COLUMNIST'S NIMBYBESS AND NUMBSKULL MARIJUANA LOGIC

"Often, the less there is to justify a traditional custom, the harder
it is to get rid of it."

~ Mark Twain

Twain's wisdom came to mind as I read a recent article by new
Dispatch columnist John Larson (another new club member; welcome!)
about medical marijuana dispensaries.

Near as I can tell, Larson supports in theory patient access to
medical marijuana, but opposes in practice "putting (a medical
marijuana dispensary) in Gilroy.

"That's a perfect example of a NIMBY (not in my back yard) position.
A Time magazine article on ethics called NIMBYism "a perverse form of
antisocial activism."

Certainly Gilroy should ensure that medical marijuana dispensaries -
which are legal in California - are appropriately located, just as
planners do for pharmacies and hardware stores, for example.
Dispensaries should be treated like any other business seeking to
locate in Gilroy.

Larson uses pretzel-twisted logic to try to justify his NIMBY
position by claiming that legalizing medical marijuana usage is part
of a larger battle to legalize recreational marijuana usage,
something he apparently opposes. He claims that dispensaries have
"ill effects" on "family values and safety" and that they lead to an
increase in crime.

He describes how ridiculously easy it is to get marijuana (since his
childhood!) and then tries to scare readers into opposing
dispensaries by claiming they'll make it easy to get marijuana. Huh?
I call foul.

Larson provides zero evidence for these assertions, but that doesn't
prevent his lame attempt to support a conclusion that's illogical and
cruel to suffering patients. He does, however, provide examples of
red herring, appeal to fear, and slippery slope logical fallacies. I
assume those fallacies help squelch the cognitive dissonance that
must come from acknowledging the suffering of "someone with terminal
cancer who finds relief from their pain or nausea by smoking a
doobie" while opposing the only way, given our current ridiculous
federal laws, for that patient to safely and legally obtain the
medicine that brings much-needed relief.

Many people - like me - support legalizing medical marijuana because
we understand that the federal government completely misclassifies
marijuana, causing people to needlessly suffer. The federal
Controlled Substances Act lists marijuana on Schedule I, the most
restricted category that is supposed to include only substances with
high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use, and no
standards for safe use under medical supervision. This is simply not
true about marijuana, as I've detailed in previous columns.

It's fine to debate legalizing recreational use, but it's completely
separate from the debate about medical marijuana. Another thing:
Larson's use of a street name for a medical marijuana cigarette, and
giving his fictional medical marijuana dispensaries monikers that
incorporate other street names ("Weed-Mart," Ganja Emporium" and
"Pot-pourri") might be cute, but the names are irrelevant, and using
them is illogical and unfair. Worse, they're examples of the ad
hominem and appeal to ridicule logical fallacies.

Does Larson call pharmacies "Lude Lounges" because they sell
prescription quaaludes that some people use recreationally? Maybe he
prefers "Hillbilly Heroin Huts" because some people abuse
prescription OxyContin? Does he call hardware and paint stores "Huff
Depots" because they sell products that contain inhalants? Does he
oppose the presence of these stores in Gilroy?

The use of logical fallacies is usually a sign that the
fallacy-employer knows that his position is weak and is thus reduced
to trying to distract his audience and hoping that they don't notice
his argument's flaws.

Something else about Larson's column confused me: He believes it's
relevant to emphasize that he has never smoked marijuana. I fail to
grasp the relevance, but I'll share too: I have never smoked, seen,
touched or been offered marijuana. I wouldn't even recognize the
odor, I lived such a sheltered youth. However, I'll also share a
relevant personal fact: My daughter endured two-and-half years of
chemotherapy to treat cancer. She suffered from nausea, but,
thankfully, it was short-lived and manageable.

However, had her doctors recommended medical marijuana, here's what
Larson and his ilk would require me do: In their pollyanna-ish,
"Weed-Mart"-free utopia, I would have had to locate one of the scores
of unlicensed, unregulated street marijuana dispensaries (you know,
drug dealers) sprinkled throughout South County to purchase marijuana
of unknown quality and strength, in the process likely supporting
other far worse illegal activities, while risking arrest, prosecution
and incarceration when my young daughter desperately needed me.

Why? Because they don't want legal, regulated medical marijuana
dispensaries in this community. Put that cruel reality in your NIMBY
pipe and smoke it.