No Pun is Adequate
to describe the seriousness of the Pot Issue in America today. If it is good enough for President Obama, it is good enough for Me. There are those who would hold, with Andrew, that
It is about freedom and it’s deadly serious.
But this is true about many things. Wearing certain attire to school is about freedom. Smoking cigarettes indoors is about freedom. Public urination is about freedom (especially urination atop patches of ground that could benefit from some energy-efficient fertilization). Freedom itself does not decide the issue, even when it is weighed against harm.
There are also many things that are deadly serious — like, I am warned, talking on the cell phone in the car, even with a hands-free set. Policy settled? No — no matter how adamant The Experts and The Science may be about the probabilities and the correlations involved. Don’t like it? That’s politics…in a society, anyway, where politics is About Freedom, which is to say where freedom raises so many of the important issues instead of settling them.
We are stuck with the fact that some degree of criminalization of pot is, to some degree, reasonable — from the standpoint of political freedom, if not microethics. (And it’s the former standpoint that counts.) The Pot Empirics are different from what they were back when pot was first outlawed — and yes, back then, as my alma mater’s star lecturer Charlie Whitebread (RIP) explained, the process by which pot was banned, and the ‘reasons’ behind it, were incontrovertibly ridiculous.
But this is not enough to create a Matter of Life and Death. There can never be a Tom Paine of Pot.
But if there was…
Who can doubt that even a Ron Paul of Pot — even a Sarah Palin of Pot — could, with a motivated enough group of devotees, cause a cascade effect among indifferent, permissive voters? Then why not? Why not already? Because, like all too many Paulites and all too many Palinites, the Pot People are too kooky. Too adamant. Leaflet-pushers. Acid-legalizers or no. If pot is a matter of life or death, people will keep on choosing death. Pot will never be banal enough to sell its own decriminalization.
UPDATE: Yes, I left medical marijuana out of the picture here, by accident although it is a separate issue. Yet again, it’s regular folk, not partisan activists, who are decisive in shaping public opinion on the matter. And the plain facts of (serious) medical relief militate much more strongly in favor of decriminalization. Finally, read this post again if you think I’m firmly opposed to broad decriminalization.
UPDATE 2: I do recognize that a growing list of people have been killed (see comments) in pot raids, etc. If we agree that (1) this is grossly disproportionate and unjust and (2) aggressive raids are not a necessary consequence or even a vital part of criminalization regimes, the natural conclusion is that to avoid these tragedies we needn’t decriminalize, but rather stop their proximate cause — the raids themselves. Probably there is already a latent majority in favor of this. But, as I’ve suggested, that isn’t to say there aren’t better arguments to decriminalize. It offends our moral sensibilities to realize that a relatively small but significant number of deaths at the hands of law enforcement agencies isn’t anywhere near a slam-dunk case against the criminalization of pot. But it’s true. And there won’t be anywhere near a pro-pot majority in this country, or in most states, until the argument shifts to the practical ground of potency and impairment. Once many regular people who aren’t college students start emerging to reveal their steady, more or less responsible uses of pot, things will change, and probably not before then — not because that will destroy some moral taboos (which it will), but because that volume of reliable testimony will turn back the basic doubt as to whether, given potency and impairment, large numbers of Americans can behave themselves well enough.
What to do in the meanwhile? How about an internet petition for commentators and ‘opinion makers’? “I’m OK With Decriminalization.” (As opposed to, say, legalization and taxation.) See who signs, and how many, all in once place. Forgive my ignorance if this has already been done. Regardless, the results would be of interest, no?
Just the sort of insightful analysis I’ve come to expect from conservatives. Well done, sir!
— Chet · Mar 27, 12:58 AM · #
It’s worth noting that there’s a perfectly respectable case to be made (both morally and empirically) for the legalization of acid, too. Almost no one dies or even shows up at an emergency room from using LSD. And (unlike with alcohol) relatively few people would be all that interested in tripping on acid all that frequently. There are reasonable counterarguments (and, obviously, no realistic political chance) but it’s a pretty reasonable position to hold and shouldn’t mark anyone as kooky.
— Christopher M · Mar 27, 02:10 AM · #
Chet: Just the sort of trenchant response I’ve come to expect from semi-anonymous blog commenters! Well done, sir!
Now, forgive me as I – to my acute chagrin – back Andrew Sullivan in his emotive sloganeering. It is, alas, “deadly serious” in a way that the usual nanny-state issues are not, since we have a heavily armed apparatus enforcing prohibition in a manner far removed from that of driving and dialing (“far removed” for now, at least). As Radley Balko pointed out, had Cheye Calvo been armed, he’d be dead today. Fortunately for him, he’s only the Tom Paine of Pot to dog lovers.
reCaptcha word pairs: “enormous complex!” “Country Erasmus!” This intrusive anti-spam system is too cool in its Abulafia -like way to ever get rid of!
— Matt Frost · Mar 27, 02:13 AM · #
I can’t tell if the point of this post is simply to laugh at Andrew’s earnestness in some easy-cynical, mock-wisdom-like way, or if it’s to show that the forbidden must go mainstream before it can become legal in a modern democracy.
Since the latter is so obvious as to be barely worth writing about in PolySci 101 I’m assuming you just want to snicker.
— Steve C · Mar 27, 02:29 AM · #
Radley Balko responds to Mr. Poulous’ dismissive attitude very appropriately:
“If Poulous wants to stick closer to home, one of his commenters notes that had Cheye Calvo exercised his Second Amendment rights when Prince George’s County police wrongly raided his home last summer on the mistaken assumption he was dealing marijuana, he’d almost certainly be dead. Instead, he was merely terrorized, and his dogs were slaughtered. A couple of weeks ago, unarmed Grand Valley State student Derek Kopp was shot in the chest during a marijuana raid. He’s lucky to be alive.
“But we don’t need to single out “almost” cases. Det. Jarrod Shivers is dead and Ryan Frederick’s life is ruined over the prohibition of pot. Officer Ron Jones is dead, and Cory Maye, once sentenced to be executed, now faces a life sentence because of marijuana prohibition. Cheryl Lynn Noel is dead because of pot prohibition. So are Jose Colon, Tony Martinez, 13-year-old Alberto Sepulveda, Willie Heard, Christie Green, Pedro Navarro, Barry Hodge, Salvador Hernandez, Donald Scott, Kenneth Baulch, Dep. John Bananola, Officer Tony Patterson, Vincent Hodgkiss, Anthony Diotaiuto, Clayton Helriggle, Jeffery Robinson, Troy Davis, Alexander “Rusty” Windle, John Hirko, Scott Bryant, Robert Lee Peters, Manuel Ramirez, and Bruce Lavoie. Deputies James Moulson and Phillip Anderson and suspect George Timothy Williams were all killed in a single marijuana raid in Idaho in 2001. Officer Arthur Parga and Manuel Ramirez (a different one) killed one another in another marijuana raid after a family friend suspected of dealing marijuana had incorrectly given police Ramirez’s address as his own.”
It’s natural and easy to shrug one’s shoulders when someone else or someone else’s relatives are being seriously harmed by totalitarian policies.
— LJM · Mar 27, 05:37 AM · #
Yes, pot prohibition sure is kooky and fun, until you start looking at the body count as outlined above. Of course, none of your friends would ever be caught up in that – even accidentally – would they?
— michaelk42 · Mar 27, 07:06 AM · #
@ LJM
“It’s natural and easy to shrug one’s shoulders when someone else or someone else’s relatives are being seriously harmed by totalitarian policies”
There is a distinct difference between LAW and ENFORCEMENT. What Polous is talking about is the necessary democratic process required to establish laws, and how said laws can constitute a broad swath of infringements on freedoms. The most sacred outlet of freedom, in fact, is our ability to create our own laws that define what is and is not a freedom.
I don’t think he is in favor of the LAW, but I would almost guarantee that he’s firmly opposed at how it’s ENFORCED. Remember the distinction. We could do a lot to prevent the senseless killings you mention above without actually changing the law on prohbition.
Repealing prohibition also does not stop the police from aggressive enforcement tactics that resort to violence. Symptom, meet Disease.
— mattc · Mar 27, 11:49 AM · #
What Rodney Balko said. Hundreds of people (cops and offenders) have been killed during enforcement of unnecessary and unworkable marijuana criminalization. Millions— millions— have rotted in jail for a victimless crime that a vast number of Americans could not care less about. That’s pretty serious.
— Freddie · Mar 27, 11:52 AM · #
Another vote of support for Radley Balko’s reply. This isn’t about munchie jokes and wanting to get high in public. The drug war is a real, continuing tragedy that cannot be dismissed simply because the author has never personally felt the wrath of the drug warriors.
— Rhayader · Mar 27, 12:08 PM · #
Mostly, I want marijuana to be legal because I enjoy smoking it. Risking jail to acquire it sucks.
— JA · Mar 27, 01:19 PM · #
“The most sacred outlet of freedom, in fact, is our ability to create our own laws that define what is and is not a freedom.”
That’s one of the most idiotic fucking things I’ve ever read on the ‘net, and you’re a moron.
Further affiant sayeth not.
— Billy Beck · Mar 27, 02:10 PM · #
My own experience is that it is very hard to find the right line between sincerity and hysteria; that you most certainly will not be given the benefit of the doubt; and that making any kind of a case opens oneself to smirking criticism and condescension.
It’s a lot less funny when the police show up at your door.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 27, 02:11 PM · #
“given potency and impairment.” Is this what you mean, James, by your reference to the new “empirics” of pot, that it’s more potent now? If so, the real-life link between potency and impairment is not obvious – you certainly offer no evidence of new zombie armies of the stoned nor any other indices of people not behaving themselves well enough – although I have seen studies indicating that, given the (exaggerated) increases in potency, pot smokers now, reasonably, smoke smaller amounts at a time.
— Matt Feeney · Mar 27, 02:16 PM · #
List of successful pot smokers, famous and otherwise:
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/11/07/successful-pot-smokers-lets-make-a-list/
And James, this:
“The most sacred outlet of freedom, in fact, is our ability to create our own laws that define what is and is not a freedom.”
…is just incorrect.
Natural rights should not be subjected to a popular vote, or to the political process. I believe the old saying goes, “Democracy is four wolves and three sheep deciding what’s for dinner.”
And I’d submit that rights don’t get much more fundamental than choosing what you put into your won body, or altering your own state of mind.
— Radley Balko · Mar 27, 02:19 PM · #
James, I don’t know how long it’s been since you’ve been down and out amongst the hoi polloi, but pot is already banal enough to sell its own decriminalization.
From the middle down, pot is ubiquitous. Even those who choose ‘no’ see it, and understand it.
Many, many, many young men do too much of it. They spend their late teens and all of their twenties taking rips and playing Halo online or learning the guitar. That is, when they’re not sleep walking through their latest server job at the Red Lobster. Office grunts in their thirties and forties are better. All are comparatively docile and productive members of the working class.
Here’s something you can groove with: Nietzsche famously wondered what exactly we’re supposed to do with The Worker now that we’ve made an issue of him. Well, I think we have an answer.
As Camus might say, let him choose absurdity. We’re all dead in the long run anyway.
— JA · Mar 27, 02:53 PM · #
JA writes: “pot is already banal enough to sell its own decriminalization.” This, more than the specter of oven growing armies of pot zombies, gives me the most unease re. the, shall we say, spiritual dimension of this issue. The ubiquity and banality of pot, on the one hand, the near-universality of our innocuous experiences with it, in tandem with the jaw-clenched insistence on maintaining prohibition, I think, says something not-good about us. It’s not the hypocrisy, it’s the panic, the anxiety at introducing some slack into our collective capacity to police the living shit out of ourselves.
— Matt Feeney · Mar 27, 03:04 PM · #
Surely, Radley, you agree that in a democracy like ours, whatever its faults, the buck stops with us citizens when it comes to deciding whether there are some particular things (meth, antifreeze, human casserole) we are not allowed to put into our bodies. When arguing about it in practice, invoking natural rights, full stop, only gets us so far. Of course there is no more fundamental right than a right to do something as fundamental as to put something in your mouth — assuming, of course, that right actually exists by nature. It’s impossible to convince Americans skeptical about decriminalizing pot if the argument hinges on the idea that there is, in fact, no argument at all. But in fact we Americans just don’t really think that simply because something is fundamental to human life, a fundamental right issues from it. Whether you’re pro-life or not, our abortion law is plain enough proof of that in both directions.
I have to admit that my judgment about which kinds of arguments will really move America toward decriminalization and which won’t seems only to be reinforced in discovering that my disposition in favor of decriminalization apparently matters so much less than why — or why not — I’m so disposed. If we can’t all characterize our obligation to craft suitable and sane laws about pot as sacred, fine; but it’s damn important, and bogging down in arguments about the natural right to get high isn’t going to satisfy it.
— James · Mar 27, 03:33 PM · #
“If we can’t all characterize our obligation to craft suitable and sane laws about pot as sacred, fine; but it’s damn important, and bogging down in arguments about the natural right to get high isn’t going to satisfy it.”
I just don’t understand how it’s “bogging down” to point out that we own our bodies and the government does not. How does stating this simple fact of personal autonomy hurt the argument for legalization?
— LJM · Mar 27, 04:33 PM · #
Because it makes you sound like a dirty hippie!
So much of our political discourse is based around a need, by those older than about 45, to fuck over hippies.
— Chet · Mar 27, 04:50 PM · #
Mostly, I want marijuana to be legal because I enjoy smoking it. Risking jail to acquire it sucks.
Which, as Daniel Larison said , and I tried and failed to say, is an entirely appropriate and valid reason to support decriminalization.
— Freddie · Mar 27, 05:03 PM · #
Is no one going to note that Mexican drug lords are cutting off people’s heads and leaving them in the streets? In Mexico, a LITERAL drug war is being fought – and in a lot of places lost. Mexican police, army, and even citizens are being slaughtered by drug runners and heavily armed paramilitary forces. What are they being funded by? The vast majority (some estimates up to 80%) of their funding is through sales of Marijuana, mostly to the US. Make it legal, it cuts the funding and that ends the war. This IS deadly serious, just like Prohibition unleashed deadly gang wars in Chicago and New York, this is causing even worse ones. We just don’t care because it’s only killing Mexicans, and a handful (19 at last count) of Americans.
— Skalite · Mar 27, 05:54 PM · #
James,
Do you consider Mexicans human?
If so, why don’t their deaths count?
— Creamy Goodness · Mar 27, 06:01 PM · #
In the computer world, we have a saying: “Garbage in, garbage out”. If your line of reasoning starts with “If pot is a matter of life or death, people will keep on choosing death”, I doubt any amount of reasoning will change your mind. Count me in with Balko – the drug war is not a joke (well, it is in a sense, but it’s not a funny joke).
— jrg · Mar 27, 06:05 PM · #
Poulos: “We are stuck with the fact that some degree of criminalization of pot is, to some degree, reasonable” (emphasis mine)
Excuse me, what “fact” is this? Because I have never heard a good reason for pot criminalisation that didn’t fall under moralistic reasons (which can be reduced to “telling others how I think they should live their lives”) or utopical pies-in-the-sky involving the absurd and counter-factual belief that the law would reduce consumption. I’m a tee-totaller (I won’t even drink coffee unless I really need it), and yet I can see no reason, and certainly no “fact” for the criminalisation.
The rule of thumb: if I can substitute any argument’s “pot” word for “alcohol” and find an equivalent argument used during the prohibition, the argument is wrong. Mr. Poulos, do tell. Please.
Grey Wolf
— Grey Wolf · Mar 27, 06:09 PM · #
and to expand on Grey Wolf’s point: there are many arguments for the criminalization of alcohol in which the word “pot” CANNOT be substituted. That is, alcohol is an empirically more harmful substance than marijuana.
— vicajax · Mar 27, 06:20 PM · #
With all due respect you’re wrong. Marijuana should be legalized & treated like alcohol. Prohabition only enriches the criminals. Criminalizing users & growers only fills our jails.
How one can conclude this is any different than alcohol I don’t get. To me it means you just like being proud about being stupid.
— kindness · Mar 27, 06:28 PM · #
Surely, Radley, you agree that in a democracy like ours, whatever its faults, the buck stops with us citizens when it comes to deciding whether there are some particular things (meth, antifreeze, human casserole) we are not allowed to put into our bodies.
Kinda. The buck got passed to our constitutional epistates on the question of birth control, MVA’s, and penises.
I agree that “natural rights” arguments are weak, and they are also moot: we have, thanks to the Supremes, a fundamental right of privacy:
As a matter of law, black-suited majoritarians may infringe the right to privacy only in pursuit of a compelling state interest in a way that passes the least restrictive and narrowly tailored ptests. Then the buck stops.
Kennedy’s opinion is filled to the brim with convertible dicta. For instance, he write, “Liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” Isn’t it reasonable to suppose that liberty also gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to appetite?
What’s more basic to animals, sex-drive or appetite? I think the answer’s neither/both, rather than either/or.
— JA · Mar 27, 06:33 PM · #
My suspicion is that what really bothers James is our inability to discuss these matters without resorting to the language of rights — or rather, the language of foundationalism. Perhaps nothing distorts our political life more than our collective inability to separate what we hope for, or want, or think is meet and proper, from what is, say, “constitutional” or a matter of “rights.” Genuine political deliberation is possible only we can hold in tension what we want and our beliefs about what is “naturally” true or undeniably “constitutional.” There are times when these matters come together, but not often, and certainly not in any absolute sense.
Shorter version: that F. Scott Fitzgerald quote about first rate minds…
— Matt S. · Mar 27, 07:26 PM · #
You’ve got some circular reasoning going here. You say “Once many regular people who aren’t college students start emerging to reveal their steady, more or less responsible uses of pot..” then we can decriminalize/legalize.
But it’s illegal! That’s the whole point. People can’t come out of the shadows, because to do so is to advertise your violation of the law (and exposure yourself to legal and/or professional reprecussions). A doctor can freely state that he has a few drinks when off duty, and even ocasionally gets drunk. But he can’t proclaim that he gets stoned on his days off. If he did, any hospital employing him, who had knowledge of his public proclimation, would have to fire him.
An FBI employee, national security bureaucrat, or policeman who went public would likely suffer even more severe penalities.
— agorabum · Mar 27, 08:10 PM · #
There’s a really obvious answer here – pot pushers could respect the law. Everyone knows the draconian consequences of getting caught using or buying marijuana. If you’re still using it, then you’re a criminal, you’re openly subverting law and order, and of course people won’t want to associate with you or your cause.
The fact that people still – in light of all the consequences that Radley points out – feel compelled to smoke recreational pot gives credence to the people arguing that pot isn’t so harmless and that it’s negative externalities justify prohibition.
— d-day · Mar 27, 09:19 PM · #
If you’re not being sarcastic, d-day, then huh? How, exactly, does the fact that people smoke pot despite the risks of punishment mean that pot itself is harmful and should be punished? This makes no sense.
Also, you seem to be saying that laws should be respected because they are laws. This also makes no sense.
— LJM · Mar 27, 09:30 PM · #
So let’s see, the folks who drank alcohol, engaged in oral sex, anal sex, sex outside of marriage, read banned books, practiced banned religions, were all proving that said activities were so enticing that people would break the law to do them therefore the laws prohibiting them were reasonable and just.
Love it!
— Tony Comstock · Mar 27, 09:34 PM · #
“Laws should be respected because they are laws” – this, seriously, is something you have a problem with? The broad swaths of the American populace that you need on your side actually does think that yes, laws should be respected because they are laws. Lots of people, including me, have to actually swear oaths to the government to uphold/respect the laws as a condition of their livelihoods.
— d-day · Mar 27, 09:48 PM · #
There is already a Ron Paul of pot. Ron Paul.
And anyway, the reason people think pot smokers and their sympathizers are “kooky” is because only kooky people are willing to admit to smoking the reifer. But lots of people do. Just like Gay people were seen as bizarre back in the 70’s because only gays who were also non-conformists or really into the gay culture were willing to be “out” as gay.
In the future, more ordinary, ‘normal’ people need to be willing to stand up and support legalization. Pot smoking is not something only done by Kooks, but by many people.
— example · Mar 27, 09:48 PM · #
<i>“Laws should be respected because they are laws” – this, seriously, is something you have a problem with? The broad swaths of the American populace that you need on your side actually does think that yes, laws should be respected because they are laws.</i>
Just ask Martin Luthor King.
— example · Mar 27, 09:50 PM · #
“‘Laws should be respected because they are laws’ – this, seriously, is something you have a problem with?”
Laws should only be respected if they are just laws. We, as individuals, have a responsibility to ignore unjust laws. Seriously, you would have respected the laws designed to keep blacks enslaved and illiterate in the 19th century? As Tony pointed out above, you would have respected laws that would imprison people for oral sex, for adultery, for mixed-race sex? You would have respected that laws that required blacks to sit at the backs of buses and drink at separate water faucets? Really?
— LJM · Mar 27, 09:59 PM · #
I’m not interested in discussing whether pot should be legal. I’m trying to address the point in the main post of how to package decriminalization to the regular non-potsmokers who will be needed to pass it.
The fact is, outside the kooky fringe types, a lot of people don’t spend a lot of time thinking about whether marijuana should be banned or not. The anti-pot crowd claims that it’s harmful, it’s a gateway drug, it leads to ruined lives. The pro-pot types tend to surface in the media only do so when they reap the ridiculous consequences of their self-destructive behavior. To the people who don’t care and don’t think it through one way or the other, the potsmokers you hear about are acting against their own self interest. If they have to pick a group to identify with, it’s going to be the prohibitionists.
And when you encounter pot fans who admit to it in every day life, they say brilliant things like “it’s stupid to follow laws just because they’re laws.”
Not helping the cause, dudes.
— d-day · Mar 27, 10:01 PM · #
“And when you encounter pot fans who admit to it in every day life, they say brilliant things like “it’s stupid to follow laws just because they’re laws.”
And pro-liberty individualists often encounter authoritarians who reflexively assume (you remember what happens when you assume, right?) that if you argue for legalizing pot, you must, therefore, smoke pot, even if that’s not the case. (It’s really as childish an assumption as saying that if you’re against bigotry against Muslims, you must be a Muslim).
These authoritarian types ignore the government (which they trust implicitly) which reports yearly that most users of illicit substances are not addicted and lead productive lives. They ignore the very successful ex-pot smokers who became Presidents and CEO’s and current pot smokers who are scientists, investment bankers, writers, business owners, lawyers, teachers, etc.. I suppose they ignore these facts because they value their own, limited, judgmental viewpoints over objective truth, and it might interfere with their desire to make judgmental assumptions about people (“you oppose prohibition, there you must smoke pot”).
— LJM · Mar 27, 10:16 PM · #
Plenty of them do, stupid. In fact there’s an enormous number of people – myself one of them – who would like to smoke some pot once in a while, but do not because it would be an illegal act.
Sounds like I’m already doing my part for law and order. When are you going to do yours?
— Chet · Mar 27, 10:18 PM · #
The fact is, outside the kooky fringe types, a lot of people don’t spend a lot of time thinking about whether marijuana should be banned or not. The anti-pot crowd claims that it’s harmful, it’s a gateway drug, it leads to ruined lives. The pro-pot types tend to surface in the media only do so when they reap the ridiculous consequences of their self-destructive behavior. To the people who don’t care and don’t think it through one way or the other, the potsmokers you hear about are acting against their own self interest. If they have to pick a group to identify with, it’s going to be the prohibitionists.
I am admirer of Mr. Poulus’s writing style, but this is much better said.
My particular hardon (there’s the pun again) is Obscenity Laws, which people only think about when they hear that the couple running GirlsPooping.com had all their assets seized and pled out to 15 months in jail. That doesn’t exactly help me when I try to make the case that a lingerie shop owner in Utah shouldn’t be able to sell my films to her customers for fear of prosecution under Obscenity statutes.
I don’t smoke. Having been shot at by dope growers (it not fun taking semi-automatic fire when all you have is an over/under shot gun and a dozen rounds of bird shot) I rather resent the lawlessness that illegal pot smoking brings into society, and I’m more than willing to blame growers, sellers, buyer, cowardly politicians and an a two-faced electorate.
But now what. As other commentors have pointed out, marijuana is illegal. How does someone who has the credulity to make the case make the case without compromising their credibly?
— Tony Comstock · Mar 27, 10:20 PM · #
Ridiculous consequences such as Michael Phelps’ 14 Olympic Gold medals in swimming, I suppose. Or consequences such as Barack Obama’s and George W Bush’s successful bids for the Presidency of the United States. Or consequences such as Bill Gates enormously successful technology company, perhaps.
Surely we’re well past the point where we believe every pot smoker in the world winds up some kind of brain-dead waste, aren’t we?
— Chet · Mar 27, 10:23 PM · #
I’ll just add that d-day thinks that the Cato Institute, the editors of the magazines The Economist and Foreign Policy, Ron Paul, Barney Frank, the ex-cops of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, among many others, are “kooky fringe types.”
Prohibitionists are consistently more out of touch with reality than drug users.
— LJM · Mar 27, 10:23 PM · #
D-day: While those who claim all unjust laws need to be ignored might be impaling themselves on one horn of a Euthyphro type dilemma, it isn’t clear how you avoid the other horn: what is just is determined by the law, so the law is always just. And the assumption that this conclusion is arrived at by the bulk of the American people out of laziness is exactly the sort of problem any kind moral reform effort will have to contend with. This is not, in itself, an argument against the effort.
— c.t.h. · Mar 27, 10:40 PM · #
So how do you propose getting those “authoritarian types” to get on your bandwagon? How are you going to persuade them? Remember the original post:
“Once many regular people who aren’t college students start emerging to reveal their steady, more or less responsible uses of pot, things will change.”
You’re doing exactly that – trotting out the doctors, lawyers, CEO’s, who have smoked pot with no ill effects. That’s a good way to package things politically. That’s generally not what the pro-pot crowd leads with though. See, e.g., this comment thread, where we had to go through the parade of insults in order to get there (racist, homophobe, childish).
As for whether it matters if someone rightly or wrongly “assumes” that you personally smoke out, I would submit that strident libertarian a-holes aren’t really doing the best job persuading the American mainstream of the rightness of their positions either. But is the assumption that off? Most pro-pot types I know hold the position out of pure self-indulgence, not out of any deeply thought ideological position (Query: how many pot smokers have Che t-shirts?). They want to smoke out in peace. Which, bully for them.
BUT shouldn’t the public at large (complete with its drooling authoritarianist government-loving masses) have a healthy skepticism of people advocating for changes to the law actually, you know, respect the law? What happened to political compromise?
— d-day · Mar 27, 10:40 PM · #
Most pro-pot types I know
Not to put too fine a point on it, but given the way you’ve expressed yourself on this thread, if I was a “regular guy” who smoked pot and wanted it decriminalized, I wouldn’t be in any big hurry to tell you.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 27, 10:52 PM · #
But isn’t that the problem, that respect for the law is divorced from a respect for justice? It seems that respect for the law should come from a respect for justice, but reform only comes when people perceive a gap between justice and the law. This gap will never be recognized as long as respect for the law contends on equal footing with respect for justice. Of what should the general public have a healthy skepticism, the narrowing of the gap between legality and morality? The effort to close that gap? If you are simply advocating a more engaged, reflective public, I’ll buy you a drink.
— c.t.h. · Mar 27, 10:59 PM · #
Fair or unfair, the public face of marijuana legalization is going to be best served by people who don’t actually smoke pot. The pot-legalization crowd needs to self-police much more effectively. If we’re going to trot out the much-abused ghost of Martin Luther King, let’s remember that the organizers of civil rights marches aggressively weeded out weird-looking folks from their ranks. Potheads need to put on tie and a smile and put down the bong and the rant.
Look at some of your examples – Michael Phelps? Man, that guy was on top of the world, and then one stupid mistake cost him a ton of valuable endorsements. The takeaway to the People-magazine readers is: Hey, he shouldn’t have smoked pot.
Clinton, Bush, Obama? That goes back to Andrew Sullivan’s point. There’s an implicit admitted stigma – none would DREAM of saying that they would do it now. It’s a mistake that they’ve grown out of. The message, again, is that drugs are bad.
cth: You’re absolutely right. You can’t say that things are de facto just or unjust by nature of the fact that they are currently enacted into law. The point that I’m trying to make here is that the American electorate has a lot of often contradictory interests that are expressed in the law. If the pro-marijuana crowd wants to convince them, it ought to at least make some attempt to acknowledge and respect those interests. Not a lot of Americans have a direct personal interest in whether a particular marijuana possession law is just or unjust. But, lots do have a general preference that the law, as a generalized body, be just. They have interests in the law beyond justice though. Laws that preserve the social order may not be fair in many or all respects, but people may still support them because they have an interest in preserving social order. It’s not fair that sparking a doobie gets your house raided at 4am. But once it happens, the neighbors are going to be pissed. The pot-legalization crowd has the smokers. How is it going to appeal to the neighbors? Talking down to the sheeple isn’t going to convince them. The more pot legalizers respect the law, the more the average everyday people, people who care about order and don’t care about pot, will trust them, rather than fear them.
— d-day · Mar 27, 11:04 PM · #
I think people who favor legalization of marijuana shouldn’t be so contemptuous about people who don’t. Libertarians I know tend to be the worst salesmen of libertarianism. That’s what I’ve been trying to do here. Instead of assuming people who disagree with you are stupid, try to understand why they think the way they do without condescending to them.
I FAVOR LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA. But should that be a prerequisite to having a discussion with people? Is that the new ideological litmus test of whether someone is 1) arguing in bad faith, 2) stupid, 3) unworthy of entering into a civil debate with?
I certainly have my disagreements with the legalization crowd – but those problems are generally due to the fact that their antics make people think I’m one of those kooky fringe types and/or a lawbreaker. I’m not! I would smoke pot if it was legal, but I don’t because it’s not. I wouldn’t be able to afford my law school loans if I were to be disbarred.
— d-day · Mar 27, 11:20 PM · #
Right, it would seem in the interest of the neighbors that nobodies house is getting raided at four a.m. Or that (as the Economist argues) their taxes wouldn’t be going to pay for those raids, but rather their schools, libraries, roads, etc. The practical arguments alone, ignoring any appeals to justice and morality, should be convincing to most. It is there that I think most (non-Kook) pro-pot advocates tear their hair out: there is a convincing practical argument and a convincing theoretical one. Those don’t seem to be working, so what are we to do? Political compromise means there has to be some work done from the other direction, but the burden of proof seems to be entirely on the pro-pot side. Being in a corner raises your hackles no matter how well adjusted you are.
— c.t.h. · Mar 27, 11:21 PM · #
And LJM, you’d do well to remember the dangers of assuming.
Although I guess you’re only partially an ass, because Barney Frank actually is a kooky fringe type.
— d-day · Mar 27, 11:24 PM · #
c.t.h: Finally we get somewhere interesting. This is a discussion worth having.
I don’t necessarily think that it’s a bad thing that the burden of proof is on the side advocating for a substantial change in the existing law. For me, it seems, the evidence shows that the burden has been met, at minimum, for decriminalization and medical use. The trick, as I see it, is to get a fair hearing of the evidence with the voters. The pro-pot crowd doesn’t seem to have a lot of message discipline.
My biggest concern is about the tendency of this determined minority to demonize the other side. Radley Balko ought to have a statue or at least a plaque somewhere commemorating the work he does against the extremely disturbing militarization of the police. But I think too often it devolves into demonization of police in general. A lot of people know cops – friends and brothers are cops. If we frame the debate as people versus police, a lot more people are going to side with the police than otherwise would. Just because the macro-level stuff needs changing, people may side with the police on the micro level.
I think if marijuana legalization is ever going to happen, the biggest ticket item we need is a return to federalism, across the board, not just in the drug context. That’s our big ticket item. After that, local incremental change – sick people, then decriminalization, and on. In the meantime, better message discipline. Self-police the movement as to weirdos and addicts.
— d-day · Mar 27, 11:44 PM · #
Right, no, we get it, D-day. It’s bad because it’s illegal and it’s illegal because it’s bad. Perfectly circular.
Really, it’s the best you can come back with – “all your examples of successful pot smokers are people who were <I>doing something illegal!</i> They have no credibility!” – and it’s <I>our</I> responsibility to derive more compelling arguments? I don’t think it works like that.
— Chet · Mar 28, 12:06 AM · #
d-day, not agreeing with someone’s politics doesn’t make them “fringe.” I don’t care for Barney Frank, but he’s a mainstream politician.
Your arguments about respecting the law in order to convince people that the law needs to be changed is, I think, silly. Should homosexuals have stopped having sex until it was legal for them to have sex? Should slaves have stopped trying to escape until slavery was abolished? Should women have stopped showing up at polling places until they could vote? Should they have stopped educating women about contraception until it was legal to do so?
Again, unjust laws need to be broken. They need to be disrespected. I think that’s how just about every advance in civil rights has been made.
— LJM · Mar 28, 01:43 AM · #
The problem with the examples isn’t that they were doing something illegal. Your example people, in their own words, have expressed regret or otherwise climbed aboard the “drugs are bad” bandwagon. Is it fair that the burden of proof is on you? No. But actually, it does work like that.
I don’t see what’s so silly about arguing that the spokespeople for a movement be people who don’t trigger the reactive distrust of the people you’re trying to persuade. You come off as silly when you argue that limiting the right to smoke weed to get silly and eat cheetos is quantitatively and qualitatively akin to enslaving people. I’m not debating with you about whether the law should be changed. It should. But saying that a law deserves repealing is different than saying a law deserves breaking. The more extreme arguments turn people off. Would you rather persuade people, or just keep looking down on them as you sit in your bedroom with the curtains drawn while you toke.
If I’m understanding you correctly, the only laws you have an obligation to follow are the ones you agree with. I took you for a libertarian, LJM, but apparently you’re just an anarchist. What other unjust laws do you routinely break? Do you pay taxes that are used to support unjust programs? Ever break any laws where it actually cost you something? Or does your “obligation” extend beyond past what makes you feel good in the moment and have a statistically slight chance of getting punished for.
— d-day · Mar 28, 04:20 AM · #
Yes. Because what they did was illegal. I imagine Alan Turing apologized for being gay, said it was just a “youthful mistake” or something. The social pressure to apologize for perceived transgressions is extreme. Do you really think Michael Phelps stopped smoking, though?
Impossible standards are silly. If the people who don’t smoke it have no credibility because they don’t smoke, and the people who do smoke have no credibility because they do, how should I respond to that except to point out the impossible double standard you’ve set up to de-legitimize any discussion of marijuana decriminalization?
I don’t smoke, I don’t toke, I don’t use pot. Somehow, though, that doesn’t seem to matter – people like you assume the only people who care are the ones you can dismiss with jokes about eating Cheetos in their parents’ basements.
— Chet · Mar 28, 04:39 AM · #
“If the people who don’t smoke it have no credibility because they don’t smoke, and the people who do smoke have no credibility because they do, how should I respond to that except to point out the impossible double standard you’ve set up to de-legitimize any discussion of marijuana decriminalization?”
That would be a valid counter if that’s what I was arguing. It’s not. I’m arguing the opposite. The people who don’t smoke have more authority and credibility on the issue, or at least are more palatable to those that are open to persuasion.
What is it exactly that you mean by “people like you”? People who agree with you about legalization but don’t march in lockstep as to how to achieve that goal? The fact is, marijuana legalizers have an image problem. We have to be able to talk about it to overcome it.
Did I hit a nerve in dismissing you as a stereotype? Does it make you want to listen to me or be open to my arguments? I’m guessing not. That was probably a tactical mistake in presenting my argument. Let’s see – who else do we know who makes those same tactical mistakes:
1. Just the sort of insightful analysis I’ve come to expect from conservatives. Well done, sir! — Chet · Mar 26, 08:58 PM · #So it looks like condescension and presumptions of bad faith have once again caused what could have been an interesting discussion to devolve into a flame war. Nothing has been accomplished here. Awesome.
— d-day · Mar 28, 05:50 AM · #
I don’t seem be able to connect to GirlsPooping.com.
— cw · Mar 28, 06:14 AM · #
d-day, there are millions of people who smoke pot who don’t regret it and for whom it doesn’t cause any problem. You’re suggesting that they need to stop simply because the state says they should; that unless they stop doing this relatively harmless thing, people will stop taking them seriously. But the fact is that more and more people are for legalization and people haven’t had to stop smoking it. The only “image problem” legalizers have is with people who judge other people for smoking a plant they don’t care to smoke, or with people who believe that morality is defined by the state.
Really, if there is an “image problem,” why, then, is support for legalization steadily increasing? Why do you repeatedly invoke stereotypes about pot smokers when all the available data clearly indicates that pot smokers are just as successful in life as alcohol drinkers?
No one is equating marijuana legalization with slavery. But you have argued continuously that those who break the law have less respect than those who don’t. Please explain, then, why those who broke the law to free slaves deserved less respect than those who didn’t. Why did those who broke the law and had intimate relations with other races deserve less respect than those who wanted to, but didn’t?
And I’m not an anarchist, because I don’t believe humans can live like that, yet. I’m a civil libertarian because I adhere to the radical belief that the state doesn’t own my body. And if the state insists that it does, then I will defy the state. Civil rights have never increased by respecting the state while it attacked them.
— LJM · Mar 28, 06:58 AM · #
RE: Breaking the Law
Anyone who’s ever driven on any interstate highway knows this “breaking the law” thing d-day is ginning up is a strawman and bad faith too.
— Tony Comstock · Mar 28, 11:30 AM · #
There was a time when conservatives strongly defended individual liberty over state enforced morality. Now both Democrats and Republicans have virtually identical positions. What rarely enters into the debate is the cost of enforcing these failed programs of which The War On Drugs is one.
We can no longer afford the costs of these misplaced priorities.
— John Brown · Mar 28, 03:19 PM · #
To marijuana foes, though, there are no people who don’t smoke, at least not on the side of legalization. I mean, look at what you did – there you are, assuming that everyone who is enthusiastic about it’s legalization is a pot smoker.
It’s a perfect impossible standard – only those who don’t want it legalized can be legitimate advocates for its legalization, because anyone who wants it legalized must be smoking it now, illegally. Ergo, there are no legitimate advocates for legalization.
It’s not a presumption, it’s an observation. Polous’s post is written in bad faith. It’s a joke, not an argument.
— Chet · Mar 28, 05:40 PM · #
“The pro-pot types tend to surface in the media only do so when they reap the ridiculous consequences of their self-destructive behavior.”
Here are some very recent links demonstrating that d-day’s perception of an “image problem” in regards to marijuana legalization is all in his perfectly sober, unquestioningly law-abiding head. As one becomes aware of the facts, it becomes clearer and clearer that his only argument is, “pot is for losers!” and “obey the law!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcRMRuS-J-U
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez29-2009mar29,0,88438.column
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamper/marijuana-no-laughing-mat_b_180378.html
— LJM · Mar 29, 06:09 AM · #
The original question was how to make pot banal today, rather than waiting for the current generation of college students to rise to power before its inevitable legalization. Having more pot adherents follow the law instead of flouting it was a suggestion of how to achieve that.
I wish pot was legal. After going around and around with you people on this, I need some.
— d-day · Mar 29, 09:29 PM · #
And, again, since it’s illegal to sell, possess, or use pot, how can pot “adherents” follow the law besides by not smoking pot?
At which point – they cease being “pot adherents”? It’s a perfect impossible standard.
— Chet · Mar 29, 09:53 PM · #
Out of curiosity, has there been any discussion of a “Hamsterdam” scenario? Some kind of pot smokers amnesty, avoiding the current impossible standard in order to allow “pot adherents” a safe voice. Of course, this just pushes the problem back one step, as how do you argue for that without tarnishing your name, etc.
— c.t.h. · Mar 30, 07:27 PM · #