Legalization of Marijuana

[brainwashed_youth]

Alright, what does everyone here think about legalizing pot? Me, I'm all for it. I don't see how it's so different than alcohol. You could tax the hell out of it and give that money to education. That's like what, $1 billion dollars at least annually? And I really don't see any big moral dilemma with giving schools "drug money" because lotto money funds a good deal of our education.

Ya'lls thoughts?

[MrSlayer]

1. Legalize It!

Absolutely. Marijuana laws just make criminals of people who are otherwise law abiding. But the beer companies and chemical companies will never allow it.

[Karenina]

37. Or the tobacco companies or

Big Pharma or the texile companies or the paper companies or anyone else who realizes that the little wild-growing hemp weed has ALL SORTS of environmentally friendly uses... :shrug:

[LifeDuringWartime]

2. good point about lottery proceeds.

the religious right would have a fit though, as well as perhaps the people who don't really know anything about it.

[arewethereyet]

3. war on drugs ? lost it. legalize everything, get the tax windfall

and eliminate organized crime, including gangs, all in one fell swoop.

or would that be too much of a good thing ?

[Sugarbleus]

Legalize it!

My hubby is disabled. He belongs to a local medical marijuana co op. I'm sure many have heard of it........Santa Cruz area.

I say keep fighting for legalization of weed AND the decriminalizing of any substance addictions! This war on drugs is so full of crap, I don't even know where to begin to complain. It even effects what medicines one can get from the DOCTOR!!! Unless of course, you are Rush Limbaugh.

I'd LOVE to get Ashcroft really really stoned! LOL
:smoke:

[RowWellandLive]

4. Legalize all drugs

Starting with marijuana.

[Webster Green]

6. All Drugs!

The worst thing about any drug is the law against it.

[Fovea]

5. I was curious during the SOTU

When * talked about giving more money to schools for drug testing programs, does that include Ritalin?

We have our head so far up our ass in the drug war that when we yawn we can see daylight. The drug war is the basic system of social control in America. If you don't believe it, ask yourself who might possibly benefit from illegal drugs and harsh criminal sentencing, a policy that has been a laughing stock since *before* Reagan.

Then ask yourself who owns the private prison facilities, and where they are mostly located. Ask yourself who benefits when possession is a felony, and felons don't get to vote.

Ask yourself why marijuana would be so dangerous, that you would turn your back on 1000+ years of common law (medical necessity) to keep sick people from using this drug medicinally. Ask yourself why while occuping Afghanistan, the 'anti-drug' president let the warlords start poppy production back up into high gear, so to speak.

When you have followed the arc of my thoughts on the matter, what do you think prevented almost any presidential candidate, Dem or Pub from supporting it up to this point?

Personally it seems to be the will of the people to allow medicinal cannabis at the very least, but the pols up until this very race have treated it like the third rail of civil liberty.

After that, sit back with a fatty and listen to Glen Fry's Smuggler's Blues.

[jokerman93]

7. Legalize and regulate all human indulgences

n/t

[HawkerHurricane]

8. Legalize, Regulate, Tax

Turn the war on (some) drugs off.
Legalize them all, eventually.
MJ first, because it's percieved as the least dangerous.
Keep the laws about DUI and such. Don't want very stoned people driving.
I could go on.
Ain't Nobodies Business if You Do. by Peter McWilliams

[drdigi420]

10. great book

read it online for free at
http://www.mcwilliams.com

it should be required reading for every human

[corporatewhore]

9. Well since alchol is more addicting than pot i say legalize it

[Virgil]

11. Of course it should be regulated

Two thousand people a day are arrested because of cannabis laws. As Willie Nelson says, it is unfair to them and their families and is a waste of resources. Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment for people of that day to recognize federal authority in national prohibition. Now they just ignore the 9th and 10th amendments to overreach their authority in making a crime out of this activity that has no victim.

The black market and black market prices inflict a harm of their own. Then there are the onerous laws that can brand people with a criminal record, cost them a college loan, cost them a job, can have their children taken away from them, can have their house taken from them, and limit their travel to foreign countries. The laws are much more harmful than cannabis would be if legalization caused harm. I have written many times that legalization of cannabis would help the substance abuse problem in this country because it would be a superior alternative to alcohol. Cannabis can be recommended in California for alcohol abuse.

There is nothing more senseless or more wrong than Cannabis Prohibition. What is bad is that the candidates cannot even speak on the issue because the words they would use to defend the indefensible would be scattered over the Internet and amplify their goofy answers.

It really is not fair to compare the use of cannabis to alcohol. I can consume cannabis and operate a chain saw without worry as I have learned to deal with it. I could be totally lifted right now and you would not know it. Alcohol is disabling, where cannabis is not. My favorite word for being high is being enhanced. My favorite term for cannabis is Miracle Plant.

Marijuana is the word that Randolph Hearst used in his newspapers to demonize cannabis and associate it with the Hispanics. I think it was El Paso that first criminalized cannabis about 1914. The Mormons in Utah had a split and some went into Mexico and adopted the habit. It would be part of the reason Utah became the first state to criminalize cannabis. I personally do not use the word that often.

Sometimes I say laughing grass and if I am in a hurry say LG instead of MJ.

I think federal prohibition is even unconstitutional. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was found to be unconstitutional in 1969. That meant that it had been unconstitutional since its inception and anyone arrested under it was illegally arrested.

A good movie to watch is "Grass" with Woody Harrelson that is now rated #6 in the Top 11 rated at http://www.pot-tv.net/

[drdigi420]

12. The war on drugs causes more damage

than the drugs themselves.

It's wasteful, crude, violent, and it doesn't stop ANYONE from getting the drugs they desire.

It makes drugs not only appear more romantic and exotic than they really are, it provides an easy entry into the world of crime for children.

Next time someone says they support the war on drugs, remind them that they support:

police corruption
higher gasoline prices
higher taxes
dangerous streets
children selling drugs
gangs
failing education
budget deficits

[SalParadise]

13. bush has already provided the rationalization for this!

What I love about bush's "illegal immigrant" work plan is that it provides the perfect rationalization for the controlled legalization for drugs...it's already going on (illegal immigrants coming across the border to work/ready availability of drugs) we've tried to control it, but the programs we have in place are a waste of time, money & resources - so why not allow it in a controlled manner?

Of course, it's not about what makes sense, it's about what makes the politicians (both the dems & repubs) money - I doubt the alcohol lobby would stand for the legalization of anything that would cut into their poison distribution system.

[jokerman93]

15. The problem with legalization

The problem with legalization is that in a society barreling hell bent toward becoming a police state, there is always a need for leverage over regular people like us.

Dissent?

Bust 'em for pot and send 'em away.

No fuss. No muss.

Also good for controlling those uppity blacks.
(sarcasm ON)

[KG]

14. legalize it, don't critizise it!

:smoke:

[Robin Hood]

16. The war on drugs is a war on liberals.

The war on drugs has denied millions of good hard working liberals the right to vote. Too bad Clinton was too damn stupid to realize that. The dumb ass thought that it was all right to get his knob polished by someone other than his wife but wrong to smoke a joint in the privacy of your own home.

Man!! Did he blow it.

[Bush loves Jiang]

17. It's funny you say that...

There are a lot more "Liberal" drug war hawks then you seem to think.

Who outlawed pot?

[Robin Hood]

18. As far as i know,

Pot became ilegal during the 20-30's because they believed that it was empowering black people to speak up against the establishment. Nixon started the war on drugs but it was put aside when he got impeached. The Reagan/Bush Admin dramatically refunded the war on drugs as a PR ploy to draw away from the negative attention that Nancy Reagan was getting for how much tax payer dollars she was spending on redecorating the White House. her dresses and jewelry.

Unfortunately Clinton was too short sighted to see the real cost of the war on drugs and continued fundng it. As far as liberal drug war hawks go, they are either short sighted or just doing it because it has become politically astute due to the negative propaganda that has been forced on the public about the true nature of drugs.

[Beam Me Up]

30. HOW CONGRESS MADE HEMP AND MARIJUANA ILLEGAL

Read "The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States" by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School. I recommend reading the entire presentation (link at bottom) it is quite interesting and humorous. Here are some excerpts to give you a taste:

When we asked at the Library of Congress for a copy of the hearings, to the shock of the Library of Congress, none could be found. We went "What?" It took them four months to finally honor our request because -- are you ready for this? -- the hearings were so brief that the volume had slid down inside the side shelf of the bookcase and was so thin it had slid right down to the bottom inside the bookshelf. That's how brief they were. Are you ready for this? They had to break the bookshelf open because it had slid down inside.

<snip>

Commissioner Anslinger (son-in law of the DuPont family, by the way) gave the Government testimony and I will quote him directly. By the way, he was not working from a text that he had written. He was working from a text that had been written for him by a District Attorney in New Orleans, a guy named Stanley. Reading directly from Mr. Stanley's work, Commissioner Anslinger told the Congressmen at the hearings, and I quote, "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." That was the Government testimony to support the marijuana prohibition from the Commissioner.

<snip>

There were two pieces of medical evidence introduced with regard to the marijuana prohibition.

The first came from a pharmacologist at Temple University who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. When asked by the Congressmen, and I quote, "Doctor, did you choose dogs for the similarity of their reactions to that of humans?" The answer of the pharmacologist was, "I wouldn't know, I am not a dog psychologist."

Well, the active ingredient in marijuana was first synthesized in a laboratory in Holland after World War II. So what it was this pharmacologist injected into these dogs we will never know, but it almost certainly was not the active ingredient in marijuana.
The other piece of medical testimony came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug."

What's amazing is not whether that's true or not. What's amazing is what the Congressmen then said to him. Immediately upon his saying, and I quote again, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.", one of the Congressmen said, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"

That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you."

Now, the interesting question for us is not about the medical evidence. The most fascinating question is: why was this legal counsel to the most prestigious group of doctors in the United States treated in such a high-handed way? And the answer makes a principle thesis of my work -- and that is -- you've seen it, you've been living it the last ten years. The history of drugs in this country perfectly mirrors the history of this country.

So look at the date -- 1937 -- what's going on in this country? Well, a lot of things, but the number one thing was that, in 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was reelected in the largest landslide election in this country's history till then. He brought with him two Democrats for every Republican, all, or almost all of them pledged to that package of economic and social reform legislation we today call the New Deal.

