Legalize Drugs to Stop Violence

[Deaf Smith]

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]

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]

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

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

jf

 

[BrandonLucas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.



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.



Then you should vote that way.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

jf

 

[Jimi]

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