Decriminalization of Marijuana in Washington- HB 1177

Matt, I have to disagree with you on many points. Lets start off with your first point; Alcohol has earned the right to be legal, while marijuana has not. These are some examples of government propoganda during the reefer madness period.

“In the past we have had officers of this department shot and killed by marihuana addicts and we have traced the act of murder directly to the influence of marihuana, with no other motive. We have found from long experience and dealing with this type of criminal that marihuana is probably the most dangerous of all our narcotic drugs.”J.F. Taylor, Chief of Detectives L.A.P.D -
[Fraternal Order of Police Journal - Jan. 1933]

HIGH SCHOOL, youngsters who turn to banditry for thrills, girls who leap from skyscraper windows, striplings who chop their parents to death . . . .The list of holdups, sex crimes, murders and suicides by marijuana addicts could be multiplied indefinitely. THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY - June 29, 1938

These are but two examples of many used to inform the public of "Marihuana". When considering the general public's lack of knowledge of marijuana, these stories seemed real, and frightening. Nobody would want that in society. Add on the millions of dollars put into anti drug and anti marijuana funding, and it becomes quite obvious why many people oppose marijuana.

However, marijuana does the exact opposite of these claims. According to ex Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper, marijuana should be legalized. In his 34 years in the police force, he has seen first hand what the war on drugs effect is on citizens. It invades privacy, destroy's lives (criminal records making job's hard to get), and overall invades the right of an individual to put in his body what he chooses. He said that after he came out about how marijuana should be legalized, he got many emails from other officers and police chief's who agreed with him 100% but were afraid to come out because of the taboo on the subject. He said that out of all of the officers he asked, none said that the marijuana user's they have arrested caused trouble or were violent. Compare that with a belligerent drunk, and that is a very large difference.

The next point of yours that I thoroughly disagree with is that "Society does not have the will to idolize mind altering drugs". According to freedictionary.com, a mind-altering drug is a drug that can produce mood changes and distorted perceptions. This definitely includes alcohol. If you compared someone who was beligerently drunk to someone who was very high, the beligerent drunk is garunteed to cause  more problems. It alters their state of functioning  and reasoning far more than marijuana does. A study was done in the UK in which they completely ignored the status of drugs both legal and illegal and studied the harm they cause both to the individual, society, and their potential for abuse. Alcohol came in at number 5, far above marijuana at 11. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm#drugs. Alcohol, the drug of choice for America, is one of the most harmful drugs.

Humans have been altering their concioiusness since the damn of time, whethter it be ancient archaic civilations harnessing the power of psychedelic plants, tribes smoking hasish, or the drinking of alcohol. One could even argue that conciousness altering is a part of the human experience and society.

The next argument of yours that I thoroughly disagree with is that "Marijuana has not led any important icons in the past to better humanity". John Lennon and Bob Marley, just to name a few, were heavy users of cannibus, and heavily affected the life's of millions of human beings. A similiarity that they share is music about peace, togetherness, and positivity. They say that music is a reflection of self, so even though these human's used the illegal marijuana plant, they have proven themself's without doubt to be outstanding citizens.

The next argument of yours that I disagree with is that America is essentially the "Best", because we are the wealthiest, most economically sound nation. When I did a search, forbes.com reported the United States as having the highest rates of depression amonst the world, at around 9.6% of the population experiencing BI-Polar Disorder. Compare that with Nigeria's .8%, its shocking.  There is much more to life than money and economics.

It is of my opinion that if somebody wants to smoke Marijuana, a plant that has been heavily studied by scientists with results concluding little if any long lasting harm to the body and mind, than that is their decision to make. I feel that Alcohol, which causes problems ranging from death to making horribly bad decisions, is not only legal but encouraged and widely accepted in our society, than marijuana, a plant in use for thousands of years for both medicinal and recreational purposes, should be legal as well. I believe it is completley ok to compare marijuana with alcohol. The war on drugs is a drain on the economy and an invasion of the right of a citizen to ingest what he wants to in his body, so long as he harms no one else.

I am curious to see what other  people have to say on this

Enjoy

-Rob

I would also like to add about the limited land topic. There is already a large demand for marijuana and it is being met sufficently. Also, according to Cypress Hill's song Dr Greenthumb, "...weed grow In the backyard or inside with hydro". Land is not even required, as hydroponics works sufficiently.

You make a bunch of great points. It IS not a part of idealized mainstream American culture. However, should the majoirty be able to decide what others do with their own bodies? It has nothing to do with how many people use. Even if there was only 1 pot smoker in this country, the values that this country was founded on give him the inalienable right to smoke it. Prop 8 is wrong because it restricts personal liberty. Just as marijuana laws are wrong for infringing on the individual's right to self fulfillment. Everyone should have the right to fulfill themselves so long as they don't encroach on the rights of others to do the same. Alcohol earned its right to be accepted? Are you absolutely sure that it had nothing to do with the soaring crime rates that accompanied prohibition? Or any connection to how much money bad men (like Al Capone) were able to make on speakeasies? You do realize that there were more speakeasies in Prohibition era New York than there are bars and taverns today right? Don't even try to make the argument that alcohol is somehow righteous just because it was the only way for people to hydrate safely for thousands of years. Why wasn't marijuana in the Bible? Could it be because it didn't exist in the Middle East then? How about in Greece, where the most potent drug they had was hemloch (yes that was a socrates joke)? I'm sorry but your argument about the traditions is flimsy at best. It WAS tradition for whites to own slaves. What made us put an end to that? Economic reasons. And funny thing about that is that here we have an opportunity to fix a civil injustice for the right reasons AND we have a HUGE economic incentive and yet people still won't wrap their minds around common sense.

"If it was so readily accepted by our society and so widely used as many supporters say, it WOULD be legal," Right, because ignorant and ambitious people like Henry Anslinger, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan didn't do anything to wrongfully alter people's opinions of drug use. Because racism and yellow journalism by old American elites played no role in the societal stigmas attached to marijuana. I agree that it's not popularly accepted. But you know why? Because ignorant politician after ignorant politician has branded marijuana as against the family and against America. Lies are the basis for the American stigma about marijuana. The majority isn't supposed to determine what's right, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do. This country's job is to ensure the rights of it's citizens. That is the social contract between the government of the US and it's people.

About the 7 million, that's JUST in Washington State (That's enough to field about 4 1/2 Viking Football teams) . The Fed spends 50 Billion annually on the failed War on Drugs. Hardly negligable. Beyond that, you don't have to grow marijuana outside, you can grow it indoors. In fact, the most potent strains are grown indoors anyway. What's more, we could regulate it's growth in other countries to help build their economies as well.

As to the supposed link between marijuana and laziness...show me one study where that was identified. The Schafer Report comissioned by the Nixon Administration indicates that marijuana use has no effect on people's contributions to public life. http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm Check out that link if you want to read the document for yourself. Ted Turner smokes a joint every day and he is easily one of the most successful people in the world. People that smoke marijuana daily (about 1 out of every 100 people in the US) are twice as likely to be unemployed as the general population in Washington (12% v. 6%). Given that doing some rough math, one sees that only 1 in every 1000 people in the Washington is unemployed AND uses Marijuana. Not only is this an incredibly small number, there is also no illustration of causality. There's no way of knowing whether or not lazy people just happen to like "mj" too. Show me something that proves a causality and then I'll accept this argument.

The next point that needs to be brought up is changing the direction of our country? Are you telling me that replacing the existing unjust penalty of 90 days in jail and a hefty fine (plus a record) would fundamentally change this country for the worse? In what way? http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html That study clearly demonstrates that decriminalizing marijuana doesn't increase use. Even legalizing any drug (from marijuana to meth) doesn't mean use would increase. The things that deter the individual from using those drugs are the health effects, individual morality, and lifestyle choices. The law is an after thought for anyone with makes decisions by thinking and reason. For those that don't use any kind of reason, laws still won't stop them. Anyone that wants to get high can on anything even though it's highly illegal. I don't do drugs but I am literally 2 phone calls away from having meth delivered to my door.

I'm sorry that you don't know the difference between a pragmatic civil libertarian (that doesn't even smoke pot) and someone that just wants to hurt the country so he can have a "floaty feeling". Learn the truth about these issues and then volunteer your two cents. My motives are just, moral, pragmatic and in concert with the values upon which this country was birthed. I'm sick of the backwards, discriminatory, and otherwise irrational fear based drug policies of the past. It's time to grow up and become mature, we are far too powerful a nation to be acting so stupidly about domestic issues. If anyone has an objection to this that goes beyond false assumptions, Bible babble, and highly irrelavent fact that drugs harm the user...I'd really like to hear it but only after you've read all the links in this post.

Thanks,

Wyatt

you're my hero. fact. you and that person who said we should make crayons illegal.

i retract the previou statement: "make crayons legal but heavily tax them" is the correct wording.

Are you saying that it's right for pot to be illegal BECAUSE its not a social norm?  That goes agains't everything our country stands for and is actually kind of insulting.  Stuff out of the norm makes things unique. Also if we don't allow change to happen, we will be the same forever, so its good to be different and is no means for being illegal.

sign this if you want to help HB 1177 pass!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/students-in-support-of-hb-1177

Thanks,

Wyatt

hey! you got the petition up!

is this what we'll be using at red square?

First, take your head out.

1.  You say don't legallize because it's not a part of history.....

Who cares, you didn't see jesus using a computer, does that mean we shouldn't use those?

2.  We're out of arable land.

Give me a fucking break champ.  Ever heard of hydroponics.  Pretty soon the amount of arable land won't matter in the least.  Most everything will be grown in a lab or indoors without soil anyway.

3.  It will change the struture of the country

How?

All the people against legallization/decriminalization think it's imoral or bad or ruins lives.  So it shouldn't change the structure of those peoples lives at all because they want nothing to do with it.  And like you said previously.  Not that many people smoke pot.  So it shouldn't really affect the "GROSS MAJORITY," of the citizens of this country.

4.  It promotes laziness

Marijuana has never been shown to promote laziness.  You just buy into bullshit stereotypes, congratulations.

I can understand all your arguements.

No need to get emotional everyone, im just telling you my opinion. Hostility is no way to react.

What kind of message is it for us to send to other countries in the world who's governments are taken over by violent druglords?

"Oh, its legal here now, so now you know that if you make enough of it illegally and pump it into our streets, its okay! Lets try cocaine next!"

Although marijuana may not be as harmful as cocaine, the view it would project to the rest of the world both economically and socially would be drastic. It would be wrong to say that it wouldn't change much.  All those druglords who are cutting off peoples arms for not producing enough drugs for the druglords to sell would be hurt.  I cant say this for sure, but this is my prediciton of what would happen. 

I feel like there are many deep economic and social aspects surrounding this that many of you dont even think of.

I've never smoked pot. I've often looked on others who do in a negative way. Maybe I've only been looking on it so negatively because of the overall opinion of pot. But I can see your point. Alcohol for example is a legal intoxicant, yet people die everyday because of drunk driving. Well marijuana is just another way of getting impaired or getting a buzz, whatever reason there is for drinking alcohol can probably be applied to pot. Cigarettes are legal and there's a lot of negative publicity for them. While I probably won't start smoking pot, I get your point that this is should be a choice, just as smoking a cigarette or drinking is a choice. Maybe there should be an age limit? It makes sense to start handling this kind of choice when we're more mature. I haven't always had this opinion, but I think your post was the straw that broke the camel's back and finally made me change my mind on this issue. I'll vote for the passing of this bill. It just makes sense in a land of freedoms.

No offense but I don't think you know much about the drug trade (marijuana specifically).

Firstly, The reason the drug lords are making money is BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL here.  If it was legal and governmentally controlled those druglords wouldn't be able to make any money because we (the US government) could grow far better chronic than the schwag the drug lords grow in Mexico/Colombia/wherever.  Trust me homegrown (and Canadian) bud is far superior to the shit the so called drug lords ship to our country.

