Why is marijuana still illegal?

[Smartass]

@Ravenman

It’s the legalization proponents who want to change the law, and they should be able to make a good case of why it should be done. I simply haven’t heard a convincing case made so far.

Then you haven’t listened and aren’t taking any time to think the situation through. The obvious fact is that criminalizing pot does NOT make it unavailable and does NOT prevent potheads from using it. Here are the actual real-life results:

[ul]
[li]Pot is only available for purchase from criminals–users don’t know for sure what they are getting, so it is more dangerous. I guess, though, since you have such a low opinion of pot-users, you figure if they get hold of some that’s laced with angel dust, well, it serves 'em right.[/li][li]Criminals have a high-profit way to make money. They can use the profits to engage in more and worse illegal activities. Where do you think these gangs of violent kids get the money to buy machine guns? Drug profits.[/li][li]Because the market is so widespread and profitable, it leads to organized criminals. Do you know why prohibition was repealed? Because the public was horrified by the sudden power and influence that the mafia was able to gain from illegal alcohol sales.[/li][li]People with certain illnesses that could have their suffering lessened by pot use are allowed to suffer needlessly. Of course, the fact that you have voted against medical marijuana shows that you don’t give a shit about anyone else’s suffering, so feel free to ignore this point.[/li][/ul]

So, here are the good arguments you were asking for: It would make users less likely to accidently poison themselves. It would force a bunch of criminals to have to find a real job like the rest of us. It would alleviate human suffering.

And, for people who like for the government to have money, there would be a huge savings from money currently being spent on the War On People PLUS pot could be taxed like every other legal product bought and sold in this country.

Does that clear it up for you? Can you now find it in your heart to vote as if you had feelings for other people?

Those who usually argue most forcefully for the legalization of pot are generally pot users themselves.

Well, allow me to introduce you to me. I don’t like pot. If the feeling lasted for 15 minutes, it would be okay. Unfortunately, I find that the feeling lasts long past the time when I want the ride to stop so I can get off.

Of course, I am in favor of ending the War On People altogether, even if a certain number of idiots will kill themselves with oxycontin. Life is too damn short and what comes next is too uncertain for anyone to have the nerve to force someone else to live in pain. If one person is suffering for no other reason than that their doctor is scared to prescribe the pain medicine they need, then the War has gone too far. Let me tell you, the number is a whole hell of a lot higher than one. People are dying in pain every day. They are spending their last days on earth suffering because some self-righteous assholes think that this is preferable to addiction.

To see someone casually post about how they like to vote against medical marijuana makes me want to scream and stomp my feet. If there exists a person in this world that you love, imagine watching them suffer. Imagine watching them waste away to nothing on chemotherapy because they can’t keep their food down. Imagine that pot could help them to eat and have a little less pain. And imagine some stranger deciding that they can’t have it because this stranger thinks that potheads are goofy.

The Goddamn Motherfucking War On Drugs is an abomination. It’s fucking barbaric and it makes me sick just to think about it. I cannot believe we are still letting this go on. It only took us 10 years to figure out how awful alcohol prohibition was. What’s it going to take for us to understand the lesson the second time?

-VM

[eleanorigby]

Selling weed should not land that person in a federal pen–I agree that the “war on drugs” is political nonsense, designed to make middle class America feel safe and comfortable–it hasn’t done much to stop the trade. I don’t think that the image of pot smoking is one of hippy-dippy freaks anymore. Afterall, most of them grew up and became underwriters or assistant managers or whatever. I can see pot getting legalized in my lifetime (I’m in my 40’s).

Depriving pt of needed relief does not make sense to me.

If pot were legal and regulated–much like alcohol–it would improve matters. Are there people out there with stills, makin’ moonshine? Probably. But the vast majority get their alchohol from safe, trusted and regulated distribuotrs–the same could happen for pot.

I haven’t smoked pot in over 20 years, but I would indulge occasionally now, if it were legal.

Put it another way: if my kids feel inclined to get into drugs (hope not)–I would want them to choose pot (if legal) over alcohol. Pot never left me with more than a slight headache. Alcohol is much more deadly. It’s hard to abuse pot (although I am sure that it can be done).

[Ramanujan]

@Smartass

Of course, I am in favor of ending the War On People altogether, even if a certain number of idiots will kill themselves with oxycontin. Life is too damn short and what comes next is too uncertain for anyone to have the nerve to force someone else to live in pain. If one person is suffering for no other reason than that their doctor is scared to prescribe the pain medicine they need, then the War has gone too far. Let me tell you, the number is a whole hell of a lot higher than one. People are dying in pain every day. They are spending their last days on earth suffering because some self-righteous assholes think that this is preferable to addiction.

you neglected to mention that pain in and of itself has been shown to lead to greater health problems, and that alleviating the pain could mitigate those problems.

[Hazel]

@Jackknifed Juggernaut

Also, I don’t think you want people to smoke pot and then drive automobiles. At least cops can perform a breathalyser test on a drunk driver. It’s probably harder to prove that someone was high on pot while driving.

Why do we *need[/] to prove that a driver is under the influence of anything? If a driver is driving erratically or recklessly, he should be ticketed or arrested (whichever seems appropriate). OTOH, if someone is driving normally and safely, there is no justification for pulling him over.

Ehen it comes to reckless driving, I can’t see that it matters if the driver was under the influence of a substance, or was clean and sober, but upset, or angry, or sleepy, or stupid. The cause is irreleveant – the behavior is what matters.

[Hazel]

@Ravenman

I consider myself fairly liberal, and I am not really in favor of legalizing pot. I don’t think pot is a very dangerous drug, but I haven’t really heard a convincing reason why the laws should be changed. What I hear most often is that pot is no worse than alcohol or cigarettes, but this doesn’t really convince me of the need for any and all substances that are no more dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes should be legalized.

What really turns me off from the idea of legalization is all the disinformation and dishonesty of the rabid pro-legalization organizations. For example, the blatantly obvious “hidden” agenda of most groups that advocate medicinal marijuana to use those new laws as a slippery slope for full legalization. Also, all those BS conspiracy theories about drug companies controlling the government or the minds of most Americans just causes me to stop listening. I’m telling you now, here’s one person who doesn’t give two sticks about what Big Drug thinks about pot, and I don’t support legalization.

I will say that I think a case can be made for medical uses of pot. My mind is entirely open to that. But I think that such a decision ought to be made based on the science of the matter. It should not be taken as a step to full legalization. But that seems like a different debate.

In short, my view is that pot proponents have a burden of proof of explaining why pot should be legalized, and I haven’t heard very convincing reasons why a change in laws would benefit society.

The buden of proof is on the other side. Pot is plainly less harmful to the user than either alcohol or tobacco, both of which are legal. Continuing the war vs. pot is very expensive and counterproductive. The war on pot causes far more harm than pot itself ever could. It is those who want to keep it illegal who need to justify their position.

“Expensive and counter-productive” – Our criminal justice system is wasting a lot of time, effort, and money on arresting, trying, and imprisoning people for marijuana “crimes” (mostly simple possession). If the criminal justice system were relieved of this burden, resources would be freed to go after real criminals (the ones who cause actual harm to someone other than themselves).

[Hazel]

@Thudlow Boink

(snip)

Marijuana may well be no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, but unlike those drugs, we don’t have many popular images of well-adjusted, responsible, respectable, productive members of society who use it.

Well of course we don’t. The well-adjusted, responsible, respectable, productive members of society who use pot have to do so in secret, due to it being illegal.

[Hazel]

@scotandrsn

George Carlin used to say that the problem was that all the pot proponents kept forgetting where they left the petitions…

Another thing that the pot lovers forget is that legalization here doesn’t change what goes on elsewhere. Sure, people would begin to grow it domestically, but “connoisseurs” would still pay for the finest Colombian, etc.

The drug business is a leading cause of instability in Colombia. If not for the profits from the drug areas, the civil war there wouldnot be in its fourth decade, and it’s mostly due to the American appetite for the product.

It’s not exactly easy to look another country in the face and let them know that you support legislation that will lead directly to additional funds supplied to the thugs destroying the place.

For all illegal drugs, it’s their illegality that makes them so very, very profitable. Legalize or decriminalize them, and the price will go way down. Also, is it pot that supports the warfare in Colombia, or cocaine?

[Hazel]

I agree with everyone who has commented that it would be a darn good thing if all laws had to be periodically re-justified, and replealed if they failed the test. We humans have a habit of passing laws based on some overblown passing hysteria. We eventually come to our sences (those of us who have any to come to), but the foolish or overly-harsh law is with us forever.

Decades may pass, the foolish or overly-harsh law may be almost forgotten; never enforced. But it lingers on the books, available for misuse at the whim of any public official, at any time. Yes, reviewing laws would be a good thing. Even better would be to never make any law permenent. If they had to be renewed periodically, some would fail of renewal.

[Fugazi]

@Ravenman

That’s why I have consistently voted against referenda for medicinal pot (since those that I have been voted on have been proposed by the same folks who have a transparent agenda for full legalization), and will continue to oppose legalization.

As a person with Multiple Sclerosis, let me just send you a big old Thank You for trying to ensure that a medicine I may someday need is not available.

My Neurologist can prescribe many different drugs for pain. Some highly addictive, some dangerous and easy to OD on, some with bad side effects. But not the evil weed, oh no! A drug that is effective, hard to OD on, and not addictive, can not be prescribed to me thanks to self-righteous pricks like you.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@zoo

Another thing worth looking at when deciding whether or not to legalize marijuana is why it is illegal in the first place. From what I can tell, marijuana is illegal because about 70 years ago some very powerful people told some very nasty lies about this plant. As a result a lot of people were frightened enough to support laws making marijuana and hemp illegal.

As long as your definition of ‘some very powerful people’ means Anslinger and his cronies and not the usual attempt to blame Dupont and Hearst.

The actual truth is pot being outlawed was caused more by racism than anything else.

[II_Gyan_II]

@Mr. Miskatonic

As long as your definition of ‘some very powerful people’ means Anslinger and his cronies and not the usual attempt to blame Dupont and Hearst.

The actual truth is pot being outlawed was caused more by racism than anything else.

This account seems more nuanced.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@II Gyan II

This account seems more nuanced.

As the Master points out there’s no evidence for Duponts involvement, nor any extra effort by Hearst. As he says

“…Hearst’s newspapers had done their best to whip up antihemp hysteria. But so had everybody else in the press. Lurid antimarijuana stories appeared in the New Yorker, for God’s sake.”

Dupont wanting hemp outlawed is unsupported nonsense. They were selling all the Nylon they could make and the only thing Hemp is really good for is rope and sailcloth.

[II_Gyan_II]

@Mr. Miskatonic

As the Master points out there’s no evidence for Duponts involvement

What would constitute as evidence? A press statement by DuPont’s mgmt at the time? There are no direct explicit links between DuPont and cannabis regulation. However, this thesis outlines suggestive links regarding Dupont.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@II Gyan II

What would constitute as evidence? A press statement by DuPont’s mgmt at the time?

A realistic motive would be a start. The alleged ‘threat’ of Hemp to Dupont is completely unestablished.

There are no direct explicit links between DuPont and cannabis regulation. However, this thesis outlines suggestive links regarding Dupont.

The Dupont connections all seem to come from Jack Herer’s book, which is not a reliable source by any means.

This thesis refers to Hemp industry as a ‘threat’ to Nylon. Nonsense. Hemp was waddling in the grave of uselessness. This author’s history of hemp is straight out of the propagandist files and ignores the harsh realities of hemp.

Not suprising this is for Humanities and not an Agriculture or History degree.

[zoo]

None of this, in my opinion, changes the idea that a group of powerful people (choose whomever you like) used lies to spread fear. Racisim, job protection, protecting children from this “dangerous weed” were all a part of that.

A large part of the American public does not care if the government or media lie to them.

[Ravenman]

@Zakalwe

if one can’t come up with a good reason to keep something illegal, it should not be kept illegal. hell, the constitution more or less says that.

Uhhh… the U.S. Constitution?

@zoo

I see this as effectively saying, “I don’t care if someone can benefit from medical use of marijuana. We should arrest medical marijuana patients and suppliers because I believe people who support these medical marijuana laws only want to push for complete legalization.” Nice logic and compassion.

@Fugazi

As a person with Multiple Sclerosis, let me just send you a big old Thank You for trying to ensure that a medicine I may someday need is not available.

I refer you both to my earlier comment:

I will say that I think a case can be made for medical uses of pot. My mind is entirely open to that. But I think that such a decision ought to be made based on the science of the matter. It should not be taken as a step to full legalization.

I haven’t had an opportunity to vote on a referendum to allow for medical pot that was, in my opinion, well grounded in science and common sense. I voted against California’s initiative some years ago because it allowed physicians to encourage the use of marijuana through a recommendation, not a prescription. In my mind, if pot is to be treated like a medicine, let it go through clinical trials and allow doctors to write a prescription. The wink-and-a-nod system adopted by California is, in my mind, a farce of how doctors should treat illness.

@Smartass

Then you haven’t listened and aren’t taking any time to think the situation through. The obvious fact is that criminalizing pot does NOT make it unavailable and does NOT prevent potheads from using it. Here are the actual real-life results:

* Pot is only available for purchase from criminals--users don't know for sure what they are getting, so it is more dangerous. I guess, though, since you have such a low opinion of pot-users, you figure if they get hold of some that's laced with angel dust, well, it serves 'em right.
* Criminals have a high-profit way to make money. They can use the profits to engage in more and worse illegal activities. Where do you think these gangs of violent kids get the money to buy machine guns? Drug profits.
* Because the market is so widespread and profitable, it leads to organized criminals. Do you know why prohibition was repealed? Because the public was horrified by the sudden power and influence that the mafia was able to gain from illegal alcohol sales.

Well, decriminalizing pot would certainly make it MORE available and make it EASIER for potheads to use it. So, your first argument doesn’t make any sense. Use some logic here: if it is preferable to make pot harder to get, then one would favor keeping it illegal. So, this leads us… where?

And yes, I have heard those other arguments. I don’t find them convincing for one reason. Each of those points could equally apply to crack or heroin. What I’d rather see is how marijuana can be distinguished from other drugs that should remain illegal, assuming you agree that some drugs should remain illegal.

• People with certain illnesses that could have their suffering lessened by pot use are allowed to suffer needlessly. Of course, the fact that you have voted against medical marijuana** shows that you don’t give a shit about anyone else’s suffering,** so feel free to ignore this point.

See the above responses to zoo and Fugazi. If you want to flame me, take it to the Pit. Otherwise, dial it back, Smartass.

[II_Gyan_II]

@Mr. Miskatonic

A realistic motive would be a start. The alleged ‘threat’ of Hemp to Dupont is completely unestablished.

The Dupont connections all seem to come from Jack Herer’s book, which is not a reliable source by any means.

This thesis refers to Hemp industry as a ‘threat’ to Nylon. Nonsense. Hemp was waddling in the grave of uselessness. This author’s history of hemp is straight out of the propagandist files and ignores the harsh realities of hemp.

I’ve no dog in the adjudication of the ‘correct’ history of hemp criminalization, but can you provide critiques of Herer, support for the ‘harsh realities’ of hemp and why DuPont in 1930s didn’t consider hemp a threat?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@II Gyan II

I’ve no dog in the adjudication of the ‘correct’ history of hemp criminalization, but can you provide critiques of Herer, support for the ‘harsh realities’ of hemp and why DuPont in 1930s didn’t consider hemp a threat?

Well, among some of the claims (I confess to paraphrasing):

Claim: Federal interest in Hemp grew with the rise of the Hemp industry.

Truth: Causality, except there is no causality since the ‘hemp industry’ wasn’t exaclty in existance. There is a much greater correlation between federal interest and the rise of Jazz singers (sung by those fiesty pot-smoking Negros!)

Claim: Hemp hurds are 80% cellulose

Truth: Wrong. Its closer to 38%

Claim: Hemp requires no fertilizer or insecticide

Truth: If you want to grow any quantity you certain do!

Claim: In the 19th century 95% of paper was made with hemp.

Truth: Prior to the wood pulp industry, paper was made from linen rags. Hemp rags could also be used but according to all the sources of the era Hemp paper was of the lowest quality.

Claim: The Declaration of Independance was written on Hemp (sometimes the Consitution is mentioned instead). Neither of these are on Hemp paper, they are on Parchment. The claim is often stretched to say that early drafts were written on hemp paper, also not true and merely an extension of the assumptions made above.

Perhaps Herer’s worst error is his Amero-centrism. The USA bans hemp, and nobody picks up the slack in other nations? Therefore the industry dies as a result of corporate greed? Doesn’t work that way. The USA is not the world leader in certain technologies (Papermaking, for one is owned by Northern Europeans) and to think in such a way is insulting. The fact that Hemp failed to go very far int he rest of the world is a sign that Herer is out to lunch with his claims.

There are quite a few other howlers, but that’s enough for now.

As for Dupont not thinking it was a threat, I cannot prove a negative. But I can point out several things. The claims stem from 1) Hemp potentially threatening Nylon or 2) Hemp threatening Duponts lock on pulp manufacture.

1. Makes no sense. Hemp only competes with Nylon in rope form. No one was going to make a hemp stocking, which is where the majority of nylon production went. The idea that Du Pont would fight so hard to make a handful of Battleship mooring ropes before Nylon had even been released is equally silly.

2. Has a little more merit, but not much. Dupont hardly had a lock on pulp making processes. After all, the Germans invented the Kraft process. Germany wasn’t exactly a subsidiary of Dupont.

[Floyd13]

@Ravenman

Well, decriminalizing pot would certainly make it MORE available and make it EASIER for potheads to use it. So, your first argument doesn’t make any sense. Use some logic here: if it is preferable to make pot harder to get, then one would favor keeping it illegal. So, this leads us… where?

And yes, I have heard those other arguments. I don’t find them convincing for one reason. Each of those points could equally apply to crack or heroin. What I’d rather see is how marijuana can be distinguished from other drugs that should remain illegal, assuming you agree that some drugs should remain illegal.

First of all Ravenman, why would legalizing pot make it easier to get? Let me enlighten you here for a moment. When pot becomes legal, there will be an age restriction much like alcohol and tobacco. Now when I was an underage high schooler who wanted some booze, I needed either a fake I.D. or someone of age to buy it for me. Now when I wanted some pot, I went to numerous sources and guess what, none of those dealers asked for I.D.! Getting illegal drugs is considerably easier for kids to get than regulated legal drugs. And about your second point, yes! those arguments do apply to crack and heroin and is precisely why they should be legal and regulated. **Smartass **and others have provided you with many reasons why pot should be legal, and yet I get the feeling that your stereotypical view of potheads has clouded your judgement and understanding of the topic.

[Ms2001]

@Floyd13

Getting illegal drugs is considerably easier for kids to get than regulated legal drugs.

Absolutely! This point cannot be stressed enough.

Stores that sell alcohol have an incentive to check IDs - if they only sell alcohol to people over 21, they can keep their license and keep making money from alcohol. People who sell pot have no such incentive.