Should Smokers Want to Legalize Pot?

Question: If California legalizes marijuana, will the rest of the \r\nnation follow?

John Buffalo \r\nMailer:  You know, \r\nthere's a lot of forces opposed to it, so I don’t want to put the cart \r\nbefore the horse.  It’s looking like it’s going the legalization route, \r\nwhich, you know, a lot of people thought it needs to for a long time \r\noutside of recreational and medicinal use, just for crime reasons.  You \r\nknow, we’re pumping our prisons full of petty weed offenses and it’s, \r\nyou know, partially to feed that industry, but it’s not good.  It’s not \r\ngood for society and you know people go in there as a minor criminal and\r\n come out as a real criminal.  You know, it seems to be the sense that \r\nonce you throw guys in prison they’re not going to come out.  No, \r\nthey’re going to come out and, you know, what kind of beast have you \r\ncreated from that process?  So, you know, we in 2004 when we were \r\nrunning High Times we took it in a very political direction and it was \r\nlike a night and day transformation, probably too radical, honestly, in \r\nterms of the timing of the business mechanics of it, but you know, we \r\nwere…  We had one of the original pot-smugglers-turned-outlaw-rider who \r\nhad started the magazine there and he was a wild man, Richard Stratton, \r\nand myself and Annie Nocenti, and we just said hey, we’ve got a chance \r\nto really do what we want to do with this magazine, and the response was\r\n great.  I've got to say that people, you know, were tickled to be \r\nreading High Times.  Do you take it out on the train?  Do you \r\nnot?  Things like that, but overall they were saying there is no other \r\nnational magazine that we can get this kind of information from because \r\nessentially High Times is a mom and pop national magazine.  There is no \r\ncorporate structure that you have to answer to.  You know, so it’s why I\r\n think it will always be around.  It’s been around for over 30 years \r\nnow. 

So hopefully we played a small part in elevating the argument \r\nabout legalization, making it less, “Hey man, stay off my weed,” to \r\n"Listen, we shouldn’t be putting people in jail for this.  This is a \r\ncivil liberty issue.  You know, do what you want to your body when \r\nyou’re alone, as long as you’re not hurting anyone else," and try to \r\ntake that tack on it.  I think that probably the NORML organization and \r\nEthan Nadelmann are most responsible for what has been going on.  But, \r\nyou know, having a mother who has had cancer and fought through it and \r\nat times used cannabis to you know fight off nausea and whatnot.  I mean\r\n it’s not really her thing, but there were times when she needed it and \r\nthe idea that you can’t have it because it’s an illegal drug, but \r\nOxyContin is legal.  That’s you know that’s just insane to a level that I\r\n think most people understand. 

Now, what’s against legalization in a \r\npractical sense?  You’ve got the oil industry.  You’ve\r\n got the cotton industry.  You’ve got the paper industry.  You’ve\r\n got alcohol and tobacco to a certain extent.  All of these\r\n industries are affected adversely by this.  There is a \r\nstory—I don’t know if it’s true, but it made sense to \r\nme—that William Randolph Hearst actually back in the ‘30s I guess had \r\njust purchased whole fields and fields and fields of trees to print his \r\npaper on and at the same time a couple of college kids figured out how \r\nto take a hemp plant and turn it into newspaper and it was actually a \r\nbetter quality of paper.  It was cheaper and if you plant \r\nhemp in a field it revitalizes the soil.  You can grow food\r\n in a dirt lot if you do enough harvest of hemp and Hearst said, “This \r\nis going to put me out of business. I just spent all my money on these \r\ntrees.”  So that is why he started that campaign linking \r\nhemp and marijuana together, calling it "the devil’s harvest" and all \r\nthat.  Again you know I read this story when I was at High \r\nTimes.  It seemed like a legitimate source.  Who\r\n knows if it’s true or not, but it makes sense and that is the kind of \r\nthing you’re up against.  I think that the reason why pot \r\nis illegal is much more because of hemp than it is for any societal \r\nreasons or stigma.

Question: Is there a sound economic argument for \r\nlegalization?

John Buffalo Mailer:  Absolutely there \r\nis.  I mean, listen, we could be taxing it and making a \r\nbundle off of it.  You know, no, I don’t pretend to know \r\nthe specifics of the economics of it to say how much we’ll be getting, \r\nbut there is money to be made there that is not being made because it’s \r\nillegal.  Now, granted, there is a lot of money that is \r\nbeing made because it’s illegal and those people you would have to \r\ncontend with as well, who are certainly not for it becoming legal.  You\r\n know, and then there's also just socially, personally.  There\r\n is something naughty about pot.  There is something that \r\nis rebellious and outlawish and a kind of, you know, a finger in the eye\r\n of the government saying, hey, you can’t tell me what to do.  That\r\n would be gone.  I remember talking to my dad about it in a\r\n book we did together called "The Big Empty."  He was \r\nsaying like, “Oh, no, no, as soon as it’s legalized it will be ruined.”  “The\r\n corporations will get their hands on it. You’ll have, you \r\nknow, pot with vitamin C and, you know, 'Viagratized High Toke.'" \r\n You know different things like that.  That it won’t\r\n be, you know, they’ll put chemicals into it.  It won’t be \r\nthat pure plant that it is now.  He may have a good point \r\nthere.  Although I think that if you look at places like \r\nAmsterdam and places where pot is very legal they do well with it.  There\r\n is nothing taken away from it and crime is very low and all that.

Recorded March 30, 2010
Interviewed by Austin Allen

The former "High Times" editor thinks America is "going the legalization route." But will marijuana lose its outlaw mystique?

Related Articles

Why "nuclear pasta" is the strongest material in the universe

Through computationally intensive computer simulations, researchers have discovered that "nuclear pasta," found in the crusts of neutron stars, is the strongest material in the universe.

Accretion disk surrounding a neutron star. Credit: NASA
Surprising Science
  • The strongest material in the universe may be the whimsically named "nuclear pasta."
  • You can find this substance in the crust of neutron stars.
  • This amazing material is super-dense, and is 10 billion times harder to break than steel.

Superman is known as the "Man of Steel" for his strength and indestructibility. But the discovery of a new material that's 10 billion times harder to break than steel begs the question—is it time for a new superhero known as "Nuclear Pasta"? That's the name of the substance that a team of researchers thinks is the strongest known material in the universe.

Unlike humans, when stars reach a certain age, they do not just wither and die, but they explode, collapsing into a mass of neurons. The resulting space entity, known as a neutron star, is incredibly dense. So much so that previous research showed that the surface of a such a star would feature amazingly strong material. The new research, which involved the largest-ever computer simulations of a neutron star's crust, proposes that "nuclear pasta," the material just under the surface, is actually stronger.

The competition between forces from protons and neutrons inside a neutron star create super-dense shapes that look like long cylinders or flat planes, referred to as "spaghetti" and "lasagna," respectively. That's also where we get the overall name of nuclear pasta.

Caplan & Horowitz/arXiv

Diagrams illustrating the different types of so-called nuclear pasta.

The researchers' computer simulations needed 2 million hours of processor time before completion, which would be, according to a press release from McGill University, "the equivalent of 250 years on a laptop with a single good GPU." Fortunately, the researchers had access to a supercomputer, although it still took a couple of years. The scientists' simulations consisted of stretching and deforming the nuclear pasta to see how it behaved and what it would take to break it.

While they were able to discover just how strong nuclear pasta seems to be, no one is holding their breath that we'll be sending out missions to mine this substance any time soon. Instead, the discovery has other significant applications.

One of the study's co-authors, Matthew Caplan, a postdoctoral research fellow at McGill University, said the neutron stars would be "a hundred trillion times denser than anything on earth." Understanding what's inside them would be valuable for astronomers because now only the outer layer of such starts can be observed.

"A lot of interesting physics is going on here under extreme conditions and so understanding the physical properties of a neutron star is a way for scientists to test their theories and models," Caplan added. "With this result, many problems need to be revisited. How large a mountain can you build on a neutron star before the crust breaks and it collapses? What will it look like? And most importantly, how can astronomers observe it?"

Another possibility worth studying is that, due to its instability, nuclear pasta might generate gravitational waves. It may be possible to observe them at some point here on Earth by utilizing very sensitive equipment.

The team of scientists also included A. S. Schneider from California Institute of Technology and C. J. Horowitz from Indiana University.

Check out the study "The elasticity of nuclear pasta," published in Physical Review Letters.

How a huge, underwater wall could save melting Antarctic glaciers

Scientists think constructing a miles-long wall along an ice shelf in Antarctica could help protect the world's largest glacier from melting.

Image: NASA
Surprising Science
  • Rising ocean levels are a serious threat to coastal regions around the globe.
  • Scientists have proposed large-scale geoengineering projects that would prevent ice shelves from melting.
  • The most successful solution proposed would be a miles-long, incredibly tall underwater wall at the edge of the ice shelves.

The world's oceans will rise significantly over the next century if the massive ice shelves connected to Antarctica begin to fail as a result of global warming.

To prevent or hold off such a catastrophe, a team of scientists recently proposed a radical plan: build underwater walls that would either support the ice or protect it from warm waters.

In a paper published in The Cryosphere, Michael Wolovick and John Moore from Princeton and the Beijing Normal University, respectively, outlined several "targeted geoengineering" solutions that could help prevent the melting of western Antarctica's Florida-sized Thwaites Glacier, whose melting waters are projected to be the largest source of sea-level rise in the foreseeable future.

An "unthinkable" engineering project

"If [glacial geoengineering] works there then we would expect it to work on less challenging glaciers as well," the authors wrote in the study.

One approach involves using sand or gravel to build artificial mounds on the seafloor that would help support the glacier and hopefully allow it to regrow. In another strategy, an underwater wall would be built to prevent warm waters from eating away at the glacier's base.

The most effective design, according to the team's computer simulations, would be a miles-long and very tall wall, or "artificial sill," that serves as a "continuous barrier" across the length of the glacier, providing it both physical support and protection from warm waters. Although the study authors suggested this option is currently beyond any engineering feat humans have attempted, it was shown to be the most effective solution in preventing the glacier from collapsing.

Source: Wolovick et al.

An example of the proposed geoengineering project. By blocking off the warm water that would otherwise eat away at the glacier's base, further sea level rise might be preventable.

But other, more feasible options could also be effective. For example, building a smaller wall that blocks about 50% of warm water from reaching the glacier would have about a 70% chance of preventing a runaway collapse, while constructing a series of isolated, 1,000-foot-tall columns on the seafloor as supports had about a 30% chance of success.

Still, the authors note that the frigid waters of the Antarctica present unprecedently challenging conditions for such an ambitious geoengineering project. They were also sure to caution that their encouraging results shouldn't be seen as reasons to neglect other measures that would cut global emissions or otherwise combat climate change.

"There are dishonest elements of society that will try to use our research to argue against the necessity of emissions' reductions. Our research does not in any way support that interpretation," they wrote.

"The more carbon we emit, the less likely it becomes that the ice sheets will survive in the long term at anything close to their present volume."

A 2015 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine illustrates the potentially devastating effects of ice-shelf melting in western Antarctica.

"As the oceans and atmosphere warm, melting of ice shelves in key areas around the edges of the Antarctic ice sheet could trigger a runaway collapse process known as Marine Ice Sheet Instability. If this were to occur, the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) could potentially contribute 2 to 4 meters (6.5 to 13 feet) of global sea level rise within just a few centuries."

Why the worst part about climate change isn't rising temperatures

The world's getting hotter, and it's getting more volatile. We need to start thinking about how climate change encourages conflict.

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Climate change is usually discussed in terms of how it impacts the weather, but this fails to emphasize how climate change is a "threat multiplier."
  • As a threat multiplier, climate change makes already dangerous social and political situations even worse.
  • Not only do we have to work to minimize the impact of climate change on our environment, but we also have to deal with how it affects human issues today.

Human beings are great at responding to imminent and visible threats. Climate change, while dire, is almost entirely the opposite: it's slow, it's pervasive, it's vague, and it's invisible. Researchers and policymakers have been trying to package climate change in a way that conveys its severity. Usually, they do so by talking about its immediate effects: rising temperature, rising sea levels, and increasingly dangerous weather.

These things are bad, make no mistake about it. But the thing that makes climate change truly dire isn't that Cape Cod will be underwater next century, that polar bears will go extinct, or that we'll have to invent new categories for future hurricanes. It's the thousands of ancillary effects — the indirect pressure that climate change puts on every person on the planet.

How a drought in the Middle East contributed to extremism in Europe


Nigel Farage in front of a billboard that leverages the immigration crisis to support Brexit.

Because climate change is too big for the mind to grasp, we'll have to use a case study to talk about this. The Syrian civil war is a horrific tangle of senseless violence, but there are some primary causes we can point to. There is the longstanding conflicts between different religious sects in that country. Additionally, the Arab Spring swept Syria up in a wave of resistance against authoritarian leaders in the Middle East — unfortunately, Syrian protests were brutally squashed by Bashar Al-Assad. These, and many other factors, contributed to the start of the Syrian civil war.

One of these other factors was drought. In fact, the drought in that region — it started in 2006 — has been described as the "worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilization began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago." Because of this drought, many rural Syrians could no longer support themselves. Between 2006 and 2009, an estimated 1.5 million Syrians — many of them agricultural workers and farmers — moved into the country's major cities. With this sudden mixing of different social groups in a country where classes and religious sects were already at odds with one another, tensions rose, and the increased economic instability encouraged chaos. Again, the drought didn't cause the civil war — but it sure as hell helped it along.

The ensuing flood of refugees to Europe is already a well-known story. The immigration crisis was used as a talking point in the Brexit movement to encourage Britain to leave the EU. Authoritarian or extreme-right governments and political parties have sprung up in France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Slovenia, and other European countries, all of which have capitalized on fears of the immigration crisis.

Why climate change is a "threat multiplier"

This is why both NATO and the Pentagon have labeled climate change as a "threat multiplier." On its own, climate change doesn't cause these issues — rather, it exacerbates underlying problems in societies around the world. Think of having a heated discussion inside a slowly heating-up car.

Climate change is often discussed in terms of its domino effect: for example, higher temperatures around the world melt the icecaps, releasing methane stored in the polar ice that contributes to the rise in temperature, which both reduces available land for agriculture due to drought and makes parts of the ocean uninhabitable for different animal species, wreaking havoc on the food chain, and ultimately making food more scarce.

Maybe we should start to consider climate change's domino effect in more human and political terms. That is, in terms of the dominoes of sociopolitical events spurred on by climate change and the missing resources it gobbles up.

What the future may hold

(NASA via Getty Images)

Increasingly severe weather events will make it more difficult for nations to avoid conflict.

Part of why this is difficult to see is because climate change does not affect all countries proportionally — at least, not in a direct sense. Germanwatch, a German NGO, releases a climate change index every year to analyze exactly how badly different countries have been affected by climate change. The top five most at-risk countries are Haiti, Zimbabwe, Fiji, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Notice that many of these places are islands, which are at the greatest risk for major storms and rising sea levels. Some island nations are even expected to literally disappear — the leaders of these nations are actively making plans to move their citizens to other countries.

But Germanwatch's climate change index is based on weather events. It does not account for the political and social instability that will likely result. The U.S. and many parts of Europe are relatively low on the index, but that is precisely why these countries will most likely need to deal with the human cost of climate change. Refugees won't go from the frying pan into the fire: they'll go to the closest, safest place available.

Many people's instinctive response to floods of immigrants is to simply make borders more restrictive. This makes sense — a nation's first duty is to its own citizens, after all. Unfortunately, people who support stronger immigration policies tend to have right-wing authoritarian tendencies. This isn't always the case, of course, but anecdotally, we can look at the governments in Europe that have stricter immigration policies. Hungary, for example, has extremely strict policies against Muslim immigrants. It's also rapidly turning into a dictatorship. The country has cracked down on media organizations and NGOs, eroded its judicial system's independence, illegalized homelessness, and banned gender studies courses.

Climate change and its sociopolitical effects, such as refugee migration, aren't some poorer country's problem. It's everyone's problem. Whether it's our food, our homes, or our rights, climate change will exact a toll on every nation on Earth. Stopping climate change, or at least reducing its impact, is vitally important. Equally important is contending with the multifaceted threats its going to throw our way.