The Patriot's Guide to Legalization
Have you ever looked at our marijuana policy? I mean, really looked at it?
WHEN WE THINK of the drug war, it's the heavy-duty narcotics like heroin and cocaine that get most of the attention. And why not? That's where the action is. It's not marijuana that is sustaining the Taliban in Afghanistan, after all. When Crips and Bloods descend into gun battles in the streets of Los Angeles, they're not usually fighting over pot. The junkie who breaks into your house and steals your Blu-ray player isn't doing it so he can score a couple of spliffs.
No, the marijuana trade is more genteel than that. At least, I used to think it was. Then, like a lot of people, I started reading about the open warfare that has erupted among the narcotraffickers in Mexico and is now spilling across the American border. Stories of drugs coming north and arsenals of guns going south. Thousands of people brutally murdered. Entire towns terrorized. And this was a war not just over cocaine and meth, but marijuana as well.
And I began to wonder: Maybe the war against pot is about to get a lot uglier. After all, in the 1920s, Prohibition gave us Al Capone and the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, and that was over plain old whiskey and rum. Are we about to start paying the same price for marijuana?
If so, it might eventually start to affect me, too. Indirectly, sure, but that's more than it ever has before. I've never smoked a joint in my life. I've only seen one once, and that was 30 years ago. I barely drink, I don't smoke, and I don't like coffee. When it comes to mood altering substances, I live the life of a monk. I never really cared much if marijuana was legal or not.
But if a war is breaking out over the stuff, I figured maybe I should start looking at the evidence on whether marijuana prohibition is worth it. Not the spin from the drug czar at one end or the hemp hucksters at the other. Just the facts, as best as I could figure them out. So I did. Here's what I found.
In 1972, the report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse urged that possession of marijuana for personal use be decriminalized. A small wave of states followed this recommendation, but most refused; in Washington, President Carter called for eliminating penalties for small-time possession, but Congress stonewalled. And that's the way things have stayed since the late '70s. Some states have decriminalized, most haven't, and possession is still a criminal offense under federal law. So how has that worked out?
I won't give away the ending just yet, but one thing to know is this: On virtually every subject related to cannabis (an inclusive term that refers to both the sativa and indica varieties of the marijuana plant, as well as hashish, bhang, and other derivatives), the evidence is ambiguous. Sometimes even mysterious. So let's start with the obvious question.
DOES DECRIMINALIZING CANNABIS HAVE ANY EFFECT AT ALL? It's remarkably hard to tell—in part because drug use is faddish. Cannabis use among teens in the United States, for example, went down sharply in the '80s, bounced back in the early '90s, and has declined moderately since. Nobody really knows why.
We do, however, have studies that compare rates of cannabis use in states that have decriminalized vs. states that haven't. And the somewhat surprising conclusion, in the words of Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at the University of California-Berkeley, is simple: "Most of the evidence suggests that decriminalization has no effect."
But decriminalization is not legalization. In places that have decriminalized, simple possession is still illegal; it's just treated as an administrative offense, like a traffic ticket. And production and distribution remain felonies. What would happen if cannabis use were fully legalized?
No country has ever done this, so we don't know. The closest example is the Netherlands, where possession and sale of small amounts of marijuana is de facto legal in the famous coffeehouses. MacCoun and a colleague, Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland, have studied the Dutch experience and concluded that while legalization at first had little effect, once the coffeehouses began advertising and promoting themselves more aggressively in the 1980s, cannabis use more than doubled in a decade. Then again, cannabis use in Europe has gone up and down in waves, and some of the Dutch increase (as well as a later decrease, which followed a tightening of the coffeehouse laws in the mid-'90s) may have simply been part of those larger waves.
The most likely conclusion from the overall data is that if you fully legalized cannabis, use would almost certainly go up, but probably not enormously. MacCoun guesses that it might rise by half—say, from around 15 percent of the population to a little more than 20 percent. "It's not going to triple," he says. "Most people who want to use marijuana are already finding a way to use marijuana."
Still, there would be a cost. For one thing, a much higher increase isn't out of the question if companies like Philip Morris or R.J. Reynolds set their finest minds on the promotion of dope. And much of the increase would likely come among the heaviest users. "One person smoking eight joints a day is worth more to the industry than fifty people each smoking a joint a week," says Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at UCLA. "If the cannabis industry were to expand greatly, it couldn't do so by increasing the number of casual users. It would have to create and maintain more chronic zonkers." And that's a problem. Chronic use can lead to dependence and even long-term cognitive impairment. Heavy cannabis users are more likely to be in auto accidents. There have been scattered reports of respiratory and fetal development problems. Still, sensible regulation can limit the commercialization of pot, and compared to other illicit drugs (and alcohol), its health effects are fairly mild. Even a 50 percent increase in cannabis use might be a net benefit if it led to lower rates of use of other drugs.
SO WOULD PEOPLE JUST SMOKE MORE AND DRINK LESS? Maybe. The generic term for this effect in the economics literature is "substitute goods," and it simply means that some things replace other things. If the total demand for transportation is generally steady, an increase in sales of SUVs will lead to a decrease in the sales of sedans. Likewise, if the total demand for intoxicants is steady, an increase in the use of one drug should lead to a decrease in others.
Several years ago, John DiNardo, an economist now at the University of Michigan, found a clever way to test this via a natural experiment. Back in the 1980s, the Reagan administration pushed states to raise the drinking age to 21. Some states did this early in the decade, some later, and this gave DiNardo the idea of comparing data from the various states to see if the Reagan policy worked.
He found that raising the drinking age did lead to lower alcohol consumption; the effect was modest but real. But then DiNardo hit on another analysis—comparing cannabis use in states that raised the drinking age early with those that did it later. And he found that indeed, there seemed to be a substitution effect. On average, among high school seniors, a 4.5 percent decrease in drinking produced a 2.4 percent increase in getting high.
But what we really want to know is whether the effect works in the other direction: Would increased marijuana use lead to less drinking? "What goes up should go down," DiNardo told me cheerfully, but he admits that in the absence of empirical evidence this hypothesis depends on your faith in basic economic models.
Some other studies are less encouraging than DiNardo's, but even if the substitute goods effect is smaller than his research suggests—if, say, a 30 percent increase in cannabis use led to a 5 or 10 percent drop in drinking—it would still be a strong argument in favor of legalization. After all, excessive drinking causes nearly 80,000 deaths per year in the United States, compared to virtually none for pot. Trading alcohol consumption for cannabis use might be a pretty attractive deal.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GATEWAY EFFECT? This has been a perennial bogeyman of the drug warriors. Kids who use pot, the TV ads tell us, will graduate to ecstasy, then coke, then meth, and then—who knows? Maybe even talk radio.
