Marijuana Laws

[bartl]

Let me preface this by saying that, over the years, I have gotten a LOT of good information about the drug laws, particularly about the marijuana laws, from Grant (and, if you haven't heard it, try and convince him to give his theory on the connection between the marijuana laws and the pulp/comic book industry). However, I have a (very) minor quibble with the account in this week's column.

The original official basis of the illegality of marijuana was that it made people insane. It was only after lawyers started saying, "My client had smoked a joint before he committed the murder" that the government stance switched from marijuana making you insane to it being a gateway drug to harder drugs (I believe this was in the early 1950's).

[Steven Grant]

Technically.

But most of the propaganda frenzy around the move to criminalize marijuana (which was renamed "marijuana" from hemp pretty much just to stir up terror fears of swarthy Mexican drug peddlers, esp. in California and the Southwest) focused on a particular aspect of that "insanity": that it turned nice white boys into rapists, and nice white girls into minority-hungry sex addicts.

As for my "theory," though I predate his version by some years, Gerry Jones presents a pretty thorough discussion of it in his book about the origins of comics in the '30s, whose name I forget, but you can get it from Amazon... Really good book, by the way...

- Grant

[Michael P]

That would be "Men of Tomorrow." I remember the organized crime connection to the pulp/comics industry, but not anything about marijuana. Then again, it's been two years since I read it.

[Lord Destiny]

Anybody who's been around marijuana use knows the whole criminalization is hooey.

Every person I know who smoked pot began their chemical recreation with alcohol. So if MJ is illegal because of "this leads to that," then it all starts with alcohol.

The most hilarious moment of the marijuana debate was when NFL runningback Ricky Williams was suspended for it and a bunch of idiot talking heads on my TV kept claiming it was a "performance enhancer"! Stupidest thing I ever heard.

But I do agree that pot smoking intensifies paranoia. (But again, how much of that is due to it being illegal? Commiting even a traffic violation makes me a bit on edge every time.)

[bartl]

Technically.

But most of the propaganda frenzy around the move to criminalize marijuana (which was renamed "marijuana" from hemp pretty much just to stir up terror fears of swarthy Mexican drug peddlers, esp. in California and the Southwest) focused on a particular aspect of that "insanity": that it turned nice white boys into rapists, and nice white girls into minority-hungry sex addicts

.

Absolutely. It was when the "gateway drug" aspect came into it with which I disagreed. But I would have LOVED to have seen the look on prosecutors faces when defense lawyers came up with the "marijuana defense" (to those not familiar with it: since the official position of the government, contrary to practically every medical expert, and also contrary to the official position of the AMA, was that smoking marijuana, even a single joint, made people insane, if the prosecution tried to counteract the "marijuana made my client temporarily insane", the defense could just use the U.S. government as its authority).

As for my "theory," though I predate his version by some years, Gerry Jones presents a pretty thorough discussion of it in his book about the origins of comics in the '30s, whose name I forget, but you can get it from Amazon... Really good book, by the way...

I would like to point out that I only started using the word "theory" in conjunction with it because you asked me to. I think it may have even been in the MOTO discussion area.

[bartl]

But I do agree that pot smoking intensifies paranoia. (But again, how much of that is due to it being illegal? Commiting even a traffic violation makes me a bit on edge every time.)

I will admit that I had the good (bad?) fortune to be literally allergic to marijuana smoke (and, yes, I know and knew about brownies). However, I will tell you that just because I believe that the laws against recreational drugs are unconstitutional doesn't mean that I consider them a "good" thing; I have seen people really screw their lives up with habitual marijuana smoking without any need to go to anything stronger. Alcohol, too. And I consider barbiturates and amphetamines to be among the worst of all ( I remember when crack first came out, and I was warning people about crystal meth, and nobody believed me).

Still, my major thought on the subject is "Legalize drugs. Think about it as evolution in action."

[Steven Grant]

. It was when the "gateway drug" aspect came into it with which I disagreed.

Yes, originally marijuana wasn't a "gateway drug" in the sense that two puffs of a joint and you needed a bigger kick, say a heroin injection. The original idea wasn't that pot smokers "moved on" to other drugs so much as the (at least somewhat more accurate) concept that smoking pot wiped out your comprehension of right and wrong, and any capacity for rational thought, so that you'd be much less inclined to say no to the offer of harder drugs. Over time, this compressed into the shorthand version that using pot causes an insatiable desire for harder drugs, and that acceptance of the notion that pot is okay automatically means one accepts that harder drugs are equally acceptable.

But this is also based on the notion that all drugs are narcotic in nature, and metabolize the same way, and that's just plain wrong.

- Grant

[Brother Zag]

Marijuana is only a "gateway" into the usage of any harder drugs because to obtain and use it, you've got to enter into the "underground economy" where other illegal substances are also easily available. Also, when someone uses Marijuana and discovers that it is NOT the demon weed portrayed by the authorities, they *might* be inclined to believe that the authorities are lying to them about the dangers of harder drugs as well, an incorrect assumption, but one fueled by the insane "War On Drugs" that lumps pot and other psychedelics in with the narcotics.

BOTH of these "problems" with pot are easily alleviated by legalizing Marijuana.

This would also help alleviate the overcrowded prison situation in this country, which is truly getting out of hand. Just in today's paper, it says 1 in every 100 people in the US is in prison, and here in Vermont, we now spend more on our prisons than we do on higher education.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

.

Absolutely. It was when the "gateway drug" aspect came into it with which I disagreed. But I would have LOVED to have seen the look on prosecutors faces when defense lawyers came up with the "marijuana defense"

The marijuana defense was a gateway defense to the twinkie defense!

Also, when someone uses Marijuana and discovers that it is NOT the demon weed portrayed by the authorities, they *might* be inclined to believe that the authorities are lying to them about the dangers of harder drugs as well, an incorrect assumption, but one fueled by the insane "War On Drugs" that lumps pot and other psychedelics in with the narcotics.

Bingo!
If you try it and discover you just had a good time instead of your life going to shit, then you think 'well, if they deceived me about this, they must've deceived about the others as well', and the next thing you know, you've popped a pill, are dancing (DANCING!) to music you couldn't stand to hear normally, and having great sex with someone you met that night.

If they legalised it, they could at least push moderation, and make it less of a dirty secret for those who are taking way too much.

[bartl]

If they legalised it, they could at least push moderation, and make it less of a dirty secret for those who are taking way too much.

Well, here's the way I see it. Recreational drugs are illegal because they alter the mind in a way with which the government does not like. However, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution would be meaningless if there was not an inherent freedom of thought. Therefore, it is important that, although it is only implied rather than expressly stated, freedom of thought be recognized as a basic human right. This would make the laws against recreational drugs inherently unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, as the United States moves from a Social Contract state to a Divine Right state, the concept of "rights" is getting diluted. Witness, for example, "hate crime" laws, an attack on freedom of thought from a different angle.

[Brother Zag]

Well, here's the way I see it. Recreational drugs are illegal because they alter the mind in a way with which the government does not like. However, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution would be meaningless if there was not an inherent freedom of thought. Therefore, it is important that, although it is only implied rather than expressly stated, freedom of thought be recognized as a basic human right. This would make the laws against recreational drugs inherently unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, as the United States moves from a Social Contract state to a Divine Right state, the concept of "rights" is getting diluted. Witness, for example, "hate crime" laws, an attack on freedom of thought from a different angle.

Wow, I'm surprised (j/k,lol...), but I agree with you here, Bart, from your cogent constitutional analysis down to your hate crime comment. It might surprise you that a left winger like myself agrees with you on hate crime laws, but I do. To me, it's an artificial distinction. A crime against another person is a crime, and at the very least involves some hate or socio-pathology on the part of the criminal. I'm not gay, not part of a minority group... does that mean if I get beaten up, robbed or killed that it's somehow less heinous? I just don't get that.

[Steven Grant]

Witness, for example, "hate crime" laws, an attack on freedom of thought from a different angle.

It depends what's meant by "hate crimes." I think there are real hate crimes, but I do think in order to qualify there has to be some sort of physical violence involved. I mean, sure, assault laws already cover physical assault but I think different circumstances should apply if you get into a bar fight and beat up someone and if you're out prowling for blacks/Jews/homosexuals/Republicans/etc. to beat up or worse. Speaks to motive, your honor, and there are valid legal precedents for that sort of thing.

To expand the definition of "hate crimes" to, say, mere speech, however, yeah, I agree that in most cases that's simply an attempt by one group to silence the opinions of another. On the other hand, spray-painting swastikas on a synagogue or hanging nooses on a black guy's porch or whatever, that obviously goes a little beyond mere vandalism in intent.

Of course, there are always loonies who want to declaim speech that disagrees with their POV as "hate crimes" but if you start with this standard - which, I agree, is unConstitutional - you have to apply it equally. When it gets to the point where, say, Evangelical Christians start denouncing as expression of atheism as a hate crime (or vice versa; I've heard it both ways) the whole concept has degenerated into total uselessness.

I think the minimum standard for "hate crime" is that there has to be a separate and identifiable crime involved, something physical, and only then can any standard involving "hate crimes" be applied. And even then the standards should be pretty rigorous. There's a certain validity to the concept of a hate crime but as with most things opportunists want to apply it far beyond its scope.

- Grant

[Brother Zag]

I think different circumstances should apply if you get into a bar fight and beat up someone and if you're out prowling for blacks/Jews/homosexuals/Republicans/etc. to beat up or worse. Speaks to motive, your honor, and there are valid legal precedents for that sort of thing.

I have to disagree. If you're beating up people in bars, you're assaulting folks, and your motive for it is despicable no matter what that motive is. Violence against another is violence, and I don't see why someone who isn't a member of a minority group should count as any less of a victim.

[Steven Grant]

It's not a matter of the victim counting as less of a victim, it's a matter of the crime counting as more than one crime. If you hit a pedestrian while driving, it's a serious crime. If you intentionally go looking for a pedestrian to run down, it's a more serious crime. (Or, to use the bar fight analogy, if you end up in a bar fight, it's serious, but if you went into the bar looking for a fight, it's more serious.)

- Grant

[Brother Zag]

Don't we already have degrees of law that fit those degrees of crime already, though? Accident versus planned event? Self-Defense? Maybe hatred needs to be defined as contributing to whether something is manslaughter or premeditated murder one? It seems trying to define a criminal's hatred is addressing the state of mind of the criminal, which is not new. But creating a whole new category of crime to address what people are thinking really opens up a can of worms.