Monday, November 10, 2008

The unpopular road is often the one less traveled...

So, I've been getting some slack over the last few days about my choice on voting against decriminalizing marijuana usage.
But no one has really stopped to ask me why I voted against it.

The general response I've received has been "it's ridiculous to make it a crime if I get pulled over on a random traffic stop, and get caught with a bone, or a small amount for a pipe".
Really now.... ? Ridiculous?

I don't care if you're a thirty-something or older and you've decided that you just can't handle life without self medicating. Or don't know how to distress in a way that isn't chemically induced. Whatever, that's your issue and you can deal with it. I'm not trying to sound holier than thou, because sure - I smoked for a few months when I was younger. I was 18. And then, I grew up. That's sort of how I perceive it. After a while, you grow up and realize that it isn't funny to have the munchies, or be paranoid and stupid - or be completely complacent. There are more things to do in life with your time. At least for me.

But here is my issue: We can't stop our kids from drinking. We certainly can't stop them from taking drugs. But if it's illegal, there's a different mindset about them using it. They're more careful about it, hopefully. Because if we downplay it and make it perfectly acceptable, then I think it's going to be impossible to keep kids from using it.

And here's the thing. You thirty-somethings and older who are career pot smokers, well maybe you're better experienced at driving under the influence. But you take a 16 year old kid, with a fast car and reduced reflexes without care of being caught smoking high, because after all -- it's perfectly legal -- then you have a dangerous mix.

The last thing I want to hear is that my child is god forbid in an accident because some other kid was high behind the wheel.


And it's not that legalizing prevents it from happening entirely -- it's just a way to try to make it a bit more difficult to obtain.

Ten years ago, maybe I'd have felt differently. But today, as a mother -- and a mother of children who are genetically predisposed to becoming addicts due to the amount of addiction that is riddled through their paternal background, I can't help but to try to deter my children from using recreational drugs of any kind. Every single addict that I have come to know throughout my life -- all started with marijuana. So do I believe it's a gateway drug? You bet I do.

But I also think that a good portion of being an addict is tied into who we are inherently as a person. It's a fine line between addiction and control.

And as a mother, I just can't agree with giving children the carte blanche availability to figure out which one of those personality types they may have.

12 comments:

Esperanza said...

I voted against it too. The amount is too high. I believe that people may be selling with 1 once, especially when it has a street value of $600.

What high school or college kid has that much money?

There were too many open questions about it for me.

Suldog said...

Well, I utterly disagree with you, but I don't feel like getting into a point-by-point debate; maybe somewhere down the road, if you're up for it. Just one thing: It is, as it has always been, still illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana. Nothing has changed about that.

Nichole M said...

I've heard the "leagalize it and demystify it" argument thousands of times before in regards to drugs. My question is, why doesn't the same arguement apply to firearms? A right that is actually *in* the constitution?

Rebecca said...

Suldog -- no worries, I'm cool w/ agreeing to disagree. I have to with my husband, LOL...

I'm definitely up for it.

It may be illegal to DRIVE high, but that doesn't prevent anyone from doing it; my issue is preventing them the ease of access to it in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Well what an interesting post. I wonder if your childrens paternal family would agree with your assessment of them. Instead of the State losing money and prosocuting some budding superstar of society now they can make a $100 and put that person in there data base for future earnings. Lets be honest this law was not passed for the peoples welfare but for the States. This is the first step in legalizing it, once the State can tax it they will pass it.

Rebecca said...

Well hello Anonymous, aka. My Husband. :)

Yes, I think our children's family for the most part would agree. It would be difficult not to! Be that as it may....

In some ways, you know I agree with the taxation of it so that at least the state can make some revenue, but that would constitute the monitoring and control of it - and this step towards that is not doing anything to take it in the direction of supervision at all. Not even a little.

All this law has done, is made it legal to carry anything under an ounce because that is probably not the intent to distribute. So that means that the high school kid caught with a few joints isn't going to get into trouble outside of having to pay about the amount of money they already pay nowadays for a pair of jeans at the mall. Big flipping deal.

And truthfully, that law would mean that some idiot selling kids dimebags can't get into trouble either because that's only roughly 1/10th of an ounce.

And the fines, btw - aren't taxable at this point either.

So excited that you posted! :)

Anonymous said...

well lets give that kid selling the dime bag a little credit he is learning the first rule of finance SUPPLY AND DEMAND.....Alcohol and cigaretts cause more deaths in this country than marijuana and war ever could so whats the difference.It would still be illegal to drive while under the influence of marijuana as well as alcohol.

Rebecca said...

LOL, See Suldog...I have to agree to disagree even at home. ;)

G - true, and I agree to a certain extent... however, we all know that it's a "good luck" to trying to prove a person being under the influence of marijuana when driving....! Unless they do follicle testing?

Anonymous said...

I love you my daughter, but I agree with G:)

Suldog said...

Rebecca - Thanks. I'm sure we could keep it civil :-)

Seriously, if you sometime wish to have a point-by-point debate concerning marijuana usage, legalization, etc. - perhaps on a neutral website? - I'll gladly be your sparring partner. Some year when we have nothing to do :-)

Anonymous said...

Thanks mom you know I only married your daughter to get closer to you.I think we should handle this debate in the way of my forefathers(Indians)we should all sit down and smoke from the peace pipe and see waht the gods tell us.

Lloyd L. Corricelli said...

You do realize that marijuana is not addictive, right?

The only people who claim it is are the one pushing the drug industry's lies so they can force chemo and glaucoma patients to buy their expensive drugs and not grow a treatment in their back yard.