Barney Frank to propose marijuana decriminalization?
posted at 9:36 am on March 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Can anyone take a statement on Bill Maher’s HBO show seriously? Barney Frank told Maher on Real Time that he would introduce legislation in Congress to decriminalize small amounts of pot, asserting that its illegal status is out of step with the American public. When asked, an aide had heard nothing of it until Frank’s HBO appearance:
Rep. Barney Frank will soon introduce legislation to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, the Massachusetts Democrat said during an appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” …
Frank has introduced legislation in previous years to allow the use of “medical marijuana,” although the bills never made it out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Asked by Maher as to why he would push a pot decriminalization bill now, Frank said the American public has already decided that personal use of marijuana is not a problem.
Frank claimed he would call it the “Make Room for Serious Criminals” bill. The intent would be to take the burden of marijuana investigations, arrests, trials, and encarceration off of an overtaxed justice system and allow resources to go after more serious crimes. Frank called incarceration for smoking marijuana “silly” and that lawmakers had to catch up to public sensibilities on marijuana.
I’m not necessarily opposed to legalization, but even with that, Frank oversells the concept. Most people caught smoking marijuana don’t serve any jail time at all. In most places, it’s not even a serious misdemeanor, and in many jurisdictions it’s more of an infraction. Convictions for personal use usually result in fines and sometimes in compulsory rehab, but it’s been decades since individual users have been jailed for simply smoking a joint.
The big drain on law enforcement resources come from interdicting the larger traffic in marijuana, at the border and in the interior. It doesn’t sound as though Frank will propose that marijuana becomes completely legal, and so it will do very little to “make room for serious criminals”. It also imposes a forced legalization on states and communities that the federal government has no business mandating. In fact, the only action Congress can take is to remove the federal bans on marijuana, including importation, so that states can make their own decisions on legalization.
Should Congress take that kind of action? The decades of prohibition on marijuana have done little to stem its popularity and abuse. In terms of intoxication, it has no worse effects than alcohol, and some argue considerably less impairment. A regulated marijuana industry could dry up the gang economics in its trade and ensure some safety for the users. It would also free resources to fight the distribution of far worse substances, such as heroin and cocaine. On the other hand, its status as a gateway drug could drive up other forms of abuse, and federal decriminalization could call into question the rest of the war on drugs that has thus far been a failure that has incarcerated large numbers of Americans and driven violent behavior between rival “distributors” in their markets.
We know that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked. Is it time to acknowledge a new paradigm on marijuana? Perhaps — but what Frank proposed will have no effect at all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »
hat about the swinging couples that like to do a little coke to fuel a good ol’ sex romp?
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 10:26 AM
nobody is argueing for the legalisation of cocaine. That should remain the way it is; illegal. Cocaine has been shown to be inherintly harmful and physically addictive.
drift on March 24, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Errr…
As I read my last post, I see I chose the word “blindly” poorly. I meant “blindly” as in blind justice. I should have said, “equally”.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I also see something wrong with the government criminalizing acts between consenting adults, as long as those acts do not steal the freedom to make future decisions not to use, as hard drug addiction does. When someone has become addicted to hard drugs, I am in favor of helping them break that addiction, so they may regain the freedom of their subsequent choices. But no one is claiming that marijuana is physically addictive - because no one can credibly claim that.
The ‘common nest’ to which I was referring is obviously an ecological, environmental analogy, as in the earth being the common nest of the human species. Wide ‘populations swaths’ do not live in a single home.
Homes, on the other hand, are not common nests; they are individual nests inhabited by individual families.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:05 PM
It appears there is still a large contingent of folks that can’t leave others well enough alone or at the very least have little faith in their fellow man to make good decisions for themselves.
Personally, I abhor the pothead culture that is likely aggravated by the illegality of the plant. And I have no interest in partaking. But the effects are comparable with alcohol, a legal drug.
I feel confident trusting my fellow citizens with concealed firearms. If they use them inappropriately, there are laws in place to punish them.
I’m unconcerned with bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. The vast majority of patrons are responsible. If they break the law and drive while intoxicated, there are laws in place to punish them.
Besides a negative stigma attached to the habit, what’s the difference that makes marijuana so very controversial? It’s impossible to address concerns that anti-legalization opponents have because, as this thread illustrates, it generally breaks down into red herring fishing expeditions and cliche snark.
Let’s face it…not unlike cigarrette smoking, about 90 percent of the opposition isn’t’ based on logic, freedom or societal concerns. It comes down to a mere distaste for the activity and a lack of a personal and consistent philosophy.
exactly. I love the stereotypes and cliches tossed in as if these are the reasons it should remain illegal when it’s just a bunch of dumb stereotypes. I’m certainly no crunchy hippie. I hate hippies they are completely counter-productive to anything.
plus morality is relative
drift on March 24, 2008 at 1:06 PM
The ‘between consenting adults’ caveat has to do with people willingly passing a joint between/among themselves, but could just as easly refer to sex, either straight or gay.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:07 PM
oops quoting asher sorry
drift on March 24, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Also, the equal and proportional compromise made is between the parental right to raise their children and live their lives as they choose and see fit, and the state interest in child welfare. I do not think that it is rational or reasonable to insist that the state interest extends to the prosecution of parents or the seizing of their children because the parents smoke cigarettes inside the family home. That’s not equal and proportional compromise, but skewed and extremist absolutism.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:13 PM
tx2654,Please don’try and tell me anything about here in Texas.I was born and raised on the north side of Houston.In the 1970s possesion of 4 ozs.or less of marijuana was a misdemeaor subject to a 250.00 fine.But that was probally before you moved to Texas.Then Reagen come up with the bright idea of zero tolerance,and thats when the prison overcrowding started.We had to start letting people out early without looking at the crimes the were in prison for.Then we went on the building rampage to catch up.That takes resources away from other things were it could be better spent.I’m sure even you can see the correlation there.Now even judges are getting tired of seeing cases in their courts for trace amounts,as it ties up court time that could be used to prosecute more important cases.I’m a business owner,When my shop gets broken into I don’t even bother calling the police as it is a exercise in futility.They do their best to talk you out of filling out a report,Telling you there is nothing they can do.You’ll never be able to recover your property etc.etc.I had a credit card stolen from the mail.I had to take time off work to go downtown and fill out a report and get a case number,for my credit card co.When I got my next statement the person who stole it,had used it to put new tires on his car.Called the detective said nothing he could do.I went to the tire store were they purchased the tires.They had got the road hazard warranty. So I got the tire store to give me a copy.I carried it to the detective, Now here is paperwork with the Make ,Model and License # of the card.Said nothing he could do can’t prove they stole the card.HUH?Thats why I got a license to carry a handgun.I’m not depending on the police for nothing.They are too concerned with their second jobs to do the one they were hired to do.It would do you well to remember that,Justice without mercy is no justice at all.And by the way Austin sucks can’t stand it.I’m a conservative and as such think the government is way too involved in peoples personal lives.
E.Tex on March 24, 2008 at 1:17 PM
People have engaged in self-destructive behavior since we first fell out of the trees. I don’t think that will change any time soon. You can legislate, prosecute and incarcerate BUT there is still that percentage of the population that will engage in it and suffer the consequences of their behavior. If that were the end of it, Oh well, you makes your bed, you lay in it.
Unfortunately others often suffer as well. Had a head-on collison up the road Saturday night. Guy was stoned out of his head and drove on the wrong side of the road. I’d be willing to bet my next retirement check that when the stoner gets to court he will have all kinds of excuses and none will be “Hey, I fucked up, send me to jail, how much to I owe those two people I sent to the hospital with life-threatening injuries?” I don’t care if it’s alcohol (which is legal) or drugs (which currently aren’t) that cause the problems. I’m damned tired of the excuses. STFU! You screwed up, you made your choice, take your punishment!
If you don’t like a law, then change it! But don’t violate a law and give me the bullshit excuse that it’s a stupid law that no one should have to obey and that everyone else is doing “it” too. Given that logic, I know several people I can introduce you to who believe that robbery and burglary are okay in their book. But I think many of you might disagree with that outlook.
GarandFan on March 24, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:05 PM
This is anecdotal, but I can claim that it is. To this day, when I smell it, my mouth waters, and my heart races.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 1:23 PM
I’m late to the party here, and haven’t read all 4 pages of comments. But has anyone here noted the incongruity between ever harsher cigarette smoking laws, and the push to decriminalize pot? It’s often the same party that wants to completely ban deadly tobacco smoke from all public places, and yet wants to legalize smoking marijuana. There are limited studies on marijuana smoke, but the ones that do exist indicate it is at least (I think I remember significantly more) dangerous to pulmonary health than tobacco.
Why the disconnect?
cs89 on March 24, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:05 PM
And, I’ve known many that want to quit, but claim a necessity to have it. They try to quit, then a couple days or weeks later, straight back to the pipe like a baby to a warm bottle of milk.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 1:27 PM
cs89 on March 24, 2008 at 1:24 PM
You’d be hard pressed to actually prove it, but I’d put money down that you’re right.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I think that driving drunk and driving stoned should BOTH be criminal offenses…in fact, driving under the influence of ANY drug that incapacitates your ability to operate a motor vehicle should be illegal, and IS…because you are not only endangering yourself, but others with whom you share the road.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:28 PM
People may develop a psychological dependency on many things, including crisp bacon and chocolate. That doesn’t make them physically addictive.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM
In fact, some people go nuts without their morning cup of java…but does that mean we should criminalize caffeine?
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Explain my heart racing.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 1:35 PM
The same reason my heart races when I see one particular ex girlfriend; memories of good times.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Also, I wasn’t making a case for criminalization, I was simply giving you an anecdotal experience. I never said it was “credible” evidence. Only that, based on my persaonl experience, I believe dope has physical addictive qualities.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Well, that’s cute, but now you’re making emotional cases for discrediting any belief that dope may have physically addictive qualities.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 1:41 PM
But psychological dependence is precisely that; emotional, not physical. Certain drugs, such as opiates, barbiturates, benzodiazepines and alcohol, cultivate physical addiction - in some cases, to the point that sudden withdrawal can result in death. This does not happen with marijuana.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Pot gets a pass, dude. It’s “natural”. (/sarc)
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Doctor, do you think I will see the day when this physical reaction doesn’t happen to me any more?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Non sarcastic question, seriously, I don’t know:
Is tobacco wrongly classified as physically addictive?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I know what withdrawal from physical addiction feels like. Until a facial surgery ten years ago, I suffered from debilitating cluster headaches. They are far worse than migraines, and are known in the medical community as ’suicide headaches’, because fully a third of sufferers attempt suicide at least once in order to escape the pain.
My doctor gave me very strong narcotics for them…but he thought I had migraines. Cluster headaches, unlike migraines, attack in cycles. In a cyle peak, you may have several intense headaches per day. I would take the narcotics for the pain whenever a headache struck. He became concerned with the amount of narcotics I was consuming, and cancelled my prescription - in the middle of a cluster cycle - after the narcotics had lessened my natural defences against the pain.
I spent nine days withdrawing, in a bathroom with the light turned off, alternating between dry-heaving in the toilet and soaking my head under a cold shower. I never took them again.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Actually the medical community believes there is a very real potential for cannabinoids in battling addictions, as well as, many medicines for treating depression, anxiety, hypertension and pain.
Also, for those worried about the increase in cancer rates it should be pointed out that cannabis needn’t be smoked to be effective.
Ciannaky on March 24, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Nicotine is indeed physically addictive. Withdrawal can cause severe anxiety. It is not, however, known to be fatal.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Sounds absolutely horrible. Hope you never have to go through that again.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Yes. Tobacco is not addictive. Nicotine is.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 1:55 PM
So my mouth watering and heart racing, though not known to be fatal, is not a physical reaction to the molecules of smoke entering my body through my lungs? It’s just psychological?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM
In your case, it’s more pavlovian
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 2:00 PM
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Is THC addictive?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 2:01 PM
It’s not due to withdrawals from tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana. If it were, your reaction would end with your withdrawal symptoms (which you never suffered). Instead, it is due to the remaining vestiges of a psychological dependency upon a practice which you found to be pleasurable.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 2:02 PM
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 2:00 PM
More? Or is.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Undeniably something physical is occuring, but the cause is not the nicotine. It is a pavlovian response to your memories associated with the smell.
Pharmacologically, you are experiencing nothing.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 2:02 PM
You’ve obviously studied this.
I quit smoking cigarettes without withdrawals, am I just different, or is it typical that different people have different reactions?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Empirical evidence suggests the latter, although with respect to nicotine, it is far more likely you will experience some measure of withdrawal.
Good for you. Smoking is dumb :)
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Are you practicing without a license;)?
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Tetrahydrocannabinol is not known to be physically addictive, but nicotine is, so your experience is atypical. Perhaps you didn’t smoke that long, or didn’t smoke much per day, or smoked weaker cigarettes - or perhaps you just don’t have the genetic predisposition to nicotine addiction; some people don’t.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 2:10 PM
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 2:07 PM
I truly experienced nothing of the sort with tobacco. I just made up my mind after staring at the little white devil, and realizing that I allowed it to have more power over my will, and quit…after 17 years.
Yes, smoking is dumb.
I’m probably just different than most.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Me too, smoked for over Twenty years and just put them down over a year ago with virtually no withdrawal symptoms.
Ciannaky on March 24, 2008 at 2:14 PM
If we really want to combat drug abuse, let us learn from the example of tobacco. Over time, advertisements and the varied media have successfully shifted public perception such that it is seen as an antisocial habit. If this continues, hopefully we can wean successive generations from tobacco more-or-less entirely. When smoking levels reach a certain floor, surely the tobacco industry itself will collapse.
Now look at dope. We are still producing music and video and movies that glorify such things. Wild rockers, fun dopey dopers, spaced out hippies. Perhaps if we societally shun such absurd charicatures, our drug ‘problem’ will subside.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Personally, I believe that it is, in that, for most people, it is extremely difficult to quit. I am not studied in the science of addiction, but I have experience witnessing those going through the process of quitting, and trying to quit.
Like tobacco, those that quit find it difficult in the first stages and easier and easier as they maintain the will through the “difficult periods”.
Saltysam on March 24, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I had no such problems quitting marijuana use; in fact, there were several times before I officially quit that I went without for extended periods, due to lack of availability or unwillingness to pay high prices, and they also caused me no problems at all.
Salamantis on March 24, 2008 at 2:23 PM
There are pharmacological reasons why classifying THC as ‘physically addictive’ is difficult. It is easier in the case of nicotine because there are receptors in the brain that are tweaked beyond the metabolism of the nicoine itself. There is little evidence to suggest that THC induces a similar physical change.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Not always. Toxicity is a measure of toxicity. First you have to prove that second hand MJ smoke is carcinogenic, and the latest study I’ve seen, which was billed as being the most comprehensive of it’s type as of that date, (last year sometime), showed that cigarette smokers who also smoke pot are significantly LESS likely to develop lung cancer than cigarette smokers who don’t smoke pot. This would tend to indicate that, in totality, MJ smoke is not carcinogenic. I’m not saying carcinogens are absent, even smoke from your fireplace and BBQ have them, but there is some indication that through an unidentified process MJ smoke actually has an anti-carcinogenic affect.
Certainly this study doesn’t prove that MJ cures cancer, even in some small percentage of cases, but it is evidence that contradicts your train of argument that MJ smoke causes cancer. Further study is always welcome.
At any rate, people who smoke pot generally don’t generate but a tiny fraction of the suspended particulate matter that cigarette smokers do, so the PPM is going to be far lower. On top of that, I’ve never heard anybody recommend that people who smoke anything should exhale their smoke into an enclosed space where children are present.
FloatingRock on March 24, 2008 at 3:05 PM
@ LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Your vision of the future sounds boring and totally lame.
muyoso on March 24, 2008 at 3:31 PM
At least it respects liberty.
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 3:34 PM
@ LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 3:34 PM
In as much as the liberties of people who smoke cigarettes today are being respected, oh wait . . . .
muyoso on March 24, 2008 at 3:40 PM
No no no. I am not advocating ‘bans’ at all. People are at liberty to associate with whomever they choose. If smokers/dopers fall into the ‘unacceptable’ category, then that is their free choice. I do not want govrnment to play any part in this - it has no authority in this regard.
A truly liberty-oriented solution
LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 3:43 PM
@ LimeyGeek on March 24, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Oh, I know what you are saying, and its not that bad of an idea, especially for hard drugs. But one doesnt need the government to get involved for changed to be made when even a small group speaks out against a practice. Take Cigarettes for example. Bars will start to ban smoking, as has happened, when they fear lawsuits from those who dont like the smoke. Businesses will start to make sure its employees dont smoke. All of this eventually leads to the government taking action, and then you are no longer able to smoke in your car, in your apartment, or more. Once the government gets involved, you are certain to be losing freedoms, because the government NEVER grants you new ones.
muyoso on March 24, 2008 at 3:51 PM
I say legalize it…it makes video games better, food taste better, and you can sleep deeper, also it is not nearly as addicting as reality tv or cigarettes. in fact i dont know of any bad that comes from it, besides not being able to run as far.
SoCalInfidel on March 24, 2008 at 4:19 PM
plus if you workout alot to put on muscle…it helps you eat more so you can put your body in an anabolic environment to rebuild muscle alot more efficiently :)
SoCalInfidel on March 24, 2008 at 4:21 PM
I’m not sure if anyone else has mentioned this yet (4 pages of posts and still going strong, I’m not about to read through all of that!) But if I remember my history correctly, MJ was originally banned for multiple reasons.
1) The Prohibitionists of the era found it to be an easy target. This was partly due to the fact that it was used at a much higher rate among blacks, the poor and Latinos, and partly due to it’s overall lower usage than Alcohol.
2) Hemp, at the turn of the 20th century, was a large and growing product that competed directly against cotton and wool as a fiber product. Cotton was still a large business in America at the time, particularly since they had just recently mechanized much of their production and processing. Hemp, however, was largely grown and produced in South America, where labor costs were much lower than in the U.S.
In addition to labor costs, Hemp’s “dual product” nature (Hemp stalks for fiber products, Hemp leaves for smoking products) meant that Hemp growers were drastically outperforming comparably sized cotton growers on the world market.
3) Due to the above two influences, several high-profile Senators got on board, and with the recent advent of film, created the film “Reefer Madness” and an entire ad campaign about the “evils” of Marijuana. After several years of the campaign, Marijuana use and popularity had dropped dramatically, and it was easy to pass laws banning it’s use.
Follow-up campaigns in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s further solidified mainstream opposition to Marijuana, and (unfortunately) it took the hippies of the 60’s to bring it back to public eye at all.
——-
Now. Having said all that, what do I think of the idea of Legalizing MJ?
Let it be noted, I have NEVER used or tried to use Marijuana, nor do I have any desire to do so. (My closest experience with Marijuana was a college roommate that grew an MJ plant in his closet, which I promptly poured a bottle of Windex into.)
I don’t have a big problem with legalizing Marijuana, provided it is regulated exactly like alcohol and tobacco. IE: any place tobacco is banned, MJ is too. Also, standards of BMC (Blood-Marijuana-Content) need to be established so that our police can properly enforce the law. But beyond that, I’m OK with it.
wearyman on March 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM
The real solution is to nationalize the manufacture of pot. The government weed would take forever to get of the ground, an inferior product that no one would want and then they would tax it so much that people can’t afford it. Problem solved!
insideout on March 24, 2008 at 4:33 PM
that was kinda mean wearyman…its just a plant
SoCalInfidel on March 24, 2008 at 5:20 PM
We need to legalize marijuana. It’s not any worse than alcohol, and it would provide a very taxable product to replace all of the revenues lost due to people quitting smoking.
The term ‘consenting adults’ has always bothered me. Why is it that some poor dude that has no chance of intimacy on his own getting action from a woman that willingly accepts money for the act is doing something ‘illegal’; yet if you put a camera on a tripod in the room and call it porn, the very same act is suddenly legal? Where’s the logic?
cannonball on March 24, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Does anyone have stats on the percentage of inmates incarcerated due to small drug possession charges?
cannonball on March 24, 2008 at 7:20 PM
When I was young there was no law against marijuana, but there was an extreme stigma attached to it and all illicit drugs. In the cultural revolution during the sixties, acceptance of drugs, pre-martial sex and so on caused numerous social problems. I guess that there was a good reason that there was a stigma against such practices, after all.
Johan Klaus on March 24, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Smoking cigarettes; smoking marijuana; not much good from which to choose. Neither one is very healthy.
Johan Klaus on March 24, 2008 at 7:44 PM
I don’t have cited information but I believe the number of inmates nationwide is or was around 450,000 last time the DOC released their stats. The cost per was somewhere around $27,000 per inmate/year. You do the math.
Ciannaky on March 24, 2008 at 7:49 PM
I agree, smoking is very bad but cannabis needn’t be smoked to be effective; there are many delivery methods available that are healthier.
Ciannaky on March 24, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Sorry, my bad. The DOJ numbers for 04 was 249,400 in State Prisons (not including Federal - which is where I got the higher stat); and the average cost per inmate $27,000 - $6,733,800,000 annually.
In 02 10.8% of all prison sentences were for possession.
Ciannaky on March 24, 2008 at 8:10 PM
If you’re against marijuana cigarettes, don’t have one.
misterpeasea on March 24, 2008 at 8:45 PM
I think legalising pot and MDMA with restrictions would be fine; maybe even LSD or mushrooms (they are a plant after all!)
If the Feds were in charge of oversight and you were required to have an ID to purchase the drugs legally (no felony convictions for one thing, not on welfare), it would be a good revenue stream and make the drugs safer.
I don’t like pot (the smell of it makes me ill… not good if you go to small venue concerts! =), but to paraphrase PJ O’Rourke, the only thing you see a pothead ever attack is a bag of potato chips. I’ve known some very bright, successful people who smoke pot; people I would never have guessed. I don’t know that I have ever heard of a pot related fatality.
As for MDMA, it was used by psychologists for a long time with terrific effect; apparently one MDMA session is worth a year of counseling. Patients with terminal diseases, clients dealing with post traumatic stress, couples on the verge of divorce; it was used very effectively to help people until it became popular as a club drug and it was outlawed. It’s also not addictive and its effectiveness goes away with overuse. Deaths attributed to it are usually because the pills are laced with poison or the user overheats while dancing at a rave.
I used to be VIRULENTLY anti-drug, but as I got older I realised that as long as it doesn’t affect me I shouldn’t really care. If a drug is highly addictive like heroin, that’s a different story; but if the drug is for the most part benign, then I don’t have a problem with someone using it. In Seattle there were alcohol fueled beatings and a death during Mardi Gras a bunch of years ago; legalising a drug that makes you munch chips and another that makes you feel peaceful and open seem like fairly safe bets. It also would take a lot of money out of drug dealers hands; who wants the illegal stuff when you can get it legally, with an assurance of quality?
linlithgow on March 24, 2008 at 8:50 PM
You make an excellent point, a point made in this video of Leap (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition).
Why do we think Pablo Escobar and Al Capone were in favor of Prohibitions against their products…because it made them filthy rich!!!
Neither of these mens’ reigns of terror would be possible if not for us disallowing what a very small percent of the population person wishes to consume. The arguments against decriminalization are nothing but hyperbole.
Ciannaky on March 24, 2008 at 9:11 PM
AND IT DOESN’T TAKE 20 JOINTS TO DO THE SAME DAMAGE AS 20 CIGARETTES.
I said it slowly, did you get it?
peacenprosperity on March 24, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Exactly. That is why we are a nation of laws.
peacenprosperity on March 24, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Prove it.
Ciannaky on March 24, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Funny, as a nation of laws we decided to prohibit Alcohol and spawned a massive industry for armed criminal gangs that ramped up the murder rate by 78% and made a mockery of your “Rule of Law”.
Milton Friedman said it best,”"Al Capone epitomizes our earlier attempt at prohibition; the Crips and Bloods epitomize this one.”
Capone gunned down six of his alcohol-hawking competitors on St Valentine’s Day in 1929. But in the age of drug prohibition, there are equivalent dealer shoot-outs every minute of the day in South Central Los Angeles - only one city - not to mention Hackney, Bogota and Kabul to name a few others)
Still think it doesn’t take 20 joints to do as much damage as 20 cigarettes?
Ciannaky on March 24, 2008 at 9:55 PM
That’s a good synopsis of the history of MJ prohibition. But you failed to include the most ridiculous item of the story from the government (to steal from O’Reilly).
They criminalized marijuana by passing a ‘marijuana stamp tax law‘. For every ounce of marijuana you had, you had to pay tax and buy a stamp to prove that you had paid taxes on the weed you had.
They made the process of getting the stamps legally overly oppressive. Whenever they found someone with pot, if they didn’t have the tax stamp, they were essentially arrested on ‘tax evasion’ - not possession of marijuana.
In fact, this law is still in effect today. If they discover large quantities of marijuana, they arrest and bust the guy for possession with intent. . . and then they send him a tax bill for the taxes he owes on the marijuana he’s been busted with.
How’s that for hypocrisy in a ‘free’ country?
You can get the stamps even today. But if you get them expect a knock on your door from the DEA.
I hope none of you get diagnosed with glaucoma. Marijuana is found to be THE BEST remedy for relieving pressure behind the eyes. Go blind insisting that pot should be illegal. I guess as the saying goes, poke out your eye to spite your moral sight.
ThackerAgency on March 24, 2008 at 10:47 PM
And here’s the trick with the stamp. . .
If you needed one, then you were breaking the law. . . because you had pot without having the tax stamp. So if you went to get a tax stamp you essentially were turning yourself in. You have the right against self incrimination (5th amendment) except in the case of marijuana.
ThackerAgency on March 24, 2008 at 10:50 PM
ThackerAgency, Imagine a 5 year and $2,000 fine for growing a plant in my living room to combat chronic, and excruciating pain…and they wonder why us medical users are “paranoid”!!!!
Ciannaky on March 24, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Legalize it with the same government (state and federal) regulation applied to alcohol and tobacco…BUT, part of any bill that does so has to also throw stiff new penalties on everything else, like a mandatory 25 for traffiking for starters. If the point of such a measure is to free up resources to pursue, prosecute, and punish hard drug cases, such a bill better deliver on that front.
SuperCool on March 24, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Wow! Do you work for the DEA as well? I could never have compiled such a work of fiction in my wildest dreams. Everyone, look here! This is the modern day equivalent of “Reefer Madness”. It would be hilarious if you weren’t mistakenly given the authority to take freedom away from others.
I’m sad that good, decent lawdogs get tarnished with people like you. Not intelligent enough to make rational decisions, yet arrogant enough to think they know better than anyone else. You are the epitome of the correct usage of the word “Pig”. I’m glad most Texas cops I’ve met over the years have been far more intelligent than you. Must be the water.
Anti-science, anti-logic, full of yourself and arrogant in your self-righteousness. I’m glad that you are so wrong about almost everything. If you were right, I never would have made high school valedictorian, graduated college, held a great engineering job for 20+ years, made millions, paid hundreds of thousands in taxes and donated many thousands more to charity. But I did all those things despite all the insane nonsense you portray as “fact” where you “know what I’m talking about”. And I am far from the exception.
I also take good care of my elderly mother, who, despite her Master’s degree in math and years of teaching college, also agrees that pot should be legal. I would complain to her about what a blight people like you are, but as a good Christian, she would just tell me we should all pray for your deluded, arrogant misshapen soul.
Me, I’m not so forgiving, and I just hope karma catches up with you and your filthy arrogance. Pot will be legalized sometime in the next few decades, and I hope you are still around to twist and steam in the angry sewage of your own hubris.
Of course if that was all snark, sorry - you got me. I wish that was the case, cause it makes me physically ill to think such psycho scumbags are still in any position of authority.
DreadWolf on March 24, 2008 at 11:52 PM
If only I were as gifted in the art of the tongue as you my fine brother (or sister). As it were,I am but a lowly stoner deserving of not but the derision of my folly; to serve the dark master and suffer the pain of his fathers contempt.
Mayhaps our Puritanical brothers find enlightenment in the Gospel of subservience and denial and trepidation; only to realize their service was all in vain and their hatred unjust.
One may only pray.
Ciannaky on March 25, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Hopefully the arbitrary criminalization of marijuana, when more dangerous and unhealthy drugs are legal, will end, along with the associated criminal activity and funding. Cheers to Barney Frank!
greenLibertarian on March 25, 2008 at 1:05 AM
muyoso said,
Not only an addictive personality. Try schizophrenia on for size. For my son, MJ was a trigger drug. We got him back, but it cost us years of pain and suffering. He hated us, he wanted us dead. You don’t know how much that hurts. Looking back, my wife and I are amazed that, on any given day, only one of us wanted to give up. And, now that he’s clean, he understands what he did to our family.
There are kids who never get clean. You see them down on skid row. Some of them are old men now — they had great jobs and threw it all away for the drugs.
When my son was first detained on campus, he wrote something like what you sound like: “Marijuana is bad because the authorities in society think it’s bad” Seven years later, he’s got a far different take on the subject. The dealer was an adult, and he’s gone now (maybe some other father stuffed him in the dumpster).
So, muyoso, I give you credit for having the intelligence of a thirteen year old, but not the intelligence of a twenty year old.
unclesmrgol on March 25, 2008 at 2:24 AM
I’m sorry to hear about the suffering experienced by you and your family but if you think Marijuana caused all of your son’s problems then it’s you that has the mentality of a 13 year old. (I wouldn’t normally stoop so low as to make a comment like that but since it’s obviously not beneath you… it seemed appropriate.) Clearly your son had significant problems in his life besides drug abuse, and considering your totally unwarranted attack on Muyoso I can guess what one of those factors probably was.
You should consider the likelihood that your mean-spirited comment was a product of your own sense of guilt being unfairly deflected toward Muyoso and apologize.
FloatingRock on March 25, 2008 at 3:29 AM
Well written, Ed.
This is one issue that is going to take me quite some time to sort out firmly where I stand.
Hawkins1701 on March 25, 2008 at 4:38 AM
Common sense.
budorob on March 25, 2008 at 8:50 AM
For all you closet pot heads who have weighed in using bogus claims about state’s rights, freedom of action, and other non-sequitors, here’s a different angle.
Pot impares (just as alcohol does) but the effects are different. Are you willing to put your child on the same road as a semi whose driver has been smoking pot across three states? What is an acceptable level of imparement and how would that be measured (like the BAC for drunks)?
Finally I’ll close with this thought. The US military has a zero tolerance policy for drug use. This came about in the late 1970s as accidents and mishaps were way up due to the “it’s just pot” attitude of many on this forum. I think those that see this as merely a social issue or personal rights issue are missing the bigger picture. This is a safety issue and the pot head is NOT the same as a drunk.
highhopes on March 25, 2008 at 9:10 AM
That’s common sense. I say, legalize it, regulate it heavily, and tax it like hell! In my opinion, this is a conservative issue…the government has no right to dictate what one can or cannot put in their bodies.
I don’t agree with the moniker of “gateway drug”. I’ve known plenty of people who tried it and didn’t like it; loved it and use it in the daily course of their lives w/ no social or personal effect you might see in a
commercialpropaganda; and those who tried it, loved it, and moved on to heavier addictions like alcohol or narcotics. I’ve also known plenty of addicts who never even tried marijuana. The truth is that addiction is a disease and the U.S. still prosecutes users as if they are dealers, when they are actually crying for help. Gateways can be found anywhere. What’s next? Are we going to put Little Debbie on trial for being a “gateway” to more potent junk food and subsequent problems like heart disease and obesity?budorob on March 25, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Can you cite the number of people killed by alcohol each year (health, accidents, etc.)? Now, compare that number with the number of people killed from marijuana…go on, that’s your homework.
deesine on March 25, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Marijuana is not a ‘gateway drug’. Someone with an addictive personality will have a problem with anything. Ask me about my 386 lb. mother in law who’s on her fourth stroke and will eat anything you put in front of her, like it or not, until it’s gone just because it’s there. Now ask me about my first marriage to THE local pot dealer. I can almost guarantee that I smoked more pot in two years than most people do in 20. When I left him, I left it. I never got caught up with any other drugs because I was never comfortable with the thought of something that had the possibility of controlling me. Which is also the reason I left the ex. To someone with an addictive personality, they pick their poison and then whatever the first thing is, that’s their ‘gateway’. Food? Don’t eat a french fry! Booze? Don’t have a beer! Drugs? Don’t smoke a doobie. Sex? Don’t go to dinner with that hot guy. See how that works? It’s not exclusive to pot, so don’t try that argument. Oh, and I saw about 40 minutes of Reefer Madness, which was about 20 minutes past the BS level I could actually tolerate. My fave was the kid who took a hit then ran over the old man crossing the street at like 20mph when the little placard changed to STOP without even seeing him. Yeah. Right. Definitely not for everyone, and I don’t want my kid around it by any means, but let’s be realistic and intelligent and not dramatic and ignorant.
LickyLicky on March 25, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Um…. no, I’m not going to be drawn into the idiotic comparison of alcohol-related deaths to pot. It’s more of the same moronic equivocation by a bunch of people who want to legally use pot and are attempting to change the social stigma through stupid non-sequitors. Alcohol is a legal substance (with certain restrictions) pot is illegal. You can’t compare the fatalities caused by you pot heads because you can’t quantify how many people WERE NOT killed by keeping pot illegal. If anything you are making the argument for criminalizing booze.
Go get stoned and ponder that one!
highhopes on March 25, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Legalize it. At least let me grow a few plants. And by grow a few plants I do not mean a room full. Just enough to supply myself. It is a beautiful plant and far, far less dangerous than alcohol.
And no, it is not physically addictive in any way shape or form. I can go without, without any problems mentally or physically whatsoever. I can’t say that about alcohol, or pills, or smokes yet they are all legal.
Geronimo on March 25, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Depends on how you define gate. From the physical addiction standpoint, it appears no worse than some legal substances. But, I would suggest that marijuana is a gateway to far more serious criminal behaviors and the desire to sample far more dangerous illegal substances.
It’s fine to sneer at those of us against legalization and call us all sorts of names. But you pot heads are part of a sub-culture that isn’t so nice a place and isn’t something that should be encouraged by making it simpler for you to get stoned. Some of you may be the weekend druggie who just gets high but there is a dark underbelly to your pot usage that includes smuggling, human exploitation, gangs, and all sorts of other social ills that can’t be rolled up into the “it’s just pot” position.
highhopes on March 25, 2008 at 10:49 AM
highhopes on March 25, 2008 at 10:22 AM
I see, you just like to make statements (”pot is about safety”) without support. And here some of are to debate…
deesine on March 25, 2008 at 10:51 AM
You are the one calling people names. Why are you here?
deesine on March 25, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I’m not sneering at anyone, and I haven’t called anyone names. All I did was give you my own personal experiences as example. It doesn’t affect my life at this point, so whether it’s legal or not doesn’t make a difference. All the people I do know who smoke would do it whether it’s legal or not. I don’t think anyone I know would suddenly take up a pot habit just because it became legal. Pot is not physically addictive; I am the perfect example. If it were, why was I able to walk away from it after getting some of the highest quality pot around and being able to smoke it in almost unlimited quantities for two years? It’s psychologically addictive to those who are predisposed to that. Same thing with food, booze, sex, shopping, almost any addiction you can think of, although some of them do come with physical addictions as well. I do not have an addictive personality. I never have, never will. I don’t allow myself to get into situations where something like that can control me, i.e., something with physically addictive qualities.
One of the companies I work for now had me take a drug test before I started, another had me up the limits on my car insurance. A company who takes certain measures before, during, or after the hiring process is only protecting themselves from potential liability. Most of them couldn’t care less if you smoke or not- unless something happened. Most of the managers at my old job (different field) were potheads, including upper management. When someone fell and tried to sue, when someone damaged company equipment, when someone injured or caused loss to another person, then the pee cups came out.
If you don’t smoke, fine. If you do smoke, fine. I don’t care either way. Marijuana is not a gateway drug because smoking that makes you move on to other things. Someone who is going to become addicted to something is going to start somewhere and end up somewhere worse no matter what it is; they will look for something to become addicted to because of something missing somewhere else in their life, not because they look at a joint and see it pointing somewhere. I go to raves, too, and have some of the best techno/trance music. But I’ve never done ecstasy, even though that music is supposedly a gateway to dropping tabs. Want a hair sample? Explain that one.
LickyLicky on March 25, 2008 at 11:42 AM
A dark underbelly that is created by prohibition, it is those in your position that fund these gangsters and their nefarious activities by giving them a product by which they can make themselves filthy rich. I said it before, why do you think Capone and Escobar were for prohibition; because they had a product that a large number of people wanted and were being denied. It was no accident that prohibition witnessed an 78% increase in crime during the period. If you made aspirin illegal some South American drug lord would capitalize on it and hundreds if not thousands would die over it.
Furthermore, you don’t like being called names while you sit there and sanctimoniously call us users pot-heads and such. Tell me highhopes why should I be denied a 100% natural pain reliever and be forced to shell out outrageous money to drug companies for products that are inferior and far more dangerous than the one I can grow in my sunny window? I will suffer from my pain until the day I die and those of you self-righteous hatemongers would gladly allow me to suffer rather than get the crap out of your ears and learn something about a perfectly innocuous plant.
Ciannaky on March 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM
What amazes me is the posters on this boards who resort to name-calling and stereotypes.
What are you afraid of?
And how are you acquainted with this sub-culture? It’s obvious that you and most others merely fear what you don’t know or understand. Moreover, who are you to tell anyone what they can and cannot put in their own bodies? I thought this was a conservative blog! Oh, and BTW, you might as well burn all that music that has enhanced your lives over the years b/c all those artists were certainly high on something.
It’s stunning that you type this on your keyboard which (along with everything else) could have been made inside that wonderful bastion of human rights: China.
budorob on March 25, 2008 at 12:00 PM
I’m not a fan of doctors lately. My Doc’s recommendation for a cough suppressant (Mucinex) caused more harm to me then the original illness. My secretary has a cold. Her doctor prescribed antibiotics. WTF? I go in for lower GI issues, and he pushes Nexium on me b/c I get the occasional acid indigestion. Didn’t take it, because I know a glass of warm water usually helps me. Now, there’s an example of a natural cure not recommended by the doctor. I know it doesn’t compare but research shows there is no link between marijuana use and cancers of the lung, neck, throat or mouth.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm
budorob on March 25, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Nothing will stop the propaganda.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSHKG10478820080129
They call that science? Al Gore must have blessed it.
budorob on March 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I don’t know why my posts keep disappearing like a fart in the wind but I suggest Run From the Cure for those who want to learn about the medicinal properties of cannabis.
Ciannaky on March 25, 2008 at 12:33 PM
And for the acid indigestion try sipping a small glass of Sambuca - as an Italian who eats a lot of rich acidy foods I swear it works much better than pills. We’ve been using it for thousands of years. Licorice works well too.
Ciannaky on March 25, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Prior large-scale population studies have reached similar conclusions. For instance, the US National Institute on Drug Abuse sponsored study of 164 oral cancer patients and 526 controls determined, “The balance of the evidence does not favor the idea that marijuana as commonly used in the community is a causal factor for head, neck or lung cancer in adults” and a 1997 Kaiser Permanente retrospective cohort study of 65,171 men and women in California found that cannabis use was not associated with increased risks of developing tobacco-use related cancers — including lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, or melanoma. In fact, even the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine says definitively, “There is no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes cancer in humans, including cancers usually related to tobacco use.”
Ciannaky on March 25, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Throwing out stupid talking points and making snide aspersions is not “debating.” You just want an echo chamber for your faulty and superficial ideas. Or did I miss where you did anything but tell me that I am wrong?
highhopes on March 25, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »