The No on Prop 19 campaign’s web site is currently dominated by a picture of a smashed-up school bus over these words:
On average, a drunk driver kills someone every 45 minutes. Recreational marijuana use in fatal crashes will increase if Prop. 19 passes. It will be legal for a driver to get high right before taking the wheel. It will also be legal for passengers to smoke pot as they drive on the freeway or in your neighborhood.
Bunk. If California lacks an intoxicated-driving law, then write one. Of course, California already has such a law, and the state attorney general affirms that Prop 19 would not change the prohibitions on driving while impaired. This is fear-mongering of the worst sort: “Oh, help! The stoned hippies are running over our children.”
California has real problems, and these busybodies are worried about, in their own words, passengers in cars who may be high. Not drivers — passengers. The only dangers presented by a stoned passenger are associated with an unscheduled stop at Jack in the Box.
So, no concern that a car will become a "rolling bong"? (What happened to all the concern other busy bodies have with second-hand smoke?) Medical marijuana was supposed to not be at the top of a slippery slope -- in fact, those who argued that there would be a slippery slope leading to general legalization were belittled as simple-minded. Next steps will lead to decriminalization of other drugs. After they're our bodies, aren't they? Prop 19 is a bad idea.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs far as I know there is no reliable field test for marijuana, like there is for drinking.
Personally I'll be voting no on 19. Considering California is on the verge of electing Jerry Brown for governor the last thing we need is an excuse to create more lazy, clueless stoners.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's a pretty easy test and statutorily proscribed standard to prove that a driver is impaired by alcohol use. Having a prohibitively high Blood Alcohol Content (.08 g/dl in CA) means you're breaking the law. Is there a similar test/standard for marijuana useage?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith all the 'Shameful' ads to spotlight at this moment in time...
Prop 19 is Shameful. Defeating it ought to be an editorial priority at National Review.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSounds like Helen Lovejoy is the No on 19 leader. "Oh, won't someone please think of the children!"
If society can handle alcohol, it can handle marijuana too. Its hard drugs where the GOP should make their stand. While I believe liberals certainly had the slippery slope effect with medical pot, I find it a little kooky to think that once pot is decriminalized, cocaine and shrooms will follow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePot smoking is one rung up the ladder from sniffing glue. Its pathetic, loserly behavior and I am continually baffled by intelligent people who support its legalization. Anybody over 30 who smokes pot or supports its legalization needs to grow the hell up. Its infantile.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Defeating it ought to be an editorial priority at National Review."
Actually, in the good old days, decriminalization *was* editorial priority at National Review, because, duh, it's part of a seamless garment for a true believer in limited government.
Also, supporting the drug war and being a believer in limited government is an oxymoron, and NR used to be hep to that fact, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA contact high is very real. So, it is completely conceivable that drivers can become impaired by the actions of a passenger. Attempts to paint recreational marijuana users as harmless is tired. Marijuana can ruin lives and we must have some standards.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuselinearheights: I'm pretty sure NR is still editorially pro-decriminalization. I don't think Rich has changed his mind since this:
External Link
Jay: "Anybody over 30 who smokes pot or supports its legalization needs to grow the hell up. Its infantile." Smoking pot is one thing, rejecting destructive public policy is another.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteve P: "Marijuana can ruin lives and we must have some standards." How about a standard that says adults are adults, and that the state does not need to act in loco parentis for them?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTesting...Just curious if I can enter a comment yet...past 15 or so tries did not work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have asked this in a few places and never received a satisfactory answer:
If it required a Constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal, then how can marijuana, or any other drug, be made illegal by the federal government? And whence the authority for requiring prescriptions for certain medications?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Pot smoking is one rung up the ladder from sniffing glue. Its pathetic, loserly behavior..."
- I am 100% with you so far. I've never touched the stuff myself.
"...and I am continually baffled by intelligent people who support its legalization. Anybody over 30 who smokes pot or supports its legalization needs to grow the hell up. Its infantile."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse- Wow. So believing in individual liberty and freedom, and trusting other adult Americans with the right to do stupid things such as sniff glue or smoke pot, is infantile now. Thanks mom, for reminding us that everyone who disagrees with you is a child!
It is a perfectly reasonable, wishful argument to state that adults should be trusted to be adults but reality gets in the way. If one wants to use that argument then no drug should be illegal. Problem is, drugs abusers too often get to the point in which they cannot control themselves and then harm others. It is a tired argument to compare alcohol to marijuana. They are not the same in effect and making the comparison is lazy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Problem is, drugs abusers too often get to the point in which they cannot control themselves and then harm others."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse- Okay,then enforce the laws and punish abusers when they harm other people. I'm failing to see how your thinking couldn't be extended to every item/behavior capable of abuse. For example, guns are easily abused and are actually _intended_ to harm others. Why ban pot but not guns?
Just to add to the discussion:
Back in my college days, while completely sober, I crashed a car full of drunk/stoned passengers (celebrating the end of finals -- I still had one to go). Of course I took full responsibility for the crash, but there is no doubt in my mind that the raucous passengers jammed into my compact Datsun contributed to the crash. The hysteria and looniness that surrounded me was just too much and I didn't pay close enough attention to my driving. Thankfully, nobody was hurt. It was a good lesson in focus while driving-- that has served me well as a parent!
Anyway, I'm Pro-Prop 19 and certainly not suggesting transporting people with altered consciousness should be illegal. But it isn't necessarily easy either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's no second amendment right to smoke pot.
And you're welcome.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCalifornia and National Review: leading the way on legalizing pot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're legally impaired in most states if you have a blood alcohol count of 0.08%.
I'd have little or no objection to the legalization of pot if there were a comparable standard for blood THC level.
If there isn't, then I'll vote against Prop. 19.
Well, okay, I would if I was nuts enough to live in California in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There's no second amendment right to smoke pot."
That's a question-begging response. Why is a good idea to have an amendment for one but not the other?
"Anybody over 30 who smokes pot or supports its legalization needs to grow the hell up. Its infantile."
Comical to read this just after reading Jonah's rant about authoritarianism and conservatism above. I don't know why it'd be the government's job to decide what's infantile and what isn't; after all, they don't seem terribly good at drawing the distinction themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse