MH Front Page: Double standard persists on marijuana

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Posted on Mon, Jun. 04, 2007
Double standard persists on marijuana
BY LYDIA MARTIN AND FRED TASKER


At a recent backyard barbecue in Miami's Upper Eastside, a group of middle-age, middle-class folks tamely sipped berry cocktails and beers. Among them: a couple of lawyers, a couple of city administrators and an arts administrator. Somewhere between the skirt steak and the apple pie, somebody lit a joint and passed it around.

Nobody blinked. Even in mainstream, white-collar settings, smoking marijuana can be commonplace and unremarkable, like having a little wine with dinner.

Once a stamp of the arty, the marginal and the counterculture, today marijuana's popularity cuts across social boundaries. Yet several high-profile marijuana arrests have recently made headlines, highlighting the hazy double standard that exists around an illegal, potentially harmful drug that continues to encroach into the mainstream:

• In March, Lawrence Korda, 59, a Broward Circuit Court judge, was charged with openly smoking marijuana in a park in Hollywood. Korda completed a drug and alcohol program to erase the misdemeanor charge, and must take monthly random drug tests for six months and perform 25 hours of community service.

• Last month, Utpal Dighe, 31, a prosecutor in the Miami-Dade state attorney's office, was fired after police charged him with buying marijuana from a street dealer in Coconut Grove.

• Also last month, Ricky Williams, 30, erstwhile superstar running back for the Dolphins, probably ended his Miami career by testing positive for marijuana for the fifth time.

For good or ill, people from all walks smoke weed. In fact, 40.1 percent of all Americans 12 years old and up admit having tried marijuana at least once -- and 6 percent acknowledge having used it in the past month, federal drug surveys show. The FBI says 786,500 people were arrested for it in 2005, the latest figures available.

One group at least modestly turning away from marijuana is middle- and high-schoolers, ages 12 to 17. The percentage who have used pot at least once dropped from more than 20 percent in 2000 to about 17 percent in 2005, federal researchers say.

''I don't know if more people are smoking or more people are admitting it,'' said Betsy Wise, a Miami stand-up comic. Wise recently started to freelance for a New York ad agency. She confided in a co-worker that a friend was delivering pot brownies to the office -- and told him to help himself.

''When I got to the agency, all but a few of the brownies were gone,'' Wise said. ``Pretty much everyone partook, right in the office. They all greeted me with smiles. I thought that was remarkable. I would have expected maybe one or two people would have been simpatico.''

More and more, weed is cropping up in the popular culture. It isn't just the domain of hip-hop records with parental-guidance labels. On cable-TV shows like Six Feet Under,The Sopranos,Entourage and The L Word, characters have sparked up casually, the way they might sip merlot, without their marijuana use being part of any plot development or morality tale.

And it isn't just cable. On ABC's Brothers & Sisters, Sally Field's character gets high. The kids on That '70s Show often emerged from clouds of funny smoke.

GOING UPSCALE

''I think there is more of a laissez-faire attitude these days about smoking pot,'' said Jenji Kohan, creator of Showtime's Weeds, about a mother who sells marijuana to make ends meet after her husband dies unexpectedly. 'One of the things that I find interesting is that there are boutique farms that are really into their strains. It reminds me of when wine started to become really popular and people started talking about this vine and that grape. Marijuana has become more upscale. In L.A., dealers have full menus of `unique teas.' ''

Not that marijuana use is a function of wealth.

For $20 on the street, a buyer can score one-eighth ounce of low-grade marijuana from Mexico, Belize or Jamaica -- enough for four or five cigarettes. For $800, the connoisseur can acquire an ounce of exotic, extra-potent marijuana grown from modern hybrids in hydroponic labs or special soil indoors in ''grow-houses'' from Pompano Beach to Coral Gables, said James Hall, director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Substance Abuse at Nova Southeastern University.

''It's like wine; you can buy an expensive one or you can buy the jug stuff,'' Hall said.

The truth is, for all of the marijuana possession arrests, police often look the other way, or let smokers go with friendly warnings.

At a Snoop Dogg concert at a Fort Lauderdale club a while back, a uniformed officer stood by unflinchingly as Snoop, and dozens in the audience, sent up telltale clouds.

''It's selective enforcement,'' said Miami musician Todd Thompson, who doesn't have a problem admitting that he gets high. ``At Langerado [a Broward outdoor music festival], there was smoking going on everywhere. I wouldn't do it in front of a cop, just in case. But cops don't always do something about a little marijuana smoke.''

Marijuana laws are a mishmash among the 50 states. It isn't entirely legal anywhere, but 12 states have at least partly decriminalized it, to the point that in Alaska there is no penalty for possessing an ounce or less at home.

In Florida, possession of 20 grams or less -- 28 grams would be an ounce -- is a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine; having more than 20 grams is a felony worth five years and/or a $5,000 fine.

Over the decades, debate about whether marijuana should be legalized has remained lively.

Said Howard Finkelstein, Broward County public defender and legal guru of the ''Help Me Howard'' segment on WSVN-Fox 7: 'We're making war on our own people. We take good fathers and lawyers and doctors and wives and make them outlaws. We're playing a stupid and harmful game of `gotcha.' ''

Some support for legalization comes from the belief that it's not dangerous to health, says Dr. J. Bryan Page, professor of anthropology and psychiatry and an expert on substance abuse in the University of Miami Department of Psychiatry.

''A student I knew claimed to be part of a group who all had grade-point averages over 3.6 who were very regular users,'' he said. 'She wanted me to study them to counter all the `Just say no' stuff.''

White House drug czar John Walters, not surprisingly, sees it differently. In April, his office released an analysis from the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project that said the level of THC -- the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana -- has more than doubled since 1983, from 4 percent to 8.5 percent.

`WAKE-UP CALL'

''This new report serves as a wake-up call for parents who may still hold outdated notions about the harms of marijuana,'' his announcement said.

The increased potency is from the exotic new hybrids and sophisticated indoor growing techniques, says Nova Southeastern's Hall.

Marijuana-related emergency-room visits increased from 45,000 in 1995 to 119,000 in 2002, the most recent comparison available, federal drug officials say.

Added Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse: ``Science has shown that marijuana can produce adverse physical, mental, emotional and behavioral changes, and -- contrary to popular belief -- it can be addictive.''

Norman Kent, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer and board member of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, scoffed: ``More people died last year from eating spinach than smoking pot.''

[Broomstick]

I know people who toke occasionally, and for them it really is like drinking a beer or glass or wine after work.

On the other hand, I recently learned of two relatives who were, every night, toking to 4 am, chowing down in the kitchen, then retiring to bed until around sundown, at which point they resume smoking. They have lost their home, their jobs, pretty much everything but a few changes of clothes and a car that they are currently living in, when they aren't crashing in someone's basement. That's all were doing, smoking dope and sleeping and eating. THAT is a problem. But then, so is drinking booze to that degree, too. They're addicts, despite the protestations of many who say "pot isn't addictive". Yes, it can be.

I can't condone using pot at work though - but then, I don't feel it to be right to drink alcohol during lunch if I'm going back to work afterwards. I can't condone toking and driving, but that's consistent with my stance on anything that can affect one's driving ability

I do think that we'd be better off with saner laws regarding marijuana. Legalize it to some degree, but still regulate it as we do, say alcohol. Responsible, non-addicted adults would be able to indulge in a way harmless to others, but punish people who engage in reckless behavior, such as driving high.

[lazerus]

People in all walks of life become alcoholics, too, does it make *that* a good idea? The fact that, admittantly, a lot of people smoke pot does not change the fact that that stuff is bad for you.

Now, I'm not defending the titanic clusterfuck that is the War On Drugs, but this article seems to be implying that weed is harmless, which I take issue with.

[The Kernel]

People in all walks of life become alcoholics, too, does it make *that* a good idea? The fact that, admittantly, a lot of people smoke pot does not change the fact that that stuff is bad for you.

Now, I'm not defending the titanic clusterfuck that is the War On Drugs, but this article seems to be implying that weed is harmless, which I take issue with.

Nothing is completely harmless, but pot is a lot more harmless than alcohol, both for the smoker and those around them.

[Glocksman]

People in all walks of life become alcoholics, too, does it make *that* a good idea? The fact that, admittantly, a lot of people smoke pot does not change the fact that that stuff is bad for you.

Now, I'm not defending the titanic clusterfuck that is the War On Drugs, but this article seems to be implying that weed is harmless, which I take issue with.

Nothing is completely harmless, but pot is a lot more harmless than alcohol, both for the smoker and those around them.

Pot contains about 50 of the carcinogens found in tobacco, so your risk of cancer due to secondhand smoke is greater than that from being around someone drinking a Miller Lite.

[Broomstick]

Nothing is completely harmless, but pot is a lot more harmless than alcohol, both for the smoker and those around them.

Bullshit. I am getting fucking tired of that sort of apologic shit.

Smoking ANYTHING is bad for your lungs. Period. Combustion produces toxins. Granted some things produce more poison when burned than others but inhaling smoke is bad for you.

Second hand marijuana smoke is just as bad as second hand tobacco. It can trigger asthma and allergies just as readily. It can also produce a "contact high" in others who may not desire to be affected. See above about combustion and your health. That fact that the smoke, carbon monoxide, and various chemicals come from marijuana rather than tobacco does not magically make them harmless.

Driving high can and does kill people. If you doubt my word on it, ask any of your local cops.

Marijuana unquestionably affects memory and ambition, just as alcohol affect judgement and coordination.

Anyone who can maintain that pot is "harmless" has their head up their ass. Nor can you state that it is uniformly more or less harmless than alcohol. Irresponsible use of pot is just as stupid, harmful, and potentially deadly as irresponsible use of alcohol.

[The Kernel]

Pot contains about 50 of the carcinogens found in tobacco, so your risk of cancer due to secondhand smoke is greater than that from being around someone drinking a Miller Lite.

And how much damage does alcohol abuse cause to those around the user? Between drunk driving and spousal abuse alone, you are going to see MUCH greater damage than pot smoke.

Bullshit. I am getting fucking tired of that sort of apologic shit.

Smoking ANYTHING is bad for your lungs. Period. Combustion produces toxins. Granted some things produce more poison when burned than others but inhaling smoke is bad for you.

Second hand marijuana smoke is just as bad as second hand tobacco. It can trigger asthma and allergies just as readily. It can also produce a "contact high" in others who may not desire to be affected. See above about combustion and your health. That fact that the smoke, carbon monoxide, and various chemicals come from marijuana rather than tobacco does not magically make them harmless.

Driving high can and does kill people. If you doubt my word on it, ask any of your local cops.

Marijuana unquestionably affects memory and ambition, just as alcohol affect judgement and coordination.

Anyone who can maintain that pot is "harmless" has their head up their ass. Nor can you state that it is uniformly more or less harmless than alcohol. Irresponsible use of pot is just as stupid, harmful, and potentially deadly as irresponsible use of alcohol.

Shut the fuck up and read what I wrote. I said it is MORE harmless than alcohol which is uniformly true. Show me the death statistics from pot and then we can talk. In the meantime, take your bullshit elsewhere.

And I am getting sick of this hair splitting contest around the use of pot. Eating a fucking burger is bad for you too, as is a multitude of other legal things. We don't make fatty foods illegal just because they are potentially harmful if abused. OF COURSE marijuana has some harm potential if abused (although drastically lower than many other legal vices as shown by the anti-drug crowds total inability to produce a single compelling statistic) but so do most things.

[Edi]

What you said was actually "a lot more harmless than alcohol", Kernel, and this is in the context of referring to the person ingesting the substance. As for indirect effects caused by exposure to the substance itself (e.g. secondhand smoke), in that category marijuana is more harmful to others than alcohol because secondary exposure to alcohol is pretty damned hard to achieve. As far as drunk driving and alcohol induced violence go, that's a somewhat different issue even if they ultimately derive from the same source. Nice try at obfuscating that distinction.

You really ought to learn how to read context when it's your pet personal issues that come up for discussion, because this thread seems to be shwoing all of the usual warning signs of being headed toward one of your trademark bitchfests about marijuana if people do not accept your words at face value.

[The Kernel]

What you said was actually "a lot more harmless than alcohol", Kernel, and this is in the context of referring to the person ingesting the substance. As for indirect effects caused by exposure to the substance itself (e.g. secondhand smoke), in that category marijuana is more harmful to others than alcohol because secondary exposure to alcohol is pretty damned hard to achieve. As far as drunk driving and alcohol induced violence go, that's a somewhat different issue even if they ultimately derive from the same source. Nice try at obfuscating that distinction.

If Broomstick is going to bring up people driving when stoned, I see no reason not to bring up the fact that alcohol has a far worse track record in that regard.

The point (which seems to be sailing over everyones head) is that just because something causes harm both to an individual and to people around them is not a reason to make it illegal. You need to demonstrate quite a bit of reasonable harm before that is the case.

You really ought to learn how to read context when it's your pet personal issues that come up for discussion, because this thread seems to be shwoing all of the usual warning signs of being headed toward one of your trademark bitchfests about marijuana if people do not accept your words at face value.

I've been involved in perhaps two or three of these threads during my entire time on the board. Perhaps all potheads blend together in your mind?

[Hillary]

If Broomstick is going to bring up people driving when stoned, I see no reason not to bring up the fact that alcohol has a far worse track record in that regard.

Are you sure about that? I'd love to see your evidence for this claim.

The point (which seems to be sailing over everyones head) is that just because something causes harm both to an individual and to people around them is not a reason to make it illegal. You need to demonstrate quite a bit of reasonable harm before that is the case.

Not one person in this thread has stated it should be illegal.

Basically this article is presenting marijuana as a pretty much harmless substance, which is bollocks. Your analogy with burgers is laughable. It is not the burger that is bad for you, it is the overall diet. If you stick to the right dietary balance, a burger can form a part of that. However, there is no sense in which marijuana is anything other than a detriment to your health.

I'm not really against pot but you are making a bit of a dick of yourself I'm afraid.

[mingo]

We tried to make alcohol illegal also, and we all know what a disastrous result that had. I think we have to admit, that people like to get fucked up, some people like it so much they don't want to do anything else. It's not pretty, it's not a good idea, but it is reality. So given that, how can we make this as harmless to society as possible? Pretty much the way we did with alcohol. Yes, by all means alcohol still creates problem in society, but I don't know how we can minimize them any more than we have. We should do this with MOST drugs used for recreational proposes.

[The Kernel]

We've been through this argument enough times on this board, there really isn't any point to rehashing it. I'm ducking out now.

[The Kernel]

There is one last thing though that should be cleared up.

Are you sure about that? I'd love to see your evidence for this claim.

Yes, I'm sure. I don't think anyone here is going to argue otherwise.

From here:

Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes (NHTSA 2006).

Occurrence and Consequences

* During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).

* In 2005, nearly 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (Department of Justice 2005). That’s less than one percent of the 159 million self-reported episodes of alcohol–impaired driving among U.S. adults each year (Quinlan et al. 2005).

* Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (Jones et al. 2003).

* More than half of the 414 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 were riding with the drinking driver (NHTSA 2006).

* In 2005, 48 children age 14 years and younger who were killed as pedestrians or pedalcyclists were struck by impaired drivers (NHTSA 2006).

Cost

Each year, alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost about $51 billion (Blincoe et al. 2002).

Groups at Risk

* Male drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes are almost twice as likely as female drivers to be intoxicated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or greater (NHTSA 2006). It is illegal to drive with a BAC of 0.08% or higher in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

* At all levels of blood alcohol concentration, the risk of being involved in a crash is greater for young people than for older people (Zador et al. 2000). In 2005, 16% of drivers ages 16 to 20 who died in motor vehicle crashes had been drinking alcohol (NHTSA 2006).

* Young men ages 18 to 20 (under the legal drinking age) reported driving while impaired more frequently than any other age group (Shults et al. 2002, Quinlan et al. 2005).

* Among motorcycle drivers killed in fatal crashes, 30% have BACs of 0.08% or greater (Paulozzi et al. 2004).

· Nearly half of the alcohol-impaired motorcyclists killed each year are age 40 or older, and motorcyclists ages 40 to 44 years have the highest percentage of fatalities with BACs of 0.08% or greater (Paulozzi et al. 2004).

* Of the 1,946 traffic fatalities among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2005, 21% involved alcohol (NHTSA 2006b).

* Among drivers involved in fatal crashes, those with BAC levels of 0.08% or higher were nine times more likely to have a prior conviction for driving while impaired (DWI) than were drivers who had not consumed alcohol (NHTSA 2006).

You can believe what you want, but you won't find statistics like this to support impairment of driving under the influence of pot. This is not to say that such impairment does not exist (it obviously does), but there are no statistics to support that it is a major cause of traffic accidents. If there is and someone has access to such data, I would like to see it.

[The Kernel]

Sorry to triple post, but before anyone jumps all over my own quotes above since they mention drugs as well as alcohol, it should be pointed out that not only is pot not singled out in these statistics, they even mention that it is generally used with alcohol. Meaningful statistics on pot use and driving fatalities would require it to be singled out as the major contributing factor in the accident.

Once again, I do believe that marijuana use causes traffic accidents, I just don't believe the numbers are very high and I haven't seen statistics to support high numbers of pot related traffic accidents.

[Broomstick]

Pot contains about 50 of the carcinogens found in tobacco, so your risk of cancer due to secondhand smoke is greater than that from being around someone drinking a Miller Lite.

And how much damage does alcohol abuse cause to those around the user? Between drunk driving and spousal abuse alone, you are going to see MUCH greater damage than pot smoke.

What are you saying here? That because people smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, marijuana is somehow OK? They all cause different sorts of damage.

Bullshit. I am getting fucking tired of that sort of apologic shit.

Smoking ANYTHING is bad for your lungs. Period. Combustion produces toxins. Granted some things produce more poison when burned than others but inhaling smoke is bad for you.

Second hand marijuana smoke is just as bad as second hand tobacco. It can trigger asthma and allergies just as readily. It can also produce a "contact high" in others who may not desire to be affected. See above about combustion and your health. That fact that the smoke, carbon monoxide, and various chemicals come from marijuana rather than tobacco does not magically make them harmless.

Driving high can and does kill people. If you doubt my word on it, ask any of your local cops.

Marijuana unquestionably affects memory and ambition, just as alcohol affect judgement and coordination.

Anyone who can maintain that pot is "harmless" has their head up their ass. Nor can you state that it is uniformly more or less harmless than alcohol. Irresponsible use of pot is just as stupid, harmful, and potentially deadly as irresponsible use of alcohol.

Shut the fuck up and read what I wrote.

I did. I wasn't impressed. In fact, I was pissed off.

I said it is MORE harmless than alcohol which is uniformly true.

1) No, that's not quite what you said - which is sort of amazing given the ease of quting oneself exactly on this message board.

2) PROVE IT

Show me the death statistics from pot and then we can talk. In the meantime, take your bullshit elsewhere.

Death is not the sole measure of harm.

And I am getting sick of this hair splitting contest around the use of pot.

I'm not splitting hairs. It's real simple - I'm OK with you doing what you want to yourself, but your right to fuck yourself up ends where others begin.

As one example, I do not and can not condone driving fucked up. I don't care how you got fucked up, just that you don't drive when you pose a hazard to others. That applies whether it's alcohol or pot or just general poor health - in fact, we just took away my mother-in-law's car keys because she isn't healthy enough to take the wheel anymore, even stone cold sober. Do you get it now? It's not OK to get high and drive That's not "splitting hairs".

You want to smoke pot? OK, fine with me as long as it's truly recreational, no more than a glass of wine with dinner or something of that sort. But don't get behind the wheel, and don't talk to me about "needing" it. Or maybe I'm just sore on the subject after having to deal last week with a niece and nephew-in-law who really did slide over the edge into frank abuse and addiction to marijuana. It became the sole focus of their lives, to the exclusion of all else. Saying "oh, alcohol does bad things to LOTS more people!" does not negate the potential of marijuana to cause harm. Legalizing it would simply make it easier to get and to get it in large quantities at lower risk, and thereby making it easier to abuse as well as use responsibly.

[aerius]

I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but the problem is this, there are way too many irresponsible fucking idiots who will not only fuck up their own lives, but fuck up the lives of others through their irresponsible stupidity. Look at our drinking and driving problem, add pot to the mix and we'll get another group of assholes driving around while impaired and running over little kids.

I'm all in favour of legalizing pretty much everything short of PCPs and crystal meth, however I don't feel it's a good idea to do so until we as a society are prepared to come down like a ton of bricks on anyone driving under the influence or otherwise endangering the safety of others through their drug use.

[General Zod]

Death is not the sole measure of harm.

How else would you measure a drug's harm besides the amount of related deaths each year? Not being sarcastic here, but this is something I just don't really see any easy way of quantifying outside of the amount of deaths and rehab patients.

[Broomstick]

Death is not the sole measure of harm.

How else would you measure a drug's harm besides the amount of related deaths each year? Not being sarcastic here, but this is something I just don't really see any easy way of quantifying outside of the amount of deaths and rehab patients.

In no particular order:

- financial difficulties related to spending too much on a drug and not enough on essentials such as shelter and food

- neglect of family

- legal troubles

- loss of job due to being fucked up, missing work, etc.

- health problems - cirrhosis form alcohol, lung problems from smoking of any sort, weight gain from too much "munchies" from pot, memory problems from pot or alcohol, cardiovascular damage from stimulants, etc.

That's just off the top of my head. When I worked at a rehab clinic we had a whole checklist of "harms", the more checked off the more severe the drug problem.

Someone who is truly a casual user - as opposed to abuser or addict - will not be spending the rent money on their favorite poison, they will put their kids before their pharmaceuticals, they will not go to work fucked up or hung over, even when talking about illicit drugs they'll usually avoid legal troubles, and while they may suffer health-wise after enough time they are less likely to, and will tend to suffer considerably less.

[Dark Hellion]

Oh for fucks sake Broomstick, by your definitions World of Warcraft is more harmful than pot. You cannot simply make up a rubric and measure the social harm of any singular activity, because people do not engage in singular activities, nor do all people treat all activities the same.
Lazerus, frankly, I would love to see your statistics on Marijuana harm, given that this board loves proof, I am sure that some of the mighty google warriors can spew out some lovely stats in no time

[for the sake of clarity, adressing now to the public, and not to Broomstick or Lazerus in particular]
Yes, people abuse pot, people also abuse cigarettes, vodka, and Big Macs, all of which are legal, and all of which cause far more deaths per year than Marijuana. People are, as a majority, irresponsible idiots. It's a fact of life, and no amount of nannying in the world will actually fix it.
Frankly, if you believe Marijuana should be illegal, then you might as well make Tobacco and Alcohol illegal, because both have strong physical as well as psychological addictive traits.
People will continue to destroy their bodies with whatever new thing they can smoke, drink or snort that makes them feel better. If they competently understand the risk (highly addictive drugs obviously don't apply, as the user will forgo thinking to score another hit), do we have the right to still impose upon them what they can and cannot do to themselves. Sure, if it affects others, then we can impose upon them. I am all for public smoking bans, despite having been a smoker in the past. Cigarettes/joints can be obnoxious and if someone does not wish to be smoked around, that is there right, but to say that one cannot smoke in their own home, or a well ventilated area because you disapprove of the risk they are taking with their bodies seems preposterous.

[Broomstick]

Oh for fucks sake Broomstick, by your definitions World of Warcraft is more harmful than pot. You cannot simply make up a rubric and measure the social harm of any singular activity, because people do not engage in singular activities, nor do all people treat all activities the same.

I didn't "make up a rubric" - those measures are used by medical professionals who treat addicts. Someone asked how to measure harm other than death or rehab patients and I answered. If a drug doesn't kill but leads to losing a job I hardly call that "harmless".

Nor I am saying "pot is always harmful" because it isn't - but for some individuals it certainly is harmful. And yes, WoW can meet the same definition in some cases. So can other things. All the "pot is less harmful than X, Y, or Z" will not erase the fact that it can and does cause harm. Which is exactly why there needs to be SOME regulation of it. Not our current insanity, but some - just as we regulate alcohol and tobacco. At a minimum no purchase by minors and no driving high.

Nor, might I add, am I saying pot is "more" or "less" harmful than other substances - it's other folks making those statements. I'm not some sort of teetotaling prude, I respect your desire to alter your conciousness and do wish our society was better at allowing people do this in a safe manner. It's just that I am fucking sick of pot fans trying to excuse the potental and acutal ills of their habit by saying "it's not as bad as X!" or "pot is harmless!" It's not - and legalizing it isn't going to make the problems go away.

Ask yourself why things such as marijuana, alcohol, and heroin were declared off-limits in the first place. It's because there was a real cost to society back in the days when they were all legal. Yes, all of the above were available over the counter up until 1914 or 1917 in the US. Prohibition was an attempt to fix some real problems. It didn't work. It still doesn't work. But simply legalizing pot is not going create some sort of recreational drug paradise where everyone is mellow and harmless.

OK, let's say we do legalize marijuana - High school students having a delusion that legalizing pot is going to legalize it for them have just that - a delusion. It will be illegal for them just as tobacco and alcohol are. People who toke and drive will still be breaking the law for screwing with their brains before taking the wheel. You will be just as likely to be fired for showing up to work as showing up drunk, and even if your employer allows it you'll be in the smoking "lounge" with the tobacco addicts. Certain forms of employement, such as bus driver and pilot and train engineer, will be incompatible with mere use, much less abuse, of marijuana unless you restrict it to, say, when you're on vacation for a week. While medical uses will certain become more common it's far from a cure-all, and what is used in medicine, that is, prescribed by doctors, will be refined by the pharmaceutical industry and not grown in your backyard because docs want to prescribe consistent doses, not the variable quantities you get from herbal medicine. Even if the US legalizes it, it doesn't mean all other countries will and I expect we'd see Americans running afoul of the laws in other places - for that matter, Paul McCartney's stint in a Japanese jail shows that's hardly limited to Americans.

On the upside, government will generate taxes from it. The price will probably come down since it will no longer be a black-market product. Organized crime will be taken out of most of the distribution. The pot available will probably be much purer and not cut with god-knows-what sort of shit, with inspection and regulation of production. And government/law enforcement will stop harassing and screwing around with responsible users.

To me, it seems obvious that society will simply have to accept that what most people can use responsibly a certain number will use to wreck their lives and health, but apparently that's not obvious to most others.