Cynical Nation

I think Phelps is an idiot for endangering his endorsement deals, but this whole thing is ridiculously stupid.

Four words: Legalize. Pot. Now.

Are you seeing the word "pot" twice?

I support the War on Drugs (too many personal tragedies) even though it may need rehauling. But Mr. Stutarford has teh dumb. He's like Estes Kefauver - using vice for 15 minutes of fame.

"Legalize. Pot. Now." (Fred)


Where do you get THAT as the lesson of Mike Phelp's misguided marijuana use?

Especially considering that;
"• marijuana produces 50% more tar than the same weight of strong tobacco (Wu et al 1988; Fehr 1980; Rickert 1982)

"• marijuana smoke contains 70% more benzopyrene than tobacco smoke from American cigarettes (Novotny et al 1976; Fehr 1983); and in part to the way in which marijuana is smoked compared to the way in which tobacco is smoked:

"• marijuana tends to be smoked with a two-thirds larger puff volume, a one-third greater depth of inhalation, and a fourfold longer breathholding time than tobacco (Wu et al 1988).

"The cumulative effect of the content of marijuana and the method by which it is smoked, is that, by volume, smoke from marijuana is more damaging than tobacco smoke:

"• smoking two to three marijuana cigarettes a day is widely estimated to have the same effect on the risk of cancers and on the prevalence of acute and chronic respiratory symptoms as smoking 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day (Wu et al 1988; Tashkin 1980; Fehr 1983).

"Smoking marijuana is strongly associated with chronic bronchitis, is considered very likely to cause cancers of the respiratory system, and is believed to damage the alveolar macrophages (self-cleansing and self-protecting mechanisms of the lungs), making regular marijuana smokers more prone to bacterial lung and bronchial infections (Wu et al 1988; Tashkin et al 1976; Fehr 1980;"

http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/psc-position-on-marijuana.PDF

While the Rockefeller laws, that subject people convicted of having "dealer's weight" in illicit drugs on them at the time of their arrest, to more time than many violent offenders are counterproductive and poorly written, the idea that marijuana smoke is somehow "healthier" or better for you than tobacco smoke seems ridiculous on its face and seems to be UNSUPPORTED by evidence.

At any rate, Phelps' apology has apparently "done the trick" and it's doubtful that Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott will ultimately pursue criminal charges and most of Phelps' sponsors will probably stand by him.

Legalize it, tax the crap out of it and puruse far worse crimes than pot smoking, for christ's sake.

I have to agree with fred. It just seems like kind of a waste of time and energy both for the police and the courts pursuing potheads. I'm sure there are violent potheads. I've never met any though. And really, if we allow people to pickle their brains with alcohol and tobacco is legal, what is the argument with marijuana? Why can't the same laws that are in place for tobacco and alcohol be used for it? And then that would settle the whole medical use issue.

"Legalize it, tax the crap out of it and puruse far worse crimes than pot smoking, for christ's sake." (Fred)


There may be "worse crimes," BUT two things apparently make it worse than, say, alcohol, (1) the health effects documented in the above studies ("marijuana produces 50% more tar than the same weight of strong tobacco" & "marijuana smoke contains 70% more benzopyrene than tobacco smoke from American cigarettes") and (2) unlike alcohol, which can be imbibed without getting drunk, getting stoned is the intended and natural effect of marijuana use. People don't always drink to the point of drunkeness, but people always use marijuana and other drugs to the point of impairment.

I work in a profession where mandatory drug and alcohol testing is mandatory and the old "three strikes" (two turns at rehab) and out has been replaced by a "zero tolerance" edict. I know a number of guys who've been fired and lost their pensions due to drug and alcohol use, and while I sympathize with them (man if fallible) and I don't like the idea of a guy's wife and kids getting punished because of a single slip up, we all know the rules and we, like pilots, truckers and many other professions involved with public safety recognize a higher bar is needed for such professions.

What I find inconsistent is that many of the same anti-smoking nazis, hypocritically support legalizing (and thus expanding) the use of marijuana.

WHY?

It's health effects seem even worse, "smoking two to three marijuana cigarettes a day is widely estimated to have the same effect on the risk of cancers and on the prevalence of acute and chronic respiratory symptoms as smoking 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day," so why is this a cause celeb from those who'd let folks like myself police your neighbor's trans fat intake and monitor their salt use?

There's a disconnect there.


"It just seems like kind of a waste of time and energy both for the police and the courts pursuing potheads." (K)


I don't think police "waste much time" doing that K.

They DO go after dealers in places like NYC, but people are rarely arrested for "user's amounts" of marijuana.

'Two to three marijuana cigarettes a day'...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Maybe back in high school and college, I could do that occasionally.
It's funny, I've gone for long periods of time without smoking weed and the 'withdrawal' is non-existent. It's not addictive. I quit smoking JMK's beloved tobacco 10 months ago after 25 years and the withdrawals (not the cravings, because I had none) were horrific. Several weeks of nausea, panic attacks, dizziness, heart palpitations, anxiety...
I drink too much booze, I get a rotten hangover preceded by the always-enjoyale bed spins. I smoke too much pot, I sleep like a log and wake up just fine the next morning.

This is one debate I can guar-on-tee will go nowhere. But here is my defense from Theodore Dalrymple

If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few, if any, such wars are winnable. So let us all do anything we choose.

The present situation is bad, undoubtedly; but few are the situations so bad that they cannot be made worse by a wrong policy decision.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_2_a1.html

I have been around potheads and I have been around alcoholics. It is my personal observation that alcohol is a more addicting and debillitating drug.

Most people who smoke pot do not suffer severe consequences just as most do not suffer from addiction to alcohol. Also, potheads tend to drink as well. Both are drugs and both can be abused.

I say legalize and tax marijuana and focus on highly addictive drugs such as Meth and cocaine.

" I quit smoking JMK's beloved tobacco 10 months ago after 25 years and the withdrawals (not the cravings, because I had none) were horrific." (Fred)


It's quotes like these that make you one of my favorite dumb guys, Fred...and I say that not to be insulting at all, but because you never seem to understand ANY argument at all.

I never said I oposed the decriminaliztion of drugs...in fact, I don't believe I ever inferred that, though that is what you've taken from this discussion, because (and I assume, despite doing your level best) you don't/CAN'T follow discussions without making such presumptions.

It was sort of the same when I acknowledged that homosexuality is a "sexual deviancy," same as necrophilia and bestiality. I acknowledge that NOT because I revile homosexuality...I DON'T, nor do I revile necrophilia or bestiality either....I mean, "Who's gettin hoit?" Again, however, consistency demands that legitimizing one deviancy legitimizes the others....I have no problem with that....to each his/her own.

Ironically enough, I don't smoke, never have and rarely drink (I'd actually make a pretty good Muslim, if it weren't for my innate xenophobia which leads me to despise Arabs, among many others...although, that's a big part of that culture too, so maybe I'd fit in even better than I give myself credit for) and I too have known people who've suffered mightily doing one or BOTH of those things and never have been connected enough to other people to care one way or the other about what they did. I mean, I don't wish anyone ill, but I don't much care about the health consequences of Billy smoking a big bag of crack, so long as it makes him happy and he doesn't inconvenience me in any way...I'm OK with him using and I'm equally OK with him dealing with whatever later health effects come his way.

The way I see it is, we're ALL gonna die anyway, so if smoking like a chimney, drinking your balls off or smoking a big bag of crack makes you happy...so long as you don't invonvenience me (like by dying in my home, or driving into my car while impaired), I say "God's speed."

The fact is you can ONLY have two possible (logical) views on this issue; (1) ALL drugs should be decriminalized, as it's none of government's busines what we do with our bodies, NO anti-smoking laws, no trans fat or salt bans, etc. (this is the Libertarian perspective, which I greatly respect and am innately drawn to) or (2) ALL UNHEALTHY products, tobacco, cocaine, trans fats, marijuana, salt, etc.'s use should be heavilly regulated or banned by government "for our own good."

Those who support anti-smoking laws, trans fat bans etc. MUST logically support the continuing bans on things like marijuana and cocaine (which has an even wider array of medical benefits than marijuana).

The emotional argument goes something like, "We should legalize some fun drugs like marijuan and make tobacco and alcohol illegal.

I don't know why such emotion-driven arguments appeal to some people.

BUT gven that marijuana has TWICE the tar and 70% more benzopyrene (a known carcinogen) than tobacco does, the "health effects" argument in favor of weed is pretty much non-existent.

While I LIKE, respect and am drawn to the Liertarian view of "decriminalize all drugs," I acknowledge that when the government insures its people, and provides medical care for them, it then MUST control costs by controlling/limiting risks, by banning as many unhealthy choices as is possible.

An adjective CORRECTION: It's quotes like these that make you one of my favorite dumb guys, Fred...and I say that not to be insulting at all, but because you never seem to understand ANY argument at all. (JMK)

In keeping with that "non-insulting intent", I acknowledge that I should've chosen my words more carefully.

Emotion-driven is not necessarily "dumb," although "emotion-driven" doesn't resonate, nor fall from the tongue with anything close to the poignant poetry of "dumb."

I should've taken less "poetic license" and used emotion-driven, despite its being so cumbersome.

Still, I DO find it both amusing and uncanny, how you can always be counted on to make the wrong assumptions, whether the topic is drugs or homosexuality or virtually anything else, Fred.

Maybe I'm too nuanced?

I mean I DO tend to favor the Libertarian perspective - "live and let live," in short, alllow LIBERTY to run its course with people allowed to take on all the license (risk, etc) they can afford, or suffer the consequences should they exceed that level.

BUT just as open borders DO NOT serve a useful (as in drawing millions of hard-working people) purpose once a welfare state is set up...in such a situation, open borders tend to draw in far more free-loaders, scammers and criminals than workers, you can't endorse the license that allows "each person to take on all the risk THEY are willing to take on," once the government insures the health of the bulk of the populace. Once government is in that position (and government provides about 54% of the U.S. health care dollars RIGHT NOW) that government has the fisdcal duty to run that as efficiently as possible, and that requires being able to mandate via bans, etc. the limiting/restriciting of personal risk by the population.

Personally, I don't see the controversy!

Once we all accept government-managed healthcare, we MUST also accept government's RIGHT to intrude and micr-manage how we each live our lives.

It's a basic quid pro quo.

"I'd actually make a pretty good Muslim, if it weren't for my innate xenophobia which leads me to despise Arabs..."

Where's the nuance here?

A mere jocular comment...unrlated to the point of the post.

You're unaware of the legendary Arab/Muslim intolerance?

The joke is that I'm almost overly tolerant, by comparison.