Should the sale and use of marijuana be legalized?

[loophole]

interesting topic and, after reading throught the posts, i thought i'd pop in and answer some of the questions my friend 6-5 posed herein. i warn you clint, my take on this subject is a little out there.

basicly, i believe that the gov't should decriminalize all illegal drugs, produce them all, and give them away to any adults who want them. and no, i'm not sucking on a joint as i write this.

my perspective is born of 20 years working in the criminal justice system where i see two serious problems caused by drug laws. the first is i see a huge number of people in the criminal justice system that wouldn't be there if drug possesion were not criminal. all these people are being stigmatized for life and essentially become alienated from the entire system of criminal laws. when laws are disregarding by otherwise law-abiding people, it fosters a lack of respect for the law in general. this concept is most promoted by the existing laws regarding marijuana.

regarding harder drugs, ask anyone who works in the criminal justice system and they will tell you that 90% of the serious crimes in the system are drug related. obviously there's the drug cases. there's also a barrage of assaults and shootings that are related to drug distribution. finally, by far the largest category is the avalanche of robberies, burglaries, b&e's, frauds, thefts, etc that are brought about by people trying to get money to buy drugs. were the gov't to decriminalize all drug possession, make the stuff and give it away, all these crimes would evaporate overnight. think about it. all the money the gov't spends on prisons, law enforcement, courthouses, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, clerks, and on and on, would be reduced by 90% virtually immediately. the gov't could then take a portion of that money (and it would only take a small portion - the numbers are enormous) and set up gov't controled distribution centers where users could go for their supply. while there an employee could gently inquire if they really like leading a life of addiction and, if not, sign them on for free gov't financed rehab programs (remember we have plenty of money now).
everyone in criminology knows that criminal penalties have no appreciable effect on the rate of drug usage, or any crime rate for that matter. you can increase the penalties ad infinitum and the results are always the same. at first there is an immediate downward spike in the rate with initial public awareness of the increased penalty, but this disappears relatively quickly and the rate returns to the norm. doesn't matter whether you're talking about marijuana laws, prohibition, or the death penalty for that matter, the result is always the same. the severity of criminal penalty simply has no long term effect on the crime rate.

likewise, the addiction rate would also be negligibly affected. most everyone has their drug of choice, be it pot, alcohol, cocaine, or prescription painkillers. there actually is very little crossover (in terms of addictive use). usage in general would spike up initially for an array of thrillseeking drug tourists but would eventually return to right where it was.

there would be secondary benefits also. people in prison are obviously not in the work force and we suffer the resulting lack of productivity. theie dependents are most likely being supported by the gov't. most of all, a prison stretch astronomically increases the likelihood that the convict will, after release, commit other crimes which he had never committed before going to prison. recidivism is something like over 80%. does it sound like harsher penalties are doing us any good?

clint, with regard to marijuana being a gateway drug, let me offer another perspective. i believe marijuana is probably tried and regularly used by more people than any other drug curently in vogue. most of the addictive personalities are going to move on to something stronger regardless of where they start. ask yourself what percentage of all marijuana users go on to become addicted to something harder. the number is actually fairly small.

i don't know if this is the right answer for our societal problems or not, all i know is what we got ain't working. unfortunately, things are not likely to change anytime soon. between two candidates running for the same public office, who do you think will get elected - the one advocating harsher criminal penalties as a solution or the one that says decriminalize all drugs? there's a no-brainer for you. funny thing is, all the experts in the field know harsher penalties have no effect, but noonew wants to hear that.

ok, clint - let me have it - i'm a big boy and can take it.

 

[pepin46]

i too, experienced it while serving overseas, never actually did it at home. the extent of it was 3-4 guys splitting a joint on a friday or saturday night. that was pure panama gold, and that was enough for us for the night.

only bad effects i noticed were a bit of paranoia, but it definitely beats alcohol by a long mile. alcohol brought me nothing but fights, bad hang-ups and misery.

in the group that i knew, there were about 20 of us who would do it on ocassion, not every friday or saturday. one particular fellow, who had loads of psychological problems, bought a huge stock every month and consumed it several times a day. i am afraid he is one of those who qualified to eventually "graduate" to harder stuff, although i lost track of him later.

i think nick nailed it by making the distinction of association. liquor being the drug of choice of the european or anglo, and mj having its american roots from blacks, or at least that is what i have read.

i must say that i never had the urge to smoke it again, but would if socially acceptable, just like i will have a drink or 2 in a social atmosphere, but don't experience the urge for a drink either.

vices/hang-ups? work, smoking, gambling and madjack's web page, in that order, all done in excess. no, i don't need a reefer or a drink. i have a perennial high with all this stuff, not to mention a young wife and 2 small kids waiting at home to complement my life (did i say it's a man's world?).


pep

 

[Gatorbait]

puff puff...off to Daytona

 

[BahamaMama]

Originally posted by Big Daddy:
Just one question:

If you smoke a joint and get the urge to eat p*ssy, is that considered the munchies?

ROTFLMAO!! i could bring ya a big joint and find out

i haven't read page 2 of this thread yet, so don't know what all has been mentioned, but will throw in my 2 cents on the parts i've seen.....

on one hand, yes, i think pot should be legalized and taxed.... the sale and consumption is gonna happen no matter what, why not lower other taxes for income on it.

BUT, in another sense, i can see it not being legalized...... many on page 1 mentioned that it should be controlled just as alcohol...no driving, not a good thing for pilots, air traffic controllers, etc....

this is where the problem comes in..... you can test for current alcohol blood levels, but to the best of my knowledge, there is no way to determine if a person is working or driving high. THC content takes a long time to leave your system, and would you want to get busted for *high* driving, because you smoked a joint 2 weeks ago?

any other thoughts on this aspect of why one may be legal, and the other not.

i do remember someone saying that they thought driving high was safer than driving while intoxicated. IMHO, gotta disagree on that one...... i do NOT belong behind the wheel stoned, yet after some drinks, am still way more capable of driving safely (not to say that EITHER is a good thing to do, tho)

 

[dc]

Excellent discussion question, Jack. It?s interesting to read the range of opinions on the subject. Of all who?ve written so far, I must say (only in my humble opinion, of course) that Loophole?s argument appears to be the most compelling of all.

Not that I necessarily agree with all his points (especially about the decriminalization of ALL currently illegal drugs) but on a scale of one to ten, I personally would give it a seven. It is couched in terms of rationality (again, only IMHO) rather than hyperbole, and is backed by fairly solid logic blocks built on fact and personal experience?even though some of those blocks get flung a wee bit far from the logic trail at times. (Sorry, LH...couldn?t resist the mini-critique.

My debating-days juices tend to get flowing when good discussions like this are uderway.)

However, for all the good discussion I?d like to point out there are many inconsistencies in our society of the type Loophole points out (I?ll be confining my remarks primarily to the USA, by the way) and it is naturally upsetting when we see these inconsistencies expressed though our laws, customs, and practices.

For instance, using public money to subsidize tobacco farmers while at the same time devoting large sums of public funds to discourage tobacco use seems to make no sense whatever. The degree of absurdity one finds in these inconsistencies depends, of course, upon one?s point of view.

By point of view I mean that both the tobacco farmer as well as the anti-smoking group benefits from this inconsistency and therefore considers the money coming into their coffers to be a good use of public funds. In other words, from the same seemingly absurd practice you have two different and disparate groups for which this (the public money coming to them, that is) makes complete and logical sense.

As another example, I?m sure if we changed Jack?s question a little to read, "Do You Think Internet Sports Wagering Should be Legalized?" we?d be sure to get at least a 98% affirmative response rate. To those of us on the form, even asking the question itself almost borders on the absurd.

The point I?m trying to make is this. While from our own perspective a law, custom, or practice may seem to be totally absurd, it may make perfect sense to the majority of everyone else in society. That?s part of the "price", if you will, for living in a democracy.

Like it or not, for the overwhelming majority of people in this country, the sale and consumption of cannabis should remain forever unlawful. Why? Because in spite of all the good, valid, and logical arguments for its decriminalization, it remains part of a set of laws that represent certain ill defined values that we as a society desperately want to cling to. With apologies to Carl Jung, who pioneered work in the notion of the collective subconscious, I?d like to offer the following to support my case.

The laws of a democratic society are supposed to reflect its value system?that hard-to-define collective sense of right and wrong that has deep ancestral, historical, and even biological roots. "What would it say about us (so the collective internal dialogue, I believe, goes) as a society if we endorsed through our leaders and our laws something that our collective value system feels is wrong?" There is also fear at work; the fear of losing and violating these values is strong. "If we allow ourselves to compromise here, what?s next?where would it all end?"

For the majority of society (those that believe in a Higher Power anyway) there is still something that asks the question of "why attempt to alter our state of being or consciousness? Isn?t the natural state of our consciousness as given to us by our creator good enough?" And then fear begins to work with questions like, "Won?t we run the risk of offending our creator if we seek to alter the state of being that was given?" Before long, these feelings and fears become part of the value set of the society, which then in turn get codified into its set of laws.

The fact of the matter is, in the collective consciousness of the majority of people in this country, marijuana use falls into that subset of laws that are based on these abstract concepts rather than on cold hard fact or a tangible societal need for the greater good.

In other words, the collective societal consciousness (and/or subconscious) isn?t sure exactly why it feels this way; it just knows it?s wrong. Even in light of little empirical evidence to support those feelings, cognitive dissonance takes over, and no matter the facts, the feeling still remains. That?s why, for the most part, society clings to an argument like the woefully-unsupported-by-the-evidence ?gateway to other destructive behavior belief?, and why marijuana use is still illegal in this country today.

Therefore, it is my opinion that Jack?s original question, "Should the sale and use of marijuana be legalized?" is, with all due respect, basically moot. It is a question upon whose answer means little in terms of what is.

Unless we, as a nation and a society, have a dramatic shift in certain deep-rooted values, I doubt we will see the decriminalization of marijuana in our life times (yes, I?m including even those Generation X folks out there). In other words, I don?t see this shift in values happening anytime soon. If anything, we as a society are becoming more conservative with each passing year...wanting to cling ever tighter to the security and safety of the values of prior generations.

If the marijuana laws were going to change at all, the time it would have happened would have been in the late sixties and early seventies. This was a time where there was a massive shift in cultural and societal values. It was a time of, as Jerry Garcia put it, "rampant intellectualism". But even then, with all the change and upheaval in our country, the laws concerning marijuana remained almost unchanged. And, like it or not, I?m afraid that?s going to be the way it will be for quite some time to come.

Just my two centavos, for what they?re worth.

-dc

 

[redsfann]

A great topic to come home to after a great vacation on the shores of Lake Superior....

I totally agree with both Loophole and Skinar on this topic. ALL drugs that are currently illegal should be legalized tommarow. Heroin, cocaine, pot, etc... And the money that we currently piss away locking these people up should be diverted to drug treatment and education.
An interesting take by dc on this topic as well. Great topic everyone...
I started getting high at 15, quit at 27(10 years ago)--and hated every other illegal drug I tried(and I tried them all....

)

 

[Kevin]

.

[This message has been edited by Kevin (edited 07-10-2001).]

 

[gsp]

I wasn't going to comment on this subject until DC kept refering to this democracy that we have. I hate to hear politicians keep trying to make us believe we are a democracy. We have a republic (big difference) and as Ben Franklin said "if we can keep it". A democracy is where majority rules (good for politicians). A republic is where you have rights that nobody can take away including the gov (acting in the "best interest of the people". The truth is that all laws pertaining to drugs, liquor, etc are unconstitutional. As you can see on this forum there are differences of opinion and we are much too willing to by-pass the constitution if it don't agree with our current view. The Supreme Court has become nothing more than a reflection of what they think is the current public opinion (that's very democratic of them). Their job (and they took an oath) is to uphold (enforce) the constitution, something they quit doing a long time ago.

Whether you realize it or not, you are the enforcer of the law, yes, you and me. The goverment can write all the laws they want, set all the penalties they want, and then they want you to believe you have to enforce their laws. The jury don't have to enforce bad laws but as long as you and I are willing to send people to jail the laws will only get worse.

This is more than I meant to write and not half as much as I should write. For instance, there is no legal way that smoking dope can be a crime but that is another book in it's self.

I'll leave you with this thought. I've never smoked a joint, taken a pill. done cocaine or even tasted a beer but I can drink Scotch with the best of you. I am proably the only one on this forum that can remember when everything mentioned above was legal and guess what? There was no drug problem. In fact, I was out of high school before I even knew anyone that was trying drugs. Shortly thereafter they started making them illeagal and guess what, with-in a couple of years at least 80% of the people I knew were doing something. It was dumb back then, it's dumb today, but if dumb is a crime we all should be in jail.

 

[redsfann]

gsp--

If you can remember when cocaine was legal, you have to be over 100 years old. The Coca-Cola Company called their product Coca-Cola because they put cocaine in it when they first made it in the late 1800's.
The U.S. Government made cocaine an illegal substance in the 1910's-- meaning you were born in the early 1900's-- making you nearly 100 years old today.....

 

[ALWAYS PRAYEN]

 

[Felonious Monk]

Has anyone else seen these commercials where I am made to feel guilty for buying a quarter bag? What a ****ed up situation. The entire REASON there's such a substantial black market is because of the idiotic ****ing 'drug war' that is our GOVERNMENT'S policy. Is this irony or just hypocrisy?

Sounds to me like another reason to legalize and regulate drugs. it'll take the money out of the terrorists' hands, won't it?

 

[TexasBC6]

I'm no expert on the drug black market, but what you said Felonius makes perfect sense to me. Shit, take the money out of foreign illegal markets and create a controlled taxed market here. The money no longer goes to terrorists (the govt would have you believe 100% of the money goes to them), instead it goes towards distributors and to the government in the form of taxes. They also would save money on the so called drug war. I get pissed off every time I see one of those f*cking drug money commercials.

 

[Felonious Monk]

The thing I thought about the Ads is that for here the government is off creating a new version of "Reefe Madness" type propaganda.

Hell the Taliban would be considered allies of American for their erradication of Poppy production in Afganistan according to the Ad.

The bad thing about the ads are that kids know that the propaganda is B.S. Today marijuana is one of the larger DOMESTIC cash crops in our country. When a kid buys "Made in the U.S.A." marijuana, is he helping terrorists?

The Ads are not effective because they stretch the truth.

If the real concern was terror profits legalization and elimination of the black market profit is the free market and logical solution.

 

[dogface]

Never done it...

Never done it...

Never will!

Just don't believe in it!

Like my life and everything it delivers in it's natural state!

Nothing beats a good sunrise, the feel of a soft woman (my wife) in the morning, the warmth of the sun, a gentle breeze on a freshly cut golf course, hanging with friends! All natural, nothing needed to enjoy those things!

As for the argument, "yeah, but those things are better with", I never needed it to get better!

Just my humble and honest opinion!

dogface

 

[fatdaddycool]

ya figure if they legalized New Mexico, West Virginia, and Alabama (sorry Freak) would have something to do. Could finally have an American Farmer that isnt getting state aid.

 

[kevinmac_99]

Phanatic..........

Phanatic..........

A quarter back of the GOOD STUFF already cost atleast $100-$130......are you smoking that razor or KB??????

KMAC

 

[ferdville]

This is an interesting and worthwhile topic. I have been on almost every side of the coin on this one, though infrequently as a user. Marijuana is not a gateway drug. There is not now, nor has there ever been any proof that it is. This was propaganda, pure and simple. I can name 25 acquaintances that have used and still smoke pot and have never done anything else. There is also little to argue as to the negative aspects of pot versus alcohol. I ran bars and clubs for years and never got into fights, broke up fights, etc. with somebody high on pot. Alcohol and bars = fights. My biggest problem with marij is as a result of what I am doing now - teaching in a continuation high school in a rather low socio-economic setting (not huntington beach). I can truthfully say that as many as 50% of the kids here smoke pot on a regular basis. The majority of them are totally unmotivated students with virtually no chance of finding success in the near future. Now..the big question...is this the result of using marij or just one of the many symptoms of most teenagers in the same predicament? I would say the latter. Many have made good points here. I feel that once the government can figure out a way to tax marijuana to the same or greater extent that tobacco is taxed, we will see the possibility of legalization. All in all, I don't think it would be a bad thing.

 

[nighthorse]

everyone in criminology knows that criminal penalties have no appreciable effect on the rate of drug usage, or any crime rate for that matter. you can increase the penalties ad infinitum and the results are always the same. at first there is an immediate downwars spike in rate with initial public awareness of the inccreased penalty, but this disappears relatively quickly and the rate returns to the norm. the severity of criminal penalty simply has no long term effect on the crime rate.

That's a pretty bold statement to apply to EVERYTHING. You couldn't cut down on jaywalking if there were mandatory jail time? If I thought I could go to the pokey, I'd saunter down to the crosswalk. Don't you think there would be more theft in Saudi Arabia if the authories stopped chopping people's hands off in the public square? Do you think more would fire up in Singapore if they got rid of the death penalty for doing such.

My other angle would be that the rates would have to go down somewhat, only because those who would have been released under less severe judgments are not in the streets to add to the crime stats......instead, they are still in prison.

Flawed logic? Did I miss something?

 

[layinwood]

Cant lay off this subject. Im 30 yrs. old, I own my own company and yes I smoke everyday. I like it, it makes me feel good and no matter what the law says, I'll smoke. I have 15 employees as we speak and they all know my feelings on the subject. My big thing with them is that I would rather them smoke than drink anyday of the week. I have NO employees that come in feeling like chit from smoking, but if someone drinks to much I guarantee they are come in looking and feeling like dog chit. I say leave everthing the way it is. I sure the hell don't need the gov't reducing how many crystals are hanging off my beautiful plants.

For those who don't smoke- I think you would be very suprised at the people who do smoke. It's not just young college kids or any other stereotype. There are smokers that are, what some may call our upper class(doctors, hmmmm maybe a judge or two) but they do it in the privacy of theyre on homes and arent going to voice theyre opinions about it. I don't have a problem with people not likeing the greenage, but I do have problem with people who speak out against it when they dont have any honest reasons to be against it other than "it's bad, it's a gateway drug." Give me a break.

 

[nighthorse]

As far as marijuana being a gateway drug, that is a rediculous argument. Alcohol is the biggest gateway drug in the world by far. Legal or not, alcohol is the start of substance abuse for most people who end up using harder drugs.

The only reason Pot IS a gateway drug is precisely because it's ILLEGAL. There's nothing in the plant itself that makes you want to smoke crack or snort crank. Most of the time, the guy you get your supply from, also offers various other, "more exotic" products. Maybe he's out of what you really want, or can offer you a special deal on this other stuff. That's a huge gateway that can be completely shut down by legalization.