
Marijuana advocates hope to rise from 'prohibition' - georgecmu
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/01/us/marijuana-legalization-and-prohibition/
======
rdl
I just don't understand why, given all the other problems we have, marijuana
is important enough to prohibit even if there were some benefit to doing so.
It's clearly not a terrible scourge, even with zero benefit ascribed to
reducing the scale of drug war, enforcement costs, civil liberties, civil war
in Mexico, huge prison population, etc.

Especially once you factor in all the costs of prohibition, it makes no sense.
If marijuana were legal today, it wouldn't be worth prohibiting; at most it
might be worth requiring standard disclosures of THC percentages and maybe
restricting to 18+, and specific driving or other professional restrictions.

Because it's banned, the whole issue gets attention way out of proportion to
the actual importance.

~~~
dmix
The DEA/DHS are the governments consultants on drug policy.

These agencies have a strong incentives to keep the charade going. Especially
now with all of the overseas military operations ending and a ton of
technology and government workers needing employment.

~~~
tptacek
This is sophomore dorm room thinking. 49-51% of Americans do not believe that
marijuana should remain criminal because they've been brainwashed by the DEA.

I'm comfortable telling you what _isn't_ the reason for criminalization
(government brainwashing), but less comfortable positing reasons for it. But
if I had to guess, I'd say this:

People are inherently loss-averse; it's a fundamental part of our psychology.
Most people (I think correctly, _but I understand that reasonable people
disagree_ ) judge that making cannabis use as widespread as alcohol and
tobacco would be a net negative. They worry about that, and it clouds their
judgement about the ongoing costs of enforcement, especially because most
people never come into contact with the direct costs of enforcement.

~~~
rdl
49-51% of Americans don't need to be brainwashed by DEA. There _are_ some
entrenched interests who actually fight for the drug war -- police,
corrections officers, etc. -- out of their own self-interest and a misguided
belief that it's the only way to save society. They contribute a lot of money
to the "keep drugs illegal" marketing and research, which has worked for so
long to keep the general public pro-prohibition.

(I think 80-90% of people have no real direct opinion on the drug war either
way, except from what they're told by the prohibitionists. "It will harm our
children, keep your kids away from drugs" is a powerful message. Racism was a
powerful tool in getting prohibition enacted in the first place.)

This is why I think LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) is one of the
most important anti-prohibition organizations out there.

~~~
tptacek
The police aren't fighting in favor of the drug war. The police in Chicago
favor drug tickets. The commissioner of state police in _Indiana_ (ffs!) just
came out against the drug war.

Corrections officers, maybe, but I dispute that ordinary Americans pay
attention to the interests and positions of corrections officers the way they
do police.

~~~
rdl
Not local police anymore (although 20-30 years ago, I think they did support
it). Federal, and the entire economy built up around the drug prohibition
industry. It's an embarrassingly small industry, but it _really_ cares about
this issue, which means it is a political issue. Just like 99% of people don't
care that much about farm subsidies, but 1% stake their votes and budgets on
it, so it persists.

In California, the corrections officers are one of the 3 strongest unions
(actually, MORE influential than the police, second only to teachers I think).
It's pretty insane. No one really cares about them, except that they have
enough money and votes to be a major political force.

I think the drug war as a whole will be ended in 10-20 years, with prohibition
at the level of stopping illegal/untaxed cigarettes today, and starting by
removing marijuana from the schedules and moving a fair number of schedule I
to schedule II (MDMA, in particular). But it's interesting to know why and how
we got to where we are.

~~~
tptacek
The whole thrust of the article we're commenting on is that marijuana is being
decriminalized. Decriminalization and normalization of cannabis is inevitable.
Yes, it's happening at the state level instead of federally, but that's how
stuff like this is supposed to work; eventually, the majority of states that
empty their holding cells of petty cannabis offenders will bully the remaining
states that criminalize it with some a federal law of some sort.

It's obvious and banal to point out that there are government actors who
oppose legalization. Of course there are. There would have to be, or marijuana
would already be legal. But it is not true to suggest that law enforcement
uniformly opposes legalization. The law enforcement bodies that tend to
actually matter in policy decisions --- state and large urban police forces
--- are caving on this issue. They can't afford enforcement anymore.

For what it's worth, I do not believe that MDMA and LSD and opiates will be
decriminalized. At best, they'll obtain the status fentanyl has today: drugs
that are prescribable, but only under close scrutiny.

