Pete Guither has a helpful roundup of reactions to the defeat of Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana under California state law. Opinion seems to be divided between those like myself and Kevin Drum who believe that support for legalization is rising and those who claim that the cause is probably hopeless because of opposition by parents and the elderly (e.g. Tyler Cowen and Megan McArdle).
I continue to be optimistic about public opinion trends. Gallup poll data shows that support for marijuana legalization has slowly but consistently risen from 12% in 1970 to 46% today. This is exactly the percentage of the vote that Prop 19 got, despite the fact that the elderly (who tend to oppose legalization by large margins) were vastly overrepresented in the 2010 California electorate. This longterm trend strongly supports my theory that disproportionate opposition to Prop 19 among the elderly is a generation effect (caused by ideological differences between younger and older generations) rather than a cohort effect (caused by people becoming more anti-legalization as they get older).
Megan McArdle and Tyler Cowen emphasize the role of parents in opposing marijuana legalization. It is indeed true that parents are more likely to be against legalization than others. But as Bryan Caplan points out, the impact of parenthood is minor compared to that of other factors such as ideology, gender, and religion. Moreover, parents, like other groups, have become less opposed to legalization over time. Today’s parents are more likely to oppose legalization than today’s childless adults. But they are still more supportive than the parents of 10, 20, or 30 years ago.
On balance, therefore, I think the trend towards greater support for marijuana legalization will continue, which cuts against Tyler’s theory that Prop 19 was the “high-water mark” for the legalization cause.
That doesn’t automatically mean that legalization will actually happen. Public opinion is not the only determinant of policy. Interest group influence matters too, and there are some powerful ones opposed to legalization (including the prison industry, various law enforcement agencies, and others). It is also possible that unexpected events will reverse the current trend. Although I don’t consider it to be likely, the next generation could turn out to be more socially conservative than today’s young people. It’s also possible that the trend towards support for legalization will be undercut by some dramatic negative event, such as the death of a prominent celebrity from a marijuana overdose. It would be irrational for voters to change their minds about legalization because of such an incident. But ignorance and irrationality are major factors in public opinion.
Despite these caveats, the data suggest that legalization advocates have more reason for optimism than their opponents. The long-term trends seem to be in their favor.
UPDATE: I previously failed to provide a link to the Gallup polling data on historical trends in public support for marijuana legalization. I have now corrected that mistake.
Dave says:
There has never been a documented case of marijuana overdose.
November 6, 2010, 6:00 pmCohortEffect says:
I believe you’re switching the definition of “cohort effect”–it refers to a constant group of people over time, e.g., people born in 1940, as distinct from an age effect, which would refer to different generations behaving similarly whenever they happen to be X years old (e.g. X=70).
November 6, 2010, 6:02 pmMax Power says:
Dave beat me to it — I don’t believe a “marijuana overdose” is physically possible.
November 6, 2010, 6:07 pmKeith West says:
I am not ready to take a stand on this issue one way or the other. I have generally considered myself anti-prohibition; however, having had my first child recently, perhaps I will now adopt a more protective social outlook. I just want to clarify one point you make: Dying of a marijuana overdose? I suspect that you were joking — but just to make sure we are all on the same page: Fatal overdose is not a side effect of marijuana.
November 6, 2010, 6:07 pmElemenope says:
It’s also possible that the trend towards support for legalization will be undercut by some dramatic negative event, such as the death of a prominent celebrity from a marijuana overdose.
I was gonna write “that would be quite a trick”, but I see I’ve already been beaten by three commenters to the punch.
This doesn’t mean that shifty drug-warriors wouldn’t, if given the opportunity, implicate marijuana use in an accidental death of a celebrity (say, a car accident), so I don’t dismiss the problem completely.
November 6, 2010, 6:09 pmFred says:
Losing elections on contentious social issues? The next step is to follow the other visionary reformers who have taken their cases to the courts. Surely some judge can be found who is either perceptive enough to discern a constitutional right to smoke dope that has been there all along, unnoticed, or bold enough to declare that such a right is now necessary to our evolving standards of decency and societal maturity.
November 6, 2010, 6:32 pmElemenope says:
Surely some judge can be found who is either perceptive enough to discern a constitutional right to smoke dope that has been there all along, unnoticed, or bold enough to declare that such a right is now necessary to our evolving standards of decency and societal maturity.
I suspect you’re being sarcastic, but this isn’t all that crazy. There’s plenty of room in the fourth amendment’s right to be secure in your person for the right to consume substances.
November 6, 2010, 6:42 pmLHB says:
If you accept the premise that our views on sexuality are even more prone to irrationality than our views on the use of intoxicants, then anti-prohibitionists have much to hope for.
Remember the Stonewall Riots of 1969? The “official” persecution of gays which led to the riots would be unthinkable now to the majority of the electorate. Prior to 1973, homosexuality was “officially” declared to be a mental illness according to the generally accepted mental health standards of the time (DSM II). Now, the notion of mainstream psychiatrists and psychologists diagnosing gays as “mentally ill” is difficult to imagine.
Likewise, in 10-20 years, the idea that people were actually sent to prison for possessing a plant will seem strange and alien to most people. Montesquieu was right in asserting that every generation has their certitudes that are viewed by subesequent generations as incomprehensible delusions.
November 6, 2010, 6:49 pmDan Lavatan says:
I think it should be covered under the P & I clause. The judges asked for these to be enumerated during McDonald, and the lawyers wouldn’t do it. Also, if you read Raich closley, I think you would be okay if you made some non-fungible cannabis or synthetic cannabinoids.
November 6, 2010, 6:55 pmDr. T says:
Wrong. State and local efforts to legalize marijuana mean absolutely nothing when the federal government has proved that it will continue to prosecute people for possession or sale of marijuana for recreational or medical uses. A significant majority of voters in this country strongly support the war on drugs (including marijuana). Therefore, I see no hope of complete legalization of marijuana (at both federal AND state levels) occurring in any state in the near future.
The alternative to complete legalization is for a state to legalize marijuana AND order its law officers to prevent DEA or FBI agents from making marijuana-related arrests. That is less likely than the federal government legalizing marijuana.
Libertarianism is the preferred form of government for less than 2% of the adult population in the USA. Freedom to use drugs is one of the reasons why so many people dislike libertarianism. I completely favor legalization of all mind- and mood-altering drugs, despite being the father of two daughters, ages 21 and 17. (I mention this because of the poll data indicating that parents are less likely to favor marijuana legalization. I don’t find it difficult to be a libertarian and a parent. I accept the fact that life has risks, and that parents cannot and should not completely shield their children. If children never encounter small risks, how will they learn to handle big ones?)
November 6, 2010, 7:09 pmChris Travers says:
What this does is put the federal government in a bind, and make it harder for cases to be prosecuted. The obvious step is to have a non-cooperation law which states that the state shall not cooperate with the federal government in any MJ-related case.
The tide is turning slowly. State decriminalization does weaken federal controls, though. Last time I was in LA (last year), I was amazed at how easy it was to find what seemed to be storefronts selling cannabis under a thin facade of medical use.
November 6, 2010, 7:17 pmCornellian says:
Losing elections on contentious social issues? The next step is to follow the other visionary reformers who have taken their cases to the courts.
Yeah, as with the cases of gun control (Heller), campaign finance (Citizens United), assisted suicide (Gonzales v Oregon) and medical marijuana (Raich v Ashcroft), conservatives have a habit of turning to the courts for results they can’t get at the ballot box.
November 6, 2010, 7:26 pmAlbert Gedraitis says:
I agree with Ilya Somin regarding the preferable legalization of cannabis, but with restrictions on where it is smoked (besides the smoke endangering non-smoking persons close-buy, as in restaurants and bar, most marijuana stinks).
My reasons for advocating legalization is most pointedly that it is much safer than alcoholic beverages (which I woud outlaw after pot was legalized). Use of the two simultaneously adds to any deficits of pot the hideous anger-inducement of alcohol. Marijuana is eros-inducing for many. Also, it brackets out the surrounds and makes concentration on the immediate task much more intensely.
The absurdity of the alcohol-pushing society that outlaws cannabis is in itself hallucinatory. But I am no Libertarian; it is too internally incohernet a philosophy for me to subscribe to it. My line of reasoning grows out of the reformational Christian philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd, altho most of them are boozers, not tokers. Of course, we have our own set of puritanical prigs, as well.
November 6, 2010, 7:27 pmOrenWithAnE says:
States represent the vast majority of prosecutions for marijuana. The DOJ has neither the manpower nor the presence to start policing recreational drug use by individuals. The results would be the proliferation of small-time growers and distributors (much like NorCal is now in Humboldt County, given the defacto legalization out there) with the occasional government action against any that grow large enough to attract attention.
You really should visit the Emerald Triangle sometime …
November 6, 2010, 7:33 pmElemenope says:
Use of the two simultaneously adds to any deficits of pot the hideous anger-inducement of alcohol.
In me it simply induces a dramatic case of hypotension. Seriously, I turn blue and *bam*, syncope. I don’t mix them anymore.
November 6, 2010, 7:36 pmA. Criminal says:
The prohibition laws just increase the risk of harm to kids by adding the risks of prison, drug impurities and possibly associating with real criminals, to the actual drug risks (which are WAY overblown).
November 6, 2010, 7:43 pmAlbert Gedraitis says:
Albert Gedraitis: I agree with Ilya Somin regarding the preferability of legalizing the smoking of cannabis, but with restrictions on where it is smoked (besides the unpleasant and health-endangerment of non-smoking persons close-by, as in restaurants and bars, most marijuana stinks).
My reasons for advocating legalization is most pointedly that it is much safer than alcoholic beverages (which I woud slowly outlaw after pot was legalized). Use of the two simultaneously adds to any deficits of pot, the hideous anger-inducement of alcohol. Marijuana is eros-inducing for many. Also, it brackets out the surrounds and makes concentration on an immediate task like reading or writing much more achievable.
The absurdity of the alcohol-pushing society that outlaws cannabis is in itself hallucinatory. Dr Ilya leaves the booze industry off his list of enemies of marijuana legalization. But, in any case, I’m no Libertarian; it is too internally incoherent a philosophy for me to subscribe to it, for all its egomaniacal claims to rationality. My line of reasoning grows out of the reformational Christian philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd, altho most of its adherents are boozers, not tokers. Of course, our intellectual commuity have our own set of puritanical prigs, as well.
I think Californians voted anti-MaryJane because they don’t want to provoke the Feds since they want their bankrupt state to be bailed out by the taxpayers of the rest of the country. Yet, it’s in California’s interest to legalize the growers, tax their product, and help the state achieve solvency on its own resources. But, then the state logically woud support the anti-Drug aspect of tightening the border with Mexico. It wasn’t the referendum that was the problem, the problem is the voters of California.
November 6, 2010, 7:48 pmarbitrary aardvark says:
By now somebody’s looked at the county-by-county results for prop 19 to see where local initiatives are feasible. 2010 was an off-year election, with a GOP surge (measurable even in California.) I wonder if anybody’s crunched the numbers to estimate how something like prop 19 would be likely to do in the higher turnout of a presidential year. Of course we don’t yet know whether the GOP/tea party trend will continue or evaporate by 2012. If jury pools are made up 45% people who voted for prop 19, jury nullification should be even more doable than before.
November 6, 2010, 7:50 pmOne time a bale fell from a plane and killed a guy; I count that as a marijuana overdose.
The constitutional right to smoke pot comes from the privacy clause of the ten states that have an explicit right to privacy. Only Alaska, in a 1972 case, has interpreted it that way. However, if the pro-pot lobby gets organized (I kid) it could run campaigns against judges who fail to rule the right way.
juris imprudent says:
Given the quality of the opposition to Prop 19, oh, say like this, you would think legalization can’t be far off.
November 6, 2010, 8:20 pmElemenope says:
Given the quality of the opposition to Prop 19, oh, say like this, you would think legalization can’t be far off.
That was the takeaway from Andrew Sullivan’s postmortem on 19, as well. Essentially, if this is the best drug warriors can do, they’re doomed.
November 6, 2010, 8:31 pmJames Gibson says:
On the subject of someone dying from Pot I’ll add the guy who tried to shoot his way into the Pentagon earlier this year (Self-medicating I think is now the term).
Taxing pot is just going to drive the untaxed black market just as there is still an unregulated untaxed white lightning industry in the US. And it won’t stop the violence at the border since most of that violence is associated with the Cocaine or meth smuggling.
And as for public support, note how the polling data used by the prof begins after the 1960s and the hippie movement ends. Talk about setting the data to only show continual increase in public support for legalization.
November 6, 2010, 8:47 pmElemenope says:
On the subject of someone dying from Pot I’ll add the guy who tried to shoot his way into the Pentagon earlier this year (Self-medicating I think is now the term).
Are you implying the marijuana intoxication was contributory?
Taxing pot is just going to drive the untaxed black market just as there is still an unregulated untaxed white lightning industry in the US.
Just like it did with alcohol.
LOLWUT?
A tax-free black market would only be sustainable if the tax levels increase beyond the relative utility of convenient legal purchase. The alcohol model is a very good one for gauging how to prevent that.
And as for public support, note how the polling data used by the prof begins after the 1960s and the hippie movement ends. Talk about setting the data to only show continual increase in public support for legalization.
Or, perhaps, scientific public polling wasn’t run on the issue nationwide before the 1970s. Even if it were, I would be surprised if the public support for legalization were higher in the 60s than the 70s.
November 6, 2010, 9:13 pmkarrde says:
There was evidence that a limousine driver may have had marijuana in his bloodstream the night that two Detroit Red Wings players were injured in a crash. (Evidence is mentioned here, as an aside in an article about legal trouble after the collision. Basic sketch of the crash and the injuries to the players can be found here.)
However, this driver had lost his license several times for DUI’s involving alcohol, and the case is more than a decade old…so I don’t think this qualifies.
November 6, 2010, 9:29 pmOrenWithAnE says:
And without the self-medicating, he might have done it earlier this decade. Or not. It’s easy to speculate though!
November 6, 2010, 9:37 pmwm13 says:
Hmm, well, current progressive opinion seems to favor making it illegal to smoke tobacco and legal to smoke marijuana. As long as Prof. Somin and the solons in the government are keeping busy, I guess it’s a harmless sort of caucus race, switching one for the other.
November 6, 2010, 10:51 pmleo marvin says:
Which progressive opinion favors tobacco prohibition anywhere the smoke isn’t being inflicted on others?
November 6, 2010, 11:40 pmRicardo says:
I just ran some quick data analysis and found that even after controlling for other demographic variables, there is still a 10% gap between unmarried and married people for legalization. In the 2008 GSS data set, 47% of singles supported marijuana legalization compared to 35% of married people. This gap remains even if you control for race, age, education and income. I noticed that Prof. Caplan did not control for marital status in his analysis: he probably should as it is an extremely important variable for explaining voting patterns.
In California, a consideration that cuts against optimism is that Caucasians are much more likely to support legalization than racial minorities. If you split the Prop. 19 by race and sex, white males split 50-50 while women of all races and minorities were between 40-45% in favor. It’s an interesting phenomenon as these groups tend to lean heavily toward the Democratic Party in partisan elections.
November 7, 2010, 12:01 amRicardo says:
In Berkeley, if you smoke a joint while waiting at a bus stop, you will be stopped and ticketed by police — probably for violating California law prohibiting smoking 20 feet from a bus shelter.
November 7, 2010, 12:04 amRicardo says:
I don’t see much evidence of that. The Tea Party contingent voted overwhelmingly against Prop. 19 and they are precisely the people who you would expect to be least in favor of begging for a bailout from the Feds. Pro-Obama liberals and country club Republicans tended to vote in favor.
November 7, 2010, 12:14 amAnonny says:
wm13-
November 7, 2010, 12:18 amAs a fact, it’s incorrect, and as a joke, it’s lazy.
Allan Walstad says:
So, marijuana prohibition will continue, and millions of people will continue to enjoy marijuana anyway, and millions more will continue to have acquaintances who use it without apparent ill effect; and, one result will be that marijuana prohibition remains a source of mistrust and contempt for meddlesome government. I guess every dark cloud does have its silver lining.
November 7, 2010, 12:19 amBill Alexander says:
Also, there are people who voted against prop 19 in California because it is a poorly written act and shouldn’t be in the state constitution.
November 7, 2010, 12:39 amsubpatre says:
Allan Walstad nails the unintended consequence of continuing criminalization; “a source of mistrust and contempt for meddlesome government”.
Although it is probably the elderly who are most opposed to its legalization or decriminalization, it is also the same generation that convinces normal people to vote against it. [seared memory alert]
November 7, 2010, 1:11 amEH says:
And prison, don’t forget the misery of prison. There are people there for pot.
November 7, 2010, 2:13 amjuris imprudent says:
I don’t believe more than a handful of people voted against it just because it was poorly crafted (as are virtually all initiatives). The primary motive continues to be a social stigmatization not differentiable (and not far removed) from racism.
November 7, 2010, 2:13 amStuart says:
Right, there are no court cases on liberal causes championed by the left. (sarcasm off)
It doesn’t matter whether you are left or right, if you can’t change the law you go to court and if you can’t win either way, you go to the ballot box. That is how it works. Your reply is emblematic of the losing party in this election. (sarcasm back on) Your policies cannot possibly be wrong, so there is something wrong with the others as human beings. (sarcasm back off)
I grew up in the 60′s and 70′s. Much of my generation largely opposed the Vietnam war and was into drugs. I was part of that. Some of that generation opposes MJ legalization and some does not. I am not buying that it is generational – some of us smoked dope and some didn’t.
MJ is no less a public health and safety concern than alcohol or cigarettes, IMO. Not the same, mind you, but it is still has issues. I have no desire to see it legalized. We have enough problems with inebriated people drunk on the road or using dangerous machinery or making decisions affecting the lives or welfare of others.
I guess I was one of those liberals that got mugged.
November 7, 2010, 3:32 amRicardo says:
It seems to me that the boomer generation often gets unfairly stereotyped. At least half of that generation never touched marijuana and a fair number not only supported the war in Vietnam but willingly joined the armed forces to fight that war. A lot of those guys were probably never pro-legalization to begin with.
By contrast, there really does seem to be a cultural and generational shift in most of the country, just like there is with homosexuality. It was a big deal when Clinton made his absurd statement about not inhaling. By contrast, a large number of Presidential candidates in the last election openly admitted to having tried marijuana when they were younger and nobody can even remember who admitted it anymore. It wasn’t considered newsworthy. Even Obama’s admitted cocaine use was largely treated with a shrug.
November 7, 2010, 6:14 amhedberg says:
Although marijuana use may “bracket out the surrounds,” the notion that it “makes concentration on the immediate task much more intensely” is most likely wrong. See, for example, here:
November 7, 2010, 7:01 amJosh Bornstein says:
While I’m definitely in the “wish it had passed” camp, one silver lining is that the next effort will, hopefully, be a bit better-written. I voted for the proposition, and a large majority of my acquaintances did as well. But a good number of them did not, and just about all of them were put off by the scattered approach (that passage would lead to dozens and dozens of wildly-varying rules, all over California). I predict that legalization will occur in California…
1. In an election where the president is up for election.
2. When there is a uniform law that covers all of California equally.
3. When it’s clear what the tax will be (which should appeal to those who want uniformity, and to those who want a more quantifiable idea of the tax revenues that passage would bring.
In 2012? I’m doubtful. (Although it certainly would help bring out the youth vote . . . older voters who oppose it would already be likely to vote, based on historical trends that are well-accepted.)
November 7, 2010, 7:18 amRicardo says:
That’s a maybe. There are some very bright people who are high pretty much all of the time just as there have been some brilliant alcoholics. I wouldn’t recommend either but impairment of cognition doesn’t seem to be that severe for some people. I went to grad school with a really intense guy who got high every day: he earned his Ph.D. ahead of most of his classmates and did a post-doc at Harvard with a prestigious funding grant and opportunities to present his dissertation research at international academic conferences.
Marijuana is not addictive to the same extent alcohol is so it is more likely that people will adjust their usage according to what their brains can tolerate. My friend evidently had an exceptional ability to not have his thinking and concentration impaired very much by his substance use. In my experience, people who don’t handle marijuana that well loose interest in it once it is time to get a real job and have responsibilities in life. Dependence is not that common.
November 7, 2010, 7:31 amhedberg says:
Sure, some people can function quite well, but that’s not the point. The point is that marijuana use is not likely to enhance someone’s ability to concentrate. The typical effect is quite the opposite. As for the brilliant grad student, his story doesn’t tell us much. Perhaps had he not been a dope smoker he would have already won a Nobel prize, or perhaps led a successful campaign to legalize pot in California, or something.
“Marijuana is not addictive to the same extent alcohol is so it is more likely that people will adjust their usage according to what their brains can tolerate.”
I know quite a number of people who have been pot smokers for decades. They all have jobs and they all get by, but my observation is not the same as yours. Of course, I have no idea what these people would be like if they had never smoked dope at all. Perhaps they were born stupid.
November 7, 2010, 8:31 amAspen says:
Might the large voting population of emigrants from drug-war-torn Latin American countries also be a factor that contributed to the rejection of Prop 19? While they’re probably Democratic Party leaning on most issues, the Prop 8 results show that they aren’t ideologically aligned with the mainstream liberal consensus on some social issues.
November 7, 2010, 9:11 amLargo says:
I can speak from ancient experience that there are aspects of ability to concentrate that are enhanced, and others that are not — and that it is highly dose and setting dependent. It’s effect on musical cognition has been for me (as a music student) extremely pronounced, in ways that aided musical analysis when I was not high (and now, twenty years later).
It also led me to a sudden and lasting appreciation (as a spectator) for the game of ice hockey. I found my attention fixated on the the puck and its handling, and my understanding of the game was forever changed. It gave me, among other things, a ‘kinesthetic’ sense for the game. There is much worthy of study. As a complete novice to psychology, I find myself speculating on the possible effect of cannabis on mirror neurons.
