All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.



Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!

2/26/2015

Of Pot

I'm critical of 3 P Libertarians, mostly because they strike me as social misfits and outright losers.  That was my first impression of them as a group back in the 80's and nothing has happened to change my mind since.  That isn't to say that I don't grasp the intellectual point.  I do.  I also get the political point, the social point etc.

I embrace the idea of separation of powers, states rights, limited government, freedom of association, etc.  The Founding Fathers hit on a fantastic idea with those concepts that allows people to live together in a way that maximizes freedom and maintains social order.

What happens if a large enough group of people decide that they don't like some behavior that they pass a law against it?  Then they have passed a law.  There isn't much that can be done about that.  Except that there is, you can always move to a place that doesn't have that law.  Individual states are free to make and enforce laws as they see fit.  As long as the federal government stays out of the matter, then people are free to move to a state that fits their personal ethics.

So what about pot?

What about it?  Currently we have a federal government that is willing to ignore the enforcement of its own laws on the subject.  Three states have taken advantage of the situation and have legalized recreational marijuana, while others are considering the matter.

My personal take on the marijuana issue breaks down along these lines:
  • Products not containing THC should be universally legal.
  • Medical marijuana should be universally legal.
  • Recreational marijuana should solely be a states rights issue.  This means that each state should make its own laws without federal oversight.
  • Importing marijuana into the United States is a federal issue, and should be subject to prohibition and/or taxation.
  • Transportation of marijuana within the United States is also a federal matter.  I would make exception for instances where states are adjacent and have similar laws and where the product never enters a state with prohibitive laws.
  • Tax it.  Regulate it. Tax it some more.  Treat recreational marijuana like alcohol.
  • Pot is bad for you, and its dumb to make it part of your lifestyle.  As long as individuals and businesses are able to freely discriminate towards users, we will achieve similar social sanctions without the expense and abuses of policing.

17 comments:

  1. I agree. If I were king, I'd probably make all drugs legal and tax the heck out of them. Make nobody pay for anyone's rehab. Let employers test for drugs and fire who they want. I just saw a guy looking for a job without a drug test as he was moving back from colorado.

    Too much of our society is about putting safety nets out for stupid behavior. We then are surprised when we get more stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just saw a guy looking for a job without a drug test as he was moving back from Colorado.

    Which is probably a better deterrent in the long term than having cops pulling guns on people looking for 2 grams of weed. Next time he is tempted to smoke dope he will think about not getting a decent job or having to wait several months till he can pee clean again. That or he will decide to become a full time pothead and live accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. WaterBoy1:09 PM

    I agree with most everything you've listed, but I'll throw out these additional comments:

    Pot is bad for you, and its dumb to make it part of your lifestyle. As long as individuals and businesses are able to freely discriminate towards users, we will achieve similar social sanctions without the expense and abuses of policing.

    •Alcohol is bad for you, and its dumb to make it part of your lifestyle. As long as individuals and businesses are able to freely discriminate towards users, we will achieve similar social sanctions without the expense and abuses of policing.

    •Tobacco is bad for you, and its dumb to make it part of your lifestyle. As long as individuals and businesses are able to freely discriminate towards users, we will achieve similar social sanctions without the expense and abuses of policing.

    See where I'm heading? If discrimination against users of (legal) pot is permissible, then it should also be allowed against users of alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, etc. I don't necessarily disagree with that, either, I just want to make it clear that the discrimination policy should be If One, Then All.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Susan2:22 PM

      Moderation is key here with regards to alcohol. Most people follow the Biblical principle of moderation. Bible talks about a glass of wine aiding in digestion, and even making a person merry.

      The first miracle of Jesus was to make water into wine. If he sinned WaterBoy, then he did not qualify to die for our salvation. But nowhere in the Bible will you find a passage about Jesus toking with the apostles, or anyone else getting away with smoking.

      In fact, there are admonitions about treating your body like a temple and being careful with what you do put into it.

      As to smokers, as long as they keep their smoke to themselves, they can smoke all they want to. I don't care if they do. But that is the problem, they can't keep that habit to themselves. It spills into the space of other people who don't want to smoke. Yes I know, don't go where they are. But they need to follow the same courtesy, okay?

      For a nonsmoker, shaking hands with a smoker is a most unsettling experience. It feels like shaking hands with a dead person, their hands are so cold.

      Pot is a special case IMO. I hope some day that somebody with guts to do so, will do some research on the incidence of breast cancer and the smoking of pot. THC stores in the fat of the body instead of the lungs like tobacco does. I would be fascinated to read the results.

      Delete
  4. Next time he is tempted to smoke dope he will think about not getting a decent job or having to wait several months till he can pee clean again.

    One wonders, his facebook page had several pot cookbooks and whatnot on it. But that's his business. If he wants to work in the back of a taco joint for the next decade, that's fine, just don't make me foot the bill for his medical insurance and retirement and anything else he is deferring buying for himself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The same things are true for alcohol and tobacco now. Companies are refusing to hire employee smokers and drinkers. In the case of smokers they claim health insurance costs. Some organizations have employee codes of conduct that state the employee will not consume alcohol. I suspect that it is easier to test for pot and tobacco use than alcohol use as those two have substances that build up in the body and can be detected for a longer period of time after use. Alcohol tends to clear the system faster.

    Landlords can and do have no-smoking no drinking, and no immoral activities clauses in rental contracts.

    IMO I'd rather see the social costs of legalization/decriminalization borne by those using the product than by society as a whole. The fairest way to do that is by making the end user answerable to social pressure and not legal sanction.

    Here is the thing, many companies won't care and will hire people who use for jobs where they don't think it will effect performance. Landlords will rent to people who are responsible with their vices. Individuals, not government employees will decide who is and who is not able to "handle it".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Susan2:34 PM

      There are so many things about pot smoking that I still have questions about. Like will breathing second hand pot smoke from a party that you attend make you have a false positive, even though you yourself did not smoke?

      For anyone who has ever cleaned a long time smoker's home, I can totally relate to a landlord not wanting to rent to a smoker. Not much smells worse, or is as hard to clean, than the residue of a smoker, from the smoke, to the goo on tables and windows. Not to mention having to replace carpet and curtains, and maybe even wall paper. Anything that absorbs the odor of cigarette smoke.

      Delete
    2. make you have a false positive

      It can. It depends how much you end up getting in you. Anyone who has gotten a contact high has enough THC to test positive. If you were just around it long enough to smell it and move away, I would say no because even if you managed to get a couple of lung fulls you wouldn't have ingested enough for a casual pee test to detect.

      Delete
    3. WaterBoy3:53 PM

      Also, unlike alcohol, THC can show up for several weeks afterward.

      Delete
  6. don't make me foot the bill for his medical insurance and retirement and anything else he is deferring buying for himself.

    I agree and not just for pot heads, I'm for having that policy for everyone, all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. WaterBoy2:06 PM

    Res Ipsa: "IMO I'd rather see the social costs of legalization/decriminalization borne by those using the product than by society as a whole. The fairest way to do that is by making the end user answerable to social pressure and not legal sanction."

    Agreed, and your response allayed the initial impression I got, that you were all for ostracizing pot users but not necessarily other classes of users (being one yourself, of course).

    There's a stigma attached to pot users that doesn't typically get applied to alcohol and tobacco users, and is largely attributable to government propaganda efforts going back many decades. It's disappointing sometimes to see how many otherwise intelligent people still fall for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Susan2:29 PM

      Using Obama as an example of life long pot smoking, I can understand why people stigmatize pot smokers. No matter how much it is denied, pot smoking does dull many things about the users, like initiative and memory.

      With it being legal in Oregon, Washington and Colorado, it is going to be interesting to hear the pot smokers try to stick with the argument that they aren't affecting anyone but themselves when vehicular accidents are on the rise, DUI's start going up, and so do insurance costs.

      Delete
    2. you were all for ostracizing pot users but not necessarily other classes of users

      I'm absolutely for ostracizing pot users. I'd much rather a society used social ostracization than clowns with badges and guns. The decline in tobacco use is the result of social pressure (albeit gov funded). If I'm given a choice (fat chance) I'd much rather someone lose a job, or a nice rental or whatever than have them lose a number of years of their life in a tax funded cage.

      People who say "there ought to be law" are everyone's enemy. Law enforcement is socially sanctioned killing of other members of society. Every law enforcement encounter is potentially a encounter with death. Far better to live in a trailer outside of town and wash dishes than get shot over a couple of pipes full of pot in a sandwich baggy.

      Delete
    3. Susan,

      I agree about the DUI's and other direct harm. I'm all for prosecuting people whose driving is a threat to the safety of others b/c of drugs or drink or texting etc. I think the penalty should be proportional to the crime.

      As far as health care etc. I don't think we should pay for other peoples bad choices.

      I agree there is a reason that "pot head" is an insult. It's because most of them don't seem very smart. I guess its true that if you started off with an IQ of 130 and pot dropped it to 115 the user would seem pretty normal. If you have an IQ of 100 and pot drops it to 85, its a bit more noticeable.

      Delete
    4. WaterBoy3:09 PM

      Susan: "it is going to be interesting to hear the pot smokers try to stick with the argument that they aren't affecting anyone but themselves when vehicular accidents are on the rise"

      Interestingly enough, fatal accidents in Colorado were down overall in the first year after legalization.

      And while that cannot be attributed directly to marijuana use (as the article notes, other factors like improved roads also play a role), it does refute the assertion that anti-legalization advocates claimed they would rise.

      As for Obama, I don't know why you keep thinking that a single example somehow proves your point. As with your Linda McCartney example, it proves exactly nothing. I can pull up a lifelong pot smoker with immaculate memory to counter your example, and it would also mean nothing.

      Data, Susan. You have to provide data, not anecdotes.

      Delete
    5. WaterBoy3:19 PM

      Res Ipsa: "The decline in tobacco use is the result of social pressure (albeit gov funded)."

      It is far more a result of laws banning smoking in buildings, restaurants, etc, and taxes mandated by law raising the cost of smoking, as it is social pressure.

      Delete
    6. We don't have those laws here, but it is still down.

      Delete