Is Marijuana Decriminalization Overdue?

[binzing]

It is based on the fact that chasing pot heads around and charging them with crimes cost A LOT of money. Maybe you think that we have infinite money but I don't and I would like to see the money spent else where. Legalize and tax it.

I really think its dumb that there are SO MANY people in prison for small drug charges, people who are peaceful and otherwise law abiding. And people wonder why we have an overcrowded prison system.

 

[turbo]

Inhalers are calibrated to administer a rather precise dose of medication with each pump. I was asthmatic as a child and used an inhaler for years.

I use inhalers, too, as an adult. The inhalers may be calibrated to deliver a precise dose with each actuation, but that ignores the capability of the patient to inhale and hold the drug in the lungs and absorb it into the blood-stream. Dress it up all you like - when you can't breathe, nothing else matters.

 

[mbisCool]

Not that I don't agree that many drink for the taste, but I find it hard to believe the marjoity who drink don't do so at all for its psychoactive properties.

Personally I think the focus on medical marijuana is missing the point. Its not about whether marijuana can help a small minority of users, but like evo has pointed out, most just smoke for the joy of it. I wish the debate was centered more around individual liberty and the fact that the criminalization of marijuana has accomplished nothing...

As to Alfi, don't get me wrong, you definitely can grow "good" bud in your own home; however, even with good seeds its going to require much more than simply planting it outside and waiting ( as you obviously already know). Good HPS lamps and a hyro set up can be costly. That combined with electricity bill and time germinating, trimming, drying, etc. But If you could just walk to the store and get a zip of some purps or pick from the myriad treats like indojoy candybars you wouldnt?

PS, Evo is your picture thing of the lady of shallot?

 

[The Dagda]

Whilst you can't underestimate the value of a good wine, for taste or a fine beer or single malt anyone who doesn't drink to get drunk or merry, or just ease the stress of a hard week is either missing the point or a liar.

I like the fact that in nature any fairly advanced animal that can get its hands on psychotropics of any kind will do so. It tends to make it obvious that getting boxed out of your gourd is a perfectly natural phenomena. In India there's a season where the fruit starts to drop where they have to be especially careful of wild drunk elephants who've had too much of the old forbidden fruit. Imagine trying to talk down a drunk elephant! Elephants tend to be angry drunks.

Smoking is an excellent way to get a drug into your system, problem is it doesn't come in THC only varieties unless you are a chemist, smoking gives you an almost instant fix, were as swallowing it tends to spread out the buzz more, depending on what you've eaten if anything. Asthma inhalers don't need a precise dose to be honest, problem is that most people misuse them anyway.

 

[Papapreacher]

Whilst you can't underestimate the value of a good wine, for taste or a fine beer or single malt anyone who doesn't drink to get drunk or merry, or just ease the stress of a hard week is either missing the point or a liar.

Value ? What is it ?
Missing the point ? then what point ?
Stress ? what is the burden ?
Liar ? Show me the truth!
Going abroad ? where is the visa and passport ?

There is no value of wine, just alcohol.

People can absolutely give me the tool to forbid the winer

 

[The Dagda]

Value ? What is it ?
Missing the point ? then what point ?
Stress ? what is the burden ?
Liar ? Show me the truth!
Going abroad ? where is the visa and passport ?

There is no value of wine, just alcohol.

People can absolutely give me the tool to forbid the winer

I drink wine because it gets me drunk and it tastes nice. I'm just saying that you can have your cake and eat it. And that the ultimate purpose of alcohol is a psychotropic experience, anyone who says otherwise is probably lying, but you can't strip the pleasure from the experience that is taste. It's kind of loosely like saying I eat food to live, without accounting for the taste. If you just want to get drunk without the added complexity of taste then just hook yourself up to a bottle of whisky on a drip (don't try this at home kids).

 

[gravenewworld]

The number of people that would use marijuana "medicinally" are a negligible fraction of users. And a pill with the active ingredients would be much more effective than actually smoking it.

It doesn't work that way. THC and Cannabidiol are two of the major active ingredients in marijuana that definitely have therapeutic effect. At what ratio do you combine those things in a pill? What about all the other unknown compounds in marijuana that have therapeutic effect? How do you suppose someone identifies them, synthesizes them, and combines say 5 or 6 chemicals all in the correct ratio into one pill? It would simply be impossible. And BTW, even if you put all of those active ingredients into a pill, it would STILL make you feel "high" at a therapeutic dose. So why should the pill be legal and not the plant?

It's pretty much the same reason why things like vitamin A and C have no where near the same beneficial health benefits when they come from pills vs. when you actually get them from the healthy food.

Like I said before, formulation and delivery are two huge important factors for the overall efficacy of any drug. Pill THC vs. THC from marijuana have different profiles.





And for all this worry about people being able to grow weed, so what? People *can* theoretically grow their own tobacco to smoke but they don't. People *can* theoretically make their own alcohol but most people don't. 90% of people wouldn't grow weed if it were legalized simply because they are lazy and don't have the time. Hell, Americans have a huge problem with not even wanting to spend the time to cook their own food for dinner.

 

[Hurkyl]

It is based on the fact that chasing pot heads around and charging them with crimes cost A LOT of money. Maybe you think that we have infinite money but I don't and I would like to see the money spent else where. Legalize and tax it.

Wait a minute -- you're going to advocate a course of action with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of its pros and cons relative to the status quo?

 

[wildman]

Wait a minute -- you're going to advocate a course of action with absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of its pros and cons relative to the status quo?

We are wildly overspending in government (I know -- there is that crazy economic package, but let's not discuss that here) and the government is way over sized. We need to start killing sacred cows. The grass prohibition is one of those cows. In Alaska or other places I have been where it is decriminalized, I haven't been able to see any difference from the states where it is criminalized. If the difference is so small, it is hardly worth spending tens of billions of dollars a year on chasing pot heads. Legalize it and save the money.

PS It would be interesting to start a thread on government sacred cows. That would generate a lot of heat. The conservatives particularly have a lot of cows in spite of their preaching for small government...

 

[Alfi]

To Alfi:

I'd have to say that I pretty much agree with your assessments. How do you control it?

Wow, that doesn't happen often.

There were problems during prohibition with Moonshine blinding people and bad things like that because everyone and their Uncle was making their own and selling it.
I remember problems in the 70's with the government trying to poison pot crops with paraquat and ended up with problems because people were smoking it anyway.
So...
Licensed dealers seems to be the way to attempt to control sales and quality, but as I said, It is just too easy to grow and there is always the lure of quick cash.
It is easier for me to go buy a jug of alcohol than to distill my own. If it is easier ( and cheaper ) to buy a bag than grow my own, I would.
Jobs could be created in the inspection field, Taxes and licensing fees would pay for the training and inspections. The distribution outlets are already in place if placed along side with alcohol and tobacco.

For now, and I see it starting to happen in more places, the punishments for simple possession have been reduced to a fine. BUT. Because it still ends up on your criminal records it causes many problems with employment and border crossings etc., Even if the conviction was years ago. ( I have personal knowledge of these problems ) and that kind of secondary punishment is not in line with the 'crime'. IMHO
It is mostly based on these secondary punishments that I feel the lesser crime of possession as opposed to selling ( Tax evasion on income ? ) should not be continued. To do this I promote decriminalization.

To Evo: Yes. I smoke to get a buzz. I do not smoke to enjoy a taste like wine ( yuk I hate wine ) or Brandy. I do like to read that it just may be 'good' for me in some way but that is not why I enjoy it. I do not take any prescription drugs as I am in good health.
btw. ( and this is not a 'you should do it' comment.) I smoked a joint about an hour ago. Could you have known just by reading my post? There are indeed various levels of 'high', just as there is various levels of alcohol intoxication. One of the differences that I find is that for me there is little or no impairment in thought or motor skills as compared to having three beers, even though three beers would put me close to the legal limit but still 'ok' to drive.
Be aware. - "your impairment may vary" but .07 is still .07 mg/ml

Decriminalize, yes. Legalize with controls, hmmmmm - yes. The substance has not been proved to be harmful enough in my experience to justify the laws.

Alfi.

This is a good debate and I thank the poster.

 

[The Dagda]

Wow, that doesn't happen often.

Someone agreed with me about something on the internet once, my advice is not to let it go to your head. I have even seen someone change their mind without prompting, or apologise for being wrong, it happens even in less absolute areas of the forum.

I'd rather someone smoked a few joints a day than smoked or drank. In the case of drinking anything over the 24 unit limit, glass of white wine for the ladies, 16. Since I both drink and smoke occasionally though so I might not be the best role model. I have recently been turned around by some very good arguments on other forums, I was pro decriminalisation, but then I realized there are some good arguments for legalisation too. We tried decriminalisation, it supposedly didn't work, which of course means legalisation definitely wouldn't. With decriminalisation nothing changed and marijuana use has been slowly falling regardless of anything the government have done. The only issue is the criminality.

 

[Monique]

Honestly, I know no one personally that drinks to excess. Most of my friends don't drink, or only drink a couple of times a year. The majority of people that drink don't drink to get wasted.

That is very surprising to say the least. Go to a club or a pub and see the amount of alcohol that is consumed there, binge drinking is very common: especially among young people. How many people go home and have to throw up after a nights out or don't have a recollection what has happened? You are a big shot when you can drink more than 20 pints of beer. It is becoming more and more common that people drink themselves into a coma, I'd say those are all strong signs of abuse.

 

[Helios]

It's annoying that some have the legalize and tax-the hell-out-of-it opinion. The economist knows that taxes must be neutral and impartial for an economy's peak performance. The "sin tax" philosophy is a political gimmick, sin taxes should never be enacted.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's annoying that some have the legalize and tax-the hell-out-of-it opinion. The economist knows that taxes must be neutral and impartial for an economy's peak performance. The "sin tax" philosophy is a political gimmick, sin taxes should never be enacted.

But in this case it wouldn't be neutral because much of the money currently goes to supporting foreign drug cartels.

The drug problem is essentially financed by the drug laws.

 

[Evo]

That is very surprising to say the least. Go to a club or a pub and see the amount of alcohol that is consumed there, binge drinking is very common: especially among young people. How many people go home and have to throw up after a nights out or don't have a recollection what has happened? You are a big shot when you can drink more than 20 pints of beer. It is becoming more and more common that people drink themselves into a coma, I'd say those are all strong signs of abuse.

I don't go to clubs anymore, and all of the people I associate with through work are Bible Thumpers, and think alcohol is the devils work. Also, my age group has pretty much finished with partying.

 

[turbo]

But in this case it wouldn't be neutral because much of the money currently goes to supporting foreign drug cartels.

The drug problem is essentially financed by the drug laws.

The illegality restricts access to marijuana and drive up prices so that gangs and cartels can make a lot of money importing and distributing it. Legalization would not eliminate gang activity, but it would certainly cut back on their ability to raise funds. Since gangs that profit from the drug trade also engage in other activities that are less benign, it would benefit us all to remove a significant source of their funding. It would be a good idea to abandon the "war on drugs" approach to marijuana, and instead direct some potion of that spending toward preventing crimes against individuals.

Al Capone belonged in prison, not because he smuggled and sold liquor, but because he employed murder, extortion, and other crimes to ensure the profitability of his syndicate. Today's gangs are no better or worse.

 

[The Dagda]

I don't go to clubs anymore, and all of the people I associate with through work are Bible Thumpers, and think alcohol is the devils work. Also, my age group has pretty much finished with partying.

Jesus drank wine, how can our saviour of been wrong?

Beer is also called the water of life in The Bible, which predates its use in Gaelic for Uisge Beatha.

 

[Evo]

Al Capone belonged in prison, not because he smuggled and sold liquor, but because he employed murder, extortion, and other crimes to ensure the profitability of his syndicate.

But Capone was convicted and sent to prison for income tax evasion.

 

[Evo]

Jesus drank wine, how can our saviour of been wrong?

Beer is also called the water of life in The Bible, which predates it's use in Gaelic for Uisge Beatha.

Some of them won't even go to after work functions if alcohol is served at the place. What can I say?

 

[turbo]

But Capone was convicted and sent to prison for income tax evasion.

The legal system was corrupt and he was pretty much untouchable - the Feds hit on the tax-evasion charge after other attempts to pin something on him failed.

 

[Evo]

The legal system was corrupt and he was pretty much untouchable - the Feds hit on the tax-evasion charge after other attempts to pin something on him failed.

It was a great idea. Hard to think of someone ending up in Alcatraz for tax evasion.

 

[turbo]

It was a great idea. Hard to think of someone ending up in Alcatraz for tax evasion.

It was the only viable way to get him. All the local judges, prosecutors, cops, etc were either on the take or in fear for their lives, so the only way to get a conviction was to move him into the Federal court system and nail him on a charge that was completely under Federal jurisdiction. No change of venue, no shopping around for "bought" judges, etc.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The illegality restricts access to marijuana and drive up prices so that gangs and cartels can make a lot of money importing and distributing it. Legalization would not eliminate gang activity, but it would certainly cut back on their ability to raise funds. Since gangs that profit from the drug trade also engage in other activities that are less benign, it would benefit us all to remove a significant source of their funding. It would be a good idea to abandon the "war on drugs" approach to marijuana, and instead direct some potion of that spending toward preventing crimes against individuals.

Al Capone belonged in prison, not because he smuggled and sold liquor, but because he employed murder, extortion, and other crimes to ensure the profitability of his syndicate. Today's gangs are no better or worse.

Yes, the laws are what make drugs so dangerous to all of society and not just the users. I actually favor decriminalizing all drugs. And for those who think this is a liberal opinion, it is motivated in large part by the so called father of modern conservatism, William F Buckley - he recognized the irony of the drug laws long ago. But one only needs to spend a little time in a place like S Central LA to see the lunacy of the laws. The fact that the problem has only gotten worse over the decades [much worse!] is clear evidence that the laws don't work. But the laws do help to destroy lives and to finance crime and terrorists. There are gangs in LA that are better armed than the police, and they get their money for these arms from drug sales.

The Taliban is financed in part by the Afghanistan poppy [opium] crops.

 

[The Dagda]

Some of them won't even go to after work functions if alcohol is served at the place. What can I say?

Product of the temperance movement I suppose. Doesn't mean it's particularly biblical in origin. I hope they are all right otherwise. :/

 

[turbo]

Yes, the laws are what make drugs so dangerous to all of society and not just the users. I actually favor decriminalizing all drugs. And for those who think this is a liberal opinion, it is motivated in large part by the so called father of modern conservatism, William F Buckley - he recognized the irony of the drug laws long ago.

Buckley was 'way out in front of the "conservative" movement on this issue. He was actually what we would call a libertarian these days. I am fiscally VERY conservative, and would like to shrink government spending and taxation as responsibly as possible, and I found myself agreeing with Buckley on many issues, just as I found myself disgusted by the neo-cons who managed to hijack the GOP.

The Republican party would strenuously resist any attempt to de-regulate the cultivation, sale, and use of marijuana, and would use any such attempt to paint proponents as "druggies", "soft on crime" or much worse. As is often the case, their rhetoric would be 180 deg off the mark, because taking the funding (marijuana distribution profits) away from the gangs would make inner cities safer, and free up law-enforcement to engage in activities that actually protect citizens.

 

[Monique]

I don't go to clubs anymore, and all of the people I associate with through work are Bible Thumpers, and think alcohol is the devils work. Also, my age group has pretty much finished with partying.

Then I don't think they'll be looking to get stoned any time soon either

As for your remark about only using marijuana to get stoned, the way I've seen it used by friends is that they share a joint and only take a few drags: just to get a small buzz of relaxation. It's the same with space cake, you only take a little and not the whole cake (you don't want to get completely stoned). Some people probably do want to get completely stoned, but that is not really fun when you are in a company with other people who are not using.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Buckley was 'way out in front of the "conservative" movement on this issue. He was actually what we would call a libertarian these days. I am fiscally VERY conservative, and would like to shrink government spending and taxation as responsibly as possible, and I found myself agreeing with Buckley on many issues, just as I found myself disgusted by the neo-cons who managed to hijack the GOP.

The Republican party would strenuously resist any attempt to de-regulate the cultivation, sale, and use of marijuana, and would use any such attempt to paint proponents as "druggies", "soft on crime" or much worse. As is often the case, their rhetoric would be 180 deg off the mark, because taking the funding (marijuana distribution profits) away from the gangs would make inner cities safer, and free up law-enforcement to engage in activities that actually protect citizens.

the problem is that law enforcement survives based on laws like this and cities/counties get a lot of revenue from it. currently here in southern california for just about any ticket you receive you will wind up paying three to five times the actual fine(depending on the offense) after fees and penalties are assessed. and the police officers in the quiter areas will pounce on anybody for anything. except few of them actually go out there to deal with real crimes. most of them find a cozy spot to sit where they can watch a stop sign that people tend to run or wait for some speeders or hang out around bars in hopes someone will give them reason to pull them over and hopefully get a dui arrest. when I went to a madd meeting an officer there said that he starts every shift with the intention of hunting people down for dui and pointed out that by california law you did not need to exceed the "legal limit" for a dui. another officer there told us about arresting a woman who had accidentally ODed on asprin for a dui.
so I think we need to be sure that the police are well funded before throwing away one of their quota makers.

 

[mbisCool]

Yeah no crime ever happens where I grew up so the police basically just screwed over as many kids as possible. They just sit outside the high school parking lot and wait. My friend got a speeding ticket for doing 38 in a 35 on the way to school.

Hate how money governs virtually everything in some way or another :/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

AP) You know you're in a different kind of college when a teaching assistant sets five marijuana plants down in the middle of a lab and no one blinks a bloodshot eye.

Welcome to Oaksterdam University, a new trade school where higher education takes on a whole new meaning.

The school prepares people for jobs in California's thriving medical marijuana industry. For $200 and the cost of two required textbooks, students learn how to cultivate and cook with cannabis, study which strains of pot are best for certain ailments, and are instructed in the legalities of a business that is against the law in the eyes of the federal government...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/25/health/main3874664.shtml

 

[WhoWee]

Here's a radical idea...let the families police the problem.

If someone of ANY age is arrested for SELLING (small quantities) drugs...instead of jail...reduce government benefits by 50% to the immediate family, second offense reduce to 25% and 3rd offense...cut off all benefits to the immediate family.

Instead of putting the money into the court system...open drug rehab centers that the entire family can visit and work through problems...with the incentive of keeping government benefits and with the possibility of INCREASED benefits if everyone in the family tests clean for 3 mos, 6 mos, etc.

Families need help, communities need help and attitudes and environment need to change...make the problem unacceptable and provide clear incentives to make a change.

 

[Proton Soup]

Here's a radical idea...let the families police the problem.

If someone of ANY age is arrested for SELLING (small quantities) drugs...instead of jail...reduce government benefits by 50% to the immediate family, second offense reduce to 25% and 3rd offense...cut off all benefits to the immediate family.

Instead of putting the money into the court system...open drug rehab centers that the entire family can visit and work through problems...with the incentive of keeping government benefits and with the possibility of INCREASED benefits if everyone in the family tests clean for 3 mos, 6 mos, etc.

Families need help, communities need help and attitudes and environment need to change...make the problem unacceptable and provide clear incentives to make a change.

lol, that is an excellent recipe for getting the whole family into the business. you not only arrested a breadwinner, you took away their bread.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did anyone see the investigative report last night about pot growers Mendocino County? If they were all shut down, allegedly the county would go broke.

The reality of the economics is really hitting home; esp with the recession.

 

[LowlyPion]

Here's a fun observation:

Marijuana Legalization More Popular than Key Conservative Leaders

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/a...ore_popular_than_key_conservative_leaders.php

 

[Proton Soup]

Here's a fun observation:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/a...ore_popular_than_key_conservative_leaders.php

yeah, but liberals enjoy oppressing the public with the police as much or more than conservatives. and marijuana is the easy way into a vehicle or residence.

 

[WhoWee]

lol, that is an excellent recipe for getting the whole family into the business. you not only arrested a breadwinner, you took away their bread.

I would argue that the needs of the group outweigh the needs of one irresponsible member. If the "bread" is baked by Uncle Sam...you better do what you need to keep it comming.

But, if that's the way they choose to help with the problem (everyone start selling drugs...then cut them ALL off (from government funding social security/disability/medicare/Section8/food stamps/EIC and whatever else)...next! It's not an unreasonable requirement...don't allow anyone living under your roof to break the law or you lose your benefits.

For the "poor little misunderstood rich kid" that chooses to deal drugs to pay for his habit (or meet girls or whatever?)...use the opposite approach...increase dad's taxes by 25% if he doesn't deal with the problem the first time.

Rich or poor...keep it in the family.