Pompo

Other Voices: It's actually very easy to argue against legalizing marijuana
7/3/09|Michigan Live| by David Thompson - Opinoin



In response to the June 21 Other Voices titled "Economic case for legalizing marijuana hard to argue with" by April Marshall: Actually it is very easy to argue against legalizing marijuana.

The statistics quoted by Ms. Marshall are exceptionally inaccurate and totally disregard the nature of marijuana as a drug. The states will not realize any so-called profit and will end up making their citizens pay more. It is the common fallacy of those advocating marijuana to compare it with both alcohol and tobacco. This is comparing apples to oranges and doesn't work. It is true they are both round and, in this case, they are mood-altering and addictive drugs. Beyond that, all comparisons break down.

First; Why would anyone pay a tax for something they can grow in their back yard? Right now, due to the illegality of marijuana, most people won't risk growing it nearby. Make it legal and everyone can and will readily grow their own with no skill whatsoever. Who would pay a tax? If the state wants to legalize marijuana but then say a citizen can't grow it themselves, you will have a policing problem the likes of which you can't imagine. Ms. Marshall tries to compare alcohol and marijuana for drunken driving and she cites the current laws for Michigan. She and others fail to understand the nature of these two drugs. Alcohol readily dissolves in water; marijuana does not. Alcohol's metabolites are readily exhaled in human breath and can be quickly measured using a portable breath analysis device or "breathalyzer." This gives a very good reading of the blood alcohol level (despite defense attorney arguments) and is used universally to determine legal limit compliance. This can not be used for marijuana.

Levels of cannabis can only be determined by either a blood draw or urine analysis, both of which require the officer to transport the suspected user to a controlled facility, obtain a warrant and secure the specimen and then wait for results before determining whether the user is "intoxicated." This time-consuming process will take officers off the streets and tie up medical facilities and generate expenses not currently incurred.

Related to this, we can see an immediate increase in automobile insurance premiums for everyone in the state. You don't think the insurance industry will let you legalize a mood-altering drug that increases the risk for accidents and injury and not charge for it, did you?

Now to "medical" marijuana. Did we forget everything we had and have learned about smoking? We now think it is a good thing for sick people to fill their lungs with toxic smoke for their health. Did we collectively lose our minds? Let's worsen their lungs adding asthma, emphysema, pneumonia, COPD, bronchitis, and lung cancer? Our state is finally going toward tobacco smoke-free status, and millions of us are delighted to be smoke-free in the workplace and elsewhere. Now we want to legalize smoking marijuana? Please note, marijuana in capsule form is readily available for medical use and has been for years, so the argument for medical use is bogus.

My biggest concern is for infants, children and young adults who will be exposed to marijuana smoke in their homes and how this toxic chemical mix will affect them. They are helpless to defend against exposure.

Although children do drink their parents' alcohol and are accidentally poisoned by their parents' drugs, ambient smoke takes drug exposure to a whole new level in a small developing brain and body. I'm sorry, but "pot heads" are not too responsible about this, especially when high so they won't be going outside to light up.

Ms. Marshall talked about international issues, namely in Mexico. I would point out that Michigan shares a huge international border with a foreign country -1 Canada. The Detroit-Windsor, Port Huron-Sarnia, and Sault Ste. Marie are huge international crossing points both for industry and pleasure. Just because Michigan legalized marijuana does not mean that Canada or the United States governments would and both tend to be very strict about use and possession of illegal (for them) drugs. This will cause a major slowdown in crossing these borders and closer examination of returning citizens.

The "500" economists that endorse the legalization of marijuana also seem to know little about addictive drugs. Make no mistake, cannabis is addictive and additional addictive substances that increase our health costs like alcohol and tobacco has done will never be economically viable.

Having said all this against the arguments for legalization being economically useful, let me clearly state that I believe "decriminalizing" possession of small amounts does reduce police and court costs. Beyond that, it is a very bad idea.

David Thompson of Ann Arbor is a retired substance abuse therapist who holds a certified addictions counselor license for the state of Michigan.

Frylok

Yeah, if you're an idiot.

A couple of problems here. If the state is not making a profit and they make their citizens pay more, wouldn't they be making a profit after the tax increase?

You're right, there is no comparison between alcohol, tobacco, and Marijuana. Alcohol and Tobacco kill around 750,000 Americans every year, while pot has killed no one in American history.

In case you haven't heard, Tobacco and Alcohol are extremely physically addictive, while Marijuana has no physical addiction potetntial. Do a little homework, man.

Yeah, that'd be terrible if we took all those profits away from Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and Big Alcohol.

What policing problem? If it's legal, I don't see the problem. What, you're worried that someone is losing some profit somewhere if we grow our own?

