Legalization of Marijuana/Hemp

I never thought much about it from the perspective of tax or economic benefits, but what you’re saying makes sense. I think however, that pot should be legalized for an even less practical reason. I’m no fan of marijuana, but I think (like many things) that it is a matter of personal responsibility. Smoking can kill you, and its up to the smoker to take that risk. Alcohol can be just as “mind-altering” (and at times deadly if used with poor judgement) as pot, yet with a little regulation the government will allow it. I guess I just don’t see how marijuana is so much different. I think with a few precautionary laws in place (age regulations, etc.) marijuana should be treated the same way.

The tax boon alone, not even counting income tax for otherwise black market dealers, just the sales taxes which would undoubtedly be applied both federally and locally, is enough to convince your typical free-market conservative. The personal implications of marijuana use are just as varied as that of alcohol—some people are responsible and intelligent enough to partake with no negative consequences, and some people are not. The inadequacies of a few must not shape the freedoms of the whole.

Another argument for legalization that you didn’t mention is the fact that once regulated, it will become increasingly difficult for a minor to obtain. Ultimately, prohibitions of this type are usually fostered with Mrs. Lovejoy comments (“Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!”) What with the constant threat of prosecution lifted from your average grower or distributor, those individuals will be far less inclined to stick their necks out by selling to youngsters. As it stands now, minors are the backbone of the drug trade as they are less frightened of prosecution and far more likely to admit (broadcast?) their proclivities which keeps the inventory churning.

I don’t understand the specifics of the study regarding marijuana vs. tobacco use in teenagers. In what ways are marijuana and tobacco compared? What constitutes “harmful” or “more harmful” in those studies?

I’m in favor of a decriminalization of marijuana, but even now in New York State, possession of a comparatively large amount of marijuana is a minor misdemeanor, and in many cases, police officers won’t waste their time or energy arresting an otherwise cooperative individual for a small possession charge. Growing marijuana and selling marijuana are two separate issues, but I think that they should be. I believe that marijuana is a gateway drug, because it is illegal or for whatever other reason.

I am concerned about the legalization of marijuana because I see two potential issues: a boom in use and irresponsible behavior, including driving under the influence of marijuana; and arguing for the legalization of marijuana theoretically translates to arguing for the legalization of all drugs. I worked for a good deal of time with people whose lives had been absolutely devastated by drugs, and I cannot imagine that world in a much larger scope, where individuals could walk to the nearest corner grocery to score heroin, no matter how regulated the sale of it was.

I think that legislation ought to change, and that we really ought to focus on treatment rather than punishment for addicts. I don’t believe that legalization of drugs is the answer.

I don’t understand why it has to be all or nothing, or why that’s a concern. Saying that legalizing marijuana translates to being able to buy heroin at the 7-11 is like saying because Tylenol is an OTC drug, we should be able to get morphine without a prescription.

Availability does not an addict make. I can go buy a pack of cigarettes at the gas station, but I don’t. I’m over 21, but I have maybe one glass of wine a month. When I hurt my back, doctors were throwing prescriptions for Vicodin at me right and left. I was careful with them. I didn’t get more than one of the prescriptions filled, took only what I absolutely needed, and properly disposed of the rest when I was done. If availability was what made someone a drug user, I would be in rehab right now.

And if it has to be all or nothing, why are tobacco and alcohol still okay? Is it any worse to get into an accident under the influence of marijuana than it is under the influence of alcohol? Should we go back to prohibition? Because even then, people were making bathtub gin and drinking in speakeasies. And it wasn’t monitored or taxed.

I used to be a bartender, and I saw people with every addiction and addiction related affliction there was. Someone who was a hardcore alcoholic was just as dangerous getting behind the wheel as someone who’d been putting stuff up their nose in the bathroom. I am not saying that coke or heroin should be legal (I don’t think they should be), but driving under the influence is a bad thing, no matter what influence the person is under.

Sure, people who came into the bar to drink themselves under the table usually smoked. They usually smoked pot too. Some of them had “sinus problems” too, but they didn’t do other drugs because they smoked pot. They did drugs and abused alcohol because they were addicts. And I would highly doubt that pot is what started them down that path. I’m guessing it was some cigarettes out back after school, and skimming the top off the bottles in dad’s liquor cabinet before mom and dad got home from work. I’m also guessing there were other risk factors involved with the development of their addictions.

Maybe the study was small. Maybe it wasn’t an American study, but the results make a lot of sense to me. I’ve known people who smoke pot on occasion and don’t have other addictions or issues with drugs, the same way I know people who have a few drinks at a party but don’t hit the bottle every night. That’s different from heroin. There are different level of addictive incentive in heroin and marijuana, the same way there’s a different level in Tylenol and morphine.

Alcohol and cigarettes are possibly even more destructive than marijuana, yet they’re legal, taxed, and monitored. Another study even found that there’s no link between marijuana and lung cancer—here and I’ve never heard of anyone getting cirrhosis from pot. Nor have I ever heard of anyone doing pot and pot only and going into a blind rage.

If you could get heroin at the 7-11, would you? I wouldn’t. If I could get pot at the 7-11, I wouldn’t either, but I would love to see pot legalized and regulated, and I would love to see the benefits of those tax dollars.

All you need to do to see to the all-or-nothing potential of the situation is look at the gun control issue in the United States. Guns are legal in the United States, and anyone who wants to apply for a permit to get a gun can do so. We have some of the most relaxed gun regulations in the world, and yet, despite the fact that I can go to WalMart today and buy as many rifles as they have in stock, some factions of individuals constantly and powerfully lobby for looser restrictions, so that there is no waiting period, so that assault rifles and fully automatic weapons are legalized. If you concede that marijuana should be legal, how can you argue that cocaine shouldn’t be?

And while availability itself does not create addiction, it certainly helps the process along. You are using yourself as an example again, and you have to acknowledge that many individuals in the nation aren’t as careful or responsible with their choices as you might be. If cigarettes are available to you and you choose to not smoke them, here’s a gold star. But I’m willing to be that the number of nicotine addicts in the country would be greatly reduced were cigarettes outlawed. Availability and use are related, and use can lead to addiction.

I never said that I thought tobacco and/or alcohol were “okay.” We’re arguing about changing the legislation of illicit chemicals, not about whether tobacco and alcohol should be outlawed. The fact is that they are both legal drugs, and the fact that there are consequences associated with them makes my point for me. Do we legalize marijuana and/or other drugs knowing that people drive under the influence of alcohol and contract lung cancer from smoking cigarettes already, thus raising the risk factor just to avoid a little old-fashioned hypocrisy? My point is that if we can all acknowledge that alcohol and tobacco are generally bad, then how can you possibly argue that marijuana legalization is a positive thing? How did you decide that marijuana was “okay,” but cocaine and heroin weren’t? It looks like “all or nothing” because no one here has yet talked about what makes marijuana “okay” enough to be legalized while opiates and other narcotics are not “okay” enough to be legalized.

My point about the article that you referenced was that it claims that marijuana smoking is “less harmful” to teenagers than is cigarette smoking. That implies some sort of lessened health risk. But the study itself measures only social activity, like playing sports or having good interpersonal relationships.

And that second article from SA has some serious problems, too. The article again does not link the original scientific paper, so we can’t learn what the study group was measured against. Also, the study involves people who already have lung cancer who were surveyed about what they smoked. This is much different than lab studies involving the actual risk of inhaling hot chemicals. Inhaling smoke (regardless of what type of smoke) is detrimental to health. Period.

Finally: no, I wouldn’t buy heroin from a 7-11. But the issue isn’t about the two of us. It’s about the country as a whole.

My intent wasn’t to argue for the deregulation of assault weapons, and I am not saying that I don’t make a distinction between those types of weapons and rifles. Quite to the contrary, my argument is that some people don’t, and that has developed into a powerful lobby (the NRA) that continually argues that people should be able to buy and use assault weapons, armor-piercing ammunition, etc. They are arguing that people should be able to buy and use more harmful weapons than those already on the market. That’s the analogy. It’s not about whether marijuana is the most or least harmful chemical available; it’s about the risks of legalizing one type of drug and having to battle fringe interest groups who believe that all drugs should be legalized.

Again, I acknowledge the hypocrisy of not supporting marijuana legalization when alcohol and tobacco are already legal. We could extend that hypocrisy to talk about the prescription drugs. But again, I point to the analogy of firearms; we both agree that rifles and pistols are legal, we both agree that guns can be dangerous, and we both agree that assault weapons should remain illegal because they are also potentially dangerous. So how can that same line of reason not follow in the discussion of legal versus illegal drugs? My point is that just because certain things are legal does not mean that all things in the same category as those legal things need to be legalized themselves.

