Clayton E. Cramer has a good article at Pajamas Media on why he no longer supports the decriminalization of marijuana.
While there are plenty of reasons why marijuana shouldn’t be legalized (including proliferation among children–with some in California, thanks to “legalization” there, smoking openly in school, continuing problems with crime to feed drug habits despite legalization in some areas, schizophrenia, dental problems, lung damage making them more dangerous than cigarettes, and not the least of which is the breeding of Obama zombie voters), Cramer’s piece focuses on the mental health issues associated with marijuana use.
Not every pot smoker will develop mental problems (I know at least one person who has not), but many will (I know several who have), and Cramer cites some of the research that backs this up.
California legalized pot “for medicinal purposes” (even though THC is available in other non-smoked and legal drug forms) on a state level several years ago, yet all is not well in the druggie paradise. Legal marijuana sellers are still causing problems, including things like contributing to deadly vehicle accidents, money laundering and more.
So much for the contention that legalizing drugs will magically turn lawbreakers into upright citizens of the community. Crime would and will continue regardless of legalization, just as it does with gambling and other addictions to feed habits, and with black market activities that continue today with alcohol and tobacco, even though these substances have been legal for years.
Even a British newspaper, the Independent, long known for advocating drug legalization in the UK, has had to apologize for pushing pot; they eventually woke up to the dangers of the drug.
As a former law enforcement official, I’ve seen the damage substance abuse of every kind can do to people, their families, their employers, and society around them. Despite the many so-called justifications for legalizing access to this intoxicating substance, I haven’t heard any that come even close to trumping the problems with it–and believe me, I’ve heard them all.
Excuses range from “God created the marijuana plant, so he wants me to get high” (God also created hemlock and poison mushrooms–did he want you to consume those, too?)…to “It’ll reduce crime” (if you make something “not a crime” anymore, then by definition it will definitely reduce crime…but is it reducing the problem? Besides, perhaps we should decriminalize prostitution and public lewdness, and maybe even theft and rape and other crimes, if legalizing them will reduce the number of instances)…to “I should have the freedom to do whatever I want” (like smack your wife around, or burn your own house down, or encourage your kids to play in the street? Rather, Abraham Lincoln’s statement that we do not have the right to do what is wrong is closer to the philosophy of the American founders, who did not countenance immoral behavior under the guise of “freedom” )…and more.
Cramer responds to one of the more common ones offered, especially by those who like to justify increasing the number of intoxicated Americans by likening the issue to the prohibition of alcohol several decades ago:
You might also argue: “What about alcohol? Doesn’t it have risks?” No question — and these risks have been recognized for a long time. Arguing for decriminalization of marijuana because alcohol is a big problem is like arguing that because one of your feet is gangrenous the doctor should also amputate the healthy foot just to be even-handed. (Or even-footed, I suppose.)
I have an even better analogy:
Arguing for decriminalization of marijuana because alcohol is a big problem is like arguing that because you have cancer in one lung, the doctor should inject cancer cells into the other healthy lung.
Or perhaps better yet:
Arguing for decriminalization of marijuana because alcohol is a big problem is like arguing that because your legs are on fire, we should pour gasoline on your arms and light them, too.
Well, that makes no sense whatsoever, you might say? You’re absolutely right–it doesn’t.
Because we have problems with people getting intoxicated with one substance, we should provide greater access to another intoxicating substance? Someone seems to have been smoking too much of the wacky-weed to manufacture that kind of “logic.”
Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.