Is Marijuana Decriminalization Overdue?

[The Dagda]

Like the fact that as a Schedule I drug its right next to heroin, I find that absurd.

I believe it's right next to opium in the US, which let's face it is unrefined heroin anyway. I find that absurd.

I also think ecstasy is a little too high on the scale and it most certainly shouldn't be in the same class as acid and crack. Cannabis should and is really a class C drug along with steroids. Ecstasy probably deserves a class B and hard drugs should be in the class A. That said the knee jerk right wing caused ecstasy to be miscategorised in the same way they caused cannabis to be miscategorised. You have to also take into account the level of criminality invovled with a drug, which means smoking should be a class A, and alcohol a class A (mainly because of how dangerous it is, plus both are associated with smuggling on a massive level in the UK due to the high tax).

 

[binzing]

At this point that is still a hypothesis. Smoking tobacco increases the incidence of lung cancer and it very addictive, but apparently that is socially accepted.

Thats what makes this crazy. Its legal to sell something so addictive and deadly, but pot is illegal while it has roughly the same effects impairment wise, as alcohol.

 

[gravenewworld]

The marijuana which gave me addictive pleasure at first - for six years - provided me access to harder drugs, including LSD. After the acid I toked six more years, but achieved little pleasant sensation, instead smoking out of habit, only to feel all of the disturbing effects of marijuana. It was not until I quit pot that I finally reached a sense of normalcy. I could well be homeless if I hadn't. Now, 25 years later, the hardest drug I ingest is chocolate.

By the way, I received a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia 6 months after my LSD experience. I now have the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type.

Marijuana has recently been shown in an English study to significantly increase the incidence of psychoses in habitual users. I have seen elsewhere that 20% of users become habitual.

NMDA antagonists have severe side effects on the CNS and can cause hallucinations, motor impairment, and memory loss. So why does the FDA allow things on the market like Diazepam?

Yesterday I heard that cannabis use increases the incidence of testicular cancer. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...22&btnG=Search

It is already pretty much a well established fact that opioid use promotes cancer progression and metastases, so should morphine, codeine, etc. be illegal now?



Physcians and the FDA recognize that both NMDA antagonists and opioids still have beneficial therapeutic use. The pros outweigh the cons. Everything is a poison, you just have to administer the right dose. There is absolutely 0 good reasons why marijuana is illegal at least for medicinal purposes.

 

[mgb_phys]

David Nutt of the University of Bristol wrote an opinion piece for the Journal of Psychopharmacology which compared society's perceptions of risk of taking ecstacy with other activities. The light-hearted piece compared "equasy" or Equine Addiction Syndrome with perceived risks of drugs.

The piece found equasy, or horse riding, caused acute harm to a person once in 350 episodes while ecstacy caused acute harm once in 10,000 episodes.

Nutt asked: "So why are harmful sporting activities allowed, whereas relatively less harmful drugs are not? I believe this reflects a societal approach which does not adequately balance the relative risks of drugs against their harms... The general public, especially the younger generation, are disillusioned with the lack of balanced political debate about drugs."

http://jop.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/23/1/3

 

[ThomasT]

What evidence is this claim based on? What facts are being used? How are the facts being evaluated?

Good question. I don't know. But a quick survey of drug-related cases in Connecticut between 2002 and 2007 revealed a rather large (more than 10,000) number of drug-related arrests. About 1/3 were dismissed, about 1/3 were 'nolled'. A few thousand resulted in convictions and various penalties.
I'm probably a bit off in my recollection here. The point is that it uses a lot of resources (police and court time, jail time, parole time, probation time, etc.). The problem of drug abuse is better dealt with in other ways. And decriminalizing and regulating and taxing the production and sale of these substances puts a vast criminal subculture out of business.

It seems to me that the large drug cartels which now supply American users derive their power from the illegality of their product(s). That, and the street violence associated with the retail black market here in the US, and the rather large numbers of people doing time or awaiting prosecution for drug use and/or sales seems to me to be enough reason to at least seriously consider some sort of state-run program. It's been done with gambling, and alcolhol, and tobacco. Why not control drugs in a similar way? Why create an underground market and then leave it to that?

 

[Alfi]

To the OP first.
Decriminalize yes. Legalize, is a bit harder for me to just jump on a band wagon and say go for it.
Many issues about sales, quality controls, liabilities, etc. need to be addressed first.

I guess I'm one of the few here that will admit to smoking pot fairly regularly for 35+ years now. I have no intention of stopping. I also feel I am not 'addicted' to it. I often go for months without for one reason or another and really feel no withdrawal symptoms or any of that stuff.
I am 54 now and semi-retired. In all those years I have never committed any crimes to get it. I have never put myself in debt to get it and I have never sold it.
I have a small crop I tend ( 6-8 plants ) and grow at home in a back room. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that you can't grow-at-home the 'good' stuff. I beg to differ. Mine is very, very good. I make it a hobby of sorts in my little garden to find and cross breed strains to get some very smooth smoke.

I guess my main issue is the private vs public aspect. I disagree with letting it out into public. Certainly not on the roads. In part I feel it should be treated the same as alcohol.
But, because of the ease of growing it would be impossible to control the 'approved' sources, and therefore the quality or traceability if a diseased batch was released.
If used in private, grown for personal use, I feel there should be no criminal charges.

I started another thread about the memory effects of THC but as the OP stated it is very difficult to keep discussions within rules. If I have over stepped any rules with my opinions please accept my apologies.

 

[WhoWee]

Quick historical survey :

marijuana

cocaine

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a1/Queen_Victoria_-Golden_Jubilee_-3a_cropped.JPG/210px-Queen_Victoria_-Golden_Jubilee_-3a_cropped.JPG Opium

Alcohol

EVERYTHING

2009-01-14-obamaofficialfull.jpg

reportedly "dabbled"

 

[turbo]

2009-01-14-obamaofficialfull.jpg

reportedly "dabbled"

The honors go to...Keef!

If there is a nuclear holocaust, there'll still be cockroaches and Keith Richards.

 

[Evo]

I guess one of the major differentiators between the majority of people that drink alcohol and people that smoke marijuana is that the majority of people drink alcohol, not to get drunk, but for the pleasure of a few tasteful sips. I might have a tiny glass of sherry, a glass of good wine, a finger of exquiste brandy, etc... People that smoke pot do it to get stoned. Who takes one puff of marijuana for the taste experience and then stops?

Seriously, who here that smokes marijuana would do it without the sole intent to get high? That's the whole point, isn't it?

 

[dlgoff]

I might have a tiny glass of sherry, a glass of good wine, a finger of exquiste brandy, etc...

Makes me go back to the New Years Eve party on chat. Sherry

 

[binzing]

I guess one of the major differentiators between the majority of people that drink alcohol and people that smoke marijuana is that the majority of people drink alcohol, not to get drunk, but for the pleasure of a few tasteful sips. I might have a tiny glass of sherry, a glass of good wine, a finger of exquiste brandy, etc... People that smoke pot do it to get stoned. Who takes one puff of marijuana for the taste experience and then stops?

Seriously, who here that smokes marijuana would do it without the sole intent to get high? That's the whole point, isn't it?

Obviously, but there's different levels of high, and sometimes (or a lot of times, depending upon the persons preferences) all you want is a little buzz to relax, etc. Its the same as alcohol in that respect, IMO.

 

[turbo]

Seriously, who here that smokes marijuana would do it without the sole intent to get high? That's the whole point, isn't it?

Apart from relief of neurological pain that cannot be relieved by opiates, relief from nausea induced by chemotherapy, relief from pulmonary spasms, etc, etc, etc,... Gee not a single reason I can think of.

Maine's legislature legalized medical uses for marijuana after extensive review, and against very vigorous opposition by church groups and some legal corners. It is a modest program, and even now, some DA's are trying to scuttle it. They cannot reverse the will of the people, so they nibble around the edges trying to criminalize the behaviors of people who supply marijuana to try to help get patients get some relief from their afflictions.

BTW, I know people who buy and drink expensive single-malt scotches and pricey wines for the "flavor" and they end up hammered every time they drink. There is not a border at addictive behavior between drinkers and smokers. I'm sure that you and I both know people who have to get wasted whenever they drink - beer, wine, vodka, scotch,... If you can afford the best, does that excuse the personal irresponsibility that might result in you passing out on the couch or having to be helped to bed by a loved one?

 

[Evo]

Apart from relief of neurological pain that cannot be relieved by opiates, relief from nausea induced by chemotherapy, relief from pulmonary spasms, etc, etc, etc,... Gee not a single reason I can think of.

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

BTW, I know people who buy and drink expensive single-malt scotches and pricey wines for the "flavor" and they end up hammered every time they drink. There is not a border at addictive behavior between drinkers and smokers. I'm sure that you and I both know people who have to get wasted whenever they drink - beer, wine, vodka, scotch,... If you can afford the best, does that excuse the personal irresponsibility that might result in you passing out on the couch or having to be helped to bed by a loved one?

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

 

[turbo]

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

The pill form (Marinol) did not help my brother in law, and in fact caused undesirable side-effects including disorientation, paranoia, and nightmares. Being in the terminal stages of pancreatic cancer may have made him more sensitive to that refined version, but he responded quite well to the natural forms. My sister was beside herself all this time, since she was very sensitive to his needs. One cancer death is not a study - it's only apocryphal, but I have learned from it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And a pill with the active ingredients would be much more effective than actually smoking it.

I don't think that's true. Smoking is a very effective method of delivering drugs.

 

[Evo]

I don't think that's true. Smoking is a very effective method of delivering drugs.

But a pill can be very concentrated and the correct amount controlled. Which is probably why we don't smoke medications.

 

[turbo]

But a pill can be very concentrated and the correct amount controlled. Which is probably why we don't smoke medications.

Some of us have to use inhaled medications every day. If you have asthma, you will rely on preventive medications and "attack" medications that you resort to if you are in trouble.

Guess what? When your lung capacity is impaired, and you need to rely on drugs that need to be delivered to your lungs, and thus to your circulatory system, you're pretty much screwed. It is not possible to calibrate drug doses when the drug is designed to improve pulmonary function and the drug is intended to be used by people in danger. It is not possible to take a pill to stave of an on-going asthma attack.

 

[Evo]

Some of us have to use inhaled medications every day. If you have asthma, you will rely on preventive medications and "attack" medications that you resort to if you are in trouble.

Guess what? When your lung capacity is impaired, and you need to rely on drugs that need to be delivered to your lungs, and thus to your circulatory system, you're pretty much screwed. It is not possible to calibrate drug doses when the drug is designed to improve pulmonary function and the drug is intended to be used by people in danger. It is not possible to take a pill to stave of an on-going asthma attack.

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

 

[Evo]

To the OP first.
Decriminalize yes. Legalize, is a bit harder for me to just jump on a band wagon and say go for it.
Many issues about sales, quality controls, liabilities, etc. need to be addressed first.

I guess I'm one of the few here that will admit to smoking pot fairly regularly for 35+ years now. I have no intention of stopping. I also feel I am not 'addicted' to it. I often go for months without for one reason or another and really feel no withdrawal symptoms or any of that stuff.
I am 54 now and semi-retired. In all those years I have never committed any crimes to get it. I have never put myself in debt to get it and I have never sold it.
I have a small crop I tend ( 6-8 plants ) and grow at home in a back room. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that you can't grow-at-home the 'good' stuff. I beg to differ. Mine is very, very good. I make it a hobby of sorts in my little garden to find and cross breed strains to get some very smooth smoke.

I guess my main issue is the private vs public aspect. I disagree with letting it out into public. Certainly not on the roads. In part I feel it should be treated the same as alcohol.
But, because of the ease of growing it would be impossible to control the 'approved' sources, and therefore the quality or traceability if a diseased batch was released.
If used in private, grown for personal use, I feel there should be no criminal charges.

I started another thread about the memory effects of THC but as the OP stated it is very difficult to keep discussions within rules. If I have over stepped any rules with my opinions please accept my apologies.

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

 

[wildman]

What evidence is this claim based on? What facts are being used? How are the facts being evaluated?

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

 

[binzing]

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

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

 

[turbo]

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

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

 

[mbisCool]

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

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

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

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

 

[The Dagda]

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

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

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

 

[Papapreacher]

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

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

There is no value of wine, just alcohol.

People can absolutely give me the tool to forbid the winer

 

[The Dagda]

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

There is no value of wine, just alcohol.

People can absolutely give me the tool to forbid the winer

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

 

[gravenewworld]

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

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

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

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





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

 

[Hurkyl]

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

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

 

[wildman]

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

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

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

 

[Alfi]

To Alfi:

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

Wow, that doesn't happen often.

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

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

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

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

Alfi.

This is a good debate and I thank the poster.

 

[The Dagda]

Wow, that doesn't happen often.

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

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

 

[Monique]

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

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

 

[Helios]

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

The drug problem is essentially financed by the drug laws.

 

[Evo]

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

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

 

[turbo]

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

The drug problem is essentially financed by the drug laws.

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

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

 

[The Dagda]

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

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

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

 

[Evo]

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

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

 

[Evo]

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

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

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

 

[turbo]

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

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

 

[Evo]

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

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

 

[turbo]

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

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

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

 

[The Dagda]

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

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

 

[turbo]

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

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

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

 

[Monique]

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

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

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

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

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

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

 

[mbisCool]

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

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