------
BryanB55
I'm not sure how I feel about legalizing it but part of me thinks we don't
need yet another substance that will make people more likely to act like
idiots or endanger others.

I get the idea of having the freedom to do what you wish with your health and
body but it just seems inevitable that there will be more people abusing it,
using it as a gateway drug and causing negative affects on society. I can't
really think of anything positive society as a whole would gain from this
except maybe tax money?

[Edit] Then again, a lot of this can be said about alcohol. I'm not sure which
one is easier to abuse.

~~~
Symmetry
Generally speaking, I expect that legal cannabis will tend to cut down on
alcohol use, and I would tend to see this as a good thing.

Cannabis tends to be less addictive than alcohol, it's pretty much impossible
to kill yourself with an overdose, and people intoxicated with it tend to
overestimate how impaired they are rather than underestimate it like with
alcohol.

I've seen a bunch of different studies using different methodologies to come
up with various rankings of drugs by degree of harm [1][2][3], but every one
of them rates cannabis as safer than alcohol.

EDIT: I expect that the "gateway drug" effect is due to people finding out
that pot is much less dangerous than they are led to believe. People have
always heard that using illegal drugs would kill them, then find that their
friends are using it safely and assume that all illegal drugs are similarly
safe.

[1]<http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/drug-ranking.htm>
[2]<http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774.full>
[3][http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourc...](http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004477)

~~~
tptacek
People intoxicated with cannabis may be overestimating their impairment
because smoking cannabis is a crime, which is a factor that is cancelled out
by legalization. I know from hanging out with smokers that concern about
degree of impairment tends to come up only when contact with law enforcement
is a possibility.

~~~
drivebyacct2
So people don't smoke and drive because they don't want to be caught doing
something illegal. Seeing as DUI is still illegal in Washington, I don't see
how this changes anything.

Unless you're saying that because cannabis is legal I'm going to think that a
cop is more likely to let me go, or be less likely to check me or what? The
legality of cannabis use doesn't change the likelihood of me getting pulled
over, no?

Or am I misunderstanding where you're coming from?

~~~
tptacek
Yes, I am saying that when cannabis is legal, its users are no longer going to
be continuously paranoid that the mere detection of its presence is going to
be enough to have them imprisoned.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Right, (barring the discussion about the differences in impairment between
cannabis and alcohol...) those are the same type of people that think they can
get away with drinking and driving. They're arrogant, selfish people. But I
don't really buy that they're sitting at home being good law abiding citizens
waiting one hour for every drink or one hour for every toke before driving to
Taco Bell right now, only to abandon that once it's legal.

~~~
tptacek
No, I disagree. People think they can get away with drinking and driving
because they almost overwhelmingly can get away with drinking and driving, and
because the penalties for DUI conviction are routinized (they're more severe
than a ticket but, barring injuries, less severe than any felony). Neither is
the case for cannabis. If you're pulled over and your car reeks of weed, your
car will be searched, and if cannabis turns up, everyone in the car is likely
to be arrested. Your prosecution afterwards will not be routine; if you're
found guilty, it is very likely to cost you your job in a way a DUI conviction
isn't.

~~~
drivebyacct2
>People think they can get away with drinking and driving because they almost
overwhelmingly can get away with drinking and driving

The legality of cannabis does not affect the likelihood of me getting pulled
over so I don't understand. Or are you saying "keeping your job and not
getting a felony = getting away with it"?

I mean, how many people are you imagining are cool with a DUI conviction and
not a, I don't know, whatever it is if you get pulled over with weed in the
car, possession+DUI?

~~~
tptacek
First offense DUI in most states isn't even a felony. It doesn't matter if
your employer is "cool" about it; they're unlikely to discover it.

Stipulate a fixed likelihood of being pulled over at all. You're pulled over
for making the kind of mistake anyone could make, or pulled over because a
traffic cop is bored or has a quota. But once you're pulled over, the
likelihood of an officer detecting marijuana _anywhere in the car including
its passengers_ is far higher than the likelihood of an officer detecting
_alcohol intoxication in the driver_.

These observations are so straightforward that I feel like we might be getting
argumentative just for the sake of it. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of
decriminalization.

~~~
drivebyacct2
>These observations are so straightforward that I feel like we might be
getting argumentative just for the sake of it. For what it's worth, I'm in
favor of decriminalization.

huh? I'm not trying to argue with you. I know that you think cannabis is a
net-negative and I have no desire to argue with you about that. I respect your
position and know that you're in favor of decriminalization.

I still do not understand what you're getting at. If I were to smoke a bowl,
drink two beers and get in my car and got pulled over, I _guarantee you_ I
would be asked if I had been drinking because that would be far more present
on my breath. Even if I had some weed in a grinder in my glove box.

>detecting marijuana anywhere in the car including its passengers is far
higher than the likelihood of an officer detecting alcohol intoxication in the
driver.

I have no idea how you come to this conclusion or find it obvious.

Besides, I think we're just going to disagree at the core of this. I like to
think that there is more keeping people from recklessly drunk-driving than a
"felony" on their record or losing their job.

~~~
tptacek
I'm asked if I've been drinking virtually every time I'm pulled over (I am not
an unsafe driver). I simply say "no". If I've drunk 2 beers in the last couple
hours, I am driving unimpaired and won't be questioned further.

But if I'm pulled over and my car reeks of weed, a bunch of things are
probably going to happen. The cop is going to shine his flashlight throughout
the car looking for sources of the smell. He's going to ask me to get out of
the car and will probably then frisk me for his own safety. He'll ask to
search the car. He'll question everyone in the car. In many states, he is
likely to call for a drug dog to effect probable cause for a search of the
car.

My impression is that these things not only happen but happen _routinely_ at
traffic stops where cannabis is implicated; the state police have a whole
infrastructure ready to go to make cannabis arrests happen, and they are
higher-value stops (arrests) than traffic stops. None of these things happen
during ordinary traffic stops, and unless you've been driving erratically or
spilled high-proof alcohol on your clothes or have an open container, nothing
else does either.

The problem is that cannabis stinks (literally); it has a sticky, lingering,
resinous smell. Alcohol simply doesn't generate the same evidence.

------
dimitar
I had some room-mates that were abusing weed often, which made reconsider my
previous support for legalization. Or at least it should be very heavily
regulated if legalized.

I learned the following from observation and having frank conversations with
them (before that I expected recreational marijuana use to be like alcohol
use):

* Weed is addictive, probably on the level of cigarettes. Sure plenty of people have tried tobacco and don't have the habit, but for people who develop it may be pretty hard to quit.

* People high on weed seem more pleasant and predictable than drunk people.

* Withdrawal seems to be unpleasant. Paranoia and restlessness.

* Decreasing returns - its harder to get high after a while, making you smoke more.

* They all admitted they feel damaged from continuous use - their thinking ability diminished after a few years and the habit costs them plenty of money. One girl smoked every day, even though she has reduced her use significantly and doesn't get high any more.

I really want a balanced approach to this. While not like heroin or cocaine,
cannabis is definitely a drug. While banning its use is counterproductive,
legalization shouldn't be done in a way encouraging use or minimizing the real
dangers. People should be in the least informed before making a responsible
choice. Maybe putting warning labels, banning use in public and banning
advertisements in a good complement to a legalization.

~~~
tptacek
I don't think weed is benign, and I think more people smoking more often is a
net negative for society, but as everyone on this message board is likely to
tell you with varying degrees of civility, you can say the exact same things
about alcohol. Alcohol is definitely a drug.

~~~
stephengillie
Where is the net negative? In reduced productivity -- because people are high,
they will be less motivated to make websites, attend classes, and contribute
to open source projects?

~~~
tptacek
Potentiation of latent mental illness.

~~~
stephengillie
Do you believe latent mental illness exists in that large of a percentage of
the population? I've seen this happen to a few people, but I don't believe
it's a large risk.

~~~
tptacek
Yes, I believe mental illness is underdiagnosed, and that illness (or
"predisposition" to illness) that is asymptomatic normally can be dangerously
symptomatic in the presence of cannabis.

Like you, I have firsthand experience with friends who have had this problem.
I also know enough people who have had this experience with _their_ friends to
be fairly confident that this is a common problem.

~~~
stephengillie
So psychiatrists should use marijuana as a means to exacerbate mental illness,
so these illnesses can be more quickly identified, and people can receive the
correct treatment more quickly?

I don't believe mental illness in the general population to be underdiagnosed,
rather the opposite. I believe most people are narcissistic enough that
treatment has an effect somewhere between the Hawthorne Effect and Munchhausen
Syndrome. Attention and approval are highly addictive, more than caffeine,
sometimes more than even heroin -- look at how well interventions work. I
believe most psychology and psychiatry academics studied those fields to
understand their personal problems, which leads people in those fields to hold
a perception bias about the rest of the people on the planet.

~~~
MDS100
No. You can live your whole life without having an episode if you don't cause
one. Weed seems to be a facilitator. On the psychiatric ward (specialized on
schizophrenia) most people were smoking weed (some probably to alleviate
symptoms).

Some illnesses are overdiagnosed some are severely underdiagnosed.

------
tokenadult
Richard Branson wrote about a year ago in his personal blog post, "Time to End
the War on Drugs,"

[http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/time-to-end-
the-w...](http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/blog/time-to-end-the-war-on-
drugs)

"Ten years ago the Portuguese Government responded to widespread public
concern over drugs by rejecting a 'war on drugs' approach and instead
decriminalized drug possession and use. It further rebuffed convention by
placing the responsibility for decreasing drug demand as well as managing
dependency under the Ministry of Health rather than the Ministry of Justice.
With this, the official response towards drug-dependent persons shifted from
viewing them as criminals to treating them as patients."

I found this interesting, because the factual outcome that Branson reports for
this policy change is "Now with a decade of experience Portugal provides a
valuable case study of how decriminalization coupled with evidence-based
strategies can reduce drug consumption, dependence, recidivism and HIV
infection and create safer communities for all."

I would like to see a policy change that reduces drug use, especially by young
people whose brain structures are still forming. I have seen too many people
in my generation, and in the generation of my children, who appear to have
used "only" marijuana among the drugs that are currently illegal in the United
States, and who yet "burned out" and have basically become losers. A mind is a
terrible thing to waste. There are a lot of interesting trade-offs involved in
attempting to ban selling and using a substance that is relatively easy to
produce and to trade, just as we found when the United States tried
Prohibition of alcohol in years after World War I. The current system of drug
regulation in the United States does not appear to be working to achieve its
stated goals. If an approach like that now found in Portugal--correctly
characterized as "decriminalization" rather than as "legalization"--can both
reduce burden on the law-enforcement system and reduce use of drugs, I think
that approach would be worth trying in the United States.

AFTER EDIT: To reply to the first comment posted below, asking for study
citations, one study,

Fu, Q., Heath, A. C., & Bucholz, K. K. (2008). A twin-family study of
suicidality and illicit drug use in young people. Samuel B. Guze Symposium on
Alcoholism.

[http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...](http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=guzeposter2008&sei-
redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fas_ylo%3D2008%26q%3Dmarijuana%2B%2522young%2Bpeople%2522%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C24#search=%22marijuana%20young%20people%22)

is particularly interesting for having a "genetically sensitive design" (it is
a study of the offspring of co-twin parents). Marijuana use increases suicide
risk for young people, controlling for other factors that raise suicide risk.

More generally, cannabis use increases risk for psychotic symptoms.

[http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=10228...](http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=102282)

The review article

Bava, S., & Tapert, S. F. (2010). Adolescent brain development and the risk
for alcohol and other drug problems. Neuropsychology review, 20(4), 398-413.

doi: 10.1007/s11065-010-9146-6

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2988999/>

provides a good overview of current research on adolescent brain development
and abnormalities observed during neurological studies of marijuana users.

~~~
avar
Is there any scientific evidence to suggest that marijuana use among young
people is any more harmful than for other age groups? Or are claims like "I
have seen too many people..." just a case of observation bias?

~~~
trickhat
Yes. During adolescence some significant brain changes occur, these changes
will determine the brains natural level of happiness. These changes are
directed by a class of neurotransmitters called monoamines. A lot of drugs
influence the amount of these Monoamines in the synapse, which causes their
euphoric effects. When you take drugs during adolescence it will change the
level of monoamines and thus alter brain development. This is why
pharmacologists are so reluctant to let children go on antidepressants, we
don't yet have enough data to confidently say what the effects are.

~~~
MDS100
Also we don't even really know how AD work. It can't be serotonin (alone).

------
drivebyacct2
It already is if you watch [American] TV.

I uh, guess it's anecdotal... I watched several hours of TV while at home with
my parents over the holiday. I honestly think every show they were watching on
CBS had a pot reference in it and it was light hearted and didn't even put it
in a bad light. It's a long running joke on shows. Late night TV is inundated
with guests who talk and joke about using it.

