Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
divadab
Published Letters: 315 Editor's Choice: 4
Cary, I usually read your advice with a combination of awe and delight at your empathy, tolerance, sensitivity, and plain good sense. But your advice to the wife of an occasional pot smoker was astonishingly wrong-headed. Your advice is more appropriate to the user of a dangerous drug like metamphetamine, and not a beneficial medicinal herb like cannabis. Admittedly, recreational cannabis use is illegal, for reasons which are problematic in themselves. However, in many States, possession of small quantities is not a chargable offence. And, as a practical matter, being charged criminally for pot possession in small quantities for personal use is unlikely in most jurisdictions.
You refer to the husband as an "addict" - and to his behavior as "addictive behavior". Because he smokes a little pot on the weekend from time to time? Because it helps him quit smoking and relax and feel the love of his family in the comfort of his home? Would it be better, in your view, if he graced the family dinner table with cigarette smoke and alcohol consumption, reducing himself to a stinking slobbering drunk?
Science has demonstrated that cannabis is at worst habit-forming, and certainly not addictive. It's medicinal benefits are legion, and recognized in several States and in Canada with legally-sanctioned medicinal usage for a variety of complaints from MS to glaucoma to cancer to depression. That it continues to be illegal for recreational use in the face of overwhelming evidence of its benign nature encourages criminal activity and undermines respect for the law and its guardians. And your pandering to the neurotic fears of this poor man's wife by encouraging her to get help for his "addiction" is not only cruel, it is wrong.
You refer to yourself as an "addict". Perhaps the cannabis could help you with this problem. It has helped many alcoholics overcome their dangerous addiction and become happier, more productive, and better parents, spouses, and friends. Just because something is made illegal by the ignorant and cruel does not make it a bad thing.
You have the audience and the ability to change minds and change attitudes. You abused your fortunate position with the atrocious advice in this column.
I would be happy to discuss this further with you.
For obvious reasons, pseudonimously yours,
divadab
A whole range of opinions weighing in on this issue, from the hostile name callers (Rush? Sean?) who hate anyone who thinks differently to themselves; to the true believers in the DARE program; to the "it's illegal, so it's wrong" citizens; to those who agree that cannabis is not bad, but fearfully knuckle under to the law; to the libertarian "I don't do it, but it's ok for you crowd, to the committed "pot is good" crowd (among whom I count myself). Plus many nuanced variations.
On reflection, and having read all the whole thread, there are a couple of issues here:
1) Is recreational cannabis use a bad thing?
2) Is cannabis addictive?
3) Is the law prohibiting cannabis use wrong? (a distinctly separate issue to (1))
4) Is breaking the law endangering this man's family?
5) Has this man broken a promise to his wife?
6) Is LW making unreasonable demands on her husband?
Your opinion on Point 2) depends on your definition of addiction. But most clinicians agree that cannabis does not meet the standard of being a physically addictive substance like, say, alcohol, tobacco, or oxycontin. However, people can become psychologically addicted to just about anything. Is it the job of government to protect people from their own neurotic behaviour? Was this really what the framers of the Constitution intended - big brother, big nurse? Is it really anybody's business if a person, in the privacy of his own home, sparks up a herb he grew in his own yard? Where is the harm?
To the poster who opined "There's never been a right to smoke pot" - you sir, are ignorant of the basis of our free civil society. Letting aside the fact that cannabis was in the US Pharmacoepia as medicine until 1941, the basis of our Constitution is not that all things are forbidden unless expressly allowed! (I'm assuming you live in the United States of America, not Cuba).
So much for my opinions on points 1) - 3). As to points 4) - 6), which are truly more relevent to LW's life, here's my take: whether the law is right or wrong, it is still a law - and he is risking sanction by continuing to smoke pot. My opinion of the level of risk is that it is tolerably low, in most US jurisdictions, especially assuming that he is white and middle class. And so do a whole lot more people than you might think. Why? Because cannabis is good medicine, and people know this to be true from their own experience. And you can't lock up 12 million middle class white people, even in GW's America, without creating general revolt.
But - has this man broken a promise to LW? We really only have her side of the story - so it appears to me to be rather foolish to opine. But if he truly made her this promise, she is completely right to call him on it and to insist that he keep his promise. This is not unreasonable, IMHO. Further, this alone is the critical issue. I'm as guilty as most others of riding my own hobby horse - but when you come down to it, this is really about keeping commitments and the real work of making a marriage last. This takes sacrifice, humility, dialog, and effort. And it is more important than any other thing in life when you have children.
And if I can jump back on my hobby horse again, a little occasional shared herb can really help a husband and a wife to keep it working.
Respectfully, divadab
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
