Props to you for posting a cogent, thoughtful counterpoint to the bandwagon.
As you point out, however, there are other legal substances out there that are perhaps more problematic than pot, and I think that makes our current law on pot ill-conceived. People call pot a gateway drug, but I don't know anybody that tried pot before alcohol, and very few that tried it before nicotine. So if we're serious about preventing people from altering their mental states, pot is not the logical target. Furthermore, the illegality of pot is flouted by such a large portion of the population that I think it diminishes respect for the law generally. I've seen people from skate punks to executives to even a former federal prosecutor spark a bowl. More troubling, however, is that the law is not enforced or prosecuted uniformly. I do not know anybody that has been prosecuted for possession, but I bet if I lived in a different neighborhood I would. For the same reason the Supreme Court can find the death penalty cruel and unusual not because allowing the state to kill a murderer is inherently cruel but because doing so arbitrarily IS cruel and unusual(black killers of whites are much more likely to get the death penalty), I think the current law on pot falls disproportionately on certain segments of our society, and laws like that should be held up to special scrutiny. Lastly, I would argue that the illegality of pot has driven it to become a more hard-core drug. The voter education guide being distributed by the state in connection with this ballot question points out that pot now contains something like 30 times the THC it used to contain back in the olden days. I think that's due in large part to the pot trade being controlled by criminal enterprises and being unregulated. Most people I know actually want less potent pot, and if they could grow a plant in their backyard, would probably grow a milder stain.
no subject
As you point out, however, there are other legal substances out there that are perhaps more problematic than pot, and I think that makes our current law on pot ill-conceived. People call pot a gateway drug, but I don't know anybody that tried pot before alcohol, and very few that tried it before nicotine. So if we're serious about preventing people from altering their mental states, pot is not the logical target. Furthermore, the illegality of pot is flouted by such a large portion of the population that I think it diminishes respect for the law generally. I've seen people from skate punks to executives to even a former federal prosecutor spark a bowl. More troubling, however, is that the law is not enforced or prosecuted uniformly. I do not know anybody that has been prosecuted for possession, but I bet if I lived in a different neighborhood I would. For the same reason the Supreme Court can find the death penalty cruel and unusual not because allowing the state to kill a murderer is inherently cruel but because doing so arbitrarily IS cruel and unusual(black killers of whites are much more likely to get the death penalty), I think the current law on pot falls disproportionately on certain segments of our society, and laws like that should be held up to special scrutiny. Lastly, I would argue that the illegality of pot has driven it to become a more hard-core drug. The voter education guide being distributed by the state in connection with this ballot question points out that pot now contains something like 30 times the THC it used to contain back in the olden days. I think that's due in large part to the pot trade being controlled by criminal enterprises and being unregulated. Most people I know actually want less potent pot, and if they could grow a plant in their backyard, would probably grow a milder stain.