23 votes

Pro Marijuana Legalization? I bet you are still biased and I'll prove it

First and foremost, I am a long time smoker of marijuana. I've been at it since I was 12 or 13 years old and have no regrets. I am now over 30 years of age and a PhD level chemist. I made A's in every class that didn't include homework or attendance in the grade (I was once given a B in a class because of absences where the lowest grade I made on a test was a 93%, and in another I made a 78-79% where homework was 20% of the grade - which I never needed to complete to learn the material).

During those early years, I was surrounded by kids of all ages that were users - and some abusers - of behavioral modification drugs such as Ritalin. Although I was offered these other legal drugs on several occasions, I never accepted.

I tried methamphetamine one time when I was 15, and it nearly caused me to kill a good friend in a fit of rage. That was my first and last experience with meth. It is a terrible prohibition related drug that every person should resist if offered. Over the years, I have seen many otherwise good people fall victim to its hold.

Other than that, I have never moved on to any other drug besides alcohol and tobacco. I have never tried cocaine, ecstasy, or any of the other widely available and popular drugs. I took oxycodone for a short period when I had back surgery but never developed an addiction. I smoked cigarettes from the time I was 12 until I was 29 (17 years). I successfully quit that deadly habit with the help of nicotine patches.

I have absolutely no reason to be biased against marijuana - nor do many of you. If I were to ask you whether alcohol or marijuana was more harmful to the health of users, most of you would reply - "Alcohol is worse." Then, why are you still biased against it? Don't believe me?

Drug War propaganda has been very influential on most Americans. It began heavily in the 1930's with the yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst and has continued for the last 80 years. To display the bias that still remains - even though you may be for legalization - consider this scenario:

A friend rings your doorbell. You go to answer the door, but your young child just beats you to it. As you and your child stand before your visiting friend, your friend inquires to you - "Would you like to come over and smoke a joint?" - without any notice to your youngster.

Honestly, what would be your reaction? Would you be mad at your friend?

Now, let's modify the situation with a more harmful drug - alcohol. You and your child stand before your friend, and your friend says - "Want to come over and have a couple of beers?"

Likely, most of you felt nothing when alcohol was offered even though it's poisonous to humans. Hell, some of you probably have enough alcohol in the house to kill your child a hundred times over. However, not even a drug dealer has enough marijuana in his or her house to kill anything.

So, why the bias? Chalk it up to the power of propaganda. What other biases do you have to which you are unaware?

Quod erat demonstrandum - QED - as an old school mathematician would say.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


i would care far more if my child (if i had one) was offered alcohol

Check Again...

Maybe you misread? He said the joint/alcohol was being offered to YOU in the presence of your child.

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."
(1 Peter 2:15-16)

Doctoral Candidate here - a PhD chemist knows better

Whether something is safe or not is not an argument about whether it should be criminalized or not. I am a doctoral candidate. I'm also a previous user of drugs twice in my life, and apparently more than you from your post. I'm glad they didn't harm my brain, and I've had groups of people try the old freak out campaign. (I've also had knock out drugs spiked in my cup at least twice, dosed on drugs without my knowledge several times, and several other nasty experiences - but that is a separate matter.

Occult - I've even done research on them as once, psychedelic have frequently been used in brainwashing attempts by occult groups, including the Bacchus cult and bonfires (they use to get people high on psychedelic drugs and alcohol drink mixtures, and sacrifice human victims by tearing out them with their teeth, and throwing them into the bone-fire, where we get the word bonfire. The assassins use to use a mixture of hash and marijuana for their cult victims - where we get the term assassins. The voodoo in Haiti likewise used a mixture of drugs on their victims to create zombies. This is quite apart from the CIA brainwashing research.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Drugs unsafe doesn't mean government should criminalize

A PhD candidate in chemistry knows better, and if he's selling the idea using drugs is good, he's selling victimization.

The argument isn't drugs are safe. The argument is it's up for the individual to decide what to do with his own life, and also that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate drugs. The drug war is relatively new - late 1980s, and was used as an excuse to take away freedom. At the same time, Iran Contra was going on, and the CIA was selling drugs. It was hugely hypocritical.

Drugs aren't safe. They weren't for me. I even had a jerk that kept on feeding me one set and was only pretending to take it himself - a friend of his said he was trying to harm me, and pointed out some other things. I'm convinced he told me the truth - and it's very similar to the occult or government use of drugs to kill minds as mentioned above. Legalize drugs, and start murder investigations into things like the above when they occur.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Not the issue

Some people are forgetting that it was made illegal because of its many potential and highly competitive market positions. Paper, bio diesel fuel, biodegradable non toxic plastics, as well as a plethora of medicinal benefits, clothing fiber, etc. The list is enormous. (Anyone with an internet connection and an I.Q. beyond that of a dead turtle can find all they can read for weeks). On the flip side, keeping it illegal provides many industries with nonstop business and government funding, not to mention the additional authority attained by local law enforcement "professionals". In addition, the controlling powers in the Republicrat establishment are better able to serve the various lobbyists from the industries that supply the effort. So why is it still subject to debate? Isn't it obvious that the problem is actually an entire complex? Does alcohol have so many uses? How about tobacco? See? If walnut trees had as many uses, these powers would just find a way to make it "dangerous" and illegal as well.

Great point

The target was never the "evil weed". It was hemp all along . Hemp is a threat to so many parts of the various fascist complexes; but including marijuana they get the bonus of the prison industrial complex
and the medical industrial complex control. Your explanation is the crux of the biscuit.


I agree it's not the issue.

I agree it's not the issue. Making it illegal makes it hard to talk about how bad it is as well.

Somehow Americans managed to survive 150 years without drugs being a criminal activity. And yes, drugs were around then, particularly opium and hash and some marijuana. But America was more free and used less drugs when the government wasn't outlawing it and selling it to you at the same time ala gunwalker scandal recently, etc.

Outlaw something, and previous users who know it's bad feel like they can't talk about it - which increases use because you've outlawed social warnings.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

That really would be the

That really would be the proper reaction of anyone who has ever dealt with kids. They have big mouths.

"My daddy's friend asked him to smoke pot."

Authorities promptly called.

It has less to do with bias and more to do with common sense.

Santa Maria, Ca

My only Bias

Is if I were the parent of a kid of a young age I would be afraid of getting busted and having that kid put into foster care and having all my possessions taken away. Duh.


Nice Article However...

A little long winded! Good views though my brother.

Nope. I've taught my children

Nope. I've taught my children about drugs and that they should decide for themselves if it is for them or not. Hopefully, they won't. Now, that being said, I wish marijuana was legal. In fact, I think my youngest child could benefit from it. Right now, he has been prescribed an anti-psychotic for his condition but in reality, I think he would be better off using marijuana. My wife doesn't think it's a good idea but she has been programmed by the propaganda. I would like to see him taken off his anti-psychotic and put on marijuana instead for at least a few weeks to see if he can be treated using less severe drugs. I want to move to a location where he can be given such treatment without fear of the government kicking my door in.


Since I don't drink,

I'd probably ask my friend to get me some cannabis seeds so we could plant a garden of them and juice the leaves. No high, all the health benefits.

While there was a very recent study showing that smoking marijuana doesn't cause lung damage, I still think some of the health benefits are lost in processing, so I'd prefer raw. That and some coca leaves.

As I started out with, I don't drink, and never will, so I don't think I'm biased.

I am 100% against pot in any

I am 100% against pot in any way shape or form. But I am 100% in favor of total legalization, it should be sold like popcorn. People pushing for pot legalization always come with the talk that "it is safer than alcohol", so what? Cocaine is not safer and should be legal too, driving is not safer and should be legal too... Repeating that something is safer therefore should be legalized just give the "regulators" legitimacy.

You don't need to approve the behavior in order to legalize it as long as nobody else is being harmed is just fine.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Ben Franklin

I am 100% against Twinkies

but people have right to eat them

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

playing devils advocate,

playing devils advocate, driving is a potential danger to others isn't it?

Everything is a 'potential' danger to others...so what?

People should be left to do whatever they want up to the point of infringing upon another individuals life liberty or property.

I don't need the useless class(the code enforcers and most other Gov't workers) infringing upon my life liberty or property because they think I have the 'potential' to harm another.

You are right about the "it's

You are right about the "it's safer" argument. It's something marijuana apologists hackney to death. Who cares? Of course it's safer. That's not the issue. The issue should be freedom. Let's keep our eyes on the ball folks!

I also appreciate and respect your position about being against pot, if you're so inclined. I myself am 100% against almost all drugs of any kind--depending on how one defines the word, "drugs". I even feel guilty taking aspirin at times.

That said, I take no issue with pot anymore than I take issue with Camomile tea. Marijuana is actually a wonder plant and medicinal to humans. Not only is it harmless, it's actually a tonic to many ailments and diseases. But that doesn't mean I'm lobbying for you or anyone else to embrace it!

T Smith

loaded question

The scenario about a friend asking about joints in front of your kids is not exactly as straightforword as it seems. Remember CPS can take your children for almost any reason. And public schools teach children to rat on their parents...that reason alone would make ones reaction to open "pot talk" different than if our current laws didn't exist. Doesn't mean I am biased against pot. It means I'm afraid of my own governments reaction to pot use.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy

Suppose we are a few more years progressed...

and pot has become legal.

Then, would you be as comfortable with your friend asking you to smoke weed as you would be asking you to drink some beers?

Abuse or overuse of

ANYTHING is bad for the mind and body...ANYTHING.

Making it illegal to abuse oneself is nonsense...can't legislate morality...obviously the laws haven't stopped people...just created a costly multi-billion dollar fiasco.

You want to abuse drugs...pay the consequences of job loss and all that comes with it. Don't become a burden to your family or anyone else. If you can live with that...have fun.

It's a moral issue.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

There is nothing wrong with bias and I'll prove it

Are you biased towards liberty and freedom? I sure hope so. I am. I would be devastated if someone could prove to me the morality of warfare and totalitarianism.

Bias is completely irrelevant, so long as you are always willing to submit to a higher standard of truth (I would humbly suggest reason and evidence). It's only a problem if your bias gets in the way of reality. Clearly, if we are biased as you say (and I won't lie and say I'm not to some degree–I've been known to refer to people as "potheads" in a derogatory manner) yet still in favor of decriminalization/legalization, we are not allowing that bias to interfere with the truth: that any policy claiming authority over another person to restrict what they do with their own body privately is unworkable as a consistent moral rule.

So who cares if we're biased?

This is not evidence of bias

If a buddy came over and asked me to go deer hunting out of season, help him distill rum, show me how to convert my semi-automatic rifle to full auto, or any other number of illegal activities, I would say no, regardless of what I think of the laws. It is a bad idea to teach children to only obey laws that they agree with.

Drinking beer is not the same as smoking a joint because of the legal status. It is not bias to not want to demonstrate law breaking in front of children. It is good parenting. I support legalization of all drugs at the federal level. However, marijuana simply is not the same as beer because of the legal status.

Even so, I wouldn't drink beer or smoke cigarettes in front of my children, either. Though they are legal, they are bad habits to demonstrate.

I'm guessing that you don't have children.

" It is not bias to not want

" It is not bias to not want to demonstrate law breaking in front of children. It is good parenting."

I have to disagree with this. What you are saying is that, if you had black children in the 60s, you would tell them not to drink water from the "WHITES ONLY" drinking fountain because law breaking is something not to be taught. This is wrong on its face. Laws that are not just should be broken. Being a fugitive slave was against the law at one point, too.

When laws are broken, they are eventually challenged. Hopefully, a healthy judicial system will recognize the invalidity of such unjust laws. However, if we never question such laws, we will never win back stolen freedoms.

I tell my children that they should not do drugs. However, I emphasize that they should make that decision themselves and not from a standpoint of legality but after careful decision-making that will hopefully lead them to the conclusion that drugs are not necessary for them. They are also taught to feel the same way about legally-prescribed medication. For example, I had a toothache that required surgery and that meant having to wait over the weekend with the pain. The dentist gave me a prescription for Tylenol 3 with Codeine. I told him I wasn't in so much pain that I felt a narcotic was necessary and asked for an alternative. I was prescribed Motrin 800 instead. That's a healthy decision about drugs and that's why it's important they learn that it isn't just black & white, yes or no decisions.

Feel free to break a law or two, as long as it doesn't harm others.


I hear you, but I stand by what I said

Let's say that I was dying of cancer and marijuana was the only drug that helped deal with chemotherapy. In that case, I'd probably sit down with my kids and explain why I chose to break the law. In that case, it is also likely that I'd have a sympathetic jury if someone decided to prosecute me.

It is quite a different thing to tell your kids that you are going over to your friends house to get high because you want to relax on the weekend and you think marijuana laws are wrong.

It's one thing to take a

It's one thing to take a position on a specific issue like drug use, but you expanded your position beyond that to include obedience to unjust laws. You cited several examples of unjust laws and then said that it is wrong to teach children that it is okay to disobey those laws. That is where I take issue with your position on what to teach children. Such lessons are no different than the statism taught to our children in the public school system. They deal in absolutes as well instead of teaching children HOW to think. Every generation in this nation successively loses more of their personal freedoms. Someone is going to have to stand up to these government bullies and start standing up for what is right. If you don't teach your children that not everything is black & white, they may stay out of trouble but the shackles will never be lifted. You should teach them about the principles of freedom and how to determine if a law is just or not. That way, they learn to identify what stands in the way of their freedom and where to push back.

Don't teach blind obedience to unjust laws, teach them how to decide for themselves what laws are right and what laws are wrong. Someone else's freedom may just depend on their interpretation of right and wrong. This is especially true since we have jury trials in this nation. Will your children participate in jury nullification of unjust laws some day or will they help the state lock up people who have not brought harm upon others?


I do teach my children to think for themselves

In fact, I recently had a talk with one of them about the dangers of democray and used slavery as the example. Just because 51% of the population thinks something is right does not make it right. Slaves in the U.S. were victims of the majority.

I also think that locking someone up for a victimless crime is pointless and immoral. That still doesn't mean I think it is a good idea to smoke a joint in front of my kids.

ok then, are marijuana laws

ok then, are marijuana laws right? was slavery right? it was the law, after all.

The example given by the OP was...

...the right to get high with a friend in front of your kids. Choosing not to smoke a joint in front of my kids does not make me a slave. I don't think it is a valid comparison. I do think drug laws are immoral, but there are ways to oppose laws and educate people. Getting high with your friend doesn't accomplish that. It just gets you high, and I'm not sure what it teaches your kids.

Abolitionists risked jail to rescue runaway slaves. They acted courageously and morally to oppose immoral laws. Smoking a joint witha friend in private doesn't accomplish anything of the sort.

it teaches your kids that

it teaches your kids that some laws are bogus, especially ones that limit freedom, be it slavery or drug laws. it's their choice to break the law if they want, you can't control them.

No, the OP was making a

No, the OP was making a distinction between a friend offering a beer versus offering a joint. Where the activity takes place is not discussed. He's attempting to expose the bias between two situations. You were the one that came to the conclusion that he was referring to smoking it in front of his kids.