> In an online press conference with his younger supporters, the first question was about whether legalising and taxing pot would be a good thing to help raise revenues.
That was Reddit.
It seems insane that our last three presidents admitted to smoking weed yet thousands upon thousands of people are languishing in jail for doing the same thing. Cognitive dissonance much?
The Release charity in the UK has a campaign called "Nice People Take Drugs", which aims to change drug policy to harm reduction and remove the stigma associated with drug use. One of their promotional tools is a deck of cards, each featuring a politician known to be tough on drugs, subtitled with a confessional quote of drug use from their youth:
I understand your point, although I would say that the speed limit is rather more directly related to harm to others.
My view is that young people will refuse to be lectured on the dangers of drugs by politicians who themselves enjoyed drugs during their youth. Unless that politician's got some kind of personal horror story, such as "heroin killed my entire family", then their opinion will not carry much weight. Kids look at them, see a bunch of basically privileged people that had a wild time and enjoyed all sorts of illegal drugs at college, and then packed it all in when they finally got a good job. This is not a great platform to preach from. Young people ask, "if they can do it, why can't I?"
Not particularly. Driving at 80mph on motorways, where the limit is 70, is not dangerous. Motorways are the safest roads about. Majority of deaths happen on the quieter windier roads near peoples houses.
There's a pretty clear evidence based case for raising the limit to 80, since everyone drives at it anyway, but doing so could be unpopular. So it's reasonably similar.
(Incidentally the refernce speed for German motorways is 130 km/h or pretty much 80 mph. Driving faster or slower is no misdemeanor or felony, but may increase liability.)
That quote seems absolutely insane, the most egregious out of all of them. I searched and can't find a reference for it, though. I'm surprised that Thomas supports the power of the DEA created by the executive branch given its clear unconstitutionality.
Funny that The Times are running anti-prohibition articles during this whole furore about the sacking of David Nutt. They can't be a happy bunch at the Home Office this weekend.
The war on drugs has always been a failure: there has been no measureable decline in usage. Legalization will eliminate a dangerous black market and free our law enforcement to focus on more serious crime. Most importantly - legalization will no longer label hundreds of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens "criminals" for enjoying a substance that humans have been using for as long as we can tell.
I support legalization of pot in the U.S., but I don't think it's going to happen like the article's title predicts.
What will happen, and the article alludes to it, is a mish-mash of conflicting state and local laws that legalize or decriminalize pot to various degrees. The federal government will continue to be a wild card. Wholesale legalization is not in the cards.
That's because the way pot was made illegal was illegal to begin with. When alcohol was made illegal, it took a constitutional amendment. Ever wonder why? After all, they tried making alcohol illegal other ways and the courts threw it out. The government got tired of all that constitutional stuff and decided that in the future substances would be regulated by administrative fiat. The DEA maintains a list which it adds and subtracts items whenever it feels like it. No president is going to completely pull something like pot from the list -- too much political hassle what with getting into why the list exists in the first place. Instead pot will be ignored to some degree, leaving the same big constitutional problem we had to start with to fester for decades.
So the real news is that the people are tired of pot criminal laws, state and local governments are responding to them, and the federal government, having taken on itself to tell people what they can ingest or not, is stuck with a big bag of laws that don't meet the people's needs any more. That could take 50 years or more to work out (if ever).
I was approached by a friend who wanted to do a dispensary locator app for the iPhone and my thoughts were: "No way Apple will EVER let that through!" - he called me the other day to tell me about an app that got through...
The reality is that states are going to be asserting their rights against Federal ability.
This is happening in gun-related issues as well, with Montana and Ohio, at the least, considering the passage of laws that ignore the BATF if the gun is produced in and sold in the state. This gets around the interstate commerce clause used by the Feds to claim jurisdiction.
All the guff about having legit medical purposes makes it safe for legalisation :) (how many other drugs are used for medical purposes that are not legal generally; pain medication for example)
And the other thing about it being less harmful than alcohol (which is more of a case for banning alcohol really ;)).
Round and round we go :)
It's important to remember that by that Alcohol and Tobacco is NOT at all safe - it causes society and individuals no end of problems. Do we want to add another drug to that mess :P
It's important to consider everything in perspective rather than just go with either the govt. line or the supposed experts line (for example we have one here in the UK on record saying ecstasy is no more dangerous than horse riding - which might be statistically true but, as most here will appreciate, is just sensationalism that ignores the obvious problems :D)
EDIT: I should point out I am biased; one of my friends was killed after smoking marijuana and driving and another friend is now a dribbling wreck after 10 years regular smoking (one of the smartest people I know now has the intelligence of a 15 year old). I dont see how these problems wont be multiplied :)
But those pain meds are not listed on the DEA's Schedule I of drugs with high potential for abuse and no medical purposes. And therefore, those pain meds ARE legal (with a prescription), research can widely be done on them and variants, etc.
Alcohol and tobacco are not safe. Neither are red meat, fugu, skydiving, unpasteurized cheese, automobiles, bicycles, and 100s of other things (even including water!), that I'd prefer the freedom to enjoy if I choose, and for science to have the freedom to research.
I'm long past the point in my life where I'm likely to develop a drug problem. My 7 month old daughter is still too young, but I honestly WANT her to grow up in a world where the government exerts less control and influence than it does now. Do I hope she smokes weed when she grows up? Ideally not, but I want that choice to be hers, not mine, yours or the government's.
Add another drug? Millions of people already smoke pot in America today, and legalising it will only make it safer.
EDIT: Also, I feel sorry about your friends, but it is my view that this is not what happens with the majority of the users, and the laws should adapt to that reality.
Unfortunately no it wont. The 2 places it has been tried the experiment failed reasonably badly (portugal and amsterdam). There certainly wasnt an outbreak of drug deaths - but the situation didnt improve as much as people tend to claim.
(sorry this is no place to have the discussion :) Ill shaddup)
EDIT: thanks for the condolences. Unfortunately I disgree; through them I explored (but never joined thankfully) the drugs sub culture in Leeds (UK). If that is in anyway representative, and I see no reason to suspect otherwise, this is the norm.
I also have a friend in his 40's who grows his own drugs and is fairly well adjusted (if a little air headed and often stoned). From my experience, though, he is the exception not the rule.
How did it fail, exactly? According to Wikipedia, drug use in the Netherlands is lower than America's in every possible category. The number of drug-related deaths in the Netherlands is lower than the EU average. The Dutch Government is able to help 90% of the drug users that seek help. Sorry, can't see that as 'failure'.
Legalization makes marijuana (and other drugs) safer for a lot of reasons:
1. You could buy pot from government-controlled places, where quality of the drug is guaranteed (no fillers!).
2. Users whom drug intake become problematic can legitimately seek help, which is more unlikely if your drug of choice is illegal and stigmatized in your society.
3. You don't have to get into illegal, dangerous drug trade in order to get your drug of choice. You can buy pot in the nearest coffee shop, safely (for example).
That surely happened in the Netherlands. I fail to see it as failure. What I see as failure is the growth of a culture that condemns drug use, as if it is something absurd and immoral, when in fact it _isn't_. People has been smoking pot world-wide, for thousands of years, without causing harm to others.
I could go on and on about the immorality and degenerating effects on society caused by the _drug war_, which is much more damaging than drug use itself, but I think I'll stop here.
EDIT: I'd like to make clear that, although a pot smoker myself, I don't think using drugs is inherently good or bad. In fact, in most cases, it can be (very) bad. But the fact is that people do drugs and will always do drugs, most without major bad consequences for themselves and others. Drug use is a fact in most societies (if not all), and that being so, it would be better that we manage it the best way we can. Criminalizing it certainly is not the best way (probably the worse).
Yes the drug use is lower; what they never say is that it was lower anyway. And is still comparable to other EU countries with much much stricter drugs laws. Also they are not the lowest in the EU.
I do feel like points 2 and 3 could be fixed without legalising.
Point 1 is something I dont feel would happen anyway; it would have to be opened up to companies (and taxed). Which potentially ends up legitimising the drugs gangs :)
could go on and on about the immorality and degenerating effects on society caused by the _drug war_, which is much more damaging than drug use itself, but I think I'll stop here.
This is a dangerous argument; Im not sure legalising drugs would stop all that. Firstly because there are plenty of other drugs. And secondly because there is no way they would let the drugs be legalised without a fight.
These are serious, organised and very rich gangs.
------
I should also ask if you've been to Amsterdam; they are very strict about smoking on the street. And possibly stricter on drinking in the street. A large number of the coffee shops have been closed down too (and they are by no means "safe" in the way you suggest).
Yes, of course there are countries with a lot lower drug use rate. But I bet this is a cultural thing. It is a fact that the drug war has negligible effects on controlling drug use. It failed completely in the US, for example: drug use didn't go down in general just because it's illegal. In the Netherlands, when pot was decriminalized, the percentage of people doing it didn't fluctuate much, as you pointed out. That makes me believe that making drugs legal or illegal won't do much for controlling drug use.
I'm sorry for not citing any sources for the info I provided here, but one can always Google it.
About point 1:
People have distorted views about marijuana traffic in the US: a lot of it is made by middle-class citizens, who grow their own pot and sell to friends (specially in California). This is absolutely non-violent.
Unfortunately, because of current drug laws, the great majority of the drugs still come from violent, armed drug cartels. Unfortunately, that violent nature of drug trade is unlikely to change for some drugs (like cocaine), since so much dirty money is made from it.
Yes, there are very serious, very rich, very organized drug cartels. Many politicians and other powerful people are involved with drug money, and the drug cartels' influence in world politics is enormous. That is the main reason why drugs are still illegal. Legalizing drugs is not appreciable by the giant, violent drug cartels. It is only appreciable by the users themselves, and should be appreciable by the whole society (which unfortunately is not the case, since the big media successfully makes it's case for keeping drugs illegal).
If drugs were legal from the start, today it would be probably be taxed and opened up to companies like any other business. No problems with that!
Well, about points 2 and 3, I very strongly feel that they are inherently associated with drug legalization.
I do agree that legalizing drugs is very hard to legalize. That is so because of the big cartels influence in the world. I strongly feel, however, that it should be our goal.
> I strongly feel, however, that it should be our goal.
The key issue to get sorted first is whether the aim is to help lower drug use (the camp I am personally in) or just to relieve some of the issues.
If it is the former then I think Sweden's example is the best; they have a very strong anti-drugs policy and there's is amongst the lowest rates of drug use in the EU. That's quite strong evidence for tougher laws.
If the aim is the latter (alleviate issues) then we need to discuss legalization or decriminalization. Decriminalization is much more likely but doesn't really alleviate the drugs gangs problems and the worries about control.
The other issue with drugs is control: if you limit the THC content in Weed how do you control that? And how do you stop a trade springing up (like in Holland) of stronger cannabis strains outside of the restricted THC limits?
It's a vicious cycle; the best way to stop the gang problems is stamp out drug use. THEN talk about proper legalisation. IMO. There is no other way to start with a clean slate.
Speaking personally I am for the relaxing of personal possession laws. I think a lot should be replaced with counselling and support (optional). But conversely I am behind much much stricter laws for drug distribution and supplying. Stuff like instant deportation, asset freezes / seizures, longer stricter jail terms.
No, I have never been to Amsterdam. I am aware of the shrinking in the number of coffee shops. This is mainly because of international pressure: they are hardening the rules for the coffee shops, trying to limit tourist's access to them. I don't agree with that, but I understand it: international pressure is not easy to manage.
"I should point out I am biased; one of my friends was killed after smoking marijuana and driving and another friend is now a dribbling wreck after 10 years regular smoking (one of the smartest people I know now has the intelligence of a 15 year old). I dont see how these problems wont be multiplied :)"
Would you prefer that your friends were instead locked up with several murderers and rapists?
Seriously though I dont think many people are actually locked up for use nowadays. Im willing to be corrected but I haven't, in my experience, seen it much.
As mentioned below I believe personal possession laws should be refactored towards education, support and therapy (if desired)
That depends on the location. I think that in the USA people are still being locked up for marijuana use, although I guess that trend is thankfully going down. Can anyone confirm that?
Here where I live, in Brazil, you will get a lot of hassle if you're caught for marijuana possession. If you're black or poor, you're probably going to get a lot more hassle (being beaten up and being locked up for some time are almost certain to happen).
Generally, you can get away with 10 grams or something like that, but not without hassle. You better pray to Jah to not get caught :)
That was Reddit.
It seems insane that our last three presidents admitted to smoking weed yet thousands upon thousands of people are languishing in jail for doing the same thing. Cognitive dissonance much?