Actually, DON’T legalize it

Published on November 17, 2009 by James Swift

I’m going to take a controversial stance and assert that marijuana shouldn’t be legalized. As a college student, that puts me in a very detested minority and sets me up for perhaps four years of campus castigation. Sure, I may have ruffled a few feathers with my articles on abortion and gun control, but decrying the ganja in a public forum? That’s heresy that will critically tarnish my collegiate stature, maybe indefinitely. I might as well be standing outside the Social Science building shouting “Coffee sucks!” over a megaphone, this is a popularity-killing target if there ever was one.

Alas, I vaunt my innate principles over such vanities, regardless. Sure, I may miss out on a few dates and get my tires slashed by a guy in a Phish tee-shirt, but that’s the price of so-called “free” speech, I suppose. Fundamentally, this is the rub I have with the sticky green; its advocates claim that the drug is, for all intents and purposes, harmless and should be legalized, as the health and public safety concerns the plant produces are no more severe than those created by tobacco and alcohol.

Now, I am no teetotaler, and I have been around the proverbial block a time or two. Generally, when people encounter anti-pot pundits, the talking heads opposed to weed-legalization are fairly nebbish, socially subdued types, seen as the sorts that have never tasted a drop of liquor nor held hands with a member of the opposite gender. Contrary to popular belief, most marijuana advocates do indeed do their homework on the subject matter (or about as much as one can accomplish while brandishing fingers coated in an inch-thick carapace of Cheetoh-dust, anyway). Thusly, the typical end results in these sorts of debates are one-sided drubbings on behalf of the amateur, closet-foiled horticulturist.

That being said, a battle-scarred gent such as myself is assuredly capable of putting up a better fight.

To the “Really Green” Party out there, I proclaim the following: in your rhetoric, you claim that the illegalization of marijuana is due to corporate finagling and government paranoia. Essentially, pot is outlawed because the suits can’t regulate it, anybody can grow it and that billions of dollars that would’ve been taxed end up squandered as a result.

As much as I hate to say this, the government isn’t always preoccupied with devouring your wallet. If I may use some second grade logic; dead people can’t possess money. Therefore, it benefits the government to instigate measures to prolong the existence of its citizens to insure that fiscal funds are later usurped. Hey, it’s a necessary evil, that taking care of citizens’ well-being, you know.

The authentic rationale for marijuana’s illegalization is that it kills people, plain and simple. Sure, one joint isn’t going to give you a brain tumor, but a good forty years of exposure? Yeah, there’s going to be some negative implications on the smoker’s health. A granule of asbestos won’t give you lymphoma, but a lifelong courtship with the product very much will. Thusly, if a known carcinogen is introduced to the general populace, it is the government’s job to help curb the miasmic Diaspora.

Now, I hear the clamor of several Dave Matthews fans in the background: “Well, what about cigarettes?”

Hey, I agree with you. If I were despot of the nation, I would have those outlawed as well. The difference betwixt that mass killer and marijuana, however, is the psychotropic properties of the latter. I promulgate, why is drunken driving illegal? Yes, one may contort the question to uncover a fiscal retort, but at heart, it’s a simple restrictive measure to ensure the life of potential voters, I mean, citizens.

Marijuana inhibits one’s cognitive capabilities, which ensures deterioration of one’s physical capabilities, which in turn, provides a risk to public safety. How efficient is a half-baked construction worker, huh? You want to undergo a filling while under the care of Cheech Marin, D.D.S.? For those of you who really believe that the drug is “harmless,” maybe you should try talking to the neglected child of a marijuana-user. Yeah, it’s a victimless crime, all right.

Those factors considered, my prime reasoning for maintaining the ban on marijuana stems not from a health or sociological standpoint, but a philosophical one. Marijuana is an agent that distances the user from the world, from the totality of reality as it exists. For a soul to desire such absconding, there is clearly a pre-existing disenchantment, a sense of insecurity and ineffectiveness. These are real problems, with real consequences, that marijuana simply masks and keeps the individual from exploring and resolving.

Decriminalizing pot doesn’t solve anything; it simply fosters the growth of individualistic disillusionment, and in that, real sociocultural plight is sure to blossom.

Responses to "Actually, DON’T legalize it"

  • Ryan Schorr made a comment on November 17, 2009:

    James,

    The negative social and health consequences of cannabis use that you are mentioning exist solely in the portion of the cannabis-using population that have an abuse issue. The vast majority of cannabis users are responsible citizens who don’t overdo it. The majority of pro-cannabis legalization pundits understand that there clearly exists a potential for the abuse of cannabis; indeed, one of the five main principles for responsible cannabis use proposed by NORML is to “resist abuse”; likewise, other tenets include “no driving” and “adults only.” Clearly, the argument you have introduced is based on the idea of a stereotypical “stoned slacker,” as made obvious by your clichéd and callow “Cheetoh” reference.

    You are using common sense, not fact, to determine that forty years of cannabis use would have ill effects on the body. Never mind the fact that most people discontinue use as they age; your focus is on the carcinogenic properties of cannabis. After all, smoking tobacco clearly causes cancer, right? Keep in mind that chewing tobacco also causes throat and mouth cancers that may require jaw amputation. Tobacco is a dangerous plant. You won’t get lung cancer from smoking lettuce, I assume, but I haven’t seen a study on the topic; what I have seen is “Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study” by Hashibe et al. in which the last sentence of the results section states “there was no evidence of a positive association between marijuana and cancer among those with heavy use of tobacco or alcohol.”

    What the rational debaters of cannabis legalization understand is that it is the obvious solution to many problems related to the drug. Violence involving the cannabis trade stems from the lack of protection from the police; those who explicitly benefit from the anti-emetic and appetite-stimulating effects of the drug, as well as harmless small-time users, must become involved in this potentially violent trade and risk arrest and substantial fines. And let’s not forget the principle our country was founded upon: Liberty. In this country, we should be allowed to do whatever we please as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others (which is exactly why drunk driving is illegal; NOT to protect “potential voters” as you claim). Parental neglect due to cannabis use is a rare circumstance which most likely stems from a larger problem.

    By the way, many Native Americans would argue that cannabis legalization is a philosophical issue, as would the Phish and Dave Matthews Band fans.

    -Ryan Schorr
    President of NORML at KSU

  • Cliff Schaffer made a comment on November 18, 2009:

    Time for another drubbing of the prohibitionist. This one didn’t do his homework better than any of the others.

    He says:

    “The authentic rationale for marijuana’s illegalization is that it kills people, plain and simple. Sure, one joint isn’t going to give you a brain tumor, but a good forty years of exposure? Yeah, there’s going to be some negative implications on the smoker’s health. A granule of asbestos won’t give you lymphoma, but a lifelong courtship with the product very much will. Thusly, if a known carcinogen is introduced to the general populace, it is the government’s job to help curb the miasmic Diaspora.”

    Ok, completely wrong. First of all, the US Government does not attribute ANY deaths to marijuana. As for the overall implications on health, the largest study of the subject to date was by Kaiser Permanente. They surveyed the health records of 65,000 patients over a number of years and found no significant differences between the health histories of those who smoked pot versus those who didn’t. You can find the full text of their study in the Cannabis Research Library at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer

    But those reasons never had anything to do with the laws, anyway? Where, oh where, did you get these silly ideas? You obviously didn’t read the history.

    Since you didn’t take the class in Drug Policy 101, here are the basic references that you would be required to read.

    First, the short history of the marijuana laws at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm This is funny and fascinating.

    Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm The best overall review of the subject ever written. If you haven’t read this book, then you simply don’t know the subject.

    The Drug Hang-Up at http://druglibrary.org/special/king/dhu/dhumenu.htm This is another excellent history of the subject.

    Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer This is a collection of the full text of every major government commission report on the drug laws from around the world over the last 100 years. They all reached similar conclusions.

    The drug laws were the product of ignorance and nonsense. In the US – which has driven worldwide drug prohibition for more than fifty years – the laws were the result of racism and lunacy so stupid that it just makes people laugh today.

    Marijuana was originally outlawed for two major reasons. The first was because “All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy.” The second was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana – exactly the opposite of the modern “gateway” idea.

    Only two doctors testified before Congress for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The representative of the American Medical Association testified that marijuana was not a dangerous drug and there was no reason for the law. See the full transcripts of the hearings for the MTA at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm

    The only other doctor was Dr. James Munch. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected marijuana directly into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of them died. When they asked him what he concluded from this, he said he didn’t know. He also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood, and that it could turn you into a bat.

    Dr. Munch was the only doctor in the US who thought that marijuana should be illegal so we was appointed US Official Expert on marijuana, where he served for 25 years.

    That is just one example of the lunacy. There is far more than that in the history of these laws. Anyone who currently supports these laws simply hasn’t read the most basic research on the subject.

  • John Thomas made a comment on November 18, 2009:

    Thank you, Mr. Schorr, for injecting reason here. No, studies have shown marijuana does NOT cause cancer, or any other significant damage to the body - much different from alcohol. It’s always funny to see those who support prohibition act like marijuana consumers stay high ALL THE TIME. — The fact is, the vast majority of consumers are responsible and wouldn’t dream of going to work high.

    Marijuana is non-addictive and FAR less harmful than alcohol. Both marijuana and alcohol have been consumed by mankind for at least 3,000 years. Neither is going away. It’s lunacy to encourage the use of the more destructive one, while putting people in cages for the near-benign one.

  • Danielle made a comment on November 18, 2009:

    SO understand the you can and have the right to be against the legalization, however is it neccary to use all those stereotypes in your paper? Not all pot heads, as you might say, listen to Phish or The Dave Mathews Band, nor do they munch on cheetos while doing the invetigating. If you were to present it in a more realistic facts way maybe peers wouldn’t hate you. Just state your opinion, do not put others down by using sterotypes to support your argument. If the facts are there then use them.

  • Josh Pate made a comment on November 18, 2009:

    I’m sorry I have beef with your argument, I ran out of chicken. Mmmm. Buddha.

  • Steve Bauer made a comment on November 18, 2009:

    I would have responded with something along the lines of what the first two commenter said, but thanks to them, I don’t need to. James, your better off shouting coffee is evil, at least people aren’t going to jail for it!

  • andres made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    Your opinion or popularity are not relevant when it comes to discussing prohibition.

    It doesn’t matter what you say, what you write, what you post on the internet,

    Prohibition is still the worst option.

    Even if you think you know all about marijuana, it’s effects and how it affects a billion people you seem naive when you simply do not consider the dark side of prohibition, be it marijuana or tobacco or alcohol prohibition.

    Dude, this is not about drugs OK? It’s about government deciding what you can or cannot put into your body.

    I am sorry, but your article is simply not objective.
    I mean no disrespect but it’s just another naive internet little post.

  • steve made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    The tone of your article is that of a middle school student regurgitating what he learned in health class recently. Pointless.

  • Rhayader made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    Wow, I don’t think there’s a paragraph that shouldn’t be addressed here.

    Essentially, pot is outlawed because the suits can’t regulate it, anybody can grow it and that billions of dollars that would’ve been taxed end up squandered as a result.

    This doesn’t even make logical sense. The fact that billions of tax dollars are squandered is a direct reason for marijuana prohibition? That makes no sense, and I’ve never heard anyone argue that. It’s a great reason to end marijuana prohibition, not to institute it.

    a good forty years of exposure? Yeah, there’s going to be some negative implications on the smoker’s health

    I’d like to know what sources you used for your health information in this article. For instance, do you have proof that long term marijuana use is unhealthy in any significant way? An even more egregious claim is that cannabis is a “known carcinogen.” This is patently false — in fact, modern research has shown promising anti-cancer properties for several different cannabinoids. What source do you have for your claim that cannabis is carcinogenic?

    How efficient is a half-baked construction worker, huh? You want to undergo a filling while under the care of Cheech Marin, D.D.S.? For those of you who really believe that the drug is “harmless,” maybe you should try talking to the neglected child of a marijuana-user.

    This is a worthless red herring argument. First of all, nobody is calling for a repeal of workplace drug testing. In a voluntary employment situation, there would be nothing wrong with employers requiring drug-free workers for certain positions (like a construction worker, for instance). Also, child neglect or abuse would obviously remain criminalized — nobody would gain an “excuse” to mistreat their children simply by virtue of the fact that cannabis were legalized.

    Those factors considered, my prime reasoning for maintaining the ban on marijuana stems not from a health or sociological standpoint, but a philosophical one.

    This is perhaps the most nonsensical part of your entire argument. Is there any source of pleasure — alcohol, sex, Big Macs, TV, Video Games — that couldn’t be called “an agent that distances the user from the world”? That’s exactly what pleasure is: a temporary suspension of the drudgery and monotony that make up everyday existence. Experiencing pleasure is not only completely appropriate, but is a psychological necessity.

    Sure, some people can take any of those pleasure sources too far, and negatively impact their lives as a result. But that doesn’t cast the source of pleasure itself in a bad light. Millions upon millions of people use marijuana very responsibly, without ever having issues with “the totality of reality as it exists.” Your “philosophical” reasoning is nothing more than a slightly updated version of the classic Reefer Madness voodoo pharmacology. Marijuana doesn’t “lead” to any of the problems you’ve identified in your piece; people lead themselves to those problems.

    Finally, for the love of Bob, please drop the terribly pathetic stoner jokes. Oh Phish shirts and Cheetos, har-dee-har-har. That stupidity only serves to undermine your message.

  • Richard Steeb made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    When I commenced the daily enjoyment of the noble herb forty one years ago, my asthma subsided. I found it helped me get to sleep following a full day of work and night school classes. I found it enhanced the enjoyment of food, music, and humor. Now that I have glaucoma, I cherish its 25% reduction in intraocular pressure. As I approach the ripe old age of sixty, I appreciate the neuroprotective and antioxidant qualities. [you know, like patent 6630507]

    So, actually, DO legalize it, because keeping Cannabis illegal while tobacco and alcohol are dispensed freely is *MURDEROUSLY STUPID*.

    -Richard Paul Steeb, San Jose California

  • Jim made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    Do some actual research, kid. You’ve got a lot to learn before you can make a knowledgeable opinion on the matter of cannabis legalization. Keep your stereotypes and misinformation to yourself.

  • Tim Glaim made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    Is this guy serious? Holy Toledo, what a hack. After reading the first paragraph, I thought, “Wow, finally a prohibitionist who might actually be able to put up an almost reasonable argument.” Alas, not so.

    First of all, the unnecessarily wordiness of this tripe tells me I’m dealing with someone who’s very impressed with his own intelligence, but most likely to cover his insecurity about it. “Critically tarnish my collegiate stature”? Yeah, I know what it means; it means you’re secretly afraid you’re an idiot and you cover it up by buying a word-of-the-day calendar.

    Let’s look at the major point you made:

    “The authentic rationale for marijuana’s illegalization is that it kills people, plain and simple.”

    Except that it DOESN’T kill people. If you were only 1/8th as smart as you pretend to be, you’d know marijuana’s body count is a grand total of ZERO. Not one death from smoking too much pot ever recorded;even after “a good forty years of exposure”. It’s impossible to overdose on it and it doesn’t cause cancer; in fact there is mounting evidence that it can be used to TREAT cancer. Did you do ANY research at all?

    “Marijuana inhibits one’s cognitive capabilities, which ensures deterioration of one’s physical capabilities, which in turn, provides a risk to public safety.”

    So does alcohol, you hypocrite.

    “How efficient is a half-baked construction worker, huh? You want to undergo a filling while under the care of Cheech Marin, D.D.S.?”

    What idiot goes to work high? If I may use some second grade logic, why do we trust theoretically responsible adults not to go to work drunk, but we don’t trust them not to go to work high?

    “For those of you who really believe that the drug is “harmless,” maybe you should try talking to the neglected child of a marijuana-user. Yeah, it’s a victimless crime, all right.”