Here's some even worse news (for you & the cops): It's nearly impossible to tell if someone is high or not at the current moment. Sure, you can have THC metabolites in your system for up to 90 days after last use, but these metabolites do not indicate impairment.

The good news is that a couple of studies have shown that people high on cannabis actually have a lower accident rate than "sober" people. Google it, I'm obviously too lazy and burned out to provide a link.

Umm, we already have dozens of legal mood-altering grugs, including alcohol. A third of the country already uses Marijuana and I don't see stoned drivers causing accidents willy-nilly. Legalization wouldn't change this, and I doubt if the insurance companies would even care.

Please note: You're an idiot. The smoke argument is ridiculous, you don't have to SMOKE cannabis, you can vaporize it or ingest it orally in food. The problem with the Marinol tablets is that they are prescribed to people who suffer from severe nausea and can't hold food down. So how do you get relief from a pill that you can't hold down?

Well, I should have expected you to pull out that old ace card, "What about the children" (tears in eyes). MORON: Children have ready access to Marijuana today. Legalization and regulation would decrease children's acces to Marijuana, not increase it.

And by the way, parents are already smoking around their kids, how would legalization change that?

LMAO. I like the way this guys just pulls stuff out of his ass. Canada doesn't care about weed. Mexico isn't worried about pot coming in OR out. I don't think legal weed would have any effect on the borders.

No, cannabis is NOT addictive!!! Where do you get your information, David?? I can't believe your publisher even let you print this tripe without some rudimentary fact-checking.

Decrim is the worst of all possible solutions. It doesn't surprise me one bit that this idiot endorses it.

Quote:

David Thompson of Ann Arbor is a retired substance abuse therapist who holds a certified addictions counselor license for the state of Michigan.

And there's the rub!! David Thompson spent his whole life lying to people about pot in order to make money. Now he needs to protect his colleagues from losing a large portion of their income and also needs to protect those long-held false beliefs about marijuana that have been ingrained into him.

Ooooh "Certified Addictions Counselor"! If I save up enough crackerjack boxes can I get a certificate that says I'm a Certified Addictions Counselor too?

Great article idiot. I bet this will make you really popular around town.




[/quote]

TheCabDriver

Nice Frylock You should mail the author your counterpoints, his brain might explode.

ramoury1

David Thompson of Ann Arbor is a retired substance abuse therapist who holds a certified addictions counselor license for the state of Michigan.

Yeah, right.

toothfairy420

People like me and millions of others who do not have a back yard to grow it in maybe??? Not everyone lives in a little cottage with a white picket fence...You can grow tobacco too...

__________________
Every new beginning comes from some other beginnings' end.
-Semisonic
-------------------------
Help me to become the very first Marijuana.com member to be crowned Miss Hightimes!!

yoman3

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH this made me so mad!

This guy obviously has no understanding of marijuana at all. AT ALL. He's just like EVERY OTHER anti-legalizationist out there.


I would like to go by his argument point by point, but Frylock already did that.

But seriously, this guy did not do ANY studying up on the topic. Marijuana is NOT addictive, it will NOT affect children (really, he had to go with the stereotype "pot-head", WOW. Not all pot smokers are the stereotypical ones you see in movies, jack-ass.)

His "why would people PAY for something they can GROW" argument is just fucking retarded. Why would people PAY for apples and oranges and bananas? I mean, they can just grow it, right, RIGHT!??!?!? What about beer, you can just make beer at home, RIGHT HURUURURURURR.

That's just my 2-cents Frylock covered the rest.

claygooding

Congratulations to the writer for using every propaganda theme the anti-drug cartels and the DEA has written. He has read every pamphlet and watched all the ads. And like them,he has no scientific evidence other than studies paid to find dangers and harm in marijuana. It is against the law for the DEA to publish any,or even allow any studies that would indicate medicinal uses for or contribute to the legalization of marijuana.
That is why they never released Dr. Tashkins study that indicated that smoked marijuana did not cause cancer and was possibly a treatment for and preventative
medicine and they will not recognize his work,or publish it. But they did pay for it.
With tax dollars,and we should be able to get a copy of that study,through the freedom of information act.
It makes you wonder,with all the information available to individuals,that anyone would
support prohibition and the violence and crime that surrounds it. Is he acting out of his own convictions and educated opinion,or just a paid mouth that supports anything he gets paid for?
If the government really wants to remove the cartels from our country,you must remove the market,or the consumers or the product.
Removing the market is the cheapest and easiest,just legalize and forget taxes. The boost to the economy will come from all the pot buyers spending their drug dollars
on manufactured goods instead of to a dealer,who may or may not have cartel connections. This would shut down the flow of money out of our country,and spread
the money better than any stimulus bill.
Removing the consumer is a little harder,since imprisonment has not worked. People that are imprisoned for pot just buy some in prison,to reduce the stress. The
only sure fire way to remove the consumer is to go Chinese,and kill them all. That'll
stop them.
Removing the product is impossible,it is a plant that survives in every land,and the DEA can tell you how effectively that has worked,as there is more pot around now than ever,and they have been destroying crops all over the world. All it has gained us is whole countries that hate us for killing their legitimate crops and starving their farmers.

Buzzby

And it only took two paragraphs for the truth to break down. Marijuana is less "addictive" than your morning cup of coffee.

This is why no one ever buys vegetables...

I'm sure the author has years of experience growing high-quality marijuana. People could grow their own tobacco instead of paying $5.50 a pack for cigarettes (most of which is taxes). I don't know anyone who does. Growing and processing high-quality marijuana is just slightly less difficult than growing and processing high-quality tobacco.

I suspect that it would be the same kind of people who purchase wine, beer, and tobacco - people who would rather spend their money than produce their own recreational drugs.

This is a classic straw man argument, positing a problem that doesn't exist. None of the legalization proposals I've seen have precluded people from growing their own. He's right about one thing: if marijuana was legal to buy but not legal to grow, it would be a policing nightmare.

And it's totally impossible to find another means of testing for impairment... This guy shoots himself in the foot at every turn. He's the kind of pro-prohibition moron who's just too easy to refute.

When you can buy a video camcorder for less than $100, how difficult would it be to record an incriminating roadside sobriety test?

Considering the fact that easing marijuana laws has never caused a flood of new users, the risk has already been incorporated into the actuarial analysis that sets insurance premiums.

I think the author might have... Marijuana smoke doesn't cause serious lung disease and for those who wish not to smoke it, there are vaporizers and edibles.

Please note that Marinol is not marijuana. It's a single synthetic cannabinoid. Most medical marijuana users who have tried Marinol find that it's less effective, takes too long to provide symptomatic relief, and that it is impossible to titrate the dosage. It's also so expensive that only those with excellent prescription insurance coverage can afford to use it.

I'd be far more concerned about minors being exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke, a confirmed cause of lung cancer. First-hand marijuana smoke doesn't cause cancer. People absorb so little from second-hand marijuana smoke that they can't even fail a urine test because of it.

Cannabis consumers come in all possible shades of responsibility, as do non-users. My friends and I have been excellent parents, but then I don't enjoy hanging out with irresponsible people. And why wouldn't they go outside because they're high? Everyone I know enjoys smoking outdoors. They'd do it a lot more if it didn't put them at risk of being observed doing something illegal.

And we all know about those evil, violent Canadian drug cartels...

You'd think that someone who lives in Michigan would know something about how things operate across the border. Maybe he could fill us in on how many years Marc Emery has spent behind bars? It's pretty hard to get jail time for marijuana in Canada.

And you do? I repeat: marijuana is less addictive than your morning cup of coffee.

Really? Why would alcohol and tobacco be economically viable but marijuana would not? Governments make tons of money from taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Both cause serious health problems and together account for half a million dead Americans every year. Can you even imagine the lives that would be saved if people switched from thesse deadly drugs to marijuana?

Marijuana doesn't cause any serious disease, much less death. He should be arguing for a government program to encourage marijuana use as a substitute for alcohol and tobacco.

For a parallel situation, alcohol prohibition ended largely because the government was broke and realized that there was a huge untaxed potential source of revenue.

Decriminalization is nice for individual uses and, unfortunately, makes them less likely to fight for an end to prohibition. Other than that, decriminalization perpetuates an illegal distribution system that has led to more than 5,000 deaths in Mexico and a multi-billion dollar industry that doesn't pay any taxes.

You'd think that someone like that would actually know something about drugs. He's either unbelievably ignorant or lying through his teeth. He must be very lonely as the only anti-marijuana person in Ann Arbor, a city which has imposed a $5 fine for marijuana possession.

__________________

BudSmoker92

People like this I would love to catch walking down a dark alley.

__________________

SacredJellybean

I came here for good content, trying to keep an open opinion about actual, believable negatives associated with legalizing marijuana. I'm always willing to challenge my own beliefs and will not reject an idea that makes logical sense in the event that it does not fit in with my current viewpoint.

All I got in return was tired rhetoric and weak arguments that I've heard countless times before and consider to be insulting to my intelligence. When will I learn?

__________________
"Every age has its peculiar folly and if Charles Mackay, the author of the 19th century classic, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds were alive today he would surely see 'cannabinophobia' as a popular delusion along with the 'tulipmania' and 'witch hunts' of earlier ages. ... I also believe that future historians will look at this epoch and recognize it as another instance of the 'madness of crowds.'"
~Dr. Lester Grinspoon