Is there anything to this? There are two plausible pathways for the gateway theory. The first is that drug use of any kind creates an affinity for increasingly intense narcotic experiences. The second is that when cannabis is illegal, the only place to get it is from dealers who also sell other stuff.
The evidence for the first pathway is mixed. Research in New Zealand, for example, suggests that regular cannabis use is correlated with higher rates of other illicit drug use, especially in teenagers. A Norwegian study comes to similar conclusions, but only for a small segment of "troubled" teenagers. Other research, however, suggests that these correlations aren't caused by gateway effects at all, but by the simple fact that kids who like drugs do drugs. All kinds of drugs.
The second pathway was deliberately targeted by the Dutch when they began their coffeehouse experiment in the '70s in part to sever the connection of cannabis with the illicit drug market. The evidence suggests that it worked: Even with cannabis freely available, Dutch cannabis use is currently about average among developed countries and use of other illicit drugs is about average, too. Easy access to marijuana, outside the dealer network for harder drugs, doesn't seem to have led to greater use of cocaine or heroin.
So, to recap: Decriminalization of simple possession appears to have little effect on cannabis consumption. Full legalization would likely increase use only moderately as long as heavy commercialization is prohibited, although the effect on chronic users might be more substantial. It would increase heroin and cocaine use only slightly if at all, and it might decrease alcohol consumption by a small amount. Which leads to the question:
CAN WE STILL AFFORD PROHIBITION? The consequences of legalization, after all, must be compared to the cost of the status quo. Unsurprisingly, this too is hard to quantify. The worst effects of the drug war, including property crime and gang warfare, are mostly associated with cocaine, heroin, and meth. Likewise, most drug-law enforcement is aimed at harder drugs, not cannabis; contrary to conventional wisdom, only about 44,000 people are currently serving prison time on cannabis charges—and most of those are there for dealing and distribution, not possession.
Still, the University of Maryland's Reuter points out that about 800,000 people are arrested for cannabis possession every year in the United States. And even though very few end up being sentenced to prison, a study of three counties in Maryland following a recent marijuana crackdown suggests that a third spend at least one pretrial night in jail and a sixth spend more than ten days. That takes a substantial human toll. Overall, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates the cost of cannabis prohibition in the United States at $13 billion annually and the lost tax revenue at nearly $7 billion.
SO WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF LEGALIZATION? Slim. For starters, the United States, along with virtually every other country in the world, is a signatory to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (and its 1988 successor), which flatly prohibits legalization of cannabis. The only way around this is to unilaterally withdraw from the treaties or to withdraw and then reenter with reservations. That's not going to happen.
At the federal level, there's virtually no appetite for legalizing cannabis either. Though public opinion has made steady strides, increasing from around 20 percent favoring marijuana legalization in the Reagan era to nearly 40 percent favoring it today, the only policy change in Washington has been Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement in March that the Obama administration planned to end raids on distributors of medical marijuana. (Applications for pot dispensaries promptly surged in Los Angeles County.)
The real action in cannabis legalization is at the state level. More than a dozen states now have effective medical marijuana laws, most notably California. Medical marijuana dispensaries are dotted all over the state, and it's common knowledge that the "medical" part is in many cases a thin fiction. Like the Dutch coffeehouses, California's dispensaries are now a de facto legal distribution network that severs the link between cannabis and other illicit drugs for a significant number of adults (albeit still only a fraction of total users). And the result? Nothing. "We've had this experiment for a decade and the sky hasn't fallen," says Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has even introduced a bill that would legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana; it has gained the endorsement of the head of the state's tax collection agency, which informally estimates it could collect $1.3 billion a year from cannabis sales. Still, the legislation hasn't found a single cosponsor, and isn't scheduled for so much as a hearing.
Which is too bad. Going into this assignment, I didn't care much personally about cannabis legalization. I just had a vague sense that if other people wanted to do it, why not let them? But the evidence suggests pretty clearly that we ought to significantly soften our laws on marijuana. Too many lives have been ruined and too much money spent for a social benefit that, if not zero, certainly isn't very high.
And it may actually happen. If attitudes continue to soften; if the Obama administration turns down the volume on anti-pot propaganda; if medical dispensaries avoid heavy commercialization; if drug use remains stable; and if emergency rooms don't start filling up with drug-related traumas while all this is happening, California's experience could go a long way toward destigmatizing cannabis use. That's a lot of ifs.
Still, things are changing. Even GOP icon Arnold Schwarzenegger now says, "I think it's time for a debate." That doesn't mean he's in favor of legalizing pot right this minute, but it might mean we're getting close to a tipping point. Ten years from now, as the flower power generation enters its 70s, you might finally be able to smoke a fully legal, taxed, and regulated joint.
Page 1 of 1 
Nice
Fine article. I appreciate that you detail both sides of this issue.
This article, also from today, was a pleasant surprise. Current top law-enforcement call for the full legalization of cannabis in SC. http://thediscust.com/?p=573
'After the War on Drugs - Options for Control'
-
tagged as:
- solution
Transform Drug Policy Foundation in the UK has an excellent report on plans for real drug control (beyond an uncontrolled and stigmatized black market): 'After the War on Drugs - Options for Control'
Response to Nice
Nice, that site is for DiSCust which is a parody site. It is the South Carolina equivalent to the Onion.
Legit Law Enforcement page
There IS actually a non-profit that promotes the legalization of marijuana (and decriminalization of other illicit drugs) by law enforcement officers called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP): http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
Legalization will reduce use
Great article but there are two reasons why "legalization" will *reduce* marijuana use.
I say "legalization" because of course not everything will be made legal - drug dealers won't be legal, sales to minors won't be legal, the Mexican drug cartels won't be legal, and smoking in public places won't be legal. In fact all that legalization will make legal is reputable businesses will legally be allowed to produce and sell marijuana to adults.
We're going to find that this reduces marijuana use because minors will no longer have easy access to the stuff as they do right now. Currently drug dealers will sell to anybody, they don't care what age they are as long as they have money. Under legalization customers will be carded, just as alcohol and tobacco customers are carded today. Of course just as with alcohol and tobacco this won't eliminate underage use, but it will mean that they'll need a false id or an adult's assistance in order to purchase marijuana, and that's a big difference from what we have today.
The second reason why marijuana use will fall stems from the inelastic nature of the demand for marijuana. The architects of the prohibition erroneously believed that forcing prices up would result in reduced use. But because the demand for marijuana is so inelastic this simply didn't happen. Instead the high prices and unrelenting demand, combined with the prohibition keeping the marijuana market completely free of competition, serves to draw an unending stream of criminals into our neighborhoods seeking to get rich quick from selling pot to our kids. Oops - I'm sure that wasn't the long-term goal of the prohibition! ;)
So because marijuana's demand is so inelastic, increasing prices didn't reduce use, and similarly decreasing prices won't significantly increase use either. So adult use won't increase significantly and underage use will be severely curtailed. The overall result will be less consumption under legalization rather than more.
You may wonder why I say prices will fall under legalization. Well that is the most crucial aspect of establishing a legal marijuana supply. The legal stores *have* to set their after-tax prices at a level too low for the drug dealers and cartels to match in order to strip the illegal suppliers of their customers and eliminate their profits. That is the ONLY way we can drive them out of our neighborhoods and prevent other criminals from wanting to come in replacing them. That is the only way we can stop them selling pot to our kids, end the daily cartel murders committed to protect their marijuana profits, and end the danger the prohibition is putting ourselves and our families in.
previous comment
-
tagged as:
- solution
You have stated so eloquently the exact nature of the present marijuanna dilemma in the United States. Legalizing marijuanna is the best way to destroy the drug cartels violent hold on the trade and it is so cheap and easy to grow that the US would undeniabley make a profit from this through controling the trade through the FDA and creating a 'pot tax'. This could actually be a good thing ecspecially in these economic times, but until this issue gets picked up by the big money lobbyist, they will keep it off the table. Atleast the Obama administration has declared not to keep spending our dime to bust medical users and sellers, which is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, if the GOP were to gain control again things could change and be very messy! Again, Thank you for writing such an awesome response!
previous comment
-
tagged as:
- solution
You have stated so eloquently the exact nature of the present marijuanna dilemma in the United States. Legalizing marijuanna is the best way to destroy the drug cartels violent hold on the trade and it is so cheap and easy to grow that the US would undeniabley make a profit from this through controling the trade through the FDA and creating a 'pot tax'. This could actually be a good thing ecspecially in these economic times, but until this issue gets picked up by the big money lobbyist, they will keep it off the table. Atleast the Obama administration has declared not to keep spending our dime to bust medical users and sellers, which is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, if the GOP were to gain control again things could change and be very messy! Again, Thank you for writing such an awesome response!
Marijuana is an herb that
Marijuana is an herb that just so happens to have narcotic effects. It grows in the ground. Calling it a "drug" therefore is a bit misleading. Its use has been traced all the way back to pre-historic Africa, where it was prized enough to be buried en masse with the corpse.
Of course its use does have negative consequences, especially among minors. But so does McDonalds. It is far less dangerous and its effects are far less significant then alcohol. Just ask any emergency room nurse. They see the negative effects of tobacco and alcohol every day and every night. Heart attacks, people coughing up blood, drunk drivers, domestic violence, etc..
I think where society probably reached the practical turning-point was upon the advent of the newer group of anti-depressants, Paxil, Zoloft, Cimbalta, etc.. Such meds are readily available and become a lifelong addiction (they are engineered to be that way). They alter people's personalities so that what used to be important to them no longer matters. Compared to these meds, pot is a 'near-beer'. Given this choice, e.g. Zoloft-zombification versus sparking up a spiff, the weed wins.
Organic drugs
Opium is a drug people extract from a plant that grows from little seeds in the ground. They scar the seedpod and scrape off the pure opium. There's a narcotic effect, perhaps the best narcotic effect in the world from this simple flowering plant. When I see marijuana described as plant grown in dirt, I wonder at the logic. Weed is simply the mildest drug, in many ways. Where it's grown is important only in that it's not manufactured by some big multi-national corporation from petroleum and other plant based substances.
I support the use of opiates by people suffering from all sorts of aches and pains, especially the elderly. So do the pharmaceutical and medical professions. They make synthetic opiates easily obtainable and affordable, but because the sufferers who get these scrips often also suffer from economic difficulties, these synthetic opiates flow into the welcoming hands and bodies of more free lance users. A complete legalization of even opiates would probably benefit society by cutting off this revenue stream and requiring people in Appalachia and other ghettoes to demand a better labor environment instead of augmenting their meagre incomes by selling prescription drugs gotten in grandma and grandpa's name or selling a weed easily grown in their back yards or under lights in the basement.
Dear Author. Please review
-
tagged as:
- solution
Dear Author.
Please review this in-depth study of the decriminalization of *ALL* drugs in Portugal since 2001, complete with government backed statistics. This study was conducted by the highly respected CATO Institute, not some "Hemp Hucksters".
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887
If you don't have time to watch this, the results are:
Cumulative drug usage WAY down. Only cocaine saw a minor increase in usage (less than 5% increase) and this is attributed to the "fad" aspect of drug usage, as the increase only came very recently.
Crime, especially violent person on person crime is WAY down.
Drug users accepting treatment options is WAY up.
Budget expenditures on drug enforcement and treatment combined is far lower than pre-decriminalization.
-----------------
The author may have been able to reach better *assumptions* using Portugal as a touchstone for data, or even better, combine the data from Portugal, Spain and Holland (decriminalized cannabis in each). Other places to consider: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, California, Massachusetts and dozens more have reduced the criminal penalty to the lowest possible grade of misdemeanor and the most minor of fines.
It disturbs me greatly when any article attempts to present itself as factual and then goes on to sugges that Holland, and Holland alone, is the only nation on earth where cannabis is decriminalized.
The Author would have done well to point out that as opposed to Holland, which has average drug consumption rates, here in the U.S. where the penalties are among the harshest in the world, we have the Highest (we're #1 baby!) drug usage rates per-capita of ANY nation on earth. This is critically important when considering decriminalization or legalization because one has to make the comparison against the idea that criminalization does *anything* to actually restrict usage.
You are an uninformed Jerk,
You are an uninformed Jerk, Mr. Drum, calling us "Hemp Hucksters" is only adding fuel to the fire which we are burning on babylon. Would you call our founding fathers Hemp Hucksters? they all grew it and not only for industrial use..
you need to learn how valuable this plant is to the earth and humanity
It cures cancer, you got a problem with that?
Pot & Cancer
Pot does not cure cancer. It does, however, allow those being treated for cancer freedom from pain and the ability to eat.
If the U.S. would make it legal and tax it, not only would people be able to make a legal living growing it, but the government would have increased revenue. Think about the current 'sin' taxes... Cigarettes for example; a pack of cigarettes is taxed at 73%, which means that a $6.00 pack of cigarettes should really cost around $2.00. The government makes a bucket of money on cigarette tax.
Cigarettes and alcohol are far more addictive than pot, but they can be freely purchased by any adult.
How many people have had car crashes as the result of smoking a joint?
Yes, it does cure cancer
You are mistaken. The latest research is showing that Cannabis can indeed cure cancer: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090401/marijuana-chemica...
Actually, numerous studies
Actually, numerous studies have documented cannabinoids ability to induce apoptosis in a variety of malignant cells. It is an immensely powerful plant in terms of its chemical variety and sophistication. While smoking anything, or using mind altering substances is inherently unhealthy, it cannot be denied any longer that this plant offers significant benefits for humans. Even modest changes in legislation that allowed for research into strain properties could make a huge difference. Treating marijuana as a peer to crystal-methamphetamine or cocaine or any "harder drug" only means that those who risk jail time to grow the plant breed strains as potent as possible (which, by the way, have still never caused an overdose) rather than the even more therapeutic plant it could be. So can it be healthy? As the quip goes, anything in moderation.
For this and myriad other reasons, the American public does not need a government that deters access to drugs. We need one that is honest and forthright about effects, that doesn't silence WHO reports showing regular ecstasy usage is less damaging than taking tylenol, that doesn't escalate "mild" drugs to the levels of those that are much more unsafe. There are plenty of reasons to avoid habitual marijuana usage, just as a daily McDonalds regimen is a poor dietary choice.
Lastly, I'll acknowledge when by belief steps away from fact: while I know (according to numerous peer reviewed and often U.S. funded studies) that full legalization of marijuana would not cause any deaths by overdose, and would greatly benefit many sick people, I strongly believe that accompanied with an informative campaign people would understand that it is a viable recreational drug: it will likely lower your productivity, give you the munchies, perhaps have you forget something important, or maybe inspire you to write a song or paint by encouraging the stimulation of lesser used neural pathways. Once they've sampled it, as with alcohol, they'll decide to avoid it all together, partake of it on weekends, or enjoy it every night. Some, of course will do it far more often. Addictions are difficult to reconcile with any drug. But there are no withdrawal symptoms; so quitting should be vastly easier than from tobacco or alcohol. I think, too, that people would more rarely progress to "hard" drugs. Currently, a kid who has smoked weed after hearing about its evils thinks hes superman when hes left relatively unchanged by it, if not a little giddier. The prices his felon dealer offered him to try meth or crack are even lower, though; so they cant be much stronger, he thinks. DARE told me weed is addictive; yet I haven't smoked in a week and feel fine. I'm sure I can control this next high just as well, he thinks. But he can't, because the truly dangerous drugs are nasty, painfully addictive and deadly.
I may be wrong, of course, but what we're doing now simply isn't working. Our constitution speaks of civil liberties, of the importance of lives led by the decisions of properly informed independent thinkers, and it does so for good reason. The pursuit of happiness is not some straight, predetermined line. It ebbs, it weaves, it loops back. And yet for every pitfall it meets, it is the pursuit that enables happiness - that one is allowed to move once more to their own ideals; not be forced. Every decision you've made in your life has been the best decision you could make at that moment - that is the very tenet upon which your very consciousness exists. The best we as a society can do to aid our brothers in their own pursuit is help them to make their best decisions; decisions ideally with the foresight and depth necessary to help them reach a lasting happiness. Whensoever we are driven rather than allowed to pursue, we are guaranteed something less than that happiness.
Thank you for reading to this point. I fully respect your beliefs if they differ from mine in our expectations of a public reaction to legalization. All I ask is that when you consider your stance on this matter, you accept the facts above (admittedly I did not give you much in the way of documentation, but a search of any of this on google scholar should confirm my stance.) Current legislation is based on unfounded beliefs. I realize the hypocrisy in my proposal, a switch to my own unfounded beliefs, but I think the difference is that mine at least embrace personal liberty. If given a chance, this opinion may well be validated, and as the associated detriments of the drug trade escalate, I feel the least we can do is give it a try.
Weed does not cure cancer,
Weed does not cure cancer, pal. You got a problem with that? Weed makes you high, unless you smoke a lot of it, and then it simply makes you awfully tired, groggy, or brilliant, depending. Promote weed on the basis of its ability to make you high, stimulate the appetite, or act as a vasodilator in the lungs while it also diminishes lung capacity.
Arguing that weed cures cancer is just a sad example of how it does not cure intellectual laziness.
The government has known
-
tagged as:
- result
The government has known since 1974 that cannabis does cure cancer:
"the first ever experiment documenting pot’s anti-tumor effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest of the U.S. government. The results of that study, immortalized in an August 18, 1974 Washington Post newspaper feature, were that 'THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent'."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/armentano-p1.html
WOW IM SO GLAD YOUR A
WOW IM SO GLAD YOUR A MARIJUANA SCIENTIST AND YOU KNOW BETTER THAN ALL THE REAL SCIENTISTS WHO CAN PROVE POT CAN SHRINK AND CURE TUMORS AND OTHER FORMS OF CANCER. Ignorant shit take your trolling elsewhere, cannabis has a million more uses than making you high and stimulating apptite.
Cowardly politicians, a leadership vacuum
Besides the continued circulation of myths and lies, along with the usual fearmongering, there remains no intelligent leadership to change the status quo.
The American people are ahead of where the politicians think they are on this.
The treaty hurdle is a huge one, and many institutions benefit from prohibition
funding and will fight to keep it. This is another aspect of how we no longer can govern ourselves wisely. Along with health care, economic recovery, global warming,
and numerous other issues we will stagger along knowing the right policies but having the wrong ones in place.
Cops Say Legalize Drugs, All of Them
Find out why more and more cops, judges, and prosecutors who have fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" are standing up and saying we need to legalize and regulate all drugs to solve our economic, crime, and public health problems: http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com
Good article, but there is
Good article, but there is probably more support for legalizing marijuana than you think. There was a poll this year from CBS I believe where only 38% were for legalizing. There was also a Zogby poll this year where they found 52% of voting aged adults were for legalizing. There were three others this year where support was in the low to mid forties. Support for legalizing is probably somewhere in the low to mid forties and it's steadily growing.
Much of this can be attributed to the fact that people who grew up before marijuana became popular are dying off. Polls that break down age demographics show that the vast majority of older people, 65 and older, tend to be strongly opposed to legalization. These are basically the people born before the baby boom that began in 1946 and ended in 1964. These "pre-boomers" were 55 and older in 2000 and they made up about 28.3% of the voting aged public. According to U.S. Census projections next year they'll only be a little over 17%. In 2015 they'll be about 12.5%, and by 2020 they'll be less than 9% of the voting aged public. Support for legalizing marijuana has been growing at a slightly faster rate than these people are dying off. It seems to be picking up a little in the last couple of years with the troubles in our economy, the growth in government debt, and the growing problem with Mexican drug cartels that people are becoming more and more aware of as time goes on.
The odds that we'll legalize in the next five years may be slim to none, but the odds are improving and will continue to improve. Support for legalization has been growing steadily since 1992, by around one point a year, and the pace seems to be picking up a little now. It is quite possible that within five years we'll see poll after poll coming back showing over 50% support for legalizing. When that happens politicians won't be nearly so afraid to come out for legalization.
The dying off of the pre-boomers is not just changing things among voters, it is also having an effect on our lawmakers. Our federal law makers are as old as the hills. The senior lawmakers that dictate the party line decide which bills make it to the floor for a vote are usually in their late sixties and seventies. The average age of a committee leader in either Congress or the Senate is way up there in the late sixties. Those with all the power tend to be old people who grew up before marijuana became popular and of course they tend to be strongly opposed to legalization. They're on their way though out though and I'd bet money that the baby boomer politicians who will fill their shoes are far less opposed to legalization on average. Half of them have probably smoked pot themselves. These are mostly males with advanced degrees and the statistical likelihood that have smoked marijuana is very high. It's high for early boomer males with college degrees and over 50% for males with graduate school degrees, even for those born in the early Forties before the baby boom. They won't come out for it today because they'd like to be re-elected, but as support for legalization crests over 50%, far more will come out for it and the higher it gets over 50% the more support we'll see from our lawmakers because they'll be trying to use this growing support for legalization for political advantage.
Marijuana will be legalized. It's only a matter of time now. We're going to have to see more of these older lawmakers go and we're going to have to see support from the public crest over 50% and continue to grow after that, but the changing of the guard in our law making bodies is certain and growth of support for legalization to over 50% among the voting public is practically a given. It might take ten years, maybe even twenty, but marijuana will end up being legalized.
Glenn Greenwalds White Paper
I'm surprised Kevin didn't read Glenns latest White Paper on the Legalization of Drugs, all drugs, in Portugal. If he had a few of the mistakes made in writing this piece might not of happen. Glenns study showed no increase in use, in fact it showed a slight decrease. Only use and possession was made legal while Drug Dealers of any weight are still being busted and prosecuted. This has been going on for yrs but the results are being ignored across the globe because it does not fit in their neat little narrative.
Ca. made medical marijuana legal in 1996 and yet the Cops still resist following State law. Harassment, illegal searches and destruction of grows happen almost daily. The Cops in many county refuse to even look at a Dr.s rec. or a State Marijuana ID, preferring to take the patient to Jail and let a Judge sort it out, costing the Patient Time, Money and added suffering for no reason, not to mention taking away the patients medicine.
In San Diego County the main excuse the Cops use in Federal Law that runs counter to Ca. State law. Just last week a Judge has again had to teach the Police that they serve under the color of Ca. Law, not under Federal color of law and as such they must bend to the will of the State and stop with the excuses or continue to pay the big fines. Even the US Supreme Court has come to this point recently.
To see the city of Washington DC make Medical Marijuana legal while it is the same place that is the seat of the Federal Gov, including the DEA would be a very delicious irony to behold. Has for our new Atty Gen. Holder, he has yet to set the so-call "new policy" to paper. When Federal Judge Wu asked to have a copy of the new policy in writing so he would know how to Sentence Charles Lynch, his request was denied. That makes one wonder if our new Atty Gen. intends us to live under the same kind of secret laws that Bush and Gonzales used for yrs? Isn't that unconstitutional ? One has to wonder what a Professor of the Constitution would say about that but the MSM has so far refused to ask the Pres.. Maybe some day soon ?
Interesting footnote - in
Interesting footnote - in South Africa, where cannabis is illegal but the law is scarcely enforced, dope is cheap (less than 1/10 the US price) and is not much of a social problem - the real problem here is crystal meth, known locally as 'tik'. Rastafarians have had some success blockading tik dealers - gathering around the drug houses in significant numbers and refusing customers access - all the while smoking the weed.
I think the estimates
for tax revenue do not account for the undeniable fact that marijuana grows a lot easier than tomatoes, and many people grow tomatoes for home consumption.
If it's legal to smoke, it's legal to grow, and then I expect most people to save themselves the cost of purchase and the cost of the tax by turning their garden into a goldmine. It only takes one seed to grow to maturity producing hundreds of new seeds. One good harvest in September could keep a casual smoker from running out all winter.
High school kids would soon be yanking plants out of their neighbors yard, making the age restriction a joke.
Just use Google - type in "Marijuana Seeds" and see how many hits you get. (pun intended) There are hundreds of seed dealers all around the world willing to take your credit card number and sell you seeds for about $20 each. (Laughing their asses off meanwhile, since a single plant produces hundreds of seeds)
It's a prolific weed. It doesn't require much care to grow to maturity. And if you're looking to re-live your high school days be aware - the shit today is a hundred times more powerful per ounce than it was at Woodstock.
Not that I remember Woodstock.
- Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. Thomas Jefferson 6/11/1807
Tomatoes are Legal
"...the estimates for tax revenue do not account for the undeniable fact that marijuana grows a lot easier than tomatoes, and many people grow tomatoes for home consumption... I expect most people to save themselves the cost of purchase and the cost of the tax by turning their garden into a goldmine. "
Most people buy tomatoes, for a reason. They may be easy to grow, but not everyone has the time, motivation, wisdom, land, or seasonal weather to grow. Are tomato farmers going broke? Are tomatoes left rotting, unsold on store shelves? No.
You also seem to assume that prices of cannabis will stay the same after re-legalization, hence turning gardens into goldmines. But once it is legal, growing your own will no longer be a goldmine, because prices will fall dramatically. Just like growing tomatoes is not a goldmine. Why? Because they're legal, and just as "easy" to grow.
The whole thing is a farce and we've become used to a society where myths about a simple plant have been blown out of proportion. People need to calm down about this and realize we don't need to ruin lives based on what plants people are growing in their gardens.
How many. . .
. . . summer gardeners actually grow a years usage worth of tomatoes?
To grow marijuana of any quality takes more work than is sometimes thought. Sure, I could through some seeds out in the garden, keep them watered, and at the end of the summer perhaps harvest some smokable pot. It would be ok, do its job, but wouldn't hold candle to the professionally grown cannabis available today.
Why go to the trouble and expense to grow high quality pot, when you could go and buy it? The same argument was used when home beer brewing was finally legalized. . . Beer sales and tax revenues did not decrease because people could brew their own. Sure as a hobby growing/brewing is fun, but not a sustainable practice for most individuals. . .
Legal Tomatoes??
@patriot4peace
If you do some research, you'll find that "the shit today" is nowhere near a hundred times more potent than it was 30 years ago, that is a ridiculous myth that has unfortunately been used by the anti-weed movement to scare ex-hippies. The most potent strains of weed are the ones that have been stable since the 60's and 70's.
What you might be referring to in terms of "more powerful" is that good weed is easier to get thee days. Good weed that is grown properly, given the right climate, light conditions, and fertilizer. Weed that is grown indoors under intense lighting and fed Co2, this is the weed that is grown for medical use, and is far better than the crap that is grown in someone's backyard who just waters regularly and doesn't know what they're doing. Growing marijuana to produce decent herb is harder than you think.
Prohibition is largely responsible for the indoor grow movement because people were forced to go into hiding, and as a result, now can produce better weed, in higher quantities. But the stable strains of cannabis that have the highest THC content (potency) are still the strains that were being grown back in Woodstock. Maybe you had shitty weed, but you can bet Hendrix was smoking the good stuff.
If you really think about legalization, all these medical marijuana growers in CA who have perfected their product will be ready for that first jump, producing high quality weed at low prices, and even with CA's proposed $50/oz tax, that would still be top quality weed at affordable prices. You really think that Joe Shmoe is going to be successful trying to grow weed in his back yard? It takes months, and money, and work, when all the while you could just go to the dispensary. You can't just yank a plant out of the ground and smoke it, and if kids want to get it, they'll pay their older brother to go pick some up, just like alcohol. Studies today say kids can get weed easier than alcohol, and alcohol is legal. And in any case, I'm doubtful that the first stages of legalization (and regulation, remember how that works?) will allow anyone who wants to grow cannabis in their backyard.
The age restriction for alcohol is a joke too, but the authors point is this: would you prefer a stoned 16 year old playing video games or a drunk 16 year old crashing into your house?
I support legalization,
I support legalization, mainly because I think it's a terrible shame and a waste that so many unscrupulous, often brutal people are getting rich supplying these drugs at the bulk level, thus funding their dangerous criminal enterprises. When, as a matter of public policy, we could realize a revenue windfall. When, as a matter of public health, we could bring what is, in and of itself, a relatively mild indulgence out of the shadows where it could be treated more rationally and responsibly. It's likewise terrible that average people who by intent and action pose no threat themselves, are being pulled into contact with both criminals, and sometimes even more damagingly, the criminal justice system, where they are marked and degraded and pulled out of productive participation in the mainstream economy. A couple of further points: minors and others who are officially banned from purchasing marijauna under a program of legalization would still find a way to get some through informal networks; that's just common sense. But we can at least limit to a large extent the sources and composition of the drugs they're likely to acquire. It doesn't seem plausible to me that a substitution effect would necessarily accompany legalization. People who like smoking pot AND drinking are going to consume both together. Some people might drink more when they smoke, others less. However, it does seem an obviously good idea to delink sources of marijauna from sources of harder drugs -- and the more dangerous people who sell them. Because heavy use can lead to dependence, I'd prefer to see the amount of form of marijuana available regulated to a reasonable extent. If people can buy a couple of joints at a time, it might make it more likely they'd indulge themselves situationally, rather than abuse the substance chronically (just as you wouldn't want alcohol only available for purchase in big bottles of liquor.) Finally, let's not forget that while some brave, honest law enforcement officials are calling for decrimanalization, there is a lucrative above-ground economy based around the continued criminalization of marijuana, which includes law enforcement, court personnel, prosecutors and defense attorneys and anyone else who sees some of the money shaken down from everyday citizens who are busted for low-level marijuana offenses. The profits of those very legal participants in the illegal drug trade are a further barrier to legalization.
^^^This man should be in the
^^^This man should be in the government. By criminalizing cannabis the government is giving up the power to control the market for it. It puts the power with gangs, drug cartels and other sources who are willing to illegally supply the market through any means possible. This gives rise to other problems such as "warfare" between gangs/cartels trying to control the market, and by being an unregulated market, cannabis is made available to any with money i.e. teenagers and kids. The government effectively acts as an extension of the largest cartel by eliminating the smaller growers. This also acts as a huge source of revenue for gangs (anywhere from an estimated $10 billion to $60 billion each yr). This estimate is from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.
By legalizing cannabis, this gives the government the power to regulate and control the market. The government could create a monopoly in which all cannabis stores are government owned and run. This would decrease the price of blackmarket cannabis greatly, as there is a legal option, and create a huge source of revenue. If it were taxed at similar rates to tobacco or alcohol (which would still be below current cannabis prices) the government would again increase their revenue by billions each year. This does not take into account the savings on the War on Drugs (of which most arrests are for simple possession of marijuana), the savings on local law enforcement and court costs, and the cost to defendants.
A conviction of possession of marijuana results in ineligibility for government grants and loans for tertiary education, something which even murderers and rapists receive. Those convicted of possession are ineligible to hold public office or to receive visa-free entry to foreign countries. By legalizing cannabis people who consume marijuana would no longer face the possibility of having a narcotic criminal conviction over their heads for the rest of their lives. Had this law been enforced equally, Obama wouldn't be president.
However, on the point of marijuana and alcohol being substitutes, this can be both true and false. As Evan said, people who drink and use cannabis will still continue do use both BUT I think that they will use alcohol to a lesser degree if cannabis were legalized, albeit a negligible amount. To put it into economic terms, it is opportunity cost. If a person who uses alcohol and marijuana has the option to buy both, it is likely that they will purchase both but since it is likely that they will have a subconscience budget, they will split their money on both items and not purchase the same amounts if marijuana was still illegal. This, of course, takes into account the marginal cost and consumer surplus to the consumer for each product and the willingness to break the law under the prohibition of cannabis. And by legalizing marijuana, it removes the exposure of harder drugs to consumers. This is as consumers previously had to purchase marijuana through illicit sources, sources which also offered harder drugs for sale. If it were legalized, this exposure would be eliminated, as marijuana would be available through legal means. I'm not saying that ALL exposure would be gone, just the exposure through purchasing marijuana.
Legalizing Pot
-
tagged as:
- solution
Excellent article, Kevin!
For 15 yrs, I served as Medical Director of an alcohol & drug detox unit. Thousands of people admitted, including a total of precisely ZERO patients admitted due to abuse of only marijuana. Alcohol is much more dangerous than is pot. Our laws should reflect the relative dangerousness of these. I can understand why years ago people attempted to make alcohol illegal, but it didn't take long to see that Prohibition didn't work, so that social experiment was aborted. Unfortunately, the laws against marijuana are simply repeating the same mistake this country made years ago with alcohol. To do the same thing over again & expect a different result is something many people would consider crazy. Why can't our government stop this folly?
For a politician to worry that advocating legalization of pot would be electoral disaster is simply no longer realistic. Most people either have smoked it, know someone who smokes it, or do not feel threatened by having it be legal. As so many have documented, legalization will benefit society in many ways. Legalization not only reflects the wishes of our citizens, it also will be a winning political stance for anyone courageous enough to stand up for what is right.
Who still insists upon perpetuating the outdated criminalization of the tens of millions of peaceful, law-abiding American pot smokers? Only the ignorant,who don't know any better because they've never tried it or because they cling to the discredited horror stories seen in "Reefer Madness." Ignorance means a lack of knowledge. Some of the septuagenarians in Congress may have minds open to persuasion when confronted with the facts; we should be deluging them with information so they have a chance to see the light. Otherwise, the "social conservatives" of the religious right (who dominated social policy under W 43) will always stand in the way of progress, on this & many other issues, because they remain ignorant by choice. They are outnumbered, though, by those of us whose minds are open rather than closed, so we need to push this issue into public consciousness so that opponents of legalization can be properly marginalized as the extremists they are.
As a parent, I'd be less worried if my college-age kids smoked a little pot once a week than if they were to go out drinking in a bar with friends once a week. If there is any justice in this world, that attitude should be held by a majority of parents in this country within the next decade.
A softer attitude to
A softer attitude to cannabis might also reduce social aggression. I don’t know about the US, but the UK government tranquilises a substantial percentage of the population with prescription drugs provided free on the NHS. The incidence is higher on large low-income estates and includes many quite young children whose youthful exuberance becomes stressful to tranquilised parents. No one will admit this, obviously. The pitch is that the decision is a medical one based on a doctor’s assessment in each case. The net result, however, is to bring relative calm to areas, often areas of substantial unemployment, which would otherwise demand vastly greater resources from the social services and the police. Is there any evidence that cannabis reduces aggression?
Well, I dunno about
Well, I dunno about aggression, but I sure don't want to have to karate a dude when I'm baked. Its just not cool, man. For an example, and I know it is a movie, but look at Half-Baked, in the scene where Thurgood comes home to a situation. He is at first mad and yelling, but then is handed a joint, and he smokes, and calms down visibly with each hit, until he apologizes for yelling, then offers a solution. And passes the joint.
And, probably even LESS scientific, but have you ever seen an angry hippie?
angry hippies
No, hippies are often angry. Their relationships may seem loving, but they often lash out at their significant others just like people who don't use pot. You haven't seen enough hippies to know that simply because they get high doesn't mean they become these peaceful Zen artists.
True peace comes from becoming centered and focused on loving and compassion, and you don't get that from any pipe. Maybe short term, but not long term.
commercial promotion of marijuana
"that while legalization at first had little effect, once the coffeehouses began advertising and promoting themselves more aggressively in the 1980s, cannabis use more than doubled in a decade."
39 years ago I lived in Kansas which banned advertising of liquor and banned any sign other than a State issued sign, approx. 16" in diameter, on the store front. I think this approach would solve the problem of advertising/promoting for the use of marijuana/hash.
One result of the advertisng ban in Kansas was that many liquor stores could and were located in residential neighborhoods. The traffic was low and discrete and loitering was banned by city ordinance. You could even walk to one of these stores eliminating the auto traffic.
Hard drug use would decrease with legal marijuana
Cocaine and heroin piggyback on imported marijuana and marijuana is the "backbone of the illegal drug trade". With this tie broken hard drug availability and use would decrease. It would not be eliminated but it would decrease substantially.
How exactly are "hemp hucksters" wrong?
Alan P.
I know of absolutely no evidence that "Heavy cannabis users are more likely to be in auto accidents" nor any that legitimizes "scattered reports of respiratory and fetal development problems", whatever that means. It certainly would NOT increase heroin and cocaine use even slightly. More addicts start out on alcohol than on marijuana. Less than 1% of marijuana users use other illegal drugs. Many find that it helps suppress cravings for alcohol and other drugs.
What is not in dispute is that every year thousands of innocent people are thrown into cages with murderers and rapists and having their lives destroyed when they haven't done anyone else any harm. Excuse me if I'm not impressed that you're "looking at the evidence . . . Not the spin from the . . . hemp hucksters" There's already been too much time wasted looking at "both sides" of a law that is so thoroughly without merit and exacts so great a human toll.
Legal to sell to adults, but no advertising
"..a State issued sign, approx. 16" in diameter, on the store front. I think this approach would solve the problem of advertising/promoting for the use of marijuana/hash."
That's a *great* idea Anonymous, I believe all advertising of recreational drugs should be banned. Tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and whatever else. They should be legal for reputable businesses to produce and sell to adults so as to eliminate a black market which would sell to minors and bring violence, beatings and death into our neighborhoods, but they should NOT be allowed to be advertised. The goal is to eliminate the black market, NOT encourage use.
LEGALIZE IT
Sorry - there is no rational reason to keep weed illegal. Especially in a society that not only leaves booze legal, but also allows booze to be aggressively advertised to children in electronic and print media. (Drink responsibly....I'm sure that little disclaimer in the ads has saved 100s of lives).
Weed isn't addictive. Booze is. Weed does not wreck homes. Booze does. Weed does not kill people. Booze does.
In a country like the US - the only reason weed is still illegal is due to religious/moral issues.
Weed does wreck homes. Maybe
Weed does wreck homes. Maybe I should be more precise - weed wrecks homes because close to a million people are arrested each year for simple possession. Weed wrecks homes because it is illegal. If it were legal, close to a million people each year would save themselves a lot of time, money and hassle. The Prohibition of marijuana wrecks homes
Narcotics??>?
Cocaine, Methamphetamines, Ecstasy, and Marijuana are NOT narcotics. They way they butcher the English language in the drug war is obscene. All the drugs - and then some - mentioned are stimulants. Narcotics will put you in a coma if you OD while stimulants will cause cardiac arrest - both eventually leading to death. Marijuana has never been implicated in any deaths so - although it is a stimulant - it obviously does not cause cardiac arrest.
A drug dependency is what tens of millions of people my age have - due to the abuses involved with our abusive lifestyle. People with drug dependencies are encouraged to "take their medications" - because their continued good health is "drug dependent". While getting someone off a drug dependency is as desirable as getting them off a drug addiction that process should be done slowly and with great caution and probably with major lifestyle changes. A drug dependency is NOT interchangeable with a drug addiction - despite what the DEA and PDFA may want to let you believe. If you force someone off a drug dependency they may die. If you force someone off a drug addiction they will just be incredibly miserable. IF someone forced someone off a drug dependency they could be up on murder charges. If they deliberately substituted for medications involved in a dependency they would subject to the death penalty - even before they grossly expanded the death penalty as a reaction to the crime/violence caused by current drug policies.
On the last point it should be clear: any supporter of the current policy is for higher rates of drug use, drug abuse, drug addiction, toxic drugs, crime, violence, public corruption and social disintegration. These outcomes ALWAYS happen after the enactment of drug prohibition. If you support drug prohibition you either believe these outcomes are good for the country, you are a total idiot, or you are a criminal who believes that they will profit from higher crime and increased drug problems. This brings us to the following question: into which category does Reagan, Bush, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama fall into?
May God's will be done on earth and let it begin - and end - with myself. If it happens any other way it's not God's will.
When I stated that pot has
When I stated that pot has ‘narcotic’ effects, I was using the broad meaning of the word. You are correct, pot is NOT a narcotic, nor is it a stimulant, it is a mildly hallucinogenic substance which stimulates dopamine production in the human brain. It is also a mild analgesic. Ecstasy (or MDMA) is an hallucinogenic but is also a stimulant, as is Starbucks. Methamphetamines are a heavy stimulant. Cocaine is also a stimulant. The quick test which identifies stimulants is if people with high blood-pressure are specifically advised not to use those substances. The answer is yes to all the above--except pot. In fact, in California, doctors can prescribe pot to help control spikes in blood-pressure. All are technically “drugs” although to reiterate my earlier comment, such things as peyote, ‘magic-mushrooms’, pot and yes, coffee and aspirin, were all put into our environment by the same intelligence that created ourselves. In that respect they are not “drugs” as the popular inference often is that “drugs” are chemical compounds--specifically manipulated on a molecular level to produce pharmaceutical interactions, not otherwise natural.
Curb Commercialization? How?
"Full legalization would likely increase use only moderately as long as heavy commercialization is prohibited,..."
Aren't there First Amendment issues? How do you propose to curb commercialization, given the inevitably powerful lobbies that legalization would bring? (Seriously - this might be worth a blog post.)
I favor something like the Dutch approach, where large scale pot enterprises are essentially banned. But I would like to know what their thoughts on the subject are.
Legalize it
SLIM chance, no way. Times have changed and the next election will show evidence of that. Look at the Latest polls they go from mid 40's to the most recent Zogby poll witch for the first time ever showed 52% in Favor of Legalization. The minority will not be able to arrest and jail people for Laws no longer supported for much longer.
Great article! The only
Great article! The only thing that really drives me nuts is when people mention gateway drug theories. Gateway drugs as far as I'm concerned are clever ways for lobbyists for tobacco and alcohol to keep drugs as the "bad guys" and their products as the "good guys". What it comes down to is, just about every kid in this country has some sort of drug and alcohol education by the time they're ready to experiment. Their decision to use drugs is their decision alone. You can't blame it on the drug itself. Gateway drug theories are like a way for people to take responsibility away from the people themselves. No one ever got hooked on heroin accidentally. No one ever slipped and fell into a hit of crack.
People choose to do what they want to do. Some at a really young age, others at a later age. The only thing you can do is educate them as much as possible. "This is alcohol, here are the effects, now you decide." "Here's crack, this is the effect it has on people, you decide"...etc
The two biggest issues about prohibition that people very rarely bring up, is 1. drugs being illegal makes it EASIER for young kids to get. It's easier for high school kids to get marijuana than it is alcohol. and 2. The money we spend locking up all these "criminals" created by prohibition can go towards education and medical. If addiction is classified as a mental disorder, why are we treating it in jails rather than hospitals?
And this has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in drugs, you like people who do them, etc. The final thing about prohibition that is REALLY hard for Americans to grasp is, it's really none of your business. Stop worrying about what people want to do with their bodies. If someone's in public high, treat it the same as if they're drunk. If they're driving a car, same thing. If they're violent, same thing. That's what we need criminal justice for. If you take away the black market, and allow people to legitimately get their stash, and they do it behind closed doors. Who really cares? It's not your business. We should be the true greedy Americans that we are. Fund peoples misery and make money off of it, like alcohol and tobacco.
organized crime
-
tagged as:
- solution
"The stupidest thing you can do (is) to run against an industry that is providing employment for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and not just in Alberta, but right across the country," Ignatieff told an audience largely of business graduate students at HEC Montreal, a management school affiliated with the University of Montreal.
When discussing the Tar Sands.
The real responce to the "Drug War"!
Thank you
Interesting article, especially considering you are not a marijuana user yourself. There are definitely medicinal benefits in some situations. For example, cancer patients or those suffering from eating disorders who need to eat enough to stay alive.
I have always thought that pot is no worse than alcohol. Heck, alcohol in my opinion is worse. Then again, my ex-husband is an alcoholic. I've known my share of potheads as well as alcoholics, and I'll take the company of a pothead anyday over a drunk. I can't say I've ever seen stoned people (and just stoned; NOT stoned and drunk or stoned and on other drugs) get violent or into a big fight. I can't tell you how many times I've seen violence or fighting caused by alcohol.
I have been prescribed narcotics before and honestly, I think those are more intense than pot. Heck, the narcotics that are commonly prescribed by doctors (for various mental illnesses for example) are sometimes addictive. I don't think pot is addictive though. Yes, people CAN get hooked on pot, but I think that has more to do with the person being prone to addiction in general as opposed to the drug itself. Just like not all people are alcoholics, alcohol in and of itself is not addictive, BUT some people ARE addicted to it.
It's none of your damn business if I want to smoke weed...
If, in the privacy of my home or back yard, I wish to indulge in the dried buds of a plant that has been cultivated for many centuries, it is nobody's business but my own. It certainly shouldn't be against the law. Any fair minded analysis will inevitably come to that conclusion. Decades of propaganda and fear mongering have warped even supposedly 'objective' viewpoints.
One other aspect of the damage done by the war on marijuana is the prevalence of pre-employment drug screening that catches metabolized chemicals indicating pot use in the previous week or two, as though this were any indication of whether the applicant will satisfactorily carry out his or her duties on the job. But in the 'zero tolerance' view of the world, the presence of such chemicals in the urine will disqualify many a fine potential employee.
There's a simple answer as I
There's a simple answer as I see it: Those who are for the herb should have access to it, and those who are against the herb should not be allowed to use it.
I think it is also worthy to
I think it is also worthy to note that the annual use of cannabis by adults in the Netherlands is at 6.1% (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2006.html) while annual usage rates are higher in nearly every other Western country e.g. Australia - 13.3%, Austria - 7.8%, Belgium - 8%, Canada - 16.8%, England and Wales - 10.8%, France - 9.8%, Germany - 6.9%, New Zealand - 13.4%, Portugal 3.3%, USA 12.6%. These are some figures of Western nations. It should be noted that in Germany, The Netherlands and Portugal possession of cannabis for personal use is either legal or decriminalized. This is in contrast to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA etc, where possession is still illegal, yet usage rates remain higher.
Lifetime usage rates are: Portugal 7.6%Netherlands 22.6%, Germany 22.4%, UK 22.6%, England and Wales only 22.8%, France 30.6%, Denmark 36.5%, New Zealand 41.9%, USA 42.4% and Canada 44.5%. From these statistics it can be deduced that both annual and lifetime usage rates in countries where marijuana is decriminalized/legal is much lower than in those countries where possession is still illegal.
Makes you wonder why we bother...
kids and pot
I know when i was in high school and you had some pot...you would be treated alright...BUT if you came with beer or booze to go around you were a God! I wonder why....oh right becuase you need IDs to get beer pot you can get anywhere.
