avalongod wrote:
The difference being?
Tracer:
Perhaps my understanding is off, but what I was envisioning with “de-criminalization” is simply not tossing some poor bloke into prison because he had a joint or two on him. fine him, sure, arrest him, no. Or am I making a distinction where there is none?
And to answer your question, avalongod, when you wrote:
My point was that red_dragon60 seemed to be implying that if marijuana were legal, we’d become a country of pot-heads, coming back from every lunch break stoned, causing widespread accidents, and ruining the economy – in other words, it would have a strongly negative impact. Yet when alcohol was re-legalized in 1933, we did not become a country of alcoholics, we did not come back from every lunch break drunk, our accident rate did not skyrocket, and our economy did not collapse – it had a minimally negative impact.
And since alcohol is known to be more addictive and to cause more problems, generally, for its users than marijuana, legalizing marijuana would have less of a minimally negative impact than legalizing alcohol did.
I know from my limited experience that some (quite a few) people drink because mj is difficult to get. I also know that many people don’t drink when mj is available and hassle free. I also realize that some use both. I’m not sure in the case of harder drugs.
So wouldn’t legal marijuana reduce the use of alchol and other hard drugs? Seems to me it would, including for yours truly.
Peace,
mangeorge
legalization-usually meant to say that pot is available in certain designated stores, allowed to be used recreationally, etc.
decriminalization-its still illegal, but if you get caught with it, you just get a ticket or something, like speeding.
Hmmm … the only problem I have with that definition of “decriminalization” is that, technically, anything you have to pay a fine for still falls under the umbrella of Criminal Law. Running a red light is a Crime. Letting a parking meter expire while your car is parked in front of it is a Crime. Just because you don’t have to go to jail for it doesn’t mean it’s not a criminal activity.
Of course, anything you can be sued for isn’t necessarily a Crime (it’s merely a Tort). And by the time marijuana is legalized, we’re probably going to be able to sue people for a gajillion dollars every time we smell their second-hand smoke, which’ll be a lot heftier bill to pay than a typical fine. Not that I’m bitter.
A tort? Isn’t that what the Queen of Hearts accused Alice of stealing?
(yes I know that was a TART)
avalongod wrote:
No, follow this carefully now. The supposed justification for the drug laws is that 1) these drugs are dangerous and 2) prohibiting them reduces the problems in society. Comparing illegal drugs with alcohol we find that these reasons are bogus at best. 1) Alcohol is more dangerous than most illegal drugs and 2) As bad as it is, prohibition only made things worse. Therefore, if prohibition doesn’t work for the most dangerous drug in our society, then there is no logical reason to suppose it would work any better for less dangerous drugs.
> 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?
The point is that alcohol is legal to buy and consume, but that doesn’t mean that it is legal to pose a hazard to anyone else while intoxicated. Just because alcohol is legal doesn’t mean we allow airline pilots to fly drunk. The same standard would apply to other drugs.
>for the record, I do agree with de-criminalizing pot, but not necessarily legalizing it.
Then you would allow the market to exist and flourish, but you would not put any regulations on it to ensure clean or pure products, adequate labeling of the hazards, or product liability insurance to protect people who might be injured as a result? You prefer a completely unregulated market to reasonable regulations? What’s the logic behind that?
avalongod wrote:
I’ve always thought someone should sue the Hershey’s Chocolate company on The People’s Court.
That way, the announcer would refer to it as, “The case of the chocolate tort.”
If you are a smoker of the weed, I can’t see why you would want it legalised. The capitalist marketplace would hike the price up and totally exploit the product for profit. You would end up with packs saying “New improved turbo hash - reaches places other dope wont!” while the contents would be low grade cack with hundreds of added chemicals to increase shelf-life and whatever.
Hash smokers here in the UK get a good deal; police will NOT prosecute for possession, only dealing. It is readily available, even in small remote towns. In fact it is legal in all but name.
I am interested in the policing/governmental attitudes to dope in the US. Are they hard or what? Is it different laws for different states?
papertiger wrote:
Um, alcohol became a lot less expensive when Prohibition was lifted in 1933. A lot of the current price of marijuana is in the cost of having to dodge the law. What makes you think that black-market pot sellers don’t “hike the price up and totally exploit the product for profit”?
You’re a lobbyist from the Mafia, aren’t you!
Many of us who enjoy this recreation are fond of refering to the governmental attitude as “The Drug Jihad”. I once was sentenced to a stiff fine and probation for possession of about a gram of marijuana. This was after a plea-bargain. I am not sure if they have those in Britian. Plea-bargain = admit guilt and save us the time and expense of a trial and we will reduce your sentence.
Sovereignty and jurisdiction are complex issues in the States. We have federal law which covers all states but is limited to certain situations. Other than that, all states have different laws, and local governments do as well. I was prosecuted under the local law, which was less stringent than the state law ( That was the deal I got ).
2sense wrote:
Close. A plea bargain is where you agree to plead guilty to a lesser crime than the one you are accused of, in which case the prosecution agrees to drop the charges for the bigger crime. I.e. you might plead guilty to manslaughter in exchange for saving the courts the time and effort of trying you for murder, or you might plead guilty to DWI in exchange for not being prosecuted for DUI.
In your case, you agreed to plead guilty to violating a local anti-marijuana laws in exchange for not being tried for violating a more-harshly-punished State anti-marijuana law.
Marijuana is still illegal because the political will to legalise it is non-existent. Political will is not the same thing as public opinion.
Dope hasn’t actually been illegal for that long. It was outlawed in 1937 largely due to the significant political influence of DuPont.
Do you really think the government is THAT interested in the effects of smoking dope. Of course not. They’re up to their neck in the illegal drugs trade anyway (Janet Reno is currently embroiled in a court case pertaining to her involvement with CIA coke trafficking).
Do your own research. It’s got far more to do with protecting corporate monopolies (timber, paper, pharmaceticals etc) than with any psychoactive properties.
In Hawai’i, we just legalized marijuana for medicinal use. The requirements are that you have to have a prescription from a doctor or a recommendation from a herbalist and that you must suffer, on occasion, from either ‘pain’ or ‘nausea’.
Unfortunately Federal statutes supercede the state law so it is still illegal, at least in theory.
More unfortunately, I am allergic to the stuff and am thusly forced to refrain from it’s use.
There isn’t much evidence that DuPont had any significant involvement. Chris Conrad has what evidence there is at http://www.chrisconrad.com It is a long way from anything that would get a conviction in court. I will be posting a new analysis of that theory on my site shortly. In the meantime, you can read Professor Whitebread’s history of the marijuana laws at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm The marijuana laws long preceded any possible interest by the DuPonts.
tcburnett wrote:
We here in California legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes a few years ago, and from what I hear, the Feds clamped down almost immediately to keep it illegal. Unless the Federal government has had a big change of heart in the last couple of years, I can tell you, they will make sure the stuff stays illegal in Hawaii too.