• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[B]Marijuana: It's Time for a Conversation[B]

Kittyclaws

Muse
Kittyclaws
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
783
The ACLU has teamed with travel writer Rick Steves to produce "Marijuana: It's Time for a Conversation," a half-hour TV program about the history and current impacts of marijuana laws. The program is available to Comcast cable subscribers in western Washington, but local network stations have refused to sell us any time slots before 1:00 a.m.

So, we're bringing the video online, where you can watch it anytime and share it with your friends and family. Please visit www.MarijuanaConversation.org to watch the entire half-hour program, plus bonus features such as extended interviews with experts who appear in the video.

The enforcement of marijuana prohibition has led to far-ranging erosions of civil liberties, especially of protections against unreasonable search and seizure. It is a major part of the nation's misguided "war on drugs." In Washington state, anyone convicted of possessing even a small amount of the drug for personal use in private faces a mandatory jail sentence and fine.

http://www.marijuanaconversation.org/interviews/
 
Jon_Stripe said:
Marijuana v.s. Tobacco.


Which has a worse impact?
Click to expand...

Who cares?

ETA: Part of having an honest conversation will likely involve dropping illogical non-arguments like "tobacco and alcohol are bad and legal" and "marijuana is a gateway drug."
 
Last edited:
This conversation won't be about how, like, maybe the whole universe is, like, really just a, you know, like a molecule in some bigger universe. And maybe, like, that universe is just a molecule in an even bigger universe. Whoa, man. Will it?
 
The video is just 30 minutes-please give it a look.

One of the issues brought up in the vid was the fact that although several states have passed "medical marijuana" laws, the federal gov't/DEA continues to bust these users. WTF?

Recently in Seattle, a man was denied a place on the liver transplant list due to his medically authorized use of marijuana:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004375764_webtrnsplant26.html

I couldn't believe that no one on the transplant board could reason out that his medical (and probably all) use of pot would likely cease if he got a new liver, as the reasons for medical usage would be gone and informing the patient of the consequences of recreational usage would deter that as well.
 
One of the issues brought up in the vid was the fact that although several states have passed "medical marijuana" laws, the federal gov't/DEA continues to bust these users. WTF?
Click to expand...
Ever heard of the commerce clause, specifically the interstate commerce clause?

DR
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
In terms of total damage done, I think high fructose corn syrup beats them both.
Click to expand...

Very good answer.

I've also heard (but haven't done my own research into) that milk contains many chemicles that over time are quite hazardous.

So why's weed an issue?!???
 
That is mentioned in the vid. Originally it was referred to as hemp. The powers that be started using the Mexican term "marijuana" when they wanted to vilify the herb by showing that people of color were using it.
 
It refers to a supreme court decision, wherein it was decided that the interstate commerce clause of the constitution permitted federal raids on medical marijuana targets.

Forget the actual legal reasoning behind it since many of these operations never cross state lines in terms of delivering the weed...

But there was some nice legal gymnastics they used to get to the answer they wanted.

We'll need a president who decides to make a formal decision to end such raids, but politically it would be hard to manage.

If they could include other perceived federal "incursions" into state matters they could argue from states-right point and not have it exclusively about marijuana, which the repubs would run with if it was the only thing dealt with in such a presidential decision.
 
Let me preface to say that I don't have a problem with people who want to toke up or people who use medical cannabis. I don't oppose decriminalization.

That said, this video is not an honest conversation about marijuana. The percentage statistics it gives (x% of people have used MJ, etc) are irrelevant to the argument of whether or not it should or shouldn't be legal. In fact, it reminds me of truther videos who cite Zogby polls for how many people "question" the "official" story of 9/11 or polls taken on how many people believe Kennedy may have been killed by the US government.

The descriptions about the origin of marijuana criminalization are fairly accurate. It was criminalized under a huge cloud of hyperbole and racism. Its ties to Prohibition are real and historically accurate. The "Just Say No" campaign was ridiculously overblown against marijuana, but the problem was that marijuana was already criminalized and, as such, it was tied to other (harder) drug use. The video is giving the impression that the "drug war" was only against marijuana when it wasn't-- by the 1970's much harder drugs were becoming present, by the 1980's cocaine had become the vogue, and by the 1990's crack cocaine was also greatly in the public eye. Yes, the use of marijuana as one of the faces of the "drug war" was a focus of the government, but the implication of the video is that marijuana was practically the sole focus when that's not accurate. Basically, the video overemphasizes the prosecution of marijuana to the point where they come close to engaging in the same hyperbole that was used to criminalize it to begin with.

The health coverage as well isn't providing an accurate picture. Pharmacologically speaking, while THC does indeed have beneficial analgesic properties, one of the side-effects of it is nausea, which can work in detrimental ways just as often as it does beneficial ways. I would agree there should be an allowance for better research as to why it has analgesic properties, but glossing over detrimental side-effects from a medical perspective is irresponsible.

The video-- while I would say it brings up a valid point, that there should be an intellectually honest discussion of marijuana-- doesn't stick to its point it brings up in the first place. Instead it provides several emotionally-based arguments to make the intellectual equivalent of the "hey, it's not so bad... not as bad as x, y, or z" argument, which have their own flaws.

I wasn't impressed by the video as a whole, and I should be the type of person for whom after watching it I'd feel like my beliefs-- which aren't in disagreement with the video's premise-- have been affirmed. After watching it, the only thing that's been affirmed for me is that neither side is yet prepared to take this conversation on in an intellectually honest fashion. The only really logical point made in the video was that the criminalization was accomplished through arguably questionable means. Since we can't go back in time 70+ years, that's not going to make a convincing case that it should be decriminalized now unless the other parts of the concerns people have are properly (and logically) addressed.
 
GreNME said:
That said, this video is not an honest conversation about marijuana. The percentage statistics it gives (x% of people have used MJ, etc) are irrelevant to the argument of whether or not it should or shouldn't be legal. In fact, it reminds me of truther videos who cite Zogby polls for how many people "question" the "official" story of 9/11 or polls taken on how many people believe Kennedy may have been killed by the US government.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I disagree. The fact that a lot of people have used it without harmful effects is a powerful argument for decriminalization.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Ever heard of the commerce clause, specifically the interstate commerce clause?

DR
Click to expand...

I took a law class a fair number of years ago, but have since forgotten all the details of the interstate commerce clause. How does that law affect folks who grow and sell MJ within a particular state?
 
Mycroft said:
Respectfully, I disagree. The fact that a lot of people have used it without harmful effects is a powerful argument for decriminalization.
Click to expand...

That's not how the "statistics" were couched (that one was brought up early on, before health effects were even mentioned, for instance), and the percent having used is only one of many. So, while you certainly have a point on the health aspect, that is only mildly touched on in the video, instead making emotional arguments (along those lines) like "cops would rather arrest someone intoxicated on marijuana than someone intoxicated on alcohol." Yes, it's very effective imagery, but it's missing the goal of having an actual honest conversation about marijuana.

I agree there are strong arguments for decriminalization. I just don't think this video makes them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom