# Legalize Drugs to Stop Violence



## Nomad (Mar 24, 2009)

An interesting, and well-voiced editorial on CNN today, worth a read:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html?eref=rss_topstories



> Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.
> Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after.
> Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.
> The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.


 
Thoughts?  Opinions?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2009)

Nomad said:


> An interesting, and well-voiced editorial on CNN today, worth a read:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
> 
> Thoughts?  Opinions?



It would work.

Just because a side-effect of a ban can be reduced by removing the ban, does not mean that it *should* be removed.  The issue is the ban and why we have it, not the side-effect (in this case, violence).

Whether society feels that drugs should be legalized - that's the issue.  Not whether or not we can ameliorate a side-effect by giving in.

Personally, I'm against legalization.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Personally, I'm against legalization.


 

Are you in favor of banning alchohol, then? Cigarettes?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 24, 2009)

Just like all we have to do is legalize murder and people would quit getting murdered, right?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Are you in favor of banning alchohol, then? Cigarettes?



No, I'm not.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Mar 24, 2009)

I've always heard that Mary Jane is illegal because it's too hard to tax...and it makes sense in that way.  Technically, it's no more dangerous than ciggerettes or alcohol.  Not sure how much truth there is to that, though...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2009)

BrandonLucas said:


> I've always heard that Mary Jane is illegal because it's too hard to tax...and it makes sense in that way.  Technically, it's no more dangerous than ciggerettes or alcohol.  Not sure how much truth there is to that, though...



Well, for me, it's like this - the legality of marijuana (or cigarettes, or alcohol, etc) does not hinge on seemingly logical factors like "how bad is it for you" or "how hard is it to tax" and so on.  The legality hinges on a more basic concept - what we as a society want to be legal.

Our history shows trends and reversals, and legality has changed based on those societal changes - alcohol being the big example here.

It is not wrong, in my opinion, for a society to not want to have marijuana available as a legal recreational drug.  Logic does not enter into it.  Arguments about relative health risks do not enter into it.  Ability to tax and regulate and cut associated violence do not enter into it.  Those are all side-issues.  The question is still more basic - do we want to allow it?

And the answer, at this time, is 'no'.  That may change, and if it does, then the legality of marijuana as a recreational drug may change.  But the fact that the majority do not want it to be legal pretty much settles it for now.  And it is a very good reason.

For myself, I remain against legalization of marijuana.  I don't have to have a logical reason that I can defend to another person - I just don't want it to be legal.  That's personal opinion, it carries no weight.  Taken as a whole, society's opinion amounts to a plebiscite.  That does carry weight.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> . Taken as a whole, society's opinion amounts to a plebiscite. That does carry weight.


 
It has been shifting towards legalization for years, and *will* shift the other way-just to have a few old folks, "conservatives," and "Christians," die...and have a few more people go to college...:lol:....at least, that's the way the demographics read here.

Interestingly, and a more likely scenario for legalization, is its increased support in Congress-a repeal of federal laws and removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act Schedule 1. This would not, of course, require the support of a majority of the population, only a majority in Congress. There was just sort of movement last year, seen here. While I don't think it has a chance of passing in _this_ decade, it will probably happen between 2010-2020.


----------



## blindsage (Mar 24, 2009)

Legalizing drugs also puts them in the hands of corporations and large marketing budgets, I'm so not a fan of this idea for heroin or cocaine or most "harder" drugs.  But as a society I see the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal makes us, at a minimum, hypocrits when it come to marijuana being illegal.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Mar 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, for me, it's like this - the legality of marijuana (or cigarettes, or alcohol, etc) does not hinge on seemingly logical factors like "how bad is it for you" or "how hard is it to tax" and so on. The legality hinges on a more basic concept - what we as a society want to be legal.
> 
> Our history shows trends and reversals, and legality has changed based on those societal changes - alcohol being the big example here.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not flying the marijuanny flag here, just doing my devil's advocate thing...lol..

How do we know society as a whole wants to keep it from being legal? Is there some sort of survey that goes out once a year that asks these types of questions?

I think that alot of people find it unacceptable because it always has been unacceptable. It's a taboo thing...those that enjoy it know that it is not legal, and some people do it for that reason alone.

I think a good question to ask is at what point was it decided to not be made legal, who made that judgement and why?

The reason I ask this is that I know a great many people who enjoy smoking marijuanna, just like they enjoy smoking ciggarettes. I also know a great many people who have never tried it and never will.

So, why is it ok to smoke ciggarettes and drink alcohol, but it's not ok to smoke marijuanna? How is it morally different, aside from the fact that it's considered taboo at this point? Given the fact that alcohol was made legal, how is this any different?

Just food for thought...


----------



## Omar B (Mar 24, 2009)

I say legalize it, tax it, these guys won't have to police themselves (gets guns off the streets, turf wars).  Treat it like smokes of alcohol, put in an age limit and laws around it's safe usage (kinda like no drinking and driving).

How cool would it be to go to the store and buy it in a pack like cigs and know you are getting a safe product?  rather than having honest people having to mix with a criminal element to have a smoke on a Friday night.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2009)

elder999 said:


> It has been shifting towards legalization for years, and *will* shift the other way-just to have a few old folks, "conservatives," and "Christians," die...and have a few more people go to college...:lol:....at least, that's the way the demographics read here.



http://www.usnews.com/articles/opin...arijuana-the-united-states-publics-views.html

It may indeed become the majority viewpoint.  And at some point, it may become legalized.  But that's just pot.  The border violence is caused by more than just wars over pot, and many have been calling for the legalization of all illicit drugs to 'stop the violence'.  There is much less public support for say,  the legalization of crack or powder cocaine.

In any case - I'll still be against it.  When it is legal, I'll be against it.  That's ok - I'm against a lot of things that are legal.  Just personal opinion.


----------



## Nomad (Mar 24, 2009)

BrandonLucas said:


> So, why is it ok to smoke ciggarettes and drink alcohol, but it's not ok to smoke marijuanna? How is it morally different, aside from the fact that it's considered taboo at this point? Given the fact that alcohol was made legal, how is this any different?


 
This summarizes my thoughts on this one a bit as well.  It can easily be argued that alcohol abuse is more destructive than marijuana and more akin to the harder drugs (also cited for legalization in the original editorial).

Looking at this from the other side of things, how is the "War on Drugs" going?  A tremendous amount of resources is poured into this annually, but I don't really think we're winning it.  Instead, it seems like we're making more ruthless, better armed drug lords to supply the habit that obviously a fair number of Americans are willing to pay well for.  The US has the highest per capita rate of incarceration in the world, and a very large percentage of those in the prisons are there for drug-related crimes.

Studies in Canada have shown that operating a needle-exchange and hassle-free injection zone was able to dramatically curb the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C, and also resulted in more people coming forward to get help to kick their addictions (through education and informational handouts, trained professionals on site, and so on).

These may be side-effects of the "real" issue, as one poster suggested, but I think they're worth taking a serious look at.

What is the war on drugs costing us, and what benefit are we really getting out of it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2009)

BrandonLucas said:


> I'm not flying the marijuanny flag here, just doing my devil's advocate thing...lol..
> 
> How do we know society as a whole wants to keep it from being legal? Is there some sort of survey that goes out once a year that asks these types of questions?



Two ways.  First, yes, there are surveys and polls:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opin...arijuana-the-united-states-publics-views.html

But second, since this sort of thing usually ends up on state ballots, that's how we know.  The electorate, for example, seems to be increasingly ok with medical marijuana - but still against legalization.  How do we know?  They either fail to get their ballot initiative (not enough votes to put it on the ballot) or the ballot measure fails.  I heard one stoner complain that's because stoners don't vote.  Well, too bad, fella.  That's how the system works.  Don't vote, get shafted.  Ta-dah.



> I think that alot of people find it unacceptable because it always has been unacceptable. It's a taboo thing...those that enjoy it know that it is not legal, and some people do it for that reason alone.



But that's a valid reason too.  You're looking for logic where there does not have to be any.  People being against it is good enough - no matter why.



> I think a good question to ask is at what point was it decided to not be made legal, who made that judgement and why?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States



> So, why is it ok to smoke ciggarettes and drink alcohol, but it's not ok to smoke marijuanna? How is it morally different, aside from the fact that it's considered taboo at this point? Given the fact that alcohol was made legal, how is this any different?



It is different only because the electorate thinks it is.  No other reason.  You look for logic - there isn't any.  Doesn't have to be.  That's how it goes.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2009)

Nomad said:


> What is the war on drugs costing us, and what benefit are we really getting out of it?



It doesn't matter. It only matters what the will of the electorate happens to be on this issue.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 24, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Just like all we have to do is legalize murder and people would quit getting murdered, right?


Exactly my thoughts on the idea that the legalization of illicit drugs will cull the violence. 
Exactly WHICH drugs are you talking about? Marijuana only? Then be specific because if you say drugs then cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and others will have to fall under the legal flag. Legalize one you'll find yourself legalizing others. And thousands more will die from irresponsible use of the heavier/harder drugs. Thousands are dying or killing anyway but not because it's illegal it's because the **** is deadly poison. PERIOD! 
21 years ago I'd been all for the legalization of marijuana because I was a user. Now 20 years later not having smoked *any* of it since that day I decided that was the end of it all... dammit I'm still feeling long term effects, mild cravings (especially after high stress situations) and suffering from clinical depression. So save your "it's the safest drug" speech for the ignorant and inexperienced. Also stop the denials that it's a gateway drug because it is. If not for marijuana I wouldn't have thought to try coke, meth, ludes, acid and other nice hallucinogens (of which Marijuana is a part).  I've done it and smoked it heavily (very heavily for years) so don't say it's not harmful. Legalizing it will get more people to smoke it more heavily. 
But legalize it and you're gonna want to eventually legalize the other stuff. 
Saying it will cull the violence is unrealistic and naive. Besides any streetwise person knows the real money is in the harder stuff. Weed has become such a passe' drug and a "poor man's drug" Lots of people grow it and tons of it still get smuggled across the borders annually. So it's relatively or compartatively easy to get. The violence isn't so much stemming from the sales of Marijuana... it does happen but not as it was say 15-20 years ago. 
So legalizing it will just lead to more problems on down the road.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 24, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Just like all we have to do is legalize murder and people would quit getting murdered, right?


Its the type of violence that would change. Gang violence would go down, but spousal abuse would go up.
Sean


----------



## Nolerama (Mar 24, 2009)

I think the defining point here is not "Legalizing", but more "Decriminalizing."

To legalize something like marijuana says that it's okay to smoke marijuana. As a citizen, and in light of the legalization of marijuana, I would assume entire government bureaucracies revolving around the stabilization and taxation of product. Tremendous debate would go on for decades in terms of where the tax money is going, and over whether or not growers (many of whom are in the US, and provide a serious cash crop for certain states) are legitimate, and sanctioned by the government to grow marijuana. People in prison for selling the chronic? Imagine the mass amount of appeals bogging down the court systems (it might not work that way, so please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

Headache upon headache just to glean a couple of bucks around a small cash crop, that corporations are going to take over anyway, and gouge the public with prices and flashy marketing.

I say, keep the pot in the hands of local growers, and not the big companies.

They can do this by decriminalizing the drug and not send someone to jail for possession of marijuana and thereby not spending public funds in search of marijuana and police action to bring growers and users to "justice."

Decriminalization won't directly allow marijuana, but it certainly won't create an immediate bureaucratic mess that legalizing it would make.

Sometimes, the government should just turn their heads when it comes to certain subjects, IMHO. Government involvement, on any level, mucks things up for the private citizen.

Now, harder drugs, like cocaine, heroin, etc? I'm screaming Survival of the Fittest. Can't handle your vice? Die from it. The same already happens with alcohol, tobacco, and the vast majority of prescription drugs for some reason, already have interests on Capitol Hill. 

Like I said before, get the government out of the drugs.

My $.02.


----------



## searcher (Mar 24, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Are you in favor of banning alchohol, then? Cigarettes?


 

Yes.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> Now, harder drugs, like cocaine, heroin, etc? I'm screaming Survival of the Fittest. Can't handle your vice? Die from it.



My family member, who chose to use drugs and became addicted to crack, deserves what she got.  Her daughter, raped at age 2 in a crackhouse while her mom was turning tricks for crack, did not.

When you get the phone call in the wee hours of the morning from child protective services to go to the hospital for something like that, you won't be singing the same tune.  Promise.


----------



## Nolerama (Mar 24, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My family member, who chose to use drugs and became addicted to crack, deserves what she got.  Her daughter, raped at age 2 in a crackhouse while her mom was turning tricks for crack, did not.
> 
> When you get the phone call in the wee hours of the morning from child protective services to go to the hospital for something like that, you won't be singing the same tune.  Promise.



Good point. However, my post was meant to canvass the situation and not pertain to individual experience.

If I had a family member in that situation, I would feel terrible for making that statement.

However, the Live-Let-Live and Die-Let-Die attitude I'm taking towards hard drug use is from a logical point of view:

If all hard drug users overdosed, then there would soon be no drug problem. They're all dead.

From a personal vantage point, it's a terrible thing. That falls under killing a few for the greater good. It can always get ugly. Situations like that always bring on the emotional, which I sincerely did not intend to do.

However, I see your point, and I'm taking it Bill. I apologize if I offended.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 25, 2009)

i'm all for keeping pot illegal.  i'd also like to outlaw dandelions, since they are a nusance.  i bet most of society would like it if there were no dandelions either.  mucking up my yard & stuff.

stupid plants.

jf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 26, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> From a personal vantage point, it's a terrible thing. That falls under killing a few for the greater good. It can always get ugly. Situations like that always bring on the emotional, which I sincerely did not intend to do.
> 
> However, I see your point, and I'm taking it Bill. I apologize if I offended.



No offense taken, no worries.  I used to think the same thing, before one of my beloved family members fell off the world.  Decades of trying desperately to help her (we all did, not just me), having our property stolen (my apartment was burglarized, my dad's car stolen), money taken, threats made by drug dealers for US to pay her debts or the kids would get hurt (which they made good on), endless days in court trying to explain to brain-dead judges WHY the children should not be with a drug-addled crack ho mother, and on and on and on - you begin to realize, after a time, that we're connected to each other.  For each junkie you wish their own personal hell and quick painless death, there is a family dying a much more slow, more painful death.  And I have no fear of hell.  I lived there for over ten years.  It is full of crack heads and 'innocent' pot smokers.  So I have a slightly different perspective.

Which is why I have said in this forum, and I will say to any illicit drug user's face - I have no use for them.  Legalize drugs?  I have a better idea.  Death penalty for all drug dealers.  Today.  One conviction, any amount, bullet to the back of the head immediately after conviction.  I despise drug dealers with an undying hatred - and I've no love for 'innocent' pot smokers either.  May they roast in hell.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My family member, who chose to use drugs and became addicted to crack, deserves what she got. Her daughter, raped at age 2 in a crackhouse while her mom was turning tricks for crack, did not.
> 
> When you get the phone call in the wee hours of the morning from child protective services to go to the hospital for something like that, you won't be singing the same tune. Promise.


 
I agree Bill drugs need to be banned but the problem is it is everywhere. How  can we control something that has been out of control forever?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 26, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> I agree Bill drugs need to be banned but the problem is it is everywhere. How  can we control something that has been out of control forever?



I don't think we can.  It's an endless cycle.  Let's just take the border violence as an example.  People say we could end the violence by legalizing the drugs.  True.  We could also end the violence by not buying the frickin things in the first place.  How 'bout that, eh?

But suggest to a pot smoker that they are contributing to the violence, and they shove off any personal responsibility - it's not THEIR FAULT that people are being beheaded at the border - it's the fault of repressive drug laws.  Uh, no, dope-smoker, it's your fault.  It was illegal when you started smoking, it's illegal now.  That's like blaming speed limits when you drive too fast and crash.  You did the crime - nobody else.

We could all just quit taking the damned drugs, but I guess that's not possible. Too many weak-willed, selfish, self-centered, losers out there just looking to get high, man.

Or we could legalize the drugs and just give up - shrug our collective shoulders and let nature take its course - to hell with our society and the damage these idiots do to us.

Or we could try to find better ways to interdict drugs and stop smugglers, enact much stiffer drug-dealing penalties, and make it clear that yes, an ounce of pot DOES mean 20 years in prison.  But we can't afford that financially, and the people are generally not in favor of it.  Our prisons are overcrowded with violent criminals as it is.

So in the end, I guess we won't do much of anything about it.  Not good, but I really don't know what the answer is.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Which is why I have said in this forum, and I will say to any illicit drug user's face - I have no use for them.  Legalize drugs?  I have a better idea.  Death penalty for all drug dealers.  Today.  One conviction, any amount, bullet to the back of the head immediately after conviction.  I despise drug dealers with an undying hatred - and I've no love for 'innocent' pot smokers either.  May they roast in hell.



i have to say bill, i'm intrigued by your proposal.  it would have executed our last three presidents before they took office--as well as most people who've been to college & the vast majority of guys who deliver your pizza.  

despite your advocacy of murdering a large portion of our population, i don't hope you burn in hell.  instead i will wish you a sunburn in phoenix 

jf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 26, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i have to say bill, i'm intrigued by your proposal.  it would have executed our last three presidents before they took office--as well as most people who've been to college & the vast majority of guys who deliver your pizza.
> 
> despite your advocacy of murdering a large portion of our population, i don't hope you burn in hell.  instead i will wish you a sunburn in phoenix
> 
> jf



It's just a token of my extreme.

Sorry, I know I get a tad heavy-handed on these types of threads.  It is very personal for me.  Mea culpa.

And I lived in Albuquerque for several years, does that count?


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 26, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> However, the Live-Let-Live and Die-Let-Die attitude I'm taking towards hard drug use is from a logical point of view:
> 
> If all hard drug users overdosed, then there would soon be no drug problem. They're all dead.


I honestly cannot believe you would call this a *logical* view point. Especially knowing that a street dealer isn't trying to cater to just regular customers but seeking out NEW customers to broaden their market base. So by that logic... you'll seriously depopulate the area in a relatively short period of time. (not angry just exasperated that the statement above was even made). 



Nolerama said:


> From a personal vantage point, it's a terrible thing. That falls under killing a few for the greater good. It can always get ugly. Situations like that always bring on the emotional, which I sincerely did not intend to do.
> However, I see your point, and I'm taking it Bill. I apologize if I offended.



Kudos for owning up to your mis-step. 
It's easy to say when it isn't directly affecting yourself personally. I know of a very nice elderly woman whose beautiful daughter will now be spending the next 3 years in prison for drug related charges, along with her husband. Her equally beautiful, bright and vivacious 4 year old daughter will be without her parents during that period of her life. How do you explain it to a child that young that their parents were bad and have to stay in jail? Do it without causing confusion and trauma to the child and comfort the child when the first 2-3 weeks go by and they wake up in the middle of the night with the knowledge (not the feeling) that mommy and daddy aren't there to protect her.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It doesn't matter. It only matters what the will of the electorate happens to be on this issue.


 
This is not an attack, but if you take you argument to a logical extension, then it only matters if the electorate wants black people to be in slavery, not whether it is right or wrong.

I just don't get it.....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 26, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> This is not an attack, but if you take you argument to a logical extension, then it only matters if the electorate wants black people to be in slavery, not whether it is right or wrong.
> 
> I just don't get it.....



Then let me explain...

When 'the people' want something to be legal, or illegal, or required, etc - the will of the people is supposed to be obeyed.  Typically, this is done via plebiscite, such as a referendum vote during a general election.  Majority rules, end of story.

However, even 'the people' cannot overrule the Constitution without ratifying an amendment to the Constitution itself.  The Constitution is the base document.  And that is part of the reason we have a judiciary.  To decide of the 'will of the people' contravenes the Constitution or infringes upon the civil liberties of citizens.

Slavery is unconstitutional.  Once upon a time it was constitutional, but it isn't now.  So no plebiscite could vote slavery back into being simply because the majority wanted it.  Any such referendum vote would immediately be set aside by the courts as invalid.

Let's take an actual example.  In California, the state passed a law allowing gay marriage recently.  And after a couple of court challenges to determine if it was legal or not, it was found to be legal, and gay couples started getting married.

However, California just had a ballot initiative vote on whether or not to allow gay marriage.  This question was put on the recent ballot by citizens of California who went out and gathered enough certified signatures to get it placed on the ballot, according to state law.  Then they had an election and the people of California voted gay marriage down.  It was called *'Proposition 8'*.

It is the will of the people in California right now that gay marriage NOT be legal.  That overrides the state legislature - they must obey the will of the people in a plebiscite vote.  The only remaining question is whether or not the majority vote violates the civil rights of gay people.  If it does, then it will be tossed out.  If it does not, then it remains the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

So no, the will of the people is not sufficient to pass any old law, willy-nilly.  But as long as the Constitution is not violated and civil liberties are not violated, the will of the people is the law of the land.


----------



## Jimi (Mar 26, 2009)

Bill, I have discussed this with you before and I am still disappointed to see you prefer to see *violence* done to any drug dealer ( Big time coke dealer or college kid passing on herb). So I make this point, this thread was started to discuss if Legalizing Drugs to stop violence will work. Many here seem to think it is not that clear cut (Pot, Coke, China White, whatever,they are all different substances & will have differing effects if legal) but it seems that as long as any drugs are still illegal you wish to be *violent* and *kill* convicted drug dealers of any substance. So why ask the question? Then if your opinion on the legalization of drugs (Which you make it sound as though your opinion is the voice of all our nation) can stop violence when you yourself subscribe to the execution of dealers. 
It is illegal = I want them *KILLED*. If it becomes legal = I want them *KILLED* anyway. Seems you are more for violence regardless of a drugs legal or illegal status. That is VIOLENT all around man.
    With that said Bill, again, I am sorry that drug use and a family members choices have caused you pain, misery and even suffering. 
     I can understand you are empassioned, but this topic is about LEGALIZE DRUGS TO STOP VIOLENCE? How does that help to prevent Violence? *Don't do what I hate & I won't kill you!?* Marijuana will not become Legal for many many years if ever at all. Same for other drugs. Your posts also touch on how our nation & govmt work out these things which is great resource man, but our own govmt has twisted its own works from with-in. Look into how Marijuana was made illegal and then one mans obsession against it who enevitably set things up with-in our laws to make a Marijuana tax stamp. The Govmt then offered a tax stamp for it to be taxed but keep it illegal and made it manditory for a farmer to get the tax stamp, he must have the Marijuana in hand to get the stamp. When a farmer showed up with any Marijuana in hand to get the supposed legal tax stamp they arrested him for possession. Do you really think that after the govmt can be twisted like this against its own people trying to be law abiding, that people would trust the govmt to not be as faulty as any other corupt person can be? That is just an example. 
         So do you think that after this loop hole catch 22 by a man Harry Anslinger? (Kinda sounds like you with an obession against DRUGS) that his only mistake was not to execute the farmers who applied for the tax stamp with herb in hand? I am simply playing devils advocate opposing Bill here since i feel Bills posts are a little extreme as well. I am not pushing for Marijuana to be Legal in my opinion here, just pointing out that Bill sounds Violent if drugs are Legal or not. Again, how does that help? Other than making Bill feel better about his familys misfortune by stating how he would like to see drug dealers killed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 26, 2009)

Fair enough, thanks for pointing it out.  I agree, my response is extreme and not useful.  My apologies! :asian:


----------



## Jimi (Mar 26, 2009)

I am not saying your points are useless. I am pointing out that your points sound Violent.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 26, 2009)

if it's worth anything bill, friends & family of mine have been hit by addiction (nothing compared to what happened to the two year old though) so i understand your frustration.  it's pretty much how my dad felt when we shipped off my brother to rehab at age 16.  but it still comes down to the choices people make, pure & simple.  otherwise you have to start executing gun dealers, liquor store clerks, people at gas stations who sell tobacco, & virtually everyone who has purchased one of those things.  followed to its logical conclusion, you either end up with everyone dead, or everyone living in a society that is FAR from free.

one night my high school guitar teacher got a hunting rifle, killed his wife & two little girls, then offed himself.  in spite of this i still think guns should be legal, because what happened was his choice &  not the result of the availability of an inanimate object.  

peace,

jf


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 26, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Then let me explain...
> 
> When 'the people' want something to be legal, or illegal, or required, etc - the will of the people is supposed to be obeyed. Typically, this is done via plebiscite, such as a referendum vote during a general election. Majority rules, end of story.
> 
> ...


 

Ok, so now that I understand your position, I'll ask the following: barring importation into the U.S., or the state to state commerce in the flow of narcotics traffic, would you say that any *Federal* law banning the growing, manufacturing, sale, or use of drugs should not be allowed to flourish.  After all, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the Federal government to regulate such things.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 26, 2009)

If you have ever seen what drugs do to a person, do to their family, do to their friends, then you would have seen why they are outlawed.

Sure it would make the drugs cheaper. But a desperate drug addict HAS NO MONEY. So what would cost 5 bucks or 20 bucks is irrelevant. They will be desperate and will kill for 5 bucks just as quick as for a 20.

Now as for gangs. You think it will stop that to? Hmmm we have moonshine runners, we have cigarette smugglers, we have human smugglers. So why would legalizing stop smuggling? Unless you are not going to tax them or regulate them (for the drugs safety) then they will still cost money and smugglers always will bring them in to undersell the taxed and regulated versions.

Deaf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 26, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Ok, so now that I understand your position, I'll ask the following: barring importation into the U.S., or the state to state commerce in the flow of narcotics traffic, would you say that any *Federal* law banning the growing, manufacturing, sale, or use of drugs should not be allowed to flourish.  After all, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the Federal government to regulate such things.



But there is, according to the Supreme Court.  The US has always maintained that the Controlled Substances Act is built upon the authority of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  This assumption was challenged, and the case granted cert in Raich v. Ashcroft, in 2004.  The SCOTUS held that the CSA is constitutional, and that the Commerce Clause applies to it.  The federal government may regulate drugs that have been scheduled on the CSA, even if they are not involved in interstate commerce directly.  The case, strangely, hinged on a case involving wheat farmers from the 1930's - the federal government claims the authority to tell farmers what to grow and how much of it to grow if they want to - a farmer named Filburn refused.  He lost.

So the federal government has the right to control drugs through the CSA. It is settled law, unless the SCOTUS grants cert to another such case.

However, I would tend to agree with the dissenting justices on this one.  It is creeping federalism, and it is wrong.  This is not just about drugs, but about state's rights.

The problem here is that if the CSA should crumble and fall, the same argument could be applied to federal agencies left, right, and center.  The FAA, the FTC, the FDA, the BATF or whatever it calls itself these days, etc, etc.  Federalism is a big, bad, ugly ball of yarn.  You can't just unravel a few strands - if it comes down, it all comes down.  And not even I want that.

Be that as it may - let's pretend that the SCOTUS wakes up and recognizes state's rights tomorrow, and declares the CSA unconstitutional (which, yes, I agree with you it probably is).  The power to regulate drugs would then devolve on the states, and in most (all?) of them, the majority still do not want marijuana to be allowed for recreational use.  And harder drugs like coke, smack, speed, etc?  No way.

Long story short - I don't see the CSA going away anytime soon, constitutional or not.  And even if it does, the states will still keep most drugs illegal - it is what the people want.  For now.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 26, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Now as for gangs. You think it will stop that to? Hmmm we have moonshine runners, we have cigarette smugglers, we have human smugglers. So why would legalizing stop smuggling? Unless you are not going to tax them or regulate them (for the drugs safety) then they will still cost money and smugglers always will bring them in to undersell the taxed and regulated versions.
> 
> Deaf



are there more or less moonshine runners now compared to the prohibition era?  also, it was my understanding that the moonshine trade primarily flourished in dry counties.  

i don't know any stats off hand; does anyone know about crime rates in the netherlands?  they have pretty permissive drug laws, but i don't hear of a lot of drug-related violence.  it seems like that would be a good place to look for a comparison.

jf


----------



## Flea (Mar 27, 2009)

This is off-topic but ... does it strike anyone else as a little bizarre that while certain drugs will net someone a huge sentence, other drugs (some of which have turned out to be very destructive) are aggressively marketed with the government's blessing?  Or that some people are forcibly drugged by state mandate?


----------



## Scott T (Mar 27, 2009)

Nomad said:


> An interesting, and well-voiced editorial on CNN today, worth a read:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
> 
> ...



First thought? Jeffery A. Miron should change his name to Jeffery A. Moron.



> Legalization is desirable for all drugs, not just marijuana. The health risks of marijuana are lower than those of many other drugs, but that is not the crucial issue.


Really? When's the last time you saw somebody prostituting themselves on the street corner so they can afford their next toke? 

Read the following while knowing I support the decriminalization of pot.

I do disagree with his postulation about the health concerns. For marijuana users the health concerns are direct. Have a toke, lose a few brain cells. The damages don't go much beyond that (Ok, it's a little more than that, but still nowhere near as bad as processed tobacco). And if you smoke pot (and I do occasionally) you have brain cells to spare, since you're not using them.

Mister Moron's commentary deals only with direct cause/effect at the upper levels of the chain. Sure, legalize all drugs and the amount of gang wars _may_ go down, but there will be no reduction of drug-related crime when talking about the users. Hell, it may even go up as taxation may make it less affordable for the common crack-whore. B&E's, assaults: they won't go down. People will still need money to buy the crap, and if they use it to any real degree they'll be useless in the workforce.

Hello prostitution and street level violence.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2009)

Scott T said:


> Really? When's the last time you saw somebody prostituting themselves on the street corner so they can afford their next toke?



Yep.  And burglarizing houses, and shoplifting, and etc, etc, etc.

To be fair, I've seen them do it for booze, too.

And yes, I know that **most** pot smokers don't do that.  But some do.

But to answer your question - yes, I've seen it.  I've had family members who turned tricks for whatever they could get their hands on, from weed to beers to glue in a paper sack.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 27, 2009)

Scott T said:


> First thought? Jeffery A. Miron should change his name to Jeffery A. Moron.
> 
> Really? When's the last time you saw somebody prostituting themselves on the street corner so they can afford their next toke?
> 
> ...


Sounds like Mr Moron-ahem- Miron is related to Cliff Clavin from Cheers... 


> Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.


It's that type of rationalization/justification/minimizing that we're facing here with those who want to legalized drugs.


----------



## Scott T (Mar 27, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yep.  And burglarizing houses, and shoplifting, and etc, etc, etc.
> 
> To be fair, I've seen them do it for booze, too.
> 
> ...


I've read your earlier post before I wrote the above and I truly hope the kid is safe now. 

But yeah, I may have phrased it wrong as I was talking about pot-only users. You get addicted to things like crack or heroin, you'll do whatever it takes to get anything that'll give you a high, no matter how small.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2009)

Scott T said:


> I've read your earlier post before I wrote the above and I truly hope the kid is safe now.
> 
> But yeah, I may have phrased it wrong as I was talking about pot-only users. You get addicted to things like crack or heroin, you'll do whatever it takes to get anything that'll give you a high, no matter how small.



She is 21 years old, a Corpsman in the US Navy, and she delivers babies at a naval hospital.  That's the good part.  The bad part is she is unmarried and a mommy, and her own mother still has a big part in her life - and yes, her mother is still a drug user and all-around criminal, not to be trusted.  Her two younger sisters have each had a child of their own - both under the age of 15.  Her youngest sibling, a half-brother, has vanished and no one knows where he is.

The damage inflicted by my relative will reverberate for generations.


----------



## Scott T (Mar 27, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> She is 21 years old, a Corpsman in the US Navy, and she delivers babies at a naval hospital.  That's the good part.  The bad part is she is unmarried and a mommy, and her own mother still has a big part in her life - and yes, her mother is still a drug user and all-around criminal, not to be trusted.  Her two younger sisters have each had a child of their own - both under the age of 15.  Her youngest sibling, a half-brother, has vanished and no one knows where he is.
> 
> The damage inflicted by my relative will reverberate for generations.


Unless you say go for it, I'll assume this subject is a little too personal to continue to discuss on an open forum. Or to discuss with someone you don't even know.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 27, 2009)

jarrod said:


> are there more or less moonshine runners now compared to the prohibition era? also, it was my understanding that the moonshine trade primarily flourished in dry counties.
> 
> i don't know any stats off hand; does anyone know about crime rates in the netherlands? they have pretty permissive drug laws, but i don't hear of a lot of drug-related violence. it seems like that would be a good place to look for a comparison.
> 
> jf


 
I'm sure there is less moonshine running but it is still there. Same for other types of smuggling.

And as for Netherlands, tell me, what does the Netherlands produce? What is their GNP? What is their trade percentage. Sad thing about drugs is they sap the will to do anything (except take drugs.) There is far more damage than just crime. Far more.

Deaf


----------



## elder999 (Mar 27, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> I'm sure there is less moonshine running but it is still there. Same for other types of smuggling.


 
*Big* on reservations, believe it or not.......almost as big as meth and huffing......





Deaf Smith said:


> And as for Netherlands, tell me, what does the Netherlands produce? What is their GNP? What is their trade percentage. Sad thing about drugs is they sap the will to do anything (except take drugs.) There is far more damage than just crime. Far more.
> 
> Deaf


\

Interstingly, it was Phillips-a Dutch company-that invented CD technology. They couldn't figure out what to do with it, though, licensed it to SONY and the rest is history....

Additionally, from the Netherlands Wikipage:



> The Netherlands has the 16th largest economy in the world, and ranks 10th in GDP (nominal) per capita.
> 
> ] Unemployment is at 4.0% of the labour force. By Eurostat standards however, unemployment in the Netherlands is at only 2.9% - the lowest rate of all European Union member states


 
Pretty productive place, really.....


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 27, 2009)

And the Dutch really know how to have a good time. 

Trust me on this, I know .  We Limeys pride ourselves on our ability to down a pint or two and I can hold my own when it comes to having a drink but having spent a night on the tiles with a bunch of Dutch guys last year ... :drinkbeer:barf:.

They were right as rain the next day .


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 27, 2009)

Nomad said:


> An interesting, and well-voiced editorial on CNN today, worth a read:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
> 
> Thoughts?  Opinions?



The current discussion of legalization has been framed around the issue of violent Mexican drug cartels and their proximity to the US. That seems to be the tipping point that has people talking about the issue. I question some of Miron's reasoning around the issue of violence. He mentions gambling, prostitution, and drugs in his analysis. 

Violence and other maladaptive behaviours are a consequence of addiction or simply abuse of substances. Would it be better to turn to health care and education in response to addictions, rather than prohibition and incarceration? I believe it would. To me though, it becomes a question of whether a society is willing switch horses and invest in treatment rather than prosecution.

I guess the focus right now is Marijuana and the prospect of governments both legalizing and licensing the product for sale. I'm fine with that. Alcoholics and social drinkers shop at our government-run liquor stores. I don't see a difference in that regard. To me, beer is as much a gateway drug as pot.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 27, 2009)

If you de-criminalize drugs, then you would actually have room to imprison burglars and thieves for a considerable amount of time.

Maybe that might be a deterent, ya think???


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 27, 2009)

elder,

And who is 1st, 2nd, 3ed, 4th, 5th,.... 15th? Do they have the same laws as in Netherlands as for as drugs?

And besides the CDs, what else? Do you want me to list the U.S.A.'s accomplishments? Or those other 15 top GNP countries?

Deaf


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 27, 2009)

You might not want to follow that through too far, *DS*, as I have no doubt that most of what you are thinking of as 'American' accomplishments are actually European ones. 

It may have been American (fake) money that made a lot of late C20th inventons happen but the brains the ideas were born in were German, British, Dutch et al.

Given that, it is a real stretch to claim such things as American. After all, whose painting is it? The Medici or Da Vinci's? That prinicple applies to all great advances of art and science.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 28, 2009)

plus i don't think we're in a position right now to criticize someone else's over-all production.  

for myself though, i find it easier to be productive when i'm free to enjoy my time off as i see fit.

jf


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 28, 2009)

the problem i have with this whole thing, is it smacks of "Gee, it's just too hard to enforce the law, lets change the law"


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 28, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> the problem i have with this whole thing, is it smacks of "Gee, it's just too hard to enforce the law, lets change the law"


 
It could also smack of people should have the power to ruin their lives if they want.  Also, it could be about the fact that street violence is reduced when people aren't criminalized for making and providing for personal lifestyle choices.


----------



## Twin Fist (Mar 28, 2009)

but people doing drugs also costs, and it costs LIVES as well as all the associated crime that goes with addiction


----------



## Jimi (Mar 28, 2009)

I hope some can understand that such crimes in all human society (B&E, Assualt, Thieft, Prostitution, Rape etc..) have existed way before MAN'S LAW to make any substance illegal. It is not purely a drug violence issue, man has committed such acts against others & even their own for more than a thousand years. Removing all DRUGS from our planet will no more rid us of violence than if we legalize or decrimialize all DRUGS. It is a human condition of personal faults, not that a DRUG has a mind of it's own and seeks out our beloved family members to hurt us all. When terrible things like that happen (What Bills Family had to face) , I blame the Man (Or Woman) invovled, not any drug that is also in the mix. These terrible things happen in most all human society, and they also happen without drugs present as well. 
         Some people are curious about possible medical applications from DRUGS such as Cocaine (Doctors use liquid cocaine during treatment of some sinus/septum issues) as well as Opium (Moraphine as used by Doctors to treat servre pain) and Marijuana (Can help Doctors treat several health issues) But I feel too many people are on a personal quest to punish drug dealers, so an understanding & compromise to find something usefull from these substances is lost. 
         Most who are for the legalization of *Marijuana* are also against the Hypocracey (BS) by our own leaders conducting corrupt law practices & enforcement of corrupt laws, that is where a lot of hippies stand (Stoned as they are, they have an honest gripe) and want to see their government honestly uphold reasonable law. Most hippies I know would gladly & non-violently pay their Marijuana tax, but we know that this is impossible because the laws currently on the books are not fair or reasonable (Relating to Herb that is) . I do not feel that decrimializing or legalizing Marijuana will stop violence, but killing drug dealers as explicitly expressed by Bill is not stopping violence either, as a matter of fact, it gives anger & violence a place to anchor it's self in our society. People kill each other over food & water as well, so violence for possession of anything is a human fault & should not be blamed on the substance it's self. 
            People kill each other in this nation over stupid materialistic possessions,( it is a disrespect for life issue not the item or possesssion issue) near DC years ago, a teenager demanded that someone in a theater give him his Air Jordans, when denied he stabbed thet guy to death & fled without getting the item of dispute. Also years ago on the Metro Rail in DC, another teenager demanded someones leather jacket, again when denied, the kid shot the man wearing the jacket to death and fled without the item of despute. Our society has serious issue with violence, some relating directly to drug trafficing & some having nothing to do with it at all. 
            To end violence related to any Drug is not solved by the "Lets kill them all" attitude. I also believe that such violence is not solved by the "Make it all legal" attitude either. Such an issue is a GORDIAN KNOT to be solved, and it will not be easy. Unless you take Alexander The Greats (And Bills attitude) draw your sword and cut it to shreads.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Mar 28, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> but people doing drugs also costs, and it costs LIVES as well as all the associated crime that goes with addiction


 
Every decision has a cost.  It just depends on what nature of cost you are referring to, in addition to lives.  

I, nor the government, am not responsible for the lifestyle choices that an individual makes.  If that were the case, I got a whole lot of legislation that I could give you that would prevent the loss of lives.  Of course, you probably would not want to live with the consequences.

But that's why I said that if drugs were made legal, even if there is an associated crime (such as burglary, theft, or robbery) you can incarcerate drug users for that, which are the crimes which actually affect other people.  In fact, since there will be more beds available in correction facilities because you are not locking up drug users, you can keep them longer, both in completing their full sentences, and institution larger penalties.


----------



## jim777 (Mar 28, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> the problem i have with this whole thing, is it smacks of "Gee, it's just too hard to enforce the law, lets change the law"



"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this." Albert Einstein

Pot needs to be legalized, and should never have been made illegal in the first place. I'm thinking it will be fully legal in at least one state in the next 5 years, and another 10 in the ten years following those 5.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 28, 2009)

Leaving aside some rather disturbing religious overtones (I'm an atheist, sorry) in *Jimi*'s post above, he makes some decent points about the practicalities of what might be termed 'responsible' drug use.  *Jim77* backs those points up with the very real problems of enforcing the unenforceable.


----------



## jim777 (Mar 28, 2009)

A few more marijuana quotes:

"Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica." - Abraham Lincoln (from a letter written by Lincoln during his presidency to the head of the Hohner Harmonica Company in Germany)

"Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country."
- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

"Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere."
- George Washington, U.S. President

"We shall, by and by, want a world of hemp more for our own consumption."
- John Adams, U.S. President

"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use... Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana." - Jimmy Carter, U.S. President

"I inhaled frequently. That was the point." - Barack Obama, U.S. President

"The war on drugs has been an utter failure. We need to rethink and decriminalize our nation's marijuana laws." -Barack Obama, January 2004

"The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world." - Carl Sagan, renown scientist, astronomer, astrochemist, author and TV host

"Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields?" - Henry Ford, whose first Model-T was constructed from hemp fibers and built to run on hemp gasoline

"Prohibition... goes beyond the bound of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded" -Abraham Lincoln

"That is not a drug. It's a leaf." - Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California

And last but not least 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





"I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast" - Ronald Reagan


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 28, 2009)

Thank you for those.  I had not heard many of them before :tup:.

It would seem that in the States the current attitude towards 'ganja' is as topsy-turvey as Britains is towards opiates.  Not many people remember that we had a war with China ... not to destroy the drugs trade but to force them to sell it to us!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2009)

jim777 said:


> A few more marijuana quotes:
> "Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica." - Abraham Lincoln (from a letter written by Lincoln during his presidency to the head of the Hohner Harmonica Company in Germany)
> 
> "The war on drugs has been an utter failure. We need to rethink and decriminalize our nation's marijuana laws." -Barack Obama, January 2004



It would be more interesting if any of them were true.  Most are misquotes, or refer to hemp as a product to be used in the manufacture of paper, cloth, and rope - not smoking.

The two above are examples.  The first, because Lincoln never said it.

The second, because it's a half-quote.  Obama said:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/01/obama-on-the-record/



> In a little-noticed 2004 video featured today in The Washington Times, Mr. Obama sounds quite comfortable voicing his leftist leanings. "I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama told a Northwestern University audience as he campaigned for the Senate in 2004. *"But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."*


----------



## jarrod (Mar 28, 2009)

i just did a very brief google search, & i couldn't find anything discrediting the lincoln quote, which is the one i thought was interesting.  

lincoln was a wrestling champion who smoked hemp & played harmonica?  i like this guy.

jf


----------



## jim777 (Mar 29, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It would be more interesting if any of them were true. Most are misquotes, or refer to hemp as a product to be used in the manufacture of paper, cloth, and rope - not smoking.
> 
> The two above are examples. The first, because Lincoln never said it.
> 
> ...



I think you could at least show a little proof that they're all misquotes and fabrications if you're going to state they are. Like we used to say on USENET before everyone had a computer, post proof or retract.
Carter's is a misquote? Sagan's a fabrication?

And I think we all know where Obama stands on full federal legalization anyway, as he addressed it in public in the last few days. But 'rethinking and decriminalizing' is in fact _exactly_ what he has already done, by ordering the Attorney General and the DEA to stop enforcing federal marijuana laws where the states (13 so far for those counting at home) have written and passed laws that conflict with the federal statutes. So, half quote or not (which I think is still perfectly in context) there will be no more DEA raids of state sponsored medical marijuana dispensaries in the US directly because of President Obama's actions.  we see this year either. I'm sure there's another quote somewhere about actions speaking louder than words, but I won't bother posting or looking for it.

And as you stated earlier in the thread _"For myself, I remain against legalization of marijuana. I don't have to have a logical reason that I can defend to another person - I just don't want it to be legal"_, I have an opinion myself, and that is that it should never have been made illegal in the first place. And if not for the  hysterics of Harry Anslinger, it wouldn't be.

As some of you know, I am a moderator on a guitar forum, and this subject came up recently there as well (it is getting atalkied about a lot lately, it's one of those things). Here's what someone wrote to me there on Friday:

_"I personally think pot should be legal. Medical marijuana holds great promise for people with incurable conditions that cause constant pain. I have suffered from a mystery condition for 15 years. My immune system is constantly attacking my skin, blood, muscles, and organs in a misguided attempt by my white blood cells to rid my body of what it thinks are foreign invaders. My joints are swollen and very painful. My skin is constantly inflamed. I get severe muscle pain and am always sick. I have been prescribed steriods, addictive pain killers, and various experimental drugs in an attempt to stop what is going on inside of me. All with little or no success. My bones are irreversibly brittle, as are my teeth, due to the steriods. The experimental drugs were a last ditch effort and many of the side effects are unknown. I could wake up tomorrow and be perfectly healthy or I could wake up with a mutated foot growing out of my forehead. No one knows. Doctors are at a loss for how to explain why this is happening to my body and what is causing it.

Pot has taken away the pain, fatigue, depression, and hopelessness of my condition. It has allowed me to work to support my family. If pot were legal, and the gov't got their cut, the pot smokers of the world could single handedly pull this planet out of this recession. I mean, If the gov't sold pot in packs of 20 pre-rolled cigarette sized joints for $80 a pack...... Hell I can't roll 20 joints for $80. It's mostly all profit. Think of the number of americans who get high. If they all were buying legal gov't grown pot, with a 80% mark up, we'd be free of this black cloud hanging over our heads. One other bonus... less drug crime. If it were legal there would be less drug crime. Now before you all go off on me about that comment think about this. If someone wants to buy some pot and can't get it easily, they might turn to another cheaper drug that is easier to get a hold of. IF they can get pot easily they have no need to find other drugs. 

In my area of northeastern Vermont prescription drugs are whats popular, especially with the younger crowd. Vicodin, percocet, ridalin, aderall, anything with a nacrotic base sell like wildfire here. If you ask any of those addicted to pills around here how they got into pills they all say the same thing, " they were cheaper and easier to get than pot". Now Meth has begun to rear it's ugly head. Same principle as the pills. You can get a sixteenth of a gram for about $20 here on the streets. For $20 they can be high for days. A quarter ounce of pot here costs between $80 and $100. I'm sure you can see the appeal of the cheaper drugs to these kids and young adults.

Sorry if I have offended anyone, that was not my intention. Btw, this is just my opinion and you are welcome to your own. Take care and in the words of Bill and Ted, "be excellent to each other!"_

Luckily for him, he lives in one of the States with a medical law. 

jim


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i just did a very brief google search, & i couldn't find anything discrediting the lincoln quote, which is the one i thought was interesting.
> 
> lincoln was a wrestling champion who smoked hemp & played harmonica?  i like this guy.
> 
> jf



You could not find proof that he didn't say it, and therefore that means he did?

I can't find any evidence online that President Lincoln didn't wear a dress around the house.  Guess that means he did.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2009)

jim777 said:


> I think you could at least show a little proof that they're all misquotes and fabrications if you're going to state they are. Like we used to say on USENET before everyone had a computer, post proof or retract.



I agree.  People who post 'quotes' like that should do a little research.  I went through and debunked most of those quotes.  It was fun and easy.  Anyone who posts garbage like that could easily do the same.



> Carter's is a misquote? Sagan's a fabrication?



So the whole thing is true if one or two of them are true?



> And I think we all know where Obama stands on full federal legalization anyway, as he addressed it in public in the last few days. But 'rethinking and decriminalizing' is in fact _exactly_ what he has already done, by ordering the Attorney General and the DEA to stop enforcing federal marijuana laws where the states (13 so far for those counting at home) have written and passed laws that conflict with the federal statutes. So, half quote or not (which I think is still perfectly in context) there will be no more DEA raids of state sponsored medical marijuana dispensaries in the US directly because of President Obama's actions.  we see this year either. I'm sure there's another quote somewhere about actions speaking louder than words, but I won't bother posting or looking for it.



"I won't bother" but "demand proof."  A closed mind gathers no grok.



> And as you stated earlier in the thread _"For myself, I remain against legalization of marijuana. I don't have to have a logical reason that I can defend to another person - I just don't want it to be legal"_, I have an opinion myself, and that is that it should never have been made illegal in the first place. And if not for the  hysterics of Harry Anslinger, it wouldn't be.



You are entitled to your opinion.  That's cool.



> As some of you know, I am a moderator on a guitar forum, and this subject came up recently there as well (it is getting atalkied about a lot lately, it's one of those things). Here's what someone wrote to me there on Friday:
> 
> _"I personally think pot should be legal. Medical marijuana holds great promise for people with incurable conditions that cause constant pain. I have suffered from a mystery condition for 15 years. My immune system is constantly attacking my skin, blood, muscles, and organs in a misguided attempt by my white blood cells to rid my body of what it thinks are foreign invaders. My joints are swollen and very painful. My skin is constantly inflamed. I get severe muscle pain and am always sick. I have been prescribed steriods, addictive pain killers, and various experimental drugs in an attempt to stop what is going on inside of me. All with little or no success. My bones are irreversibly brittle, as are my teeth, due to the steriods. The experimental drugs were a last ditch effort and many of the side effects are unknown. I could wake up tomorrow and be perfectly healthy or I could wake up with a mutated foot growing out of my forehead. No one knows. Doctors are at a loss for how to explain why this is happening to my body and what is causing it.
> 
> ...



I am not against the medical use of marijuana, but I am against its use as a recreational drug for the purpose of intoxication.

And as we see in California, the law is easily abused - the legal authority to prescribe 'medical marijuana' is as simple as 'chronic pain'.  And as several news reports have shown, there a number of doctors who will willingly prescribe pot for the 'chronic pain' that their patients report - any old chronic pain will do - even the completely made-up kind.

So while I have no objection to the medical use of marijuana, in California, it's just a wink-wink backdoor legalization for any old stoner who wants him some pot.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 29, 2009)

The only issue I have with your argument, Bill, is that I have difficulty taking what you say at face value for the simple reason that you cannot vocalize a reasonable, supportable reason, you "Just dont want it to be legal" and THAT is somthing I can't wrap my head around.  I liken it to my campaign to Illegalize painting yourself green and dancing in the streets in a toga.  I can't tell you_ why_ it should be illegal, but, damn it, it should, you just gotta trust me on that.

So, for my part anyhow, I think anything Anti you say, or attempts to discredit others needs to be articulated with facts to support the statements rather than a "I found it on my own, so you should too!" sort of response, elsewise I gotta assume its just more baseless bias.  

*shrug*

Now, me personally?  I dont care if it's legal or illegal at this point, as I don't use it, and my drug of choice is readily availible every morning, even in my office at work, and my drug of second choice is often waiting at home in a bottle when I get there.  Both are already legal, and so I'm good to go.  Although I do admit I am confused by the "Pot is evil but Rum is Tasty and extra taxable" stance our goverment has.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 29, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You could not find proof that he didn't say it, and therefore that means he did?
> 
> I can't find any evidence online that President Lincoln didn't wear a dress around the house. Guess that means he did.


 
no, i did a brief search because you said it was a false quote, & i didn't find anything substantiating your claim. i found references to the letter it is supposed to have come from, but i didn't find the letter. so if anyone has either the source for the quote, or a source refuting that he ever wrote it, i would be interested in seeing either.

jf


----------



## jim777 (Mar 30, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree.  People who post 'quotes' like that should do a little research.  I went through and debunked most of those quotes.  It was fun and easy.  Anyone who posts garbage like that could easily do the same.


Must have missed where you did that exactly...



Bill Mattocks said:


> So the whole thing is true if one or two of them are true?


I don't know Bill, you're the one who said they were misquotes and fabrications, you tell me how many have to be true for you to be a liar/blowhard/whatever.



Bill Mattocks said:


> "I won't bother" but "demand proof."  A closed mind gathers no grok.


"Actions speak louder than words" doesn't need to be quoted, sorry the sarcasm aimed directly at you flew over your head. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I am not against the medical use of marijuana, but I am against its use as a recreational drug for the purpose of intoxication.
> 
> And as we see in California, the law is easily abused - the legal authority to prescribe 'medical marijuana' is as simple as 'chronic pain'.  And as several news reports have shown, there a number of doctors who will willingly prescribe pot for the 'chronic pain' that their patients report - any old chronic pain will do - even the completely made-up kind.
> 
> So while I have no objection to the medical use of marijuana, in California, it's just a wink-wink backdoor legalization for any old stoner who wants him some pot.



Any old stoner who wants it can get it now! :lol: That's the whole point of stoping the charade of prohibition! And that's how California wanted it, and that's how California enacted it, on purpose. I'm sure you know they are well on their way to rectifying the situation with Tom Ammiano's AB390 bill. There are an estimated 40 million people in the US who smoke, over 14 million who smoke 'once a month or more', not including the last three presidents. It's a lot of people Bill, not just Jerry Garcia wannabe's.

Anyway, as a prohibitionist yourself, I'm sure you believe that marijuana leads to harder drugs, like heroin and others. Here's a few attributed quotes for you on that score:



"There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."
 Source: 
Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).
"Our key findings were that 1) there are no unique factors distinguishing the gateway sequence and the reverse sequence &#8212; that is, the sequence is opportunistic; 2) the gateway sequence and the reverse sequence have the same prognostic accuracy; and 3) a sizable proportion of substance users begin regular consumption with an illicit drug. These results, considered in the aggregate, indicate that the gateway sequence is not an invariant pathway and, when manifest, is not related to specific risk factors and does not have prognostic utility. The results of this study as well as other studies demonstrate that abusable drugs occupy neither a specific place in a hierarchy nor a discrete position in a temporal sequence. These latter presumptions of the gateway hypothesis constitute what Whitehead referred to as the 'fallacy of misplaced connectedness,' namely, asserting 'assumptions about categories that do not correspond with the empirical world.'"
 Source: 
Tarter, Ralph E., PhD, Vanyukov, Michael, PhD, Kirisci, Levent, PhD, Reynolds, Maureen, PhD, Clark, Duncan B., MD, PhD, "Predictors of Marijuana Use in Adolescents Before and After Licit Drug Use: Examination of the Gateway Hypothesis," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 63, No. 12, December 2006, p. 2139.
"More than 100 million Americans have tried marijuana; 14.4 million Americans are estimated to be "past-month" users. Yet there are only an estimated 2,075,000 "past-month" users of cocaine and 153,000 "past-month" users of heroin." Source: 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-34, DHHS Publication No. SMA 08-4343), Rockville, MD, Sept. 2008, p. 250, Table G.1, and p. 254, Table G.5.


----------



## Flea (Mar 30, 2009)

Anecdote:

A friend of mine has a very bad case of Bipolar type 1.  That is, it comes with the severe highs and lows.  She used to find herself hospitalized every couple of years.  Finally her psychiatrist offered her a standing prescription for Marinol, the test-tube version of marijuana.  She takes it every day with her other prescriptions along with a little extra bump when she feels the need.  She started on it ten years ago, and she hasn't been in hospital since.

Before she got the Marinol, she used to take it au naturel all the time and it was mildly helpful, though not strong enough to really blunt the edge of a destructive mania.  I'ts a shame that it's only available to those who can afford it, since so many people who could benefit from it the most are disabled to the point that they can't work and have spotty health coverage.  Now you've had your recommended daily allowance of irony.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2009)

jarrod said:


> no, i did a brief search because you said it was a false quote, & i didn't find anything substantiating your claim. i found references to the letter it is supposed to have come from, but i didn't find the letter. so if anyone has either the source for the quote, or a source refuting that he ever wrote it, i would be interested in seeing either.
> 
> jf



I didn't make the original claim, you did.  When you claim someone said something, it is your job to provide the proof.  That's how it works.

Don't feel too badly, though.  This happens on the left and right, on all sides of religions, and so on.  During the recent presidential elections, I got all kinds of emails from 'friends' claiming Obama was a Muslim.  I told them they were wrong.  They demanded that I 'prove' he isn't a Muslim.  No, see, that's not how it works.  If you state Obama is a Muslim, you have to prove it.  By the same token, if you state Lincoln was a dope-smoker, you have to prove it - not up to me to prove he wasn't.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 30, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I didn't make the original claim, you did.  When you claim someone said something, it is your job to provide the proof.  That's how it works.
> 
> Don't feel too badly, though.  This happens on the left and right, on all sides of religions, and so on.  During the recent presidential elections, I got all kinds of emails from 'friends' claiming Obama was a Muslim.  I told them they were wrong.  They demanded that I 'prove' he isn't a Muslim.  No, see, that's not how it works.  If you state Obama is a Muslim, you have to prove it.  By the same token, if you state Lincoln was a dope-smoker, you have to prove it - not up to me to prove he wasn't.



i don't feel very badly at all, since jim777 made the claim & not me.  what are you, high?

jf


----------



## Jimi (Mar 30, 2009)

Bill, what kind of proof do you want? Dig up former President Lincoln to do a "BONES" like test to prove he had THC in his body from smoking Marijuana? LOL. (Kidding, just an exageration)  We can't ask Lincoln this, but it is much easier to DEBUNK anything someone claims about a person once that person is dead and gone. Even when there are facts or some other support for or against something, it is still easy to make it all second or third hand info. that must be false and can not be trusted. We can take almost any info. in our History about any of our Presidents and find a way to DEBUNK it. Did Washington really stand on the front of the boat crossing the Deleware River? Of course he did, I have seen the painting. LOL. I do believe that Lincoln did probably smoke Herb, as well as the 1st President of our Nation. 


            There are notes in George Washingtons Journals leaving instructions for his farm hands (Maybe even slaves) to separate the Hemp plant stems & seeds from the flower, for rope production & his personal use. Now are you going to investigate somehow to DEBUNK that as well? If George did smoke, that makes him in violation of our current laws, therefore such info. is the baseless ramblings of a substance abuser, right? 


                      If someone posts info that our Founding Fathers & former Presidents grew, smoked & produced materials from the Hemp (Marijuana) plant & upheld what good they found in it, it is to be reviewed, not taken as a falsehood to destroy your way of thinking, nor is it to be debunked to prove your opinion right. Such info will not add any pain to your familys past misfortune and is harming no-one. Unless of course you feel that no-one can convince you that any info. (I debunk one bit of info. so it is all false) that our Founding Fathers & Former Presidents had any tolerance for this substance, so it is treason to state otherwise damaging our great Nation. 


         Again Bill, do you feel that if such info. so easily debunked will pull the wool over our citizens eyes and be our Nations downfall? I feel it is much more likely that some severe corrupt politicians twisted policies freight trained passed the people & even congress can have much more damaging effects on our Nation than any truth about passed Presidents use of Marijuana, or the need for repeal of Marijuana Law, or even the decrimialazation of Marijuana possession could ever have.


                      I feel that in most cases described by people stating that,"The evil herb is what caused such terrible acts from a Family member" is misplacing blame, blaming a substance over human faults. Most people who are defined as someone who will "Use Marijuana as a gateway drug" are usually of such an addictive nature/personality that they would find their way to hard drugs, criminal activities or even wreckless behavior regardless of any possible use of THE GATEWAY DRUG. This is where I feel too many people blame the substance rather than the individual because it is too painfull to see their loved ones in such a light. Blaming the DRUG is akin to saying, "It's not my fault (Or so and so's fault) the devil (Weed) made me do it." Destroy the susbstance and anyone associated with it, that will make it alright (maybe even avenge my loved ones misfortune).


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 30, 2009)

*Jimi*, I wonder i I could ask to to nip back into your post above and paragraph it for us?  

A monoblock of text like that will be very unlikely to be read by many and so your points will be lost.


----------



## Jimi (Mar 30, 2009)

I tried. Sorry


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2009)

Jimi said:


> Bill, what kind of proof do you want?



The statement said that President Lincoln wrote a letter to the Hohner company stating that a few of his pleasures in life were smoking sweet hemp and playing his harmonica.  If that is true, where is the letter?

That would be sufficient proof.

Numerous 'quotes' exist that would attempt to legitimize pot-smoking on the basis that our 'Founding Fathers' did it.  If they did, then it is made to seem as if pot-smoking were a normal, everyday kind of thing that everybody did, from the president on down.  If not, then ... that argument means nothing.

So, if you're going to claim it, you have to prove it.  It's a serious charge, with serious implications.  It is not up to others to disprove, it is up to the people who make the charge to prove it.  Where is the letter?

Interestingly, groups like NORML contradict their own arguments.  They argue in favor of the legalization of hemp-growing, on the basis that hemp contains an infinitesimally small amount of THC in it - such that no one could get high by smoking it.  And we do know from historical documents that hemp was grown as a crop, just like corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, tobacco, and so on - by the Founding Fathers.  But it was grown to make hemp rope, cloth, and paper.  These are the things that NORML would like to see made legal again - and I agree with them.

But if the Founding Fathers grew 'hemp' then they did not smoke it - because as NORML themselves point out, it has no THC in it, they could not have gotten stoned from it.


----------



## Jimi (Mar 30, 2009)

I am not trying to legitimize pot smoking (though I feel it is a very small trespass  by compairason to drugs like crack, cocaine & heroine), you are trying to demonize it. Look at your past posts Bill. You hate any illegal substance regardless if the laws on the books are corrupt & unfair. Wether or not Lincoln smoked pot is not my point. I could care less about NORML and its own propoganda, but there are those so against pot they have there own propoganda as well. 

Its about a violence & poor judgment thing. I feel people blame substances, and not the person committing the criminal or wreckless acts. Someone does something terrible and its the drug doing this not the innocent family member that put herself & others in those circumstances by their own weakness for any substance. Similar terrible things like what have happened to your family also happen in situations where the only drug is a legal one like alcohol. But booze is not illegal so the booze is not to blame?


----------



## Nolerama (Mar 30, 2009)

Jimi said:


> Its about a violence & poor judgment thing.* I feel people blame substances, and not the person committing the criminal or wreckless acts.*



Hit that right on the head. Truth like that can ruffle a few feathers, though. We all have our weak points, but when they're pointed out, some take the gesture personally.


----------



## jim777 (Mar 30, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Interestingly, groups like NORML contradict their own arguments.  They argue in favor of the legalization of hemp-growing, on the basis that hemp contains an infinitesimally small amount of THC in it - such that no one could get high by smoking it.  And we do know from historical documents that hemp was grown as a crop, just like corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, tobacco, and so on - by the Founding Fathers.  But it was grown to make hemp rope, cloth, and paper.  These are the things that NORML would like to see made legal again - and I agree with them.
> 
> But if the Founding Fathers grew 'hemp' then they did not smoke it - because as NORML themselves point out, it has no THC in it, they could not have gotten stoned from it.



The "hemp" that existed in Virginia in the 1600s and 1700s was exactly the same as the pot that people smoke today. It's the same plant Bill. The "industrial" hemp that people grow for rope and such are the male plants, not the female plants that people smoke. You can't tell if a plant is male or female until its a month or so old, so you always grow them both; there's no way around it. No hemp, no pot, because there's no seeds. And are you seriously (seriously?!) saying the guys that decided to just go right on ahead and light up the tobacco plants they came across didn't try everything else? I'm guessing they did, as people have been smoking "hemp" for at least 2700  years now Bill, and it's only been evil and illegal since Harry Anslinger.

And here's another quote for you Bill  _"I couldn't have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cajones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say, Gracias amigos, I owe my whole empire to you."_ Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera reported head of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-henry-sterry/mexican-drug-lord-officia_b_179596.html?view=screen


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 30, 2009)

Do you guys know what the penalty of drug smuggling or selling drugs in 
Singapore? They hang 'em.
Do you know in Singapore they force addicts to go into rehab. I mean REALLY FORCE THEM?
Singapore has a very very low drug usage rate. 
Interesting concept.
Deaf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2009)

jim777 said:


> The "hemp" that existed in Virginia in the 1600s and 1700s was exactly the same as the pot that people smoke today. It's the same plant Bill. The "industrial" hemp that people grow for rope and such are the male plants, not the female plants that people smoke. You can't tell if a plant is male or female until its a month or so old, so you always grow them both; there's no way around it. No hemp, no pot, because there's no seeds. And are you seriously (seriously?!) saying the guys that decided to just go right on ahead and light up the tobacco plants they came across didn't try everything else? I'm guessing they did, as people have been smoking "hemp" for at least 2700  years now Bill, and it's only been evil and illegal since Harry Anslinger.



Pot that is smoked today has a very high concentration of THC compared to the pot that was smoked even as recently as the 1970's.  Pot that was grown as hemp has virtually no THC in it, as NORML and other 'hemp' legalization organizations like to point out.  Same plant, yes.  Can you get high from smoking field-grade hemp?  Well, even NORML says you'd have to smoke pounds of the stuff.

Looking back in the literature (not hard to do now with Google books and Google news archives going back so far), it is easy to see that in the 1700's and 1800's, hemp smoking was odd enough that it was commented upon in various journals of the day.  It was different, it was strange, it was a 'weird custom' and that's why it made the news.  If it was an everyday occurrence, if it was common, a news journal would hardly write articles about the 'odd habits' of the 'Indian' (from India) who smokes hemp to get high.

http://books.google.com/books?as_q=..._maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=1900&as_isbn=&as_issn=

Even the various organizations that attempt to track the history of marijuana use in the US seem to be in agreement that its use was not common (outside of American Indians in pipes mixed with tobacco for ritual use) until about the turn of the century, around 1900.

http://www.concept420.com/marijuana_cannabis_history_timeline.htm
http://www.geocities.com/healthmoon/smoking-marijuana/history.htm
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021104/history.html

Yes, it was widely used outside the USA for centuries (as hashish, regular pot just wasn't strong enough, it had to be concentrated to be useful).  Inside the US, while inside the US, it was a major cash crop - as hemp - for rope, cloth, and paper.  Not for smoking.



> And here's another quote for you Bill  _"I couldn't have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cajones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say, Gracias amigos, I owe my whole empire to you."_ Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera reported head of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-henry-sterry/mexican-drug-lord-officia_b_179596.html?view=screen


Yes, prohibition often drives profits to those willing to provide the supply to meet the demand for something prohibited.  That is not a good argument for making it legal.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 30, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Do you guys know what the penalty of drug smuggling or selling drugs in
> Singapore? They hang 'em.
> Do you know in Singapore they force addicts to go into rehab. I mean REALLY FORCE THEM?
> Singapore has a very very low drug usage rate.
> ...



that sounds awesome...if you'd rather live in a drug-free society than a free one.  

jf


----------



## BrandonLucas (Mar 31, 2009)

Even after reading through the responses on this thread, I still don't understand why pot is not legal, but alcohol is.  The only answer I've seen so far is simply that pot is not accepted...but how is it any more or less accepted than alcohol is?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2009)

BrandonLucas said:


> Even after reading through the responses on this thread, I still don't understand why pot is not legal, but alcohol is.  The only answer I've seen so far is simply that pot is not accepted...but how is it any more or less accepted than alcohol is?



Public opinion.  The majority of voters in states where the question has been put to ballot have shown voters reject legalization of recreational use of marijuana (they accept medical uses, more and more), while they accept the recreational use of alcohol.

Public opinion does not have to have a reason.  It is what it is.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Mar 31, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Public opinion. The majority of voters in states where the question has been put to ballot have shown voters reject legalization of recreational use of marijuana (they accept medical uses, more and more), while they accept the recreational use of alcohol.
> 
> Public opinion does not have to have a reason. It is what it is.


 
It still doesn't make sense to me.  Public opinion should have a reason...after all, there is a reason that these people voted this way.  They all just didn't show up one day and put a mark on a sheet of paper while they were blindfolded.

I dunno. I guess I'm just thick or something, but it's just hard to accept "it is what it is" as an answer.  I've always been a firm believer that there is a reason for everything, and really, this shouldn't be an exception.

Like I said about this particular reason before, I honestly think that people vote for it to be illegal simply because it always has been illegal.  I really haven't seen any solid evidence that would make it any better or worse for someone than alcohol, but I don't really think that's what is taken into consideration when these people vote.  Of course, that's my opinion, and I have nothing to back that up...


----------



## jim777 (Mar 31, 2009)

Most people who feel it shouldn't have been made illegal in the first place, feel it was racism, fear and hate basically, that got it made illegal in the US in the 30's. A basic intolerance of things different, I suppose. Either way, the 'war on drugs', which is really a war on people, costs a silly amount of money to keep going each year, and there is more pot available now than ever before. As stated earlier, it hurts all law enforcement to have laws on the books that tens of millions of people ignore and work to circumvent. I should say that I do think the tide is turning though, and the majority of the laws that matter will be changing in the near future.

Anyway, since the original topic was legalizing as a means of stopping drug violence (presumably along the border with Mexico), I'll throw out this brief being made available to the California legislature, as they prepare to discuss and vote on AB390.
http://www.canorml.org/background/CA_legalization2.html

It's difficult to say in advance exactly what the benefits would be, but this is a fairly thorough look at what might be expected from a state revenue perspective.


----------



## Jimi (Mar 31, 2009)

Bill, So such opinions do not need a logical or rational reason to make law and punishment, as long as all the partially informed or uninformed agree on it?


----------



## BrandonLucas (Mar 31, 2009)

jim777 said:


> Most people who feel it shouldn't have been made illegal in the first place, feel it was racism, fear and hate basically, that got it made illegal in the US in the 30's. A basic intolerance of things different, I suppose. Either way, the 'war on drugs', which is really a war on people, costs a silly amount of money to keep going each year, and there is more pot available now than ever before. As stated earlier, it hurts all law enforcement to have laws on the books that tens of millions of people ignore and work to circumvent. I should say that I do think the tide is turning though, and the majority of the laws that matter will be changing in the near future.
> 
> Anyway, since the original topic was legalizing as a means of stopping drug violence (presumably along the border with Mexico), I'll throw out this brief being made available to the California legislature, as they prepare to discuss and vote on AB390.
> http://www.canorml.org/background/CA_legalization2.html
> ...


 
I could be reading that wrong, but that seems to be pointing more towards a revenue thing more than a crime thing...but I'm sure that would actually contribute to a decrease in crime anyway, as a by product.

For what it's worth, pot is so accessable now because so many people have the means to grow it on their own.  The harder drugs seem to take more involvement...well, I say that, but meth does seem to be pretty bad around the southern trailer park areas.

I dunno.  Legalizing alot of things may cut down on some violence.  But then, it could open up doors to alot of other violent acts as well.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2009)

BrandonLucas said:


> It still doesn't make sense to me.  Public opinion should have a reason...after all, there is a reason that these people voted this way.  They all just didn't show up one day and put a mark on a sheet of paper while they were blindfolded.



I suppose everyone who has an opinion has a reason or reasons for that opinion.  They may not be conscious of the reasons, or they may know, but the reasons are emotional and not based in logic or science.  We're not all Vulcans, depending on logic to guide our personal opinions.  Maybe some guy doesn't want weed legalized because he saw some cartoons of dope-smokers and they all looked like "Shaggy" from Scooby-Doo and he just doesn't like that.  It may seem like a ridiculous reason to you or to me, but so what?  He gets to have an opinion, and he gets to voice it in the form of a vote, even if it is stupid.



> I dunno. I guess I'm just thick or something, but it's just hard to accept "it is what it is" as an answer.  I've always been a firm believer that there is a reason for everything, and really, this shouldn't be an exception.



I guess you're right.  The problem is that people's 'reasons' for their opinions may not make sense to you, or they may be private - or none of your business.



> Like I said about this particular reason before, I honestly think that people vote for it to be illegal simply because it always has been illegal.



I'm sure there are some who do.  I tend to vote against all incumbant judges, just because I think they should be replaced.  Don't know them, don't know what their records are, just an opinion with no basis.



> I really haven't seen any solid evidence that would make it any better or worse for someone than alcohol, but I don't really think that's what is taken into consideration when these people vote.  Of course, that's my opinion, and I have nothing to back that up...



Then you should vote that way.


----------



## jim777 (Mar 31, 2009)

That is strictly a revenue thing, yes. I think the other benefits (such as removing the black market/corner dealers by making it legal) aren't really being discussed too much in the AB390 debate yet. They may, obviously, but you're right it isn't explicitly mentioned there. I put that out there because at the moment (to the best of my knowledge) California is the only state openly discussing legalization rather than some flavor of decriminalization, which they already have.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2009)

Jimi said:


> Bill, So such opinions do not need a logical or rational reason to make law and punishment, as long as all the partially informed or uninformed agree on it?



That is how democracy functions, yes.  The fact that we're a constitutional representative republic means that there is an additional hurdle for 'majority rule' to climb - it must also not be unconstitutional.  Other than that, this is how plebiscites work.

The case I talked about in California is a case in point.  The state make gay marriage legal by action of the state legislature.  The people changed the California state constitution via plebiscite vote, so now gay marriage is unconstitutional in California.  Now it is in the court system.  And the courts do not consider whether or not the people are being rational or logical or if their reasons are good ones.  The court can merely consider whether or not the plebiscite vote is unconstitutional.  If it is found to be unconstitutional, then out it goes.  If it is found to be constitutional, then it is the law of the land, too bad, so sad for the homosexuals who want to get married.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

On referendum (plebiscite) votes, the majority rules.  Doesn't matter if it is logical, smart, stupid, biased, uninformed, or just plain crazy.  If it is what the people want, then it is law (if it is also constitutional), and that's that.


----------



## BrandonLucas (Mar 31, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I suppose everyone who has an opinion has a reason or reasons for that opinion. They may not be conscious of the reasons, or they may know, but the reasons are emotional and not based in logic or science. We're not all Vulcans, depending on logic to guide our personal opinions. Maybe some guy doesn't want weed legalized because he saw some cartoons of dope-smokers and they all looked like "Shaggy" from Scooby-Doo and he just doesn't like that. It may seem like a ridiculous reason to you or to me, but so what? He gets to have an opinion, and he gets to voice it in the form of a vote, even if it is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The thing is, I really don't know where I stand on the whole situation.

I can see both sides of the argument, and they both have valid points in their favor.  I've tried weed before, and decided it wasn't for me.  But then, I've also tried different alcoholic drinks that I didn't care for...the difference is that it was legal for me to experiment with the alcohol, but not with the weed.

As far as that goes, I think that people should be allowed to make their own decisions based on experience.  The thing is, everyone is held accountable for their actions, in some way, shape, form, or fashion.

I'll end up talking in circles about this one.  I honestly don't really know where my vote would fall.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2009)

BrandonLucas said:


> I'll end up talking in circles about this one.  I honestly don't really know where my vote would fall.



I'm hip.  I try to be an informed voter, and even after researching the question (whatever the question happens to be), sometimes I either have no opinion, I don't really care one way or the other, or I just can't make up my mind.  It happens.  When that happens to me at the ballot box, I refrain from voting on that issue.  I'd rather cast a vote for or against something that I care about, than just toss a vote in there just to do it.

However, just to be note - I'm sure there are people who just routinely vote for or against things they neither know about or care about - and those votes count too, even if they didn't know what it was they were voting on.

I was also advised that my Prop 8 link was broken.  Here it is again, sorry for the error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)


----------



## jarrod (Mar 31, 2009)

BrandonLucas said:


> I dunno. I guess I'm just thick or something, but it's just hard to accept "it is what it is" as an answer.  I've always been a firm believer that there is a reason for everything, and really, this shouldn't be an exception.



the short answer is propaganda.  google "marijuana+anslinger" & you'll find out quite a bit.    

here is a thought on the OP: current the last hundred years of anti-marijuana propaganda has, imo, made MJ more of a gateway drug than it is.  the reason being that many people will eventually try weed only to find out that it doesn't make them go crazy, or grow man-boobs, or do any of the other things that are supposed to make pot so dangerous.  once people figure out they have been lied to about one drug, it makes them wonder whether harder drugs are really all that dangerous either.  so what i'm suggesting here is that lumping MJ in with other drugs legally may contribute to escalating drug use & the violence that is associated with harder drugs.  people should be informed by scientific research & not government "information".  

jf


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 31, 2009)

jarrod said:


> people should be informed by scientific research & not government "information".



I agree with that.

But I think that people watch "Extra" and "TMZ" and listen to Rush Limbaugh and Air America and THINK that's news - or that it is accurate - and NONE of them will do any 'scientific research' that involves more than opening their email, reading some gobbledy-gook that some idiot friend of theirs emailed to them, passing on to a dozen of their own contacts, posting it on MT and site like it, and calling it a day.

The problem isn't 'the government' or even disinformation.  The problem is people are idiots.


----------



## jim777 (Mar 31, 2009)

jim777 said:


> That is strictly a revenue thing, yes. I think the other benefits (such as removing the black market/corner dealers by making it legal) aren't really being discussed too much in the AB390 debate yet. They may, obviously, but you're right it isn't explicitly mentioned there. I put that out there because at the moment (to the best of my knowledge) California is the only state openly discussing legalization rather than some flavor of decriminalization, which they already have.



Seems I was mistaken, as now Massachusetts has a bill to legalize and tax marijuana as well! To be honest, I thought we would see changes in the near future, but by "near future" I was thinking the next 5 years.

 Mass House bill
 Mass Senate bill

Really, those links are just there for the sake of it, there's more (equally uninteresting to most of us) information here as well.


----------



## jim777 (Apr 2, 2009)

Only sort of peripherally related, but there is now a Senate Bill in Washington to create a committee to overhaul the federal criminal justice system. 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-714

_"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As introduced, the proposal would establish a blue-ribbon commission to "undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system; make findings related to current Federal and State criminal justice policies and practices; and make reform recommendations for the President, Congress, and State governments to improve public safety, cost-effectiveness, overall prison administration, and fairness in the implementation of the Nation's criminal justice system." [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Specifically, the Commission will examine "current drug policy and its impact on incarceration, crime and violence, sentencing, and reentry programs, [including] an analysis of the general availability of drugs in our society, the impact and effectiveness of current policies on reducing that availability and on the incidence of crime, and in the case of criminal offenders, the availability of drug treatment programs before, during, and after incarceration."[/FONT]_

A blurb by the bill's author, Sen. Jim Webb, is available here.


----------



## jim777 (Apr 2, 2009)

jarrod said:


> the short answer is propaganda.  google "marijuana+anslinger" & you'll find out quite a bit.
> 
> jf


----------



## Jimi (Apr 5, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That is how democracy functions, yes.  The fact that we're a constitutional representative republic means that there is an additional hurdle for 'majority rule' to climb - it must also not be unconstitutional.  Other than that, this is how plebiscites work.



"If you listen to fools, The Mob Rules" - Blue Oyster Cult. LOL


----------



## Jimi (Apr 10, 2009)

My bad, that was Black Sabbath I think. LOL. The law will do as it wills. We citizens are bound to obey or pay the consequences. On that we can agree?


----------

