Complex Numbers

Up in Smoke

Well, it finally happened - computer froze up as I was previewing an entry, so it got lost. The following represents a half-arsed effort at recreating what I was saying.

Another "JAFBG"  [XGC] entry. Probably going to do this all month.

Talk about something that's illegal, but not morally wrong in your opinion.

A bit over 100 years ago, in 1920, the US passed a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the use, sale, transportation, import, etc. of alcoholic beverages (or words to that effect; you can look it up easily enough).

If you're not familiar with the US system, suffice it to say that a Constitutional amendment is a high bar to clear. You might have heard the expression, "It would take an Act of Congress," used when something is very, very difficult to get approved. Well, passing an Amendment makes an Act of Congress look like a walk in the park.

And yet, in a rare example of a meeting of the so-called minds on both Left and Right, they managed, and for the next 13 years, the country sank deep into the Hell that was Prohibition. During those dark times, far more social harm was done by Prohibition than was ever done by allowing people to just fucking drink in peace.

The only valid response to an immoral law is to work to repeal it, and that's what finally happened (there might have been other factors involved).

So it is today with cannabis.

While several individual States here have legalized it, it remains prohibited at the national level, so it fits the prompt. I've never been a big consumer of it, myself -- can't say I've never done it, though -- but that's immaterial; prohibiting it goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for. And to have it be illegal when other substances, including tobacco, sugar and, yes, alcohol, have the potential do to far more harm just seems stupid to me; besides, I don't accept the idea that laws should protect people from themselves, only other people.

Just get over yourselves and legalize it, already. Oh, sure, go ahead and put age limits on it and tax it like we do with booze, and no, people shouldn't drive under the influence -- but that's a completely separate issue and I resent that Prohibitionist groups have largely succeeded in swaying public opinion by conflating the two.

Yes, I'm writing this from a US perspective; I'm aware other countries have already legalized it. But I live here, so I'm most familiar with US laws.

And I had more to say, but like I noted above, I lost my original entry here, so that's going to have to do it for now. Hopefully tomorrow I'll be more careful.