I know nothing at all about them so I don't have any thoughts about them. Here's some thoughts I do have:
Re. medical marijuana:
Why do medical marijuana advocates assert every pothead is "self-medicating"? While there clearly are some medical uses for marijuana, no one really believes the vast majority of daily pot smokers are "treating" anything other than a desire to get high every day. People who want marijuana to be legal for medical purposes as a prescription drug would do well to separate themselves the recreational marijuana people. Cancer patients, people suffering from this or that disease or condition are always going to be viewed by society more sympathetically than recreational users. So why don't the medical marijuana advocates seek to separate and distinguish themselves? The failure of medical marijuana advocates to make this obvious and logical distinction both puzzles and raises suspicion as to how sincere the medical advocates are. Their cause isn't being helped, it's being hurt by association with the Tommy Chong's of the world (who by the way doesn't just act like a stereotypical pothead for a living but is a real pothead and a medical marijuana advocate of course).
------------------+-------------------------------------
Re. pot use in general:
Arguing pot should be legal is one thing. Arguing people who use it to get high every day are different and better kinds of people from people who daily drink themselves to the point of intoxication is a different thing all together. Are a majority of daily pot smokers really high-functioning doctors, lawyers, etc.? Some are, one can suppose. People will always say they know some such folks or are such folks themselves. But there are also high-functioning drunks too. It doesn't make alcoholism something to be viewed positively because some people can function as productive citizens while still being drunks.
Re. comparisons of alcohol to pot: Most people who drink alcohol, even those who drink it daily, seldom if ever drink themselves into drunkenness. Think of all the people who have a glass of wine or a beer with a meal or who have a modest shot of whisky or brandy in the evening. (BTW I'm not a daily drinker myself. I drink less than a beer a week on average. I find a beer good with some foods, like pizza or a turkey sandwich. I haven't been intoxicated in 30 years or so.) But this type of usage isn't at all characteristic of marijuana is it? People who use weed use it to get high PERIOD. People who smoke weed daily are essentially similar to the small segment of drinkers who drink themselves drunk every night. We'd generally admit that a person who drinks themselves drunk every night is an alcoholic, a drunk. Why should we consider daily pot smokers any differently? Why do so many people have a need to pretend that pot-smokers are different and better than alcoholics?
--------------------------------------
Re. marijuana legalization:
I think the best arguments for it would be:
1) it isn't more of a problem than alcoholism (though this is kind of a weak argument)
2) legalizing it would provide a better alternative to those who use cocaine, heroin, meth, and other things.
Trouble is I don't know if the latter argument is true or not. Whether assertion #2 is true or not would make a big difference to me.
----------------------------------------
Re. marijuana legalization vs total legalization of all drugs:
Do marijuana legalization advocates distinguish between marijuana and other drugs and would they support marijuana legalization while keeping other more dangerous drugs illegal? It seems the opposition is to "the drug war" as a whole - which means all drugs. The public perception of marijuana is less negative than for other drugs - correctly, I think. So why doesn't the marijuana legalization movement do more to decouple marijuana from other drugs? |
