h1

Proposition 19

October 18, 2010

So in a few weeks here there is an election in California, and one of the measures on the ballot is a proposition to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

I might be one of the only college students at this time that will publicly say that I think this is a huge mistake.

It makes sense to me why people who already use marijuana illegally would want to legalize it; what frustrates me is those people who don’t agree with smoking marijuana yet are in favor of Proposition 19.  These people tout the supposed economic benefits of legalizing the drug, the harm it would cause Mexican drug cartels, and the false supposition that it would only effect those people who already use the drug.

But the negative effects far outweigh any positive effects this measure might come with.  Contrary to what your friends might say, marijuana is most certainly physically addictive and does in fact have long-term effects on the body.  The only people I have ever heard argue to the contrary are people who were at the time using and trying to justify with the classic, “I can quit anytime” line.  But just as it is not true for a cigarette smoker, quitting is much easier said than done for one who uses marijuana as well.

Cannabis produces withdrawal symptoms that may be as severe in some cases as those produced by nicotine addiction. These are most assuredly “physical” symptoms. There is no such thing as a distinction between the “physiological” and the “psychological” when it comes to addiction, no matter how much people wish to frame it as such. Drug Addiction Dualism is a denialist position. Full stop. Dependence on a drug is produced because repeated exposure to that drug produces changes in the body. It matters not where those changes are made, they are physical alterations. Unless you believe in some noncorporeal version of the mind or soul that exists independent of the physical matter of the body. And if you believe in that, you have no business making anything that resembles a scientific-sounding claim such as whether or not a drug produces a “physical addiction”.

With this knowledge, I have a problem legalizing the recreational use of such a drug and thereby making it readily available for even more people.  To believe that passing Proposition 19 would not certainly lead to more widespread use of marijuana is as naïve as it is stupid.

What’s Wrong With Marijuana?

In case you weren’t paying attention in Health class when the side-effects of this drug were gone over, here’s a quick crash course:

  • Marijuana side effects include physical problems like breathing difficulties and deteriorating physical abilities.
  • Despite a popular belief, marijuana side effects speed up the heart, blood and breathing rate. The body is taxed more and this speeds up the aging process just like methamphetamines do. The marijuana side effects from this extra exertion on the body include a higher risk for lung cancer, heart attacks and strokes.
  • When marijuana is used habitually, the natural chemical balance of the brain is disrupted affecting the pleasure centers and regulatory systems. The ability to learn, remember and adapt quickly to changes is impaired by marijuana use.
  • People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash. (Side note: under Prop 19, getting behind the wheel of a car just after using marijuana is perfectly permissible)
  • It is also what is referred to as a “gateway” drug.  The more you use, the more you have to use in order to experience the high.  This often leads people to take up other drugs in order to achieve the high they are no longer experiencing from marijuana.
  • It is not the same as alcohol.  You can drink a little bit of alcohol without getting completely trashed.  The entire point of using marijuana is to get high.

I realize that not everyone who uses marijuana is going to go out and get into reckless car accidents or become a hardcore drug addict.  The point is that this proposition will undoubtedly lead to more widespread use of the drug, thereby putting more and more people at risk for the negative effects.

The Economic Argument:

This initiative on the ballot says it will “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis”.  Sounds positive, right?  However, I don’t think it is that simple.

You would think that a measure titled the “Control and Tax Cannabis Act” would have some sort of tax proposal written into it.  Yet if you read the text of Prop 19, there is no such tax proposal.  Taxation is left entirely to the legislature and local governments, so there are no guarantees about any marijuana taxes or how fair they would be.  If this measure is supposed to help the state economically, there are at present no concrete plans to do so, and any economic benefits would pale in comparison to the social costs of legalizing marijuana.

The Drug Cartel Argument:

I have heard the argument made by those in favor of Proposition 19 that legalizing marijuana will undermine Mexican drug cartels, which supposedly gain a lot of their profit from the illegal sale of marijuana.  There are a few things wrong with this argument…

For one, it is not entirely true.  According to a study by the nonpartisan RAND Drug Policy Research Center

Californians, who make up one-seventh of the U.S. marijuana market, already are farming marijuana at a much higher rate than in neighboring states and tend to buy domestic rather than smuggled marijuana, the study found.

In short, California would have to legalize more than just marijuana to hurt the cartels.

Another thing I find just a little bit ironic about this argument is that it tends to come from people who are in favor of legalizing the drug because they already enjoy the recreational use of it.  This means that they are already buying it illegally and, as far as they know, putting money into the hands of the cartels.  Are we supposed to suddenly believe that these people really care about harming the cartels that they have previously had no problem handing money to if it meant they got to satisfy their selfish desires?  Give me a break.

There is also the fact that since Marijuana will still be illegal for those under 21, there will still be a market for those who illegally sell marijuana to sell to.  So contrary to what proponents tell you, Prop 19 won’t eliminate crime associated with the drug at all.

Naively voting yes on this proposition just because some of your friends told you it would help the economy is just bad judgment and poor research.  I implore you all to do your homework before going into the voting booth.  Proposition 19 is bad for California.

Advertisement

19 comments

  1. Fantastic blog post, Mary! You presented your thesis with intelligence and I found your arguments against Proposition 19 well presented.
    I myself am completely against Prop. 19.
    Andrea


  2. Good job Mary! If I’m able to share this on my FB..I will! Thanks..Francy


  3. Excellent post! Well done.


  4. Great Post Mary! Studies have shown that Marijuana has also been known to cause fertility issues in men and women. =( This proposition will be in my prayers. Wish I was in California to vote a big ABSOLUTELY NOT. Love you & God Bless.


  5. First of all, don’t listen to Drugmonkey! He’s FOS and bizarrely obsessed and refuses to listen to reason.

    “The marijuana side effects from this extra exertion on the body include a higher risk for lung cancer, heart attacks and strokes.”

    No. No evidence for this. Totally debunked years ago. You are spreading lies. Where is your citation for this factual claim?

    “The ability to learn, remember and adapt quickly to changes is impaired by marijuana use.”

    WTF? Where are your citations?

    “People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash. (”

    What does “involved” refer to in this sentence? What data is this based on? I believe this is a lie also.

    “It is not the same as alcohol. You can drink a little bit of alcohol without getting completely trashed. The entire point of using marijuana is to get high.”

    Holy shit now you have really lost it?

    “Excellent post! Well done.”

    WTF Jason?

    “But the negative effects far outweigh any positive effects this measure might come with.”

    Lazy, citation and fact-free opinion piece.

    Do some RESEARCH and try again.


  6. “Studies have shown that Marijuana has also been known to cause fertility issues in men and women.”

    No.


    • Just no? But where are your sources? Your citations??

      “According to a study performed in 2003, regular cannabis smoking can have serious effects on male infertility including:

      * lowered sperm count
      * decreased volume of seminal fluid
      * poor sperm motility”

      http://www.womens-health.co.uk/infertility5.asp

      “The group found that THC made sperm less likely to reach the egg to fertilise it.

      They also discovered that the presence of cannabis impaired another crucial function of sperm – the ability to digest the egg’s protective coat with enzymes to aid its penetration. ”

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/3586115.stm

      “American scientists compared the sperm of men who regularly smoked marijuana with fertile individuals who hadn’t smoked the drug. They discovered that the marijuana smokers produced fewer sperm than the non-smokers and that the sperm moved too fast too early – two factors that can reduce fertility.”

      http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/211003sperm.html


  7. Isabel: It so predictable how you always show up, and not necessarily on this page. Your name changes but you are always the same. You take on people instead of issues, you use profanity to make your point instead of presenting facts. Love your neighbor as yourself – it’s not that hard. We don’t all have to agree on everything. I’d love to hear your view backed-up with some facts.


  8. Michael,

    My name has never changed. Furthermore, I am not the one who made all the crazy assertions. Why should *I* have to prove anything??? Also, you must have me mixed up with someone else. I am quite focused on issues, not people.

    Drugmonkey is an NIH/NIDA government-funded scientist and is promoting these lies on twitter, because his blog is being promoted; and because he is obsessed with keeping cannabis illegal, even though alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, etc are all infinitely worse for people and society.

    I can see Mary’s quotes are straight from NIDA websites, notorious sites of misinformation, scarcely removed from “Reefer Madness”-style propaganda. For starters, there is NO evidence that cannabis causes either lung cancer or traffic accidents.


    • *sigh*

      ok, I’ll bite.

      I think that by asking you to back up your claims, Michael was merely pointing out the irony that you are so upset with me for having “no citations” (though as you just wrote, I *did* have citations), when you yourself provide no evidence that the claims I made are “lies”. Honestly, if they are, please show me evidence for it. I have nothing to gain from keeping marijuana illegal. Why would I want to be ignorant?

      I was not aware that my sources were “notorious sites of misinformation”, but I guess since you don’t give me a compelling reason why, I’ll have to take your word for it and look elsewhere…

      Lung Cancer:

      Here is an article about a study from the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand which found that “Those who smoked the equivalent of one joint a day for 10 years had a 5.7 times higher lung cancer risk than nonsmokers even after adjusting for tobacco use, reported Richard Beasley, M.B.Ch.B., of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand here, and colleagues in the Feb. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal.”

      http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addictions/8096

      Maybe the conspiracy is so deep that they are even paying off New Zealand scientists to keep marijuana away from US citizens? :)

      But you are right, there are obviously sources that say differently. Researching the effects of marijuana is difficult, as explained here:

      “There are difficulties in researching the effects of cannabis. Many people who smoke cannabis also smoke tobacco. And users of cannabis often mix it with tobacco. This can make it difficult to know whether it is the tobacco, the cannabis, or both that has caused a cancer.

      The amount of THC in cannabis also varies. Some of the cannabis available today is much stronger than it was 20 years ago. These versions contain more THC.

      Another difficulty researchers have is in recruiting people who smoke cannabis into studies. Because cannabis is an illegal drug in many countries, people may be reluctant to take part in research. And if they do agree to take part, they may not say how much cannabis they actually smoke.”

      http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer

      Still, I don’t think that implies you can ignore studies that find links and claim there is no risk at all. That’s just sloppy.

      Marijuana and Driving:

      For a lot people who use marijuana, going for a drive is typically part of the experience. This is why it is important to research the effects the drug can have on driving performance.

      This study (http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1.htm) had this to say:

      Unlike alcohol, which typically causes those who use it to overestimate their driving performance, marijauna users under-estimate it. So, typically, a drunk person speeds, someone under the influence of marijuana drives slower (not nearly as dangerous as speeding, but not always ideal, and sometimes can be very dangerous).

      “Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC’s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small. Still we can easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have an exceedingly dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver’s information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol. We therefore agree with Moskowitz’ conclusion that “any situation in which safety both for self and others depends upon alertness and capability of control of man-machine interaction precludes the use of marijuana”"

      So yes, driving after using marijuana is not as bad as driving drunk; and I never made the claim that it was. The drug does have an effect on the driver though, and that fact cannot be ignored. Think big picture. Making marijuana legal leads to more people using it. Without question. Again I quote the study,

      “…Still we can easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have an exceedingly dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver’s information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol.”

      Marijuana may not lead to reckless driving but that does not void the fact that it DOES have an effect on driving performance. More people driving while, or just after, using marijuana puts more people at risk when faced with situations that call for defensive driving that we all experience on a daily basis.


  9. Mary, well Said! Like I said on facebook…I have written articles for a conservative website I use to write for and the amount of information on the economic benefits (or lack there of for anyone that can do math), health and mental issues, and driving issues is endless. However, those that disagree always have the same tired angry arguments.

    For Isabel’s benefit I will post my comment here as well.

    “I believe in limited govt. …To put it simply the govt is only to do what it has the authority to do from our constitution. We also have rights according to the constitution. Our rights END when they begin to impede on someone else’s. So(…)just like with alcohol…you can sit in your house and drink but the second you get behind a wheel of a car you are now statistically impeding on other’s rights…You can not respond as quickly while high and if you get pulled over or kill someone there is NO test to see if you are currently high or smoked 2 weeks ago. The test will confirm THC in your system but because it metabolizes differently we dont have the technology (mainly because the decimal places go too far out) to see if you are currently under the influence.
    So, to me I do not think California should haphazardly legalize a substance they have no means to control. Unless of course you think it is fair for cops to administer blood tests to anyone and everyone they pull over and if they test positive for THC then they are automatically charged with a DUI/DWI no matter if you say you havent smoked in 3 weeks. But then I guess the economic benefit argument would be voided.”

    If you disagree with the fact that this would be a haphazard, dangerous, and poorly thought out legalization then you simply want to just get high.

    Nicole


    • “you can sit in your house and drink but the second you get behind a wheel of a car you are now statistically impeding on other’s rights”

      Statistics? They do NOT show this, sorry. There is likely compensation because people under the influence of cannabis understand this, they do not behave carelessly so they compensate.


  10. My mouth just hit the floor….how can you possibly think that statistically you are not more likely get into an accident and put other people in danger…thereby impeding their rights? SERIOUSLY? I can provide you a dozen links that will tell you otherwise. Can you provide me one link that will say that you are a better driver drunk than you are sober?

    You can not begin to say that people under the influence of anything are going to be better drivers. But thanks for the laugh.


  11. Some of my posts have disappeared.


  12. Sorry about accidentally directing Trollabel your way, dude.


  13. Where are your sources. You make a lot of scientific statements without providing any sources. Prohibition does not deter anyone from doing drugs, prohibition actually makes it easier for kids to get their hands on narcotics than alcohol or tobacco.


  14. This is a good, well-written article. I still believe the benefits of legalisation outweigh the risks however, and I’ve done plenty of homework.


  15. Health effects are irrelevant. It’s not for anyone to decide what I choose to put in my body. It is immoral to arrest and imprison people for possessing, growing, and selling plants.


    • maybe so. But as soon as it affects driving performance, it is no longer just about the individual’s personal preference. Read the above comments where the effects on driving performance are discussed.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.