The Editorial Board called for an end to the federal prohibition on marijuana, to pave the way for state policies to regulate the issue. They point out, among other things, the problem with having state policy exist at the whim of federal enforcement. This isn't quite the start of a national conversation on the subject but along with the recent state policy changes this could be perceived as a milestone.
Link - (
New Window )
...but their numbers are diminishing.
This, like other issues, is probably only a matter of time.
yep. basically when all the old stiffs die out, weed will be fully legal.
Legalize It - ( New Window )
Yup, but think about how often federal, state and local law enforcement budgets actually decline...there will be a gap that will be filled with?
(I'm only partly kidding)
What will drive this more than anything is other states seeing Colorado's coffers fill from taxing marijuana.There aren't that many new revenue sources, and States/Cities need money desperately.
Brutal discussion on this issue on MTP this morning. Tin-eared goobers joke around about "grass is for walking on" and "what's the NYT smoking?" while they and the moderator fail to even mention the disastrous drug war. It was really an embarrassing segment.
Referendums like those in CO/WA are, generally speaking, collectively bad for the country, but in this case I'll give them a pass because the craven pols prefer the easy-blame (although mild credit to the Prez for laying off those states, for now). Hopefully the toothpaste is out of the tube.
(I'm only partly kidding)
Yeah. Water in the San Juoaquin Valley in CA (some absurd amount of American produce comes from here) is being charged at a rate about 10x normal levels.
Marijuana will be legalized eventually, but widespread farming will be curtailed in the west with continued drought (and perhaps worsening).
Well, that's presumptuous. I mean, I've seen what pot can do for people that don't need it, and people that do. It is just like alcohol addiction in that sense. The best to come from it will be nobody getting arrested for that BS anymore.
The tax money will be a nice band aid for 8 minutes until the government fucks that up and pisses it away.
IMO the only good or change that comes is nobody being arrested anymore. That's about it.
+100
The law enforcement establishment, whatever that is, may oppose it, but the rank and file whom I know generally don't really enjoy busting people for doing the sort of crap their friends are still doing and that many of them did themselves when they were younger, ala underage drinking. As I said above they like that it can lead to the discovery of other, more serious crime, like the discovery of hard drugs and weapons, but actually having to show up in court and go through Fourth Amendment hearings to get a suspended sentence and a few hundred bucks worth of fine isn't their idea of a good time either.
Quote:
And we will very likely be better off for it - there will be a number of second and third order effects that will be interesting to see...
Well, that's presumptuous. I mean, I've seen what pot can do for people that don't need it, and people that do. It is just like alcohol addiction in that sense. The best to come from it will be nobody getting arrested for that BS anymore.
The tax money will be a nice band aid for 8 minutes until the government fucks that up and pisses it away.
IMO the only good or change that comes is nobody being arrested anymore. That's about it.
Presumptuous? Nah, more like common sense - I doubt the unraveling of a multi-decade, billion dollar enforcement effort, the creation of a multi-billion dollar agricultural, retail and consumer industry (to name a couple of implications) have completely foreseen implications. To suggest that while the overall direction will very likely be positive but not entirely full of wine and roses seems practical, not presumptuous.
I think the positive effects are going to far outweigh the negative, but any advocate of this policy should familiarize themselves with the likely and possible bad outcomes.
Mark Kleiman writes about this and while I don't always agree with him, he almost always has something intelligent to say.
Link - ( New Window )
As you said Gary it's not that it outweighs the likely positives, but it is a consideration.
Also crop substitution, especially one that requires extra water, could have its own attendant problems, as it seems to have done in parts of California.
So, mixed emotions. It prefer we give it a decade or two to see the one term effects in states that have chosen to lead the way. We'll know more about the implications then than we do now.
As you said Gary it's not that it outweighs the likely positives, but it is a consideration.
Also crop substitution, especially one that requires extra water, could have its own attendant problems, as it seems to have done in parts of California.
The problem with the DUID argument is- its already illegal to drive high. People aren't going to be more likely to drive high because weed is legal then they are currently.
So, mixed emotions. It prefer we give it a decade or two to see the one term effects in states that have chosen to lead the way. We'll know more about the implications then than we do now.
There is literally ZERO barrier for minors to obtain marijuana. The only ones who think its hard for teenagers to get marijuana is out of touch adults.
if mom and dad are smoking weed, it suddenly becomes way less cool
if mom and dad are smoking weed, it suddenly becomes way less cool
Which is exactly why underage drinking hasn't been and never will be a problem.
One of the big things I worry about is the replacement drug. The folks that stand to lose the most money aren't all going to say, "this is great! Now we can be legal and pay taxes!" They'll fill the void with something else, I would think. Heroin use is already on the rise. I'd hate to see it get even worse.
As Gary said, it's not all roses, but the benefits outweigh the costs.
That should not be the reason MJ isn't legalized.
Second, I do believe it's harmful, or at least that the lack of harm is overstated. Either with respect to lung damage or as seems manifest, mental acuity. Gateway? I don't know. I also think it can be evaluated on its own and not relative to tobacco or alcohol. More of a why add one more as opposed to a If they let this in, then why not this.
Having said that, I am not opposed to legalization. If it was on the ballot I would skip the question. It doesn't effect me since it's not behavior that I engage in but adults are big people and should make their own decision and then accept what consequences may (or may not follow.
I am amazed however, how something so inconsequential could make people go crazy. People taking time out of their lives to advocate or protest or whatever.... It's just a trivial thing. No principle, no value, no life-changing event. I mean, if today they outlawed foie gras (damn they did that already :( or even bacon I would say, "that sucks because I really love foie gras and bacon" and then I would go to work and maybe, during break I would fondly remember the good old days when you could eat whatever the heck you wanted to eat.
People can do what they want....however, I have to say, if I knew a person was a dope smoker (or had posted liberal missives on fb for that matter), they better be *tons* more astounding on their resume for me to hire them over a competing person. The same would likely go for how valuation and evaluation as an employee.
Considering the amount of people incarcerated for possession/dealing and the prevalence of mandatory sentencing for multiple offenses- I'd say it is anything but inconsequential, even for folks that aren't associated with the drug in any way.
There's a reason we lead the developed world in incarcerated citizens. In fact, if anything that's the gateway IMO.
How?
Quote:
I am amazed however, how something so inconsequential could make people go crazy. People taking time out of their lives to advocate or protest or whatever.... It's just a trivial thing. No principle, no value, no life-changing event.
Considering the amount of people incarcerated for possession/dealing and the prevalence of mandatory sentencing for multiple offenses- I'd say it is anything but inconsequential, even for folks that aren't associated with the drug in any way.
There's a reason we lead the developed world in incarcerated citizens. In fact, if anything that's the gateway IMO.
I think Bill's point is that if pot is illegal, just don't smoke it. Until it becomes legal.
Quote:
Quote:
I am amazed however, how something so inconsequential could make people go crazy. People taking time out of their lives to advocate or protest or whatever.... It's just a trivial thing. No principle, no value, no life-changing event.
Considering the amount of people incarcerated for possession/dealing and the prevalence of mandatory sentencing for multiple offenses- I'd say it is anything but inconsequential, even for folks that aren't associated with the drug in any way.
There's a reason we lead the developed world in incarcerated citizens. In fact, if anything that's the gateway IMO.
I think Bill's point is that if pot is illegal, just don't smoke it. Until it becomes legal.
Pretty much. I mean in and of itself, its a trivial thing. Less worth than vacuuming your house. Playstation with an odor. Make playstation, or poprocks, or those two knocker balls on a string illegal and it's oh well, let's move on with our lives and do something that has substance. It's not racism, so I'm agog people would take a day off from work to march in a parade is all.
Quote:
to me the big issue is going to be DUID. It's much easier for administrative purposes to certify a bunch of LEOs on a breath test than to do blood tests, which require the presence of the chain of custody and if they fail (for instance, the blood coagulates) they can't be immediately corrected the way a breath test can as there isn't any near-in-time feedback.
As you said Gary it's not that it outweighs the likely positives, but it is a consideration.
Also crop substitution, especially one that requires extra water, could have its own attendant problems, as it seems to have done in parts of California.
The problem with the DUID argument is- its already illegal to drive high. People aren't going to be more likely to drive high because weed is legal then they are currently.
People may not be more likely to drive stoned, but with an increase in the # of people stoned (or the frequency of people stoned), it's naive to think there won't be an increase in DUI.
But I support legalization. The evils of the drug war have been apparent for decades.
There's also the knock-on effects - marijuana is a gateway not just to other drugs but to breaking the law. If marijuana now becomes another socially conscripted but perfectly legal drug, people who smoke it will consider themselves law-abiding citizens and hopefully be less willing to break other, more serious laws.
I absolutely understand the safety concerns- if they're deemed warranted, at the very least decriminalize it. Like seat belt laws- fine folks if you want to modify their behavior, don't toss them in prison.
On the one hand, requiring people to use seat belts is a clear infringement of their rights to self-determination. On the other hand, not using a safety belt is not some sort of civil rights action but simple laziness or ignorance, with often awful consequences. I support safety belt laws because it's the least-bad set of two bad options. Same idea applies to marijuana legalization.