    Again, we trust people to raise kids even if they drink alcohol, but not if they smoke pot. This is Logic 101. I hope you don’t seriously consider yourself any kind of intellectual, because these tired, old stereotypes about stoners being irresponsible should be WAY beneath such an intellect.

    “Marijuana is an agent that distances the user from the world, from the totality of reality as it exists.”

    Even if that were true - which it isn’t - what business is that of yours and how does that justify putting people in prison and denying them jobs and an education for partaking in something which, by your rationale, is no more dangerous than World of Warcraft or a Playstation; even a Stumble button, for god sakes.

    You almost had me fooled, thinking you really were as sharp as you tried to be, but I’m afraid it’s back to the Logic & Critical thinking class for you; or more spoon-fed stereotypes, out-right lies, and half-baked rationales (no pun intended). Nice try, kiddo.

  • Stoner made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    Wow, burn.

  • Kirk Muse made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    It’s not just the pharmaceutical industry that has a vested
    interest in making sure marijuana is not re-legalized.

    Marijuana consumers consume substantially less alcohol than non-
    marijuana users. Beer and other alcoholic beverages and marijuana
    are a substitute for each other. The beer industry knows this. The
    alcohol beverage industry knows this.

    Who is the biggest Sponsor on TV of sporting events? The beer
    industry. So why are sporting teams and the sports industry so
    concerned when a player tests positive for marijuana?

    Follow the money!

  • Sam made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    You make unsubstantiated claims on the dangers on long-term pot use and then demand that private citizens be robbed of the ability to make the decision for themselves, akin to outlawing fried chicken for health risks.

    And the cruelest irony is that in order to prevent private citizens from making the decision themselves, you mandate that their tax dollars be forceably used to fund legislators and men with guns to prevent them from doing so.

  • Thomas Grace made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    Thank you for assuming all marijuana advocates are Dave Matthews fans covered in Cheet-o dust. Hey everyone, raise your hand if you operate heavy machinery and perform surgery while under the influence! Nobody? Gosh, but I thought all marijuana smokers were anarchist potheads without a care in the world! Mr. Swift, I think you need to watch less television and do a little research like a real journalist before you attempt to tackle an issue like this. Naive doesn’t begin to describe you.

  • W1re made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    Stopped reading at the cheetos comment. Your stereotypes do nothing to sway my opinion on the ganja. Also, your un-popularity at your place of education is not because you do not support the re-legalization of a plant. I couldn’t begin to tell you where the reason for your un-popularity is. But it’s not because you don’t agree with cannabis re-legalization.

  • Flavio made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    I agree. Do not legalize it. De-criminalize it.

    Either way, a lot of pointless verbiage for the sole reason to dissent. Not worth my time.

  • Ellen made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    FAIL.

  • Sam made a comment on November 19, 2009:

    And I know it’s hard to read through such derisive responses so let me make a non-insulting recommendation for you: the author of Fast Food Nation, an excellent, thorough, and non-partisan journalist, wrote another book called Reefer Madness. It is well-researched and provides an intricate glimpse via simple facts into the way government resources and tax dollars are profligately squandered to destroy the lives of non-violent people who are often otherwise upstanding citizens.

    A note on your prose, good sir. Before you jump to your thesaurus to arbitrarily substitute a more obscure word (e.g. “betwixt”), consider that trying this hard only pisses people off and impresses no one. I’m not saying this to be confrontational or pugnacious, but your writing will be better received with less affectation.

  • J. Swift made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Wow, so all of the marijuana-advocates came out in droves for this one, huh? I guess that means Ren and Stimpy went off the air early today.

    There are a lot of things in life one can choose to invest his or her emotions into. I don’t believe in things like absolutism (at least on a collective, societal level, anyway), so yeah, there really isn’t a “wrong” answer, per se, in regards to discovering and vaunting that which the individual soul finds meaningful. That being said, if the best you can think of is burning a piss ant shrub for a few minutes of giggles, then I feel nothing but pity for the asininity of your decision-making.

    You’re not Cesar Chavez fighting some corrupt, unjust societal cancer; you’re just a kid that loves to get baked and watch Family Guy. Stop using faux political rhetoric to justify your penchant for instant gratification.

    In the words of Ian MacKaye: “I’m a person just like you, but I’ve got better things to do, then sit around and smoke dope, because I know that I can cope. . . always gonna’ keep in touch, never wanna’ use a crutch.”

    Am I out of touch with the world? Damn straight I am, and proud of it.

    XXXJSWIFTXXX

  • Stoner made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Look dude, if you’re gonna vaunt straight edge, just stick to promoting straight edge! You don’t have make stuff up about cannibis being bad to convince people not to smoke. As a college student you should make sure your facts stand up to your claims. I’m disappointed you’ve chosen to remain willfully ignorant of the topic you selected for your contribution, and disappointed in the Sentinel for not fact-checking this wasted dialogue.

  • J. Swift made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    What, prey tell, did I “make up” in my article? Go ahead, make a list, and I’ll provide reliable third party evidence to substantiate my claims. Sorry to besmirch your ideals, but I tend to place more value and trust in things like the Centers for Disease Control than some Intranet ding-dong and his/her unspecified qualms.

  • Pete Guither made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Well, to start, James, the notion that marijuana kills is made up. There is at least as much evidence that marijuana prolongs life as there is that marijuana shortens life. The largest study of its kind funded by the U.S. government (Google Tashkin, UCLA, marijuana) proved that even heavy marijuana smoking does not cause lung cancer, and, in fact, had a mild opposite effect.

    Additionally, your claims make no sense, because you do not show how the tool of prohibition solves the supposed harms you posit. In fact, world-wide evidence has shown that making marijuana illegal has very little impact on use, while, on the other hand, prohibition itself causes tons of damage to society, from increased violence, black market profits, corruption, damage to the environment, massive prison industry, etc.

    Finally, your philosophical argument is empty. People are always seeking escape through movies, art, play-acting, religion and a variety of other activities. Would you outlaw all of them, because you’ve got better things to do than sit around and watch movies, or pray, or listen to music?

  • C made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    This makes me sad. :( Hopefully these comments will help you realize your mistake.

  • J. Swift made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Well, why don’t we just legalize crystal meth, moonshine, prostitution and unregulated gambling while we are at it? After, all those are just inertly “individualistically-centric” crimes, right, with no influence on the society at large? The only people that claim that marijuana has limited or no ill effects on the greater collective are surely one-sided pot pundits that have never talked to people that HAVE seen the detrimental effects it has on society. No offense, kiddos, but I’ll take the word from reputable sources such as principals, police officers and judges over a bunch of trust fund baby pseudo-activists any day.

    Last time I checked, movies, religion and video games do NOT physically alter one’s physiological cognitive state vis-à-vis introduction of a tangible, alien agent. There’s a profound difference between electronic and literary escapism and chemical escapism; one fosters concurrent cognitive skills, whilst the other diminishes it.

    Typically, things that decrease awareness and spatial skills tend to be seen as a bad thing.

    Oh, and as far as weed being “harmless?”

    From August 13, 1982:

    The Surgeon General’s Warning on Marijuana

    The Surgeon General of the Public Health Service has issued the following warning on marijuana:

    Marijuana use is a major public health problem in the United States. In the past 20 years, its’ use has increased 30-fold; it is estimated that more than a quarter of the American population has used it. The age at which persons first use marijuana has decreased gradually to the junior high school years. Until recently, nearly 11% of high school seniors used it, and although that figure has declined to 7%, its daily use still exceeds that of alcohol; more high school seniors use marijuana than smoke cigarettes. In a recent study, 32% of those surveyed had used marijuana during the previous 30 days, while 25% had smoked tobacco.

    On March 24, 1982, the Department of Health and Human Services submitted to Congress a report reviewing the consequences of marijuana use. Marijuana and Health, 1982, ninth in a series, is primarily based on two recently conducted, comprehensive, scientific reviews by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian Addiction Research Foundation, and the World Health Organization (WHO). Both independent reviews corroborate the Public Health Service’s findings of health hazards associated with marijuana use: Acute intoxication with marijuana interferes with many aspects of mental functioning and has serious, acute effects on perception and skilled performance, such as driving and other complex tasks involving judgement or fine motor skills.
    Among the known or suspected chronic effects of marijuana are:

    1. short-term memory impairment and slowness of learning.

