I'm an ex-prosecutor and I now believe that marijuana should be legalized

[kanrok]

Yes. I've argued in the past that even marijuana should not be legalized. I reasoned that legalizing marijuana is a slippery slope. I actually believed it. But the recent Supreme Court decision making medicinal use of marijuana illegal under federal law makes me crazy. We would all be better off if this relatively innocuous drug were legal. Make it legal. Tax the hell out of it, and keep it out of the hands of minors and it wouldn't bother me at all. Heresey coming from the ex-chief of drug prosecutions. But sometimes we must re-evaluate our core beliefs.

[havocmom]

1. Sadly, the powers that be believe Big Pharm needs to be protected from

a weed that helps a lot of conditions with little side effects and anybody can grow. It's all about the money.

[kanrok]

3. Never say never

[evlbstrd]

2. Thanks. For your work as a prosecuter, and your honesty.

Marijuana laws in this country cost us in court time, the costs of incarceration and the loss to society of many otherwise productive and creative people.

I agree. Regulate and tax it, we solve the above problems, and add sorely needed revenue to state and federal budgets.

[dave502d]

4. I see no sent in putting people in jail for using it.

[kanrok]

6. Not much chance of that happening

Usually possession of amounts deemed for personal use are misdemeanors. Small amounts (joints) are treated as petty offenses in many jurisdictions.

[mongo]

46. Not in every state

I believe it is Oklahoma where any amount is a felony. Indiana has some harsh laws too from what I've heard.

[firefox]

5. Free Cannabis For Everyone

The biggest first step in adopting harm reduction principles for substance abuse is to Free Cannabis For Everyone. It would make the world a better place and isn't that what we would like to do?

A good page to read on hemp- http://www.jackherer.com /

The online edition of "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" is a primer for understanding cannabis and its prohibition- http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html

The video that honors Jack Herer- "The Emperor of Hemp"- http://tinyurl.com/7gfs2

"Grass"- Woody Harrelson narrates- http://www.crrh.org/hemptv/grass.html

We have all been played on Cannabis Prohibition.

[kanrok]

7. Can't sign up for that one

Legalization is a huge step for me. Let adults decide if they want to use, and tax the hell out of it.

[firefox]

9. Does the issue of freedom enter your thinking?

How does my consuming cannabis hurt your life?

I don't think you should be allowed to watch sports. It distracts from the conversation of our political dilema.

[kanrok]

11. Uh-huh.

[Trajan]

14. Look .. the EXProsecutor ...

is advocating full legalization ....

What more can you ask for ? ... Freedom is GREAT ... But you seem to advocate forcing EVERYONE to believe exactly as you do ....

That doesnt seem very free to me ...

I want my OWN beliefs, thank you .... NOT yours ....

[firefox]

17. Fine. I am saying that freedom is the guiding principle.

[Johnywolf]

8. hmmm

Drugs can kill a person If everyone is high would the world be a better place? NO!!!

[firefox]

10. Cars can kill people.

Are you for exterminating all the bees in the world. They actually do kill people and so do peanuts. Nobody dies because of cannabis use.

[kanrok]

13. "Nobody dies because of cannabis use"

Seriously. You beleive that? I personally prosecuted a half dozen people who committed reckless homicide (driving while intoxicated) where marijuana was found in their system. (Admittedly in most of these cases alcohol was also present). It's fine to want everyone to use marijauna, but really, wouldn't we all be better off letting people make that decision for themselves and regulating and taxing it's use?

[firefox]

16. Yes, it should be regulated

Well, we have prohibition and these people got killed. They can have metabolites in their system for a month. Nobody said people should drive impaired. And you do not think alcohol was the real problem?

It is like a guy that smokes cannabis is killed by a meteor and claiming death by cannabis and meteor. It suggest that any possible harm is worthy of continued prohibition.

Prohibition does not stop use anyway. All we have proven is that the drug warriors cannot arrest their way to success.

[Trajan]

18. He is arguing FOR LEGALIZATION ...

NOT prohibition .....

sheeeesh ....

PUT DOWN THE BONG ! ...........

[kanrok]

22. That made me laugh

[Trajan]

26. Councellor ....

Alcohol can cause loss of motor function and healthy inhibition ...

Cannabis can cause loss of mental focus and addled thinking ....

QED .....

[kanrok]

28. Still...it was a funny post.

[sweetheart]

45. me too!!! n/t

[kanrok]

20. Yep, alcohol is a huge problem

we agree on everything except giving marijauana to everyone for free. I believe we should regulate and tax.

[firefox]

27. It is an expression

Free Cannabis is the opposite of prohibited cannabis. Actually, it plays on words where it can be interpreted two ways. It means that even those that do not use cannabis would benefit from ending prohibition. For example tens of millions of people that have or use cannabis would feel more comfortable in running for public office or speaking out against the system.

It would also mean that science could once again seek to find the medicinal miracles of cannabis that the politics of prohibition has halted.

I have no doubt that government will tax it once it is legal- no doubt at all.

[kanrok]

31. Cool

Now I'm gonna finish my glass of wine. Cheers.

[Asgaya Dihi]

23. Driving

Seriously. You beleive that? I personally prosecuted a half dozen people who committed reckless homicide (driving while intoxicated) where marijuana was found in their system. (Admittedly in most of these cases alcohol was also present). It's fine to want everyone to use marijauna, but really, wouldn't we all be better off letting people make that decision for themselves and regulating and taxing it's use?

The idea that driving impaired on anything is unwise I wouldn't argue, I'd rather people be straight, off the phones, not doing make-up, and all kinds of things while driving. But, at the heart of it he's right.

The problem is that marijuana can show up in tests weeks after use, the high itself lasts hours at best. currently there isn't a test that shows if you are actually impaired. That's like charging someone for driving drunk on a Thursday because they had a few beers watching the football game on the prior Sunday.

There's a pretty good article at the drug war distortions site that covers the issue of pot and driving, worth a read.

http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion12.htm

[kanrok]

25. I agree

metabolites can show up in urine up to 30 days after use. I had the defense used against me in criminal and civil cases over the years. But in at least two of the cases I was invlved in the defendant admitted to smoking marijuana in addition to drinking. (I know you have to take my word for this, but it's true). Thanks for the site. I'll read it. On edit, a belated welcome to DU.

[Asgaya Dihi]

29. Thanks :)

I have no problem taking your word for it, I just wish there were more people in law enforcement and in politics talking about this stuff. Thanks, both for the welcome and for thinking about the issues.

[Trajan]

33. I wish more in law enforcement and prosecution

Would speak to the PARTY LEADERS .... and straighten THEIR asses out .....

MOST people agree, on the whole, that Pot should be legalized ...

BUT: our fraidy cat Democratic Party hacks keep trying to play the 'Law And Order' card by condemning moves for decriminalization and legalization ...

It alwys chaps my ass something serious when I see a normally liberal solon taking a 'hard line' stance against Marijuana ....

They dont represent anything but their own fear when they do that ... Fear of being chastised by the opposition ....

[firefox]

43. A good link on the driving issue

http://cannabisculture.com/articles/4131.html

I hope you know that I really wish that the issue were long settled and we did not even have to have this discussion. But the primary defense of prohibition is really silence and there is no open discussion in the media. I cannot imagine you ever hearing a medical doctor with expertise on cannabis research on the radio, much less seeing one on television. So here I am in the trenches, fighting an issue that should have long been settled.

What I say is not necessarily intended for you as this is a public forum where others seek key points and outside links. The driving issue sickens me because of the relentless citings of harm in justification for prohibition. The sophistry implies that cannabis causes driving, which is absurd as the argument.

You might like this- http://tinyurl.com/94n8c

[Mythsaje]

49. Anyone who thinks mixing the two and driving

is a good idea NEEDS to spend some time in peaceful contemplation of his(her) mistakes.

Cannabis on top of alcohol is asking for trouble. Alcohol on top of cannabis usually kills off half a beer. At least, as far as I've seen. It's much easier to smoke on top of an alcohol buzz than drink on top of a pot buzz.

People on pot are better able to make sane, rational judgements than someone who's had a few too many drinks.

[Old and In the Way]

34. Not to put to fine a point on this, but...

I'd bet the farm it was the alcohol that was responsible for the killing. Mixing the 2 is bad news....but it's the alcohol component that truely affects one's thinking/reaction. Sadly, I know from 1st hand experience. Alcohol, far and away, has done more damage to this society than MJ could ever possibly do. But alcohol is institutionalized and is therefore OK.

But, I agree with your perspective. Our "War on Marijuana" is insane. The government sets the market prices....they are always putting a market value on the busts. (Now if you really wanted to hurt the distributor, why not value it at 1/10 the street price?) You just know that the people on the top of the supply pyramid are paying off lots of politicians with big money to keep marijuana illegal.

[firefox]

12. Cannabis should be legal if only an alternative to alcohol

Alcohol is still a huge problem and I doubt that alcohol use has not adversely affected someone you know. We have an alcohol culture whose problems would be improved with Free Cannabis.

I can tell you of a story at CannabisNews where drug testing led to a guy turning to alcohol and killing somebody while driving. No shit.

[Trajan]

15. Chuckles ...

Your free cannibis policy is kind of funny ....

Hey .. NO ONE is stopping you from giving it away .... have at it .... BUT: If you give it to someone, and THEY get into an accident that can be even PARTIALLY attributed to their use of the intoxicant YOU gave them, then you should be held partially responsible and civilly liable .... right ? ...

Freedom doesnt mean you dont have consequences for your actions ....

[AndyTiedye]

36. Make it Free Seeds, And Encourage Home Cultivation

The biggest first step in adopting harm reduction principles for substance abuse is to Free Cannabis For Everyone.

I would go for free seeds and encouraging people to grow their own.

Pot should be provided free for medicinal purposes, of course, just as
other necessary drugs should be, as part of the public health system
that our country should have.

[Sugarbleus]

19. I watched a docu-drama about the 60's a few weeks ago..

Obviously it showed the counter culture movement of the times. It went on to show the anti war movement and Nixon's sentiments of the times.

In short, the right wing elements of that era were propogandizing the upheaval of the time and deceitfully blaming the drugs used, especially marijuana, as the CAUSE OF LIBERALISM! LOL..who knew; let's just pass out recreational drugs to our neighbors and they too will become LIBERALS... :woohoo:

It couldn't be that people were disenchanted with the gov at that time...NOooo it was the "DRUGS" driving people to "liberalism."

That lie, that mindset has not diminished, it has become an ingrained thought in the publics mind to this day. It's the blame game.

I always thought the anti-marijuana laws were a reflection of the pharma industry only... not anymore. It was/is part of the neo-mccarthism propoganda.

*to be sure, I'm NOT saying that runaway hard drug use is a good thing for our society*

[RoyGBiv]

21. Thanks for your perspective ...

I've know a lot of police officers -- so many I sometimes wonder if my sampling is just incredbily scewed -- who believe, with little to no reservations, that marijuana should at least be decriminalized, if not made outright legal. Many of these officers simply would not arrest a person for possession unless he or she was thought to have some connection to a criminal element they did want. (Bargaining for information.) I even knew a judge who was notorious for finding ways to lessen a judgment against someone arrested for posession.

But, you're the first prosecutor.

My thinking runs pretty much along the same lines as yours. I can summarize those thoughts pretty much by saying that marijuana is certainly no more dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine and is most likely quite a bit less harmful than both in the long-term. (Some of the same cops wouldn't arrest someone for posession who throw a drunk driver into a dirty hole and forget about him as long as possible.) Not being chemically addictive like either of these substances is also a mark in its favor.

[Trajan]

24. There was a judge in Orange County CA ....

of all places .... a Judge Gray, who advocated full legalization as well ...

A very gutsy man, Judge Gray .....

Some might question your assertion that Pot isnt as bad as tobacco ... recent studies show it causes serious lung damage over the long term for heavy users ...

That being said: Freedom is good .... but freedom can cause you to face your own mortality as well, by making choices, freely, that cause eventual harm .....

[RoyGBiv]

30. Lung damage ...

True, that, but I was thinking more of the substance itself, not its method of ingestion. Eating marijuana, for instance, doesn't carry with it that problem. Eating or chewing tobacco can and does lead to various extreme health problems.

Of course, it could also be said that we do not have enough independent, verifiable scientific research conducted to form the same kinds of conclusions about marijuana. Long-term use could in fact lead to health issues of which I am not aware.

As for facing our mortality, we will all face that at some point, whether we have freedom or not. We will have different journies to that end, and some will face more difficulties than others due to their choices. Some without choices will also face severe difficulties.

[Asgaya Dihi]

32. Lung damage

Would you take the word of the guy that did the US Governments own research on lung damage? In the online copy of the Emperor wears no cloths he has a chapter debunking gutter science, and quotes from the guy that did the bulk of the Governments research.

No cancer, less damage in most respects than people expect. That from the guy who did the studies. Look for the term "Lung Damage Studies" about 1/4 the way down this page.

http://www.jackherer.com/chapter15.html

[RoyGBiv]

35. More lung damage ...

I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm not suggesting smoking marijuana causes cancer or is significantly more harmful than smoking other weeds, just acknowledging the potential of introducing foreign elements into the lungs to be harmful. This is the area where I think the pro-legalization crowd sometimes goes too far. Scientists should neither try to prove it is harmful or not harmful. They should gather evidence and report what the consequences and benefits of use are or could be and not ignore either.

My personal awareness is that smoke from a marijuana cigarette being introduced into my lungs preceded the worst asthma attack I ever experienced in my life. (And I was hospitalized for it many times as a child.) My airways closed so completely, I was immediately forced to inject myself with a far more obnoxious drug to allow me to breathe. Let me tell you that being "high" on a drug like marijuana and zooming from some injected pseudoephadrine is *not* a good combination. Turned me off the whole experience.

On an unrelated note, I really don't understand people who are into hard stimulants. I spent the first half of my life trying to avoid having to take a stimulant because of how much I hated how it made me feel. I can't (and don't want to) imagine what something like meth does to you. There were times I would tolerate the asthma attacks as long as I could just to avoid the asthma medication. I simply fail to see the attraction.

[Asgaya Dihi]

37. The point :)

The point is that as far as I know that's the best scientific information. Most of the research pointed by the Government was performed by the gentleman interviewed for the article, if you want the news the best way is right from the horses mouth, right? He was their leading researcher for decades, they went back to him again and again.

If you want to know the results of his studies, that's the only place I'm aware of that'll quote him rather than try to interpret it for him.

Now that's not a matter of minimizing, reading, or altering any view of it in any way. That's just science, the shape of the real world around us. Are there perhaps other studies that say other things as well? Sure, but not as many as you think. If you read the article a lot of HIS research was misread and misquoted by the press, and he's trying to tell you what he actually found. That was the only point. I don't minimize, when there's damage I'll let you know just as fast as when it's safe. You don't win minds being caught in lies, and I plan to change things.

[RoyGBiv]

39. Okay ...

But I have a mild disagreement.

What I read on that page -- and I didn't read it all just now, but I've read most of it before -- is not "science." It's opinion based on science. The difference is subtle, but it is a difference. Obviously various opinions can and are based on the same sets of scientific data, and just because we are aware that one set of those opinions is, to be mild, exaggerated does not mean we should take the opposing opinion as absolute truth. Scientists perform experiments and conduct studies and then draw all the wrong conclusions rather regularly.

If I had more energy, I'd critique that page more completely and explain further my problems with it, but it's late, and I need sleep. Be clear that I agree with the general message, but I'm not a big fan of the way some of this is presented.

[Asgaya Dihi]

41. Read it :)

Commentary belongs because it's an online copy of a book. Books would be dry reading without commentary :)

Read it, he quotes specific studies that are sourced so you can look them up, he quotes directly from interviews with the guy that did the research. The fact that it's not a study in itself I wouldn't argue, but that doesn't mean it isn't science just because it's conversational. Look up the authors name in an internet search, he's widely regarded as a leading expert of the topic, at least in historical and research terms. It's all sourced in studies you can look up and history you can verify elsewhere.

Edit to add this... btw, he has been around for years, started this stuff in the 60's or 70's and they've tried to debunk him. Just made him a hero and sold lots of copies of his books, reputation still intact. He doesn't do the research, he collects info from research.

[RoyGBiv]

42. Dude ...

That's a generic "dude." I'm making no presumptions. :-)

You really are barking up the wrong tree here.

Let me put it plain. I AGREE WITH YOU.

I am, however, critical of some of the ways the argument is presented. That is all. I know what the science is. I was simply making a subtle observation that the page itself is not, in and of itself, science. If you claim that it is when facing off against someone who disagrees with you on the larger issue, they'll simply throw back a countering opinion based on the same studies, but with different conclusions.

[Asgaya Dihi]

44. Ok

Misread you I think, I thought you didn't take him serious rather than you didn't like the style. I think I need to get some sleep maybe ;)

[firefox]

38. You know what is funny

Jamaica has had two cannabis approved powders for several decades. One is for glaucoma and the other is for asthma. Tobacco restricts airways and cannabis expands them.

One of the great gifts that the cannabis community will give the world is vaporizers. Bulk tobacco can be vaporized and you can believe the cigarette companies are for paraphanalia laws.

Cannabis does not cause emphysema or lung cancer. Smoking is not the best method of ingestion and it is really prohibition that causes the prevalence of smoking. Besides that without prohibition, we would have hash and really good pot where a joint would last all weekend.

[RoyGBiv]

40. Asthma ...

Actually, that's not particularly funny at all. It's a shining example of everything that is wrong with US drug policy.

As I said originally, I was commenting on the method of delivery, not the drug itself particularly. I don't believe smoking anything is good for over time, and the strained attempts to downplay the potential damage from the introduction of foreign particles into the lungs by highlighting the potential benefits of a substance that need not be introduced into the body via smoke are rather counter-productive.

[Zhade]

47. Did you post this in GD, too?

If not, you should.

[Trish]

48. A well presented premise

to a society already saturated
with mind alteration