Doubt the Lethality of Pot? Better Read This!

In the ongoing debate over the legalization of recreational marijuana use, we often hear those in favor of legalization profess that pot isn't at all a dangerous drug.

"Dude," they so often argue, "there's, like, so many more things that should worry us.  Like, what about cigarettes and alcoholism, or having to move out of my grandma's basement next week?  Man, she used to be cool."

Those people have a point.  As long as you ignore the deaths caused by cartel violence and the occasional overdose (not on pot, but on Cheetos eaten after smoking pot), pot is responsible for far less death, dismemberment and douchebaggery than alcoholism, outrageous San Francisco Bay Area commutes, or even Pat Robertson.

This weekend, though, those who doubted the well-grounded, scientifically-backed rationale of "Reefer Madness" got a slap in the face.  The News Herald reports that one Andrew Grande died — yes, died — consuming marijuana:

A man who was tased by Bay County Sheriff’s deputies choked to death on a “large bag of marijuana,” sheriff’s officials said Friday morning.

Okay, so he didn't die using pot; he died consuming it. So pot kills.  The Feds are right to protect us from it.  QED, hippies — now go get jobs.

Ah, but those of you with critical thinking skills (a.k.a. bullshit detectors) probably just called shenanigans on that bit of reasoning.  Congratulations — you're packing enough logic to see why the laws against pot don't make much sense.

To be fair, the illegality of marijuana does make more sense than the illegality of gay marriage. But really, that isn't saying much.  So what's the big fucking deal?  What is the reasoning behind keeping marijuana illegal?

First, I'll address what might otherwise appear as hypocrisy within this commentary.  At the beginning of this article, I touched on four key issues with pot use:

1) Pot smokers talk like idiots and live in their grandmothers' basements.  Don't let my use of "dude" and "like" fool you — lots of smart people smoke weed.  Their brains don't shut down, they don't lose their jobs and they don't have to move in with their grandmas.  There are also plenty of deadbeat morons out there who have never smoked a joint (or eaten a "special" brownie).  So, if you think that smoking pot is a sure recipe for stupidity and lack of ambition, you probably also believe that Baby Jesus cries every time a woman leaves the kitchen.

2) Marijuana cartels kill people, but keeping pot illegal somehow curbs the number of deaths.  How does this make any fucking sense?  Would marijuana cartels still be in business if the product was legally available?  If you think they would, check your reasoning: does the mafia still deal in bootlegging alcohol?  It's simple economics.  Growing weed in secret and smuggling it to dealers who must then sell it on the sly creates a lot of price markup.  If practically anyone could start a production and distribution business and legally sell pot at Walgreen's, how could cartels compete?

3) You can overdose on Cheetos, and possibly die.  This is actually true. But you can also OD on milkshakes, Big Macs, and Vitamin C.  This isn't a real argument against legalizing pot, anyway, because the munchies don't necessarily lead to the consumption of Cheetos.  Many times Cheetos are left aside in favor of Fritos, Doritos and burritos.

4) Pot smokers are a bunch of jobless hippies.  Just another stereotype.  Are unemployed hipsters more harmful to society than, say, insurance company lobbyists or investment bankers who develop toxic asset derivatives?  Recessions caused by hippies: zero.  Recessions caused by negligent profiteering ...

As for the official rationale behind marijuana being illegal ... there isn't any.  There's paranoia, overbearing prudishness, and possibly a CIA plot to protect drug cartels' interests in exchange for their vigilance against the rise of Communism in Central and South America (if you're into conspiracy theories), but I'm not seeing a lot of bona fide rationale — at least none that doesn't also imply that in addition to pot we should outlaw alcohol, reality TV and high-fructose corn syrup.

Seriously, does anybody out there have anything for me on this?  I'd really like to know what all the concern over marijuana is actually about.

Comments

[Tracy]

Blaspheme!

Judas priest Kim, then the government will want to TAX it.

That's just WRONG! A tax? On weed? Wrong, wrong, wrong I say!

Is nothing sacred?!

Stop all this crazy talk, you've been drinking too much.

(I can tell your altered state is due to alcohol and not smoking because there isn't any orange cheese-dust fingerprints on this article.)

[Tracy]

What the hell?

How long have I been reading this site and just realized somebody else has been the author of a lot of these posts?

Sorry Kim, and whomever else, if I addressed any comments incorrectly.

That said, AHA! Ali, you're the actual blaspheme!

[Ali H]

I blaspheme not, for mine are the arguments that make pot legal!

I don't even smoke the stuff, but I can't stand to see criminal enterprise profit off contraband that shouldn't really be illegal in the first place. Then again, the government WILL tax it, and then criminal enterprise will profit off a legal substance...

...but I'm sure that tax revenue will do something useful like, I dunno, paying private insurers to run our new "non-profit" healthcare option.

[Holytroll.blogspot.com]

Oh, you know I want to comment on this. But that would be too much like work. Write me a check for 35.63 and I'll have something intelligent to say.

-D

[BeeRayDee]

Finally it is my time to shine! As a long time user (and some would call abuser) let me drop some knowledge (and plenty of asides) on this here blog comment area. If you take the time to actually type the words "why marijuana is illegal" into your trusty Google (or Yahoo! if you are under the age of 35) you'll start to see some recurring themes (besides "the MAN wants to harsh our buzz, brah!").
Interestingly enough, marijuana was legal for a long period of time in the haydays of America, when it called "Hemp" (Marijuana was the term mexicans used when they started to hang out with us up here in the states). Hemp was used for many things, like getting high. ALSO it was the main source of fibers for clothes and PAPER. About the time William Randolph Hearst started his major monopoly on newspapers, he also had a large stake in the whole paper manufacturing biz. Paper's main opposition was, of course, hemp! Naturally, as in the interest of all Big Businesses, he wanted to eliminate the competition. But you might ask "How does one stop production of a PLANT? That seems highly illogical, Captain."
Well, if you are a big, rich, fuckin' dealmaker like Mr. Hearst (who had the biggest house I have ever seen!) you use LOBBYISTS!! That's right, the same types of shifty-eyed people who make money from your problems nowadays pushed hard to get Marijuana criminalized in the early 20th century under the (false) pretense that Marijuana will basically turn you into a crazy, murdering, immoral, rapist who will eat everything in your kitchen. The lines have been blurred ever since then; sure, the authorities will throw words like "cartel" and "mental retardation" at you but all in all there's no real good reason to keep marijuana illegal...

Oh, wait...what was I saying?

Where did I put my bong?

[Tracy]

I jest somewhat, but I'm also serious.

I know I'm a responsible and productive citizen. And for me, weed has nothing to do with responsibility and productivity.

I'm not really commenting on the legality issue.

I just don't want it to be respectable and responsible like the rest of my life is.