Another of the festering wounds of the ’60s and ’70s is the matter of illicit drug use. It wasn’t just hippies, actually, not once the troops in Vietnam turned to it, too.
It’s a troubling legacy on many fronts. For one thing, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world – much of it regarding drug traffic. In other words, there’s a demand for the product, and if you believe in a free market, maybe you need to listen.
I won’t go into the history of banning many of the substances that are now verboten, even if it suggests a political tradeoff in repealing the Prohibition. But the basis of declaring the substances illegal appears to have been made on reasons other than the ones officially proclaimed. Let’s be honest about tobacco and alcohol, including their ability to be taxed, in contrast anything you might be able to grow on your own. (This, let me add, is coming from a former homebrewer.)
On the other hand, the widespread, frequent use of mind-altering substances among the young – and I’m including tobacco, alcohol, and activity-inhibiting legal prescriptions – leaves me deeply concerned.
That extends to the parents who give their kids pot … or even allow them to sell it at school.
That, in turn, points to a divergence between hippies and stoners.
Faced with a decision on the legalization of marijuana, I’m not entirely sure how I’d vote. But I do know the current policy isn’t working – and is doomed to continuing failure.
Why can’t we have a frank discussion on the issue … without all the hubris?
Jnana's Red Barn 
Why do you think hubris is the problem? I think for all the reasons you just mentioned peopl are having frank discussions, for those same reasons they can’t reach a consensus. I think legalization, although having the potentiality of some negative effects, will have more of the positives ones than otherwise. Can’t kee illegal a substance which is so widely available on the illegal market and is hardly even as affective as alcohol facultatively speaking
I think tax revenue implications kick in, at least when public officials are thinking about the issue. Hard liquor, wine, and beer are for the most part manufactured and thus pass through distribution points that can be monitored … and taxed.
Pot, on the other hand, can be raised in the back yard or garden.
Would pot also cut into tobacco sales?
In dollar and cents terms, these are big numbers. As are the ones for incarcerating drug traffickers.
Yea, but legality of pot can be governed by its own laws, as it is now in many states, its not that hard to keep pot growing/selling heavily legislatured, it would still take a chunk out of illegal trafficking. As for tobacco, it’s on the way out anyways, pot can just usurp that throne.
Mom’s spin on this one…by legalizing pot, you’re taking money out of the hands of some very nasty people. They will not be amused. In response, they will be forced to keep up with the changing times and produce a “better” product. Sort of a Near-beer mentality. So, if the stuff you can buy legally is friendly and gives the consumer a high…I’ll make mine perhaps a bit less expensive (I’ll say I’m side-stepping the tax middle-man) and I’ll give mine a little more “kick.” You’ll like mine better, in fact, you’ll probably want and then need more and more of it…and then I’ll tell you that it would be easier for you to just buy my Meth or my Heroin…and to skip the “pot” I’ve used as a delivery system. You thought the maryjane was the dance you were doing…too late you’ll find it was the secret ingredient.
Seen it happen too many times to unsuspecting teens. It’s epidemic and accidental and intentional
We saw something similar with acid back in the day. It started getting laced with other things, which then found a market, and then the others things were cut with the next new thing. Et cetera. Of course, all of that was in the illegal realm.
By the way, didn’t we see something like that with “juiced” tobacco that was marketed legally?
It is good to have the frank discussions. I’ve been curious about why people feel they need it at all.
Aldous Huxley wrote about a mythical drug “Soma” in the 30’s: “I don’t understand anything,” she said with decision, determined to preserve her incomprehension intact. “Nothing. Least of all,” she continued in another tone “why you don’t take soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours. You’d forget all about them. And instead of feeling miserable, you’d be jolly. So jolly,”
Perhaps we’re headed for a Brave New World, if we aren’t there already.
Vincent
There’s a lot of pain in our society, for one thing, and many people want to numb that. And then there’s a lack of purpose or a sense of meaninglessness in the mix.
I’m not saying drugs are the answer, but whatever we’re attempting to combat that isn’t working.
It’s true, the “War on Drugs” type of approaches aren’t working. Many teachers say that peace and finding meaning aren’t a destination or goal, they’re a journey and found in the present.
I read someone’s comment asking for compassion for Lance Armstrong’s drug use. They said he should be able to keep all his medals if he could finish those cycling races while on drugs, because the commentator said he could hardly find his refrigerator when he was on drugs.
When does the drug help with the pain or sense of being lost or disconnected, and when does it thwart our ability to think, feel or live? I suppose since each of us have a personal tolerance, the answer is personal.
Now you’re pointing toward the kind of discussion that should be occurring.
On one hand, think of the place of the wine with a festive dinner or the peace pipe passed around the fire — communal events — rather than the solitary trip. Sometimes it heightens the experience.
And on another hand, think of the communal joy that can occur when we are working and living harmoniously together — the clarity of mind and spirit.
Thanks for hearing the spirit of it – to seek an alive balance of connection and awareness. A middle path.
I heard the results of a recent study on alcohol consumption. Aligned sith the mathematical principle called the Pareto Principle or the 80/20 rule, something like 70% of all alcohol is consumed by 10% of Americans. Mist of those over-Achievers are in trouble of some kind. Fortuately, there’s at least some safety nets in place.
I wonder if the inevitable taxes on legalized drugs will go towards the over-achievers in pot consumption.
Vincent