2 years after Pot is Legalized - NPR

[dex]

Imagine if you turned on the radio and heard this: "From NPR News in Washington, I'm Carl Kasell. After 70 years of prohibition, marijuana becomes legal today for personal consumption throughout the United States for persons 21 and older …"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103276152

No what many would think.

 

[CuppaJoe]

Wonder how the movies and TV would handle it. I'm reminded of the prohibition repeal scene from "Once Upon a Time in America." The mobsters celebrate with a black cake the size and shape of a coffin, marked "prohibition."

"One of the main issues is there's still a mystique when it comes to marijuana use," Prince says. "A lot of people still don't know that marijuana use is addictive.

Other prescription pain killers are also addictive. It could be quite a blow to the pharmaceutical industry.

 

[HFWR]

And it'll make your babies be born naked...

 

[Khan]

Evil , wicked, mean and nasty...

 

[Purron]

Evil , wicked, mean and nasty...

...don't step on the grass, Sam.

 

[brewer12345]

Other prescription pain killers are also addictive. It could be quite a blow to the pharmaceutical industry.

Hey, I am addicted to eating, breathing and sleeping. What's the problem?

 

[HFWR]

Evil , wicked, mean and nasty...

...don't step on the grass, Sam.

The rendition on Steppenwolf Live is especially good.

HFWR, old Steppenwolf fan

Now it's a monster, and will not obey...

 

[CuppaJoe]

Hey, I am addicted to eating, breathing and sleeping....

So, what's the scoop, is that stuff available by prescription? I'll take a 40-year supply, doc.

 

[bbbamI]

And it'll make your babies be born naked...

I thought it was born nekkid.....

 

[ziggy29]

I thought it was born nekkid.....

I'm nekkid under my clothes... does that count?

 

[bbbamI]

I'm nekkid under my clothes... does that count?

It's getting warm in here....

Ok, I don't know if I'm the first woman to say it, but here goes..."this post is useless without pictures"......

 

[yakers]

I'm in favor of decriminalizing pot. There are some rules that would have to be developed for testing in relation to driving and work issues. Maybe quality standards. And would there be a free market or state stores? But getting criminals out of the process would be worth the effort. Now some stronger drugs may be a problem. I wonder how long prohibition would have lasted if beer & wine were legalized but not hard liquor?

 

[ziggy29]

IMO, anyone can insert their own hypothetical results of a "what if" scenario that fits their own agenda, regardless of which side they are on. As this is almost all based on hypotheticals and such, it seems fairly useless to me.

 

[dex]

IMO, anyone can insert their own hypothetical results of a "what if" scenario that fits their own agenda, regardless of which side they are on. As this is almost all based on hypotheticals and such, it seems fairly useless to me.

Wouldn't that same criteria and conclution apply to those who are in favor of decriminalization or legalization?

+++
"NPR came up with a hypothetical scenario and asked experts to play along,"

If this article was on Fox news it might mean one thing but being on NPR it is like the Catholic Pope coming out for contraception.
That the article disagrees with many of the arguments for legalization or decrimialization should give pause.

 

[ziggy29]

Wouldn't that same criteria and conclution apply to those who are in favor of decriminalization or legalization?

Absolutely it would. The difference is that most people don't pass their opinions off as expert analysis of what would happen, only what we have a hunch *might* happen.

This is opinion packaged as pseudo-fact by hiding behind a few so-called "experts," and that's what gets me about it.

 

[Khan]

Absolutely it would. The difference is that most people don't pass their opinions off as expert analysis of what would happen, only what we have a hunch *might* happen.

This is opinion packaged as pseudo-fact by hiding behind a few so-called "experts," and that's what gets me about it.

"We all know that..."

No we don't.

 

[haha]

Absolutely it would. The difference is that most people don't pass their opinions off as expert analysis of what would happen, only what we have a hunch *might* happen.

This is opinion packaged as pseudo-fact by hiding behind a few so-called "experts," and that's what gets me about it.

I can't see anyone claiming to know what will happen. It is obviously a counterfactual make-believe scenario.

"NPR's fictitious scenario of legalized marijuana is not likely to come true anytime soon."

People read it; which was the goal. The people who contributed may or may not know what would happen were this to come to pass, but they do bring some limited expertise which is more than what the average internet genius brings.

Ha

 

[Nords]

Other prescription pain killers are also addictive.

Well, thank goodness that doesn't apply to alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine...

Wouldn't that same criteria and conclution apply to those who are in favor of decriminalization or legalization?

I don't think decriminalization or legalization is necessarily better or worse than the status quo, any more than alcohol prohibition was necessarily better or worse for overall society, or the latest restrictions on smoking.

But legalization & taxation would certainly be a lot more profitable than the gazillions spent on the "War on Drugs". It'd eliminate a lot of graft & corruption, too.

Here's an imperfect analogy whose application I'd never considered before. Last weekend I was a judge at a taekwondo tournament. Several of the competitors-- enough of them to be a problem-- were pushing & holding. There are various degrees of flagrancy but essentially both are against the rules, and the ref is supposed to discourage them by penalizing the offending fighters. However the ref can't stop what he can't see and won't stop what he doesn't feel is intentional, and some players are more skilled at the "cheating" than others. Of course the coaches can always tell when the other scurrilous bastard is exploiting their fair-minded fighter.

When I commented on the enforcement, our instructor said that he thought pushing & holding should be made legal. That way the sport would come up with its own counters to the tactic, and eventually those depending on the ref's ignorance/indulgence would be discouraged in their tactics by jump hook kicks to the face.

So legalize marijuana. Those who want (or "need" it) could obtain a generally safe and potent substance that may or may not be addictive, depending on the user's genetic & psychological tendencies. The tax revenues could be a huge source of funds, and the current laws (for example DUI) could handle those who don't/won't use responsibly and those who are evading taxation.

The tax revenue would be a potent fourth leg to the table holding up the Hawaii economy, too...

 

[dex]

"Discussing drug policy is like discussing gun control or abortion: facts are irrelevant."
On the Legalization — or Not — of Marijuana - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

I really get the sense that the above quote sums up this subject. A lot of selective attention to the issues to support a position. Also, there appears to me some unidentifiable (to me) emotional issues attached to the subject.

Many people who don't like the current system propose legalization or decriminalization - no interum steps. That is not a procedure any of us would have accepted in our performance reviews while working. We would have asked where our performance fell short and to be given time to correct them. Current drug enforcement and penalties have not changed since the beginning.

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/war-on-drugs-over-43157.html
I proposed the following in another thread.
"We should have a progressive system of drug enforcement for users
- treatment/with followup testing
- treatment/minor incarceration/followup testing
- longer incarceration/treatment
- very long incarceration - in the jungles of Columbia

Failing all that - Soma should be given to all that want it."

 

[eridanus]

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/on-the-legalization-or-not-of-marijuana/
Also, there appears to me some unidentifiable (to me) emotional issues attached to the subject.

Agreed. Some people have some real hangups about the drug for some reason.

 

[tmm99]

What I want to know is this...

Close to 40% of fatal traffic accidents are alcohol related. A lot of violence involves alcohol. Yet, alcohol is legal. (Why is that?)

We all know smoking cigarettes causes numerous diseases. Yet, smoking cigarettes is legal. (Why is that? Seriously.)

Is marijuana supposed to be worse than alcohol or cigarettes?

 

[bongo2]

"Discussing drug policy is like discussing gun control or abortion: facts are irrelevant."
On the Legalization — or Not — of Marijuana - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

It's interesting that you pull out that quote. The person you are quoting is pointing out that the facts are irrelevant because they are all on the side of reform.

I agree that the lack of specific alternatives and the all-or-nothing dichotomy of some legalizers are legitimate criticisms. I don't understand, however, your recommended approach (which I initially took as a joke, but since you repeat it here I'll address it).

The first four steps sound just like our current policy, and the comment to give soma to everyone ... well ... I don't get it. What are you trying to say here?

 

[free4now]

I think NPR got it pretty much right. Kids, people with addictive natures, and people who don't have good judgement would be worse off because they'd get more access to something that can harm them (kinda like credit cards). Nobody would die directly of overdoses, but there would be a few more road accidents and lung cancer deaths. Then again, perhaps if people could partake openly they wouldn't have to sneak off to their cars to get stoned and so there might actually be fewer road accidents.

The tax benefits would be real, but relatively minor in comparison with the savings from not waging the drug war and incarcerating the captives. The biggest benefit would be the lives saved by stopping the violence associated with the black market and drug war.

One benefit that doesn't get discussed much is respect for the rule of law. Given that most of our recent US presidents have smoked it without being prosecuted, the status quo teaches people that it's okay to break the law. Legalization would give teens one less reason to hate "the man". Police officers (many of whom use pot) would have less of an "us against them" mentality.

 

[NotReady4Purple]

I laughed at the part of the article that described it as low calorie. Not once the munchies hit....

 

[Khan]

I think NPR got it pretty much right. Kids, people with addictive natures, and people who don't have good judgement would be worse off because they'd get more access to something that can harm them (kinda like credit cards). Nobody would die directly of overdoses, but there would be a few more road accidents and lung cancer deaths. Then again, perhaps if people could partake openly they wouldn't have to sneak off to their cars to get stoned and so there might actually be fewer road accidents.

The tax benefits would be real, but relatively minor in comparison with the savings from not waging the drug war and incarcerating the captives. The biggest benefit would be the lives saved by stopping the violence associated with the black market and drug war.

One benefit that doesn't get discussed much is respect for the rule of law. Given that most of our recent US presidents have smoked it without being prosecuted, the status quo teaches people that it's okay to break the law. Legalization would give teens one less reason to hate "the man". Police officers (many of whom use pot) would have less of an "us against them" mentality.

It does seem ridiculous (ironic?) that the majority of Baby Boomers who want to be seen as 'tough on drugs' smoked pot at one time.