No sarcasm this time:
WASHINGTON — Pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers should not be targeted for federal prosecution in states that allow medical marijuana, prosecutors were told Monday in a new policy memo issued by the Justice Department.
Credit where it’s due: this is by far the most sensible administration we’ve seen on this issue.
This really gets the ball rolling towards legalization. Once you have a quasi-legal industry that’s employing people, creating tax revenue, and not hurting anyone, it’s hard to shut it all down again.
(via HotAir)
UPDATE: Cannabi-mentum! (Er… ganjamentum?)
Forty-four percent of Americans favors legalizing marijuana use, the highest level of support since Gallup first asked the question in 1970. From the late 1970s to the late 1990s, only about a quarter of the public supported legalization.
To be sure, Gallup’s polling shows a slim majority, 54 percent, still oppose legalization. But in the mid 1990s, nearly three in four adults supported prohibition.
The Internet has broken the information dam. People are learning the truth.
{ 36 comments }
A wise policy change indeed, but as much as I would like to believe that the legalization ball is really rolling now, history tells a different story. At every point at which attitudes toward marijuana were liberalizing in the U.S., most recently in the 1970s when something like 11 states had decriminalized personal use, including Nebraska (!!!), there has been a backlash.
Perhaps this time will be different because so many boomers are in their 60s and just aren’t buying the crap about marijuana being a gateway drug.
I hope you’re right, Dean, and I’m wrong.
I think things are different because of the Internet. There are no information gatekeepers anymore. Reefer Madness was still being shown in the 1970s; today’s it’s a running joke. We can all get the facts today.
I’m not big on legalizing pot, but I’m not opposed to it either. I consider it to be comparable to alcohol and my tendency to desire reasonable consitency in policy tells me that both should be treated similarly in the law.
In the case of medical use of marijuana, I will echo kudos to Obama in this case. That’s the right call in my opinion.
I really don’t see this as moving us particularly closer to legalization.
We have seen time and again in different places, the allowance of a drug for medical purposes, and even decriminalizing, does not really lead to legalization. It happens once in a great while but it’s rare.
Also I think the backlash of the 1970s on pot liberalization had a lot to do with a generalized backlash against a whole lot of things, including what seemed at the time to be the near-complete moral collapse of the entire country on a whole range of issues: divorce, abortion, contraception, cohabitation out of marriage, homosexual militancy, even clothing styles. Not to mentioning a spiraling violent crime rate.
All of those things have gotten much better in the last 30 years and I think it’s going to be a hard sell to make people believe that medical cannabis is “just the straw that broke the camel’s back” this time around.
Yes, there are always those conservative forces who always and everywhere believe society is falling apart at the seams, and that only a return to harsh and unyielding morality can fix it. They always make up a certain percentage of the population, just like there’s always a certain percentage who can never see anything wrong no matter what’s going on.
In general, most people fall into neither extreme unless conditions are extreme. And, economically, conditions are extreme. But morally? Not so much. (All the whinging about how legal protection for gay couples is going to destroy society notwithstanding.)
Dean: I mostly agree with you. One of my biggest frustrations about being a conservative are the fringe elements such as those hard-core moralists you describe. I do think those are more or less equally offset by the “anything goes” liberals who populate the opposite fringe of the morality spectrum.
In this case I wonder if the breaking point may have actually been reached on pot. Most of my generation (yours too, I suppose) pretty much snicker at the concept that smoking pot leads to meth and heroine addiction. To most of us that’s like saying caffiene leads to heroine addiction. Sure you’d be hard-pressed to find a heroine addict who never got a buzz off a chocolate bar, but the causal link is pretty flimsy between the chocolate bar and the dirty needle in afilthy public bathroom…
I suspect that this may well be the start of a serious movement to legalize marijuana. It just feels like that to me. The Obama administration is clearly sending signals that they are open to it, and the general demography of the nation has shifted strongly towards those who are ambivalent towards pot since the 70s.
I think the reason I don’t think legalization (by which we generally mean making it legal to buy for recreational purposes) happening is because, well, most people still really don’t approve of the stuff. And that appears to be true even in countries with far more liberal attitudes; even in fabled Amsterdam, the stuff is actually still fairly restricted. You’re not supposed to be doing it in the streets, you’re only allowed to do it in designated locations, etc. Much like with prostitution, even wherever you generally find that legal (once again, fabled Amsterdam, or even Nevada here in the U.S.) it’s strictly limited, moreso than liquor usually is.
I think there’s a bedrock conservatism in the U.S. that’ll prevent us from seeing some sort of situation where you can get pot as easily as you can get beer or wine. I think it’ll always be tougher than that. But that’s just me, maybe I’m wrong.
I think there’s a bedrock conservatism in the U.S. that’ll prevent us from seeing some sort of situation where you can get pot as easily as you can get beer or wine.
It’s already easier. It’s just not legal.
Especially if you are underage.
I’m still playing wait and see. When the raids actually stop, then I’ll be happier. Until then, everything Obama says or does has an expiration date. He said the same thing seven months ago — and the raids continue. This time, he didn’t say “no more raids” — he said, “raids aren’t a good way to spend your time.”
Now, the raids get really politically motivated.
You want to convince me that he’s on the right track? Get him to pardon Tommy Chong.
Well, I just had a conversation with a friend of mine who managed to change my mind. Cosmic, maybe you are correct.
Apparently, California is very, very close–with both a measure before the legislature, AND two ballot initiatives–which would legalize, regulate, and tax pot. Apparently, the “and tax” really for once got a lot of people’s attention, because California (like a whole lot of states) is absolutely desperate for revenue.
If California were to flip over on this, and not merely by “decriminalizing” but by actually legalizing and taxing the stuff? That would start a nationwide avalanche. I would not be surprised to see a bunch of states, like Nevada, Vermont, Kentucky, possibly even Michigan flipping and doing the same thing. The dam would break.
Count me as one who also believes that taxation and regulation would actually make pot harder for kids to get. Pot actually is easier for kids to get than alcohol is. Once you regulate and tax something you bring in a whole bunch of economic forces at once that really hurt the black market.
I just haven’t felt it likely to happen. My friend Ed convinced me that you may be right on this one though, Cosmic. Maybe. I actually hope so.
I suppose there will be those who blamed the medical marijuana for it if so. I hope not, because I still really think those are separate issues. But maybe it’ll have helped. When suddenly people you know to be fairly normal confess to you that they use it medically and legally, and you think, “well they’re not worthless criminals,” maybe that softens people’s attitudes, I don’t know.
I guess we’ll see. If California goes for legalization, regulation, and taxation, I can see much of the rest of the country following suit, including even very “red” states. Even states that don’t like California. Because the dam would break. California is 10% of our entire national economy, economic forces on this would be just about inevitable.
I like this thread a lot better than the other one.
When suddenly people you know to be fairly normal confess to you that they use it medically and legally, and you think, “well they’re not worthless criminals,”
You’d be surprised. I personally know people making more than a million a year in ultra-high-responsibility jobs (COO, CEO, President) that have a fondness for the devil weed.
People are learning the truth.
That’s right,
Give gramma and grandpa more pot and there will be a lot fewer problems for the relatives to deal with.
This national breakthrough by Obama administrative policymakers is not going to go down as an earth-shattering historical event.
So smoke away.
Dear Gramma,
There are relatives out there what are gonna help you.
Dave: I have known all sorts of people in all sorts of professions–highly active, driven professionals–who are pot users. Some really shocked me, just because they were so very active I thought of them as hyper and maybe on coke or something, but no, just big potheads.
My point is that once some people meet a perfectly normal person who confesses to you that they use it, legally, by doctor prescription, this causes a lot of other people to say “well it can’t be that bad if SHE’S using it” or “if HE’S using it.”
Right now, certain people confessing that they use pot (illegally) are immediately dehumanized. “They must be lying, they must be dishonest, they must have other nasty habits” if they dare to confess to this. But when they can simply say, “yeah, my doctor prescribed it and it helps me,” it’s harder to dehumanize them.
It is especially, beyond anything else, helpful for people on chemotherapy. Removing the stigma from that alone is worthwhile.
That this might contribute to an overall destigmatization may be true.
Meantime, it’s hard to find anyone who hasn’t tried pot or doesn’t know someone who has. They’re increasingly rare. And I think of those who have, most have a really hard time thinking that incarceration is the proper thing to do to potheads. In their hearts, I really think most people these days really doubt that.
So maybe the situation is ripe for change. As I say, if California goes ahead and goes for the legalize-regulate-and-tax route, I would believe a sea change is possible. If not, I find it still unlikely.
“And, economically, conditions are extreme. But morally? Not so much. (All the whinging about how legal protection for gay couples is going to destroy society notwithstanding.)”
What is it with homophillic people pretending that they don’t understand the distinction between the present and the future? Do you apply this sort of thing to lead poisoning? People say that eating lead will kill me, but I just ate some and am still alive.
How about too much sun and skin cancer? I went out to check my mail this morning. The sun was out. I didn’t die. Therefore skin cancer is a myth.
Come on, seriously. You can be in favor of mandatory gay marriage if you want. But the level of not understanding what destroying the social fabric means that you’re demonstrating is somewhere between unbelieveable and absurd. Are you really this dense that you don’t understand there’s such a thing as gradual problems?
You’re an honest and intelligent man, Dean. Why are you doing such a good impression of a liar or an idiot? I’m being perfectly serious. I just don’t get it. The statement (not you; the statement) is beyond stupid. Why on earth did you make it?
I’m genuinely bewildered. I care about you, Dean. I still pray for you. I know that you’re an intelligent man.
So what gives? Or have you really met someone who claims that the day gay marriage is legalized, all of us in real marriages will run out, get divorced, and disown our children the very same day? Or has someone really promised that society would disintegrate later that week? And if so, why would you consider an idiot like that typical of everyone critical of gay marriage? That’s like taking Osama Bin Laden as a typical muslim. Please. explain.
ctl:
Thank you for hijacking one of the more interesting threads to appear here.
It is obvious that you have a serious anger-management problem and Dean happens to be your victim today. It will be someone else tomorrow. Or maybe you’ll manage to fit me in, too.
Please spare me the “I still pay for you crap.” Wrapped around your ad hominem attack, that is utterly and completely phony.
I know many adults today who willingly admit that were pot legal, they would never drink again. They used it in their youth and gave it up as the responsibilities they took on (marriage, family, etc) made the risk of prosecution too great to tolerate, so they partake instead of the more socially acceptable alternative mind-altering substance.
Faced with the choice of dealing with twenty drunken people or twenty people stoned on pot, I would choose the pot heads every single time.
Just my 2 cents.
You know you can’t see this stuff on YouTube, unless you’re 18.
So, you are 18 right ?
“If religion is the opiate of the people, marijuana is the new religion.”
Reference:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/american_studies/why_do_you_think_they_cal.php
P.S.
Do not link the second video.
Like we wanna give this stuff to our kids and our gramma’s and other significant relatives.
CTL: When it comes to granting legal protection to gay couples, I believe I understand the “social fabric” arguments quite well. I used to believe them (mind you, that was 15-20 years ago, I changed my mind since then).
However, in this case I think you’re misunderstanding my argument. It is not relevant whether I am right or you are right about the “social fabric” arguments against granting recognition to gay couples. It literally isn’t relevant to what I’m saying here.
I am saying that social conditions at the moment are such that very few people are likely to equate legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana with other moral and “social fabric” issues in the way they did back in the 1970s. Because conditions of social upheaval were much greater back then. I really think you could have convinced a lot of people back then that pot led to homosexuality, adultery, and widespread violent crime. It was easy back then, as social chaos was the norm back then. I think that’s a much harder sell today.
Dean,
Your point about the differences between the 70s and now is probably correct. I certainly don’t dispute it. It’s also not relevant to what I was asking you.
What I don’t understand is your use of the phrase “All the whinging about how legal protection for gay couples is going to destroy society notwithstanding.” notwithstanding contrasts to moral conditions not being so extreme.
That contrast can only exist if all of the whining implied that gay marriage would destroy society REALLY SOON, since gay marriage has happened, to the degree that it’s happened, VERY RECENTLY. Predictions can only be wrong when the time predicted has come. That would imply that people made gay marriage consequence predictions about the year 2009. (Or earlier.)
You are claiming that predictions have been verified as false. That means that the predictions had to be for some time already past. No one reasonable has made predictions for how gay marriage would tear society apart a few years after it was enacted. Hell, it took the protestant reformation hundreds of years to rip society apart. (Though, I grant, most protestants wouldn’t really recognize it as such.)
Or am I misreading what you said? Is “whinging about how legal protection for gay couples is going to destroy society” meant to be a possible “conditions are extreme”, which you then say isn’t actually an extreme condition? If that’s the case, and you never meant to say anything about the status of verification about predictions of the effects of gay marriage, I apologize.
So, what did you mean?
All right, you got me, I said “whinging” (which is a real world by the way) and it is offensive. Mostly because I’ve heard so much of it coming from people who DO NOT have a thoughtful or meaningful position on it. I have a friend who actually endorses a scumbag preacher who says that if God doesn’t destroy America, he’s going to have to go back and apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.
It’s people like this that made me finally lose patience with it. That, and also, I’m 43 years old right now and I’ve been listening to conservative arguments on certain things for my entire life and the truth is, they’ve turned out to be wrong at least as often as they’ve been right. And when I look at the last 100, 200, 500, 1,000, 2000+ years of history I still find that to be true.
The fact is that I don’t think American society is falling apart, or if it is then so-called conservatives have as much to do with it as anyone else. Honestly, recently? Becoming a Christian actually made me more liberal and more concerned about me not making it my place to speak for God or make broad sweeping pronouncements about complicated things. And yes, I have noticed that I spent 20 years listening to conservatives rave about how this idea of protecting gay relationships was really part of a “secret agenda” and I have come to the conclusion that that’s a bunch of crap, and that gets to me too. I also continue to think it strange that those who made all the dire predictions got really quiet once it was clear that they’d lost in the court of public opinion, and that this was going to happen–you’d think they’d at least still be saying something, “well fine, but seriously, mark my words, in 20, 30, 50 years we’ll look back on this and regret it because…..” Because those arguments ring a lot more hollow than their absolute conviction 20, 15, 10, even 5 years ago when I was watching and taking part in their debates.
And I remember these are the same people who told us with conviction that gays in our armed forces would destroy them, when clearly they aren’t and “don’t ask don’t tell” has turned out to be a sick joke that no one in the armed forces cares about. I watched them tell me the same thing about how women in the military was going to destroy our military readiness too. I watched them tell us that with easy divorce, soon no one would bother getting married, how marriage was “under assault,” only to notice a generation later that young kids took marriage more seriously than their parents instead.
In other words, I’ve listened to conservative arguments about “society unraveling” because of this or that pet peeve or cause of the day, and watched them be wrong OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER, and I just don’t believe them on this one anymore. At all, period. If anything, the older I get the less conservative I get. These days especially.
And in any case, I do not think that people are really going to let this equate to what I think is a bigger moral issue: our obscene tendency to put people in jail for smoking pot. Especially sick people who genuinely derive clear benefit. Because of their moral convictions which aren’t even a Biblical injunction for God’s sake.
So no, CTL, I’m not stupid. But I’m tired of oh-so-sophisticated conservative arguments about how this or that policy issue of the day is going to have undeniable ramifications generations in the future, especially when I’ve watched them be WRONG over the generations at least as often as they’ve been right.
And really, that’s about it.
In any case, I’m just tired.
Shaun,
1. I’m sorry for inconveniencing you since you don’t have the ability to skip over comments which don’t interest you and are clearly addressed to someone else.
2. You need to get a better sense of perspective. Serious anger management issues are things like punching people for minor social infractions or driving dangerously in response to perceived slights. A somewhat exasperated tone in a blog comment is not a serious anger management issue.
3. I’ve known Dean, in an online sense, since 2002. I nearly went into a business venture with him. I actually do include him in my prayers, and I actually do respect him.
CTL is a friend and his prayers are appreciated. I could use more people praying for me, God knows I don’t return the favor often enough although I try.
I’ve been away from the computer for a couple of days, cannot believe the trend of most of the comments on this thread. If the possession of marajuana is illegal, it should be prosecuted, period. If the gov refuses to enforce the law, what good is law? If it’s ok to pick and choose which laws to enforce, ditto. This situation is not so different from the courts hijacking and sidestepping the legislative branch.
I don’t care if it’s legal or not, I do care about law being enforced and I do care about representative democracy making law.
P Mike,
“Citizens have a duty to disobey unjust laws.” –Thomas Jefferson.
Anyways, these laws are unconstitutional. The government has no right to tell us what we can or can’t put in our bodies. That’s why Prohibition I needed an Amendment.
For Prohibition II, they scared everyone into believing we had to just ignore the Constitution and gave us some crap about the Commerce Clause to cover it. Enforce the law? How about enforcing the 4th Amendment?
Some really shocked me, just because they were so very active I thought of them as hyper and maybe on coke or something, but no, just big potheads
For them, it’s probably more in the cause of self-medication, as it can make you slow down a bit, take fewer risks, and exercise a little more impulse control.
Sadly, one of the ads on Dean’s World as I look at it now is a “marijuana made me a heroin addict!” ad from drugfreeworld.org.
Dean,
You should remember that 43 isn’t actually very old. Your memory spans, what? 35 years? These days a generation is often about 25-30 years. It takes a while to see the effects of ideas play out as one generation explains them to the next, in the great game of telephone that we call culture. It took a few hundred years for the protestant reformation to lead to wide-spread atheism. First Luther lead to Calvin, which lead to really wide-spread splintering (I’m playing a little loose with the dates, obviously), which eventually lead to a plethora of completely unbelievable religions. Though, in fairness, most people can’t remain Calvanists for long. (Atheism is preferable to devil worship.)
Similarly, atheists tend to retain Christian morality for a while. Often their children do, too. But their grandchildren rarely do; Christian morality is not, after all, intellectually consistent with atheism.
“The fact is that I don’t think American society is falling apart, or if it is then so-called conservatives have as much to do with it as anyone else.”
It is, and they do. G.K. Chesterton once observed, “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” (That statement was about England about 100 years ago, but it still roughly applies.)
“I watched them tell us that with easy divorce, soon no one would bother getting married, how marriage was “under assault,” only to notice a generation later that young kids took marriage more seriously than their parents instead.”
That’s a very, very low bar, Dean. (depending on who and where you’re talking about, of course.) And things haven’t played out yet. Leaving out those who follow religious dogmas (which haven’t changed), the people who take marriage more seriously than their parents still have a different attitude towards it than their grandparents did.
But you can’t really get around the fact that Christ did say that divorce was bad, and shouldn’t be. That being said, most of the world aside from Christians believes in divorce, so one would expect a christian world with easy divorce to probably look something like the non-christian world with easy divorce. (Except that we have come to the point where long-term co-habitation w/o marriage is quite socially acceptable, which is note entirely like the rest of the world with easy divorce, though it is like some of it.)
But to bring this back to the topic of the post, if you want people to have marijuana, aren’t you worried about socialized medicine? Marijuana is not worse than alcohol or cigarettes, but it’s still bad for your health in the long-term. Whatever may happen in terms of criminalization might well be taken back by national health care. (Again, eventually; but they’ve already come for the trans fats, and we don’t even have socialized medicine yet.)
There are people who oppose marijuana for moral reasons, but pretty shortly, don’t you think that there will be people who oppose marijuana for economic reasons? “Why should I pay for his X” is a pretty big motivator to meddle in other people’s lifestyle choices. It doesn’t have to be a huge number of people, all it needs to be is disjoint with those who disapprove for moral reasons and together with it, a majority.
Marijuana is not worse than alcohol or cigarettes, but it’s still bad for your health in the long-term.
There’s actually no evidence of that. Moderate consumption of acohol and mj have no ill effects.
don’t you think that there will be people who oppose marijuana for economic reasons?
Nope. It will be a tax cash cow. Even at 100% tax rates, it will still be much cheaper than now.
Actually, yeah, I expect the alcohol and tobacco industries to lobby pretty heavily against it when the push becomes clear. Cotton, too, just like last time. And, just like last time, they will couch it as a moral argument.
Dave,
Since regular cigarettes lead to lung cancer, do you think that people won’t believe that marijuana cigarettes will lead to lung cancer? (Even if it’s pestisides and other stuff on the tabacco which is the problem, legal MJ would be grown in a similar way.)
Since regular cigarettes lead to lung cancer, do you think that people won’t believe that marijuana cigarettes will lead to lung cancer?
It’s been studied extensively. There is no correlation. A quick Google will confirm this.
Tobacco is just unusually carcinogenic.
legal MJ would be grown in a similar way
Maybe not. There are some unique challenges to mj cultivation, which tend to encourage indoor growing regardless of legality. Outdoor stuff is generally inferior as a rule.
“Anyways, these laws are unconstitutional. The government has no right to tell us what we can or can’t put in our bodies. That’s why Prohibition I needed an Amendment.”
sez the Supreme Court?
I reiterate, if a law is passed by the representative body responsible for making said laws (i.e., Congress), and the body responsible for determining whether or not said law is Constitutional do not nullify the law, the Executive branch has no business emasculating the law. This is abrogation of the Constitutional duty of the Executive branch.
Dave,
I didn’t say that MJ is as carcinogenic as cigarettes, I only stipulated that people will generally believe that they are. It is, after all, still smoke in the lungs. And all that’s necessary for laws to be passed is for people to believe things.
I mean, how many people believe that MJ is physically addictive (on the order of crack or heroine)?
ctl,
I agree 100%. But Google and Wikipedia can fix this problem. That’s why support is rising.
I would say these comments support the idea that there is momentum towards legalization. Granted, the folks at Dean’s are generally more libertarian then average, but still there are really only 2 voices against here. One of them can’t really say why and the other cloaks their opposition in “the world will end” if pot is legalized, just like it will if gay marriage is legal.
Too bad there is no evidence whatsoever that supports pot being illegal. None. No medical evidence, nothing. It has all been fear mongering and scare tactics since the very beginning. More people are starting to see through the charade.
Comments on this entry are closed.