    2. impaired lung function similar to that found in cigarette smokers. Indications are that more serious effects, such as cancer and other lung disease, follow extended use.

    3. decreased sperm count and sperm motility.

    4. interference with ovulation and pre-natal development.

    5. impaired immune response.

    6. possible adverse effects on heart function.

    7. by-products of marijuana remaining in body fat for several weeks, with unknown consequences. The storage of these by-products increases the possibilities for chronic, as well as residual, effects on performance, even after the acute reaction to the drug has worn off. Of special concern are the long-term developmental effects in children and adolescents, who are particularly vulnerable to the drug’s behavioral and psychological effects.

    The “a motivational syndrome,” characterized by a pattern of energy loss, diminished school performance, harmed parental relationships, and other behavioral disruptions, has been associated with prolonged marijuana use by young persons. Although more research is required, recent national surveys report that 40% of heavy users experience some or all of those symptoms.

    The Public Health Service concludes that marijuana has a broad range of psychological and biological effects, many of which are dangerous and harmful to health, and it supports the major conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine.

    Hmm…so who should I trust, the Surgeon General, the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine, or some random blazer on the Internet? Tough call. . .

  • Bradley made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Mr Swift, you are no Ian MacKaye. And if you were, you would be in favor of legalization. Here is a quote from him on the subject:

    “I don’t think people should be put in prison for doing drugs, that’s stupid. Actually, I don’t think that drugs should be illegal necessarily. I definitely don’t think marijuana should be illegal. I think that drug laws are nonsense.”

  • Stan made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    J. Swift:

    Give me one proven example of someone that overdosed on weed vs. speed/coke/heroin/etc. That’s the difference.

    You pull out a Surgeon General’s report from 1982? Taken directly from Reagan’s disastrous “Just Say No” campaign that resulted in a generation of user-convicts while the CIA and other drug-runners created an entire industry of death.

    Obviously, drug-free is the best possible scenario (anytime you inhale hot smoke in your lungs, it’s damaging), but marijuana use pales in comparison to the harm done from harder drugs (including booze and cigarettes).

    Plus, let’s ask the billions of dead people over the last 3 or 4 millenia who had their physiological cognitive state physically “altered” as a result of some religion’s decree.

  • Paul made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    “Well, why don’t we just legalize crystal meth, moonshine, prostitution and unregulated gambling while we are at it? After, all those are just inertly “individualistically-centric” crimes, right,”

    Yeah. Cannabis is just like crystal meth and moonshine. You really look credible.

  • Pete Guither made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    1. What alien agent is in marijuana that’s being introduced? In fact, if you study the human system, you’d realize that cannabinoid receptors are an essential part of our brain. Marijuana isn’t any more alien than our own hormones and other internal chemicals.

    2. You’re basing your knowledge on a Surgeon General’s political report from before you were born? My God, man, do some reading. You’re at a college — go to that big building with the word “Library” on it.

    3. You say: “Well, why don’t we just legalize crystal meth, moonshine, prostitution and unregulated gambling while we are at it?” Wow, so much disconnect in that statement.

    Take gambling. It has been legalized. Why did you put the word “unregulated” in there? Because otherwise you’re undermining your own argument. In fact, those who call for legalization ARE calling for regulation — something that doesn’t exist in this prohibition world you support. If you think that drugs are dangerous, then why don’t you want them to be regulated? Why do you support criminals selling them to young kids?

    We want drugs legalized AND regulated.

    Moonshine? Where does that fall in to this argument? Home brewing IS legal. Moonshine was the by-product of the failed alcohol prohibition. Dangerous, underground, and controlled by criminals. Just like today, prohibition has caused things like the dangerous meth labs.

    What you fail to realize (or address) is the fact that you can oppose something without wanting the evils of prohibition. We have done more to reduce tobacco use through education than with any other drug, and it’s legal. Making tobacco illegal would just drive it underground and make the criminals rich.

    Even if marijuana was the most dangerous drug in the world (which it isn’t), prohibition doesn’t solve drug problems — it creates additional problems of its own.

  • Rhayader made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    1982? Are you serious? That Surgeon General’s report has been widely ridiculed within the medical community, and directly contradicted many times with the government’s own information (for instance, the Tashkin study that Pete Guither pointed out) and even subsequent Surgeon Generals (Jocelyn Elders). If you really want to scare us, a piece of discredited propagandist crap from 27 years ago probably won’t do the trick.

    If you want to hold some perceived moral high ground over us lowly drug users, go ahead. None of us will be offended by your lack of a desire to become intoxicated. You still have made absolutely no case that your specific moral view empowers you and your kind to hunt down, harass, arrest, and imprison people who feel differently.

    And for what it’s worth, we actually should be changing our legal approach to other “vice” laws like those against harder drugs, prostitution, and gambling (I noticed you used the term “un-regulated” for that last one; nobody is pushing for un-regulated legalization of pot or anything else). Your “logic” is entirely dependent on a set of dubious assumptions that fail to hold up even to cursory examination.

  • Jesse made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    As Peter Guithier stated thier are plenty of studies by objective, credible parties to be found-

    Your problem here is that you assume any study disagreeing with your opinion was made up by “some random blazer on the internet”

    Did you seriously consider that MAYBE, just MAYBE, the people profiting from prohibition would want studies to show that had potential negitive effects?

    This isn’t some hair brained stoner-parinoia, The evidence is there.

    Did you ever hear the tapes of Nixion explaining the ratonal behind his “war on drugs?” it’s awful.

    The WHO CDC, and the Surgeon General (Esp. of the Regan era) are all more biased than you’re willing to belive…

    Those in positions of authority will always do what it takes to keep that authority in place…

  • William F. Buckley Jr made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Although there is a perfectly respectable case against using marijuana, the penalties imposed on those who reject that case, or who give way to weakness of resolution, are very difficult to defend. If all our laws were paradigmatic, imagine what we would do to anyone caught lighting a cigarette, or drinking a beer. Or — exulting in life in the paradigm — committing adultery. Send them all to Guantanamo?

    Today we have illegal marijuana for whoever wants it. An estimated 100 million Americans have smoked marijuana at least once, the great majority, abandoning its use after a few highs. But to stop using it does not close off its availability. A Boston commentator observed years ago that it is easier for an 18-year old to get marijuana in Cambridge than to get beer. Vendors who sell beer to minors can forfeit their valuable licenses. It requires less effort for the college student to find marijuana than for a sailor to find a brothel. Still, there is the danger of arrest (as 700,000 people a year will tell you), of possible imprisonment, of blemish on one’s record. The obverse of this is increased cynicism about the law.

    Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night.
    Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people,
    does not suppress medical research,
    does not peek in bedroom windows.
    Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation
    of the prohibitionists at face value,
    marijuana prohibition has done far more harm
    to far more people than marijuana ever could.

  • M Smith made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Being that through all that you’ve said, and your research from a 27 year old article have failed to prove or rationalize any logical reasons as to how keeping the drug illegal helps society, I’ll save my comments and hope you can go back and try this again, after doing some REAL research. If you’re a journalism major, you might want to start reevaluating your major.

  • Sam made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    So long as you try to evade substantive argument and inflame with depictions of trite stereotypes, we’ll know you have no interest in having an argument on facts and logic. Especially because you responded to none of the points of any of the above comments.

    You can start educating yourself here:
    http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

    You’re just some college kid getting off on contrarianism, wrapping it in the most pretentious vocabulary you can find to compensate for the fact that you went to Kansas State University. *Stop using the appearance of knowledge to justify your penchant for instant gratification.*

  • JAS made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    LOL that surgeon general’s report from before I was born was priceless. That was the most modern piece of scientific evidence you could come up with? Dude you are way behind in this argument…

  • Erik made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Marijuana prohibition is collapsing for a number of reasons, but one of the major ones is the Internet. Before, someone in the media would present a reefer madness style screed like this one, and it would go unopposed. Now, this fine young gentleman posts an uninformed propagandist diatribe, and the only person supporting him in the comments is himself! That’s because marijuana prohibition is not supported by the facts, never has been and never will be.

    Medical marijuana is legal in 13 states and additional laws are under consideration by the legislature or by ballot initiative in IL, WI, AZ, PA, NJ, NY, MN, and DE. Full-scale legalization is being considered in Massachusetts and will be on the ballot in California in 2010. The Obama administration has forbidden the feds from going after medical marijuana dispensaries if they comply with state law, and the American Medical Association recently called for marijuana to be removed from Schedule 1 because of its obvious medical benefits. The world is passing you by, James, and I couldn’t be happier about it.

  • EAH made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    JS you came to a conclusion that was in line with core values and beliefs that you hold with devout conviction. I suggest that you be mindful of your youth and inexperience about this subject. It’s clear from what you have used to support your opinions and conclusions that you really need to learn a lot more about the subject. I’m sensing though that your pride and the certainty you have about the “rightness” of your core values is preventing you from listening to those that know more than you do. Refusing to even consider that you might be wrong is a very dangerous way to live life. For someone espousing sober reality as the only worthy way to live, it’s ironic that you are insisting on ignoring facts and reality when they work against you. Maybe when you are older you will learn how to let facts and reality form your opinion rather than the other way around.

  • Stoner made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Keep diggin’ that hole, Swift!

  • Drug Policy Foundation made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    At least you acknowledge that your position is the controversial one.

    Supporters of prohibition present any steps towards legal regulation of drug markets as ‘radical’, and therefore innately confrontational and dangerous. However, the historical evidence demonstrates that, in fact, it is prohibition that is the radical policy. Legal regulation of drug production, supply and use is far more in line with currently accepted ways of managing health and social risks in almost all other spheres of life.

    By contrast, the presentation of drugs as an existential ‘threat’ has generated a policy response within which unevidenced and radical measures are justified. Drug policy has evolved within a context of ‘securitization’, characterized by increasing powers and resources for enforcement and state security apparatus. The outcomes of this strategy, framed as a drug ‘war’, include the legitimisation of propaganda, and the suspension of many of the working principles that define more conventional social policy, health or legal interventions. Given that the War on Drugs is predicated on ‘eradication’ of the ‘evil’ drug threat as a way of achieving a ‘drug free world’, it has effectively established a permanent state of war. This has led to a high level policy environment that ignores critical scientific thinking, and health and social policy norms. Fighting the threat becomes an end in itself and as such, it creates a largely self-referential and self-justifying rhetoric that makes meaningful evaluation, review and debate difficult, if not impossible.

    Prohibition has become so entrenched and institutionalized that many in the drugs field, even those from the more critical progressive end of the spectrum, view it as immutable, an assumed reality of the legal and policy landscape to be worked within or around, rather than a policy choice. It is in this context that we seek to highlight how the basics of normative health and social policy can be applied to developing effective responses to drugs. Put bluntly, it is prohibition, not legal regulation that is the radical policy.

  • Ryan Schorr made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    James,

    Again, you have missed the point. Cannabis reform activists are not pushing a selfish issue that will benefit themselves solely, they are trying to correct a poor and failed public policy toward the legislation of intoxication.

    Yes, there are plenty of kids who love to “get baked and watch Family Guy,” who do irresponsible things like driving around smoking a joint, showing up to work or class high, and allowing the use of the drug to dominate their daily activities, resulting in substantial ill effects to their personal lives and potentially the lives of others. You recognize these people as the face of cannabis use because, as a college student, they are your peers; but it is incredibly naive and inaccurate to label all cannabis users this way.

    Cannabis users also include successful, responsible adults who are lawyers, stock brokers, photographers, actors, and even journalists like yourself. These people choose to use cannabis in their free time in a manner similar to the way that others consume alcohol, with the exception that it is not used in a public place like a bar. Their lives and those around them continue in very much the same way that they would without the drug, except that they risk arrest, imprisonment, job loss, and child removal due to the drug laws that we have.

    Many individuals enduring cancer treatments, no doubt the most difficult and painful experience of their lives, find comfort from the medicinal benefits of cannabis, including, but not limited to the ability to eat, vomit cessation, and a general sense of well-being. Individuals with other conditions may benefit from the use of the plant as well, such as the tremors caused by multiple sclerosis, the extreme eye pain caused by glaucoma, the nauseating experience of the final stages of AIDS, nerve pain caused by diseases such as fibromyalgia, and many more. These people aren’t trying to get high, they’re trying to bring themselves as close to normal as possible so they can continue to enjoy life, and they also risk arrest, imprisonment, prolonged pain from inability to use cannabis, and a general deterioration of their condition.

    Teenagers and college students, while not advised to use cannabis due to their sensitive, developing brains, are going to experiment with cannabis whether it is illegal or not. The ease with which they obtain the drug has shown that forty years of explicit law enforcement efforts to reduce the rate at which the drug is used have been unsuccessful and it is time for a new approach. Most of these adolescents discontinue use of the drug rather quickly. Do they all deserve to have drug charges on their permanent records, jeopardizing future employment and restricting financial aid for their continued education?

    All of these people — the young, the adults, and the elderly — are bound by the same set of ineffective laws, potentially being punished for various harmless activities. Let’s also not forget that legalization and regulation of the drug would effectively eliminate the possibility that the cannabis these people are obtaining would be laced with other drugs, contain harmful pesticides, or have mold from being stored in bulk in a dark, moist place. They also wouldn’t be dealing with dangerous situations to obtain the drug. This is why the laws should be changed: They are more harmful to the user than the drug itself.

    As Abraham Lincoln said, “Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes.” Ian MacKaye would agree; it is not your position, as a person who does not like the use of cannabis, to mandate legislation against it.

    -Ryan Schorr
    President of NORML at KSU

  • Innocent People & Officers are Killed because of Marijuana Prohibition made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Narcotics officers in Atlanta, Georgia broke into the home of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston, killed her and then planted marijuana on her while she lay bleeding to death.

    When police forced their way into Johnston’s home, she met them holding a rusty old revolver, fearing she was about to be robbed. The police opened fire, and killed her.

    Shortly after the shooting, the police alleged that they had paid an informant to buy drugs from Ms. Johnston’s home. They said she fired at them first, and wounded two officers. And they alleged they found marijuana in her home.

    We now know that these were all lies. In fact, everything about the Kathryn Johnston murder was corrupt.

    This is not an isolated incident.

    “At bottom, there are two explanations for cops who lie. The first is that the institution hires liars. We could waste a lot of time on this one. Or we could, as I’m happy to do, concede the point: Despite advances in the hiring process–smarter psychological testing, more rigorous background investigations–a certain percentage of characterologically untruthful candidates do winnow their way through the screening protocols. This happens most often when law enforcement agencies are on a hiring binge. In a push to get cops out on the street, they sacrifice quality for speed, compromise standards, and hire people who should never don a police uniform. The lesson here is constant diligence, and a willingness to let a position to go vacant rather than fill it with a prevaricator (or worse).

    But the second and far more useful explanation is systemic. Cops lie for reasons embedded in the history, structure, and culture of the institution itself. A critical part of that system is the laws police officers are called upon to enforce, none more relevant to this discussion than the nation’s drug statutes.

    Since the 1930s but with ever-growing vigor from 1971 to this moment, America’s police officers have been conditioned to believe that anyone who’s ever taken illicit drugs, contemplated same, or trafficked in them is The Enemy. The constitution aside, why would cops fret over legal niceties or democratic rules of engagement when working behind enemy lines? The very nature of an undercover narcotics assignment dictates duplicity.

    But too many drug cops wind up lying to their bosses. They fudge or manufacture facts in their official reports. They perjure themselves on the stand. (Too many, for that matter, wind up planting, stealing, using, and/or selling drugs.)

    The facile response is to scold/fire/prosecute these wayward individuals and (rarely) their too-trusting–or complicit–bosses, and let it go at that. Nothing wrong with holding people accountable, nothing right about not doing so. It’s a must. But it begs the tougher question. When will we learn that drug prohibition is a huge part of the problem of police corruption?

    There is a long list of justifications for ending not merely the rhetoric but the reality of America’s holy war on its drug consumers. But one of those reasons is that it would eliminate the all-too-common cheating, stealing, and lying that goes on in the name of drug enforcement.

    Ending drug prohibition will not halt the spectacle of cops lining up to defend the indefensible. But it will make for a healthier, safer society, and it will reduce the temptation for a law enforcer to lie his or her way to drug warrior fame.”
    Norm Stamper, former Police Chief of Seattle, WA

  • Tim made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    J Swift. Your nonsense that smoking weed makes one a unfit parent is totally just your opinion. A lot of stereotypes were thrown in there that shouldn’t be included in a factual writing. You have it all wrong but it doesn’t matter what the potheads on the internet tell you. You only believe what you want. Basically, this story was some well written nonsense.

  • Fletch Funk made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Holy shit, I read this at work and was going to own you but by the time I got home it was all taken care of.

    I thought this was interesting though:

    “I’ll take the word from reputable sources such as principals, police officers and judges”

    Ask a cop who’s a more difficult individual to subdue, alcohol or marijuana users. Ask a judge how many alcohol fueled crimes are committed vs. marijuana.

    And then ask yourself whether you want to be told what you can put in your own body by big brother. Personally, I don’t think it’s anybody’s business but mine if I huff glue either.

    You also said something about the availability of marijuana rising after legalization. Marijuana is already more available to kids than alcohol; drug dealers don’t check ID.

    Why am I still talking though? If the above comments and the facts haven’t sunk in yet, nothing will. Guess I just get angry when I think about people actively trying to tell me what to do with my body in the privacy of my own home.

  • allan made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Wow… ever have your head handed to you on a plate before James? I’m sorry dude, but you’ve got a lotta homework to do.

    Why is it that in spite of pot being prohibited it is now our nation’s #1 agricultural commodity? Do you like having foreign cartels using your National Parks for toxic farms? Do you think arresting 99 people for pot every hour of every day of the year has deterred people from smoking cannabis?

    As for “amotivation syndrome”? Dude… two words - Barack Obama and Michael Phelps (and yes, I know that was four words). And we might throw in a few governors, a cuppla other former US presidents, a major computer gazillionaire… shall we continue?

    Next!

  • NotImpressed made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Not sure I can type this with that “inch-thick carapace of Cheetoh dust” on my fingers.. but I’ll give it a shot:

    I don’t give damn about the importance of your reputation or of the integrity of your college endeavors - that doesn’t mean you need to take a public stance AGAINST pot just so you feel safe about how you appear to your colleagues… you’re an arrogant ass who needs to simply STFU.

    Thanks,
    Legalize

  • warren made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    This guy is one sad piece of work.

  • Joe made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    EVERYONE, PLEASE:

    STOP RESPONDING TO THIS THREAD.

    IF YOU KEEP THIS UP, HE MIGHT BE ENCOURAGED TO RIGHT YET ANOTHER SESQUIPEDALIAN ARTICLE INVOLVING FALSE ALTERNATIVES AND INSIPID ARGUMENTS.

    I BESEECH YOU ALL: STOP RESPONDING.

    BETTER YET, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR OWN ARTICLES. I HIGHLY ANTICIPATE READING SOMEONE - ANYONE - ELSE’S THOUGHTS ON ANY MATTER.

    - JOE

  • Steve Elliott ~alapoet~ made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Hey James, check your facts.

    You talk as if marijuana is a ‘proven carcinogen,’ when that isn’t true.

    In fact, most of the credible studies I’ve seen show that the active ingredients in marijuana slow and sometimes even reverse the growth of cancerous tumors.

    The biggest study of its kind, conducted in order to “prove” marijuana causes cancer, ended up finding that not only is there no relation between pot smoking, even heavy pot smoking, and cancer — but that marijuana actually exerts a protective effect AGAINST cancer.

    Maybe you should do your research a little more thoroughly next time, instead of vainly preening about “how many times you’ve been around the block.”

    ‘K? Thx.

  • Matthew Garrison made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Cannabis has been valued by humans for its fiber, its nutritious seeds, as a medicine and as a recreational drug for thousands of years. It is as much a part of our human heritage as wheat, apples, or pet dogs.

    The fight for legalization is not about tax revenues (though that will be a consequence), it is not about the fact that marijuana use is less risky than many activities that are considered normal and healthy (such as skiing, riding a bicycle, or driving a car), it is about liberty. A man cannot rightfully claim that he lives a life of liberty if the powers that be declare that he cannot knowingly, and willingly consume a given substance.

    Liberty requires a level of tolerance for the behaviors of others. Prohibition requires perpetual fanaticism and fear tactics based on wildly exaggerated claims of social harm. Prohibition and liberty are mutually exclusive.

    Its time that we rethink what the role of government ought to be, as it most certainly is not to regulate the appetites and health of a population in a society that claims to represent the pinnacle of liberty.

    If an individual wants to knowingly and willingly inhale asbestos fibers on a daily basis because he believes it to be beneficial, we as a free society have no moral right to deprive that man of the liberty to do so. The same goes for the long, and ever-growing list of prohibited drugs and their analogs.

    THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIBERTY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM

  • barrylaughs made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    We wholeheartedly agree that no one that smokes pot ever amounts to anything.

    Signed,

    George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama, Michael Phelps,
    (need I go on?)

    Seriously, look into some more pressing matters with that pseudo intellect kid. What are your thoughts on World Government and the approaching Copenhagen summit in a mere few weeks? While you are railing on about stoners eating cheetos, the Constitution may be null and void under the guise of cap and trade.

  • Carl Sagan made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.

    http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n882/a01.html

  • xenophrenia made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Just as a fact check - maybe the idiot who wrote this should actually look into the scientific studies that have been done that disprove the ‘facts’ he thinks he’s telling here. Just as a starting point:

    Myths and Facts About Marijuana
    http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

    Drug War Facts
    http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/

    Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS)
    http://www.maps.org/

    This is just a start - there are links on all of these sites that will lead you to some REAL research on the subject this person has so little knowledge of …

    There is thing called Google - there is no excuse to spout this stupidity when the facts are so easy to find.

  • Abraham Lincoln made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica

  • William made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    James,

    I have included a few suggestions for you to consider when trying to write another paper for your classes:

    1) It is probably not a good idea to pick random words out of Roget’s and throw them in a college paper. Using archaic or widely unknown words does not make you appear intelligent, but asinine.
    2) I would think that using idiotic stereotypes in a research paper would not help you get the grades you obviously hope to achieve. Promoting false and prejudiced ideas of any kind of person is irresponsible and immature. I have met many efficient and productive pot smokers in my lifetime, many of whom were successful businessmen and women.
    3) I would think finding proven research would be the basis for writing a paper, rather than throwing together a jumble of subjective ramblings. I would love to find these incompetent, crazy, pot-addicted people of whom you speak. I have not seen many rehabilitation clinics full of pot addicts who leave their children to get their fix of cannabis smoke.

    Unfortunately, you sound like one of the right-wing marijuana legalization antagonists whom you blatantly call out.
    You presented incorrect facts and promoted ignorant stereotypes, while trying to hide behind some quasi-intellect that somehow gives you a sense of satisfaction. While you possess a good grasp of rhetoric, the rest of your gray matter is probably full of the same bile that you spewed into this paper.

    I ask, no, beseech, that you stop spreading this false government propaganda. The last thing we need is our youth growing up to think like this.

  • i dont smoke, i just like freedom made a comment on November 20, 2009:

    Marijuana leading to child abuse? even heard of alcohol buddy? do some research

  • Hemp made a comment on November 21, 2009:

    It’s legal to import products made from hemp into this country, but the prohibition of all cannabis and the DEA’s refusal to allow American farmers to grow even non-psychoactive strains strips a valuable agricultural commodity from our economy.

    Defend THAT!

  • Julian made a comment on November 21, 2009:

    It shows you have never tried marijuana.
    but i guess there is no reason it should be legal, even tough there is research everywhere how marijuana is the only drug in the world that has extreme amount’s of positive medical effects.

    Hey but i guess prescription opiates r more safer right;)

  • jake made a comment on November 21, 2009:

    Nice writing, too bad that pretty much all of the “facts” you state are total bullshit…

  • Chris made a comment on November 21, 2009:

    I admit, you have a good vocabulary. Too bad it went to waste on writing such a ridiculous article.

    You say you’re in college? I truly feel sorry for you. Even by middle school I had learned that it’s best to do some research before attempting to write about something, especially if you have no clue what you’re talking about. Try it - it helps. Not trying to be offensive, just offering some constructive criticism. Get your facts straight, and then you may have some potential.

  • Christopher made a comment on November 21, 2009:

    At first I just thought you were a pretentious, myopic [insert internet insult-noun that can't be printed here]. Then I realized you are actually a good writer and an intelligent person, and I realized you are a MISLED pretentious, myopic [same-ed.]. This stirs me deeply as it makes you more aware, if not necessarily capable, of your capacity to change your opinion.

    In fact, I stopped reading your most scathing editorial at the line “inch-thick carapace of Cheetoh-dust”, which I decided to be such a great use of carapace that I would cease militant and contemptful pursuit of intellectual justice and instead appeal to you in this way.

    As I said, I didn’t read the rest of it - but regardless, judging from your intro, I can confidently assert that I could utterly refute every one of your statements. There are plenty of other people here doing that, some admirably; most of whom, on the contrary, are quite cringetastically proving your rather prejudiced and judgmental point (social context). I nevertheless have faith in the internet to produce some worthwhile argumentative reasoning, though I scrolled past all the comments with only the most vague and cursory inspection of their makeup.

    What I’m saying is, you’re smart, your use of vocabulary ranges from great to wonderful, your grammar is generally impeccable and I find that sexy - but, my friend of whatisthis Kansas, I challenge you: research. Research more. Think more, compare more, integrate more.

    This will probably be deflected by your no-doubt formidable Automated Ego Defense System, but nevertheless I write it. Email me [ ennui [at] halflife2 dot net ] if you are intrigued or want a levelheaded, high-level discussion on this.

  • Brandy made a comment on November 21, 2009:

    I complelty agree with you. Yes it should NOT be legalized. The only people who actually want it to happen generally of course all smoke it them selves. It may not be physically addictive but it is psychologically addictive so smoking it will make them see that “theres no wrong it it”and that “its ok” they seem to have a slightly different view and just cannot once someone is hooked on smoking they just can not see the other side of the arguement.

  • Paul made a comment on November 21, 2009:

    “The only people that claim that marijuana has limited or no ill effects on the greater collective are surely one-sided pot pundits that have never talked to people that HAVE seen the detrimental effects it has on society. No offense, kiddos, but I’ll take the word from reputable sources such as principals, police officers and judges over a bunch of trust fund baby pseudo-activists any day.”

    A much simpler explanation: For most people, there aren’t any detrimental effects. Chalk that up to something that isn’t physiologically addictive, not “Trust-fund-baby-pseudo-activist-communist-hippie-Cheetoh-eating-stoners”.

  • 40 Years ago... made a comment on November 21, 2009:

    As of this year I’ve been toking for 42 years, but after reading this I’ve decided to quit, and start vaporizing.

  • rob t made a comment on November 21, 2009:

    Reading articles like this simply make me sick. The intelligent style in which this author is so relentlessly trying to portray simply contradicts the idiotic, stereotypical, and ill-informed facts that he constantly states throughout this disgusting article. People are dying by the minute because our government prevents medical research to be done on hemp( a plant that has no substantial value of THC and has been medically excepted since 1973; but is still outlawed due to a cloud of hysteria over marijuana and a few other reasons i will not state). Hemp is a completely non-intoxicating form of cannabis and if anything should be legalized in order to start curing our cancer ridden patients instead of injecting them with something that kills all existing cells, and their last chance at life. Along with a huge list of other medical benefits, hemp can also reduce deforestation if we just use hemp to make our paper and textiles like humanity did for thousands of years before the U.S. government outlawed the plant over biased and racial beliefs.
    Ultimately, if we continue debating, demanding, and revealing the truth behind marijuana and the American Drug War someday our country will be a logical one; where our citizens won’t be corrupted from a young age to believe something, but instead would make their own decisions based on science, reason, and truth. However in till that day is achieved the battle for ACTUAL FREEDOM in the United States is a lost one.

    -Rob Tucker

  • Kevin Lister made a comment on November 21, 2009:

    Hey James, I’ve read your article and your responses a few times and this is what I’ve got to say.

    Please, don’t use debunked evidence as your platform. It ruins a chance to have a meaningful discussion about marijuana and how it affects our society. Furthermore, when your readers point out your (rather voluminous) errors, the best thing to do is either correct their claims or correct your thoughts. You chose to claim a nearly three decade old medical study as “evidence”, and you mocked your readers with comments about Ren and Stimpy, cheeto-dust, and “Intranet ding-dongs”. NEWSFLASH: Those ding-dongs stripped the bark off your column and are making you look downright dishonest. Insulting your critics, rather than engaging them, means you’ve lost the argument. I can adamantly say that the only thing worse than being unpopular on campus would be to appear unintelligent to the whole world.

  • John M. made a comment on November 21, 2009:

    James, I’m completely shocked about how you handled this situation.

    First off you wrote an article that is so full of personal bias, misinformation and extreme hyperbole. Then when you were called on and rebutted with well thought out arguments you handled it like a grade school child and insulted everyone.

    You’re a University student. You should know better. You’re getting closer to the real world and should know how to better handle a disagreement. Not only that but you also seem to want to be a journalist and as such you should be able to get evidence to back up your arguments.

    In the end you came out looking like a child and instead of salvaging your situation you made it worse. Let’s hope you learn something from this and apply it to your future works.

  • Emily Crane made a comment on November 22, 2009:

    Perhaps you should do your research in a historical context. Marijuana was not made illegal because of a public health concern. Mexican immigration was a problem even in the 1920’s and 30’s, and because the Southern and Western states were a hotbed of racism, lawmakers saw marijuana prohibition as an easy way to drive out the pot-smoking Mexicans without affecting the white folks. Yellow Journalism and “Reefer Madness” propaganda swayed a gullible public, and now we have a multi-billion dollar black market, the largest prison population in the world, an entire world of safe pharmaceuticals that has yet to be researched, and an industry that the US Government has essentially outsourced. Remember how Alcohol Prohibition was a total failure? Yeah…

  • Emily Crane made a comment on November 22, 2009:

    What’s this? The AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION asking the Feds to review their archaic stance on marijuana? Surely not…

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5614233.shtml

  • Craig Burton made a comment on November 22, 2009:

    Reading this was like reading an article in support of the flat earth theory. And I’m not sure I would refer to an author of such work as a martyr; several other words come to mind.

    Please perform more research next time.

  • Bruce made a comment on November 22, 2009:

    This is just a cry for attention.

  • Nick Pappas made a comment on November 22, 2009:

    This is absurd. I have many friends who’s lives have been torn apart by their parents drinking in excess. Yet 3 of the best friends and students i know have been users of marijuana along with their parents. Hell, 2 of them got full rides to any college of their choice. So a little advice for you, smoke a bowl then take a look at life. This sounds like 6th grade health class all over again.

  • John made a comment on November 22, 2009:

    James, you need to do more research before you write stuff like this. Research and educate your self so you can write somewhat intelligently on the subject of the legalization of cannabis. Legalize it people

    James, you have lost many people’s respect by writing something such as this nonsense.

  • David made a comment on November 23, 2009:

    I lol’d.

  • Ben made a comment on November 23, 2009:

    In response to:
    “Thusly, if a known carcinogen is introduced to the general populace, it is the government’s job to help curb the miasmic Diaspora.
    Now, I hear the clamor of several Dave Matthews fans in the background: “Well, what about cigarettes?”
    Hey, I agree with you. If I were despot of the nation, I would have those outlawed as well. The difference betwixt that mass killer and marijuana, however, is the psychotropic properties of the latter. I promulgate, why is drunken driving illegal? Yes, one may contort the question to uncover a fiscal retort, but at heart, it’s a simple restrictive measure to ensure the life of potential voters, I mean, citizens.”

    No, that is not the government’s job. If this was communist Russia, then yes, that would be but this is the United States. This country was founded on the beliefs in personal freedom. Using cannabis is not the same as driving drunk because using cannabis does not put anyone else in harm’s way. I have a question for you. If someone attempts suicide and fails at it, should that person be arrested and put in jail? I assume the answer to that is a “no.” If someone is caught shooting heroin, smoking crack, smoking crystal meth, should that person be arrested and put in jail? If I am sitting in the privacy of my house using cannabis, how would putting me in jail be any better? Prohibition goes against everything this country was founded on. I truly believe all drugs should be legal, the government is in no place to tell an individual what or what not to put in his/her body as long as no one else is being harmed.

  • chmmrx made a comment on November 23, 2009:

    Marijuana should be legal in my humble opinion… The original reason it was considered as something that should be illegal was because of a racist push for department finances and special interests.. Alcohol prohibition was ending. The head of what equaled the DEA 70 odd years ago, needed revenue.. This is the original process that criminalized marijuana…

    Harry J. Anslinger most direct founder of marijuana prohibition which followed loss of alcohol prohibition revenue:

    “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”
    “…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”
    “Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”
    “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”
    “Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”
    “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”
    “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

    H.J.Anslinger’s Yellow Journalism buddy William Randolf Hearst San Francisco Examiner:

    “Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days — Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”
    “By the tons it is coming into this country — the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms…. Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him….”

    And other nationwide columns…
    “Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug.”
    “Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.”

    Furthermore:

    “Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by DuPont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. DuPont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies. ”

    The political process in short detail was based primarily on manipulated media coverage…

    The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:
    Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”
    Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”
    “Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”
    Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”
    And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

    source: DrugWarRant.com by Pete Guither

    It is important to note these original instances that created our current problem. At this point the enforcement bodies are using similar tactics to maintain negative opinion on marijuana… Current public remarks and press releases do not contain this racist information - that is true.. Although… after some online research I have found that the use of marijuana among users of all races are proportionate but for some strange reason arrests for possession is varied when viewed by race… Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

    To put it mildly ..I do not think marijuana is addictive. Sources supporting otherwise say marijuana is addictive on a psychological level and not a physical level.. Negative effects of detoxing for alcohol are as bad as death… Negative effects of detoxing for marijuana are as bad as anxious behavior/less patience..

    Of course there are entities that benefit from marijuana prohibition. To quote the DEA, the last time I was at their site…

    “The short term effects of marijuana use include:
    Memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety.”

    Now lets look at short term effects with alcohol, only briefly though because the list just goes on and on…

    The short term effects of alcohol use include but not nearly limited to:
    Reduced Inhibitions,Loss of Muscle Control, Memory Loss and/or Blackouts, Trouble with Thinking and Problem Solving, Nausea, Vomiting ,Headaches, Hangovers, Stupor, Distorted Perception, Decrease in Heart Rate, decrease in Muscle Strength, Suicidal Tendencies, Anxiety, and Coma.

    I do not think rational individuals, who are agenda free, doubt the dangers of alcohol.

    With further investigation it appears to me by far the prohibition on marijuana is worse for society than that of its legalization. Suggest, if you will… Normal everyday citizen… They go to work, balance their check book, pay for things, raise children.. you know, live a normal life with one exception.. they ingest marijuana.. Barring any excessive usage/abuse, (which is clearly the same case as with many already legal substances), these people function fine… except debated respiratory issues when smoked… Do I need mention it is legal to “smoke”.

    Prohibition can cause in short …

    1) job loss
    2) criminal charges
    3) loss of children
    4) denial of federal aid
    5) financial downfall
    6) life endangerment
    7) loss of freedom

    The list goes on… Point is, again, prohibition is worse for the individual/society than legalization.

    In conclusion it appears to me this is big money at work - alcohol, textile, oil, enforcement agencies, drug cartels, etc, and the rest of us seem to be pawns… that is….
    Unless we speak up and let our voice be heard for change in the current law, and against any individual that would have you believe “A law is a law - it does not matter if it is wrong or right!”.
    The latter happens to be a founding principle of this great country. Stop wasting resources on this plant. Record eradication every year - as well as - record growth and availability. This is a money pit for something that is no worse than alcohol.

    To those whom are against marijuana - free your mind of arguments attached to fear mongering please.

  • J. Swift made a comment on November 23, 2009:

    I simply shan’t be complacent until the comments counter hits 100.

    So to reiterate: you are all a bunch of puppets. This is all you have to fight for, your proverbial causa sui, if you will. Sure, you might have a few message board guffaws at the concomitant, but what about two weeks from now, or two months, or two years? I will have moved on and written articles on new material, expanding and progressing as a singular form. And prey tell, where will you be at the same juncture? That’s right, mulling over the past, stirring your fingers in the frigid muddle of what was our brief intersection in existence. I will continue to move in a linear fashion, and you. . . shall continue to stagnate, mayhap indefinitely.

    Just remember one thing: It’s not James Swift going on to DopeIsGreat,DeoderantNotSoMuch.Com and spraying his opinion on your message boards, but you stumbling unto my lawn and pissing on my shrubbery. Enjoy the coattail ride while it lasts, because come January, it’s back to the obscurity of the aluminum foil-draped closet for all of you.

  • Rhayader made a comment on November 23, 2009:

    Hey go ahead, denigrate and ridicule the folks who take the time out of their schedules to not only read what you’ve written, but to interact directly via the comments. Some writers — particularly college students working at an obscure school paper — are actually appreciative of their readership and seek to nurture a positive relationship, but hey, insulting us with self-important pseudo-metaphysical nonsense has its advantages too. I guess.

    Have fun with your linear progression as a singular form. We’ll be hoping to avoid any more brief intersections in existence; that way, we can ensure that you’re not bothered by an actual audience at any point in the future.

  • chmmrx made a comment on November 23, 2009:

    So eloquently put Sir Jimmy POP…

    This is great.. you create a public area with an option to leave a reply. Then you call it your back yard? I don’t know what kind of back yard you are used to…

    You really don’t care about this subject and look forward to moving on.. I really enjoy that excuse of yours as well as your low brow insults after your arguments fail to convince as evident by nearly all the replies above..

    - low brow insults -

    “you are all a bunch of puppets”
    “This is all you have to fight for”
    “shall continue to stagnate”
    “DopeIsGreat,DeoderantNotSoMuch.Com ”
    “obscurity of the aluminum foil-draped closet for all of you”

    Other than that you flirt with notions of your own greatness..

    “expanding and progressing as a singular form”
    ” stirring your fingers in the frigid muddle of what was our brief intersection in existence”
    “Enjoy the coattail ride while it lasts”

    So, let me be personal for a small bit good sir. Ill use cliché since it seems to be the entirety of your knowledge..

    If your are not emotionally sound enough to hear criticism against what you post then don’t make it public.

    “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen”

    Using fifty cent words with your personal content is an overstated cliché… you know…

    “Put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig”…

    Claiming greatness is not the same as earning greatness. Write something you can back up without the same old tired fear mongered approach.. You may find yourself not laughed at as much.

    “Better to not speak and be thought a fool rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt”

    Way to stand for nothing and have a lack of conviction in things you supposedly believe.. If you take anything from this vast and varied public tongue lashing, may it please be a lesson in rational thought..

  • The Sentinel made a comment on November 23, 2009:

    Though I love a good argument, this must come to an end.

Comments are closed now.