The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana

Why is the media unabashedly promoting marijuana legalization yet wringing its hands over the increase in heroin use, at least for the first news cycle after Phillip Seymour Hoffman died with a heroin needle in his vein?

Is it that heroin is that much more dangerous? In fact, many, many more lives have been ruined as the result of marijuana addiction.

Even superstars at the peak of their career have been brought down by weed--the latest example: Justin Bieber, who, according to NBC News, was so out of control that on his private plane he refused the pilot's repeated requests that he stop smoking pot on the plane for everyone's safety, then abused the flight attendants, and now faces jail time for endangering a flight. Perhaps not surprising, he just announced he's retiring.  He's far from the only one. Here's a link to ten celebrities with photos of them before and after their drug abuse: MacCauley Culkin, Britney Spears, George Michael, Courtney Love, Whitney Houston, Amanda Bynes, Kate Moss, Mischa Barton, Amy Winehouse, and of course, Lindsay Lohan.

And in countries in which pot was legalized, use increased dramatically. For example, after marijuana became legal in the Netherlands, use among 18-20 year olds nearly tripled.

The percentage of teens 12 to 17 is highest in medical-marijuana states. And already in Colorado, use among children is skyrocketing. It's understandable. With pot legal to adults, the black marketeers simply are redirecting their marketing efforts to children. Dr. Christian Thurstone, Colorado Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Society president and youth addiction researcher at the University of Colorado-Denver, reported that his clinic has been “inundated with young people reporting for marijuana-addiction treatment... Every day, we see the acute effects of the policy of legalization. And our kids are paying a great price.”

Last month on CNN, Kevin Sabet, former Obama administration drug abuse advisor, reported that since legalization in Colorado, a pre-employment drug testing firm reports a 44 percent increase in the number of job applicants who tested positive for marijuana. 

A review of the literature makes clear that contrary to legalization advocates' claims, in every case, legalization resulted in greater abuse, more crime, etc.And lest you think I overestimate pot's dangers, see THIS. And a new study shows that the damage is not just to adults, not just to children, but to unborn fetuses. Update: The evidence continues to mount. THIS finds that marijuana use increases the risk of heart attack and stroke, even in the young.

Even legalization advocates, for example, Mark Kleiman, in the current Washington Monthly acknowledges:

About a quarter of the sixteen million Americans who report having used cannabis in the past month say they used it every day or almost every day. Those frequent users also use more cannabis per day of use than do less frequent users. About half of the daily- and near-daily-use population meets diagnostic criteria for substance abuse or dependence—that is, they find that their cannabis habit is interfering with other activities and bringing negative consequences, and that their attempts to cut back on the frequency or quantity of their cannabis use have failed. (Those estimates are based on users’ own responses to surveys, so they probably underestimate the actual risks.)

And then, of course, there are the extreme cases. A substantial number of these daily users spend virtually every waking hour under the influence. Legal availability is likely to add both to their numbers and to the intensity of their problems. Jonathan Caulkins has done a calculation suggesting that legalization at low prices might increase the amount of time spent stoned by about fifteen billion person-hours per year, concentrated among frequent heavy users rather than among the more numerous Saturday-night partiers. Every year, hundreds of thousands of cannabis users visit emergency departments having unintentionally overdosed, experiencing anxiety, dysphoria, and sometimes panic. Presumably many others suffer very unpleasant experiences without seeking professional attention."

Is that what you want for your child, your sibling, your spouse, your parent, for America?

Forget about those extreme millions, the last thing the U.S. student body and workforce needs is to be less motivated and more memory-impaired and prone to serious cardiovascular disease, cancer, and vehicle accidents and the resultant mayhem and death. Here, for example, even the liberal Obama Administration issued this summary just of the public health consequences of legalizing marijuana. Here, for example, is a report linking pot to lung and other cancers. Alcohol and tobacco costs Americans more than $350 billion every year, mainly public health costs. Just what we need: making more available a drug that makes you stupid, lazy, and more likely to get a life-threatening illness. A new Harvard/Northwestern study finds that even casual use causes significant damage to the brain.

Do we really want another Big Tobacco? It would no doubt unleash its ultra-sophisticated marketing machine on a whole new line of products: every imaginable brand of pot.  We'd see pot commercials on the Superbowl, a pot section in every 7-11 and supermarket. Already one group led by a former Microsoft executive has vowed to raise $100,000,000 to create The Starbucks of Pot. Use and abuse would skyrocket and the big beneficiary would be the likes of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

But you claim, "Legalization will eliminate the black market." Think again, dude. Already in Colorado, because marijuana is taxed at 29 percent, a black market already is burgeoning, in which you can buy pot for--you guessed it--29% less. And as with all sin taxes, you can bet the tax rate will only go upward from 29%. For example, in most states, the taxes (federal, state, and sales) on a pack of cigarettes exceeds 100%.) Of course, the higher the tax rate on pot, the bigger the black market. And with marijuana legal only to people over 21, the black market and its unsavory types will, of course, as I mentioned, simply refocus its marketing toward children. So all legalization does is expand the number of places that people can buy your memory-impairing, motivation-killing, cancer/heart-disease-causing drug, especially to children. Yippee!

And lest you think that when they grow up, the kids will stop in time from it hurting their career, an authoritative study found that pot users who started as teens, suffered lifetime effects even if they stopped.

But what about for medicinal use? Marijuana is available in capsule form by prescription. No need to make it available through "pot dispensaries." Everyone knows the "medical marijuana" argument is a sham and another way kids more easily access pot. According to a study by Seattle's public health department, 39 percent of children who use pot said it originally came from a medical marijuana dispensary. 

A pothead, trying to play gotcha, asked me, "Hey dude, would you outlaw alcohol?" Yes, I would. Alcohol causes harm wildly in excess of its benefits. Of course, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and a black market in alcohol would arise just as in Prohibition but, net, there would be less use and thus less damage to humankind. Indeed, alcohol use dropped by 30 to 40 percent during Prohibition. (Here is the original study.) I enjoy a glass of wine but would gladly give it up for the societal benefits that would derive from a new Prohibition. At the risk of using a term that is becoming obsolete, I believe we've become a too permissive society, prioritizing "do what the hell you want" over "be responsible." And that message filters right down to children.

Our Socratic pothead then tried, "Next you're going to want to outlaw ice cream?!" Marijuana's risk profile is far worse. 

But what about the libertarian argument that people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others? Well, pot harms everyone: the user, his or her family, employer, the drivers and pedestrians who are in accidents because of the slow-reflexed, often glacial-driving pothead. How often do you see a car creeping on the freeway? Yes, some are old people who should have their licenses revoked but many are blitzed. A study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 18 percent of drivers in fatal accidents tested positive for a non-alcoholic mind-altering drug, mainly marijuana. And this 2013 study found almost twice as many drivers in fatal car accidents tested positive versus a control group. And since legalization in Washington, data from the Washington State Patrol and Toxicologist shows a 40% increase in the share of driver cases in which the driver tested positive.

The following two paragraph has been added thanks to reader Rex's comments.

You might ask, "But what about enforcement? You can't stop substance abuse altogether." Of course not but, again, the perfect is the enemy of the good. You can significantly reduce pot and alcohol's damage to humankind by not making it legally purchasable, with law enforcement only going after big producers and distributors, with law enforcement against users only in response to citizen complaints, in which case the punishment would be a ticket that costs about the same as a carpool violation: $500. That could cover all or more of the cost of enforcement with individuals.

You might also ask, "What about decriminalizing rather than legalizing pot?" No good: That would send a message to everyone, including kids, that pot isn't bad. Its use would then increase.

In sum, as a nation, can one reasonably assert that America will be better off if its population used more pot? Even if more taxes were raised by legalization, is that how we want to do it? Is that the sort of country we're trying to build? Do you believe your children and grandchildren would be better off with pot legalized and so available to kids through parent stashes and the black market that will, if it's legal for adults, target kids?
 

And then there's the opportunity cost. If pot and alcohol were not as readily available, more people, although certainly not everyone, would more likely pursue one of the countless more rewarding, less harmful recreations: from learning to mentoring, writing to painting to befriending.

Pot should be illegal and if our legislators cared a whit about us, they'd also make alcohol and tobacco illegal.

Care to disagree? 

An Ultra-Simple Approach to Small Business Recordkeeping

Many one-person businesses or people contemplating starting a business are daunted by the bookkeeping and tax preparation.

OF course, you could outsource to an accountant and/or use software such as Quickbooks, but I use a system that very easily, at no cost, enables me to adequately keep track of things. It won't work for everyone but perhaps it might help you:

1. To avoid paperwork and trying to collect outstanding bills, I do no billing. My by-phone and Skype clients get charged by credit card or, for my international clients, by PayPal. My in-person clients pay at the end of the session, almost always by check.

2. I record credit card payments on a 3x3 slip of paper from a standard memo cube and put it in a standard legal envelope marked "credit card receipts."

