search
top

Weed Legalization: Surreal Edition

I’m wondering whether I actually am still inhabiting the universe I thought I previously knew, or have somehow been transported into some other strange, parallel universe, where Pat Robertson signs on to decriminalizing weed.

It that’s the case, can I please also move to the universe where Ladd Everitt, Josh Horwitz, and Dennis Henigan are machine gun collectors?

17 Responses to “Weed Legalization: Surreal Edition”

  1. ExurbanKevin says:

    Wow.

    Well, at least we don’t live in a world where the head of Media Matters has a staffer carrying an illegal Glock around him 24/7 to protect him against right-wing snipers.

    Oh, wait.

  2. Oliver Perry says:

    You wouldn’t want to live in that universe-Huffman would be head of the Brady Campaign and Baker would be head of CSGV.

  3. In the alternate dimension where there are punk rockers for the President, anything is possible…

  4. Stranger says:

    Robertson’s comments are interesting, but unlikely to go anywhere. But to be fair, “hemp” was legal for more than 150 years.

    Other than a few sensational stories in the 19th century tabloids there did not seem to be a public health or a public order problem. There was a problem with the cotton farmers, who felt hemp grown for textiles was forcing them out of the market.

    “Paregoric,” tincture of opium, was readily available in most states for those with intractable dysentery or teething babies until about sixty years ago. I can only recall two cases in which the foul tasting stuff was abused, and both started taking opium in Asia. Chloral hydrate, the stuff of a “Mickey Finn,” was a more serious problem.

    Robertson’s point seems to be that the “war on drugs” has failed, and we need to concentrate our resources on the worst of the worst. Methamphetamines are currently coming in by the tonne, and some 50,000 children and young adults a year are trafficked into the US.

    Stranger

    • Sage Thrasher says:

      Legalizing drugs would get rid of a huge percentage of the murders in this country every year committed by rival gangs of dealers. In that way, legalization would be a good thing for gun rights by lessening the anxieties of the anti-gun or neutral public as the murder rate fell.

    • This is not quite correct. Mexico prohibited marijuana in the late 19th century because it had developed a reputation for causing some people to go crazy and commit murders. Until there was a large influx of Mexicans during the Mexican Revolution, it does not appear that there was a significant U.S. population smoking it. Doctors used cannabis throughout the 19th century across the Western world, and there are late 19th century discussions of its medicinal uses in U.S. medical journals.

  5. Weer'd Beard says:

    Well we can note that most of the anti-gun activists own guns, and many of them have carry permits…

  6. mobo says:

    If PA’s alcohol laws are any indication of what PA’s marijuana laws might look like in the absence of federal laws, we would probably not see much change. Things might actually get worse. As it is now, you are guilty of DUI if THC is detected in your body, regardless of whether you were actually high at the time of an accident or if you smoked a bit of pot several weeks prior. Making pot legal in our state will not automatically change the DUI law at the same time.

    And there would be a revenue agent under every bed, making sure that no “tax cheats” are growing their own. The fourth amebdnebt will do almost nothing to slow this down. Mark my words.

    • Sigivald says:

      Mobo: Note that tobacco is taxed, and tobacco taxes are a significant source of income.

      And it is perfectly legal to grow your own, federally and in every state I’ve heard about.

      Likewise beer and brewing – and before recent BATFE changes in distilling licensing predicated on terrorism scare-tactics, to distill your own liquor.

      I see no obvious reason why legal dope wouldn’t be treated more or less just like other legal “vices”.

  7. Ian Argent says:

    Related thought: Stereotypically, Republicans are for the drug war because they are tough on criminals. Democrats are for the drug war because it’s good for police (union) jobs.
    Which view is more likely to change as views on drugs change?

  8. This is not new for Robertson, just the latest natural progression.

  9. Zermoid says:

    Weed doesn’t make anyone go crazy that i have ever seen, usually it’s quite calming, and it does increase your perceived awareness, noticing things you never would normally. Only real downside is drymouth……

    I don’t see why it is illegal, I too think it should be taxed and regulated like cigarettes and alcohol. And the money collected thru tax could go to fighting the hard drugs, crack, meth, stuff like that.

    Makes sense to me. Since the whole Drug War was a manufactured war to start with, by the govt declaring illegal what was previously perfectly legal. Just like prohibition, why alcohol was re-legalized and other chemicals was not I’ll never understand.

  10. Ian Argent says:

    Given the 4th Amendment abuses committed in the name of preventing alcohol abuse, I’m not entirely sure legalization will give us the constitutional paradise we seek, but I will note that cigarette and booze smugglers don’t often make the news with a bullet these days.

top