George Clayton Johnson and marijuana, Legalize -- Yea or Nay?

[Sir Rhosis]

First, I'm not sure if this is the right forum -- I put the topic here simply because it concerns one of TZ's writers. Second, I hope this doesn't anger anyone -- even if you disagree, you can do so, as the old saying goes, without being disagreeable.

Anyway, as many of you know, ol' George is a bit like the Willie Nelson of the science fiction and fantasy world. He is a regular partaker of the smoke, of weed, grass, pot, whatever you might call it. An unapologetic user. Simply type his name into Youtube, and one of the first hits (no pun intended) is of him discoursing on the subject. I often change the lyrics of the Toby Keith song about Willie to say instead, "I'll never smoke weed with George Clayton again; the party's all over before it begins..."

Personally, I don't use the stuff -- can't stand it. If you added up every hit I've taken on a joint in my entire 45 years of life, you might have enough to constitute an entire left-handed cigarette. Last hit I ever took was in 1994. But, having said that, I find it to be little different than alcohol. My stepfather was an alcoholic, often an abusive man. None of my friends who smoke pot have ever hit me or my brother or mother. Most turn into silly, jolly people when high. And I don't believe that it necessarily leads to the usage of stronger, deadlier drugs like cocaine or heroin.

So, personally, I'd say, legalize it, tax it, etc.

Perhaps you disagree and think GCJ is setting a bad example.

What say you?

Sir Rhosis

Bevis, please move to another forum if I should not have posted this here.

[James B. W. Bevis]

Thanks for posting and for asking, Sir. I'll move it to the General Chat forum, since the central topic seems to be whether or not pot should be legalized.

As many of you may remember from the rules thread, Forumer has a rule against promoting the use of illegal drugs. But they don't have a rule against discussing whether illegal drugs should be legalized (or legal ones illegalized, for that matter), and neither does the Cafe.

[MichaelBiehnObsession]

No. Keep all illicit drugs illicit. Two medical facts of marijuana:

Marijuana smoke is more carcinogenic than tobacco smoke.
Long-term use of marijuana leads to genetic damage.

All we'd have from legalization are people dying from lung cancer from second-hand marijuana smoke, just as we have from tobacco smoke. And hippies who've smoked it since their teens having a child in their 40s are likely to produce a genetically damaged child we as a society get to support. And, dealing with lots of spacy people isn't very appealing, either. (I once had a bank teller who was high all the time. He couldn't do his job.)

[LeenZone]

Medical marijuana I'm cool with.

If they want to legalize it and tax it I'm thinking I'm cool with that too.

Never touched the stuff. In the vernacular of the word I was a goodie, goodie.

I partake of assorted beverages, however.

[kriegersaurus]

Legalize, I say.

[Gooberman]

I dislike it because of the SMOKING part, period. But of course it can be EATEN, as in the famous brownies.

[SteveJ]

The hypocrisy on the part of most naysayers to marijuana is unbelievable. Comical, in fact.

Virtually all societies condone--indeed encourage, through billions and billions of dollars in ad revenues--the drinking of alcoholic beverages, which account for more deaths from drunk driving, disease, etc. than marijuana ever has or ever would.

I assume that for the sake of logic and consistency, the marijuana objectors also object to--and refrain from--the drinking of alcohol.

[MichaelBiehnObsession]

I'm not hypocritical. I don't drink alcohol, either.

Medical marijuana isn't necessary; there are plenty of medications that can help the various medical problems it does. Even if used medically, it's still a strong carcinogen. So you ease their nausea and give them cancer.

It's like saying alcohol is good for the heart, which it is, but it's bad for the liver, kidneys, brain, and stomach. There are other beneficial medications for the heart that don't harm other organs.

Use of drugs is an escape from reality; kind of like hiding under the bed.

[SteveJ]

Then you certainly deserve credit for not being a hypocrite, MBO.

But I would suggest that we should not choose for others what they should or should not do with their bodies based on our decisions with respect to our bodies.

It's called "privacy with respect to personal decisions."

There's a ton of data out there establishing that medical marijuana provides effective pain relief for the chronically and terminally ill.

Let's not make the decision for them based on our own personal choices.

[MichaelBiehnObsession]

The personal automony argument falls apart when smoke is involved. Neither tobacco nor marijuana smokers have a "right" to smoke around other people. The number of deaths from second-hand smoke is staggering. Smokers also have started fires in apartment buildings in their own apartments that have spread to another person's and killed or injured, or deprived another of property.

I really don't think any kind of chemical addiction should be viewed respectfully.

[SteveJ]

No secular society on the planet has yet to ban tobacco or alcohol use in private--for example, in one's own home--based on second-hand smoke considerations, the potential for fire, or the potential for product misuse. This is the case even though it's been proven that tobacco and alcohol use can have adverse health consequences. Any such ban would represent a radical departure from the public's generally-held privacy expectation.

[MichaelBiehnObsession]

Tobacco bans did exist at one time in some places in the United States. In 1901, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on cigarettes enacted by Tennessee.