It’s been a little over a decade since cannabis was first legalized recreationally in the United States. As of today, recreational weed is legal in 24 states and the District of Columbia, and Americans have never been more pro-weed. In a Gallup poll from last November, 70 percent of U.S. adults said they support the
This doctor needs to stay the hell away from my children. But we have many of these nepo baby elite-college “affiliates” literally ruining this country. In fact I have one as my state legislator who is oh so proud of legalizing rec drug use. Now we have ugly cannabis shops all over the neighborhood with a shooting recently. Drug cartels getting in on supplying “legal” shops. Wonderful job all-around from these “experts!” Oh and isn’t this doctor a drug addict? Should have disclosed that from the start.
Seems it's all good for weed , except maybe it will make you go mad , little things to worry about ? With so little real data all they did was to push a lot of maybe's around . All I know is a weed head was a real thing , now was it caused because of the way the week was made or the weed it's self who knows and cares . With small beer producers trying to put weed into beer it's going to be a fun time for the future of this stuff . Best option don't use it . Getting high might of been fun in college but now I want my head clear .
Bro truly acted like alcoholism isn’t an issue when he said “people titrate” their use. I’ve known many people struggling with alcohol addiction. Also they tax legal marijuana out of profitable operation which forced everyone to go black market. From licensing to selling there is no profit available in legal marijuana which is an issue if you want it to be regulated at all
From my vantage point here in WA state, I can directly refute Dr Peter's observations and assertion that cannabis use has not increased in young people/children/teens and that everybody "titrates" their use to healthy effects.
I have 3 children who are in college and have heard details and witnessed how many high school and college students in our area use weed in some form on a daily basis. The use is rampant. But if you look up any info on our local public health site, all they say is "use has not been shown to be increased". Nobody here cares what is happening to our young people!
The most ironic thing I recall during the time we were voting on legalization of marijuana in WA state was a local TV ad featuring a mom imploring us to "do it for the children" - telling us that all the tax money we'd gain from legalized cannabis would do so much for our schools! I was shocked at the time and the intervening years don't give any evidence of any benefit to any school.
And I agree with those that point out this has nothing to do with any "medicinal" use of marijuana - that is not a "thing".
We are sacrificing the well being of generations of young people in the pursuit of this "right" and directly affecting the productivity and well being of many adults as well. Let's talk about it rationally and truthfully as needing to regulate and control the production and distribution of an addictive substance. And recognize that where we are at now is a system being run by criminal elements with actually very little government oversight and minimal, if any, boon to the local economy.
The whole situation both sickens and saddens me. The MD they had on to debate is obviously a marijuana and drug user. They should have disclosed that fact.
I'm not sure why you had Dr Peter as the pro weed voice. There are more informed and rational people out there. I'm guessing the person who put this together doesn't know much about the industry, culture or issues surrounding marijuana. Had you had someone from the industry that would have been much better.
I am not pro cannabis, but there is no way this is going to be put back in the box at this point. The Peter's of the world have won the debate by showing up at city council meetings spouting nonsense that not enough people push against and funding supportive candidates. At this point, It's really a matter of how we regulate it both from the standpoint of use and production. There is no other product, let alone pharmaceutical, that has such loose manufacturing standards. That's an easy target. Limiting outdoor/public smoking is another- remember it's called skunk weed.
Limiting use among kids is key and a much more difficult issue. There is still a lot of illegal cannabis production but it has dropped significantly since more states have legalized use as the price has collapsed. Much of this production is from organized crime cartels and should be a priority for the feds but isn't.
As a physician in the emerald triangle in CA for the past 30 yrs I've had a front row seat to this issue. Following legalization, the crime associated with the illegal production has decreased. If you want to see what that was like before, watch "Murder Mountain" on Netflix. It's an accurate representation of the industry from about 1995 to 2015.
The doctor they had on should just stay in his lane. Out of the many idiotic things he said, I was struck by his admission of smoking cannabis while in college. It wasn’t very common where I went in the late 90’s. Yes there were people who smoked but we thought of them as “losers,” and now we have losers attempting to influence policy. Apologies to weed smokers of the past but my kids know exactly where their parents stand. The saddest thing is there are some really very smart kids who are losing the plot due to drugs and lack of guardrails, yet here is this “expert” advocating for legalization of all drugs and “harm reduction!”
This makes a lot of sense! I had trouble listening to Dr Peter as he has very unscientific ways of evaluating cannabis. "nobody smokes that much cannabis! I smoke one joint and fall asleep!" as if his experience has any bearing on what anyone else does! He did not sound like any "expert". And touting "studies" that use has not increased in children and teens - tell us how these studies were done and what they were measuring. I have personally seen the massive increase in use here in WA state. Cannabis use in < 26 y/o is much different than in older adults. We are sacrificing the health and well being of many young people for this need for weed.
But you are totally on point about where we are at now. Focusing on the production and regulation of cannabis makes most sense. The current attitude and approach has allowed the rise of organized crime control. I'd hope this is not the outcome the Dr Peters are hoping for.
Are there practical problems from the legalization of cannabis? Well, you don't have to outlaw a plant to make the use of it subject to strict rules of trade and use in public settings. It makes more sense to address any problems directly rather than to simply reinstitute the problems of prohibition.
Soros bankrolled a lot of the pro cannabis ballot initiatives, so it's part of the whole criminal justice "reform" movement with a side benefit of keeping millions of Americans in a stupor.
Read Dr. Bertha Madras, psychobiology professor at Harvard Medical School, on the topic of the dangers of marijuana use. Her 60 years studying drugs showed that it's highly addictive, has a lasting impact on brain function, is linked to violent behavior, can cause schizophrenia, and is a significant danger to pregnant women (who are increasingly using). She likens it to the opioid crisis, where in the beginning, advocates for the drug exaggerated benefits and discounted risks.
Maybe Dr. Grinspoon should stop by her office at Harvard.
I am against anyone imposing their morals on anyone else. Our government should be protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic as well as preventing people from taking our liberty through force or fraud.
This debate focused on what would be better public policy, legal or illegal. It does nothing to discuss the morality of a government deciding for it's people what they can and cannot do.
The overwhelming majority of us would support a moral argument about keeping the government out of our bedrooms. Why not keeping them out of our houses altogether?
IMO, people should be allowed to do whatever they want AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HARM ANYONE ELSE. Smoking pot in the privacy of their own home is ok. Driving in a car while high is not. The law should be against the driving, not against the smoking.
BTW, I don't do drugs other than alcohol. This is purely an argument based on right and wrong and the power of the state.
My fantasy world is for you to not impose your morals on me. I think you are proving the point that people want to tell everyone else how they should behave.
Your example of someone using marijuana on the job as an argument for a state that prevents individual liberty is not compelling in the least.
Do not ever, ever get in the way of a marijuana user and their first love. Ok I get that you are one of the smarter types and so cloak it under the guise of individual liberty. Well where is my liberty to not have my children inhale while in the park? Where is my liberty when the smoke comes through the walls and air ducts? You seriously need to start living in the real world. Oh and that construction worker will be building the house that your kids could be living in (although I doubt you have any). And please lay off the morality arguments. Yeah also I don’t believe you don’t use drugs.
I don't smoke pot. I have two very successful young adult children. I could care less what you believe or don't believe about me.
Really, I'm just sick of tired of people like you using theoretical impacts to themselves to justify intruding on other people's freedom. Just take care of yourself and let everyone else take care of themselves.
Don't Tread on Me isn't a flag to waive if you want to tread on individual liberty.
This comment is so unmoored from reality that I am convinced you are using drugs or set to benefit personally from the loosening of drug policies in this country.
Nobody's actions only affect themselves. We are all affected by rates of health insurance, people with undeveloped brains, and those operating cars and heavy machinery while high. There has to be a happy medium between too much and too little control.
That happy medium has been left in the dust long ago. The term "nanny state" is used for a reason.
You are morally aligning with places that regulate the size of the soda people can buy. Their justifications are insurance rates and medical expenses. Is that really a sufficient reason to curtail individual liberty to decide things for themselves? Not to me it isn't.