And, did you know that the American Medical Association, from 1932, straight through 1937, had systematically opposed every single piece of New Deal legislation. So that, by 1937, this committee, heavily made up of New Deal Democrats is simply sick of hearing them: "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"

<snip>

The entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition was as follows . . .<snip>. . .Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". Does everyone know "tellers"? Did you know that for the vast bulk of legislation in this country, there is not a recorded vote. It is simply, more people walk past this point than walk past that point and it passes -- it's called "tellers". They were getting ready to pass this thing on tellers without discussion and without a recorded vote when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, a guy from upstate New York, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition.
"Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and -- do you remember? The AMA guy was named William C. Woodward -- a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." It wasn't true, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote.

In the Senate there never was any debate or a recorded vote, and the bill went to President Roosevelt's desk and he signed it and we had the national marijuana prohibition.

Much more: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

[Robin Hood]

98. Wow!! Thank you.

That was quite an eye opener. Yet here we are 60 years later still enforcing this non sense. That is in excusable.

[Beam Me Up]

121. This one seemingly insignificant decision

has, ultimately, placed the entire American enterprise in jeopardy.

[fire1234]

19. Dunno

I used to work as a co officer. While working their I noticed that the jails were packed with people who had been arrested for just having cannabis on them. I for one know it is a waste of tax payers money for someone to babysit them while they are in jail. I guess in reality nothing will be accomplished until one we run out of money to house the SO Called Criminals. Or 2 the people just decide to stand up for something. In my opinion its a big money game. The jail gets money for housing the inmates. And trust me housing an inmate is pretty cheap i remember them telling me it cost around 88 cents a day to feed a inmate. Imagine the profits. Its crazy if you ask me.

[Terwilliger]

20. I'd love to legalize marijuana...but then I wouldn't be a Democrat

because that's not something they'd ever tackle

[sweetheart]

29. I guess that makes us "stupid" democrats

as we are voting "FOR" people who would call us "the enemy" and "terrorists" and use lethal force to supress us.

That's choice for you in the modern age, eh? ;)

[scarlet_owl]

21. It should be legal.

Personally, I think alcohol is a lot worse for people. I have never seen a violent stoner, but plenty of violent drunks (not to say violent stoners don't exist). It was villified in the thirties by a smear campaign started by William Randolph Hearst. People will still believe the crap they are force-fed about pot being dangerous and addictive. The fact is that many normal, productive people are recreational users of pot. They aren't the shiftless, dirty layabouts that the propaganda would have folks believe. I have plenty of insights, but no idea how to change peoples' attitudes. The legalization movement has a long way to go.

Edited for spelling

[Nikia]

22. Of course it should be legal

Pot is less harmful than alcohol in both the short term and the long term. Unlike other drugs, a young inexerienced user will not die or even need to be taken to the emergency room (with a possible execption of a misunderstood panic attack for those predisposed to that condition) if he or she accidently consumes too much. Regular users are usually completly function and not causing their lives to be significantly (if at all) shortened. It does not impair judgement as much as alcohol even in large amounts and will not cause violence to others. Legalization could help those few addicts in that they would feel more comfortable getting help for their problem and feel freer to discuss their problem with friends and family. It also could enable responsible use to be discussed rather than complete abstinence from it that is currently preached in school.

[RainDog]

23. Bush family doesn't want you to cut into their profits

on the import and sellling of illegal drugs, not to mention the political payoffs they get by imprisoning lots of people and thus supply jobs, and the big payoff of disenfranchising voters who might be liberal (especially since, when repub children get caught dealing and doing they get special treatment).

And they get to play to the fundies with an anti-drug message, which is one of the great ironies of both Reagan and Bush, and, as I mentioned, keeping drugs illegal keeps prices high and allows the CIA a route to fund assassinations and other dirty tricks.

So, yes, drugs should be legal and treatment for drug abuse, not imprisonment, is the way a republic should treat this issue...a democratic republic, not a banana one.

But, since we've got generalissimo chimp in office, I won't hold my breath...ahem... cough, cough.

[barbaraann]

24. Only after we do some other things.

(My standard soapbox.)

We first need to be sure that young people have enough wholesome, interesting, appropriately supervised things to do or they will just become druggies.

I have a teenager and I see what happens with a lot of kids. If there is nothing good to do, kids will get into trouble.

[petrock2004]

33. i agree

i think that the war on drugs is a bigger problem than the drugs themselves. however, having said that, i have personally known too many addicts, alcoholics, and dependants to ever think that drugs are harmless. even pot is harmful. i don't care to debate whether it's more or less harmful than alcohol. i think regulation would be a good idea, because even as ineffective as alcohol regulation is, it does, to some extent, work.

i have never once in my life smoked pot. i have, though, had alcohol. but i don't want to throw away my opportunities because some assholes think it's more important to throw people in jail for smoking pot than for driving drunk.

i personally feel that no one should do drugs or drink, but that is obviously a totally ridiculous statement. i just get really tired of seeing my friends losing brain cells and becoming so passive they don't care about school or work or anything. i know this is 'abuse,' and therefore different than 'use,' but it still pisses me off. i don't drink alcohol anymore - i only did for a year or 2 in college. so i guess i'm a bit more "socially conservative" on this issue.

and so i need to get back to agreeing with barbaraann - midnight basketball, youth centers, etc - i think we should be putting a whole lot more money into these things than into the "war on drugs." some people are right in thinking that the war on drugs serves to glorify them to teenagers - "do it because your parents don't want you to."

education, as always, is the answer. :)

*i'll step down off of my soapbox now, thank you* :) :)

[barbaraann]

51. Thanks for your support!

There's plenty of room on my soapbox. :-)

[sweetheart]

38. Will children be more likely to use cannabis if its legal?

As a kid growing up in california, it was easier to get cannabis than alcohol. I think your argument that keeping it criminal makes it less available is a poor argument.

Perhaps with the extra 40 billion dollars freed up by dissolving the drugs war, we can put the money in to ending inner city crime, teenager activity programmes and the lot. As a teenager, i had some nasty runins with local gang culture in Los Angeles where knife and gun fighting was commmon, all supported by drugs prohibition.

Your teenager would be a lot better off with legallized pot... so perhaps "after" is a bit poor choice of words. Ending the drugs war will end the most likely source of danger to your teenager outside getting killed in a foreign bush war.

[HawkerHurricane]

42. "easier to get cannabis than alcohol"

And I can tell you why...

The liquor store, selling a legal product, will get put out of business if caught selling to a minor. So, they don't, out of fear of losing thier business. He has a incentive to check id's.

The drug dealer, selling a illegal product, will get put out of business if caught selling. So, selling to a minor doesn't matter, they'll take cash from anyone. He has no incentive to check id's.

[barbaraann]

56. We had a friend who bought a convenience store

a few years ago. He found out quickly that the only way he could make a profit was to sell cigarettes and beer to minors, which is what the previous owner did. Also, cigarette companies make counter displays designed so that kids can easily steal from them and this is a calculated part of their marketing strategy.

Our friend refused to sell liquor and cigs to minors and also refused to sell the store to anyone else because they would be in the same trap. He just closed it down and lost a lot of money. Most convenience store operators are not so moral.

Where I live the kids who can get to town can get anything but the kids in the rural areas and can't get to town can't get the same things. The legality/illegality is not so much an issue as is transporation.

[barbaraann]

55. That's a good question.

I guess I would have to say that I am idealistic enough to believe that if we really gave our children everything they need, that would be a moot point.

When I was a teenager, one city that I lived in put full-time employees in every public park all summer to provide activites and guidance to kids. That is where some of my best memories of those summers came from, but I don't think any city can afford to do anything like that now. The idea of our government nurturing our children and teenagers is so foreign at this time that I'm not sure we can even say what our country would be like if we did nurture them.

Where I live, legalization wouldn't help because we have no public transportation and kids turn to drugs, alcohol, etc. partially because they just can't physically get anywhere to do something else.

[sweetheart]

65. that's a presumptive straw man

The facts on the ground in countries that have legallized cannabis are the opposite of your conjecture.

Kids are smart, hell i did not smoke cannabis until i was 18, and it was not a pusher or any availability that got me interested... rather i became curious as to what this thing was that waas SOOOO bad that people like you badger on about protecting "us" from it... and so i discover that you're wrong in your judgement, and your false attempts to insulate people from thier own decisions.

Adults should have free choices, and teenage alcoholism is more a problem a bad parenting than the presence of alcohol. Rather you'd make a law and pay taxes to put people like me in prison when i pose absolutely no risk to your kids... brilliant... you support liberty and justice only for your kid and people who think like you.

No wonder the country is a mess.

[barbaraann]

66. Hunh?

I support liberty and justice just for my kid and people like me? Geez. You couldn't be more wrong. Actually, I have spent a lot of my life helping people who needed help and fighting for justice; but I just disagree that legalization/decriminalization are some kind of wonderful "magic bullet" that will have no adverse effects and require that no additional attention be paid to young people, or for that matter to adults. Gambling is legal and there are lots of gambling addicts who have ruined their lives.

Kids are smart? What does that mean? If that means that you approve of "hands-off parenting" I strongly disagree. I've seen the results of that and it does not work. When a child enters puberty, their brains become "unwired" to enable a learning spurt. Their judgement abilities do not recover until they are about 20--they don't recover the judgement capability they had in 6th grade until then!

What countries are you referring to that have legalized cannabis where it has been so wonderful?

[sweetheart]

69. switzerland, holland, spain, portugal

Denmark has had de-facto legallization for some time in christiania (copenhagen). None of those places are teenage stoning capitals.

I am all for supporting teenage kids, and am a huge fan of education and all those good things. That said, by keeping cannabis illegal, you perpetuate a prison service that trains all those who fall afoul of your law in crime... crime academy. Then when people who have been imprisoned for drugs come out, they have hard times finding work and end up having to resort on the black (read: drugs) economy to make ends meet.

I was very lucky and have no criminal record or any issues with drugs though i have certainly done my share of them. However, i have collegues, friends and acquaintances who are doing years in prison for trying to survive... and your moralism has done them no favours.... it is defiling the constitutional rights of those people.

All in all, we agree on 1 thing... that using drugs CAN be destructive. Just i want to end the destructiveness by ending the institutionalized judgement about the drugs themselves and embracing all people in healthcare which would include addiction treatment for those who have difficulty. IN the mean time, my government would make sure that the drugs people take are safe, sanitary and of known quantities. This would end overdose deaths and such things.

Cannabis is destructive partly because people are smoking an unknown thing... it could have anything in it, as there is no standard, and everyone is forced to trust the illegal dealer's ethics on supplying good stuff!!! there's your laws in practice... thanks. Perhaps you've heard of teenage kids taking drugs like ecstacy and getting a bad tablet with poison in it, and the kid dies.

