Emails to Sun Times
Pot Legalization
     Index     
Return to:   Site   or   Emails   Description

20120615                Law                Morality
                          Four separate emails on the same subject: June 15, 16, 19 and 20

20120615 at 10:03pm
To: letters@suntimes.com
From: Scott Sinnock ssinnock@netzero.com, 10:03pm, June 15, 2012
Subject: Pot Legalization
Now that Rahm is proposing easing the penalties for marijuana possession in Chicago, based largely on economic grounds (high cost of enforcement), perhaps this is a good time to review why it is illegal in the first place. I would like to ask the Sun Times readers to submit a reason why it is harmful to use marijuana for mental pleasure. Let's skip the medical marijuana issue and get right to the point. What's wrong with it? To get the ball rolling, let me start. Smoking marijuana is bad for the lungs, probably not as bad as cigarettes, but probably worse than living next to a freeway. I hear eating baked marijuana is not very hard on the stomach, but smoking it is definitely bad for the health of most, if not all smokers. Other reasons? Surely there must be more or it wouldn't be illegal, right?
Scott Sinnock
205 West Todd Avenue, Apt 201
Woodstock, IL 60098
815-206-0634
ssinnock@netzero.com


20120616 at 12:43pm
Subject: Pot Legalization
I wrote yesterday to suggest readers chime in with the things wrong with marijuana. Then I got today's paper where almost all column inches on the first three pages and the lead editorial are given to "marijuana-decriminalization" issue. Search as I might, I found not one suggestion as to why marijuana use, production, and marketing might be wrong.

In Friday's paper, the mayor mentioned the issue has 2 parts: cost and "the criminal-justice side". Your paper has done a fine job covering the "cost" issue, both in money and lives, in fact your coverage is devoted entirely to that side of the issue. Case well made. What about the other side, "the criminal-justice issue"?

Why should there even be a fine for small amounts or ever more penalties for ever larger amounts. Even such "liberalized" law as being proposed implies there is still something undesirable about marijuana use. What is it?" Why should it be regulated? It seems we are not "demoralizing" marijuana use, just shifting sanctions to less onerous ones, and that only for small-scale users. (Note 1). So in extensive coverage of, according to the mayor, a two part issue, you give no, none, zero, zilch attention to the other side, to reasons people believe that marijuana use should be sanctioned at all, a listing of types, preferably, or even anecdotes of social or personal harm such use causes. It's been illegal for so long and in so many places, there must be a truckload of such reasons, valid or not. So let's return to a little honest journalism and at least try to summarize the other side's arguments, even if you, like I, don't believe them. If there is an "issue", which this surely is, help us decide, by recognizing and presenting both sides. So, come on, "criminal-justice" side, convince me.

Note 1, added November 15, 2013 "and that only because it is too expensive to fully implement the morally correct prohibition"


20120619 at 5:38pm
Subject: Pot Legalization - Day 3
I wrote yesterday and the day before about the same issue. It is now day 4 since the article about the mayor's proposal for partial "decriminalization" of marijuana use, and still not one reason has been mentioned in your paper about why it is wrong in the first place, about what harm it does or might do to an individual or community. In today's article aldrman Burke is quoted, "As a parent, I'm very concerned about anything that gives kids the idea that this (marijuana use) is not a bad thing to do", but no mention of why it is bad, only the assertion. Later in the article he says, "There's a lot of personal histories -- people who know folks that have had problems and drug-related issues. There's a myriad of issues ... ". Again, what are they? The mayor, as I mentioned in my previous letter, contrasted the cost issue to  "the criminal justice issue" while, again, leaving to our imagination what that issue might be. This neglect of any mention of actual "bad" things continues the bias of your coverage of the issue and perhaps the tone of the community (see below). So again, I ask for fair treatment of the issue and an exposition of reasons why I, or anyone should be opposed to marijuana use, production, or distribution, and, more importantly why I,or anyone else, should be imprisoned or fined for its use. (end of letter)

Now for a conjecture. With such persistent omission, perhaps refusal to discuss "bad" things about pot use, other than asserting it's bad, I suspect an argument, applied to many moral questions, similar to the following:

"If you don't understand why it's bad, you don't understand common decency and morality, and are probably immoral.
Plus, I don't' have to tell you why it's bad.

My morals are private, none of your business, between me and God.
And I vote, see you at the polls"

Such a perspective, very common and completely justifiable in a democracy, is often used, it seems, to avoid exposure of moral reasoning to open public dialogue, or should I say debate. Fear that openness and critique might not support and may even undermine deeply felt moral positions leads to the aphorism I was raised on "Never talk about sex, politics, and religion." I think the morality of pot use fits the religious topic, at least in so far as religious teachings overlap with community morals, overlap that is nearly ubiquitous. But don't we civil citizens require better? Don't we deserve to be informed about why we might go to jail? What harm we might do by using pot? I have begged the question these last three letters. Of course I have my own opinions of what I think and what others may think is bad about it. Lungs, I mentioned in my first letter. Others I hear: "reefer madness" or the belief that it temporarily or, worse for some people, permanently messes up their minds. But again, this is but another assertion without detailing what such mental assaults are. I, as Burke (see above), have heard lots of anecdotes about friends, or more commonly, friends of friends that "freaked out" after smoking a joint. I even have a dear friend myself who "freaked out" one afternoon while smoking, this after years of pot smoking, and never took another toke. He now wants to keep it illegal to "save" others from the fear he experienced, fear of "loss of grounding", fear of 'meaninglessness, disconnectedness" and other such things as he related them to me. So does his experience, some would say existential encounter with life, justify denying other's the opportunity for such "enlightenment", as others may interpret the same feelings? Of course marijuana is often mentioned as a gateway drug, as if alcohol is not. Again, though, no mention of what's wrong with the "harder" drugs.  Another reason I often hear is "because it's against the law". Now that's an interesting position from a moral-legal perspective. Yes, of course, but again, it begs the question, "Why is it illegal?" which seems to be the question before us today in Chicago. Another reason I have heard is, "intoxicants impair judgement and make it more likely a user will purposefully or inadvertently hurt someone", which is a variant of the "reefer madness" argument, where we must be very careful to not automatically identify the action with the drug, including drunk driving. To summarize, again after may enthymemes, I think when social consensus becomes so complete that "we don't need to defend our moral position, because it's obvious" is precisely the time when a challenge is most useful.


20120620
Subject: Pot Legalization - Day 4, 20 Jun 2012
Re: "Hot Potato" page 5, June 20, 2012
My 4th letter in as many days on the same topic.
FINALLY, someone mentioned something actually bad about marijuana use, road hazards. Unfortunately, you had to go all the way back to a 1980's ex federal drug enforcement official, Peter Besinger for such a bold statement. Someone closer to the issue in Chicago might have been a better choice, don't you think? But, at last, someone, Besinger, finally identified something wrong with pot use which might justify its regulation, namely, driving impairment. However, this single, minor point is made only after five days of cryptic statements from some, including alderman Burke, that marijuana use is "bad" and. from the mayor, that it involves a "criminal-justice issue" without any mention of what might be "bad". At least Besinger points to something I can finally sink my teeth into. He quotes an unnamed study to support the "fact" that marijuana use while driving doubles the user's risk from automobile accidents. However, in expressing his concerns, Besinger continues the assault on marijuana by unsupported condemnation, not by furthering the rational, engageable argument he started by pointing to accident statistics. He is quoted later in the article "I want them drug-tested. If you just issue tickets and it's nothing more, the person has no disincentive to discontinue using." Why "disincentivize"; is the impact on driving ability the only reason to regulate marijuana. Even if not, let's look at this item a little more closely. Several other studies show varying effects of marijuana use on driving ability including some that report improvement in marijuana smokers. Be that as it may, let's assume for a minute that the study "quoted by a quote" is true, and smokers do indeed double their risk of accidents. That would increase a smoker's chance of a fatal accident from about one chance in ten thousand to about one chance in 5000 in a year of driving 10,000 miles, where one fatality occurs for about every 100 million miles driven. But one may argue, "That's the pot smoker's business, I don't care if they hurt themselves, but, if the study is true, his or her irresponsible behavior increases MY risk, and that justifies my regulation, punishment, and "disincentification" of such harmful behavior." Yes, of course. But to estimate the actual "increase" in risk due to marijuana smoker's on the road, I need to know how many people are smoking, driving, and NOT getting in accidents, which is almost certainly far more than those who do. But let's be generous, and assume one in 10 smokers causes a fatal accident for a non smoker, though its probably more like one in ten thousand or more. So assuming 10 percent of "other" drivers on the road increase their risk by one part in 10,000 (from one in 10,000 for all drivers to two in 10,000 for marijuana smokers), my risk caused by the same behavior is increased only one tenth of that, or one part in 100,000; and for that "irresponsible" behavior I and you can go to prison. Many studies show people generally can distinguish risk factors no more than about one in ten in their daily lives, but we severely punish people for adding risk that is 10,000 times less, on par with the risk we add to our own lives by one month's normal driving. So,yes, Mr. Besinger, thank you for boldly stating at least one of your reasons for wanting to regulate pot use, danger on the highways. And it's a good reason with lots of support. I just think you and your fellow travelers are a little severe in wanting to regulate such a nearly imperceptible addition to risk. Other reasons out there? Let's here them, I am still waiting and willing to be convinced.