The recreational use of marijuana has been glamorized over the years by such on-screen duos as Cheech & Chong and Harold & Kumar, but is the drug everything that Hollywood makes it out to be? Then again, are we being hypocritical by allowing alcohol consumption but not cannabis usage? With passionate believers on both sides of the argument, it will be interesting to see what happens when the smoke clears.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
It's obvious that the Drug Policy Office is running scared. Their public failure, and high horse attitude on drug policy warrants a wake up call. The only logical reason for not debating is their need to keep the wool over the public's eyes. It's sad that they think they can do this with simple censorship. I'm glad in this internet age that we can bypass the media and government's attempts to censor thoughtful, accurate, reasonable arguments. Pro-Marijuana advocates are marching the streets towards legalization and the only substance coming out of the Drug Policy office is the same old, tired, propoganda. Some things never change... but some things will.
- Asemili
August 13, 2008 5:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Over 70% want it legal, we are throwing away 100 billion a year spent on this stupid war we are putting non violent good people in jail (read http://www.november.org /) not to mention the estimated billions we could make from taxes if it were legal. The only debate is if your representative thinks a continuation of the status quo is the the right thing to do then vote that person out of office!!
- Cherokee Fred hussein August 17, 2008 11:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
At first when I read NORML's response, I was like "Yeah, true true. Defend your place." Good response
- frostidew October 14, 2009 4:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
1
0
0
0
40
27
29
27
5
5
3
2
3
4
1
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Legalization Advocates Never Answer The Hard Questions
- From Dr Kevin Sabet
By Dr. Kevin Sabet - Special Advisor for Policy, ONDCP
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Really?!
"For one, most people who use alcohol do so responsibly..."
Ok, was this phrase actually used by someone claiming to be an "expert"? Anti-prohibitionist always answer the hard question then offer logical counter questions that often get deflected using the social stigma of marijuana as defence for their argument. It is utterly ignorant to suggest that drinkers are in any way more socially responsible for their activities than a marijuana user. Based solely of the lethality of the two substances, it can easily be argued that simply by choosing something that dangerous over something far less dangerous you are socially irresponsible.
- madlib420 August 4, 2008 1:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Holes in your arguments
The author freely added the "new" costs associated with making marijuana legal without subtracting the "old" costs of prohibition.
The real question is, are the health/societal costs of legalizing greater than, less than, or equal to the old costs incurred by law enforcement today.When you add the additional potential tax revenue, it is very probable that legalization makes more economic sense.
Furthermore, societal costs of "lost worker productivity" pale in comparison to job losses due to incarceration, and even probation.
The "additional healthcare costs" are arguable, and responsible users can curb all negative lung disease through vaporization.
- Asemili
August 4, 2008 3:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wake up and see the writing on the wall!
If I was working for any anti-marijuana agency right now, I would be starting to sweat a little bit. I would be looking at the polls, and realizing that the public's opinion is in conflict with the office that gives me my job. If I wanted to keep my job, I would be looking for ways to work WITH the people instead of AGAINST them. At the end of the day, public opinion is a strong force that eventually is going to reshape policy.
So I say to anyone who works in the anti-marijuana sector: Open your eyes and look at the writing on the wall. It's right in front of you. Despite what your personal opinion of Marijuana's dangers are, the people believe otherwise, and at the end of the day, if the government pays your salary, the government works FOR THE PEOPLE, so your funding is in danger unless you can find a way to calm the pro-marijuana crowd down enough to keep them from their crusade to put you out of a job.
- Asemili
August 6, 2008 2:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dr. Sabet does not represent either side of the issue.
"As addicts frenzied for their next fix need to find more money to buy expensive drugs easily, they can be expected to engage in criminality. Taxing drugs would do no one good."
I was particularly disturbed by this quote. This is just more nonsense aimed to distract readers from any concrete point. There are very few facts throughout this entire article. Dr. Sabet instead chose to take the route of generalized ignorance and group all marijuana users into the media friendly aggressive drug user. Nothing sturs emotions as effictively as "addicts frenzied for their next fix." Why don't we take a look at some of the actual facts, you know, things that actually happened outside of our wonderfully creative imaginations. According to Drugwarfacts.org, in 2006, 829,627 people were arrested for marijuana related crimes. 738,916 of those arrests were for possession alone. So what percentage of these users are harmless? You do the math, Doctor.
- Logically Inclined
August 6, 2008 5:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ridiculous from start to finish
Since I am limited in what I'm allowed to type, I will simply point out the main flaw in this stilted "argument". The biggest risk of the use of any drug would be disease and death. All other problems of taxes, moral questions, etc. could be considered secondary to the question: will it kill you? We all know without doubt that alcohol and tobacco use kills MILLIONS each year in America. The Author capitulates, and attributes the same dangers to cannabis. The ONLY way for the Author to be taken seriously would be if he recommended that prohibition be introduced to tobacco, and re-introduced to alcohol. Since that conclusion is NOT reached, apparently the Author can live with a little death in the name of personal freedom, as long as the death comes from drugs he deems acceptable, and as long as the freedoms aren't extended to those the Author and his ilk deem unworthy. BTW, cannabis is NON-toxic. This argument is full of holes, lies, and hyperbole. It is completely disingenuous. Shame.
- chardomania August 7, 2008 1:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Illegalization Advocates Never Answer The Hard Questions
This is really simple. There is nothing wrong with responsible alcohol and marijuana use in a recreational setting. In a free society, the fact that some people take things too far is not a convincing argument that the government should turn into a nanny state. The American diet kills more people each year than marijuana. Should the government make McDonalds illegal next?
- reckoner
August 7, 2008 9:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Legalization Advocates Never Answer The Hard Questions
"alcohol contributes to more violent crime than crack-cocaine" Are you out of your mind? You just must have not visited any of the the U.S.'s innercity neighborhoods.
"For one, most people who use alcohol do so responsibly -- it is a minority of drinkers that cost society greatly." I would refute this argument by saying, there are a higher number of marijuana users per capita than alcohol drinkers in terms of societal cost. How much harm would marijuana smokers do if governed by the same laws as alcohol costs society? think about it!
"unlike marijuana, tobacco can claim no such role in potentially hurting the lives of non-smokers" So just how does marijuana hurt the lives of non-smokers if governed by the same laws as tobacco?think about it!
"in fact, marijuana is the second most implicated drug in driving accidents, next to alcohol."
In how many of those accidents was marijuana absolutely known to be intoxicating the driver? Not just being a metabolite in the drivers system?
- rchot August 10, 2008 10:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Legalization Advocates Never Answer The Hard Questions pt.2
"High cost drugs would ensure that an already well-established black market would remain largely in tact"
Right now higher grades of marijuana are worth their weight in gold, and only because of it being illegal. the higher cost easily relates to the dealers risk of being arrested or assassinated. In a reality of legalization I couldn't see an ounce of regular quality marijuana going for more than $45 before tax. and the higher grades at $90 dollars before tax.
so there you have it answering all the hard questions.
- rchot August 10, 2008 10:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The real reason behind prohibition
If one analyzes the anti-cannabis arguments one can see they spring entirely from fear. And unfortunately, fear doesn't care about reason. But where does that fear come from? As far as I can see it is fear of the unwashed masses puffing away and enjoying themselves; less inclined, as a result, to be manipulated by commercial interests. How frightening, all those folks, just taking some time off from the daily grind, relaxing, maybe merely sitting and looking at the clouds in the sky. How horrible! Looking at the sky instead than being glued to the boob tube.
The funniest comment I ever saw about the danger of cannabis, was its high content of BS Bks: That's Bull S**t Blockers, by the way. I'm convinced, my friends, Tthis the real reason for prohibition: ingesting cannabis lets you see through the crap.
- Brinna Nanda
August 21, 2008 10:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Unfair.
“Treat it like alcohol and tobacco.”
An interesting choice in words, one so obviously alluding to the tolerance America has in regard to alcohol and tobacco. Using the doctor’s own information, it can be easily concluded that marijuana is less dangerous than either tobacco or alcohol. Shouldn’t alcohol and tobacco then be treated like marijuana?
Granted, Dr. Sabet does mention the impossibility of prohibition elsewhere, claiming the integration of alcohol (and tobacco to a lesser degree) into American life. This is an unfair comparison. Marijuana has been used for a long time and is, judging from polls, still popular with a large percentage of the population, especially when takings its illegality and the misleading propaganda so eagerly broadcast into account.
So, why should marijuana be held to a different standard than two substances that children are readily exposed to from a young age?
- Sophophilic August 26, 2008 7:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Responsibly?
Please explain the following statement:
"The alcohol/tobacco versus marijuana argument also falls apart since alcohol and tobacco have very different cultures surrounding them than marijuana does. For one, most people who use alcohol do so responsibly -- it is a minority of drinkers that cost society greatly."
At what point did responsible use of alcohol begin? During prohibition or after prohibition?
- csmith
January 25, 2009 8:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dr Sorbet is a Government Shill...
"DR" Sorbet - Please provide Legitimate references for every fact that you stated in your little 'article'. Every 'fact' that you stated has been disproved or does not exist. Until you prove everything you wrote, your status as a "Verified Expert" is completely suspect, as well as the legitimacy of this web site.
Post Note: Dr Sorbet has just regurgitated the Government's lies about Marijuana and it's consumption. Not ONE thing that shill posted has been proven by the medical community. The ONLY reason Marijuana is not 'legal' is that the US gov't can't find a way to monopolize the growth, distribution, and TAXING of it yet.
- Mike S
March 14, 2009 1:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Prohibitionists
Prohibitionists are an odd bunch of moral propagandists and profiteers.
- Gumshrud
March 15, 2009 3:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Illegalization Advocates Make No Sense
"Secondly, unlike marijuana , tobacco can claim no such role in potentially hurting the lives of non-smokers" Oh really so the more than 3,000 people who die from second hand smoke every year are what? Not real, invisible?
Trying to say that marijuana is more dangerous is quite possibly one of the most idiotic things i've ever heard. Hydrogen Cyanide is found in tobacco products, is the chemical they use in prison executions. Now tell me what harmful chemicals are found in marijuana. Also roll this around in your head, 1,200 people die everyday from tobacco related products, now tell me how many people die from marijuana in a year? I'm sure that the number will come no where close to how many people die in a day from tobacco
- ShiverYaTimbers
April 3, 2009 12:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh please
Marijuana's causing wrecks? If that's the case Cymbalta's also causing wrecks. The so called "high" goes away, but you wouldn't know that since you know squat about the medicine . Responsible smokers experience a high because they space out their smoking . They are less likely to drive, being responsible and all. The ones whom smoke all the time like it's going out of style or something, they aren't getting high. Again, point to the rush of media surrounding all these mythical wrecks you apparently have knowledge of. I can guarantee you, opiate painkillers cause more wrecks than marijuana , as they also cause more deaths. I'll stop reading there. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
- Starlon
June 12, 2009 6:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
As an aspiring drug expert, I'm willing to debate anybody any time.
I'm not a legalization advocate, of course... I'm a sociologist. My positions are, though infested with my own biases (inevitably), largely based on my best understanding of the available data. I have read the medical literature, and have done ethnographic research of my own, including more than one research project about the use of cannabis in sacred contexts (an essay on alchemy which I'll send to anybody who's interested, and research on religious freedoms as pertains to a group called Church of the Universe).
My positions are generally nuanced and not completely on one side or the other; I think that a lot of the pot-advocates go way too far in minimizing the risks and treating it like a magical cure-all, but I think that it's true that pot is beneficial more often than it's harmful, and that if used responsibly, it can an excellent substance to have around, and certainly much better in a multitude of ways than alcohol .
So even though I'm a scientist and believe in nuance, I think the status quo is completely full of shit, and would welcome the opportunity to call them on it publically, and to present my own, more balanced and rational, perspectives on things.
- Michael Vipperman
October 22, 2009 1:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.