Interesting article I was sent by a friend discussing Obama's stance on the war on drugs, I figured I would use it to open a discussion we haven't had for a good long while:
"I do believe the war on drugs has been an utter failure and we need to reassess how we handle this . . . I am not in favor of legalization . . . our current effort [is] expensive, it's counterproductive, and it doesn't make sense." - Obama
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-marijuana-legalization-122308
Over all a very interesting argument (not all made in the above argument):
- 782,000 marijuana arrests
- About 80,000 Americans a year go to prison for marijuana (more than all violent crimes combined)
- Economists estimate the Federal Government would net (net = save/make) $10-14,000,000,000.00 each year from decriminalization measures (to my surprise, not hacks either. 300 respected economists including Milton Friedman).
- It is estimated 50% of the drug trade involves marijuana (won't bother extrapolating the crime/cost of the illegal drug trade on society)
- Marijuana has some proven medical uses (proven by private institutes, universities, and the State of California. The Federal Government has not researched marijuana as a medical drug NOR has a potential hazard)
- Rate of marijuana use have not significantly changed in line with spending on the "war on drugs." Our current tactic of prohibition has not worked to achieve the goal of "just say no." (about 40% admit to trying [increased from 30% since the war on drugs began], 10% occasional, and 7% regular use - both held steady)
- Industrial products - ancillary industrial uses and agricultural production of hemp and hemp products
- Research - who knows what else the benefits or HARM of marijuana use, production, or research would be. The study is prohibited.
- Other examples - the United States has the highest percentage of adults who have tried marijuana and a relatively high use of regular users. Canada, Spain, England, France, New Zealand, Australia and the Checzk Republic are close by (above and below the USA). We spend more than all of them combined annually on drug prevention and have more people in prison for related crimes. What advantage do we achieve by this? Perhaps there are better examples of how to handle it.
- - - -
Just an interesting dialogue. Personally: so long as you aren't driving, breaking in to my home to fund your habit, endangering other people, or spending money you don't have on things you can't afford (thereby making me pay for housing, children, etc.) - I don't care what you do. The same logic applies to alcohol, tobacco, cocaine or marijuana.
Clearly some things have addictive qualities that would make them more susceptible to violations of the above than others (cocaine, heroine, etc.). Clearly some things are so detrimental that their use may be too dangerous for society (meth, crack). However it is hard to argue the effort and resources brought to bare against pot are proportional or beneficial.
Alcohol. Tobacco. Prescription medicine. Caffeine. Aspirin. Plenty of things cause more damage than marijuana. It is abused by "stoners" who habitual smoke up day and night, as alcoholics abuse their drug of choice. But mostly it's recreational use no different than having 3 or 4 beers at a Christmas party.
My over riding concern: what we are doing doesn't work and arguably doesn't make sense. Why don't we try something different? As soon as we find out someone can use something as a recreational drug, we make it illegal and chase after it. If we found you you could get high from pickled walnuts we would set about cutting down all walnut trees.
Calm down. Lets figure out a better way to handle this situation. I hope Obama says "yes we can!"
Full Disclaimer:
I have tried most every drug you can name including marijuana, and I inhaled deeply and often. When my son was born I decided I had to have other priorities and that a conviction on some stupid drug offense would seriously undermine such goals. So I no longer use illegal drugs and probably rarely would even if it was legal (availability of time to be able to lose control is scant, a good pot binge would have to be planned like a good alcohol binge = no kids to watch, no driving, etc.).
Basically, I have no personal user's stake in this discussion.
I, too, have no stake in this, not being a user. But, do believe something else needs to be done/tried.
I do know many folks who do use pot on a regular basis and still consider them to be otherwise fine, upstanding adult contributors to society. Virtually all are responsible with their use, though the law makes no distinction.
I do believe much of current juris prudence is oriented toward fulfilling contract requirements for 'per case' initiatives and prison population expectations (cash flow).
Just in Tulsa County Jail operations, it's estimated that over 50% of its' tenants are there on fairly minor pot charges. If the County lost this revenue, would operations yield the same result? They should, rather, not be dependent upon population.
That speaks nothing of the billions spent at the Federal level, excluding other billions provided countries like Colombia in the 'Drug War'.
...anyway, it could be time to try something else.
Mexico has been trying to legalize small amounts of recreational drugs for several years now but each attempt has been foiled by objections from the U.S.
Don't you just know that Mexico City is the most dynamic City in Northern American now – Given their young population and economic advances. And would it surprise you that very traditional Mexico has legalized gay marriage?
Anyway, Mexico City apparently has managed to get around U.S. objections to decriminalization. Here's what happened there this past October.
October 31, 2008
Latin America: Mexico City to Decriminalize Marijuana Possession?
view translation
While the government of Mexican President Felipe Calderón has signaled that it wants to decriminalize drug possession, legislators in Mexico City aren't waiting for the government to act. The left-leaning Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) has introduced legislation that would decriminalize marijuana possession in Mexico City and provide for the opening of establishments that would sell up to five grams per person, the same limit as Holland's famous marijuana coffee shops.
The legislation was presented by PRD Deputy and Federal District Legislative Assembly President Víctor Hugo Círigo on October 14. It includes a provision limiting the amount of pot one could possess without penalty to 30 grams, or slightly more than one ounce. Círigo said the legislation also envisions allowing people to grow up to five plants in their homes.
Under current law, marijuana is illegal, and the importation of seeds or other products derived from marijuana is also illegal. In Mexico City, people caught smoking marijuana are typically fined 21 to 30 days minimum salary (a common way of computing fines in Latin America) or jailed for 24 to 36 hours.
Círigo told a press conference he was proposing the legislation because of the therapeutic uses of the herb. He also cited its potential impact on Mexico's drug trafficking organizations. Nearly 4,000 people have been killed so far this year in prohibition-related violence as the various so-called cartels, Mexican state, local, and federal police forces, and the Mexican military engage in a multi-sided war over the illicit drug trade.
"In Italy and Canada they utilize it for therapeutic uses, and in other countries like Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, and Portugal it is decriminalized," said Círigo.
Círigo said organized crime is making $13 billion a year off the drug trade. More than half of that -- $8 billion -- is derived from the marijuana business, he said.
"We are going to hit the drug traffickers where it hurts most, which is decriminalizing marijuana," he said.
If the measure were to pass in the local legislative assembly, it would then be sent to the federal congress, which could then amend federal health laws to allow for decriminalization. President Calderón called recently for the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of all drugs, including up to two grams of marijuana, but Círigo called Calderón's proposal "weak and timid."
In response to a question during the press conference, Círigo said he had smoked pot as a youth, but no longer did so. "I smoked in my youth in the '70s," he said. "I was class of 1978, and of course I know what it is to smoke marijuana."
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/558/mexico_city_federal_district_marijuana_decriminalization_bill_introduced
Dude?
Dude!
I dont "use" it and have never tried it.
It seems to me that there are a handful of shared, root causes to most of todays ills. From the kids in the news, just today, killing or getting killed, to dropping out of school, to people having abortions, using drugs, stealing, etc. etc. If we were wave a magic wand and get rid of every criminal there was at this very moment... a new group would be there the very next day to take their place, with more to follow. We cant arrest, lock up, or punish our way out of crime. At this point in our societies development, I think we would be better served putting more focus on getting to the root causes.
I was listening to an abortion debate the other day. Legal or Illegal. Looks like a political stalemate. I kept thinking... If these people would use their passion, energy and money they are using to fight each other, to getting rid of the conditions which would cause someone to consider having an abortion, we would eliminate just as many as we likely could by making them illegal. AND you would still want to get rid of the underlying causes anyway. As I thought about some of the various likely causes, many went back to basic parenting, education, and social habits and conditions, etc. The major root causes that we should want to change and make better anyway. No matter what crime you talk about the root causes end up being the same. So by fighting the root causes of one,,, you fight the root causes of them all.
There are always exceptions (the rare person who genetically has no empathy, the people who become easily addicted to "drugs, gambling, food, sex, etc.") But even those can be defined and addressed. And it still seems more productive to me to get at the big root causes, to really sit down and define what they are and how to tackle them, (I dont pretend to absolutely know) versus fighting about each different end result, spending time, money and effort making laws against the end results. There are so many groups for and against so many things, fighting, capturing, processing, punishing, locking up,,, the end results that if they were to get together changing the root causes, we could make some real headway.
So as for worrying about a law in some book for or against marijuana...
It keeps reminding me of something I heard in church. Laws written in the hearts and minds of men. Thats where they should be written, where our major attentions should be focused. On earth as it is in heaven. Isnt that the ultimate goal? And all else distraction?
I dont do or not do things because its in some law book or treatise. Sure we have to have things written down as guidelines, best practices, to remember and check what we have agreed upon, to learn from, teach from, etc. But ultimately I do whats written in my heart and mind, despite whats written in stone or paper. I have to believe it and think its right. And I am sure most people do as well. Change whats on paper if you must, but the result will only happen if you change peoples hearts and minds. If you get to the root cause and have people that want to do good, have the skills to make good choices, and know the good choices to choose from... Will it matter if marijuana is legal or not? Abortion, gun control, alcohol, gangs, theft, etc.?
Pollyanish true. Could we ever perfectly get there,,, who knows. Will the way we have been doing things really ever work? Which path should deserve more of our focus?
Just some thoughts.
We're Puritans, and we've always been Puritans at heart. A major strain in American culture really wants sharp, hard lines drawn between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Aside from the economic interest in keeping marijuana prohibition alive, I really think we just like to know that there're plenty of bad things out there against which we can make the heroic choice to be good. Never mind the underlying logic or science.
It really is funny that we are discussing this subject.
Just last night I was screaming at my son and his friends. I told them that I don't care what you do in your free time, but if your recreational use of pot interferes with your ability to function and contribute to society then it is no longer deemed recreational. It is then an addiction that is preventing you from proceeding with life.
You have to keep a job and maintain your responsibilities. Otherwise your just a stagnant drain on the system. I won't support you and you won't live in my house.
One of his "friends" told me I was disrespecting him and he did not appreciate it.
I then told him he could "get out!"
I am sure he only has 2 brain cells left and they are busy fighting each other. LOL
I also feel that there are a lot of people in jail for minor pot offenses. It is a way for counties and cities to make revenue. I am not sure how they would replace this revenue. I am also sure this is a factor when debating the issue of legalization.
Disclaimer:
I have smoked A LOT of pot in my life. I have not used any other illegal drug. I always kept this aspect of my life separate from my kids. They were always first. I am also of the frame of mind that an occasional buzz at a party is harmless. I also work 60 hours a week and take care of my responsibilities. My yard and my house are clean and by looking at me you would never suspect a thing. I probably participate about 2 times a year. [}:)] Now you know!!
quote:
Originally posted by Jonette
I also feel that there are a lot of people in jail for minor pot offenses. It is a way for counties and cities to make revenue. I am not sure how they would replace this revenue.
That's easy. Start by enforcing laws and getting convictions on misdeeds that are more important and impactful on society.
Can't really argue you about your son's slacker
friends.
Disclosure: I've never smoked pot in my life. I've always been strongly adverse to tobacco, so marijuana obviously has never appealed to me.
Besides, beer is cheaper, legal and more tasty.
Ewwwwwwwwwwwww I don't like BEER!!
I don't see what people like in the taste of beer. Not an enjoyable taste to me at all.
I do like the occasional mixed drink (maybe twice a year) maybe a long island iced tea, but that's all the alcohol I can stand.
I also don't drink or smoke till I am like this [xx(] either.
Just a little fun buzz, that's all ya need. Everything in moderation people.
Keep it simple.
[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Besides, beer is cheaper, legal and more tasty.
I disagree on cheaper and more tasty, but it is much easier and safer to acquire and certainly more socially accepted.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Besides, beer is cheaper, legal and more tasty.
I disagree on cheaper ...
Your weed must have a lot of seeds and stems. [;)]
Seeds and stems?[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Jonette
Seeds and stems?[:D]
Yeah, bong fodder... :D
I've always felt that alcohol was far and away more dangerous than pot. Go ask any ER doc or nurse about the number of pot heads or pot-related injuries they see.
Ya. I know what stems and seeds are. I thought it was a weird reference coming from someone who has "Never" smoked.[?]
E.R. patrons of the intoxicated kind are mostly alcohol related. ALL THE TIME!!!!
Pot smokers? NEVER!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Jonette
Ya. I know what stems and seeds are. I thought it was a weird reference coming from someone who has "Never" smoked.[?]
It's called reading a lot. And I wasn't born yesterday, y'know.
Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen
I'm sittin alone, Saturday night, watching the Late Late Show.
A bottle of wine, some cigarettes, I got no place to go.
Well, I saw your other man today; he was wearing my brand new shoes,
And I'm down to seeds and stems again, too.
Well, I met my old friend Bob today from up in Bowling Green;
He had the prettiest little gal that I'd ever seen.
But I couldn't hide my tears at all, cause she looked just like you,
And I'm down to seeds and stems again, too.
Now everybody tells me there's other ways to get high.
They don't seem to understand I'm too far gone to try.
Now these lonely memories, they're all I can't lose,
And I'm down to seeds and stems again, too.
Well my dog died just yesterday and left me all alone.
The finance company dropped by today and repossessed my home.
That's just a drop in the bucket compared to losing you,
And I'm down to seeds and stems again, too.
Got the Down to Seeds an Stems again Blues.
I just watched some of Cops and this one scene was just a marijuana arrest. What was striking was that the cop himself admired the nice looking buds and was not in any tizzy about arresting the guy. The guy had no other drugs on him. He was booked on the felony of selling pot, based on the amount he had (about an ounce).
Tell me, is that really worth it all? It seems to me the most the guy was guilty of was possessing a jar full of plant matter and being a nice guy.
I am like the OP, I don't smoke it because it is not worth the potential trouble. What worries me is that the punishment certainly does not fit the crime here. Also, from other stories I am aware of the DEA is basing its scheduling of marijuana on the drug list based on non existent facts. However it also refuses to acknowledge marijuana on a medical level. It is certainly a criminal shame that deserves Supreme Court attention in order to make the DEA reassess its principles.
Medical Marijuana prohibition is the most absurd, unethical drug policy in existence. To deny dying patients who are literally wasting away, often due to side effects of treatment, a relatively harmless substance that could help alleviate their loss of appetite and nausea so they might maintain proper nourishment while engaging in a courageous battle to overcome a life threatening illness, is truly criminal.
I hate to break up the marijuana wonder drug party but...
Smoking marijuana also weakens the immune system and raises the risk of lung infections.
-I. B. Adams and BR Martin, "Cannabis: Pharmacology and Toxicology in Animals and Humans" Addiction 91: 1585-1614. 1996.
National Institute of Drug Abuse, "Smoking Any Substance Raises Risk of Lung Infections" NIDA Notes, Volume 12, Number 1, January/February 1997.
A Columbia University study found that a control group smoking a single marijuana cigarette every other day for a year had a white-blood-cell count that was 39 percent lower than normal, thus damaging the immune system and making the user far more susceptible to infection and sickness. - Dr. James Dobson, "Marijuana Can Cause Great Harm" Washington Times, February 23, 1999.
Any determination of a drug's valid medical use must be based on the best available science undertaken by medical professionals. The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.- "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Institute of Medicine, 1999.
In other studies, smoked marijuana has been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer, respiratory problems, increased heart rate, loss of motor skills, and increased heart rate. Furthermore, marijuana can affect the immune system by impairing the ability of T-cells to fight off infections, demonstrating that marijuana can do more harm than good in people with already compromised immune systems. - I. B. Adams and BR Martin, "Cannabis: Pharmacology and Toxicology in Animals and Humans" Addiction 91: 1585-1614. 1996.
Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana. - "Marijuana and Heart Attacks" Washington Post, March 3, 2000
In addition, in a recent study by the Mayo Clinic, THC was shown to be less effective than standard treatments in helping cancer patients regain lost appetites. - Marijuana Appetite Boost Lacking in Cancer Study" The New York Times, May 13, 2001
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I hate to break up the marijuana wonder drug party but...
Smoking marijuana also weakens the immune system and raises the risk of lung infections.
-I. B. Adams and BR Martin, "Cannabis: Pharmacology and Toxicology in Animals and Humans" Addiction 91: 1585-1614. 1996.
National Institute of Drug Abuse, "Smoking Any Substance Raises Risk of Lung Infections" NIDA Notes, Volume 12, Number 1, January/February 1997.
A Columbia University study found that a control group smoking a single marijuana cigarette every other day for a year had a white-blood-cell count that was 39 percent lower than normal, thus damaging the immune system and making the user far more susceptible to infection and sickness. - Dr. James Dobson, "Marijuana Can Cause Great Harm" Washington Times, February 23, 1999.
(blah blah blah)
Then you have the unrepentant, pot-smoking Willie Nelson, who's 75 years old, still doing hundreds of shows a year, and about the only health issue he's had is carpal tunnel syndrome, which was caused by his guitar-playing, not marijuana. And his hands are now fine after surgery, thank ya very much.
The health studies you cited are pretty weak tea, IMO. Many of them are nearly 10 years old, and I can find you other studies that show marijuana creating certain benefits or, at most, being benign.
A hint: It's not wise to cite a vain ideologue like Jame Dobson as a source.
I've never smoked pot, and have no stake it. I see little harm in it being legal, as long as people don't drive or use heavy machinery under its influence. (Usual DUI laws apply.) I'm basing my stance on life observation and good science. There just isn't a very compelling reason to keep pot illegal anymore, and a number of voters in other states have already headed in this direction.
You're a cop. You have a vested interest to keep marijuana illegal. Just sayin'.
People have relatives that have smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for years and show no ill effects but they are still proven to be harmful so your example of Willie Nelson is severely lacking.
Just because you don't like the results of the scientific studies I mentioned does not make them any less valid. Some are dated by a whopping 10 years, however, scientists don't restudy the positive effects of penicillin or the polio vaccine to keep them valid.
As far as the "cop" angle, if you make marijuana legal it is one less thing to enforce which makes my job easier. In addition, more wide spread marijuana use will likely cause an increase in crime which in turn causes me to chase more criminals which makes my job more fun. So actually, on a professional level, I would be for legalizing it. However, after seeing the effects of marijuana use on families,teenagers and adults, on a personal level, I hope that it stays illegal.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
As far as the "cop" angle, if you make marijuana legal it is one less thing to enforce which makes my job easier. In addition, more wide spread marijuana use will likely cause an increase in crime which in turn causes me to chase more criminals which makes my job more fun. So actually, on a professional level, I would be for legalizing it. However, after seeing the effects of marijuana use on families,teenagers and adults, on a personal level, I hope that it stays illegal.
Easier? How many pot busts do you do that your job would be 'easier'? Stop. Please. I am glad you are willing to stand in the gap between good people and bad people, but this war on non-taxable items cannot be rationalized. You want to save the yoots and 'families'? You should advocate alkeehawl prohibition too.
I make alot of marijuana arrests. Alcohol and marijuana are completely two different animals when it comes to use, addiction and recovery.
I appreciate the points of view offered here. I have a tremendous respect for LEO's and I believe the majority of them have empathy towards those they arrest for substances. I would daresay that marijuana alone while not healthy in the strictest sense of the word it is far less destructive than the other drugs such as opiates and uppers.
To be fair, people are going to smoke whether it is bad for them or not, whether it is pot or 'baccy. And look at the 'baccy plant... people can grow if they wish but they prefer the convenience of being able to buy it ready made. So the lack of taxation issues is not a concern.
Marijuana is the one and only drug we are concerned about, as far as legalization efforts. Can anyone remember exactly why it is illegal in the first place? Was it a bad thing? Where is the evidence of it, that it is worse than the other two big legal drugs, alcohol and 'baccy? Are the ER rooms full of pot related injuries?
Thanks to all who contributed their voice and feel free to speak out, or hold your peace in this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Pebbles
Marijuana is the one and only drug we are concerned about, as far as legalization efforts. Can anyone remember exactly why it is illegal in the first place? Was it a bad thing? Where is the evidence of it, that it is worse than the other two big legal drugs, alcohol and 'baccy? Are the ER rooms full of pot related injuries?
PBS, History, or Discovery had a history of Illegal Drugs and how they got that way.
What I remember from the series is that Marijuana was largely a drug of the minorities who were feared for probably trumped up reasons. Also the liquor interests had an interest in getting rid of some of the competition. I don't remember any truly legitimate reason at the time it was made illegal.
Okay. first of all marijuana is not "dope".
Marijuana is "pot"
Crank, Coke, Meth, opiates, and crack are "dope".
Second. The E.R. is not full of "pot" related injuries because pot heads smoke up and stay home on the sofa listening to music and watching the TV with the volume muted. And when some idiot starts a fight, the pot head will stop the whole thing. It goes some thing like this.
"Come on mannnnnnnnnn.........Calmmmmmm down. You don't want to fight tonight?, do ya? Smoke another bowl and chill out mannnnnnnnn"[8D]
Another peaceful night and no injuries.
[}:)]
Thousands of Board Certified Doctors across the U.S. in states that have laws that permit have written prescriptions for the medical use of marijuana.
Tulsa likes to fancy herself a leader in medicine but in this regard Oklahoma is far behind the curve.
MH2010:
1) Yes, studies have shown that smoking an unfiltered marijuana joint is bad for your health (and 10 years old is a perfectly valid study in most fields). Just as smoking one unfiltered cigarette each day would be bad for your health. Or smoking ANYTHING is bad for your health. The study cited has fault and has been criticized, but I have no doubts consistently smoking anything is bad for your health.
I also don't deny that there are probably compounds in the smoke that cause cancer. It stands to reason, it is smoke. Likewise, I will believe that the risk of a heart attack in the 5 minutes after smoking increases five fold to 1:1,000,000 - so what? The risk of heart attack increases about that much with excess intake of caffeine (excess being more than one cup of coffee).
Smoking one joint a day would be a fairly heavy habit. A healthy joint is enough to get a decent buzz going. I imagine drinking enough alcohol to get a decent buzz going on a daily basis would also be bad for your health. So would holding your breath until you get dizzy every day...
What I'm getting at is the health pitfalls of smoking marijuana that you cited do not rise to the level of many, many things that ARE legal. Tobacco, alcohol, red bull and on and on. Many legal prescription medicines have MUCH more severe side effects than those listed for marijuana but Doctors and Patients are free to decide if the rewards are worth the side effects.
I won't bother showing the numerous studies that offset your studies - like all research you can find some support for both sides. The fact is - actual research on marijuana is scant and when performed it is thin.
Basically, medical detriment is clearly not a sound or justifiable reason to keep marijuana illegal, let alone classified as a felony worthy item.
2)
quote:
However, after seeing the effects of marijuana use on families,teenagers and adults, on a personal level, I hope that it stays illegal.
Most of the negative effects of marijuana are BECAUSE it is illegal. Criminal elements. Secrecy. Gangs.
Evading arrest. Lying to police officers. Running from the law. Even most "rehab" for marijuana offenses (much cited in addiction studies) are essentially court-ordered (in lieu of jail time).
Just like any other form of recreation, excessive or improper use is detrimental. You can't skip school to smoke pot or be stoned in school just like I can't skip work to go fishing o go online to buy lures while billing a client. You can't smoke a cigar a day and not expect it to impact your health. You can't get "buzzed" on alcohol each day and expect all to be well.
What detrimental impact on people or families does excessive marijuana use have that is not related to it being illegal OR not common to excessive adherence to other forms of recreation?
3) More widespread marijuana use will cause an increase in crime?
Please explain. I have been around a lot of pot smokers, both when they are smoking and not smoking. Other than possessing and smoking pot I don't think I have seen any crimes committed while high (underage drinking probably). I've never seen the effect of marijuana to be to encourage reckless, violent, or otherwise criminal behavior.
The propensity to steal money to buy pot would be no higher than the propensity to steal money or commit other crimes to fund any other recreational activity (drinking, movies, video games).
All associated crimes of distribution, selling, gang territory, and other "criminal elements" would be eliminated.
Please explain.
I'm not trying to be coy, I really don't see how legalizing marijuana would increase crime. Unless you subscribe to the "addicted baby killer pot" rhetoric of the 1950 and 60's. Which leads us to...
4) Addiction.
Yes, it has been shown than lab rats will self administer THC. They will also self administer alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, prosaic/xanax, and sugar pills (really really). If that is our basis for banning it, then lets start in on the list and get rid of all the above.
Likewise, in a self-reported study (read: worst kind, but because we can not actual fund marijuana research the only kind we get) users of tobacco and marijuana gave one or the other up. Both reported similar withdrawal symptoms. The study concluded they have the same addictive nature.
I take great objection to the both the methodology of and conclusion of the study: asking someone to "describe your withdrawal symptoms" is a loaded question and would likely illicit typical reprogram responses. Furthermore, for people who smoke cigarettes, the activity usually accompanies marijuana use. Hence, less pot smoking would mean less nicotine intake.
Nonetheless, accepting the study on face value - the people in the study smoked marijuana at least 25 times each month. Certainly enough to be considered heavy usage. Most activities that puts chemicals of any kind in to your system on a regular basis would be deemed active - morning coffee, sugary cereals, or even exercise.
I smoke an occasional cigar. Probably about as often as I would smoke pot should I be inclined to. Perhaps while out camping, or a cool summer evening on my porch, or at a bachelor party I'll break out some decent cigars. Yet I remain un-addicted even though the addictive nature of tobacco is well known. YET, if I smoked 25 Cigars a month I SURELY would be.
I go gambling on occasion. Certainly an activity that has no positive social effects outside of recreation but a huge potential negative. People get addicted, it ruins families, it can cause crime. Yet I have not done any of those.
I accept the premise that someone who smokes marijuana to get high 25 times a month is probably mentally, socially, and physically addicted. That premise simply does not concern me enough to classify pot as a substance on par with heroine.
5) Your experience as an officer is skewed.
Everyone you have seen with marijuana is a criminal. Without exception. Your experience with marijuana is generally catching people with it who are otherwise doing something wrong: People arrest for crimes that have possession. People who have a drug problem. People who are involved with gangs and/or transporting and selling drugs for profit. Generally found or discovered in relation to some other crime (how many times do you set out to bust a pot smoker?).
Hence, you associate marijuana with the negative connotation in which you experience it.
If all I saw of alcohol use was in an ICU, addiction treatment center, or use by gang members and underage kids I would assume it could only be evil. But my experience is broader and more varied with alcohol. Unfortunately, all the responsible marijuana users are the ones you DON'T SEE. By definition, you only see the ones that are criminals.
- - - - -
Basically, all the reasons you are giving to support your contention can be pointed at a glut of other substances. Notably alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco, but many others as well. Like so many things it is possible to abuse it.
The possibility of abuse, or negative consequences of over use, or even the possibility of physical harm from recreational use is NOT a reason to make or keep it illegal. If it is, the label applies to just about everything we do for recreation, many prescription medications, and a dizzying array of household products that can be abused.
SO, I have a set of honest questions:
1) what is the harm of the use of marijuana in a manner similar to the responsible use of alcohol (which includes occasional drunkenness), tobacco, or gambling?
2) As a law officer, do you feel the war on marijuana use has been effective? If so, please explain why usage rates and "triers" have remained steady and what is being done to remedy that.
3) Please explain the pitfalls and benefits you can see of legalized marijuana, and what restrictions you might think would enable that possibility.
and 4) What, if any, basis, finding, or discovery would change your mind? (essentially trying to find the root of your objection: addiction, health risks, crime)
[sorry to be long winded, trying to be comprehensive]
Wooooooooohoooooooooooo!!!! Cannon Fodder!!!
Well said...well said.
Have a nice day!
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I make alot of marijuana arrests. Alcohol and marijuana are completely two different animals when it comes to use, addiction and recovery.
Yeah, marijuana isn't physically addictive. (although it can be psychologically addictive, as can any habit, all the way down to biting your nails)
With alcohol, you get both the physical and psychological addiction, with the added bonus of physical withdrawal so severe it can literally kill a heavy drinker to go cold turkey.
They are indeed quite different.
***
MH2010: I realize you are not a spokesmen for the TPD (or whomever you work for) and do not mean to make you into some sort of spokesmen. Your position is unique on the topic and your profession gives you a valuable insight. I engaged you simply because you offered the most insightful opinion contrary to my own.
[DELETED ENTIRE REPLY]
A clue as to why enforcement in Oklahoma is completely upside down, from the AP:
'Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs spokesman Mark Woodward says it's "absolutely frightening" that some people are becoming more tolerant of marijuana.
Woodward says he's seen more lives ruined by marijuana than any other drug.'
The person in that position really needs to be looking at meth and out-of-control prescription drugs before making marijuana the priority.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
A clue as to why enforcement in Oklahoma is completely upside down, from the AP:
'Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs spokesman Mark Woodward says it's "absolutely frightening" that some people are becoming more tolerant of marijuana.
Woodward says he's seen more lives ruined by marijuana than any other drug.'
The person in that position really needs to be looking at meth and out-of-control prescription drugs before making marijuana the priority.
I'm no advocate of pot-smoking, but that guy is a frickin' idiot. If he truly believes that (and I think it's more posturing than honesty), he needs to get out more.
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply but I've been busy. I don't have alot of time but I will reply as best I can now. As far as your questions go, I think it would be faster to just cite some of the reasons I think the way I do about marijuana.
The American Cancer Society "does not advocate inhaling smoke, nor the legalization of marijuana," although the organization does support carefully controlled clinical studies for alternative delivery methods, specifically a THC skin patch. In addition, the American Academy of Pediatrics believes that any change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults, could affect the prevalence of use among adolescents. However, it does support scientific research on the possible medical use of cannabinoids as opposed to smoked marijuana.
Research is not "scant". DEA had registered every one of the 163 researchers who requested to use marijuana in studies and who met Department of Health and Human Services standards. The Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) has conducted studies "to ascertain the general medical safety and efficacy of cannabis and cannabis products and examine alternative forms of cannabis administration." The CMCR currently has 11 on-going studies involving marijuana and the efficacy of cannabis and cannabis compounds as they relate to medical conditions such as HIV, cancer pain, MS, and nausea. Still the American Medical Association does not want to legalize smoking of marijuana.
The American Medical Association continues to reject pleas to endorse marijuana as medicine, and instead has urged that marijuana remain a prohibited, Schedule I controlled substance until more research is done. If the AMA is against legalization then it stands to reason it's a good idea to keep it that way.
If THC is so good, put it in a pill. Smoking marijuana is clearly not a safe delivery system for "cannabinoids".
I also don't understand the whole reasoning of why we should legalize it just because alcohol, tobacco or gambling is legalized. Smoking marijuana is clearly hazardous to everyone's health and has no medical value. At least you can say alcohol is a blood thinner and ingesting limited amounts of alcohol does have some medical benefit. Gambling has no effect on you physically it is more of a social concern.
Marijuana is not harmless and it's not because it's illegal.
In 2002, the percentage of young people engaging in delinquent behaviors "rose with [the] increasing frequency of marijuana use." For example, according to a National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) report, 42.2 per cent of youths who smoked marijuana 300 or more days per year and 37.1 per cent of those who did so 50-99 days took part in serious fighting at school or work. Only 18.2 per cent of those who did not use marijuana in the past year engaged in serious fighting. -Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office of Applied Sciences. "Marijuana Use and Delinquent Behaviors Among Youths." The NSDUH Report. 9 January 2004.
A large shock trauma unit conducting an ongoing study found that 17 per cent (one in six) of crash victims tested positive for marijuana. The rates were slightly higher for crash victims under the age of eighteen, 19 per cent of whom tested positive for marijuana.- Drugged Driving Poses Serious Safety Risk to Teens; Campaign to Urge Teens to 'Steer Clear of Pot' During National Drunk and Drugged Driving (3D) Prevention Month." PR Newswire. 2 December 2004.
As far as the war on drugs being effective, I believe it has been when you look at how much effort is being put in to bringing the drugs into the US. The police play by rules drug traffickers do not. The drug trade is a billion dollar industry. Law enforcement (the people who actually fight the war on drugs) have limited budgets.
In 2005, the Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey recorded an overall 19.1 per cent decrease in current use of illegal drugs between 2001 and 2005, edging the nation closer to its five-year goal of a 25 per cent reduction in illicit drug use in 2006. Specific to marijuana, the 2005 MTF survey showed:
Between 2001 and 2005, marijuana use dropped in all three categories: lifetime (13%), past year (15%) and 30-day use (19%). Current marijuana use decreased 28 per cent among 8th graders (from 9.2% to 6.6%), and 23 per cent among 10th graders (from 19.8 per cent to 15.2%). - Monitoring the Future, 2005. Supplemented by information from the Office of National Drug Control Policy press release on the 2005 MTF Survey, December 19, 2005.)
The Netherlands attempted to legalize marijuana then decided it wasn't a good idea.
Due to international pressure on permissive Dutch cannabis policy and domestic complaints over the spread of marijuana "coffee shops," the government of the Netherlands has reconsidered its legalization measures. After marijuana became normalized, consumption nearly tripled – from 15 per cent to 44 per cent – among 18 to 20 year-old Dutch youth. Dr. Ernest Bunning, formerly with Holland's Ministry of Health and a principal proponent of that country's liberal drug philosophy, has acknowledged that, "[t]here are young people who abuse soft drugs . . . particularly those that have [a] high THC [content]. The place that cannabis takes in their lives becomes so dominant they don't have space for the other important things in life. They crawl out of bed in the morning, grab a joint, don't work, smoke another joint. They don't know what to do with their lives." -Collins, Larry. "Holland's Half-Baked Drug Experiment." Foreign Affairs Vol. 73, No. 3. May-June 1999: Pages 87-88.
Other studies in countries (Switzerland, Canada and the United Kingdon) where marijuana laws were relaxed show increased problems. I don't know why people thing we would be any different.
When the AMA endorses smoking marijuana as medicine and when the below studies are no longer valid then I will be good with legalizing marijuana.
Adolescents are at highest risk for marijuana addiction, as they are "three times more likely than adults to develop dependency." -"Marijuana Myths & Facts: The Truth Behind 10 Popular Misperceptions." Office of National Drug Control Policy. <http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/marijuana_myths_facts/index.html> (12 January 2006).
Marijuana is a frequent precursor to the use of more dangerous drugs, and signals a significantly enhanced likelihood of drug problems in adult life. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported, based on a study of 300 sets of twins, "that marijuana-using twins were four times more likely than their siblings to use cocaine and crack cocaine, and five times more likely to use hallucinogens such as LSD." - "What Americans Need to Know about Marijuana." Office of National Drug Control Policy. October 2003.
Long-term studies on patterns of drug usage among young people show that very few of them use other drugs without first starting with marijuana. For example, one study found that among adults (age 26 and older) who had used cocaine, 62 per cent had initiated marijuana use before age 15. By contrast, less than one per cent of adults who never tried marijuana went on to use cocaine. - Gfroerer, Joseph C., et al. "Initiation of Marijuana Use: Trends, Patterns and Implications." Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. July 2002. Page 71.
Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse reports that teens who used marijuana at least once in the last month are 13 times likelier than other teens to use another drug like cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine, and almost 26 times likelier than those teens who have never used marijuana to use another drug. - "Non-Medical Marijuana II: Rite of Passage or Russian Roulette?" CASA Reports. April 2004. Chapter V, Page 15.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by patric
A clue as to why enforcement in Oklahoma is completely upside down, from the AP:
'Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs spokesman Mark Woodward says it's "absolutely frightening" that some people are becoming more tolerant of marijuana.
Woodward says he's seen more lives ruined by marijuana than any other drug.'
The person in that position really needs to be looking at meth and out-of-control prescription drugs before making marijuana the priority.
I'm no advocate of pot-smoking, but that guy is a frickin' idiot. If he truly believes that (and I think it's more posturing than honesty), he needs to get out more.
100% agreed.
That guy is a real buzz-kill.
Thanks for the reply. However, I don't buy your arguments and find most of the studies to be less than persuasive. For example:
1) The "gateway drug" argument fails in that one could look at tobacco or alcohol as a gateway drug with exactly the same correlation. Most people that use Meth smoke cigarettes. Therefor, cigarettes increase your risk of using meth. The gateway drug argument has been long abandoned as justification for the war on drugs.
Correlation does not equal causation. A theme consistent in the research studies...
2) "42.2 per cent of youths who smoked marijuana 300 or more days per year and 37.1 per cent of those who did so 50-99 days took part in serious fighting at school or work. Only 18.2 per cent of those who did not use marijuana in the past year engaged in serious fighting."
First - 300 or more days a year? REALLY? A high school kid that smokes pot 300+ days a year would be in the very upper echelon of users. I suggest the sample here is heavily skewed.
Second, I wholeheartedly agree that marijuana can be abused just like any recreational activity. Clearly getting drunk, gambling, or even eating bacon and eggs for breakfast more than 300 times per year would be bad for you and likely lead to behavior problems. I'm not arguing smoking pot is good for people and particular not for youths.
Third, correlation does not mean causation. It is highly like the same youths who use marijuana more than 300 days per year have other social issues. Certainly including a lack of parental involvement and extracurricular activities (300+ days a year?). Lets look at kids whose parents wouldn't notice there son/daughter smelling like smoke and stoned most days and correlate that with the kids who get in fights.
And 15 is high school. I'm guessing a large percentage of kids who end up trying marijuana do so by age 15. Sounds amazingly young to me now, but it is a sophomore in high school... I certainly fall into that bracket. And nonetheless, I do not advocate legalization of drug use by children to any degree.
The over riding theme you should pick up on in the stats mentioned is that correlation does not equal causation.
3) The AMA is not the center of our drug policy. The AMA is as political as the ABA. I will take their advise on the health effects of smoking marijuana and still agree that smoking anything is bad for your health.
4) Limited budgets? The United States spends about $50,000,000,000.00 a year on the war on drugs. Enough to make the war on drugs itself a VERY significant industry.
For comparison, all the hiphop/rap shows, album sales, and TV deals netted about $10 Billion last year. Porn is a $14 Billion industry. The US Wine industry produces about $25 Billion worth of product. We can throw in mobile ring tones, games and image sharing services to reach $50 Billion.
That's a damn big budget. Certainly a large enough industry to have some political power. If the budget currently available hasn't had any impact on the problem at all (per the data I shared above), I don't imagine doubling or tripling it would really get the job done.
5) My argument is not that alcohol or gambling is without problems, I use those "vices" as comparison because most things in our society that can serve a recreational purpose can be abused. Alcohol and gambling are the best known examples. MOST people partake to some degree and MOST people do not have a problem with it. Some do.
However, we have decided that as a society it is not worth the effort to banish these substances and with some restrictions trust that MOST adults are capable of negotiating it for themselves.
See, ie, prohibition. Dry counties. States without gambling. All of course farces.
6) And finally I am NOT arguing that marijuana is harmless. Kids should not be allowed to use it (just as they should not smoke, drink, go to strip clubs, gamble, or a litany of other adult activities). It is bad for all people to smoke anything. And can be abused to an extent destroying a persons life.
I agree with all those things.
I merely think pretending that our current policy is stopping kids from smoking marijuana is willful ignorance. I think pretending that everyone who wants to smoke pot gets something less than as much pot as they want is sad. Just like Oklahoma pretending alcoholics take Sundays off is pure fiction.
- - -
Our current drug policy consumes an enormous amount of resources and has had a minimal impact on the underlying problem. Like all drugs (alcohol, prescription, or otherwise) marijuana use should not be encouraged and is subject to abuse. However, the policy of a schedule 1 ban is without justification and in my opinion creates more problems than it solves.
In 8 days Barrack Obama takes office. That will mark 3 straight presidents who admit to having smoked pot. If any of the three were to have been caught at any juncture they almost certainly would not have ascended to such a position. The difference is not that they smoked pot or not, the difference is that were not caught. Three presidents in a row, all former pot smokers...
If we are in to correlation, I then propose we all smoke pot to increase our chances of being President.
[:P]
- - - -
Are you in agreement that the current course of action is not working? That is to say, decade to decade the use rates of marijuana are holding fairly steady (you can pick peaks and valleys to show it is either radically rises or falling over a given period, but since the war on drugs began...)?
You define the problem as ancillary issues to the use of marijuana (health issues, correlations with violence, crime and other problems). What changes in policy do you propose to help the situation?
If your saying marijuana is not harmless then where should it be classified?
Marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug. To be on the Schedule 1 list the following is required:
1.The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
2.The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3.There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Now here are the requirements for the other schedules:
Schedule II
1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
3.Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
Schedule III
1.The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
2.The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3.Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
Schedule IV
1.The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
2.The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3.Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
Schedule V
1.The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
2.The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3.Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
Given these definitions where should it be placed? Or should it not be scheduled at all?
I never mentioned causation. No one has been able to show the exact reason why people use marijuana or other drugs. However, studies can show correlations. Your correlation argument is a joke. I'm sure all the presidents drank milk also. So in your argument then drinking milk will increase your chances in becoming the president.
The studies I have listed show direct correlations in marijuana smoking and increased drug use/dependency later in life. I'm glad you try to discredit the studies by making them a punchline.
I completly agree that the US spends alot on the war on drugs. However, that budget is terribly mismanaged. We need to do a better job stoping the drugs at the borders before they make it in.
If the US wanted to get serious about the war on drugs, we would build a wall along the Mexico and Canada borders and expand the border patrol to man check stations all along the borders. But that is an argument for another thread.
If the War on Drugs has become a $50 Billion industry, then there are many people employed by the industry collecting regular paychecks that have a vested interest in seeing that the industry is perpetual?
Question: What happened to the illegal liquor business and crime associated with prohibition after legalization?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
If the War on Drugs has become a $50 Billion industry, then there are many people employed by the industry collecting regular paychecks that have a vested interest in seeing that the industry is perpetual?
Question: What happened to the illegal liquor business and crime associated with prohibition after legalization?
It's still there. It just moved over to raquetering, illegal drugs, extortion ect.
I did not merely glaze over the correlative studies, I surmised that they had little value past face value.
Saying "someone who smokes marijuana 86% of the days in a year is more likely to be a criminal" says nothing more than the face value. I accept the finding that a student who smokes marijuana 300 or more days a year would have social issues, but argue that the reasons that cause or enable a youth to smoke marijuana SIX DAYS A WEEK are probably as influential as the marijuana use itself. I have never argued that youthful use or adult abuse is a good thing.
The presidential quip was using the SAME LOGIC as the studies you have sighted. 100% of the past three presidents have used marijuana, a perfect correlation. Therefor, marijuana use makes one more likely to be president of the United States.
You easily mocked that logic, and rightfully so. Clearly there was something more substantive in their lives than the marijuana use that led to their achievements. Yet you failed to see the same effect when the statistics showed you what you wanted to see.
Correlations that show marijuana use in a negative light are fine, if they show marijuana use in a positive use they are just punch lines.
- - -
Stopping marijuana at the border simply won't work as it might for heroine, cocaine, or other foreign grown drugs. While certainly a large amount is imported, Marijuana is the United States' largest cash crop (more than corn and wheat combined by some estimates). And this isn't a new trend, the last census before the civil war showed 8,327 hemp "plantations" (> 2,000 acres) in the US. Hemp being a generic term, it still indicates the land available for THC rich marijuana production. Basically, most our land is well suited for domestic production.
If you stopped 100% of the imported marijuana, domestic producers would be able to increase production. Supply would probably go down and correlating demand decrease... but it would not stop the use of marijuana.
How much alcohol was produced illegally during prohibition? 99% or so. But most people could still get exactly as much as they wanted. Which is the boat we are in with marijuana.
- - -
I would place it as a schedule III drug if it has to remain a criminal offense.
Schedule III
1.The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
2.The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3.Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
#2 is clearly a dubious point. The medical use has been proven to the State of California and some other entities. But primarily the use is recreational. However, I stand by the fact that the abuse and dependence potential is low.
If we are worried about pure definition, Tobacco should definitely be a schedule I drug:
1. THE most abused drug in the USA.
2. No medical treatment and causes more medical problems than anything but poor eating
3. No medical supervised use is deemed safe under medical supervision.
Alcohol is close by. What is one acceptable and the other not? I'm not arguing that tobacco or alcohol should be felonies nor that marijuana is perfectly safe. Merely pointing out the disparity in the drug classification.
Report after report, study after study... from the general population to US troops in the canal zone. Studies concluded that recreational marijuana was not worth the trouble of making it illegal. Eventually it was decided that lazy Mexicans and drug crazed Negros (it caused Negros to laugh out loud at white people!) dictated that it should be banned.
There never was a good justification for banning hemp production or marijuana use. The AMA stood against the ban and 3,000 MDs were prosecuted for prescribing marijuana use after the ban (at which point the AMA decided it was on the side of the DEA and has been since)...
Bah! I could ramble on. Basically, classifying marijuana as a schedule 1 drug is a unjustified. It wastes resources, destroys lives, and encourages criminal activity. The harm CAUSED by the war against marijuana exceeds the harm caused by the perceived threat.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Question: What happened to the illegal liquor business and crime associated with prohibition after legalization?
It's still there. It just moved over to [racketeering], illegal drugs, extortion ect.
Illegal drugs? Like marijuana?
In all seriousness, you do see the parallels between marijuana and alcohol don't you?
Both have legit uses in industry and have large industrial impacts (FORD actually once made a car from Hemp plastics and powered it with diesel hemp oil).
Both can be used recreationally by responsible parties.
Both have the potential for abuse.
Both are readily produced domestically and easily distributed.
"Wars" against each of them have been futile.
Prohibition of each has encouraged violent gangs and profits to frequently violent operators.
Alcohol, after prohibition was repealed is now controlled and heavily taxed, marijuana remains available equally to all parties and not regulated or taxed. THC content or possible lacing agents is unknown. Who profits from it or where it will end up is up in the air.
During prohibition alcohol had many of the same problems we now associate with marijuana. It was unregulated in quality (100 proof? Poisonous?). It spawned massive gang activity who used the profits to support other crime and destroyed communities. And while government spent much money trying to eradicate it alcohol remained available to anyone who wanted it. Hell, even presidents drank alcohol during prohibition.
Make it legal and it spawns big business. Huge tax revenues. Sponsorship and ad money for many industries. Markets for farm products. Recreational hobbies (I home brew). Organized crime associated with it nearly disappeared. And people who end up abusively using alcohol can get help with little stigma.
Please tell me you see the similarities.
There is no use for smoking marijuana and does not compare to alcohol. Your premise that alcohol and marijuana are the same is wrong.
As far as "medical" uses for smoking marijuana goes, Medical marijuana already exists. It's called Marinol.
Marinol, is widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.
Drugs are far more addictive than alcohol. According to Dr. Mitchell Rosenthal, director of Phoenix House, only 10 percent of drinkers become alcoholics, while up to 75 percent of regular illicit drug users become addicted.
Even accepting, for the sake of argument, the analogy of that alcohol and marijuana is the same, alcohol use in the U.S. has taken a tremendous physical and social toll on Americans. Legalization proponents would have the problems multiplied by greatly adding to the class of drug-addicted Americans. To put it in perspective, less than 5 percent of the population uses illegal drugs of any kind. That's less than 16 million regular users of all illegal drugs compared to 66 million tobacco users and over 100 million alcohol users.
According to a 1995 article by Dr. Robert L. DuPont, an expert on drug abuse, the health-related costs per person is more than twice as high for drugs as it is for alcohol: $1,742 for users of illegal drugs and $798 for users of alcohol. Legalization of drugs would compound the problems in the already overburdened health care, social service, and criminal justice systems. And it would demand a staggering new tax burden on the public to pay for the costs. The cost to families affected by addiction is incalculable.
If private companies were to handle distribution—as is done with alcohol—the American consumer can expect a blizzard of profit-driven advertising encouraging drug use, just as we now face with alcohol advertising. If the government were to distribute drugs, either the taxpayer would have to pay for its production and distribution, or the government would be forced to market the drugs to earn the funds necessary to stay in business. Furthermore, the very act of official government distribution of drugs would send a message that drug use is safe. After all, it's the U.S. Government that's handing it out, right?
According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, approximately 10.1 million young people aged 12-20 reported past month alcohol use (28.5 percent of this age group). Of these, nearly 6.8 million (19 percent) were binge drinkers. American society can expect even more destructive statistics if marijuana were to be made legal and acceptable.
If marijuana were widely available under legalization, they would no doubt be easily obtained by young people, despite age restrictions. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, almost half (109 million) of Americans aged 12 or older were current drinkers, while an estimated 15.9 million or 7.1% were current illicit drug users.
First, your addictive study is for "all illicit" drugs. It has little bearing on the issue at hand. Yet another example of finding data to prove your point instead of using data to formulate an opinion.
Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco performed a study on 6 common drugs and had the following conclusion (with 6 being the lowest rank on the scale) -
quote:
Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication
Nicotine 3 4 2 1 5
Heroin 2 2 1 2 2
Cocaine 4 1 4 3 3
Alcohol 1 3 3 4 1
Caffeine 5 6 5 5 6
Marijuana 6 5 6 6 4
http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com/most-addictive-drugs.html
In other words, Marijuana is less addictive than caffeine or alcohol, and nicotine is more addictive than cocaine. The highest addiction rate I was able to locate was espoused by Brown University or 10%, of which a fraction would be dependent users (think non-functioning alcoholics). Essentially, the "addictive" argument is a total farce UNLESS we are calling for other common substances to be banned.
Likewise, the cost of treatment figure given is for "all illicit drug users." It has no value on the discussion at hand. 120,000 people a year enter marijuana rehab, of those it is estimated 90% are ordered rehabs (school, court, etc.). I would argue that the number and the methodology is not an accurate reflection of either the volume nor cost of marijuana addiction and treatment. Those persons may or may not have an actually "problem" with marijuana use but if court or school ordered they attend rehab (proud graduate of alcohol rehab in undergraduate because my roommate had a party in my room and though I wasn't there school policy dictate I attend an alcohol seminar. Had it been marijuana I'd be part of the 90% statistic.)
If marijuana is banned because it is addictive, then there are several substances on the list that should be banned also. Until alcohol and tobacco are banned as harmful schedule 1 drugs, the argument for banning marijuana because it is addictive simply doesn't work.
- - - -
I think we are somehow skirting the issue(s) that divides us. Perhaps we need to define them but I fear they are nearly universal.
We agree that excessive marijuana use can be harmful.
We agree that excessive alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or prescription drug use can be harmful.
We agree that children should not use marijuana.
We agree that children should not use the above list.
We agree that the marijuana trade involves many criminal elements and encourages violence in the search of profit.
We agree that prohibition made alcohol more dangerous, caused more crime, and generally increased drinking problems.
We agree that marijuana (THC) has medical purposes in stopping nausea, increasing appetite, and reactions with pain receptors other medicines (opiates) do not engage.
We agree that self medicating with any prescribed substance is not healthy.
- - -
Do we agree that:
Statistics show that marijuana use is consistent with levels when the war on drugs started.
Marijuana is readily produced domestically.
Marijuana, currently, is readily available to anyone who wants it. Including school children.
Marijuana accounts for more arrests than any other single offense in the United States.
The war on drugs is a $50,000,000,000.00 per year industry with all that it entails.
The gateway drug theory has long been debunked (95% of alcoholics first drink was beer, 90% of crackheads first drug was beer... first illegal drug was marijuana.)
Casual Marijuana use has proven to have no negative impact on life span (Sidney, S. The British Medical Journal, Sept. 20, 2003; vol 327: pp 635-636. Citing a study by UC California and a separate study in Sweden. Summary available at: http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill). Primarily because normal marijuana use entails about 1/20th the smoke of similar smoked products (primarily tobacco). Literally, no deaths in the US from marijuana use:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/6/429
Unregulated drug use is far more dangerous than regulated drug use (alcohol as an example).
- - -
I guess I'm having trouble on the bigger issues. I get the feel that you believe marijuana to be all the things the DARE ads or the ads from the 1950s say it is: amazingly addictive, leads to crime sprees for pot money, people get violent when high, causes all sorts of health issues, and leads to prostitution, crack use, and crime sprees. While I've never seen a person that is stoned (on marijuana) be violent, never heard of someone committing a crime for pot money, and never knew of anyone who repeatedly tried "to quit" marijuana and failed. Sure it can be abused, isn't good for you, and shouldn't be used by kids... but if that is our basis even then marijuana should be down the list of problems.
If you believe marijuana to be all the things a good cop is supposed to believe and have never actually known a "pot head" or tried the drug yourself, then we are probably at irreconcilable positions. If the hippies, ravers, "ganstas" (read: not gang members), neighbors, professionals, and Presidents that I know to smoke(d) pot are somehow not representational of a normal pot smoker then please explain it to me.
Sorry to be long winded (repeatedly), I'm trying to see where the difference lies and am afraid it is in the base understanding of what a normal marijuana user is.
Here's a fun list of dangers associated with use of a common legal drug. Sure sounds like a more serious threat to the nation's health than the occasional joint...
The most common side effects are rash, ringing in the ears, headaches, dizziness, drowsiness, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, constipation and heartburn. This drug reduces the ability of blood to clot and therefore increases bleeding after an injury. May cause ulceration of the stomach or intestine, and the ulcers may bleed. Reduces the flow of blood to the kidneys and impairs function of the kidneys. Fluid retention (edema), blood clots, heart attacks, hypertension and heart failure have also been associated with the use of this drug.
...what's the drug?
Ibuprofen
Pot should be legalized, taxed, and regulated by the FDA.
This is a great flick that exposes the dark underbelly of the war on drugs and explains a lot about why certain segments of government and law enforcement want things kept the way they are.
American Drug War (//%22http://www.americandrugwar.com/%22)
"While I've never seen a person that is stoned (on marijuana) be violent, never heard of someone committing a crime for pot money, and never knew of anyone who repeatedly tried "to quit" marijuana and failed. Sure it can be abused, isn't good for you, and shouldn't be used by kids... but if that is our basis even then marijuana should be down the list of problems.
If you believe marijuana to be all the things a good cop is supposed to believe and have never actually known a "pot head" or tried the drug yourself, then we are probably at irreconcilable positions. If the hippies, ravers, "ganstas" (read: not gang members), neighbors, professionals, and Presidents that I know to smoke(d) pot are somehow not representational of a normal pot smoker then please explain it to me."
In college I had several friends who were potheads. Two are now dead, several I lost touch with and one is now a doctor. Before I became a police officer I worked as an addiction counselor. I specialized in adolescent substance abuse. So you can see where my views come from.
As a counselor and later as an officer, I have seen people that were stoned become violent. I have seen people steal from their families, their neighbors and strangers for pot money. I have also seen people who tried to quit marijuana and couldn't.
Marijuana is not the harmless drug people want to believe. If people decide to legalize it then that is fine. I just want people to be prepared for the consequences of their actions.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
As a counselor and later as an officer, I have seen people that were stoned become violent. I have seen people steal from their families, their neighbors and strangers for pot money. I have also seen people who tried to quit marijuana and couldn't.
What youre describing sounds like it has more to do with the person than a drug.
If I had a predisposition to, say, jewelry, I might end up stealing to support that habit if I lacked behavioral and/or moral restraint.
P.S. Last nights FOX23 poll overwhelmingly favored more lenient marijuana laws in Oklahoma.
Must have been a good night for pizza deliveries.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
"While I've never seen a person that is stoned (on marijuana) be violent, never heard of someone committing a crime for pot money, and never knew of anyone who repeatedly tried "to quit" marijuana and failed. Sure it can be abused, isn't good for you, and shouldn't be used by kids... but if that is our basis even then marijuana should be down the list of problems.
If you believe marijuana to be all the things a good cop is supposed to believe and have never actually known a "pot head" or tried the drug yourself, then we are probably at irreconcilable positions. If the hippies, ravers, "ganstas" (read: not gang members), neighbors, professionals, and Presidents that I know to smoke(d) pot are somehow not representational of a normal pot smoker then please explain it to me."
In college I had several friends who were potheads. Two are now dead, several I lost touch with and one is now a doctor. Before I became a police officer I worked as an addiction counselor. I specialized in adolescent substance abuse. So you can see where my views come from.
As a counselor and later as an officer, I have seen people that were stoned become violent. I have seen people steal from their families, their neighbors and strangers for pot money. I have also seen people who tried to quit marijuana and couldn't.
Marijuana is not the harmless drug people want to believe. If people decide to legalize it then that is fine. I just want people to be prepared for the consequences of their actions.
OK ... so did these dead friends die as a direct result of pot? And out of how many total friends did this occur?
I don't think any of us are proclaiming pot to be as harmless as a kitten. But the criminal punishment entailed with producing and using pot is way out of whack with its meager effects compared to other drugs, legal and illegal. There's no disputing that.
When you have legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco that have created far worse health and societal effects, then you understand why your firm stance against pot seems at worst disingenuous or at least ill-advised.
But what do I know? I'm just a non-pot-smoker with no substance-abuse problems. I can't possibly have a lucid opinion about this. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
"While I've never seen a person that is stoned (on marijuana) be violent, never heard of someone committing a crime for pot money, and never knew of anyone who repeatedly tried "to quit" marijuana and failed. Sure it can be abused, isn't good for you, and shouldn't be used by kids... but if that is our basis even then marijuana should be down the list of problems.
If you believe marijuana to be all the things a good cop is supposed to believe and have never actually known a "pot head" or tried the drug yourself, then we are probably at irreconcilable positions. If the hippies, ravers, "ganstas" (read: not gang members), neighbors, professionals, and Presidents that I know to smoke(d) pot are somehow not representational of a normal pot smoker then please explain it to me."
In college I had several friends who were potheads. Two are now dead, several I lost touch with and one is now a doctor. Before I became a police officer I worked as an addiction counselor. I specialized in adolescent substance abuse. So you can see where my views come from.
As a counselor and later as an officer, I have seen people that were stoned become violent. I have seen people steal from their families, their neighbors and strangers for pot money. I have also seen people who tried to quit marijuana and couldn't.
Marijuana is not the harmless drug people want to believe. If people decide to legalize it then that is fine. I just want people to be prepared for the consequences of their actions.
In the same light, I've seen people steal for alcohol money, so I think that argument can be used for legal substances also.
I will say it. I smoked pot when I was younger. Don't anymore. Don't smoke anymore period. But I do believe that it should be legalized and regulated like alcohol.
But I DO think that law enforcement resources could be better used than to work on putting the recreational pot smoker in jail. Maybe on something constructive, like catching REAL criminals.
And for those of you saying the natural progression to harder drugs goes through pot doesn't seem to understand that whether or not the substance is illegal, people will ALWAYS do it, regardless. How about some regulation on it then? Tax the hell out of it.
Thank you for your perspectives MH2010. I hope you were not offended, I wasn't sure if you were raising arguments or just holding the party line. Clearly your perspectives on the subject have weight.
Of my friends who tried pot the ones who got caught generally have a lower standard of living today than those that have not. The criminal record precluded graduate school, led to a drop out from high school or college, or otherwise caused problems for them. One works for the U of Oregon, a few are in my hometown working BS jobs, some I have no idea what they are up to, and a few have 'normal' lives.
Of my friends that I smoked pot with that did not get arrested at some point one is a minister, several are in IT, one an MD, several lawyers, a couple teachers/coaches, one is a police officer (who has a degree in casino management from UNLV and I was SURE was going to run a mob casino), essentially normal careers. None that I can think of have anything other than normal lives and most no longer smoke pot. Many/most of my friends smoked pot and the disparity in how their lives have turned out reflects the general population.
Of my friends/acquaintances that have died (30 +/- five years old) 1 has died from emphysema (at 24!), 3 related to alcohol (2 result of drunk driving, 1 alcohol poisoning), 1 in a heroine overdose and 2 in suicides (one allegedly on barbiturates, the other was drunk). I've never known or heard of anyone who was stoned and died as a result. I've never seen a someone high on marijuana turn violent (unless they were doing other things at the same time). Perhaps that is luck, or a unique situation, but that is my experience.
I will defer to your experience that some people do become addicted to marijuana, that some people do become violent, and that it does carry health risks. But given all of that, it stands as a less dangerous recreational drug than others that are acceptable. I believe that adults should be able to decide what risks they are willing to accept and if they are able to smoke marijuana responsibly should be allowed to do so.
I'm interested to hear what procedures you think would help curtail the current problems that are caused by marijuana use (sub culture, unknown health risks [5% or 30% THC? laced?], juvenile access, gang/criminal violence and profits, and fiscal costs of enforcement/jail).
I really appreciate the intelligent conversation. Most people are "advocates" and refuse to discuss it. I value your experience and really want to know what steps you advocate and what type of decriminalize system you think might work or why it never would work.
I would like to discuss this more but I hate typing lengthy opinions. One of these days, we can meet up and talk about this all you want. I enjoy the conversation about it but finding time to type it is tough.
Maybe you guys could meet on neutral territory...like the parking lot of Starship on Lewis.
There's a Phish concert in Dallas in the spring. [:P]
Come to one of the TulsaNow lunch meetings! Rarely any pot smoking there.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Maybe you guys could meet on neutral territory...like the parking lot of Starship on Lewis.
I spend alot of time at starship. I thought Phish was broken up?
Bah, maybe they are. I thought they got back together. String Cheese then? Whoever the new hippie jam band is. [:)]
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
There is no use for smoking marijuana and does not compare to alcohol. Your premise that alcohol and marijuana are the same is wrong.
There is no "use" for drinking alcohol either.
And weed and alcohol are not the same, you're right about that. Alcohol is much worse.
Marijuana is not physically addictive. It is easier to quit than coffee.
Anyone who is against decriminalization should visit Amsterdam and see just how harmless pot is to the population at large. I have read that they actually have a lower usage by teens than we do. (Sorry I don;t have a source) So what we can do is just allow it, and control it, and you have no more criminals related to marijuana. Everyone wins.
That's why the Dutch are considering scaling back the marijuana available in coffee shops from 5 grams to 3 grams.
Marijuana was so successful there that in 2001 the Dutch government established the Penal Care Facility for Addicts. Like American Drug Treatment Courts, the facility is designed to detain and treat addicts (of any drug) who repeatedly commit crimes and have failed voluntary treatment facilities. Offenders may be held in this facility for up to two years. During that time addicts will go through a three-phase program. The first phase focuses on detoxification, while the second and third phases focus on training for social reintegration.
People in Amsterdam also have a heroin problem that no one likes to talk about.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
People in Amsterdam also have a heroin problem that no one likes to talk about.
Nobody talks about it because it's less of a problem there. The addicts get their doses and then go to work at their normal jobs. It's amazing how much opiates a person can take and remain functional if they've developed a tolerance. There are a good number of addicts who can take doses that would literally kill a non-opiate user and it does essentially nothing to them aside from ease their withdrawal symptoms.
That's not to say that it's healthy to be addicted to heroin, but in and of itself it isn't a big deal. The treatment of users as criminals on par with rapists and murderers is what makes it a big deal.
And yes, apparently some folks over there are getting the Puritan bug up their donkey and have a problem with people who prefer to work less and spend the rest of their day in a hash bar.
Personally, I try not to judge what others do until they make it my problem. A functional drug user simply isn't my problem. Putting them in jail and leaving them with a criminal record and a severely diminished future makes their habit my problem.
Hell, even a halfway non-functional drug user isn't my problem. If someone wants to work a menial job and live in squalor so they can spend their days off in lala land, why should I care? More work for the rest of us, as far as I'm concerned.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
People in Amsterdam also have a heroin problem that no one likes to talk about.
Nobody talks about it because it's less of a problem there. The addicts get their doses and then go to work at their normal jobs. It's amazing how much opiates a person can take and remain functional if they've developed a tolerance. There are a good number of addicts who can take doses that would literally kill a non-opiate user and it does essentially nothing to them aside from ease their withdrawal symptoms.
That's not to say that it's healthy to be addicted to heroin, but in and of itself it isn't a big deal. The treatment of users as criminals on par with rapists and murderers is what makes it a big deal.
And yes, apparently some folks over there are getting the Puritan bug up their donkey and have a problem with people who prefer to work less and spend the rest of their day in a hash bar.
Personally, I try not to judge what others do until they make it my problem. A functional drug user simply isn't my problem. Putting them in jail and leaving them with a criminal record and a severely diminished future makes their habit my problem.
Hell, even a halfway non-functional drug user isn't my problem. If someone wants to work a menial job and live in squalor so they can spend their days off in lala land, why should I care? More work for the rest of us, as far as I'm concerned.
Heroin addiction not a big deal?????? bla-hahahahahahahhahahahah. Good luck with that.
It looks like Obama is taking a step towards States' rights and towards decriminalizing marijuana by allowing States to regulate their own medical marijuana:
quote:
- U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California.
Asked at a Washington news conference Wednesday about Drug Enforcement Administration raids in California since Obama took office last month, Holder said the administration has changed its policy.
"What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing here in law enforcement," he said. "What he said during the campaign is now American policy."
San Francisco Chronicle (//%22http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/02/27/MN2016651R.DTL%22)
In my opinion this is political speak for taking a step towards decriminalization of marijuana. If not intentionally, certainly it is a step in that direction. But in my experience an agenda is pushed one step at a time. . .
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Heroin addiction not a big deal?????? bla-hahahahahahahhahahahah. Good luck with that.
While my reply is rather late, yes, that's what I'm saying. With regular maintenance doses in health clinics, heroin addicts can hold down normal jobs. Go figure.
Sort of like all the functional opium addicts we had around the turn of the 20th century, but they were functional because the drug was cheap, not because someone was giving them what they needed to remain functional in society.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Heroin addiction not a big deal?????? bla-hahahahahahahhahahahah. Good luck with that.
While my reply is rather late, yes, that's what I'm saying. With regular maintenance doses in health clinics, heroin addicts can hold down normal jobs. Go figure.
Sort of like all the functional opium addicts we had around the turn of the 20th century, but they were functional because the drug was cheap, not because someone was giving them what they needed to remain functional in society.
Plus you have many heroin addicts in Europe who are carefully monitored by health authorities and have stable, productive lives. Hard to believe, but it's true. It also helps the addicts get pharmaceutical-grade heroin instead of the so-called junky stuff on the street.
I'm no apologist for drug addiction. But you have to realize that the current "war on drugs" is not working very well. Alternatives should be considered.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Heroin addiction not a big deal?????? bla-hahahahahahahhahahahah. Good luck with that.
While my reply is rather late, yes, that's what I'm saying. With regular maintenance doses in health clinics, heroin addicts can hold down normal jobs. Go figure.
Sort of like all the functional opium addicts we had around the turn of the 20th century, but they were functional because the drug was cheap, not because someone was giving them what they needed to remain functional in society.
Plus you have many heroin addicts in Europe who are carefully monitored by health authorities and have stable, productive lives. Hard to believe, but it's true. It also helps the addicts get pharmaceutical-grade heroin instead of the so-called junky stuff on the street.
I'm no apologist for drug addiction. But you have to realize that the current "war on drugs" is not working very well. Alternatives should be considered.
A good comparison is that the current War on Drugs is working about like Prohibition did for drinking...
One of my best friends is an MD. I was surprised to discover that a high proportion (pun intended) of her med school class smoked pot. Throughout med school, residency, internship, and working at a hospital, she discivered that many of her co-workers smoked pot. It seems that a lot of doctors do it. (Probably as a stress reducer.)
Although she sees a lot of patients with problems resulting from smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, narcotics addiction, obesity, and yes, overdosing on Tylenol...she can only name one individual who died as a result of smoking pot. (He was smoking it on a mountain peak in NM...and fell off a cliff to his death.)
For those who say that "people who smoke pot are less likely to be successful than those who don't." I would say that it's not necessarily true. There are a lot of very bright, hard-working, productive, otherwise law-abiding pot smokers out there. Not all of them would admit it, though. (It's one of those survey questions that isn't always answered truthfully...like asking women if they masterbate...)
Legalize pot. The Oklahoma climate is supposed to be great for growing hemp. Imagine the economic stimulous for our state! (Take that, Mexican drug lords!)
Obama is opposed to legalization, at least today he is:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D975QL000&show_article=1
Quote from: guido911 on March 26, 2009, 12:08:05 PM
Obama is opposed to legalization, at least today he is:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D975QL000&show_article=1
GOOD!
But what about decrim? Bet he's for that......
Some reading material:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28034925
People used the stuff way back yonder in the desert for spiritual and medicinal purposes....poor dude, thought his stash would end up in eternity with him only to be picked off 2700 years later. Bet he's pissed now.....
More states move toward allowing medical marijuana use
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-25-pot_N.htm
States rights!
needs to be looked at again in our backwards state
Hemp has not been re-legalized because chicken smile politicians believe doing so would hurt their careers. They all (most) likely get drunk on a regular basis and many probably smoke pot but being the hypocrites that they are, will never support something that will actually benefit the masses. It's all about them.
Hemp Is Not Pot: It's the Economic Stimulus and Green Jobs Solution We Need
We can make over 25,000 things with it. Farmers love it. Environmentalists love it. You can't get high from it. So why is it still illegal?
http://www.alternet.org/environment/133055/hemp_is_not_pot%3A_it%27s_the_economic_stimulus_and_green_jobs_solution_we_need
Something tells me that the DEA has the same attitude towards Obama the CIA had against Kennedy in' 62.
http://www.kron4.com/News/ArticleView/tabid/298/smid/1126/ArticleID/872/reftab/36/t/DEA-Raids-SF-Pot-Club/Default.aspx
The FEDS take precedence over state law, in regards to drugs. Don't they have anything better to do?
Makes one wonder if their stash had run out.....
Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" writing staff took on his home state Wednesday night, focusing their sights on Gov. Chris Christie and claiming hypocrisy in his differing stances on legalizing sports betting and marijuana.
He turned to New Jersey, where the Assembly approved a bill Monday that would make possession of less than 15 grams of marijuana punishable by only a fine.
But Christie plans to veto the bill, saying marijuana is outlawed by the federal government and that he doesn't think "the state should be in the business of undercutting the federal government on that policy."
Fair enough, Stewart said, Christie is a man of conviction and doesn't think the state should supersede federal government. The show then quickly cut to a clip of Christie announcing that he would be moving to legalize sports gambling in the state.
Stewart asked what the difference was between the federal bans on gambling and marijuana, and the show played a clip of Christie saying, "I don't think any of us are of the illusion that betting on NFL games isn't happening every week in New Jersey."
"I have an idea," Stewart responded. "Let's replace the phrase 'betting on NFL games' with the phrase 'getting high.' Different how?"
In the next clip, Christie said, "That may be a different feeling from 30 or 40 years ago, but the fact is now, gaming is everywhere," to which Stewart suggested he replace "gaming" with that very same phrase.
Still saying he didn't see why challenging federal laws on gambling was permitted but not for pot, Stewart then played a clip of Christie saying, "Let's have the people who benefit from it be the people in the state of New Jersey, not criminal organizations in New Jersey who are benefiting from it now."
"OK, let's replace-" Stewart started, before saying, "Actually, you don't need to replace any words in that for it to be a justification to decriminalize marijuana."
Finally, Stewart phrased the issue in a way he hoped Christie would understand — "Why don't you just think of using marijuana as betting you're going to have a better day."
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-27-2012/of-vice-and-men---new-york-weed-bill-dies---chris-christie-s-veto-threat
Nothing like a leader with a clear sense of direction:
"I think marijuana should not be legal in this country, I believe it's gateway drug to other drug violations," Romney said during a May interview with a CBS affiliate in Denver, Colorado.
"Those are state issues," Romney, who appeared uncomfortable discussing the topic, said after the interview.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/drug-reform-chris-christie-shows-gentler-side/story?id=16741759
M
SEATTLE (AP) — Washington voters made their state the first in the nation to legalize recreational pot use on Tuesday.
The measure sets up a system of state-licensed marijuana growers, processors and retail stores, where adults over 21 can buy up to an ounce. It also establishes a standard blood test limit for driving under the influence.
Legalization could help bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year in pot taxes, reduce small-time pot-related arrests and give supporters a chance to show whether decriminalization is a viable strategy in the war on drugs.
State financial experts estimate it could raise nearly $2 billion in tax revenue over the next five years, with the money going toward education, health care, substance abuse prevention and basic government services.
The campaign was notable for its sponsors and supporters, who ranged from public health experts to two of the DOJ's top former officials in Seattle, U.S. Attorneys John McKay and Kate Pflaumer.
The effort raised more than $6 million in contributions, with more than $2 million of that coming from Progressive Insurance Co. founder Peter Lewis, who used marijuana to treat pain from a leg amputation.
For many voters, it came down to the notion that decades of marijuana prohibition have done more harm than good.
"It's ridiculous to be trying to maintain the law enforcement effort — all the people, all that money, all those resources — to prosecute marijuana use," supporter Karla Oman said. "Tax it, legalize it, everybody wins."
Colorado as well, apparently.
He'll make good on the Bill Maher contribution!
It's about time. Finally, we may put the lie of right wing extremists meddling in people's lives while saying they are for "smaller" government.
$2 billion over five years in tax revenue?
Either there's a bunch of pot heads in Washington or they are really going to tax the smile out of it. I'm curious to see how this plays out if people will still go to a black market to avoid paying taxes.
As a fiscal conservative, I think this was a great move. We waste far too much money every year and ruin thousands of lives imprisoning people over pot busts. In addition, pot's affect on society and the family is far less deleterious than alcohol.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 09:23:04 AM
$2 billion over five years in tax revenue?
they are really going to tax the smile out of it.
That
I see a version of moon-shining with this.
QuoteAs a fiscal conservative, I think this was a great move. We waste far too much money every year and ruin thousands of lives imprisoning people over pot busts. In addition, pot's affect on society and the family is far less deleterious than alcohol.
If this is successful, I once again see Oklahoma as the last state to enact a similar law.
Quote from: Townsend on November 07, 2012, 09:30:55 AM
That
I see a version of moon-shining with this.
If this is successful, I once again see Oklahoma as the last state to enact a similar law.
I see the next war ending soon! Bam Bam decrims from the thrown and law enforcement can focus on powdery substances instead.
Of course, the Prison industrial Complex may have a differing view.
Quote from: Teatownclown on November 07, 2012, 11:16:58 AM
I see the next war ending soon! Bam Bam decrims from the thrown and law enforcement can focus on powdery substances instead.
Of course, the Prison industrial Complex may have a differing view.
It also pits the big police organizations against each other. On one hand the high-ranking veterans who saw decades of waste and corruption and vowed to stop it, versus the unions that want to keep the bribes, overtime money and headless bodies from Mexico flowing.
Quote from: patric on November 07, 2012, 11:25:36 AM
It also pits the big police organizations against each other. On one hand the high-ranking veterans who saw decades of waste and corruption and vowed to stop it, versus the unions that want to keep the bribes, overtime money and headless bodies from Mexico flowing.
So fire Bush's head of the DEA and tell Eric Holder how to lay the new law down!
Forbes' take:
Drug prohibition is (literally) "a textbook example of a policy with negative unintended consequences" most visible in the extensive criminal underground and widespread violence associated with prohibition. What can we expect from legalization, and what could we expect from further liberalization of drug laws?
Less Crime. Moving drug cultivation and commerce out of the shadows and into the legitimate marketplace will mean that participants in the market can resolve their disputes without resorting to violence. This will also deal a blow to international drug gangs by raising the supply of marijuana from competitors and by lowering its price. Since the demand curve for drugs is fairly inelastic—and I see no reason to think marijuana is an exception—this will reduce drug dealer revenue.
Lower Demand for Hard Drugs Like Crack and Crystal Meth. At the margin, marijuana is a substitute for drugs like crack and meth. With lower prices and a much lower probability of prosecution associated with its use, I expect some drug users will switch to marijuana. Over the long run, I expect marijuana legalization to reduce the demand for harder drugs.
A "Peace Dividend" From Scaling Back the Drug War. Scaling back the drug war frees up resources for more productive pursuits. Instead of busting pot smokers, Colorado and Washington cops can spend their time and energy fighting violent crime and fraud. Washington and Colorado residents who otherwise would have rotted in jail for a few years can go about their productive lives. Resources invested in avoiding detection can be redeployed toward more productive pursuits. You might finally be able to use the towel under your door for its intended purpose. The ball is in President Obama's court on this one: I hope he respects the wishes of Colorado and Washington voters.
Yesterday's results are historic because, as a Facebook friend pointed out, the results in Colorado and Washington show that ending prohibition can win at the ballot box, and this might encourage politicians to embrace prohibition repeal. If we're lucky, our children will inherit a world in which the disastrous effects of drug prohibition are nothing but a sad chapter in a history book.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 09:23:04 AM
$2 billion over five years in tax revenue?
Either there's a bunch of pot heads in Washington or they are really going to tax the smile out of it. I'm curious to see how this plays out if people will still go to a black market to avoid paying taxes.
As a fiscal conservative, I think this was a great move. We waste far too much money every year and ruin thousands of lives imprisoning people over pot busts. In addition, pot's affect on society and the family is far less deleterious than alcohol.
Talk is cheap. Specifically, who have you voted for who would actually do something to change the bs way we do it now? Until you can fill in a name to that blank, it's all platitudes.
Two candidates that will NEVER be on the list - Fallin, Inhofe.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 07, 2012, 12:52:46 PM
Talk is cheap. Specifically, who have you voted for who would actually do something to change the bs way we do it now? Until you can fill in a name to that blank, it's all platitudes.
Two candidates that will NEVER be on the list - Fallin, Inhofe.
I don't recall there ever being a candidate we could vote for in Oklahoma who is for decriminalization. I fail to see how that makes my post platitudes.
I'm not bent toward single-issue voting, but if there were a candidate whom that was part of their stated platform along with other ideals I could agree with, I'd vote for them. Voting for someone who represented none of my other values but was pro legalization would not get my vote, IOW.
In 2010, overdoses were responsible for 38,329 deaths. Sixty percent of those were related to prescription drugs. In the same year, a total of 25,692 persons died of alcohol-induced causes, including accidental poisoning and disease from dependent use.
Here's how many of those deaths were related to marijuana use:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/marijuana-overdose_n_4538580.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 01:57:33 PM
I don't recall there ever being a candidate we could vote for in Oklahoma who is for decriminalization.
Here's two for starters:
Many of those offenders have a recognized need for treatment or a halfway house setting instead of incarceration, said state Rep. Gus Blackwell (R-Laverne), an advocate for reforming Oklahoma's criminal justice system.
Situated in the heart of the Bible Belt, Oklahoma has some of the harshest drug laws in the nation, which is an asset to private prisons because of the beds that will be occupied, said state Sen. Connie Johnson (D-Forest Park), a proponent of legalizing marijuana.http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-20013-lockdown.html
And ill raise you a lawyer for good measure:
"Pot, you might say, is law enforcement's top cash crop. They don't want to see it go away," said OKC defense attorney Chad Moody, who bills himself as the "Drug Lawyer." "The last thing our criminal justice system wants is for people to stop getting drunk or high," he said. "It's a revenue stream with all the fines and fees people pay. Municipal courts, as much as state and federal courts, are revenue courts."