Odds and Ends

bullet image So much talk and so many articles out there about the Project SAM nonsense. It seems that most people are somewhat skeptical about the ridiculous supposed “new direction” of no incarceration and yet no legalization. All it is, of course, is a weak variation on decrim that still focuses on law enforcement harrassing those who are causing no problems, and doesn’t address the black market at all.

It’s not serious policy — it’s merely sound bites in an attempt to give people a way to oppose legalization if they’re not actually, you know, thinking.

bullet image Fun with Twitter

Beau Kilmer: Can we please get some more research on THC:CBD ratios? http://t.co/5fyj70ba #marijuana #mjRAND

Kevin Sabet: @BeauKilmer Indeed! I just used the word “CBD” on national TV today. Wonder if it was a first!? We need much more discussion of it though.

Drug WarRant: @BeauKilmer Agreed. Would like to see much more research. Some is being done in the MedMar community, but overall, Schedule 1 status hurts.

Beau Kilmer: Wow @DrugWarRant and @KevinSabet agree on something : )

bullet image Fun with Twitter, part 2

Same Facts: Legalizing drugs tempts people into drug abuse. Banning them tempts people with drug dealing.

Drug WarRant: .@SameFacts @MarkARKleiman “Hey, now it’s legal. I have a sudden urge to abuse it.” Really?

Mark A.R. Kleiman: @DrugWarRant @SameFacts Yes, Pete, you can take a serious argument and make it sound stupid by misstating it. Good for you!

Lee Rosenberg: @MarkARKleiman @DrugWarRant How did he misstate it? He precisely re-stated the logical outcome of your thought.

I was, of course, immediately hit with that first statement: “Legalizing drugs tempts people into drug abuse.” How absurd. There’s no evidence that legalization even leads to increased drug abuse, let alone the bizarre notion that legalization itself somehow tempts people into drug abuse.

Although Mark didn’t note it until after this exchange, he was apparently referring to this post, which still didn’t in any way support that statement, even if it was hyperbolic.

bullet image Fun with Twitter, part 3

Mark A.R. Kleiman “Cannabis kills no one”? How about “Tobacco kills no one?” Same logic. http://t.co/TQwQBIgo

Drug WarRant “@MarkARKleiman: ‘Cannabis kills no one’? How about ‘Tobacco kills no one?’ Same logic. http://t.co/m8Faz67z” // Texting kills.

I think this particular exchange (and the referenced post) goes a long way toward understanding the thinking of Kleiman and others like him.

Mark was coming down on Andrew Sullivan for saying that marijuana has killed nobody.

My point in comments was an attempt to understand the different way of looking at things that comes from the paternalist.

Pete Guither says: “I think there is a legitimate difference in how people approach culpability.

If you smoke cigarettes for a long period of time, there’s a certain chance that that the chemicals in the cigarettes will cause your death. Drinking too much alcohol over a long period of time can damage your liver, and lead to death. As Mark said, there is no firm evidence of similar proximate causation when talking about marijuana.

Drinking alcohol does not cause traffic fatalities. Drinking alcohol AND THEN doing something really stupid leads to traffic fatalities. The difference between what Andrew Sullivan is saying and what Mark Kleiman is saying is that Andrew blames the doing something stupid. Mark blames the alcohol.”

bullet image In which I thank Mark Kleiman…

In the linked post above, Mark is nice enough to give a shout out to our group here. It’s appreciated!

There are plenty of places for anti-drug-warriors to vent in peace; Pete Guither runs one.

I might not have chosen the term “anti-drug-warriors” due to the potential referential vagueness, but we know what he means.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *