tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post2546034324173895023..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Weed vs. MarriageJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-61190780807299430822013-10-25T13:54:06.415-05:002013-10-25T13:54:06.415-05:00To be fair, we don’t know for sure that gay marria...To be fair, we don’t know for sure that gay marriage won’t harm our society in some way. But if we needed 100% certainty, we’d never change anything.<br /><br />Regarding marijuana, are you more comfortable with new pharmaceuticals that our government puts its stamp of approval on? Marijuana has been consumed by humans for thousands of years, but we don’t bat an eye when chemical compounds that were only just invented maybe 10 years ago are marketed to 300 million people.<br /><br />It’s impossible to know for sure, but I’m fairly certain that legalizing all drugs would be a net gain for society. But even if it weren’t, I think there’s a compelling moral case to be made against using the full force of government to destroy the lives of people who are engaged in activities that neither break my leg nor pick my pocket.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-64148291399745959022013-10-25T11:51:07.475-05:002013-10-25T11:51:07.475-05:00As to a lack of good science, this is a big reason...As to a lack of good science, this is a big reason why marijuana needs to be rescheduled. Right now, the specifics of how it's illegal preclude a lot of research into the drug. By changing it from schedule 1 to schedule 2, this would allow research, but without full legalisation (for those who are still nervous).theBitterFignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-9320020352162486632013-10-25T00:12:02.517-05:002013-10-25T00:12:02.517-05:00This is an interesting conversation; wanted to add...This is an interesting conversation; wanted to add one critical difference between legalization of pot and same-sex marriage: we're just not sure, in a science or public policy sense, what our understanding of pot will be in a generation of two (while ssm's cultural trajectory seems fairly obvious by now).<br /><br />We know several important things about pot that speak favorably about it, such as THC's inability to affect respiration (making OD'ing on pot impossible), as well as the fact that many folks use the drug safely on regular occasions. There's also a lot the science doesn't know. For example, recent animal research seems to be uncovering a link between hyperactivity and a dangerous propensity to become addicted to THC. Many in the marijuana community swear by pot as a treatment for ADHD. Perhaps they should swear at it. We just don't know.<br /><br />Which, getting back to public policy, is a good reason politicians will hesitate on pot: its a gamble with very little upside for them, and tremendous potential downside (depending on how the science shakes out). You can't say the same thing about same-sex marriage, it seems to me. CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-66834008591336076122013-10-24T16:13:23.855-05:002013-10-24T16:13:23.855-05:00I think it's more that I'm presuming every...I think it's more that I'm presuming everyone else is like me, which is a logical fallacy to be sure. In favor of legalisation, but it's just not an issue which is going to swing my vote. For example, I don't think many liberal pro-legalisation folks turned against Obama, despite his being a total hardass on medicinal use. Part of that is that Romney was a good deal worse, but I think it says something about priorities.<br /><br />That said, you're probably right about referendums. While I think individual politicians will keep fairly mum about it (from justified paranoia, imho), ballot measures will probably be a boon for Democrats. However, I really don't see a Democratic Presidential candidate trying to use legalisation or decriminalisation as tool in a debate--either primary or general. At most "The people of Colorado and Washington have spoken, I think we can trust them to be adults." I think even if Democrats win back the House and keep the Senate and Presidency in 2016, a legalisation or decriminalisation bill would be DOA in Congress, even if many of the same congresswomen hold personal hopes (and private ballot box votes) for CO/WA style bills in their home states.theBitterFignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-69995069133898794362013-10-24T15:33:21.441-05:002013-10-24T15:33:21.441-05:00Did any politicians back off of the 21st amendment...<i>Did any politicians back off of the 21st amendment after horror stories about drunks? </i><br /><br />That's basically the discussion-ender. Marijuana is "harmless" in the sense of "unlikely to cause any harms unique to marijuana". If politicians didn't "pay" for the legalization of a substance that actually DOES cause unique social harms, they won't pay for marijuana legalization either.<br /><br />People who don't like marijuana aren't concerned about social harms anyway. They just either don't like the DFH's or are puritanical types who oppose fun. (Indeed, even the technocratic types like Kleiman seem to have a real suspicion of poor people taking risks to have fun, although they don't seem to care about rich people taking risks like skydiving to have fun.)Dilan Esperhttp://www.twitter.com/dilanespernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-66548158559662699522013-10-24T13:51:47.756-05:002013-10-24T13:51:47.756-05:00Scott, that doesn't add up to a real movement....Scott, that doesn't add up to a real movement. Talk to some of the politicians who are with us on this issue and they'll tell you -- they get almost no political benefit from it. The same can not be said for those who champion gay rights. You seem to think that this is about to change -- let's hope you're right!Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-47766546030236006132013-10-24T09:29:27.038-05:002013-10-24T09:29:27.038-05:00What are you guys, old? You're wrong. Legalizi...What are you guys, old? You're wrong. Legalizing, or decriminalising, is THE most important issue for a very large segment of the youth vote. <br /><br />http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/marijuana-ballot-measures-youth-voter-turnout-2012-elections.html<br /><br />> If last month’s results are any indication, younger voters could play a key role in deciding future elections in states with marijuana ballot initiatives. Exit polls suggest voters ages 18 to 29 accounted for a noticeably greater share of voters than four years ago in Colorado, Oregon and Washington – all of which voted on marijuana measures. By contrast, this age group made up roughly the same percentage of the electorate nationally this year as it did in 2008.<br /><br />http://listverse.com/2013/10/08/top-10-stinky-facts-about-marijuana/<br /><br />> In Washington, Initiative 502 was passed in November 2012. It is credited with being the reason the state saw the highest voter turnout in the nation at 81 percent. <br /><br />I could go on, but apparently you guys are letting your cliches about lazy pot smokers influence your ability to see the truth, which is that it's not just about weed. It's about the whole drug war, which has adversely affected so many lives that I find it hard to believe it's not a bigger issue. People, especially the young and minorities are sick of getting busted for this. They're sick of being thrown in prison for this. They're sick of watching drunks kill people on the highways while they get demonized for smoking pot.<br /><br />Just like gay marriage is about a lot more than just letting gay people marry--it's the civil rights issue of our age--marijuana is the criminal justice issue of our age, and it's going to drive voter turnout for years to come.<br /><br />In fact, Democrats will probably start using it like the GOP used gay marriage. If I was a Republican running in a state that had any kind of pot initiative on the ballot, I'd be scared. And if I was a democrat who won because a lot of young people came out and voted for pot, I'd move it up my priorities list as a legislator.Scott Supakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04529312586679833360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-18078233419555815652013-10-24T09:17:07.157-05:002013-10-24T09:17:07.157-05:00OH, please, hippie punching is an old term for wha...OH, please, hippie punching is an old term for what conservatives do on the drug issue and many others. The people obsessed with violence are the ones who voted for the man who lied us into a $6 trillion war that killed, maimed, and displaced millions. The people obsessed with violence are the punchers, not the punchees. I'm just sick of getting punched. So I suggest you try a better line of arguments, because you have now dropped every losing point you made in this conversation, and moved on to attacking me personally, complete with accusations that I'm smoking nature's pain reliever, something you have no clue about, but something you're more than happy to punish people for using, despite the fact that alcohol is much, much worse in terms of costs to society. <br /><br />So, go back to your bourbon, sock puppet, and watch your 1950's Reefer Madness world drift away from you as you slowly die and recede into the obscurity you so richly deserve.Scott Supakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04529312586679833360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-90876053797560636302013-10-24T03:13:19.761-05:002013-10-24T03:13:19.761-05:00You're obsessed with physical violence. This i...You're obsessed with physical violence. This is what, the tenth time in this thread alone that you've referred to punching people or getting punched? I suggest you calm down. I note that wikipedia states that anxiety and paranoia are known side-effects of the drug you wish to legalise, so you're hardly the best advertisement for your noxious plant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-22473201240806568812013-10-23T23:31:57.391-05:002013-10-23T23:31:57.391-05:00TBF, you make some great points about the practica...TBF, you make some great points about the practical and political problems of legalizing pot. But I don't think the lack of an influential pro-pot movement has anything to do with pot smoking being objectively less risky than living as a gay person. It's hard to compare the two, but think of it this way -- has any Congressman admitted to being a current pot smoker?<br /><br />I'd love to see an NRA for the rest of our civil liberties (yes there's the ACLU, but they do litigation more than lobbying and other political activities). The NRA manages to harness the broad political support for gun rights for substantial political gain. There is likewise broad support for other civil liberties that doesn't have a strong party or organization to mobilize that support.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-57460309266650855872013-10-23T21:46:56.519-05:002013-10-23T21:46:56.519-05:00I agree with this. Support for legalisation, whil...I agree with this. Support for legalisation, while broad, is probably fairly soft for a good many supporters. Comparing a recreational toker to a same-sex couple wanting to get married, there just isn't the same level of harm done by illegal marriage and weed. Most recreational smokers, awaiting legalisation, are probably fairly content to keep smoking illegally, where a couple unable to be married have a whole different set of tax issues, medical visitation issues, inheritance issues, and so forth. Sure, a smoker can be arrested, but most folks who smoke now have figured out ways to avoid that. This isn't to minimise the problem of the War on Drugs and mass incarceration, but that doesn't seem like a problem as easily fixable as same-sex marriage.<br /><br />Which is the other major difference. Once marriage equality is attained and same sex marriage is legalised, that's pretty much it. Done. Only requires legislative action that isn't incredibly complex (difficult for some politicians, but it isn't like the tax code or the ACA), and doesn't really require major follow-up, by and large. We already know what marriage looks like, it just takes printing up some new forms. Legalised weed is a lot more complex. Will it have a three-tier system like alcohol? How do you manage the taxes? How do you regulate growers? How do you handle distribution and retailing? A full Federal legalisation bill would just be a headache, judging by state bills so far. Sure, there'd be a few things that would be easy like rescheduling the drug so that at very least it could be treated like opium in the medical community, but it's simply a legislatively more complex issue.<br /><br />Plus, like same-sex marriage, it's going to be a hard one. Support is wide, but opposition is probably pretty deep, and drugs are still a 'sexy' topic for the news. Add in that the slippery-slope is more logical here (that legal pot implies legal acid and legal heroin is going to be a lot easier to sell than legal same-sex marriage means legal dog marriage). Probably the middle-20% is sqishy and pragmatic enough to not demand that politicians go all-out to fight for this, not in the same way as legalising same-sex marriage. As long as folks are respectful of places which have legalised and aren't interfering, that's probably going to satisfy a lot of people.<br /><br />I just really don't see this as a strong anti-conservative wedge issue, and I don't see it getting there any time soon. I do think it's anti-liberal wedge potential is on the decline, however.theBitterFignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-69106887008300353112013-10-23T21:12:34.369-05:002013-10-23T21:12:34.369-05:00@ Anon 5:02 - What rot and conservative fantasy.
...@ Anon 5:02 - What rot and conservative fantasy.<br /><br />First of all, only a person with a deranged view of markets would consider a regulated market probably a bit stricter than alcohol with restrictions on public smoking a bit stricter than tobacco to be "effectively illegal."<br /><br />Second, a revolving door wedge issue conspiracy theory? That's just completely nuts.<br /><br />As to agribusiness weed @ Anon 3:47, I don't smoke so I can't be sure, but it seems like a fair presumption that most liberals would probably be satisfied with labeling and letting the market work. It seems reasonable that there would be an existing consumer preference against Monsanto-bud, presuming that folks like them would even want in, between anti-marijuana folks getting mad and a-bit-stronger-than-alcohol regulations.theBitterFignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-44701871004634429722013-10-23T21:09:46.166-05:002013-10-23T21:09:46.166-05:00Thanks, BitterFig, for these points. I just came a...Thanks, BitterFig, for these points. I just came across this post by Mark Kleinman, that does a much better and more thorough job of making considering these matter than I ever could:<br />http://www.samefacts.com/2013/10/drug-policy/public-opinion-on-cannabis-is-it-game-over/<br /><br />He is also blessed with a very smart set of relatively ideologically diverse commenters.PFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00263515090451316188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-70839423488609131592013-10-23T19:06:16.799-05:002013-10-23T19:06:16.799-05:00Scott, people do support drug policy reform and th...Scott, people do support drug policy reform and they'll often vote for it when given the opportunity. But that doesn't mean it's a priority for them or the lawmakers who represent them. Hopefully the situation in Washington and Colorado (and possibly more states as well) will force the issue, because Federal policy is out of step with both the will of the people and the principles our country was founded on.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11866258818907886842013-10-23T17:35:40.012-05:002013-10-23T17:35:40.012-05:00Addendum: It's not just drug users who want to...Addendum: It's not just drug users who want to end the drug war. If 58% of the public (which is a big acceleration in the trend) wants this, then it's going to get harder and harder to ignore it. Yet another issue where the demographics are going to just kill conservatives, while progressives will benefit.Scott Supakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04529312586679833360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-41801925692942046472013-10-23T17:33:50.052-05:002013-10-23T17:33:50.052-05:00"There's very little political incentive ..."There's very little political incentive for politicians to address drug policy reform. Drug users don't reward politicians who support them, whereas the gay community does."<br /><br />Do you have some evidence of this? Because NORML's been in this game for a long time, and they have all kinds of evidence that you're wrong.<br /><br />Right off the top of my head, I'd say the 76 or so members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is now bigger than the tea party caucus, will tell you that they have a lot of voters for whom this is very important, including a lot of people stuck in states without medical marijuana laws who might just vote to skip that unnecessary step.Scott Supakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04529312586679833360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-17020067436750626082013-10-23T17:30:40.366-05:002013-10-23T17:30:40.366-05:00You're both a bunch of bullshitting Fox News s...You're both a bunch of bullshitting Fox News sock puppets. You want to punch this hippie, come on up and try it. I don't hide who I am.Scott Supakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04529312586679833360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-2950680725927996622013-10-23T17:02:58.524-05:002013-10-23T17:02:58.524-05:00"For liberal professional under the age of 50..."For liberal professional under the age of 50 or 40 (yuppies and have-been yuppies), it seems like the dawning consensus is de-criminalize but extensively regulate and constrain circulation and use"<br /><br />Exactly as I said - make it a bit legal, but then make it effectively illegal again! And then re-legalise! And then re-criminalise! And so on forever - but always condemning those who aren't in total agreement with your constantly shifting fads as evil baby-killers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-18424182999270630182013-10-23T16:18:28.370-05:002013-10-23T16:18:28.370-05:00I agree, zic. But there's a difference betwee...I agree, zic. But there's a difference between talk and political action. The will is there, but it's just not a big priority among those with influence in the Democratic party.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-57605274773040403852013-10-23T16:01:33.437-05:002013-10-23T16:01:33.437-05:00What form of decriminalization or legalization are...What form of decriminalization or legalization are the progressives who are concerned about hypocritical imprisonment of minorities for marijuana use coming around to a consensus on? They'd clearly want small personal use to not be a prison-worthy offense, but what about all the other ways in which marijuana is used, possessed, and fashioned as a consumption good? That's when the thornier questions appear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-16839696212133891002013-10-23T15:54:45.233-05:002013-10-23T15:54:45.233-05:00@couves, I don't think that's true. I thin...@couves, I don't think that's true. I think there's a lot of talk in progressive circles about the problems of racism in our criminal justice system. zicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-51165993552554570182013-10-23T15:53:12.510-05:002013-10-23T15:53:12.510-05:00I mostly agree with Jonathan on this, if for somew...I mostly agree with Jonathan on this, if for somewhat different reasons There's very little political incentive for politicians to address drug policy reform. Drug users don't reward politicians who support them, whereas the gay community does. This is largely because of the cultural reality -- even in progressive circles, it's still much more risky to be a known pot smoker than a homosexual. And sadly, keeping black men out of prison is just not a huge priority either.<br /><br />On the state level, you've got this odd situation where recreational pot use is de facto legal in places like California, but those who are growing marijuana in compliance with state law are still having their assets seized and in some cases their children and/or their freedom taken away -- all at the hands of an administration that promised to leave medical marijuana alone. But because it doesn't effect the average person, it's unlikely to ever be a major political issue.<br /><br />Things might be different in Colorado and Washington, where the public response to arbitrary federal enforcement might be -- "Hey, I thought it was legal, didn't we vote for this?" Even the feds seem to recognize that there will be a much trickier issue with enforcement in these states. A lot will depend on how things play out there.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-35156882687702513242013-10-23T15:47:27.447-05:002013-10-23T15:47:27.447-05:00New Anon here.
For liberal professional under the...New Anon here.<br /><br />For liberal professional under the age of 50 or 40 (yuppies and have-been yuppies), it seems like the dawning consensus is de-criminalize but extensively regulate and constrain circulation and use in public space. Couves is right. There's much more of a split on whether it'd be desirable/legislatable for the marijuana "industry" to be only artisanal or also significantly corporate and "big." Libertarian, full-deregulation thinking finds much more support among leftists who consciously define themselves against liberal "establishment" positions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-47996563166064140012013-10-23T15:33:12.618-05:002013-10-23T15:33:12.618-05:00The war on drugs has resulted in several generatio...The war on drugs has resulted in several generations of black men being imprisoned at astoundingly high rates, for crimes that white people are just as guilty of. That seems like a pretty significant civil rights issue to me. But for people with power and influence in the Democratic party, gay marriage is just a much higher priority than drug policy reform.Couveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00926561539205771774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-42171642382099525892013-10-23T15:31:56.325-05:002013-10-23T15:31:56.325-05:00I guess I'm taking this as a given that this i...I guess I'm taking this as a given that this isn't really an issue for the politicians, and probably won't be for a few years. In which case, polling does matter depending on how states seek to change their laws (such as Colorado and Washington, but also in various medical marijuana states). I presume that pretty much everywhere there's been legalisation or decriminalisation in any form here in the US, it's been referendum-driven, and polling does seem to matter there.<br /><br />As to politicians and policies, it seems that the major choice folks have faced isn't whether to legalise, but what to do when someone else already has. To that end, I'd guess that "Should the Federal Government arrest people for use of Marijuana in places where the state has legalised it?" probably polls significantly more pro-pot than "should it be legal?"theBitterFignoreply@blogger.com