View Full Version : U.S. Relaxes Opposition to Medical Marijuana
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20091019/hl_hsn/usrelaxesoppositiontomedicalmarijuana
U.S. Relaxes Opposition to Medical Marijuana
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter by Steven Reinberg
healthday Reporter – 35 mins ago
MONDAY, Oct. 19 (HealthDay News) -- The Obama administration has decided it will no longer prosecute medical marijuana users or suppliers, provided they obey the laws of states that allow use of the drug for medicinal purposes.
The new guidelines, which were to be sent in a Justice Department memo to federal prosecutors on Monday, are designed to give priorities to U.S. Attorneys who are pursuing drug offenders.
"As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your states on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana," the memo states.
During his campaign, President Barack Obama promised to change the government's policy on the use of medical marijuana in those states that allow it. The administration of President George W. Bush had opposed the use of marijuana as medicine.
"This is a huge victory for medical marijuana patients," Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, a nationwide medical marijuana advocacy organization, said in a prepared statement.
"This indicates that President Obama intends to keep his promise not to undermine state medical marijuana laws and represents a significant departure from the policies of the Bush Administration," Sherer added. "We will continue to work with President Obama, the Justice Department and the U.S. Congress to establish a comprehensive national policy, but it's good to know that in the meantime, states can implement medical marijuana laws without interference from the federal government."
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, a group that seeks the legalization of marijuana, said: "The federal government, to some degree, has said 'uncle' in acknowledging both the medical utility of cannabis and acknowledging that there is some clear place in the law for states to have the autonomy to allow for marijuana to be used and, quite logically, that there be a source for it."
Currently, 14 states allow use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, according to the Associated Press.
Proponents of medical marijuana contend the drug effectively treats chronic pain and nausea from a variety of diseases and disorders, including cancer and glaucoma.
According to the Justice Department memo, "prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources."
But, the memo adds, the federal government will prosecute people who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activities. The memo warns that "some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business."
The memo, written by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, urges federal prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases that involve violence, the illegal use of guns, selling marijuana to minors, money laundering and other crimes.
And, the memo does not rule out the federal government prosecuting someone whose activities are allowed under state law.
The memo notes that efforts should focus on prosecution of significant marijuana traffickers. "Marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels," the memo states.
The new policy is not without its critics, including some federal lawmakers who see it as a weakening in the war against Mexican drug cartels, the AP said.
"We cannot hope to eradicate the drug trade if we do not first address the cash cow for most drug trafficking organizations -- marijuana," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
One health expert said the policy change was good, noting concerns about marijuana should be based on science and not the fear that any drug will be abused.
"I was never sure why there was an issue," said Kenneth W. Goodman, a professor of medicine at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, and co-director of the university's ethics programs. "We have a long track record about making judgments about drugs based on research."
"My view has always been whether you should use opiates or aspirin or antibiotics or marijuana or anything depends on the research," he said. "If there is evidence that shows that something works and it's controlled by physicians, then what's the problem?"
rickrock305
10-19-09, 17:40
its about damn time.
while it doesn't go nearly far enough, i think this is the first action by the Obama administration that i can applaud. we'll see how it plays out.
The new policy is not without its critics, including some federal lawmakers who see it as a weakening in the war against Mexican drug cartels, the AP said.
"We cannot hope to eradicate the drug trade if we do not first address the cash cow for most drug trafficking organizations -- marijuana," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
If he wanted to eliminate the cash cow he would legalize it and drop the prices down by a large factor.
so basically nothing is changing.. the US has only been prosecuting defendents on additional charges, and that won't change. the DEA will still raid, and they'll still arrest, and the DOJ will still prosecute felons with guns, grow operations done outside of legal parameters (all of them, in other words), and other PCS charges (all of them, in other words).
the people who grow and use medical marijuana are, overwhelmingly, criminals with a legal "out" to continue their previously illegal conduct.. its extremely hard to not end up with a good prosecution with these guys..
If he wanted to eliminate the cash cow he would legalize it and drop the prices down by a large factor.
Eliminate all of those government jobs needed to wage war on the nafarious plant?...And taking the issue from so many "tough on crime/drugs" politicians?
Unlikely.:(
rickrock305
10-19-09, 18:04
yep, its more of a cash cow for the federal and state government than it is for the cartels.
The great one is doing what one would expect. It is against the law as it should be. Don't want to go to jail don't do it. If they want to have medical mary jane then have doctors write the PX and get it through a pharmacy. other than that bust them. I saw to many people start down a long road using this shit.
I saw to many people start down a long road using this shit.
People make shitty personal decisions. It isn't the government's business to start divining artificial lines to protect citizens from themselves.
I've seen plenty of people start down a long road using alcohol. I've seen plenty of people with tremendous health problems because they stuffed their faces with fatty food and were too lazy to exercise. As a former EMT, I had seen plenty of people shot.
So you want the government to ban alcohol, fast food and guns now? That is the logical conclusion of your bullshit argument...
you know what they say about opinions
If they want to have medical mary jane then have doctors write the PX and get it through a pharmacy.
That is totally not how it works. You get a card and go to a medical marijuana shop, which are legal businesses, not a pharmacy. These legal medical marijuana shops are what the DEA keeps busting for no reason other than that they feel like it, which is the whole point of changing the rules.
I'm biased...personally I view this no different than when they outlawed booze and created a criminal element....then realized they screwed up.
I doubt legalization will ever happen as there is to much $$$ by the govt trying to stop a demand that will not go away.
Sorry, I know I choose to live along the border but it's frustrating to be worried about being in a crossfire on either side of the border (where I work). Hell, the drug biz is now moving into the illegal alien biz. Free passage into the states if they carry a backback.
It is getting bad...the fight over the plaza is about to come to a head I'm afraid. Just legalize the poison and be done with it.
Don't even get me start why the same bottle of tequila is $8 over there and $30 here!!;)
Finally a step in the right direction!
I've known a bunch of folks with cancer and various afflictions over the years. Quite a few of them are dead, some are now end-stage, many more are still fighting. All are/were well managed with marinol or other pharmaceuticals.
The loudest voices in the legalization debate, or at least the events and propganda I've been exposed to, seem to be stoners exploiting the sick. Followed by the libertarians taking up the cause on principle. The smallest minority seem to be the sick themselves.
I've arrested a number of folks with "medical marijuana" prescriptions or documents. All were tourists from elsewhere, incredulous that I'd victimize the sick like that. To the one, none could identify what their condition was necessitating its use, beyond "making them feel better." None seemed to know what the various onco drugs I asked them about were, either.
On the other hand, I've never had a suspect high on pot alone kick out the windows of my car, try to take my gun, or otherwise be much of a problem. The individual user mostly wants to be left alone, and isn't a problem unless he's behind the wheel or neglecting his kids.
Who knows.
While cancer drug might work, they also cause side effects and they are managed with more drugs. I see no reason to restrict a sick person from smoking pot if it can limit the amounts of pharmaceuticals they need.
Branding it illegal just makes it more profitable for people to sell illegally, it does not stop the demand. The pros of legalizing it far out weigh the cons.
I've seen many CA patients undergoing chemo, as well as patients with a few other properly diagnosed illnesses be helped by this drug. There is a simple solution--make it a schedule II or III medication and allow providers to write a standard RX, just like for opiates; patients then take the RX to their nearest pharmacy and pick up the medication. This makes a whole lot more sense than the current fragmented system...
What on God's green earth qualifies you to make such a statement?
facts? It is true. Legalizing MJ would solve a lot of problems in this country and has very little downside. People who want it now get it easy. Legalization would drive the price down, which would make it less desirable for the criminals to sell and trade in which would also lessen the "pushing" down on kids. Pushers "push" it because it is worth it. Remove that incentive ("worth it)" and you remove some of the activity of pushing it.
Are you advocating a complete legalization? If so, I'll ask you the same question.
I am.
I dont know about "qualified" past seeing the obvious for 30+ years.
It's relatively innocuous compared to other legal substances.
The propaganda against it tends to be so full of holes as to be laughable.From Reefer madness to "Gateway drug" etc(a clue?).Some of the more recent campaigns have been far more realistic(a good thing).Lies and sensationalism only hurt the cause.Even if they lack the shock value and arent as scary.
The billions and the man power wasted which has accomplished what exactly?Making it readily available and relatively cheap(on the user level) everywhere in the country?Spawning a hugely lucrative black market?
The history of how and why it was criminalized.
Most importantly...
Assuming the benefits of legalization do not dramatically overwhelm the cons(an assumption i obviously dont make)?...Sometimes freedom is a messy thing(see GKoenig's post above).
How about holding people responsible for their actions(or in this case their inaction :p) rather than criminalizing an inanimate object?Where have i heard that before?
You say the science behind your opposition is full of holes, I submit the same observation.
I said propaganda.I dont believe there is any science in the examples i cited.They've been widely discredited.The idea of the "gateway" is unprovable by it's very nature.There are far too many variables to prove direct causation.Did they first start with drinking?Would they have found another "gateway" into illicit drugs?Were they predisposed to seeking out intoxication?etc,etc,etc...
I dont disagree that there are clearly problems that go along with the use of marijuana.I just find most of those typically trumpeted range from overblown to flat out falsehoods.When that fact occurs to young people it tends to discredit all of the "just say no" efforts.
Last 1/2: I hear this from time to time and no one can ever effectively get past the DUI and speed limit arguments. Laws are a code of conduct. Most of them are there for the benefit of the masses. Some infringe on certain peoples wishes or desires more than others. I for one, would love to have the left lane unrestricted so I could do 130mph. That doesn't mean it would be prudent for our country or that I'm going to cry foul, stamp my feet, and protest because .gov is telling me how to drive MY car that I paid for with MY money. Speed limits like most laws, generally, are there to protect the public from the individual, not the individuals themselves.
DUI and speed limits are clearly a public safety issue.There is no safe manner in which you can drive intoxicated(currently being defined by blood alchohol level) or be free to do 130 mph without putting others at risk.Drinking(or smoking in this case) in an "appropriate" manner is not a direct risk to the well being of others."For the good of society" in this case is ambiguous and peripheral at best.In those cases i tend to lean toward personal liberties.
Again,what exactly has criminalization accomplished?Has it curbed availability to an acceptable degree for the costs involved?It's not far from being on sale at your local corner store.Teenagers probably have an easier time geting it than beer.
It has certainly caused a great deal of problems via the previously mentioned black market.
...Can we move on to prostitution yet? :p
EzGoingKev
10-20-09, 07:33
Allowing doctors to prescribe it in legit situations such as cancer patients is a no brainer.
In my opinion it should be legalized all across the board.
I'm very glad to see that the Obama administration is recognizing a state's right to legalize certain historically regulated activities within its own borders. I'm sure he'll be telling AUSAs and ATF to ignore people building guns and suppressors in Montana, now, too. Right?
Is there any issue of equal protection that arises by the federal government basically saying "we are going to enforce our laws within the states on this list but not within the states on this list"?
No.
(this message is too short)
Those marijuana grow operations in rural Humboldt and Mendocino counties (and all the others) are more frequently being controlled by Mexican organized crime. The damage done to State and National Parks by the dumping of chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides is incalculable. Almost all violent crime in Mendocino county, to include all of their homicides, were marijuana grow related; home invasions to steal cut product and cash, murder for control of grows. Several of the last California wildfires, all with loss of life and property, were caused by marijuana grow ops on public land; cooking fires. Do you really think legalization is going to reduce this crime or increase it? Truth is, the fine people of Northern California are reaching the enough-is-enough level and the pendulum is starting to swing away from legalization and back toward criminalization.
If it is going to be used as a medication, it needs to be regulated, prescribed, and dispensed like all other FDA/DEA scheduled pharmaceutical agents. Growing it in the backwoods and selling it at "clubs" is ludicrous and just leads to problems.
Gutshot John
10-20-09, 11:32
Those marijuana grow operations in rural Humboldt and Mendocino counties (and all the others) are more frequently being controlled by Mexican organized crime. The damage done to State and National Parks by the dumping of chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides is incalculable. Almost all violent crime in Mendocino county, to include all of their homicides, were marijuana grow related; home invasions to steal cut product and cash, murder for control of grows.
Yes but that cuts both ways. Yes cash, murder and organized criminal control has grown but prohibition has done nothing to stop it and arguably has done quite a bit to increase the profit margin for organized crime while increasing the cost to the state. The current system has proven itself incapable of solving the problems you clearly identify. At some point someone is going to have to explore other options.
I'd point out the historic example of Prohibition as an example of how legalization destroys this profit margin that causes crime. So yes legalization will reduce that crime as the opportunity cost will be cheaper to farm legally than have an illicit grow operation. I don't think this is what has occurred in California with medical marijuana.
I hate the pretense of medical marijuana, but we're not talking about a manufactured drug, we're talking about a weed that grows everywhere, even without any help it doesn't require refining or processing to go to market. From an economic/free-market perspective it can't be controlled in the FDA sense of the word.
No.
(this message is too short)
Forgive my apparently high density...why not?
Forgive my apparently high density...why not?
Equal Protection is a very complicated concept. It doesn't just mean "everyone is equal." I know that sounds stupid, but it's the law, it's supposed to sound stupid. Otherwise, people wouldn't need lawyers.
The Executive Branch, within reason, has wide latitude in how it deals with criminal activity within the U.S. When I was at the US Attorney's Office in WashDC, the office almost never prosecuted a marijuana case because there were too many bigger drug cases with much greater sentences to fill all the available time of all the available AUSAs working in the Narcotics section. Literally, a trunk full of pot would have been no-papered. But in other states, the feds might act on that crime.
Look at it this way. There are places in your state where those pesky Troopers set up speed traps on the highway, I'm sure. They don't enforce speed limits on every road at every time in the exact same way, but it's not an Equal Protection issue.
If that doesn't make sense, I can give you a better answer for $450 an hour. :cool:
rifleman2000
10-20-09, 12:20
Marijuana is for hippies.
Marijuana is for hippies.
I have never tried MJ or any drug. Heck I don't drink alcohol.
Yet I am for legalization. "Prohibition" in the 1920s and early 1930s clearly showed that prohibiting stuff only made it attractive for criminal elements to enter and control -- increasing crime and placing great costs on society.
Same happens for MJ.
rifleman2000
10-20-09, 12:28
I have never tried MJ or any drug. Heck I don't drink alcohol.
Yet I am for legalization. "Prohibition" in the 1920s and early 1930s clearly showed that prohibiting stuff only made it attractive for criminal elements to enter and control -- increasing crime and placing great costs on society.
Same happens for MJ.
Relax, I agree and I am familiar with the history. I just posted my random thought on Mary Jane.
Equal Protection is a very complicated concept. It doesn't just mean "everyone is equal." I know that sounds stupid, but it's the law, it's supposed to sound stupid. Otherwise, people wouldn't need lawyers.
The Executive Branch, within reason, has wide latitude in how it deals with criminal activity within the U.S. When I was at the US Attorney's Office in WashDC, the office almost never prosecuted a marijuana case because there were too many bigger drug cases with much greater sentences to fill all the available time of all the available AUSAs working in the Narcotics section. Literally, a trunk full of pot would have been no-papered. But in other states, the feds might act on that crime.
Look at it this way. There are places in your state where those pesky Troopers set up speed traps on the highway, I'm sure. They don't enforce speed limits on every road at every time in the exact same way, but it's not an Equal Protection issue.
If that doesn't make sense, I can give you a better answer for $450 an hour. :cool:
Thanks. I was aware that the government has discretion as to whether or not to bring charges in individual cases, it just seemed to me like setting a blanket policy of having two lists of states within which the law was either applied or not applied might go past that discretion. I'm tracking though...thanks.
I'll go back to my relatively black-and-white world of engineering now :cool:
Outlander Systems
10-20-09, 12:46
I have never tried MJ or any drug. Heck I don't drink alcohol.
Yet I am for legalization. "Prohibition" in the 1920s and early 1930s clearly showed that prohibiting stuff only made it attractive for criminal elements to enter and control -- increasing crime and placing great costs on society.
Same happens for MJ.
I'm in the same boat, only difference is that all my vices fall under the jurisdiction of the ATF. I like booze, I smoke like a chimney, and, well, look what forum I'm on.
I'm 100% on the side of outright legalisation, and the rebranding of the ATF to the AMTF.
Here's what chaps my ass. Someone can fry in a 6x9 for smoking a joint, but the guy that busted him can go to Boozeworld, and snag a six pack? It's a little, pardon my french, ****ed up, and grotesquely hypocritical.
I haven't met too many wife-beating dope-heads.
Just sayin'.
When I think of "pot busts" I think of the ridiculous waste of resources and manpower that could be directed towards crimes with actual victims.
When we want to know the "why" to something that, upon pondering, seems ludicrous, the answer is universally the same:
Money, baby.
Alcohol has wrecked millions more lives then smoking pot has. It should be legalized and taxed.
Outlander Systems
10-20-09, 13:06
My boss and I were having a discussion on this issue yesterday.
I hold to my opinion that cigarettes will be criminalised before pot is legalised.
rifleman2000
10-20-09, 13:11
My boss and I were having a discussion on this issue yesterday.
I hold to my opinion that cigarettes will be criminalised before pot is legalised.
Yeah, that is some bullshit. Nobody weighing in on that!
EzGoingKev
10-20-09, 14:51
If it were legalized you would:
1. Create a taxable industry that would generate a huge amount of revenue.
2. Greatly reduce the crime element involved.
3. Give farmers one more crop option.
4. Free up all resources being spent on marijuana prevention & eradication so they could be used on real drugs like cocaine and meth.
To me it is ridiculous not to legalize it when you already have things that are worse to legally chose from.
Belmont31R
10-20-09, 15:05
I'm in the same boat, only difference is that all my vices fall under the jurisdiction of the ATF. I like booze, I smoke like a chimney, and, well, look what forum I'm on.
I'm 100% on the side of outright legalisation, and the rebranding of the ATF to the AMTF.
Here's what chaps my ass. Someone can fry in a 6x9 for smoking a joint, but the guy that busted him can go to Boozeworld, and snag a six pack? It's a little, pardon my french, ****ed up, and grotesquely hypocritical.
I haven't met too many wife-beating dope-heads.
Just sayin'.
When I think of "pot busts" I think of the ridiculous waste of resources and manpower that could be directed towards crimes with actual victims.
When we want to know the "why" to something that, upon pondering, seems ludicrous, the answer is universally the same:
Money, baby.
Just like you can get busted for some gun law violation, and the cops may be carrying MP5's and other machine guns.
I agree with the legalization of pot but not other drugs like cocaine or heroin. I dont think it should be taxed nor do I think most things should be.
I also agree its much less harmful than is worth of the amount of effort and tax payer dollars that go into combating it. Not to mention the people sitting in jail for it while they have to release pedophiles and other victim oriented criminals due to overcrowding or budget cuts.
I'm all for outright legalization. This is a step in the proper direction.
Somewhere Bill Clinton rejoices.
:D
There's also the benefit of creating more jobs, more revenue, etc.
If you could tax it, and charge a licensing fee (Beer & Wine, Liquor, Pot? sounds like a hell of a store!) to carry it in your establishment, we have just created jobs. Alcoholic Beverage Control would gain a new agenda, and have to hire and train more people. Again, jobs and revenue.
I'm for legalization. Marijuana currently helps 1 of my dearest family members with her illness in dealing with pain and nausea that she experiences. Modern Western medicine has not been nearly as helpful and has many side effects to go along with it that marijuana does not.
Prohibition didn't work with alcohol and it certainly hasn't worked with marijuana, but at least they made an Amendment to the Constitution. All prohibition of drugs does is cause a black market, increase prices, decrease quality and up the crime rate.
In a free country where you own your own body I could care less what you choose to ingest to alter your own state of being. I firmly believe alcohol causes many more problems than pot yet it is socially acceptable and due to the lush bags in DC who proliferate the bars there and make our laws it will remain that way.
Ask the private prison companies who lobby Congress if it should be made legal? More laws, more crimes, more prisoners and more profit!
Super busy day for me so I only have a little to add... It doesn't bother me a bit if somebody wants to get home after work and instead of having a few cocktails to unwind that they smoke pot, relax, sit on the couch, eat pizza & twinkies and fall asleep. Some things people will see eye to eye on and others they won't, such is life. I'll have to ask my wife about the article she told me about the other day referencing white collar workers smoking to relax at home so they wouldn't have to deal with hangovers the next day at work.
I absolutely believe that there are benefits to using marijuana for some people and I do not believe that a doctor has to give you permission for you to receive those benefits.
ZDL - I have the utmost respect for you and not to single you out but would you rather deal with someone who's drunk or used marijuana in your job? And I'm not talking shit by saying this to you in the least but I do think that most LEO's would rather throw a candy bar in the back of their squad car and have the stoned guy hop in rather than having to wrestle & fight the drunk.
Gutshot John
10-20-09, 19:38
Sorry folks, and apologies to my fellow irishman, the legalize it all right now plan simply doesn't have the evidence behind it to gain my support. I've asked for specific information and all I've been getting is the same 3 or 4 "back of the cereal box" responses.
Why is it "legalize it all" or nothing? The same 3 or 4 responses are common-sense arguments that don't require reams of evidence to support.
For instance, you don't think the historic example of Prohibition provides ample evidence for the legalize it argument?
That they repealed Prohibition points to its inefficacy in a way that make all other forms of evidence trite by comparison.
Even still I think we're talking about the Federal government removing its prohibition. Individual states could still outlaw or legalize it depending on their own laws as embodied in Federalism.
rightwingmaniac
10-20-09, 19:41
holy sh*t, im shocked so many here on this site are pro-legalization!!!
if you legalize, you take the power out of the black market. the price for mj will fall dramatically. drastically cutting the profit margins of dealers. making it too hard for small time growers to compete with large scale companies ie: marlboro "greens".
its all about the govt wanting to tax and get more money. its like a buy off of govt. money over values? thats how it works here in america.
stop prosecuting mj and put that money towards the hard stuff..
1. how many people died from overdosing on mj last year...do i have to answer? compare that to alcohol and drugs!!
2. how many stories have you heard of a stoner robbing someone to get more weed to smoke?... they can barely summon enough energy to get off the couch for that last donut!!
3. if all stoners grew their own weed, how much would the prices drop? supply and demand anyone.. the market would be flooded. (canada will feel this one right where it hurts, humboldt will be a ghost town).
4. if the govt fears that it will lose funding from legalizing weed, dont worry, the cartels will have to go a different route to get their money ie: cocaine, heroin, crystal.. there will be plenty of money to go around for the feds.
so people hurt themselves with weed huh? people hurt themselves with guns too, should guns be illegal.... hell no!!!!
It never ceases to amaze me how many people are just spouting the same retoric BS that every president since Nixon and Nancy Reagan spouted to them in a commercial. How many commercials against guns have you cried BS on and still take the anti-marijuana pill like it was a sugar coated jelly bean. Hemp has the ability to replace almost all products we currently manufacture out of petroleum. It also has the ability to replace quite a few prescription medications. Two real reasons that pot is illegal.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
What part of this does pot interfere with for you?
Puff, puff pass bi*ch.
rickrock305
10-20-09, 20:29
T
Sorry folks, and apologies to my fellow irishman, the legalize it all right now plan simply doesn't have the evidence behind it to gain my support.
Sure it does. Look at Amsterdam, or Portugal, or Vancouver. All places who have legalized or decriminalized marijuana with zero negative side effects.
There have also been quite a few studies done that show marijuana is not nearly as harmful as cigarettes, alcohol, or half the crap that people eat in this country
Not to mention the myriad of uses for hemp, including fuel, paper, clothing, etc. Popular Mechanics has said over 25,000 environmentally friendly products can be made from hemp.
I've asked for specific information and all I've been getting is the same 3 or 4 "back of the cereal box" responses.
ok, here you go...
Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 847,000 individuals per year -- far more than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.
http://www.norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Crimes_of_Indiscretion.pdf
Currently, more than 60 U.S. and international health organizations support granting patients immediate legal access to medicinal marijuana under a physician's supervision.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3390
no health effects either...
in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer.
i can keep going all day with this, there are really that many myths, misconceptions, etc. it would help if you state why you think it should remain illegal and I can refute it.
Ask me if I think it should have ever been made illegal.
should it? and do you know why it was?
It's far far more complex then some of you are making it out to be.
its actually really simple. its a naturally occurring plant. its not going anywhere. prohibition doesn't work and only creates more crime, thats been proven in the past.
I say again, and I've shared my opinion with some of you who have asked privately: medical makes sense.
why not complete legalization?
There are some solid budgetary, security, regulatory, etc. reasons NOT to legalize pot that the pro pot people simply haven't covered yet.
The closing the black market thing is a joke. Period.
The add jobs reason is near completely diluted when you consider the sheer cost of creating all the elements needed to set up such an operation.
Feel free to let us all know what budgetary, security, regulatory, etc. reasons NOT to legalize pot there are?
They would be no different than alcohol.
Why would it not at least mostly close the black market?
I could make my own beer, but why would I when it is easier and fast to go to the store. I could grow my own tobacco, again makes no sense.
The tobacco industry would have marijuana in stores so fast if it was legalized. That would create jobs, farmers would have a new potential crop.
This is why it was made illegal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_vLk1I6G4)
Gutshot John
10-20-09, 20:41
What?
One of the things that I hate most about the internet is that people project far too much onto those that engage them in debate. I type rapid fire and which doesn't always convey my tone. If you are offended then I apologize it was not my intent, so in that vein I'll avoid some of your response since I wasn't trying to charge anything.
Prohibition is valid historical lesson to draw from but it's the end all. I'm not lessening it in anyway but the wave that banner as the sole weapon in this discussion is ridiculous. I'm sure you can agree.
It's not the only but certainly the most compelling. Very rarely do you get such a directly relevant case study. The most direct parallel historically, politically and economically is Prohibition. Clearly it didn't work. That you dismiss it as a "back of a cereal box" explanation is what I find difficult to understand.
Clearly repealing prohibition wasn't without complications either and there were plenty of good reasons to sustain it, yet the greater costs to society necessitated it especially when everyone agrees that "the situation is clearly broken." At some point continuing the same policies that we've had (since the era of Prohibition I might add) for decades doesn't strike me as particularly worth while. Practically speaking there are huge costs involved with the current policy that don't seem to be yielding any fruit but higher murder rates and illicit profits. Whatever else it can serve to teach us how to address some of the complicated issues you raise, though I'm not entirely clear on what those are based on your posts.
If the federal Government wants to leave at the states door completely, I could support that. I don't personally think it would work but hell, having 50 experiments going on at one time would definitely prove one way or the other. Plus, if this is the kick in the ass that gets states all their rights back, make some room on the bandwagon cause ZDL is getting on.
Fair enough, but limiting the Executive Branch is but one issue. I'm just saying a Constitutional mechanism exists to address the problems you proffered.
Not a gateway drug: I'm not a scientist, just a cop, I've never once, (that's an absolute) met someone who was in possession of any other street drug or admitted to street drug use, NOT say they started with and/or currently smoke marijuana. That is my first hand experience with it.
Really, I would have guessed cigarettes, or beer, or even coffee.
I think that a good first step would be decriminalization (of possession not trafficking). Not just for pot, but all drugs. It would certainly save a ton of money, while allowing our LEOs to focus on more pertinent issues. To answer ZDL's inevitable question, Portugal has been running an 8 year experiment that has provided a wealth of good data. CATO study on the decriminalization in Portugal (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080)
A relief of $10billion (if that number is accurate) is not an absolute figure. The costs associated with setting up an infrastructure to regulate (along with everything else associated with it) could, in my estimation based on research, dwarf it.
You keep writing about all the research you have done, and the costs associated with the regulation of marijuana, yet you do not provide any data on what that would be.
The agencies are already in place to regulate it, adding marijuana to what they regulate now will hardly be an issue and just the taxes paid will more than make it cost effective.
Feel free to ignore me.
Not a gateway drug: I'm not a scientist, just a cop, I've never once, (that's an absolute) met someone who was in possession of any other street drug or admitted to street drug use, NOT say they started with and/or currently smoke marijuana. That is my first hand experience with it. If some of you have read some books and/or know a guy that just enjoys weed and feels that outweighs the experience I've had.... Knock yourselves out.
You think your experience may have something to do with the context in which you're meeting these people?Just a thought.
You're not exactly predisposed to meeting (otherwise) law-abiding users.If you did come across them...I assume they're unlikely to announce the fact.
I believe they should legalize and regulate it. The reason why people set up grow houses is to sell in the black market due to the profit to be had. This is why they are broken into by criminals for the product and profit. The "burden" of setting up an infrastructure is a going to be done by businesses. It would be easy to set it up, I mean really any tobacco company could grow it in a field next to tobacco. It is not an issue. The fact it would take away much crime associated with it due to break in's and violence due to marijuana drug trade. We spend more than 10 billion enforcing marijuana legislation due to prisoner cost, court costs, police effort and time. We also send troops and other aid to foreign countries to destroy the growing fields. It is stupid not to realize our mistakes from alcohol even though it is a much greater threat to health and safety than marijuana. THC was in almost EVERY drug that was sold due to its various effects that help the ill. Every medical association including the AMA did not want it banned and it was basically banned due to timber industry and dupont but I wont go into that. America was a safer and better place when our guns were unregulated and our drugs were unregulated, people were much more polite in that society. Sure you can argue things are different technologically but we are still human and still react the same way. I think people should be responsible for their actions, sure you shouldn't drive and such when high and most users are responsible adults who have to hide their actions due to the illegality of it. There are in fact many trusted third party studies done on marijuana and all agree about legalization. Even Nixon's commission stated it should be legal even though Nixon ignored this because it didn't suit the answer he was looking for. Hell even DEA Judge Francis Young said it should be legal. I have said enough and it would take too much work to cite all the studies but a good website to start is http://www.abovetheignorance.org/. I think anyone who wants to be informed should read both sides of the argument and use non-biased research studies instead of gov't sponsored ones.. even though the Nixon's and even LaGuardia's agreed with legalization.
I love the last part. :rolleyes: :D
In fact, I meet a large share of decent law abiding citizens as well. I've met folk who state they've only ever smoked pot. Those who state they never smoked pot or done any other drug. And there's the % of people I've commented on. I didn't say "everyone I've ever made contact with who has smoked pot has moved on to harder things". I think I was clear.
My apologies then.
This...
If some of you have read some books and/or know a guy that just enjoys weed and feels that outweighs the experience I've had... Knock yourselves out.
Caused the confusion on my part.
At first glance I thought it was a statement of "i've never met a guy who just enjoys weed".I guess it was just a condescending dismissal of others who lack your perspective?
My mistake.;)
parishioner
10-21-09, 00:29
Ethanol is a psychoactive drug, best known as the type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages and in modern thermometers.
Tetrahydrocannabinol or "THC" is the main psychoactive substance found in the Cannabis plant.
A psychoactive drug is a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in changes in perception, mood, consciousness and behavior.
So could someone explain why one of them is legal and the other isnt?
There is virtually no evidence of someone overdosing on THC or cannabis yet there are thousands who have and will continue to have alcohol poisoning.
And if laws are put in place to protect the public from the individual, why do they care about pot severely affecting the public when it doesn't even severely affect the user when compared to alcohol?
I can be passive aggressive as well.
I dont know if either was subtle enough to be "passive".:)
parishioner
10-21-09, 01:15
I say the following with respect.
I don't think anyone is talking about the government's handling of alcohol and/or it's dangers.
I mentioned alcohol because they are both drugs that are used for recreation yet one is legal and the other isn't.
Also, .gov isn't perfect and pointing out 1 flaw to satisfy another injustice will keep you busy for decades, my man.
I believe this flaw is a compelling argument and that is what you do when you disagree with something, you try to discredit the others case by pointing out the flaws. Am I wrong here?
Also, being drunk and hurting yourself isn't their concern, I don't think. Same with being high.
I agree, the public's safety was supposedly the concern when the ban was implemented. This is the reason I asked why the government is concerned with negative affects on the public from pot when the negative affects on the actual user are minimal.
NoI've never once, (that's an absolute) met someone who was in possession of any other street drug or admitted to street drug use, NOT say they started with and/or currently smoke marijuana. That is my first hand experience with it.
I've never met an alcoholic who didn't start with milk :p
P.S. Transformers 2 kicks ass on Blu-Ray! I'm definitely sold on the technology!
Ill bet if you ask those same drug users if they tried cigarettes and or alcohol before marijuana the % would be very high.
I'll add one more thing:
As a security guard in a large California casino, we were pulling very large amounts of meth off people just about every day. We saw more meth in the parking lot then anyone could ever hope to imagine.
I never, in my 4 years working there, pulled meth AND pot out of the same car. Furthermore, the pot smokers were a pleasure to deal with. They knew they ****ed up, they knew they weren't going to jail, and we knew they were just smoking pot.
With the extreme availability of meth in that area, we still had potheads that had never smoked/snorted/shot it. And probably never would.
There is a gateway aspect of it, yes. For people who are predisposed to doing drugs anyway. But, it can be argued, I have met people (not a case study by any means) who have NEVER smoked pot, yet do every other drug under the sun. The gateway drug argument has never been proven, or disproven. It's not a purely scientific problem. It is also one of genetics and environment and upbringing.
The debate will always rage on. It warms my heart to see this board handle it maturely. Good on ya.
The reason why it is called a gateway drug is simple. The guy that sells drugs is happy to sell you pot, but he knows you are not going to sell everything you own to buy it. Thats when the drug dealer says "hey try this" which will be any one of the other highly addictive drugs which will make you sell everything you own and give all that money to him.
If there is such thing as a "gateway drug" it is alcohol. Alchohol is a drug. Nearly everyone who uses every other drug tried alcohol first. No one ever mentions this.
thopkins22
10-21-09, 13:05
ETA:I responded after reading only the first page...my post was therefor meaningless and wasteful as it had already been addressed.
If the gov. controlled it like alcohol in NC(ABC stores run by the state) and production was done by legal(registered) farms, it would be a start. But when does the gov. do much right? At this point with organized crime producing the majority, I can't see legalizing it; they don't deserve the $$$.
Have I ever seen someone high commit a violent crime? Yes, just ask the pizza.
Let's face it. Most people are stupid and have little common sense. Adding weed to the mix doesn't seem like a good thing.
Weed is readily available almost anywhere. Would it be better to legalize it, control it, tax it, and give the money to schools?
This is a tough question that I have not yet answered to myself.
Medically speaking, yes, it should be allowed for certain things. My wife has several patients with cancer. One, a little old lady-a good person-we know her and about her-picture your grandmother-has cervical cancer that has spread, her grandson suggested weed, she resisted, nothing helped, she tried it. It has helped. She has been able to reduce her narcotic intake for pain and is no longer groggy and "dumbed down" continually from the meds.
I would support legal marijuana as long as it was strictly controlled and only allowed to have a prescription written for it in a limited number of situations. Herein lies the problem: liberal lawmakers would continually expand the list.
This is a tough issue to grapple with.
Something I wrote quite a few years ago and is very much from a Libertarian point of view. Some of my ideas have changed somewhat and others remain the same, some of this definitely still pertains. And sometimes I just like to be the Devil's advocate and argue ;)
Before I start my little diatribe on the "Drug War", I'll premise it with a brief conversation I had with an ignorant **** that I had the pleasure of berating today. As is typical with most people I have encountered, this guy believes that his moral position on what is acceptable to use as an intoxicant should be the standard for the whole of society. Typical conversation… "Alcohol & cigarettes are ok and I don't see a problem with marijuana being legal as long as we tax it... but I don't think anything else should be legal". Where does this egoistical, myopic attitude come from? Could it be that no one has read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Do any of these people open a book, ever? Much less a history book on the good ol' U.S. of A.?
My position has nothing to do with my use of drugs or the lack thereof; it has to do with what is moralistically right in a "free society" and who should determine what you are legally able to ingest into your own body. These immoral laws assert that you do not own your own body and you have no right to control what you ingest whether it is an intoxicant, stimulant, depressant or something else unless it's prescribed by a state certified person who has paid the government to have the right to give you these drugs as they see fit. The audacity of our elected government officials imposing their morals and dictating what you can and can not consume depending on how you feel yourself is reprehensible to say the least.
If these laws and the War on Drugs are supposed to create a drug-free America, then I can honestly say that after hundreds of billions of dollars spent, millions of arrests, and decades of escalating police and military efforts, the war on drugs is a complete and utter failure in my opinion. Because who of us can't get whatever we want whenever we want?
This is by far the longest war in American history, one that has hundreds of thousands of innocent people (victimless crimes) locked in cages, many of whom are raped and beaten by convicted violent felons and all at an exorbitant cost in tax dollars and liberty. Please bear in mind that at various times in our country's history, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD, ecstasy, and amphetamines were legal. To put someone in a prison cell or to execute someone for engaging in private behavior or mutually voluntary trade, purchasing/selling drugs, is completely unconstitutional. That is one of the corner stones of a constitutional republic, free economy, free trade and ownership of one's self and property.
Admittedly drugs aren't the best thing in the world for you, no shit, that isn't my assertion. Neither is too much TV, fast food, caffeine, sexual partners… and the list goes on and on. But, I don't need the government telling me what should be legal to do with my own body at any time for any reason! A free person in a free country has the right to determine what brings them happiness as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, that part's very important by the way.
Please do yourself a favor and read a book on prohibition in the United States in the early 1900's. Compare that period in time along with the organized crime,Al Capone and his ilk, and what our inner cities gangs are like today. Does this also encourage cops to be dishonest and become involved in the illegal trade as well? Simply put, it's a matter of economics.
The laws of supply & demand will always dictate what happens in our society due to market demands. If someone is willing to purchase something, drugs or otherwise, than the entrepreneur will find a way to supply that demand. Our unconstitutional laws also provide a higher profit margin for the "drug dealers" due to the fact of having a limited supply and the product is hard to come by due to its illegality.
By the way in case I haven't made myself clear enough, I'm not advocating drug use, I'm defending an individual's freedom to own their own bodies and to limit government intrusion, especially when we're talking about victimless crimes. I didn't even touch on the "marijuana is ok as long as you tax it…". Then again, if you've read all this maybe you're smart enough to have read some books on the subject matter and I'd bore you to death… However, our adult illiteracy rates contradict this assumption.
The overwhelming majority of people in prison are there for drug offenses. As of September 30, 2000, for the year in question, 129,329 offenders were serving a prison sentence in federal prison; 57% were incarcerated for a drug offense; 10% for a violent offense; 8% for a weapon offense; 8% for a property offense, 11% for an immigration offense; and 6% for all other offenses. (Reference: Federal Criminal Case Processing, 2000)
The overwhelming majority of people in prison for drugs are also non-violent offenders. According to official statistics from the NYS Dept of Correctional Services (DOCS), nearly 80% of drug offenders in prison have never been convicted of a violent felony; about half have never even been arrested for one. (Reference: Myths and Facts About the Rockefeller Drug Laws)
Drug offenses account for a higher percentage of people in federal prison than weapons, extortion, homicide, robbery and burglary combined. For 2006 53.7% were drug offenders, 14.2% were weapons offenders, 5.4% were robbery offenders, 3.8% were burglary offenders, 4.2% were extortion offenders, and 3.1% were homicide offenders. (Reference: Federal Bureau of Prisons: Quick Facts 2006)
Punishment for first-time offenders is generally higher if the offense is a drug-related. (Reference: Cruel & Unusual Punishment)
In New York State specifically, the minimum sentence given to a first-time drug felon is the same as that for a murderer. The minimum sentence for a first-time offender guilty of selling two ounces of cocaine is 15 years to life – the same sentence as given to a convicted murderer. (Reference: Who Goes to Prison for Drug Offenses?)
U.S. Relaxes Opposition to Medical Marijuana
its about damn time
HiggsBoson
10-21-09, 14:23
holy sh*t, im shocked so many here on this site are pro-legalization!!!
Why shocked? Most of the regulars here seem to err on the side of increased personal freedom. It seems to me that this falls squarely in that category.
In many ways this comes down to what one thinks the purpose and role of the federal government should be. I'll avoid that debate and just say that I think the burden should be on the government to prove that a given object, activity, or behavior should be illegal, not the other way around.
You're never going to be able to effectively tax it. Think a little passed the company line and consider the difficulty behind such a measure. It's just not going to happen.
I'm curious as to why you think this is that different from taxing tobacco. Are you saying this is an issue of the added regulatory and enforcement costs? Or do you mean the costs of putting it through actual FDA testing? Take me through the looking glass, man. I think I'm pretty unbiased, too, but I've reached different conclusions than you apparently have.
You could argue some of this cost would be offset by not having as many inmates. Valid and sensible. However, what's the figure?
Obviously, no one can claim to have real numbers for the size of the industry after any hypothetical legalization. Estimates of the current size of the underground marijuana industry range from $10B/yr to as much as $60B/yr. You can obviously draw your own conclusions as to how much revenue might be derived from the industry in a post-prohibition world.
Below are only the direct costs of imprisonment, which can be empirically shown. Lost productivity is another calculus entirely and much harder to show; as are the costs related to enforcement, et cetera. Note: I am not making any claims about cost savings or any other benefits of legalization or decriminalization. I just wanted to show real figures for the costs of imprisonment.
Of the 1,841,182 inmates in jail for drug-related offenses last year:
5.3% were imprisoned for manufacture or sale of marijuana (or about 97,583 inmates)
42.1% were imprisoned for use of marijuana (or about 775, 138 inmates)
Totaling about 872,720 inmates imprisoned on marijuana-related offenses.
The average cost of imprisoning an individual is about $22,650. This varies from state to state.
Spreading that cost out across all of the taxpayers (~$138M) gives us a figure of about $143.24 per taxpayer annually.
Sources:
Office of National Drug Control Policy (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/marijuana_ff.html)
USDOJ: State Prison Expenditures (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf)
Wikipedia: Personal income in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States)
HiggsBoson
10-21-09, 16:01
What % of marijuana is being imported illegally and do you really think those enterprises are going to go away and/or legit? What % of marijuana is grown inside America illegally and do you think those enterprises are going to go away and/or legit. .GOV would have to saturate the market in offset the already established drug trade.
Any numbers I gave on that would be SWAGs at best. There are some fairly decent estimates (http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr4/5Supply.html) that would get in the ballpark, though. A quick survey of the scientific papers out there implies that the consensus view is a 50/50 split between domestic and imported production.
One factor in the end result may be the number otherwise law abiding pot users who would pay taxes for the pleasure of growing and/or consuming it legally - IOW, without the risk of incarceration, failed drug tests, and a criminal record. Anecdotal, of course, but I suspect that number is quite high (no pun intended.) The casual attitude apparently held by many toward marijuana does not generally extend to the other so-called hard drugs. Meth, cocaine, and heroin, in particular, are entirely different beasts and I think it does more harm than good to lump marijuana in with them. The stigma attached to those drugs would likely be taken more seriously if they were separated more clearly. Again, just a guess.
Take, as a weak analogy, the laws about speeding. I think even the most straight-laced here have gone above the speed limit in their lives. Now, imagine if we treated speeding the same as vehicular homicide by conflating the two in our legal code. Would that make people respect the set of motor-vehicle laws more or less? It is my opinion that this would foster a general disrespect for the set of laws.
The portion the .gov is able to control will be taxed effectively of course but taking the current revenue number in the marijuana trade and saying "look, we can tax all of this" is disingenuous at best. It's also amusing to me that even in the absence of that fact, people talk about falling prices when considering taxation benefits as a positive.
That's why I avoid talking about projected revenue as a net benefit. It's too speculative. I am inclined to believe that it would be some net gain, but even that could be wrong. I will say that Americans do seem to have an amazing ability to turn a profit on anything people will buy, legal or not.
The stats: The % of jailed inmates for manufacture, sale, and/or possession of marijuana. Any idea what % of the THAT number are people with this single offense and what % of those people are in for multiple?
Is your point that those people (multiple offenders) would be in jail anyway? You seem to contradict that below, stating that LE uncovers other offenses because of the marijuana, implying that the other offenses would be less likely to end up in jail time. Either way, I agree that even the numbers for those currently incarcerated can be misleading. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
The other thing. People who have no clue about LE keeping yelling it's going to help LE. I'd love to hear how that's going to happen. I've mentioned here already the amount of crimes LE uncover from marijuana investigations. There is a % of people who go to jail for marijuana offenses only sure, but there is also a large number of people who go to jail for far more serious crimes resulting from a marijuana investigation. Yet another item touted as "proof" rotting the pro pot movement from the inside.
Is it reasonable to assume that, regardless of the legal status of cannabis, some of those people would be criminals anyway, while others would be mostly law-abiding? I ask because I am just a regular guy (not a LEO), so I probably don't have a realistic picture of the balance there.
One benefit I think it's worth bringing up (and questioning) is that legalization could help deny one source of funding for those involved in other illicit trades that are arguably much more harmful and dangerous. Obviously there are other sources of funding. That hydra has many heads.
What % of marijuana is being imported illegally and do you really think those enterprises are going to go away and/or legit?
The small operations will go away since it will not be cost effective for them to continue. Large operations will stay around and legally export large quantities to the open market.
What % of marijuana is grown inside America illegally and do you think those enterprises are going to go away and/or legit.
Small operation will also go away in the US. It will not be worth it for someone to grow 20 plants in the woods anymore. American farmers will end up being large suppliers since they already have the land and equipment for large scale growing.
.GOV would have to saturate the market in offset the already established drug trade.
The government will have nothing to do with the market, distribution, or sales. All the government would do is regulate just like alcohol and tobacco. I do not understand where you get the idea that by legalizing it that the government will be selling it.
50/50 strikes me as a weak estimate but I'll admit I don't have the true number either.
I'll admit I do have knowledge to this as well, but I would gamble that TONS more come across the border than grown here in the states. The numbers(pounds) confiscated that you see just in my area are insane. This would be at the POE's and 60 mile check points.
Not sure how you can compare 3rd world countries that can farm out hundreds of acres with no real threat of being busted to back door gardens and basement operations.
One would assume if you legalized it, then many users would no longer risk the criminal element. Not sure price point would even be an issue to argue. Heck, both state side and imports would probably not skip a beat.
toasterlocker
10-21-09, 18:48
My LE point is, marijuana currently, is a huge tool for LE to use in the uncovering of more serious crimes. Like speeding, tail lights, etc. It would be huge for us to loose that utility.
I'm not sure legalizing marijuana would necessarily affect us as much as you imply. We could still use the "plain smell" rule to search if it remained illegal to smoke marijuana in a car (kind of like alcohol open container laws.)
Let em smoke at home, but keep it illegal to use in cars. Seems simple enough to me.
There is no way I could speculate with confidence on what number would be which. My LE point is, marijuana currently, is a huge tool for LE to use in the uncovering of more serious crimes. Like speeding, tail lights, etc. It would be huge for us to loose that utility.
I'm somewhat on the fence on this particular issue, but making a cop's job easier should not rank very high on the list of reasons for the legality (or illegality) of a particular behavior. In my opinion of course...
For it to ever be legalized it would at least have the same laws attached to it as alcohol, if not more. When you add all the cigarette laws to it, the use of it would be restricted to your house and certain bars/clubs.
No matter your stance on the subject you should check out the Tennessee Pot Cave video to see marijuana growing in a for real Batman style cave! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg2TyjWjCls&feature=related Doesn't get good until about 3:30 and make sure to watch part 2 which gets a little more interesting.
Pro or against that's alot of money to set something like that up!
After reading all five pages of the thread, one question comes to mind regarding those for legalizing mj. Do you really want your own kids doing it???
And I'm surprised nobody has mentioned PCP here. Just a drop on a joint does wonders. Wait'll you have to fight one of those dudes and try not to hurt him...
After reading all five pages of the thread, one question comes to mind regarding those for legalizing mj. Do you really want your own kids doing it???
And I'm surprised nobody has mentioned PCP here. Just a drop on a joint does wonders. Wait'll you have to fight one of those dudes and try not to hurt him...
I don't think anybody would want their children smoking it. However, don't be naive, the law doesn't prevent them from having access to it. The morals you instill in your children will go much further than any law prohibiting them from doing anything. Beer & cigarettes are often tried as a teenager and before the legal age, while I'm sure most parents discourage the use of both, only the individual can make the decision.
I'm sure a drop of PCP on a cigarette would accomplish the same results...
Do you really want your own kids doing it???
Do you really think your own kids cant buy and smoke it now?
Making it legal means it would be regulated, just like alcohol, and minors would not be allowed to buy it.
Outlander Systems
10-23-09, 19:06
This is a joke, right?
Minors have easier access to pot and "pharmies" than they do to booze and smokes.
Good child-rearing is the ONLY thing that can prevent kids from getting into drugs, booze, and sex.
Belmont31R
10-23-09, 19:07
After reading all five pages of the thread, one question comes to mind regarding those for legalizing mj. Do you really want your own kids doing it???
And I'm surprised nobody has mentioned PCP here. Just a drop on a joint does wonders. Wait'll you have to fight one of those dudes and try not to hurt him...
Laws enact punishment AFTER the act has already been committed.
Im only 25, and in HS pot would have been VERY easy to get if I had wanted to get into that. Don't fall into the trap of believing that just because you illegalize something its going to keep that from happening or even be a impediment on people. In fact people do shit like that when they are younger because its risky, and illegal. I spent 3 1/2 years in Germany, and somehow the people deal with alcohol a whole lot more adult like there than here despite it being introduced to people at a younger age, and legal down to 16 for beer/wine and 18 for hard alcohol. We treat it as a taboo in the US yet have more issues with it.
After reading all five pages of the thread, one question comes to mind regarding those for legalizing mj. Do you really want your own kids doing it???
There are plenty of things that were legal when I was a kid that my parents wouldn't have wanted me to do, and I didn't do them just because they were legal.
When my infant son grows up, no I don't want him to do it, but I intend on raising him in such a way that he has greater standards for choosing what behaviors to engage in than simply the legality of that action.
[QUOTE=irishluck73;480466]...However, don't be naive, the law doesn't prevent them from having access to it. The morals you instill in your children will go much further than any law prohibiting them from doing anything... QUOTE]
Irish, I'm glad we're on the same page here. The whole issue is about knowing right from wrong and attempting to lead others in the right direction, isn't it? And naivety doesn't really fit with my history.:)
Man, a guy can really get jumped on by the pro-drug mob here--
Do you really think your own kids cant buy and smoke it now? Making it legal means it would be regulated, just like alcohol, and minors would not be allowed to buy it.
Wow Perna, now that's a logical thought. Kids can get it illegally, but make it legal and they can't.:confused:
This is a joke, right?
Minors have easier access to pot and "pharmies" than they do to booze and smokes. Good child-rearing is the ONLY thing that can prevent kids from getting into drugs, booze, and sex.
Laws enact punishment AFTER the act has already been committed.
Im only 25, and in HS pot would have been VERY easy to get if I had wanted to get into that. Don't fall into the trap of believing that just because you illegalize something its going to keep that from happening or even be a impediment on people. In fact people do shit like that when they are younger because its risky, and illegal. I spent 3 1/2 years in Germany, and somehow the people deal with alcohol a whole lot more adult like there than here despite it being introduced to people at a younger age, and legal down to 16 for beer/wine and 18 for hard alcohol. We treat it as a taboo in the US yet have more issues with it.
There are plenty of things that were legal when I was a kid that my parents wouldn't have wanted me to do, and I didn't do them just because they were legal.
When my infant son grows up, no I don't want him to do it, but I intend on raising him in such a way that he has greater standards for choosing what behaviors to engage in than simply the legality of that action.
So you all at least do agree with me and Irish that any dope is bad?:)
Well, I'm going to get my hand slapped here. But let's read through the lines here, Today it's medical use that gets a pass. Tomorrow it's street use, it is easy to take out a dumbed down drugged up society. BHO is making it all go the way that the people who hold his leash want it to. Little by little they are coming for US. :mad:
THINK ABOUT IT !!!
Patriot
Wow Perna, now that's a logical thought. Kids can get it illegally, but make it legal and they can't
Never said they couldnt buy it if it was legalized, but there will be less people trying to sell it to them if was legal. They can get it now, where it goes untaxed, and for the guy that brought up PCP, can have PCP in it. Just like kids buy alcohol now, would you rather alcohol be illegal and untaxed and have every gangbanger selling it on the street?
It is being sold on the street everyday, and used more than most people that oppose it seem to believe. Why keep on the streets when it could be taxed and regulated like alcohol?
The Dumb Gun Collector
10-24-09, 08:29
I have always thought it was absurd that I can legally go to the doctor and have my penis chopped off, fake breasts installed, hormones injected, Zanex prescribed and then legally change my name to Francine but it is illegal to smoke pot in my back yard.
The use of marijuana should be a choice just like drinking booze, smoking tobacco or eating bacon cheeseburgers. I personally wouldn't, for the same reasons I don't partake of the other two things on my list.
I see very strong parallels between the mindset that reflexively advocates the banning of drugs as the one that insists that guns should be banned. Both of them are relics of the strong puritan streak in American culture.
So you all at least do agree with me and Irish that any dope is bad?:)
My only point in saying that was that I don't think that every single thing that I don't want my kid to do should be illegal.
But yes, I am not a fan of "dope". I don't smoke, I drink alcohol on rare occasions, and have never touched anything on the spectrum from pot to crack. I guess if you consider caffeine a drug then I am guilty.
Well, I'm going to get my hand slapped here. But let's read through the lines here, Today it's medical use that gets a pass. Tomorrow it's street use, it is easy to take out a dumbed down drugged up society. BHO is making it all go the way that the people who hold his leash want it to. Little by little they are coming for US. :mad:
THINK ABOUT IT !!!
Patriot
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying - who is it that "they" are "coming for" by not prosecuting medical marijuana, or even legalizing it outright? Wouldn't that make fewer people for "them" to come for? I don't see this move as anything more than the government bowing to both public opinion and the reality that it's a waste of resources to go after these people when we have much bigger fish to fry.
I'm also not sure who "US" refers to. I agree with most of the folks on this thread that while I don't and wouldn't use marijuana regardless of its legal status, I wouldn't even bat an eye if it were legalized and treated like alcohol or tobacco.
Do you really think your own kids cant buy and smoke it now?
Making it legal means it would be regulated, just like alcohol, and minors would not be allowed to buy it.
Never said they couldnt buy it if it was legalized, but there will be less people trying to sell it to them if was legal. They can get it now, where it goes untaxed, and for the guy that brought up PCP, can have PCP in it. Just like kids buy alcohol now, would you rather alcohol be illegal and untaxed and have every gangbanger selling it on the street?
It is being sold on the street everyday, and used more than most people that oppose it seem to believe. Why keep on the streets when it could be taxed and regulated like alcohol?
Never said it?? Be careful out there, bud. Somebody else is posting under your moniker....
Never said it?? Be careful out there, bud. Somebody else is posting under your moniker....
That's right. From the posts you quoted, he never said it
"would not" and "could not" are two different things. "would not" means being allowed to or not being allowed to in this case. Could not or could is related to actual ability. Lots of things we can do that we are not supposed to.
He said that if it were legal and regulated they would not be allowed to buy it.
Now they can buy it on the street and if it were legalized, the street option would likely remain a small option -- just like illegal cigarettes and illegal alcohol (for minors) are available as a small time nuisance on the street.
The focus should be on the truly destructive drugs. Cocaine, crack, meth and heroin are scourges that destroy both lives as well as physical bodies.
Pot is a waste of resources.
That's right. From the posts you quoted, he never said it
"would not" and "could not" are two different things. "would not" means being allowed to or not being allowed to in this case. Could not or could is related to actual ability. Lots of things we can do that we are not supposed to.
He said that if it were legal and regulated they would not be allowed to buy it.
Now they can buy it on the street and if it were legalized, the street option would likely remain a small option -- just like illegal cigarettes and illegal alcohol (for minors) are available as a small time nuisance on the street.
Sorry, teach. My bad.
+1 for outright legalization.
I have always thought it was absurd that I can legally go to the doctor and have my penis chopped off, fake breasts installed, hormones injected, Zanex prescribed and then legally change my name to Francine but it is illegal to smoke pot in my back yard.
The use of marijuana should be a choice just like drinking booze, smoking tobacco or eating bacon cheeseburgers. I personally wouldn't, for the same reasons I don't partake of the other two things on my list.
I see very strong parallels between the mindset that reflexively advocates the banning of drugs as the one that insists that guns should be banned. Both of them are relics of the strong puritan streak in American culture.
There are miles of wisdom in this post.
geminidglocker
11-04-09, 16:11
I think they should legalize it and tax it. They could use the revenue to pay off the national debt.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33620180/ns/politics-more_politics
They've got great skiing in Breckenridge too :D
They've got great skiing in Breckenridge too :D
Agreed, but there is better skiing in Aspen:)
As long as i have lived in Aspen, there has always casual attitude in town regarding use of marijuana. Local Sheriff Bob Braudis (a well know friend of author Hunter Thompson) has contunually maintained that he will not enforce anti marijunana laws. I even have quite a few friends there who are "functional" pot heads that are otherwise law abiding and productive members of society.
Now, that being said, I was quite taken abackj this summer to find this ad in the local paper.
http://i376.photobucket.com/albums/oo209/senorlinc/legalweedad.jpg
that was not the only one, there were 3 others as well as an ad for a local MD (my former primary physician in fact) stating that he was available to consult for "any and all alternative medical needs".
Heavy Metal
11-06-09, 23:23
I have never tried MJ or any drug. Heck I don't drink alcohol.
Yet I am for legalization. "Prohibition" in the 1920s and early 1930s clearly showed that prohibiting stuff only made it attractive for criminal elements to enter and control -- increasing crime and placing great costs on society.
Same happens for MJ.
I am the same. Never tried it but I see the consequences on our civil rights.
Pot should be legal and regulated.
As to it being a Gateway Drug, it is one because it is illegal and the pushers who sell it push other drugs on the users, especially when they are out of pot to sell.
Legalize it and the pushers lose it as a Gateway Drug.
If Tobacco were outlawed, Cigarettes would become the new Gateway Drug.
Heavy Metal
11-06-09, 23:24
The focus should be on the truly destructive drugs. Cocaine, crack, meth and heroin are scourges that destroy both lives as well as physical bodies.
Pot is a waste of resources.
Amen. Put the resources on these problems.
If Tobacco were outlawed, Cigarettes would become the new Gateway Drug.
Exactly. Just look at what happened when they banned tobacco from prisons. People are paying insane amounts of money for it, COs are risking their jobs bringing it in, and people are getting killed over it.
i hope Italy will follow this example, throwing away the hypocrisy linked to the discussion about the use of marijuana (having STRONG doubts about last one)
Obviously, there are pros and cons to every side of this arguement. I guess i am for the outright legalization. High taxes on it could help cities and states pay for a TON of necessary things and who knows, if there are enough sales, maybe even local taxes could be reduced.
On the other hand, IF it is legalized and controlled & taxed, i fail to see how it would change the local corner dealers. given the choice, are users going to buy a tax-inflated rate from the stores, or the "street price" from your buddy around the corner. I think the idea of CONTROLLING is the key with the legalization here. Place stricter regulations than alcohol with regards to driving, etc.
On the other hand, IF it is legalized and controlled & taxed, i fail to see how it would change the local corner dealers. given the choice, are users going to buy a tax-inflated rate from the stores, or the "street price" from your buddy around the corner.
Nobody I know buys alcohol or cigarettes from private citizens who are producing it themselves. The ease of purchasing it in a store and without it being illegal definitely has its merits as well.
Besides, what does someone having the right to ingest something have to do with taxing it and the government running a monopoly on it? Our country was founded on freedom and in an effort to get rid of paying taxes, has everyone forgotten this?
Grow it in your backyard and smoke it for free, I could care less.
Grow it in your backyard and smoke it for free, I could care less.
This is an interesting point. If they make it legal, will growing your own also be legal, or would the government monopoly become accepted and enforceable?
You can brew your own beer, so...
Besides, what does someone having the right to ingest something have to do with taxing it and the government running a monopoly on it? Our country was founded on freedom and in an effort to get rid of paying taxes, has everyone forgotten this?
It would be subject to sales tax, just like everything else that is sold.
If it was legalized it would be legal for anyone to grow it. After the novelty of it wore off how many people would actually grow it? How many people make their own beer or wine?
Just think about how many people grow their own vegetables vs buying them at the store.
One more time, then I'm through. Dope is dope. Don't be a dope....:D
ETA: Surely doesn't mix with black rifles.
It would be subject to sales tax, just like everything else that is sold.
If it was legalized it would be legal for anyone to grow it. After the novelty of it wore off how many people would actually grow it? How many people make their own beer or wine?
Just think about how many people grow their own vegetables vs buying them at the store.
Read my entire post instead of grabbing a small portion in order to validate what you're saying.
Nobody I know buys alcohol or cigarettes from private citizens who are producing it themselves. The ease of purchasing it in a store and without it being illegal definitely has its merits as well.
Besides, what does someone having the right to ingest something have to do with taxing it and the government running a monopoly on it? Our country was founded on freedom and in an effort to get rid of paying taxes, has everyone forgotten this?
Grow it in your backyard and smoke it for free, I could care less.
Obviously in a store it would be subject to a sales tax of ludicrous proportions or in other words a "sin tax" comparable to alcohol & cigarettes. My point was everybody jumps up & down about taxing it without even looking at the being taxed part. I pay well over 50% of my wages in taxes a year, as I'm sure most people do, and I don't feel like paying any more taxes whether it's marijuana, bullets or guns. Try reducing the size of government waste, fraud and it's size so that we pay less taxes in the long run.
its about damn time.
while it doesn't go nearly far enough, i think this is the first action by the Obama administration that i can applaud. we'll see how it plays out.
I wonder if this is going to snowball to non medicinal MJ states.
There's a dude on another forum that claims pot promotes brain cell growth. LOL.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5AD06O20091114?rpc=64
First U.S. marijuana cafe opens in Portland
Sat Nov 14, 2009 7:36am EST
By Dan Cook
PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - The United States' first marijuana cafe opened on Friday, posing an early test of the Obama administration's move to relax policing of medical use of the drug.
The Cannabis Cafe in Portland, Oregon, is the first to give certified medical marijuana users a place to get hold of the drug and smoke it -- as long as they are out of public view -- despite a federal ban.
"This club represents personal freedom, finally, for our members," said Madeline Martinez, Oregon's executive director of NORML, a group pushing for marijuana legalization.
"Our plans go beyond serving food and marijuana," said Martinez. "We hope to have classes, seminars, even a Cannabis Community College, based here to help people learn about growing and other uses for cannabis."
The cafe -- in a two-story building which formerly housed a speak-easy and adult erotic club Rumpspankers -- is technically a private club, but is open to any Oregon residents who are NORML members and hold an official medical marijuana card.
Members pay $25 per month to use the 100-person capacity cafe. They don't buy marijuana, but get it free over the counter from "budtenders". Open 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., it serves food but has no liquor license.
There are about 21,000 patients registered to use marijuana for medical purposes in Oregon. Doctors have prescribed marijuana for a host of illnesses, including Alzheimer's, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and Tourette's syndrome.
On opening day, reporters invited to the cafe could smell, but were not allowed to see, people smoking marijuana.
"I still run a coffee shop and events venue, just like I did before we converted it to the Cannabis Cafe, but now it will be cannabis-themed," said Eric Solomon, the owner of the cafe, who is looking forward to holding marijuana-themed weddings, film festivals and dances in the second-floor ballroom.
In general, I think anything anyone does that does not harnm someone else is nobody else's damn business (read that slowly)
And while I wish nobody wanted to get high or drunk for that matter
I think the whole Med Marijuana program is more about getting high than medication
Don't get me wrong, if someone is dying of cancer I can completely see how they would want to get high...but I would still not call it medicine;)
As far as legalization, unless you simply wave a wand and it is all legal, then I do not believe any of the enforcement costs go away. If you regulate it at all it is still a big job
Remember, anyone can grow the stuff in their backyard/basement with very little trouble. So this crazy idea that you can actually make money by taxing it strikes me as silly. Believe me, if people could easily make their own cigarettes the tobacco stores would be failing right and left
As on the impairment front, Pot stays in your system for a looong time. MADD is going to go nuts over setting zero tolerance laws about "smoking and driving" because they are not about how well you can function.....they are about prohibition
In short....it is not as simple an issue as everyone would like it to be IMHO
Remember, anyone can grow the stuff in their backyard/basement with very little trouble. So this crazy idea that you can actually make money by taxing it strikes me as silly. Believe me, if people could easily make their own cigarettes the tobacco stores would be failing right and left
I seriously doubt that alot of people would be spending months on the grow process when they can simply pick up what they want at the corner store.
As on the impairment front, Pot stays in your system for a looong time.
The fact it stores in your fat and "stays in your system" for a relativdely long time does not equate to actual long term impairment.
Didn't say that it did..reading is fundamental
But why don't you explain to the the group how a realisitc "legal limit" will be set on a drug that is not metabolized in mere hours:p
As far as growing it, my college roomates grew buttloads of the stuff back when it was relatively cheap and plentiful
Much cheaper than it is likely to get if we let the gov tax it
And what about all those kids that are below whatever minimum legal age we set?
But why don't you explain to the the group how a realisitc "legal limit" will be set on a drug that is not metabolized in mere hours:p
Sounds like another peripheral issue(excuse) which has nothing to do with the base argument(personal freedom).
But...
How about a performance based field test?Last i checked you didnt need to submit to a breath test to be charged with DUI.
As far as growing it, my college roomates grew buttloads of the stuff back when it was relatively cheap and plentiful
How much beer were they brewing in the bathroom?
And what about all those kids that are below whatever minimum legal age we set?
What about um?
dookie1481
11-15-09, 17:18
I saw to many people start down a long road using this shit.
Oh please. You could argue the same about booze. Weed never made anyone stick a needle in their arm, they made the choice.
Jay
I think the whole Med Marijuana program is more about getting high than medication
Don't get me wrong, if someone is dying of cancer I can completely see how they would want to get high...but I would still not call it medicine;)
Demerol, Lortab, Vicodin, Percocet, Oxycontin, Dilaudid... and the only reason people take these is to get high too right??? All of these prescription drugs are used for pain relief and are extremely addictive while the rate of abuse is astronomical in numbers. Just because marijuana isn't manufactured by a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry and has hundreds of millions of dollars spent in advertising a year doesn't mean it doesn't have medicinal value.
Rather than making assumptions you should do some real research on medicinal marijuana and maybe then you'd appreciate the value it truly has. If you'd like some recommendations on literature or DVDs I'd be happy to help you.
The "medicinal" purpose of pot is abused. An acquaintance of mine's loser daughter, who is the stereotypical "4:20 dude, I'm sooo baked man" pot head, just came by recently bragging about her new medical pot card she was issued. I asked her how the hell she got it being that she is pretty good health except for being a way overweight due to the "munchies". LOL! She explained that all you have to do is explain to the doctor that you've had some slight suicidal thoughts & BOOM, you get a medical pot card. She & all her friends went about getting their pot cards the same way & all were issued them. What a ****ing joke our system is.
randyman_ar
11-16-09, 00:07
Why are we wasting time and money on pot? Last time I scanned the news there were much bigger fish to fry! Legalize it, tax it, move on.
Tell that to Alexander Kirpnick's mom.
Tell that to Alexander Kirpnick's mom.
He just proves how senseless it is to keep it illegal. If it was legal smuggling it over the border would make as much sense as smuggling beer over the border. Now there is a dead officer, and 4 mexicans in US prison that tax payers get to support for the rest of their lives.
I seriously doubt that alot of people would be spending months on the grow process when they can simply pick up what they want at the corner store.
The fact it stores in your fat and "stays in your system" for a relativdely long time does not equate to actual long term impairment.
I have no dog in the legalization fight, but I think that this sentiment, which is common among the "legalize it and tax it" crowd, minimizes the very real point that some opponents have with it wrt unintended consequences of legalization.
You say that you doubt people would grow it to avoid paying tax. But what if the regulated price in store ends up being high (no pun intended) in both base price and tax? Growing mj is not rocket science. Certainly it is easier than making wine or cigarettes or whatever. IMO, a high tax will just drive a lot of the traffic underground into a black market. If that happens, how has anything changed? No doubt it would lead to lower-than-anticipated tax revenue.
It's just not that simple. I'd also be curious about potential long term health risks.
I see no reason to believe the price would be any more restrictive than beer or tabacco.Both of which are very heavily taxed.
While "growing mj isnt rocket science",all "mj" isn't created equal.Have you seen what go's into a grow operation for "high quality stuff"?It's not as simple as throwig some seeds into a medium.At least not in the typical U.S. climate.I think someone like...Phillip Morris(?) would have a much easier time bringing what people would want to market.
I'd also be curious about potential long term health risks.
It's been in use for thousands of years.There's plenty of info out there.;)
I'm not sure why this is even a part of the discussion.Should we ban a juicy NY strip?It has some pretty serious long term health risks.
I think not(don't mess with my steak).:mad:
It's been in use for thousands of years.There's plenty of info out there.;)
I'm not sure why this is even a part of the discussion.Should we ban a juicy NY strip?It has some pretty serious long term health risks.
I think not(don't mess with my steak).:mad:
I think that would be part of any discussion given that the already-legal analog to mj- tobacco- is thought to have serious baggage. Most of that is not due to nicotine, either. I am assuming that smoking would remain the most common form of use/abuse of mj.
I really doubt the price, even being heavily taxed, would be as high as it is now on the streets. Just look at cigarettes, people pay $5+ a pack now and I dont think anyone is growing their own.
Although growing it isnt rocket science , growing it indoors is not easy and it requires equipment and alot of work. This is the same reason most people buy it rather than grow it now. The average person that would only smoke every now and than is not going to go through the trouble of growing it if they can just buy it in a store.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.