Weed. Cannabis. Hash. Marijuana. Pot. As a cigar smoker, I couldn't understand why so many people like Phillies Blunts, which only cost a quarter and are made mostly of paper. A learned person then pointed out to me that it was not what came in a Blunt that made it a good smoke, but instead what you put into it.
I laughed and lit up a real stogie. It seems these days that there are two main groups that advocate widespread marijuana use: left-wing academics and hoodlums. This is an odd mix, but it somehow works out.
It seems that both groups claim that the hemp plant is the most useful thing since the wheel. You can make paper out of it; or rope or clothes. You can eat it , feed it to the birds or use the oil that comes from it. Or smoke it, of course.
They say that George Washington grew hemp. Sure, but I don't think he put it into a bong. In fact, despite its usefulness, I don't think marijuana advocates would be expending all this effort if it didn't feel so good in their lungs. You only lobby so hard to try to convince people to make clothes out of a certain plant.
Cypress Hill and similar rap groups are great advocates of legalizing marijuana. Unfortunately, they do not make very good role models. In 10 out of 14 songs on their most recent album they mention the Glock Automatic Pistol and they mention killing people in almost all of them. Their analogs in the real world have no jobs and no future and very poor educations. Yet they all love pot and think it should be legalized. After all, what's the worst that could happen to them? They get high and shoot the wrong guy or not go to school? It's powerful music with a questionable message. They're fun to listen to, but hard to take seriously.
The same goes for left-wing academics. There are certain professors and students that have a similar pro-pot agenda. The same question comes up - what's the worst that could go wrong? A lecture gone awry? Research on U.S. oppression set back a day? There are accounts of students smoking pot in class at notably liberal colleges. My friend at another school had her professor come into class reeking of weed. This is purely anecdotal, but the teacher is also a flake and her academics are very shoddy. I will hesitate in drawing causal linkages.
However, when an Amtrak conductor high on pot drove his train through a red signal he killed several people. There have been innumerable car accidents where the people behind the wheel have been high. Not to mention what it does to your lungs. Oh yeah - and your brain cells, too. People with much more physical accountability in the real world than professors, students and hoodlums simply cannot afford to spend even more than a few crucial moments in the state of dulled senses and reflexes that marijuana induces.
In short, the popular myth that in 10,000 years nobody has died through marijuana use is a reprehensible lie.
As for medical uses - if you are painfully dying of cancer, then sure you can have some weed to ease the pain. But most medical users are not dying of cancer.
While alcohol has documented health benefits when used in moderation, pot does not. Liquor also has a place at the dinner table and has much less profound an effect on your mental apparatus than even a little marijuana.
In short, saying that alcohol is a bigger problem that pot is skirting the issue. Alcohol when taken in moderation is an accepted and unobtrusive part of our culture. A roomful of post-dinner pot smokers would have a hard time discussing philosophy or hammering out an international treaty or the plot of a novel.
But in the end I am not worried. I have the image in my mind of the members of a pro-marijuana group having a meeting. They get all riled up, make grand plans and mobilize to enact great changes, then smoke some weed, start feeling very mellow and then go home.
