Why IS marijuana still illegal?

Spoke wrote:
The government makes much more money on pot being illegal than it would if pot were legal.

Slight tweak: The government gets to SPEND much more money on pot being illegal than it would if pot were legal.

For that reason, I don’t see the 37 billion savings Graeme cites as highly politically motivating.

The current bureaucracy has a strong incentive to spend as much money as it can. Each year you must spend your entire budget, and next year’s proposed budget must be larger. This is not intended as a necessarily anti-government statement. I believe it is a fact of much bureaucratic behavior, whether it be in government, industry, many social agencies … A bureaucracy is viewed in terms of its budget. Same way a boss is viewed in terms of the number of people he supervises. There is little inherent incentive to reduce expenditures. There are a whole lot of folk in and out of government from the local to national levels whose jobs are dependent upon the current anti-drug spending.

Factor in inertia, and the fear of change. Especially when there is no overriding public outcry for change. In theory, all the customs officers and prison guards could get jobs as rehabilitation counsellors and social workers. But why change in the absence of a compelling need to?

Final factor, appearing tough on crime is a strong sell politically. It seems more and more common for politicians to either run defensive campaigns, trying to avoid going out on a limb in any way that will permit the opponent to attack them, or aggressive campaigns attacking the opponent. Hard to imagine many constituwencies where “being soft on crime” would be to a politician’s advantage. Am I too cynical to suggest that few politicians act altruistically?

Maybe I’m missing something, but I didn’t find the “Federal Financial Analysis” on your site. Could you provide a direct link, please?

From the title, it appears that the analysis to which you refer is talking about savings to the federal government. The bulk of the money that I’m talking about (fines, confiscations, etc.) is going to state and local governments, and to local law enforcement agencies. (How do you think they afford those big “Drug Unit” SUV’s?)

State and local governments are going to be very reluctant to let go of this revenue source. Police groups in particular have a strong motive to lobby to keep anti-drug laws in place.

My own opinion is that pot, at least, should be legalized. I do see some financial obstacles to that ever happening, though. Even if the federal government de-criminalized it, state governments could still keep it illegal, and I still believe they have a powerful financial incentive to do just that.

Legal Drug

Vivipur contains naproxyhydrochlorinol. Side effects may include dizzyness, vomiting, diahrea, abdominal cramps and spasms, painful urination, testicular or vaginal blisters, and temporary blindness.

Illegal Drug

Mehigh contains tetrahydrocannabinol. Side effects may include giggling and munchies.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/savings.htm

Yes.

There is no doubt that there are lots of government agencies, at all levels, who have large financial interests in continuing the drug war. In California, many police departments are dependent on drug-related seizures for items of basic budget. In other words, if cops don’t make enough seizures, they will lose their jobs.

No doubt about that. And don’t forget the billions spent on prisons, and the companies that want to continue to get those construction jobs, the helicopters sent to foreign countries and the manufacturers who want to sell them, etc. (That’s not to mention 100 million dollar radar balloons, etc.)

There are huge financial obstacles to any reform, just like there were huge financial obstacles to the fall of Russian communism. But I believe that the reforms will happen for largely the same reasons that reform happened in the Soviet Union. That is, both the drug war and communism were built on ignorance and require ignorance to survive. The advent of the information age made it impossible to enforce ignorance.

Ike, ive been using that argument about how it wouldnt be a gateway drug if people werent building drug connections for years.

and another good site is http://www.hemp.com
its not about marijuana, but industrial hemp. Its widespread use could solve a lot of societys current problems, like deforestation, pollution, starvation.

btw, this is my first post. Hi everyone, how ya doing?

So, CliffSchaffer, what can we do about it? :wink:
Peace,
mangeorge

The best thing individuals can do is to join and support reform groups which match their particular interests. The majority of the groups have been working together on combined strategies for the last several years and have the strategy and tactics fairly well mapped out. Join the groups and they will supply you with ongoing activities to help the cause. Some that I would recommend include:

http://www.drcnet.org

http://www.mapinc.org

http://www.november.org

http://www.dpf.org

Remember that every member and everything the members do add up. You may be just one individual, but you can make a real difference.

Has any reputable polling group taken a poll of Americans lately to see where we stand on legalization? I’d be curious to see the results.

I dont know about america, but i remember reading a few months ago that in Britain, about 80% of the people were in favor of decriminalization, so thats good to hear.

rottenbrain138 wrote:

Incidentally, Cecil has already dealt with industrial hemp in two of his column articles:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/970131.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/970321.html

Thanks, Cliff, I’ll check those out.
C’mon folks. Maybe we can actually do something. Let’s go. Off the “couch”. :slight_smile:
Peace,
mangeorge

To quote Jon Stewart from the Daily Show-

“The problem with legalizing weed is that if you did, PEOPLE WOULD SMOKE IT.”

[rant] I really have no problem with the people who smoke it once in a while, some of them are my friends. However, if we legalize it, as stated above, people would smoke it. If you were an employer, would you want your employees going out for mj breaks and coming back stoned? It would be very annoying in retail, and downright dangerous in industry. Can you really think clearly while smoking jane? If everyone could smoke it, and the drug is so great, everyone might smoke it. It could turn our nation into a bunch of stoners. If you want to smoke it at home or away with your friends, do it then. If you get busted, not my fault. But don’t try to make me think that a drug that has been illegal could be good for me. Would you think it would be safe if Qualuudes or Demerol or Valium were over-the-counter drugs? All they do is kill pain and create euphoria. So why aren’t they? Thee drugs are addictive. So is weed, but it is instead of pysically addictive, it is psychologically. Don’t tell me that you would want someting that feels so fine to stop. [/rant]

Hey, I’m just going to stay away from stuff which will hurt my already fragile mind.

I really have no problem with the people who drink alcohol once in a while, some of them are my friends. However, if we legalize it, as we wanted to do in 1933, people would drink it. If you were an employer, would you want your employees going out for beer breaks and coming back drunk? It would be very annoying in retail, and downright dangerous in industry. Can you really think clearly while drinking ethanol? If everyone could drink it, and the drug is so great, everyone might drink it. It could turn our nation into a bunch of drunks. If you want to drink it at home or away with your friends, do it then. If you get busted, not my fault. But don’t try to make me think that a drug that has been illegal (via the 18th Amendment) could be good for me. Would you think it would be safe if Qualuudes or Demerol or Valium were over-the-counter drugs? All they do is kill pain and create euphoria. So why aren’t they? Thee drugs are addictive. So is alcohol, and it is both p[h]ysically addictive and psychologically. Don’t tell me that you would want someting that feels so fine to stop.

Okay tracer. Point made. But the alchohol bit has been done before. Get some new material.

There’s no material like the old material, when it comes to making a point.

(… which is my way of saying “I know you are, but what am I?” without sounding too terribly immature. :wink: )

as in poliical party. You folks are wondering what we should do about it, well if you are a Canadian like me, this coming federal election we have the Marijuana Party, the party with the sole goal of legalizing marijuana. Theyre running fifteen candidates in BC and at least fifty nationwide. They claim that if all smokers vote for them they will get some seats and free the weed. I don’t think it’ll be quite like that, but I’m all for raising awareness about the issue. I might throw away my vote with them (if they have a candidate here) because it beats throwing away my vote on the other dumbass politicians around here who are all pretty much the same anyways.

I hate to say this, but if we here in the U.S. had a Parliamentary system like they do in England or Germany, we might be able to get a couple Marijuana Party candidates elected ourselves.

As it stands, though, with the U.S.'s “whoever gets the most votes wins, and everybody else loses” elections, it’s a rare day indeed that sees someone who’s not a Democrat or a Republican get elected.

red_dragon60 sed:

Good Lord, man. Are you daft? Associating with kooks and felons is the surest way to get your kidneys stolen.

Tracer:

I never understood why pro-legalization folks always compare pot to alcohol. Isn’t that like saying you’re less of a jerk than Ted Bundy? And in reference to the “would they use alcohol on the job if we legalize it” Obviously they did legalize EtOH, and YEAH people do abuse it. So what was your point exactly?

for the record, I do agree with de-criminalizing pot, but not necessarily legalizing it.

If you haven’t noticed this is an old argument, are you suggesting that everytime someone brings it up everyone needs to come up with completely new material?