(It did nothing to help my appreciation of American Football though. My attention would go not to the QB or the ball, but to the clash of bodies surrounding him. The effect was unpleasantly jarring.)
November 7, 2010, 9:19 amLargo says:
Albert, it is a pleasure to meet a fellow Dooyeweerdian here!!
November 7, 2010, 9:21 amAJ says:
If pot is legalized, (1) the purchase cost will go down (bringing it to market will be easier), (2) obviously the cost of fines or jail will go away, and (3) the social costs will go down as high-functioning pot-heads will attest to. Econ 101 then predicts that more pot use will occur, especially when alcohol social effects are measured against perceived pot effects. With older siblings smoking legally and with cultural approval, more teens and pre-teens will indulge.
The pot heads in high school I recall were not the ones competing for scholarships and academic awards, but were more likely the ones also abusing alcohol and under achieving. Few rational parents want their still-mentally-devolping child to be exposed to even more chemical intoxicants, Ricardo’s (and my) unique PhD buddies excepted. Certainly studies show some people focus better while driving on pot, but for a 17yr old who has only recently started using pot and driving, I question extrapolating that conclusion too broadly. Parents already struggle with kids getting ready access to booze and prescription drugs, why add one more problem to parenting? I do think the key demographic IS parents, and I don’t think time will cause them to go away.
November 7, 2010, 9:55 amRicardo says:
There is nothing unique about the Latino vote. African-Americans voted against Prop. 19 by about the same margin while Asians were even more likely to vote against it. Moreover, in my experience, college-educated or grad-school-educated Mexicans were pretty likely to be in favor of Prop. 19. There is something about the minority vote and marijuana legalization which is interesting in its own right but the supposed experience of Latino immigrants from drug-war-torn countries doesn’t seem to play a big role.
November 7, 2010, 10:05 amRob says:
I think the legalization of marijuana would eventually lead to legalization of hard drugs (cocaine, crack, meth, etc.) when a certain number of people with weaker willpower and unsatisfied feeling of not getting high enough would agitate for such a thing.
I oppose the legalization of marijuana on grounds that some, if not most, people do not have the willpower or the restraint to resist the urge of seeking a stronger high, especially if marijuana is regulated by state officials and purchased in small controlled amounts. Second, it would get the state governments into the business of selling marijuana as a controlled substance and that would force illegal drug dealers and drug cartels to seek drastic ways to deal harder drugs illegally to off-set the loss of revenues from selling marijuana. This would spur aggressive criminal enterprise of the drug cartels when its biggest competition is the state or federal government. Look at Mexico: weaker governments, stronger drug cartels. You legalize marijuana, you make drug cartels stronger and more dangerous, not weaker.
The moral argument should be about that, not the opinions of the elder voters and parents oppose to legalization.
November 7, 2010, 10:29 amOrenWithAnE says:
The one that bans smoking in bars/restaurants with the consent of the owner. Pretty darned popular one, I might add.
How’s that? They have a terrible business model, high transportation costs, huge labor overhead, terrible employees. A well designed Wal-Mart of marijuana would eat their lunch in a free market.
November 7, 2010, 11:33 amRoger Sweeny says:
Which progressive opinion favors tobacco prohibition anywhere the smoke isn’t being inflicted on others?
Some progressive opinion believes there is no such place. There’s either second hand smoke (in the air from someone’s smoking) or third hand smoke (crud fallen out of the air from someone’s smoking) everywhere. The only way to keep it from being inflicted on someone is to keep it from being put in the air in the first place.
November 7, 2010, 12:13 pmRonald C. Den Otter says:
AJ, in a state like CA, is it really that hard for a teenager to get his or her hands on some pot? How would decriminalization (or legalization) change the status quo other than by reducing its price? I tend to think that parents overreact to these sorts of “dangers” as well.
Rob, I think that the moral argument a la James Q. Wilson against marijuana use is quite weak. People lack willpower to resist all sorts of things that may turn out to be bad for them, especially when not used in moderation or responsibly.
A marijuana overose? Wtf? Ilya, are you serious??? Or some frat kids make a pledge smoke marijuana until he passes out and suffocates in a haze? Or his olfactory senses are overwhelmed by the sweet perfume and he bleeds to death from his nostrils? And hey, what celebrity only uses pot???
Couldn’t help myself. Serious question now. I voted for Prop. 19 and haven’t smoked marijuana in years, but my impression is that in CA personal use has been de facto decriminalized. If that’s the case, then Prop. 19 wouldn’t change the status quo much from the standpoint of the person who wants to smoke and only will receive a small fine provided that he isn’t dealing. On the other hand, legalization would lead to much lower prices.
November 7, 2010, 1:02 pmRS Milch says:
Opinion seems to be divided between those like myself and Kevin Drum who believe that support for legalization is rising and those who claim that the cause is probably hopeless because of opposition by parents and the elderly (e.g. Tyler Cowen and Megan McArdle).
November 7, 2010, 1:17 pmThe “myself” should simply be “me”. Thanks. (No need to post this comment).
Chris Travers says:
Do you support criminalization of nicotine, alcohol, etc? Do you support strengthening the prohibition on opium poppies so they are treated as strictly as cannibis? Do you support making henbane, potato leaf, and garden lettuce illegal?
November 7, 2010, 1:26 pmAllan Walstad says:
hedberg
Then don’t use it. But surely there needs to be a much higher threshold of possible negative effect before you start throwing people in prison. What are the effects of that on concentration, productivity, criminality…?
Rob
You’re entitled to your speculation, but the reality is that millions of rather ordinary people are using it anyway with little apparent negative effect, and the violence of drug gangs stems largely from fighting over turf — which itself stems directly from the illegality of the drugs. If mj legalization is followed by legalization of harder drugs, it will likely be because the same valid, winning arguments apply, while all the fear-mongering about a nation of pot-heads run amuck will have been debunked by experience. State governments don’t actually have to sell mj any more than they have to sell alcohol. I have no idea what you mean by “drastic ways to deal harder drugs.” Drug gangs sell what people will buy; how is that going to change?
November 7, 2010, 1:32 pmChris Travers says:
I don’t know what school you went to but at least one of the Middle School kids in my cohort who I assumed was probably a pot head got a scholarship to MIT…..
Seriously, though, I know a lot of people who choose not to do pot for reasons other than the legal side, myself among them. Anyone working in a technical field will find sooner or later that he or she has to choose between his or her performance and the pot, and it’s not been a hard choice for anyone I know.
November 7, 2010, 1:33 pmFub says:
Prop. 19 did not amend the state constitution. It amended the Health and Safety code.
What Prop. 19 did do was expressly waive the existing constitutional requirement of a voter majority to amend laws enacted by a vote of the people, for certain statute sections that Prop. 19 would have enacted if it passed. That would allow the legislature to amend the law in limited ways if the proposition passed.
Marijuana must be one mighty powerful drug if it can cause people who don’t use it to hallucinate that Prop. 19 would have amended the constitution.
November 7, 2010, 2:19 pmhedberg says:
The costs to the individual of marijuana criminalization are perfectly avoidable. If someone doesn’t want to pay the cost, “then don’t use it.” This is a bad argument, by the way.
November 7, 2010, 2:42 pmNobody Really says:
November 7, 2010, 3:24 pmJocelyn Elders.
AJ says:
For starters, people I know that never smoked pot primarily did so because it was illegal. So, I would argue a lot more people will at least try it and many will continue to use it in a recreational manner. Also with the stigma reduced and with more individuals of age having it on hand, kids will find it even easier to get access. Most kids get booze and cigarettes from older sibling or their sibling’s friends…the ydynamic will be the same…more stoned kids.
One senior I was lab partners with in Physics who was a stoner got run over on the road while tripping on something else. Anecdotes aren’t persuasive here. I do agree with you that most people do grow out of the habit. Some people handle it better than others…on average adolescents and teens will probably do better without intoxicants…on several levels.
Here’s my anecdote: I was in Amsterdam a few years back and there were some Americans in their 30′s enjoying some of the evil weed. The European women I was attemtping to woo found it funny that people that age would still be into pot. Go figure, doing pot was viewed as being immature.
November 7, 2010, 3:48 pmChris Travers says:
Marijuana is a very dangerous and powerful drug. It leads to delusions and bad decision-making even among those who never use it.
November 7, 2010, 4:04 pmChris Travers says:
But what’s the solution? Telling people they cannot grow, say, lettuce in their garden? (let the lettuce go to seed, score the stems, collect the sap, and at least for some people, you get something that’s reasonably similar to opium.)
November 7, 2010, 4:06 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Legalization leads to healthy(ier) attitudes towards drugs? Say it aint so!
November 7, 2010, 4:06 pmRedlands says:
Sorry if this has been discussed. I’m frankly too busy, i.e., too lazy, to read all replies to the blog.
November 7, 2010, 4:28 pmFor those in favor of legalization and those opposed, what is the stated basis for their position? Just wondering.
Allan Walstad says:
Yes, you have very bad argument indeed. If someone chooses to partake of marijuana, then by that very fact they anticipate a benefit which criminalization coercively deprives them of. Criminalization of private non-coercive behavior is itself coercion. But you are not coercively deprived of anything if your prefer not to use marijuana and don’t use it. This is pretty basic stuff.
November 7, 2010, 4:33 pmAllan Walstad says:
Redlands: Short answer — I oppose criminalization of recreational drug use for two reasons. 1) It constitutes a plain infringement of individual liberty. 2) The unintended consequences include a) violent crime as suppliers, who, operating outside the law, fight over drug-selling turf and have no recourse to the courts to settle disputes, and b) corruption of law enforcement officials by the combination of bribes available and threats of reprisal.
November 7, 2010, 4:41 pmChrisTS says:
FUB:
“Marijuana must be one mighty powerful drug if it can cause people who don’t use it to hallucinate that Prop. 19 would have amended the constitution.”
We used to call that a contact high.
November 7, 2010, 4:46 pmChrisTS says:
Redlands:
I favor decriminalization because
November 7, 2010, 4:53 pma) the government has been picking, irrationally, among favored and nonfavored recreational drugs with the result of putting people in prison for using something no worse than alcohol or tobacco;
(b) I do not buy the ‘gateway’ story – it has not panned out in other nations, it ignores that putting people in contact with criminals is likely to put them in conatct with worse drugs, it is undermined by nonsense of treating mj as a Schedule 1 drug and cocaine and meth as Schedule 2 drugs (as though the gateway drug is worse than the drugs to which it is purportedly a gateway);
(c) while I think it makes social sense to try to keep something like heroin off the streets, I do not think mj is a comparable threat – thus, I think the state is abusing what might be a plausible interest in public health.
David Sucher says:
“Interest group influence matters too, and there are some powerful ones opposed to legalization (including the prison industry, various law enforcement agencies, and others).”
Maybe “others” such as drug criminals?
I wonder how much money from drug criminals contributed to the anti-Prop 19 forces. I assume a a vast amount. Washed but still dirty.
November 7, 2010, 5:23 pmLHB says:
This is perhaps the worst defense of bad law that I’ve ever heard. Using this line of reasoning, criminalizing ANY activity poses no problem from the standpoint of justice since the criminal penalty can be avoided by not engaging in the illegal activity. Tautology at it’s worst.
November 7, 2010, 5:58 pmFub says:
Especially since it’s demonstrably false. Costs to non-using individuals include being on the receiving end of a wrong address SWAT raid.
November 7, 2010, 6:20 pmhedberg says:
It’s not a defense of bad law, it’s a response to the bad argument which says that if you want to avoid the harmful effects of smoking marijuana, don’t smoke it coupled with a litany of horrors that the illegality of marijuana supposedly causes.
I’ll summarize:
I noted that marijuana use is not harmless.
Someone responded with the trivial observation that the harmful effects of marijuana use can be avoided by not smoking it and further pointed out, quite correctly, that the criminalization of marijuana use has harmful effects.
I responded with the trivial observation that the harmful effects of marijuana criminalization can be avoided by not using marijuana. The argument is the same from both sides and it’s a bad argument from both sides.
There are, in my opinion, very good arguments in favor of legalization which include the argument that the costs of criminalization are great and outweigh the harmful effects of increased marijuana use. But, if someone is going to make that argument, the costs of increased marijuana use need to be evaluated, not just dismissed out of hand by noting that an individual can avoid the harmful effects by not smoking it.
The argument about the coercive nature of anti-marijuana laws is, in my opinion, a losing argument even though it does appeal to a small percentage of the population which is predisposed to placing a higher value on personal freedom than does the typical voter. Although such arguments may appeal to me, in the general population they have a very small constituency.
November 7, 2010, 6:54 pmhedberg says:
That’s true. Marijuana criminalization imposes costs on innocent non-participants. Marijuana legalization and the resulting increase in dope smoking would impose costs also.
November 7, 2010, 7:00 pmAnatid says:
Okay, so what? There are myriad things that make it hard to concentrate.
For example, having fighting kids in the back seat impairs driving ability about the same as moderate alcohol intoxication. Yet no one is suggesting legislature to restrict how many children one may carry in a car or how those children must be strapped in, even though it would save dozens (or hundreds) of lives and millions of dollars in damages a year.
Other things. Low blood sugar. Your boss yelled at you at work that day. Walking pneumonia. More than 22 hrs awake without sleep. Being in love.
Clearly, the capacity of a state of being to impair concentration is not the sole determinant in whether or not achieving that state ought to be illegal. Within broad limits, it’s not even a major one.
Are you familiar with how the confirmation bias works?
1) You have a pre-conceived notion of what stoners behave like.
2) You see people acting in this way. You conclude that they are stoners.
3) Since they are stoners, and they are acting in this way, this confirms your notion of how it is that stoners behave.
4) You never even notice all the stoners who do not behave that way.
It’s like folks who think all gay men are flaming because they only notice the flamers and never notice the quiet, ordinary ones.
The ones who’ve learned to blend in because, among other reasons, they don’t want to be labeled by people’s pre-conceived notions.
Study came out earlier this year. Their conclusion was (big surprise) that when X and Y correlate, it is because they are both caused by Z. In this case, the reason why marijuana use correlates with use of hard drugs and poorer outcomes is that the factors that cause one to be more likely to use marijuana are also factors that make one more likely to use harder drugs.
November 7, 2010, 7:02 pmhedberg says:
Laws limiting the number of passengers in a car are common as are laws which specify how children are to be “strapped in.”
I don’t know why you’re addressing this to me, I made no such argument. Someone claimed that dope smoking enhances the ability to concentrate, I pointed out that the opposite is the more common result and included a reference that anyone may investigate as desired.
November 7, 2010, 7:25 pmAllan Walstad says:
hedberg
The argument is quite trivially not the same from both sides, and I explained precisely why.
November 7, 2010, 9:06 pmAJ says:
Hopefully I did not seem to over-generalize, I was just attempting to counter the anecdote that pot-smokers all turn out to be “super-concentrating PhDs” who owe all of their success to the miracle of intoxication. I eagerly await the peer-reviewed evidence that shows that on-average pot-smoking in high school is neither good nor bad, it’s kinda just there dude.
November 7, 2010, 10:35 pmPQuincy says:
Since we now know that the recent Arizona law concerning police behavior towards people they suspected of being illegal immigrants was written, launched, lobbied, and supported almost entirely by the private prison industry, we had better assume that all efforts to decrease the rigor and harsh sentencing of current marijuana laws will be opposed by the Correction Corporation of America and its peers by all means necessary.
The Arizona experience suggests that the means will include inflammatory mendacity and outright lies (e.g. beheadings), along with broad campaigns to connect marijuana use with all stress-inducing social or economic problems (no matter how far-fetched or empirically false the connection), and so forth.
As a commenter noted above, laws are not made by polls, but through complex institutional games with many choke-points and levers for concealed interests to exert influence. If a state like California, with a lively initiative/referendum system, is involved, large-scale lying to the voters will likely be even more important than it was in Arizona.
November 7, 2010, 10:39 pmPeter Gerdes says:
IF other things are equal then use should increase. Other things are not equal because legality, in particular pot’s status as a relatively safe form of social rebellion, is also in play. We do have some empirical data from the effective legalization of consumption in the Netherlands which suggests use won’t substantially increase and may even decrease.
Of course the US is a different kind of society and punishes (socially and legally) one time experimentation with pot more heavily than the netherlands probably ever did. My expectation is that legalization would substantially increase the number of US residents who try pot, slightly increase the number of occasional users but decrease the number of teenagers using pot with any regularity and probably decrease the number of daily users. Once teens hear their mom talk about smoking a bit too much at the Jones house last night as they do now about alcohol pot will lose a great deal of it’s glamor for teens and knowing they can always try it after turning 21 reduces the pressure to take advantage of any opportunity to light up. Sure, more teens will probably try a puff in the same way most teens have sipped wine but rarely if ever become drunk. Also by legalizing pot one the underground culture will be pulled into the light exposing those abusing the drug to the same pressure to moderate use applied to people who start drinking a bit too much.
If we are going to talk economics don’t forget about the substitution effect. We should effect legal pot to substitute for liquor, prescription abuse and even illicit narcotics. Since pot has less harmful health consequences than virtually any of the goods it will substitute for a rational parent might well be pleased that the expected harm to their child from drugs has been reduced.
If you ever really need convincing of this point look at someone after decades of alcohol abuse and after decades of pot use. The former are terribly sad wreaks who shuffle around barely able to remember their own names while the later are annoying, spacey guys who hang out at phish concerts and say “dude” alot (much of which is cultural).
Actually what the studies show is that the greater risk of driver error on pot is more than compensated for by the increased safety of the lower speed which stoned drivers tend to adopt. This should apply just as strongly to seventeen year olds as anyone else.
Perhaps because they are smart enough to realize that laws should be evaluated based on their net effects not on whether they are trying to be helpful. No reasonable parent wants their kid to be bullied or to bully but that doesn’t mean they would support a law imprisoning people who made fun of nerds.
November 7, 2010, 10:48 pmleo marvin says:
I assume you’re quibbling with “inflicted,” since non-smoking patrons can go someplace else. Fine. The law is still for the protection of non-smokers, not an attempt to prohibit smokers from killing themselves someplace they’re the only ones inhaling the smoke. The point being, contrary to WM13′s assertion, there’s not even a remote equivalence between MJ prohibition and the restrictions on where cigarettes can be smoked.
November 7, 2010, 10:51 pmAnatid says:
There are a few Kary Mullis’ out there, but for the most part, individual variation is going to make a vastly bigger difference in outcomes that marijuana use. “Whoa dude” types will remain whoa dude types, nerds will remain nerds, jerks will remain jerks.
The biggest problem with collecting any research vigorous enough to be considered causative is the complexity of the issue at hand. If Z causes both X and Y, then it is very difficult to examine Y without X, since it will still be affected by Z, and ideally we want to examine Y without Z as well. And when Y and X interact when Z then it gets even more complicated …
November 7, 2010, 11:08 pmDavid Sucher says:
Of course that is not so. Many high-school pot smokers graduated to have an MA, MBA or/and an LLB.
•••
Anyone have idea how much was money spent on pro and con on Prop 19? Anyone know the nature of the groups? Is it “dark money?” (per the encouragement of the US Supreme Court?) Thus easy that anti-Prop 19 money is funded by drug-criminals? I assume it must be.
I am stupefied that anyone is seriously proposing that marijuana should remain the engine of narco-criminality and that people who oppose Prop 19 as a matter of large public policy. I can only guess that opponents are young and simply like to argue, many in rebellion to their pot-smoking parents.
As to abuse of marijuana, of course everyone is against abuse. As should be too much broccoli, red meat and soda pop. Abuse is always bad. But why set the abusers as the standard? By that token guns should not only be regulated but totally banned and making owning a gun (any kind) should be absolutely illegal.
(Indeed Prop 19 may have been poorly drafted and can argue that it’s a good thing it failed — but Prop 19 as a piece of wise drafting is not really at hand. The wording was not the ting — it’s about pot.)
November 8, 2010, 12:01 amOrenWithAnE says:
Would it help if restaurants that wanted to allow smoking placed a huge neon skull and crossbones outside (subject to zoning laws regarding such fixtures, naturally)? I mean how can you “protect” someone who, seeing a huge warning that unambiguously means DEATH decides “you know what, I think I’ll go in here”?
No, there is not. There is just the irony that support for them is negatively correlated (just as, for instance, there is a strong correlation between favorable views of the TP and opposition to P19, ‘don’t tread on me’ not actually applying in this particular instance).
November 8, 2010, 12:07 amleo marvin says:
If by “young” you mean “old,” and by “argue” you mean “vote,” then yeah, that’s pretty much the problem.
November 8, 2010, 12:09 amhedberg says:
Yeah, whatever. “Help! help! I’m being repressed.”
November 8, 2010, 2:11 amRonald C. Den Otter says:
That was a good one. Does anyone think that we should disenfranchise older people? :)
Btw, I think it is true that marijuana use, at least in the short-term, is likely to go up if marijuana were decriminalized, but that is a price that we should be willing to pay. And that means that “abuse” will probably go up as well, which is a tragedy, but not an argument for keeping it illegal (there are other ways of combatting social problems that do not involve law enforcement). The social costs of keeping it illegal are simply too high and as a taxpayer, I believe it to be an enormous waste of money. I also wonder about this: let’s say that it’s true that some young people who become pot heads don’t because it’s illegal. Does that mean that they’ll turn out to be productive citizens? Or will they engage in other sorts of self-destructive behaviors? Heavy drinking perhaps?
I cannot help recommending a book that I really enjoyed, which isn’t about pot per se but that most of you would probably like to read: Husak and De Marneffe’s _The Legalization of Drigs: For and Against_.
November 8, 2010, 10:43 amPeter B says:
•The Drug Enforcement Administration says it has busted a significant cross-border, drug-smuggling tunnel and netted about 30 tons of marijuana seized at two warehouses in the United States and Mexico, two days after California voters shot down a proposition to legalize the personal use of marijuana.
Inquiring minds want to know if the bust was carried out after the election on purpose… But does anyone think that the massive stockpile might have been in anticipation of Prop 19 passing?
•The impairment issue is complicated: alcohol is water soluble and distributes predictably in body fluids, meaning that breathalyzer technology correlates pretty well with blood levels. Also, alcohol is alcohol, and it doesn’t matter much if your .08 blood level came from cheap beer or rare cognac. It is also a general metabolic poison, rather than having specific receptors as do the active cannabis compounds.
And there’s the rub. Just looking at THC and its active metabolites and ignoring CBD, etc. yields the following variables:
– different rates of metabolism in different people, (different spread of active compounds in different people from the same dose taken x hours ago)
– variation in the concentration and sensitivity of the receptors between individuals (i.e., even if 2 people had the same levels of THC and its metabolites, the effect might well be intrinsically different from person to person
And that’s just off the top of my head. So even if there were a technology as simple to use as a breathalyzer to reliably test for cannabis compounds and metabolites in the field, judging impairment from that — and there IS impairment, but again it’s more complex than with alcohol — would not be easy. So now you need some technology for testing impairment, too before you can have realistic DUI enforcement.
•Every person driving with cannabis in his/her system is a real and probably unknowable risk to the health and safety of others. Every sober driver and passenger takes that risk. The current system imposes some hazard on those who drive while stoned; Prop 19 would essentially have eliminated that hazard without eliminating — and probably while increasing — the risk to responsible drivers. That strikes me as inherently unfair and is one of the reasons I opposed it.
November 8, 2010, 11:55 amChris Travers says:
I should publish a small pamphlet on how to grow garden lettuce and harvest a narcotic from it. Maybe we can popularize a lettuce high as a legal alternative (at least for many) to opium. If we can find legal and commonly used alternatives to cannabis maybe we can do this too.
I think that would be great. It would give both sides what they claim to want. The prohibitionists get to leave the law in place and those who want to get high can do so.
November 8, 2010, 12:06 pmChrisTS says:
@Chris Travers:
Chris, can you think of the flowering plant (purple flowers) that we in the MidAtlantic area frquently use as a semi-hardy annual that kids have been using to get high? (It’s a very common plant; I just cannot think of its name). Some local genius wanted to make it illegal
AH: SALVIA. I knew I would think of it just as I posted. :-)
November 8, 2010, 2:46 pmsmead jolley says:
I wonder why nobody, even Bill Maher, has floated racism as a probable reason for the California vote. After all, everyone knows that black men consider dope smoking to be something of a birthright. Keeping dope illegal, and retaining another discrete ground on which to prosecute blacks, would seem to be a plausible motivation for “racists.” Whadda you say, Dilan?
November 8, 2010, 3:08 pmElemenope says:
Chris, can you think of the flowering plant (purple flowers) that we in the MidAtlantic area frquently use as a semi-hardy annual that kids have been using to get high? (It’s a very common plant; I just cannot think of its name). Some local genius wanted to make it illegal
AH: SALVIA. I knew I would think of it just as I posted.
Having used Salvia divinorum a few times, I can report that its effects are completely incomparable to marijuana. Really they’re pretty incomparable to anything else, though the closest would be the hallucinations that sometimes accompany the k-opiates used for post-operative pain, only much more brief and intense.
Really, unlike every other recreational substance I can think of, marijuana’s subjective effects are really difficult to replicate with other available substances. There was a spike in use a year or so back in synthetic cannabinoids that are produced pharmaceutically (Spice), but most marijuana users do not like them because they are actually harmful and do not produce as pleasant a high.
November 8, 2010, 3:59 pmAllan Walstad says:
hedberg, if you can’t understand (or refuse to acknowledge) the difference between personal free choice versus the infliction of punishment on people who are peaceably minding their own business, I think we can safely ignore your opinion from here on out.
November 8, 2010, 4:11 pmChris Travers says:
If it’s a common plant, I’d think Salvia officianalis, which you can buy at your grocery store as “sage.” Supposedly it has been used as a euphoric in Europe, particularly adding it to beer, etc, but having smoked it occasionally I’ve never gotten high from it. I will say however that steeping it in brandy produces an interesting high however.
However, that’s not the one that folks sometimes talk about banning, but rather a different plant in the same genus from Mexico.
November 8, 2010, 4:36 pmChris Travers says:
Ok, but what about legal intoxicants, from kava kava to lettuce opium? You can get high right now without breaking any laws on substances which raise all the same problems.
November 8, 2010, 4:40 pmTed says:
Are you trying to convince yourself?
How long do you think that will last? Until reading your posts, I was completely unaware of the effects of past-due lettuce sap. An I consider myself to be at least a moderately voracious lettuce-eater. Once this news gets out, no more salads. What kinds of lettuce has this effect? Red leaf? Romaine? Iceberg? Nevermind, i’m sure the government will ban all kinds of lettuce or lettuce related plants.
Some people have indicated they oppose legalization because of the cumulative effects of having both MJ and alcohol legalized. But this assumes only one side of the analysis. Based on my anecdotal experience, the social results are not a simple additive calculation. I think alcohol abuse would clearly decline is pot was legal. I know several people who either actively choose to indulge in pot over alcohol now, and would do so in public (designated smoking areas) if given the opportunity. Further, many people simply become less interested in getting drunk while smoking. Indeed, where as drinking alcohol tends to create desire for more alcohol, tends to diminish that desire. I don’t know what the ultimate result of the calculation would be, all I’m saying is that it’s not a straight accumulative effect.
November 8, 2010, 5:08 pmOrenWithAnE says:
What? You don’t stockpile at pre-legalization high prices and then sell when the price drops and the supply increases!
Buy high, sell low!
November 8, 2010, 5:13 pmElemenope says:
If it’s a common plant, I’d think Salvia officianalis, which you can buy at your grocery store as “sage.” Supposedly it has been used as a euphoric in Europe, particularly adding it to beer, etc, but having smoked it occasionally I’ve never gotten high from it. I will say however that steeping it in brandy produces an interesting high however.
Common sage oil has a very high thujone content, which would produce effects similar to wormwood extract (such as Absinthe).
November 8, 2010, 5:15 pmTed says:
Ummm. Sir, if you are concerned about, and desire to test for, impairment, why not — and this is just a suggestion — test for impairment? Currently, many states allow drivers to be charged with and prosecuted for DUI based either on BAC or failing a Field Sobriety Test. If you are not suggesting that DUI’s did not existed prior to BAC technology, then why must we develop such technology prior to legalization?
November 8, 2010, 5:25 pmTed says:
Is this risk more or less than the risk imposed by being under the influence of coffee/no-doz/caffeine? Do you have proof that being stoned increases the risk of accident with another vehicle? Or are you just making an assumption?
November 8, 2010, 5:27 pmBilltheCat says:
I’d just like to point out a perspective from Alaska as relates to the original post, then some of the comments I’ve read.
As you know, AK has had a decrim position since 1975 due to the State court’s opinion that the right to privacy allowed a person to smoke marijuana and possess marijuana in their home.
Similarly, this interpretation also keeps the police (local & state) from breaking down your door based on the ‘smell’ of marijuana because they cannot make any reasonable estimate of quantity based on smell and ‘some’ quantity is protected. This general position has survived several attacks and so far remains intact.
Alaskans have always held the opinion that this is possible in part because the feds will not spend the resources to fly up here and bust individuals possessing <=1 oz. That resourcing issue was mentioned by another comment here, and I wanted to lend some credence to it.
In 2000 (or was it '02), we had a ballot proposition that would have taken the status of pot substantially further – to authorize a commercial hemp industry and release the 'prisoners of war' and even consider compensation for assets lost. This was pretty extreme but failed by a similar measure to prop 19 (around 46% in favor I believe). The news reported this as failing by a 'landslide', but as extreme as the measure was I considered this pretty impressive.
The effort was not helped at all by a negative event in the news just prior to the election. Some kid (as I recall) murdered his mother and told police that he had been drinking and smoking dope prior to this action. This was literally like a month before election day and I think contributed to reticence on the part of voters to approve the measure. This is exactly the kind of high-profile negative event that Somin alludes to in this posting. You can bet that the police and the general opposition played this up. Now, we all know that the kid did not murder his mother because of pot, but.. it's more an issue of image and PR, which from out of the blue and irrationally, affects the voters' perspective towards the action they are about to take in the ballot box. Those on the fence with the issue can be swayed by these things.
But to the point about growing acceptance, I think if we've seen nearly a 10% increase per decade in social acceptance, then we're on track to see substantial progress in legalization in ten more years. I imagine the slop of approval is more logarithmic than linear in nature so maybe sooner at the state level.
One issue with Prop 19 though is voter fatigue. I'm guessing there will not be another significant push in CA for at least three more years. Similarly in AK, we have not yet seen another significant push. Medical approval was approved in the wake of CA. However, for several reasons I see no social will in AK to take a lead on a more aggressive legalization effort. For one such example, talking to a resident a few years ago he said, "Look, I was born here. It was 'legal' when I was growing up and as far as I'm concerned it always will be legal." This "good enough" view of our state laws will probably remain intact until a high profile arrest or law enforcement tragedy related to marijuana inspires voter outrage or until another State builds the bandwagon for AK to jump onto.
November 8, 2010, 5:34 pmChris Travers says:
To be fair, I can imagine that there might be a temporary spike in demand where the supply has not caught up yet.
November 8, 2010, 5:39 pmChris Travers says:
Well, that will be a challenge because in addition to all the kinds you mentioned, there’s also L. serriola which is a pretty common weed throughout most of the country, and L. canadensis is another common one. If the government goes after lettuce growers, it will be plainly impossible to enforce given the prevalence of garden weeds in that same genus and with the same effect. Indeed maybe any such attempt will end up getting struck down as void for vagueness.
(I use L. serriola latex as an occasional pain killer.)
However, yes, it will last. The knowledge that nutmeg is a hallucinogen hasn’t resulted in a ban. There’s no talk of banning henbane despite a great deal of discussion of its mind-altering properties in the last decade or so. The bans on Myrica gale have all, to my knowledge, gone the way of the dodo bird. Lettuce won’t be banned because if it was, the result would be the end of the drug war.
November 8, 2010, 5:50 pmChrisTS says:
Yes, I’m pretty sure the local kids were not getting any salvia plants from Mexico. And the local kook (town manager, I think) wanted to prevent sale of the ordinary decorative salvia plants at nurseries (not the smaller sage herb).
As Chris Travers points out, if the government really tried to stop people from getting high, we would end up with almost no legal plants. I think of this everytime I go into the barn and pass the antique cider press.
November 8, 2010, 6:55 pmChris Travers says:
There are places that sell Salvia divinorum extract, dried leaves, and even live plants, and yes, kids buy it. However, I wouldn’t put it past idiot small town politicians to confuse this with decorative plants. (But, hey, lobelia is an intoxicant.)
November 8, 2010, 7:22 pmhattio says:
BilltheCat says;
Just FYI, that’s not true. I’ve seen a lot of warrants based on the smell and the officer’s affidavit that based on his experience when he can smell it outside, that means there are more than a legal amount of plants. I’ve also seen them “knock and talk” based on a smell outside, then once the door is open and the smell is “confirmed” they seize the house while waiting for a warrant.
November 8, 2010, 8:29 pmFub says:
I’ve never understood why courts give police virtually carte blanche credit for expertise on almost anything involving illegal drugs. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a court not permitting a policeman to testify in expert capacity.
Yet even after cases where police make egregious errors in “expertise”[1], the courts still treat them as if they were arbiters of all human knowledge.
Any insight on why?
[1] Police mistake kenaf for marijuana, even after negative THC test. Destroy $225,000 crop.
November 8, 2010, 9:37 pmLargo says:
Or else, just post us a link! :)
November 9, 2010, 3:34 am–
Edit:
(And I’m being quite serious. I’m curious about the howto in and of itself, and I’m sure there are many in chronic pain who are unable to get suitable prescriptions, at least in the U.S. [I'm a Canadian in HK btw, but I probably told you that before])
Largo says:
(And I’m being quite serious. I’m curious about the howto in and of itself, and I’m sure there are many in chronic pain who are unable to get suitable prescriptions, at least in the U.S. [I'm a Canadian in HK btw, but I probably told you that before])
November 9, 2010, 3:37 amLargo says:
Or just post a link! :)
November 9, 2010, 3:38 am[Sorry for the out of order comments]
Largo says:
Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder.
November 9, 2010, 3:41 am-Duck!-
OrenWithAnE says:
Unfair, since the ballot initiative result would be known in Nov but doesn’t take effect till Jan.
November 9, 2010, 11:39 amDavid Sucher says:
May be TEXTING worse than pot — so ban texting completely, not even under medical supervision.
Sex, Drugs, and Text Messages
November 9, 2010, 1:04 pmhttp://Slatest.slate.com/id/2274189?wpisrc=sl_ipad
hedberg says:
Smoking pot has effects which many opponents of legalization point out when arguing against legalization. Implicit in what you wrote is the argument that we should ignore these effects when considering legalization because someone can avoid these effects by not smoking dope. That is a bad argument. You further went on to point out that criminalization imposes costs on individual pot smokers and I pointed out that individuals can avoid these costs by not smoking pot. Matters of personal free choice, beyond the simple choice to not smoke pot have nothing to do with these arguments. The coercive power of laws of prohibition are extraneous to the arguments. I don’t know how to explain this to you in any better way — this is pretty basic stuff. Of course, your initial comment in response to what I wrote was a non sequitur; perhaps I should not have ignored that.
November 9, 2010, 1:40 pmChris Travers says:
Largo: The lettuce bit is easy. What you do is you let it go to seed, then you cut the flowers off, and collect the latex that comes out. You can then dissolve that in alcohol, vinegar, or, if you don’t mind a bit more of a mess, boiling water. It can then be taken orally.
I perfer L. serriola and L. canadensis both of which are very easy to find in the wild in the US and Canada, but any form of garden lettuce will work.
For more powerful pain relief, it’s worth noting that henbane was used in the Middle Ages as a narcotic painkiller to address pain of childbearing. With a little tinkering it might also be suited for heavy-duty pain relief, and there is evidence of long-term consumption during the Middle Ages, so I would be reasonably assured of its safety.
November 9, 2010, 7:05 pmChris Travers says:
And sex. Definitely ban having sex.
November 9, 2010, 7:06 pm