

Are people who smoke pot all day, every day “wasting their lives”? Maybe. Are alcoholics who get drunk and stay drunk wasting theirs? I think so. But while “wasting your life” might be a “crime” in the philosophical sense, it’s not one the state has any business punishing you for. The most important word in the phrase “wasting your life” isn’t the first one. It’s the second. And if your goal is to prevent people from “wasting their lives,” locking them in a government cage seems like an odd way to go about it.

Roger_Murdock
Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 7:26am

“Ok let’s tax prostitution and legalize that too!”

Er…. well yeah, prostitution SHOULD be legal in a free society. I’m less crazy about the taxation.

Roger_Murdock
Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 7:31am

“especially since marijuana is probably a carcinogen like tobacco.”

Donald, I’d love to chat more, but I’ve got to run to work in a minute. But no, that is absolutely not correct. Cannabis is not a carcinogen. In fact, there’s much better evidence that it has anti-cancer properties. Cannabis smoke, on the other hand (like all smoke) DOES contain carcinogens, but shockingly even smoked cannabis doesn’t appear to increase your risk of cancer. (Google “Tashkin study.”) The largest study ever done showed that cannabis smokers had a somewhat LOWER risk of cancer than their non-smoking peers (although this suggestion of a protective effect wasn’t statistically significant). The tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increase in cancer risk. If you’re interested in learning more, I’d recommend “Marijuana is Safer.” Heck, just download the free kindle sample and read that. Have a great day!

Donald R. McClarey
Reply to  Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 7:38am

Like most things marijuana related the question of whether it is a carinogen is subject to debate. I think that the weight of the evidence is that it is a carcinogen:

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm

Donald R. McClarey
Reply to  Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 7:51am

“Are people who smoke pot all day, every day “wasting their lives”? Maybe. Are alcoholics who get drunk and stay drunk wasting theirs? I think so.”

Alcohol has wreaked and continues to wreak havoc in our society. I don’t see why we should allow marijuana an opportunity to do the same. As for “locking people in cages” it is a colorful image, but I have been practicing law for 30 years in Central Illinois and I have rarely seen people suffer more severe penalties for cannabis use than I see people suffer for underage drinking. The only person I can recall being sent to prison for cannabis was a fellow who was attempting to transport a truckload of marijuana through the state and had the misfortune to get involved in an automobile collision in Livingston County where I reside. Heavy cannabis users who I have represented have been in cases where they were facing charges for selling other drugs including heroin and meth. Of the drug addicts I have represented I can’t recall any who didn’t use pot in addition to their other drugs of choice.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 8:59am

Prostitution is a grave evil that harms all concerned. It should be criminalized to the extent the law can be prudently enforced. Libertarianism is grounded in the myth that the consequences of actions can be quarantined within obvious borders. That is simply not the nature of the human condition, and the Church recognizes that.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 9:18am

What is forgotten in this discussion was pointed out by Charles Murray some years ago: drug prohibition was instituted in 1914 at a time when the discipline of the labor market was a good deal more vigorous than is the case today. The alternatives to working were state poorhouses of the sort where Annie Sullivan lived, reliance on family, train yards, and skid row. Also, families had more authority over their members than is the case today. In other words, their were structural constraints on dissipation that have been removed. Even in that environment, the legislators of the day thought the detritus of a free market in all sorts of intoxicants was too much to bear.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 9:19am

People who imbibe do not typically do so to a point of intoxication. With street drugs, intoxication is the whole point.

Duncan20903
Duncan20903
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 10:18am

Smoking is not required to gain the benefits of cannabis, whether for medicinal need or just for enjoyment. Any potential health hazards due to smoking are not the hazards of cannabis, but of smoking.??

Vaporization is proven safe,  less expensive, and preferred by patients over smoking by a margin of 7:1 in peer reviewed research published in 2007.
?http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149:vaporization-as-a-qsmokelessq-cannabis-delivery-system&catid=41:research-studies&Itemid=135

Duncan20903
Duncan20903
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 10:27am

Dr. Donald Tashkin spent a few decades doing research to prove that cannabis causes lung cancer with the blessing of the ONDCP and NIDA. It almost made me feel sorry for him when he conceded that there is no “positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use,” he said. “What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

After presenting these unwanted results the prohibitionist parasites threw him under the bus. But it didn’t stop them from using his previous research to try to get people to infer that cannabis causes lung cancer.

Roger_Murdock
Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 11:43am

“Like most things marijuana related the question of whether it is a carinogen is subject to debate. I think that the weight of the evidence is that it is a carcinogen:

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm

The weight of the evidence? You haven’t even met your burden of production. 😉 Your own source deals with SMOKED cannabis and concludes (in the face of conflicting evidence) that it “probably” increases your risk of cancer, but that this risk “most likely pales” in comparison to the one posed by smoked tobacco. But smoking isn’t required to gain the benefits of cannabis. It can be vaporized or made into edibles or tinctures. You take it as a given that smoked cannabis’ association with cancer should be controversial. It’s actually quite surprising. We KNOW that cannabis smoke (again, like all smoke) contains carcinogens, and yet AT BEST (and despite lots of government money spent searching) we have conflicting evidence, some studies showing a modest decrease in risk and others showing a modest increase for certain populations.

Roger_Murdock
Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 12:02pm

” Alcohol has wreaked and continues to wreak havoc in our society. I don’t see why we should allow marijuana an opportunity to do the same.”

Yes, alcohol use creates tremendous problems for a non-trivial minority of its users. I don’t think that’s a sufficient justification to take away EVERYONE’S rights, but I can still (sort of) understand how the supporters of alcohol prohibition achieved the super-majority required to pass an amendment to the constitution. I can DEFINITELY understand how the opponents of prohibition achieved the super-majority required to repeal that same amendment in a little less than 14 years. Alcohol prohibition didn’t eliminate the problems associated with alcohol. It amplified them and created an entire new class of prohibition-related problems: empowering organized crime, fueling gang violence, undermining respect for the law, promoting official corruption, diverting scarce law enforcement resources away from solving real crimes, sowing distrust between communities and police, etc. We see the same thing today with drugs-other-than-alcohol prohibition. And don’t forget that alcohol and cannabis are substitutes. To the extent that cannabis prohibition is successful at deterring use, one of the results is likely increased use of infinitely more dangerous booze.

Don Curry
Don Curry
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 12:32pm

Mr Mc Clarey is correct

I have known, when I was a defense attorney, (after prosecuting for 17 years)many persons who have stopped drug use, sale, whatever because of the deterrant of further punishment and the offer and use of rehab plus a bunch of community service and a fine. There are plenty of folks who dont use drugs because it is illegal and they also know it is terrible for their health, eithe rafter arrest or prior to it. Old pot heads who just bonged for the fun of it (like another poster– I bet) can’t see past their brownies to make a cogent argument. There are plenty who make the same arguments as some here about coke or meth. They handle it fine and say we should tax it, “regulate it,” and legalize (many say) all drugs. The bottom line is that, ON BALANCE, more harm would be done in legalizing pot or any other drug.Roger can’t be a Catholic …can he?….he suports legalizing prostitution (as he said earlier.) How does Our Lord feel about the idea of the society placing a stamp of approval on sinful activity??

Greg Mockeridge
Greg Mockeridge
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 12:36pm

“If that is the case, then that would indicate that if marijuana is eventually decriminalized throughout the country then it would have to be regulated. What sort of regulations would you be in favor of? The same that apply to alcohol? The same that apply to prescription drugs? What impact would this have on the continuance of a black market in marijuana following decriminalization?”

This right here demonstrates just how anti-big government libertarians really are, which is they are not. Anyone who has even a cursory understanding how government has become bigger in this country should be able to see that decriminalizing pot would invite a bigger, more intrusive government.

Don Curry
Don Curry
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 12:39pm

Previous poster—-
“Alcohol prohibition didn’t eliminate the problems associated with alcohol. ” Well. duh ! Alcohol legalization has produced many more physical ,societal and mental problems than were present when there was Prohibition. Legalization = more use= more problems !!The legalization will mean many MORE problems than exists now. That’s the point !!
Alcohol was much more acceptable prior to Prohibition and part of society than pot is now…not even close.

Roger_Murdock
Roger_Murdock
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 12:48pm

” How does Our Lord feel about the idea of the society placing a stamp of approval on sinful activity??”

You’d have to ask Him. But just because we don’t use the violence of the state in an attempt to prohibit a particular activity, that doesn’t mean we personally endorse it. Any suggestion to the contrary is creepily totalitarian. I wouldn’t think legal policy re: prostitution (as opposed to moral teaching) would be a matter for the church. That seems more like Ceasar’s territory, no?

Bonchamps
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 3:31pm

“There are plenty of folks who dont use drugs because it is illegal ”

Who are these folks? They aren’t teenagers or young adults, I can tell you that. I have never known a single person who really wanted to smoke pot, and would smoke pot if it were legal, but refuses not to simply because it is “against the law.” Without exception the people I know who believe that marijuana ought to be illegal don’t smoke it and wouldn’t smoke it if it were legal.

In any case, it really saddens me that the main issues are never addressed. Are we really justified in using taxpayer money to fund coercive violence against what is, in the vast majority of cases, a socially harmless activity? The answer in my book will always be “no”.

And as for this notion that legal approval of sinful activity amounts to a moral endorsement, it is completely alien to Catholicism. The Church has always taught that it may be necessary or prudent to permit certain evils in order to avoid even greater evils. Doctors of the Church have held that prostitution might be legalized if it would prevent greater evils.

I’m not even convinced that moderate use of marijuana is “evil”, and certainly not therapeutic use. It wasn’t against the law until the 1930s, for heaven’s sake. We’re not talking about some perennial principle of Western civilization here.

Don said,

“Alcohol has wreaked and continues to wreak havoc in our society. I don’t see why we should allow marijuana an opportunity to do the same.”

People are allowed to drink alcohol without having the police and the courts screw up their lives, provided they do so responsibly. I don’t see why adults with full cognitive faculties shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their free will in this matter, to be punished only when their habits cause them to violate another person’s rights.

Bonchamps
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 3:36pm

“Alcohol was much more acceptable prior to Prohibition and part of society than pot is now…not even close.”

This is a non-argument. It offends me that it is even made. Abortion is a huge part of our society now, 1.5 million babies murdered every year. That certainly hasn’t changed our attitude about its legalization!

Foxfier
Admin
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 3:54pm

The “conservatives” who think that, e.g., a mere tax on soda would be an outrageous example of the “nanny-state” run amok, but who have no problem with the complete criminal prohibition of cannabis are also hypocrites.

Or, possibly, they have the brains to figure out that there’s a difference between foods containing sugar and a mind altering substance.

But by all means, continue with the false accusations! I’m sure it will work on someone that doesn’t already agree with you.

Is there a “grey market” for untaxed cigarettes?

If you don’t know enough about the situation to know there is a black market for smuggled tobacco– when I was a young adult, the biggest drug bust by value was made in Washington… it was black market tobacco.
If you’ve ever been near an Indian reservation, you should have also noticed how many people go there to buy their cigs without taxes, too. (and hope not to get caught on the way back)

Seeing as I’m familiar with how people get into jail on “possession,” I don’t have a lot of respect for the supposed outrage of people being in jail for it.
My car was broken into by a crime ring. They stole all papers so that they could also steal my ID, took the radio and everything of value they could find…including my left front tire. They were caught when one of the criminals felt cheated on his cut of their drug dealing business and called the police to complain. They were caught red handed with thousands of dollars worth of stolen goods, proof of ID theft, a large amount of pot and a very nice detective returned my tire. (one criminal had been missing a rim before, and the detective matched the actual rubber to my other three)
A year or so later, I got a letter that they’d been given suspended community service for possession. Imagine what it would take to actually be sent to jail for the plea bargained charge of possession!

Pot is definitely not the same as alcohol– not only is it usually pretty obvious who has smoked pot recently but not who has had a few drinks, I notice that those folks I know who used more than once or twice become utterly, bat-crud irrational about the subject at the drop of a hat. We’re talking along the lines of how evangelical atheists act when someone says “bless you!” after a sneeze.

But it is useless to try to discuss it rationally, because all unwanted evidence will be ignored. It just doesn’t matter. Show that it’s associated with a huge jump in mental issues? You just hate pot, and freedom, and people get pissy if they’re drinking, and really you’re worse than these other people…. *eyeroll*

Huge waste of time.

Foxfier
Admin
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 3:57pm

It offends me that it is even made. Abortion is a huge part of our society now, 1.5 million babies murdered every year. That certainly hasn’t changed our attitude about its legalization!

….

You are comparing outlawing a drug to chopping up small babies, and you’re the one that feels offended.

Thank you so much for giving an illustration of how this always devolves into one side being unable to make the most basic of distinctions between very, very different things.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 4:16pm

Foxfier:

You dianosed a widespread epidemic affecting the entire political spectrum: its sufferers use evidence/facts the way drunks use lampposts – for support not illumination.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 4:27pm

Alcohol prohibition didn’t eliminate the problems associated with alcohol. It amplified them and created an entire new class of prohibition-related problems: empowering organized crime, fueling gang violence, undermining respect for the law, promoting official corruption, diverting scarce law enforcement resources away from solving real crimes, sowing distrust between communities and police, etc. We see the same thing today with drugs-other-than-alcohol prohibition.

Spicoli, you would be hard put to find one category of crime of any importance more prevalent now than in 1980. The Sicilianate mob is moribund. If you take an interest in corruption, why not delve into why an investment bank would have hired Rahm Emmanuel a dozen years ago, given that his previous employment in the private sector consisted of cutting meat for Arby’s? Cops stealing from the property clerk’s stash is penny ante.

Foxfier
Admin
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 4:46pm

You dianosed a widespread epidemic affecting the entire political spectrum

I really, really hate that formatting of a response. It’s generally a fancy way of saying “everybody is guilty of it, so it doesn’t matter.”

I know you were probably just setting up for the lovely old quote about drunks and lampposts, but getting very tired of it.

Blackadder
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 5:06pm

Paul,

At the risk of sounding pedantic, there is an inaccuracy in your post when you say that “the 18th Amendment prohibited the use of a substance that was already legal and widely used by most Americans.” The 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcohol, but it did not prohibit either its possession or consumption.

Personally I am inclined to support legalization of all drugs, for more or less the reasons given by William F Buckley. But I understand that is probably a nonstarter, whereas marijuana legalization is not. At the very least, it seems like this is an issue that should be decided by the states rather than having a federal policy.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 5:25pm

Personally I am inclined to support legalization of all drugs,

Are you inclined to support comprehensively dismantling the welfare state?

Blackadder
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 5:27pm

Are you inclined to support comprehensively dismantling the welfare state?

Pretty much, though I don’t expect that will be happening any time soon either.

Bonchamps
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 5:37pm

Fox,

I’m not going to let this go. You said,

“You are comparing outlawing a drug to chopping up small babies, and you’re the one that feels offended.”

No. That is NOT what I am doing. I am rejecting argumentum ad populum. I am rejecting the absurd notion that the prohibition of alcohol was wrong because it was a substance enjoyed by and approved of the majority of Americans, while prohibiting marijuana is ok because only a minority enjoys it (far more people than you think are probably causal pot smokers, but whatever).

Abortion is the clearest example of why the majority isn’t always right. Even people who claim to be pro-life, in the majority, approve of some abortions. So I am not comparing the ACTS, but rather pointing out that majority approval is morally irrelevant, and that what people who make this argument are supporting is, in my view, the tyranny of the majority.

Blackadder
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 5:41pm

I will add: I don’t see comprehensively dismantling the welfare state as being a prerequisite to drug legalization. For one thing, the costs of feeding and housing non-violent drug offenders are enormous. For another, experience in other countries suggests that you can deal with the harms of drug abuse just as well by treating it as a public health matter as by treating it as a criminal matter (and at a lower cost both to the state and to society generally).

Foxfier
Admin
Thursday, November 29, AD 2012 6:05pm

I’m not going to let this go

Nor am I.
YOU are the one who said, basically, “oh yeah? Well, abortion kills thousands every year, but I don’t support it being legal!”

Thus drawing a comparison between an inherent evil, like chopping up babies and… banning pot.

If you wanted to say it was a logical fallacy, you could, with arguments to support that claim.

Instead, you committed a false analogy, and one which used dead babies.

That you can’t see why this is a really bad thing does not help your side of the argument, nor does the way you seem to have missed that the argument you claim to be refuting was in relation to why alcohol isn’t pot. Shortly, even if they were functionally identical— a really, really big “if”– the effects of “prohibition” are not similar.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top