Secondly, the marijuana coming into this country is mostly from Canada, BC to be specific.  And it is NOT grown by "drug lords," it is grown by everyday people who have normal jobs and lead normal lives.  They just see a way to make an extra hundred G's a year and take the opportunity.

In any case.  Legallization and governmental control would definitely help bring this country out of the grave George and Dick so nicely dug for us.  I dunno if you know about how lucrative the drug trade is but if you did you would easily be able to how it could generate millions if not billions for the government.

I suggest you check out the link to the video I posted.  It lays down the facts and is easy to understand.

Word man, props for seeing some reason.  Much respect.

Before I state any further opinions I want to remind everyone about something. This bill would ONLY decriminalize marijuana posession. This is not a debate about legalization, morality, or the absolutely irrelavent fact that drugs are bad for people. This is about freedom, justice, fairness, and financial sensibility. That said, feel free to look at my opinion about these themes that have continued to crop up:

Matt,

Don't tell me to not get emotionally involved here when you blatantly stated that my only motivation was to get high! You can't make assumptions like that and stereotype people into groups so that you can think less of them without having to feel bad about it. Even if I did just want to get high, judge everyone by the content of their character and not the content of their urine. Beyond that. According to this bill it would still be a misdemeanor to be under 18 and in posession. Beyond that, it's still 10 YEARS in Prison for selling. Think about those things. The message it supposedly would send to the world? How about the message we send everyday that the "freest", most righteous, and best nation in the world has more people in prison (percentage wise) than any other country? That makes sense. Or that 60% of those people are black and that only 12% of our population is black? The message to send is that we know how to ask (and have an answer) for the RIGHT question instead of the wrong ones. We can NOT stop people frim using drugs if they want to (whether or not it is legal or illegal). So let's accept that as a fact and take advantage of the potential gains of destroying much of the revenue stream of criminals. If we legalized ALL drugs (yes kids...even the deadly ones like meth) and sold them in government operated stores with government approved health advisory warnings (ie. putting this message on a bag of meth, "THIS PRODUCT WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE AND PROBABLY KILL YOU. YOU WILL DO NOTHING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THIS DEADLY DRUG BUT DESTROY YOUR WELL BEING.") to people 18 and older we could save so much money and invest in things like the prevention of real crimes, drug use prevention education, rehab centers, education (we spend more on prisons than on schools right now anyway), the environment, and even reducing our foreign debt. The first reaction to this is the knee jerk. I'm going to ask everyone to please get over that and think analytically before you make your assessment. The thing is that drug use is bad. Drug dealers don't tell people how bad drugs are for them and the government will. Drug dealers sell to anyone with cash, the government would only sell to adults. Drug dealers have no investment in the quality of the drug because all they care about is sales...the government could guarantee purity. It's a necessary evil and no moral code or kneee jerk idealism is going to fix the problem. People should have the right to put into their own bodies what they please, we are all self owners afterall. Beyond that, having drugs legal doesn't mean use will increase. That's because only people that TRULY have the desire to kill themselves will actually buy a package that tells you not to consume it's contents. Anyone who would still buy those products would have to be someone that couldn't be stopped by anything less than a bullet to the brain.

Think about it. If you really hate what I'm saying check out this: http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html

Thanks,

Wyatt

This response has been a while in the making, and I apologize for the delay, and any omissions. I’ll start by responding to your most recent post, going in chronological order down through it.

I believe Matt is partially correct in his statement about the goal being to get high. I understand you’re doing this for other reasons, and I acknowledge that, but let’s not lose sight of the product in question. What is its sole purpose? - To get high. I don’t want to hear about medicinal and such, because you guys aren’t in intense physical pain. I might as well address this too while I’m thinking about it.

Wyatt, as you know, I have just gone through the most intense and agonizing physical pain in my life- some go their entire lives without feeling this kind of pain, and it was more than I would ever wish upon my worst enemies. There are alternatives, and while not perfect (I address this in my closing statement), they are better than this. Moving back to my original point, there is only one goal in smoking- getting high. I’m going to generalize here and say that the majority of people that champion this (not necessarily you, Wyatt) are doing it simply because they want to be able to act, in my opinion, irresponsibly, without repercussions. They don’t care about the debatable “freedom” of doing it, they’re just looking for a way to justify their behavior. Anyways, moving on---

Onto your thought on legalizing all drugs and printing warning labels on them. I would counter this with one word- cigarettes. Despite the warning labels, people continue to smoke them and continue to die from it. I believe I mentioned it earlier, but if I could have my way, cigarettes would be illegal. Warning labels would do nothing. I never understood what could compel somebody to throw away both their wallet and their life on something like that, and why the government has been standing by letting it happen. Oh wait, lobbyists… I really hate lobbyists… Moving right along---

“That's because only people that TRULY have the desire to kill themselves will actually buy a package that tells you not to consume it's contents. Anyone who would still buy those products would have to be someone that couldn't be stopped by anything less than a bullet to the brain.”

I previously addressed the health issues associated with marijuana use in a previous post, so I won’t give a full recap, except for one statistic. Marijuana is 20x more carcinogenic than cigarettes (source cited in a previous post), so you might as well be. You won’t see the effects right away, but later in life you will. Wyatt, I always remember what our favorite Knowledge Bowl said during AP Bio, and that was that it really only takes one time to mutate your genetic material, causing you to have cancer later in life, and the longer you go, the probability of it approaches 1 at an exponential rate.

I’m gonna backtrack and hit your next most recent post, the one from Wednesday, 01/28/2009 - 9:50pm, and I’ll start with your second sentence.
It IS part of idealized American culture. As a longtime friend of yours, I know that you do not follow mainstream culture, but let me assure you, it is. You just have to listen to this stupid petty crap music the labels are pushing today to grasp that. And why are they pushing it? Because it sells. Why does it sell? Because that is what has become “mainstream.” These are no-talent ass clowns who “sing” about sex, drugs, and rape, all with a heavy bass line that makes me think my subwoofer is going to short. This kind of attitude has moved from the counter-culture of the 60’s to the mainstream, and has been accepted as the norm. People don’t know how to think for themselves anymore, and listen to whatever everybody else is, but at the same time, they believe that it is counter-culture, and thus want a piece of it.

You’ve mentioned several times the $7 million this would save. Okay, for the sake of argument let’s assume that this number is true. You do realize how little this is, right? The Alaskan Way Viaduct rebuild alone is going to cost $4.25 BILLION.
(source- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008621043_viaduct13m.html)

And this is not even taking into account expenses associated with this bill, such as the costs of health care for the people who decide to partake. If anything, I see this as being a net loss economically for us. As far as I am concerned, the economy argument is irrelevant.

Also, it doesn’t change either of our views, but slavery was not ended for economic reasons, it was a happy by-product. The Civil War was NOT fought to free the slaves, as is popularly believed. Nobody really cared enough to go to war over it, and it was just a bonus that happened when the North wanted the South to get back in the Union. Lincoln wasn’t necessarily pro-slavery, but if the South hadn’t seceded, he wouldn’t have done crap to stop slavery. Okay, end of history lesson, moving on.

Unfortunately, Chemistry eats up a large part of my time, so I don’t have time to write any more at the moment, but I would like to summarize my thoughts for you. Basically, what worries me about this whole thing is that it will push those who had been on the verge of beginning to use over, and those that were already using will migrate to other, more dangerous substances. Let’s face it, part of the draw is the fact that you’re “sticking it to the Man.” When it ceases to be that, people will move on to something else, and even worse for them. The effects on others also worry me, but I’ve already discussed those and the effects on one’s health in earlier posts. I think that it will be a detriment and burden to our society as a whole. Wyatt, I know what it’s like to be addicted to a substance. I never told anybody, but I was addicted to narcotic painkillers during 3 months I took them after the accident and ensuing operation. The only thing I had to look forward to was the next dose and/or hit of morphine. It’s not a place you or anybody else wants to go, and it’s a place I don’t want, and hope that you don’t go. I’ll try and write more later.

Your friend, Eric

Well written Eric

Could tell you spent some time on that :D

Applause all around!

Alcohol use shot up substantially during the prohibition, and than declined once it was re legalized

Who is to say the same wouldn't happen to marijuana?

Also, the Netherlands are far more liberal on drugs than the US is, yet they have lower rates of drug use and abuse.

Marijuana being illegal does nothing to stop people from using it whatsoever, so why should it stay illegal for adults who are able to go to war or drink a beer or smoke a cigarrete? If people want to smoke marijuana, they are going to do it. Why should they be punished for it if they are a responsible adult? Legality has little affect on use. If someone wants to use something, they will use it, regardless of the law. Example: Alcohol. You don't see anybody in the dorms being like.. man, I would totally drink some alcohol right now, but I gotta wait two or three more years!

Also, just because the marjority doesn't like it, so what? Have you ever been in a circle of people who are all picking on someone else? Just because everybody is thinking the same, does NOT make it a right thought. The moment someone stands up for whats right, others will follow. Marijuana has been slowly but surely heading in the direction of legalization since the 1960's, as people are starting to see the harm outweigh's the benifits of it being illegal. Like Wyatt said, the people who don't want it to be legal simply don'th ave to use it, while the people who want it to be legal will be able to use it responsibly without fear of getting in trouble with the law. Win win. Millions of American's smoke weed already, so legalizing it really wouldn't do much at all except take some non violent offenders out of prison, free up the court's, and give the police more time and money to focus on crimes that actually cause problems. No collapse of the world, nothing of that sort. We have been functioning fine with pot user's so far, so I see no reason why this would change anything. If somebody wants to take a few hits of weed as their preferred method of intoxication instead of getting drunk, why should they be stopped? It simply does not make sense to me. maybe i'm just crazy though

Also, as someone else said, the reason drug lords are so powerful is because the drugs are illegal. They get 100% profit, that gets turned around and put into more drugs and more weapons. In mexico, cartel's will put price's on officer's heads. Many people there are so poor that they are willing to kill a police officer for money. That is pretty terrible. As wyatt said, it truly is a lesser of two evils. Both options are not good, and in an ideal world, there would be no cocaine or heroin or methamphatemine. However, there is. Many hard drug addicts will accidently overdose because purity level's are so unregulated on the black market. They might take their normal dose, except their new batch is super potent, causing an overdose. If these substances were legalized, you would take the money out of criminal hands. It would go straight to the government, which could use put the money to use in drug treatment programs, drug prevention programs, etc. You could regulate purity, etc. You wouldn't have sketchy street peddlers , crack houses, or dangerous drug neighborhoods. It truly is hard to predict what exactly would happen if you legalized all drugs though.

The cigarette argument is a very good one, because it is a very harmful thing to do, yet many people still do it frequently. However, smoking rates have been going down substantially. I feel that if somebody wants to do something, they can do it, simple as that. If somebody wants to try methamphametine, than will get it, and try it. If someone wants to drink, they will drink. If someone wants to smoke weed, they will smoke weed. Legality of substances really has little effect on people using them.I don't think society should cause these individuals trouble, unless they are causing society trouble.

I mean, if we use this same logic, why not make guns all guns legal with very light restrictions on them?? I want to buy a fully automatic assault rifle, but I cannot do this legally in the United States, or carry around a fixed blade knife longer than 4 inches.  Lets make both those things legal.  Guns dont kill people, people kill people, right?  They dont hurt anyone unless they are used incorrectly.. just like marijuana right? Normal amounts are safe and healthy, using to the extreme is bad right?

Wait, but fully automatic rifles are bad because they promote crime.  Lets outlaw them.  They are a hazard to society.

Marijuana promotes further drug use (Marijuana has seen to be a gateway drug.. I have many friends who started with Weed then move on to other, worse things), so lets outlaw it.  It is a hazard to society.

Why would we allow such hazards that can cause mass amounts of destruction into our societies? For "freedom?" In some cases you need to use your best judgement when ruling and making laws.  Killing people is illegal. But man, its my RIGHT AND FREEDOM to kill people, right? No. Its not.  Its wrong and is bad for society.  In the same way that automatic rifles and marijuana are.

