Dirtside's Journal: Drugs

I've read a good deal about marijuana and its effects. By no stretch of the imagination can its effects, individual or overall, be considered as harmful as those of alcohol.

So why is pot illegal in the U.S. (barring minor exceptions)? No matter who you ask, you never get a straight answer -- at least, not if they're on the anti-pot side of the debate. Those on the pro-pot side (or at least the pro-legalization side; I don't personally have any interest in using pot (did it a few times in college, found it boring, never did it again), but I do think it should be legal) tend to answer, "Hypocrisy." A friend of mine at work pointed out that pot is the anti-capitalism drug. It's hard to get motivated to go out and achieve, achieve, ACHIEVE! if you're stoned and don't even feel the need to get out of your chair. He was being facetious, but the more I think about it, the more it begins to sound like he's right. Anti-pot folks have this conception of creeping sloth overtaking our nation, should we fall prey to the "evils" of marijuana.

Nevermind that there are more alcohol-related deaths in one year in the U.S. than there have been pot-related deaths in the nation's history. Nevermind that there has never been a single recorded case of someone dying of a pot overdose. Nevermind that even normalized for usage per capita, deaths due to drunk driving far exceed deaths due to driving under the influence of pot.

It's just retarded. Pot is less harmful than alcohol, but it's more heavily restricted. Why?

I've wondered about that too

[rnd()]

I think pot is also the "conspiracy theory drug". In other words, using it makes one more likely to come up with conspiracy theories. These theories often involve government conspiracies, and frequently involve government conspiracies involving marijuana.

It would be interesting to know whether it is the pot that causes the paranoia that leads to the theories, or if the paranoia leads to the pot which then leads to the theories.

I think marijuana should be given to prisoners. You'd have no more uprisings or riots, many fewer murders, and I'm sure that many of the inmates would discover a love for reggae music and potato chips, so there would have to be plenty of potato chips provided as well. Instead of solitary confinement, punishment could be meted out by taking down the jerry garcia prints from the cell walls or taking away the super nintendo for a few days.

To answer your question more seriously, though, drugs create all sorts of gray area when it comes to personal responsibility. In a sense, we're all kind of like mice in a skinner box. We seek rewards and we avoid punishment. Legalized drugs would constitute a free 'reward' that would seriously jeapordize the foundation of personal responsibility that our nation is built on.

Re:I've wondered about that too

[Dirtside]

Legalized drugs would constitute a free 'reward' that would seriously jeapordize the foundation of personal responsibility that our nation is built on.

You mean, legalized drugs like alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine? :)

Pot farms

[bytesmythe]

As soon as governments figure out how to make a good profit from it, it will probably become legalized.

Nevada, for instance, is considering making it legal to own up to three ounces for personal use. Now I have never smoked pot, but I have been assured that three ounces is a hell of a lot of weed.

The question is, of course, who is going to SELL all this pot? The law doesn't cover that... yet. Naturally, you would have to have some kind of prohibitively expensive license to grow/sell pot. You'd also certainly have to pay some kind of extra tax to the government, so that would get passed on to your customers. Production of recreational marijuana would be regulated by local state laws and probably the same group that makes sure you aren't selling alcohol without giving the government their cut. When other (especially less conservative) states see Nevada making a fscking fortune in weed sales, they will follow suit.

(On a semi-related note, have you noticed the only real difference between the government and organized crime is that organized crime is illegal? Selling pot is only bad until the government can get in on the action, then they don't let anyone else do so. And you have to pay license fees (read: protection money) or the goon squads come after you.)

Re:Pot farms

[Dirtside]

Well, there are at least a couple of nominal differences between the government and organized crime.

The citizens ostensibly voted for the government, so it's (on average) the form of power and authority they've chosen; whereas organized crime practices coercion (e.g. protection rackets) without citizens agreeing on it.

Also, the money taken by government (taxes) is generally used for the public good (providing services, roads, police, etc.), whereas money taken by organized crime is used for the personal aggrandizement of the criminals.

Granted, this is all in theory; in practice, the government (or at least some individuals within it) may end up acting more like criminals than public servants, but, there you go.