Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: On 40th Anniversary of “War on Drugs,” Cops Release Report Showing its Failure; World Leaders Encourage Drug Legalization

[Madison Redskin]

Never Smoked tobacco (stuff is gross IMHO), prescription drugs are not the same as Meth,Heroin,Sherm, PCP, Crack and even the2 watt light bulbs know you are not talking about using illegal drugs for medicinal purposes.

At least pot usage doesn't lead to side effects like mood swings, incontinence, anal leakage, erections that last for hours (which actually sounds kinda awesome) and in some cases death. Can you say the same for prescription drugs?

[GhostofSparta]

I know a crap load of pot smokers who are certainly not hippies....Doctors....

And these doctor friends of yours, they often do bong hits all night right before major brain surgery, yes? Or do they only control themselves because as of yet it's still not legal to perform surgery while high? Or are they dentists who are going to kill themselves?

[mardi gras skin]

according to that map... pot is decriminalized in Iran.. who knew??

Mississippi, too. So here's what I found:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/mjleg1.htm

Mississippi is a state that has decriminalized marijuana possession, meaning that a first offense for possession for personal useage cannot include prison time or a criminal record. Instead, it is treated much like a traffic violation. For possession of marijuana with a total weight of less than or equal to an ounce, the fine is $100 to $250. From one ounce up to a kilogram, however, the fine goes to $1,000 and jail time for a year can be served. A kilogram or over can give the possessor up to 20 years and a fine from $1,000 to $1,000,000. For sale or delivery of less than one ounce of marijuana, the criminal can be jailed for up to three years and face fines for $3,000. For amounts greater than or equal to an ounce, the jail time jumps to up to 20 years and the fines to $30,000.

Amounts greater than or equal to a kilogram entail jail time for up to 30 years and fines from $100,000 to $1,000,000. If the possessor has over ten pounds, the punishment is life in prison without parole. In addition, the punishment for any sale to a minor and sale within 1,500 feet of a school will both double the punishment.

So decriminalization isn't exactly what I thought it was.

[ixcuincle]

So much sarcasm in here which tears apart any anti-drug argument

Good job all

[alexey]

One decent argument against legalization of pot is that such an action would communicate implicit endorsment of pot smoking by society.

Pot may not be as chemically addictive as other drugs, but it does seem to carry a significant risk of behavioral addiction, long term lifestyle changes, etc... especially when combined with TV

I am not saying that current approach is effective. I just want to highlight that pot is a much more dangerous drug than many would like to believe.

[ixcuincle]

One decent argument against legalization of pot is that such an action would communicate implicit endorsment of pot smoking by society.

Don't see how this is a bad thing.

Pot may not be as chemically addictive as other drugs, but it does seem to carry a significant risk of behavioral addiction, long term lifestyle changes, etc... especially when combined with TV

Don't know how pot is addictive. We're told a lot of things about pot. Pot is "ADDICTIVE" or pot is a "gateway drug" (my favorite, considering potheads mainly stick to pot and don't explore harder drugs)

I am not saying that current approach is effective. I just want to highlight that pot is a much more dangerous drug than many would like to believe.

Basically go check out Katt William's pot sketch. It's 100% accurate.

[alexey]

Don't see how this is a bad thing.

Do you think that pot smoking should be encouraged by society?

Don't know how pot is addictive. We're told a lot of things about pot. Pot is "ADDICTIVE" or pot is a "gateway drug" (my favorite, considering potheads mainly stick to pot and don't explore harder drugs)

If you don't know, do your research.

Yes govt has put out a lot of misinformation about pot over the years. imho they did a much better job with the "above the inflluence" campaign. But yes there is a lot of misinformation out there. Do your research please.

Basically go check out Katt William's pot sketch. It's 100% accurate.

Sorry I have no interest in arguing with a sketch. If you'd like to make a point, please do.

[GhostofSparta]

Do you think that pot smoking should be encouraged by society?

No, but neither should alcohol, which is much worse for you and for society than pot. Yet Budweiser gets to advertise during the Super Bowl. And I remember reading a few studies in college saying alcohol is worse for you both short and long term than THC.

[alexey]

No, but neither should alcohol, which is much worse for you and for society than pot. Yet Budweiser gets to advertise during the Super Bowl. And I remember reading a few studies in college saying alcohol is worse for you both short and long term than THC.

This is certainly true for excessive amounts of alcohol... but there is data pointing at health benefits of moderate amounts of alcohol, however, and the societal impact is of moderate alcohol intake is not clearly negative. Yeah you have college students getting ****faced... but there are also people who are gently sipping red wine at art shows and stuff like that

I would argue that societal imact of pot is clearly negative, unless we are talking about marginal cases of using pot for pain relief, stimulating of appetite while in chemo, and maybe stimulating some artistic impulses Still, I would argule that that in most cases pot causes a huge waste of human potential.

[Prosperity]

Do you think that pot smoking should be encouraged by society?

yes, in some contexts

I would argue that societal imact of pot is clearly negative, unless we are talking about marginal cases of using pot for pain relief, stimulating of appetite while in chemo, and maybe stimulating some artistic impulses Still, I would argule that that in most cases pot causes a huge waste of human potential.

why is drinking wine and talking about pretentious **** at your local museum of modern art somehow a net positive (even when taking drunk driving, and college students into account)

but smoking pot and talking about the philosophy of cheetos is somehow "clearly negative"

your post basically boils down to "I like art and wine, so nah nah nah boo boo"

[alexey]

yes, in some contexts

Most things are yes in some contexts.

why is drinking wine and talking about pretentious **** at your local museum of modern art somehow a net positive (even when taking drunk driving, and college students into account)

but smoking pot and talking about the philosophy of cheetos is somehow "clearly negative"

your post basically boils down to "I like art and wine, so nah nah nah boo boo"

Depends on how you boil it.

When you are drinking alcohol, you are not necessarily talking about pretentious ****. I should have picked a hypothetical that does not invoke associations of pretentiousness. Let's say engineers are discussing a new approach over a beer.

I'm not saying that somebody who is smoking pot and discussing cheetos is doing a bad thing. I am saying that that person is wasting human potential.

[Bang]

Making something legal isn't encouraging it.

Prohibition taught nothing. All it created was criminals. That's it.

It didn't stop anyone from drinking. It just created criminals to provide it.

When it was repealed we didn't become a nation of drunks, and if we repeal prohibition against pot we won't suddenly be over-run with stoners.

I also think that the stereotype of the typical 'stoner' pot smoker isn't true either. I've known maybe three people like that, and all of them were when I was in HS.

Nowadays the typcal smoker sells insurance, or works in the cubicle next to you, or owns his own business, etc.

I know and have known a lot of pot smokers since I've become an adult. And NONE of them are the typical lazy lay-around-and-do-nothing-but-watch-TV types. Jeff Spicoli almost always manages to grow up, even if he keeps smoking.

Some drugs i am firmly against legalizing,, some things are just too dangerous.

~Bang

[Prosperity]

Most things are yes in some contexts.

so what?

Most things are yes in some contexts.

Depends on how you boil it.

When you are drinking alcohol, you are not necessarily talking about pretentious ****. I should have picked a hypothetical that does not invoke associations of pretentiousness. Let's say engineers are discussing a new approach over a beer.

I'm not saying that somebody who is smoking pot and discussing cheetos is doing a bad thing. I am saying that that person is wasting human potential.

my point is you are using baseless stereotypes, the same way that not all winos drink wine and pretend that some dadaist POS has any meaning, not all people smoke pot and talk about cheetos

but I can see how you formed that prejudice, the fact that pot is illegal (in most places) means respectable members of society have to do it under the table so to speak... and since clearly, you don't smoke pot regularly, or associate with any upstanding pot smokers (that you know of) you associate with pot the idiotic stereotypes that you are familiar with.

The contributions of pot to our music alone has cemented it as an integral part of our culture.

Of course you may argue all those upstanding citizens could be even more upstanding if they didn't smoke pot, but such arguments are almost impossible to really evaluate. I could easily say the same thing about those imaginary engineers you spoke of (with respect to alcohol)

[ACW]

Marijuana ALSO has proven medical benefits.

[da#1skinsfan]

Pros:

Tax revenue

Eliminates underground drug trade saving who knows how many lives

No prison time for folks not deserving (this is an opinion, certainly) so more room in jails for real criminals

Medicinal benefits embraced

True education can be spread about marijuana instead of just "oh drugs are bad, its a drug!" that we teach kids today (vs responsibility, accountability, etc)

Marijuana becomes harder to access for kids (yes HARDER, believe it)

Cons:

Potential for people to get high and perform their jobs, endangering others

Potential for people to drive while high

Gateway drug leading to other harsher drugs (opinion, and not mine, personally)

So tell me - the pros are very much real...as for the cons (which are also real) - how are the cons any different than those related to the legalization of alcohol? Oh wait...alcohol impairs your senses and decision making even WORSE than marijuana. Thats the difference.

That same school bus driver can just have "a few drinks" before he goes to work, isnt that the same thing? And he can do that right now.

[alexey]

Making something legal isn't encouraging it.

Legalizing because pot is a safe and harmless substancece may encourage it. Legalizing because criminalization and prosecution are not effective in dealing with it, may not.

Prohibition taught nothing. All it created was criminals. That's it.

It didn't stop anyone from drinking. It just created criminals to provide it.

When it was repealed we didn't become a nation of drunks, and if we repeal prohibition against pot we won't suddenly be over-run with stoners.

Alcohol is a very different substance with a very different history, social standing, etc. Also note that I am not for prohibition, and I am not worried about being over-run with stoners. My main argument is that the danger of pot is frequently underestimated, and that careless legalization can exacerbate this situation.

I also think that the stereotype of the typical 'stoner' pot smoker isn't true either. I've known maybe three people like that, and all of them were when I was in HS.

Nowadays the typcal smoker sells insurance, or works in the cubicle next to you, or owns his own business, etc.

I know and have known a lot of pot smokers since I've become an adult. And NONE of them are the typical lazy lay-around-and-do-nothing-but-watch-TV types. Jeff Spicoli almost always manages to grow up, even if he keeps smoking.

Everybody is different and to each their own...

I am not coming from the typical "stoner" stereotype. Yeah there are plenty of professionals, business owners, etc who smoke every day. In many ways they are different from your standard stoner stereotype. In many ways they are also different from non-smokers... and there are similarities between all daily pot smokers.

[da#1skinsfan]

Legalizing because pot is a safe and harmless substancece may encourage it. Legalizing because criminalization and prosecution are not effective in dealing with it, may not.

Alcohol is a very different substance with a very different history, social standing, etc. Also note that I am not for prohibition, and I am not worried about being over-run with stoners. My main argument is that the danger of pot is frequently underestimated, and that careless legalization can exacerbate this situation.

Everybody is different and to each their own...

I am not coming from the typical "stoner" stereotype. Yeah there are plenty of professionals, business owners, etc who smoke every day. In many ways they are different from your standard stoner stereotype. In many ways they are also different from non-smokers... and there are similarities between all daily pot smokers.

This is a very "playing the fence" type post (especially the last part.....so the "good" smokers are different than the "bad stoners" and they are also different from the non-smokers...and there are also similarities" - duh! ) but the part about careless legalization is no doubt on point - marijuana is a mind-altering substance...like alcohol, and like other legal drugs or substances that in certain doses affect behavior and judgement....and it should be treated as such through legalization as you allude to.

[da#1skinsfan]

double post

[alexey]

my point is you are using baseless stereotypes, the same way that not all winos drink wine and pretend that some dadaist POS has any meaning, not all people smoke pot and talk about cheetos

but I can see how you formed that prejudice, the fact that pot is illegal (in most places) means respectable members of society have to do it under the table so to speak... and since clearly, you don't smoke pot regularly, or associate with any upstanding pot smokers (that you know of) you associate with pot the idiotic stereotypes that you are familiar with.

The contributions of pot to our music alone has cemented it as an integral part of our culture.

Of course you may argue all those upstanding citizens could be even more upstanding if they didn't smoke pot, but such arguments are almost impossible to really evaluate. I could easily say the same thing about those imaginary engineers you spoke of (with respect to alcohol)

Contributions of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are also cemented as an integral part of our culture... but yes you do have a point. Pot smoking does not automatically disquality you from being able to make meaningful contributions in some areas.

When you smoke pot, you reduce some capacities of your brain. When you smoke pot all the time, your brain adjusts to these reduced capacities. This adjustment changes your personality. This is not an argument from authority. You cannot discredit this by claiming that I didn't smoke enough myself, that I don't know enough smokers, or that I am prejudiced.

[elkabong82]

This is a very "playing the fence" type post (especially the last part.....so the "good" smokers are different than the "bad stoners" and they are also different from the non-smokers...and there are also similarities" - duh! ) but the part about careless legalization is no doubt on point - marijuana is a mind-altering substance...like alcohol, and like other legal drugs or substances that in certain doses affect behavior and judgement....and it should be treated as such through legalization as you allude to.

I would expect it to have the same laws as alcohol if legalized. Age limit, can't drive under it's influence (though it just makes you drive slow as ****), can only purchase at certain hours, etc.

---------- Post added June-18th-2011 at 02:58 PM ----------

Contributions of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are also cemented as an integral part of our culture... but yes you do have a point. Pot smoking does not automatically disquality you from being able to make meaningful contributions in some areas.

When you smoke pot, you reduce some capacities of your brain. When you smoke pot all the time, your brain adjusts to these reduced capacities. This adjustment changes your personality. This is not an argument from authority. You cannot discredit this by claiming that I didn't smoke enough myself, that I don't know enough smokers, or that I am prejudiced.

Who says the change is always bad? Not saying that's what you are suggesting exactly, but it does come off that way.

[alexey]

This is a very "playing the fence" type post (especially the last part.....so the "good" smokers are different than the "bad stoners" and they are also different from the non-smokers...and there are also similarities" - duh! ) but the part about careless legalization is no doubt on point - marijuana is a mind-altering substance...like alcohol, and like other legal drugs or substances that in certain doses affect behavior and judgement....and it should be treated as such through legalization as you allude to.

Yeah I don't know the right answer, but I certainly agree that our current approach is not working.

As for "good" and "bad" stoners, as you put it... I think that these "good" stoners tend to be talented people. Talented people have more to lose by becoming stoners, but they are also better able to function, be professional, and maintain a seemingly normal life while smoking daily.

---------- Post added June-18th-2011 at 03:03 PM ----------

Who says the change is always bad? Not saying that's what you are suggesting exactly, but it does come off that way.

I'm not saying that change is always bad... smoking can have benefits... but i'd say that in most cases daily pot smoking would cause destructive changes.

[Madison Redskin]

Alcohol is a very different substance with a very different history, social standing, etc. Also note that I am not for prohibition, and I am not worried about being over-run with stoners. My main argument is that the danger of pot is frequently underestimated, and that careless legalization can exacerbate this situation.

Alcohol is indeed a very different substance. Unlike marijuana, alcohol is both physically and psychologically addictive, can incapacitate and even kill people, tends to make many people violent, substantially impairs motor skills, and is linked to thousands upon thousands of rapes, deaths, car wrecks, etc. every year. The problems associated with alcohol consumption far exceed the problems associated with marijuana use.

The principal problems associated with marijuana use stem from the laws that criminalize marijuana, including the enormous cost to prosecute and incarcerate users and dealers of marijuana and turf wars between gangs dealing marijuana. That's not to say I exonerate those who use or deal marijuana from responsibility for their actions. I am simply arguing that, as a practical matter, there are very real costs that flow from the criminalization of marijuana use and distribution. Moreover, other problems associated with marijuana use (e.g., decreased worker productivity) do not justify the cost taxpayers incur in connection with the criminalization of marijuana.

Finally, as a general matter, the reach of the government's arm should extend no further than is necessary to mitigate real threats/costs to society. Here, the government's reach extends far beyond that which is necessary to mitigate the threats/costs to society posed by marijuana use. Reasonable restrictions on use are fine (e.g., no driving under the influence). Flat prohibitions are simply ridiculous.

[Hubbs]

Great, now people are arguing with alexey, too. All he's doing is hitting you with facts. When you smoke pot once, it reduces your brain functions for a little while. When you drink alcohol once, it prevents cancer and makes your dick two inches bigger. When you smoke pot all the time, it reduces your brain functions all the time. When you drink alcohol all the time, you develop X-ray vision and are granted diplomatic immunity in 87 countries. It's simple science.

[elkabong82]

Yeah I don't know the right answer, but I certainly agree that our current approach is not working.

As for "good" and "bad" stoners, as you put it... I think that these "good" stoners tend to be talented people. Talented people have more to lose by becoming stoners, but they are also better able to function, be professional, and maintain a seemingly normal life while smoking daily.

---------- Post added June-18th-2011 at 03:03 PM ----------

I'm not saying that change is always bad... smoking can have benefits... but i'd say that in most cases daily pot smoking would cause destructive changes.

I'd say its completely dependant on the person, when they started, and if they have the self-control for moderation as to whether or not the changes are destructive.

[da#1skinsfan]

Alcohol is indeed a very different substance. Unlike marijuana, alcohol is both physically and psychologically addictive, can incapacitate and even kill people, tends to make many people violent, substantially impairs motor skills, and is linked to thousands upon thousands of rapes, deaths, car wrecks, etc. every year. The problems associated with alcohol consumption far exceed the problems associated with marijuana use.

The principal problems associated with marijuana use stem from the laws that criminalize marijuana, including the enormous cost to prosecute and incarcerate users and dealers of marijuana and turf wars between gangs dealing marijuana. That's not to say I exonerate those who use or deal marijuana from responsibility for their actions. I am simply arguing that, as a practical matter, there are very real costs that flow from the criminalization of marijuana use and distribution. Moreover, other problems associated with marijuana use (e.g., decreased worker productivity) do not justify the cost taxpayers incur in connection with the criminalization of marijuana.

Finally, as a general matter, the reach of the government's arm should extend no further than is necessary to mitigate real threats/costs to society. Here, the government's reach extends far beyond that which is necessary to mitigate the threats/costs to society posed by marijuana use. Reasonable restrictions on use are fine (e.g., no driving under the influence). Flat prohibitions are simply ridiculous.

Really well said.

When you take that same thought process and apply it to alcohol, you realize something is seriously wrong with the way these two substances are controlled today - how one can be readily available when the other is shunned is amazing. Either make them both illegal, or control both. I have not once heard a rational argument as to why alcohol should remain legal while marijuana is illegal. One can easily argue they both should be illegal, or both legal, but never have I heard a reasonable point to justify the current state.