Thank you for reminding me about the cartels and such, I forgot to toss in my 2 cents on that earlier.  You are absolutely correct that these are ruthless, greedy people.  What makes you think that, assuming legalization, they will just disappear?  "Oh man, you guys, the US legalized.  Well, we had a good run of it, time to change our lives around."  Laughable, because it would never happen.  If anything, I believe they would get more ruthless in their tactics, not the other way around.  Domestic terrorism/drug wars perhaps?  They would only see the US government as another competitor, and will do anything to drive them out.  I believe there would be an increase in drug violence because of this.

If you had read and understood my post, I do not believe you would have written that. For the overwhelmingly large majority of marijuana users, they effect nobody but themself's. If they choose to smoke weed and harm nobody but themself's, if even, than who are we to stop them? If they start harming other people, than I believe that they should be punished, just like the angry drunk who causes problems or the reckless driver who causes problems. Millions of people play videogames, which last time I checked, result in 0% productivity. Some people have even died playing World of Warcraft because they did not eat or drink any food. Going by your logic, it would be reasonable to make videogames illegal? Nothing in life is completely harmfree, nothing. Obviously, there are some risks, albeit very slight, associated with marijuana use. However, there are major risks involved with alcohol or tobacco. I believe that if a responsible adult chooses to smoke marijuana, why should anyone say NO! you can't do that! and than on top of that, make them pay a large fine or even go to JAIL. It seems rediculous to me. I watched  a documentary on the original woodstock music festival. There were around 500,000 people there, many of them smoking marijuana presumably. However, there weren't really any fights, or any troubles caused by the people. On the large, marijuana really causes very very few problems.

Lolerskates at the closemindidness of people.....*bangs head against wall*

I know the logic classes are always full but c'mon Eric and Matt, get yourselves into one, speak to a counselor or something, I'm sure they can hook it up.

Nobody is going to be convinced of anything in here.  Everone is dead set in their viewpoint.  I'll agree to disagree here I guess.

Just a random question but....

If governmental scientists prove (like they need to...) that marijuana is non-dangerous would you guys be more inclined to legallize it?

Or what would it take to convince you guys to legallize it?  Is there nothing?  Does it all come down to morality, or that it's somehow against the "family values" (whatever that even means) or against religion or the "mainstream"

You actually think that drug cartels would go through the effort to stop the United States government from producing legal weed by starting a war or acts of terrorism?  Do you honestly, sincerely believe that?  You think they would invest the time and capital (which they would no longer once they've been run out of business) to try and stop the entire weight of the free market bearing down on them?

You are ridiculous.

Normal
0

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}

1.  I took Logic last quarter.  Got an A.  Next.

2.  It has been proved to the contrary.  See previous posts.

3.  I am agnostic and if you read my post you'll know my feelings on "The Mainstream"

4.  Family values are relative.  

What it comes down to is common sense, responsibility, and the health and well being of others.  I have discussed this before so I won't type out my reasoning/examples/statistics again.

@francib

Yes I do.  They won't do it openly, they're smarter than that.  But yes, they will do everything in their power to stop it from happening because it encroaches on their business and way of life.  They have more resources and allies than you believe.

And i have no idea what that gibberish code is at the beginning of my post...  editing it doesn't change anything... oh well.

They could do everything in their power to stop it, but once the American economy is mobolized to produce legal marijuana it could easily undercut the drug cartels, wiping out their profits and collapsing the system.  Americans consuming mexican marijuana plays a major role in the violence suffered by the people of mexico at the hands of the drug cartels, and all of the billions of dollars that the U.S. wastes fighting the war on drugs won't do a damn thing to solve the problem, and really only makes it worse.  What WILL solve the problem is creating an infrastructure where we can grow and sell marijuana on the open market, like cigarettes.  Market forces will do all the work that billions and billions of wasted dollars on marijuana raids and court costs and crowded jails could and never will do.  Continuing this ridiculous prohibition against marijuana will only enrich drug kingpins and perpetuate a cycle of violence suffered by the Mexican people.  Mexican drug cartels are fueled by their profiting off American drug users, so why not have the U.S. government profit off them through taxation instead?

For all of the studies and statistics that you've provided about the potential harmful effects of marijuana, couldn't ten times the amount be said about currently legal substances like alcohol, or even say fast food?

Are you so self righteous that you feel it's your right to stand in judgement of others?  Would you have fast food, alcohol, and cigarettes banned as well because of their adverse health effects?  Society doesn't work like that.  You have to accept the reality that people will do want they want to do, and the only reasonable option is to regulate it.

If you respond to just one more thing, answer me this:  What would happen if marijuana was legalized in the United States?  To the best of your knowledge, what would happen to society/people/teenagers/drug dealers/the economy/anything really... I really want to know how you would view a united states full of legal, taxed, carefully regulated marijuana.

Sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but this bill isn't going anywhere. It has been sitting without a hearing date for almost three weeks and they are wrapping up hearings for new bills in the next two weeks. That means if it isn't scheduled next week for the week after it won't even get a public hearing. There are bills with more general support and less controversy that still haven't been given a hearing. And there are still bills that have been saved for the last couple of weeks to be dropped and will get a quick hearing. There isn't enought time for this bill to go anywhere before the first cutoff on Feb 25th.

This Bill is not going anywhere!

-Morgan

Just because this bill isn't going anywhere is no reason NOT to debate.  It's a very relevant issue in the lives of millions of people, for anyone who has ever been criminalized over a petty marijuana charge, or the people that die every day at the hands of drug kingpins looking to capitalize on the American penchant for marijuana use.

Billions of dollars are spent (wasted) by the government on the ineffectual war on drugs, so why shouldn't we continue to debate it?

Alright, i'll answer your question.  My view is thus, and I like lists so i'll do it that way-

1. Use will increase

2. Use of other drugs will also increase

3. Violent crime will increase

4. Healthcare costs will rise for all

5. Cancer rates will increase, both among smokers and non-smokers

6. Drop-out rates will increase

7. Previously mentioned issues with cartels

It's kinda late so if i may ammend this list later, if there is still debate.

To anyone interested in the subject watch this video http://blip.tv/file/1356143/

It's called "The Business behind getting high"

Basically it is about marijuana history and what would happen if its legalized. 

1. "use will increase"

Might be likely

2. " Use of other drugs will increase"

Most experts agree that pot isnt inherantly a gateway drug.  The reason it seems to lead to harder drug use is because since it is grouped in with all other illegal narcotics, dealers don't really have an incentive to keep it limited just to weed.  Being exposed hard drugs by dealers is a much more plauseable reason for the gateway affect.  In fact if it is legalized, people wouldn't have to buy from dealers and they won't constantly be around the stigma of hard drugs.  Since you would just be able to get it from a store,  other drug use would likely decrease. 

3."Violent Crime will increase"

Since other drug use would probably decrease due to the availbilty of pot, violent crimes would probably also decrease.  Also larger growers/drug king pins would decrease due to no market in illegal marijuana.  Also, you have to consider that growers/kingpins don't want it to be legalized because it would ruin their extremely profitable industries.

4.  "Healthcare costs would increase"

Marijuana has almost no long term health affects.  The study that showed a decrease in brain cells was actually done on monkeys where they were sufficated by pot fumes.  If you know anything about suffication, after a few minutes, perminate brain damage ensues. 

Anyway there are no studies that show a corrilation between smoking weed and cancer.  The chemicals in cigs are absent in pot so don't be quick to assume the rise in cancer which anwsers number 5.

6.  "drop out rates would increase."

This might be likely, but also consider the decrease in dealers and illegal activity.  Many young adults turn to dealing instead of going to school because of the easy money.

Feel free to comment on this, but i believe that legalizing weed is a great solution to a long running problem.

2. I believe that one reason people use in the first place is because they feel subconsciously that they are "sticking it to the Man."  When it ceases to be thus, they switch to something that is.  It loses that rebelious appeal.

3.  I think that violent crimes would actually go up because those that previously had a stake in the market now have new competition, and will do whatever it takes to maintain what they had, and violence will escalate.

4. From source- http://gwired.gwu.edu/cms2/index.gw/Site_ID/5157/Page_ID/13628

"It contains more than 400 harmful chemicals, including cancer causing carcinogens."  

From source- http://health.howstuffworks.com/marijuana.htm

"Studies also show that marijuana contains cancer-causing chemicals typically associated with cigarettes"

This also applies to number 5.

6. Drop outs occur not because students are dealing, but because they are spending more time getting high than doing what they are here to do, and that's learning, and since we seem agree on point #1, this will mean an increase in drop outs as well.

How much time do you think students spend drinking as opposed to smoking weed?

Someone mention what it would take for me to agree with you guys.

Hell, if the government actually cared enough about the "epicness" and how "free" we would be about this, and created a large scale plan that was extremely thorough in processing the social, economic, and global effect of such a change. 

The government has bigger issues to deal with.  YOU all have bigger things to worry about than this.

This should be the least of the government and yours worrys.

1. Actually, use of alcohol decreased after the end of Prohibition - which is what legalizing marijuana would be a close similarity to.

3. Violent crime rose dramatically during the years of Prohibition because of gangsters who brewed and got rich off illegal alcohol. Sound similar to our Mexican cartels? Yes.

6. Drop out rates would probably DECREASE, because less people would be smoking as it isn't seen as being so stigmatized to smoke marijuana. ALSO, it will be cheaper, thus making it more affordable for younger people who are in school, thus making them less dependent on working to pay for their habit while also trying to complete school.

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

Take a look at tax payer money washing down the drain. Worse yet, these policies don't solve the problem in the least.  More often than not, the problem is exacerbated.

This situation could be turned around with careful legislation.

Again to seneca.  It's important to find reliable sources of information.  Those sites are propagandistic sites to get kids off of pot, and they don't actually research it.  I looked into some of their sources, and some of those sources sources, and alot of it boils down to NIDA (National institute on drug abuse). 

On the NIDA research site they state themselves that marijuana's long term affects are highly unknown.  After over 60 years of long term users, this data shouldn't that vague, if there was evidence, they would clearly state it. 

Also it says the same thing about cancer, they don't actually know that the smoke causes cancer, it might be likely but there arn't experiments that prove it.  Most cases of marijuana smokers that get cancer are also because they smoke cigs as well.  "It's hard to find whether marijuana alone causes cancer." (NIDA)

So all in all, its possible that it has a lot of harmful affects, but after decades of research they still have no clear evadence.

Nice:
Thanks for your thoughtful insights Eric. Even though I vehemently disagree with you on many points, I appreciate you being civil and not making a lot of broad sweeping assumptions. You have made quite a few logical assumptions that I obviously take issue with, but that stems from both of us having dramattically different world views. Those are your opinions and I have my opinions.  The solution you advocate for is an abject failure and everyone that does 10 minutes of research should agree. I'm using my insights, experience, and research to advocate for a more sensible drug policy that would actually reduce use and the negative effects on society posed by drug use. I was really offended when Matt called my motives into question and I do not call yours into question either. I am aware that if you were to look at the demographic supporting this idea, the majoriy would probably be drug users. However, that can be explained by two things. First, it's because they know firsthand how screwed up the US Drug War is. Secondly, it's because the rest of society is too damn scared to look at a solution other than the bad one proposed by Richard Nixon. Just because the motives of the majority of supporters are not entirely altruistic, doesn't necessarily mean that the viewpoint is wrong or would not work better than the current ideas. There is a lot more to this than simply sticking it to the man.  I  plan to be a civil rights/criminal justice lawyer, this is my passion...not a whim.

Argument:

You have to realize how much objection that I have to raise about this. First, Tobacco i sold by PRIVATE corporations, not the US government. Also, the warning says there is a chance that it could cause cancer and that warning is in very small letters. The warning label that I proposed leaves not a damn thing to the imagination. It would come complete with pictures of what people who use the most deadly drugs! Your cigarette argument doesn't fly because you (like so many others) think that punishing people (at great cost to us) will deter them from using a product they know is bad. I know you don't use meth. I also know why you don't use meth. You don't use meth because you KNOW it will kill you. You wouldn't use it if they gave out free samples at the front desk in Nash (nor would I for that matter...just making that clear). People wouldn't progress to harder drugs, they just wouldn't. There aren't any people "on the verge" because if they wanted, they'd do it. If they didn't they didn't want it, they wouldn't. It's that simple. Also, if you read about this study showing that use doesn't go up after decriminalization you might change your mind: http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html

About the civil war...Eric, who's the history minor here? It was ALL about economics. Why did the South want slaves? Because paying laborers sucks. Why did the North want slavery gone? Because free labor compared to the early beginnings of labor union-esque organizations created some strife between the North and South. John Calhoun started the secession movement but Lincoln's election in 1860 is what sealed the deal. Basically %40 of the country elected an ambivolent (yet left leaning) President that the other %60 of the country could hardly stand. Thus a war starts. There were some legislative compromises proposed that ultimately failed to keep the South in the Union. It was pretty much all economic (on both sides) with moral righteousness tacked on to both.

As far as the idea about it being mainstream...that's nonsense. Before we get too much more personal...I know that you have no more familiarity with American culture than I do. Just because a bunch of wangsters like to pretend they're into drugs and rape doesn't make it mainstream. Just because they sell an idea doesn't mean that everyone embraces the idea. Popular bands have been singing about marijuana and other drugs too, for ages. They aren't representative of America's cultural values either. Just the types of music that young people want to buy.  The biggest evidence that I can come up with that it's not a piece of mainstream American culture is how many Americans frown upon its use. People actually want an American "hero" like Michael Phelps to surrender his 8 medals for pressing a bong to his lips. Are you kidding? That is not the behavior of a tolerant culture. As it stands now people view drug users as second class citizens not because they're bad citizens but because of different lifestyle choices. That's just plain WRONG!
 

You realize the $50 billion we spend annually on drug enforcement has done nothing to stop drug use right? We have 1,000,000 people in this country behind bars for non-violent drug crimes. Of those million 600,000 are black despite blacks only making up 13% of the general population. But I guess it doesn't matter that we have more people in prison than anywhere else in the world because drugs are bad. It doesn't matter that we spend more on building prisons in this country than we do on building schools because drugs are bad. It doesn't matter that all the cashflow that cannot be stopped, goes to crime lords, gang members, militant guerillas, and terrorists because drug use is bad. It doesn't matter that 5 lbs of meth waste biproduct trickle into our water table everytime someone cooks a batch in suburbia. Or that their houses might explode, cost up to a million to fix, and lower the property values of everyone around them because drug use is bad. Do you see what I'm getting at. The federal drug war has done far more harm than good. Harsher penalties aren't the answer here, pragmatism and realism are.

I get that it's tough to comprehend how in the world drugs could or whether or not they should be legalized. It's radical thinking. I understand that. But the kneejerk reaction coupled with the conventional wisdom that laws stop crime aren't going to yield the best solutions to this nations drug problems. However, if we apply a more pragmatic, realistic, and common sense approach we can make a sober appraisal of the situation and come up with a plausible solution. The moral aspect has nothing to do with it. The health risks to the individual have nothing to do with it. The public cost, health, and civil liberty are what matter most here. Why should the government be able to control what adult self-owners do to their bodies? Being a responsible adult means making your own choices about how you treat yourself. Uncle Sam is not my Dad. James Arthur Jarvis Jr. was my Dad and that's the only man that had the right to tell me what I could and could not do until I turned 18. You can't nor should you nerf the World my friend.

On the subject of responsible adult behavior...most people would contend that electing George Bush twice was irresponsible. Or that waking up past noon is irresponsible. Eating too much food is irresponsible. Responsibility is an individual choice and when you take away people's right to choose their destiny for themselves, you take away all that makes life worth living. Soldiers die defending freedom...they don't die defending the law. The Constitution is a shield for the marginalized not a sword for the moral elite.
 

You say that $7,500,000 doesn't matter? You do realize that's enough money to fund 5 Western Football Teams right? That's all I have to say about the money issue.

The fact that marijuana (or really any drug) is bad for you is also highly irrelevant. Alcohol causes cancer too, not just cigarettes. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/PRO/alcohol.pdf What you take objection to is people POTENTIALLY  trading their good health (as it has NEVER been proven that Marijuana kills brain cells nor that it causes cancer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR200605...) . That link will set you straight on that. But in anycase, even if it were so terrible as to make people disintegrate into dust upon their first use, where does the government have the right to tell what you can and cannot put into your own body? I own me and you own you. What the two of us  ingest is entirely up to us as individuals. It's called freedom. "Life, liberty, and property" Our body is our property and we have the liberty put it to use however we please through the course of our life so long as we do not encroach upon everyone else's right to do the same. You can call it libertarianism...I'll call it American.

Oh and about people progressing to harder drugs...that's nonsense. People act the way they do for their own reasons. Because we're all agents of ourselves. The legality of my actions is the last consideration I make. I don't kill because it's wrong...I don't need that law to keep me in line. I don't rape because it's wrong...it has zilch to do with the law. I don't steal because it's wrong. I don't do meth because it's soooo incredibly bad for you. I am not proposing the eradication of laws. But I am proposing that we only enact laws that shield us from having our rights taken away.

Lastly, it's important to remember that this bill has a very narrow focus. It would change the penalty for adults in possession to a $100 citation. That's more than fair and reasonable. It'd still be a felony to sell. It'd still be a misdemeanor for a minor to possess. And a felony for an adult to possess 40 grams. That's it. It's not a HUGE new radical policy. It just changes the wording of one paragraph of existing law.

-Wyatt

Ben Franklin once said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

OK,

Dude, you're an asshole. I want to say for the record...that I don't view you as a bad person. I don't really think you're an asshole...I just think you're being one. Eric has thought out objections that happen to be wrong in my view. I'd like to point out that I have yet to have been proven wrong on a single point by anything beyond an assumption...thanks. But you don't seem to have a single legitimate concern that you've actually spent time thinking about. Assault Weapons? They were made for the purpose of assaulting others. Also, they are currently legal to buy in this country. Beyond that, MURDER is the real (and punishable) offense. Not weapon possession. Sorry...try again. I WANT A FREE SOCIETY. That is what I'm advocating for here. DUH! Don't tell me that there are so many bigger issues...when issues like this are paramount to creating a more free and happier society that is more aligned with the intentions of the framers. LIVE AND LET LIVE. If someone wants to kill themselves...that's their right. SELF-OWNERSHIP is the greatest right that the framers gave us and people like you have been trying to stop it since 1787! Stop. Let it be...please. There is no evidence (you know that stuff that makes your opinion OK to share) that indicates that decriminalization would make this state a worse place to live. On the contrary there is tons to say that it would. Drugs are bad for you. DUH. No one has a delusion about that. The delusion is that restricting personal liberty will help prevent people from making the wrong choices. Well sometimes it does. George Orwell wrote a book about the type of government you promote called 1984. Also there is a guy name Kim Jong Ill that would high five you for your awesome views. Think before you oppress my friend. This is an excellent application of my strengths and understanding of the world around me and my desire to make this world a more free and just place. This is not a waste of time. And if people like you would just look at the situation analytically before making your decision...it wouldn't be a waste of time because it would slide through the legislature like a hot knife through butter. Until you're going to contribute something more than contradictions and nonsense, please stop posting.

-Wyatt

Member of the Advisory Group for this forum here--although I speak for myself and not the whole group.  I'd like to remind everyone posting to this thread of our guidelines for participation, which can be found on the upper left of every page.  Here's a relevant quote: "avoid insulting language or belittling statements."  There have been several posts in this thread that have sought to directly insult others and/or belittle them.  This is unacceptable.  The lack of civility is unfortunate, because it detracts from what has otherwise been an often good discussion of this important issue.

We'd like to keep this thread open and allow this discussion to continue.  But for that to happen, we need for people to treat each other with more respect and show some forgiveness.  If that can't happen, locking the thread is certainly an option.  So, please: continue to discuss this with vigor, but show respect for each other, don't insult people, and assume good intentions with everyone.

Thanks,

Jeff

I agree guys, it's getting a little out of hand.

Obviously, there are a lot of hotheaded people who are deadset in their opinions. The fact of the matter is that no two people will ever have the exact same set of beliefs/morals/ideals. It is good to discuss and argue, but we need to keep it civil. I really am interested in EVERY argument, even the ones that directly oppose my own opinion. So let's not get this thread kicked off ok?

I absolutely hate the smell of pot and likewise cigarettes smell like incinerated donkey dick (now don't ask me how I know...I'm trying to forget j/k).

I think they should legalize it and acknowledge that the war on drugs is been nothing but a huge time and money sink (that has done nothing but increase the problems with all the substances).

Likewise I wish they'd stop letting people smoke anything, be it a campfire, tobacco, or marijuana in crowded areas. I'm sick and tired of walking around campus and getting blanketed in a white wall around the Art area up to that one market (not miller whatever the other one near is called).

Seriously I don't fart in people's faces for much the same reason. They are personal chemicals that I don't feel I should force down other people's lungs. ;p

The fact that pot has such a stigma is beyond me. My old roommate was stoned almost everytime I saw him yet on that same not he will always be an inspiration for me in the other aspects of his life. He was an amazing singer who never failed to provide me with an entertaining debate on philosophy.

Now that I think of it...I don't think I've ever met a stoner that matched the stigma. I HAVE met alcoholics who also smoke pot that are pretty much spot on, but never a straight 'pot smoker'. (straight as in only pot, nothing to do with sexuality)

Hey everyone (especially Matt),

I'm sorry for my rude comments throughout this thread. I am passionate about this topic. I was in a bad mood today when I was posting and I'm sincerely sorry for calling you an asshole. You're obviously not an asshole. I get really up in arms about civil rights and sometimes I get carried away. So I'm sorry Matt for insulting you as directly and unfairly as I did. I hope that you'll accept my apology.

Sorry man,

Wyatt

As a rhetorician and someone who cares a lot about the spoken and written word, I just want to say how much I admire the way you have prompted such a civil dialogue about this topic, Wyatt.  Your informed and respectful tone embodies exactly the kind of talk I had hoped to see on this forum.  Thank you.

So I think I had meant to comment on this, I had even written something, but just now realized I never posted I guess, but I just wanted to say that I used to be on the verge of changing my mind about this, but your argument was what tipped the scale and really made me believe in my words when I say that I'm all for the legalization of mary j. In the past I've had views that were far too pious, something along the line of drugs and alcohol being a sin, but I'm trying to clear my mind of institutionalized religious bull shit and see things with a more open mind, and I've come to realize that these recreations are more of a personal choice. I just wanted to say, thanks for tipping the scale and I'm with you. 

EDIT: This is redundant of me, so just ignore

 If there is anything I can do to help, tell me. I am an avid supporter. The legal damages Marijuana causes are bigger than the health damages it may cause. Anything in excess is bad eating, drinking alcohol, too much caffeine (ever been around a caffeine junkie that hasn't had coffee?) even too much water can hurt you. Moreover, what I'm trying to explain is; if you host a rally I will bring myself and dedicate myself to bringing as many people as I can.  

TThank you,

-Juan

I'm kind of in a vaguely similar camp as David Diggle. I wouldn't say I'm an avid supporter of decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana, but I would probably vote for a proposition that would do so. However (and this is going to be a bit off-topic), since "second-hand" marijuana smoke can (correct me if I'm wrong) get one quite high, in the event that it is totally legalized, I think its usage should definitely be confined to private locations. That may be common sense, but I don't really know.

I don't think you can get high from secondhand unless you hotbox a geo and blaze like 2 or 3 blunts worth of chronic.

My old high school buds smoked the stuff 24/7, and I can tell you confidentally, you'd have to say in a sealed room for like 6 hours with 7 other people smoking without any pauses to feel anything, in which case, what the hell is a non-smoker doing in sealed room with a bunch of people lighting up?

However, a "shotgun" will get you high. But that's the same thing as taking a hit, except with a, err, sorta kinky middle-person.