Comments

  1. Moz's says

    1- good for the american farmer

    2- good for tax base

    3- would free up police to go after white collar criminals

    eating it vs smoking, is better/ healthier

  2. UFFDA says

    “Jam it in your in-box. You know you want it.” And the expression “sh*t load” are crude and uncalled for, offputting to those you want to reach. Being a sleaze is something you can’t help, but putting it on display is a choice. Make a better one and this otherwise valuable ad will have a broader impact.

  3. Petes says

    In the largest randomized trial done, it was shown that smoking pot creates a significant irreversible reduction in a person’s IQ. Society has a clear interest in prohibiting its consumption.

  4. Alex Parrish says

    @UFFDA — this vid wasn’t intended for your Sunday-School class. The language is appropriate for the intended audience. As for your personal comment about Mr. Savage; it says more about you than about him. Grow up.

  5. Paul R says

    @Moz’s: I’ve been smoking it for a long time, on and off (currently mostly off), and while I realize the lung damage that causes, I’ve had nothing but awful experiences when eating it. I find it impossible to regulate the dose, especially if I didn’t make it myself. Even then it can turn you into a mess, and it seems to last forever. So I’d say the danger is much higher with eating.

  6. says

    amen.

    not only do we need to legalize cannabis use, but we need to start farming THC-free HEMP.

    it’s practically the perfect plant. we don’t need to be continuing with the over-logging industry. grow hemp plants. they produce oxygen. they re-grow at an incredible rate. it can be used in all sorts of ways.

    and yes, legalize cannabis.

    re: lung damage – invest in a vaporizer. you’re welcome.

    😉

  7. Mary says

    Unlike gay marriage, there is no dignity in smoking pot. It’s just immediate gratification. Medical marijuana can help dull the pain for ill people, but recreational pot makes no sense. Dan is from the cultural Left, so his position on this issue is no surprise. But unlike liberals from the `1960’s and 70’s, he can’t pretend he hasn’t spent a lifetime seeing the negative effects of recreational drug use.

  8. BETTY says

    UFFDA the resident schoolmarm. Always moaning about Savage. We get it, you don’t like him. Geeze already. His message is about pot, aimed at pot smokers. He is not inviting people to a church social.

    There is a lot of good facts and information in this video, yet you get your panties in a bunch over one swear word and a play on words. Shoot the messenger. I’m surprised you didn’t mention his use of the word d*uchebag. You probably didn’t notice since I’m sure you are used to hearing that word everyday by people who know you.

  9. nn says

    I support not at all legalization of pot. There are only two exceptions I think should come under medical pot, MS and advanced cancer. That`s It.

  10. Mary says

    Keeping alcohol and cigarettes legal is not at all like making pot legal. A person can drink alcohol just for the taste and not with the goal of getting high. But the goal of smoking marijuana for recreational purposes is to GET high. Isn’t this so? I’ve never been a recreational drug user and am assuming this to be the case. If I’m wrong here, I’ll accept correction.

    As for cigarettes, they are bad for one’s health, but cigarettes can’t intoxicate you – i.e. put you in a state where you don’t know what you’re doing. However, because of the dangers of second-hand smoke, I DO understand the logic of banning smoking in public places.

    I’ve never actually looked closely into the arguments for legalizing marijuana. Maybe if I did my position would change, but from what I know now, I’d advocate keeping it illegal.

  11. says

    the interesting thing about the cannabis debate is that, like with “gay issues”, there is the conflict of Facts VS Emotional Opinions.

    there simply isn’t the empirical evidence needed to justify keeping it illegal.

    it’s one of those things: when “debating” this subject with people, the ones most against its legalization simply don’t know what they’re talking about.

  12. BETTY says

    Mary: if you don’t think a person gets a high or a buzz off alcohol and cigarettes, I’ve got a bridge I want to sell you.

  13. says

    “here, we have de-alcoholized wine and beer for everyone”

    -“No, sorry. I don’t want a de-alcoholized one. i prefer the TASTE of alcohol in my wine and beer”

    said nobody ever. because that makes no sense.

  14. Elias Barton says

    @Mary – Of course for many the goal of pot is to get high. However, getting high has many facets. I’d venture to say that a good deal of art and music you enjoy were inspired and created while someone was high. It also opens one’s mind, creates deeper thought and heightens your senses. Alcohol does none of those things.

    Unfortunately, Americans have been subject to decades of anti-pot propaganda which solely depicts those who use pot as dumb and/or unmotivated.

  15. BETTY says

    There are many smart, creative, so-called pillars of society who partake in pot. Despite this things still manage to get done in their lives.

  16. Mary says

    And if a gunman DID go on a violent rampage after smoking weed all night, would Kiwi change his mind on this subject, or would he say that the problem was not marijuana, but access to guns? What you wrote was a non-sequitur, Kiwi.

    Betty, I have no doubt that there are smart, creative pillars of society who partake in pot. The question is this: would the legalization of pot (which we should assume would lead to more pot-users overall) lead to the same benign results in others who are NOT smart, creative, and pillars of society? The average person doesn’t have great self-restraint. Social norms should assume that most people are ordinary, and not “smart, creative, etc…” After all, we aren’t ALL regular readers of Towleroad!

    As to the “getting high makes us more creative and deepens our thought process” argument, I have generaly heard this argument portrayed as a symptom of 1960’s counterculture kookyness. To be fair to you Elias, I don’t know enough about the actual biochemical effects of marijuana to respond to this argument fairly, and I don’t want to argue against a caricature of your views. But even if it were true, we’d have to balance this creativity and sensitivity against the lack of judgment and self-restraint that getting high causes.

  17. says

    see? those who are utterly opposed to its legalization don’t know what they’re talking about.

    emotional opinions in the absence of an intellectual and defensible understanding.

    the facts are all out there for people to learn, and yet they refuse to learn them.

  18. BETTY says

    “The question is this: would the legalization of pot (which we should assume would lead to more pot-users overall) lead to the same benign results in others who are NOT smart, creative, and pillars of society?”

    Newsflash Mary: pot is not hard to get now. Legalizing it is not going to open the doors to a sudden rush of people saying “finally, I can get it”! If somebody really wants to smoke pot they know how and where to get it, legal or not. Also, are you saying we shouldn’t legalize it because we don’t know the affects on the dumber people in society? Another newsflash: if they were dumb before, they’ll still be dumb after a toke.

  19. Mary says

    “Also, are you saying we shouldn’t legalize it because we don’t know the affects on the dumber people in society? Another newsflash: if they were dumb before, they’ll still be dumb after a toke”

    No, Betty. I’m saying we shouldn’t legalize it precisely because we DO know what the effect will be on the dumber people. They’ll act even dumber because they are in a state that reduces their self-control.

    And Kiwi, didn’t I already say that I needed to learn more on this subject and that my position might change due to more information? But the “self-control” argument is part of this equation. I don’t need to know everything there is to know about marijuana to bring it up.

  20. says

    alcohol is legal, and many choose not to drink.

    owning guns is legal, and many choose to never own a gun.

    legalizing cannabis will do one thing – remove the Criminal Element and connection to those who use cannabis.

    not everyone enjoys the way cannabis use makes them feel, just as many don’t enjoy the way alcohol makes them feel (*raises hand*).

    self-control? you might like how in a world of people still dying of starvation we have westerners who literally EAT themselves into an early grave?

    if people can enjoy a glass of wine or two and not become alcoholics then why not extend the same understanding to cannabis users?

    great men like robert altman, for example.

    again, as i’ve said, the only people opposed to its legalization are the people who don’t have a freakin’ clue what they’re talking about.

  21. BETTY says

    “I’m saying we shouldn’t legalize it precisely because we DO know what the effect will be on the dumber people.”

    No, that’s not what you asked in the post before. You asked: “would the legalization of pot (which we should assume would lead to more pot-users overall) lead to the same benign results in others who are NOT smart, creative, and pillars of society?”

    You asked IF it would, then in your next post you said we DO know it would. My point is, dumb before, dumb after.

  22. BETTY says

    “I’m saying we shouldn’t legalize it precisely because we DO know what the effect will be on the dumber people.”

    No, that’s not what you asked in the post before. You asked: “would the legalization of pot (which we should assume would lead to more pot-users overall) lead to the same benign results in others who are NOT smart, creative, and pillars of society?”

    You asked IF it would, then in your next post you said we DO know it would. My point is, dumb before, dumb after.

  23. UFFDA says

    I have smoked pot about ever three days for 30 years. At worst it makes me groggy after fours hours (so I sleep).

    As I am a full-time all-the-time professional artist I note that while it can get me busy when I’m feeling uninspired it can also contribute to a certain margin of over-the-top enthusiasm resulting in work that is somewhat too extreme. Still, the “rush” of weed is exceedingly enjoyable, highly “creative” and always a dance prod. I rarely use it socially, finding it best for a quiet working atmosphere. I never use it in the out-of-doors where I find the senses are already filled. But for the quiet, grim day when “the sky is the color of prison sheets” it is an imcomparable restorative.

    Betty is a c**t. Mary is sensible but should smoke weed.

  24. Caliban says

    Mary, et al, how’s that “War On Drugs” working out for you? Has this aggressive campaign of criminalization done ANYTHING other than swell our prison population, which is already one of the largest in the world?

    It’s no different than prohibition, which made created a criminal underclass of otherwise law abiding citizens. Further, it just creates a black market, the funds from which are used to support much more dangerous and damaging criminal activities including terrorism.

    In short it’s nothing but pearl-clutching bullsh*t that creates far more problems than it solves.

  25. BETTY says

    Really UFFDA? You are calling me a c*nt after you JUST said this about Dan Savage:

    “And the expression “sh*t load” are crude and uncalled for, offputting to those you want to reach. Being a sleaze is something you can’t help, but putting it on display is a choice. Make a better one and this otherwise valuable ad will have a broader impact.”

    UFFDA: replace “sh*t load” with “c*nt” and take your own advice you hypocrite. You are just mad because I dared to pointed out your buffoonery and you JUST proved it again!

  26. says

    and don’t forget, Caliban, the US has privatized prisons. meaning, prisons run for profit. meaning, there are wealthy people whose wealth depends on having people locked up in prisons.

    throw ’em in jail for cannabis-related crimes. give them a criminal record meaning they can never get anything other than a minimum-wage paying job (a minimum wage which people cannot live off of, to boot), this creates a culture where people find desperate measures to survive and feed themselves and their families, oh…..and then make sure that they can get easy access guns.

    and the last thing Big Pharma wants is people having access to cheap and effective cannabis when they would prefer folks pay top-dollar for chemicals, which have higher and more destructive addictive properties.

    remove the criminal element and you take the power away from drug lords, gangs, and terror cells.

    private-growers will remain.

    simply put – there are no intelligent reasons to keep cannabis illegal, nor to keep from farming THC-free hemp.

  27. Moz's says

    Paul R

    admittedly you have to digest more than you would have to smoke, but for me it is like clock work.

    I eat it straight 😛 no need for brownie buffer, and a nice mellow build for 2 hours till it hits in full

  28. Petes says

    Here are the details about the study of long-term pot smoking in young people which so many on here seem to want to ignore. So much for the Left pursuing policies based on reason and science.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19372456

    It causes irreversible damage to intelligence and social functioning. Regular use as a teenager will cause someone to move from the 50% percentile in intelligence to below the 30% percentile.

  29. says

    Petes, were you homeschooled?

    put up a study showing how long-term effects of alcohol use, when consumed by youth, does no harm.

    seriously. what an asinine study.

    legalizing cannabis doesn’t mean that children get to use it. duh.

    “The effect was only noticed in those who started smoking cannabis as adolescents”

    see also: booze.

    nice try, but ya FAILED blanche. ya FAILED.

    😀

  30. jamal49 says

    The U.S. government did a length study in the 1950s into the late 1960s on the deleterious and obvious effects of continuous pot-smoking. They used Jamaican workers as their study group. What they found was that there is NO long-term negative effects from pot-smoking and that, in fact, it has positive effects on one’s mood, capacity to work long hours at difficult labour, and one’s health. Needless to say, the report was suppressed because it didn’t fit into the nascent “war against drugs” narrative that was being foisted onto the American public by the Nixon administration in the early 1970s.

  31. Caliban says

    Well, PeteS, YOU seem to be ignoring the statistics about actual pot use in the US population. In fact the last 3 American PRESIDENTS have admitted to smoking pot so clearly, to quote Brother-Boy, “It ain’t a-workin’!”

    It’s EXACTLY the same as Prohibition. You can either legalize the market for marijuana, enabling us to tax and better regulate it, or you create a black market that funds drug cartels which also supply far more dangerous substances and puts more guns on the streets. Either way the market for pot is there and there’s every indication it will always BE there. Sooner or later you have to accept reality and deal with it.

  32. says

    If making pot is supposed to make people less intelligent then how come it’s only ever unintelligent people who insist on keeping it illegal?

  33. ratbastard says

    Actually, contrary to some posters, it’s not at all unusual for violent criminals to have smoked weed just prior to their activities, just as it’s normal for many violent criminals to be just high on one thing or another when they commit their crimes and violence. Substance use and abuse is by far the norm among most violent sociopathic criminals. That said, weed is no worse than alcohol, and alcohol abuse does cause mega problems. Plus, illegal weed helps subsidize violent organized criminal gangs who rely on illegal vices to make $. It’s preferable they legalize it and tax it. And too many people have been hurt, turned over to the criminal justice system, had their lives ruined, by our so-called drug war.

  34. Petes says

    LittleKiwi — Please cite a peer-reviewed study showing that a couple of drinks a week from the age of 16 lead to a fall in intelligence from the 50th to 30th percentile. I’d be more interested in seeing some data then hearing more of your hackneyed drag routine.

  35. says

    “It is such a special study that I’m fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains.”

    That’s right from your link, Pete. We set age limits for alcohol and cigarettes too. Have you got anything else?

  36. Tom says

    Too crude and lewd for me Danny boy. And can’t you devote your attention to one cause at a time? Now you have to confuse the straights into thinking gay rights = exactly what they thought it did before – the right to party, drink, drug, sleep around and spread disease.

    Thanks for nothing. Feh.

  37. Paul R says

    Who cares what people do in their private lives? If they aren’t driving or committing crimes, does it really concern you? It’s sort of like being gay. If someone is walking down the street on acid and isn’t bothering anyone, why would I care?

  38. Mary says

    Tom, you raise an interesting point. And I had almost raised this same point myself today (i.e. that Dan Savage working on the pro-pot legalization issue might cause harm by contributing to the hedonistic stereotype of gay men.) But then this argument would involve gay icons/spokespersons never taking any stand on a non-gay-related issue. I’ve started to see how unrealistic it is to ask someone to live this way. And gay rights is progressing at such a fast pace, that I’m not sure the hedonistic stereotype will prevent progress anymore.

    Interesting that you’re taking the view that I would normally take. And I’m taking the view that Ernie normally takes. How things can change in a few months!

  39. Mary says

    “Mary is sensible but should smoke weed.”

    Uffda, be careful what you wish for. Would I still be sensible if I was on a marijuana high? A liberal man such as yourself might get high and end up sounding like a 1960’s hippie. But a right-wing woman might get high and end up sounding like something far worse……..the ghost of Sarah Palin. Imagine the whole Tea Party as one big Pot Party? Social conservatives often sound stoned when they are perfectly sober (accusing Obama of being a Kenyan, calling anyone they don’t like a marxist, seeing conspiracies everywhere.)

    Now you see why I’m reluctant?

  40. Mary says

    I”f someone is walking down the street on acid and isn’t bothering anyone, why would I care?”

    Not all dangers are overt, Paul. Drugs can effect one abilities as a parent, worker, or citizen. Often we don’t see the danger until the damage is irreparable. It’s in society’s best interests to do what will minimize the number of people who take drugs unnecessarily.

  41. BETTY says

    Mary: let’s ban booze and cigarettes because they also affect one’s abilities as a parent, worker, or citizen. Btw, we put controls on the consumption of booze i.e. at work, in public (public intoxication, drinking in licensed areas), heck we even put controls on smoking. Wouldn’t those same rules would apply to pot smoking? Nobody is suggest a pot free-for-all just because it is legal!

  42. BETTY says

    *Wouldn’t those same rules apply to pot smoking? Nobody is suggesting a pot free-for-all just because it is legal!

    Fixes my mistakes. lol

  43. Marc C says

    @LITTLEKIWI

    RE: Vaporizers

    Any recommendations? There are so many brands out there and they can be pretty expensive.

    Thx. :)

  44. Diogenes Arktos says

    Some police departments have already *quietly* decided to stop enforcing possession of marijuana to put their resources to better use. It wouldn’t surprise me that this has been true only in white suburbs, given the statistics Savage cited.

  45. anon says

    Long thread! The rule isn’t about the “only ifs” of public policy, the rule is about what balance of harm is caused by public policy. Any public policy can be supported if only its benefits are outlined. You need to address the negatives too. Currently, the vast array of drug related prison sentences and associated crime and poverty must be balanced against the small impact this has on drug use in the country. Whatever you might think about the negatives of using pot, the negatives of banning it must be dealt with as well. As with gay rights, I think most people see the ban as a small price to pay because they aren’t directly involved.

  46. Paul R says

    @Mary: Parents have children who sleep. Workers aren’t working 24 hours a day. Citizens often do lots of more awful things. It seems like you think that pot completely disables a person, and though I wouldn’t advocate it for the parent of an infant or a worker “on duty,” I can’t see why you’d condemn recreational use.

  47. QJ201 says

    @PETES

    …the study of which you speak, which you clearly didn’t read or simply don’t understand

    1) Was NOT a randomized controlled trial, it was a cohort study

    2) Results: Those who smoked marijuana DAILY before the AGE OF 16 had reductions in IQ level.

    Between the lines: The human brain does not finish “wiring itself” until we reach our early 20s, therefore chronic use of drugs as teenagers can effect brain development.