Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, December 12, 2009
Crime / Drugs Guns Don't Kill People...
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:24 PM
...pot does.
A Spokane man will spend 13 years in prison for killing a man in a dispute that began with a beer can tossed from a car window. Allan L. Turnipseed, 52, claimed self-defense in the June 14, 2007, shooting death of Joshua A. Smith, 24. A jury convicted him of first-degree manslaughter last month.Spokane County Superior Court Judge Sam Cozza sentenced Turnipseed on Friday to 13 1/2 years in prison, which includes five extra years because a weapon was used. Turnipseed shot Smith twice as Smith was in his car near Eighth Avenue and Ferrall Street. The second bullet was fired into his back.
The location of the fatal shot, coupled with Turnipseed’s admission that he’d smoked marijuana before the deadly confrontation, factored into Cozza’s sentence, the harshest allowed. “Marijuana makes people stupid. It makes people do stupid things,” Cozza said.
No word on when Turnipseed's accomplice will be sentenced.
1
Yeah, well, far be it from me to associate pot with violence -- I mean, really, alcohol has been responsible for more murders in the last year than pot has in the last hundred years -- but it does turn you into a lazy free-associating doorknob. It's a great drug for musicians and poets, but I don't know a lot of particle physicists who reach their career apex with marry jane.
3
Yeah, the few comments on the SR article shoot down the "pot=violence" argument pretty thoroughly.
5
Well, Carl Sagan wasn't a "particle physicist", but he enjoyed some weed now and then. And I'm sure he's not the only scientist who ever indulged. See, the effects of pot only last for a few hours - you don't carry them with you throughout your lifetime. So can we put a rest to the pot smoker = lazy, inactive dreamer stereotype already? Probably not....
8
More like... stupid people do stupid things. It's not the weed's fault that stupid people smoke it.
9
@1, How many particle physicists do you know? Because if you only know, say, one scientist, and he/she does not smoke pot, then I would say that your life is boring and your n is too small.
10
Is Charles going to write a fictional account of the murder? With wild group sex with young co-eds?
12
@9
Six or seven. I have one friend who's a licensed nuclear reactor operator and a bunch of acquaintances through her who are working physicists.
@5
I know plenty of perfectly productive people who "enjoy some weed now and then". But I also know that pot can be highly addictive. My personal observation has been that someone who is strung out on pot actually gets crabbier after a few hours without some weed than someone who's strung out on cigarettes gets under similar conditions of deprivation. And those people -- the people who need to smoke five or six times a day just to get through the day? Lazy doorknobs. And before you ask, I was raised by drug dealers; I've had regular contact with thousands of people who have used a variety of drugs on a regular basis over a period of decades. I'm not subscribing to a stereotype -- I'm relating observations made based on long-term experiences.
And Carl Sagan is your example of someone who breaks the "lazy inactive dreamer" stereotype? That's funny. Dude achieved a lot in his lifetime, but some of those documentary narrations sound like they're being played back at half speed. "Billlllyooooons upon billllllyoooooooons of staaaaaars..."
Six or seven. I have one friend who's a licensed nuclear reactor operator and a bunch of acquaintances through her who are working physicists.
@5
I know plenty of perfectly productive people who "enjoy some weed now and then". But I also know that pot can be highly addictive. My personal observation has been that someone who is strung out on pot actually gets crabbier after a few hours without some weed than someone who's strung out on cigarettes gets under similar conditions of deprivation. And those people -- the people who need to smoke five or six times a day just to get through the day? Lazy doorknobs. And before you ask, I was raised by drug dealers; I've had regular contact with thousands of people who have used a variety of drugs on a regular basis over a period of decades. I'm not subscribing to a stereotype -- I'm relating observations made based on long-term experiences.
And Carl Sagan is your example of someone who breaks the "lazy inactive dreamer" stereotype? That's funny. Dude achieved a lot in his lifetime, but some of those documentary narrations sound like they're being played back at half speed. "Billlllyooooons upon billllllyoooooooons of staaaaaars..."
13
@12 But I also know that pot can be highly addictive.
Ha ha ha. Thanks for your post. Highly amusing anecdotes!
s,d.
Ha ha ha. Thanks for your post. Highly amusing anecdotes!
s,d.
14
dang, it really makes me wish that stupid assholes didn't smoke weed. it gives the rest of us responsible potheads a bad name.
16
It's true: last night I smoked some weed, and went on a killing spree. And by "went on a killing spree" I mean "listened to some music and fell asleep."
18
@1 Richard Feynman, one of the greatest and most well-respected particle physicists of the 20th century, talks about smoking cannabis in his memoir "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman!"
I'm actively doing nuclear physics research and smoke pot every now and then to relax. It's like any other drug, just use it responsibly.
I'm actively doing nuclear physics research and smoke pot every now and then to relax. It's like any other drug, just use it responsibly.
19
@17
And I didn't say they were. Nor did I say that my experiences were limited to my parents -- there were my parents, their customers, other dealers, their friends and so on. Thousands of people over decades of observation.
@18
Okay, allow me to reframe my argument, since this distinction seems to be eluding some of you: pot limits one's ability to think clearly while one is under its influence. One hit of weed does not make you stupid for life, and smoking once or twice a week will not prevent you from being a good particle physicist. I assumed that distinction was obvious, but I was evidently taking too much for granted.
The thesis Dan seems to be pursuing, with all of you lemmings right behind him, is that pot never causes anyone to do anything stupid; that if a stoned man with a gun kills someone, the problem was the gun and not the pot. I'm saying it's perfectly reasonable to allow that the DRUG was a contributing factor to the murder. Because why? Because it's a fucking drug and like all drugs it can impair your reasoning in such a way that you do things you might not otherwise do. Pot isn't the magic sunshine plant that can never have a bad effect. People can and often do misuse it and abuse it and the effects can be very very bad. Okay?
Jesus fucking Christ. Sometimes talking to people on this blog is like arguing with a pack of fucking Moonies.
And I didn't say they were. Nor did I say that my experiences were limited to my parents -- there were my parents, their customers, other dealers, their friends and so on. Thousands of people over decades of observation.
@18
Okay, allow me to reframe my argument, since this distinction seems to be eluding some of you: pot limits one's ability to think clearly while one is under its influence. One hit of weed does not make you stupid for life, and smoking once or twice a week will not prevent you from being a good particle physicist. I assumed that distinction was obvious, but I was evidently taking too much for granted.
The thesis Dan seems to be pursuing, with all of you lemmings right behind him, is that pot never causes anyone to do anything stupid; that if a stoned man with a gun kills someone, the problem was the gun and not the pot. I'm saying it's perfectly reasonable to allow that the DRUG was a contributing factor to the murder. Because why? Because it's a fucking drug and like all drugs it can impair your reasoning in such a way that you do things you might not otherwise do. Pot isn't the magic sunshine plant that can never have a bad effect. People can and often do misuse it and abuse it and the effects can be very very bad. Okay?
Jesus fucking Christ. Sometimes talking to people on this blog is like arguing with a pack of fucking Moonies.
20
@13: Judah's stories are indeed entertaining, not surprising considering that he's the biggest fabricator of tales (bullshitter) on slog; he's an articulate Cliff Claven: a know it all who is willing to share his vast firsthand knowledge of everything with one and all.
23
Put a gun in the hands of an irresponsible person and you'll get irresponsible behavior.
Put pot in the hands (mouth?) of an irresponsible person and you'll get irresponsible behavior.
Put NOTHING in the hands of an irresponsible person and... you'll still get irresponsible behavior.
Guns don't kill people and neither do drugs. People kill themselves and others regardless, using whatever they can find. Some things are just easier than others.
Put pot in the hands (mouth?) of an irresponsible person and you'll get irresponsible behavior.
Put NOTHING in the hands of an irresponsible person and... you'll still get irresponsible behavior.
Guns don't kill people and neither do drugs. People kill themselves and others regardless, using whatever they can find. Some things are just easier than others.
24
@20
And you know I'm a bullshitter because...? Oh, wait, you don't actually know that because you don't know me.
I make arguments. Sometimes I use my personal experiences as the basis for those arguments. You haven't made an argument, haven't supported anything you've said with a reference to anything you know or anything that's happened to you. You can't even be bothered to register a screen name. If I'm an articulate Cliff Claven, at least I attempt to maintain some accountability by using a consistent screen name. Your anonymity gives you a license to be a douche, and you're welcome to it. But that doesn't mean you actually know what you're talking about.
@21
Yes, because the people who operate nuclear reactors don't exist in the real world and there's simply no way that anyone commenting on Slog could possibly know one socially. They're like leprechauns.
And you know I'm a bullshitter because...? Oh, wait, you don't actually know that because you don't know me.
I make arguments. Sometimes I use my personal experiences as the basis for those arguments. You haven't made an argument, haven't supported anything you've said with a reference to anything you know or anything that's happened to you. You can't even be bothered to register a screen name. If I'm an articulate Cliff Claven, at least I attempt to maintain some accountability by using a consistent screen name. Your anonymity gives you a license to be a douche, and you're welcome to it. But that doesn't mean you actually know what you're talking about.
@21
Yes, because the people who operate nuclear reactors don't exist in the real world and there's simply no way that anyone commenting on Slog could possibly know one socially. They're like leprechauns.
27
“Marijuana makes people stupid. It makes people do stupid things,” [Judge] Cozza said.
More often, it makes them say stupid things. Like that.
More often, it makes them say stupid things. Like that.
28
#23: "Guns don't kill people and neither do drugs. People kill themselves and others regardless, using whatever they can find. Some things are just easier than others."
Easier . . . and capable of causing a lot more damage. If, for example, Maurice Clemmons (R.I.H.) had been armed with a knife instead of a gun (or guns) he might have been able to kill one cop, but not four and probably not even two.
Or how about the Columbine and Virginia Tech and Fort Hood murderers? Think they could've killed as many people armed only with a knife, or a pistol?
Our continued failure to regulate guns capable of causing extensive damage is going to lead to the deaths of numerous innocent people every year. As a society, that's the trade-off we're (apparently) willing to make.
Easier . . . and capable of causing a lot more damage. If, for example, Maurice Clemmons (R.I.H.) had been armed with a knife instead of a gun (or guns) he might have been able to kill one cop, but not four and probably not even two.
Or how about the Columbine and Virginia Tech and Fort Hood murderers? Think they could've killed as many people armed only with a knife, or a pistol?
Our continued failure to regulate guns capable of causing extensive damage is going to lead to the deaths of numerous innocent people every year. As a society, that's the trade-off we're (apparently) willing to make.
29
I knew it! n=1, too small to say anything definitive about the smoking habits of scientists. [Also, I'm not even going to make a Homer Simpson joke here, but nuclear reactor operators aren't scientists. They do not invent or discover anything; only a high school diploma is required for this job.]
Just because the people you know who smoke pot are losers, does not mean that only losers smoke pot. That's called a logical fallacy. If you had any friends who are scientists, you'd make fewer mistakes like this. You'd also realize that intelligent, hard-working people can be happy and successful, despite or because they indulge themselves with some weed once in a while.
Just because the people you know who smoke pot are losers, does not mean that only losers smoke pot. That's called a logical fallacy. If you had any friends who are scientists, you'd make fewer mistakes like this. You'd also realize that intelligent, hard-working people can be happy and successful, despite or because they indulge themselves with some weed once in a while.
30
@29
My friend who is licensed for the reactors is currently getting her doctorate at Berkeley. She knows a lot of very geeky people, some of them are working physicists, many of them do drugs, most of them don't smoke pot. But you're totally missing my point.
Yeah, as I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, I didn't say the people I know who smoke pot are losers, nor did I say that only losers smoke pot. And I know what a logical fallacy is, you pedantic twit.
And just as a point of order, "I knew it! n=1" is the quintessential scientific gaff: saying you knew something before the data was in demonstrates a prejudice that calls your results into question. If you had any friends who were scientists they'd probably tell you that that even Robert Millikan made that mistake (as well as many of the people who later tried to improve on his results), but if you're going to lecture someone about logical fallacies and not knowing how scientists think, that's probably not how you want to lead.
Yes, and intelligent hard-working people can also be successful despite or because they indulge themselves with some booze once in a while -- but nobody would argue that booze doesn't make you stupid. It does. It doesn't make you permanently stupid unless you get strung out on it and use it all the time, but it does make you stupid while you're under its influence. Just. Like. Pot.
Christ.
More...
My friend who is licensed for the reactors is currently getting her doctorate at Berkeley. She knows a lot of very geeky people, some of them are working physicists, many of them do drugs, most of them don't smoke pot. But you're totally missing my point.
Just because the people you know who smoke pot are losers, does not mean that only losers smoke pot. That's called a logical fallacy.
Yeah, as I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, I didn't say the people I know who smoke pot are losers, nor did I say that only losers smoke pot. And I know what a logical fallacy is, you pedantic twit.
And just as a point of order, "I knew it! n=1" is the quintessential scientific gaff: saying you knew something before the data was in demonstrates a prejudice that calls your results into question. If you had any friends who were scientists they'd probably tell you that that even Robert Millikan made that mistake (as well as many of the people who later tried to improve on his results), but if you're going to lecture someone about logical fallacies and not knowing how scientists think, that's probably not how you want to lead.
You'd also realize that intelligent, hard-working people can be happy and successful, despite or because they indulge themselves with some weed once in a while.
Yes, and intelligent hard-working people can also be successful despite or because they indulge themselves with some booze once in a while -- but nobody would argue that booze doesn't make you stupid. It does. It doesn't make you permanently stupid unless you get strung out on it and use it all the time, but it does make you stupid while you're under its influence. Just. Like. Pot.
Christ.
31
Oops! I meant to say, "My hypothesis was correct!" - thought it sounded a bit dorky. I will remember to be more precise in the future, when posting on Slog.
Also, I should not have referred to your pot-smoking friends as "losers" - I should have used your phrase, "lazy doorknobs".
Also, I should not have referred to your pot-smoking friends as "losers" - I should have used your phrase, "lazy doorknobs".
33
#12/Judah: "But I also know that pot can be highly addictive."
It can be psychologically addictive (habituating), not physically addictive. But ANYTHING that people derive pleasure from -- whether it's gambling or porn or buying stuff at garage sales or toe-sucking or posting on SLOG -- can be habituating. There's nothing inherent about those things that makes them that way. Sure, pot-smoking differs from those things in that a person is ingesting a substance, THC, which COULD conceivably cause physical addiction, but it is my understanding that there is little-to-no research supporting that. I smoked pot for about 30 years -- on average about 1-2 times a week -- and quit cold turkey about six years ago with no craving for it whatsoever. I remember going to Europe for three weeks with a former girlfriend eight years ago. I didn't bring any pot with me and didn't buy any while over there. I would have liked to have smoked it while there, but going without wasn't a big deal. She, on the other hand, was a tobacco smoker and was practically crawling up the walls of the plane after a couple hours in the air and was smoking cigs during our entire trip.
* * * *
#19/Judah: "The thesis Dan seems to be pursuing, with all of you lemmings right behind him, is that pot never causes anyone to do anything stupid; that if a stoned man with a gun kills someone, the problem was the gun and not the pot. I'm saying it's perfectly reasonable to allow that the DRUG was a contributing factor to the murder. Because why? Because it's a fucking drug and like all drugs it can impair your reasoning in such a way that you do things you might not otherwise do."
My above quip about the judge aside, I agree with you. I certainly wasn't on top of my reasoning game every time I was high. When I used to drive while high, I believed (and still believe) that I was a safer driver than when I had too much to drink -- because alcohol made me aggressive, while pot made me cautious -- but I'm sure my reaction time and reasoning was impaired. While pot isn't in the same league at all as alcohol in terms of the damage it causes to society, I'm sure it has been a contributing factor in some cases where a person has harmed others.
By the way, pot may make people "stupid" in terms of affecting their reasoning, but reasoning isn't the only type of intelligence. I consider creativity and insight to also be types of intelligence and I think that being high can actually enhance those.
More...
It can be psychologically addictive (habituating), not physically addictive. But ANYTHING that people derive pleasure from -- whether it's gambling or porn or buying stuff at garage sales or toe-sucking or posting on SLOG -- can be habituating. There's nothing inherent about those things that makes them that way. Sure, pot-smoking differs from those things in that a person is ingesting a substance, THC, which COULD conceivably cause physical addiction, but it is my understanding that there is little-to-no research supporting that. I smoked pot for about 30 years -- on average about 1-2 times a week -- and quit cold turkey about six years ago with no craving for it whatsoever. I remember going to Europe for three weeks with a former girlfriend eight years ago. I didn't bring any pot with me and didn't buy any while over there. I would have liked to have smoked it while there, but going without wasn't a big deal. She, on the other hand, was a tobacco smoker and was practically crawling up the walls of the plane after a couple hours in the air and was smoking cigs during our entire trip.
* * * *
#19/Judah: "The thesis Dan seems to be pursuing, with all of you lemmings right behind him, is that pot never causes anyone to do anything stupid; that if a stoned man with a gun kills someone, the problem was the gun and not the pot. I'm saying it's perfectly reasonable to allow that the DRUG was a contributing factor to the murder. Because why? Because it's a fucking drug and like all drugs it can impair your reasoning in such a way that you do things you might not otherwise do."
My above quip about the judge aside, I agree with you. I certainly wasn't on top of my reasoning game every time I was high. When I used to drive while high, I believed (and still believe) that I was a safer driver than when I had too much to drink -- because alcohol made me aggressive, while pot made me cautious -- but I'm sure my reaction time and reasoning was impaired. While pot isn't in the same league at all as alcohol in terms of the damage it causes to society, I'm sure it has been a contributing factor in some cases where a person has harmed others.
By the way, pot may make people "stupid" in terms of affecting their reasoning, but reasoning isn't the only type of intelligence. I consider creativity and insight to also be types of intelligence and I think that being high can actually enhance those.
36
I really doubt that pot had much or anything to do with it. I suspect it was the result of yet another limp-dick gun infatuated fucktard off his meds.
37
@33
I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't think you quite grasp the difference between your pot use and her cigarette use; most cigarette smokers smoke multiple cigarettes a day, every day. And there are people -- lots of them -- who smoke pot multiple times a day, every day. Those people, the ones who smoke pot multiple times per day, every day, get much crabbier when deprived of pot than cigarette users do under similar circumstances. The differences in your reactions compared to your girlfriend's are more attributable to the differences in your usage patterns than differences in the way the drugs, qua drugs, affected you as individuals.
As far as the distinction about addiction versus habituation -- the clinical language of addiction is extremely complex and addresses a wide range of variables. Suffice to say that reasonable minds may differ on the distinction you're trying to draw.
@36
You've really opened up the debate. Thank you for your keen and insightful contribution.
I smoked pot for about 30 years -- on average about 1-2 times a week -- [snip] a tobacco smoker and was practically crawling up the walls of the plane after a couple hours...
I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't think you quite grasp the difference between your pot use and her cigarette use; most cigarette smokers smoke multiple cigarettes a day, every day. And there are people -- lots of them -- who smoke pot multiple times a day, every day. Those people, the ones who smoke pot multiple times per day, every day, get much crabbier when deprived of pot than cigarette users do under similar circumstances. The differences in your reactions compared to your girlfriend's are more attributable to the differences in your usage patterns than differences in the way the drugs, qua drugs, affected you as individuals.
As far as the distinction about addiction versus habituation -- the clinical language of addiction is extremely complex and addresses a wide range of variables. Suffice to say that reasonable minds may differ on the distinction you're trying to draw.
@36
You've really opened up the debate. Thank you for your keen and insightful contribution.
38
Hi Judah,
I don't want to get into an argument over how many nuclear physicists you know (don't care), or how addictive pot is (it's not - but yes, dependence can result from abuse), or how many scientists have every smoked pot (lots - millions of people from all walks of life smoke it). The relevant point in relation to this post is that smoking pot has absolutely nothing to do with making a decision to shoot someone. That theory is patently ridiculous. It's just a rehash of the scare tactics Harry Anslinger used back in the 1920's - "smoking reefer will turn you into a homicidal maniac, or a sex-crazed rapist, etc.". Yes, pot makes some people lazy when they smoke it. It makes some people creative, some hungry, some happy, some paranoid. What it does not do is make you kill someone, or even make you forget the consequences of firing a gun at someone.
But I suppose you have a problem with that idea, too....
I don't want to get into an argument over how many nuclear physicists you know (don't care), or how addictive pot is (it's not - but yes, dependence can result from abuse), or how many scientists have every smoked pot (lots - millions of people from all walks of life smoke it). The relevant point in relation to this post is that smoking pot has absolutely nothing to do with making a decision to shoot someone. That theory is patently ridiculous. It's just a rehash of the scare tactics Harry Anslinger used back in the 1920's - "smoking reefer will turn you into a homicidal maniac, or a sex-crazed rapist, etc.". Yes, pot makes some people lazy when they smoke it. It makes some people creative, some hungry, some happy, some paranoid. What it does not do is make you kill someone, or even make you forget the consequences of firing a gun at someone.
But I suppose you have a problem with that idea, too....
39
really, the blame should fall with the parents who set their child up for failure by allowing him to carry out his life with the name Turnipseed.
40
kids kids kids.
dan's point regarding pot is always this: it is not the motivating cause in violence. unlike legal alcohol. it doesn't below in the schedule 1 narcotic classification.
would that the italian justice system could see it his way.
dan's point regarding pot is always this: it is not the motivating cause in violence. unlike legal alcohol. it doesn't below in the schedule 1 narcotic classification.
would that the italian justice system could see it his way.
42
@ 6, 8, 10, 16:
Hahaha, I love you guys. Perhaps 8 and 10 especially.
@ Judah:
I"m with 38, in that I'm not going to sit here and spend the time arguing with you about your anecdotal, highly-suspect, and ultimately unscientific assessment of a drug that, when used "responsibly," actually has saved lives. (That might give you a chuckle, and if it does, it's because you're ignorant.) And when it's used "irresponsibly," can just be a pretty benign good time.
This shooting clearly had nothing to do with cannabis, and talking about it like it did is clearly ridiculous. At best, 1930s it's scare tactics. At worst, it's just stupid.
So I'm just gonna let you know it's pretty obvious to most of us that you generally don't know what you're talking about. You're just rehashing arguments the rest of us heard out and moved beyond a long time ago. We're not in 5th grade DARE anymore. It's... probably time to grow up.
Hahaha, I love you guys. Perhaps 8 and 10 especially.
@ Judah:
I"m with 38, in that I'm not going to sit here and spend the time arguing with you about your anecdotal, highly-suspect, and ultimately unscientific assessment of a drug that, when used "responsibly," actually has saved lives. (That might give you a chuckle, and if it does, it's because you're ignorant.) And when it's used "irresponsibly," can just be a pretty benign good time.
This shooting clearly had nothing to do with cannabis, and talking about it like it did is clearly ridiculous. At best, 1930s it's scare tactics. At worst, it's just stupid.
So I'm just gonna let you know it's pretty obvious to most of us that you generally don't know what you're talking about. You're just rehashing arguments the rest of us heard out and moved beyond a long time ago. We're not in 5th grade DARE anymore. It's... probably time to grow up.
45
There have been two consistent arguments against my posts in this thread: 1) I don't really know what I'm talking about and 2) pot never contributes to negative outcomes. Let's take the first proposition as a given and move on to the second proposition.
Is it a good idea for a stoned person to operate a motor vehicle? Probably not. Heavy machinery? Probably not. Because it messes with your judgment and your reaction time, so it's probably not a good idea to let stoned people operate machines that can kill other people due to a minor lapse in judgment or reaction time.
Now, pretend for a second that carrying a gun is an okay thing to do when you're not stoned. Is it a good idea for a stoned person to carry a gun? Probably not. Not because the pot makes them violent, but because a gun is a machine that can kill other people due to a minor lapse in judgment or reaction time.
This is part of why it's illegal to carry a gun in a bar in Washington state, and if someone carrying a gun got drunk in a bar and shot someone they shouldn't have shot, they would be legally responsible for the shooting and for having made the decision to get drunk while armed -- there was a point, prior to taking the first drink, when they knew or should have known that getting drunk while armed was a bad idea. They did it anyway. So they're legally responsible not only for the shooting, but for getting drunk first; the decision to get drunk while armed is and aggravating factor in the subsequent homicide.
The same basic logic can, and probably should, apply to pot. If you're going to do any kind of drug, you should probably surrender both your car keys and your gun, because being altered -- with drugs or alcohol (and yes, alcohol is a drug, blah blah blah) -- creates a significantly increased risk of negative outcomes.
Counterarguments?
More...
Is it a good idea for a stoned person to operate a motor vehicle? Probably not. Heavy machinery? Probably not. Because it messes with your judgment and your reaction time, so it's probably not a good idea to let stoned people operate machines that can kill other people due to a minor lapse in judgment or reaction time.
Now, pretend for a second that carrying a gun is an okay thing to do when you're not stoned. Is it a good idea for a stoned person to carry a gun? Probably not. Not because the pot makes them violent, but because a gun is a machine that can kill other people due to a minor lapse in judgment or reaction time.
This is part of why it's illegal to carry a gun in a bar in Washington state, and if someone carrying a gun got drunk in a bar and shot someone they shouldn't have shot, they would be legally responsible for the shooting and for having made the decision to get drunk while armed -- there was a point, prior to taking the first drink, when they knew or should have known that getting drunk while armed was a bad idea. They did it anyway. So they're legally responsible not only for the shooting, but for getting drunk first; the decision to get drunk while armed is and aggravating factor in the subsequent homicide.
The same basic logic can, and probably should, apply to pot. If you're going to do any kind of drug, you should probably surrender both your car keys and your gun, because being altered -- with drugs or alcohol (and yes, alcohol is a drug, blah blah blah) -- creates a significantly increased risk of negative outcomes.
Counterarguments?
46
That's actually very interesting. When did "most of you" get together and decide that?
So I'm just gonna let you know it's pretty obvious to most of us that you generally don't know what you're talking about.
That's actually very interesting. When did "most of you" get together and decide that?
48
@45: alright, Judah, I'll bite. Common sense would seem to suggest that marijuana use would have similarly debilitating effects to alcohol in the cases you mention (driving and operating heavy machinery) but experimental data to back that up has been scarce. There was even a well-publicized study a few years ago showing that pot smokers were slightly less likely than sober drivers to get in accidents (probably because they tended to drive slower.) That does not mean that pot doesn't have an effect, but the data on this is substantially more fuzzy than that for alcohol, and the results I've seen even in studies that purported to show such a link place the increased danger at a lower scale than talking on a cell phone or fiddling with the CD player.
As far as the article goes, for purposes of sentencing, it seems to me that in order for pot to be considered an aggravating factor, it would have to be known to increase violent behavior. Again, I know of no compelling evidence to suggest this is the case. And when establishing impaired judgment, wouldn't that possibly affect sentencing in the other direction, by making it more likely that the shooting was not premeditated?
It is hard for me to read the judge's statement here as anything beyond "I don't like pot."
As far as the article goes, for purposes of sentencing, it seems to me that in order for pot to be considered an aggravating factor, it would have to be known to increase violent behavior. Again, I know of no compelling evidence to suggest this is the case. And when establishing impaired judgment, wouldn't that possibly affect sentencing in the other direction, by making it more likely that the shooting was not premeditated?
It is hard for me to read the judge's statement here as anything beyond "I don't like pot."
49
#37/Judah: "I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't think you quite grasp the difference between your pot use and her cigarette use; most cigarette smokers smoke multiple cigarettes a day, every day. And there are people -- lots of them -- who smoke pot multiple times a day, every day. Those people, the ones who smoke pot multiple times per day, every day, get much crabbier when deprived of pot than cigarette users do under similar circumstances. The differences in your reactions compared to your girlfriend's are more attributable to the differences in your usage patterns than differences in the way the drugs, qua drugs, affected you as individuals."
----------------------------------------------
A fair point, and I'm sure that our differences in usuage did affect our reactions. And, of all the people I've ever known who smoked pot, none of them smoked it multiple times a day so I haven't had the opportunity to see what people are like when they smoke pot that much. However I believe that whatever research exists into the physical effects of pot, it does not support the conclusion that it's physically addictive.
Back to the case...what I don't like about the judge's comments -- "“Marijuana makes people stupid. It makes people do stupid things,” -- is that it's very imprecise. It would have been better stated as something like "Marijuana can impair a person's reasoning and that impairment may contribute to them doing something they would not otherwise have done."
Although I'm adamantly in favor of legalizing, or at least decriminalizing pot, I also don't have any problem with it being considered as a contributing/aggravating factor in cases like this.
----------------------------------------------
A fair point, and I'm sure that our differences in usuage did affect our reactions. And, of all the people I've ever known who smoked pot, none of them smoked it multiple times a day so I haven't had the opportunity to see what people are like when they smoke pot that much. However I believe that whatever research exists into the physical effects of pot, it does not support the conclusion that it's physically addictive.
Back to the case...what I don't like about the judge's comments -- "“Marijuana makes people stupid. It makes people do stupid things,” -- is that it's very imprecise. It would have been better stated as something like "Marijuana can impair a person's reasoning and that impairment may contribute to them doing something they would not otherwise have done."
Although I'm adamantly in favor of legalizing, or at least decriminalizing pot, I also don't have any problem with it being considered as a contributing/aggravating factor in cases like this.
50
@48
Honestly, I considered trying to cite a study that would show how pot affects reflexes and judgment but with six of the last nine presidential terms filled by Republican presidents, the publicized studies are all so fucking skewed that I figured it would take me all day just to find a study that would be credible. So I grant you that the data is fuzzy on this, but that doesn't give us license to cherry-pick studies; I think, given the lack of credible data, we pretty much have to go with "common sense."
I don't see how that follows. Analogizing to alcohol and driving, the fact that alcohol increases violent behavior (I think we can agree that this is a fact) isn't really the relevant factor with regard to drunk driving; the logic behind statutes that make alcohol an aggravating factor in motor vehicle accidents is that alcohol impairs judgment and reflexes, so using it with the knowledge that you may later be operating a motor vehicle may qualify as creating a substantial and unreasonable risk of death. That substantial and unreasonable risk is aggravating, regardless of alcohol's tendency to increase violent behavior.
Recognizing that carrying a firearm does not necessarily pose the same sort of danger as operating a motor vehicle (the firearm, for example, will not just fly off the road and kill someone if you fall asleep while carrying it), using a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicating substance may still reasonably be regarded as negligent (applying Judge Learned Hand's famous "calculus of negligence" test, where negligence may be inferred if Bcarrying a gun while stoned has a greater chance of using a gun while stoned -- and insofar as using a gun while stoned would be negligent -- a prudent person would not carry a gun while stoned. Therefore, getting stoned and walking around armed may properly be regarded as creating a substantial and unreasonable risk of death, and that additional risk may be taken as an aggravating factor in a homicide trial where the verdict is manslaughter.
That would be my reasoning, and the judge's comments about pot making you stupid would seem to fit into that paradigm, regardless of whether pot makes you violent -- which I've said all along that it doesn't.
More...
Honestly, I considered trying to cite a study that would show how pot affects reflexes and judgment but with six of the last nine presidential terms filled by Republican presidents, the publicized studies are all so fucking skewed that I figured it would take me all day just to find a study that would be credible. So I grant you that the data is fuzzy on this, but that doesn't give us license to cherry-pick studies; I think, given the lack of credible data, we pretty much have to go with "common sense."
As far as the article goes, for purposes of sentencing, it seems to me that in order for pot to be considered an aggravating factor, it would have to be known to increase violent behavior.
I don't see how that follows. Analogizing to alcohol and driving, the fact that alcohol increases violent behavior (I think we can agree that this is a fact) isn't really the relevant factor with regard to drunk driving; the logic behind statutes that make alcohol an aggravating factor in motor vehicle accidents is that alcohol impairs judgment and reflexes, so using it with the knowledge that you may later be operating a motor vehicle may qualify as creating a substantial and unreasonable risk of death. That substantial and unreasonable risk is aggravating, regardless of alcohol's tendency to increase violent behavior.
Recognizing that carrying a firearm does not necessarily pose the same sort of danger as operating a motor vehicle (the firearm, for example, will not just fly off the road and kill someone if you fall asleep while carrying it), using a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicating substance may still reasonably be regarded as negligent (applying Judge Learned Hand's famous "calculus of negligence" test, where negligence may be inferred if Bcarrying a gun while stoned has a greater chance of using a gun while stoned -- and insofar as using a gun while stoned would be negligent -- a prudent person would not carry a gun while stoned. Therefore, getting stoned and walking around armed may properly be regarded as creating a substantial and unreasonable risk of death, and that additional risk may be taken as an aggravating factor in a homicide trial where the verdict is manslaughter.
That would be my reasoning, and the judge's comments about pot making you stupid would seem to fit into that paradigm, regardless of whether pot makes you violent -- which I've said all along that it doesn't.
51
Oops. Accidentally used an open-tag symbol. That second-to-last paragraph was supposed to read:
Recognizing that carrying a firearm does not necessarily pose the same sort of danger as operating a motor vehicle (the firearm, for example, will not just fly off the road and kill someone if you fall asleep while carrying it), using a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicating substance may still reasonably be regarded as negligent (applying Judge Learned Hand's famous "calculus of negligence" test, where negligence may be inferred if B [is less than] P*L -- with B being the burden of taking precautions, P being the probability of harm occurring and L being the magnitude of the harm that is possible), and that negligence may be considered an aggravating circumstance in a manslaughter case where the degree of negligence precipitating the homicide is a factor in considering which offense should be charged (first or second degree manslaughter). Insofar as a person who is carrying a gun while stoned has a greater chance of using a gun while stoned -- and insofar as using a gun while stoned would be negligent -- a prudent person would not carry a gun while stoned. Therefore, getting stoned and walking around armed may properly be regarded as creating a substantial and unreasonable risk of death, and that additional risk may be taken as an aggravating factor in a homicide trial where the verdict is manslaughter.
Recognizing that carrying a firearm does not necessarily pose the same sort of danger as operating a motor vehicle (the firearm, for example, will not just fly off the road and kill someone if you fall asleep while carrying it), using a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicating substance may still reasonably be regarded as negligent (applying Judge Learned Hand's famous "calculus of negligence" test, where negligence may be inferred if B [is less than] P*L -- with B being the burden of taking precautions, P being the probability of harm occurring and L being the magnitude of the harm that is possible), and that negligence may be considered an aggravating circumstance in a manslaughter case where the degree of negligence precipitating the homicide is a factor in considering which offense should be charged (first or second degree manslaughter). Insofar as a person who is carrying a gun while stoned has a greater chance of using a gun while stoned -- and insofar as using a gun while stoned would be negligent -- a prudent person would not carry a gun while stoned. Therefore, getting stoned and walking around armed may properly be regarded as creating a substantial and unreasonable risk of death, and that additional risk may be taken as an aggravating factor in a homicide trial where the verdict is manslaughter.
52
Yeah, Judah, I'm not going to be able to argue with you on that, because I don't think anyone thinks you should play around with a gun whilst stoned. Or that you should really drive a car while stoned. Or operate heavy machinery while stoned.
But there's a significant difference between saying that and saying "This death was probably somehow caused by marijuana," or, in terms closer to what he said, that "This is a stupid thing. Marijuana makes people do stupid things." (It's that "makes" that really suggests a causality argument.)
So while I totally agree a person should be responsible and not just wave around guns when they're under the influence of any drug, I think creating a policy intervention here remains difficult. I would not totally be opposed to some kind of "shooting under the influence" justification for upping the sentence, but jumping straight to "harshest allowed" rings of stigma to me and begs the question if the judgement would be the same if alcohol was the intoxicant in question... a question whose answer we'll never really know.
Further, I think that we do, at some point, have to factor in the pharmacological differences between drugs like marijuana - which are relatively benign, especially in reasonable doses - and drugs like methamphetamine or alcohol or LSD - which have more dramatic psychoactive effects. I think it is also important to consider whether those effects are such that violent behavior is more expected from a person under their influence. But it sounds like you might agree with me on this, so I'm not going to belabor it...
But there's a significant difference between saying that and saying "This death was probably somehow caused by marijuana," or, in terms closer to what he said, that "This is a stupid thing. Marijuana makes people do stupid things." (It's that "makes" that really suggests a causality argument.)
So while I totally agree a person should be responsible and not just wave around guns when they're under the influence of any drug, I think creating a policy intervention here remains difficult. I would not totally be opposed to some kind of "shooting under the influence" justification for upping the sentence, but jumping straight to "harshest allowed" rings of stigma to me and begs the question if the judgement would be the same if alcohol was the intoxicant in question... a question whose answer we'll never really know.
Further, I think that we do, at some point, have to factor in the pharmacological differences between drugs like marijuana - which are relatively benign, especially in reasonable doses - and drugs like methamphetamine or alcohol or LSD - which have more dramatic psychoactive effects. I think it is also important to consider whether those effects are such that violent behavior is more expected from a person under their influence. But it sounds like you might agree with me on this, so I'm not going to belabor it...
53
Nobody actually said that.
So, you're taking the word "makes" and inferring that to mean, "this death was probably somehow caused by marijuana"? I guess one question I'd have would be, if that's what the judge meant, why wouldn't he say it?
What he actually said was that, "Marijuana makes people stupid." His second statement follows from his first: "Marijuana makes people do stupid things." If it makes you stupid, you will probably do stupid things while under its influence. Unless you can't be bothered to do anything at all while under its influence. In any event there is a vast yawning gulf between, "Marijuana makes people do stupid things," and "Marijuana made the defendant kill the victim." You keep alluding to all this Reefer Madness propaganda, but nowhere in the article does the judge refer to the demon weed or mania or anything of that sort. He says pot makes you stupid, and it makes you do stupid things, so he used his discretion to slap an extra five years on the guy's sentence because he went out and shot someone while he was stoned.
And let's not forget that the defendant in this case shot an unarmed man twice -- once in the back. Really, to me, that reads as murder. The jury only found manslaughter. Maybe the judge was just doing whatever he could to stretch the sentence.
Rings of stigma, huh? Is this the sort of stigma one would expect if marijuana were, say, illegal?
More...
But there's a significant difference between saying that and saying "This death was probably somehow caused by marijuana,"
Nobody actually said that.
or, in terms closer to what he said, that "This is a stupid thing. Marijuana makes people do stupid things." (It's that "makes" that really suggests a causality argument.).
So, you're taking the word "makes" and inferring that to mean, "this death was probably somehow caused by marijuana"? I guess one question I'd have would be, if that's what the judge meant, why wouldn't he say it?
What he actually said was that, "Marijuana makes people stupid." His second statement follows from his first: "Marijuana makes people do stupid things." If it makes you stupid, you will probably do stupid things while under its influence. Unless you can't be bothered to do anything at all while under its influence. In any event there is a vast yawning gulf between, "Marijuana makes people do stupid things," and "Marijuana made the defendant kill the victim." You keep alluding to all this Reefer Madness propaganda, but nowhere in the article does the judge refer to the demon weed or mania or anything of that sort. He says pot makes you stupid, and it makes you do stupid things, so he used his discretion to slap an extra five years on the guy's sentence because he went out and shot someone while he was stoned.
And let's not forget that the defendant in this case shot an unarmed man twice -- once in the back. Really, to me, that reads as murder. The jury only found manslaughter. Maybe the judge was just doing whatever he could to stretch the sentence.
but jumping straight to "harshest allowed" rings of stigma to me and begs the question if the judgement would be the same if alcohol was the intoxicant in question... a question whose answer we'll never really know.
Rings of stigma, huh? Is this the sort of stigma one would expect if marijuana were, say, illegal?
54
I'd rather take my chances with a toker than a drunk any day. And my two cigarette-addicted parents were FAR, FAR crabbier without their nicotine than any heavily-using pothead that I've ever been around was without his weed, but that's just my experience. (And FWIW, I don't drink, smoke or toke, and I never have, so I'm not biased by my own usage.)
55
Coming from someone very close to the case, this was not a case of murder. Mr Turnipseed smoked weed 2weeks before this happened. Josh Smith was high and drunk when he hit Mr Turnipseed with the car. This was self defense and everyone close to it knows that !! So quit making snide comments about something that you don't know anything about it.
57
@55
I find your description of the the events surrounding this homicide totally convincing. So much so that I won't even ask why Mr. Turnispeed got out of his car to confront Mr. Smith, or why Mr. Smith was shot in the back, or how it is that, if Mr. Smith intended to kill Mr. Turnispeed, and hit him with his car, Mr. Turnispeed was still able to shoot Mr. Smith twice.
I find your description of the the events surrounding this homicide totally convincing. So much so that I won't even ask why Mr. Turnispeed got out of his car to confront Mr. Smith, or why Mr. Smith was shot in the back, or how it is that, if Mr. Smith intended to kill Mr. Turnispeed, and hit him with his car, Mr. Turnispeed was still able to shoot Mr. Smith twice.
58
Road rage, as it's called, frequently results in mayhem of various sorts, up to and including gun play (that's a no brainer, with guns more plentiful than potholes these days...). Interestingly though, in the press I read anyway, citation is rarely made to the involvement of drugs or alcohol in these incidents. Doesn't mean they're not playing a role, but it's not generally mentioned in my experience.
That not withstanding, I think it reeks of red herring to use this one case to rest an argument (however implicit) about the global dangers of canabis use. If you are going to though, be sure not to forget to counterbalance it against, among the many dangerous byproducts of the war on drugs, the mayhem caused by the various warring drug factions to which the illegalization of pot has ceded a virtual monopoly on production and supply. These guys are packing serious heat and and they know how and are willing to use it at least as well and as frequently as the average tween with a text pad. Case in point:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/us/09b…
Prohibition doesn't work and the price paid is very high. Let's decriminalize and treat the inevitable spike in the marginal addiction numbers with funds diverted from the feckless drug law enforcement/prison industrial complex and with those collected by taxing legal production and sale.
That not withstanding, I think it reeks of red herring to use this one case to rest an argument (however implicit) about the global dangers of canabis use. If you are going to though, be sure not to forget to counterbalance it against, among the many dangerous byproducts of the war on drugs, the mayhem caused by the various warring drug factions to which the illegalization of pot has ceded a virtual monopoly on production and supply. These guys are packing serious heat and and they know how and are willing to use it at least as well and as frequently as the average tween with a text pad. Case in point:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/us/09b…
Prohibition doesn't work and the price paid is very high. Let's decriminalize and treat the inevitable spike in the marginal addiction numbers with funds diverted from the feckless drug law enforcement/prison industrial complex and with those collected by taxing legal production and sale.
59
It actually wasn't road rage. You know I love the fact that people who were there love to judge Mr Turnipseed.. Put you in that situation and see what would happen. I don't know a lot of people who after this psychopath threatened to kill him and his family then he hits him with his car that they wouldn't shoot him. That was Mr Turnipseeds only option. I know that he was on that roof of the car, I was there and saw him on it.
60
Judah and Edward, neither one of you know a damn thing about what you're talking. Learn the fact before you judge a situation not what the newspaper says.
61
Judah:
I claim you're a bullshit artist because I read, and am amused by, your numerous comments on the Slog. Please note that I was specific on that point in my first comment. Where did I claim to "know you" outside reading your entertaining bloviating here?
I have indeed asserted that you're a world class b.s. artist, an assertion easily proved by anyone bothering to mine your past Slog comments. (Thanks for keeping your activity open for examination.) According to your own recent claims you were reared by dope dealers, know personally a licensed nuclear plant operator (a job basically on par with a certified automotive technician), and have native American acquaintances who prefer being referred to as "Indians." You imply that these personal experiences somehow warrant you with a certain expertise on these subjects. Of course these are really anecdotal claims which may or may not be true. I suspect they're the later - an opinion, again, based on reading your Slog posts. Who knows what you are in the real world? Do you say "douche" as often as you write it here?
True, I hadn't bothered to register a screen name; it is amusing that doing this should make what I write any more "accountable" than not. After all one has to pass a rigorous test to register and doing so adds the miraculous benefit of freeing one from being a douche. How do you know I'm a douche? You don't even know me, do you?
If you truly want to be taken seriously use your complete real name and add a nice little biography to you profile page. Until then, you're just another fully licensed argumentative douche giving out ill informed opinions on the Slog. That's cool: I still find your combative gyrations hilarious! Keep up the good work!
Your response to my comment was a nice attempt at diversion on you part, exactly the reaction I'd expect from an exposed bullshitter.
Love, Commenter #20, who is now registered and thus as accountable, and reliable, as you!
More...
I claim you're a bullshit artist because I read, and am amused by, your numerous comments on the Slog. Please note that I was specific on that point in my first comment. Where did I claim to "know you" outside reading your entertaining bloviating here?
I have indeed asserted that you're a world class b.s. artist, an assertion easily proved by anyone bothering to mine your past Slog comments. (Thanks for keeping your activity open for examination.) According to your own recent claims you were reared by dope dealers, know personally a licensed nuclear plant operator (a job basically on par with a certified automotive technician), and have native American acquaintances who prefer being referred to as "Indians." You imply that these personal experiences somehow warrant you with a certain expertise on these subjects. Of course these are really anecdotal claims which may or may not be true. I suspect they're the later - an opinion, again, based on reading your Slog posts. Who knows what you are in the real world? Do you say "douche" as often as you write it here?
True, I hadn't bothered to register a screen name; it is amusing that doing this should make what I write any more "accountable" than not. After all one has to pass a rigorous test to register and doing so adds the miraculous benefit of freeing one from being a douche. How do you know I'm a douche? You don't even know me, do you?
If you truly want to be taken seriously use your complete real name and add a nice little biography to you profile page. Until then, you're just another fully licensed argumentative douche giving out ill informed opinions on the Slog. That's cool: I still find your combative gyrations hilarious! Keep up the good work!
Your response to my comment was a nice attempt at diversion on you part, exactly the reaction I'd expect from an exposed bullshitter.
Love, Commenter #20, who is now registered and thus as accountable, and reliable, as you!
62
@12- Marijuana is not highly addictive. It can make odious activities bearable. I suspect maybe the potheads who get crabby around you when their sober just can't fucking stand you personally, and thus become pissed off by enduring your presence while sober..
63
@61
I hope god sends a snowstorm of cupcakes on your house tonight for that delightful post.
and Judah, if you went to college, your professors were probably potheads.
Forget Nuclear Scientists, imagine all the angry irritable academics whose lives will soon be ruined by weed! (that is if gregoire doesn't get them first)
I hope god sends a snowstorm of cupcakes on your house tonight for that delightful post.
and Judah, if you went to college, your professors were probably potheads.
Forget Nuclear Scientists, imagine all the angry irritable academics whose lives will soon be ruined by weed! (that is if gregoire doesn't get them first)
64
@61: Nope. I've met the guy. He's on the level. You just disagree with him, that's all.
Congratulations on your new screen name.
Congratulations on your new screen name.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (64) RSS