Not as free as you think
Tuesday, Mar 3, 2009 - Posted by Rich Miller
* My buddy and former Sun-Times editor Steve Huntley is a conservative. Today, he takes the traditionally conservative viewpoint on legalizing marijuana, meaning, it should be legalized…
Its budget meltdown has California taking a look at legalizing marijuana as a means to revive its depleted treasury. But common sense, not economic need, should persuade Americans it’s past time for a sober look at our mad “reefer madness” laws.
The Golden State legislator pushing the idea, Tom Ammiano of — plug in the appropriate joke — San Francisco, says licensing and taxing legal marijuana production and sales would earn California $1.3 billion a year. His bill would legalize marijuana possession and use for adults 21 or older, license commercial farming of it and tax it at $50 an ounce.
A big problem: California can’t do this on its own. The federal prohibition law would have to be changed for Sacramento to impose and collect the licensing fees and taxes. Given all the controversial financial and social engineering bills on its plate, Congress likely isn’t eager to take on this contentious issue. A recent CBS News/New York Times poll found only 41 percent of Americans favor legalization. That’s an improvement over the 34 percent in a 2002 CNN/Time poll, but still 52 percent are against it.
It would be best if Washington could leave this matter in the hands of states. Thirteen states have to some extent decriminalized marijuana. Massachusetts is the latest. Its voters last month eliminated criminal penalties for possession of small amounts.
* A couple of researchers at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia have put together a freedom index for states. The website is down at the moment, but Steve Chapman sums up one appalling bullet point…
[Illinois] arrest rates for “victimless” crimes like marijuana possession that are so high as to be “almost unfathomable.”
* And then there’s this…
llinois’ prison population has more than doubled in the last 25 years. That’s according to a study released today by the Washington DC based Pew Center on the States.
One out of every 133 Illinoisans is behind bars, and 1 in 38 is under some sort correctional supervision, according to Pew. That accounts for people incarcerated, on probation or on parole. Those numbers are a bit lower than the national average.
That study can be found by clicking here.
According to the study, Illinois spent about $1.4 billion on the corrections budget in FY 08. The corrections population is 252,776 people.
* Back to Huntley’s column…
The day may not be far off when Americans conclude, as they did with Prohibition in the 1930s, that violence associated with the marijuana ban is worse than the drug’s social ills. Some will raise the slippery slope argument that legalization opens the way to decriminalizing hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. Maybe we would have that discussion if legal marijuana works out, but saying yeah to one doesn’t mean saying yes to the other.
Marijuana prohibition no longer makes sense, if it ever did. For the record, my recreational chemical of choice is alcohol. After the sun sets, I like to enjoy a glass of wine or scotch. Why shouldn’t my neighbor, if so inclined, be able to relax with a joint?
If you talk to legislators off the record, you’d be surprised at how many will tell you that marijuana laws are stupid and counter-productive. But they won’t vote for them out of intense political fear. It’s just a sad, mad situation.
* And on another front, thank goodness this crazy idea is being dumped…
A Will County judge should throw out criminal charges against five people who allegedly were smoking cigarettes in public last year, a Peoria lawyer says.
The reason? Recent changes to the state’s smoking ban that attorney Daniel O’Day contends makes a smoking violation a civil, not criminal, offense.
O’Day will argue in court March 24 that legislation signed Feb. 4 by Gov. Pat Quinn clarifies a once-murky section of the state law that forbids smoking in most public places.
In the past, if someone was ticketed for smoking in Will County, there were two courses of action - pay a fine or go to court. Now if someone gets a ticket and wants to fight the fine, the Illinois Department of Public Health will hold an administrative hearing.
- bored now - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 9:55 am:
when you said “traditionally conservative,” did you mean libertarian?
i’m not sure i’m familiar with a “traditionally conservative viewpoint on legalizing marijuana.”
- Leroy - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 9:58 am:
Just curious…on the projections of how much the state stands to gain in tax money, are any projected detriments, such as public money lost due to ‘driving while high’ or ‘marijuana related work injuries’?
And how much will Big Tobacco profit off this plan? Don’t we hate them enough because of their already exorbitant profits? How much is this going to add to it?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:02 am:
It’s an issue that’s in a gray area: It’s not something of much importance in the great scheme of things, but it can’t even be discussed rationally because of the steep political price for bringing it up in the first place.
You pick your fights, and with everything else going on, you let this one go. It is pretty amazing, though, that in 2009 there’s no social or legal stigma for buying a bottle of Jack Daniels at the grocery store, but a little herb is scandalous and a crime.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:02 am:
=== public money lost due to ‘driving while high’===
I saw a Florida study years ago which showed that stoned drivers were the safest. I guess because they’re so paranoid. lol
- You Go Boy - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:03 am:
Politics aside and zeroing in on the common sense approach, consider also if indeed we are heading to hell in a handbasket, why not go out mellow
(and considering that asteroid that could hit any day/month/year/decade/century/millenium now…)
- bugs - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:07 am:
expecting to tax a weed that grows anywhere is a bit absurd-legalize all drugs,forget the taxes,and the prices will plummet. those persons who can’t reasonably use an illicit substance,who have no family or church or community to assist them will no longer be the generational problems that clog our social systems-mortuary science schools will be a booming industry and the funding for police and feds who are committed to keeping dopers on the run can be reassigned to important tasks[I’ll leave that to your imagination]
- Been There - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:09 am:
===After the sun sets, I like to enjoy a glass of wine or scotch. Why shouldn’t my neighbor, if so inclined, be able to relax with a joint?===
A friend of mine that I grew up with was, shall we say, a bad drunk. Loud, obnoxious, getting in car accidents, fights, etc. Basically going off the deep end. Stopped drinking on a bet for what was suppose to be a week when he was 21. He got through that week by smoking pot. Well, he hasn’t had a drink in 30 years. And I am sure a poll of all his friends and family would show a 99% approval of him swapping drinks for the evil weed. He kept going out to the bars, ballgames, bowling, etc. But he was much more of a pleasure to be around. He doesn’t smoke as much anymore or at all, as far as I know. I would say, in this case, that if it wasn’t for pot, this guy would be in the dumper.
- colt 45 - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:09 am:
as a traditional conservative/classical liberal/borderline libertarian, i say legalize it.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:10 am:
===expecting to tax a weed that grows anywhere is a bit absurd===
Corn can be a weed (in soybean fields) and it’ll grow just about anywhere, so that’s kind of a red herring.
- Rufus - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:11 am:
The social repercussions are far, far less than alcohol. I mean, when did you last see two stoned people get into a fight?
There are so many reasons to legalize marijuana that I just can’t take space to list them all.
Having said that, there are things that should be against the law when one is stoned, like ‘driving while high’ or ‘operating heavy equipment while at work’.
On the other hand, stoned legislators in session may be far more productive and beneficial than the current process.
- Obamarama - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:14 am:
Marijuana-related work injuries?
You mean like eating two lunches instead of one and getting a stomach ache?
Let’s be serious, legalizing it completely will not result in a workforce of stoned employees. Alcohol is perfectly legal, easily accessible and socially acceptable. Yet, there is no epidemic of drunken workers.
I understand that “drugs are bad.” But you know what else is bad? Blanket generalizations and illogical policies.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:15 am:
== I saw a Florida study years ago which showed that stoned drivers were the safest. ==
Rich, I don’t think its ‘paranoia’…I think its driving 15 miles under the speed limit.
Which, BTW, is about the best way to ensure you get pulled over, or so police tell me.
BTW, I’m sure that Driving Under the Influence laws would still apply.
On the upside, Dunkin Donuts will see a boon in its new delivery service.
In all seriousness…
I’ve been pointing out for years that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and that definitely has its costs.
What is the upside?
As is pointed out, prison populations have doubled since 1974.
Can anyone say with a straight face that we’re twice as safe as we were 25 years ago?
Nope.
There’s another interesting angle as well, and it has to do with gun control.
While the battle rages on over whether “law-abiding” citizens should be allowed to possess guns, we’ve acquiesced to the notion that people arrested for possessing pot or other recreational drugs should be disarmed.
That’s a gun-control policy that disproportionally disarms Latinos and African Americans.
Meanwhile, under the conceal-carry legislation currently under consideration in Springfield, a wife-beating alcoholic can carry a concealed weapon, provided his spouse is too afraid for her life to press charges and he hasn’t had a DUI in the past few years.
Yeah, that makes sense.
- Ghost - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:20 am:
To me tghe real issue here is not the laglization of marijuana (which I support) but the governemtn unfortunate habit of funding its activities off of sin taxes. This includes, relying heavily upon revenue from tobacco, liquor, gaming etc.
Perhaps we need a tax funding system built upon a model that does not tend to fall most heavly on those with lower incomes, and provides more stable revenue. I am not opposed to small taxes on consumables, but is it not time we as a society moved away from sin taxes to fund government?
- Ghost - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:21 am:
I was sober when I typed that, honest.
- Amy - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:22 am:
we’re spending too much money fighting use of a plant. and
we’re also closing off use of another plant. the time seems perfect to push consideration of something that is not marijuana but gets confused with it….HEMP. it’s kind of a wonder crop, useful in so many ways, but especially good with soil erosion, and it was grown by some of the founding fathers of this country. growing hemp is not legal in Illinois, right? but many products are sold in the drugstore aisles which contain hemp, especially hair and skin products, and hemp is useful in industrial products. it’s cheaper to grow than other crops. it’s time that it is legal everywhere. you can’t get high from hemp.
and the high from marijuana leads drivers to not get in their cars or drive slowly. not many stories about an angry person high on mary jane getting into beefs with cops. alcohol, which is legal, that’s a whole other story of anger and cost to society.
at least release hemp from police myth hostage.
- Real Estate - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:30 am:
My son went to drug rehab specifically for marijuana. It is highly addictive and hard to get off of. Much harder than cigarettes. This is not the MJ of the 70s. It is 10X more pure.
What people think of as the marijuana of old, simply is not true. I think of it as the cocaine of the 80s.
Check out what happens to mj addicts before legalizing this poison.
- Shore - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:30 am:
Legalizing drugs because you can’t manage your state’s finances is pretty pathetic. I’ve never seen a study that said narcotics were good for our society and I also don’t see how this will do anything to diminish the drug cartels that are currently destroying Mexico.
- RMWStanford - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:33 am:
I am a traditional conservative/classical liberal/libertarian type and I am all for the legalization of marijuana. I never used pot or any other illegal drug in my life but that being said the economic and social cost of keep pot illegal are higher than what the economic and social cost would be of legalizing point. We need a massive overhaul of drug policy in the United States in general
- Gene Parmesan - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:35 am:
Shore, marijuana is not a narcotic. It will help the fight against Mexican drug cartels by curtailing some of the economic advantage they develop by importing extremely cheap products into the US and charging exhorbitant prices. They then use this money to support their armies/smuggling/government corruption payouts.
- Obamarama - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:35 am:
Marijuana isn’t a narcotic.
Secondly, legalizing it will drive down prices, and therefore income to the cartels. Furthermore, there will be a decrease in smuggling into the United States because of the legal domestic options.
Easy with the empty rhetoric.
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:38 am:
Legalize marijuna. Continue to make it a crime to sell weed within 500 feet of a school (whatever the law is). Selling marijuana out of a pharmacy is ok.
Mandatory jail time (3 days) for DUI offenders (even first timers). Done.
- Chanson - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:39 am:
The war on drugs is a joke. Legalize all drugs for all the previously suggested reasons. The current situation is broke so let’s fix it.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:44 am:
Shore, you are the perfect example of why legislators can’t do anything about this issue.
Try to educate yourself. Marijuana is not a narcotic.
Also, to those who say that weed is more powerful now than in the 1970s, I wonder if they ever tried Thai Stick back then. lol
- Randolph - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:45 am:
When compared to alcohol as a mind-altering substance, marijuana is incredibly benign. In fact, if we used the cognitive effects of alcohol as a scientific benchmark for what should and should not be legal, then all of the so-called “hard” drugs would be legal as well.
Admittedly, I am a complete libertarian on this issue (and many others).
The reasons for legalization are innumerable.
Somebody mentioned something about the Mexican drug cartels. Tell me, what’s happened to the Capone bootleggers since prohibition ended? There is significantly less organized crime involved in alcohol these days than there was then.
Similarly, if you take the profit from the streets, that will be one less racket for the street gangs as well.
The social costs are minimal — someone else said it, but I have to reiterate, I’ve never seen two stoned guys get in a physical fight (unless they’d been drinking). Again, if alcohol is the baseline, there is no rational reason for marijuana to be illegal.
Need more? If marijuana were completely legal and the trade of hemp unrestricted, there would be no need to cut down another tree for paper, hemp fibers would be all we need.
Hempseed oil can be used to produce biofuels cheaper and with less environmental cost while producing a cleaner-burning variant.
As someone said, the reasons are too many to list in total detail. I rarely make statements as in your face as this, but the opponents are uninformed, ignorantly informed, and/or have a vested interest (financial) in keeping it illegal.
- Mike Murray - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:47 am:
====The war on drugs is a joke. Legalize all drugs for all the previously suggested reasons.====
Well I agree with you, we have to take this one step at a time. Politically that is not possible without revolutionary changes in public thinking and perception
- Anonymous On This Topic - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:53 am:
==they won’t vote for them out of intense political fear==
It is hard to motivate stoners to organize into a lobby, and in the current climate no one wants to stick their neck out for he cause, and who can blame them? I’ve always said if I were arrested for possession I would step up and become a lobby leader to decriminalize a drug many people enjoy in the privacy of their own home. Partly I would for the right reasons, and partly because if I was arrested I would most likely be out of a career and need the income. But those who won’t hear of anything other than abolition can’t be appeased….yet.
Marijuana: $140 an ounce
Marijuana tax: $50 an ounce
Being able to shop retail: priceless!
- Mike Murray - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:54 am:
Rich, “Also, to those who say that weed is more powerful now than in the 1970s, I wonder if they ever tried Thai Stick back then.”
That is true, but in some areas, cities and suburbs, the strong weed may be more prevalent nowadays. About 80% of U.S. weed consumption is estimated to be of lower quality “brick” weed, like the old hippies used to smoke. the other 20% is strong stuff, “headies”. I don’t know what the percentages were back in the day, but from people’s accounts, they seem to have been lower.
- Gene Parmesan - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:57 am:
As to marijuana potency, if it were legalized, you could go into a shop and request whatever strength you so desired.
- TaxMeMore - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 10:58 am:
Shore, its ok for you to crawl out from under your rock and start learning a thing or two about prohibition and its effects on society.
“I’ve never seen a study that said narcotics were good for our society”
Interesting closed-minded ignorance. What do you call Oxycontin, Valium, Percocet, etc. etc. etc. ALL intensely MORE “narcotic” than marijuana. They are also chemically addictive, while marijuana is NOT chemically addicitive. In fact, it would be very “good for society” if more pain patients were using the cheaper marijuana rather than the much more expensive to society Oxycontin, for example.
Shore, your war on marijuana is not good for society and I have never seen a study that says it is. Shore, show us exactly how locking up minority males between 17-30 for pot possession and putting them in cages with violent felons at criminal college is “good for society”? Show us your war on marijuana user is working. The argument is already over for anyone paying attention. We already learned it once during prohibition.
“I also don’t see how this will do anything to diminish the drug cartels that are currently destroying Mexico.”
Then you are blind. A former Mexican President with two other former Latin American Presidents just formed a group to make a major push at ending the drug war. They, who know their countries a little better than you, now believe the drug war is doing more harm than good especially when it comes to marijuana. What happens to drug cartels in Mexico? Their profits go way down when Americans are producing the marijuana we use instead of them. They’ll lose major amounts of money, which means less crime, less murder, less violence, and less gun running and is “good for society”.
Big tobacco won’t make a penny off marijuana. Marijauna is not tobacco. Completely different processes to bring it to market. They can’t just feed their machines marijuana instead of tobacco to make joints. Not gonna happen. Hippies like organics anyway, so thats a positive.
Yeah, and people aren’t just going to all grow their own. There will plenty of casual users that may try it a couple times a year that will buy it. There will be huge tax revenues.
And this doesn’t even touch on the complete no brainer, which is industrial hemp. Its grown in Canada and imported into to the US to be used in car parts. American jobs lost because of ignorance and closed minded control freaks.
Net $1 billion positive impact on the Illinois budget in year one and only up from there. Not to mention all the county and local resources saved not busting every kid with a joint. Massive savings and the result will be no worse than Amsterdam. Did you know FEWER teenagers have used or use marijuana in the Netherlands, where it is legal, than in the United States? Our drug war actually makes it a forbidden fruit motivating MORE kids to find out for themselves that the government has been lying to us about marijuana.
DrugWarRant.com Great Illinois based blog about the failed, deadly, costly drug war.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:02 am:
===show us exactly how locking up minority males between 17-30 for pot possession===
Forget about just minority males.
Think about this for a moment. If Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama had all been arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana, would they have ever been able to run for president, let alone get elected?
IMHO, imprisoning drug users is infinitely more harmful to them than occasional usage would ever be.
- Mike Murray - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:07 am:
Just food for thought…it was easier in my high school to get drugs, all kinds of drugs, then alcohol. (I am not saying I did all kinds of drugs, but they were around) Maybe that is because I am from the Suburbs, but it seems like it might actually be harder for kids to abuse drugs if the retail sale was regulated instead of being in the hands of shady people who do not care the age of a customer.
- Downstate Commissioner - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:11 am:
Real Estate, you have my sympathy-I have a daughter-in-law who has been thru rehab three times for Vicodin addiction. I can’t understand the addiction because I use vicodin occasionaly for headaches; it has never made me high, just stopped my headaches; have no desire to take it any other time.
But do we ban a product that helps a lot of people because some cannot handle it? The same is true of mj; just saw an article about the uses of medical mj-it works where a lot of other products don’t.
Obviously, medical uses of mj cannot be directly compared to over the counter sales, but we are spending too much money making criminals out of people who really don’t deserve to be in prison…
If legalized and taxed, mj could be a “sin” tax that would be welcomed, because users would be provided an inspected “safer” product at what would probably be a cheaper price than they now pay on the black market.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:16 am:
This is the classic “get your head out of the sand” issue.
It is very tough to take the anti-dope crowd seriously when our prison population is inordinately high. That is a simplified argument about prison overpopulation and costs, but this really is a simple issue that has become much too complex.
Sheriff Williamson in Sangamon County has a good method of skirting the system: fines with no incarceration. It’s still an embarrassment, but the county pokie is not swamped with minor drug offenders and the county can still reap the benefits of a traditional misdemeanor.
The suggested listening on this matter is “Prison System” by System of a Down.
- Segatari - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:22 am:
Is anyone going to stand up and explain the health hazards to pot smoking??
- Obamarama - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:27 am:
-=Is anyone going to stand up and explain the health hazards to pot smoking?? =-
Nope.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:32 am:
== Is anyone going to stand up and explain the health hazards to pot smoking?? ==
Sure, as soon as I finish my list of the health hazards of:
Cigarettes
Beer
Wine
Coffee
Wheat
Milk, cheese and yogurt
Artificial coloring
Artificial flavors
Sweet n’ Low
Equal
Trans-fatty acids
Sugar
Hormone-treated meats
Antibiotic-treated meats
Corn syrup
Salt
Floride
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:33 am:
===Is anyone going to stand up and explain the health hazards to pot smoking?? ===
There are health hazards to crossing a busy street. Should that be banned or allowed and controlled?
- carbon deforestation - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:33 am:
I am all in favor of California becoming the first state in the nation to fully legalize marijuana. If they can derive tax revenue from it, prove that the drug can be sold and used without violence and criminal influences then we should do it nationally.
Guys who get busted with possession should not be in prison. But driving under the influence should be treated same as alcohol.
- Mike Murray - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:37 am:
====Is anyone going to stand up and explain the health hazards to pot smoking??====
So educate, and I mean actually education, not a DARE program that tries to scare kids with misinformation. Be honest with people and let them know the risks and rewards. Regulate, and when they are adults they can do their own cost/benefit analysis and make an individual choice. (this is called freedom)
Its all about personal responsibility.
But fast food, cigarettes, alcohol…these all cause more deaths and present much greater health hazards then weed does. So if we are going to regulate based on what is healthy for the masses lets address those issues first.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:40 am:
Cancer
liver disease, obesity, heart disease
Ditto
Kidney damage, adrenal failure
GI inflammation, obesity
Heart disease, cancer
Cancer
Cancer
Diabetes
Diabetes
heart disease, immune disorders
diabetes, immune disorders
cancer
cancer, immune disorders
diabetes, immune disorders
high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease
cancer
- JerryB - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:47 am:
Reduce the penalties for possession and sale of small quantities of marijuana, yes — but don’t legalize its use or sale. Marijuana makes people stupider (no exceptions) — and we have an overabundance of stupid people. Plus many studies now show marijuana use can trigger onset of psychosis for people with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia. Advocating its legalization is advocating its increased availability — and condemning a significant number of young people to a lifetime of mental illness. It’s irresponsible.
- Gene Parmesan - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:52 am:
“Marijuana makes people stupider”– you just can’t make this stuff up.
- JerryB - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:55 am:
I base that on personal experience.
- Obamarama - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:56 am:
-=condemning a significant number of young people to a lifetime of mental illness=-
Sounds like a PSA from 1954. What a joke.
- Just a thought - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 11:59 am:
Can we forget for one moment that we are talking about pot? Let’s look at this from another perspective with an overriding summary of IF we legalize it; we legitimize it. And before we go too far down the road I’d like to offer to the “prohibition doesn’t work” crowd; a simple argument - that we would not have as many alcoholics in this country as we do today if alcohol were still prohibited. Would we have some addicts? Yes. BUT, we would not have as many. Why? Simple – in this market we can buy alcohol in our grocery stores, big box stores, gas stations, bars, pool halls, and bowling alleys throughout America. IF on the other hand alcohol were not available guess what happens? I believe that a majority of law abiding folks would not actively seek the drug out. I believe the same is true for Pot (the vast majority of Americans do not use Pot today). If, however Pot were available in every Walgreens across this county at a cost of maybe a dollar a joint then people (far more than the number of users today) would smoke Pot and some of these folks would become addicts (either habitual or chemical/physical). These same people who would no sooner cross the street today to take a smoke a hitter; would begin to toke on a joint because it was legitimized. Don’t think so? Ask yourselves this ~ would we have advertisement pushing pot if it were to become legal? Please don’t allow yourself to be scared into allowing this “harmless” drug to be legitimized; there are real issues with endorsing this product.
- JerryB - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:00 pm:
Not at all… There is a substantial body of research, not from prohibitionists, that shows a correlation. Trust me, I’m a libertarian when it comes to drug use — I don’t want to see people incarcerated for possession and/or sale — but legalization opens the doors to increased use, especially if the state sees an opportunity to enhance revenues. Legalization would be a terrible thing.
- Obamarama - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:02 pm:
Just a Thought:
While I disagree with your argument, I’d like to thank you for forming it and explaining it in a rational matter. Perhaps with this sort of tone coming from the anti-legalization side, a more effective discourse on drug policy could take place.
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:08 pm:
Is MJ a gateway drug? We heard that all the time back when I…..was younger. The reality is that during prohibition people drank, illegally. Even if MJ is addictive (evidence of physical dependence is non-existent, anecdotal evidence of strong psychological dependence is stronger) people will use it. I think if it were controlled, much like alcohol is, it can then be taxed and supervised. Won’t be perfect, but the potency can be controlled. Access by minors should be prohibited. Problem is, some will then say, “if MJ is legal, then all such drugs should be legalized”. Where do you draw the line?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:11 pm:
I believe drinking increased during Prohibition. The illegality was part of the buzz.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:13 pm:
To Real Estate,
I’m sorry about your son. I hope he has recovered. I wonder if he might also have been treated for alcohol while in rehab?
His sounds like a very unique case. In my experience, and through others that I know, marijuana has absolutely no addictive properties. I’ve smoked both, and in my experience giving up cigarettes was infinitely more difficult. In fact, I quit smoking more than a year ago but still use nicotime gum almost daily.
Except for your son, I’ve never seen anyone cite evidence that marijuana is addictive.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:14 pm:
Am I the only person who regularly visited a country where marijuana was legal? No, not as a tourist - but as a resident living nearby who regularly need to go to the Netherlands to shop and work?
Well how would you like to know how well it works over there?
It doesn’t.
You go through town and you see stoned kids spending their days at the “coffee shops”, instead of at school. I mean hundreds of kids, during the day, stoned. Not learning. Stoned.
It has gotten so bad that several groups in the Netherlands is working to reverse this situation. Not only has legalized marijuana wrecked the Netherlands, it has also created an atmosphere where it is now OK to do other drugs. Rotterdam and Amsterdam is now so busy in drug trafficking across Europe, other European countries are making motions in the EU to force the Netherlands to alter their drug policies.
So, while it seems to easy to discuss legalizing marijuana - you need to understand what happens when you do. After a generation of legalized marijuana, the Netherlands is worse than stoned.
Stop being so naive!
The high prison population could possibly be also caused by the population boom over the past 50 years too, right? Even if the crime rate was the same - we’d have more criminals, right?
Stop being so stupid!
You want marijuana to be legalized, and see nothing wrong with it, then you are not considering the consequences of your own silly ideas.
- Mike Murray - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:20 pm:
====Please don’t allow yourself to be scared into allowing this “harmless” drug to be legitimized; there are real issues with endorsing this product.====
The issue is not is weed harmless, it is not. And no one is calling for weed’s endorsement. Claiming that legalization is an endorsement is a straw man. Like I said educate, regulate, but at the end of the day it should be the individual adult’s choice.
The issue is should we put people in jail because they live a life style that other people view as immoral and unproductive. I am not endorsing that that lifestyle, but it is not the government’s job to make that decision for individuals.
====The high prison population could possibly be also caused by the population boom over the past 50 years too, right? Even if the crime rate was the same - we’d have more criminals, right?
Stop being so stupid!====
Half of the 3 million U.S. inmates are non-violent drug offenders. That has nothing to do with a population boom
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:20 pm:
VM, the Netherlands didn’t legalize pot. It decriminalized possession of small amounts. Huge difference because it enables organized crime.
Talk apples to apples. Maybe somebody will pay attention.
- Leroy - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:28 pm:
What is the estimated number of people that will die per year in ‘driving while stoned’ accidents if this is legalized?
- Thomas Westgard - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:30 pm:
This is a topic into which I’ve put a lot of research. One item: the average potency of leaf marijuana seized on the street has increased since the 1970’s, this is true. However, three things make this an inapplicable concern: (1) the fear of increased potency comes from deaths among users of injectable drugs - a sudden increase in potency can cause deaths in heroin, cocaine, or meth. In contrast, smokers of marijuana regulate their intake puff-by-puff, until they reach their desired level of intoxication. If it now takes three puffs to reach a point that once took two whole joints, potheads stop at three puffs. (2) The lethal dose of THC is so high that it has never been reached by an actual human being. Zero street deaths from THC overdose in recorded history. (3) While leaf marijuana has increased in potency, there have been hashish (raw marijuana sap) and hash oil (highly processed marijuana sap) for centuries, and these have a THC concentration level comparable or greater than that of today’s leaf marijuana. If high concentration of THC in the product could cause death or injury, we would have seen it with hash and/or hash oil. We haven’t. So the argument from potency is a case of comparing apples and oranges.
For the record, I don’t use this stuff and I do recognize the mental health concerns of it. However, that is a medical problem and points to a need for medical care, not imprisonment.
- Segatari - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:43 pm:
>There are health hazards to crossing a busy street. Should that be banned or allowed and controlled?
It IS controlled…traffic lights have “Walk Don’t Walk” signs and you can be ticketed for jaywalking. Nice try Rich.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:45 pm:
Segatari, that’s my POINT. lol
You lessen risks by controlling them. Ergo….
- SIUPROF - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:46 pm:
I have spent my entire adult life on college campuses. While I have seen many young people do badly in school because of recreational drug use, MJ use is the least offensive. Alcohol is the most destructive. My biggest complaint about MJ being illegal is that it makes good people criminals and seeds a disrespect for law in general.
- pot not booze - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:48 pm:
I worked in public businesses for a long time and have always said I would rather see alcohol illegal and pot legal. Drunks are obnoxious and mean spirited, pot heads are mellow and easy to get along with. Both are fine in limited quantities, but alcohol seems to lend itself to excess in both the short term and the long term.
I know of far more lives ruined by alcoholism than by too much pot.
Legalizing it could also assist the family farms. Allow farmers to grow up to an acre or two. It could be enough to keep them in business.
One problem that I worry about is that it will be putting a number of people out of work. Will those people go legit, push harder drugs, or commit different crimes to support their lifestyle. The dealers are not going to just disappear.
The drug war has increased the cost of pot and decreased the cost of cocaine, leading to increased use of crack. Maybe the opposite would be the result of legalizing pot. If the price falls people looking for an escape would be more likely to smoke legal pot than illegal and more expensive crack.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 12:59 pm:
===I also don’t see how this will do anything to diminish the drug cartels that are currently destroying Mexico.===
For the most part, marijuana is grown domestically. The “best” marijuana is sometimes imported from Canada, not Mexico. The immense bulk and relative low price makes it a bad bet for international smugglers.
On the other hand, some of the best marijuana in the world is grown in and around Effingham, IL. Right here in SE Illinois! Imagine the economic boom for that long depressed corner of our state if this natural resource was cultivated, regulated and taxed.
As others have mentioned, the marijuana plant produces many useful items, all of which are inherently “green” and renewable, with less damage to the environment than growing corn. The stalks can be used to make building materials, the fibers can be woven into fabric and rope, the oil from the seeds has countless commercial applications.
The buds from a blooming plant are just a nice bonus to what is, imo, an incredible God-given resource for mankind. Why on earth we keep this illegal while family farms are dying a slow, painful death, is a mystery to me.
The war on drugs by the US is the largest public policy disaster in history. It costs billions to enforce and only results in more potent, cheaper drugs distributed by a black market run by organized crime. How any policy maker can defend the war on drugs is baffling.
- Ghost - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 1:08 pm:
YDD is after my Fluoride! but he and his secret undergorund flouridian movement seeking to eat my cow shall never succeed…
This whole “health” discussion reminds me of sleeper
- bugs - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 1:22 pm:
how do you propose distributing a “legal”taxed substance when that substance grows everywhere without taxes.certainly BC bud at 4000 to 5000 a pound would be preferred by a pot smoker,but backyard or flower pot dope is almost free
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 1:24 pm:
bugs, the same issue exists with tobacco and whiskey.
Y’all can bring up all the red herrings you want, but they’re mostly silly.
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 1:40 pm:
It is a red herring. People can brew their own beer and make their own wine legally - it is not hard and takes minimal equipment. Why, then, do most people just buy it? You can buy your own tobacco and roll your own cigarettes so why do most people just buy Marlboros? Let’s face it, most pot smokers are too mellow to engage in all that tilling, planting, cultivating, weeding, harvesting, drying - they’re too laid back. Wow, man, too much work, man, I’ll just buy some, man.
- TaxMeMore - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 1:58 pm:
VM, your first hand experience is an awesome argument in favor of legalizing marijuana. Statistics prove fewer Netherlands teenagers use marijuana than in the US. YOU say they are all out in the open in public at the coffee shops. So where are the teenagers in the US where we have more teenagers smoking pot than in the Netherlands? They are in gangs, committing crimes, driving around trying to score, hanging out at the local hang out spot, and generally scattered everywhere on the outskirts of society in hiding. We don’t know where our stoned kids are. They do in the Netherlands and they have a lot less violent crime.
Just a thought, here’s another thought for you. Why do fewer teenagers in the Netherlands use marijuana than in the US? Why did marijuana use among the youth in Seattle not increase when they essentially decriminalized it? Why hasn’t the entire state of California gone to hell yet? OK, maybe they are close, but medical marijuana is pouring in more in tax revenue already.
Yes, if it were legal more people would easily have access to it. Would you go shoot some heroin tomorrow if it were legal? I doubt it. So why do you assume everyone else will? That’s crazy thinking man.
And the whole fewer alcoholics argument is how old? Bring back Al Capone and the Purple Gang so the moral elitist control freak power mongers can feel good about themselves for wanting to lock ALL people that drink into cages? Not everyone that drinks is an alcoholic JUST A THOUGHT?
So you want to lock up the 95% of people that don’t have a problem with it, to save the other 5% from themselves? Same with marijuana. Relatively few have a problem with it. And their problems with it are completely minor compared to alcohol. Maybe some alcoholics will switch to pot and we’ll have less alcoholics now, just a thought no?
Right now we are spreading false propaganda and lies about drugs. That will never work. The BEST way to reduce the harm to society is by bringing it out in the open, being honest about it, treating it as a disease for those that do have problems with it, not treating recreational users like they all have problems and locking everyone in cages, and realize AGAIN that prohibition INCREASES crime and violence.
If you want fewer addicts, legalize it. If you want less violent crime, legalize it. If you want fewer deaths, legalize it. The evidence and obvious logic is ther if you want to see it.. Drug are bad but not all drugs all the time to all people.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 2:11 pm:
VM, your first hand experience is an awesome argument in favor of legalizing marijuana.
You sound like you just inhaled.
Rich - the Netherlands may not have technically legalized marijuana, but when you spend time there, you realize that reality is otherwise. You ask folks in Netherland if marijuana is legal, and they will tell you “yes”.
Compare apples to apples? How about how bad the situation has gotten in California? There they have “medical marijuana”, and the definition of the word “medical” has expanded to the absurd.
It doesn’t matter if taxes are raised, or if the prison population drops, because you are exchanging one set of problems for a new set of problems. Additionally, there is really little evidence that legalizing marijuana will eliminate the problems as dope smokers claim it will.
The situation in the Netherlands has caused them to rethink the decriminalization question. Let’s take a look at what they have learned, and not repeat the same mistakes, OK?
- Anonymous45 - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 2:13 pm:
In Amsterdam it is legal to buy it in stores and consume it on the premises…could we at least pilot(and tax) this in the US before anyone goes off the deep end yay or nay on this issue?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 2:15 pm:
VM, you’ve been proved wrong about the stats for the Netherlands. The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”
Also, do you seriously think that the risk of a few more people smoking pot, or even a doubling of the pot smokers in America, is so terrifying that we should continue throwing pot smokers in prison and truly ruining these very real lives?
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 2:18 pm:
===It doesn’t matter if taxes are raised, or if the prison population drops, because you are exchanging one set of problems for a new set of problems. Additionally, there is really little evidence that legalizing marijuana will eliminate the problems as dope smokers claim it will.===
Most. Ridiculous. VM Post. Ever.
- Gene Parmesan - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 2:21 pm:
VM, as much as you complain about the “Nanny State” you’re sounding awfully hypocritical here.
“Compare apples to apples? How about how bad the situation has gotten in California?” I don’t really see a comparison at all here, but what bad has happened? The state has received millions in new taxes from a domestic industry. I think Illinois could use some too. As to people abusing the “medical” provision, sure that’s going to happen because it’s still not legal for purely recreational use.
Is your answer honestly to continue the complete failure that is the ‘War on Drugs’? Wasting billions with nothing to show? This all seems directly contradictory to your other beliefs.
- TaxMeMore - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 2:24 pm:
VM, another lesson from your experience. In the Netherlands fewer teenagers buy marijauna from people that also sell coffee and pastries. In the US more teenagers buy marijuana from organized crime figures that also sell crack and meth.
Based on your first hand experience and actual reality, would you rather have your teenagers exposed to coffee and pastries or crack and meth. Cause what we are doing now is pushing crack and meth.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 2:33 pm:
Of course, fewer kids smoke pot in the Netherlands. Tell kids they can do something, they lose interest. Tell them they can’t, and watch the ingenuity and effort they put into it.
If you banned homework, kids would be sneaking into the forest preserves at night with flashlights doing calculus.
- TaxMeMore - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 3:02 pm:
Most of the marijuana related “problems” the Netherlands is having is because there is still prohibition everywhere else. If you really are open minded to learning from their experience, you should also be open to learning from the experience of a former Columbian President that says marijauna prohibition has failed and does a lot more harm than good.
You are right that we will just be exchanging one set of problems for another set. Now we expose teenagers to crack and meth, we’d rather reduce the problem and expose them to coffee and pastries. Now we lock 17 year olds caught with a joint in cages giving them a record and exposing them to violent criminals, gangs, and the criminal underground, we’d rather every give them a ticket, inform their parents, and offer any help if they have a drug problem. Now we have gangs killing each other on the streets over their turf to sell pot, crack, and meth, we’d rather that the money being spent out of their hands and put into law abiding, tax paying, community building hands. Now we assume everyone that is caught with drugs is an addict, we’d rather not waste our precious resources forcing people into addiction treatment centers for marijuana that they have only done 5 times in their lives. Yes we want to exchange our current, extreme, violent, and ineffective problems, for problems that are regulated, logical, science and medicine based, and seek to actually reduce harm.
“You sound like you just inhaled.” And you sound like the typical liberal that starts with personal attacks when faced with overhwleming reason and logic based on conservative principles.
- Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 4:08 pm:
==most pot smokers are too mellow to engage in all that tilling, planting, cultivating, weeding, harvesting, drying - they’re too laid back==
Exactly! They will just walk into the humidor at Walgreens and pay hard cash–tax it all you want they will buy it. But this is the state that won’t even allow a discussion on non-recreational uses of hemp….
- nemo - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 4:13 pm:
As someone who served his country proudly in the US Army in the 1980’s, and traveled extensively throughout Western Europe after mustering out, I can attest to the fact that The Netherlands has much less of a problem regarding cannabis (that’s its’ real name folks, not ‘mair-ee-wanna’) than this country does, and for the reasons cited by several posters above.
The fact remains that compared to booze, cannabis causes vastly less problems…for the Dutch. Their strict prohibitionist neighbors are the ones having the problems, because their own people can’t get it and have to travel to Holland and bring it back…just as US citizens used to go to Canada during alcohol Prohibition.
(And we all know how smashingly well alcohol Prohibition did, don’t we? The Canucks were happy for the revenue…revenue that wasn’t going into the US Treasury thanks, to the idiocy of Prohibition. And which was in large part why alcohol Prohibition was ended so quickly, as that money was desperately needed here, as it is today.)
As as to political philosophies behind substance prohibitions, we have the early 20th Century “Progressive Movement” to thank for the mess we have been saddled with today. The idea of the liberals who fronted for drug prohibition, however, weren’t exactly what you could call ‘liberal’ today, as the legislation was racially and culturally motivated and was deliberately aimed at people of color, for said ‘liberals’ thought them to be barely human and dangerously unstable, like First Nations peoples were supposed to be under the influence of ‘firewater’, so ‘dope’ had to be kept out of their hands. No science, just racial bigotry. That’s what our laws are based upon. Racial bigotry as national policy…subscribed to by purported ‘liberals’. Whereas a ‘traditional’ (not the modern NeoConservative sort) conservatives warned even back then that twisting the Commerce Clause to permit the laws would open Pandora’s Box to unlimited government encroachment into our daily lives…and look what’s happened.
It’s time the rationale for the laws were debated in a national public debate, which has never taken place in living memory. Let the people learn the facts about how drug prohibition began, and how it’s made such a mess of things since then, and I doubt that the policy will last longer than the next election.
- Segatari - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 4:52 pm:
Rich your comparsion is apples to oranges. Pot impares your senses to a great extent making you not function as well as someone who doesn’t smoke pot. Crossing the street you have to rely on your senses to make it across safely. Really the morality by personal choice arguement is weak because the unintended consequences have a habit of slamming into you without warning.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 4:55 pm:
Segatari, I almost got hit by a cab a few months ago because I was yapping on my cellphone while I crossed the street. Should we make that illegal as well?
Seriously, you can illegalize us all into oblivion with this crud.
- Mike Murray - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 5:49 pm:
====Really the morality by personal choice argument is weak because the unintended consequences have a habit of slamming into you without warning. ====
Apparently, Segatari, you have not been listening. The first step in drug policy is to actually educate. Education equals warning of the untended consequences or side effects of a drug in this case.
The personal choice argument is the only argument that is not a house built on sand. Your argument is that the government should ban drug use because the public is not capable and knowledgeable enough to make responsible decisions for themselves.
That is so undemocratic. Why vote then, people are so stupid and don’t know the issues so we should just have government decide what is best for them in all cases.
The other arguments against legalization. Social consequences and moral objection. Much of which are based on misinformation. Social consequences has been vetted at length above, with regards to morality…
Drugs have been established socially taboo since 1930s, so people fall all over themselves to make excuses for the government legislating morality…which never works out…prohibition…war on drugs…
America is all about freedom of choice… and just because you (or even a majority) don’t agree with some one else lifestyle does not legitimize legislators making it illegal. If it is not up to the rational individual choice of an adult, then whose decision is it?
- 22skidoo - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 7:23 pm:
This is from the DEA’s “Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization” website
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/index.html
“Alaska’s experiment with Legalization in the 1970s led to the state’s teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska’s residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990.”
Does anyone have any info on this? And, please, don’t give me the “if the DEA says it, it must be propaganda” line.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 7:46 pm:
“By this time the soma had begun to work. Eyes shone, cheeks were flushed, the inner light of universal benevolence broke out on every face in happy, friendly smiles.”
=================
I’ll bet that if we all get wasted enough on the right day, we might vote Blago back in again–especially if someone’s handing out little packets of snacks at the polls.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 7:54 pm:
Oh, yeah…and the Conga lines we could form on the way to the polls! Who says the 70s and 80s are dead?!!! We could form one big, unbreakable line to the polls all across the State!
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 8:04 pm:
Some really gifted political consultant, can get someone in the line to start singing “I like pork, pork. Do-do-do-do-do. He like’s pork, pork….”
And before you know, we’ll all be singing it like we TOTALLY mean it! For SURE!
- Sweet Jane - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 8:10 pm:
Segatari said: “Pot impares your senses to a great extent making you not function as well as someone who doesn’t smoke pot.”
Actually, it depends on what you mean by ‘function’ well. For example, I am a writer. Pot actually enables me to function better in that capacity. No offense, but I bet I am a way better writer than you, who I will assume does not smoke pot, which means that I am actually functioning better in the capacity of being a writer. But motor skills? If I drove a train for a living, I definitely wouldn’t get high before work.
And, when I was going through chemotherapy a few years ago, pot was the only thing that helped me keep food down and sleep. I was stoned for pretty much the whole time I was going through treatment - and this was advocated for me by (not advised by) my chemo nurses, who referred to it as ’self-medication’ and winked at me as they said it.
“Really the morality by personal choice arguement is weak because the unintended consequences have a habit of slamming into you without warning.”
I started cigarettes and pot around the same time in my life and found cigarettes MUCH harder to quit. Pot, I can just smoke whenever - sometimes I smoke every day and sometimes I smoke every six months. Right now it’s been almost a year since I last smoked. I detect no physical or mental addiction from pot in the way that my body was clearly addicted to cigarettes.
Heh. I didn’t intend this comment to be a pro-pot treatise, but I guess that’s what I’ve gone and done anyway. Maybe I’m just saying what a lot of folks are actually thinking while they are offering prison statistics and tax revenues as their politically correct cover in advocating for reform. Anyway, for all the pro-reform and personal reasons I offered, I’m for legalization.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 8:21 pm:
Aww, DUDE! Someone’s really going to have to re-think this election thing during the winter in the Midwest for us, Dude. It’ll be rancidly c-c-c-c-c-old out there.
- Larry Mullholland - Tuesday, Mar 3, 09 @ 9:40 pm:
First, Let us all agree that Industrial Hemp production should be allowed in Illinois. The bill died by a narrow margin about 8 years ago.
Google the term and you will find a vast number of products can be made from hemp. Including oils, fiber stock and even shingles as is currently used at the Ilinois State Fairgrounds Ag. Dept. Watershed Pavillion.
Second, look at the numbers for those imprisoned for minor POT offenses. At one time, I read it was a 3rd of confinements.
Consider the labor cost for the arrest,booking court backlog and police over-time costs at court hearings. Only to find that the judges plead the cases down or dismiss altogether.
Chicago wanted to decriminalized and said at the time they would save over $3,000,000 alone in overtime pay. In addition, they thought they would see an increase in fine revenues.
PhD Dean Edel says Caffiene, nicotine, coke, heroin meth and many rx’s are more addictive and harmful to your fat body than is POT.
So I say legalized it, tax it and fight the harmful drugs like crack/coke meth & heroin.
If the bill could pass on a secret ballot it would pass by a wide margin. Legislators should not be punished for doing the most logical thing. But then again this is Illinois politics
- Lynn S - Wednesday, Mar 4, 09 @ 11:12 pm:
I have a friend who used to be a deputy sheriff in Montana. He says he hated to arrest drunks–75% of them wanted to fight you to show you what “big men” they were. He didn’t mind arresting potheads; he said the worst issue with them is explaining to them 50 MILLION times that, no, you can’t go through the drive-through at McDonald’s on your way to jail!
In Huntley’s editorial, it states we can get almost $14 billion in additional taxes and law enforcement savings from legalization. I’d take that amount even in a good year, much less the depressingly bad budget year we are having now.
Really enjoying this thread–wondering how we can share this with others and bring some sanity (and tax revenue) to our fellow citizens who aren’t here at CapFax. Rich, maybe someday you can do an editorial on this?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:30 am:
All kidding aside: I do not believe that Pot is addictive. I’d even be willing to argue that it’s not necessarily a stepping stone to other more addictive drugs.
However, I’d guess that if it is legalized and more accessible, the chances that more people will begin smoking it or start smoking it again are good. While it seems to have some creative advantages and may be a great relaxer, people do have a tendency to do stupid things while they’re high.
Personally, I’m still trying to get over some of the interviews I saw at the polls during the Presidential election from people who were not high on anything. Getting from one location to another with drunk drivers, cell phone users, etc. on the road is already challenging enough.
I can certainly understand the dollars and savings of legalizing, but times are tough and they’ll probably get even tougher soon, so again, there’s a good possibility that use will skyrocket and the results will not be confined to people’s homes.
Now’s just probably not a good time even though the dollars make sense.
- T.J. - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:22 am:
I’m not sure why serious people post serious arguments here. The “explaining to them fifty million times” thing applies to more than just the drive-through at McDonald’s.
“My biggest complaint about MJ being illegal is that it makes good people criminals and seeds a disrespect for law in general.”
You got it backward. Good people do not violate federal law just because they feel like it. But I suppose I’m harshing someone’s mellow.
- Lynn S - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:10 pm:
Well, 2:30 a.m. Anon., I live in Champaign, and we are getting ready for the commercialized celebration of binge drinking known as “Unofficial” (as in, “Unofficial St. Patrick’s Day) tomorrow. People do stupid things, at home and in public, leading to contact with law enforcement officers ( and, sometimes, court proceedings and criminal records) when they are drunk, so I’m very sorry, but the “stupidity” argument isn’t going to carry much weight with me.
And if we can’t do it at a time when almost 60% of all federal prisoners are in the system for drug-related offenses, when are we going to do it? Do I hear a bid for 75%? We passed the 50% point almost 15 years ago, when I was pregnant with the child now known as the adolescent.
Even New York, which started the trend for harsh mandatory sentences for drug offenses, is admitting it isn’t working and is amending “the Rockefeller laws”. If memory serves correctly, California had a referendum which passed two years ago stating that minor drug offenses had to go to counseling first, not prison.
These laws need to change, in a manner that benefits our minority citizens and the taxpaying citizens of all ages and shades.