This one is by James Swift in the Kennesaw Sate University Sentinel: Actually, DON’T legalize it, and it’s a lot of fun.
Iâ€™m going to take a controversial stance and assert that marijuana shouldnâ€™t be legalized. As a college student, that puts me in a very detested minority and sets me up for perhaps four years of campus castigation. […]
Alas, I vaunt my innate principles over such vanities, regardless. Sure, I may miss out on a few dates and get my tires slashed by a guy in a Phish tee-shirt, but thatâ€™s the price of so-called â€œfreeâ€ speech, I suppose.
Ah yes, the martyr. Like so many of the great ones over the centuries, willing to suffer in order to maintain his principles. So noble. So admirable. Unless, of course, you’re completely (and easily provably) wrong. Then, it’s sad and pathetic.
A little note to James: if you’ve decided you’re willing to be a martyr, I suggest really doing some research to make sure you know what you’re talking about.
OK, so what are the principles that he defends?
To the â€œReally Greenâ€ Party out there, I proclaim the following: in your rhetoric, you claim that the illegalization of marijuana is due to corporate finagling and government paranoia. Essentially, pot is outlawed because the suits canâ€™t regulate it, anybody can grow it and that billions of dollars that wouldâ€™ve been taxed end up squandered as a result.
As much as I hate to say this, the government isnâ€™t always preoccupied with devouring your wallet. If I may use some second grade logic; dead people canâ€™t possess money. Therefore, it benefits the government to instigate measures to prolong the existence of its citizens to insure that fiscal funds are later usurped. Hey, itâ€™s a necessary evil, that taking care of citizensâ€™ well-being, you know.
The authentic rationale for marijuanaâ€™s illegalization is that it kills people, plain and simple. Sure, one joint isnâ€™t going to give you a brain tumor, but a good forty years of exposure? Yeah, thereâ€™s going to be some negative implications on the smokerâ€™s health. A granule of asbestos wonâ€™t give you lymphoma, but a lifelong courtship with the product very much will. Thusly, if a known carcinogen is introduced to the general populace, it is the governmentâ€™s job to help curb the miasmic Diaspora.
Hey, some cute writing there (I love miasmic Diaspora), but “dead people can’t possess money” is your argument? “it kills people, plain and simple.” Really? Can you name one?
I can name people who were killed by drinking water, yet I cannot name a single one killed by marijuana (not to say that there haven’t been any in some way over the long term, but if it was really a significant issue, there would be evidence.) And, of course, as we all know, the best evidence shows that it contains the ability to destroy cancer. There is at least as much evidence that use of marijuana will prolong your life as there is that it will shorten your life.
Oh, and by the way, James. Just how well has the government been doing using prohibition as the tool to curb the Diaspora?
But wait, he’s got more!
Marijuana inhibits oneâ€™s cognitive capabilities, which ensures deterioration of oneâ€™s physical capabilities, which in turn, provides a risk to public safety. How efficient is a half-baked construction worker, huh? You want to undergo a filling while under the care of Cheech Marin, D.D.S.? For those of you who really believe that the drug is â€œharmless,â€ maybe you should try talking to the neglected child of a marijuana-user. Yeah, itâ€™s a victimless crime, all right.
And then go talk to the neglected child of a soap opera watcher. Or the neglected child of a church bingo player. What does that have to do with legalization? And getting a filling from Cheech Marin, D.D.S.? Sure, I’d be happy to, if he was really trained as a dentist, but he’s an actor. If he was a dentist, he’d know not to be stoned, or drunk, or tired, or getting a blow job while drilling. There are things you do in your free time that you don’t while working. And again, legalization has no relevance here.
Ah, but James also has philosophy.
Those factors considered, my prime reasoning for maintaining the ban on marijuana stems not from a health or sociological standpoint, but a philosophical one. Marijuana is an agent that distances the user from the world, from the totality of reality as it exists. For a soul to desire such absconding, there is clearly a pre-existing disenchantment, a sense of insecurity and ineffectiveness. These are real problems, with real consequences, that marijuana simply masks and keeps the individual from exploring and resolving.
Ah, I see. Well, we’d better ban all those escapist movies, then. Science fiction â€” not allowed. Theatre â€” gone. iPods â€”(talk about distancing from the real world!) â€” illegal, along with all music. Any kind of play-acting (OMG, the children!) Yeah, a person must be sick to want to escape from the real world for even a short time. Best to make all that illegal.
The good news? Based on what I’ve seen in the comments at his article so far, James will be getting his wish to play the martyr.