So much for MJ decriminalization

[padren]

I just had a thought: Even though "The World" apparently supports naming the new NASA module "Colbert" it's pretty obvious that is more representative of a small group that just cares more than others enough to outvote them on an online web poll.

 

The thing is there is a "Colbert Factor" in this online poll, as stated in the article via NORML:

 

It seems part of the popularity of marijuana questions was fueled by NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which was urging its members to vote for questions supporting the legalization of cannabis.

 

The real question I would like to know is - what percent of the "vote ups" came from there? It's hard to evaluate the impact of this campaign, but it could be as strong as it was on the NASA site, or it could have been no more of an influence than the NRA trying to get certain gun questions pushed to the top. It would have been nice if the article at least gave some information on the margins and vote tallies (92,000 means what exactly, and out of what?), and what relevant traffic to NORML has been like for comparison - at least some educated idea of their influence relative to the size of the whole. Honestly the way it reads to me, it almost plays down the validity of the whitehouse.gov votes as "over inflated" by this group, but I am sure many groups rally people to get their causes heard, and it doesn't really present any states to support that (implied) claim of marginalization.

 

I also read some interesting comments regarding how this issue overlaps with prison reform, which I suppose is a separate but related issue.

 

Just a disclaimer: I really don't know much about Senator Jim Webb, and the article reads a bit "less than two sided" for my taste, but it does bring up some interesting points:

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/28/webb/index.html

 

It's really seems to start one the topic of the need for prison reform, citing mostly runaway trends and the large number of "victimless crime laws" then meanders into an interesting bit on how issues either become mainstream or remain on the fringe.

I will say where it quotes:

In 1980, we had 41,000 drug offenders in prison; today we have more than 500,000, an increase of 1,200%.

... I can't help but to think the invention of crack and meth may have played a bit of a role, so take it with a grain of salt when evaluating it's stats.

[Sisyphus]

You really think he should be spending his time lecturing the American people on the benefits of cannabis legalization? Is there even any evidence that he thinks that would be a good thing?

[jackson33]

Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? Instead of getting mad at Obama for not doing what the majority doesn't want him to do, how about we work on trying to turn that majority into a minority?

 

Interesting; Why not look at it this way? When Obama was running for the Democratic Nomination, he addressed DEMOCRATS. When he became President, he became the leader of the American People of which about half are Democrats.

 

As a Conservative, I favor legalization of pot, possibly other currently illegal drugs. Although MJ use laws are no longer enforced to a degree once were, far to many other wise law abiding citizens, have spent time in some prison, filled the over stressed legal systems, had careers interrupted or forced to change for a relatively minor crime.

 

As for a majority/minority issue; Wording of all polls reflect major difference in results and results are rarely equal to recent polls. Said another way, I'm not sure the majority, if all were known, would in fact vote against legalization.

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/drugs.htm

[padren]

As for a majority/minority issue; Wording of all polls reflect major difference in results and results are rarely equal to recent polls. Said another way, I'm not sure the majority, if all were known, would in fact vote against legalization.

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/drugs.htm

 

From that link:

 

"According to statistics, lots of people have tried marijuana at least once. How about you, have you tried marijuana at least once?"

 

Yes: 47%

No: 50%

Not sure:3%

Uh, should we just consider a "not sure" as a yes?

(Or am I the only one who heard in my head as I read that: "Uh, I dunno, man..."

[Sisyphus]

Interesting; Why not look at it this way? When Obama was running for the Democratic Nomination, he addressed DEMOCRATS. When he became President, he became the leader of the American People of which about half are Democrats.

 

As a Conservative, I favor legalization of pot, possibly other currently illegal drugs.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. Legalization is not a conservative position, it's a libertarian position.

 

In fact, according to Gallup, only 21% of Republicans favor legalization, 37% of Democrats do, and 44% of independents do.

 

Source: http://www.csdp.org/research/gallup_marijuana_2005.pdf

[jackson33]

I don't know what you're talking about. Legalization is not a conservative position, it's a libertarian position.

 

In fact, according to Gallup, only 21% of Republicans favor legalization, 37% of Democrats do, and 44% of independents do.

 

Source: http://www.csdp.org/research/gallup_marijuana_2005.pdf

 

Suppose I should have phrased "EVEN as a Conservative", but my point was while it's being assumed Democrats have some moral authority over the issue, there are many of us that in other camps that favor legalization. As for Libertarian Philosophy, and again even as a strict Constitutional Conservative, I feel they are to restrictive to change which I believe was intended by the founders.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From that link:

Uh, should we just consider a "not sure" as a yes?

(Or am I the only one who heard in my head as I read that: "Uh, I dunno, man..."

 

.

 

"Regardless of what you think about the personal non-medical use of marijuana, do you think doctors should or should not be allowed to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes to treat their patients?"

%

Should 73

Should not 21

Don't know 6

 

 

This was interesting to me and why I believe the US Justice Department is not all over California prosecuting, guess millions. If 3/4ths of people feel it can be prescribed, knowing how many addictive drugs are already being prescribed (the reason not over the counter), whats the difference. I would bet, trying MJ by Americans is much higher than 50%, especially for the Baby Boomer's, which may be 80%+...opinion...

[waitforufo]

Perhaps one reason for decriminalizing marijuana is that it would likely reduce the availability of more damaging illegal drugs (cocaine, methamphetamine, heroine, ecstasy, etcetera). Currently marijuana represents the highest volume and profit producing product of the illegal drug business. Marijuana alone justifies much of the current illegal drug distribution infrastructure. An infrastructure that transports, distributes, and sells all prohibited drugs. Decriminalize marijuana and the illegal drug distribution infrastructure must then be supported without the profits of marijuana. Without marijuana, much of the illegal drug business may no be economically viable. Costs of other illegal drug products would likely increase also reducing use.

[Dudde]

GutZ

I really don't care if other people dislike it, or hate the smell, or whatever, that's a stupid reason to take away someones freedom to choose.

 

You forget that not everybody is as responsible for you. There are a lot of people not eating, or stealing from someone else, in order to get money for drugs - not strictly MJ, but a good deal of them. I think once U.S citizens grow up a bit maturity - wise, it won't be a problem legalizing it. I don't see 'bad smells and people not liking it' as the only reason not to legalize however.

 

jackson33

I feel they are to restrictive to change which I believe was intended by the founders.

 

But that's merely something you feel might have been intended, and has no bearing on the difference in the world then and now. During the days of the founders, I'm sure being fat wasn't necessarily the biggest worry in the U.S either. Not that I'm saying people using MJ are fat, but relating the difference in times - things are not the same, presumptions cannot be made.

 

"Regardless of what you think about the personal non-medical use of marijuana, do you think doctors should or should not be allowed to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes to treat their patients?"

 

I don't agree with prescription medicine personally, but that's a choice I make and I'd hardly try to use it to prevent if it's sincerely helping with certain conditions, like MS (multiple sclerosis?.) It's almost like trying to get Vicaden pushed for over the counter?

[scrappy]

Perhaps one reason for decriminalizing marijuana is that it would likely reduce the availability of more damaging illegal drugs (cocaine, methamphetamine, heroine, ecstasy, etcetera). Currently marijuana represents the highest volume and profit producing product of the illegal drug business. Marijuana alone justifies much of the current illegal drug distribution infrastructure. An infrastructure that transports, distributes, and sells all prohibited drugs. Decriminalize marijuana and the illegal drug distribution infrastructure must then be supported without the profits of marijuana. Without marijuana, much of the illegal drug business may no be economically viable. Costs of other illegal drug products would likely increase also reducing use.

Couldn't agree with this more. It's the one argument that gets lost in all the hysteria over legalizing weed.

[Royston]

Couldn't agree with this more. It's the one argument that gets lost in all the hysteria over legalizing weed.

 

Sorry, but what ??? Perhaps you should inform us, and explain the infrastructure of the illegal drug trade, because I can assure you, you're way off the mark. The main source of so-called hard drugs are restricted to certain locations, and they have no trade in cannabis, in fact they're surviving on a poor farmers wage. Cannabis isn't some back bone, far from it...and I'll quite happily provide references.

 

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.)

 

By the same token, you're assuming that concentrating on education, and bringing in the legalization of cannabis will have some knock on effect i.e the former will be negatively disrupted by the latter.

 

My argument, is that the latter (use of cannabis), is already in effect. Providing better education is a bonus...if some people are morally grounded into not taking cannabis, and others have other obligations, or simply don't enjoy it, how are the two conflicting ?

 

I just can't see this massive shift if it becomes legalized, when the effects of the substance, and it's ramifications are so well know. We're quite happy to make allowances for alcohol i.e oh, so many millions have been lost in man hours due to hangovers...ho hum, but yet people think this will get worse if cannabis is legalized. Of course it has detremental effects, depending on what your view is of detremental, (if what you say is true, we'll have a lot of good artists and musicians out there, post legalization.) But so do all sorts of other activities, that could be considered as counter productive.

 

I can't prove my argument as a fact, but neither can you, and yes, I'm sure it's on the bottom rung of the ladder to what's important right now, but it will keep cropping up, and when's a good time when it'll be important ?

[ParanoiA]

Sorry, but what ??? Perhaps you should inform us, and explain the infrastructure of the illegal drug trade, because I can assure you, you're way off the mark. The main source of so-called hard drugs are restricted to certain locations, and they have no trade in cannabis, in fact they're surviving on a poor farmers wage. Cannabis isn't some back bone, far from it...and I'll quite happily provide references.

 

Fair enough, but would that not change at the distribution level? Usually the same guys selling meth, sell weed as well. I could see a significant impact on profits for them if marijuana was legalized - well, depending on how legal it ended up, that is.

[waitforufo]

Sorry, but what ??? Perhaps you should inform us, and explain the infrastructure of the illegal drug trade, because I can assure you, you're way off the mark. The main source of so-called hard drugs are restricted to certain locations, and they have no trade in cannabis, in fact they're surviving on a poor farmers wage. Cannabis isn't some back bone, far from it...and I'll quite happily provide references.

 

Then why is it I read articles like this one all the time?

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008916994_webborderbust24m.html

 

Since the Utah traffic stop on Feb. 21, nine people have been arrested in the U.S. and Canada, including the pilot. U.S. authorities say they seized the two choppers, about 600 pounds of "B.C. Bud" marijuana and nearly 170 pounds of cocaine. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police seized another 150 pounds of marijuana, 40,000 tablets of ecstasy and several firearms.

[iNow]

Then why is it I read articles like this one all the time?

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008916994_webborderbust24m.html

 

Because reporters are idiots who poorly represent actual science? I'm just guessing, here. Further, distribution and transportation are separate issues, despite your attempt to make a point by conflating the two.

 

Didn't someone really smart say something about anecdotes not being a valid form of data?

[Mr Skeptic]

It would certainly be nice to see a public debate about it.

 

Pros:

* less hypocrisy (alcohol, tobacco,...)

* spending --> profits (law enforcement, jail costs, prosecution, etc. --> tariffs)

* less crime (one less thing illegal, cheaper pot so users don't need to steal to finance their habit, less decent people going to jail and learning to be a hardcore criminal, less people already doing something illegal so not minding doing other illegal things, less money to drug cartels)

* more freedom (less laws, less nanny state, more personal responsibility)

* can grow non-THC plants again

* medicinal marijuana

 

Cons:

* changing status quo

* "its for your own good"

* people scared of potheads

* lawyers and law enforcement would lose some of their jobs

 

I'm sure I'm missing a few, but I don't think that a debate about marijuana legalization could come out on the side of keeping it illegal without use of plenty of emotional appeal.

[Dudde]

It would certainly be nice to see a public debate about it.

Pros:

* less hypocrisy (alcohol, tobacco,...)

* spending --> profits (law enforcement, jail costs, prosecution, etc. --> tariffs)

* less crime (one less thing illegal, cheaper pot so users don't need to steal to finance their habit, less decent people going to jail and learning to be a hardcore criminal, less people already doing something illegal so not minding doing other illegal things, less money to drug cartels)

* more freedom (less laws, less nanny state, more personal responsibility)

* can grow non-THC plants again

* medicinal marijuana

 

Cons:

* changing status quo

* "its for your own good"

* people scared of potheads

* lawyers and law enforcement would lose some of their jobs

 

I'm sure I'm missing a few, but I don't think that a debate about marijuana legalization could come out on the side of keeping it illegal without use of plenty of emotional appeal.

 

I see a lot of conclusion jumping in this post - have we already decided a price for it if it were legalized?

 

* less hypocrisy (alcohol, tobacco,...)

I don't agree - I see nothing hypocritical about it. You can't merely say "well because I can smoke X and drink Y, both of which give me an altered state of mind, Z should be legal too" - I can't speak from experience, but a lot of people say that it's nothing like drinking or smoking anyway

 

* spending --> profits (law enforcement, jail costs, prosecution, etc. --> tariffs)

Agreed.

 

* less crime (one less thing illegal, cheaper pot so users don't need to steal to finance their habit, less decent people going to jail and learning to be a hardcore criminal, less people already doing something illegal so not minding doing other illegal things, less money to drug cartels)

Another set of conclusions. Some of the above points hold merit I'll admit, but others do not. I've never known anybody I respect who also uses MJ to steal to feed their habit, it's the same as anything else they do. I doubt you'll get rid of people stealing by a huge portion by legalizing it.

- I also disagree with 'decent people going to jail and learning to be hardcore', but it's really just an opinion, so that's all I'll say

- I know of a lot of people who don't really care about what they're doing for themselves, and do it purely because it's illegal. I'm not saying they're the majority, but don't think because you never look for anything heavier that nobody else will. I don't know 10 people collectively who've smoked MJ who haven't done or want to find a way to do one of the other illegals to see what it's like.

-"less money to drug cartels" I can't completely agree with - don't think for a second that once we legalize, they're not going to cut something into it to make it look more attractive, or some other way to keep their customers.

 

* more freedom (less laws, less nanny state, more personal responsibility)

This may be my problem - I've always viewed more personal responsibility to Americans as something of a joke.. at least for now. We're getting better.

 

* can grow non-THC plants again

Right

 

* medicinal marijuana

They've already got this. Not everywhere, but there isn't any point in pushing medical if it's just plain legal? Please tell me if I've assumed incorrectly as to your meaning on this.

 

 

I'm not going to quote your cons, as they were obviously meant to be ridiculous. I think if we tried to edge it in a little at a time or something, like legalizing medical use everywhere first, or let a few states test it out or something, we might have some better effects. I doubt just passing a bill to decriminalize it will have the above-quoted benefits for quite a long time, and will result in a lot of trouble in the meantime.

[Daecon]

It's a bloody plant. How can a plant be illegal? What do they do if they find it growing naturally, arrest the countryside?

[Pangloss]

We're quite happy to make allowances for alcohol i.e oh, so many millions have been lost in man hours due to hangovers...ho hum, but yet people think this will get worse if cannabis is legalized. Of course it has detremental effects, depending on what your view is of detremental, (if what you say is true, we'll have a lot of good artists and musicians out there, post legalization.) But so do all sorts of other activities, that could be considered as counter productive.

 

Certainly. This is not a bad argument, IMO, because it focuses attention on consistency and accurate information. I don't know enough about the stuff myself. Maybe I should learn more. I do know that it's infernally stupid when some of my students sneak out at the break and stink up the parking lot, and then come back to the classroom giggling and making mincemeat out of the lab assignment. But there's certainly no reason why I can't take them to the cleaners at grading time -- that's one way of dealing with the motivation issue.

 

My main interest is in whether or not usage would increase. I don't think we really know one way or another. I think the president is correct in leaving this one off the table for the moment, given how it's already groaning from the weight of what's on it. But I don't think that should be a permanent condition. People have a right to bring issues to the fore.

 

One thing I'm curious about is what percentage of criminals in jail are there over MJ charges specifically, as opposed to other drug offenses.

[Royston]

I do know that it's infernally stupid when some of my students sneak out at the break and stink up the parking lot, and then come back to the classroom giggling and making mincemeat out of the lab assignment. But there's certainly no reason why I can't take them to the cleaners at grading time -- that's one way of dealing with the motivation issue.

Indeed, if they had any sense, they'd know there's a time and place for such activities i.e when they've finished their assignment, or just sat through an exam for example.

But just to reiterate my point, do you think a coffee shop down the road would make any difference, will other students be more influenced by this, over the students who are already sneaking out for a few puffs ?

You can probably guess, I'm fascinated by the topic, there are so many elements involved, and it's interesting seeing other people’s points of view on the subject.

I'm not sure if all the points that are valid have been raised in this thread i.e I don't want to flog a dead horse, plus I'm at work (meaning I don't want to be scanning through opium production in Afghanistan, and cocaine production in South America) I don't want any raised eyebrows from technologies if they check my history.

But I will come back with some figures, in the next few days, once I've finished my maths assignment (I'm very busy ATM.) I certainly don't want people to take my points on faith.

It's a bloody plant. How can a plant be illegal? What do they do if they find it growing naturally, arrest the countryside?

Naturalistic fallacy, where do you think cocaine comes from, or opium. It makes no difference if the source of the drug is a plant, or synthesized in a lab...it's all natural.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Snail

[Phi for All]

I see a lot of conclusion jumping in this post - have we already decided a price for it if it were legalized?

That would be decided by the market. Depending on how legal it became, we are talking about a weed that anyone can grow, virtually anywhere. How much does homemade wine and beer cost?

 

I don't agree - I see nothing hypocritical about it. You can't merely say "well because I can smoke X and drink Y, both of which give me an altered state of mind, Z should be legal too" - I can't speak from experience, but a lot of people say that it's nothing like drinking or smoking anyway

The hypocrisy angle is the weakest one to me, and the one that has the least chance of changing opinions. Hypocrites don't see their actions as being hypocritical, and alcohol-only imbibers usually see everything else as only "drugs".

 

Right

Is this a sarcastic "right"? Because growing non-THC hemp to save trees from being paper, and to cut the amount of pesticides used to grow weaker, more costly cotton fibers, and to produce hemp oil as an internal combustion fuel, has always been one of the strongest arguments to me for legalization. Right now, a lot of markets are maintaining higher profits unfairly because they aren't being challenged by this currently illegal competitor. And why is non-THC hemp illegal? All the arguments about it's being mistaken have been debunked.

 

 

They've already got this. Not everywhere, but there isn't any point in pushing medical if it's just plain legal? Please tell me if I've assumed incorrectly as to your meaning on this.

Many people who would benefit from it's affects won't take it because of the stigma associated with it being illegal for everyone else.

 

 

I'm not going to quote your cons, as they were obviously meant to be ridiculous.

I agree. The list of cons for legalizing MJ are ridiculous.

 

I think if we tried to edge it in a little at a time or something, like legalizing medical use everywhere first, or let a few states test it out or something, we might have some better effects. I doubt just passing a bill to decriminalize it will have the above-quoted benefits for quite a long time, and will result in a lot of trouble in the meantime.

This is probably the best compromise. If making medical MJ available everywhere went hand in hand with removing it as a felony offense so we could get some otherwise decent folks out of jail, I WOULD STAND BEHIND THAT 100%.

 

(funny, hit the caps lock by mistake but I'm going to leave it anyway)

[scrappy]

Certainly. This is not a bad argument, IMO, because it focuses attention on consistency and accurate information. I don't know enough about the stuff myself. Maybe I should learn more. I do know that it's infernally stupid when some of my students sneak out at the break and stink up the parking lot, and then come back to the classroom giggling and making mincemeat out of the lab assignment. But there's certainly no reason why I can't take them to the cleaners at grading time -- that's one way of dealing with the motivation issue.

Just how "infernally stupid" would it be if your students drank beer out in the parking lot—stunk it up real bad, ya know—and then came into your lab and made mincemeat out of your assignments? (Jesus, if you can't get high or drunk for your chem lab then what's the point of it?).

 

Question: Would it be better to do the fuminate lab experiment on pot or on beer? I did it once stone sober and nearly killed off my chem class. After that we took it outside.

[Pangloss]

Well there are certainly many stupid things that students can (and do) do. I've got one who lied about being registered for the class for the last two weeks just so she could sit with her boyfriend in the back row and distract HIM from paying attention during the lecture. I had fun putting that one down last night (what fun is it becoming middle-aged if you aren't destroying young love?).

 

But they don't sneak out to the parking lot to drink beer, they sneak out to the parking lot to smoke weed. I assume there's a reason for that. If it's because it's a better high, then the argument that they'd just do some other substance would seem to be moot. If the argument is that they do it only because it's illegal, then what would they do if we made it legal? Something worse? I don't see a win there.

[bascule]

But they don't sneak out to the parking lot to drink beer, they sneak out to the parking lot to smoke weed. I assume there's a reason for that. If it's because it's a better high, then the argument that they'd just do some other substance would seem to be moot. If the argument is that they do it only because it's illegal, then what would they do if we made it legal?

 

I don't think anyone here is suggesting marijuana should be legal for minors.

 

I would expect it to carry with it an 18 or 21 year old age limit much like tobacco and alcohol.

[waitforufo]

Because reporters are idiots who poorly represent actual science?

 

How is this topic related to the reporting of science? What am I missing?

 

I'm just guessing, here. Further, distribution and transportation are separate issues, despite your attempt to make a point by conflating the two.

 

The referenced article (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008916994_webborderbust24m.html) describes an organized drug swapping operation involving cocaine from the US and marijuana and ecstasy from Canada. The operation included road and helicopter transportation. Two helicopters were seized carrying large amounts of marijuana and ecstasy. Road transportation, helicopters, drug swapping between different organized groups in different countries all mentioned in the article.

 

Yea, I guess your right there is no transportation infrastructure supplying simultaneously marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy, mentioned in the article at all. Also, I'm sure you're right that the profit to be made from ultimate distribution of 600 lbs of BC bud had little to do with the exchange.

 

Didn't someone really smart say something about anecdotes not being a valid form of data?

 

From the article

U.S. authorities say they seized the two choppers, about 600 pounds of "B.C. Bud" marijuana and nearly 170 pounds of cocaine. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police seized another 150 pounds of marijuana, 40,000 tablets of ecstasy and several firearms.

 

Data:

US: 2 helicopters, 600 lbs of BC bud, 170 pounds of cocaine,

Canada: 150 lbs of marijuana, 40,000 tablets of ecstasy

 

Legalize marijuana and the profit motive for this drug deal would have collapsed.

[Pangloss]

Well these are college students, but I suppose some of them could be too young to buy beer.

 

It occurred to me after the last post that perhaps they do use alcohol and I just haven't noticed. (lol)

 

(Now y'all are gonna start wondering what kind of a lame school I teach at!)

[ParanoiA]

But they don't sneak out to the parking lot to drink beer, they sneak out to the parking lot to smoke weed. I assume there's a reason for that. If it's because it's a better high, then the argument that they'd just do some other substance would seem to be moot. If the argument is that they do it only because it's illegal, then what would they do if we made it legal? Something worse? I don't see a win there.

 

Awe now, we all know damn good and well why they chose weed....it's far more mild of an intoxication than alcohol and far more quickly delivered - both of which make the drug safer, by the way. Alcohol is too debilitating to chug on break, and then enjoy during class.

 

Although, I did have some friends during high school that claimed they tripped on LSD in class. I don't hang around those idiots anymore.