A reader writes:
I agree that stoner humor is tiresome (and inaccurate, but that's another fight), but why do we need to make this all about sick people? I'm not trying to be heartless–but I'm willing to wager that a very small portion of marijuana used is to manage sickness. It's a very important part of why legalization is important, and maybe it's an effective message politically, but whenever I hear arguments for legalization couched in medical marijuana terms, I get the feeling that people are thinking "yeah, right. These weed activist people just want to get high." And you know, they're sort of right. I *do* want to get high. What's it to you?
It's not just a medical issue–we need to assert our freedom to engage in an activity that harms very few people and results in needless jailtime and wasted tax dollars. The cancer patient struggling with chemo-induced nausea is an important reason to legalize, but so am I–a 21-year-old gainfully employed elite-college grad who's minding her own business (or the 21-year-old high-school dropout aspiring rapper, for that matter). A "stoner," if you will. I think activists fear that image won't translate well in terms of garnering support, but I think it may appeal to Americans' appreciation of personal liberty. At the very least, they'll appreciate the straight talk.
As Dish readers well know, this is also my position. I do not see the fact that marijuana provides great pleasure as a reason to ban it. My point in the post was a narrower one. If the laws permit medical marijuana, they should only support medical marijuana. And our success in providing medical marijuana responsibly, legally and humanely will be a critical test of whether a more ambitious end to prohibition can be achieved. One step at a time. But, yes, I sense a sea-change. A long, long overdue sea-change.
The Dish 