Legalizing THC (DJ Hall thread)

[cbi1972]

the subculture created itself. I don't know the exact reason why weed is illegal, but it is. So those who choose to break the law are making a conscious choice...they aren't being forced to grow, sell, or smoke it.

Surely you can see there are incentives created by making something illegal that is in such high demand. It doesn't matter whether they are making a conscious choice or not. Their choices are rational in the context of their opportunities. There is a lot of money to be made defying ridiculous drug laws. And once you have a group of people committed to breaking drug laws, why should they stop there? They might as well go whole hog and kill each other and turn poor neighborhoods into a war zone. This is a replay of the Prohibition Era which cemented gang culture in our minds. At least some good movies were made about this brain dead policy.

 

[bamanut_aj]

I do see the cause/effect. But, as a non-user with no real emotional attachement to the issue, I don't really care if it stays illegal. Although, from a 'waste of money, no authority' POV, I would support legalizing. Until then, and again as a non-user, to me it's just a matter of 'obey the law'.

 

[mittman]

Oh, no, and rightfully so - taxation is a foundational way by which most any modern government works. In fact, instead of spending untold billions annually to fight a war we can never win, we'd actually make billions in tax dollars, much like cigarettes, for example.

My earlier point regarding taxation/licensing is that the fedgov used that, in essence, to make certain drugs illegal. You had to pay a tax to legally buy it, and only certain people were allowed to sell it (think modern beer or alcohol licenses). It wasn't about taxing the use for revenue, it was purely a method of controlling what people had legal access to.

Funny how people (rhetorical here, not you specifically) don't seem to understand that humans will always do drugs - there isn't a known civilization in history of mankind (that I'm aware of) that didn't have some sort of mind-altering drug in use. I'm not saying everyone does it, per se, but a vast majority of people do, whether it's something mild like caffeine or something more powerful like an opiate. The reality is the demand for drugs will always exist and even after the massive failure of alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century our fedgov is unwilling to remove the blinders to see that not only is their side-stepping of the Constitution immoral, but it simply won't work. Ever.

Unfortunately you are right about tax policy. It is a foundational way most modern governments work. I think it is wrong and misguided to attempt to use tax policy to make societal changes, and agree it rarely works. My problem with sin taxing period is that it not only causes me to benefit from people making bad decisions, it causes governments to plan and depend on it. I don’t think it is right, and I don’t want to ever have my politicians hoping we have enough cigarette, alcohol, drug, or gambling taxes. I have less of a problem with positive motivation tax policy, but would prefer that that not be used as much as it is either.
I have been around a few who do believe that they can convince everyone not to do drugs. You are correct that I do not fall in that category. It will never happen. I just do not want to benefit from it. I would prefer that our government use the letter of the structure in place to create and enforce laws. I think it is probably just as futile to believe they will as thinking you can “stamp out drug use”

 

[mittman]

Lets just say they did legalize it. And lets say cigarettes are the model. Even if a 'pack of joints' costs twice as much as a pack of cigarettes it would still cut the legs out from under most of the illegal operations out there. IMO, the fact that shipping marijuana across the border is such a cash cow for the Mexican cartels should be reason enough to try a different approach.

It is my opinion, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, and see what happens.

 

[mittman]

Millions have gone to prison in this "war on drugs", and drug use has not diminished. New drugs are introduced into this thriving market every day. Are you seriously asking me to prove that?
I am not trying to sway anyone. I offer no advice. I am just pointing out a policy that has (IMO) failed miserably.

This is the internet. We are not solving problems here - just discussing them.

Whether or not drug use has diminished has no bearing on whether millions have gone to jail or not. I would like for jail time to be a deterrent, but it does not always accomplish that goal. It does punish the offender, and in some cases "correct" the behavior.

Replacing a policy requires a replacement. I guess you should not be required to give one, but other than just giving up, I don’t hear a lot of alternatives.

I agre that to a large extent overcrowding of our prisons is at least partly due to the massive amount of drug offenders. I guess we need to have a druggie Australia, and put them all on their own island.

 

[dWarriors88]

I do see the cause/effect. But, as a non-user with no real emotional attachement to the issue, I don't really care if it stays illegal. Although, from a 'waste of money, no authority' POV, I would support legalizing. Until then, and again as a non-user, to me it's just a matter of 'obey the law'.

What about that nice 45 year old man that has a successful family, nice home, killer job, and does nothing wrong who comes home and puts the kids to bed, goes to his basement, and puts on sportscenter and smokes a joint before bed? So he deserves jail time? No! It's a natural, non harmful, pure plant that simply grows out of the ground. If you just so happen to set it on fire, there is an effect.

How about the guy who has a successful family, nice home, and killer job who comes home, puts the kids to bed and starts drinking. Then gets angry because alcohol tends to make us provoked more easily, and beats his wife?

Whether or not drug use has diminished has no bearing on whether millions have gone to jail or not. I would like for jail time to be a deterrent, but it does not always accomplish that goal. It does punish the offender, and in some cases "correct" the behavior.

Replacing a policy requires a replacement. I guess you should not be required to give one, but other than just giving up, I don...8217;t hear a lot of alternatives.

I agre that to a large extent overcrowding of our prisons is at least partly due to the massive amount of drug offenders. I guess we need to have a druggie Australia, and put them all on their own island.

Jail time does not correct the behavior. I forget the staggering percent of people who go back to jail after being released. 9 times out of 10, once you've been convicted, your life is done. Furthermore, after serving your time, your set up to fail. After spending 3 years in jail, your not the same person. You don't know HOW to act in a civil free setting. Your not told what to do anymore. When to eat, when to shower, when go to sleep. They treat them like children in ther really. So how is it surprising that so many do end up back. Hell, half the time jail is better. All their friends are there, three square hot meals, bed, nothing to do but lay around. It's like camp. Sure I'll do it! Your telling me I can watch tv, eat sleep and hang out with me friends all day! Stupid. It's stupid. Criminals views on jail are NOT what they should be. They see it as a get away almost.

What about when it DOES work??

Our society condemns anyone with a criminal background. You'll never have a career job. It's hard enough to get hired at a fast food resturant. I've seen managers take one look at a guys's application an if there is a yes checked in the criminal history box. A.D.Q'd

It's insane, and a 1/4 of inmates are in on drug crimes. Now, obviously that is not all weed, but that is still a very high number. Something has to be done.

If you hav ANY drug violations you are NOT allowed in the military. Come on...

Our society does not give these guys anychance at success.

 

[bamanut_aj]

Our society does not give these guys anychance at success.

sure we do....it's called 'obey the law'. I don't like speed limits, many cyclists don't like helmet laws, etc.....but we follow the laws or we pay the price.

 

[dWarriors88]

sure we do....it's called 'obey the law'. I don't like speed limits, many cyclists don't like helmet laws, etc.....but we follow the laws or we pay the price.

I agree with you as far as drug laws. Just-don't-do-it! But some people are just idiots. Some however...

Just curious on your thought for this:

What about people who unknowingly break the law? Or accidentally break the law? How bout manslaughter? Or vehicular manslaughter. People unknowingly break the law every day. Some accidentally break the law with no intent. But still get locked up for it. Or what about guys who are innocently behind bars? We hear every once in a while how "DNA testing proves man innocent", or "Man innocent, free after xx years"...

They're lives are ruined.

 

[disneybama]

sure we do....it's called 'obey the law'. I don't like speed limits, many cyclists don't like helmet laws, etc.....but we follow the laws or we pay the price.

You are judging them based on your reality. Their reality may be much, much different. We do not all live in the same world.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

You are judging them based on your reality. Their reality may be much, much different. We do not all live in the same world.

This unfortunately is an important concept that a growing number of Americans find difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend.

One can never understand the varying shades of color in the world if they limit their pallet to black and white. For instance, many lawmakers and lawmen speak in absolute terms of the deterrent value of punishment, oversimplifying all that goes into one's ultimate breaking of a law (e.g. not even touching upon the complexities of an act as merely symptom of much deeper causes that can't be frightened out of a person) and selling it to their constituencies as a cure-all (because the truth doesn't make a good sound bite). Yet, they quickly attribute the lack of decreasing numbers in those crimes post-penalty-increase to other factors (e.g. citing unique state demographics when one points out that the murder rate increased in their death penalty state while it decreased in a similar neighboring state that does not have the death penalty).

When further criminalization and stiffer penalties only creates more inmates, we need to try new approaches to honestly expect different results. As a previous poster alluded to, this was realized rather quickly during the Prohibition Era - and it's strange to think that we're more stubborn now, but that seems to be the case.

 

[kyallie]

This unfortunately is an important concept that a growing number of Americans find difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend.

One can never understand the varying shades of color in the world if they limit their pallet to black and white. For instance, many lawmakers and lawmen speak in absolute terms of the deterrent value of punishment, oversimplifying all that goes into one's ultimate breaking of a law (e.g. not even touching upon the complexities of an act as merely symptom of much deeper causes that can't be frightened out of a person) and selling it to their constituencies as a cure-all (because the truth doesn't make a good sound bite). Yet, they quickly attribute the lack of decreasing numbers in those crimes post-penalty-increase to other factors (e.g. citing unique state demographics when one points out that the murder rate increased in their death penalty state while it decreased in a similar neighboring state that does not have the death penalty).

When further criminalization and stiffer penalties only creates more inmates, we need to try new approaches to honestly expect different results. As a previous poster alluded to, this was realized rather quickly during the Prohibition Era - and it's strange to think that we're more stubborn now, but that seems to be the case.

OMG!!! Are those pigs I see flying?? We actually AGREE on something! :eek2: I nearly threw up in my mouth!

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

OMG!!! Are those pigs I see flying?? We actually AGREE on something! :eek2: I nearly threw up in my mouth!

I believe in evidence-based policy.

You should be more concerned where you disagree with me.

 

[cbi1972]

I believe in evidence-based policy.

You should be more concerned where you disagree with me.

Such as your belief in statism over liberty.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

Related to the topic, there have been some interesting articles about California's Prop 19 and its implications.

Here is a synopsis of an article done by the WSJ:

How would legalization help the state? Let Johnson count thy ways: legalization of marijuana would provide a boon to public safety in low-income areas where drug-dealing thrives.
He writes:

The residual effect of drug-dealing is violence, which has decimated the communities where the drugs are sold. Generations of families have been lost to the cycle of drugs and violence and profits that, for some, are worth risking their lives over.
If there is a new law that holds even a chance of cutting drug profits and gun money from local drug kingpins and foreign suppliers, it...8217;s worth a try.
​

Second, legalization would spur private enterprise.

Already there is a growing number of marijuana-related private businesses preparing to provide the consumer with a litany of home-grow aids and equipment should the California law pass - and eventually be adopted in other states.
​

And of course, there...8217;s the tax issue:

In Oakland, medical marijuana sales are already one of the city...8217;s biggest sources of sales tax revenue, and a city-sponsored ballot measure proposes increasing by nearly 3 times the current tax rate of 18 percent on every $1000 in sales.
​

And the negatives? Won...8217;t teens have greater access to the drug? Well, no, says Johnson:

t strains the imagination to consider how that would be possible. Teens who want to score some pot have myriad ways to accomplish the task, including obtaining a medical card and buying the drug at a locally regulated dispensary. There are hundreds of them across the Bay Area.​

​

Will all of this come to fruition? We...8217;ll find out next month.

 

[kyallie]

I believe in evidence-based policy.

You should be more concerned where you disagree with me.

That's my point, your so wrong on most other things! :smile:

 

[mittman]

What about that nice 45 year old man that has a successful family, nice home, killer job, and does nothing wrong who comes home and puts the kids to bed, goes to his basement, and puts on sportscenter and smokes a joint before bed? So he deserves jail time? No! It's a natural, non harmful, pure plant that simply grows out of the ground. If you just so happen to set it on fire, there is an effect.

Rarely do you see this guy actually get arrested, much less serve time. However, the 'natural pure plant' didn't just happen to get set on fire, he lit it. We obviously have differing experiences seeing how harmful inhaling something that grows naturally can be.

How about the guy who has a successful family, nice home, and killer job who comes home, puts the kids to bed and starts drinking. Then gets angry because alcohol tends to make us provoked more easily, and beats his wife?

What is your point? This guy should be in jail for abuse. Do you want his life ruined too?

Jail time does not correct the behavior. ...

Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. It does punish it though. If we do not punish the behavior at all there will be no deterrent at all.

 

[mittman]

This unfortunately is an important concept that a growing number of Americans find difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend.

One can never understand the varying shades of color in the world if they limit their pallet to black and white. For instance, many lawmakers and lawmen speak in absolute terms of the deterrent value of punishment, oversimplifying all that goes into one's ultimate breaking of a law (e.g. not even touching upon the complexities of an act as merely symptom of much deeper causes that can't be frightened out of a person) and selling it to their constituencies as a cure-all (because the truth doesn't make a good sound bite). Yet, they quickly attribute the lack of decreasing numbers in those crimes post-penalty-increase to other factors (e.g. citing unique state demographics when one points out that the murder rate increased in their death penalty state while it decreased in a similar neighboring state that does not have the death penalty).

That sounds eloquent, and I agree there are always extenuating circumstances and factors that play into someone making the choice to break a law. However, using this as an excuse to break the law is simply anarchy. A system of laws must have some cohesive principle. There has to be some common standard. We must be held to it, or it falls apart. I maintain that the growing number of Americans that you believe find your statement difficult to comprehend, understand completely the ramifications of going down that path.

However, varying degrees of punishment are given for degrees of drug possession. Circumstances are often taken into account.

When further criminalization and stiffer penalties only creates more inmates, we need to try new approaches to honestly expect different results. As a previous poster alluded to, this was realized rather quickly during the Prohibition Era - and it's strange to think that we're more stubborn now, but that seems to be the case.

I agree with this statement. We are more stubborn now, because we IMO correctly identify that there is a level of risk to our society far above the problems we have due to legalization of alcoholic beverages.

 

[mittman]

Related to the topic, there have been some interesting articles about California's Prop 19 and its implications.

Here is a synopsis of an article done by the WSJ:

I believe most of the people who are in the middle of it oppose it for many reasons:

US, Mexican Authorities Say Prop. 19 Won't Squelch Drug Cartel Violence | KPBS.org

One thing is true about the WSJ article. If passed we will find out.

I think this is desperation on the part of California due to it huge budget deficits, and businesses fleeing the state due to high tax rates. They are looking for any possible income, I truly believe this will come back to bite them.

 

[disneybama]

... We are more stubborn now, because we IMO correctly identify that there is a level of risk to our society far above the problems we have due to legalization of alcoholic beverages.

I don't disagree, but not with all drugs currently tied up in this debate. When the use of a drug like THC becomes as prevalent as it is in our society (and has been for many decades), you have to consider legalization. It's risks to society have been shown to be even lower than alcohol's.

Some would support the legalization of any/all drugs. I do not. But we need to reconsider THC.

 

[mittman]

I believe in evidence-based policy.

You should be more concerned where you disagree with me.

Sometimes you sound eloquent, sometimes you just sound arrogant. :tongue::smile: