Patrick Kennedy's Crusade

...
And yes back to the main point, Marijuana can ruin lives. The burden of the proof is not on the law but on the drug's proponents itself, which can not and have not been able to proven reasonable Caveat Emptor medical safety and proper societal safety. Its not even a crusade - It's a statement of reality and something which can not be undermined without scientific consensus.

No - the burden of proof is on you to show that a democracy/republic must function according to your rules.
 
No - the burden of proof is on you to show that a democracy/republic must function according to your rules.

No offense - But the policies have already been set by our Democracy. To overturn a set of policies according to the various foundations upholding them and the reasoning behind them - The other side needs to prove that our claims are both invalid and that Marijuana is indeed a safe enough drug. We already managed to get our views through our Democratic system. We can't simply go invalidating policies simply on "feeling".
 
Instead we invalidate them on reason followed by activism.
 
Which is immensely better than saying "I disagree with you, and you need to prove I'm wrong." Particularly when there is an implicit intent to reject contrary evidence so provided.
 
I was actually talking about statements from other politicians of the time that Prohibition was a success when I mentioned testimonials - In fact if you want testimonials, just check nearly the entire Supreme Court and the dozens of written statements on various cases involving prohibition (Use the December 1928 Digest, a shorter more condensed form if you are in a hurry and in Chronological order)

------
From the very link you provided: Alcoholism "directly attributable deaths" average for the decade before was 4.8 a year [And 5.2 discounting the first 2 years of major Prohibition in 1918 and 1919). Statistics vary from this era [My source was the 72nd Congress hearing on the voting of Repealing the amendment - so the data looks old] but that brings up a good point and actually argues my point even more. Prohibition was a local movement before it became a national movement. Various states and cities had proposed and implemented local bans on Prohibition as the movement for Prohibition grew strength. The Amendment itself was proposed at the very end of 1917and enjoyed the peak of its following in the 2 years after 1917 and was ratified by 36 states during 1918-1919 In fact the majority of the US had various forms of Prohibition in effect during 1918-1919. And even with your link the rate fell from 1918-1929 to 2.9 a year.

Also from the same website:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/homrate1.htm

Homicide rates averaged 8.1 homicides per 100k during the Prohibition's era. Following that for the next 10 years homicide rates averaged 7.1 per 100k. Comparing the net "direct" costs of Alcoholism to the net cost of homicides, yes that is a difference.

And Cirrhosis did drop drastically and never grew to levels pre-prohibition www.bu.edu/econ/files/2011/01/2004_40_Miron.pdf

And yes back to the main point, Marijuana can ruin lives. The burden of the proof is not on the law but on the drug's proponents itself, which can not and have not been able to proven reasonable Caveat Emptor medical safety and proper societal safety. Its not even a crusade - It's a statement of reality and something which can not be undermined without scientific consensus.

If you want to put people in cages for exercising their freedom the burden is on you - the "justification" for hurting millions is hypocritical and illogical for criminalizing pot while the state endorses booze and even allows people to drive with it in their system. Btw, did you know dry counties have more alcohol related accidents than wet counties?

I cant access your link about cirrhosis, got a different one?

While its true there were "dry" counties (the state of Miss. even banned it) before and after, major population centers weren't involved, so "a majority of the country" doesn't mean much within the context of our debate - even today ~%10 of the country and ~%6 of the population are in dry counties. Here's alcohol related deaths for Cook Co, Il (1910-1926)

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/e1920/chicagodeaths.htm

It doesn't support your argument, the rate was lower in the years before Prohibition and went up as Prohibition began and kept going up (and any under reporting means the rate was actually higher). The problem with your argument is crediting Prohibition for stuff before it even began while ignoring the results after the policy had time to cause a mess.

As for homicides, the two years starting and ending your chart - 1910 and 1944 - were also the lowest with 4.6 and 5 respectively. But the rate in 1933 was 9.7, thats double those rates. And 8.1 was not the average during Prohibition, it was 8.4 - 8.1 was the rate in 1924 and the rate kept going up after that. Your chart looks like a parabola with 1930-33 forming the top. The two ends before and after Prohibition are about 5 and the hump is almost 10.

Check this graph if you're having trouble seeing what happened during drug wars

http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.htm

This was below your chart:

Note that at it's height, the homicide rate under Prohibition was not disimilar to modern homicide and non-negligent manslaughter rates (as recorded in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports). These have hovered around the 9.2 +/- 1.0 per 100,000 mark for the past twenty years.

Crime went up in general too, from wiki

In a study of over 30 major U.S cities during the prohibition years of 1920 and 1921, the number of crimes increased by 24%. Additionally, theft and burglaries increased by 9%, homicide by 12.7%, assaults and battery rose by 13%, drug addiction by 44.6% and police department costs rose by 11.4%. This was largely the result of “black-market violence” as well as the diverting of law enforcement resources elsewhere. Despite the hope of the prohibitionist movement that the outlawing of alcohol would reduce crime, the reality was that the Volstead Act led to higher crime rates than were experienced prior to prohibition and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations.[69]

That was just one year into the policy, it got worse as you can see from the homicide rates.
 
You know you can average the years the following years and periods together right?

Including 1918-1919 The average homicide rate nationally according to your website, was 8.1 and only 8.3 without those 2 years. And as for the "direct" deaths, that is still only counting a small percentage of the positive effects from prohibition. Other effects one has to look at include suicide rate (a drop of nearly 50%).

And as for the modern rate being above 9 per 100k - Yes, because look at homicides over the last century? Notice how it spikes/rises on its own fairly organically on its own?
=========

And Berzerker, the policies for the state have been set. If you can not justify hurting millions of people by legalization without substantive control and regulation, then you will not be able to get your policies through our democratic system.
 
If you can not justify hurting millions of people by legalization without substantive control and regulation, then you will not be able to get your policies through our democratic system.
Well that's about every logical fallacy rolled into one. :crazyeye:
 
If you want to put people in cages for exercising their freedom the burden is on you - the "justification" for hurting millions is hypocritical and illogical for criminalizing pot while the state endorses booze and even allows people to drive with it in their system. Btw, did you know dry counties have more alcohol related accidents than wet counties?

And this doesn't use every logical fallacy either :crazyeye:?
============

Look - You need to have a winning argument and a strongly reasoned plan of action to be able to change Marijuana policy. Most pro-Marijuana supporters I have seen, haven't reconciled the fact that their evidence is severely lacking and tend to use hyperbole rather than fact to justify their opinion.

Marijuana does not have a winning argument, at the moment. If people are in support of enforcing existing law and supporting the physical and mental safety of people, it is not up to them to act to change the law :lol:. Without any scientific consensus Marijuana will stay illegal. Without any decent recent argument (which there has yet to be to deal with every issue that comes up with Marijuana), politically it stands little chance on a federal level or on a judicial level.
 
And pointing out that the other guy has logical fallacies is another logical fallacy. Not to be rude about it.

Anyway,
So the arguments of
  • Personal Freedom
  • Not damaging communities with over-imprisonment (in some states)
  • It health benefits (anti-carcinogens, medicinal value for physical and psychiatric conditions)
  • Anecdotes of creative and scientific types claiming it helped their work
  • For some, increased productivity and motivation
  • It helping to continue systemic racist feedback loops (minorities way more targeted even with a smaller proportion of use, leading to the entrenchment of bias and prejudice among law enforcement)
  • Hypocrisy and corruption with alcohol especially (but pharmaceuticals too) maintaining their legal status when those things are much more toxic
    • Following chemical drugs, that industries like video games, porn, and a few others, also have chemically addictive and lifestyle-atlering properties, all legal
    • Also would like to addend cigarettes, simply because we know they cost our healthcare industry huge amounts of money, raising prices for everyone and harming the user.
  • Following the above point and subpoint, the value in having a consistent legal system that maintain the faith of the population in the respectability of its laws
  • That police become feared for nonviolent offenders and therefore having a distorted effect on law enforcement
  • That it empowers organized crime to the point that our illegality means that tens of thousands of
  • Mexican citizens, most innocent, are getting killed every year so that their government can keep up with our requests of stopping drug flow (plus their own motivations)
  • That it is documented to bias police away from dealing with non-drug-related violent crimes and towards drug busts which nets the police departments much of the seized assets
  • and more
  • That its illegality is predicated on American moral conservatism tied directly to racism

Outweigh:
  • The promotion of more nationalistically cohesive drugs such as alcohol
  • Loss of motivation and productivity for many frequent users
  • Potential Health harms (though less than other legal things, there must be a few)
  • The hassle of reworking international treaties
  • Loss of revenue for certain private industries like prisons and alcohol, and possibly even cigarettes (some people smoke at nightclubs to socialize in a quiet area. Some might switch to weed)
  • It would change the nation's emotional status quo

You make the positive assertion, Gucumatz, that cannabis does not have any winning arguments. But it has many winning arguments. Lots of things don't have cultural majority support have turned out to be the superior option.
 
You know you can average the years the following years and periods together right?

That wouldn't be kosher, trend lines matter and Prohibition created a mess that required time for "normalization". The gangs were already in place with tentacles all over the country and the violent atmosphere didn't disappear over night. The slaughter continued and a ban on machine guns followed, all because of a drug war. But its obvious from the chart you posted the homicide rate went up with Prohibition (including your 1918-19 extension which doesn't count anyway - the pre-ban didn't include major cities so the black market wasn't fully motivated) and ~doubled the rates a ~decade before and after Prohibition. How do you deny that? With averages?

The symbol ^ roughly represents the homicide rate from 1900-1960 with the last 3 years of Prohibition at the top. It was getting worse when it was repealed, and the repeal wasn't total, it went back to the way it was before Prohibition with many dry areas and a well established black market to provide the booze. Calling Prohibition a success based on the beginning of the policy when the black market was being created while ignoring the results after the black market exposed it as a disaster is illogical. The homicide rate under Reagan's drug war peaked above 10, Prohibition hit 9.7 before repeal - it would have kept going up and any gains from the alleged reduction in consumption would pale in comparison to the number of people dying in the war. And those homicide rates dont include the thousands who died from industrial alcohol poisoned by the government to deter use.

Including 1918-1919 The average homicide rate nationally according to your website, was 8.1 and only 8.3 without those 2 years. And as for the "direct" deaths, that is still only counting a small percentage of the positive effects from prohibition. Other effects one has to look at include suicide rate (a drop of nearly 50%).

The average from 1920-1933 is 8.4 - and using that average leads one to ask for a breakdown of those years to look for trends. The trend was upward, you cant judge Prohibition based on homicide rates when it started or averages. But if we are, the average from 1900-1916 was under 5 and it went way up with Prohibition, more than doubling when the madness ended. It took a few years for the rate to come down to its pre-drug war rates.

And as for the modern rate being above 9 per 100k - Yes, because look at homicides over the last century? Notice how it spikes/rises on its own fairly organically on its own?

The spikes were during drug wars, 1924-33 and 1982-90, the low points represent periods of low intensity prohibition or a patchwork of legal and banned drugs. Pot was banned in 1937 and then subsidized for WWII but a war on pot didn't begin until Nixon got mad at the hippies for opposing his war. That was quickly followed by traffickers moving heroin and cocaine - easier to conceal and much more profitable - and the cocaine wars under Reagan.

It was during Reagan's war that juvenile crime skyrocketed. Congress and many states dramatically increased punishments for adults for dealing drugs. The black market response was to employ minors, gang recruitment exploded and the gangs expanded across the country. I remember watching C-SPAN after Clinton got elected, law enforcement and politicians had a big meeting to discuss the violence from the drug war. There were rural sheriffs complaining about gangs out of nowhere dealing guns and cocaine, and of course violence. No country for old men...

And Berzerker, the policies for the state have been set. If you can not justify hurting millions of people by legalization without substantive control and regulation, then you will not be able to get your policies through our democratic system.

The policy requires justification, that includes maintaining the policy. And I dont know how you equate abducting millions of people and putting them in cages with not doing that. I assume you mean I am hurting people by not joining your war, that I am responsible when pot smokers hurt others if pot is legal. Does that mean you're responsible every time sober people hurt others?

And this doesn't use every logical fallacy either :crazyeye:?

What?

Look - You need to have a winning argument and a strongly reasoned plan of action to be able to change Marijuana policy. Most pro-Marijuana supporters I have seen, haven't reconciled the fact that their evidence is severely lacking and tend to use hyperbole rather than fact to justify their opinion.

Marijuana does not have a winning argument, at the moment. If people are in support of enforcing existing law and supporting the physical and mental safety of people, it is not up to them to act to change the law :lol:. Without any scientific consensus Marijuana will stay illegal. Without any decent recent argument (which there has yet to be to deal with every issue that comes up with Marijuana), politically it stands little chance on a federal level or on a judicial level.

I did look, not a thing about my alleged logical fallacies. Now where was your winning argument again? Telling me more voters oppose legalization is not a justification, you wouldn't argue slavery and genocide are justified because of a vote, would you?
 

Oh nothing against the discussion we are having Berzerker [I have nothing against the particular hyperboles used here - since you do attempt to backup most of your claims], it was more of a general comment to Hygro. Pointing out logical fallacies while committing logical fallacy yourself, when there are logical fallacies being used to bolster your argument, just makes you look ignorant in this case Hygro. Sort of like grammar Nazing - only to make a mistake yourself, because you yourself are doing the exact thing you are commenting about :lol:. But I digress...

Not damaging communities with over-imprisonment (in some states)

The strongest argument you all have. That being said, no one said rehabilitation can not be an option. The reason decriminalization in Portugal has worked to an extent is because Portugal has worked on established a national stigma against Marijuana and by attempting to rehabilitate people through counseling, doctors, their families, etc.

Not damaging communities with over-imprisonment (in some states)

It health benefits (anti-carcinogens, medicinal value for physical and psychiatric conditions)
Anecdotes of creative and scientific types claiming it helped their work
For some, increased productivity and motivation
Hypocrisy and corruption with alcohol especially (but pharmaceuticals too) maintaining their legal status when those things are much more toxic
Following chemical drugs, that industries like video games, porn, and a few others, also have chemically addictive and lifestyle-atlering properties, all legal
Also would like to addend cigarettes, simply because we know they cost our healthcare industry huge amounts of money, raising prices for everyone and harming the user.
As has been said in countless a study - Medicinal properties =/= make a medicine. There have been countless properties and side effects that studies have shown create psychological particularly and to a lesser extent physical risks on consumers. And with pharmaceuticals, many of them would be overjoyed if we lowered our standards even more by letting Marijuana become legal. The FDA has been under assault by Conservatives under drug interests and liberals under Marijuana interests - but it does not change the facts, Marijuana is considered too risky and dangerous on the body for mass uncontrolled use - And while polticians have worked on creating loopholes and redefining the purpose of the FDA - Marijuana's legalization will only further harm consumer safety. Until scientific consensus is reached, Marijuana will have to play by the same rules as any other substance.

Alcohol has been growing in culture once again. Tobacco on the other hand has been stigmatized greatly for the betterment of society over these last couple of decades. Would I have greater restrictions on both? Yes. Have interests behind the two made both particularly difficult and in some cases impossible to achieve? Yes. Marijuana interests are growing and are powerful, but are still not on the same level as Tobacco and Alcohol interests.

[*]That it empowers organized crime to the point that our illegality means that tens of thousands of [*]Mexican citizens, most innocent, are getting killed every year so that their government can keep up with our requests of stopping drug flow (plus their own motivations)
[*]That it is documented to bias police away from dealing with non-drug-related violent crimes and towards drug busts which nets the police departments much of the seized assets
[*]and more
[*]That its illegality is predicated on American moral conservatism tied directly to racism
[/list]

That its illegality is predicated on American Moral Conservatism??? And Tied directly to Racism??? I am half Hispanic (To be more particular, half Guatemalan [Kaqchikel specifically]) and I can tell you this, I am pretty sure my concern and those of other liberals aren't predicated on racism :rolleyes:

82% of Mexicans support their war on drugs. In Guatemala we are home to the stronghold of one of the biggest of the cartels, the Zetas. Many of the politicians in Guatemala run against both the cartels and drugs in general. I have had family effected by the Drug War as I have said and I prefer not to go too much into it, because I don't want to tell the world all about my family. But let me just say this, I have had family members suffer both monetarily and physically in part to the drug war. I have had family effected by Marijuana.
=============

And yes - A winning argument would mean having an argument that doesn't defeat consumer safeguards, ignores science, and puts support out for uncontrolled processes of drugs. Because the argument you have made can be and would shot down both scientifically, judicially (Current state law attempts going around the FDA and the federal government), and politically. Undermining the FDA further isn't useful for anyone, do you really want to be like the Republicans and destroy vital bureaucracy like they have done with the ATF?
 
Yes, the origins of the US ban of cannabis stemmed directly from the overwhelming racist propaganda, scapegoating black people, of course. You have to understand that old school American morals-based conservatism was extremely racist and a powerful motivator. Hell, cannabis even got renamed "marijuana" so that it could seem Mexican.

Also, I brought this up before but you seem to have missed it. I find it strange you find "rehabilitation" a necessary reaction to cannabis use.


Your best point is the FDA situation. But there's a pretty simple solution, it's a garden plant. There's poison hemlock growing within a mile or two of me, and that's totally legal. Lots of garden plants have very poisonous elements. While cannabis isn't really poisonous, the precedent exists. Cannabis grows naturally here. If people want to smoke their plants, hey, what's to stop them? This way we avoid the slippery slope.

Spoiler on other matters :

P.S. your "makes you look ignorant, Hygro" commentis not only unnecessary, and added irony for being an ad hom, and a more telling bit of irony I won't articulate, but is also plain incorrect. You said I looked ignorant because I somehow hypocritically used it to bolster my argument or something. But my reply had nothing to do with my cannabis argument, so that isn't even possible.

I was however pointing out that your final point, your winning point, was a loaded question, an appeal to authority, and employing the friend-enemy distinction as an empirical reality. The ad hom was a subset of the friend-enemy. I was impressed how much you packed in what could have read "it will take an airtight argument to turn public opinion".
 
It made it look more ignorant turning it into a side show which had nothing to do with the debate at hand. I by no means enjoy the mostly pointless nature of the semantics of trying to call out fallacies, grammar, etc. in other people - but if you want to go there I'll give you a brief overview of what you were doing. You are using affirming of a disjunct to rationalize what you conceive as a racist scapegoating behavior. And I was alluding to the fact that throughout this thread other Marijuana supporters have used various logical fallacies both through their loaded statements and in conjunctions. So pardon me, but I find it annoying when anyone waters down an argument or debate down to simple semantics.
================

I see the point you are trying to make with hemlock, but I don't see it really working. Hemlock has been used for its medicinal properties by herbalists. That being said, no one in their right mind would recommend it as an actual medicine. And many of these garden plants don't have nearly enough use or potential for abuse to deserve extensive regulation as other harmful drugs may have. And I am sort of incredulous at how you think letting them smoke would be avoiding the slippery slope
 
I'm don't understand what you mean with my supposed comments of "racist scapegoating behavior"? Where's the racism? Where's the scapegoating? I think neither you nor I have exhibited any racism whatsoever.Please explain that one because I feel we aren't even speaking the same language. Maybe a discussion of semantics is exactly what we should have.


Anyway, it avoids a slippery slope because it puts it squarely into the realm of plant property and at most, herbal supplements. Those are already fairly unregulated, and it's not a problem. A simple reclassification (to, in many respects, what it already is) means it isn't at any hypocritical odds with the FDA. Tainted food kills. Milligrams of untested compounds can kill. And legal plants can kill. Cannabis doesn't have a remotely feasible overdose level which makes it acutely safer than many things the FDA does not, nor particularly sees a need, to regulate. So we're in the clear! Slippery slope wise. What things would follow that you find a risk?

You still keep talking about abuse and categorizing it as definitively harmful while the jury is out on its benefits. I believe this to not be true.

The oncologists at UCSF's medical school (top 5 med school in the world), are confident that cannabis has direct anti-cancer properties, most certainly lung cancer. Professors at UCSD's medical school lament that federal controls on the drug (class A, a very politically motivated assignment) prevents them from even doing a lot of the lab work, let alone clinical trials. The New Zealand study that smoking cannabis as a teenager leads directly to lower IQ as an adult turned out to be flawed and it's just a socioeconomic difference after all (which was ballpark obvious and I believe I pointed out something similar in the thread that announced that news). There is currently a possible link between heavy cannabis use and testicular cancer, but it didn't control for causal psychological links between an increase in likelihood to use cannabis and the psychological background that can later manifest into health problems. Another UCSD med school MD-researcher has stated recently that we know there is medicinal value, and that we have studied its safety enough to make an informed conclusion that its restrictions can and should be very relaxed. At UC Davis's med school they found that vaporizing cannabis with present levels of THC (i.e. not the placebo), be it small amounts of THC or not small amounts, definitively reduced chronic neuropathic pain.

We're talking doctors who research at the top universities.

Meanwhile we have loads of anecdotes that effective legalization won't upend society. In my city in California, you can be smoking a joint while having a conversation with a police officer, and the worst that would happen is a ticket. I know of one gentleman who did just that and was not bothered. I've witnessed people passing joints and blunts in front of police, and the police don't care. People sell semi-openly on the street in one part of town. I know of two other individuals who were stopped by police for unrelated activities, were searched, were discovered to have cannabis, and while the officers did some stuff regarding why they were stopped, they returned the cannabis to the users. The only people I know who were actually stopped for smoking were stopped by an officer with a moral opposition to the drug, but he didn't issue a citation in the end anyway.

What's my city like? Scores pretty damn well among quality of life, vibrant economy, vibrant culture, not all that much crime especially given the location and nearby murder capitals of the nation (all major cities in the US have an area that stakes such claims, and in terms of actual city logic and modeling, the Bay Area is one city). The schools aren't bad at all. The university, with high rates of cannabis smoking, is the top public university in the world and believe me it's not just a sizable minority of students, but professors too. And this city gets its cannabis from Northern California, so there's verrrry little drug trade violence.

So that's all anecdotal. But in a town with de facto legalization and high prevalence, with such high standards of living, good health relative to similar environmental conditions, and participation in the top industries and culture and academia, I just don't see what the big deal is. I don't see the dangers at all. At least not anywhere near the kind you discuss.
 
Yes, the origins of the US ban of cannabis stemmed directly from the overwhelming racist propaganda, scapegoating black people, of course.

By the way, I am not accusing you of racism you misunderstood my post. I said you have tried to claim that Marijuana was banned on racist grounds. Many Marijuana supporters think there is a "racist" undertone behind its illegality and lack the proof to show that their opinions translated into any direct legislative reality and use their confirmation bias to ignore the other factors of the day.

And the banning of Marijuana and Opiates come from similar grounds. Once again you have to look at the history of the FDA and the Pure Food and Drug act to see that claim doesn't have any weight. Mexico itself banned Marijuana over 10 years before the US did and enjoyed generally wide spread support in Mexico when that occurred.
=================

And a narcotic and controlled substance does not fall into the same category of most plants. Moreover, your argument is largely moot by the simple fact that is indeed illegal to grow Hemlock in several states and illegal to sell on large levels due to poison classifications and in fact many other "herbal" plants are likewise illegal to be grown in various states [Much less sold on large scale - but the fact is the government can't regulate everything, why waste the resources of our government on non-issues. They can be made illegal if ever needed as stated under federal policy] So in fact, you may have just reversed your own slipper slop argument here - we do ban and regulate various poisions and materials not deemed fit for consumption for various medical reasons. Making exceptions to Marijuana without proper scientific consensus against its side effects can only be done by overriding and weakening the FDA. So yes, it is a slippery slope after all - weakening the markets to untested pharmaceuticals, unlicensed plant materials and "false cures", etc.

And Marijuana is by far not the only drug to have medicinal purposes that have been deemed to have anti-carcinogenic materials. That being said how many of these drugs that have been tested and shown to have a correlation are let onto the market? Here is a fact from 2001-2011 the FDA and the CDER have only approved 23 new drugs per year. And only 3 Biologics per year are approved. Marijuana does not meet the standards set by and used for every other pharmaceutical or drug in the US.
 
Fair point on the slippery slope.

On the racism bit, racial motivation is of course not a "disjunct" as you earlier said. It is entirely relevant because it whips up a populace and a legislative body to treat the issue unscientifically, with a resounding cultural impact. We know that cannabis is way misclassified in its drug category. Why is that? We know it and many other (but not all) drugs were criminalized on moral grounds, which is not scientific at all. It increases its degree of illegality beyond what is consistent and reasonable.

We have a very detailed and strong historical grasp of race in this country. We can trace the primary historical agents in this country's fiber to just a small handful of themes, and racism is one of the big ones. We will never have "100% proof!" that it was banned on purely racist grounds, because that would literally require "hi, I'm banning weed because I am a racist and hate black people, and will play on white America's discomfort with Mexicans to achieve it". No, instead we have to cross reference the views, intent, and consequences of those promoting and supporting the ban. If we can philosophize or intuit good semantic categories of interpretation, we can run meaningful and rigorous analysis and come up with definitive evidence that racism played a strong role in the banning of cannabis. We can construct an empirical narrative, can run regression models, and can examine all kinds of primary and secondary source material to make confident claims. My non-expert education in this issue tells me that such analysis has already been done and came to such conclusions.

This is not to say that cannabis is banned purely out of racism. Hardly so. It is also a threat to Fordist modes of production, but not a threat to the modes of production that came before Fordism (and right on time, its ban), nor after. The problem is, like wages and prices, laws are "sticky".

There is also people, both users and observers who have observed it to be harmful. There are also those who postulate logically why, though their premises may (and I believe are) wildly off so their logic comes to false conclusions. There are those who have a total fear of the concept of drugs in general and will do everything they can to rationalize it. There are those who have a strict principles of how a society should look and feel and think that cannabis is an anathema.

Each one of those things is worth a discussion. Little of that is scientific or consistent with the logic of why certain things are legal, illegal, or otherwise. It just so happens that all of those things contribute to its status. I'll wrap up this point in the next two paragraphs. And on to my song's bridge before the final chorus!:

You'll notice the least harmful drugs, (hallucinogens, MDMA, and the hardest of the softest drugs, cannabis) are the most illegal. The most physically and socially damaging ones like alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine (with heroine not fitting the trend) are much less illegal. Which ones interfere with rote modes of production? Hint, the stimulants push you deeper into the system, not away from it.

So what's the point? The point is, we are stacking reasons to ban and restrict this drug that are motivated by forces that are not in accordance to our highest values of science, liberty, sound philosophy, and equality unto the law. We could have a consistent drug policy that banned drugs for consistent proportional reasons--which is something you more or less articulate (you call for more restrictions on legal things). But we don't, and given what's legal--caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, aspirin, others--and given why those things are legal from a non-corrupt standpoint, cannabis is irrationally and severely mischaracterized. Enough science is in, and that science says to fix our legal discrepancy, we need to ease, if not eliminate, restrictions.

**
And you are right, it doesn't meet the standards required of drug manufacturers, but for the opposite reason. It is way more regulated and prohibited in research than the chemicals the pharmaceuticals are playing with. So it could never even go through that very stringent process. AKA, of course it doesn't meet standards, because it gets special treatment of having already amazingly higher standards.


Many of the other illegal drugs with demonstrated medicinal use value are either just as questionably illegal (again, LSD, MDMA), or much shown to be *seriously* harmful in certain common-enough cases but are actually prescribed by doctors in certain circumstances (cocaine, heroine, and methamphetamine). And those less illegal, more harmful ones have clear and much more legal and somewhat less harmful prescription analogues (methylphenidate, morphine, dextroamphetamine).


P.S. I like that you don't quote war. Makes for a much better discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom