I just read a fascinating article on marijuana legalization in Mendocino, CA, which, in my opinion, is one of the most beautiful places on earth. The county put in some of the most lenient laws in the state and various problems ensued:
Now some growers planted in town, considered declasse because flowering buds put up a powerful stink. In Ukiah, the county seat, a man was shot after climbing into a fenced pot patch. Another suffered a heart attack halfway over.
“It’s a huge problem in our schools,” said Meredith Lintott, the district attorney. “Children come in reeking of marijuana.”
Worse, outsiders poured in, some armed. In September, three carloads of men aged 18 to 24 arrived from Sacramento carrying guns, radios and pruning shears. They had read about Mendocino in High Times. Home invasions rose to 40 from 24 the previous year.
[….]And so, in November, a measure passed to scale back Mendocino’s legal limit to the state’s suggested six-plant minimum. The sheriff sensed a mandate. Tips rolled in, and deputies saddled up.
I strongly support legalizing marijuana. But it’s interesting to see the complications of exactly how that might be done.
Update. Commenter brantl makes a good point
It’s only a problem there because they are unique. If they stop being unique, it takes the ‘touristy’ elements out of this.
brantl
It’s only a problem there because they are unique. If they stop being unique, it takes the ‘touristy’ elements out of this.
Zifnab
This all reeks of concern trolling and “Reefer Madness” to me. I’m sorry but, “The children all smell like Mary Jane!” and “cartloads of men are invading our fair town!” … it just sounds like over-hyped nonsense.
I mean, just read the opening passage.
The hippies are invading, the hippies are invading!
Meh.
geg6
I’m not understanding your concern, Doug. If marijuana is legalized and everyone in America is allowed to legally grow six plants for personal use, how is that the same as one town allowing a much higher legal growing rate than the rest of the state and the rest of the nation not allowing it at all? I don’t read much about home beer brewers or wine makers suffering home invasions. Seems to me the same principle.
Dreggas
Agree with brantl. If it’s the only place it is legal then no wonder you have people lookin to get some bud raiding their homes and gardens and such.
It can’t just be legalized in one small area it needs to be legalized over a larger area (say one state at a time) which would ultimately result in not having the issues Mendocino had
Face
Worse, outsiders poured in, some armed. In September, three carloads of men aged 18 to 24 arrived from Sacramento carrying guns, radios and pruning shears.
Like robbing a bank, only easier, and with no security cameras. Seriously, as easy as it is to turn the green plant into green, pruning shears are the equivalent of a safecracker.
Not surprised peeps are getting plant-jacked. Timez r tuff.
ellaesther
Damn! Commenter brantl got here before me! I was saying the same thing in my head! Damn speedy readers.
I have begun to believe that this ridiculous form of prohibition will be overturned in my lifetime, and that makes me very happy. Because I really hate stupidity in all its forms, and the laws that make pot illegal are among the stupidest I’ve yet heard.
joes527
@brantl:
True, except for the whole “Children come in [to school] reeking of marijuana.” bit. That has nothing to do with the fact that Mendocino has novel laws and is entirely due to the fact that Mendocino has lenient laws.
To be clear, I have no strong opinions on marijuana, but firmly believe that responsible adult alcohol consumption should not be banned. However, part of the responsibility of the adults is to make sure that availability of alcohol doesn’t mean that kids skid through their school years in a drunken haze. Apply the parallel as appropriate.
amk
So, this what is called as high-jacking ?
The Moar You Know
My finace lives there. I visit every month. This:
Is sadly true. As are the tales of outsiders coming in to steal all the weed they can grab. It’s a real problem, compounded by the inescapable fact that marijuana is the only real industry that area has.
I’m fine with the cops enforcing a six-plant limit. That’s more than enough for personal use.
And brantl’s comment is dead-on right.
John S.
And you can tell the lustful thoughts of the reefer addict by the semen stains on his pants and that look in his eyes…
I don’t smoke pot around my kid, so the chances of him going to school smelling like it are ZERO. I even grew many years ago, and even though the smell was overpowering, merely hanging around the plants wouldn’t make you smell like it (not that I would let my kid do that, either).
This is definitely another “Reefer Madness” storyline, where the intent is to make marijuana users out to be degenerates, criminals and bad parents.
Bubblegum Tate
Agreed.
RE: The “children reeking of marijuana” thing–was that in reference to children smoking it, or just to children smelling like it because their parents grow it?
jibeaux
I agree that this is mostly a “marijuana tourist” type effect that is noticeable because it’s unique. But it’s still a pretty interesting illustration of both the laws of unintended consequences, and a deterrent to other local governments making the same decisions. Which is not to say that decriminalization couldn’t be effective on a state or national level, but even still I’m sure it would have unintended consequences that we might not be able to entirely foresee.
Aaron
@joes527:
Yeah, “won’t someone think of the children” is a ridiculous argument in this case. Parenting involves making sure your children are well taken care of – which would include not being high, drunk, strung out on 14 red bulls, OD’ing on benadryl, or reeking of body odor and lice.
This whole article just strikes me as . . . disingenuous.
The Moar You Know
A bit more commentary: the area is fucked. It’s been depending on the drug trade for almost forty years, and you have multiple generations of people who don’t know how to do anything save for grow and sell weed. Mendecino and Humboldt counties are dirt-poor, have no economic base save for weed (which produces no tax revenue), and are in pretty dire straits financially. The area is well and truly screwed and needs some massive help to get in the kinds of roads, electrical and broadband infrastructure that are needed for businesses to take root and get some real jobs to the residents.
I love the place, but my lord it has some serious issues.
joes527
@John S.:
… because there is no way in hell that he may be smoking it behind your back. Uh-huh.
I don’t know if this is a real problem or reefer madness, but it is reported as a real result of a situation where marijuana laws are lenient. Someone with more information who could refute this as a problem would be a positive addition to the discussion. But the folks in this thread who have actually been to Mendocino seem to be saying that it IS a problem, and those who have never been there are dismissing it as hype.
I’ve never been there, so I have nothing to add as far as whether it is a real problem or not. It is reported as a problem in the original article. The folks dismissing it seem to all just be mocking it and not adding any data that would show it isn’t a problem.
The Moar You Know
More commentary:
This –
is exactly the problem. A lot of the parents are lifelong heavy stoners, and while there’s nothing wrong with that as such, they don’t take care of their kids, with exactly the results you cite. The educational system is staffed with wonderful people who are trying very hard to educate some very troubled students.
SpotWeld
During prohibtion there were legally operated distilleries since alcohol was still used in industrial applications…
No doubt these locations had a fairly high break in rate until prohibition was repealed?
Bootlegging also died out…. and we ended up with NASCAR.
The Moar You Know
@joes527: These have all been problems since well before the laws were made more lenient. They were problems when I first went up there in the late 1980s, they are problems now.
BombIranForChrist
@jibeaux:
I agree with Jibeaux here.
I think the stank should be legalized right now, but I think it’s silly to think there won’t be some interesting consequences as we flip the switch going from prohibition to legal.
In fact, it would be in the pro-stank community’s interest to make sure all these contingencies ARE planned for, or you might have the stank go back in the hidey hole by the next election cycle.
Still, I have heard from these elected officials in Mendocino before, and they are in full demagogue mode: OMG WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, JESUS HATES HIPPIES, etc.
ellaesther
@joes527: … because there is no way in hell that he may be smoking it behind your back. Uh-huh.
The words “children” “kids” and “school” apply to a pretty wide range of realities. We could be talking about first graders or seniors in high school. There’s no way to know from the context of the post, or John S.’s comment. If a 6 year old reeks of reefer, that can only mean one thing. If a 18 year old reeks of reefer, it probably means something else entirely. A 12 year old? That’s a tough call, and should probably be looked into, no matter what it means.
Aaron
@joes527:
It certainly seems that there are serious issues – issues that involve marijuana but go far deeper socially and economically – in this area. These are issues that raise serious concerns, and deserve consideration.
The issue of kids coming to school reeking of pot is one of parenting, however, not marijuana
Nellcote
@The Moar You Know:
>The area is well and truly screwed and needs some massive help to get in the kinds of roads, electrical and broadband infrastructure that are needed for businesses to take root and get some real jobs to the residents.
Come over to the coast, we have a road & broadband. lol. We don’t have big box stores for which I am truely grateful.
/old hippie
joes527
@ellaesther: If a parent thinks that their child is safe out in the workd because they are too young to have to worry about, then that parent’s child is probably doing meth.
southpaw
I actually think brantl is wrong.
People were stealing pot in Mendocino because pot is a cash crop and it’s there, not because Mendocino had an unusual municipal code for its region. The theives stole the pot because there was money to be made, not because they were seeking an exotic thrill.
By the same token, where there are cattle, you’re likely to get some cattle rustling. Neither the broad geographic distribution of cattle holdings nor the regularization of agricultural statutes will solve the cattle rustling problem so long as cows remain a valuable commodity. What will partially solve the problem is establishing an effective police deterrent to theft.
John S.
My son is TWO. Not only do I not have to worry about him smelling like pot, I certainly do not have to worry about him smoking it behind my back.
Congratulations on the most retarded post of the day.
WMass
The idea that lenient pot laws will suddenly cause every kid to be stoned is a joke. Going to high school in the mid 80’s, in the middle of the “Just say no” Reagan bullshit, pot was consistently easier to get than booze. Right now pot is available to any kid that wants it, whatever the law is.
Chris Zerhusen
Not being unique wouldn’t solve the smell problem, or the kids at school problem, and it’s not at all clear that the home invasions are really a problem of uniqueness either.
My criteria for deciding whether I want something to be legal or not is to think about whether I’d rather live in a society where it’s legal or illegal. With marijuana (and alcohol and tobacco for that matter) the answer for me is that I’d rather live in a society where they are illegal.
ellaesther
@joes527: I’m sorry, did I say that?
Nope. Pretty sure I didn’t say that.
Keith
Thy strawman hath falleth over.
cmorenc
Are the kids coming to school reeking because (like some kids living in small homes where the parents are heavy tobacco smokers) their hair, clothes, and skin gets stinkingly permeated with thick tobacco smoke from their parents’ frequent indulgence? (Or in the case of alcohol, the kids’ clothing reeks of accidental dipping in the puddles of stale beer that lie all over countertops and many chairs in their heavy-drinking parent’s house.)
It’s quite different if the kids are coming to school themselves stoned out of their gourds and smelling like the potent skunk they themselves smoked just after breakfast.
Both are rooted in parental carelessness, but the first kind is rooted in parent’s inability to behave with adequately responsible consideration for their children, and the second kind is rooted in parent’s inability to responsibly supervise and direct their children. But with smoking and alchol, in neither case do we outlaw the substances; instead we penalize irresponsible use of these substances and irresponsible parenting.
ellaesther
@John S.: Ah, there you go! And here I was suggesting that he might be a wizened six!
Graeme
I can only imagine the issues Mendocino would have if it were one of the only places in the country it was legal to buy booze. Would be much uglier, guaranteed.
Just sayin’…
John S.
I just noticed your comment in response above – excellent catch.
Unfortunately, when heated topics arise on the intertubes, the propensity for commenters acting in bad faith and assuming facts not in evidence goes up significantly.
Blue Raven
Reminds me of a very odd moment I had while driving into Oakland yesterday. There was some sort of flea or farmer’s market going on (hard to tell which from the freeway) and there were a couple of airborne ads hovering within range of the crowd. The one I could see was an ad promising “more sugary buds.” I’d never seen an ad for a growing system outside of the appropriate magazines before.
cmorenc
True, but the scale and severity of the problem with any commodity is directly related to its relative scarcity and value. The attractiveness of making the effort to steal a crop of pot isn’t nearly as great when it’s widely grown and has much lower cash value. The reason cattle get rustled despite being widely raised in numbers is that an individual cow is still worth a considerable sum on the open market, and to some extent the same might still be true of individual pot plants even if pot became legal and widely grown. But the incentive would be far lower if the wholesale value of individual plants was in the low tens of dollars rather than the high hundreds like it is now.
jibeaux
@southpaw:
Well, yeah, but didn’t outsiders know it was there because of the publicity of its municipal code (as in High Times, per the article?) I mean, if your goal is to raid a pot field, they probably exist in every county in the US where growing conditions permit, but some places your chances are better than others.
geg6
Wow, that’s a lot of strawmen for one thread. Yup, everyone who smokes marijuana is a bad parent, lazy, criminally inclined, and completely lacking in any respnsibility. Oh, and they’re old, longhaired hippie burnouts. Got it. Guess I’ve been too stoned to realize all that until now.
gex
@geg6: Not to mention the implication that this area is unique in having kids “reek of pot” where as municipalities where it is illegal, have no problems at all.
joes527
@John S.: A two year old probably isn’t going to pick up the pipe themselves, but I’m always surprised by what goes on. That said, A two year old is probably more likely to be struck by lightning while catching a home run ball at Wrigley field than to be put in a position like this, so yeah, I doubt that your kid is lighting up behind your back.
Was the point that all the two year olds in Mendocino are weed free? OK. Probably true. Now, at 5 years (isn’t that the age when kids go to school?) kids fooling with someone’s stash is not all that uncommon.
Keith
@geg6:
Some of the smartest people I know partake. Hell, one of the first times I ever saw people smoking (other than my dad sneaking a toke when I was younger) was in the house of an astronomer who happened to work at the VLA telescope. Whole house was filled with people smoking pot/keef and eating roasted peppers (their claim was that it was for the endorphin kick)
scarshapedstar
Actually, Southpaw, I think you’re wrong. If everyone had 6 pot plants then there wouldn’t be much reason to go steal them. Hell, there wouldn’t even be much reason to buy or sell pot, unless you’re somehow unable to grow a goddamn weed.
Persia
@joes527: If Mom or Dad is openly smoking pot in the house, the kids will reek of it whether they inhale or not, though. No different than the kids coming in reeking of cigarette smoke. It doesn’t (necessarily) mean the kids are getting stoned.
Sister Machine Gun of Mild Harmony
This whole discussion is giving me the munchies.
El Tiburon
Regardless if any of it’s true or not; it will be these kind of stories that will permeate the MSM.
As the quest for true legalization begins, get ready for “welfare queen” like myths to begin.
cmorenc
…and I’d like to live in a society without obesely out-of-shape people or obnoxious top 40 music. Can we make those illegal too please?
This is EXACTLY the sort of reasoning used to outlaw not just homosexuality (and sexual practices associated therewith), but for a great many years not so long in the past, lots of forms of hetrosexual indulgence many people find thrilling and enjoyable within the privacy of their own houses and bedrooms. Laws even extended to outlawing most or all forms of birth control in some jurisdictions only a few decades ago – all because some powerful group of people decided they’d rather live in a society where those sorts of things are illegal.
Another way to think about it is to ask yourself: “Is this the sort of thing that your proposed interference in personal decisions gives other people the urge to tell you to go piss off?” Not a very constructive or necessarily persuasive way to respond to your concern, but you get the point I hope.
Persia
@scarshapedstar: I suspect, like any plant, there would be a market for ‘good’ seeds, specialized breeds, whatever. And there are some people who just don’t have the patience to grow, dry, and harvest.
goblue72
@ Blue Raven – Clearly you are not familiar with Oakland’s Oaksterdam University.
joes527
@Persia: I interpreted the “reeked of” comment in the original article to be a complaint that the kids were coming in to school under the influence. Going back to read it … it isn’t clear.
If all they were complaining about was school age kids smelling bad — well that doesn’t seem all that noteworthy.
I agree that if the issue is just bad smells, then one bad smell is much like any other.
geg6
Chris Zerhusen: Cuz you know, there was no drunkeness, vice, or crime during Prohibition. That’s why it was such a shining success and is enshrined in our Constitution. Wait. Oh…nevermind.
gex
@Chris Zerhusen: I think there’s a problem with people who want to ban other people from doing things that they themselves do not like doing. Why do you hate us for our freedom?
John S.
Gee, ya fucking think?
Actually, my two year-old is very bright, so he MIGHT pick up the pipe, but he wouldn’t know what to do with it. To him it would be just another ‘toy’. And that would be IF I had a pipe or bong for him to pick up (which I don’t).
Kids go to school whenever their parents send them. Mine goes to a nursery school so he can interact with other kids and brush up on his shapes, colors, alphabet and counting skills. And even if you don’t consider that a proper “school”, I myself started first grade when I was 4, so your arbitrary definition here is still incorrect.
And even at five, I’m not all that concerned. That’s because RESPONSIBLE parents do not engage in adult behavior in front of their children. Notice that word I capitalized – it’s important. I would no sooner have sex in front of my child than I would smoke a joint in front of him.
As Persia pointed out, smoking anything in the house (especially cigarettes) will make everything in the house stink. Which is why I don’t smoke in the house – that’s what my atrium is for.
You seem to think that smoking marijuana and being a responsible parent are mutually exclusive, and while you’re entitled to your opinion, I couldn’t disagree more.
Keith G
Where I came from, kids went to school reeking of cattle, tho some of us did grow weed beyond the barn.
kid bitzer
if pruning shears are outlawed, only outlaws will have pruning shears!
(just thought i’d nip that one in the bud).
HumboldtBlue
Umm, guys? Mendocino is worse off than HumCo, and that’s saying something. On the other hand, I’m not sure what Moar is referring to in his earlier comment. We actually have electricity, internet (hi-speed too you betcha), although a redundant line is needed and is currently being installed.
The North Coast and the Emerald Triangle (HumCo, Mendo and Trinity Counties) have lost the most profitable businesses — logging and fishing. The estimates range from the 2-billion dollar range to the 14-15-billion dollar range in the amount of cash flows through this area due to the underground marijuana market.
We have seen an utick in violence in the past 18 months, I know this because I report on a daily basis the crime that happens from the Oregon border to the Marin County line.
People are enduring home invasion robberies, and deaths have resulted, including the killing of a UPS employee who was unfortunate enough to try and deal a few pounds to some outsiders who decided he would be better off dead.
We had an Easter Sunday shootout in the middle McKinleyville that left on 19-year old dead and a second with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head after he decided that firing wildly at both the sellers and the Deputies who were called to the scene was a good idea.
There is plenty of violence associated with marijuana and it becomes magnified in an area bigger than most small states but populated by less than 200-thousand people.
The primary source of violence does come from those who live elsewhere and think that a drug ripoff is an easy thing to pull off. Remember this — we are rural and we share one characteristic other rural areas share — lots of firearms, which makes an attempted marijuana rip-off a dicey adventure to say the least. Just last month three young people from the Chatsworth/Woodland Hills area of L.A. thought they could pull off a drug rip-off and it didn’t end well.
Prohibition is the cause of this situation. Mendo and HumCo do have a serious rep for the quality and quantity of their weed and that’s for a reason, it’s outstanding. End prohibition and you end the majority of violence associated with growing, preparing and distribution marijuana.
Liquor stores get robbed all the time, but they aint hittin’ the package store for the beer or whiskey, they’re doing it for the cash. With the growth of 215 grows and the profit that can be made from a pound of locally grown weed, there are some who see an easy profit and that leads to violence, but end the prohibition and you end the same form of violence we see associated with alcohol prohibition and the ever-current never-ending war on drugs.
Sorry for the long post. Oh, and as for the children smelling like weed, most likely the person was describing the smell of growing weed, not the smoke. You can smell a grow house from two blocks away. Don’t get me started on the assholes who destroy rental properties by using them for grow houses, that’s for another long-ass comment.
HumboldtBlue
Oh, and if you think a grower who gets ripped off, particularly at gunpoint isn’t going to call the cops you’ll be sadly mistaken.
Chris Zerhusen
Thanks all for your responses, they are what I expected. I don’t think, as many of you may, that it’s okay to go tramping on people’s rights just because I don’t like the result. The right to take drugs, however, is not a right that I consider to be very important, and given the consequences of drug use, I’m okay infringing on it.
I don’t think taxes are a terrible analogy here. I find the right to one’s own property to be more important than the right to take drugs. All other things being equal, I’d rather let people keep their money, but all other things aren’t equal. We can do some really good things by collecting taxes, and I’m all for that. We can help the poor and disadvantaged, we can fund scientific research, we can build roads and infrastructure that will benefit the country for generations, and of course we can enforce the law and protect the country.
I think that legalizing marijuana would have bad consequences. I agree that the consequences probably wouldn’t be as severe as those from legal alcohol, but that doesn’t make them good. I understand that many people can smoke or drink responsibly, just as many people can’t. Maybe some people can run a monopoly without abusing it’s power, but we have antitrust laws to prevent their formation anyway. Maybe most people can speed responsibly, but I’m happy with traffic laws the way they are.
That is why I use the “which would I rather live in” test. All rights get infringed upon to some extent. Our right to free speech, the one I consider most important, isn’t absolute. Nor is our right to property, although I suspect that many of you dislike our eminent domain laws. Hell we even force everyone in this country to get an education. Should some people have the “right” not to get an education? You may believe in such a right, but I’m happier living in a society that forces education on its children, or looking at it another way, one that doesn’t allow parents to cripple their children with a lack of education.
This is a big, long subject to which internet conversations are not the most conducive, but that’s a basic outline of how I feel about the issue. Feel free to resume attacking me.
Chris Zerhusen
Oh, and specifically at geg6 #49:
You know we’ve had murder outlawed for over 200 years and it still hasn’t stopped! Might as well legalize it!
More seriously, I think that immediately outlawing all alcohol would be disastrous, but immediate and complete change isn’t the only way to do things.
Soylent Green
sorry can’t get tags to work today
MBunge
“It’s only a problem there because they are unique. If they stop being unique, it takes the ‘touristy’ elements out of this.”
Just like repealing Prohibition got rid of all that nasty organized crime!
Mike
Steeplejack
@MBunge:
It did get rid of bootleggers. What’s your point?
Zuzu's Petals
Interestingly, I am acquainted with the guy who was growing the pot patch in Ukiah. He is a relative of a friend.
From what I hear, he was pretty blatant about growing weed in his suburban backyard for years. And not just his own personal patch, but a commercial sized operation – hundred of plants and 170 lbs of processed pot. Aside from the violent types it attracted, the whole neighborhood stank at certain times of the year…worse, the elementary school around the corner had to keep its windows closed.
When he was finally busted – after repeated warnings – he tried to raise a bogus “I’m a medical grower” defense. Then he got busted again with over 300 plants. Just a victim of the man.
John S.
Snark aside, if you really don’t see the difference between killing a person and someone responsibly smoking a plant, then there isn’t much hope for you.
But thanks for letting us all know there is no reason to take anything you have to say seriously.
gex
@John S.: Hear hear! We all pretty much agree that we wouldn’t like to be murdered. It is also pretty clear that there is quite a bit of disagreement over whether or not we should be able to ingest this specific plant.
The negative social costs of pot smoking are significantly less than the negative social costs of our war on pot. Anyone who has read the studies on the effects of pot smoking or the availability of pot might concede that legalizing pot won’t cause much of an uptick in those negative social consequences. But the billions spent on the drug war, the militarization of our police forces, the massive numbers jailed and the costs related to it, the no-knock raids, the innocents jailed, the dogs shot, and on and on could be greatly reduced by legalization. I don’t quite understand those who “prefer” to have the costs of the drug war on pot to the costs of pot legalization.
Bubblegum Tate
@kid bitzer:
Hahahaha! Wordplay!
Chris Zerhusen
@John S.
Such an analogy, as you I suspect you in fact know, is to highlight a flaw in an argument by taking it to an extreme. geg6 argued either against the straw man that “illegalizing alcohol would get rid of all drunkeness, vice and crime,” which is an argument I never made, or he argued that because such a law would not completely stop drinking, it shouldn’t be instituted at all.
That argument is fallacious, and I thought my analogy highlighted that fact. I had no intention of using the obviously flawed analogy to make a case for the illegalization of alcohol or anything else, I was simply using it to counter his argument.
While we’re on the subject of fallacies, here’s another one. It falls under the broad category of ad hominem, and in this particular case takes the form of arguing that because someone has once made a bad argument, all other arguments that person ever makes must also be bad.
Marshall
First, I suspect that these kids were reeking of it because it smells very strong while growing, especially near maturity. (Just like in Georgia the country kids in my family tended to smell of cow manure.) I didn’t necessarily read that as implying anything about use. (Or, rather, I note that the DA implied use, without stating use, which, knowing DAs, to me translates to a deliberate attempt to mislead.)
Second, remember this is California, where it is basically “legal” in every county. There are plenty of clubs in San Francisco, Oakland, etc., and plenty of people growing all over the place. Six 20-foot high plants is still a fair crop.
Third, I know people who live one county South, who think that this is bullshit and the measure will be rapidly reversed. They also predict that when that happens it won’t be in the news anywhere outside Ukiah.
Edward G. Talbot
I don’t partake myself, but I certainly come down on the side of making it legal. I don’t ask myself the same question Chris Z. does, because the question as worded is overly simplistic. From his subsequent comments, I think he realizes this, but I suppose I could be wrong. As others have said, I could give a long list of things I’d like to see banned before pot if the only question I asked myself was “whether I’d rather live in a society where it’s legal or illegal.” That is, in fact, a bit of a strawman, but it’s one that he sort of brought on himself by not telling us WHY he’d rather live in the society that bans pot.
I’d rather live in a society where we err on the side of allowing things. If there is a lot of room for debate or if allowing it is not going to have a major negative impact on me personally (both of which apply to pot IMO), then I say allow it.
As I said, I think the mistake Chris Z. made in the discussion is to make such a statement and then essentially spend his time defend the statement. Instead, he could have listed half a dozen bad things about legalizing marijuana that contribute to this opinion. Some of us in turn could say we don’t buy those reasons. And so the discussion would go. On this site, I suspect Chris would be greatly outnumbered by people (like me) who don’t consider the problems of marijuana legalization to be a big deal and don’t consider them to be enough to outlaw it.
There’s really not a lot of new ground on either side of the argument, but over the past twenty years, more and more people are in favor of legalization. I suspect it is only a matter of time. And let’s not forget, the original ban had zero to do with public welfare and everything to do with the fossil fuel lobby putting a competitor out of business. And yes, that too is kind of a strawman, but it’s certainly worth mentioning in evaluating the motives of the larger forces keeping the ban in place.