You quoted President Carter talking about the judicial problems of habitual users. I already said that I think most drug use should be decriminalized in favor of treatment alternatives. But unfortunately, not all people who use and sell marijuana are peace-loving hippies who sit around their homes talking about politics and harming no one but themselves. In my experience, the production, sale, and use of marijuana can be just as harmful and violent as the production, sale, and use of cocaine or heroin. I don’t think that your characterization of marijuana users as less violent than alcoholics is always true:

(from the Utica Observer Dispatch)

(September, 2007) UTICA – A 21-year-old man wanted by the Utica Police Department was charged Tuesday after a citizen stop, Sgt. Dave Matrulli said.

Jarrell Edwards of Utica was taken into custody, and police located a loaded .357 handgun in his waistband, marijuana and money, Matrulli said.

(September, 2007) UTICA – Foster also was found in possession of marijuana and cocaine, deputies said.

Foster was taken to the sheriff’s office in Oriskany, where he was later charged with driving while ability impaired by the use of drugs and alcohol, DWI, seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, possession of a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle, unlawful possession of marijuana, inadequate exhaust, no brake light and fractured windshield, deputies said.

(October, 2007) UTICA – When Mateo came forward on Dec. 20 with information that Camacho Figueroa told him about a plot to rob and kill Magana, Mateo was not considered a person of interest at the time, White said.

White also testified that the Magana residence was never investigated as a location where drugs were being sold from, even though more than $8,000 was found inside the home and 52 bags of marijuana in the attic after Magana’s death.

In fact, every article in the Observer Dispatch I found about a marijuana arrest this fall had to do with charges of marijuana possession in combination with some other crime, indicating to me that, at least in Utica, NY, to get charged with marijuana possession, you have to be doing other things wrong. Driving under the influence of alcohol or marijuana, possessing a loaded handgun, robbing or murdering someone.

(from the Albany Times Union)

BETHLEHEM—A noisy scooter ride led police to a suspected drug operation on a quiet suburban street.

Officers seized heroin, cocaine, marijuana, Ecstasy and pills along with $4,700 in cash, digital scales and a weapons cache on Sept. 27 after one of the residents at 7 Snowden Ave. irritated his neighbors by zipping around the avenue on the motor scooter, according to records filed on the case in Town Court.

(August, 2007) ALBANY – Skorupski was not alleged to have been a member of the [Jungle Junkies] gang, many of whose members were indicted under federal anti-racketeering statutes, also known as RICO. He was charged with participating with a related conspiracy to distribute crack, cocaine and marijuana in Arbor and West hills, where authorities said the gang held sway with shootings and other violence.

From the National Drug Intelligence Center:

Street gangs dominate marijuana distribution at the retail, or street, level. Hispanic gangs sell methamphetamine, PCP (phencyclidine), and occasionally crack cocaine in addition to marijuana. African American gangs such as the Crips and Bloods traffic not only in crack cocaine but also in marijuana. Some other street gangs selling marijuana in the district include the Insane Crip Gang and West Side Longos in Long Beach, Big Stanton in Orange County, and West Side Verdugo in San Bernardino County. Although street gangs control retail distribution, law enforcement reports individual dealers also are involved in street-level sales.

@Orin:

Your argument is well grounded but is straining under the weight of your own citations. You’ve provided a sampling of marijuana arrest reports and data from the NDIC that, at least as I’ve understood it, you’re using to show that marijuana’s already minimally enforced unless you are doing something else to draw attention to you (e.g., posession of a loaded weapon (and a crappy car), plotting robbery and/or murder, large-scale multi-drug dealing, or gang membership).

These outcomes, to varying degrees, can be traced back to the argument that Al and I have made that the “gateway” aspect of marijuana is its illegality, not its physical effects. The common thread of all of your citations is a subject who subscribes to a lawless lifestyle, one that’s been extensively glorified in the media. Examples abound, although my favorite is still Snoop Doggy Dogg, “smokin’ indo, sippin’ on gin and juice, laid back, with my mind on my money and my money on my mind”.

As a teenager, I (and many of my peers) had established a tiered concept of drugs in my mind. From lowest to highest, they ranked as follows – alcohol/tobacco, marijuana, psychedelics, and cocaine/heroin held the honored position of “wow, I’d never even think about doing something like that”. The appeal of marijuana was magnified by its illegality, some people I know who smoked pot did so before they’d had a cigarette or gotten drunk. Whether this was due to the appeal of “being bad”, or just the fact that in high school, it was often more accessible than beer or tobacco, would vary from person to person, but whatever the case it doesn’t affect my point…

At the moment I have no time to provide a source, but I have some recollection of reading an article that said in Amsterdam (the most notorious of the decriminalized societies) marijuana use among youths dropped and stayed lower after decriminalization. Much of the allure disappeared, and young people did not look at marijuana tourists stumbling out of coffee shops as role models. I think you can see how a crunchy stoner, stripped of his gangsta street cred, looks a little less attractive to a youngster.

I have to stop writing now, duty calls. Hopefully I can stop by later to patch up any holes you’ve punched in this response :) I ran out of time before I could circle back around to explain why limited enforcement (as opposed to formal decriminalization) fails to dampen the allure, but hopefully that becomes clear from the rest of the post.

“I personally believe that marijuana is only a “gateway drug” because it’s illegal. The gateway is in the line between following the law and not following the law, not the use of marijuana itself.”

I have a different “gateway” definition that changes the course of the discussion on the legalization of MJ.

I think marijuana is referred to as a gateway drug because it can often be considered to be a sort of “less harmful” drug that CAN lead to other serious life problems including heavy or excessive marijuana use, interfering with the user’s relationships, employment, academics, and/or other daily responsibilities. Marijuana use can also lead to exposure of other dangerous and addictive substances. A first-time marijuana user automatically becomes connected to a certain culture (i.e. the person/persons who provided the marijuana), a culture which regularly includes people who use different, dangerous, illicit substances. I hope we can all agree that the use of marijuana impairs one’s judgement, and when offered new drugs in this setting, marijuana can lead to new experiences with other drugs, unfortunately increasing the risk of addiction, serious personal injury or death immediately and/or indefinitely. Unfortunately, I have known people who did start out “innocently” using pot, and unfortunately spiraled out of control to the point of overdosing on other drugs and dying. Did marijuana kill them? I don’t know, but I certainly see it as more of a factor than I would have otherwise.

I probably sound like an exaggerated after-school special. The truth is that when I first glanced at the initial postings, I didn’t really see the big deal in legalizing marijuana in this country either, however considering the potential increase in marijuana use, I can confidently say that I think this would not be a good change for our country. I believe that drugs, including marijuana are illegal because they are dangerous. If asked to envision a world in which marijuana could be purchased with ease, and without legal repercussions I will tell you what I see:

I see that my (hypothetical) children would be MORE likely to be able to access marijuana…and what self-respecting person would want this to be the case? I hate the argument that children would not be part of the target market if pot was sold legally. Do you know any businesses who like to exclude ANY customer? People who sell things, including drugs, always want to make more money. Even if the sellers acquired those drugs legally, we cannot assume that they are otherwise law abiding citizens. Kids make mistakes…they’re kids and they are learning about life. They will find a way to get it, and legalizing marijuana would only give kids more potential opportunities for exposure to this drug, and by MY gateway definition, more risk at future problems. And kids these days will try anything…from what I am reading on the subject, “hard” drug use is frighteningly high in teenagers…If we want to talk about changes in our country…these are the kind of changes that need increased efforts. If you had a day to spend “changing the world,” pick from the two…educate a child on on how to say no to drugs, or lobby for the legalization of marijuana…can you really think of a good enough reason for the latter that doesn’t make you feel guilty about neglecting the former?

I fear that I could go on and on, but I’m sure you’re catching my point in all of this. And I wish you had asked you’re barflies which they tried first and why because I think it is unwise to assume anything when it comes to human behavior or addictions.

I have a one year old son, whom I adore more than just about anything else in this world. I know, I don’t suspect – I know that someday a time will come when my son will have the opportunity to try marijuana. I also know that his decision will be influenced less by me than the people he associates with at the time.

One of my prime motivations for seeking legalization for marijuana is wrapped tightly up in the fact that I am a parent.

If he does choose to smoke pot, I want the pot to be pot. I don’t want it laced with cocaine or PCP or any other drug my son may not have signed on to smoking.

But even more than that, if the police bust down the door while he’s holding the joint, I don’t want him to go to jail. I don’t want him to have a criminal record. I don’t want him sent off to county for the night because it’s too late for him to be arraigned. I don’t want him traumatized and marginalized just because he wanted to “lively up himself”. I don’t want him to experience what too many people have already.

I know I said that I was not going to post again, but I just found the statistics I had been looking for. Now, I know that someone is going to say that these statistics are irrelevant, and that I’m “muddying” the issue, but I disagree. If people who commit crimes do so more often under the influence of marijuana, then do we really want to broaden the scope of people who have access to it? If marijuana is dangerous, particularly in terms of increased incidences of child abuse or neglect, is legalization really that great of an idea just so kids can smoke dope without having to worry about calling their parents from jail?

Regarding marijuana being relatively harmless:

According to Table 7 of the U.S. Department of Justice Child Victims: Violent Offenders and Their Victims, 5.3% of all prison inmates serving time for a violent sexual crime against children had been under the influence of drugs at the time of their crime(s). 13.9% were under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. Of the 5.3% of inmates who admitted to being under the influence of illicit chemicals at the time of their offense, 5.2% of them were under the influence of marijuana. Compare that to 4.2% who were using cocaine, 1.4% who were using crack, and 1.2% who were using amphetamines at the time of their crime. Of inmates serving time for a violent assault against an adult, of the 10.9% who admitted that they were only under the influence of drugs (and not alcohol) at the time of their offense, 8.0% admitted to marijuana use. In both categories, marijuana constituted the primary drug used by violent offenders at the time the crimes were committed. From the study: “About a third of adult victimizers and a fifth of child victimizers said they were using drugs at the time of their offense. The most commonly reported drugs used by all violent offenders, regardless of victim age, were cocaine and marijuana.” Read the whole study here

Further, according to Treatment of Co-Occurring Child Maltreatment and Substance Abuse (Donahue et al., 2006)The Drug Abuse Treatment:

“The Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS) examined both men and women who entered a community based drug and alcohol treatment program and in a sample of mothers, cocaine was the drug of choice for 58%, heroine for 24%, alcohol/marijuana for 8%, and non-specified for 9% (Cash & Wilke, 2003). Mothers who were using cocaine or heroin were twice as likely to abuse and neglect their children compared to mothers who used other substances. Parental drug abuse has been shown to predict recurrence of child abuse and neglect (McDonald, 1990). Similarly, substance use of any type, either in the past, or presently occurring, appears to increase the likelihood of being reported for child maltreatment (Kelly, 2002).”

Also (same article):

One factor identified as “influencing the occurrence and exacerbation of child neglect, child physical abuse, and substance abuse” is that parents are “unaware of negative consequences of substance use, leading to lack of motivation to avoid substance use, e.g., being told by friends that negative consequences of marijuana are minimal.”

Regarding marijuana being a “gateway drug”:

“About 43 percent of people using marijuana before age 18 go on to use cocaine, and young persons between 12 and 17 who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than non-marijuana users.” (Columbia University Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, as reported in the Washington Post (12/13/94), “Use of Drugs by Teenagers Is Increasing,” Washington, D.C.)

I think it has been stated already and I think we can all agree that the appearance of marijuana in statistics of these people who exist in this illegal subculture is absolutely expected, it’s simply ubiquitous in those channels—it exists in our society as an illegal drug, therefore it exists in those illegal subcultures, so it is understood that it is always going to appear (in rather small percentages) in these sort of reports. I don’t see that mere existence in the percentages can result in one saying that it was a crucial player in crimes committed. And as for the percentages of its existence, the percentage of “alcohol/marijuana for 8%” in the Treatment of Co-Occurring Child Maltreatment and Substance Abuse rather refutes the point and clarifies the idea that marijuana is a irrelevant “minor player”. According to this statistic, it’s role is just as important as the legal drug of alcohol.

The classic problem of using statistical data is that it is always available to support the rather dismal aspects of society and culture. That is to say, not many gather statistics on how many adults smoke marijuana regularly and have two kids, a wife and a dog and are wildly successful on the stock market and at their job. It’s because those people simply aren’t “statistics”. I’m certain that if a study was done on pot smokers who didn’t become statistics then the result would certainly put up a winning challenge to the refute existing statistical results.

Besides, I heard that 48% of statistics are made up. ;)

I think it has been stated already and I think we can all agree that the appearance of marijuana in statistics of these people who exist in this illegal subculture is absolutely expected, it’s simply ubiquitous in those channels—it exists in our society as an illegal drug, therefore it exists in those illegal subcultures, so it is understood that it is always going to appear (in rather small percentages) in these sort of reports.

But that just isn’t true. If the argument is being made that marijuana is only “bad” because it is illegal, then no alternative argument posed against marijuana legalization is going to be appreciated. Do people only drive 85 miles per hour on the Thruway because they are lawless heathens who have been exposed to a criminal underworld of speeders and seatbelt rejectors? Are you proposing that people who smoke pot sexually abuse or neglect their children because they are exposed to a criminal underworld because they smoke pot?

The data I have presented above indicates a percentage of individuals who volunteered the information that they were under the influence of a mood-altering chemical when they committed their crime(s). The importance of that statistic is that people exhibit bad judgment when their heads are clouded by mood-altering chemicals. If you are arguing that these people only committed sexual or violent acts because of their association with the lawless counter-culture of pot smokers, then explain why a higher proportion of individuals in that study reported being under the influence of alcohol when they committed their crime. The association of alcohol with marijuana helps my argument, not harms it. Alcohol is an example of a legal mood-altering chemical that people use and commit crimes while they are under the influence of it. Therefore, their crimes are not committed because of an association with some sort of criminal underworld.

If mood-altering chemicals (legal and illegal) affect people’s judgment and lead to poor decision-making, why increase the supply, demand, and access of additional mood-altering chemicals when it is reasonable to assume based upon the evidence presented in the studies posted above that people will continue to make poor decisions when under the influence of mood-altering chemicals?

As far as the percentages involved, I think that the fact that they are low is irrelevant. The fact that they exist at all, that there is a pattern between substance abuse and child abuse, is the only important aspect. In fact, I thought that the percentages of inmates who admitted drug use at the time of their crime was particularly low – but marijuana use made up the highest percentage of any other illegal drug. The only drug that beat marijuana was alcohol, marijuana’s legal equivalent in the purposes of this discussion, and a good test statistic to measure marijuana legalization against. From my experience working in Child Protective Services, and even more from my experience investigating allegations of sexual abuse, substance abuse is not irrelevant, marijuana included. Do we really want to add to the country’s substance abuse problem by widening the availability of marijuana?

After doing a little catch up here, I think this thread is really great. I’ve flip-flopped a couple times and I’m right on the edge after being fairly convinced that legalization was a good idea at the beginning. I agree with both sides of the bar on more than a couple points.

I happen to feel that weed is a gateway drug more in the sense that it is an introduction to illicit activity. For young people especially, the people you “fall in with” go a very long way toward where your life will head. I’d rather have kids outside 7-11 harassing me to grab a joint for them when I go in to buy a six pack than have them drive downtown and and associate with professional criminals.

That said, I think we will see all sorts of problems arise if pot becomes more available to the general public, especially all at once. It certainly does cause behavioral thresholds to be lowered. People who are high are more likely to do any number of things that are are dangerous to themselves and others – be it speeding, trying to rail-grind down a two-story flight of stairs, or things far more sinister. People will get hurt, many people who don’t deserve it at all.

If you are thinking specifically about children who are being abused, anything that gets that threshold-lowering substance into the hands of the scum bags adults who are mistreating them is an absolute sin. I agree that legalization would do that. No matter how rare that scenario, is there anything that would be worth that?

It’s hard to say – but maybe. Stepping back from the individual situations some of us have witnessed first hand, a sin-tax on MJ would be a significant stream of new income for the government. The treatment and education programs that this income could pay for along with the possible benefit of decriminalization might actually result in a net gain. Do those balance sheets work out? I have no idea. And if they do, can we trust the government to manage all that money effectively. I have my doubts.

I’m left feeling like legalization may in fact be possible and beneficial in theory. But I doubt our government, as it stands, could pull it off in a way that actually results in a net gain, especially out of the gate.

This debate is, in fact, not about marijuana, or drugs at all. Those of us who favor legalization will not be swayed by facts that include: 1. There are at least 400 chemicals in marijuana smoke, many of which are toxic. 2. Euphoria is good for the user, but not necessarily for the family of the victim of a drug related car accident. 3. There are research proven short and long term medical problems associated with regular marijuana use. The counter arguements all revolve around other chemicals, namely alcohol and nicotine. 1. “So what, there are over 4000 chemicals in tobacco”. This is true, so because marijuana is “less dangerous”, we’ll legalize it? (in case no-one has noticed, despite the power of the tobacco lobby, the tobacco industry in this country is in it’s death throes, precisely because the product is so dangerous. This is hardly a case for legalization of marijuana) 2: “Alcohol causes traffic deaths, too.” How, exactly, does this statement justify legalizing another mood and perception altering drug? 3. Again, this counter arguement would be, no doubt, a comparison to the long term effects of those other two boogeymen, alcohol and tobacco. Ok, so there is not yet a proven link between marijuana and cancer, and marijuana won’t cause cirrhosis. But the treatment costs, in real dollars, insurance costs, lost wages, etc, for “lesser” health problems certainly counter the facile arguements of increased revenue through regulation.

Now, on to the real issue: form of government. We’re really arguing about whether government should have a vested interest in the safety of the citizenry, and how that interest is exercised, or whether a government should look the other way and let people alone. Libertarians, democrats, socialists, totalitarians, fascists, csarists, theocrats: make your case, but the challenge is to make the case philosophically, not with sophomoric comparisons.

Socialial chnage is a tuff and long proccess

I as a parent of three kids 2 teenagers and well let’s face it I know a little about this topic I have to weigh in.

I am constantly blown away by the governments need to regulate in some areas and leave others alone. Alcohol and tobacco are far more destructive drugs than Marijuana could ever be. So set aside the legalize or not ,the larger issue is our societies inability to take responsibility for its own actions.

I grew up in a house hold that allowed drinking after the age of 13, OH MY GOD people say. But I tell you that my experiences with over indulging later in life , college and high school were 0. Now that’s not to say there are situations this could turn out badly, but mine was one of education and control. My parents my family took responsibility for that choice and in my opinion it is one that is simple and more realistic.

I truly believe we as society are creating our own issue over these laws because we are constantly blaming others for our own actions, I am fat so its McDonalds Fault, Video games cause violence, and on and on. OMG it drives me nuts, on one hand we want to be responsible for our own actions and be able to smoke pot, and have government stay out of our private life, then we (society) turnaround and blame everyone for our dumb ass mistakes.

Ok so I am done ranting, I am for legalization of Marijuana, but frankly our country would go through a significant transition period to adjust. Amsterdam has been handling these issue for decades and there society has learned to accommodate those social aspects.

Any way cool topic

Here’s an interesting take on the topic (from the platform of the American Socialist Party):

“We call for the decriminalization of drug use and the regulation of narcotics by doctors through the use of prescriptions rather than by the criminal justice system.”

It doesn’t change my mind on the topic, as I still believe that we ought to be promoting sobriety and good decision-making above legalization of dangerous substances, but I like the idea of physician control rather than government regulation similar to that of alcohol and tobacco.

From the premise that marijuana and alcohol are similar in their mood altering and addictive impacts, we have only to look back at our history of prohibition to find some correlation to this issue. Without regulation on the production of alcohol, moonshiners often produced a dangerous drink. It was an underground culture that required protection and therefore, encouraged violence. When we decided as a society to legalize alcohol, we decided that we would 1-protect our citizens through standardizing the production and quality of the product and 2-accept a preference to deal with the issues of alcohol abuse in a societal rather than legal way. We see similar issues by not legalizing marijuana. The association to weapons is a by-product of the illegality, not a result of impairment as a result of using the product. I don’t accept the concept that marijuana is a gateway drug, but do believe that some of the population have innate addictive propensities that apply to any drug use. I do believe that there are some drugs that render most users immediately addicted and so am not of the opinion that anything goes. But believe we can better channel our legal and enforcement resources to drugs of that potential danger. I am in favor of legalizing marijuana and allowing personal responsibility to manage appropriate use of the drug. Legalization allows for a safer product and eliminates the violence of the subculture. It releases our prison system to more appropriately handle more serious crimes. However, there should be laws enacted to deal with abuse similar to laws regarding the abuse of alcohol. And again accept that we would prefer to handle addiction in a societal way.

So – I tried to do a little research about the possible sin taxes on regulated marijuana might provide. And by research, I mean I spent 45 minutes Googling. So obviously there are no such statistics to be found, but I was curious as to the situation with alcohol and tobacco. From what I could find, it wasn’t too encouraging. In both cases the total tax income is fairly dwarfed by the societal costs of treating the problems they cause. Shouldn’t be a surprise, I guess. According to some things I read, average income non-drinkers and non-smokers are paying up to several hundred dollars per year so others have the right to indulge their habits.

So yeah, I know the argument could be made that marijuana could be taxed at a higher rate, or that many stats point out that marijuana is less damaging than either alcohol or tobacco. I’m not saying that the numbers are in, just that it isn’t looking good to me.

“Where’s the good news?” you ask. Well, one article I found suggested that society’s net loss with smokers isn’t as great as the numbers might first indicate. It seems that many heavy smokers who pay the very most sin tax from all those packs are the ones that never make it to old age to collect pensions, health-care and various other social benefits. They’re putting money in our pockets. That said, I propose we skip weed (which, lets face it, never killed anybody outright) and start legalizing and regulating only the drugs sure to kill you: Meth, crack, H, etc.

Here’s an interesting set of statistics:

Forget about alcohol prohibition analogies. In the mid-70’s, Alaska changed state legislation by decriminalizing marijuana, in that adults could legally possess marijuana for personal use in their homes. A study conducted roughly ten years after the introduction of the legislation showed that those crazy Alaskan teenagers were using marijuana at more than twice the national average, and that over fifty percent of Alaskan teens admitted to smoking dope. In 1990, Alaska voted to repeal the legalized possession of marijuana.

While I agree that most people deserve to make choices, I also believe that we as a nation are not ready for the government to stop holding our hands about certain things. Substance abuse is one of those things. I foresee a particularly dangerous impact of drug legalization on teenagers, and although I acknowledge that marijuana is not the most dangerous substance in the world, and that many pot smokers are fine, upstanding people, marijuana is dangerous, and some pot smokers aren’t. I don’t feel comfortable with the idea that we ought to add another potentially harmful chemical to the mass market simply because other potentially harmful chemicals are already there, or because people ought to have the legal choice to harm themselves and their families.

It is one thing to argue for legal adult use. I think that it is quite another thing to advocate for increased teenage use. Unfortunately, I don’t see how the two can be separated.

Maybe drug dealers would get respectable jobs if marijuana were legalized tomorrow…but they’d be hard-pressed to find pay comparable to $200/ounce. I reject the premise that legalization of one drug “eliminates” the violence of the drug sub-culture. I also reject the premise that regulatory measures lead to safer products. Although government regulations may mean that 7-11 weed isn’t laced with cocaine, I’m willing to bet that demand for that sort of thing wouldn’t disappear with legalization. And if demand doesn’t disappear, well…you know the rest. That of course is without any mention of how safe alcohol and cigarettes are because of government regulations. Finally, I reject the premise that marijuana legalization would purge the prison system and allow time and space for the handling of more serious crimes. According to the DEA, more than 70% of people in prison for marijuana charges are there because of the involvement in large-scale distribution operation. Often, distribution operations are gang-affiliated and violent. Simple possession is a minor misdemeanor, associated with a small fine in most states. And, as I’ve already pointed out, people smoking dope in their living rooms needn’t worry about the FBI crashing through their front doors unless they are already involved with other, more serious criminal activities.

That said, medical marijuana is a completely separate issue. I am in favor of medically-prescribed marijuana for people who are afflicted with illness that can be treated with marijuana, for pain reduction or whatever else.

Also, here’s an interesting question: If marijuana were legalized tomorrow, where would all of the pot needed to meet the demand come from? Will the government buy pot from international criminal drug rings? Will the government establish gigantic pot plantations in the pacific northwest?

I have much more confidence that the majority of people have the capacity to self regulate and act responsibly. And anyway, at least our substance abusers would be less violent.

Orin may have inadvertently found the good reason we were challenged to find – being a teenager in alaska during the 1970s. don’t know how much talking I’ll be doin over the next couple of days..gotta get working on the traditional family feast..turkey pot pie, brownies, bathtub gin and smokes.