There is no denying that many students take an interest in the topic of marijuana legalization on most college campuses nationwide. Regardless of whether you use it or not, marijuana legalization is probably still a topic on your radar as an increasing number of states continue to lift legal restrictions on pot use.
By now, many of you have probably heard of or seen the debate between CNN news anchor Nancy Grace and popular rapper 2 Chainz on marijuana legalization. If you haven’t, it is worth a watch. The heated argument went viral over winter break and caused a stir on social media, partially fueled by Grace herself as she fought to pioneer #Pot2Blame on Twitter.
Grace employs her notorious hysterics throughout the segment while she tries to convince known marijuana user 2 Chainz to give up his stance in favor of legalization.
I found myself rolling my eyes at several points during the interview. I am not a huge Nancy Grace fan to begin with, and this segment really made me question Grace’s ability to engage in intelligent discourse. Not only is she condescending and full of hostility when addressing the rapper, she also has little credible evidence for the position that she is trying to convince her audience and guests of.
“What about the children?” seems to be Grace’s mantra throughout the debate, as she shows grainy, dimly lit cell phone videos of child abuse cases involving the use of marijuana.
In one such video a parent is forcing their two year old son to smoke a joint. This parent’s actions are obviously irresponsible and 2 Chainz is quick to agree with Grace on that point. Grace’s argument begins to unravel, however, when she tries to assert that these instances prove that widespread marijuana legalization is a bad idea.
These cases are about “something deeper than a joint” as 2 Chainz expresses on the segment. He also points out that alcohol and other drugs were involved, questioning whether pot use was at all responsible for these parents’ wrongful actions. He also calls on Grace to do an internet search of videos of parents forcing their children to drink alcohol, stating that he would probably be able to find many results illustrating such a situation, and yet alcohol is a legal substance.
Many supporters of marijuana legalization drive the same point on the legality of alcohol when it’s proven to be a harmful substance, responsible for thousands of deaths every year. Pot use alone, however, kills few, yet people like Grace continue to push the idea that it is an inherently dangerous substance.
2 Chainz also touts the benefits of marijuana use during the debate. He explains how his own marijuana use, which Grace attempts to imply makes him a bad parent, treats anxiety and sleeping issues he encounters from performing in front of large crowds and traveling long distances. He also references financial benefits of the drug, such as the hundreds of millions of dollars generated by Colorado’s legal marijuana sales.
Grace’s assertions that marijuana legalization would foster more child abuse behaviors among parents are flawed. These parents have behavioral issues and a serious lack of good judgment that exist regardless of whether they smoke pot or not. Preventing the legalization of marijuana would not prevent these parents from neglecting their children. These cases do not define the entire marijuana using community. They are isolated instances of bad parenting.
For a well known anchor on a major news network, I was extremely underwhelmed by Grace’s arguments. She had little more to say beyond the few videos she featured depicting children being forced to smoke pot. At many points I felt embarrassed for her as 2 Chainz easily debased her arguments.
As she struggled to talk much too loudly over 2 Chainz, her argument fell to pieces. She remained adamant on her stance against marijuana legalization, yet she resorted to distasteful claims about pot users, stating “pot, it makes you fat and lazy.”
I personally support marijuana legalization, agreeing with 2 Chainz’s references that its medicinal and financial benefits outweigh any negative consequences of which there appear to be few. Regardless of if you agree with me or not, it would still be hard to assert that Nancy Grace’s argument had much substance at all. •
Marijuana was outlawed for two major reasons. The first was because “All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy. The second was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana – exactly the opposite of the modern “gateway” nonsense.
Only one MD testified at the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The representative of the American Medical Association said there was no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and no reason for the law. He pointed out that it was used in hundreds of common medicines at the time, with no significant problems. In response, the committee told him that, if he wasn’t going to cooperate, he should shut up and leave.
The only other “expert” to testify was James C. Munch, a psychologist. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected marijuana directly into the brains of 300 dogs and two of them died. When they asked him what he concluded from this, he said he didn’t know what to conclude because he wasn’t a dog psychologist. Mr. Munch also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood. He also said that, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat. He then described how he flew around the room for two hours.
Mr. Munch was the only “expert” in the US who thought marijuana should be illegal, so they appointed him US Official Expert on marijuana, where he served and guided policy for 25 years.
If you read the transcripts of the hearings, one question is asked more than any other: “What is this stuff?” It is quite apparent that Congress didn’t even know what they were voting on. The law was shoved through by a small group of lunatics with no real awareness by anyone else of what was happening.
See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm for an entertaining short history of the marijuana laws.
See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm for the complete transcripts of the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
“For a well known anchor on a major news network, I was extremely underwhelmed by Grace’s arguments.”
Prohibitionists have a few things in common. The first is that they really don’t know anything about the subject. Give them a simple factual quiz and the best response you will get will be a blank stare.
The second is that they really don’t want to know anything. Look for Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy. That is a collection of the full text of every major government commission report on the subject from around the world over the last 100 years. Ask any prohibitionist to read them. They will flatly refuse. They will give you every lame excuse in the world why they won’t read, but they just won’t read.
The third is that they have a hole in their brains which makes it impossible for them to understand certain logical concepts. For example, “XX is bad” isn’t the same as “prohibition is the solution.” Alcohol is the best example of this. Alcohol is clearly bad for society, but prohibition is not the solution to those problems. In fact, prohibition only made the problems worse. Ask any prohibitionist if they can understand this simple distinction. You won’t find any of them who can.
Nancy Grace isn’t really any different than all the other prohibitionists.