Decriminalization of Marijuana in Washington- HB 1177

Although I do not support the legalization of marijuana, I do agree with decriminalization for possession of minor amounts. If you arrange a rally in RSq, I will support it.

Why not? Seems like any reason that supports decriminalization supports legalization.

I HEARTILY agree and will support you, even though I don't use marijuana.  I just wanted to point out that where you said "choose to imbibe frequently," you may want to use "partake" or "smoke" as imbibe is most directly and commonly applied to the consumption of liquids only (from Latin 'imbibere', 'to drink'). Good luck!

Wouldn't we lose ridiculous amounts in federal funding if this passed?

Open your eyes people

It's just a plant.

http://blip.tv/file/1356143/

Please, take the time out of your busy day and watch that documentary.  If it doesn't change your opinion to pro-legalization check yourself into the nearest mental institution.

Legallize it, please.  Don't decriminalize, just legalize it. 

And Wyatt, it does not harm the user.  The only argument for that is that inhaling burned plant matter (assuming that the plant is SMOKED) is not good for your lungs.  It is NOT carcinogenic.  There are no documented cases of marijuana use alone causing cancer.  If it is eaten, or vaporized any ill effects of inhaling the burned up plant matter are not evident in any studies.

Compare marijuana to alcohol or cigarettes......

And anyone who opposes legalization (or decriminilization for that matter), please study the history of the plant in the United States (or watch the movie I posted a link to), you'll be surprised on what you find.

How would that happen?  Really, I'm curious how we would lose funding, because maybe there's something I'm not thinking of.

As far as I know, we could make money if we tax farms for it, like tobacco.  And we'd be saving money if we stop sending people to jail for staying home getting high on the weekends, wasting court time and jail money.

I think they were referring to the fact that we wouldn't be bringing in fines any more. But I think we would save more money fromt he things you mentioned than we would lose.

Although to my knowledge there's no empirical evidence that marijuana does any permanent damage to its long-term users, I've known people that might be labeled as "potheads" or "stoners," and I've known people who used to not smoke it and then went on to do so for a long time, and it seemed to me that they were at least slightly less functional, even when not under the influence, than they were before they began smoking, and definitely a bit less functional than people who smoked it seldom or moderately. They might be isolated cases and/or the results of lurking variables, but it's what I've seen.

That said, I don't completely condemn marijuana usage, but I choose not to do it. I would support its legalization, but if it WERE to be legalized, I would want it to be taxed a whole lot; maybe combine the State Liquor Control Board to be the "Liquor and Marijuana Control Board." It'd be a sort of double-whammy; decrease spending on the drug war, increase income via the newly taxed drug.

There'd also need to be stricter laws on its usage than there are for cigarettes in a public place; cigarette smoke I can handle when I'm walking down the street or a ferry terminal or something. But I'd probably be a bit irate if I had to deal with marijuana smoke in that same kind of situation.

Except not-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzopyrene

The above chemical is found in high concentrations in marijuana.

The following are links to other studies on the subject-

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9808/18/marijuana.cancer/

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addictions/8096

To quote from the last link-

"Smoke from cannabis contains up to twice as many carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons and tend to be smoked without filters while inhaling more deeply, leading to higher concentrations of smoke inhaled, the investigators noted."

Lets not have any laws against Marijuana, and criminalize alcohol. We all know that it is a way more destructive than marijuana.

Alright Eric, next time, post some real findings.  Those links list no experimental process and details are sketchy at best.

That wiki article never even used the word cannabis or marijuana in the entire article.  Did you just make that up?

Find me a case where smoking marijuana alone has caused lung cancer.  You can't, it simply does not exist.

Thank you.  I mean c'mon.  Hame you ever heard of a husband going home and beating his wife and kids because he was high?  I don't think so. 

I'd reccomend that everyone watches that documentary I posted.  It's extremely good and does a great job of explaining things.

Here you go-

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/body/effects.html

If you want to read specifically about that chemical, go Control+F and type it in.

Please remember that this does not have to be a debate about whether or not this plant is unhealthy or not. I feel it is more a debate about whether or not you believe people who do consume this plant in any way should be so severely punished as they are in our current judicial system. This bill would only decriminalize the use and possession of marijuana, which means it will still be illegal, to quell some concern from those of you who may be taking a slightly more conservative perspective.

I think this debate is about basic civil liberty. Do you believe non-violent offenders, really-very non violent offenders :P, should spend time behind bars for simply choosing to do something which others in society deem unacceptable?, even though it does not harm anyone else, but possibly themselves? Should we put tobacco smokers in prison?

Please please, even if you do not consume marijuana, this should concern you.
This is a debate about basic civil liberty. Do what you will as long as it does not harm another- even IF there is a possibility you are doing yourself harm.

Oh and I would definitely attend a Red Square rally if possible.
 

I'll just post numbers and statements that correlate to the numbers of the arguments on the link you gave me to the PBS site to tell you why they are wrong.

1.  "Attention, memory and learning are impaired among heavy marijuana users, even after users discontinued its use for at least 24 hours."

No, that is just dead wrong.  How can they honestly even believe that or come up with such a bunch of bullshit.

2.  "A roadside study of reckless drivers who were not impaired by alcohol, showed that 45% of these drivers tested positive for marijuana."

What do they mean by test positive?  Marijuana stays in your system (in the fat cells) for almost a month.  They could have smoked in the past month.  There is no field test to test if a person is under the influene of marijuana.  Therefor all the samples the police took had to be taken to a lab so they could verify the person was in fact under the influence of marijuana.  What this means is that it most likely went down on record that the person had marijuana in their system (from previous use, up to a month prior to the incident) but were most likely not high while driving.

"5. In a survey of 150 marijuana using students, 59% surveyed report they sometimes forget what a conversation is about before it has ended. 41% report if they read while stoned they remembered less of what they had read hours later."

What a hainus crime.  Minor memory loss.  How many of they were just forgetful kids?  Back to Wyatts main point on legalization/decriminalization:  Does minor memory loss mean it should be illegal and carry massive punishments?  What about alcohol.  Does the husband remember beating his wife when he is drunk.  Most likely not.  So should alcohol be illegal too.  We could try a prohibition.  Oh wait, we already did.  You already know that didn't work.  And it's definitely not working now for marijuana.

6.  "Marijuana activates the same pleasure centers in the brain that are targeted by heroin, cocaine and alcohol."

Ok...... It activates the same sensors as other drugs.  Hell, I'd be willing to wager everything in my wallet that sexual intercourse also activates these same pleasure sensors.

"7. Physiological effects of marijuana include an alteration of heart rate. Use of marijuana may result in intense anxiety, panic attacks or paranoia. (National Institute of Drug Abuse)"

You can have the same thing happen from plenty of over the counter drugs.  Check the statistics of people that die from over the counter medication.  It is far more than the 0 marijuana has caused.

"10. Marijuana users may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers have, such as chronic bronchitis and inflamed sinuses."

These effects are nonexistant if the marijuana is vaporized or eaten.

That's all for now.  I have other stuff to do.

In any case, you will find far more unhealthy effects of tobacco, alcohol, perscription medication, and over the counter drugs than you will with marijuana.  Bottom line: it's just a plant, not processed at all.

I'm leaving the civil liberty part for Wyatt (thread creator) because he knows far more than me.

But for anything else about marijuana, I'll be lurking around this thread.

To above:

I just found some good info - I wasn't aware that marijuana does not in fact kill brain cells, so thanks for expressing your views.

However, I think you're being hasty with regards to the cancer issue.

Experimental process with regards to social issues and illegal drug use are hard to measure. Nearly impossible to test on humans in this case - you can't just make one group of people smoke weed but not cigarettes for 10 years and another group avoid both completely. That would be unethical and impractical. Those two last links were scientific studies; experiments are not the only way to reach conclusions. The last one said specifically that they adjusted for tobacco use.

I recommend this link: http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/mj-health-mythology.html

I agree that marijuana is less dangerous than or at least equal with alcohol, and I support its legalization. You can't really say that it has NO effect whatsoever, but I think we are free to mess with our own bodies any way we see fit.

http://stash.norml.org/washington-state-bill-to-decriminalize-marijuana-...
NORML article about Bill, read atleast the first paragraph.
 

There are several problems with this argument, and decriminalization itself. I'll throw out a few.

You wrote, "[...]" any action that fulfilled the individual without infringing on the rights of others should not be denied by any government body." While I agree with the notion that it is not the right or duty of a government to protect a citizen from himself, we are not a libertarian society. That is, there are many ways we willingly embrace deviations from this ideal. This controversial bill is not a good battleground issue for libertarian ideals. In fact, most people do not support it. If you are actually concerned with reducing government interference with individual liberties, and not just trying to legitimatize marijuana use, then it would be more prudent to advance a bill that is both popular, and which strengthens libertarianism.

Let's look at a few facts that support the majority's opposition to the decriminalization of marijuana for non-medicinal purposes:

(Some of this is adapted and/or extracted from http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html, which itself is well-cited.)

THC (the main psychoactive substance in marijuana) intoxication causes distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. These effects last for days or weeks after use, can be cumulative in frequent users (people who use about one or more times a week), and are almost definitely cumulative in daily users. This means that frequent users' brains are continuously impaired.

The long-term use leads to changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term use of other major drugs. Most familiar is the effects are the changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine, and therefore on the regulation of motivation and reward.

Though there is no proven causal link, a number of studies show an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia. The strongest evidence links marijuana use and schizophrenia and/or related disorders.

Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person’s existing problems worse. In one study, heavy marijuana abusers reported that the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including physical and mental health, cognitive abilities, social life, and career status.

The above facts stay, more or less, within your claim that marijuana use hurts no one but the user, but, even neglecting the other health effects, damages your argument that the degree of harm is very small.

There's more to consider though.

In the workplace, marijuana use is associated with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers’ compensation claims, and job turnover. Those issues start to affect others.

There is a bigger issue though, if a person is a habitual user, that person's perception, coordination, reactions, and judgment are chronically impaired. So, if you never work for or with anyone, never drive a car, and are self-insured, then I suppose you can do as you like. However, I've got one more piece of information.

I work in the ER. One of two things is true. Either most people frequently smoke pot, or pot smokers are disproportionately represented among certain kinds of injuries, most notably those resulting from MVAs (car crashes).

Now granted, this is an argument against impaired driving, but the overwhelming evidence is that if one uses marijuana regularly, and drives regularly, then one is driving impaired at least some of the time (if not at all times).  This goes well outside of the "harms only the user" argument.  A realist cannot support marijuana use and not expect impaired driving to increase proportionately.

And, let's be honest here.  There is no pot-gestapo going around knocking down doors and arresting people using marijuana in the comfort and privacy of their own homes.  People are busted for pot because they are doing something else wrong, and found to be in possession or under the influence of pot - in addition to whatever they did wrong in the first place.  If people were justing using at home and not causing problems, they would not (in general) be arrested or cited for marijuana possession or use.

In fact, how would a cop ever know that a person was using or in possession of marijuana?  As long as it stays a completely harmless and private practice, then you'll be fine.

One parting point/question:  Are some people suggesting that marijuana is somehow less harmful than alcohol?  It is true that marijuana abuse is not as large and widespread of a problem as alcohol abuse, but this does not make it less harmful to use.  It also seems to be true that people do not tend to use marijuana to the point of as severe impairment as alcohol.  However, the fact that THC is metabolized so much more slowly than EtOH, means that the results (though perhaps less severe acutely) persist much longer.  Therefore, if we want to measure the deleterious psychoactive effects as a product of the sum of symptoms over time, though subjective to measure, seems about a toss-up.

Not surprisingly, I do not support this bill.  The arguments/claims about personal liberties, economics, and negligible effects are old and tired.  Again, let's be honest.  The issue is not about those things.  These are just thin arguments that are used because people just want to get high without worrying about being arrested.  I think it is sad that marijuana use is so important to some people that they take this issue up so passionately.  How about redirecting that energy into reducing homelessness, feeding the poor, reducing animal cruelty, fixing the economy, ending one or more wars, stopping the Gaza massacre ... take your pick.  Is this really a good use of our time and energy?

I talk to Rick Larsen's office at least once a week.  This week I will be voicing my request that he waste no time on this frivolous bill.

-Brent

I'll break this down with the numbers corresponding to your points-

1- Are you serious? That's just plain denial of widely known and observed facts. What you stated has no logical evidence or supporting argument/relative links

2- (Actually number 3 in the aforementioned link)
They mean currently in an impaired state due to marijuana use.

5- Minor memory loss isn't a big deal? You do realize the consequences of someone forgetting, say, forgetting that you have to stop at a red light? And, as the article states, judgment is impaired. This can have a number of consequences, including, as you mentioned, spousal abuse. Does that mean that the government should be endorsing this kind of behavior? And yes, I do think alcohol should be more heavily controlled. If I had my way, there would be much, much harsher punishments for alcohol related crimes, such as DUI's.

6- Not true. Marijuana decreases acetylcholine levels in the hippocampus, which actually lowers testosterone. Norepinephrine is the primary neurotransmitter involved during sexual activity. The aforementioned reduction in acetylcholine can also prevent one from getting and sustaining an erection.  (Source: Biology, 6th Edition, Solomon, Berg, and Martin, pages 880 & 846)

7- Again, your facts are misleading. Deaths by OTC drugs are caused by people not reading the labels and overdosing or mixing two or more drugs. A large chunk of the statistic is also suicides. Also, these medications are vastly more commonly used than marijuana, and the percentage, even with the deaths attributed to people not reading labels, is still insanely small. Link- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/health/20drug.html

Oh, and that 0 statistic? Bull. What about deaths related to people doing stupid things while they're high that they normally wouldn't do? Driving accidents? Suicides, either because they've messed up they're lives because of it, or they're depressed or whatever, or because they did something dumb while high? Link showing relation between suicide/depression and marijuana use (PDF File)---

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press08/marij_mental_hlth.pdf
 

Another link-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/23/2253500.htm

10- Doesn't detract form the fact that people still smoke it, and inhale the carcinogens.

A few more links for your reading pleasure-

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/06/02/marijuana-...
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurology/GeneralNeurology/9679

You also failed to talk about/refute points 11-16 in the original link.

Brent, you definitely brought up some great points, especially that we have much more dire things to worry about. However, if we did have the time, I would still support legalizing it and taxing/controlling the crap out of it. And I do not smoke pot at all, and I never plan on doing it if it does become legal.

Eric...marijuana affects short term memory. Not long term. So people that are too high to know how to stop at a red light are too high to back their cars out of the drive way. What's more...simply changing an offense from criminal to civil doesn't constitute a government endorsement. It says specifically that the gov wants you not to do something but they aren't going to waste their time with punishments that don't work and are unjust.

Over the counter drugs are still dangerous Eric. They have to be used responsibly. On that we agree. As Marijuana is a recreational drug (like alcohol) it also has to be used responsibly. Also violence is not a side effect of marijuana use. No one has made that claim since 1939. Alcohol has a far higher chance of making people violent.

Also the health side effects do not warrant it the label of criminal offense Eric. You are more than reasonable enough to understand that. You are far too smart to be buying into the idea that it's criminal. Especially as you're an advocate for illegal downloading.

That goes for everyone. This bill will make it a civil offense (like a speeding ticket) instead of a criminal one (like murder). That's all. So chill out. Everyone. Brent, just so you know I'm working on a rebuttal as we speak.

First I want to point out that this bill is a state legislature bill. Rick Larsen has no say in the matter as he is a Representative in the US House of Representatives.

Next we have to break down what you are saying about marijuana use. You cite only the chronic users. Let's not forget that chronic use of anything is bad. Chronic use of food leads to obesity and heart attacks, chronic alcohol use leads to liver failure (or in some cases, hallucinations and delusions as well as violence)...I could go on but I think everyone gets the idea. Only looking at chronic users doesn't really draw a realistic enough picture.

This website should clear up some of your confusion about the long term effects of use: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/dailyMJ/dailyMJ.htm
Next there was your argument that people who smoke marijuana daily are more likely to be unemployed or have work problems. This is true. However there is no proof of causality. If you are black you are more likely to go to prison than a white man. Does that mean that blacks are inherently prone to crime? No, it indicates a correlation that is also a red flag for the progress of people of color in a white dominated society. Also of those daily users, 2/3 also reported using another illicit drug within the last 12 months. How do we know that that particular drug wasn't more detrimental to their employment status than marijuana? What's more, all one can safely glean (we went over this today in sociology btw) from this information is a correlation that indicates that 1 out of 10 heavy users is unemployed.

According to this site: http://www.bls.gov/LAU/ when you look up “Washington”; unemployment is at 6.4%. So that means that of the general population, 6 out of every 100 people are unemployed. The fact that one is twice as likely to be unemployed as a daily user of marijuana than as a part of the general population doesn't mean much considering that only 1 in every 100 people is a daily marijuana user. That person who is a daily pot smoker has a 13% chance of being unemployed. That basically means that one out of every 1,000 people will be unemployed and a daily pot smoker. When you compare the incredibly small number for which that is a problem and then consider the complete and utter lack of evidence to support causality, the unemployment argument is blasted.
Also problems of motivation and things like fear of success are sound explanations for why people that choose to engage in self-destructive behaviors (such as abuse of marijuana) have trouble maintaining gainful employment. I happen to know many people that have faked sick to work so they could play World of Warcraft. Again, there is a substantial lack of evidence to suggest causality. There is no proof that marijuana use is what causes people to become bad employees.

The next solid point is about the difference between alcohol and marijuana's health effects. First, although the case has been made that there are long term effects lasting beyond the 4 hour high, there is no proof that this supposed decrease in function is a level that is dangerous. Beyond that, it IS a law that all drivers in Washington State have to be insured. So that can probably pay for much of that damage. Beyond all of that, a DUI is still illegal and would still be punished the same regardless of this decriminalization.

Next, I think you're one of the people that believe that abuse will increase if this drug is decriminalized and/or legalized. The thing is that I am of the firm belief that the people that are looking for marijuana have no trouble finding it as it is. Those that seek to destroy themselves also have no difficulty in finding ways in order to do just that. People that are self-destructive will find a means to be self destructive regardless of the law.

Marijuana is incredibly easy to get a hold of. It's so easy to get a hold of that any and all people that want it can get it without breaking a sweat. So having a high penalty for its use and/or possession has failed as a deterrent. As it has failed as a deterrent, the excessive punishments do more damage than good. Does someone who comes fresh out of prison have an easy time finding a job? If you're worried about employment, think on that one. The marijuana enforcement laws have done nothing but cost the state money. The state loses $7.5 million a year to this failed ploy to discourage use. The punishments are an injustice because they help no one, they discourage no one, and they don’t change people’s minds about marijuana. If you want to make the argument that this bill is frivolous; you can’t. If only because it would save a lot of money and ultimately the time and energy of law enforcement so that they can more effectively prevent rape and murder and other such criminal offenses that actually negatively impact people undeniably more obvious and strong way.

I am not going to say that marijuana makes society better. I’m not going to argue that it’s good for you. Nor that the government should encourage its use. However what I will say is that even if every single negative thing you’ve said about marijuana is true, the harshest title that is justifiable to assign to a marijuana related offense is that of a civil offense and not a criminal one. Under the new bill, it would still be illegal and discouraged by every institution. The law as it currently stands fails to prevent any of your proposed societal ills and it also completely fails to bring justice to those who smoke by over punishing them.

You are obviously an intelligent individual. However, the thing about all this is that none of what you don’t like about marijuana use in society will change. The way things are now doesn’t help the problems at all. What this would change is the way in which marijuana users will be treated before the law. As they do nothing malicious and all of the effects of their actions upon others (no matter how subtle) are negligible at best, they do not deserve to be treated or labeled as criminals.
 

Means to absorb or take in as well.

I see nothing in this link about long term effects.  If anything, it actually reinforces my other points.  If i just missed it, please identify the exact location in the article.

Any money saved by this bill would end up being spent on unemployment/welfare/health care, and drive us further into debt.

You obviously don't get it. The people that are already unemployed are going to stay unemployed for their own reasons. It has nothing to do with reducing the penalty to a $100 fine. The unemployment thing is a lie. 1 in 1000 people happens to be unemployed AND a daily marijuana user. If you are one of 3.1 million americans that smoke marijuana daily then you have a %12 chance of being unemployed. But if you aren't one of them, you still have a %6 chance of being unemployed. Also, CAUSALITY IS NOT PROVEN ANYWHERE ON ANY SITE! There is no proof that there is anything more than a correlation between marijuana use and unemployment. LOOK AT THE FACTS. That site should clear you up nicely if you apply some critical thinking skills. And after someone gets out of prison...do you think it's easy to get a job? If anything you want to make it harder for marijuana users to get jobs. THINK ERIC.

Long term negative effects don't constitute criminality. And that long rebuttal isn't about your points it's about Brent's.

Ok:

I saw this tv show, right? The World’s Largest Man: this guy imbibed in so much food that not only did he become a danger to himself, but he started sucking resources from the local government to both accommodate his “larger-than-life” presence and simply keep him alive! The truck bed he and his…bed…were hauled around on qualified as a very hazardous wide load. Alright, so I was walking through Wal-Mart at some point in my life and saw people buzzing around in their motorized carts, unable to walk upright or heave their heft foot-by-foot across menial distances. These people could quite possibly lose sight of the road over their massive bellies and become a danger to other drivers. They are susceptible to (the most prolific killer in the country) heart disease. And not only are they first-hand abusers of heart-disease-causing habits but they affect all of their loved ones by no longer being present as living human beings, and taking up (a disproportionate amount) of valuable, arable land by being buried in huge caskets. Not to mention their clinical tendency to forget to not eat other peoples’ food! Socially destructive! They make terrible employees! My suggestion: ban food for those who test under a certain intellectual threshold – clearly they are unable to make rational decisions in controlling their substances (food).
Story Two:
A group of ever-present living individuals, in any historical era, decided to, despite the obvious risks, light a fire inside of their home (even though they lacked a fireplace). So what happened was that the fire, a dangerous thing, expanded beyond the limits they set, started to set other things on fire, and eventually engulfed the entire building. Not only were people killed in this fire, but those who survived were scarred physically by the flames, and others who inhaled dangerous amounts of carcinogenic air-born cinders developed forms of cancer which eventually led to health complications and death (we do all face death, don’t we? it’s just that the disappearance of individual liberties makes our longer lives not worth living…or so it seems). My suggestion: designate an individual possessing qualities of practical and spiritual genius who not only keeps the flame but decides, through medium-like intuition, which human beings are capable of using the flame in a non-destructive manner. Otherwise, fire will kill us all and that’s not acceptable.
Anecdote time:
There once existed a box of crayons. Three teenagers decided to “imbibe” these crayons in order to test their threshold for, well, crayons. One of the teenagers ingested so many crayons that his air passages filled, collapsed, and he was no longer able to breathe. On-site medical experts, ready with their statistics and grave warnings, suggested that the very idea of unregulated crayon usage could place users in danger and also endanger those who are susceptible to the persuasions of addicted users who not only encourage the occasional doodle but who also refer to and reveal the presence of certain nefarious chemical components, which upon breakdown, could be snorted up the nose and used to fray nerve-endings, thereby creating an hallucinogenic effect best described as encouraging “delinquent behavior”. My remedy: keep crayons accessible, but tax the hell out of them to discourage recreational users who may or may not fall under the sway of constant abuse if the availability was unlimited.
Conclusion: in light of recent studies proving that automobiles, capitalism, repressed fury, repressed sexuality, institutional racism/sexism/ageism, television, popular music, popular culture, leather, the “imbibing” of chemically and hormonally enhanced (degraded) animal meats, alcohol, cigarettes, intolerance, prescription drugs, the blue collar work facilities created for the manufacturing of weapons of mass destruction in western societies, celebrity fetishes, harmful voyeurism, Western’s dining hall food, fast food, Wal-Mart, Costco, bottled water, asbestos in school buildings, guns, toy guns with Chinese lead, sharp lead pencils, flying buttresses covered in toxic paint, bears, airplane crashes, fashion and materialism, Walt Disney, cancerous cell-phones, cancerous technology, starvation, genocide, Gaza Strip, Wall Street, imminent financial and economic collapse…et al – are all harmful to society and its members and must, like Marijuana—a relatively (in comparison) harmless thing—be banned from voluntary individual use. Because clearly people are too dumb to know what they’re doing when they’re engaging with objects and substances.
Question: has anyone here who opposes relaxation of tyrannical marijuana regulations ever smoked it? After a while it’s like coffee, or jogging, or anything pleasant whose effects lessen over time and eventually simply become functions of a normative state. Has anyone seen someone whose life has been torn apart by pot? The type of people who injure themselves with a shower curtain every time they shower will always be foolish, always overindulge, and eventually kill themselves off according to the laws of evolutionary nature. This is the case whether they’re under the influence of anything ranging from pot to olive oil. It’s true that many dangerous things exist in this world and should be eliminated or regulated strictly—pot is not one of those things! Anyone who has smoked more often than a cloistered monk understands this and considers it fact. I guess the real question is: if it’s been proven therapeutic by scientists, sufferers, and average people everywhere, if it’s harmful effects (like anything else natural beside poisons) are inconsequential, and if you’ve already made the decision not to use, what could you possibly stand to gain by maintaining the view that weed is dangerous and should be kept illegal and remain highly stigmatized?

*I’m not even gonna get into all of the seriously destructive legal ramifications facing peace-loving, society-contributing, upstanding people who were “caught” smoking by law enforcement officers who clearly weren't thinking about violent crime, real injustice, protecting, or serving.

And no, I wasn’t stoned when I wrote this.

I believe there have been studies showing slightly decreased short-term memory function after chronic use of marijuana over a long period of time.

That said, the long term effects of cigarette and alcohol use are far worse (this rings true for many other legal substances as well).

Personally, I feel we MUST look at this issue through the lens of who benefits from marijuana being illegal. Replace the word "benefits" with "makes money" in that last sentence and you may see where I am going with this.

Large pharmaceutical companies would not like to see marijuana be made legal. Marijuana is a potential substitute for many prescription drugs, and legalization of marijuana would drive down the profits of these companies in a substantial way, as people may stop purchasing prescription drugs, and start smoking marijuana to achieve the same health benefits.

A common argument that the DEA makes is that there is already a legal drug that produces these health benefits: Marinol. But we have to look at who makes money off of people only having access to this drug: Pharmaceutical companies.

Pharmaceuticals contribute MILLIONS of dollars to our candidate's campaigns every year to attempt to stop legalization from happening. Just about any candidate that receives money from pharmaceuticals during their campaign will not be open to making marijuana totally legal.

This is why we have to give candidates an option to run using public money during their campaign! A candidate that is not in the pocket of a pharmaceutical company will not feel pressured by them to keep marijuana illegal. This is why I am helping to start a group on campus advocating a public financing option for our elections. If you are interested, I started another thread a few days ago, so you can read about the other issues that public financing can help to resolve, and why it is SO important to help actually get things changing!

I don't know who you are but I love you. Please email me and join this movement.

Lets all get high and rally!

This isn't about weed. I'm not doing this because I want to get high. You shouldn't be either. This is about civil liberties, freedom, and justice above all else. This is a vehicle we can use to promote better budgetary policy and a more just criminal justice system. I am aware that this is a boon to the community of people throughout the state that like to smoke marijuana. But that can't be why we're doing this or we will fail. People have no reason to support stoner culture, they think it's immoral and wrong. Whether or not they are right is not the point. The point is that this is an issue about criminal justice and we can't succeed unless we approach it that way. This is issue is about what's right and what's fair.

Thanks,

Wyatt

 Regardless of which side of this bill you are on, write to your legislator and let them know. Also, A rally would be a great idea.

Manditory minimum sentancing laws make no sense,  they are a social injustice that we need to focus on bringing down.  They should be eliminated for all drugs, instead of locking someone up for non-violent crimes, rehab should be offered.  Overcrowding prisons are a big deal, not only is it unjust to the people there, but it costs a lot of tax payer money.  The bill that this is about is definately a good thing, but it can't just stop there.  Reform drug laws!  (FAMM) is a good lobbying group against it.

I believe we need to take down the current war on drugs. We need to rethink how we're going to solve the problems caused by drug use because this method is failing. All it achieves is injustice. This bill is the first step in reforming anti-drug policy nationwide. You are right, this can't stop here. That's why I want to be a lawyer and get into politics, so I can devote my life to environmental stewardship, social justice, and criminal justice reform. Dream big, but what we need to do right here, right now is get this bill passed come Hell or high water. If you want on board, email me at jarvisw@cc.wwu.edu and I'd be more than happy to let you know how. At the very least, email your congressmen.

Thanks,

Wyatt

PS: If you get the chance, watch a documentary called: "The Union: The Business Behind Getting HIgh". It is an eye opening look at how the marijuana industry flourishes under the current federal marijuana prohibition.

That movie was great, it's nice to see the facts coming from actual experts on the subject instead of some "suit" spewing propoganda.  If you havn't seen it already "Grass" is another good movie that looks at the history of Marijuana laws in the United States and how they came to be.

The red square rally is a really good idea and I'm sure lots of people would be down, this is Bellingham were talking about, and we do like our trees green if you know what I'm saying...

I'd be down to go to Red Square and rally.

Instead of red square lets rally infront of the olympia state capital building, i mean rallys are good and all but they don't really mean much if you don't get heard.

Why can't we have more than one?

Bump for dank nuggs

please contact me! rahmk@cc.wwu.edu

perhaps a meeting or in-person forum would be a good option as well?

I would actually support such a bill, despite not being a pot user myself; but I was curious: can the state legislature even do this? If I'm not mistaken, isn't drug posession federal crime? If so, doesnt that make any state policy on drug posession moot, since there would still be federally set mandatory sentences? If Im mistaken, I apologize, I haven't taken US gov for a while.

Actually massachusetts recently decriminalized it, so I'm pretty sure you can do it through the state.

There have been several incidences of federal agents raiding California medicinal marijuana farms and pharmacies, despite being legal at a state level.

Here's the thing, federal agents can still arrest pot users and put them in prison regardless of this bill. However, then the Fed has to get off their duff and come to one of the states within the union that is most anti-authority. They have to spend countless hours and dollars trying to catch people. Also, under the Obama administration I'd be reasonably surprised if they got really into drug enforcement in Washington. Anyway, we have every right to have our own policies regarding drugs so long as we don't do anything that is at direct odds with federal policy. There is no federal policy regarding turning marijuana into a civil offense. Stick it to the man and support this bill!!!

-Wyatt

You also have my full support if you were to organize a rally for HB 1177. 

Listen, I can't see a legitimate argument against this bill. The reason is simply this, decriminalizing won't increase use. The reason people don't use has nothing to do with the law. Users use because they want to. Non-users don't use because they are worried about the health risks, moral reasons, and because of societal stigmas about it. Those forces would all still be in play. It's just that those who use marijuana would face a more fair punishment. Does anyone actually think that someone who smokes a joint every now and again DESERVES to be sent to prison? That would mean that you would advocate for putting people like  Obama, Gore, Bush, Bod Dylan, Johnny Cash, Ray Charles, Bob Marley, Ted Turner, Harrison Ford, Willie Nelson and half the students at this school behind bars (assuming they were all still alive). THAT IS WRONG! Victimless offenses shouldn't be met with prison sentences. That is IMMORAL, UNETHICAL, IRRESPONSIBLE, HYPOCRITICAL, TYRANNICAL, AND JUST PLAIN WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! Think about it people. Before anyone else posts an argument about this bill, ask yourself this. Knowing that society would not be harmed by this law, that use wouldn't increase, and that the people using shouldn't be sent to prison, and that this state would save a lot of money can you really not support this bill? Even if though it would make a better justice system?

-Wyatt

it's time to bump.

I've read a few of the main arguments on here from the first couple posts, so im just going to give my 2 cents on it.

Firstly, when debating with pro-mj people I often find that they want to draw paralelles between marijuana and alcohol and that alcohol is so much worse for you, and its legal, why not mj? Well, its a matter of whats socially acceptable and what has earned the right to be legal.  Alcohol has been a very large part of humans culture dating all the way back to the beginning of modern man with wine and such.  There is reference to alcoholic beverages in every tale of greek mythology, norse, and heavily in biblical passages.  It is, and always will be a social icon for humans. 

Marijuana is not.  You dont see the majority of humans in the past all sitting around smoking a blunt.  I have heard that it has been used for many many years, probablly just as long as alcohol has, but the matter of the fact is that it is NOT an icon of society as a majority.  It was not heavily used by the founding fathers of this country, or of their ancestors.  It did not motivate them to create the country we live in, and MJ has not led any important icons in the past to better humanity.   If it was so readily accepted by our society and so widely used as many supporters say, it WOULD be legal, and used/farmed all the time and it would have integrated itself into our society. But it hasn't.  Its not part of our identity as Americans.  Americans are productive people, as well as progressive.  I understand that change is definitly possible (as seen with our new president), but it is clear that right now society does not have the will to  idolize a mind altering substance. 

I don't think as many people use mj as the legalization supporters think.  Living in a very liberal community up here, it is much more of a hot topic, but you forget about the major scope of the country.  Its about what everyone wants.  Not just a handful of hemp-wearing people standing on street corners yelling.

Someone mentioned that we are wasting 7 mil on the drug war... that seems very low to me...  I was expecting higher.  7 million is trivial in the scope of the financial capabilities of this nation.

This is all my opinion on this, and im not trying to say that what I say is in anyway definite or right. 

Someone said that we could start growing it in the US and such, but what they fail to understand is that we have already reached our fertile land capacity for growing crops.  We dont have the ROOM to dedicate to a drug that makes people feel floaty for a bit.  Thats the reason we are now using geneticlly modified crops now is because we are trying to make the existing crops more productive to be able to make enough food to feed our exponentially growing population.  What would happen? Obviously weed would be worth more, and so all of the corn producers would much rather produce something would would make them more profit right?  Thats great, we would have less food being produced, which would raise prices and inflation faster untill it was to late to realize that FOOD and such are more important than producing a drug that makes a select few happy.

It would change the entire structure of our country and I dont think that we need something like that right now just so that we can feel good.

Its a matter of productivity.  The reason America is so successful and such a safe place to live.  We have so much more production power and such a higher GDP per capita because of our ability to perform at high efficiency.  What would introducing a drug that promotes lazyness to do that?

My opinion is that the negatives FAR out-weigh the positives of legalizing MJ. 

Again, just my 2 cents, not trying to be pushy or get people upset. Lets hear your responses!

Matt, valid points all. The only thing is that the House Bill would not legalize marijuana (I think we're still a ways away from that kind of change), but decriminalize it. The topic has definitely been twisted and turned into a typical mesh of legalization jargon, but the point Wyatt was ttrying to make was that the drug war is taking away our choice of what we put in our bodies in a society that is supposedly free. I think there are pros and cons to every argument, and like every other issue out there, not everyone is going to agree with everything. Basically, marijuana should be a choice, made by the user, and not the government. Decriminalization is a small step that will have far fewer controversies than legalization, I feel.