Prohibition madness I
Published: Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Jean Thimons, writer of the letter “Marijuana madness” (Oct. 10 and TribLIVE.com), appears addicted to reefer madness. Fortunately, this condition is not contagious.
Never in modern history has there existed greater public support for ending the nation's nearly century-long experiment with pot prohibition and replacing it with a system of legalization and regulation.
Recent nationwide surveys by Pew and Gallup — as well as statewide polls in Arizona, California, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oregon and Texas — all report majority support among voters for legalizing adult cannabis consumption.
Despite 76 years of federal cannabis prohibition, Americans' demand for the plant is here to stay. It is time for America's public policies to reflect this reality.
Unlike the federal government, which stubbornly defines cannabis as an illegal commodity that is as equally dangerous as heroin, most Americans desire a more commonsense approach.
A pragmatic regulatory framework that allows for the legal, licensed commercial production and retail sale of cannabis to adults but restricts its use among young people — coupled with a legal environment that fosters open, honest dialogue between parents and children about cannabis's potential harms — best reduces the risks associated with the plant's use or abuse.
The ongoing criminalization of cannabis only compounds these risks.
The writer is deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (norml.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Forgetting troops
- CNG fueling sustainability
- Unconstitutional funding
- Unintelligent bill
- Brashear & discipline
- Prevailing wage misunderstood
- Roenigk stands for safety