Not all taboos are alike. Some are backed by the full force of law. Other taboos are enforced merely by polite opinion and the snubs of the cold shoulder.
Have you noticed how the latter kind feeds the former?
John Payne, executive director of Missouri’s Show Me Cannabis Regulation, was recently asked on Mike Ferguson’s Missouri Viewpoints why the politics of marijuana has changed in recent years. His answer is worth contemplating:
[O]ne thing that’s finally changing is that the taboo around talking about this has finally started to drop away. Pretty much, people have thought that any discussion of the issue … has been labeled almost criminal in and of itself. Just talking about legalizing it means that not only do you support the use but you yourself are a user.
He calls the old view a “stereotype,” and says that its repulsive — shaming? — effects seem to be dwindling — the town meetings he has been conducting around Missouri have certainly been drawing huge crowds.
Interestingly, later on in the show, the pro-drug war gentleman shot back exactly in the old-school manner. He demanded to know “why [marijuana legalizers] don’t frankly come out and say ‘because we want to get high!’” He was dismissive of Mr. Payne’s reasoning. He’ll only accept the confession: “I want to get high.”
Apparently, individual freedom coupled with personal responsibility — principle — is not something the drug warrior finds very convincing. Unlike growing numbers of Americans who now seem, at the very least, more than willing to engage in what Payne calls a “rational debate.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
8 replies on “Taboos Against Toke Talk”
Most “morality” laws start with the shaming, become law and hopefully eventually are discarded due to their unintended becoming clear (and expensive). The prohibition of marijuana has filled the jails and prisons, made criminal — and therefore unemployable — many of our youth, corrupted our justice system and financed organized crime.
The “rational debate” only becomes necessary and possible when the futility and damage of foolish and unenforceable laws becomes clear. That is what is happening now.
1% prevalence of schizophrenia in the general population.
6% in teens that use pot regularly.
Drik- schizos self medicate, unless they are imprisoned for doing so.
Thank you for noticing.
If no immediate victim = then no immediate crime. End of story.
Drik:
This would be more convincing if you included a link to a credible source. The idea that marijuana use leads to schizophrenia seems absurd to me.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/teens-who-smoke-pot-at-risk-for-later-schizophrenia-psychosis-201103071676
Of course, this from the same ivy league school that gave us the president, so credibility may be at issue.
Drik: I appreciate the link and found the study interesting.
From the article: “So far, this research shows only an association between smoking pot and developing psychosis or schizophrenia later on. That’s not the same thing as saying that marijuana causes psychosis.”
I agree with Edward Agazarm that people prone to schizophrenia are also prone to self-medication.
Really hard to do double blind studies in the USA on stuff like this with it being federally illegal. Don’t have to worry about being charged with war crimes anymore, just who’s going to sue you to the poor house. Even with waivers and no case, a hungry lawyer can take on a plaintiff pro bono and burn thru $20 – 30 K of your money trying to motivate you to pay them to go away.
Drugs: where social conservatives want to use government to enforce virtues, just like liberals do (but for other virtues).
Shaming is a valuable social tool, and should be used when people engage in actions contrary to unwritten social standards (e.g., telling someone who needs a bath, their clothes aren’t suitable for family environments, they are drunk in public, women/men having children without being married or in a committed relationship to raise them).
There should be a line between actions that are illegal, and other actions including those deserving shame. That line is where actions harm someone, their property, or their freedom. If actions don’t meet this criteria, then it shouldn’t be illegal.
Note the drug warrior, who’ll only accept as a reason for using pot, is because people want to get high. Perhaps the way to show him the principle, is to point out that one can only have freedom if they are willing to give it to others. The way to do it, is to find something he likes to do (perhaps drink beer, maybe hunting, or eating french fries) and tell him since pot is illegal, we’re going to make what he likes to do illegal as well.