I just stumbled across this story about marijuana activist Steve Kubby being arrested on drug charges in California after returning to the U.S. from Canada to turn himself in. He had appealed to the Candian government for permission to remain in that country, but his appeals were denied.
Apparently this is quite a bit of controversy surrounding Mr. Kubby. His name is currently the top search on Technorati. A lot of people are angry about his arrest. You see, Kubby is not just a marijuana activist (and Libertarian politician). He also suffers from a form of adrenal cancer, which is currently in remission. Marijuana, or a medical derivative of the drug, is part of his treatment for that. Currently Kubby is in jail and, according to the reporting I've found on the story, isn't receiving this medication.
Not can't speak to the validity of Kubby's claims about the medicinal properties of the drug, but I can tell you that his situation doesn't do much to raise my opinion of this silly "war" we're fighting against marijuana.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not one of these people who advocate for the legalization of all drugs. I would vigourously oppose any attempt to make substances like meth or crack cocaine legal, but when it comes to the relatively benign marijuana I just don't see the point in opposing it any more. We are spending billions every year opposing this drug, and for what? To keep Americans from experiencing a high that is, for all practical purposes, not all that much different from the buzz they can legally obtain from alcohol?
Every year we put hundreds of thousands of people in jail on marijuana charges, the vast majority of them simply for possessing the drug. Yet simultaneously we let thousands of high-risk sex offenders, captured illegal aliens and other types of criminals back out into our communities every year, all because our prisons are overcrowded. Is anyone else thinking that we have our priorities backwards here? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather put the potheads back on the street and keep the sex perverts in jail.
Does marijuana have medical properties? I don't know. But I can tell you that our "war" on the drug seems like a losing battle to this observer. I say we cut our losses, stop harrassing people like Mr. Kubby, and focus on some of the more important threats which are facing this country.
You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
I'm not even sure that the more pernicious substances you mention...crack cocaine and heroin...should not be legalized and controlled by the government. Legalization would remove the crime element because there would be no money in it...the stuff is cheap to make.
The people who want to use the stuff are going to get it one way or another, and mostly it's by committing crimes to get the money to buy it.
So if we legalize it, I am not sure there would be a higher usage rate...it might even drop. A lot of kids get started on it because it IS illegal...the thrill of tasting forbidden fruit.
By the way, my son, who was a drug user when he was young, disagrees with me on this.
I understand where you're going with that (though I'd point out that I mentioned crack and meth, not heroin), but I just don't agree. My father was a law enforcement officer for years, and my day job requires frequent interaction with law enforcement. I have seen what drugs like meth do to people. They have absolutely no redeeming qualities and go far beyond simply putting the user in danger but also put those around the user in danger as well.
I often respond to suggestions that meth, for instance, be made legal by inviting the person making the suggestion to live nextdoor to a bunch of tweakers for a year. Trust me, the drug deserves to be banned.
But marijuana is a different matter entirely. It is relatively benign and widely used despite laws against it. I guess, overall, I'm willing to listen to arguments for legalizing drugs on a case-by-case basis, but I would oppose a blanket legalization of all illicit drugs.
No argument about the devastating effects of hard drug use. But the War on Drugs is not stopping it...not even slowing it down according to some. It is sure making a lot of drug lords rich, though, and screwing up some Central American economies...plus Afghanistan, of course. I would favor taking the billions of dollars we are spending on the War on Drugs and using it to educate elementary school children about the dangers. Show THEM the effects of usage! The current generation of users who have burned out their brains are probably beyond saving. Nothing can be done about them, sadly.
So...concentrate on the kids to make sure the next generation doesn't follow the last to oblivion.
Kathryn,
Holland decrimilalized drugs years ago. I haven't heard anything about drug usage there being any worse since they made it legal. I haven't really studied it though. Can anybody else offer data on Holland's drug problems as a result of decriminalization?
In most states possession of "consumer amounts" result in nothing more than misdemeanor tag....not unlike a traffic ticket. Most offenders are never taken into custody.
Dealing is another matter.
152.027 Other controlled substance offenses.
Subd. 4. Possession or sale of small amounts of
marijuana. (a) A person who unlawfully sells a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration, or who unlawfully possesses a small amount of marijuana is guilty of a petty misdemeanor and participation in a drug education program unless the court enters a written finding that a drug education program is inappropriate. The program must be approved by an area mental health board with a curriculum approved by the state alcohol and
drug abuse authority.
Is marijuana as addictive as tobacco?
Is it as physically harmful as either tobacco or alcohol?
Are the detremental effects of MJ that Ed cites worse than, or even as bad as, the effects of teenage drinking?
There seems to be a consensus among medical people that daily use of alcohol in small quantities can be beneficial. Is it possible that marijuana could have the medicinal qualities that some claim?
What is the reason that marijuana is linked with, and treated the same as heroin, cocaine, etc. rather than with alcohol and tobacco?
Rob, you are 1000% right. Great post.
The only answer I can give, Carl, is the one I gave earlier.
A lot of drug enforcement people have made a career out of busting potheads.
i would postulate that we are funding money every year. where it's being spent is beyond me.
where does money to fund so-called Black Ops come from, anyway?
michael - i'd have to say i'm not surprised rob supports pot. i've known a lot of young white republicans who bong out like their name was cheech or chong.
carl - it's not physically addictive like nicotine, but could be more toxic to the lungs - thus it's nickname of the chronic - a chronic cough.
"What is the reason that marijuana is linked with, and treated the same as heroin, cocaine, etc. rather than with alcohol and tobacco?"
the reason hemp was demonized?
the invention of dupont plastic.
an early example of big business purposely and knowingly lying their asses off and demonizing something in order to make a lot of money.
I knew a guy who used to put MJ in spaghetti sauce.
And of course, MJ-laced brownies are famous.
That shouldn't hurt the lungs.
you and i may not see the day - but look at the changes in the last twenty years. it still gets to me when i see airplane seats with ashtrays. makes me feel i'm in a prehistoric heap of metal!
I used to smoke pot quite a bit, and I agree with Mr. Nudelman about the degenerative social effects. I have curtailed my use immensely since college. I haven't smoked in a while, but many of my friends who are now professionals in various industries smoke socially--at a dinner party with close friends, for example. I get high about as often as I get mindlessly drunk...only a few times a year :). However I have friends from college who graduated but never left the lifestyle behind. They are headed nowhere in life, and it is quite clear to everyone around them. I do not like the fact that it is illegal (its a moral dilemma for me), and frankly this is probably one of the main reasons why I don't smoke more often. I also found that when I was getting high frequently, it wore down my desire to better myself...Not just in my work, but also physically (I didn't exercise), nutritionally (I never got the munchees for healthy food, just junk), mentally (I stopped reading avidly), spiritually, emotionally (this was most likely a chemical reaction from chronic use), and socially (I'd hang out with other heavy smokers and party-ers...would never do enriching or fulfilling activities, no hobbies, etc.). I generally view this the same as the situation with alcohol, though. I really think (at least its been this way in my experience) the majority of adult pot smokers do it only occasionally, and when they do it is in a social setting (like I described with my current friends, above). Also, I think that most of those who get caught are NOT these responsible users, but the chronic ones. Just like the majority of social drinkers don't get DUIs. I think proper upbringing and education within a society where it is quasi-legal and somewhat socially acceptable (as I believe we are headed) is the way to curtail chronic use and abuse. Regardless, although I started experimenting when I was 15 (about the same for alcohol), I believe that young people shouldn't be able to do ANY of these substances until they are 21. In fact, I think alcohol, pot (if it were eventually legalized), AND tobacco (I'm still a smoker, but I hate it and am seriously trying to quit) should be illegal until the age of *22*. Maybe that would help curb some of the problems we face on our college campuses (mostly with alcohol).
I think the previous level of 0.1% was more realistic. Defenders of the new level say that it will reduce alcohol-related accidents. I think that is debatable, but I know some people that I won't ride with when they are stone cold sober! It's so nebulous, alcohol impairment. Some people are probably unsafe with 0.05%...others (like me...laughing) can drive competently at 0.1% or even higher. I am very, very careful now. If I go out to dinner and have a few glasses, I try to find someone else to drive, but sometimes, there is no other way, so I just limit my intake.
But for those with the "agenda" any alcohol is too much and there is already a move afoot to reduce the DUI level to 0.05%. Of course the law enforcement agencies are all in favor of that. If they had their way, it would be zero!
police/city revenues. plus, who can argue against a politician who is "trying to keep our streets safe?"
not me. .08 is ridiculous compared to what we know from the past, but it's probably doesn't strike the average youngster as being unusual.
who do we know in the gather community that is young and has an opinion about everything? such a person would have a perspective on this...
hmmm....
:p
I know some, but I don't want their opinions Martin...and neither do you! (grin)
I just went to traffic school to atone for a speeding ticket. A big part of the agenda of the school is to beat into your head how EXPENSIVE a DUI conviction is. Probably the average in CA is about $10K. For a first offense. Plus insurace premiums go through the roof. Somebody is making a LOT of money on that. There is no denying that drunk drivers cause a lot of accidents and kill a lot of people. Most of them, I bet are REALLY drunk! How to set a fair BA level is tough. It's kinda like the "double nickel" speed limit of the 70's The "safety lobby" claimed it would save jillions of lives. "Speed kills" was the mantra. Well, if 55 was good, wouldn't 45 by better? How about 35? We should all walk! Then nobody would be killed in a car!
Truckers and commuters were gong batty, taking extra time to deliver loads or get to work. Finally, everybody just ignored it, even the cops most of the time...except when they had to make their quota. Political pressure finally got rid of it, but I am sure the insurance and law enforcement lobbies fought for it to the bitter end.
Life has risks. Every time you get in a car or an airplane...or even a train or a bus, you are taking a calculated risk.
How much risk is acceptable should, to some extent be up to the individual. Of course, sometimes others are put at risk by ones actions...it's not a simple issue.
Here is the link.
And why white Republicans? What does race have to do with this? Why does race matter to you? It doesn't matter to me...
The bottom line is if someone wants to abuse their bodies with drugs..etc..they will..whether it is legal or illegal. Attacking a person who smokes pot because they are ill, it down right criminal. I agree with Domenick also, lowering BA to 0.08 is stupid, and the fine increases do not make our roads safer...it is simply a way to milk the public of more money. Why not just have cops at bars at closing time, and give breathalizer tests to let folks know who can drive, and who can't? Because they make large amounts of money on those busts!