In a column published
yesterday, Bob Tyrrell, founder and editor in chief of The
American Spectator,
explains why alcohol is better than marijuana. Both drinking
and pot smoking are “coping mechanisms,” he concedes, but alcohol
is clearly more “civilized” because people can enjoy the taste,
drink while reading or conversing, and imbibe without getting
“blitzed.” All this is either impossible or quite rare among
cannabis consumers, Tyrrell asserts with the confidence of someone
who has no idea what he’s talking about.
Pot prohibitionists have been pushing this argument for many
years, utterly undeterred by how ridiculous they sound to anyone
who is familiar with cannabis or with cannabis consumers. If
Tyrrell were merely defending his own tastes, there would be no
point in arguing with him. But he is doing more than that: He is
defending the legal distinction between alcohol and marijuana,
insisting that his tastes should be forcibly imposed on everyone
else. Given the boldness of that demand, the frivolousness of his
argument is striking.
“I have never heard of a connoisseur savoring a joint for the
taste,” Tyrrell declares. But the fact that Bob Tyrrell has never
heard of something does not mean it does not happen. Like Tyrrell,
I prefer the taste of Scotch to the taste of pot, and I am not a
cannabis connoisseur by any means. But even I know that different
strains of marijuana have different smells and tastes, that people
can discern and appreciate these differences, and that the
distinction Tyrrell draws is a figment of his imagination. Likewise
his insistence that there are no gradations of marijuana
intoxication and that people smoke pot only to drop out, never
to engage with others or to enhance edifying (or merely
entertaining) activities. Even if Tyrrell’s distinctions were
valid, it is not clear why he imbues them with moral significance,
let alone the kind of moral signficance that would justify using
violence to stop people from making drug choices Tyrrell deems
inferior.
Delving further into the subject, Tyrrell reinforces the
impression that his entire experience with marijuana consists of
reading
fear-mongering op-ed pieces by Bill Bennett. “One smokes it for
the effect,” he writes. “One takes it in a brownie or cookie for an
even more immediate effect.” Actually, to the extent that marijuana
edibles pose
special hazards, it is mainly because their effect is anything
but immediate, and the lag can make it difficult to gauge an
appropriate dose.
Tyrrell not only does not understand how marijuana works; he
does not understand how percentages work:
With contemporary marijuana the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) rate,
that is to say the psychoactive ingredient in the drug, is about 15
percent higher than it was in the 1960s or 1970s. The increased
level of THC makes the drug at least five times more powerful and
brings with it increased medical problems. This little known fact
hints at how widespread our ignorance of marijuana really is during
the current debate about marijuana, or I should say the current
non-debate?
Evidently when THC levels increase by 15 percent they become
five times higher. That is one magical chemical. Still, Tyrrell is
certainly right that the ignorance of some people who pontificate
about marijuana is remarkable.
Tyrrell worries that “recent polls indicate increased tolerance
for a drug that until recently was considered malum
prohibitum across the nation.” His explanation: “We
have been fighting marijuana and other drug use for years, and it
seems to me the country is fatigued with throwing up the same
arguments.” Is it possible that people simply are not persuaded by
the same old arguments because they are so clearly false when
measured against real-world experience?
Perhaps sensing that he has not quite clinched his case yet,
Tyrrell argues that the real problem with marijuana is that it
makes you stupid and psychotic, which is what killed Michael
Brown—a conclusion that may puzzle readers who thought Brown’s
death had something to do with six bullets fired from a policeman’s
gun. Tyrrell closes by warning that “recent events in Ferguson,
Missouri, may just be a harbinger,” because “as Colorado goes so
goes America.” I am not sure what that means, but I will give
Tyrrell this much credit: It is an argument I have not heard
before.
[Thanks to Paul Armentano for the tip.]
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1BHEDq3
via IFTTT