Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

If Tobacco Regulation Works, Why Not Regulate Marijuana?

By Rob Kampia, AlterNet. Posted December 24, 2007.


If we really want to control marijuana and keep it away from kids, why not try a method that actually works?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Rob Kampia

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

President Bush recently touted new survey results showing a modest drop in teen use of marijuana and other drugs, but he failed to mention the drug for which prevention efforts have had the most spectacular success -- tobacco. If he had, he might have had to make some troubling comparisons.

Citing the results of the annual Monitoring the Future survey, Bush noted that drug use has declined from its recent peak in 1996, but sidestepped the longer-term picture that doesn't look nearly so rosy.

If you go back 15 years, to 1992, drug use is up almost across the board. For example, in 1992, 3.7 percent of eighth-graders were current marijuana users, compared with 5.7 percent in 2007. For 12th-graders, the figures were 11.9 percent and 18.8 percent, respectively.

This contrasts sharply with the figures on adolescent cigarette use. Here, too, there was a bit of a rise in the mid-1990s, but overall, the trend is much more encouraging.

While marijuana use is higher among all age groups than it was 15 years ago, cigarette smoking has dropped remarkably. Among 12th-graders, current cigarette smoking has dropped from 27.8 percent in 1992 to 21.6 percent this year. For eighth-graders, the drop is even more dramatic, from 15.5 percent down to 7.1 percent.

And here's a figure that may be shocking: Among 10th-graders, 14.0 percent currently smoke cigarettes, while 14.2 percent smoke marijuana. That's right: Slightly more 10th-graders now smoke marijuana than cigarettes.

The sharp drop in cigarette use is not attributable to changing attitudes about smoking. Teen disapproval of smoking is only marginally higher than it was in 1992, for all age groups.

So what accounts for the drop in tobacco use? The regulation of cigarette sales and marketing. As part of the Master Settlement Agreement with 46 states, cigarette companies agreed to stop outdoor advertising and to banish kid-friendly characters such as Joe Camel. Even more important, we as a nation got serious about reducing tobacco sales to kids.

In 1992, Congress passed the Synar Amendment, requiring states to enact and enforce laws prohibiting sale of tobacco products to youth under the age of 18, and setting up unannounced inspections of retail outlets. The program has worked spectacularly well. In 1997, inspectors found that over 40 percent of retailers were violating the ban on cigarette sales to kids. By 2006, the violation rate had dropped to just 10.9 percent, and it's still dropping.

So what does this have to do with marijuana?

Simply put, we have leverage over tobacco sellers that we don't have with marijuana dealers. Because tobacco retailers and producers are licensed and regulated, we have some control over them. If they want to keep their lucrative businesses, cigarette merchants have a strong incentive to follow the laws -- even laws they don't like.

Consider this: As part of their reaction to the Synar Amendment, tobacco retailers adopted a "voluntary" program called "We Card." Today, virtually any store that sells cigarettes posts a large, brightly colored sign saying, "Under 18, No Tobacco. We Card."

Have you ever seen a marijuana dealer with a "We Card" sign?

If we want to control teen access to marijuana, it's time to learn a lesson from our success with tobacco. Contrary to the mythology put out by Drug Czar John Walters and his ilk, the complete prohibition of marijuana for adults not only doesn't help to keep marijuana away from kids, but it actually hampers such efforts.

Regulation works. Prohibition deprives authorities of the best tools available to successfully regulate sales and marketing. Prohibition has handed the entire, annual $113 billion marijuana industry over to unregulated criminals, with entirely predictable consequences.

If we really want to control marijuana and keep it away from our kids, it's time to bring it within the law and regulate it as we do tobacco.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: marijuana, legalization, pot, teenagers, regulation

Rob Kampia is executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, DC.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Its just so OBVIOUS...
Posted by: cordas on Dec 24, 2007 1:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it.... Or are we missing some part of the grander scheme that makes prohibition the answer?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Its just so OBVIOUS... Posted by: donl51
» RE: Its just so OBVIOUS... Posted by: cordas
» RE: Its just so OBVIOUS... Posted by: Chromedome2000
» RE: Its just so OBVIOUS... Posted by: donl51
I don't think this is very realistic or helpful
Posted by: Rune on Dec 24, 2007 1:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Part of the reason for the reduction in teen smoking is that cigarettes have become so heavily taxed that it is more difficult to afford them. Also, as mentioned, cigarettes are not so easily purchased by teens as they once were, even if they can afford them.

Marijuana is a different situation. Teens can and do simply find isolated places to grow small quantities for there own use. (And, yes, some of them grow more and sell it, too.) It really wouldn't matter if marijuana was made legal and regulated for adults, for teens it would still be illegal and the same methods of growing, sharing, and selling it among friends would still be practical and economical.

I am not convinced that there is a great solution to this if, by a solution, we mean that there is an affordable and reasonable way to prevent teens from using marijuana without unreasonable limits on their social development and transition to (hopefully) well adjusted adults.

Perhaps a better point of focus would be on harm reduction for all users rather than prevention of marijuana use among adults. In other words, there needs to be more exploration of when and how to regulate certain behaviors in certain settings when people are high instead of assuming that by limiting access to marijuana to those who are adults and taking organized crime out of the growing and distribution end, everything will work out fine. It won't. Not selling dope to kids makes sense, but promoting healthy and socially positive behaviors among adult users (including some awareness about not lighting up in the company of children, as is commonly done with tobacco and alcohol) will yield more benefits for more than just young people.

We need to do a lot of work on developing conventions for the settings and occasions when marijuana use is acceptable if we are to recognize it as a socially permissible means of altering one's consciousness for recreational purposes. We are already seeing quite a lot of friction over that aspect of tobacco smoking. With marijuana, which has much greater mind altering affects, the considerations are more far reaching and can be more complicated. We will need to do a lot of thinking and discussing to work that out.

So far, most people have not given a lot of thought to that because marijuana remains illegal and taboo in broad public forums, yet not subject to a whole lot of dialog and contemplation about when and around whom it might be best to resist the urge to get high within social circles that share a joint or a pipe with friends and acquaintances.

I think a proactive approach to developing harm reduction conventions for legal marijuana use would be much more fruitful and progressive than trying to equate pot with tobacco in any way. First of all, the two are very different in terms of addictive properties, health consequences, psychoactive effects, and the motivations of users. But more importantly, I don't think tobacco regulations are nearly as effective as they are made out to be in this article. The facts are that smoking remains relatively popular with today's young people and most adult smokers begin their habit when they are in their teens, while most people who have not begun smoking until they are adults probably never will.

There are sound reasons for legalizing marijuana. There are problems with marijuana use, especially among the young, that exist today and will not go away just because marijuana is made legal. But to get the most out of legalization, we need to think in terms of settings and occasions when it is not OK to use it and be ready with regulations and education campaigns (to be paid for with some of this marijuana taxes that are to come with regulations) that will do more for harm reduction than prohibitions on who, if anyone, can buy the stuff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two Kinds of Smokers Posted by: seaseal
» Thanks for mentioning the one-hitter Posted by: tokerdesigner
» RE: Surely Tobacco is also a plant... Posted by: tokerdesigner
» That is just pathetic Posted by: NorskyBoy
» RE: That is just pathetic Posted by: aonghus36
Constitution was written on hemp paper
Posted by: Reader11722 on Dec 24, 2007 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
War on drugs, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul (he's for legalization) and save this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» your kidding right?... Posted by: Bearzerker
» RE: your kidding right?... Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: your kidding right?... Posted by: vegngrl
» RE: your kidding right?... Posted by: peacefullaim
Simple
Posted by: chomsky on Dec 24, 2007 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regulation would kill the business...
So, the people into this business don't want regulation.
As said previously, what is made illegal is made expensive.
Who profits: the drug dealers, and whoever provides them with the drugs...
In related news, since the NATO invaded Afghanistan, poppy crops are blooming. Thanks NATO!
Would be amazing to realise that the CIA is into the drug business (see the ex-CIA plane crash in Mexico, carrying 3.2 tons of cocaine)...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, No, No, No, noooooo... Posted by: Bearzerker
» RE: Simple Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Simple Posted by: chomsky
» RE: Simple Posted by: jroth420
» RE: Simple Posted by: ALANHESTER
Up in Smoke
Posted by: jmmartin on Dec 24, 2007 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hear! Hear! Great idea. The so-called "war on drugs" is nothing if not a war on sanity. We've wasted a gazillion dollars on enforcement when what was needed was treatment for addiction and regulation of an industry that is part of the underground economy. If we legalized drugs and taxed them as we tax liquor and tobacco (heavily, because such levies are labeled "sin taxes"), we could fund SCHIPS, rebuild the entire infrastructure of the U.S. (no more collapsing bridges!), and fund universal health care.

We would also put organized crime out of the drug distribution business and guarantee pureness of product such that there would be fewer if any health problems associated with stepped-on merchandise, "hot shot" overdoses, &c. In the case of marijuana alone, one could walk into a Walgreen's or CVS and plop down, say, $50 for a pack of "Acapulco Gold" knowing that quality would be high (you should pardon the expression) and that, since marijuana is a weed that costs next to nothing to cultivate, about $5 would go into production and packaging and $45 would go into the tax coffers.

Border customs agents readily admit that 90% of all drugs get through, meaning that only 10% of the billions that have been spent on enforcement have done any "good." The only thing going up in smoke is our dollar, which, come to think of it, ain't worth a whole lot anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Up in Smoke Posted by: Lauren
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Well, tobacco regulation hasn't worked so well...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 24, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you go into any convenience store, you'll see the latest tobacco marketing campaign aimed at kids: sugary, flavored cigars.

Basically, the only people who become pack-a-day smokers are people who start smoking in their teens. The tobacco lobby knows this, so they focus heavily on trying to get kids addicted. See tobaccofreekids.org

Speaking of kids and tobacco, here's an eye-opener: "Exposure of young children working on Mexican tobacco plantations to organophosphorous and carbamic pesticides, indicated by cholinesterase depression." source. Those tobacco fields are controlled by Philip Morris and British-American tobacco, according to some web sites.

All in all, the tobacco business kills a lot more people than anything else. The #1 cause of death in the U.S. is tobacco. Half a million people a year. Tobacco's active compound, nicotine is a virulent poison - the people who make the nicotine patches have to work in the equivalent of space suits to avoid poisoning themselves.

The thing about cannabis is that is effective in small amounts, can be taken orally, and has many medical benefits for cancer patients, AIDS patients, chronic pain sufferers, and also is effective for people with clinical depression. Smoking anything isn't good for your lungs, but the fact is that tobacco smoke is far worse than cannabis smoke.

The most important thing about drugs is telling kids the truth about them - which doesn't happen. How many school 'anti-drug' programs include tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceuticals? How many kids are drugged up on amphetamine derivatives every day (Ritalin, Adderall, etc.)? How many studies have been done tracking the connection between childhood Ritalin use and adult methamphetamine addiction?

The marketing of drugs to kids is indeed out of control - but the main culprits here are not 'marijuana dealers', but rather the alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "BIG PHARMA" feeds off "BIG TOBACKGO' Posted by: tokerdesigner
Hell No
Posted by: LeaveMeAlone on Dec 24, 2007 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we cannot legalize. We cannot go soft on sin. You want to get high? Get high on Jesus or alcohol. And besides, we can't let those Godly men who invested their hard earned money in construction equipment to build our prisons lose money. It wouldn't be fair.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hell No Posted by: PJAW
» PJAW Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: PJAW Posted by: mr.ed
» RE very funny! Posted by: boydranchitos
» ahhhhhh... this is Satire! Posted by: Bearzerker
Psychological Reactance
Posted by: Gravitas on Dec 24, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Social psychologists have a theory called psychological reactance. Oversimplified, when something is taken away from us, we want it more. An example straight from the text, there was a town in Florida that passed a law that required everyone to carry a gun. Gun ownership actually went DOWN in that town because people resented the choice being taken away. When something is forbidden, we want it more. We demonstrated this with prohibition.

The trouble is we pick and choose how to apply this priniciple according to our political bent. "Liberals" see that making marijuana illegal increases its appeal. The same thing with abstinence education. Tell young adults to NEVER have sex before marriage, ban birth control, and you are inviting parenthood. Ironically, when it comes to the recent cupcake ban for holiday parties in school, many people support them. Same principle! Tell kids cupcakes are forbidden and you are equating them with rebellion and a way to spite parents and brain dead school officials. The principle is the same, junk food is just the demon of the left the way drugs and sex are the demons of the right.

Back to marijuana, I agree with the author. We should at least try a limited experiment with making it legal and see what happens. Certainly, current laws are not curtailing its use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Psychological Reactance Posted by: daniel1982
Replying to the Title
Posted by: edaw on Dec 24, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not a given that tobacco regulation works. Marketing to children is easy, as advertisers know. Under the guise of doing their part tobacco companies slyly tempt children with tobacco as a badge of growing up, telling them are too young for it. Why? Because children are their only market and future; no adults are starting the unhealthy habit of taking up tobacco; and for these huge companies it's strictly business...staying in business...to keep the big money flowing in!

We refuse to legalize marijuana for the same reason: too much money rolling in. Organized crime circles are not the only beneficiaries of this larder. Some of our judicial system feeds on it and a large part of our policing armature is oiled by it, legally and not.

Like tobacco and alcohol use, marijuana use is a health issue, not a regulation or police issue. Education of the public, especially including children in the process, is the only way to go. We have to find the ambition to improve the health of our children in spite of the towering invisible edifice in place that exploits their innocent growth and development.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marijuana doesn't kill people. People KILL people.
Posted by: tomnanto on Dec 24, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides, marijuana has fewer harmful effects on the mind and the body. Try telling me that it's worse than junk food, alcohol, tobacco, Big Pharma drugs such as viagra, etc ... and I'll bet no one can come close to proving it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Its the Bottom Line
Posted by: lc on Dec 24, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical special interests contribute the majority of funding needed to support the Partnership for a Drug Free America whose advertising was 98% attacks against marijuana.
Marijuana is the greatest threat to all three of these interests because it is both a medicine and a relaxant. No wonder the government arrests almost a million pot heads a year but hard drugs get little attention unless it is crack sold by blacks. Hippies and Blacks make up the drug prison population. The prison industry rules politicians. Drug arrests are a safe bust for cops and make for easy to handle prisoners. All we are is fodder for the greedy to grind US into poverty while they bank the $$$.
God gave US the "Green Herb" and it so states it in Genesis yet conservatives fail to note the singular importance of "the green herb' also being given to Noah after he flopped up on dry land. God put neuron receptors in our brain that accept only the THC molecule. The receptors are unique because they also have ganglia which extend into other parts of the brain yet to be scientifically quantified. In other words, God's Green Herb was meant to reach our higher consciousness, the part of our brain most feared by those who control US. No wonder marijuana gets all the attention when there has never been one recorded death attributable to marijuana in thousands of years of recorded usage. Contrast that against aspirin which causes about 100 deaths a year, or any acceptable prescription drug that is available when only 25% efficacy can be expected from most pills.
Marijuana would send the Big Three drug industries into financial red line. It is only chump change to them to pay off politicians to imprison the rest of US just so they can keep their prophets.
IM
Belteshazzar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Its the Bottom Line Posted by: mr.ed
» RE: Its the Bottom Line Posted by: Lauren
As bad as it being illegal is
Posted by: Joe on Dec 24, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
liberals will make it so much worse. 2 areas liberals will f... up as usual. a)public safety(aka regulation), b) taxes which both equal anti free business.

by time liberals finish with heavy regulation in the interest of public health and safety, taxes and anti business legislation the only companies that will be able to sell marijuana are the major players in the cigarette business. local growers or individuals will killed off with public safety regulation and taxes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you say liberal like... Posted by: Bearzerker
Rune's right, 'marijuana' isn't tobacco.
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Dec 24, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, growing high grade ganja is easy. Growing tobacco isn't.

The best reason to end prohibition is that it's counter-productive. Cannabis agriculture is a promising solution to many areas of critical imbalance. In particular, food security, nutrition and climate change.

Google "global broiling" or visit

www.californiacannabisministry.blogspot.com

to learn more.

PvH

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enlist tobacco companies
Posted by: daniel1982 on Dec 24, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure they would love to create, market and distribute legal marijuana, especially since there's a lot of heat on tobacco.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nlist tobacco companies Posted by: Lauren
» RE: nlist tobacco companies Posted by: richholland
» RE: enlist tobacco companies Posted by: tokerdesigner
A few thoughts on the matter
Posted by: willymack on Dec 24, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that even with a very large boatload of good information about the harmful effects of booze, dope, and tobacco, a signifigant portion of our population go right ahead and blow smoke or deliver the means to their bodies to get their heads bad in other ways. This fact of human nature is ignored by knotheads posing as our moral "superiors", so dope dealers are getting richer than ever. It never occurs to those in the Ivory Tower that if leagalized and TAXED AND REGULATED in a sensible manner, we could probably erase the deficit and make real progress toward paying off the national debt, or, maybe they DO know this and don't want it to happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Please don't say "DOPE" any more Posted by: tokerdesigner
» RE: mick3 Posted by: LeaderofMen
Marajuana is a nice house plant
Posted by: billwald on Dec 24, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marajuana is a nice house plant and drying the leaves should not be a problem. A tobacco leaf is 4 or 5 feet long and processing it is a pain in the butt.

The tobacco growing was recently deregulated and always was legal in not grown for resale but I don't know of anyone in my neighborhood who grows his own ciggybutts.

Ciggybutt smokers could save dollars every day but are to lazy. I heard a person standing in a welfare line trying to convince others to save money this way but was not successful. I guess pot smokers are more industrious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I was a volunteer Posted by: billwald
Excellent Book on the Subject
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Dec 24, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This book explains a lot about the origins of the war on drugs and other 'wars' that are doing nothing but sucking the treasury dry:

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society
by Peter McWilliams

Paperback: 692 pages
Publisher: Mary Books (June 30, 1996)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 192976717X
ISBN-13: 978-1929767175

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marijuana Reduces Intelligence (of Those Opposed to Its Use)
Posted by: cyberfactotum on Dec 24, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a big problem. Not easily solvable. There have been many studies done: pot observably reduces the intelligence of those opposed to its use.

Don't believe me? Try talking reasonably (or corresponding) with such a person. The so-called discussion will either steadily devolve due to the opposer's dwindling intelligence in the face of the raw facts, or it will never get off the ground in the first place because the opposer's reasoning is not up to the task.

It's sad but true.

Don't let this happen to anyone you know. We can't afford it. There is too much unintelligence in the world already to allow it to increase.

It's sort of a stepping stone progression, unfortunately. First people will be opposed to marijuana and get stupider. Then they will become opposed to something like eating healthy, organic foods and their intelligence will drop further, even to the point of banning some of the most health giving foods--raw greens, raw almonds, raw milk, for instance (as is actually happening now in California and other parts of the U.S.).

Then people will become opposed to global and local peace and their intelligence will literally plummet. They will go on to become opposed to effective and freedom-empowering laws, leaders and politicians.

From there, there is no telling where things will go. Perhaps opposition to beliefs and religions that are actually loving and compassionate and wise, in favor of those that can be twisted to be violent, body-negative, and dogmatic? You say this can't happen? Perhaps it's too unimaginable? Believe me, it can.

And on and on to things like opposition to scientific suppositions and facts, such as evolution, "arguing" instead that the world is just a few thousand years old. Or maybe opposition to shepherding the planet well, in favor of polluting it as fast as possible and and raping it for all its worth.

The opposers' intelligence peters out bit by bit. And where will that leave us all?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marge Rudman
Posted by: Marge Rudman on Dec 24, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, simply decriminalizing pot and opening it up to commercialization would have a myriad of effects and unintended consequences. I'm in favor of the idea and would like to live long enough to watch what happens next. Taxing marijuanna sales is fine with me as long as it is also legal to grow your own. Just as it is now legal to brew your own beer. How long would it be before some company begins adding subtances to the marijuanna to increase its effect and/or make it addictive? A tremendous savings in law enforcement and internment would certainly be realized. However, I really doubt that a decline in teen pot smoking would result.
Anything to legalize this substance has to be a step in the right direction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Marge Rudman Posted by: Lauren
Gene Tinelli, MD
Posted by: Dr T on Dec 24, 2007 1:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When we prohibit something, we have only one world, prohibition. We give up the chance to regulate it, sort of a "zero tolerance" for regulation.

With legalization, we have multiple worlds of flexibility for drugs policy. We can keep cocaine where it is, legal and tightly regulated to the medical profession for certain procedures. We can regulate "psychedelics" initially to research and clinical pharmacotherapy for certified practitioners. We can leave alcohol and tobacco with about the same regulations and have marijuana regulated somewhere between them and caffeine, whose main regulation is that it be listed on the label for any product that contains it.

Three steps are needed:

1. Abolish the Drug Enforcement Agency. They set the guidelines by determining the classes (I-V) for controlled substances. Since law enforcement personnel staff the DEA, in America we have cops telling docs what is and what is not proper medicine. For anyone who doesn't think this is insane, the next time you or a loved one gets sick, call a cop.

2. Have the drug classes under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration.

3. Eliminate Schedule I substances, those with a alleged high abuse potential and "no medical use" such as marijuana, MDMA (ecstasy) and heroin and move them all into Schedule II, prescription drugs.

Only then can we start to have a rational drugs policy and we can end our losing efforts in an unenforceable war on drugs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ask Big Tobacco. No--better yet, ask me. Because I kicked the smoking habit cold 35 years ago...
Posted by: jvaljon1 on Dec 24, 2007 1:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By smoking grass for one weekend. No--this wasn't any ten cigs/day habit that I had. In a 20-hour day, I usually put away FOUR PACKS OF PALL MALLS. Four.

When I quit, it was on a dare. I quit on Friday--and immediately lit up a joint when I felt the urge to smoke. And another. And another...(aside--pick a time when you won't be called on to drive. Obviously...) At the end of the weekend, I was not only cig-free but grass-free as well. I couldn't even look at either a cigarette OR a joint. And unless you count the 10 lbs I gained (and lost the following week) there were no ill effects to me.

Ill effects to Reynolds? Hmmm...at the time, cigs were $.75/pk. Lessee--X 4, = $3.00/day that they lost off me. Now stay with me--$3/day, X 365 days (wait, for this I need the calculator) = $1,095/yr. Now we're getting into serious money--I've been smoke-free since 1975, so, lessee....$1,095.00 X 32(yrs) = WOW! That's $35,040.00 that Reynolds Tobacco has NOT made off of me in the past 32 years! All because of (as I remember) $50.00 worth of marijuana that I used to help me quit!

Now try some multiplication, whilst I tell you something else. Back in the 60s, Ligget-Meyers and RJ Reynolds were all primed for the legalization of marijuana. Back then, the drug revolution, etc, etc--they were expecting it to the extent that they set aside fields in North Carolina to grow the stuff so that they could market it. Then--all of a sudden, there came this complete about-face--The War On Drugs. And the whole marijuana initiative was scrapped, and the set-aside fields were planted once more with tobacco. My guess is, that a whole lot of people kicked the habit by using grass, and the Big Tobacco looked down the road, shaking in their shoes--did the math, and firmly got behind the ANTI-legalization forces. Can't blame them for that business decision, LOL!

Update--I'm 69 years old. Pushing 70, hard. NO cancer. Half my immediate family passed from various forms of cancer--I also got cancer, 3 times but it grew slowly and was caught early. I get checkups 2x yr--so far, so good! I do credit the fact that I'm still here, relatively healthy--for that decision to quit 32 years ago.

To those of you who wish to try quitting, I say the best of luck, from the bottom of my heart. I can't say who'll get my results (remember, I didn't even take quitting seriously, like I said, I did it on a bet and that was my only motivation--to win the bet)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rob, come on...
Posted by: pizzmoe on Dec 24, 2007 3:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's the matter with you? You're being way too logical!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Lauren on Dec 24, 2007 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is all about religionI LOVE this song. I hope you like us Indians. We love you. Or at least we try to, it is hard to love those who mistreat you. Isn't this a beautiful song?

Merry Christmas everyone! Happy Kwanzaa!

I danced out across the street a couple of days ago in front of the postman. Dancing a blueman, he shook his head at me the day before, I in my Cannabis College Sweat shirt. So I danced him. Of course I took a shield.

Getting real with the federal offices, one person at a time. I had a private laugh wondering if he filed a homeland insecurity report on me. Maybe he did. It was my drug war shield. The one with the red cross on a white background, yellow center, Blueman's tail, green circles. It is a beautiful shield, it should be photographed and put in the newspaper's religion page. I am doing something. I am real.

Yeah right, who cares?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» luv ya man... Posted by: Bearzerker
» GORGEOUS! Posted by: wireup
» RE: GORGEOUS! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Merry Christmas! Posted by: peacefullaim
You Can Drunk Drive and Kill, But Better Not Smoke That "Evil" Dope!
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 24, 2007 8:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even for those whose lives are the most successful there are going to be times when life sucks. There are going to be times when you get fired or laid off from a job, don't get a job you wanted, your kid or spouse tells you "go to hell," your boss hates your guts, you get sick, or you run out of money and you just find out your house is now worth $100,000 less then it was a few months ago.

Such times are going to be unbearable for most anyone and societies way of acceptable coping for you is to tell you it is ok to go out and have a drink or two. But, you better not go get and smoke some dope. Otherwise, if the drug enforcement police come along, you are going to have even more problems.

So, you can go out to the bar, booze it up to forget your troubles, and then on the way home, plough your car into the back end of a school bus and snuff out the lives of a couple children. You will forfeit your licence for perhaps a year (probably but not always) and might even go to jail for a couple months for this. But, you won't be charged with "illegal drug use" because you didn't have that marijuana joint, a joint that could have sent you to jail for a minimum year or so especially if a "repeat offense". Even though you never killed or harmed a soul.

Let's face it, life has a lot of up's and down's, and hopefully for everyone of us it is mostly up's, but we all know there will be some down's. For thousands of years people have needed a way to cope and deal with these inevitable changes in life. Therefore, we need the least dangerous, most effective way for this. Allowing alcohol, a drug more dangerous than heroin, but not allowing people to smoke a joint or two every now and then, is simply assinine. And, I agree with other posters above, we have an entrenched culture of drugs are bad, narcotic enforcer types filling our prisons galore with "offenders." A business worth billions that is self-perpetuating. Therefore, we may punish the drunk driver, but we will ultimately forgive him or her. But, heaven forbid for those who smoke dope - the message is go booze it up and drive home instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look at it this way, Mr. President.....
Posted by: eosrk on Dec 24, 2007 9:40 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...at least you can tax it, and then your rich friends can make corporations to sell it, just like tobacco.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's about power and control
Posted by: mcstewey on Dec 25, 2007 1:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lot's of good stuff written here. It's fairly obvious that one main reason for keeping marijuana illegal is for profit (on both sides of the law), but there are other things happening too. Namely, controlling the public. By keeping ganja illegal the state is making a statement about enforcing morality that indirectly controls the masses by averting our attention from the corporate and white-collar crimes that do much more social and economic harm. It's about creating an enemy (poor blacks or hippies) that are going to come into our pretty, middle-class, white suburbs and get our kids hooked on drugs. The result? A scared populace that is easily controlled. Governments have been doing this for centuries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's obvious
Posted by: davesilvan on Dec 25, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you read 'The Marijuana Conviction' available now on half.com here. it was outlawed not only because it was a drug used by the minorities but also because of the threat hemp posed against so many industries: medicine, fuel, fiber, food, paper, and more.

Also read Jack Herer's 'The Emperor Wears No Clothes'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

idiot.
Posted by: davesilvan on Dec 25, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you are an idiot. while seeds in one's weed are a pain (they pop out when superheated) there presence has little effect on whether or not it will get you high.

When female cannabis plants are germinated (is that the right word? I don't know, i'm not a horticulturist; in any case, when they are 'impregnated' by male cannabis plants) they develop seeds in addition to producing flowers (buds). The most potent 'weed' is flowers from the female cannabis plants who are never 'impregnated' because they spend all their energy producing flowers (buds).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What right do you have to regulate?
Posted by: Netizen_x on Dec 25, 2007 10:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I strongly disagree with the notion that you or anyone else has the right to regulate my habits or the wonderful herb Cannabis Sativa.

If you are concerned about your own children smoking pot then use your responsibility as a parent to regulate their behaviour. As a mature man I require no-one to regulate mine.

The problem with your thinking is that you were born into a slave system where substances and personal choices are regulated and controlled. So naturally, you think that is a normal state of affairs. It's not, and you have no right to regulate marijuana or my lifestyle choices.

Keep your grubby hands off my pot.
Keep your snotty nose out of my business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

legalise the USE
Posted by: richholland on Dec 25, 2007 11:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. put drug dealers in prison
2. allow production for own use
3. donot put recreational using people in jail
4. produce enough for medical use at reasonable prizes.
5. keep big corporations like Phillip Morres etc. out
of the bussiness
6. donot give terapy to addicted weed junks, abstinence and hard labor helps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is Dianne Feinstein's top priority?
Posted by: Lauren on Dec 26, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Sac Bee has this site for alerts, meth mouth is top three, right there between tellcom immunity and the CIA. What is her obsession with illegal drugs?

I understand meth mouth is a disgusting problem, why specific funding in schools? It is not as big a problem as a long list of other things. Why not just fund counseling instead? Or sports, or art? Or dental care?

I am so disappointed in her. Look at her focus, always some new way to throw money at 'teaching' our kids with police forces. I am truly sick of it, POLICE DO NOT BELONG IN SCHOOLS.

And with all the important issues, that should have her attention, like impeachment, will she she choses to go after more money for police forces to gross out our kids with pictures of meth mouth?

Where IS her political focus? Is this a part of a bigger plan to soften up these same kids for their best job opportunity in her world, a soldier in Iraq? I hear she thinks it is going to be a long war. This is sick! She is sick, she should be removed from office.

Here is her record.

Combating Criminal Street Gangs


Senator Feinstein holds a news conference with members of the Los Angeles Police Department in September 2003.
Gang violence is an attack not only on individuals, but on our communities. It stops mothers from allowing their children to play outside. It prevents the elderly from taking walks in their neighborhoods. It creates an environment of fear.

It is time for the federal government to provide a hand of assistance in trying to come to grips with rising street-gang violence. The key is a careful balance, including some tough federal penalties and funding for prosecutions, successful community programs and witness protection.

That’s why I’ve introduced legislation to provide the tools and resources needed to take a comprehensive approach to the problem of violence by criminal street gangs.

The “Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007” establishes new crimes and tougher federal penalties to deter and punish members of illegal street gangs and provides more than $1 billion in funding for gang enforcement, prevention and intervention programs over five years.

The legislation has garnered endorsements from:
the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP),
the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO),
the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP),
the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA), and
the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association (NAGIA), among others.

The FBI reports that violent crime increased in 2005 at its highest rate in 15 years, and the numbers were even higher in the first part of 2006. Many experts attribute this recent surge in violent crime to the increased gang presence in our cities, both large and small. The federal government cannot wait any longer to strengthen its own criminal laws and lend this much-needed hand of assistance to the state and local agencies battling gang violence.

Bill Summary

The bill authorizes $1.02 billion for prevention, intervention, and enforcement programs. Here’s where the funding would go:
$500 million over five years to support HIIGAA activities, half of which would be used to promote prevention efforts.
Local Schools, service providers and community and faith leaders with demonstrated success in fighting gangs, would be empowered to work collaboratively with law enforcement in a coordinated approach to fighting gangs, following the successful “Operation Ceasefire” model.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

all drugs were legal until 1902 and the problems were miniscule
Posted by: drblack on Dec 26, 2007 9:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until we repeal all drug laws we will have a black market in illegal drugs which causes violence, police and political corruption , drugs to be way more dangerous, theft, prostitution, drug gangs with guns and it makes some very bad people rich and powerful.
Parents pay attention to your kids.

Intoxicants were around when our Constitution was written and our country formed and their was no talk of regulation and certainly no talk of prohibition.
Drug Prohibition and the War On Some Drugs is the worst, most failed domestic policy in US history.
Marijuana is as dangerous as coffee.
If a person is not free to put in and take out of their bodies what they choose they are not free.
The Constitution guarantees the Right to Life ,Liberty and happiness.
This certainly means a person can do with themselves and to themselves as they see fit.
Computer game addiction is a much bigger problem among teens then drug addiction today.
What would happen if computer games were made illegal? they would be expensive, there would be gangs and violence, corruption and increased danger.
Black Markets created by prohibiting something that people want ALWAYS increases the dangers and problems associated with that something. Prohibition only makes the problem worse.
The War On Some Drugs was started to increase the control and power of the government and police over American individuals.The War On Terror is the same.
For a Safer, saner more compassionate and reasonable world(and a less taxed and more Free) END DRUG PROHIBITION NOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Jail Time For Gardeners
Posted by: Rosaleigh on Dec 28, 2007 6:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am all for legalizing and regulating cannabis but not like tobacco. Any cannabis reform must allow citizens to cultivate without DEA raids, arrests, seizures, etc. If we have to compare regulating cannabis to anything, let's consider beer and wine. We can grow our own hops and grapes in our yards and make beer and wine in our homes. That is much more appealing.

Let's not sellout to big pharma. The herb would suck!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cannibis
Posted by: Abe on Dec 29, 2007 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CANNABIS

Each foreign land, has it’s own brand’
There is of course, home-grown.
Most of it’s grand, easy to stand,
With some, your mind is blown.

It’s found it’s way, smoked every day,
In every walk of life.
From working men, to congressmen,
Even the preacher’s wife.

It can cause good highs, strange looking eyes,
It will make your mouth feel dry.
Makes food taste good, music understood,
Make you laugh until you cry.

You can talk to others, it calms the nerves,
Helps you be as you are.
But like a drink, so don’t you think
That you can drive a car.

You’ll feel each bump, rattle and thump,
Slow down a block away
For a yellow light, want left, turn right,
You might even lose your way.

You’ll tend to forget, the end of it,
Whatever, you were saying.
You can look down, towards the ground
And see that you are swaying.

A lover’s touch, can mean so much,
Send shivers down your spine,
And when in bed, what can be said,
Except, that it is so fine.

To help eyesight, ease cancer’s plight,
And who knows, maybe more.
Good things to come, from that plant some
Of those, ignorant, ignore.

It’s made illegal, the paper eagle
Is spent to promote crime.
It could be sold and be controlled
Don’t you think it’s about time.

So, maybe some day, under table pay
Won’t stop legalization.
But, until then, with a silly grin
We will just bear our frustration.

Del “Abe” Jones

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Should Liberty Be Regulated?
Posted by: left_libertarian on Dec 29, 2007 12:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While this would be a step in the right direction, it would just be a mess. Regulation means laws, special interest groups, and politicians getting involved in what should be a matter of liberty.

To speak somewhat in jest: There ought to be a laws against more laws.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tobacco regulation DOESN'T work; that's the point
Posted by: xbj on Dec 29, 2007 5:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When human beings stop smoking and dying from smoke inhalation, THEN you could say tobacco regulation was working.

Until then, people are killing themselves and others, so it's NOT working.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Freedom for all, not just you
Posted by: Puffin on Dec 30, 2007 7:34 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love this. People turning themselves inside out to be against tobacco but in favor of smoking marijuana.

How about this idea...let everybody do what they damn well feel like doing! And drop any notion of any kind of sin tax. Taxes should be based on income, not one's inclination to enjoy oneself.

Wish someone would line all the prigs up end to end and shoot them off to the moon...what a wonderful world it would be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement