I favor full legalization. I share some concern about “kids getting into it,” so part of me says it should be restricted to adults over 18, like tobacco. But then again, our tobacco laws don’t do much of a job at keeping smokes out of the hands of teenagers, and indeed merely create a black market for them. As a Libertarian, I’m all about free markets, so this part is tricky. I say: only sell it to adults over 18. If a youth under 18 is caught possessing, confiscate it but don’t charge him/her with a crime.
Please don’t “medicalize” it. It’s a crappy medication for the vast majority of so-called medical uses, and pushing the problem onto primary care medical practitioners just overburdens us health care professionals with yet another social issue to deal with.
Put it in the same category as alcohol, rather than categorizing it like tobacco, because its effects are more analogous to the former than the latter.
I’m with QtM in that ‘medical marijuana’ is a joke. But I also think it’s a ‘stepping stone’ to full legalization and taxation.
What QtM says. I think the proponents of medical marijuana are doing the cause a disservice by pretending it should be legalized for any other purpose besides getting baked. It’s relatively harmless for that purpose, but it isn’t much good for anything else.
Legalize it, regulate it, don’t expect it to be any great tax panacea or economic boom. Unfortunately, I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime.
Legally, I think 18 is fine. But given it’s effects, I’d be on board with treating it like liquor. Alcohol is clearly worse for you, I know.
Really, I will gladly marvel at the day you can buy a hard pack of factory-rolled joints at a gas station. Doubtlessly, the marijuana market would stratify and there’d be boutique blends sold in bulk, and big tobacco would be pushing the Budweiser of marijuana on us, but it would just be a hoot to see some kid with a pack of joints rolled in his T-shirt sleeve and some professional pot head looking down his nose at him for not being able to afford the ultra dank nugs he buys at the organic grocer.
Twenty million users spending $50 a week = $52 billion annually. If the feds took 10% of that, it’s be $5 billion a year to them. That’s not a lot these days. But then there are the related savings in the War on Drugs to factor in there, too.
I have no idea if any of my numbers assumptions are in the ballpark.
That surprises me, but you clearly have more expertise than the average person in medicine.
Does ‘crappy’ mean ‘about as useful as tylenol, except for nausea too,’ or do you mean it doesn’t even help that much? Because minor pain relief and nausea relief seem like they’d be worth it, to me.
Of course, I get the burden it would add trying to determine real medical need from stoner requests.
<insert joke about oxycontin/Rush Limbaugh here. choose one of your own>
Legalize, regulate, and tax it. Throw the tobacco companies a bone and let them grow it, process it, package it and sell it.
No, I do not use it, and I do not smoke tobacco, either. Never have, but I can be objective on this and see that prohibition of pot is not working and is too costly.
I didn’t mean to imply that there are no legitimate medical uses for marijuana, but rather that the idea of ‘medical marijuana’ as it currently exists (in California, anyway) is a joke. There are no real standards; all you need to get a ‘prescription’ is to find a doctor willing to give you one. Whether that’s easy or difficult I suppose depends largely on where you are and who you know; since it’s only a quasi-legal substance in the first place, there are no actual controls, no oversight.
And frankly, when you’re trying to convince people that your product is ‘medically warranted’ rather than just a ‘pleasure drug’, giving it names like “A-Train”, “Dr. Grinspoon”, and “Canna Sutra” just doesn’t help your case.
I think it would be a mistake to put anything else the same way as liquor, where each state is left to its own devices. So I voted to treat it like tobacco, although I think it should be even more lax than that.
I think 21 is laughably wrong for the legal drinking age, so I wouldn’t want marijuana to be like that. I’m even against restricting it to 18+ but if that’s the best we can do so be it.
there is some really strong data showing that regular usage for teens (under 17 or so) leads to permanent brain damage, sort of. poor ability to convert short to long term memory, loss of iq are the 2 biggest.
that said the money alone would be worth billions, tax revenue sure, not paying cops/DA’s, Judges, prison guards and probation officers would generate piles of cash in tax dollars not wasted on this bullshit.
It should be regulated the same as alcohol, which in turn should be legal for anyone over the age of 18 (not 21) and legal for parent or guardian to order on behalf of children of any age, or serve it to them at home, after which point legal for beforementioned child to consume in public or in private.
I’m going for like tobacco rather than alcohol. I can’t see any gain for delaying legalization for three years because these young adults will not be restricted at all and just adds to a lack for respecting laws.
Every single time the topic of marijuana comes out, people start pulling out reams of contradictory cites and studies and findings. One side says it’ll rot your brain, give you emphysema, and all sorts of unpleasant things. The other side says it’s as safe as mother’s milk.
THEY CAN’T BOTH BE RIGHT.
I haven’t seen a large-scale, long-term, peer-reviewed study by a reputable research institution which establishes whether it is (a) bad for you or (b) not. The closest anybody has come, in my opinion, is that both sides agree that it’s not as bad as tobacco, which fucking kills you.
I am not comfortable saying we should legalize something just because it’s not lethal. I am perfectly fine with legalizing it once both sides agree that it’s reasonably safe (say, at least as safe as anti-depressants).