3. I record my clients' and other payers' check or cash payments in a word-processing file called "payments." At the top of that file, I wrote "DUE." Below that, "PAID." After the client leaves, I simply put their name and the amount paid in the PAID section. In the rare case when an in-person client forgets to bring a check, I'll accept their Visa or MasterCard.  In the extremely rare case in which they don't, I give them a stamped self-addressed envelope and list the amount due and from whom in the DUE section. At the end of the year, I  head a new page in that file with the new year, e.g., 2014.

4. At the end of the year, to calculate my annual gross income, I simply add up all the payments in the envelope plus those on the PAID list.

5. Throughout the year, I simply dump all tax-deductible receipts into a cardboard box, supplemented by my credit card statements and checkbook register. When it comes time to do my taxes, I dump the box onto the bed in the spare bedroom and sort the expenses according to which tax-return category it belongs in.

6. I enter my income and expenses into TurboTax and file my tax return. I used to send a draft of my return to an accountant for review but after a number of years of his saying he could find nothing that needed changing, I no longer even do that.

For me at least, that makes record-keeping and taxpaying pretty painless.

Video: How to Play the Piano By Ear: a six-minute lesson may teach you all you need to know

In a recent post, I presented a way to learn how to play the piano by ear. A reader asked if I'd make a video demonstrating it. Here it is:

How I Start and End a Counseling Session

Much has been written about how to conduct a counseling session. Less has been written about what should immediately precede and follow one. So I thought I'd share what do.

Before the session

Many client sessions are by phone or Skype so these first few tips don't apply to them.

When the doorbell rings that lets me know the client has let him/herself into the waiting room:

1. I read my notes from the client's previous session(s.)  That way, the client is fresh in my mind.

2. If I'm not in great spirits, as I'm walking downstairs to greet the client, I remind myself to get in gear.

3. In greeting the client, I make clear I'm glad to see him or her: I smile, look them in the eye and say something such as "Good to see you again, Mary," and then a bit of small talk. For example, if during the previous session, s/he had mentioned her dog Woofie," I might ask, "How's Woofie doing?" 

Speaking of dogs, my dog Einstein no doubt greeted the client upon entering. So perhaps my most common small talk is to say something like, "Did Einstein welcome you appropriately?"

I keep my small talk very brief to give the client room to take the small talk in whatever direction s/he likes. That continues as we walk upstairs to my office.

Throughout this pre-session talk, I try to observe and infer the client's state of mind: happy, sad, phlegmatic, excited, etc. That can inform my first substantive question, for example, "You seem happier today. Great. What's up?"

If it's the first session, I note the sort of first impression the client is making on me. That may well be the sort of impression s/he will make at a job interview or on the job. If I sense a problem---for example, poor eye contact, low energy, an angry demeanor, whatever---I usually won't mention it at that point but make a note to raise the issue at an appropriate time.

I'll usually ask the client if s/he wants something to drink. If it's coffee, I'll usually make it fresh right there with the client watching. That's not just so that the coffee is fresh--It allows a few more minutes of informality, which can be revealing. People may be different in that informal setting than in the formal counseling session. I'm more effective if I can see them in that more natural circumstance. 

4. If it's the first session, I point to the sofa and say something like, "Make yourself at home." I try to strike the balance--in word and tone--between being professional yet informal and therefore relaxing. Einstein adds a measure of informality and stress reduction because he'll usually jump on the sofa, sidle up to and even kiss the client. I ask, "Would you like him down?" Most clients say they're happy having him up there. Einstein is a fabulous co-counselor/stress reducer.

5. If it's a first-time client, I start by saying, "I'd like to make a recording of the session for you. Clients find it valuable to listen again to sessions but I didn't want to do that without your permission. Is that okay? And do you want to record it on your smartphone, for me to make an mp3, which I'll email you, or even an old-fashioned audiocassette?"

After starting the recording, if it's the first session, I usually then say something like, "I've just had the pleasure of spending the last hour or so reading and meditating on the new-client questionnaire you sent me. Great, and I have a bunch of questions." They usually say, "Great," and we're off and running.

If it's not the first session, my typical starting statement is something like, "So in light of our last session, what have you been thinking and perhaps doing?"

I take a few notes during sessions so I can devote all my mental energy to listening and thinking what to say rather than to being sure I remember all that's important.

The End of a Session and Afterwards

I usually ask if the client wants to summarize the session or prefers that I summarize. After that summary, I typically ask, "Okay, what homework assignment would you like to give yourself?" I add my input where appropriate. Then I ask, "If we were in Vegas, would you give at least 5-to-1 odds you'd do the assignment?" If the client says no, I ask why. That usually reveals a problem we can usually fix: alter the assignment, explain it better, set a fixed schedule to do the assignment, find someone to be accountable to (including emailing me every night,) what to do if reaching a roadblock, etc.

I'll often ask the client to take notes while listening to the session recording, then print out a copy and keep it on their desk, and to email me a copy of the notes, to be used as a springboard for the next session.

Then, consistent with honesty, I try to end on an upbeat note, for example, "I think we're off to a good start. It'll be interesting to see what you get from doing that homework assignment."

After the client leaves, I immediately take notes on the client.

Three Career Questions I'm Often Asked

Here are my answers to three of questions that readers and callers to my show have asked:

What should I major in? 

Of course, it varies with the individual but here are a couple of my not-widely-held beliefs:

If the person really is a science/math/computer whiz, it may make sense to choose a science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) major. But more often, I recommend not majoring in those. They're hard, not that interesting to most people, and these majors contain some very smart, hard-working students bringing down the curve. Also, if you end up switching majors, you'll find most of what you learned irrelevant to life or career. Most important, not withstanding what politicians say, there's already an oversupply.

A major I consider underrated and of wide benefit to one's career and life is theatre/dramatic arts. Studying and being involved in plays (whether as reader, actor, student director, stage manager, whatever) gets you exposed, again and again, to pieces of literature that focus on life's key issues. That repeated exposure is required for it to be transformative for you. A theatre major is more likely than most to make you a wiser human being. And if you spend some time on stage, you'll gain poise, an important and underrated attribute. Most people also find the theatre major fun.

What's the best career?

Again, of course, it depends on the person but I do have a few favorites.

One is optometrist. It offers prestige, a six-figure income, low stress, you succeed with nearly every patient, and there are few emergency calls. Optometry is not offshoreable and you won't get replaced by a robot. The training time isn't inordinate: four years after your bachelor's degree, or at some colleges, you can get a bachelor's degree and your Doctor of Optometry degree in seven.

Haircutter scores near the top of most job satisfaction surveys. Again, you succeed with nearly every customer and you're dealing with something positive--appearance. Plus, you get the chance to develop ongoing relationships with customers: After all, you get to chat with them every month or two. Haircutting is another career that won't get offshored or automated.

Clergy. You get to do unmitigated do-gooding and have a very varied workweek: from counseling the unhappy to preparing and delivering a sermon to planning for the church/synagogue's future. Yes, hours can be long and irregular. Pay often is bad but not always. This is another career that won't the offshored or automated.Tip: Prioritize nuance and true fairness over dogma.

How do you get promoted or at least reduce your risk of getting laid off?

• Try to get to work for a boss who's ethical and a star or up-and-comer. You'll both learn a lot and such a boss is likely to get increasing responsibility, which could create new opportunities for you. 
• Try to make your boss's life easier. You might even periodically ask your boss that explicitly: "How could I make your life easier?"  
• Keep your antennae out for priority areas in the organization and in your field and get more skilled in one of those. 
• You can't overtly brag but subtly try to get it known that you're a person who has good ideas and does fine work. For example, instead of just giving your best idea to the boss, you might bring it up in an email to others "for feedback." 
• Try to be low-maintenance and well-liked by most people. 
• Sometimes, your organization really has too little opportunity for advancement. If so, resist the temptation to stay put and, at least, subtly, confidentially, put feelers out.

The Art of Accompanying on the Piano

I've had the privilege of accompanying dozens of outstanding professional singers and so I thought I'd share my principles of accompanying.

If you're an accompanist, you might find these ideas useful and if you're an audience member, reading this may help you additionally appreciate singing performances, live or recorded.

1. I never simply play what's written in the chart/sheet music. That's just the barebones. Accompanying is the art of creating the perfect support/surround-sound for that singer. I think of myself as a one-person orchestra. And thanks to my Korg SP-250 keyboard, indeed, I can sound quite full and varied. While sometimes a traditional piano sound is precisely the right choice, now there often are better options.

If I don't already know the song, yes I'll look at the sheet music and perhaps listen to the original recording of it, but I treat that as only the starting place. I will expand on it, playing by ear, what feels right.

The singer and I develop a singing and performance plan for the song with the goal of making it better than the best recording we can find, capitalizing on that singer's strengths. I often suggest that the singer give the song an arc: for example, from slow/simple to big/dramatic back to slow/simple. I also suggest we choreograph it, sometimes down to her every movement.

2. Many songs begin with an ad-lib section. I always let the singer know that s/he can be as free as she wants with the tempo, can vary that from performance to performance, and be reassured that I will, if it's appropriate as it usually is, come in the nanosecond after s/he hits the note. To the audience, it will sound like I intuitively know when to come in but it's really that I'm just listening my butt off.

3. Throughout the song, I'm vigilant to provide the appropriate amount of support. I'm always trying to listen as deeply as I can to every note. If what s/he's singing requires simple playing, I accompany simply. If big, lush chords are required, I do that. If it needs to be more energetic, I'll play more rhythmically or jazzy.

I pay special attention to the last note in a phrase. Those can be the singer's most impressive moments and I make sure I'm not upstaging him or her yet not diminishing that note's power by playing too wimpily.

4. Volume is critical. Too soft and you're not providing the support the singer needs, too loud and you take away from her. Often, you can't tell whether you're too loud or too soft. So if we have a rehearsal at the venue or right before the audience enters, I ask a venue employee to move around the room while I accompany the singer doing a loud, medium, and soft passage. As he walks around, I ask him  to raise his palm if I should play louder and lower her palm if I should play softer.

5. It's often conventional for the singer to expect me to play an eight-bar solo during the bridge (the material between choruses.) Unless s/he needs that break to regain her breath or energy, I recommend against it. It takes attention away from the singer, reducing the power of the lyrics and connection with the audience. If s/he does want me to play a solo, yes, that's the time for me to play my ass off but never so much that when s/he comes back to sing, I've given her a hard act to follow.

6. Note that key to doing all this requires the accompanist to suppress his ego. When you are accompanying, you are, pardon the pun, playing second fiddle. It's still high art and a most worthy activity. Indeed I find accompanying a great singer as rewarding as playing solo.

HERE is a video of me accompanying Jeffrie Givens at a nightclub.

HERE is a video of me accompanying Taylor Bartolucci and James Sasser on my NPR-San Francisco radio show. .

How to Learn to Play the Piano By Ear--(Perhaps) All You Need to Know in Six Minutes

Update: This video wasn't originally in this post but a reader asked me to create one, so I've added it here and in a separate post I've just posted.

Many people take piano lessons with the goal of easily playing songs by ear, for example, at a party.

Yet the way they're taught, that rarely happens. They're taught mainly to read music. That doesn't develop your ear because you're translating what you see on the page to what you play with your fingers. Your ear is left out of the process.

If you aren't tone deaf, I'm guessing that the following is an efficient way to learn to play by ear. It's how I learned to.

Any keyboard will do but this Yamaha, for $249, is a good choice for a beginner.

The video above demonstrates the method. Here's that method in text: 

1. Using trial and error, try to, by ear,  with your right index finger, plunk out Mary Had a Little Lamb. Stay with it it until you can play it at the standard tempo. Each time you guess a note right or wrong, you're getting feedback on what the interval between two piano keys sounds like. Your ear, your ability to pick the right note to play, is thus constantly getting better.

2. After you can reliably plunk out Mary Had a Little Lamb with one finger, with the index finger of your left hand, try, again using trial and error, to play a note that sounds harmonious with the note you're playing in the right hand. Play one note on every beat. I show the beats in red CAPS:  
MAry HAD a LIttle LAMB, LIttle LAMB, LIttle LAMB,  
MAry HAD a LIttle LAMB,
Its FLEECE was WHITE as SNOW. 

3. When you can reliably do that, add a harmony note to the RIGHT hand on each beat. Again, trial and error. Each error and each success builds your ear's ability to predict what will likely sound good.  

4. Repeat steps 1-3 with other easy songs you can easily hum. It's best to start with songs with a short distance between most notes. Examples:  Do-Re-Mi, Jingle Bells, Yankee Doodle.

If I'm right, with far less practice than is required with traditional lessons, you'll be able to play, with harmony and rhythm, anything you can hum. 

This method could take you quite far. I learned piano playing this way and playing purely by ear, without reading music, I played over 2,000 union-professional gigs (including in brand-name orchestras like Lester Lanin, Peter Duchin, and Dwight Howard) in New York City between ages 12 and 22.  

At age 50, I  developed a hand condition, which rendered me a seven-fingered pianist but HERE is what I sound like with seven fingers. Of course, I'm playing by ear. The beginning isn't much but you might want to listen to all 3 1/2 minutes. 

Feel free to write a comment letting me know how well this method is working for you or if you have any questions.