For someone who hates morality arguments here you are using morality to sway others to your position. What a hypocrite! Also your hyper rationalization is making you conclude that soda and marijuana have equal harms. I’ve never heard of soda induced psychosis! And don’t start with the even water consumed to excess is harmful argument. We are way beyond that.
Legalizing drugs are fine as long as I am never required to help anyone who has a problem with those drugs. Let them smoke, get wasted, and die doing whatever they want. Don't ask me to help.
Peter was my primary care doctor back in the 2000's. He and I are the same age and have similar family demographics. I assumed it would be a lifelong partnership, but at the time, he was battling addiction and dropped out of private practice for a while. I respect his opinions, but from what I can see, legal weed is doing more harm than good.
Interesting. This makes a lot of sense in regard to how he talks about weed. Much more emotional attachment than clinical or scientific. Thanks for the insight. Explains a lot. Always good to know your source.
Just because you can legalize something (& usually done because someone sees potential tax revenue - never the best reason) does not mean you should. The law of unintended consequences always applies.
The converse is also true. Just because you can criminalize something does not mean you should. The law of unintended consequences always applies to that as well.
That is true٫ but substances that are psychotropic need to be vs regulated٫ can'tdrink & drive٫ not SD upposed to smoke weed & drive (can smoke tobacco & drive however). Medical marijuana I get. Unfortunately humans needs be oundaries lest we overindulge ourselves.i don't profess tp know where the line should be drawn٫ but vs i am very skepticalwhen i am given be the tax $ rolling in arguement.should we decriminalize sexwith minors? line has to go somewhere٫& someone will always be unhappy with that. I would rather err on promoting not only my own safety٫but promoting the safety of others from my poor behaviors.
the other problem we face is that once we decriminalize something, discover once the genie is out of the bottle that it might not have been such a good idea with 20-20 hindsight is that it is virtually impossible to put that genie back into the bottle by re-regulation. (sorry for the sloppy typing above, but was on my cellphone with my butterfingers.)
Thoughtful responses, so could care less about typos :).
IMO, people should be allowed to choose for themselves as long as they do not harm other people. That fits nicely with your comments about driving under the influence and even sex with minors. Minors are not able to consent, so they cannot choose for themselves and therefore nobody should be having sex with them.
Psychotropic drugs should be up to individuals IMO. There is a growing body of evidence that they are useful for treating many disorders but the illegality of these drugs has greatly delayed those treatments. I find it unconscionable that a potential treatment that would help our wounded veterans has been delayed by decades because of somebody's feelings of what is right and moral.
Why is taking a psychotropic drug bad? Yes, nobody should drive while on it, but beyond that? Is it really your responsibility to make sure that I do not overindulge? Where do you draw the line? If what I do in my own home is your business, is it reasonable to have sodomy laws? These are two sides of the same coin.
BTW, the genie has always been out of the bottle. Making something illegal has tremendous unintended consequences such as enriching drug cartels, creating street violence, and causing users to hide their habits. These are not minor consequences, but they are often ignored when looking at other and new bad impacts of legalizing.
I always come down on the side of personal freedom. I do not want anyone to put themselves in a position where they get to decide what I do in my own home - as long as I don't harm anyone else while doing it. Our country has moved more and more towards the government (ie our fellow citizens) regulating our life. I do not like it, and I will argue against it, but I acknowledge the trend. I will always do my best to convince people to stop doing it.
BTW, the only drug I use is alcohol, so my beliefs are based on thoughts and principles, not convenience.
The problem with this position is that there are harms to the community with personal use. Also, the truly medicinal use of marijuana and psychotropic drugs is minuscule and should be handled by prescription. It's irrelevant to any conversation about generalized use.
All sorts of things that we do or consume are regulated to benefit the community and in so doing limit individual freedom. There are some things that should clearly be limited. For instance, methamphetamine is a drug with almost no beneficial use outside of very strict medical supervision and should not under any circumstances be allowed for all to use freely. The harm that the use of meth inflicts on the people that use it adversely impacts the community at large both in terms of quality of life and adverse financial consequences. The most significant in my view is the extraordinary harm to any children who are raised in such a household. While marijuana is not in the same league as meth it does, particularly with the THC concentrations now available, have negative externalities. Should adults be free to openly use marijuana with young children in the home? If not, how do you prevent/regulate it? Alcohol obviously has the same problem but do we have to keep adding to the availability of harmful and poorly regulated substances? As noted by Kevin Sabet in the podcast, these impacts are felt most acutely in the poorest communities.
I agree with you that drugs on the illegal market can result in crime but that doesn't mean that things can't be regulated. Cannabis has already passed the gate, but it needs far more regulation than it currently has especially as it applies to exposure and use in children.
Everything you bring up about "harms to the community" can be used as justification for virtually anything you don't like and want to prevent other citizens from doing for whatever reason you oppose it. Here's a list that I hope makes you pause in your willingness to regulate private citizens' behaviors in the name of public good and for the kids impacted by parents doing it: adultery, sugar intake, smoking, alcohol, working a night shift, single parent households, and etc. All of these have similar if not worse impacts on children in a home than recreational use of pot.
Every drug you mention has "already passed the gate". One could argue the pros and cons of legalization, and which causes greater harm to society (no clear victor IMO on that point) but he whole point of my commentary is that we should ask a serious question about what right you, as a citizen, have over me, as another citizen, to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own home. The further you get from clear harm to others, the stickier that proposition gets.
I agree in most part with your opinion that people should be allowed to choose for themselves, and what you get to do in your own home. but the reality is that most people do not have the smarts to keep it in their home, they bring it into mine or into the public - because they are selfish and self-centered. I applaud the medical use of psychotropics for the treatment of many disorders, but after watching my generation (child of 60s & 70s, born in the 50s) the "what I want to do" and damn the torpedoes has not bode(?) well for our current situation. It is not my responsibility to prevent your overindulgence, but rather to encourage you to keep your overindulgence from spilling over into impacting my safety and the safety of others. You want to self-destruct? OK, but you do not have the right to take me down with you. I am not a fan of governmental regulation of life, but sometimes it is needed. Unfortunately, humans have proven time and time again that to live in a functioning, civil society, guardrails are needed, and that they are in a society of many, not just their one.
I think we're largely in agreement after all. I support laws that prevent private actions from causing harm for anyone else. For example, laws against driving under the influence are very good IMO. Drunk driving has been greatly reduced and I would suggest that we've achieved a good balance of allowing people to exercise individual freedom in consuming alcohol while protecting the public from stupid individual choices.
In a nutshell, my belief is that smoking pot should be legal, but outlaw with strong punishment the driving after you smoke it. I also feel its reasonable to limit where pot is consumed just like we do with alcohol.
In college, early ‘80s, the pot was hit or miss regarding strength. Too much THC and I would get paranoid and feel like I wet my pants. Not a fun time, but all these years later make for funny stories. Also in college, there were two roommates on my dorm floor, who spent 24/7 stoned. Then again drinking alcohol was rampant, but didn’t keep anyone I know from doing well and graduating. Pot should be legal, but w/a cap on THC levels, IMHO.
I must tell my story. I used to be a MMJ user. I have peripheral neuropathy and it helped w/my pain. I live in MA. MMJ was 1st only legal of medical use. I could buy what I needed. 1:1 THC:CBD at low THC. The MMJ dispensaries told all that they would NOT sell adult use. Well, they lied. So for the last 5yrs or so I cannot find what I need for my pain. Before it left the market, it was labeled ‘beginner’.
It was as though the good doctor was commenting with as much interest and feeling as he could muster from from a deck chair on the yacht from which he was recording, while Sabet was speaking directly from the trenches, reporting the world at it is, with the energy and forcefulness that that world demands.
For my part, from the far southwestern corner of Massachusetts, ground zero on the eastern seaboard for legalized weed, I can report that the physical and mental harms are all around, and it is, in large part, young people of modest means who are bearing them.
Absolutely!! Agree completely. From WA state, this is my experience and report as well. We are sacrificing a generation or more at the feet of the rosy-eyed "legalization" zealots who see nothing at all wrong with THC.
This doctor needs to stay the hell away from my children. But we have many of these nepo baby elite-college “affiliates” literally ruining this country. In fact I have one as my state legislator who is oh so proud of legalizing rec drug use. Now we have ugly cannabis shops all over the neighborhood with a shooting recently. Drug cartels getting in on supplying “legal” shops. Wonderful job all-around from these “experts!” Oh and isn’t this doctor a drug addict? Should have disclosed that from the start.
Seems it's all good for weed , except maybe it will make you go mad , little things to worry about ? With so little real data all they did was to push a lot of maybe's around . All I know is a weed head was a real thing , now was it caused because of the way the week was made or the weed it's self who knows and cares . With small beer producers trying to put weed into beer it's going to be a fun time for the future of this stuff . Best option don't use it . Getting high might of been fun in college but now I want my head clear .
Bro truly acted like alcoholism isn’t an issue when he said “people titrate” their use. I’ve known many people struggling with alcohol addiction. Also they tax legal marijuana out of profitable operation which forced everyone to go black market. From licensing to selling there is no profit available in legal marijuana which is an issue if you want it to be regulated at all
The thing I enjoyed most was getting to listen to a normal civilized discussion. Thank you Free Press.
From my vantage point here in WA state, I can directly refute Dr Peter's observations and assertion that cannabis use has not increased in young people/children/teens and that everybody "titrates" their use to healthy effects.
I have 3 children who are in college and have heard details and witnessed how many high school and college students in our area use weed in some form on a daily basis. The use is rampant. But if you look up any info on our local public health site, all they say is "use has not been shown to be increased". Nobody here cares what is happening to our young people!
The most ironic thing I recall during the time we were voting on legalization of marijuana in WA state was a local TV ad featuring a mom imploring us to "do it for the children" - telling us that all the tax money we'd gain from legalized cannabis would do so much for our schools! I was shocked at the time and the intervening years don't give any evidence of any benefit to any school.
And I agree with those that point out this has nothing to do with any "medicinal" use of marijuana - that is not a "thing".
We are sacrificing the well being of generations of young people in the pursuit of this "right" and directly affecting the productivity and well being of many adults as well. Let's talk about it rationally and truthfully as needing to regulate and control the production and distribution of an addictive substance. And recognize that where we are at now is a system being run by criminal elements with actually very little government oversight and minimal, if any, boon to the local economy.
The whole situation both sickens and saddens me. The MD they had on to debate is obviously a marijuana and drug user. They should have disclosed that fact.
I'm not sure why you had Dr Peter as the pro weed voice. There are more informed and rational people out there. I'm guessing the person who put this together doesn't know much about the industry, culture or issues surrounding marijuana. Had you had someone from the industry that would have been much better.
I am not pro cannabis, but there is no way this is going to be put back in the box at this point. The Peter's of the world have won the debate by showing up at city council meetings spouting nonsense that not enough people push against and funding supportive candidates. At this point, It's really a matter of how we regulate it both from the standpoint of use and production. There is no other product, let alone pharmaceutical, that has such loose manufacturing standards. That's an easy target. Limiting outdoor/public smoking is another- remember it's called skunk weed.
Limiting use among kids is key and a much more difficult issue. There is still a lot of illegal cannabis production but it has dropped significantly since more states have legalized use as the price has collapsed. Much of this production is from organized crime cartels and should be a priority for the feds but isn't.
As a physician in the emerald triangle in CA for the past 30 yrs I've had a front row seat to this issue. Following legalization, the crime associated with the illegal production has decreased. If you want to see what that was like before, watch "Murder Mountain" on Netflix. It's an accurate representation of the industry from about 1995 to 2015.
The doctor they had on should just stay in his lane. Out of the many idiotic things he said, I was struck by his admission of smoking cannabis while in college. It wasn’t very common where I went in the late 90’s. Yes there were people who smoked but we thought of them as “losers,” and now we have losers attempting to influence policy. Apologies to weed smokers of the past but my kids know exactly where their parents stand. The saddest thing is there are some really very smart kids who are losing the plot due to drugs and lack of guardrails, yet here is this “expert” advocating for legalization of all drugs and “harm reduction!”
This makes a lot of sense! I had trouble listening to Dr Peter as he has very unscientific ways of evaluating cannabis. "nobody smokes that much cannabis! I smoke one joint and fall asleep!" as if his experience has any bearing on what anyone else does! He did not sound like any "expert". And touting "studies" that use has not increased in children and teens - tell us how these studies were done and what they were measuring. I have personally seen the massive increase in use here in WA state. Cannabis use in < 26 y/o is much different than in older adults. We are sacrificing the health and well being of many young people for this need for weed.
But you are totally on point about where we are at now. Focusing on the production and regulation of cannabis makes most sense. The current attitude and approach has allowed the rise of organized crime control. I'd hope this is not the outcome the Dr Peters are hoping for.
Thank you for your insight!
Do we need more stupid people driving, walking the streets, raising families, voting?
Are there practical problems from the legalization of cannabis? Well, you don't have to outlaw a plant to make the use of it subject to strict rules of trade and use in public settings. It makes more sense to address any problems directly rather than to simply reinstitute the problems of prohibition.
Good luck enforcing!
Soros bankrolled a lot of the pro cannabis ballot initiatives, so it's part of the whole criminal justice "reform" movement with a side benefit of keeping millions of Americans in a stupor.
Read Dr. Bertha Madras, psychobiology professor at Harvard Medical School, on the topic of the dangers of marijuana use. Her 60 years studying drugs showed that it's highly addictive, has a lasting impact on brain function, is linked to violent behavior, can cause schizophrenia, and is a significant danger to pregnant women (who are increasingly using). She likens it to the opioid crisis, where in the beginning, advocates for the drug exaggerated benefits and discounted risks.
Maybe Dr. Grinspoon should stop by her office at Harvard.
Thanks for this info. We definitely need to review actual data and not the emotional personal opinions of "experts" who happen to work at Harvard.
I am against anyone imposing their morals on anyone else. Our government should be protecting us from enemies foreign and domestic as well as preventing people from taking our liberty through force or fraud.
This debate focused on what would be better public policy, legal or illegal. It does nothing to discuss the morality of a government deciding for it's people what they can and cannot do.
The overwhelming majority of us would support a moral argument about keeping the government out of our bedrooms. Why not keeping them out of our houses altogether?
IMO, people should be allowed to do whatever they want AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HARM ANYONE ELSE. Smoking pot in the privacy of their own home is ok. Driving in a car while high is not. The law should be against the driving, not against the smoking.
BTW, I don't do drugs other than alcohol. This is purely an argument based on right and wrong and the power of the state.
When your using marijuana while on the job (saw this recently) you don’t care about harming others. Good luck in your fantasy world!
My fantasy world is for you to not impose your morals on me. I think you are proving the point that people want to tell everyone else how they should behave.
Your example of someone using marijuana on the job as an argument for a state that prevents individual liberty is not compelling in the least.
Do not ever, ever get in the way of a marijuana user and their first love. Ok I get that you are one of the smarter types and so cloak it under the guise of individual liberty. Well where is my liberty to not have my children inhale while in the park? Where is my liberty when the smoke comes through the walls and air ducts? You seriously need to start living in the real world. Oh and that construction worker will be building the house that your kids could be living in (although I doubt you have any). And please lay off the morality arguments. Yeah also I don’t believe you don’t use drugs.
I don't smoke pot. I have two very successful young adult children. I could care less what you believe or don't believe about me.
Really, I'm just sick of tired of people like you using theoretical impacts to themselves to justify intruding on other people's freedom. Just take care of yourself and let everyone else take care of themselves.
Don't Tread on Me isn't a flag to waive if you want to tread on individual liberty.
This comment is so unmoored from reality that I am convinced you are using drugs or set to benefit personally from the loosening of drug policies in this country.
Nobody's actions only affect themselves. We are all affected by rates of health insurance, people with undeveloped brains, and those operating cars and heavy machinery while high. There has to be a happy medium between too much and too little control.
That happy medium has been left in the dust long ago. The term "nanny state" is used for a reason.
You are morally aligning with places that regulate the size of the soda people can buy. Their justifications are insurance rates and medical expenses. Is that really a sufficient reason to curtail individual liberty to decide things for themselves? Not to me it isn't.
For someone who hates morality arguments here you are using morality to sway others to your position. What a hypocrite! Also your hyper rationalization is making you conclude that soda and marijuana have equal harms. I’ve never heard of soda induced psychosis! And don’t start with the even water consumed to excess is harmful argument. We are way beyond that.
Legalizing drugs are fine as long as I am never required to help anyone who has a problem with those drugs. Let them smoke, get wasted, and die doing whatever they want. Don't ask me to help.
Concur. Unfortunately, we all have to pay for the cleanup when they ultimately self-delete.
Not to mention the genuine harm delivered upon the innocent in the interim.
Peter was my primary care doctor back in the 2000's. He and I are the same age and have similar family demographics. I assumed it would be a lifelong partnership, but at the time, he was battling addiction and dropped out of private practice for a while. I respect his opinions, but from what I can see, legal weed is doing more harm than good.
Interesting. This makes a lot of sense in regard to how he talks about weed. Much more emotional attachment than clinical or scientific. Thanks for the insight. Explains a lot. Always good to know your source.
Just because you can legalize something (& usually done because someone sees potential tax revenue - never the best reason) does not mean you should. The law of unintended consequences always applies.
The converse is also true. Just because you can criminalize something does not mean you should. The law of unintended consequences always applies to that as well.
That is true٫ but substances that are psychotropic need to be vs regulated٫ can'tdrink & drive٫ not SD upposed to smoke weed & drive (can smoke tobacco & drive however). Medical marijuana I get. Unfortunately humans needs be oundaries lest we overindulge ourselves.i don't profess tp know where the line should be drawn٫ but vs i am very skepticalwhen i am given be the tax $ rolling in arguement.should we decriminalize sexwith minors? line has to go somewhere٫& someone will always be unhappy with that. I would rather err on promoting not only my own safety٫but promoting the safety of others from my poor behaviors.
the other problem we face is that once we decriminalize something, discover once the genie is out of the bottle that it might not have been such a good idea with 20-20 hindsight is that it is virtually impossible to put that genie back into the bottle by re-regulation. (sorry for the sloppy typing above, but was on my cellphone with my butterfingers.)
Thoughtful responses, so could care less about typos :).
IMO, people should be allowed to choose for themselves as long as they do not harm other people. That fits nicely with your comments about driving under the influence and even sex with minors. Minors are not able to consent, so they cannot choose for themselves and therefore nobody should be having sex with them.
Psychotropic drugs should be up to individuals IMO. There is a growing body of evidence that they are useful for treating many disorders but the illegality of these drugs has greatly delayed those treatments. I find it unconscionable that a potential treatment that would help our wounded veterans has been delayed by decades because of somebody's feelings of what is right and moral.
Why is taking a psychotropic drug bad? Yes, nobody should drive while on it, but beyond that? Is it really your responsibility to make sure that I do not overindulge? Where do you draw the line? If what I do in my own home is your business, is it reasonable to have sodomy laws? These are two sides of the same coin.
BTW, the genie has always been out of the bottle. Making something illegal has tremendous unintended consequences such as enriching drug cartels, creating street violence, and causing users to hide their habits. These are not minor consequences, but they are often ignored when looking at other and new bad impacts of legalizing.
I always come down on the side of personal freedom. I do not want anyone to put themselves in a position where they get to decide what I do in my own home - as long as I don't harm anyone else while doing it. Our country has moved more and more towards the government (ie our fellow citizens) regulating our life. I do not like it, and I will argue against it, but I acknowledge the trend. I will always do my best to convince people to stop doing it.
BTW, the only drug I use is alcohol, so my beliefs are based on thoughts and principles, not convenience.
The problem with this position is that there are harms to the community with personal use. Also, the truly medicinal use of marijuana and psychotropic drugs is minuscule and should be handled by prescription. It's irrelevant to any conversation about generalized use.
All sorts of things that we do or consume are regulated to benefit the community and in so doing limit individual freedom. There are some things that should clearly be limited. For instance, methamphetamine is a drug with almost no beneficial use outside of very strict medical supervision and should not under any circumstances be allowed for all to use freely. The harm that the use of meth inflicts on the people that use it adversely impacts the community at large both in terms of quality of life and adverse financial consequences. The most significant in my view is the extraordinary harm to any children who are raised in such a household. While marijuana is not in the same league as meth it does, particularly with the THC concentrations now available, have negative externalities. Should adults be free to openly use marijuana with young children in the home? If not, how do you prevent/regulate it? Alcohol obviously has the same problem but do we have to keep adding to the availability of harmful and poorly regulated substances? As noted by Kevin Sabet in the podcast, these impacts are felt most acutely in the poorest communities.
I agree with you that drugs on the illegal market can result in crime but that doesn't mean that things can't be regulated. Cannabis has already passed the gate, but it needs far more regulation than it currently has especially as it applies to exposure and use in children.
Everything you bring up about "harms to the community" can be used as justification for virtually anything you don't like and want to prevent other citizens from doing for whatever reason you oppose it. Here's a list that I hope makes you pause in your willingness to regulate private citizens' behaviors in the name of public good and for the kids impacted by parents doing it: adultery, sugar intake, smoking, alcohol, working a night shift, single parent households, and etc. All of these have similar if not worse impacts on children in a home than recreational use of pot.
Every drug you mention has "already passed the gate". One could argue the pros and cons of legalization, and which causes greater harm to society (no clear victor IMO on that point) but he whole point of my commentary is that we should ask a serious question about what right you, as a citizen, have over me, as another citizen, to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own home. The further you get from clear harm to others, the stickier that proposition gets.
I agree in most part with your opinion that people should be allowed to choose for themselves, and what you get to do in your own home. but the reality is that most people do not have the smarts to keep it in their home, they bring it into mine or into the public - because they are selfish and self-centered. I applaud the medical use of psychotropics for the treatment of many disorders, but after watching my generation (child of 60s & 70s, born in the 50s) the "what I want to do" and damn the torpedoes has not bode(?) well for our current situation. It is not my responsibility to prevent your overindulgence, but rather to encourage you to keep your overindulgence from spilling over into impacting my safety and the safety of others. You want to self-destruct? OK, but you do not have the right to take me down with you. I am not a fan of governmental regulation of life, but sometimes it is needed. Unfortunately, humans have proven time and time again that to live in a functioning, civil society, guardrails are needed, and that they are in a society of many, not just their one.
I think we're largely in agreement after all. I support laws that prevent private actions from causing harm for anyone else. For example, laws against driving under the influence are very good IMO. Drunk driving has been greatly reduced and I would suggest that we've achieved a good balance of allowing people to exercise individual freedom in consuming alcohol while protecting the public from stupid individual choices.
In a nutshell, my belief is that smoking pot should be legal, but outlaw with strong punishment the driving after you smoke it. I also feel its reasonable to limit where pot is consumed just like we do with alcohol.
In college, early ‘80s, the pot was hit or miss regarding strength. Too much THC and I would get paranoid and feel like I wet my pants. Not a fun time, but all these years later make for funny stories. Also in college, there were two roommates on my dorm floor, who spent 24/7 stoned. Then again drinking alcohol was rampant, but didn’t keep anyone I know from doing well and graduating. Pot should be legal, but w/a cap on THC levels, IMHO.
I must tell my story. I used to be a MMJ user. I have peripheral neuropathy and it helped w/my pain. I live in MA. MMJ was 1st only legal of medical use. I could buy what I needed. 1:1 THC:CBD at low THC. The MMJ dispensaries told all that they would NOT sell adult use. Well, they lied. So for the last 5yrs or so I cannot find what I need for my pain. Before it left the market, it was labeled ‘beginner’.
Well, that was a lopsided win.
It was as though the good doctor was commenting with as much interest and feeling as he could muster from from a deck chair on the yacht from which he was recording, while Sabet was speaking directly from the trenches, reporting the world at it is, with the energy and forcefulness that that world demands.
For my part, from the far southwestern corner of Massachusetts, ground zero on the eastern seaboard for legalized weed, I can report that the physical and mental harms are all around, and it is, in large part, young people of modest means who are bearing them.
Absolutely!! Agree completely. From WA state, this is my experience and report as well. We are sacrificing a generation or more at the feet of the rosy-eyed "legalization" zealots who see nothing at all wrong with THC.