To be honest, I’ve never much cared about the whole "legalize marijuana” argument.
Sure, on some vague level I’m in favor of decriminalization, since it seems like prosecuting potheads is a misallocation of police resources. And I’ve never known anyone under the influence of cannabis to be dangerous—or particularly sharp, for that matter.
But when I read that Huntington Beach’s congressional representative Dana Rohrabacher recently spoke out in support of it caused me to think a little more deeply about the issue.
I still can’t say that I care all that much. Mostly I think there are quite a few other injustices that should rank higher on a national priority list. Of course, it’s possible my general indifference to legalization may be because California is a particularly lax state when it comes to marijuana enforcement.
The people I know who use the drug responsibly are, for the most part, able to do so without fear of severe consequence. Still, since Rohrabacher brought it up, let’s talk about it.
I think the thing that has always struck me about the debate is the relative naïveté of both sides. Though regular users of the drug will often claim that there’s no evidence that cannabis has long-term consequences, there is a large body of scientific research that has shown strong correlations between long term use and the degradation of memory, and even IQ with continued use.
Usually, apologists will object that those studies are inconclusive or that there are other contradictory studies, which is fine, but if continued cannabis usage does not affect the body in adverse ways, it would be the first substance ever discovered to work without side effects—an unlikely possibility.
I’ve always thought, however, that this argument is precisely beside the point. We regularly use drugs and technologies that involve negative consequences: alcohol, fast food, automobiles, . Indeed, our willful ignorance of this reality follows a straight line to the various arguments for cannabis criminalization.
Namely, that there is no way to take these drugs responsibly.
We, of course, know that this isn’t true. Drugs can be taken responsibly. It happens all the time. But our deeply ingrained fears of impurity and sin lead many of us to these erroneous conclusions.
This is where the gateway-drug argument comes in—which there is almost no evidence to support. The gateway-drug argument is essentially a re-creation of the drama of original sin: eat this fruit and you’re damned forever—that is, unless you can be redeemed by some kind of savior (e.g., a daytime talk show host, or one of the many “anonymous” sponsors haunting multipurpose rooms all over America.)
The truth is that long-term marijuana use is harmful for most people, and it has retarding effects on our cognitive capacities in the short term. But, it’s also a lot of fun for the people that use it, serves genuine medical purposes and opens up alternative mental states that are a welcome respite from the accelerating industrialization of human behavior.
Marijuana is like every other substance or tool: The advantages gained come with a price. However, the people that use the drug and pay the price should be the ones to decide if the exchange is worth it. I regularly decide that an ultimately unhealthy choice is worth the short-term boost every time I drink too much, fail to exercise or order a Double-Double-Animal-Style-hold-the-pickles from In-N-Out.
I applaud Congressman Rohrabacher’s stand, even though in a country of sinners playing at saints, he’s fighting a losing battle.
Now that I've been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, I would love to have the law clarified even as far as medical use. The state says it's legal for medical use and I have seen it give me some relief at times the handful of times I've tried it since the medical use law came into effect. However, they routinely close clinics, one has to travel to find the clinics, and the marijuana isn't really being regulated except by certain clinic owners or something. There's no way for the average person like me to know exactly what else is or isn't in the product on the shelves. I realize I could become a registered grower which isn't all that hard I've been told. But then the city where I live has a law against growing it even for medical reasons. Which is par for the course when it comes to the medical marijuana law's acceptance by governing bodies. Plus if grew it legally in Mission Viejo, the feds could then freely kick in my door in the dead of night, unlike now when they can freely kick in my door in the dead of night because I might have a terrorist here or something.
There was a special on the history channel a few weeks back about how the growers are getting stuff sent off to labs to ensure quality and so forth, but it's optional like a USDA grade. There was an argument I had heard towards the legalization that was, I suppose, quite moderate. To paraphrase, the spokesman said that the state cannot afford to enforce the law but will not stand in the way if the feds wish to enforce it.
Parents therefore have only two options - either we want drug dealers selling marijuana to kids or we want supermarkets selling marijuana to adults. "Nobody selling marijuana to nobody" is never going to happen. Regulating marijuana like wine allows supermarkets to sell it to adults at a price too low for drug dealers and the Mexican drug cartels to match - this will make our children far safer than what they are today. We don't see wine being illegally sold on the street today because it's legally available in stores at a price low enough to prevent illegal competition. The exact same thing will happen with marijuana when we put our children's safety first and regulate marijuana like wine.
Tell me more, please. I am the primary caregiver for my quadriplegic mother, who has been diagnosed MS for nearly 50 years.
People have been smoking marijuana and, for that matter, been addicted to heroin since the late 1800's in the country. It's only been recognized as a problem for the last 40 years because that is when suburban white kids started getting high.
My neuro tells me that several of her patients use it. She is prevented from prescribing it by the HMO but has told me that there are no conflicts between it and my meds. The National MS Society won't endorse it because the predominant way to receive the drug's benefits is by smoking it; smoking is bad for you. Were it legalized I would imagine Big Pharm would rush to create the first pill form and start making a killing on it. One of my meds retails for $3500 a month. I would imagine a pill form of the drug to come in probably higher than that.
The degenerative part is depressing but I didn't know if she was already prone to that or if it was part of the condition. [Is MS a cause of depression or is depression an effect of the disease?] It is also depressing for the family. My paternal grandmother didn't help; as a Christian Scientist she always told mom it was in her head; same as the "pray the gay away" technique, which begs the question... never mind, my question was about a palliative and your article is about controlling a substance that affects the body. Grandma should have been smoking the marijuana.
In my experience with my mother, the cognitive damage is real. I understand the evidence of it now, as well as the depression and fatigue. It is like being stuck in 1952. I am so sorry. The physical issues are hard enough to deal with - the emotional/mental/cognitive issues are so much more subtle - no one described them to us in those years but, in hindsight, of course, it makes sense now. We just tried to accommodate. I'm grateful for the volunteers who come over to spend time with her on Scrabble, crosswords, Solitaire, watching baseball; anything to keep her engaged. It makes my part so much easier when she stays connected.
We really do have to choose whether we want drug dealers or supermarkets selling marijuana. Parents have to do a better job at protecting their children than just continuing to do what's failed for the last forty years.
Well said, Jillian.
Interesting choice of words, but no. No one is trying to shove anything down your throat. It's kinda like Nancy Reagan asking people to "Just say no" to drugs, except Michelle Obama happens to be married to a Democratic President. They are suggesting that you might consider eating and living healthier so that we as a nation do not continue on our record-setting expeditions of obesity. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html Legalizing pot should have the same effect as legalizing alcohol did - decriminalization. Consumption of alcohol causes alcoholism and other related problems, not its legalization. Likewise, it is the consumption of pot that gives you the "munchies", not its legalization
My point is that no one much cared until middle-class white kids started getting high and getting arrested. Then our answer was to toss our kids in prison, thus insuring they'll learn a lot of cool things about crime they can put into use once back on the streets because no one will give them a job. I've always found that to be a particularly interesting, telling, and callous response.
Legalize and tax -- 80% agree or Legalize and tax...80% agree however, don't use a comma because that would cause a comma splice: Legalize and tax, 80% agree so, you could avoid the comma splice with a semicolon since both clauses are separate and complete sentences: Legalize and tax; 80% agree. If you'd like I could correct the punctuation in the rest of the sentence for you.