Marijuana Legalization - Why Not?

[Berzerker]

"Tell Your Children" or "Teach Your Children". I think it was the first...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Juggernaut
Why does Giancarlo say things like "our army" when he's not an American?

I meant to say your, not our. I forgot to type the y.

I didn't say 90 million use pot, I said ~ 90 million have used pot. And why would you send an army to Colombia? Marijuana is grown in many places. Real Colombian marijuana is rather rare, they've switched more to cocaine and heroin. Quite an indictment of the drug war I'd say.

I disagree, 90 million have not used pot. We should declare war on drug lords, as they are connected with terrorist groups, the FARC for example... the Burmese Triangle where most of the marijuana comes from and Mexican Cartels. We should ask these governments, and I am sure the Military junta of Burma and Fox's government in Mexico would be more than willing to shut them down once and for all.

If drug wars were so great, why does Colombia have so much violence? The last time alcohol dealers were shooting up our streets was under alcohol prohibition. Why do so many on your side ignore this fact?

The Alcohol prohibition was done in a irresponsible way. The government made a mistake by banning it, and not promoting the people to cut down on how much they drink. But illicit drugs have no place in society and should be eliminated once and for all with excessive force.

[SlowwHand]

I will never be convinced that marijuana is a drug, of any kind.
Let's outlaw rose bushes. I've been mangled by thorns.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
See, this is why I don´t say my opinion.

And 90 Million Americans do not use marijuana. If that is true, then Marshall Law should be declared and our army should be sent to Colombia now.



A lot more of these drug dealers are dieing faster than law enforcement. I think the US government should put more money into the law enforcement, replace the standard weapon of a 9MM Pistol to an M-16 and there we have adequate enforcement.

Jesus Christ. I've smoked weed a couple of times and am about as far removed from your average druggie as is possible.

My brother and sister have both smoked up a few times too, and so have my father and mother (not admitted, but quite obvious). That's 5/5 for my family. I grew up in a nice suburban neighbourhood. Pot use is much more prevalent than you seem to think, giannie baby.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ramo


Which is why there should be laws against driving while under the influence of certain drugs, not the drugs themselves.

Criminalizing drugs (barring, for example, pcp) makes as much sense as criminalizing cars or knives.



And how often does this happen?



Why? So alcohol consumption would increase? So the crime rates would drastically increase?

Marijuana is implicated in violent crime quite often, but as I pointed out above almost everyone who smokes pot also drinks or does other drugs.

Prohibition did not increase alcohol consumption or crime. One of the nasty tricks played by the anti-Prohibition crowd was to compare statistics for crime in the 3 to 5 years preceeding the official enactment of prohibition with that of the decade from 1921 to 1931. The nation was at war from 1917 to 1919, with large numbers of soldiers not returning to civilian life until 1920. One way of dramatically reducing crime is to take the bulk of the young male population and put them in the army. Had they used statistics for 1900 to 1910 there would have been a clear decrease in crime after Prohibition. Furthermore, since there were no combined Federal statistics prior to 1920, they used statistics for New York and Chicago as the basis for the pre- Prohibition figures, and then compared those figures to Federal statistics for the whole country after 1920! Obviously doing this would bias the pre-1920 figures because the bulk of the US wouldn't have the high crime rate of the big cities.

Deaths from liver disease dropped dramatically after 1920. I believe that this is a good indicator that alcohol consumption decreaased.

[rev]

I disagree, 90 million have not used pot.

Give something to back that up, then. Until then, enjoy some more numbers:
In the year 2000, 24.5 million people used illegal drugs. (also note that 42.7% of cigarette smokers have used an illicit drug in the past month. And marijuana is a "gateway drug"?) Check out the tables - they're easier. And look at that, 87 million people have used some sort of illicit drug in their lifetime, 76 million of which have used marijuana. The "lifetime" percentages of people around 16-20 years old (in regard to marijuana) hover just below 50% and when age hits 35 or older, it drifts to about 30%.

We should declare war on drug lords, as they are connected with terrorist groups, the FARC for example...

Why are they linked? Because the drug lords can make a lot of money off of drug trade (and make that much because of price inflation due to illegalization) and the terrorist organizations know they can finance themselves using drug money.

So what do you do? You make things harder, prices go up and groups like the FARC are willing to do more work for more money. Or, you could cut off their funding entirely by legalizing a drug or two.

the Burmese Triangle where most of the marijuana comes from and Mexican Cartels.

Care to back up the statement that most marijuana in the US comes from there?

But illicit drugs have no place in society

Obviously they do have a place, or we wouldn't have this problem.

and should be eliminated once and for all with excessive force

What're you going to do, exterminate the cannibis plant from every forrest of every country in the world? Even if you destroyed all the drug cartels in existance today, there'd still be some kid growing marijuana in his basement, cooking up some meth in his bathtub and building an ecstacy lab in his garage. You can't stop it. That's the nature of capitalism.

[KrazyHorse]

Actually, Columbia does keep most of the West Coast supplied. British Columbia, that is.

[Saint Marcus]

There are very strict anti-drug laws in the US...yet people use a lot more soft drugs than in Holland, where it's legal. Prove enough that banning doesn't work.

Go Holland

Since legalisation drug use is down, hard-drug use (not including speed/xtc and the like) is down by a lot, drug related crimes are down even more, etc. Holland is prove legalisation of drugs (and prostitution for that matter) is extremely succesfull. The USA on the other hand is prove that banning drugs (and prostitution) doesn't work. The Dutch example is copied accross the world, and for a reason.

[Saint Marcus]

Also note that marihuana (sp) is less addictive than tobacco, and does far less damage than alcohol.

[Ramo]

One of the nasty tricks played by the anti-Prohibition crowd was to compare statistics for crime in the 3 to 5 years preceeding the official enactment of prohibition with that of the decade from 1921 to 1931.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/homrate1.htm

According to the Department of Commerce, the homicide rates during the period of 1910 to 1944 are:

The ten years Prohibition Prohibition
preceeding begins 1920 ends 1933
Prohibition

1910 - 4.6 1920 - 6.8 1933 - 9.7
1911 - 5.5 1921 - 8.1 1934 - 9.5
1912 - 5.4 1922 - 8.0 1935 - 8.3
1913 - 6.1 1923 - 7.8 1936 - 8.0
1914 - 6.2 1924 - 8.1 1937 - 7.6
1915 - 5.9 1925 - 8.3 1938 - 6.8
1916 - 6.3 1926 - 8.4 1939 - 6.4
1917 - 6.9 1927 - 8.4 1940 - 6.3
1918 - 6.5 1928 - 8.6 1941 - 6.0
1919 - 7.2 1929 - 8.4 1942 - 5.9
1930 - 8.8 1943 - 5.1
1931 - 9.2 1944 - 5.0
1932 - 9.0

Clearly, if you throw WWI, you still see a marked increase of homicide during prohibition (keep in mind that the federal prohibition law was preceded by many local prohibition laws). And more importantly, during the period after prohibition ended and WWII ('33 - '42), there was a drastic decrease in homicide rates.

Furthermore, since there were no combined Federal statistics prior to 1920, they used statistics for New York and Chicago as the basis for the pre- Prohibition figures, and then compared those figures to Federal statistics for the whole country after 1920! Obviously doing this would bias the pre-1920 figures because the bulk of the US wouldn't have the high crime rate of the big cities.

Eh? That should throw the bias in favor of the pro-Prohibition advocates. Since the pre-1920 stats only cover NY and Chicago, the crime rates should be substantially lower than they were presented during the pre-federal Prohibition period!

Deaths from liver disease dropped dramatically after 1920. I believe that this is a good indicator that alcohol consumption decreaased.

Granted.

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Originally posted by Asher

In the same sense, look at the huge black market for cigarettes...

But for marijuana, there is already a huge black market in place, yes? So perhaps people will decide they may as well continue to use it (=the black market).
And I was under the impression that the taxes proposed for marijuana would be higher than for cigarettes?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ramo

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/homrate1.htm

According to the Department of Commerce, the homicide rates during the period of 1910 to 1944 are:



Clearly, if you throw WWI, you still see a marked increase of homicide during prohibition (keep in mind that the federal prohibition law was preceded by many local prohibition laws). And more importantly, during the period after prohibition ended and WWII ('33 - '42), there was a drastic decrease in homicide rates.



Eh? That should throw the bias in favor of the pro-Prohibition advocates. Since the pre-1920 stats only cover NY and Chicago, the crime rates should be substantially lower than they were presented during the pre-federal Prohibition period!



Granted.

Oh Yeah! I'm really impressed by data supplied by an organization which advocates drug realization! I'm utterly certain that the basis from which the data reported in the 1st and 2nd decades of the 20th century could not possibly be the same as that for the 3rd and subsequent decades because many states simply didn't compile statewide data prior to 1920. In the 1920's the FBI convinced the states to begin compiling statewide statistics in a uniform manner. The difference in the way data was compiled would make a considerable impact on results. Let's say a state prior to 1920 has reliable data pertaining only to it's major cities, which accounted for 40% of the population. After 1920 the state, having established a state police organization, improves collection of data from rural areas as well. Now the data is being collected from 100% of the state, resulting in an apparent increase in the gross number of crimes. When researchers at a later date compute rates of crime they don't take into account that the earlier data only pertained to a fraction of the state and erroneously treat the data as if it pertained to the whole state. The crime rate of the earlier time periods is computed as lower than it really was.

[rev]

Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot
But for marijuana, there is already a huge black market in place, yes? So perhaps people will decide they may as well continue to use it (=the black market).
And I was under the impression that the taxes proposed for marijuana would be higher than for cigarettes?

Honestly, though, how many people would try calling and paging their various dealers half a dozen times and arranging a meeting place when they could go into a gas station, show their ID and get a sack? Plus, all the massive growers outside (and inside) the US would be contracted out by legal companies, not drug lords. Thus, both demand and supply go down, meaning the number of marijuana dealers drops dramatically. Instead, they have to stick with selling the harder drugs (which, let's admit, most marijuana dealers already sell as well -- in my experience, at least). Now those millions of marijuana consumers are kept seperate from the dealers (no forced interaction), meaning that they're a bit less likely to be introduced to those drugs. It's not a miracle solution, of course, but it would greatly help.

The key is that the retail price has to be a bit lower than what the dealers sell it at, and I think that's a very real possibility.

[Ramo]

*Sigh*

Again, Dr. S, the numbers were taken from a Dept. of Commerce report (referenced in the article), not made up by an advocate for freedom of consumption.

And I'm making your assumption that the crime rates were taken exclusively from New York and Chicago (which, again, would be a bias in favor of prohibition).

And the most important parts of my point were the rates between the end of Prohibition and the beginning of WW II, which clearly do not support your assertion.

[Gareth Edmunson]

Originally posted by Asher

You've smoked a little too much, my friend.
You also appear to be one of those people who smoke it because it is illegal.


Or vice versa. In Canada, the federally grown (by the government) stuff is entirely pure.


Or the people who have almost got arrested with it, or the people who wonder why the hell it's so bad when cigarettes and alcohol still are legal, or the people who aren't doing it just because it's illegal.


Kinda like the end of prohibition didn't stop the majority of the black market for alcohol, right?

I smoke too much? Really? That never occured to me. Your insight is never ending. I know I smoke too much. I've promised myself I wouldn't smoke until after new years, and then not smoke so much.

All I'm saying is that weed isn't booze, it affects your body differently. It has different long lasting effects. And I should have known you'd use my weed smoking as an argument to prove I'm stupid, but it doesn't work like that, which again proves you know nothing about Marijuana. My brain still functions normally, I still thinks the same thoughts, just not as fast. In about a week, I'll be back to normal, but for right now, I'm slow. Not slow like retarded slow, just speed slow. I can't think as fast as I once could. If we were having this argument in person, you'd say something, then I would have to think about it for a few seconds, then respond.

I wish I smoked it only because it was illegal, but the truth is I smoke it because I'm ****ing addicted. You hear all this crap that weed isn't addictive, and it isn't (not in the normal sense), but its emotionally addictive. You get so used to the high that when you're sober its like living life at half speed. When you're high you dont worry about anything, so when you're sober, little problems seem 10x worse than they actually. Everything seems so overbearing on you that you just cave in and blaze up. Smoke for a 7 days straight from the time you wake up until you go to bed. Your opinion of marijuana will change. Its HIGHLY addictive. And it doesn't take long to get hooked either.

The same thing happens with alcohol (in a different way though) but its such a huge industry and its so engrained into western culture that no government would ever regulate it. Unless you're Ontario and just want to get money off it.

It has nothing to do with freedom. I do believe that marijuana has medicinal uses, and should be treated like any other drug and be available only by prescription...not for recreational use like booze.

Please don't say I smoke too much, I know I do. it doesn't help your argument.