In my last post I made a case for legalizing 
marijuana use across the country, as it already is in 26 states including my own. I think we’re being hypocritical as a society in making that particular activity a crime while allowing alcohol consumption to virtually everyone over 21. Regulate it, tax it, control distribution (just like is the case with alcohol), but make it legal.
The arguments against that include that it’s a “gateway drug” and will inevitably lead to the use of harder and harder drugs and ultimately life-shattering addiction, that the use of pot saps initiative and makes people lazy (the “stoner” argument), and that people will be impaired and unable to function in society (imagine a bunch of stoners on California freeways).
I’m not an expert on the effects on society of drug use, so I’m not going to try and prove one side or the other, but I think applying a little critical thinking might be of use here.
First, the gateway argument. While it’s probably true that most heroin or meth addicts smoked pot before they began using heroin or meth doesn’t mean that smoking pot inevitably leads to harder drugs or addiction any more than having a beer will lead to becoming an alcoholic, or that pocketing a candy bar at the local 7-Eleven will lead to a life of crime. (Note that I’m not saying that shoplifting is OK, just that there’s no evidence it leads to a lifetime knocking over banks). The counter to that might be “True, but if someone never smokes pot then it’s much less likely that they will just start using crystal meth. It’s better to nip it in the bud.” Again, while the first sentence may be a true statement, the “nip it in the bud” second sentence implies an automaticity to the process that is not borne out by facts. Association is not causation. Furthermore, I know lots of people who use pot but have no interest in harder drugs. There is such a thing as an “addictive personality,” and maybe that person should stay away from pot, but that can’t be extrapolated to the general population.
The next is the lazy stoner argument. I see two responses to this. The first is “so what?” Someone’s personal motivation has no effect on others; if one person is less motivated because they’re high, that just means that they are less likely to be competitive and someone else will benefit from getting the job, ranking, trophy or whatever. That might not be the ideal outcome for that individual who would prefer to get high, but it’s not society’s responsibility to make everyone maximally productive by passing laws to ensure that outcome. My second argument is, I’m unconvinced that the “lazy stoner” is anything more than a cliché. I know lots of very productive pot smokers and well as a boatload of lazy nonusers. Of course smoking pot is relaxing, and some indulge to the point of becoming unmotivated and even lazy, but lots of things do that. People have a cocktail after work to relax and no one talks about “lazy boozers,” so I think the laziness is more of a cliché than anything. In my opinion the “lazy stoner” argument doesn’t hold water either.
The third issue is one of impairment and frankly this is a little more of a concern to me, but it has a much broader subtext that needs some exploring. First off, I believe the “impairment” associated with firing up a joint is a continuum, not an either/or (just like alcohol). Having one drink in an hour has not been associated with significant impairment, as your body burns off the alcohol of one cocktail in about an hour. To reach alcohol blood levels deemed enough to be drunk generally takes two or more cocktails (or one-ounce alcohol equivalents) per hour. I suggest one joint is probably not enough to impair judgment or reaction time (although admittedly, some pot packs a pretty powerful punch, I’m told).
So I think the “impairment” argument fails also.
But the broader subtext is this: the reason that Prohibition was passed was largely because of the efforts of the Temperance Movement, which saw alcohol consumption as universally evil. They pointed to public intoxication, the damage to families caused by alcohol, and so forth. Most of these arguments are morality-based, which raises the question about whether morality-based laws make sense.
This is looking like it’s going to take some more thought and development, so I’ll reserve my discussion for another post.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer.
Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.
Drugs, booze and personal choice (part 2)
The arguments against that include that it’s a “gateway drug” and will inevitably lead to the use of harder and harder drugs and ultimately life-shattering addiction, that the use of pot saps initiative and makes people lazy (the “stoner” argument), and that people will be impaired and unable to function in society (imagine a bunch of stoners on California freeways).
I’m not an expert on the effects on society of drug use, so I’m not going to try and prove one side or the other, but I think applying a little critical thinking might be of use here.
First, the gateway argument. While it’s probably true that most heroin or meth addicts smoked pot before they began using heroin or meth doesn’t mean that smoking pot inevitably leads to harder drugs or addiction any more than having a beer will lead to becoming an alcoholic, or that pocketing a candy bar at the local 7-Eleven will lead to a life of crime. (Note that I’m not saying that shoplifting is OK, just that there’s no evidence it leads to a lifetime knocking over banks). The counter to that might be “True, but if someone never smokes pot then it’s much less likely that they will just start using crystal meth. It’s better to nip it in the bud.” Again, while the first sentence may be a true statement, the “nip it in the bud” second sentence implies an automaticity to the process that is not borne out by facts. Association is not causation. Furthermore, I know lots of people who use pot but have no interest in harder drugs. There is such a thing as an “addictive personality,” and maybe that person should stay away from pot, but that can’t be extrapolated to the general population.
The next is the lazy stoner argument. I see two responses to this. The first is “so what?” Someone’s personal motivation has no effect on others; if one person is less motivated because they’re high, that just means that they are less likely to be competitive and someone else will benefit from getting the job, ranking, trophy or whatever. That might not be the ideal outcome for that individual who would prefer to get high, but it’s not society’s responsibility to make everyone maximally productive by passing laws to ensure that outcome. My second argument is, I’m unconvinced that the “lazy stoner” is anything more than a cliché. I know lots of very productive pot smokers and well as a boatload of lazy nonusers. Of course smoking pot is relaxing, and some indulge to the point of becoming unmotivated and even lazy, but lots of things do that. People have a cocktail after work to relax and no one talks about “lazy boozers,” so I think the laziness is more of a cliché than anything. In my opinion the “lazy stoner” argument doesn’t hold water either.
The third issue is one of impairment and frankly this is a little more of a concern to me, but it has a much broader subtext that needs some exploring. First off, I believe the “impairment” associated with firing up a joint is a continuum, not an either/or (just like alcohol). Having one drink in an hour has not been associated with significant impairment, as your body burns off the alcohol of one cocktail in about an hour. To reach alcohol blood levels deemed enough to be drunk generally takes two or more cocktails (or one-ounce alcohol equivalents) per hour. I suggest one joint is probably not enough to impair judgment or reaction time (although admittedly, some pot packs a pretty powerful punch, I’m told).
So I think the “impairment” argument fails also.
But the broader subtext is this: the reason that Prohibition was passed was largely because of the efforts of the Temperance Movement, which saw alcohol consumption as universally evil. They pointed to public intoxication, the damage to families caused by alcohol, and so forth. Most of these arguments are morality-based, which raises the question about whether morality-based laws make sense.
This is looking like it’s going to take some more thought and development, so I’ll reserve my discussion for another post.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.