Completely agree.
The only issue I have is I don't want to see Philip Morris buy up all of NoCal and force everyone out of business.
I think good growers will still be able to demand a premium for their marijuana no matter what happens in November.
The only issue I have is I don't want to see Philip Morris buy up all of NoCal and force everyone out of business.
I think good growers will still be able to demand a premium for their marijuana no matter what happens in November.
The good growers will do so in climate-controlled, forced-flowering, sea-of-green indoor operations using massive lighting arrays and "low rider" hybrid strains that produce gigantic buds with amazing crystals.
It'll be like comparing "two buck chuck" wine at Trader Joe's to a Lafite Rothschild or Screaming Eagle. Most people won't care, but there is a market for the latter like you wouldn't believe.
The best weed on the market is already close to being as good as it's going to get. The real trick is going to be establishing brands with reasonably consistent quality. Right now even if you only go to the dispensaries with the highest Yelp ratings, it's still hit or miss on any given strain.
What I think you will see though is that people who smoke Philip Morris weed will start getting cancer, in the same way that smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes. (Because of all the chemicals, the filters, and the fact that they're grown in radioactive soil w/ fertilizers that bind to uranium.)
I would be very surprised to find out this is true. Do you have a citation?
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4
Also, about the uranium, the typical smoker gets the equivalent of 300 chest x-rays per year from smoking American cigarettes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html
Which probably explains why even today smokers in countries that don't use American cigarettes don't have anywhere near the same increase in lung cancer risk.
Also, the equivalent of 300 chest x-rays is based on 'pack-and-a-half' smokers not typical smokers and it doesn't say anywhere specifically from American cigarettes. This is also based on a lifetime consumption I believe.
For example, the levels of CEA (a cancer marker) in daily hookah smokers are so much lower than the CEA levels is cigarette smokers that they're actually statistically indistinguishable from non-smokers. Similarly, countries who don't grow tobacco in the same fields year after year using phosphate fertilizer have vastly less radioactive material in their tobacco.
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/tobacco.html#footnote
The research on what about smoking actually causes cancer isn't very good yet, but if you combine the research that has been done with the data that shows the different points in history where lung cancer rates vastly increased or decreased, it starts to paint a pretty clear picture. For example, according to wikipedia, "From the 1950s, the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma started to rise relative to other types of lung cancer.[135] This is partly due to the introduction of filter cigarettes. The use of filters removes larger particles from tobacco smoke, thus reducing deposition in larger airways. However the smoker has to inhale more deeply to receive the same amount of nicotine, increasing particle deposition in small airways where adenocarcinoma tends to arise."
Again, there is no safe form of smoking, but all evidence points to the fact that smoking cigarettes made from American tobacco is vastly more dangerous than the ways in which people have used tobacco historically.
Do all American tobacco farms use phosphate fertilizers and other countries don't?
Inhaling burned tobacco has an above average ability to cause cancer.
Common commercial cigarettes, in general, have other ingredients that become carcinogenic when burned.
Nicotine, while not directly cancer causing, depresses the immune response in the affected areas, increasing cancer risk in those areas. This also affects chew, gum, inhalers, etc. Due to the nature of the rapid regeneration of the mouth and throat, this is likely a significant factor in the increased caused risk for chewed tobacco.
Additionally, chewed tobacco can cause Leukoplakia, which increases the risk of Oral cancer.
Cancer risk (most to least): Smoking, chew/dip, inhalers, gum, snuff.
This has always been a really difficult choice for me; because on one side I strongly feel that everyone should have their own choices and do what they want. But then on the other side I've seen first hand how easy it is to lose yourself to pot... and can't help feeling that exposing more people to that isn't a great thing.
Depends on your country. (Also for the other things you mention.)
If by widespread you mean it is everywhere then agreed. If you mean in terms of numbers I disagree - it strikes me as logical that a legalized drug will have more users, and equably more abuser.
That problem can be alleviated by legalization: We remove the legal difficulties inherent in asking for help with problematic consumption
I agree with the last part. But am unconvinced that legalization is required to achieve that - just decriminalize personal possession, or remove any legal fall out associated with rehab/drugs help.
If that's our sole reason for legalization I don't think it stands up.
As with alcohol, there should be consequences for being under the influence and restrictions on how to obtain it.
The point of making pot legal is so that casual users aren't fined or criminally punished for having a joint after work.
Ah, well that seems reasonable. I'd actually come out in support of decriminalization - it seems to have tentatively worked in countries where it has been trialled.
Plus there may be some selection bias going on. How do you know that some of your high-functioning coworkers aren't heavy pot smokers when they get home?
That doesn't make sense. There is a definite/noticeable slump below the norm for all the pot smokers I know (off hand count; perhaps 20-25) across a wide variety of jobs/ages.
Certainly some high functioning people I know could be abusers behind closed doors; but they exhibit none of the standard symptoms so it's hard to imagine that is true... (I will try and do some surveying though :))
In other words; you really need to find a high functioning heavy pot smoker to give the theory credence - and I don't think that is going to be easy.
Well, then we should avoid encouraging fast food, liquor, and a lot of other things
We are already doing that; indeed for several years now there have actually been campaigns to discourage the overuse of those things.
By day I'm a software developer. I smoke most nights, and I still get good work done (although it sometimes takes me longer). Have you ever gotten into a 'groove' when programming, when time fades away and you're generally very productive? Well, it's like that with pot...but more often, and to a greater degree.
It just makes everything better. Music sounds better, food tastes better, conversation is funnier, movies are epic-er, heck, even the laundry is fun again. Tonight I'm going to a concert, and I wouldn't dream of going sober.
I guess you raise an interesting point; the life enrichment versus the "although it usually takes me longer" aspect is the trade off.
I wonder at which point that becomes too much?
I've attempted a number of drugs over the years on the belief that you can't really hold an opinion without knowing all the facts, and trying it. I readily admit a slight bias arising from the fact I never really "got" any of the highs; the trade off was instantly too much for me.
I think a lot about whether pot has been a net positive in my life, and honestly I'm still unsure. Certainly I enjoy the experience, and I've met some great people as a result, but it comes with a cost (in dollars as well as time). Jury's still out.
I should add that I have a deep-seated loathing for most kinds of alcohol. I enjoy an occasional glass of red wine, but my alcohol consumption is easily less than 1 drink per week.
Carl Sagan. Richard Feynman. Steve Yegge. Thousands of others.
If you're involved in a creative profession, of which I think that software development is one, then smoking marijuana boosts your ability to function.
(as a programmer I found that pot, which I tried for a couple of months - see elsewhere for my reasoning - didn't personally boost my ability to function, but instead tended to hinder it - particularly when not high)
The only correlation between heavy pot smoking and low performance is that people with nothing to do in their life also enjoy smoking pot.
The only FUD your post was missing was a link to Reefer Madness.
I mean; heavy pot smokers are pretty non-functioning and
it seems a shame to risk more lively minds to that drudgery.I have a couple of extremely bright friends (one of them was possibly the smartest guy I've met) who became pot abusers for all manner of reasons. One wanted (and had the skills) to be a stock broker. He spent the first summer of university trading and made a really strong start. But from the second year onwards his pot habit inhibited his learning/development and he now does door-to-door collections for a charity on minimum wage. He was probably my second closest friend at university so I am absolutely sure that cannabis was the cause of his decline.
I think it is about the person at least as much as it is about the drugs, some people can deal with things like this better than others.
I've got a large number of friends who smoke pot everyday. They're far from non-functioning.
Two of my closest developer buddies smoke all day long. Like, literally, all day long, smoking as soon as they wake up in the morning. That's about as extreme as you can get in the realm of the pothead.
They're fine. They've held their jobs for long periods, been promoted, given raises... all of the things you expect from a "functioning" member of society.
I don't really hang out with very many non-functioning member of society and I know a LOT of people who smoke pot... maybe you tend to hang out with a lot of non-functioning people for some reason? A rather larger percentage of people smoke pot around the world, so it would tend to cross a number of socioeconomic boundaries.
To me, this issue you have with perceiving that pot is making people in to listless sacks of flesh seems to be a personal problem and entirely subjective.
She interviewed hundreds cannabis users across the country and across various social strata - her general comment was that or the most part users did tend towards the slump. There were certainly a lot more "listless sacks of flesh" than high-functioning individuals (but she also noted that those who were "functioning" tended towards the extraordinary as opposed to just sticking on the normal curve).
I avoid using that as too much proof because it is entirely possible, and even likely, that cannabis is only a contributing factor in this and not outright cause.
It seems that a decision has already been made: prohibition.
