You know what bothers me? Yes, high treason by a flaccid, racist, sociopathic Nazi-lover who lost the popular vote by 2,864,974 votes, of course.
But I’m none too wild about the arguments used by prohibitionists who oppose regulated cannabis programs, either. Now that legalization has had a few years to provide information for researchers, we’re getting a better idea of whether these prohibitionist arguments are valid. This week, I’ll start analyzing these arguments—“cannalyzing,” if you will—as a regular feature of the column.
ARGUMENT: Cannabis use in youth will increase when a recreational cannabis program is established.
Look, unless it’s for medical issues, cannabis should not be used by kids. (Cautionary tale: I consumed copious amounts of “the reefer” in high school, and look how that worked out. I would have been far better off drinking daily instead! Right? …Right?)
I have never spoken to anyone in the cannabis industry, regulated or otherwise, who has sought out children in order to sell them weed, in any form. (Can Big Tobacco say the same?) Growers and dispensaries are required to take extensive and expensive steps to restrict cannabis access to anyone, but especially those under 21. The penalties for blowing it are high.
