Journal pudge's Journal: My Statement on I-1068, Which Would Legalize Marijuana 12
Initiative 1068 would legalize marijuana for all adults in Washington State.
Marijuana is a terrible product. Other than the people who use it strictly for medicinal reasons, it has no positive uses. People who use marijuana for other purposes are wasting their lives. It has no place in society, and I shun anyone who is under its destructive influence. It can ruin the lives of the people who use it, and bring down friends and family along with them.
I think I've said pretty much all of the negative things to say about it. Therefore, marijuana should be legal.
(Did I just blow your mind, man?!)
Unfortunately, it seems to me this initiative would legalize the public use of marijuana, which I cannot support. It is unacceptable to me to legalize the substance in such a way that people will be free to blow marijuana smoke into the shared air of children and adults who do not wish to breathe it in. Therefore I plan to oppose I-1068.
This is not a minor issue. I am assured by Philip Dawdy, one of the people behind I-1068, that "the legislature will be falling over themselves to regulate this kind of stuff." He says "they will and I can assure you we'd want them to," but that's not good enough. Assurances are not actual laws.
Apart from the direct potential health hazard of secondhand marijuana smoke, there's also the possibility (however unlikely) that it could trigger a positive drug test.
Not until criminal penalties are in place for public use of marijuana, can I support a law making marijuana use generally legal.
Dawdy says our laws for initiatives don't allow him to tackle both issues in one initiative. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then he should have run two initiatives.
Come back with a better way to protect the public from the direct effects of this private activity, and I'll probably support it. But I won't support this: it's bad law.
Note that I am not alone in this. I was actually planning to support this initiative until it hit me that it would not regulate public use. Then, while preparing this piece, I found that the ACLU has the same basic objections I do. When a conservative little-l libertarian and the ACLU are both against a marijuana legalization initiative, that should make you think twice if you're prone to supporting it.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
more likely than you'd guess (Score:2)
there's also the possibility (however unlikely) that it could trigger a positive drug test.
I've read studies that suggest it's actually easier to get a false positive from secondhand smoke than most people realize. If the lab that's testing your sample is using a low cut off value (50ng/ml of cannabinoid metabolites is the Federal standard but some labs go as low as 15ng/ml) it doesn't take much to get a false positive. It need not be from second hand smoke either -- hemp seeds and milk from cows that grazed on wild cannabis contain enough cannabinoids to push you over the lower cut off.
It's o
Re: (Score:2)
It's odd to see a legalization proposal that would condone public use.
It doesn't explicitly, but there's nothing in the bill to outlaw public use.
If you don't mind my asking, do you feel the same way towards alcohol as you do towards marijuana? I could take your second paragraph and replace 'marijuana' with 'alcohol' and everything you said would remain true.
I disagree. You don't always get a buzz from drinking alcohol. Has anyone ever smoked weed without getting a buzz?
That said, I was overstating the case a bit to make the point that however bad it is for the individual using it, it doesn't justify making it illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone ever smoked weed without getting a buzz?
As with any mind-altering substance, the user can control the experience by regulating how much he consumes and at what intervals. Besides, a buzz is subjective. I feel a tingle in my limbs after consuming a single beer. Am I buzzed?
That said, I was overstating the case a bit to make the point that however bad it is for the individual using it, it doesn't justify making it illegal.
I've seen both ends of the extreme with marijuana. I know someone who smokes it one or two times a month. It isn't harming her life anymore than the beer I consumed last night is harming mine. I also know someone that does "wake and bakes" and whom probably hasn't been so
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't mind my asking, do you feel the same way towards alcohol as you do towards marijuana? I could take your second paragraph and replace 'marijuana' with 'alcohol' and everything you said would remain true.
I disagree. You don't always get a buzz from drinking alcohol.
And, more importantly, I think your later point of second-hand smoke is the big reason to be against public use (at the very least). People can get contact highs from marijuana, but when is the last time someone walked through a bar and got 'contact drunk'?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about highs. It's a substance I don't want in my body, that can cause all manner of mind alteration (especially since the contents and relative strength of the substance will be unregulated), not to mention that it can cause negative physical reactions, such as nausea and headaches.
(Side note: I had some people -- obviously potheads :-) -- tell me that secondhand marijuana smoke cannot cause headaches and nausea, because marijuana RELIEVES those things! Except, of course, that a substance ta
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about highs. It's a substance I don't want in my body, that can cause all manner of mind alteration (especially since the contents and relative strength of the substance will be unregulated), not to mention that it can cause negative physical reactions, such as nausea and headaches.
Exactly, I didn't intend to imply that the effect was the reason it was an issue. Instead, the fact that alcohol can be imbibed without affecting those nearby, while marijuana (or any smoked substance, really) can not, is the sole reason to restrict its public use.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, I didn't intend to imply that the effect was the reason it was an issue. Instead, the fact that alcohol can be imbibed without affecting those nearby, while marijuana (or any smoked substance, really) can not, is the sole reason to restrict its public use.
Nod.
Re: (Score:1)
To answer your rhetorical question... Yeah, the first few times I tried marijuana, I was just doing it to be social. Didn't experience any kind of buzz.
I've only smoked it a half dozen or so times in my life, so I'm no advocate looking to get high.
I've never really understood the inconsistency in the treatment of alcohol vs marijuana. If I had a choice, I think I'd rather my kids stay in the basement lethargic and stoned than jugement-impaired and drunk looking to go driving and dancing.
wHERE TO BEGIN? (Score:2)
Marijuana is a terrible product.
It isn't a product, it's a plant. People in Jamaica us it as a sacrament, as do some Native Americans. Anyone can grow it, and since it's illegal, it certainly isn't a product (but it should be).
it has no positive uses.
Poets, painters, creative folks of all stripes would disagree with you,as would anyone who smokes it. Funny movies are funnier, music is more enjoyable... it has few downsides and many upsides.
People who use marijuana for other purposes are wasting their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Marijuana is a terrible product.
It isn't a product, it's a plant.
That's a distinction without a difference, in my use of the word in this context. I didn't mean to imply anything by it, except that it is a substance you procure somehow and use in some fashion.
it has no positive uses.
Poets, painters, creative folks of all stripes would disagree with you
Shrug. They're wrong. :-) But realize a. none of that matters to my point and b. I was (I think obviously, but maybe not) overstating the case a bit to make the point that it doesn't matter how un-positive it is, in terms of whether it should be legal. I really think drugs -- especially for creative folks -- are
Re: (Score:2)
To each his own, but as an artist, I think it's a crutch.
Perhaps, but what's the difference between a crutch and a tool? These days, someone with an artistic bent but lacking eye-hand coordination can produce some impressive graphics with a computer. Crutch? Perhaps, but I don't think it matters.
Personally, it hasn't helped my creativity (it tends to make my mind wander), but countless people swear by it. However, I enjoy other people's creative works more while under the influence.
That's beside my point
My
Re: (Score:2)
what's the difference between a crutch and a tool?
Art.
I suspect that most employers only test to keep themselves out of trouble, and would stop were it legal.
I don't care: it only takes one job lost due to carelessness of the statute to make the whole thing not worthwhile.
Besides, some jobs will NEVER tolerate use of marijuana by employees, thankfully, such as the military, heavy equipment operators, daycare workers ...