Marijuana decriminalization

[bascule]

Could we see marijuana decriminalized during the Obama administration? Equire magazine certainly thinks it's possible, and the issue of marijuana decriminalization topped Obama's poll on change.gov for the most pressing issues citizens are concerned about.

 

What do you think? Is this just a bunch of hippies making noise, or do we actually stand a chance of seeing marijuana decriminalized in the next 4-8 years. I would certainly like to see it happen, and it seems more and more like there actually stands a decent chance of it actually happening.

[iNow]

I'm all for it. I don't partake anymore, but find the illegality of it rather stupid and outdated. Not only could we bring in more revenue by taxing it, but we could make it safer under regulation. Further, we could stop wasting so many tens of millions of dollars on ineffective enforcement. It would also dramatically improve the state of our poverty stricken and lower income communities. I can't stand when they try to tell me that it's better to waste a jail cell on someone who had a bag of pot than to let him stay with his children and keep working (that the kid is better off having their father in jail than at home toking the occasional joint).

 

Anyway, the response from the Obama team was short and sweet, but not very favorable (4th question, link below):

 

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/open_for_questions_response/

[insane_alien]

you know, if it was legalised and there was the regulated selling of it(similar to how alcohol is sold already) it would probably provide a much needed boost to the economy. especially to the fast food and snacks industries.

[iNow]

Lol... Don't forget Yoo-Hoo and the Cartoon Network.

 

 

Seriously, though, I would help the economy, although, the money currently coming to the state through probation, jail bonds, and misdemeanor citations/fines must be huge, plus it provides jobs to all those cops, guards, and construction workers who build prisons.

[ecoli]

I'm all for it, but I have no doubt that Obama will drop the issue if the liberal wing of the "...but think of the children" brigade don't take to it.

[Pangloss]

No. It's not high enough a priority to add to the list of things he can afford to PO conservatives over.

 

In fact it's not a priority at all, so it's not going to even come up, IMO.

[npts2020]

No. It's not high enough a priority to add to the list of things he can afford to PO conservatives over.

 

In fact it's not a priority at all, so it's not going to even come up, IMO.

 

I would tend to agree but it is becoming a budget issue and may come up in that context. Any serious discussion of balancing the budget IMO has to include talk about the cost vs benefit of continuing to conduct a "war on drugs". In addition to all of the money spent and lives wasted, the government loses billions of dollars in possible tax revenue. It certainly won't come up in the context of attempting to increase individual freedom though.

 

BTW can you step over in the corner and pee in this cup?

[bascule]

In fact it's not a priority at all, so it's not going to even come up, IMO.

 

What did you think about the Esquire's argument that prohibition made little sense in the midst of the Great Depression?

[Pangloss]

Oh I can see him defunding the war on drugs, sure. But the legalization-as-revenue-stream argument is pretty dubious, IMO. It isn't necessary and I really doubt the impact is as big as proponents would have us believe (look who we're asking to do the math).

 

And by the way, this sort of thing?

 

Some of Obama's biggest financial donors are friends of the legalization movement, St. Pierre notes. "Frankly, George Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperling -- this triumvirate of billionaires -- if those three men, who put up $50 to $60 million to get Democrats and Obama elected, can't pick up the phone and actually get a one-to-one meeting on where this drug policy is going, then maybe it's true that when you give money, you don't expect favors."

 

Is exactly what scares the right about Obama. If you want to see Republicans back in control in real short order, go push that button a few times and watch what happens. They already call him the Soros Sock Puppet, Sorobama, and every other thing you can imagine. That button is big, it's red, and it says "PALIN/OSTEEN 2012" on it. I recommend not pushing it.

[ParanoiA]

...and the issue of marijuana decriminalization topped Obama's poll on change.gov for the most pressing issues citizens are concerned about.

 

Now that shocked me. I'm impressed, and shocked.

 

Seriously, though, I would help the economy, although, the money currently coming to the state through probation, jail bonds, and misdemeanor citations/fines must be huge, plus it provides jobs to all those cops, guards, and construction workers who build prisons.

 

Hey, maybe it could do for our economic recession what WWII did for the depression. Maybe "printing" money should be replaced with "growing" it. And of course, you all can count on me to do my part.

[Sisyphus]

I very much doubt it will be sudden thing, since there is still a lot of opposition to it among both liberals and conservatives (for different reasons, generally), and the onus of being president pothead would be pretty great even for one who isn't already a black guy or caricatured as an ammoral hippie. Not that it couldn't be done, but it probably wouldn't be deemed worth the political cost. I might be (and hope I am) wrong, but I doubt it.

 

That said, I'd be very surprised if we didn't see a gradual and accelerating move towards eventual decriminalization, through de-emphasis and de-funding of the war on drugs, and more and more liberal local and state laws.

[Pangloss]

I don't know if maybe this is too far off the subject, but one of the concerns I have in this area is the impact on education and motivation in the country. It seems like this is already a problem for us due to the explosion of cheap and mesmerizing entertainment options. If millions more start vegging out on Mary Jane, how will we compete with Asia and Europe?

 

Or am I just completely wrong here?

[bob000555]

I really doubt marijuana is at the top of Obama’s priority list, and even if it was I doubt he would have the support necessary for decriminalization. Christian moralists would swoop in and make a big fuss about how legalizing pot would be the end of the world. If pot is legalized by anyone it will likely be the Supreme Court on the grounds that a ban violates the tenth amendment and it’s up to the states to decide. I’m all for legalization.

[ajb]

Is it a case of "as we can not inforce the law, let's just save ourselves the trouble and make it legal"?

[bob000555]

Is it a case of "as we can not inforce the law, let's just save ourselves the trouble and make it legal"?

 

 

No I believe it’s a case of “How can a country call its self free if its citizens can’t put whatever they want in their bodies, if they don’t even have the freedom to control their own state of mind chemically?” and a case of “Why should we shred the tenth amendment over a weed?”

[ajb]

Is it "moral" to let anyone do as they please to themselves, even if they are to stupid to realise the harm they are doing, to themselves and society?

[bob000555]

Is it "moral" to let anyone do as they please to themselves, even if they are to stupid to realise the harm they are doing, to themselves and society?

 

I don’t know if it’s against the forum rules to link to this but if it is just say so and I’ll take it down…

 

Penn and Teller can explain it better then me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEyKAzXqVkA

 

But the jist of it is that if a person has the right to harm their own body as much as they want as long as they know the risks: it is not the government’s job to baby sit us. And hello what damage to society has pot ever casued we’re not talking about heroin here. The grateful dead’s music may be painful but it could hardly be called harm to society.

Edited December 24, 2008 by bob000555

[ajb]

Pot/weed whatever does damage society. I have seen it first hand. I know people who spend their money (benefit money I should add) on such drugs and not on food/clothes etc for their children.

 

Also these people tend to become very lazy and paranoid. They are not able to contribute to society in a useful way.

 

If you buy weed or whatever from someone, a lot of the time that money goes back into funding other crimes. (However, legalising it would remove this.)

 

So don't tell me pot does not damage us, I know it does.

Edited December 24, 2008 by ajb

[bob000555]

Pot/weed whatever does damage society. I have seen it first hand. I know people who spend their money (benefit money I should add) on such drugs and not on food/clothes etc for their children.

 

Also these people tend to become very lazy and paranoid. They are not able to contribute to society in a useful way.

 

If you buy weed or whatever from someone, a lot of the time that money goes back into funding other crimes. (However, legalising it would remove this.)

 

So don't tell me pot does not damage us, I know it does.

 

People have the right to waste their money on anything they want, I’m opposed to their getting welfare in the first place but that include welfare money. And as I said people have the right to modify their minds however the so chose including making themselves paranoid or lazy. If you really don’t like it stop associating with them. If pot money goes to fund crimes stop the crimes not the pot you argument is equivalent to saying we should ban all oil because money from oil goes to fund spilling oil into Prince Edward Sound, its much simpler to simply prevent spills.

 

By the way I have yet to see a violent pot head they tend to sit on the couch and eat cheese curls. The only way you could really make them violent would be to take their cheese curls.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm all for it. I don't partake anymore, but find the illegality of it rather stupid and outdated. Not only could we bring in more revenue by taxing it, but we could make it safer under regulation. Further, we could stop wasting so many tens of millions of dollars on ineffective enforcement. It would also dramatically improve the state of our poverty stricken and lower income communities. I can't stand when they try to tell me that it's better to waste a jail cell on someone who had a bag of pot than to let him stay with his children and keep working (that the kid is better off having their father in jail than at home toking the occasional joint).

 

I've never had any, and don't plan to, but I agree 100% with what you said. There is no way that it is better to destroy someone's life than let them smoke pot.

 

Is it a case of "as we can not inforce the law, let's just save ourselves the trouble and make it legal"?

 

A similar military maxim is "Never give an order that will not be obeyed -- it won't accomplish anything and you loose respect."

[npts2020]

ajb; I have seen people do the same thing by spending money on alcohol, gambling, cars they couldn't afford, etc. (pick your favorite boogeyman). While this behavior probably does not contribute to an orderly society, I don't see why the government has any interest one way or another as long as those individuals do not become the responsibility of the government.

 

Pangloss; How many people do you think would start smoking pot (or do any other drug) if it was suddenly legalized? I think we all agree that an individual should be accountable for their actions but I know so few people who never use drugs of any kind that I can count them on one hand. In a free society what is the difference if a doctor prescribes them or you do it yourself? If drugs were legal, at least the government would have a chance of being able to track people doing the worst of them, plus it could be the means of funding treatment.

[Phi for All]

Self-medication to avoid your responsibilities can be done in many ways, and not all require that you abuse a substance. Too much time on the computer, too much reading, too much exercise and too much TV are popular choices as well.

 

The fact that some drugs, like alcohol and nicotine, are legal while others are not is more of a political situation than a medical one. I think legalizing hemp in all its forms would be a good experiment to see if other industries and society as a whole would survive. But I agree that Obama will most likely not address the issue formally.

 

I wonder if he can use the unofficial pressure system Bush used on various departments (like having Parks downplay geology and evolution angles in places like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone) to "suggest" to law enforcement that pot possession prosecution needs to be curbed.

[ajb]

If you really don’t like it stop associating with them.

 

Not so easy when they are part of the wife's family.

 

Personally, I have never seen anything constructive associated with pot or any other drugs. Also, I don't like the message that legalising such drugs gives to society. This includes the down classing that pot here in the UK. In my opinion it was one the governments worse decisions in recent years. Far better would have been a new grading system, rather than making marijuana sound "safer" by lowering its class.

 

And don't forget, when the government responsibility it is our money doing it.

Edited December 25, 2008 by ajb

[Phi for All]

Personally, I have never seen anything constructive associated with pot or any other drugs. Also, I don't like the message that legalising such drugs gives to society.

Do you drink alcohol?

[bob000555]

Not so easy when they are part of the wife's family.

 

Personally, I have never seen anything constructive associated with pot or any other drugs. Also, I don't like the message that legalising such drugs gives to society. This includes the down classing that pot here in the UK. In my opinion it was one the governments worse decisions in recent years. Far better would have been a new grading system, rather than making marijuana sound "safer" by lowering its class.

 

And don't forget, when the government responsibility it is our money doing it.

 

“I would hope we emancipate ourselves from the superstition that that which is legal is necessarily honorable . My old friend Mr. Jackson seems to suggest that as it’s perfectly to contract syphilis but it don’t mean that society is in favor of syphilis. As a matter of fact it’s perfectly legal to vote for Jesse Jackson that doesn’t make it reputable now does it? We’re not talking about conferring a social sanction on taking drugs, we’re talking about how to deal with the drug problem.”

- William F Buckley

 

“Has it become the role of this congress to prohibit any activity that an adult wants to engage in voluntarily if it does not add to the GDP or make us more competitive? What kind of social-cultural authoritarianism are we advocating here?”

- Barney Frank

 

Phonographic memory can be so useful…

 

Edit: I acutely found the Barney Frank speech and the whole thing is relevant…just replace the word “gambling” with “marijuana” .

Edited December 26, 2008 by bob000555