guest column by Dr. Douglas Young, Prof. of Pol. Sci. & History at Gainesville College, Gainesville, GA
The news of Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps smoking pot should re-energize the marijuana legalization debate because America should be a free marketplace of ideas where ALL perspectives joust. Yet to even consider legalization is often unacceptable in polite company. But, because all public policy should be rationally debated, let's at least look at some legalization arguments.
I wish no one used any recreational drug (and I avoid them all). But if we must outlaw everything potentially dangerous, then we need a federal 30 mph speed limit and a ban on fatty foods greasing the obesity epidemic killing over 300,000 Americans annually (CBS News).
Somehow we survived legal marijuana until 1937. It actually helped finance our revolution, clothe the Continental Army, and provide the paper for our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Washington and Jefferson grew it, and the latter even risked smuggling it out of Europe. In fact, before 1870, hemp oil ranked second only to whale oil in creating light around the world. During World War II, the feds pushed hemp production to make rope for the war effort.
Dope got banned because federal cops wanted to keep their jobs (alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933), cotton farmers wanted to end hemp competition, and whites linked pot to Mexican immigrants and black jazz musicians. Louis Armstrong never performed without it, and a later user, Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, still calls joints "herbal jazz cigarettes." But Caucasians feared white girls would "go crazy" on dope and become intimate with minority males. So, to avert "Reefer Madness," the weed got outlawed instead of the cancer sticks, liver poison, and "Mother's Little Helper" pills preferred by the ruling class.
Today over 12 percent of federal and state inmates are doing time for pot, costing taxpayers over $1 billion annually (In These Times). A record 872,000 Americans were arrested for it in 2007 alone -- 89 percent just for possession (the FBI). In fact, an attorney on "The O'Reilly Factor" revealed a few years back that there were more lifers in California prisons for pot than for murder, rape, and kidnapping combined. So pot-smokers get locked up with and brutalized by our most violent felons. How's that for "rehabilitation"? Then their criminal records deny them student loans, good jobs, and even voting rights.
Does our abuse of drug-users resemble how we used to mistreat the mentally ill? The medical evidence shows drug addicts are unwisely self-medicating a dopamine deficiency in the brain. They need treatment, not an 8 x 10 cell. How do you think future generations will judge us?
William F. Buckley, Jr. noted that 400,000 police can't go after violent crimes and theft due to the endless "War on Drugs." There's also epidemic vice squad corruption with drugs since their price is so inflated precisely because they're illegal. Psst: The folks most against legalization -- are drug dealers! Why not tax our biggest cash crop and let cops chase violent felons?
Doesn't prohibition fuel the forbidden fruit syndrome? The 1920s' alcohol ban criminalized a huge percentage of decent Americans, created organized crime in the US, and corrupted thousands of police and officials (even President Warren Harding and Chief Justice William Taft secretly drank).
Though none is healthy, is pot remotely as bad as alcohol or cigarettes? CBS News reported that half of US hospital beds are filled by folks with alcohol-related problems, and we have 110,000 alcohol-lubricated deaths every year. Also, the Justice Department admits that alcohol was the only drug found in 36 percent of all convicted criminals and is a factor in over 40 percent of murders.
Cigarettes are as addictive as heroin (former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop), do far more bodily harm than any opiate (addiction medicine specialist Dr. Drew Pinsky), and kill 430,000 Americans a year (CDC). My hygienist says they can even cause teeth to fall out in your thirties.
Though pot is psychologically addictive for some, no one ever overdosed, got cancer, or died from marijuana. Nor do people get violent on it (as Bill Maher says, "Forgetting to kill your wife on pot, okay"). Also, studies show most pot-smokers do not graduate to harder illegal drugs.
Legalization doesn't mean more pot smoking. In Holland, where marijuana is tolerated, just 12 percent of Dutch aged 15-24 said they used pot in 2005. But, in nearby France, where it's illegal, 24 percent of French youths admitted smoking it that year. And, in the U.S., almost 28 percent of Americans 18-25 said they used marijuana in 2004-5. Yet, with effective health classes and ad campaigns, U.S. tobacco and alcohol consumption have gone way down in recent years. Better education can lower pot use as well.
Though 12 states have passed referenda liberalizing marijuana laws, the feds keep vetoing our constitutional democratic states' rights. Ultimately, either we're for less government or we're not. Is it really state business what consenting adults do in their own home? Must we have a national nanny state with Big Brother jailing citizens for a weed? And wouldn't our libertarian Founding Fathers be appalled at this gross encroachment on our privacy rights? Let's at least debate returning to our roots and finally standing up for freedom for a change. Exactly why not?
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
An excellent synopsis
By Dr. Douglas Young that misses one critical point, the modern war on drugs only real purpose and success is to reinvigorate Jim Crow in America.
Richard Nixon, in collusion with the Dixie-crats, created the modern war on drugs to neutralize and subvert the electoral empowerment effects of the Voting Rights Act and the 26st Amendment. At this it has been an absolute success.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Drug Arrests and Race in the United States
MARCH 2, 2009
Decades of Disparity
"This 20-page report says that adult African Americans were arrested on drug charges at rates that were 2.8 to 5.5 times as high as those of white adults in every year from 1980 through 2007, the last year for which complete data were available. About one in three of the more than 25.4 million adult drug arrestees during that period was African American."
In the 1960-70's it was common for local police to break into the homes and organizations of anti-war and social justice protesters in the days before a protest under the pretext of a drug raid. This is still true with federal officials in tow thanks to the federalization of policing empowered by the drug war.
More poverty oppressed and mostly minority Americans are disenfranchised today than was the case before 1965 and the Voting rights Act. Poverty oppressed communities are more desperate today due to crime from black market economics than was the case in the riot torn segregation days of the 1960's.
All of this is the success of the Jim Crow drug war and that war will not change or end because the people who actually control America will not allow it to change. Barack obama was elected ONLY because he is a drug warrior. His drug warrior cabinet proves this regardless of the small token bits of reform he has conceded under public pressure from reformer constituencies that he silenced in the campaign with vague promises of change.
I do not believe for a
I do not believe for a second that the war on drugs was started to reinvigorate jim crow laws. There is no denying that more African Americans were arrested for drug violations than whites. That is because more black people than white people are arrested period. Why would you expect drugs to be an exception? I do not agree with the war on drugs, but it was not an elaborate scheme to suppress African Americans. Not every issue is about race. Trying to make everything about race only perpetuates racism. Now, if you wanted to write about how unfair it is that more black people are arrested than white people, I would be in complete agreement. However, it has nothing to do with the origins of the war on drugs. The point of the war on drugs was to eradicate the use of drugs, the end.
cop out
Wishing no one used any recreational drugs is bizarre. How about wishing no one had recreation at all? How about wishing no one ever relaxed? Intoxication is a crucial tool towards understanding the human condition, and life itself. Even alcohol, the most dangerous drug of all, can be used to gain deep insights into oneself and others. Also, let's face it, "recreational" drug use is just a culture-bound trope stemming from the protestant work ethic that pervades the West. Smoking marijuana is o.k. in some states if it has the blessing of a Dr. who makes money off the prescription. It' o.k. to smoke it if you feel bad, not o.k. if you want to have fun. That's escapist, and escapism leads to not pulling one's weight, and that means not being able to give your money to doctor$ like Douglas Young, and lawyer$, and landlord$, and that condition is simply too unspeakable to think about. Young doesn't like people using drugs to have fun. His fun comes from making money off of them.
I'm do not believe that is Dr. Young's intent
But you do have a point about why getting high is "bad" (unless one does it with alcohol or a prescription) in the eyes of many, especially those who rule over us. I guess they gave up on alcohol a long time ago, knowing that "temperance" was a lost cause, and a prescription allows them to separate the sin from the act because "a doctor said I need it". What they forget is, this is supposed to be a free country; they do not have the right to impose their religious morality on everyone else. If an action is not fraud and if an action causes no physical damage to anyone else or anyone else's property, it is NOT A CRIME under the Supreme Law of this country, the Constitution!!!
I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING!
Maybe.......
Is this man's university a religious school? Did I miss something?
Temperance is not abstinence. The "religious", who knew, actually felt that abstinence was not commanded by the Bible. It was changed when the "fake religious" people, who went against what the Bible was teaching, decided they know better than God on how to control alcohol use in this country. There is no prohibition of alcohol, or drugs, in the Bible. It does call for prudent use and "temperance". But as I said before, it does not mean abstinence.
In the end, one of those ladies with the WCTL, actually campaigned for the end of prohibition. Her motto? "Lets do it for the children"!!!??
I have a picture of an old car with that written on the side of it. It is about a 1930 vintage.
I was using the word historically
As in "Women's Temperence League" which lobbied for alcohol prohibition, I guess you kinda picked up on that. I knew that about their leader changing her mind, later; but some prohibitionists have never given up on trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives, tho they may have given up on trying to prohibit alcohol, there are lots of other things they are still trying to prohibit for everyone, even those who are not of their political party nor their religion. They need to live their lives as they see fit and leave the rest of us alone to do the same.
I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING!
You can have fun, relax, and
You can have fun, relax, and have insight without using drugs. That being said, drugs are fun.
errata
Looking at Young's bio I see I didn't quite get his area of employment correct. No matter. The gist is still the same. Interestingly enough, I see a parallel between the sale of "indulgences" in the middle ages and the sale of medical marijuana prescriptions from doctors today. Both are designed to obviate retribution from God via an intermediary, for the sin of unsupervised pleasure or unauthorized healing. Medical doctors are a priesthood that will have their cut off this racket or else.
So?
What, then, is his area of employment? Your post is a little confusing to me. I never got your point.
There is no retribution from God in the Bible I read, (KJV) over the use of cannabis, as far as I have read. And, I have read it all the way through!
I think it would be best to legalize it. Why should I have to go pay an MD, knowing full well the benefits I get in pain relief from its use? But, I am more educated than most. What bothers me is that we are all going to die. So shouldn't our medical care be more involved with relieving people's suffering ? Before long, we won't be able to afford medical care, anyway.
Cannabis is made illegal illegally
Cannabis was/is made illegal by unconstitutional leaders who reflect the actions of global corporate terrorist plunderers. This means that cannabis was never made illegal legally. The same fraudulent government is still in power which sided with global corporations to subvert the Constitution,Bill of Rights,and Declaration of Independence for the purposes of genocide against Native American Indians and the the enslavement of Africans. These atrocities have insured that the Constitution,Bill of Rights,and Declaration of Independence never be recognized or allowed to be utilized for everyone to be free from tyrannical globalist dictators. Global tyrants have not nor will they ever allow America or any other country to recognize by action any freedom granting document without a fight. Thats why running to the same tyrants and working within their fraudulent system will only keep stringing everyone along like mules with carrots at the end of the stick.
Say what you will...
about Dr. Young's wish "that no one used drugs recreationally," but he probably felt it necessary to say something like "drug use is bad, and I don't recommend it" to keep from being burned at the stake by his peers. I have to give him credit for having the courage to write this excellent, well-researched article in the environment of Gainesville College!
I never attended there, but live right down the road and graduated from nearby UGA; I have many friends who attended GC and some who even work there. I assure you, in the heart of morally conservative, ultra-Christian North Georgia, publishing this article was a ballsy move.
It heartens me to know that people are standing up and speaking out about this, even in my area. If they're doing it here, that really means something! And I'd certainly love to see someone attempt to refute his well-reasoned argument, AND provide the number of solid citations he provided. Surely, that would be one mess of emotional and psuedo-scientific garbage...
Great work, Dr. Young!!!
While I Agree With Many of the Above Posts
Probably the main thought that comes to mind reading the comment I am replying to is:
Of course this should not be taken as an attack against the commenter.
The problem mostly boils down to letting people/groups name themselves, and the issues involved. Often they pick the most self-aggrandizing terms. As well as casting themselves as right and the others wrong, or them "good" and the others "evil," or them "moral" and others "immoral." However, sometimes another viewpoint manages to re-name the conflict to reflect their perspective. This can be seen in the "pro-choice" "pro-life" conflict.
It's my belief there are too many sayings floating around that the villains in this conflict, which we are currently discussing, have created which cast things incorrectly. For one, "drug violence."
I say it's time to provide our own nomenclature to these issues and use them regularly. Not to counter their wild claims with equally wild ones, but to more accurately describe the issues.
Good point
Instead of "drug violence" we use "prohibition violence", etc., excellent idea.
I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING!
Language is everything
Instead of legalization, say "regulation". Also, we are not drug reformers but instead we support drug control rather than prohibition.
Not enough
Without legalization, there can be no regulation . That is why decriminalization is not the correct course, either. It has to be legalization with regulation. Otherwise, the drug dealers and other gangsters still make all the profit! Since, without legalization there can be no legal production, in our country.
And, new old salt,
The "Christian Right" is a term used by others to describe that group.
They must be ignorant, for sure! Since, there is, absolutely, no prohibition of alcohol, or drugs, in the Bible. And temperance does not have the same meaning of abstinence. There are several "Christian" groups that support this cause, we all fight for. We must work together, if we are to succeed.
Good Suggestions!
@ Moonrider, I like your suggestion of “prohibition violence.” I’m going to start using it.
@ mlang52, “Without legalization, there can be no regulation.”
Which makes it such a good way to “start the conversation” with some folks. If you say “legalize” first, many will instantly close their ears/minds. But if you begin with “regulate” you might be able to get some real discussion in first. :-) Recall this line? “Be as clever as a serpent but innocent as a lamb.” :-)
As far as the Christian Right, I just passed along a tongue in cheek comment I read somewhere. I hesitated to use it since I figured it might cause offense. Personally I tend to ignore labels and try to figure out the concepts/reasons/underlying issues.
I’m gonna guess you are the same person who visited my video. A number of nice chats there until I was “burraged.” (sic) I countered all of his points and he ignored mine. However, chatting in 500 characters is tough. Then he pasted in what seemed to be a whole book (not even his own writing) in a private email to me, I had to block him!
As far as being on the same team, I totally agree. However, ironically I sometimes find myself defending non-believers who are being assaulted by people who claim to be believers.
Thank you, it conveys the actuality of intoxicant prohibition
Now, a better term than legalization (or regulation) is re-legalization -- drugs were once legal and uncontrolled. What we want is a return to legal drugs, therefore re-legalization. It is a word the clearly states the situation.
Some of us would prefer to go back entirely to legal and uncontrolled, some prefer legal and regulated -- those points are still in debate, but we all agree on legal. Right?
I'm pro-choice on EVERYTHING!
Prohibition is authoritarianism
Regulation is the democratic common ground between citizens who trust and believe in freedom and those who fear freedom.
The government prohibits responsible democratic regulation of the distribution of drugs. The government does not trust or believe in freedom.
yesss!!!
Re-legalization is the best term to use! My guess is the revenuers had to have something to do, so they went after the drugs! Funny thing is, there is still going to have to be some sort of change in the distribution of the legal controlled, drugs, too.
Plenty of controlled drugs are sold illegally because people sell their medications. The only way to decrease black market prescription drugs is to figure out a way to make sure that people that want or need them can get them through some sort of legal source, eliminating the punishments set upon us with the present system. Revamping of the CSA will also be needed because the arbitrary way in which they have classified the drugs has morphine and cannabis as class one drugs! (Heroin is actually diacetylmorphine and is weaker than Fentanyl!) But legalization is needed. And, regulated would make it harder for the kids to get. I think they should have the same restriction as alcohol. But, I think if a kid can marry or die for his country at 18, he should be old enough to decide which intoxicants he would use.
Good video
Yep, I liked your video. But I can't stand the ignorance these things bring out in some people! I about went nuts listening to Judge Gray and the police lobbyist, Lovell, on LEAP the other day! Lovell kept saying the judge was saying things that were "factually incorrect". Thing was the facts that were incorrect were coming form that police union lobbyist. I guess he has to worry about job security. We know there would be fewer prison guards and policemen needed with legalization!
Mashup
Thanks. With regard to that interview, I did a little mashup of it. Pretty funny. I just copied and pasted two segments together. I may post it over in the LEAP forums.
If you contact me through this site with your email addy, I'll email it to you.
It all comes down to the $$$
You hit the nail on the head! Money is what it's all about, keeping cops and DOC working no matter who else gets hurt! I had state police lie about what they found in my home, not just lie they changed numbers! They made a 4 into a 9!!! And so when the people who are supposed to be protecting us become the aggressive enemy... is it REALLY still a free country? The "legal" states may have just won a battle...but the war is far from over. We fight greed as well as ignorance, and bigotry, and in these scary economic times...I wish us luck.
Ga
i just think its funny this guy's from GA, which lags in anything having to do with decriminalization of pot and turns their head at the idea.
legalize pot..please!!!
i'm so tired of debating this issue anymore! why can't our government ever pass a bill on legalizing pot? tax it, put people to work make the age 21 to purchase it and let's get on with it . are people in amsterdamn that much more adult then us? why do we let our government tell us what we can do with pot? this bullshit drug war is a complete joke that has'nt worked in 70 years.every time this issue comes up in government or our bias media they always debate it with a smirk or a little laugh on their smug faces. it's time to legalize and wipe that smirk off their faces! grow up america!!
"The medical evidence shows
"The medical evidence shows drug addicts are unwisely self-medicating a dopamine deficiency in the brain."
This is now considered pseudo-science and hogwash. The "dopamine depletion" theory was disproved years ago. Young has not done his homework, indeed, why would we expect as much from someone from Georgia?
Yet more Criminal Mercantilism
Georgia?
Is not that yet another jurisdiction that profits from the agricultural cultivation of Virginia bright leaf tobacco for cigarettes?
And to think that the first big push to demonize cocaine per se regardless of form came from those areas!
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/tobacco-lands-conve...
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/03/it-was-criminal-mer...
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2008/08/1900s-big-medical-p...
Well Said Douglas
Very well done Douglas! Here are a few additional points. No one has ever died of an overdose of pot. More people have died from alcohol poisoning than marijuana, cocaine and heroin combined (Politics of Sin). That goes for cigarettes as well. There are more uses, medically, for pot than cigarettes or alcohol. To my recollection there have been no violent crimes committed by anyone who just smoked pot, combined with other drugs I’m sure there have been a few.
I am proud to call you colleague
Kerry R. Stewart
Associate Professor of Political Science
and Philosophy
Gainesville State College
All Use Is Medical Use
PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System
Round Pegs In Round Holes
The only people who find anti-depressants recreational are people who need them.
Sports make true man
http://www.cookiestuffinglinks.com
An illegal terror/plunder based fraudulent government occupation
Has no right to make and enforce unconstitutional laws.
Something to thing about...
Just the other day, I was watching the television show, "Intervention". After watching the show for some time now, I've noticed one thing: Not ONCE have you ever seen someone on that show that is ruining their and their families and friends' lives by an addiction to marijuana. NOT ONCE. You might see someone that smokes along side the true killing addictive agent, but never pot alone. It is not possible to over dose on it, yet it is illegal. Take a petite, 18 yr-old college freshman, newly introduced to the party scene and see how they feel after a party night of drinking vs. smoking. I'd be willing to bet my life that he/she feels fine after just smoking. If he/she deals with stress and/or anxiety (possibly from the college transition), I'd also be willing to bet that it helped the person to calm themselves, nay, deal with their situation even better! On the other hand, place the individual in the scenario of the morning after the drinking. I can say from personal experience, that one may find themselves wishing for death and making infeasible deals with God, or even worse, dying from alcohol poisioning or drowning in their own vomit.
Fill the tank of the average young male with an intoxicating dose of whiskey. There is a great chance of him becoming angry or violent in a confrontational situation. Now take the same guy and give him an intoxicating dose of marijuana. The most likely outcome is that he may become hungry and relaxed or even, dare to say, giggly. Put this person in a confrontational setting and see how much more calmly he reacts.
Just thing about it.
-TB
Post new comment