Not all religious conservatives are likely to lament the success of Colorado and Washington’s referenda legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. The noted English Catholic philosopher Peter Geach, for example, offered a Thomistic defense of toking in his book The Virtues:
We ought, I think, to judge about cannabis indica as much as we judge about alcohol; and cannabis indica appears to be less mentally disturbing than alcohol, less productive of damaging accidents like car crashes, and very much less addictive. The allegation that use of it ‘leads on’ to the use of dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin is complete nonsense.
In 2001, this publication ran an article conceding Geach’s point about harm but insisting that was not the whole story. “Marijuana does not lead to physical harm,” its author argued, “But it does produce a pathology of the soul”:
While most people believe that pleasure is a good thing, they also categorize and rank its different types. Some pleasures are subtle, others are intense. Some are best experienced alone, others can be enjoyed only in community. Some are base, others noble. Some are purely physical, while others are inextricably bound up with our higher powers. And then there are those most fulfilling pleasures—the ones that follow from the completion of the highest human endeavors. The late Allan Bloom noted the occasions that tend to elicit such feelings: “victory in a just war, consummated love, artistic creation, religious devotion, and the discovery of truth.”
The pleasure of smoking marijuana differs from the kind of pleasure that accompanies smoking a fine cigar or sipping a well-brewed cup of coffee, and more pertinently, it also differs from the pleasure of mild drunkenness. Whereas alcohol primarily diminishes one’s inhibitions and clarity of thought, marijuana inspires a euphoria that resembles nothing so much as the pleasure that normally arises only in response to the accomplish ment of the noblest human deeds. Marijuana, like the designer drug Ecstasy, whose legalization Sullivan also, revealingly, supports, provides its users with a means to enjoy the rewards of excellence without possessing it themselves. Bloom again: “Without effort, without talent, without virtue, without exercise of the faculties, anyone and everyone is accorded the equal right to the enjoyment of their fruits.”
In terms of reforming our drug law, I have somewhat less interest in legalizing more recreational outlets for young bourgeoisie than in finding ways to lock up fewer young black men. The two may go hand-in-hand, but they need not.
h/t David Pederson
November 8th, 2012 | 4:48 pm
Matt,
Geach didn’t know back in the 70′s what we now know: marijuana causes brain damage, at least to teenagers. This made big news recently:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201208/study-finds-regular-marijuana-use-damages-teenage-brains-0
Back in the 60′s and 70′s all the liberals said that pot was harmless and mocked those who claimed otherwise. Well, it turned out they were wrong, as on so many other things.
Steve
November 8th, 2012 | 4:54 pm
If I could make the intoxicating effects of one substance vanish (like electricity in the TV show Revolution), it would be alcohol, not marijuana. I don’t use either, but my experience with people who are drunk has been much more unpleasant than with people who are high. I think we should seriously consider legalizing most drugs, and if it were up to me, I would legalize marijuana.
November 8th, 2012 | 5:07 pm
Please fill us on in on your plan to lock up fewer black men without legalization.
November 8th, 2012 | 5:13 pm
Whenever I consider the legalization (or decriminalization) of cannabis, I’m always conflicted and left with questions:
Is the comparison of the illegality of pot use with 1920′s prohibition valid? After all, attempting to proscribe something present in every time and every place and commonly used before its proscription is not the same thing as the illegality of something that was proscribed before people were generally even aware of it.
Will the FDA provide a warning label?
How long before we see commercials for law firms litigating for users with side-effects?
Alcohol, especially in the form of beer was actually a foodstuff-”liquid bread”, that allowed the intake of carbohydrates immune from mold or rot, when preservatives and refrigeration weren’t around. Does it matter that cannabis, outside certain limited therapeutic uses-is just a narcotic?
If smoking tobacco is bad, should we assume inhalation of the products of combusion of cannabis is any less noxious?
Will users, especially habituated ones realize they are reducing occupational choices? The Federal Railroad or Avivation Administrations aren’t going to allow Casey at the throttle or stick when he’s stoned, dude.
What’s next? Surely cannabis isn’t the only non-addictive psychotropic drug.
Does (increased) drug availability provide a reason for more private invasions? Already there are occupations that must surrender urine both for cause and at random. (Ask Casey at the Throttle)
Do we create an underclass of people unaware of the passage of time and necessity of maturation, locked in a narcotic contentment?
Do we legalize it only for a specific age-if so, do we create the same penalties for underage use (criminal prosecution, loss of driving priviledges) that are associated with alcohol use?
Once it becomes commonplace, how will the constabulary identify “probable cause” to insist on testing? What amount of TNC causes legal impairment? Is there a test other than urinalysis?
Does legal drug use provide a counterfeit “freedom” that masks greater state control and remove the sobriety necessary for a healthy democratic process?
Does the religious left know that there’s a libertarian pedigree on the idea of drug legalization?
If the libertarians are right and legalizing marijuana takes the profit out of dealing, what line of work will this displaced dealers pursue?
And finally-what happened to California-shouldn’t they have been the first state to legalize mary jane? How’d they get beat?
I’m so glad I’ve discovered Huxley’s Soma, instead of pot.
November 8th, 2012 | 5:47 pm
Alcohol can cause brain damage, too, as well as liver and nerve damage and cancer. As David Nickol says, drunks can often become belligerent, whereas potheads may not be winning any Nobel Prizes but are generally pretty amiable.
I acknowledge the point made about marijuana high being an unearned reward. But couldn’t you say the same thing about a pleasant piece of music, work of art, plate of food, or walk in nature? Did anyone earn those (apart from merely paying for them)? Again, I realize there are more or less noble pleasures, and I probably won’t rank marijuana very high on that scale. But I wouldn’t rank a good meal or a sentimental song much higher.
I also agree with David Nickol (that’s twice in one post) that it should be legalized. How is it that conservatives get upset (rightly, I think) about “nanny state” laws banning Big Gulps and smoking in bars, but can approve a ban on marijuana? Is it really that much worse? I don’t think so.
The author mentions the negative effects of the drug trade on black communities. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. It’s much worse in Central and South America. Is it worth it to us to nearly destroy entire nations to make a moral point about the proper ordering of pleasure and desire?
November 8th, 2012 | 7:34 pm
“In terms of reforming our drug law, I have somewhat less interest in legalizing more recreational outlets for young bourgeoisie than in finding ways to lock up fewer young black men. The two may go hand-in-hand, but they need not.”
If you are really want to find ways to lock up fewer young black men, yhen you should have a serious interest in legalizing more “receational outlets for young bourgeoisie than in finding ways to lock up fewer young black men”.
November 8th, 2012 | 8:07 pm
Mr Barr:
First, the article you cite says the results need to be replicated by further studies. Second, I wonder if an IQ drop is the same than “brain damage”. Third, Marihuana is still harmless compared with legal drugs like alocohol, that cause real measurable brain damage (“Chronic heavy alcohol consumption impairs brain development, causes brain shrinkage, dementia, physical dependence, increases neuropsychiatric and cognitive disorders and causes distortion of the brain chemistry”, according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol ), destruction of the liver or tobbaco that cause cancer. Four, the effects of marihuana or any other drug should not affect its legal status for consenting adults, since this is not simply a question of public health, but also of individual rights (a topic conservatives are dead wrong, like in so many other things).
November 8th, 2012 | 8:15 pm
Legalizing recreational drugs only removes the profit to dealers if you make it available over the counter, in unlimited quantities, without ID. IOW, more “decriminalized” than Sudafed™.
November 8th, 2012 | 8:40 pm
By the way, commenting on Bloom (the conceptual source of Daemon Linker article), victory in a just war is a a feeling comparable to artistic creation, love, religious devotion? Victory in a war may cause many feelings, but certainly not like of those mentionated, at least one can rejoice in the deaths and destruction caused by it simply because one has just cause.
November 8th, 2012 | 10:17 pm
Drunks may be more belligerent than stoners, but that only tells us that excessive drinking produces more immediate social disorder than pot use does. In other words, it tells us something (not everything) about vice, but nothing about virtue. There is a virtuous manner in which one may use alcohol, but I don’t believe the same holds true for pot.
The (very real) evil alcohol is capable of inciting in souls generally comes about only from a lack of moderation. One can use and enjoy alcohol within succumbing to drunkenness. The line is not very fine, and is easily managed by a temperate person. Is the same true for pot? I don’t think so. Certainly, it is possible to ingest so little pot that its effects are unfelt or negligible, but it is not easy, requires limiting ingestion to tiny amounts, and, unlike many users of alcohol, it is simply not the intention of more than perhaps a minute fraction of users.
Pot gets you stoned – either mildly stoned or majorly stoned, but stoned nonetheless. For all intents and purposes, it lacks the capacity to be used in a manner compatible with truth – one that respects the truth concerning the psychological reality of the person – and as such cannot be held to offer a genuine good in any practical context. There’s no good way to use pot. Most comparisons to alcohol ignore this most important distinction.
November 9th, 2012 | 4:56 am
I’m puzzled by the people who contend that because recreational cannabis is an arguably smaller evil than alcohol it should be legalized. Simply because most Western societies have become regrettably lax about alcohol abuse it doesn’t follow that we should expand on this mistake by allowing ever more people to dull their senses with different narcotics.
Those like Sergio Méndez who deny that cannabis has adverse effects will never be swayed by any argument to the contrary. Even now when the ill effect of cannabis on the development of the adolescent brain is established through scientific research. This wholly unremarkable conclusion (Gee, a potent psychoactive drug could have lasting effects on the brain, who knew!) will not satisfy those for whom cannabis has become a political issue. It has since the sixties become the battle standard of the cultural revolution. A banner for those who do not wish to restrain their lesser urges, but see the indulgence there of as an inalienable right on par with freedom of speech.
November 9th, 2012 | 7:27 am
It’s pretty obvious Alan Bloom never smoked weed. FWIW, weed will not make you feel like you just won the battle of Marathon. It mildly enhances the normal pleasure one takes in music, video games, sports, food and things like that.
November 9th, 2012 | 8:14 am
@Adam Baum: Cannabis’ status as a “narcotic” is a legal definition, not a scientific definition. No competent scientist would classify it as a narcotic. It was politicians who decided to legislate that label onto it, with no scientific rationale behind doing so other than using the term to create a false social stigma.
@pentamom: That’s nonsense. Increase the legal supply of marijuana to any degree and you’ll see the illegal supply drop in price significantly. That’s basic economics.
Right now marijuana is the key cash crop not only for domestic drug dealers, but for foreign drug cartels as well. If we can reduce their profits from it even marginally, it will deal a huge blow to those who use pot to fund the smuggling of heroin, cocaine, guns, and underage prostitutes. Banning it only plays right into their hands.
In fact, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I might suspect a few of our politicians were on their payroll, bribed to do exactly what they’ve done for the last hundred years: keep cannabis illegal and outrageously profitable.
November 9th, 2012 | 8:51 am
Stephen M. Barr –
Marijuana wasn’t legalized in Colorado and Washington for teenagers. It’s classified like alcohol, as only for use by adults. You can check here and here.
Or are you arguing that alcohol should be prohibited – again – because it also interferes with the development of the brains of adolescents? ( http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/05/10/prsb0510.htm )
November 9th, 2012 | 9:01 am
Whereas alcohol primarily diminishes one’s inhibitions and clarity of thought, marijuana inspires a euphoria
That isn’t my experience with alcohol. Drinking to drunkeness certainly diminishes inhibitions, but moderate drinking (one beer or glass of wine with dinner) induces relaxation and a pleasant feeling that I also associate with the satisfaction after physical labor or the happiness induced by social interactions. Recent studies showing that alcohol induces endorphin release would also tend to support a claim that moderate drinking produces unearned pleasure just as marijuana does.
Linker’s argument seems to imply that drunkeness is OK (just screws up your balance and inhibitions) while moderate drinking is bad (makes you feel good without doing someting virtuous).
November 9th, 2012 | 9:16 am
Alcohol damages. Nicotine damages. No doubt THC damages. The only question is how. But none of those is the reason for regulating the three. For nicotine in cigarettes, it’s second hand smoke. For alcohol, it’s the potential, too frequently realized, for injury to others while under the influence. For THC, I suspect we’ll see an uptick in DUI as more states legalize. As THC becomes as much a more as alcohol, it’s contribution will probably rise to match.
New York now regulates sugar. Most states strongly regulate nicotine, the new king drug. Yet, we’re backing away from THC. I just think we’re confused.
November 9th, 2012 | 9:36 am
John G Willis:
I sincerly fail to see the difference between alcohol and pot, as you pretend there is. You say
“The (very real) evil alcohol is capable of inciting in souls generally comes about only from a lack of moderation. One can use and enjoy alcohol within succumbing to drunkenness. The line is not very fine, and is easily managed by a temperate person. Is the same true for pot? I don’t think so. Certainly, it is possible to ingest so little pot that its effects are unfelt or negligible, but it is not easy, requires limiting ingestion to tiny amounts, and, unlike many users of alcohol, it is simply not the intention of more than perhaps a minute fraction of users. ”
You are getting this from what? What evidence you have of that?
“Pot gets you stoned – either mildly stoned or majorly stoned, but stoned nonetheless. For all intents and purposes, it lacks the capacity to be used in a manner compatible with truth – one that respects the truth concerning the psychological reality of the person – and as such cannot be held to offer a genuine good in any practical context. There’s no good way to use pot. Most comparisons to alcohol ignore this most important distinction.”
Why the consumption in small quantities is “incompatible with truth” (whatever that means)? What is the difference between a person that is mildly stuned or just “tipsy” from alcohol consumption? You are just making a lot of basseless asertions. The sole fact that alcohol is more conected with violence than pot (or esctasy to mention the other drug in Linker essay) should be made it clear which of this drugs is more virtous (couriously, the ones that are not legal). In my experience, Alcohol works according to people psyche. The more they drink, the more chances demons that are inside -usually violent- it can come outside. That is not the case of pot or ectsasy.
November 9th, 2012 | 9:40 am
Bram:
I never said pot is harmless. What I was trying to say, is that marihuana is far less dangerous than alcohol (by its phisical, psycological and social effects) than Alcohol. Heck, even ectasy is far less dangerous than alcohol. Yet conservatives insist in defeding the later and pretending the other two should remain illegal. That is problematic in the face of evidence, not to mention it is problematic in the sense of the scope of individual liberties and the size of goverment (that can control what we put or not inside our bodies).
November 9th, 2012 | 9:58 am
Adam Baum – Many of your questions would be answered by actually reading the ballot petitions. I linked to them in my last comment.
Also, it’s true that smoking cannabis has roughly the same risks as smoking tobacco. However… part of the issue is that, because marijuana is expensive, it’s important for users to maximize ‘delivery’. It’s quite possible to get ‘stoned’ from ingestion, though it takes longer and is a bit less ‘efficient’. If it were less expensive, ingestion would be more common.
I recall seeing research on a videogame that tested reflexes and hand-eye coordination. That is more directly relevant for jobs like airline pilot – or, in the case I read about, bus driver. What’s more, it can detect problems drug tests can’t. The article described a case where a driver performed poorly on the test, and it turned out his girlfriend had broken up with him that morning. He was given the day off, probably to the benefit of his potential riders.
November 9th, 2012 | 10:37 am
It is, perhaps, worth recalling that, in the UK, the first restrictions on opening hours for public houses were introduced by the Defence of the Realm Act 1914 (Noon to 2.40 pm and 6.30 pm to 9.30 pm) because of loss of production in essential industries
November 9th, 2012 | 10:48 am
So I just had an “aha” insight. Gluttony is defined as a sin in the Bible, right? We virtually ignore gluttony as a sin in our culture war discussions. Not eating the right foods certainly has bad health consequences. I’m a marijuana (and a general drug) legalizer. And I don’t think MJ is any more serious than alcohol. (Neither of which are “not serious” drugs). But, to play devil’s advocate: It could be argued MJ is bad because it fosters gluttony.
November 9th, 2012 | 10:52 am
@Josh:
“Cannabis’ status as a “narcotic” is a legal definition, not a scientific definition. No competent scientist would classify it as a narcotic.”
Josh, if it is a legal definition, then it doesn’t matter how a scientist classifies it-it matters how judges and statutes define it.
But if you want to assert that the definition is precise:
“The term is, today, imprecisely defined and typically has negative connotations”
“When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as heroin or morphine.”
Source: Wikipedia
As a historical matter-the original use of the word was one that induced sleep. Among the questions I cited,my most serious concern is that it promotes “civic sleep”, with chemically induced euphoria masking the discomfort that would compel people to act. (wow dude, these taxes are high, good thing I can get lit).
The reason that I (and this was pretty unusual in the 1970′s) never used it, was that I feared interaction with a prescription I needed at the time- but I noticed when things were going bad in the lives of users, they got high and felt better, rather making changes and being better.
There used to be an anti-marijuana commercial that had a individual whose voice was deeping with age, and recounting the progressing number of years he used the drug saying “I’ve used pot for X years, and nothing’s every happened to me”, with the obvious conclusion that what wasn’t happening was good things like maturation. I knew a lot of people now in their 40′s and 50′s, bright and capable, that tuned out and became lifetime underacheivers.
We are constantly told-principally by the left-that we have a social compact or that we have certain obligations to each other, but unless we’re driving, they never seem to think those obligations include being alert, aware and oriented with as much clarity and rationality as our circumstances permit.
As an aside, I haven’t formed an opinion on the overall adviseability of legalization-other than to know, like any other policy change-it will have unforeseen effects of uncertain magnitude.
November 9th, 2012 | 12:02 pm
Adam Baum –
Are you for re-establishing Prohibition because some people become alcoholics and lifetime underachievers?
November 9th, 2012 | 12:52 pm
@Sergio:
Arguing the evils of alcohol is not the same as arguing the merits of cannabis. That many conservatives are somewhat hypocritical in this regard and refuse to examine their own alcohol consumption is however hardly a point in your favour. On the contrary it only shows that people will trivialize even the most massive problems when they fear it will affect on one of their small pleasures.
As to your libertarian claims of self ownership, I can only hope that the problem of drug abuse never visits anyone you love.
November 9th, 2012 | 1:42 pm
“We are constantly told-principally by the left-that we have a social compact or that we have certain obligations to each other, but unless we’re driving, they never seem to think those obligations include being alert, aware and oriented with as much clarity and rationality as our circumstances permit.”
Ok, lets ban alcohol and pot, and legalize cocaine.
November 9th, 2012 | 2:09 pm
Michael PS:
In what sense do you think is worth recalling those restrictions? To point out that restrictions on drinking or leisure time on workers and people in general were conceived to increase levels of productivity of workers and profits from industry owners? That is interesting, considering Adam Baum mediations on the issue of having an “alert” and “productive” (non “unachiever”) population.
November 9th, 2012 | 2:42 pm
Precisely, just as Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the National Health Service said its success would be measured by the reduction in the number of working days lost through sickness.
November 9th, 2012 | 3:48 pm
Michael PS –
But it does help to put arguments about the evils of cannabis into perspective.
November 9th, 2012 | 4:10 pm
Josh — thanks for the polite reply. Are you saying there isn’t a significant, high profit black market trade in prescription medications? Or is there some reason marijuana would be different? It might be useful at this point to note that cocaine and amphetamines are available by prescription.
November 9th, 2012 | 4:14 pm
Whereas alcohol primarily diminishes one’s inhibitions and clarity of thought, marijuana inspires a euphoria that resembles nothing so much as the pleasure that normally arises only in response to the accomplish ment of the noblest human deeds
I often find that if I drink coffee at just the right time at just the right potency it gives me this sense as well….a sense of both accomplishment and pending accomplishment (which sometimes is or isn’t followed by actually doing something that one could call an accomplishment).
I find this idea that the law should be micromanaging intoxicating substances based on highly subjective reports of what people think a particular buzz feels like pretty suspect. I’ve had people tell me getting drunk or buzzed off of beer is different from wine, and hard spirits are a different experience too. I have no idea whether such reports are ‘real’ or are simply cultural and individual expectations mixing with intoxication. I think the law is too blunt an instrument to be used like that. Best leave that job to role models, moral teachers, and positive peer pressure.
In terms of reforming our drug law, I have somewhat less interest in legalizing more recreational outlets for young bourgeoisie than in finding ways to lock up fewer young black men. The two may go hand-in-hand, but they need not
You may be interested to know that NYC has a ‘stop and frisk’ policy. In areas that are suspected of being ‘high crime’ police stop and search people they deem to be ‘suspect’. ‘Stop’ here means your hands cuffed or up against a wall and ‘search’ means having every pocket emptied, an officer feeling the rest of your body, including groin, up. Needless to say, what exactly constitutes ‘suspect’ is pretty hard to pin down by anyone. The program is called a great success for taking illegal guns off the street….yet the stats run something like 625 guns taken out of 625,000 searches! I kid you not, to get 1 person carrying an illegal gun 100,000 are subjected to this intense search. And the right gets upset at what TSA officers do in airports!
Another interesting side effect is massive arrests for marijuana even though it’s technically not a crime to have a small amount provided it’s not visible in public. But because of the intense search, a small amount hidden in a pocket suddenly becomes ‘public’. Estimates are 80% of marijuana smokers in NYC are white yet 80% of marijuana arrests are black. In some neighborhoods, it’s not uncommon for a young black man to be ‘frisked’ at least once a month..
I’m not great fan of marijuana but it is helpful to approach this question not by asking what’s good about marijuana but what merits using the blunt tool of criminal law enforcement against it?
November 9th, 2012 | 5:22 pm
‘But it does help to put arguments about the evils of cannabis into perspective.’ – Ray Ingles
No, it actually does not. It is merely a ploy used to distract people from the real issue, namely whether or not cannabis is in itself harmful. Cannabis is a different substance, with different properties and thus different problems. To put it up next to alcohol and say, for instance, that cannabis does not cause drunkenness or aggression and is therefore obviously better, is a false comparison. The intent being to draw the attention to the specific evils of alcohol while simultaneously ignoring or trivializing the specific dangers of cannabis.
If you want to have a serious conversation about the legalization of cannabis for recreational use you eventually will have to argue for cannabis on it’s merits alone. Allowing the lesser evil of cannabis simply because we were unable to stop the greater evil of alcohol is not an argument. Especially seeing as most of you argue for cannabis on utilitarian grounds.
November 9th, 2012 | 6:05 pm
Bram:
Actually, I had a love interest that for many had druga adiction problems. I also have friend who is an abuser of alcohol. But I know criminalizing production, comerce and ownership-consumption of those substances is not going to help them nor change their adiction problem.
On the other side, how many lifes have been ruined by prohibition? How many blacks incarcerated for the “crime” of owning a prohibited drug? How many people have been killed by mafias that prohibition has created, needlessly and artificially? I hope none of your loved ones becomes a victim of those evils prohbition has generated.
November 9th, 2012 | 6:05 pm
‘In terms of reforming our drug law, I have somewhat less interest in legalizing more recreational outlets for young bourgeoisie than in finding ways to lock up fewer young black men. The two may go hand-in-hand, but they need not’
In many ways this remark cuts to the very heart of not only the problem of cannabis, but to all of illegal drug taking in the United States and the West in general. The author only fails to draw the obvious conclusion as does Boonton with his conclusion that law enforcement has altogether failed.
Drug taking only became established when it became acceptable among the young bourgeoisie in the sixties. Yet unlike their black peers in the inner cities the young middle class was somehow spared from any serious attempt to uphold the law and it continues to be spared up to this very day. The establishment of the sixties was simply unwilling to discipline it’s own young in the universities and the current establishment is already complicit in drug taking by virtue of having been those young in the sixties.
Refusing to own up to their own role in bringing about the whole situation they now howl with righteousness indignation at those who supply them with their drugs. These suppliers consist of various groups of foreigners and the black underclass mostly. Both groups are easy targets, foreigners are by definition outside of American society as well as the black underclass, who live in their own separate enclaves. When they are jailed or die as a result of the drug trade it simply will never matter to anyone important.
The answer is therefore not to stop enforcing drug laws, but to seriously enforce drug laws among it’s main buyers, the middle and upper class. Their selfish indulgence is what has led to the disastrous drug situation and it will continue to sustain it.
November 9th, 2012 | 6:38 pm
Adam B:
“Will the FDA provide a warning label?”
Of course not. The federal government does not have consumer safety in mind regarding this issue.
Create a Federal Consumer Advocate position!!
November 9th, 2012 | 8:53 pm
I suppose it’s useless to promote self-control. It just isn’t taught anymore either in Church from the pulpit or in the schools. Come to think of it I haven’t heard a single sermon against artificial birth control in many many years. The one time I did hear one was from a fine young priest who was summarily dispatched to a ‘treatment house’ somewhere back East for radicalism.
The people in the parish I heard this outstanding sermon in were just floored he’d stand up Sunday after Sunday and talk about ‘self control’ for starters. The collection began to drag and i know that for a fact because several ladies I ran into at daily masses (can you image going to DAILY mass and being ‘for’ birth control>!) told me they just stopped giving when Father Bill came onboard with his birth control message.
So. So much for ‘controlling’ a ‘controlled substance’ like pot I guess.
November 10th, 2012 | 2:04 am
@Ray Ingles:
Are you for re-establishing Prohibition because some people become alcoholics and lifetime underachievers?
See the first pointy in my post of 11/08 5:13.
I recall seeing research on a videogame that tested reflexes and hand-eye coordination. That is more directly relevant for jobs like airline pilot – or, in the case I read about, bus driver. What’s more, it can detect problems drug tests can’t. The article described a case where a driver performed poorly on the test, and it turned out his girlfriend had broken up with him that morning. He was given the day off, probably to the benefit of his potential riders.
That’s nice, but if the FAA or FRA finds THC in your urine, you won’t be flying airplanes or running locomotives anymore. I can almost guarantee those rules will stay in place because the industry will lobby the regulator to maintain it. Google “Ricky Gates”.
November 10th, 2012 | 3:30 am
@Sergio:
I’m truly sorry to hear that, but then you of all people should surely be wary of the unfettered access people enjoy to drugs nowadays. Especially the vulnerable who might seek the pleasure of drugs as an escape for problems they face in their lives, thereby leaving these problems unresolved.
As to the many thousands who have been harmed or killed in the so called ‘War on Drugs’ I refer to my earlier post about the failure of drug policy to address the actual problem, namely ‘regular’ America’s drug consumption. It is their egotistical self indulgence and refusal to own up to their personal responsibilities that is the “crime” in all this.
@Reta:
You are absolutely right, the drug issue and many, many more problems in society are inexorably linked to our collective abandoning of self restraint and delayed gratification in exchange for a culture that celebrates unrestrained self indulgence. Very sorry to hear that your church has also switched sides in our cultural revolution.
So. So much for moral backbone I guess.
November 10th, 2012 | 4:24 am
One could argue that it is prohibition itself that has created the “disastrous drug situation,” namely, the provision of a source of revenue to organized crime, not to mention raising the price of drugs to the point where many users have to resort to robbery or theft to fund their habit.
In the UK, it was not the middle classes taste for French brandy that created the violent smuggling gangs; it was the very high rate of duty. The gangs disappeared with its reduction. meaning that the profit no longer compensated the risk.
November 10th, 2012 | 9:52 am
Bram Hardingh –
Speaking of false comparisons – it doesn’t have to be “obviously better”. It just has to not be worse.
Why were we “unable to stop the [allegedly] greater evil of alcohol”, though? It’s not like we didn’t try – up to and including poisoning industrial alcohol so people would die if they drank it. (A book you might find edifying – “The Poisoner’s Handbook” by Deborah Blum.)
We came to the conclusion that legalizing and regulating it was the lesser evil compared to prohibiting it.
Bingo. Do the ‘evils’ of cannabis outweigh the evils of the ‘war on drugs’? (Including loss of privacy, police extortion, the prison state, and so forth.)
In the parlance of Wikipedia, [citation needed]. I see a lot more railing against the new Prohibition than the suppliers.
November 10th, 2012 | 2:02 pm
Adam Braum –
What makes you think alcohol use was universal, anyway? (The fact that it wasn’t in North America was one of the sources of the tragic die-off after the Europeans came.) And we can look at the consequences to see if the comparison is valid.
Widespread use despite illegality? Check. Takeover of the supply by organized crime, with the attendant violence? Check. Heavy-handed police enforcement, disproportionately landed onto the poor and minorities? Check.
Yeah, I think the comparison is pretty valid indeed.
November 10th, 2012 | 3:00 pm
Time to wrap this up because we are getting stuck in an argument that is ultimately about key differences between liberal/libertarian versus the conservative world view, mainly self ownership and morality. And I am afraid that the three of us are not going to settle that in a combox. This will be my last post because I am starting to repeat myself. I cede the last word to he who desires it.
@Michael:
‘In the UK, it was not the middle classes taste for French brandy that created the violent smuggling gangs; it was the very high rate of duty.’
Yes, it was. Doesn’t matter whether one thinks a tax on brandy is right or wrong. No demand simply means no smuggling.
You argue that law leads to crime, I argue that lawbreaking leads to crime. Typical liberal versus typical conservative.
@Ray Ingles
‘Speaking of false comparisons – it doesn’t have to be “obviously better”. It just has to not be worse.’
Why? Because it wouldn’t be fair to cannabis or something? Are you suggesting that we owe it to every drug-taker to legalize their choice of poison if it stays below the arbitrary line of the amount of damage done by alcohol? Because this is the kind of position you are eventually forced to take when you reject morality and argue from a utilitarian position alone. Right now I’m imagining a lab of utilitarians hard at work to quantify human suffering, ranking it and composing charts. Korsakov syndrome > schizofrenic disorder, perhaps?
As to the suggestion that the alcohol prohibition failed even though they went to extremely immoral lengths to stop it. There is an interesting parallel between then and now, namely that even during alcohol prohibition they never took the obvious step of punishing the alcohol consumer. Much like today when there is not much of a penalty for cannabis when you are the right kind of person. For example; universities are rife with cannabis users, yet never subject to any serious form of policing. Then as now, to compensate for this laxity the margins of society are subject to disproportional penalties, namely death and imprisonment.
Simply put, no government is going to punish itself and its taxpayers for something they know to be wrong but still privately indulge in. This hypocrisy means both prohibition and the war on drugs were utterly self defeating from the start.
‘I see a lot more railing against the new Prohibition than the suppliers.’
This is sadly true. You probably see this a great advancement and a victory for liberty, I see it as a wave of selfishness that is unfortunately swallowing what is left of our culture as we speak. It is also the reason why my suggestions can not be put in to practice. They presuppose a populace that values self restraint and looks down on things like stupefying oneself. That society is currently dying. I already mourn for it and I imagine you will too in the future when the consequences of this massive change in mentality become disastrously clear.
November 10th, 2012 | 4:03 pm
” Allowing the lesser evil of cannabis simply because we were unable to stop the greater evil of alcohol is not an argument. Especially seeing as most of you argue for cannabis on utilitarian grounds.”
Well, not me. I argue for legalization of cannabis (and ALL drugs) on deontological/virtue based ethics. It is evil that state abrogates itself the right to control their production, commerce and consumption, I t is evil that state (or anybody for that matters) tell people what they can or can put not in their bodies. It is evil that State incarcerates people for having, commencing or consuming those substances. But the funny part of all this, is that on utilitarian grounds the prohibition doesn´t hold either, as the catastrophic results of the drug war have shown us. So the drug war must be one those topics where no matter from ethical philosophical background you are coming, it doesn´t stand to scrutiny.
November 10th, 2012 | 5:08 pm
One of the big issues about pot, alcholol or whatever is the government trying to regulate individual morals and lives. It is not their place. States rights have been overturned and certainly communities don’t have the right to determine what their community values are. Also I find many people who have never experienced pot making totally unfounded statements about it. I tried pot for 3 months once in my life just to see what was true about it. I didn’t get hooked and the only different thing was that I was acutely aware of people’s behavior. I don’t use it or alchohol but don’t feel the government should be the determining factor. Incidentally I am conservative. Taking pot out of the hands of organized crime seems like an improvement to me. I also am a Christian and don’t feel like I have a right to manage other people’s activities as long as they are not harming others. If they want my advice or want to know about my Christianity, I’m sure they will let me know.
November 11th, 2012 | 10:18 am
The question of the duty on brandy raises another interesting comparison. The lower rate of duty, by eliminating the illegal trade may well have yielded more revenue in absolute terms and certainly did when offset by the social costs of the illicit trade, including the costs of trying to police it.
The same reasoning could be applied to marijuana. Many countries have alcohol and tobacco taxes high enough to restrict demand, but low enough to leave an insufficient margin for the illicit trade.
November 11th, 2012 | 1:39 pm
Testimony from an addction doctor: http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/_WMS/legislation/_files/pdf/Testimony_SB368_AB554_12152009.pdf
The above testimony says: “The prevalence rate for cannabis dependence is higher than for any other single illicit drug or drug class.” Geach is utterly clueless, and hasn’t read the research on marijuana’s harm.
Cannabis is an invasive species as well, I do not see anyone concerned about habitat loss from our #1 cash crop.
November 11th, 2012 | 10:41 pm
It’s so ironic to hear others refer to “self restraint”, bemoaning the sins of their brothers (because they’re clearly already luminous Saints showering Heavenly Grace down on us from above), though somehow confusing and conflating “self-restraint” with “Oh no you don’t!”, and abrogating their free will. Show me how Jesus taught that one! You guys understand we’re judged for our own sins, and not the sins of others, right?
Check your eyes, the log looks comical. And Jesus isn’t impressed. Especially not given the fact that he made Cannabis, and gave man “every plant bearing seed” (Genesis 1:29).
November 11th, 2012 | 11:05 pm
Why? Because it wouldn’t be fair to cannabis or something? Are you suggesting that we owe it to every drug-taker to legalize their choice of poison if it stays below the arbitrary line of the amount of damage done by alcohol?
Actually because it wouldn’t be rational. If drug X is less harmful than alcohol, then it should not be treated as more harmful. Do you let your kid play with loaded guns but order her never to touch a sharp knife without adult supervision? Do you reject such an absurd comment because you worry about being unfair to knives?
As to the suggestion that the alcohol prohibition failed even though they went to extremely immoral lengths to stop it.
Well technically we still have a type of alcohol prohibition. We do not live in a libertarian state when it comes to alcohol. I am limited in a host of ways when it comes to consuming alcohol. I cannot consume it in public the way I can, say, bottled water. I have a host of age restrictions on me. I have a host of use restrictions (i.e. no driving after drinking so much, I cannot drink while driving even if I’m under the legal limit). Likewise the production and sale of alcohol has quite a bit of prohibitions on it. ‘Moonshine’ is still illegal. Absinthe is illegal. Bars are quite limited in where they can open and how they conduct their business etc.
So this is a bit of a false question here. Rejecting the total illegality of pot is hardly embracing a libertarian regime of anything goes. Granted there are pure libertarians who would argue against all regulation…but that’s a minority argument and not one that has ever won at the ballot box.
The fact remains the ‘moral harm’ argument hasn’t been made here. What has been put in its place is a pompous elitism argument. We are told the buzz or high from a ‘fine cigar’ or ‘good brandy’ is more noble than the lowly marijuana high. I see no evidence that people are better off ceding their moral judgement to self appointed elites whose evaluations of buzzes seem pretty subjective and self-serving to me.
November 12th, 2012 | 9:05 am
Bram Hardingh –
With the exception of the word ‘arbitrary’, you’ve done a pretty good job of summarizing my position! Society has already demonstrated that it can get along with that ‘amount of damage’, and that efforts to prohibit such things do more damage.
(Oh, and who said I ‘reject morality’? Just because I understand morality differently from you doesn’t mean I reject it.)
Versus today when possession is, in fact, a crime. How’s that working out?
So crackdowns on DUI and prostitution never happen?
So, wait – first you claim “they now howl with righteousness indignation at those who supply them with their drugs” and now you admit “they” don’t. I’m having a hard time following you here.
TXW – During Prohibition, when people drank alcohol they drank a lot more of it – why bother breaking the law for a single drink? – and many people who might have used alcohol safely refrained simply to avoid the risk. So comparing the addiction rate between a drug that’s currently legal and a drug that’s currently illegal is… er… questionable.
November 12th, 2012 | 10:23 am
@ Sergio Mendez regarding brain damaging effects of marijuana use:
As a high school teacher, I tackle the topic of marijuana use every year. It is hardly a surprise anymore when I find that many of the students failing my course also happen to be the vocal “pro-weed” apologists.
I’ve also had two friends personally tell me their memories were never the same after they went through their “pot use” phase in high school or college.
Regarding other well-documented but seldom discussed negative effects of marijuana that argue against legalization:
1. Marijuana use is the primary cause of motor vehicle accidents in many Muslim countries (where use of hashish is legal, but alcohol is illegal).
2. Marijuana contains “50-70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than cigarette smoke” (http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana#anchor ) . The CDC estimates that 81% of cases of lung cancer could be eliminated if people didn’t smoke. Is it any coincidence that the incidence of lung cancer (the most common cause of cancer deaths) has increased along with the use of marijuana?
If we are serious about cutting the cost of healthcare, tangible improvements in lowering the rates of smoking (marijuana and cigarettes) ought to be primary goals of our country.
November 12th, 2012 | 11:36 am
Artaban – Re: smoking and cancer, see my comment to Adam Baum, November 9th, 2012 | 9:58 am.
November 12th, 2012 | 1:00 pm
Artaban:
You presented 3 arguments. One is some anecdotal evidence. The other is the fact that cannabis can cause traffic accidents (which nobody will deny, but then, nobody is asking for the right to drive under the influence of any drug, alcohol or cannabis included).
Your 3 argument is about that cannabis can cause cancer. But then, I think you are not looking at the whole picture. Cannabis has also properties that inhibit the release of elements that cause cancer inside the body ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1277837/ ):
“. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors. Cannabinoids receptors have not been reported in respiratory epithelial cells (in skin they prevent cancer), and hence the DNA damage checkpoint mechanism should remain intact after prolonged cannabis exposure. Furthermore, nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it. It is possible that as the cannabis-consuming population ages, the long-term consequences of smoking cannabis may become more similar to what is observed with tobacco.”
And anyways, if it is cancer we are worried about, how about prohibiting preservatives in our food, since they are clearly identified as a source of that disease? I suspect you wouldn´t be so adamant promoting such prohibition.
November 13th, 2012 | 2:49 am
Artaban,
As a high school teacher you should be more careful.
2. Marijuana contains “50-70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than cigarette smoke” (http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana#anchor ) . The CDC estimates that 81% of cases of lung cancer could be eliminated if people didn’t smoke.
81%-90% of lung cancer is caused by tobacco smoking. Your passage, though, makes it seem marijuana smoking is causing nearly all the incidents of lung cancer… Your ‘linking’ requires assuming multiple facts not in evidence, such as the assumption that if marijuana was legal a large portion of people would smoke it as much as they smoke tobacco, which is probably unlikely. I suspect that legal marijuana would more likely act as a substitute to alcohol rather than tobacco. I f that’s the case then it becomes very important if alcohol is worse than marijuana. And, of course, legal marijuana could be regulated to lower carcinogens down to the cirgarette level or even lower.
If we are serious about cutting the cost of healthcare, tangible improvements in lowering the rates of smoking (marijuana and cigarettes) ought to be primary goals of our country.
I don’t disagree yet it doesn’t follow that the current policy of blanket prohibition is optimal.
November 13th, 2012 | 9:05 am
Sergio Mendez:
My anecdotal evidence concerning the negative effects of marijuana on the brain is supported by objective science, I just couldn’t find the original reference at the time. Here is an article that discusses the literal brain damage (hippocampal lesions) caused by marijuana:
http://io9.com/5903837/what-cannabis-actually-does-to-your-brain
As for your article regarding the carcinogenic capabilities of cannabis, your article does still admit it may, in the grand scheme of things, cause cancer. I cite a study below that refutes your claim that cannaboids don’t change epithelial cells.
Also consider that “Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers. (10) Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses…and Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer (8).”
Both quotes from http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
November 14th, 2012 | 8:14 am
I think the health dangers are real but do not merit the total prohibition. Bram Hardingh asked why is it important whether or not marijuana is worse than alocohol. I think the reason is pretty obvious. If you have two drugs, X and Y, and X is legal but why is not then to some degree people will use X instead of Y. If X is worse than Y, then you have a policy that causes people to substitute a worse drug for a less worse one. Not good. For example, it may be true that marijuana may be involved in more car accidents than drink in Muslim countries where the former is legal but the latter is not. But the real question is are some people drinking because they cannot smoke? If so what is worse, a high driver or drunk one? There is some interesting stats that show car accidents go down after marijuana is legalized. Perhaps because some people tapper off on getting drunk if they can legally smoke. Despite claims about how easy it is to break the law with pot, the fact is unless you’re in a social network that has access to pot it will be easier to go to a bar and drink than to smoke.
What about the ‘moral problem’ of pot versus alcohol. Well reading this passage got me thinking:
Whereas alcohol primarily diminishes one’s inhibitions and clarity of thought, marijuana inspires a euphoria that resembles nothing so much as the pleasure that normally arises only in response to the accomplish ment of the noblest human deeds.
OK my marijuana smoking experiences were long ago in my now receeding youth, but I have to say I don’t recall any sensation like that. I mostly recall a sensation of being relaxed and ‘time slowing down’. Perhaps others have different experiences but if marijuana did anything it had me listen to songs and hearing every lyric but I don’t recall any sensation of ‘accomplishment’.
Alcohol, on the other hand, is notorious for causing people to overestimate their greatness, stimulate their aggression, and make collossal errors in judgement all while under the illusion that they are accomplishing great things. I have to say Mr. Bloom got it backwards. Pot’s biggest defect IMO was blurring clarity of thought. Drinking, though, brings a lot of people to very dark places.
That’s not to say that it has no merit as a ‘social lubricant’. It has to be used in moderation that people often learn by having a few ‘bad experiences’ with it. But to be honest with you I think alcohol is more about ‘playing with fire’ than pot is. We tend to think of it as not because many of us have learned to use it without getting burned and only a few of us have been unfortunate enough to know how much it can really, really burn.
November 15th, 2012 | 2:59 am
As to “Arguing the evils of alcohol is not the same as arguing the merits of Cannabis”; in a way it is, because is shows the irrational double-standards used to justify the continued, and relatively recent (1937), war waged against this God-created and eminently useful plant.
Again with silly comments equating “use” and “abuse”. No (sane) adult automatically conflates “drinking” with “drunkenness”, or “eating” with “gluttony”, or marital relations with fornication. It’s very difficult to actually “abuse” Cannabis (generally, when we speak of “abusing” a substance, we don’t really care what’s happening to the substance, but what we’re doing to ourselves). It is not very (if at all, in the vast majority of people) addictive, and is about the safest thing you could put in your body, from a toxicology standpoint (demonstrated forcefully below). Nobody’s advocating its use by teens, either – it’s been legalized for adults. This actually decreases teen use AND traffic fatalities. Get the facts straight.
As a medical user for many years (yes, the idea was first my Pain Doctor’s – after a serious car accident and attendant spinal injury and related pain and spasms), I and my family would, without hesitation, say it has by far improved my health, both physical and mental, freeing me from the very real and very damaging addiction to prescription narcotics, anti-depressants, and muscle-relaxants. The difference is night and day (and my constant crankiness disappeared to – not to be replaced with Mania, but with calm, even when I haven’t medicated recently). I was able to stop using *7* prescription drugs, including various narcotics, muscle relaxants and mood drugs. This is what has Big Pharma shaking in their boots.
As to the old Reefer Madness myth of brain damage, while chronic Cannabis use is contraindicated for young, developing minds (same for alcohol, caffeine, aspirin, etc.), it actually has a PLETHORA proven neuroprotective effects. I have a friend who is a medical cannabis user who had a stroke (measured 3 cm, not tiny by any means) recently. He should not have survived according to conventional wisdom (and his neurologist). Both he and the neurologist credit the profoundly neuroprotective and anti-oxidant effect of THC for his survival. In fact, so potent is THC as an anti-oxidant, that the US Government has patented its use for this purpose (so much for the Class I scheduling argument of, “no demonstrated medical use”).http://www.rm3.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/US6630507-Hampson-USDHHS-Antioxidants.pdf
I could provide literally PAGES of links to peer-reviewed studies showing the anti-tumor, anti-depression, anti-anxiety, neuroprotective effect. In fact, it has also been shown to cause *neurogenesis* in the hippocampus, quite the opposite of the “brain damage” propaganda put forth here and elsewhere.
It is relatively easy and inexpensive to grow (a negative for competing prescription products), non-toxic (*not one* overdose death in the history of its use – *ZERO*), and can easily displace several side-effect-and-toxin-laden pharmaceutical drugs (don’t kid yourself, the stuff you get from the pharmacy to treat these same conditions, and even over the counter, is far more addictive and harmful, any honest and rational biologist or chemist could tell you that).
Regarding this safety, DEA administrative Law Judge, Francis Young, had this to say about Cannabis use:
“In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.” (1988)
Gram for gram, it’s safer than water. Seriously. People die every year from hydroencephaly or cardiac arrest caused by water, and none from Cannabis toxicity. Ready to ban water and potatoes? I didn’t think so.
For those who fear what might become of road safety, let’s let the facts speak for themselves (only someone with their head buried in the sand thinks these laws represent the arrival or the beginning of widespread Cannabis use in these communities):
http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_19437417
DUI’s dropped, and traffic fatalities drop by 9% in States where Medical Cannabis legalized. This is reality. Unlike alcohol and narcotics, Cannabis is not a CNS depressant. Its effect on the brain and body is much more subtle, partially because *the body already makes, and can easily metabolize, its own Cannabinoids*. Let that sink in for a minute.
November 15th, 2012 | 8:28 am
Gregory –
The body also makes it’s own opioids, and alcohol for that matter, but that doesn’t mean opium and alcohol are therefore automatically safe and easily metabolized.
Not taking away from the rest of your post, but that last bit is unfortunately a weak argument.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact