So much for MJ decriminalization

[Pangloss]

Almost like folks have been reading SFN!

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090326/pl_politico/20526

 

The more than 92,000 people who responded either have Cheech and Chong senses of humor or there is a deep concern in America — undetected by the media — about the decriminalization of marijuana, its possible use for medicinal purposes and its potential as a new source of tax revenue.

 

I'm afraid this didn't get much support from the President, though:

 

After taking questions lower on the list, Obama addressed the pot issue head on, noting the huge number of questions about marijuana legalization and remarking with a chuckle, “I don't know what that says about the online audience."

 

"The answer is no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," he said, as the audience in the room applauded and joined him in a laugh.

 

My color commentary: "Oof, that's gotta hurt!"

[ParanoiA]

Yes that hurts. I'm finding less reasons to like Obama every day. It's weird, because he has such an admirable method mixed with a repulsive ideology. That's not to imply this is all his fault, or that he shouldn't prioritize this sort of thing lower on the list, but he has such strength right now that I'm almost sure he could legalize cyanide over-the-counter. Would really be honorable if he used his influence on this.

 

I think it's time to join NORML and redirect my focus.

[Dudde]

I can feel the day of legalization in the flow of time...it chills the bone. By that time I hope to have fully automated my house so I don't have to have contact with the outside world, so I won't care

[Phi for All]

I hate the fact that Obama just trivialized the comments of so many of his online supporters. I didn't read a whole lot of those comments, so I'm guessing they were less than coherent in many cases.

 

What needs to happen is a focused, meaningful, incremental approach that doesn't paint the picture of a nation walking around high all the time, that cuts right to the heart of the matter: less black market crime, fewer families in jail for catching a buzz (or helping others catch one) and the economic bonus of reclassifying non-narcotic hemp.

 

I can understand the political image pressure, but I think that can be overcome by an incremental approach. It's the political interest pressure that I'm really concerned Obama is bowing down to.

[Sisyphus]

I can feel the day of legalization in the flow of time...it chills the bone. By that time I hope to have fully automated my house so I don't have to have contact with the outside world, so I won't care

 

What?

 

Anyway, it's disappointing, but not really that surprising. Support for decriminalization comes from all over, but no traditional voting blocs support it strongly, and a lot of people are very much against. I think it's going to happen eventually (I give it 50/50 odds within the next 20 years), but only when either a majority of the total population or a strong majority of either Democrats or Republicans is in favor.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Sisyphus

[john5746]

If they tax it like cigs, I think there would still be a big demand for under the table sales. I'm wonder how the black market for tobacco is going. And it's so easy to roll a joint, no filter or fancy taste needed.

[Royston]

Anyway, it's disappointing, but not really that surprising.

 

The whole issue is getting very tiresome now, but yes it's not surprising, all the time it's kept illegal, it carries the same stigma associated with other illegal drugs...and therefore is subject to the scaremongering of the media, and so on and so forth.

 

There are so many pros to legalization, a few examples raised by Phi, but there's now another twist happening in the UK. The import of cannabis has dropped massively in the UK...why ? Because people are growing it themselves, mainly due to the abundance of information available on the trusty tinternet, people can create exactly the right conditions for a very high and potent yield.

 

This isn't just hydroponics set up in the loft, this is warehouses, and farms being used to cultivate cannabis. Guess who's hired to keep these crops in tip top shape ? Illegal immigrants, so we now have another problem added to the mix. I'm not sure if investigating and shutting down these establishments requires more policing hours and money than import, but it just illustrates that the law is always one step behind, and it will continue to be like this. So politicians really should stop worrying about this daft public image, and just legalize the fricking stuff already.

[ParanoiA]

I was hoping the meltdown of order in Mexico with the drug cartel and Clinton's comments about Americans' insatiable appetites for "illegal" drugs might trigger some thought in folks.

 

The drug cartel is put out of business the moment you legalize this stuff. Not just MJ, as I'm not sure if MJ is even a major product for the drug cartel there. American demand for illegal drugs from all over the world will drop instantly once they can purchase this stuff legally. And then we can benefit from safety regulations, like with any drug manufacturer in the US.

 

Eventually, one day, we're going to have to stop acting like the moral police if we want a civilized society, relatively safe from the threat of the criminal element.

 

Right now, criminals dominate the whole market. People debase themselves for lifelong addictions to horrid drugs that are made with the least care for safe human consumption and most care for profit, just like any corporation. Only we can regulate business enough to make them "care" since they benefit exponentially by existing legally. With the criminal element, there is no method to do that.

 

We could have drugs that cost a fraction of the black market cost, with a monster economic framework to provoke competition and innovation in how these drugs are administered. Without the inflated cost that illegal products are subjected to, there's hardly the same cost when humans abuse them.

 

If a crack fix costs 2 bucks at the convenience store, I doubt that will lead people to debase themselves, and lose their life savings just to afford the habit. They will still lose much in life, no doubt, and there's nothing anyone can do about that, legal or not.

[Pangloss]

The thought that that puts in my mind is "two wrongs don't make a right".

[ParanoiA]

The thought that that puts in my mind is "two wrongs don't make a right".

 

Well, this would be true for those who believe it's right to restrict access to drugs, presumably for safety and general welfare intentions. For them, my post is perverted logic, I'm sure.

 

For those of us who don't believe it's right to restrict drug use, it's icing on the cake. We see it as righting a wrong, and thereby solving all of these other problems that wrong contributed to. To us, the mistake was in the approach used to dealing with drug use - criminalization.

 

Just think of all the downstream criminal markets created from "victimless" crimes, and all of the resources used to pseudo-enforce them. Consenting adults interfered with by the state. I'm not sure how today's present filth is better than staying out of their business.

[bascule]

I can't see Barack "I smoked a lot of pot in college" Obama wanting to become a champion for this issue. I expect any change will be grassroots and will take the form of one (California) or more states legalizing/taxing marijuana and the federal government tacitly honoring that (even though it would still violate the Controlled Substances Act)

 

That's the way the winds are blowing anyway. While Obama says this, his attorney general is working to stop federal raids on California's medical marijuana dispenseries:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html?_r=1

[ParanoiA]

I can't see Barack "I smoked a lot of pot in college" Obama wanting to become a champion for this issue. I expect any change will be grassroots and will take the form of one (California) or more states legalizing/taxing marijuana and the federal government tacitly honoring that (even though it would still violate the Controlled Substances Act)

 

 

You may be right...

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/200/story/61862.html

 

"This is symbolism, pure and simple," said Mayor Joe Blundell. "I would like to be the brave one who grows the first plant, but they've built a lot of cages for the people who stick their necks out."

 

Rather, his ordinance was intended to show grassroots support for a measure that has been repeatedly introduced – and consistently doomed – in the Missouri General Assembly.

 

Like that bill, Cliff Village's ordinance allows someone with a physician's approval to possess a few ounces of marijuana and grow a few plants.

 

Missouri is my state, although not by choice. I can't wait to drive through this little town on my way down to visit Oklahoma...with my windows rolled down. (on second thought..maybe I shouldn't be driving)

 

That's the way the winds are blowing anyway. While Obama says this' date=' his attorney general is working to stop federal raids on California's medical marijuana dispenseries:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html?_r=1[/quote']

 

Well, that's at least a start toward resembling something sensible.

[Pangloss]

I think the main objection amongst people who don't have religious/moral objections is that we have a lot on our plate at the moment and this is probably something that's going to have to wait.

 

But it also means having to address the counter-productivity, demotivation argument. We're talking about massive increases in government spending on education for the purpose of better competing in the global economy through more educated workers, and at the same time contemplating legalizing something that may directly undermine that very effort.

 

These two factors are, I suspect, the main reasons why most people feel this is an issue best served later. If you wait until we're already doing a great job of producing educated workers, and THEN bring this up, many will look at it and say "well we can probably afford to find out by doing it and seeing what happens".

[Dudde]

What?

 

It means I'm completely against the entire play, and I hope when it happens (cause I think it will) I won't have to deal with it. Personal bias of course, founded on personal experience, but I still think it's a bad idea.

[padren]

The main reason I see against the legalization of almost all drugs is the failings of caveat emptor and the targeting of ill prepared youth and such. All our drug education is about as educational to the negative effects of drug use as "Abstinence Only" is to the ways to protect yourself from STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

 

Combine that with the logical impacts of youth targeted advertising and the general nature of any addiction based industry I wonder if it can be kept honest enough.

 

 

That aside, ideologically I do think a person should have the right to do what they want to their own body. They don't owe the state or economy any kind of productivity rate above the baseline of caring for their own expenses. In my view the state has no business imposing an ideological social experiment on individuals that is liable to consume the better part of their own lifetimes or more - if it fails, it's not like we can get our wasted years back and even if it works in the eyes of some does a majority even have the right to impose their idea of "success" on those that disagree?

 

But that is all just the rantings of a social libertarian, not really reflective of the current political climate.

 

As to the literal impacts of legalizing MJ, what are the productivity impacts and other health impacts of the drug policies in Holland? A friend of mine lives there and according to him it's pretty minor - his indulgences simply revolve around what does or does not get in the way of the things he wants to accomplish and he's pretty "a matter of fact" about it. I see the possibility that it would take time to adjust to a shift in our society, but I don't think the end result would take too long to achieve, and would be that different than the way the Dutch see drug use, and it doesn't seem to hurt them very much. (Though feel free to post information to the contrary)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I just had a thought:

 

If people really want MJ legalized and feel that they are a large, unrepresented ignored segment of the population dismissed as a bunch of slackers, maybe it would work to setup a website where individuals could pledge to vote for third party candidates in 2002 (and a third party in 2004 if still unaddressed) if Obama does not address the issue seriously, with each pledge requiring a minimum $50 donation that goes to legal representation for people busted on MJ charges. The legal fund would have to have the stipulation that the charge would not include any other drugs in possession or system - can't test positive for meth and still get access to the fund for legal defense.

 

I would be curious (a) what kind of numbers that would draw and (b) if it would have a chance of actually getting the issue taken seriously.

Edited March 28, 2009 by padren
Consecutive posts merged.

[Royston]

But it also means having to address the counter-productivity, demotivation argument. We're talking about massive increases in government spending on education for the purpose of better competing in the global economy through more educated workers, and at the same time contemplating legalizing something that may directly undermine that very effort.

 

I think a point that has been missed, is that if somebody feels the desire to try cannabis, they can, because it's so easy to get hold of, it's production is abundant. There won't be a massive shift in the amount of people using it, just because you can go to local coffee shop, and have a joint...because there are lots, and I mean lots of people already doing this in their own homes. Added to the fact, that an illegal substance is more exciting, and therefore enticing for somebody younger.

 

Anyone serious about their education, and given they enjoy the odd high from time to time, will keep the use to a minimum...you can say exactly the same about alcohol. The revenue created from legalization, as well as money saved from policing, and prevention could be much better spent.

 

I could even argue that, given the current economic climate, that it's a source for a boost we need right now, given that there won't be swathes of people rushing to their local cannabis outlet to give it a go, the stigma will still be there for people opposed, and the people who already use it are just going about their day.

[ParanoiA]

I like it, Padren. Although I would make sure that both parties are accountable, in that it isn't just Obama that needs to act, it's all of them.

 

I think the main objection amongst people who don't have religious/moral objections is that we have a lot on our plate at the moment and this is probably something that's going to have to wait.

 

And see, that's a reasonable argument. The best I could do would be to dig up some numbers on jailed pot smokers and growers and attempt to make a case that the "injustice" is on a scale that raises its priority. I haven't done that...yet.

 

I think a point that has been missed, is that if somebody feels the desire to try cannabis, they can, because it's so easy to get hold of, it's production is abundant. There won't be a massive shift in the amount of people using it, just because you can go to local coffee shop, and have a joint...because there are lots, and I mean lots of people already doing this in their own homes. Added to the fact, that an illegal substance is more exciting, and therefore enticing for somebody younger.

 

I think you're absolutely right, in the long run. Unfortunately, since our government has abandoned any requirement of "objective damage" when writing laws, they are fully invested in social engineering and moral legislation. This means that our countrymen have been perverted into looking to the state for legitimacy. So, legalizing pot equates to saying it's safe to use and abuse. I do believe we will see a spike in usage.

 

But like you said, the "illegal" sheen will have been removed, and after a bit of time it will be no more special than alcohol. Potheads currently going broke buying dope off the street can start growing it in their house and we won't even see them. They'll have money for their cereal and cheetos and won't need to drain off of our entitlement system.

 

Just seems good, all the way around.

Edited March 28, 2009 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

There won't be a massive shift in the amount of people using it, just because you can go to local coffee shop, and have a joint...

 

It's a good argument, but you don't actually know that for a fact. And even if true it doesn't address the issue of demotivation at the time that we're trying to improve education. Your better political tack here would probably be to disprove (or point out the lack of proof for) the position that MJ causes demotivation. (Of course, your point about people using it in moderation would seem to contradict that argument. After all, there must be a reason why they feel it necessary to moderate their intake.)

[Dudde]

Honestly I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to partake of the substance, it's just I'm extraordinarily selfish in that I want it affecting me as little as possible. I think I'll be a lot happier to the legalization if we can keep smokers away from me - regardless of people who do smoke and doesn't think it affects anyone else, it really does, tobacco or otherwise.

 

Maybe if all the trustworthy MJ society members to promise to keep it inside

[ParanoiA]

Dudde, we have no right to poison you buddy. That part of your concern is entirely reasonable. And I don't think it selfish at all.

[padren]

I think you're absolutely right, in the long run. Unfortunately, since our government has abandoned any requirement of "objective damage" when writing laws, they are fully invested in social engineering and moral legislation. This means that our countrymen have been perverted into looking to the state for legitimacy. So, legalizing pot equates to saying it's safe to use and abuse. I do believe we will see a spike in usage.

 

I know it's not entirely on topic but I want to say I really wonder how much of the "drag" on our legal system is a result of this very point. I don't know how many people fully share this view, but I definitely thing the state should be concerned with legislating "what is within one's liberties" and not "what is safe" and I won't say we are entirely there but it does seem like we've been on a slide towards that, drugs perhaps being the most visible factor.

 

We do still allow many things that are not safe: cigs, alcohol, (in places) gambling, etc - even dare devils can jump ravines and such.

 

Maybe it deserves it's own thread but: if we held to the standard that a law is only constitutional if harm to others can be demonstrated (thus, impinge on liberties only to protect liberties) and removed the assumption that the law "protects" us by only allowing us smart decisions - how many of the messes would be far easier to clean up?

 

Case in point: "Why were they allowed to offer us this mortgage if it was so bad?" is something we hear a lot of these days. Caveat Emptor exists in complete dissonance to the idea that the government keeps us safe from bad people with bad deals. The subtly that is missing of course, is that if a bad deal is presented and actually does tell you up front why it's a bad deal and you go for it without understanding it - it's not fraud and you end up hosed.

 

In the case of drug laws, we wouldn't even have a war on drugs. We may have stiffer social assistance laws (requiring passing a drug test as, if you have a habit that keeps you from paying your rent, you have a problem and need treatment and shouldn't be the state's problem) but we'd also have a public that knows you have to look over your shoulder and stay sharp, because even if something is legal it could still ruin your life. I really do how much of our social legal-drag is caused by this.

 

Note: I don't mean to derail the thread so please feel free to split it as "Role of Legal System" or some such thing.

[bascule]

So, legalizing pot equates to saying it's safe to use and abuse.

 

The health effects of either alcohol or tobacco are comparably bad if not worse.

[padren]

The health effects of either alcohol or tobacco are comparably bad if not worse.

 

I think the point is they are not viewed as such in the realm of public opinion, because the law protects us from the evils of marijuana but not from alcohol and tobacco. He is saying the "protect the public from themselves by law" mentality is which causes this irrational prejudice.

[bascule]

I think the point is they are not viewed as such in the realm of public opinion, because the law protects us from the evils of marijuana but not from alcohol and tobacco. He is saying the "protect the public from themselves by law" mentality is which causes this irrational prejudice.

 

That is true.

 

In examining Obama's response, I think it's helpful to actually look at the question:

 

With over 1 in 30 Americans controlled by the penal system' date=' why not legalize, control, and tax marijuana to change the war on drugs into a money making, money saving boost to the economy? Do we really need that many victimless criminals?

[/quote']

 

The Bill Maher deconstruction of this was pretty interesting:

 

 

Yeah, he's a partisan hack, but he has some pretty interesting guests like Mos Def and Salman Rushdie. Mos Def's take on the whole situation was pretty poignant... the black guy gets into the White House and immediately legalizes pot? Probably a bad idea...

[padren]

The Bill Maher deconstruction of this was pretty interesting:

 

 

Yeah, he's a partisan hack, but he has some pretty interesting guests like Mos Def and Salman Rushdie. Mos Def's take on the whole situation was pretty poignant... the black guy gets into the White House and immediately legalizes pot? Probably a bad idea...

 

It was his statements that gave me the idea for the "Organized effort" pledge thing. I had a lot of trouble watching that episode due to Mos Def - who had the odd good point but every time he had part of a point he'd go on a tangent restating it several times to get a cheer or two out of the audience.

 

I think Obama's best approach would be to say "People should lobby their representatives, and if they send a bill to him to legalize it, he'll sign it as the will of the people" thereby removing himself from the spotlight, as he's certainly not the right Nixon for that China.