Then the stupid parents go on TV to denounce drugs, when they should scream at the government who deliberately made laws to prevent their child from getting a clean ecstacy tablet when she tried it. The deaths are avoidable if you can get over your judgement. The drugs themselves arn't evil.. its the laws that keep them from being safe. The reality of drugs in the real world is that they do much more damage than they need to because of laws and ignorant people who believe they are protecting their kids by supporting stupid laws.... finally the european nations are, one by one, moving away from the dumb american approach that has not worked for 50 years now... dumb.

The 40 billion dollar drugs budget could certainly pay for a lotta high school activities and universal healthcare... think about it.

[barbaraann]

72. Well, those countries make my case.

I lived in Europe for a long time and have been in every one of those countries except Portugal. The all have far more support systems/activities for children as well as adults and they have universal health care. Legalizing cannabis in Switzerland is not at all the same thing as legalizing cannabis in a small town in Western Washington where there is almost nothing for kids to do and no way for them to get anywhere where there IS something for them to do. We have casinos everywhere but still very little for teenagers to do. And right now the methamphetamine problem here is unbelievable.

I truly do hate to see people go to prison because of the War on Drugs and I guess our main disagreement is about strategy or tactics. Perhaps you could just trust that I have a little experience in social service and youth programs as well as personal involvement with kids and know that it wouldn't be too time-consuming to enact what I am talking about before rather than after legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana. I personally know a lot of victims of the War on Drugs, too, and that includes members of my husband's family who have been in prison.

This society treats children and teenagers like disposable, exploitable playthings and I believe that that needs to change before we relax the drug laws. Dr. Dean's Success by Six is a good start and I'll bet the other candidates have some good ideas, too. Republicans, on the other hand, just want kids to turn into fodder for the military and sex industries and slave labor. If we stopped the War on Drugs without making a commitment to nurturing kids the GOP would just find another way to put them in prison.

[sweetheart]

79. I don't see legallization in isolation..

and rather see it as ONE part of a greater strategy to return the US towards civil society.

Dennis Kucinich, if you read his WHOLE platform, stands for universal heathcare, dramatic changes towards education and reinvesting in infrastructure. Ending the 3 strikes laws, ending prohibition. It is a win, win, and we, you and i can share in the great bounty of goodwill that such a victory of justice would unleash in the country. There is no reason why the world's richest nation has 1/3 of its children growing up in poverty... and throwing a few pennies towards child drugs testing in schools is no solution.

I agree the republicans are waging war on the children of america, to kill them off or drive them in to slave labour... freedom to be a slave is kinda a twisted version of the constitution, but since the coup, its the new definition.

As it stands, the bloody place is like the film "road warrior" and your holed up in the camp while the republican barbarians circle around looking for GAS.

I respect your heartfelt concern for those whom you care for. We share the same concerns in truth.

sincerely,
-sweetheart

Dennis Kucinich in 2004

[Nikia]

70. Probably not

Since marijuana use is widespread among young people, teenagers probably know someone who get it for them illegally now. If there is strict enforcement on selling marijuana to minors if it were to become legalized, teenagers would not be able to buy it from such stores. Areas with strict alcohol enforcement always card once a few other places are heavily fined.
Drug dealers will probably not sell it which is a good thing. Teenagers won't be trying to buy pot from people that want to sell them coke too. When big pot busts hit rural areas, dealers have coke and not pot. Teenagers are more likely to try that and other hard drugs with it illegal.
Legalization could also lead to better education about consumption of it. Students would be educated about responsible use rather than "Don't ever do it because it is illegal,.

[DenverDem]

81. If you demystify pot through legalization

it will not hold the curiosity effect on youth that it currently has.

It won't be as much fun to do if it is not demonized by adults.

[sweetheart]

25. I agree with EVERYONE so far!!!

LEGALLIZE and regulate. End the war on liberals. End the institutionalized judgement that destroys peoples lives.

Dennis kucinich said as much on friday when asked, just he left out the "legallize" word, but made it very clear that criminalization is a perverse way of dealing with the medical issue of addication.

[Terwilliger]

27. well, I'm deeply saddened by that statement

as it implies that Kucinich believes that all use is abuse

[sweetheart]

28. not as he put it

Rather it was a conference call with all branches of "democrats abroad" and he was answering a question on drugs policy from the branch in "bogota" (no suprise!)

He steered clear of the politically charged word legallization, and instead said it was not a criminal problem, and that addiction, if it was an issue, was a medical problem, not a criminal one.

As a recreational cannabis smoker, he was brutally honest and yet avoided charged terms that would have distanced voters.

He mentioned that it was not the place of government to judge people and to deem them "bad" based on their behaviour.... so i can't say he did not support legallization, just it was like in a debate and he kept his response neutral... further demonstrating his control and wise use of language.

Here are my notes from that part of his conference call: Bogota: drug issues - US electorate ready for drugs reform? - a drugs problem is a medical problem, end in criminalization, no judgement and stop filling prisons. I move to suspending mandatory minimums and ending 3 strikes..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=172518#172563

[Terwilliger]

31. you?

As a recreational cannabis smoker, he was brutally honest and yet avoided charged terms that would have distanced voters.

You're saying that as a rec. smoker yourself you understand what he was trying to say? I can appreciate his reticence in committing to anything in this fearful, soundbyte-driven culture.

[sweetheart]

36. yes that's it.

As a rec. smoker, i'm very very sensitive to the issue, as the instant i feel a politician deems "me" a criminal, i shut down and ignore them.... i did not get this at all from dennis... with all my sensors deployed... he left me feeling very very good about supporting him.

Sorry if i communicated this poorly.

[CalebHayes]

26. It should be but it scares people it will not happen for a long time.

[Jose Diablo]

32. I am not an advocate for using Pot

But I see the effects of criminalization as far worse that the actual use.

I do not think cannabis harms the user. But being under its influence may diminish a persons ability to operate equipment. Has any studies been made on recognition of danger and reaction times of people after using cannabis? I have never heard of any.

As for criminalization of cannabis, I think it is safe to say the present police state we find ourself in was started by the draconian laws trying to modify human behavior on use of cannabis.

To me, the "cure" for drug use is far far worse than the disease.

I say not only legalize pot, but remove any and all laws having anything to do with taxing and regulating production of cannabis.

As for use of cannabis, I am not sure about driving a car after using would be wise. I do not have enough information on its effects to determine if a user would be impaired to the point of being a danger to other drivers and pedestrians. Intuitively, I would say anything that modifies brain function will have a detrimental effect on the ability to operate a car.

Other than operating a car, I think any adult should have the right to indulge in using cannabis if they so desire.

[HawkerHurricane]

43. DUI is already a crime

And should remain so.

[Edge]

34. Legalize it all.

You're right, it's not any worse than alcohol. I say if drugs were to be legalized, then they should be taxed heavily. Besides, the "war on drugs" was and is a big failure.

I don't use drugs so I don't have to worry about it either way.

[Kitsune]

35. It will never be decriminalized so long as the fascists are in power.

The War on (some) Drugs is probably the major impetus for the development of the police state in this country over the last 20 years or so.

[jmowreader]

39. One reason why they won't legalize it

DWH enforcement.

DWH is, of course, Driving While High and it's just as dangerous to drive high as it is to drive drunk, so don't anyone tell me how great they drive while they're smoking joints. Doesn't happen.

Take this scenario: You're listening to some Pink Floyd, and as we all know a little weed goes pretty well with Pink Floyd. So you smoke a joint, you listen to The Dark Side of the Moon, you have a good time. The next morning, you're okay to drive.

You go to work, do your duty, and head home. Because you're working the 10-7 shift, it's dark when you go home. On the way, you swerve to miss hitting a cat and your rear-view mirror immediately fills with blue lights.

The cop pulls you over and performs a Field Marijuana Test. Unfortunately, because THC is fat-soluble and stays with you up to 10 days after you consume it, you come up positive.

Let's see...you swerved, you came up positive on the field sobriety test...you're DWH. It doesn't matter that you're not high right now. It does matter that you swerved while there was THC in your sample. (And there's no way to say "with x amount of THC in your system you're fucked up," because of the way grass works. It's too late to get into the cannabinoid profile, but suffice it to say that an amount of THC in my system that would keep me from walking might not even affect you.)

Alcohol is an easy bust. Because alcohol is water-soluble, if you have alcohol in your system it's having an effect on you. Therefore, if you're over x on your BAC test, you're drunk.

I don't think there's any way to enforce a DWH law with legal grass. There will always be lawyers willing and able to talk you down from DWH to "turn signal burned out" no matter how fucked up you were when you got pulled over. Which means the real menaces, the guys driving with the steering wheel in one hand and a fatty in the other, will probably walk. Yeah, maybe if you roll down your window and the cop gets a contact high from all the reefer you're smoking in there they'll be able to bust you on an open-container violation, but smoke dope at home, get in your car while stoned and drive to Dealer McDope's, and you could get off no matter how bad you drive. With illegal grass it's easy--he can't drive for shit, he's got THC in him, he is driving stoned.

Should it be legal? Yes, but until they can figure out some way to determine whether you're really high vice you were high recently but are not now, it won't be.

[sweetheart]

40. easy peasy mate

The way towards this, is video-taped on-the-spot testing of responses and capabilities. I even think it appropriate to have a sorta driving-test video game in the trunk of the police car that is admissable as evidence of response time incapacity.

You're right that chemical testing will fail, but the issue is not actually blood chemicals, but "impairment". Then those who are on demoral, novacaine, and all the drugs face equal treatment with cannabis, ecstaty and whatever else. If you can't demonstrate "normal" response times and coordination on the "test" then you "failed" and are DWI.

The american practice of getting caught up in the letter of the law and missing the intent is rubbish.... simply test the results... can you drive safely or not... the blood chemistry crap is overdone.

[indie_jones]

41. dui

The issue of driving while "high" is a moot point. Driving under the influence of booze is not/cannot be used as an argument for alcohol prohibition, regardless of testing methods. Moreover, if you're pulled over for reckless driving, you're pulled over for reckless driving. If science can't keep up, tough luck.

[nuxvomica]

44. Good point. Even Breathalyzers give false positives

The impairment test should still be the gold standard. With that settled, let's go legalize.

[jmowreader]

58. Your state probably uses BAC, not impairment, as its DWI standard

I know NC does. It used to be an impairment standard, up to a certain BAC--if you could function, they had a different name for the crime and it didn't have the same penalties as a DWI. Something like "driving after excessive consumption." We know you drove to the store after drinking a whole bottle of Jack Daniel's, but you weigh 380 and you drive better after a fifth of whiskey than I do after a week with no alcohol consumption, so here's a $50 ticket. Don't do it again.

Naturally, if you blew a .20 your ass was going to jail no matter how well you drive.

Our friends at MADD campaigned to get the law changed to a BAC standard.

Do you think the mad mothers would let an impairment standard slide? Oh hell no! If you have THC in your bloodstream, you're fucked up and you're going to jail. They'd probably like a hair-follicle test, which shows THC for as long as you have the hair on your head you had when you smoked. (Quick solution: shave your head the day after you smoke dope, but then the cops would just consider baldness to be evidence of pot use. Which doesn't help the people who really are bald.)

[sweetheart]

61. Indeed, the country i live in uses BAC

But the law is for driving intoxicated on ANYTHING, and a good number of doctors perscribed medications impair judgement and driving abilities. The legal pain killers are just as dangerous as the illegal ones. If a standard is to be set that will make sure justice is served... as indeed JUSTICE used to be the standard before institutinoalized stupidity took over.

Then simply testing capability and intoxication against a healthy standard drivers reaction time/balance and competency test is best. Then the MADD mothers on valium will be sharing cells with the drunks and the overly stoned... fairs fair.

I once got pulled over by a cop blazing on acid 20 years ago in california. He could see by my pupils that i was potentially on something, but i passed the drunk test reaction times and competency so lucidly, he had to admit i was not "intoxicated" and let me on my way.

I think the standard should be returned to driving safely... period. This blood chemistry crap is an invasion of privacy, and an invasion of the 4th amendment... as in i see it as the modern version of putting troops in my house to stick the troops technology inside my body to sample my life force. Get out of my body, get out of my private life... if i don't committ any crime against anyone, leave me the f**k alone.

[HawkerHurricane]

67. hair-follicle test

"Quick solution: shave your head the day after you smoke dope, but then the cops would just consider baldness to be evidence of pot use. Which doesn't help the people who really are bald."

Wouldn't do much good for us servicemen, who often choose to shave our heads rather than worry about 'hair standards'.

[randr]

45. Follow the money

The reason pot is illegal is that there is a HUGE economy dependent on the enforcement of these silly laws. From local grants for drug education, to NARC squads, to prison construction, to international interdiction and relations. Even now to a big chunk of the Pentagon's budget. Not to mention the "fear factor" used by most pols to get themselves elected.

[HawkerHurricane]

68. Right On!

Grandpa Hurricane used to say (refering to Alchohol Prohibition) "Three groups wanted prohibition; Preachers because they thought it would destroy Papists, Cops who knew it would guarentee thier jobs, and Smugglers who knew if it was legal they'd be out of business."

I'll modify it IRT Drug laws to say Politicians (a catogory that includes preachers sometimes) who use it to be re-elected, Cops (and prison guard unions) for thier jobs, and Smuglers (and dealers, and growers).

(Grandpa H also used to call Republicans 'The Party of the Robber Barons', a title they still deserve.)

[drdigi420]

54. giant hole in your theory

3 seperate studies put on by the USDOT (US dept of trans.) in holland, australia, and jamaica were conducted with the intent of proving a direct link between marijuana and driving ability.

ALL THREE STUDIES found that the stoned drivers not only did better than the drunk drivers, they performed better than the control group. That is to say: the stoned drivers performed better than the sober drivers.

scientists attribute these surprising results to the fact that stoned drivers were more focused, less distracted, and were able to compensate for their 'intoxication'.

on the whole, drivers that are stoned are more careful.

a marijuana high is not like an alcohol high, it does not debilitate you.

[Beaker]

46. Legalize Pot, but NOT cocaine or heroin or meth, PCP, etc...-

unlike pot, other drugs like heroin, coke, and the others are extremely dangerous and addictive substances- Penalties for those should be increased, mandatory, and include rehabilitation and long peiods of probation upon parole. I'm on the fence about hallucinogenics like mushrooms or LSD, but lean towards legalization/decriminalization of the former but not the latter.

Pot legalization, and more importantly- Hemp could both play an important part in re-invigorating the economy of the U.S.

[sweetheart]

47. Missing the point of total legallization

Legallization is less for the drugs users, and more for ridding the community of the drugs gangs, violence of black market contract enforcement and the social decay of unregulated drugs usage. You obviously don't live in east palo alto, or a similarly dilapidated degenerated community "across the tracks" where the worst damage of the drugs war is done.

You also are not a believer in personal responsibility, or true freedom to make all choices in life. You also don't have much exposure to peyote, Lysergic Acid Dyethylamide-25R, Psilosybin, or cocaine for that matter. These drugs can be used safely in small amounts, properly supervised. Most drugs can. WHen legallized, we bankrupt the supply chains. The drugs companies take over from the dealers, and the drugs runners and the illicit chem labs and all that stuff that the drugs war wastes resources on.

By regulating the chemicals, you prevent overdose deaths, and the spread of HIV and hepatitis C, and by that, prevent 1000's of unnecessary deaths. By wishing to continue the war on users of these drugs, you are voting to kill some of them... a sort of negligent homicide on your part. The deaths from heroin overdose drop significantly when safe, santitary supplies are introduced. It is proven in norway, switzerland and other countries.

The approach you mention is incremental, but just as judgemental and cruel to those who end up on the other end of those drugs. The way past addiction is personal responsibility, jobs and healthcare, not prison. Here is a detailed argument against your approach of killing 1000's more people and destroying inner cities further.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121.html

[Beaker]

48. legalizing dangerously addictive drugs would not lower drug crime.

you might not have as many drug gangs fighting over turf, but you'd most likely have more "users" who become addicted, and then have to turn to crime, from petty theft to armed robbery or even low-end contract killing to get the money to support their habit.

"You also are not a believer in personal responsibility, or true freedom to make all choices in life. You also don't have much exposure to peyote, Lysergic Acid Dyethylamide-25R, Psilosybin, or cocaine for that matter..."

you might be surprised as to my level of exposure to LSD, mescaline, mushrooms or coke, and I don't understand on what basis you make such an uninformed statement?

btw- I don't really find the Cato Institute to be a very reputable & reliable source of unbiased factual information, so much as a mouthpiece for right-wing partisan idealogues- an evil cousin to the Heritage Foundation.

In a society as large and complex as ours, with rapidly ever-advancing technology as well, you can't always rely on the 'personal responsibility' of people. think Enron...think Columbine...etc...

[sweetheart]

49. It has in spain and other european countries

The addicts are provided supplies so they don't have to steal for them... you obviously ignored the first graph on the cato institute link, (and regardless whether you agree with cato) the statistics are of deaths before and after prohibition. I guess you refute facts based on who says them?

I make the uninformed statement, as then you are saying that you yourself should be in prison right now... and i figured you would not be hipocritical like GWB is.

All people should consider that if the police showed up at the absolutely worst time in their drugs past, that they would still be in prison today, and geesh, for some folks, if you've given a hit of acid to a friend 3 times, thats 3 strikes felony distribution, youre supposed to be in jail forever.

I don't care about cato... but their argument for legallization is impeccable and yours is heresay and moralism enshrined in a blanket judgement that people can't deal with the very drugs you've tangled with yourself.

So YOU're responsible, and nobody else is, eh? The facts say that when heroin is distributed by doctors at clinics, that deaths go down, addiction crime goes down and all the things you fantasize go up, GO DOWN. Cato is reliable to being libertarian. In some areas, like economic regulation, i would agree with your statement of bias, however with drugs wars, they're pretty consistent in focusing on the gross waste of trying to fight an unwinable war, that has made the very crime youre talking about worse.

The major cause of crime in the US today is the drugs war, including violent crime, gang turf wars and the like. How you pretend that this is not the case is what i'm on to... I presumed that with such naive approaches, that you yourself would not have been in a crime decimated urban area where drugs issues are rife... as you are ignoring the facts that are obvious for anyone who has been in such places.

Personal responsibility is all we have in life. How dare anyone claim that the constitution was not written to enshrine the principals of self determination, freedom, liberty and choice in life... to say that we can't rely on that is rather republican, if we're going to mince words about being right-wing.

[Beaker]

84. Legalization is one thing-

but if you think that the repukes and religious rightoids will ever go for government-provided, taxpayer-funded free smack for users, then you either get better pot than I do, or you're A LOT more naive than you accuse me of being.

No matter how many stats you throw at them, showing the societal benefits of European models(BTW-since most european countries are smaller, and far fewer people drive, the downside of the programs aren't as dramatic as they probably would be in the U.S.) they will never go for it- just look how hard it is to implement something as basic as a needle exchange program.

"So YOU're responsible, and nobody else is, eh?...
once again, another statement on your part that I have no idea what you're basing it on, or what you mean exactly.

"Personal responsibility is all we have in life..."
huh? you sure do make more than your share of ludicrous statements, but that's one of the goofiest I've seen in a while.

BTW- how exactly do I "pretend" that the drug war is not a/the major source of crime in the U.S.? and why do you seem to think that you know what my thoughts and motives are, when you really have no idea...? I've never seen anyone that was so quick to make so many assumptions about someone they've never even met.

Libertarians are even bigger goofballs than the repukes- it's usually from the drugs.

[sweetheart]

87. institutional insantity of the GOP

Taxpayer funded smack and treatment can be provided at 1/100th the cost of the addict crime/policing and associated mess. One would think the GOP had some cost-business sense somewhere in there... but i agree, based on how they spend money they don't have on things that don't work... you're right. That should not stop you from speaking the truth, however. The way to win the drugs war is not through criminalization and never was.

I see, that you are not really talking ideology, and more pragmatism based on what you believe is achievable. I've seen the NORML strategy puttering along now for my whole life, and because they are incapable of making sense regarding truly ending the drugs problem, they are ignored. Your suggestion of "only cannabis" is keeping with their not-working realpolitik? thinking... just it is not the truth. The truth is the war, the WHOLE war, is a farce, and we can sort the whole thing out easier than we can just cannabis.

regarding the sentences you cut out of context on "responsible" what i was referring to, is that you say you've had experiences with drugs that, were the police there to bust you, would have you in prison today. You, however, handled them responsibly, as i respect that you've obviously done that, or we would not be able to discuss. Given that, and that you advocate making those things illegal, then is that not presuming that others can't be as responsible as you?

Nobody else is going to be responsible for you. Hence the second statement i made you call goofy. Personal responsibility is all that works in life, and to claim otherwise undermines human liberty.

Regarding you BTW comment, i referenced that from your dismissal of the cato link, as by dismissing the content with the source, you pretended the point they make VERY ELOQUENTLY with lots proof, does not exist. That is all i meant.

I am merely reflecting back the hypocritical approach you've taken of claiming the divine right to dabble in drugs and not get caught, and then to endorse laws that make those drugs constodial felonys... it suggests you're using GWB thinking, given he should be doing time for felony cocaine... and he then endorses imprisoning other people who get CAUGHT doing it. Your own life speaks more than your ideas, and i have more respect for that. You've tried various drugs, and as you say, the ones i listed are felonly drugs, ones that are 10 years in prison... so that as you have sampled some of those, yourself totally disregarding the advise of the law, does that not leave you towards some constructive thinking on redesigning the law that you yourself, in a different life, would not today be rotting in a cell for something you obviously feel no remorse about?

I'm sorry if such an approach presumes your motives, but i must ask given the facts as you stated them. I must confess, i've not had a smoke in a few months. I wish i had some better pot than you have... :)

[Beaker]

99. nothing hypocritical about my approach-

"I am merely reflecting back the hypocritical approach you've taken of claiming the divine right to dabble in drugs and not get caught, and then to endorse laws that make those drugs constodial felonys"...

I've never claimed any such "divine right" to dabble- if I get caught, I'm fucked, just like anyone else would be...besides, I no longer "dabble" in anything other than pot, and the methadone that I'm prescribed for chronic pain. I don't drink alcohol any more, and I've never been a tobacco user. I have done other, more illegal things in the past- but I was taking as much of a risk of incarceration as anyone else would.

personally- I don't think that any recreational substance that you can realistically o.d. on should be legal- but that would include alcohol, and we've already seen how well that works.

[sweetheart]

101. Rather it IS hypocritical

I wonder how quickly laws would change if they changed the statute of limitations to 100 years for all crimes. It you combine that with a super duper court admissible lie detector, then the bush administration can take people off the street, like me, and get me to confess to every speeding infraction, every drugs infraction and every tax return fudge I've ever done so they can imprison me and take away my right to vote.

Only citizens who are not hooked up to the machine, would survive outside prison. Methinks that when citizens would be afraid of such a thing, then the laws have gone too far... especially citizens whose crimes have no victims.

personally- I don't think that any recreational substance that you can realistically o.d. on should be legal-
This remark needs some further thinking. Most substances sold in the supermarket can kill you if you eat them. Ammonia, dishwasher salt, drain cleaner, hell, you could overdose from bacon if you stuck enough of it up your nose. Even corn flakes are dangerous if you inhale them in powdered form by the pound. Gasoline, modeling glue, spray paint, battery acid, antifreeze, methyl alcohol... I'm sure you could overdose and die even from potatoes if you swallow them whole. Legislating against stupidity contrasts to the point i made about personal responsibility. What you're saying, is that without laws to that effect, YOU might die of potato overdose. Then you scoff, HA, what kind of idiot would do that... yet that response is arguing for personal liberty and responsibility... which is all we have in life. I merely extend that rationale to all things, whereas, you are maintaining some obscure false trust that laws do anything to prevent stupidity. Rather trying to make such laws is what is stupid.

Putting that same focus on to education, addiction treatment, safe supplies to prevent overdoses and bankrupting the supply chains saves 1000's of lives. You are actually arguing to kill more people than save lives by condoning the status quo. It is, a bit hypocritical to claim moral interests in saving lives to support laws that kill 1000's of people unnecessarily... surely you see that?

[Beaker]

103. if you think that ammonia, drain cleaner and battery acid are-

"recreational substances", then you've got some very strange habits.

btw- for as much as you seem to enjoy throwing the word around, you still haven't explained what's so "hypocritical" about my stance on the topic.

[sweetheart]

106. What is hypocritical, you din't like the potato example?

Is that you are here on a political forum debating something, that, were you to fall afoul of your own law, you would have been in prison for a felony and potentially still be in prison, where you would not be able to chat on this forum, and as well, you would have lost the right to vote given felony disenfranchisement, so your opinion would not matter.

hypocrite

\Hyp"o*crite\, n. One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.

You pretend to advocate laws that you yourself have not lived by. As well, your false virtue at pretending to stand for preventing deaths and overdoses by keeping drugs illegal, results in 1000's of preventable deaths. I highlighted the part of the definition of the word that this would fall in to.

I thought the potato example was funny... you din't like that...? It made a good point, i thought... i should have taken out acid and stuff like that, cuz its less relevant.

I don't mean to pick on you. Really. Just as you're willing to discuss it, we can give the rest of DU a good open discussion in an area where, IMO, many folks secretly believe that criminalization is working... and i thank you for the chance to challenge and debunk this myth.

[Beaker]

109. you've still got it wrong...

"...a false pretender to virtue or piety..."

where have I been a false pretender?
where have I claimed virtue or piety?
If I were caught, I would have had to suffer the consequences for my actions, and I advocate the same for others who choose to break the laws as well- how can that be deemed hypocritical or false?

re: the potato example-
ummm...potatoes aren't "recreational substances" where I come from- they're food.

[sweetheart]

117. You pretend competence to judge

as a morally sound judge on such matters. You suggest that drugs should stay illegal because you're "right" and pious... without any sustaining facts except 50 years of failed drugs war and a nation totally rotting at the seams with massive drugs addiction problems.

You don't see that by yourself violating the law you propose, that you've lost the moral imperative to claim the law is wise. That is what false pretending to virtue means in practice.

You can get high, by swallowing 14 potatos whole. Try it. :) Zinc is food also, if you eat 4 kilos of powdered zinc, you'll get high before you get dead. Cannabis is food also. It can be used as a spice in tea. Magic mushrooms go great on pizza. They are food. YOu've left the field of rational argument to mincing words to pretend false rationale. Hypocrisy is really an issue there... i'm surpised you don't see it.

[Beaker]

118. you sure make some strange assumptions

"...You suggest that drugs should stay illegal because you're "right" and pious"

huh?
how did you figure that one?

"You don't see that by yourself violating the law you propose, that you've lost the moral imperative to claim the law is wise..."

that's just stupid- besides, the only drug laws I'm in the habit of breaking are the ones dealing with pot, and I think that pot should be legal...but let me see if I'm following you correctly- if someone has violated a law, and as a direct result of doing so has been made to realize first hand the reasoning and the importance of the law being there in the first place, you claim that they have no moral right to advocate the law remain? I would say that they have an even greater moral imperative to do so...

"You can get high, by swallowing 14 potatos whole. Try it..." "...if you eat 4 kilos of powdered zinc, you'll get high..."

no thanks, I don't live just to "get high"- my marijuana use is mostly medicinal in nature- in fact, if i lived in L.A. instead of chicago, I'd have been able to get a prescription due to my congenital spinal condition.

[sweetheart]

129. null n/t

.

[sweetheart]

130. Claiming a hollow right

When you yourself have no disregard for a law and break it, in this case a felony (victemless I agree) though our culture sentences rapists to longer sentences, so i'll use rape to drive the point home.

If someone who has raped somebody, but never got caught, claims later that the rape laws are a good idea, but admits that they raped people in the past. Does that make that person eminently qualified to question that law? Methinks not. Why? Because they have lost the moral authority, or the moral right, as they are in violation of the law, and society finds them criminal. In most states, i don't know illinois, people convicted of felony's lose the right to vote and the right to make laws. Just because the rapist is not caught, if that person seeks to change the law, the society will strike them off as not credible to make such a move.

To claim such a move, the person must believe they did the right thing in violating the law themselves, which people tend to do in life. Everyone believes they are "the" exception. You had the right to mess with hard drugs, but if anyone else does it, you think "they" should go to prison, be stripped of their right to vote and lose their career. In britain, for example, you would have no right to suggest the law be amended. Your reputation would be permenently besmirched by your confession to having dabbled with felony drugs in the past, and you would be sent out of public life with your suitcase, as such behaviour is not deemed morally appripriate for a servant of the law. America is a bit more degenerate in this regard, but in legal society, a similar thinking persists. Your moral authority is very weak to claim the hard drugs laws work.

On top of that, given that the laws have destroyed the lives of 1000's of people they've indicted, and that you KNOW this, as surely you know folks who've not been as lucky as you, then you are advocating their misery and your own luck as moral. This is not in keeping with the concept that all are equal under the law. This further erodes your moral authority. It leads me to point out that you have, in your own personal view, given yourself pious righteousness.
pi·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps)
adj. 4.Professing or exhibiting a strict, traditional sense of virtue and morality; high-minded.

As your moral authority is rather undermined by your own lifestyle, the firm righteous claim to "know" and have a "even greater moral imperative" is pious. I point out that you are, however, pretending to be pious, as in fact, your moral ground is rather mushy. That is why i used the word hypocritical.

You would be on firmer ground if your views kept with your lifestyle, and that perhaps if someone were experimenting with harder drugs as you once did, that they should be forgiven by the law as you expect people to do with you.

[Beaker]

136. for the umpteenth time...

"...You had the right to mess with hard drugs, but if anyone else does it, you think "they" should go to prison, be stripped of their right to vote and lose their career..."

I never claimed any such "right", and was/am always in just as much danger of going to prison as anyone else who chooses to do so- is it really that difficult for you to understand that?

"...Just because the rapist is not caught, if that person seeks to change the law, the society will strike them off as not credible to make such a move..."

ummm....if the rapist isn't caught, how is society going to know it's him when he seeks to change the law??(you really lost me with the rape logic- and btw, since drug users are considered the victim where you come from, shouldn't your analogy be about the raped person instead of the rapist?)

"...they should be forgiven by the law as you expect people to do with you."

there you go again...
how do you claim to know what I do or don't expect? when have I ever asked or given the impression that I seek the forgiveness of others in regard to my past actions? why would I even care what people think?

[sweetheart]

139. You're being hypocritical! You don't know what the word means

or we would not be back at this point in the circle.

You would make a law that would have arrested yourself, and were you arrested with your own law, you would not be able to chat about it here, as you'd not be free or voting. Your life says you do one thing, and your fingers have been arguing for the opposite here. It makes you a hypocrite.

You can deny it with wooden determination, but truly, by reading your own chain of argument, its rather clear. Clearly you expect the law to forgive you, as indeed it has by the statute of limitations having worn out on your own commission of felony drugs possession and consumption. I'm glad you apply the same standards to others as apply to yourself.

I won't go furter down the circle but to say, that were a person just like yourself to live in another city, and to get busted doing exactly what you have done. I would hope that were you called to serve on that person's jury trial, that you would be less hyprocrital and NOT send that person to prison for doing what you did. You also might consider similarly here on this web chat, making a law that would not have busted yourself, yet bust a real criminal... as all you're currently saying is that you should be in prison by your own feelings about the law you violated, since you think it was right, that law, and that your actions were wrong and that you should be in prison, unable to talk on a web chat and unable to vote in an election on laws regarding drugs liberalization.... wow... does not your own circular reasoning dazzle you?

[drdigi420]

52. any drug that is outlawed

will become MORE of a problem

we proved that with the 1920s prohibition of alcohol

we prove that everyday with our counterproductive war on drugs

[Beaker]

85. not really.

the prohibition proved that alcohol prohibition won't work at this point in our societal evolution. If heroin and coke were available freely to anyone who wanted in, THAT would be a problem.
personally, I think that pot is much safer than alcohol, and a drunk is much more of a danger to society than a stoner, but I'd much rather deal with a roomful of alcoholics than a roomful of crackheads.

[sweetheart]

86. Deterrance through supply

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that crack be available at the corner shop. Rather, you would use your universal health service and go to the doctor, who would perscribe you some cocaine, after doing a checkup on your health.

If you showed signs of addiction, you would be asked to complete an addiction course.

The deterrance of having to use medicinal channels for supply has proven quite effective...

Obviously, i don't mean to simply make it legal, but to use the war budget to fund universal healthcare for all american residents. The supply of dangerously addictive substances would be incorporated i to this framework.

Candidates like Kucinich are promoting a platform more like that.

[Beaker]

107. the system you describe virtually guarantees a huge black-market

not everyone who uses, even if legal, will want it to be known that they do.
Lots of people won't want to go the Dr. route- or it could also mean a possible giant glut of would-be patients wanting a scrpt- putting a huge burden on the healthcare system, and making it even more difficult for non-users to get their regular appointments.

Plus- the plan you propose not only calls for complete drug legalization, but a national healthcare system to boot...there sure is an awful lot of would-be pie in your sky- you must not live in the U.S.

[sweetheart]

112. practical pie my friend

The drugs war budget would fund 100% medical coverage for all americans easily... thats not too much of a stretch.

The fact you mention, fails to account for the facts in alcohol prohibition, where illegal moonshine sales diminish. Round these parts of scotland (yes i left in the US) there used to be a lotta stills "vuillin" in gallic. Legal whiskey production has bankrupted them all, they're all gone... though in theory, there should be stills everywhere based on your straw man.

Holland has not a huge black market like you say, nor does switzerland... the argument flies against facts in places where even hard drugs liberalization is working. The black market costs more, because a percentage of the product is apprehended by police... this premium is fixed in to the price. The result is that what should cost 10 dollars costs 100 dollars. When a legal manufacturer, like abbot labs makes drugs tablets, i assure you they are radically more efficient in their supply and distribution than some dodgey dealer on a bicycle on an inner city street-corner.

Britain used to have legal heroin in the NHS. The FACTS of that scenario, compared to the situation today with prohibition tells the opposite story from what you are saying. THe number of addicts was very low before prohibition. Overdose deaths were low, all these things were very low... even drugs crime and illegal channels of manufacture and distribution.

I left the USA when CBS, NBC-dateline newsweek and other media channels ran an organized attack on my buddhist teacher. This was combined with black listing that i finally had to go to canada to find work. They so disrupted my life with the lies and filth they broadcast, that i left the country entirely to find justice and peace for my family away from illegal defamation. Its very convoluted, but imagine if your local newspaper ran a story that YOU were involved in a religous cult, and were brainwashed, and that your cult was running organized fraud, sex and drugs rings... EVeryone gets in an outrage, the senate secretly authrizes the use of the RICO statutes to tap your phone and to surviellance you... and then it turns out that none of those things are truth at all, but its too late... the entire city remembers that story and missed the retraction on page 39. Then you might have to leave your home to survive... not far off my own situation. Fuck the american media.... off topic however.

Your conjecture denies all the case studies of such things, as well all the current more fact-based research in to drugs liberalization.

[Beaker]

119. please explain-

"Round these parts of scotland (yes i left in the US) there used to be a lotta stills "vuillin" in gallic. Legal whiskey production has bankrupted them all, they're all gone... though in theory, there should be stills everywhere based on your straw man..."

ummm...which straw man would that be?

"Holland has not a huge black market like you say, nor does switzerland..."

and neither country is the U.S.. is it?

I'm not completely familiar with the drug laws in Holland and switzerland, but are you saying that can you go into the Dr.'s office and walk out with a legal prescription for free cocaine, crack, PCP, or meth-amphetamine...?
or is it mostly about free heroin?

BTW- if I was the subject of "illegal defamation" here in the U.S., I would stay, get a lawyer and fight to clear my name, not turn tail and run...only to make vague accusations later from foriegn soil...
and further BTW- if you're no longer living in the U.S., haven't you lost the moral imoerative to bitch about it's drug laws, and how our government spends our taxpayers money...?

and that brings up still more btw- are you a U.S. citizen? do you pay U.S. income taxes?

[sweetheart]

128. Explaining

Firstly, since you say that the proliferation of black market supplies will increase with legallization, then it would follow that when whiskey was legallized years ago in scotland, that the illegal industry would have continued, rather it is gone... you made the straw man, and i'm pointing that facts in the one case point otherwise.

"Neither country is the USA." Ok, so the USA is sooo special that human beings behave totally differently... bollocks. The examples of other nation states in drugs law reform are highly relevant.

Yes, heroin on perscription. Less drugs problems result.

Regarding defamation. When primetime dateline bashes your religious group, no courtroom can ever return justice. The public view is permanently skewed and you are branded a "moonie". Frankly, it does not bother me, except that it stopped anyone from doing new business with my company, so i could only get customers outside the US. The way the repukes attack is to go for your economics first... surely you know this. I did not have the cash for a protracted class action suit against the washington post, CBS, NBC etc... and my buddhist teacher simply suggested putting the focus elsewhere as the courtroom battle would last for years and waste all of our lives winning nothing at all. The republicans are coming... better to get out and have a free life... Keep in mind, that by buddhist ethics, unless you life is threatened, better to turn the other cheek... like that famous zen story where the local villiage woman accuses the zen master of fathering her child... when approached by the angry father: "Is that so." Years later on apology with the truth coming out that it was not the zen monk: "Is that so."

Yes a US citizen, i'm dual taxed.

[Beaker]

135. you don't need a prescription for whiskey-

and that's the big difference. unless you can go into a store and walk out with as much as you want of whatever drug you want, without having to register, or show an ID other than to prove your age- there will be a black market.
Even today, there is still a thriving black market for moonshine whiskey in parts of the U.S.- and for the same reason that 'the numbers' games still exist, even in the age of the lottery- to avoid the taxman.

and I never meant to imply that the U.S. was somehow "special", just that different countries have different mores and different values- you have to remeber, we were settled by Puritans- just look at the difference of the attitudes & ideas about sex on either side of the atlantic.

we had completely legal hard drugs in this country for over 50 years, and as the country and society became more urbanized, mechanized, mobile and interconnected, people began to see what a problem the drugs were becoming, and demanded something be done about it.
I doubt we'll be going down the legal heroin/coke products road in this country in our lifetimes- marijuana...hopefully. but narcotics and the like...I sure hope not.

[sweetheart]

141. diminishing returns

The country may have been founded by a few thousand puritans, but today it has 30 million hispanics at least, millions of blacks, asians and all sorts of folks who are not puritans. The country has no relationship to its puritan past except in the lineage of kings, (read: bush) and for fucks sake, they're no puritans.

I accept your point that in a nation of mullahs and american fundamentalist ayatollahs, we're more likely as a nation to go down the path of sword decapitation and female genital mutilation. That you would support their processes of thought as "your own" argument in this thread is something else. Just because THEY are vindictive pricks, does not mean you have to be.

America is not one culture. Perhaps you should consider a move to the west coast. I think you'd be much relieved to discover the bay area culture is not quite what you're describing.

People are demanding nothing that they are not told by corporate media. It is special interests that demand change. You need to read the history of the drugs laws. http://marijuana.drug-culture.com/history/history.asp

People are being manipulated for their disadvantage. God i hope you have more compassion for the people you consign to prison than what you write. Geez, prison is a solution for nothing at all. It is american brainwashing and retraining camp, where they cut out your frontal lobe and brand you with a bar code. That you would send anyone there with an addiction problem is sick. I can understand your saying to send a dealer there, that i could understand... but to say that the laws that send users there is pitifully sad.

I come from a different america than you do. I believe the nation can recover from its narcotics addiction and become a true bastion of goodwill and generosity. This by caring for its own children, addicts and socially deprived. I believe there is a heart still there in america, and i intend to vote for it. YOu can repeat that uglyness that makes no difference, or you can step away from that fear and reach out towards greatness.

Vote Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and make a difference.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

95. we already had legal cocaine and heroin - and we know what happened

vast numbers of addicted people and a huge transfer of wealth from the general population to drug pushers. In this case the drug pushers were legal and "reputable".

[sweetheart]

96. at least it would cut gun crime

and free up wasted spending to focus on more constructive social programmes. The enforcement of black supply contracts with guns is a huge part of the gun crime problem... i know you know this... (veiled kick :) )

[Beaker]

104. doubtful.

if you make all drugs legal, does that mean that all the gangs will just throw in the towel, dry up and go away?

of course not.

they'd find alternative sources of revenue- besides, they'd still have prostitution and gambling and they'd still have turf to protect and fight over.

the only way to diminish gun crime is to diminish the number of guns.

[sweetheart]

110. the need to use deadly force diminishes

I agree that reducing guns is part of a strategy. However reducing the need to enforce drugs sales territory and extra-legal contracts does indeed take away the source of most inner city gun crime today. If you read any of those CATO papers, you'll find this argument well supported by statistics.

Now that you mention it, lets legallize prostitution and gambling. Then they're really screwed, eh? Crime only thrives on what is illegal... once you've take away those things, there is nothing left for it to feed on.

Gun crime in holland is not a problem, nor is it a problem in any of the europen states that have drugs laws liberalized. The point you make is unsupportable.

[Beaker]

111. you've got it ass-backwards again-

"Gun crime in holland is not a problem, nor is it a problem in any of the europen states that have drugs laws liberalized..."

that would actually have a lot more to do with their gun laws than their drug laws.

If you read any of those CATO papers, you'll find this argument well supported by statistics...

ummm...where did they get their statistics, considering that drugs have yet to be made legal in the U.S. inner cities where gang gun crime is among the biggest problems? gotta love that CATO institute, they can give you statistics for things where none exist.

[sweetheart]

114. poor argument form, dude... humbug!

Guns prohibition means that only the criminals have guns. This does not mean that guns are not there... though i agree with handgun prohibition personally. Gun crime is rising in britain and not in holland... i can tell you why... because drugs dealers need guns in britain to enforce illegal contracts that they do not need them for in holland.... people just don't shoot each other without cause... you're barking at the moon.


Your hatred of CATO appears pathological... ad hominem

Read the evidence on deaths from violent crime before, during and after alcohol prohibition in america. Clearly the evidence is being discounted by yourself based on the messenger. That is, in latin, ad hom·i·nem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. www.dictionary.com

In this case, you deny CATO's facts because of what "motives"

[drdigi420]

50. We fight for it every day at

www.stonernet.org

[aintitfunny]

53. Legalize it (n/t)

[BigBadDaddy-O]

57. Legalize, the Farm subsidy to help state incomes

Stop paying farmers to NOT grow stuff and let them start growing something that can help people.

[Piperay]

59. No opinion

it's a non-issue as far as I am concerned, don't care one way or the other. :shrug:

[drdigi420]

62. you SHOULD care

the drug war affects every issue the Democrats hold dear, from reigning in corporate power to health care to civil rights to balanced budgets

the fact that the democrats have fallen in line on the drug war behind the republicans is what made me believe that the one party state has already occured here

DU is my only hope that the democrat party will return to its roots someday and stick up for the little guy.

[sweetheart]

63. come on, don't be shy

How can you have no opinion when the drugs war is directly taking your taxes and using them to destroy other people's lives. I presume you have no opinion about other wars either... perhaps with your attitude, we should all just have no opinion about bush and go for PATRIOT-III a video camera on every person's head strapped on with a satellite locator so we can't move about without being monitored like prisoners.

Come on... there is no such thing as no opinion on injustice.

Perhaps you mean that it is a nonvoting issue for you, but then were you the judge in a juryless trial of a cannabis smoker who sold an ounce to her friend whos mother turned her in... a trial for drugs dealing. I presume then you're no opinion would mature in to the ability to discern justice. What would your judgement be? I would throw the trial out of court on first amendment grounds that it is someones freedom of religion to consume what they want and to participate in whatever pursuit of happiness suits them.

[mdmc]

115. come on Pipe Ray,

what that pipe all about? :)

[dawn]

60. I definitely think we should legalize it.

I don't see how it is more harmful than alcohol. And we could use the tax revenue.

[wegottem]

64. legalize it all

If we had the money wasted on the war on drugs we could rebuild Iraq. We cant win the war on drugs but we can sell them in a store for 10 percent of what they now cost, eliminate gangs, prison, 90 percent of the crime in the USA> Legalize it all

[benburch]

71. Legalize it YESTERDAY

And you all ought to send your membership fee's TONIGHT to;

http://www.NORML.org/

[Heyo]

73. Thoughts from a conservative..

I don't normally bring this up much, but I have mostly conservative views. I'm not a freeper, troll, or anything like that, I rarely discuss politics much on DU, because I respect the fact that it's a democratic board, and I don't want to get banned. I did identify myself as conservative on my first few posts and those who replied said it was cool to stick around.. so here I am.

Anyway, I thought the view of a conservative thrown in the mix on this topic might be interesting for fellow readers.

Bottom Line, I support legalization. Of cannabis and also other drugs.

The drug war is a true "miserable failure" and is a sham and the American public is being lied to about it.

We are enriching the most violent criminals, and throwing helpless addicts in jail.

(I personally believe that throwing an opiate addict in jail to withdraw is well beyond the bounds of cruel and unusual punishment, bordering on outright torture)

By keeping drugs illegal, what we are doing is basically giving violent drug dealers (who don't give 2 craps about your well being) a basic 'Visa unlimited platinum card' to wreak complete havoc on our society, wage war with each other and enrich themselves, at the same time spending trillions of our tax money to keep drug cartels in power. If we legalized drugs, who in their right mind would go down to the corner to cop some drugs? The violent drug gangs go instantly out of business.

It's so incredibly obvious that the TRILLIONS spent have not even put a *dent* in the supply. All they have done is made the drugs more dangerous ad impure, and the whole scene very dangerous. You think a heroin addict who needs a fix is going to not do it because it's illegal? Yeah right. I live in a really nice part of town, and any person so inclined can get any drug in any quantity within the hour anywhere around here.

I truly mourn for the casualties of the outrageously unfair drug war. We need more maintenance clinics! And the FDA took what? 10 Years to approve Buprenex. (A tool for getting people off opiates that is nothing short of miraculous IMHO) Not to mention doctors who prescribe buprenorphone can only take 30 patients at a time, that is total bullshit. (Pardon my french) We need addiction and rehab clinics that treat people like human beings, instead of a) locking them in a room for 7 days to detox with just a few Valium, then throwing the back to the wolves on the street, or b) getting people hooked on massive doses of Methadone that they have to pick up every morning, knowing it's INFINITELY harder to kick methadone than it is to kick even Heroin. (Methadone withdrawals can last up to 3 full weeks, many people do not make it that far, because they commit suicide.. opiate withdrawal is NO JOKE.. you will PRAY that your life will end)

We need safe places for addicts to get drugs, bottom line. You CANNOT put the genie back in the bottle.

Man what a messed up situation we have.

As far as Marijuana, with alcohol being legal, there is absolutely NO justification for keeping it illegal... it's ridiculous. I mean it's hard to even debate because to me it's just such a foregone conclusion that MJ being illegal is sham and a hoax.

Did you know that American drug laws are oftentimes based on racist fear-mongering? Like propaganda saying that marijuana will make white girls engage in sexual intercourse with African American men (as if there's something wrong with that, but remember, this was the 40's and 50s)

Thanks for letting me ramble..

regards all,

Heyo

[mdmc]

74. thanks from a liberal, Heyo!

:kick:

[Heyo]

76. Youre welcome, mdmc

:toast:

[Beam Me Up]

78. Right on...but there is a bigger issue:

The economics of the war on drugs is not limited to "violent street gangs." That is a nice myth that is presented to us by the media. The REAL winners in the war on drugs are the international crime syndicates and the ELITE families that interface with them. If you think they are all Sicilian with names like "Bambino" you could be wrong.

". . .the relationships between key institutions, players and the Bushes themselves suggest that under a George "W" administration the Bush family and its allies may well be able, using Brown and Root as the operational interface, to control the drug trade all the way from Medellin to Moscow."
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/bush-cheney-drugs.html

There is much more to the story. What part does international money laundering play in the totality of global economics?

"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government."- William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995
http://www.narconews.com/narcodollars1.html

There are many reasons why marijuana has been kept illegal; none of them, of course, has anything to do with public health or safety. After all, marijuana is the most used illegal drug. Without it it would be difficult to justify the WOD budget. But it all started because the DUPONTS wanted to corner the PETRO-CHEMICAL industry and because HEARST owned a lot of woodland.

The whole of human history may go down the drain because a bunch of FUCK HEADS IN CONGRESS MADE HEMP/MARIJUANA ILLEGAL.

edit: spelling

[RainDog]

83. This is the sad truth

There is as much racial and economic stereotyping about drug profiteers as about drug users.

not to mention that the judicial system is also totally corrupt.

If Noelle Bush was not the daughter of Jeb, would she have served TEN DAYS for a third offense for crack cocaine?

---and this was AFTER the rehab place refused to deal with her having drugs in the rehab place and the other residents who were trying to get clean had to call the police because she was endangering their recovery and their right to be with their children.

Would Jeb be allowed to remain in govt. housing as the parent of a drug user?

As has been documented by reputable sources (even though they were smeared at the time...people like Robert Parry, former Newsweek and Pultizer-nominated reporter, or the reporter at the San Jose Mercury News) cocaine smuggling by our own intel services was used to fund genocide in Central America.

The bodies have been dug up since Reagan left office.

Marijuana has medicinal uses, such as anti-nausea, anti-migraine, anti-anxiety...and it is something which every American could chose to plant in his or her garden for personal use.

Of course the pharmaceutical industry does not want cheap diy solutions for such things.

And, yes, the duPonts and Hearst are the reason marijuana is illegal today.

In WW2, hemp was part of the war effort. In early American life, hemp was part of the crops planted by all farmers...they were encouraged to do so.

Hemp, which does not have the pharmaceutical qualities of marijuana, is a viable source of biomass, paper, clothing...it is a threat to the oil industry, the lumber industry...it is a threat to those who oppose innovation and entrepeneurial solutions to energy and environmental issues.

As far as other drugs, they should be legal, imho, because as heyo said, we are punishing people for a medical problem. This is insane, but it's also, unfortunately, the history of religious interpretation/"solutions" to too many health issues.

The war on drugs is a HUGE waste of taxpayer dollars, an embarrassment as a federal policy, and deserves to be tossed on the trashbin of history as another failure of social engineering.

[Jose Diablo]

116. Something else to consider is the economics

of underground cash transactions. All the cash that generated in the drug trade somehow somewhere gets put back into the monetary system.

In the economics forum there is a thread with a message that discusses the ratio of recorded transaction versus total transactions. The ratio is pretty high, like 50 to one. This is both internal to US and external, i.e. the total world.

It could be argued the underground cash flow getting pumped back into banks and subsequently being used to leverage loans is creating a tremendous amount of money, both the cash and the money created as loans.

What effect would the sudden drop in the cash flow into the banks have on the money supply. If it becomes legal then the price drops dramatically.

I am not saying do not legalize, all I am saying is the financial impacts need to be totally understood and compensating financial planning for the drop in cash transaction flows would need to be set-up.

[sweetheart]

132. black economies and cash

I agree that the need for cash would diminish with legallization, however economists already do pretty decent forecasting of the black economy (smuggling, arms, prostitution, slavery). Illegal transactions must involve cash, as banks would ask too many questions.

By legallizing things, banks are more likely to be used, and as well the contracts can be enforced in court, rather than with the barrel of a gun, so an entire criminal suberfuge is ended.

Some countries do more than 80% of their transactions in the black economy, and 20% legit. Global macroeconomics account and keep statistics on this using a variety of indicators. Its less thatn 50% in the US, and much larger in some other places... still, it would benefit everyone in the economy if these transactions were done legally, taxed and recorded.

As it stands, drugs can be used as payment for sex slavery and such. By eliminating drugs as a possibility, the only remaining thing is arms, and since the US is the primary arms proliferator, surely were it interested in controlling arms trade, it would leave only human slaves.. One would think that if they can find a kilo of coke in a car tyre, that they could find human slaves. By reducing the trade commodities, they can attack the really ugly degenerations of our society.

[bubblesby2002]

80. What you say has such merit

I agree with all that you wrote. Further, if marijuana is legalized would it not take profit away from organized crime? Coming from a Canadian, I really hope we carry through with some of the changes recommended by Chretien before he left office.

[Jackie97]

75. Yeah, legalize it.

It would get rid of the red tape behind getting to use it for medical reasons.

Actually, I think that all drugs should be legalized because the "War On Drugs" is doing more harm than good.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Don't enforce it...

Just don't arrest people for doing marajuana. Of course that'll never work, soooo.

[LostInTheMaise]

82. You mean it's not legal now?

Dang! I guess I need to eliminate the crops between the corn rows that seem to pop up every year. Thanks for the heads up...

[duhneece]

88. Yes, Legalize it

As a 53 year old mother and grandmother, I believe the War On Drugs is a failure and was wrong from the beginning.

[mdmc]

89. Secretly support legalization

But, like all dems but Kucinich, never in public.

[HFishbine]

90. Best Sollution I've Heard Yet

A ruling from a judge, and I'm sorry, I don't remember from what state.

Individuals can grow it. May not sell it. And if you aquire some, you may not pay for it.

Takes the profit motive out completely -- even for the government. Once the government has an interest in taxing marijuana, it has an interest in promoting its sale -- not good.

[mdmc]

91. Conservatives like the commercial aspect of legalization

I never thought about removing profit... :kick:

[sweetheart]

92. Sounds fine to me

Home gardening can be fun. ;)

[Beaker]

105. since not all would-be users could be growers-

you'd still have buyers.

and where there are buyers, there are sellers.
it would be completely naive to think that there wouldn't be much more selling going on than there is already.

[mdmc]

126. Perhaps allowing folks to grow, say 12 ounces per year

Then poor, hardworking folks, folks that might never or rarely smoke, could sell their excess to rich college kids.

[sweetheart]

133. measuring the quantity grown

This is quite a complex problem, as dried cannabis weighs significantly less than wet, as well, leaves and stems are the vast majority of the growing weight. Male plants, that are useless are also even heavier.

It would have to be 12 ounces of "dried female plant buds"... not just 12 ounces of plant. That still leaves the problem, that some breeds and growing techniques produce buds 20times more powerful than outdoor unfertilized, if not 100 times. Weight alone is still not a very good measurement.

Currently, you can brew beer at home and wine as well... i don't know the laws about that, but i imagine a similar home growing exclusion would be in force.

I think if, like alcohol, a person wishes to grow more for sale to others, that they should apply for a license from what is now called the liquor board (i think?) and pay excise tax on those bits to be distributed.

That said, i have a bottle of berry-wine from my german in-laws that was not excise-taxed... so perhaps smaller gifts are below the horizon of such thinking...

great idea... It reminds me of the american DEA's hangup with 99 plants... so growers want plants like AK47 that grow 2 kilos in 47 days, so that they can keep under the 99 plant rule... so number of plants don't work either... hmmm..

[beevul]

146. If it were legalized and I believe it should be...

people would only buy out of convenience.

"since not all would-be users could be growers-"

I do NOT agree with this.(within the context of a pre-existing legal status of MJ)

While I agree some people would still buy, I believe that would be mostly situational and based on convenience. Like when thier stash dried up, or between harvests. Between knowing a few RL micro cabinet growers, and reading on the internet, I know this is the case for some people under the current prohibition. I can not see why there be any change beyond getting it from tom thumb market instead of joe dealer.

3 hours on the internet, a trip to wallyworld, and 100$ plus seeds, and anyone who wanted to could grow indoors. Search the internet for Deep Water Culture and "bubbler" or "bubbling bucket" if you don't believe it.

Anyone who had the inclination could be growing.

Tax wise, nothing is to be gained from legalizing MJ unless home growth remains prohibited, IMO.

[info being]

93. Legalize it. No question.

[mdmc]

94. DU'ers, stone this poll!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=685037
:kick:

[youngred]

97. Legalize it

-Cut government spending on the absurd War on (some) Drugs
-tax it and make the government some money
-stop the persecution of users of a harmless drug
-free up space in our prisons for REAL criminals and cut the cost of the prison system
-There has been ONE documented case of Marijuana being a CONTRIBUTING, but not cause, factor in death, and even in that case the evidence is shaky
-Help in reducing Urban Blight
-Take money away from criminal Drug Lords

The reasons FOR it are the reasons it wont be done though. It allows the US to have a military presence in Latin America and around the world. There are millions of Security Jobs and lots and lots of federal funding in keeping a "drug-free America". The Prison industry would face major cutbacks. You can't scare the common people with the boogeyman of drugs.

[leftbend]

100. Legalize

Tax it and pay off the Bush deficit or help pay for health care. Join NORML and help the good fight.

[BigBadDaddy-O]

102. Umm...what was the question again?

:smoke:

[waterman]

108. well it should be legal and that's that

but it seems like we're all just pissing up a rope unless we get mainstream folk to see the relative harmlessness in it.

[mulethree]

113. Lotto/Lottery funds education?

Not true everywhere. I thought that was the case in NY but it's not.
Similarly, many believe that the revenues from toll roads/bridges are spent on maintenance of that road or on transportation in general, frequently untrue.

[mdmc]

120. Welcome to DU!

NY actually does use the lotto funds to assist municipalities fund school districts. However, NYS has been ripping the school s off and using the money elsewhere.

[spindoctor]

122. I am from Holland and I can testify that legalization is the solution

The Netherlands have been under a lot of criticism from both the US and other European countries since they condoned soft drugs in the 60s and legalized it in the 80s.
Now, 40 years later, several countries in Europe are moving towards the Dutch model because it is the only way to monitor and protect their children in an activity that has been popular regardless of its legal status.
It also debunked the myth that use of soft drugs leads the path to problem drugs like meth or heroin.
Legalization works, war on drugs does not. What's it gonna be?
One would think we learned our lesson from the prohibition but then again, that would make sense.

[Beaker]

123. How does the Dutch model handle things like heroin, coke, meth, etc...?

I've heard/read differing accounts- so I'd like to get some firsthand info.
I'm all for the legalization of pot, but I think that the penalties for dealing harder drugs should be even harsher, and penalties for use should include both mandatory treatment and incarceration(that being said, i also favour needle exchange programs- they are meant to help the entire population by stemming some AIDS transmission).

[spindoctor]

125. To the best of my knowledge..

Drugs are classified in two categories, hard drugs that are illegal to deal, and soft drugs, that are legal although when I left there there were restrictions on the quantities you could have on you.

I don't know what the penalties are for pushing hard drugs. There is definitely no penalty for using them, since junkies are considered victims, not criminals.
There are various programs that help bring down the crime that is related with drug addiction. Heroin addiction was (at least in my days) the number one source for small crime (robberies, car-theft, purse-snatching), because of junks trying to make their next score. Since the late 80s, the government provides free methadone for registered junks in the big cities.
This not only brings down the crime rate, it also provides an opportunity to get in contact with the target group. Needle exchange is part of this program too.

In my personal opinion, we should legalize the whole nine yards and spend the money that we waste on fighting the drug war on programs to prevent drug use and help drug addicts.
As long as there is a market, there will be a supply and keeping it illegal only benefits the mobsters who make a living out of supplying the market.

[highlonesome]

124. there's a simple way to make it legal by crippling enforcement

Anybody remember Johnny Appleseed? How about Johnny Reefer seed? If people would just take this issue into their own hands, marijuana laws could be utterly crippled in a few short years. Here's what you do:

Tell everyone you know who's interested to save their seeds and spread them wherever they go. Along the side of the road, public property, the library, town hall, court house, etc...this stuff is a week and will eventually begin to grow like one. After a while - when it's everywhere, it will become difficult to prosecute anyone for having it on their property since -- well hey, everyone knows about Johnny Reefer seed!

And if you want to get real creative, do some research about which legislators voted for the marijuana siezure laws, then take your seeds over to their house, wait for them to sprout and then call in an anonymous tip to the police that they're growing on their property. When their house doesn't get siezed, raise a big stink about it.

After a while, people will begin to think of it as a ubiquitous weed again.

[Must_B_Free]

127. Smoking Nugs, not Smoking Guns!

[dutchdemocrat]

131. Holland has it sorted.

Vraag een politieagent . . .

Go ahead, ask a cop for dope. The Dutch don't mind

It is a weird experience. You walk up to a Dutch policeman, and ask where to get some marijuana. You are smilingly directed to the nearest "coffee shop", where the menu offers everything cannabinoid from something called Space Cake to Northern Lights, a local weed.

In much of the world, this could never happen: the penalties for using cannabis are severe. But in 1976, the Dutch legalised the possession of small amounts. What has happened since? Some say that crime has soared, schoolchildren drop out, and heroin addiction is rife. Others insist the Netherlands is a stoned paradise of peace and love.

"I've visited their parks. Their children walk around like zombies," says Lee Brown, head of the US Office for National Drug Control Policy. "Hard drug use -- heroin and cocaine -- has declined substantially," says Paul Hager of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.

Most comments seems to seem to depend on the speaker's politics. So what is the truth about the great Dutch cannabis experiment?

More...

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/marijuana/dutch.jsp

[mdmc]

143. thanks for the link

and the legal pic.

[sandboxface]

134. Good Read: History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the US

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

[slackmaster]

138. That was a good read - Thanks much for the link sandboxface

:toast:

[slackmaster]

137. All plants should be legal to cultivate and use privately

Since cannabis, opium poppies, coca, ephedra, etc. all occur in nature it seems to me a natural right for anyone to grow and use them.

[evil_orange_cat]

140. legalizelegalizelegalize!

w00t!

[TexasMexican]

142. Legalize Marijuana and maybe Cocain.

For everyone addicted to everything else, give then access to an OD quantity of it, and let them choose if they want it or not.

Let nature take its course.

I generally have little sympathy for drug addicts of any kind, however I dont think people should be put in jail for being addicted to drugs. Let them live out on the streets if thats what they really want.

[Woodstock]

144. I say do it

I don't care for it personally. But it's likely no more a health hazard/danger on the road/intoxicating than alcohol, so treat them both the same. Just my initial thoughts. And it would eliminate that whole underworld element associated with it (just like the repeal of prohibition.)

[beevul]

145. Legalize it.

Drug war = Viet nam at home.

The drug war is a war that by nature can not be won.

[mdmc]

147. Kick from the left

:kick:

[durutti]

148. Legalize pot, decriminalize all other drugs.

And make them available to addicts via prescription. Also, invest in clean needle programs and treatment.

[LincolnMcGrath]

149. Legalize DON`T TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT.

NO need to tax it to ridiculous price!

[leesa]

150. It will never happen because we could all grow it in our backyards or

flowerpots. We would all have free access to one of the world's most useful plants and medicines and the drug, garment, alcohol, and many, many other industries would not get their $$$. Why would we spend billions on Prozacs and anti-emetics and painkillers and muscle-relaxers if we could grow an effective drug in our backyard?

I think it's ridiculous that it's illegal, but it's all about cutting into profits.