That your friend didn't fully realize his potential whilst becoming a pot smoker doesn't imply causation, it is just a correlation. There probably are all kinds of factors at play in your friend's case.
It was mostly intended as a rebuttal of:
Anecdotally it has little or no effect on the ability of a person to "function."
further up the thread.
It seems that a decision has already been made: prohibition.
I think there is dialogue to be had. I suspect (talking realistically) I will see legalization of a number of drugs in my lifetime.
Unless he was just extremely awesome at hiding something from our circle of friends, for absolutely no apparent reason at all, by the second semester of college, he had all but stopped going to class, stopped doing homework, slept through early morning tests, etc, eventually losing his scholarships and failing out of school by his third semester. He was my roommate in the dorms, so I probably would have known if he was doing anything in excess that was directly interfering with his abilities to function, and we were enrolled in similar courses with similar course load, and I handled it fine. He just lost the motivation to continue college.
The point is, is that people fuck up, people get depressed, people change what they place value in, even without drugs.
I can tell many similar stories of friends who lost their way with drugs and alcohol. Bad shit happens in this world, and being successful means not only hard work but avoiding temptations. You've got to do well in all aspects of your life : to me there is little difference between the person who won't but any effort in to study and accepts a minimum wage, and those that put effort into study but waste it all by being a drug addict.
If you're going to lobby for prohibition of pot then please also focus your attention on alcohol as well. This is a far worse 'drug' IMO than marijuana could ever be.
I don't understand how anyone could think alcohol should be legal but not marijuana.
EDIT: Also notice from the linked article that drug use actually went down after legalization in Portugal.
So the solution is to throw them in jail?
Decriminalization is stupid. Dispensary systems are stupid. Coffee shops are stupid.
Decriminalization is stupid because the implication is that cannabis is evil, and the only reason people want to smoke it is that they're addicted. This is false. The "push toward treatment" isn't helpful for anyone who isn't addicted and doesn't want to be treated, like me. Plus there's the implication that selling someone to someone who asks for it is somehow evil, which is even worse ("Selling is legal! Fucking is legal! Why isn't selling fucking legal?!").
Dispensary systems are stupid because dishonesty is baked (haha) into the system. The South Park episode Medicinal Fried Chicken is a decent explanation, but the short of it is that people fake illness to get weed. Granted, this is like people faking illness to get painkillers -- but since cannabis is significantly safer than opioids and benzodiazepines, doctors are significantly less likely to care. It's not an issue with physical consequences, since cannabis is extremely safe when used under medical supervision, just the fact that lying becomes so much more prevalent.
Coffee shops are lame because free markets work[1], so why don't we have one? They're not that bad, though -- the implementation of such a system would bump the legalization of cannabis way down my priority list.
What really gets me on this is that people conflate the question "should cannabis be legal" with the question "should you smoke cannabis". Nobody conflates the legality of trampolines with the safety of trampolines. I find it incredibly disheartening when people I know -- smart people, in most respects -- respond to legalization with the idiotic knee-jerks "but it's dangerous!", "but my friend does nothing but smoke weed", ad absurdum. I know people who do nothing but play video games. I know at least one person who quit his job and left everyone he knew to become a paragliding instructor. He took a huge pay cut, too. And this latter example, I think, illustrates the biggest issue I have with arguments like yours:
Who the hell do you think you are that you can dictate what someone does with their life? If it's what they enjoy, they can go for it. Even if it is a bad decision -- you really can't outlaw bad decisions, because it's hard to say what is a bad decision. Thing is, the sort of "always-on" lifestyle, that sort where cannabis (also other distracting activities) is most likely to interfere, really isn't a good fit for some people. Some people burn out on weed, some burn out on other things.
Thing is, sometimes people just burn out. I think there are a lot of people who come into this argument from a pro-prohibition point of view because someone close to them changed after they started smoking marijuana. And I think that this is akin to blaming a spark for a bomb. The thing is, that your stock-broker friend may in fact have been unhappy as a stock broker. It is possible, even likely, from my anecdotal experience, that he latched onto weed because he didn't like where he was in life. It doesn't really matter if you think he should have liked where he was in life.
There are plenty of harm reduction arguments for legalization, but I prefer the libertarian argument because, I think, it most directly refutes the central point of the popular anti-legalization arguments.
[1]: with a few exceptions.
And yet decriminalization has proven tentatively successful when trialled.
If your issue is that cannabis use is still looked on as evil (that's something of a strong word; I suspect only real puritans view it as evil :)) then possibly that is something we can address. However on the other hand I suspect the idea of cannabis being looked on as bad/evil/nasty would be unaffected by decriminalization/legalization - at least in the short term.
Speaking personally I'd like to get to a happy medium where you can have the choice of cannabis if you like, but it's not so readily available that it becomes the kind of widespread habit smoking became. I'd like to see a society were cannabis use didn't raise any eyebrows and was accepted as something people chose to do.
What really gets me on this is that people conflate the question "should cannabis be legal" with the question "should you smoke cannabis"
I've personally tried to be very specific when replying here regarding this issue. I'm open to discuss the former and as to the latter I have a personal opinion - which is that, on balance, I think smoking cannabis is probably bad for you.
Who the hell do you think you are that you can dictate what someone does with their life?
That made me a bit angry to be honest; because I don't make personal judgements like that! Definitely pro-choice here and I tend to get angry when people berate my friends for drug use (it's not their place! as you say).
Sure, if someone asks me the outright question: "Tom, should I smoke cannabis" I would say no (and then try to back it up, obviously). I'll maybe, maybe, try and raise the issue with a close friend if they seem to be struggling/having issues due to drug use, but that's it.
As you say these are 2 different issues and we should definitely address them seperately.
As a quick further comment: I think it is absolutely fine to talk to people about their "bad" life choices. One of the worst life choices I nearly made was to do architecture rather than engineering - I'd have been a shit architect but it had been my passion from a very young age. A few close friends/family helped to show me it was a poor choice and for that I am forever thankful (I probably owe most of my current success to that single decision).
So, as long as your not forcing or overbearing on anyway it seems fair to lay out why they might be making a bad choice :)
Thing is, sometimes people just burn out. Agreed, ny friend was not one of them though. As I explained elsewhere a) we were extremely close during that period and b) it was less a proof that cannabis use was dangerous (I concede a single example is useless for that) as a rebuttal to someone else who suggested that cannabis could not have that affect.
The thing is, that your stock-broker friend may in fact have been unhappy as a stock broker. It's a really sad story. He came out of rehab at the end of last year and is currently working in the city and doing moderately well - but his concentration is shot and his spark/skill aren't what they were. It's sad but, yes, not proof that all cannabis use ruins lives.
It's more of a logical thing than a physical thing. If you can't justify throwing a cannabis user in jail, how do you justify throwing a cannabis seller in jail? It's ludicrous! If you can't justify throwing someone in jail for smoking weed, how do you justify fining them $100?
It essentially encourages organized crime. You're feeding a black market that has no competition, for chrissake.
> I think it is absolutely fine to talk to people about their "bad" life choices.
Of course it is. I make no claim that you can't try to tell someone not to smoke weed, only that you oughtn't try to force someone not to smoke weed. And that's what prohibition is, and that's also what the goal of decriminalization is.
> it's not so readily available that it becomes the kind of widespread habit smoking became.
It doesn't matter! If 24% of the country wants to smoke weed, then 24% of the country can smoke weed! I think you'll find, though, that most people choose not to. This is another assumption that I think gets ignored: "if weed is legal, everyone will want to use it" -- well, hell, if everyone wanted to use it, they would already. Most people don't want to use it. If that's your main concern, it's worth pointing out that it wouldn't matter if weed were sold in every gas station in the country: cannabis usage probably would never rise above 15% or so. It's already 11%, according to the WHO. A lot of people don't even like it, if you read bluelight. This is the third thing that bugs me: somewhere along the line cannabis became the best feeling ever. I like alcohol more than weed. I smoke (vaporize?) weed more than I drink because the negatives are less severe.
> Agreed, ny friend was not one of them though.
But that's what they all say! Everyone's friend was perfectly happy. People who burn out don't do nothing -- they while away their time playing video games, or masturbating (ya rly), and slowly neglect things that they may have once enjoyed. That said, I accept what you are saying.
It's true: some people do get addicted. But punishing everyone because some people react badly doesn't work. More to the point: punishing me because someone got addicted is being a dick. Punishing the guy who sells me weed is still being a dick. Punishing the guy who sold your friend weed is being a dick.
I'd like to make a potentially difficult claim: selling cannabis to a burnout is not necessarily wrong[1]. It is not entirely the responsibility of a seller to control the use of their product. The image of a predatory dealer who pushes cannabis on an addict who is trying to quit[2] is, in my experience, largely false, especially among the affluent and the well-educated. It happens, though I can't think of any particular instance. It can't happen under a system of legitimized commerce. It is frightening to see people use it as an argument against a system of legitimized commerce.
[1]: In a world where cannabis is legal, they would be responsible for adequately and accurately informing the user of the risks of cannabis, verifying the user's age, and possibly for providing information about treatment for cannabis addiction. All of these are good things. All of these can't happen under prohibition or decriminalization. In fact, the only way I can see to blame a drug dealer is if they claim that their product isn't addictive -- which doesn't happen, and can't happen, in the world of legitimate commerce.
[2]: The image of a dealer who gives out free first samples of extremely addictive things is a little more grounded in reality. Cannabis is not one of those things, in that I hope we can all agree that it is not extremely addictive.
EDIT: Slight, but significant, modification to last paragraph. I intended to clarify that the provision of cannabis is not a problem in and of itself -- there are of course unethical things that a dealer can do and may have done in your friend's case.
ps: Personal freedom is a hard argument to make, and it can be a bitter pill to swallow (Farnsworth: "now, if they could put it in the form of a suppository"). I think that's why tax revenue dominates the national stage. I don't like it, really. Instead of having to make a difficult -- but ultimately sensible -- decision, that might establish a serious, meaningful precedent, we are instead distracted by the prospect of more shiny things that we might get.
Ok.. think of it this way - we can, as society, judge cannabis use a poor choice. And thereby punish people who encourage that choice. But accept people who make the choice for themselves.
well, hell, if everyone wanted to use it, they would already. That seems illogical. I'm sure there are many people who are interested in trying it but who don't. :)
Anyway; I'm talking more about things like peer pressure. A large number of people develop a smoking habit from peer pressure at school. It's already a problem with weed as well - but I'd personally prefer not to see it become more widespread.
But that's what they all say! We can argue this all day; but the fact remains that in this case you just have to accept what I observed in my friend :)
The image of a predatory dealer who pushes cannabis on an addict who is trying to quit is, in my experience, largely false... ...especially among the affluent and the well-educated
The killer point is that last bit; affluent/well-educated people aren't the problem demographic. A lot of effort it put into pushing drugs onto inner city/poorer families. It is easier to hook them because of social issues.
This is the sort of problem I feel we need to address.
but punishing everyone because some people react badly doesn't work....
Please read back; as I have reiterated a number of times the example was used to disprove somebody else's assertion that cannabis could not destroy someones life. It's not specifically relevant to the pro/anti legalization debate.
It's not particularly nice to be called a dick.. you seem angry so I will leave it there because it's never a good basis for debate.
(as an aside in that I hope we can all agree that it is not extremely addictive.. This is one area of this that interests me deeply. It is becoming clear that cannabis is not physically addictive - but I have observed dependence in most people I know who smoke it. I'd love to see some better studies into why that is - is psychosomatic because they expect to be addicted, or just a product of habit?)
I read a lot of excerpts from his post as him just ranting against a general 'you,' not you in particular. I wouldn't take it personally.
If you begin with the assumption that you can effectively control use, you're probably already off on the wrong track, based on the results of almost 100 years of failed policy.
It's probably worth saying now that I am partly playing devils advocate here because I suspect (from previous times this has come up) that the overriding consensus here is pro-legalization. I think it's interesting to provoke some debate where the pro-prohibition side isn't a troll/idiot (again, like has happened in the past).
So; not currently on the side of legalization, but not on the opposite side either (though happy to play it temporarily)
My real feeling? I'm still not convinced by full legalization but equally not behind the current hardline attitudes. I've seen the negative effects of drugs - and they can be pretty awful for some. If we can offset those using education, taxation, decriminalization and other methods then that seems a great way to start - then legalization becomes a possibility in my eyes (consider it this way: trying to address the problems of alcohol abuse before it becomes widespread/common)
I'd like to think my aim is to help protect those who might be adversely affected by drug legalization rather than deliberately trying to prevent people having the choice.
EDIT: interested as to why the downvote. Is it for admitting to playing devils advocate - I only ask because if that proves unpopular Ill avoid it in future :)