Poll: Legalize it?

[Purron]

Today's Washington Post had an interesting item in the Outlook section regarding the legalization of marijuana. They likened the current situation with the Mexican drug lords to Al Capone during prohibition. Here's the link:

washingtonpost.com

So, do you think marijuana should be legalized?

[bssc]

Sure
1) I suffer from glaucoma. It would be nice to have other treatment options in case the current one stops working. I prefer not to go blind to reinforce someone else's morality laws.

2) Think of all the tax money to balance the budget. And we could cut back on farm subsidies if they grew pot. And it would keep the money here in the US instead of going to Mexico.

[bbbamI]

...for medicinal purposes...yes.

[dex]

A couple of points.
1. it is an opinion piece not a news piece
2. it doesn't address the health affect of it. Do your own research
WikiAnswers - What are the physical effects of marijuana
Salon.com Health | Smashed and stoned

3. how can we try to get people to stop smoking and then provide another product that damages people's health

4. if it was legalized; drug cartels would still exist; they would just have one less product to sell. So the Al C. analogy is not a good one as used. Or another way of looking at it is the mafia had gambling, prostitution, etc to keep them going.

Poor article

[ziggy29]

I'd like to see some jurisdictions try it, at least. It's my suspicion that prohibition causes mroe problems than it prevents, but before decriminalizing it willy-nilly, I'd like to see a few places try it and see how it works out. If it turns out that the problems that "legal pot" may exacerbate are more than offset by the reduced criminal element in the illicit trafficking of it, then roll it out all over.

[Purron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex it is an opinion piece not a news piece

Dex, thank you for clarifying this. I mentioned the article is in the Outlook section which is opinion, not news. Those not familiar with the Washington Post may not have realized this.

[calmloki]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I'd like to see some jurisdictions try it, at least. It's my suspicion that prohibition causes mroe problems than it prevents, but before decriminalizing it willy-nilly, I'd like to see a few places try it and see how it works out. If it turns out that the problems that "legal pot" may exacerbate are more than offset by the reduced criminal element in the illicit trafficking of it, then roll it out all over.

Maybe Nevada could add it to it's bag of tricks...

[mickeyd]

Absolutely legalize it.

It will be eventually legalized as the population ages and younger (more hip?) folks take over and run the USA. Tax the hell out of it like they do liquor and tobacco.

[dex]

"Obama has already called the drug war an "utter failure."

How often have we heard someone say this? And yet I don't remember anyone saying why it is an "utter failure"

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex "Obama has already called the drug war an "utter failure." How often have we heard someone say this? And yet I don't remember anyone saying why it is an "utter failure"

My personal belief is that it's a failure because prohibition doesn't kill demand, and prohibition DOES lead to more crime, more violence and higher prices (possibly leading to even more crime by users to get a fix). The more government cracks down, the more violent it gets and the more it costs. But if you are hooked or otherwise want it enough, you'll find a way to get it, even if it means burglary, robbery and so on.

I also think the preponderance of the evidence from the alcohol prohibition in the 1920s points to failed policy. Assuming we can't kill demand (we didn't for booze, either), I'd rather see supply come from a reputable taxed, regulated and legal entity than from the mob.

But as I said before -- I'd rather see it be rolled out on a trial basis in a few areas before opening the floodgates. That might make it easier to keep the genie in the bottle if it turned out to be a bad idea.

[dex]

A lot of info at this site.

Chapter 9: Discussion - 2001 Summary of Findings
Prior to 1979, the peak year for illicit drug use, there had been a steady increase in use occurring throughout the 1970s (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 1983). Although the first national survey to estimate the prevalence of illicit drug use was conducted in 1971, estimates of illicit drug initiation, based on retrospective reports of first-time use, suggest that the increase had begun in the early or mid-1960s (Gfroerer & Brodsky, 1992). These incidence estimates suggest that illicit drug use prevalence had been very low during the early 1960s, but began to increase during the mid-1960s as substantial numbers of young people initiated the use of marijuana. As discussed in Chapter 5 of this report, annual marijuana incidence increased from about 0.6 million new users in 1965 until it reached a peak of 3.2 million initiates per year in 1976 and 1977, 2 to 3 years before the prevalence rates peaked. Interestingly, the annual number of marijuana initiates reached a low point in 1990 (1.4 million), then increased, 2 years before the increase in youth prevalence occurred. This finding demonstrates the value of analyzing the incidence data in forecasting future trends in prevalence. Assuming this relationship between incidence and prevalence continues to hold, the continuing high levels (2.4 million to 2.5 million initiates per year) of marijuana incidence between 1995 and 2000 indicate that a decline in youth prevalence may not occur in the near future. The cohort identified as the "baby boomers," who had high marijuana initiation rates during the 1970s, has resulted in an increase in the numbers needing treatment for substance abuse problems. The increase in marijuana initiation rates during the 1990s may have the same result.
+++++
I guess we need to add the concept of MJ being a gateway drug to the discussion.

[Nords]

http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ana-19755.html

and

http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...5&postcount=53

Legalize it, tax the heck out of it, and use the revenue to fix Medicare. When that's done then start fixing Social Security and the national debt.

[armor99]

I vote yes (bet I surprised a bunch of you ), but with one caviat. If you are arrested for a crime you commit, and you were under the influence of marijuana at the time harsh additional penalties should be levied against you.

Do what it is that you want to do.... BUT... you will take responsibility for the negative aspects of those actions. If someone chooses to smoke themselves into a stupor and waste their lives... fine... go for it. But stay off my roads etc while you are doing that. Fair enough?

[donheff]

I voted yes and agree with Nords. But I don't think that is politically feasible anytime soon. A more realistic interim option is decriminalization of recreational drugs (i.e., the drugs remain illegal but there is no criminal penalty for possession - just a minor citation at the worst). Portugal and other countries have gone that route with no ill effects. Here we could save a fortune in law enforcement and prison expenses through decriminalization allowing us to provide robust rehabilitation for the small minority that have serious problems or become addicts. Maybe after some time in that regime coupled with California style "medical marijuana" people would realize that outright legalization (at least of marijuana) wouldn't destroy the country and would be a good revenue source.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by armor99 I vote yes (bet I surprised a bunch of you ), but with one caviat. If you are arrested for a crime you commit, and you were under the influence of marijuana at the time harsh additional penalties should be levied against you.

I'm not a fan of selectively applying harsher penalties for the same crime based on social engineering reasons. The bottom line, IMO, is that "I was high" should not be used as a mitigating factor. You do the stuff (just like alcohol) and you assume full legal responsibility for your actions just as if you were sober and unimpaired.

And, of course, "stoned driving" would be dealt with much as drunk driving, as it is (or should be) now.

[Sarah in SC]

Sure. Treat it the same way we do alcohol. Good for the tax base, the pizza guy and the farmer.

[Gumby]

Never smoked it. Wouldn't smoke if it were legal. But I still support legalization. Sell it and tax it like alcohol.

[kumquat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby Sell it and tax it like alcohol.

Yep, it's a no brainer.

[Frugality_of_Apathy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ana-19755.html and http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...5&postcount=53 Legalize it, tax the heck out of it, and use the revenue to fix Medicare. When that's done then start fixing Social Security and the national debt.

I disagree with the "Tax the heck out of it."

If you lay a heavy enough tax on it that it's just as expensive as it was with the black market there is absolutely no reason for the black market to shut down. And no matter how much money we collect from taxes there is no way to fix social security and medicare as it's expenses are raising exponentially. We could collect 100% tax on everything and we'd only delay the inevitable 4 or 5 years.


It's a moral thing. It's immoral to to force your opinions about what adults should and should not be able to do with their own bodies. Perhaps we should outlaw tattoos, peircings, swearing, chocolate, cheese, and require everyone to run 5 miles twice a week or we'll give them life in prison?

[Sarah in SC]

I'm a big Peter Tosh fan. I don't know about that whole moral debate thing.

YouTube - Peter Tosh - Legalize it live