drimin The massive failure of the decades long "war on drugs" is a very serious issue, as recent news on the power of international drug cartels indicates. Such cartels are supported by the illegal trade in drugs like marijuana. Clearly, the failure of the war on drugs demonstrates that consumer demand for this substance in the US is fairly consistent. The decriminalization and/or legalization of marijuana in the US would therefore rob the cartels of a primary source of income, free up law enforcement and the court system for more pressing concerns (terrorism, white collar crime etc.) and lead to putting fewer people behind bars at taxpayer expense, and even bring in revenue if the legalized drug were taxed like similar but more dangerous drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. Not questioning the sense of US drug laws is the height of irresponsibility and un-seriousness.

Jason, Managing Editor I can agree that the "war on drugs" is counterproductive and bad policy. I do not agree, however, that the issue is anywhere near being the most important one facing the country right now. The only people who think easy access to recreational drugs is really more important than two wars and a near-depression economy are those who are already obsessive drug users themselves. And I don't think they should be allowed to control any more of the public forum than they already apparently do.

Bubbaquimby drimin, Here is a question just how much decriminalization do you want? I understand the pots want pot legal, I have no qualms with that (make it legal, regulated and tax the hell out of it). However what other drugs do you want? Heroin? Cocaine? Meth, etc? Right now the drug wars are actually more about meth than any other drug. I know there are some drug users who would be fine with that, however I doubt you would get a majority of the same people that think pot should be legal to be ok with meth being legal. With all the other things going on right now this is a such a sidetrack issue of legalizing pot just so the Funyons crowd can be happy.

drimin I would also agree that it is not the most important issue, but it is not unimportant. As you say, the current policy is "counterproductive and bad." Your polemical point, on the other hand, undermines itself. Recreational drug users are by definition not obsessive drug users, just as someone who likes to have a drink or two after work is not a raging alcoholic. There are millions of such people in the US, and their views are not, or rarely ever, represented in government or the mainstream media. Rather, they are criminalized by political and social forces beholden to the prohibitionist argument, against common sense and good policy. Apparently, they have found a way to have their voices heard by the mainstream. Why hold that against them?

Jason, Managing Editor When I refer to "obsessive...recreational drug users", I don't think that their LEVEL OF USE is recreational, I think the DRUGS THAT THEY USE are recreational. I think their efforts to hijack sites shows that "obsessive" is an appropriate adjective here. Apparently reading comprehension is one of those abilities that is degraded by pot use, eh? ;) And what I "hold against them" is their completely insane prioritization which places their dirty hobby (drug use) as more important than anything and everything else currently facing the country and then seeks to impose that stupid prioritization on everyone else by hijacking the White House web site or, for that matter, toking up right outside an open window where I am trying to do work.

drimin You said "obsessive drug users" of "recreational drugs," not obsessive in "their efforts to hijack sites." If this is the sense you intended, then it was not clear in your exposition. Apparently writing skills are degraded by blogging ;-) In any case, in this sense they are no different from any other group "obsessed" with its pet issue, whether they are anti-war, anti-abortion, pro-market etc. There are a lot of them, they are organized and they availed themselves of the media tools supplied by the White House itself. Deficit hawks, or the war weary or any other group with its pet issue could have organized themselves to get their questions answered in a similar fashion, but they didn't. Perhaps, unlike the potheads, apparently, they're apathetic and lazy.

Jason, Managing Editor Yes, it is true. Writing skills ARE degraded by blogging because, as you might have noticed had you looked through the haze to see what the post was actually about instead of just fixating on the first mention of your favorite smoky recreation, trolls like yourself undermine incentives to put much effort into writing truly detailed analytical posts. There is no point in putting a lot of effort into it when the pothead trolls just show up to hijack it. If you had been able to fully pay attention, then again, you might have noticed that you shifted your criticism from one thing (the supposed incompatibility between "recreational" and "obsessive" drug users) to something else entirely (the supposed incompatibility between "obsessive drug users" and "web site hijackers"). So, let's see -- fuzzy reading comprehension AND poor attention span....yep, you (and those that continue with their standardized pothead scripts below complete with misspellings) are providing a very useful confirmation of my low opinion about pot users. I agree that potheads do not deserve the application of government power that targets them, but I do NOT agree that they don't deserve the "social" sanctions you also complain about. I think when it comes to private, social condemnation, the contempt that many people including myself have for potheads is thoroughly justified by the behavior of the potheads themselves. An example of pothead idiocy.

Nancyf It's pretty sad sight to see where American's priorities are these days. Our young, our old and sick have their life ruined because of something that should have never gotton a hold here in this country specifically: OPPRESSION. And that's all I see with it. The Republicans are mainly the ones are against it for all their rediculous reasons, yet the make sure the illegals get in and bring their drugs to sell while piling up their own private piles of money and disenfranchises democratic voters at the same time. This is oppression and discrimination. They know people will always want what they can't have. This is evil what they are doing and some day they will pay for it.

drimin heh. I accepted your response to my comment, and made an amended point in my rejoinder. Such "shifting" is normal in any conversation. However, I asserted no "incompatibility between “obsessive drug users” and “web site hijackers,”" but rather stated that any group can "hijack" an open forum if they are well organized, but that apparently none were stronger than the marijuana lobby on this occasion. Apparently, fear of trolls also inhibits comprehension.

FraidyKatt Kind of bizarre but those who want to legalize drugs and more specifically Marijuana have to reconcille that with the fact that the side that would most likely take up their cause is the same side that has spent decades trying to get cigarettes banned for their health risks. Im sorry but Marijuana is smoke going in your lungs. Ima thinking it most likely has the same health effects on your lungs as does Cigarettes and when people smoke cigarettes around their kids they arent giving their kids a second hand high. Every time I think Im in favor of legalizing Marijuana I keep thinking of all the unintended consequences and have to just say no. Too bad too. In my day I enjoyed a reefer or two.

Michael Merritt

same side that has spent decades trying to get cigarettes banned for their health risks.

This assumes that all pro-pot people are liberals. But libertarians (at least the large-L types) are both pro-pot and pro-cigarette.

Jason, Managing Editor Unfortunately, they also have a large number of real bona fide whackos, Michael. That doesn't do much for their credibility on other issues including drug policy. BTW, it would be more accurate to say that the sane ones are pro-legalization, not pro-pot. Truly pro-pot people are generally heavy pot users themselves, and therefore largely incapable of holding any coherent ideology. Oh, wait. We're talking about Libertarians, right? Never mind.... ;)

Michael Merritt Legalization is what I mean. But I assume more than one are users themselves. And I cannot share your disdain for libertarians. Sure there are a bunch of wack-a-doos truthers and potheads out there among them, but they're not ALL like that. At the very least, it used to be a lot worse 10, 20 years ago. Though I was a bit enamored earlier on, it wasn't for lack of noticing that many of them too were trying to vie for purism, just like a lot of Republicans and Democrats were. But I'm not sure the extremists in any party automatically discounts ideas they might put forward. In that case, the socialists among the Democrats and the hardcore evangelicals among the Republicans do the same. That said, I do have some problems with some of the ideas, which is why I'm not a libertarian. For one, their fiscal ideology is too far to the right for me.

FraidyKatt Michael I really was not assuming anything other then it would surely be the democratic party who would take up this cause and not the republican party. Yes I do not capitalize their names on purpose. Im pretty annoyed with both of them right now and dont think the deserve a whole lot of respect until one group or the other gets their collective act together and stops playing to bloggers and starts governing once again. However the group is made up I surely would have a hard time finding much support for legalizing drugs in the GOP as opposed to the Democratic party.

Jay_C "UPDATE: President Obama very appropriately blew off the question and moved on to more important issues while parenthetically agreeing with my point about the unserious nature of the dominant subcultures on the internet." I saw this a litte differently... Given the Obama campaign's apparent "mastery" of that same internet as political tool to raise support, I would think he would see the internet as a very serious, and effective forum. (That same forum (the internet) drummed up plenty of support that helped him win the Presidency, did it not? But he should be careful, as he could be construed as the first President in history to call his supporters "pothheads" :)

nicrivera Wow...such disdain for people who took advantage of an online forum to voice their support for the legalization of marijuana. Here are just a few of the online questions from the White House's Open for Questions forum that apparently aroused the author's ire:

Would you support the bill currently going through the California legislation to legalize and tax marijuana, boosting the economy and reducing drug cartel related violence?

Will the United States realize the important opportunities that marijuana offers? Legalization could provide jobs, new exports (hemp fiber is very strong and durable), and millions of freed non-violent criminals would drastically lower prison costs.

Why will you not legalize and tax marijuana; freeing up our jails and creating billions in revenue from a substance extremely less harmful than alcohol or tobacco?

It seems that Harvard thinks that we can produce billions yearly from legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana! Does your admistration have any plans to do this or will you continue to pour billions into the failed war? We are tired of this!!!!!

Instead of spending millions of dollars to fight the drug cartels on the US /Mexican border wouldn't it be more sensible to legalize marijuana which would leaving them a lot less to wage war over and keep billions of dollars from crossing the border

Reducing cartel related violence...creating new jobs by allow the selling of marijuana and hemp products...lowering prison costs by freeing those convicted of marijuana possession... Those couldn't have been earnest questions from well-meaning sensible people. Nah. Just a bunch of "potheads", as the author claims. You know, it's funny what kinds of issues do and do not rise to the level of "acceptible" or "serious" topcis in the eyes of politicians, the mainstream media, and blogs like this one. Every week without fail, politicians and media talking heads spend thousands of hours talking about regulations/federal spending/bailouts, abortion/gay marriage/culture war, and foreign policy. But God forbid they spend even a couple hours each month debating whether our government really needs to continue its decades-long War on (some) Drugs. You argue that marijuana legalization/decriminalization is not as important issue an issue as the condition of our economy and the two wars our government is fighting in the Middle East. Just try telling that to someone who has lost a family member due our government's War on (some) Drugs. Just how "serious" has the issue of marijuana prohibition become? Former policy analyst at Cato Institute and current senior editor of Reason Magazine, Radley Balko, puts things in prespective:

I like Poulous. But his derision is misplaced. There have been 7,000 homicides in Mexico over the last two years, the vast majority directly related to black market drug trade. Seventy percent of Mexico’s black market drug rade is marijuana. If Poulous wants to stick closer to home, one of his commenters notes that had Cheye Calvo exercised his Second Amendment rights when Prince George’s County police wrongly raided his home last summer on the mistaken assumption he was dealing marijuana, he’d almost certainly be dead. Instead, he was merely terrorized, and his dogs were slaughtered. A couple of weeks ago, unarmed Grand Valley State student Derek Kopp was shot in the chest during a marijuana raid. He’s lucky to be alive. But we don’t need to single out “almost” cases. Det. Jarrod Shivers is dead and Ryan Frederick’s life is ruined over the prohibition of pot. Officer Ron Jones is dead, and Cory Maye, once sentenced to be executed, now faces a life sentence because of marijuana prohibition. Cheryl Lynn Noel is dead because of pot prohibition. So are Jose Colon, Tony Martinez, 13-year-old Alberto Sepulveda, Willie Heard, Christie Green, Pedro Navarro, Barry Hodge, Salvador Hernandez, Donald Scott, Kenneth Baulch, Dep. John Bananola, Officer Tony Patterson, Vincent Hodgkiss, Anthony Diotaiuto, Clayton Helriggle, Jeffery Robinson, Troy Davis, Alexander “Rusty” Windle, John Hirko, Scott Bryant, Robert Lee Peters, Manuel Ramirez, and Bruce Lavoie. Deputies James Moulson and Phillip Anderson and suspect George Timothy Williams were all killed in a single marijuana raid in Idaho in 2001. Officer Arthur Parga and Manuel Ramirez (a different one) killed one another in another marijuana raid after a family friend suspected of dealing marijuana had incorrectly given police Ramirez’s address as his own. These are just some of the deaths associated with marijuana raids (all summarized, with sources, here). Then there is the domestic black market violence that comes with marijuana prohibition. And the unnecessary deaths of sick people (like Peter McWilliams) who might have lived if they’d had access to medical marijuana. So yeah. I think “deadly serious” is about right, actually.

Not such a trivial matter, afterall, is it? Sadly, there are those out there who want to legalize marijuana for no other reason than to get high (and thus their motivation arises from libertinism rather than libertarianism). But I have ten times as much respect for them as I do for politicians who used illegal drugs in their youth (and never spent a day in jail for doing so) and yet want to continue prohibition (and thus criminalization) of a little plant called cannabis.

Jason Arvak Nick, I wouldn't have such contempt for the use of the online forum if it hadn't been a blatant attempt to hijack it instead of just make a contribution to it. Looking at the questions you post, I am also unimpressed by the inclusion of standardized leftist talking points about war and the presumptions of truths without evidence or argument. And I would have more respect for those advocating legalization if it weren't the case that such a high proportion of the ones I meet are interested in the issue from an obviously personal-use format. My personal frustration from having to deal with stoners while running an event recently also plays into this. I would welcome a serious debate about legalization or at least decriminalization. But serious debate is hard to come by when a large proportion of one side is stoned and the other side is largely constituted of intellectually lazy moralists.

nicrivera

I would welcome a serious debate about legalization or at least decriminalization. But serious debate is hard to come by when a large proportion of one side is stoned and the other side is largely constituted of intellectually lazy moralists.

You know what else makes serious debate hard to come by? Not opening up a subject to debate in the first place. How many times were the words "marijuana", "drugs", "prohibition", "decriminalization", or "legalization" mentioned during the 2008 presidential debates? The marijuana questions in the online forum were a predictable consequence of our government and the media refusing to address the problems associated with marijuana prohibition. How often do you see Libertarians or people with libertarian-minded views get invited on cable new media outlets to discuss their beliefs. Aside from Congressman Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano, not very often. I also reject the characterization of the pro-marijuana legalization side being comprised largely of stoners. Many of the fiercest criticisms of marijuana prohibition have from from libertarians and free market economists who have no desire to use marijuana. I'm as fierce a critic of the War on Drugs and supporter of drug decriminalization as they come. This hardly means that I'm some kind of drug user. In fact, when it comes to abstaining from drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes), I'm probably more abstinent than most of the people in this forum. I just can't understand your level of frustration with the pro-marijuana forces that "hijacked" the online forum. For me, the outrage is that hundreds of people who have been killed as a direct result of the black market violence caused by drug prohibition and on account of the paramilitary style raids conducted to enforce our government's drug prohibition and that neither the politicians nor the mainstream media will address this issue. And while I believe that economic incentives (as cited by many of the marijuana legalization supporters at the online forum) are among the more weaker arguments to support the legalization of marijuana (civil liberties and drug prohibition-associated violence are much stronger arguments, in my opinion), given the enormous deficits our government is racking up, I have to wonder why we're spending roughly 20 billion dollars each year to enforce drug prohibition.

Jason Arvak Nic, I think the reason that legalization advocates as well as libertarians find themselves often excluded from the forums of serious debate is not ONLY because of some vast conspiracy to exclude them, but ALSO because they have for decades allowed their party and their movement to be dominated by bona fide nut cases like Ron Paul and his fellow travelers in the conspiracy-mongering fringe (for libertarians) and bona fide potheads (for the legalization advocates). When legalization advocates stop allowing stoners to be their public face and start putting forth serious analysts, I'm willing to listen. But until then, I feel justified in dismissing them as unserious. And when libertarians stop falling in love with the latest conspiracy theorist or agrarian-era throwback economic theorist, then I'm willing to listen. But until then, I feel justified in concluding that those who willingly (eagerly) associate with whack jobs aren't worthy of serious engagement themselves either. Bottom line is to repeat: I welcome a serious debate about legalization or broader libertarian ideas. Where I don't agree with you is with the notion that I should somehow prove my willingness to tolerate serious debate by being willing to engage with UNserious debate that features nut cases like Ron Paul and the stoner-hijackers on the front line. Just for the record, I'm consistent with this principle with regards to conventional left and right as well. I'm not going to try to debate Michael Savage's or Pat Buchanan's nut case followers from the right. And I'm not going to waste my time with the Code Pink or Dennis Kucinich whackos from the left either.

nicrivera

When legalization advocates stop allowing stoners to be their public face and start putting forth serious analysts, I’m willing to listen. But until then, I feel justified in dismissing them as unserious. And when libertarians stop falling in love with the latest conspiracy theorist or agrarian-era throwback economic theorist, then I’m willing to listen. But until then, I feel justified in concluding that those who willingly (eagerly) associate with whack jobs aren’t worthy of serious engagement themselves either.

But Jason, you're resorting to guilt by association. I listed several of the questions posted by at the online forum by marijuana legalization advocates, and in the questions I posted, there is no evidence to suggest that those people are stoners or associated with some conspiracy-mongering libertarian fringe. There arguments are right there in my post, in English, in black and white, for you to read. How about you judge the arguments on their own merits?

Jason Arvak Sorry, Nic, but when even your hand-picked questions from the forum couldn't avoid importing non-related talking points like rants about the war and other blatantly ignorant assertions, I don't think you're helping your claim that they aren't stoners. Perhaps instead of trying to defend them, you could find that Harvard study that one of them alluded to (without providing any details -- he probably forgot them in the haze) and put THAT at the front of your argument.

Garland "he probably forgot them in the haze" You are taking mocking cheap shots because you feel disdainful of people who have done nothing wrong except not behaved according to your palate. I am asking you to stop, please?

nicrivera

Sorry, Nic, but when even your hand-picked questions from the forum couldn’t avoid importing non-related talking points like rants about the war and other blatantly ignorant assertions, I don’t think you’re helping your claim that they aren’t stoners.

Jason, Those questions could have advocated socialized medicine or they could have argued for anarchcapitalism. They still wouldn't have backed up your claim that they were "potheads", and neither do the ones posted above. Going back to your original post, I understand your frustration with people hijacking forums and rigging polls to make it seem as if their views represent a greater proportion than they truly do. But neither your original post or subsequent comments have backed up your contention that these marijuana legalization advocates are a bunch of "potheads." And given the very real problems that marijuana prohibition has created, isn't it possible that the online forum marijuana legalization supporters were more "serious" than either you or President Obama gave them credit for?

Garland I feel more disdainful of alcohol abuse, to be honest. It has become way too accepted. If alcohol carried the stigma it deserved I may have had a proper father, and not an alcoholized emotional leech.

Jason Arvak I am not a fan of having to deal with drunks when I'm trying to run an event either. In my experience, they are just as incoherent and disruptive as potheads. But so far I haven't seen any drunks trying to hijack an online forum devoted to serious questions about the economic meltdown with a demand for explicit political and social validation of their little "hobby". And Nic, do you seriously argue that legalizing hemp sales is a major component of an economic stimulus program? Or can you see how I might see that as just an ad hoc excuse to try to put an pseudo-economic veneer on what is really a "legalize pot because I love to smoke, m-a-a-a-a-nnnnn"? Perhaps I am being unfair to them, but the way I see it, legalization advocates have brought it on themselves by letting the potheads lead the show for DECADES. They have made the anti-drug crusaders' job VERY easy by using infantile stunts instead of serious policy analysis. I've conceded all along that there are serious arguments to be had about legalization. But they are not arguments that justify hijacking a debate about the economy except for those who have their priorities WAY out of whack. And the hyperbolic "prohibition" rhetoric does nothing to show seriousness. Still waiting for you to lead with that Harvard study.

nicrivera

Perhaps instead of trying to defend them, you could find that Harvard study that one of them alluded to (without providing any details — he probably forgot them in the haze) and put THAT at the front of your argument.

Jason, At had never heard of the Harvard study that that poster was referring, and even if I had, I would be hesitant to base my entire argument on a single study. That's why I didn't. The entire point of my posting the questions (something you didn't seem to think was important before calling the authors of these questions "potheads") was to give the readers of The Poligazette on opportunity to read these questions and decide for themselves whether they agreed with your contention that these authors were indeed potheads. Well, after taking the most minimal of effort perusing the internet, I discovered that in fact, there WAS a study done by an economics professor regarding the economic impact of legalizing marijuana. Only, that author was not from Harvard (as the pro-marijuana legalization poster erroneously claimed). The professor was instead Jeffery Mirion, a Economics Professor at Boston University and visiting professor at Harvard, who wrote a book called Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition. In this book, he argues that ending the War on Drugs would save our government billions dollars a year (during an MSNBC interview, Mr. Mirion cited 77 billion dollars). Now, I'm not sure how rigorous this "study" by Mr. Mirion was, where he came up with the 77 billion number, or what support or criticism has been offered by others in the academic community regarding his "study." But it would appear as if this is where the "Harvard Study" mentioned by the marijuana legalization advocate came from. Again, the debate here isn't how many economists have supported the legalization of marijuana for economic reasons. The point is that a number of marijuana legalization advocates used an online fourm to express their views, and you, without any evidence in support of your claim, claimed they were potheads. My question to you, Jason, is did you even bother to read the questions posted at the online forum by the marijuana legalization advocates before you decided to call them "potheads"? Would you have even known what kind of questions had been asked had I not posted several of them here for your readers to see for themselves? There are a number of libertarians and conservatives who are battling the growing movement (primarily from the left) to ban cigarette smoking in all restaurants and bars across the country. Do you honestly believe that these libertarians and conservatives are all a bunch of cigarette smokers? Or is this the type of quick judgement you reserve only for marijuana legalization advocates?

Jason Arvak Calling them potheads may have been flippant, though I do not doubt that there are quite a few potheads among them. Criticizing them for their completely whacko priorities and their attempt to hijack an entire forum into their ONE pet issue I do not regret at all. I also stand behind my criticism of the overall pro-legalization movement for letting the actual potheads (and idiots -- I guess alternate causality is possible) consistently predominate with their infantile stunts and bizarre ramblings that mix debate over drugs with other unrelated issues. Or are you expecting me to believe that the number of people who care most about marijuana legalization actually DID outweigh the number of people who care about, you know, millions of lost jobs and trillion-dollar debts on their kids? Perhaps someday soon I will write a post about legalization. And then we can see for ourselves how many "sons of MaryJane" commenters show up and how many serious discussants. My bet is that the proportion of nut cases to non-nut cases will be roughly the same as what happens any time anyone mentions Ron Paul. P.S. Thanks for the cite on the study. I don't think that confusing a visiting professor for an actual professor at Harvard is a particularly egregious error.