Smoking Pot and Tying the Knot

Townhall.com ^ | December 12, 2012 | Jacob Sullum

[JustSayNoToNannies]

25% is not 100%

Read much? That 25% figure was from 20 years ago - and was rising.

that is not enough.

"Enough" for what?

Spotting large commercial type MJ grows from the air is an easy task. No way the entrepreneurial spirit can provide that amount without large outdoor grows. Large greenhouses that utilize massive energy and generate heat are also easily detected.

Since the government had minimal impact on 25% there's no reason to expect it to have much more impact on a 4-fold increase.

Yes, it is a start. If it slows down Chinese made crap so what?

So you'd happily shut down importation to pursue your jihad? Do have the decency to not pretend to be a conservative.

[Resolute Conservative]

Enough to supply the demand. MJ use is in the tonnage not pounds.

It had minimal increase because of budget constraints on aircraft fuel and manpower. Try participating in a domestic eradication effort with limited manpower and aircraft resources before you try and opine about it.

“Do have the decency to not pretend to be a conservative” Yes the throw down from a judge who presides over nanny state cases. Pot meet kettle. Once the derision starts I can see that you do not want to discuss so bang the gavel, case closed. In closing I spent 14 years in the WOD and the only problem was the judges and lack of manpower. Not enough hours in the day to chase all the degenerates and tend to other crimes as well.

[henkster]

While I believe a “closed border will help, and is advisable, I do not believe a “closed border” will resolve all issues with the WOD. In the past 5-7 years, I’ve seen an explosion of heroin abuse among our young adults. It’s reached epidemic proportions. The heroin is coming from Afghanistan. Why? Because we are there. I’ll bet there are, in theory, more strict controls over what comes and goes from Afghanistan than with any “closed” border for a neighboring country.

This reason alone is sufficient for me to say that we need to leave Afghanistan. Now. Our presence there is subsidizing the drug trade.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

MJ use is in the tonnage not pounds.

As is domestic production.

It had minimal increase because of budget constraints on aircraft fuel and manpower.

Yet another of your claims with no accompanying evidence.

So you'd happily shut down importation to pursue your jihad? Do have the decency to not pretend to be a conservative.

Yes the throw down from a judge who presides over nanny state cases. Pot meet kettle.

What are you babbling about?

Once the derision starts

Unconservative is as unconservative does. Have a hankie.

I can see that you do not want to discuss so bang the gavel, case closed.

You're the one apparently preparing to flee the discussion.

In closing I spent 14 years in the WOD and the only problem was the judges and lack of manpower.

The manpower needed to really win the War On Drugs would bankrupt us and turn us into a police state. Conservatives oppose that sort of thing.

[Resolute Conservative]

Yep our boys are walking through poppy fields with orders not to touch.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Using illegal drugs to escape from reality is cowardice. Attempting to escape from reality also has another name.....insanity.

What about using a couple Dogfish Head 60 Minute IPAs to escape reality, albeit briefly?

I do that regularly after a day of dealing with the rest of humanity.

Does that make me a coward?

Because I really think I'm doing humanity a favor. Sometimes I think that's all that's keeping me from climbing clock tower with a rifle.

[headsonpikes]

“We were just interpreting it wrong.”

LOL! Seriously! still chuckling..

[danielmryan]

I've been thinking on what you said re. smoking, and I've figured out why the libertarians are less insistent upon rolling back the smoking bans. Here's my take on why:

1. The second-hand-smoking issue complicates things. Now, I know that the experiments are often set up to reach the politically correct conclusion. But, unlike with global warming, there isn't an active community of skeptics that recurrently debunk the findings. Junk science second-hand-smoke studies may be, but you not only have to prove it, you also have to have an active community (including scientists) rallying to the cause. (And even then it's tough, as the global-warming issue has shown.) There's been no Climategate in second-hand smoke studies. And, if it proves that second-hand-smoke does cause deleterious effects, then second-hand smoke would have to be pegged as a kind of pollution (aggression) by libertarians.
2. Smokers may complain but are nevertheless obedient. There's no open cadre of smokers that flout the smoking ban. That's very much unlike Prohibition, where the Volstead Act was frequently and openly broken. Laws that are openly flouted over a wide swath of society (not just in the projects!) are perceived to have something wrong with them.
3. Despite recent attempts to obliterate the distinction, there's still a hard difference between the civil law and the criminal law. In everyday life, that means a hard distinction between a fine and jail time. That's why laws like speeding laws are regularly flouted but aren't the centre of a mass movement to repeal. If you get a traffic ticket, it's almost like getting a tax bill. The only people who go to court over those tickets are people who want to fight them. No jail time is directly involved. The lawmakers have really picked their spots on traffic laws: the only jailable offenses are ones that either involve outright aggression, have been credibly depicted as tantamount to outright aggression, or represent driving that's typically reckless. For the rest, it's little more than forking over the money. Same goes for the anti-smoking laws.

What I'm trying to get across is that the marijuana laws are low-hanging fruit for libertarian activists. There's no cluster of studies that say second-hand marijuana smoke causes damage to someone else, so there's no widely-claimed third-party effects to complicate the issue. The marijuana laws are widely flouted, including in middle-class circuits: a law that's widely disregarded by people who are law-abiding at heart is easy to cast as too strict. Combine that with jail time, not just a ticket, and you conjure up the image of (otherwise) law-abiding people being hauled off to the hoosegow and Bubba. What's made marijuana repeal do-able is the fact that the typical marijuana user does not show the behaviour patterns of the typical criminal - just as the typical illegal drinker in the Prohibition era did not show those patterns either. This last point is important. You may have noticed that libertarians are for open borders at the theoretical level, but they're for a lot of things at the theoretical level. In terms of activism, they haven't been pushing amnesty. Had their mission in life solely been to festoon libertarianism with liberal glamour, they would have. But, for now anyway, little Pedro is doing without them.

One of the main reasons why the Brits' mercantilist laws were seen as tyrannical in the American colonies was the fact that many people made their living through smuggling - and were men of integrity. In other words, they were the opposite of the stereotypical "black marketeer." Their inner integrity was enough to impress their fellow Americans into seeing the laws as unjust. If there's any point that's decisive in re unjust laws, it would be this one. People who are law-abiding through and through, but who nevertheless break a specific law, put the question mark on the law itself. Smokers, on the other hand, are obedient, so the question mark remains unput. Sort-of like the TSA.

And, I should add, libertarian support for repealing prostitution laws was stuck in the theoretical bubble until the trade itself became gentrified. As long as "what about the pimps?" is a decisive question, even a libertarian recognizes that there's no point in pressing the issue with activism.

To sum up, the behaviour of all-too-many marijuana smokers themselves, combined with the severity of the marijuana laws, make repeal a winning issue. If FedGov were stupid enough to make possession of a handgun a jailable offense, you can bet that there'd be a bevy of libertarian activists agitating for repeal. That issue would be even more of a winner than repeal of the marijuana laws.

That said, winning on repeal would be a major notch in the belt for libertarian activists. Winning encourages them, perhaps enough to throw some muscle behind the repeal of those smoking prohibitions and other "health n' safety" neoPuritanism.

[ansel12]

It’s just your posting to that nannies person is cracking me up.

He is a one note wonder. With a one track mind. The only reason he posts anything is to push legal dope. And you are better off talking to a brick wall than to argue with him on other critical issues. Hell, even arguing with him about any down-side to dangerous drugs? Waste of time. He is for legalizing all that crap regardless of the damage and harm it does.

No kidding, drugs, drugs, drugs.

[ansel12]

Pot smoke can actually drug you, and stinks to high heaven.

Also, the tobacco bans are on beaches and in parks.

[ansel12]

Silly nonsense, prostitution has been “gentrified”? Libertarians have avoided it because of the “pimp” issue?

What a long rambling post that said nothing worthwhile and little to nothing accurate.

[ansel12]

Post 90 was in regards to your overlooking second hand smoke of pot, and not realizing that smoking bans also include the vast outdoors and beaches.

[danielmryan]

Your opinion, pal. Lotsa luck with your own activism.

[bramps]

Because there is a giant difference. My point was clear. Do you still smoke pot? Why or why not? Have any kids? When they’re of legal drinking age would you consider buying them a beer? How about a joint (within the safe, legal confines of your home)? Would you share a couple of beers with your son or daughter? How about a joint with junior?
These questions should not bother you at all if you equate pot with alcohol.

[ansel12]

Conservative activism? Thanks.

[little jeremiah]

Have to admit, it’s funny....

Humor is needed even in the worst of times.

[little jeremiah]

it has a name and number.....but I
Drugs, porn, abortion, hookers, are what drives the libertarian crowd.

---

You left out faggotry. They’re big on that, too.

[C. Edmund Wright]

It all makes sense now. Gay marriage & marijuana being legalized on the same day. Leviticus 20:13- "If a man lays with another man he should be stoned." We were just interpreting it wrong.

Now THATS funny! God and His sense of humor! Priceless!

[danielmryan]

Conservative activism? Thanks.

Well then...good luck. To be frank, you have your own way and having the likes of me on board would likely be an impediment to you. Again, best of luck. Goodbye and Godspeed.

[dmz]

Because there is a giant difference. My point was clear.

<><><><<

Yes, your unsubstantiated opinion was quite clear. A story oft told, in fact, but mostly, like yours, personal opinion disguised as fact.

Your questions don’t bother me at all. In fact, here are the answers:

Yes. On occasion.
It can be enjoyable.
Yes. 3.
They already are, and yes, I have.
It’s never come up. Doubt it will. It’s not how they roll.
Asked and answered.
Asked and answered.

But, to be clear, I don’t equate alcohol and pot. Alcohol kills. I’ve seen it firsthand on too many occasions.

Friend’s brother killed in high school by a drunk driver.
Friend himself drank himself to death at age 39.
Another friend drank himself to death at age 49.

The potsmokers? Still alive. And like the rest of us, some are thriving, some just surviving, and most are somewhere in between.

Cheers.