7 big myths about marijuana and legalization

[radcen]

7 big myths about marijuana and legalization

7 big myths about marijuana and legalization

 

[specklebang]

Gee, he has an opinion© and wants you to buy his book so he can profit from his opinion©

Somehow, I'm not impressed.

 

[Lutherf]

While the issue of marijuana legalization isn't particularly high on my list of political issues I'm not a big fan of outright legalization. The "medicinal" argument is nonsense and the tax argument is pie in the sky optimism. While I agree that it is more or less on a par with alcohol as far as effect goes I don't believe that justifies outright legalization.

While I doubt that there will ever be the political will to do so I would suggest that the best option would be to decriminalize possession of a given amount and to allow personal cultivation of a certain number of plants while putting severe penalties on distribution for profit. If you want to smoke the stuff then grow it yourself. Four or five plants should produce more than enough to keep a person entertained year round and if they want to give the extra away who am I to stop them. I figure that something like this will allow for penalties to be enforced at the local level for such things as distribution at schools or to minors, driving under the influence and acts of criminality involving the product.

The goal of any legislation regarding criminality should be to encourage "good" behavior while providing a mechanism for penalizing unacceptable behavior. I think of it much like firearms laws...punish the ones who abuse their rights and privileges while leaving the responsible folks alone.

One last thing....regarding the taxation issue, do we really want another government agency (probably 4 or 5 of them) involved in this stuff? Haven't we already seen the results of lobbying, loopholes, niches carved out for special interests, etc? If you believe that we won't get that crap by the truckload with government oversight of marijuana you're already too high.

 

[specklebang]

While the issue of marijuana legalization isn't particularly high on my list of political issues I'm not a big fan of outright legalization. The "medicinal" argument is nonsense and the tax argument is pie in the sky optimism. While I agree that it is more or less on a par with alcohol as far as effect goes I don't believe that justifies outright legalization.

While I doubt that there will ever be the political will to do so I would suggest that the best option would be to decriminalize possession of a given amount and to allow personal cultivation of a certain number of plants while putting severe penalties on distribution for profit. If you want to smoke the stuff then grow it yourself. Four or five plants should produce more than enough to keep a person entertained year round and if they want to give the extra away who am I to stop them. I figure that something like this will allow for penalties to be enforced at the local level for such things as distribution at schools or to minors, driving under the influence and acts of criminality involving the product.

The goal of any legislation regarding criminality should be to encourage "good" behavior while providing a mechanism for penalizing unacceptable behavior. I think of it much like firearms laws...punish the ones who abuse their rights and privileges while leaving the responsible folks alone.

One last thing....regarding the taxation issue, do we really want another government agency (probably 4 or 5 of them) involved in this stuff? Haven't we already seen the results of lobbying, loopholes, niches carved out for special interests, etc? If you believe that we won't get that crap by the truckload with government oversight of marijuana you're already too high.

Jeez Luther, what kind of Commie **** is this You don't want profits? Isn't profit the foundation of Capitalism?

 

[Bob N]

Jeez Luther, what kind of Commie **** is this You don't want profits? Isn't profit the foundation of Capitalism?

And one would be led to believe that it would remove organized crime's profits. I'll bet that organized crime wouldn't want to see it legalized.

 

[specklebang]

And one would be led to believe that it would remove organized crime's profits. I'll bet that organized crime wouldn't want to see it legalized.

No, they surely don't. After all, they surely don't pay any taxes on their profits and we supply the LEOs to keep it that way.

 

[Lutherf]

Jeez Luther, what kind of Commie **** is this You don't want profits? Isn't profit the foundation of Capitalism?

I've come to the conclusion that Capitalism works great in a pristine environment but when you get government involved too much it's no longer Capitalism. Besides, the way Capitalism works if I can manufacture my own product easily enough then why would I buy it from you? If I can grow five plants for $20 and get enough weed to last me a year than I have no good reason to buy your weed. The main reason we don't have that happening already is because government makes the penalty for growing it high enough that the risk isn't worth it for most people.

If people who wanted marijuana could grow their own without penalty that would put a dent in the current illegal trade. I figure that the cocaine, meth and heroin trade would be plenty to keep the cops busy but I also believe that fewer people would be into that stuff is they could use pot without significant penalty. One of the things that gets ignored with the whole "gateway" premise is the thought process that people have. They figure that if they're already breaking the law for this little thing then they may as well break the law for something else. Giving people a legal "out" should get some people to shift gears. Furthermore, if someone is dealing in weed and "at risk" then they are more prone to engage in other marginally higher risk activities to make the risk more worth it. It won't clear up all the stuff but I figure it would make a hefty dent. I really don't subscribe to the theory that someone who smoked dope will automatically gravitate to other drugs without a reason to. If penalties for other drugs are ramped up while penalties for pot are reduced that's an incentive NOT to get involved with higher risk stuff.

 

[specklebang]

I've come to the conclusion that Capitalism works great in a pristine environment but when you get government involved too much it's no longer Capitalism. Besides, the way Capitalism works if I can manufacture my own product easily enough then why would I buy it from you? If I can grow five plants for $20 and get enough weed to last me a year than I have no good reason to buy your weed. The main reason we don't have that happening already is because government makes the penalty for growing it high enough that the risk isn't worth it for most people.

If people who wanted marijuana could grow their own without penalty that would put a dent in the current illegal trade. I figure that the cocaine, meth and heroin trade would be plenty to keep the cops busy but I also believe that fewer people would be into that stuff is they could use pot without significant penalty. One of the things that gets ignored with the whole "gateway" premise is the thought process that people have. They figure that if they're already breaking the law for this little thing then they may as well break the law for something else. Giving people a legal "out" should get some people to shift gears. Furthermore, if someone is dealing in weed and "at risk" then they are more prone to engage in other marginally higher risk activities to make the risk more worth it. It won't clear up all the stuff but I figure it would make a hefty dent. I really don't subscribe to the theory that someone who smoked dope will automatically gravitate to other drugs without a reason to. If penalties for other drugs are ramped up while penalties for pot are reduced that's an incentive NOT to get involved with higher risk stuff.

Pure speculation follows.

I never would grow my own anymore than I would manufacture my own clothing. I will buy it from someone else. If I could go to a licensed retail store, I would do that instead of buying from Craig's List. Then, possibly, taxes would be collected.

As for the other drugs, ramping up enforcement merely means that we'll replace the marijuana prisoners with a different sub-set. Why does it matter who takes what drugs? When you see a junkie lying on the street, or a meth-head shambling around in rags, you presume that is the consequence of the drugs. Well, forgive the anecdotal input, but that's simply not the case.

Most drug users are completely responsible people who are attracted to the disconnect or sense of well-being that drugs of all types provide. Just as many people drink alcohol but don't wander around covered in puke, many people enjoy crack, meth and junk and use it wisely.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Many people enjoy crack, meth and junk and use it wisely.

Alcohol and pot are so different than the above. And alcohol is fairly dangerous. I have known more than one junkie (many more addicted to pain meds), a couple crack users, and live near some meth heads. They are all disasters. Those drugs are extremely destructive. Pot on the other hand is safer than alcohol.

I'd keep meth, cocaine, and heroin out of the legalization argument.

 

[specklebang]

Alcohol and pot are so different than the above. And alcohol is fairly dangerous. I have known more than one junkie (many more addicted to pain meds), a couple crack users, and live near some meth heads. They are all disasters. Those drugs are extremely destructive. Pot on the other hand is safer than alcohol.

I'd keep meth, cocaine, and heroin out of the legalization argument.

Structurally, you are right in suggesting that the "other drugs" be left out of the argument but goddamit, someone has to do it.

Like anything else, there is a fine line between use and abuse. Why are pain meds even legal if they're so disastrous? Because - well - they remove pain. What's so awful about that?

 

[Lutherf]

Pure speculation follows.

I never would grow my own anymore than I would manufacture my own clothing. I will buy it from someone else. If I could go to a licensed retail store, I would do that instead of buying from Craig's List. Then, possibly, taxes would be collected.

As for the other drugs, ramping up enforcement merely means that we'll replace the marijuana prisoners with a different sub-set. Why does it matter who takes what drugs? When you see a junkie lying on the street, or a meth-head shambling around in rags, you presume that is the consequence of the drugs. Well, forgive the anecdotal input, but that's simply not the case.

Most drug users are completely responsible people who are attracted to the disconnect or sense of well-being that drugs of all types provide. Just as many people drink alcohol but don't wander around covered in puke, many people enjoy crack, meth and junk and use it wisely.

A user of illegal drugs is, by definition, irresponsible.

If you chose not to buy your own weed perhaps you could find someone to had over their excess. Assuming that you wanted to smoke weed and your choices were to grow your own or get it from someone else (can't go to the store and buy it) your idea of picking it up at the local Terrible Herbst isn't an option so no sense in speculating about it.

 

[specklebang]

A user of illegal drugs is, by definition, irresponsible.

If you chose not to buy your own weed perhaps you could find someone to had over their excess. Assuming that you wanted to smoke weed and your choices were to grow your own or get it from someone else (can't go to the store and buy it) your idea of picking it up at the local Terrible Herbst isn't an option so no sense in speculating about it.

So, by your reasoning, a user/abuser of LEGAL drugs is responsible?

That's what I do right now. I have other people sell me their excess. In 4 more months, I'll be able to go to a store in CO or WA and buy it across the counter. Will that make me MORE responsible than if I buy it from Rasta Jim on Craig's List?

I'm hoping NV will jump on the bandwagon and legalize it in the next few years.

 

[Lutherf]

So, by your reasoning, a user/abuser of LEGAL drugs is responsible?

That's what I do right now. I have other people sell me their excess. In 4 more months, I'll be able to go to a store in CO or WA and buy it across the counter. Will that make me MORE responsible than if I buy it from Rasta Jim on Craig's List?

I'm hoping NV will jump on the bandwagon and legalize it in the next few years.

Use of illegal drugs is irresponsible. Abuse of legal drugs is also irresponsible. If you head to Colorado and decide to get high I can't necessarily say that's irresponsible but if you do so in lieu of taking care of your other responsibilities then you are, again, acting irresponsibly.

Since you live in Las Vegas I figure you can relate this to gambling. If you head over to Sunset Station and gamble away some amount that you can afford that's fine. If you're gambling away your mortgage money then you're being irresponsible. Furthermore, if you set up an unregulated game at your house and start taking a rake you are acting illegally and irresponsibly.

 

[specklebang]

Use of illegal drugs is irresponsible. Abuse of legal drugs is also irresponsible. If you head to Colorado and decide to get high I can't necessarily say that's irresponsible but if you do so in lieu of taking care of your other responsibilities then you are, again, acting irresponsibly.

Since you live in Las Vegas I figure you can relate this to gambling. If you head over to Sunset Station and gamble away some amount that you can afford that's fine. If you're gambling away your mortgage money then you're being irresponsible. Furthermore, if you set up an unregulated game at your house and start taking a rake you are acting illegally and irresponsibly.

Apparently we don't use the same definition of the term irresponsible. Using your example, if I set up a poker game at my house and take a rake, how exactly is that "irresponsible"? Let's not confuse illegal and irresponsible.

If I have a stash of pot, tar, meth and crack - obviously that would be illegal under our present arcane and foolish laws. But in what way would that be irresponsibility unless I get ****ed up and drive around running people over.

And I apologize for topic crossover but if and when they make your guns illegal, will you keep them or turn them in? I may be wrong but I think I know the answer that is in your mind (must be gypsy heritage) and would that be "irresponsible" or merely illegal?

 

[Lutherf]

Apparently we don't use the same definition of the term irresponsible. Using your example, if I set up a poker game at my house and take a rake, how exactly is that "irresponsible"? Let's not confuse illegal and irresponsible.

If I have a stash of pot, tar, meth and crack - obviously that would be illegal under our present arcane and foolish laws. But in what way would that be irresponsibility unless I get ****ed up and drive around running people over.

And I apologize for topic crossover but if and when they make your guns illegal, will you keep them or turn them in? I may be wrong but I think I know the answer that is in your mind (must be gypsy heritage) and would that be "irresponsible" or merely illegal?

If you are putting your welfare as well as that of your family at risk by engaging in illegal activities for purely hedonistic reasons that's acting irresponsibly.

I like the question about guns. I would consider keeping the guns as both illegal and responsible. The reason for the difference between guns and pot is that guns are useful (and occasionally necessary) for defense of ones self, ones family and others. Because of the utility of firearms their possession can't really be considered solely hedonistic even if that happens to be the primary rationale one might use for owning them.

 

[specklebang]

If you are putting your welfare as well as that of your family at risk by engaging in illegal activities for purely hedonistic reasons that's acting irresponsibly.

I like the question about guns. I would consider keeping the guns as both illegal and responsible. The reason for the difference between guns and pot is that guns are useful (and occasionally necessary) for defense of ones self, ones family and others. Because of the utility of firearms their possession can't really be considered solely hedonistic even if that happens to be the primary rationale one might use for owning them.

All drugs are as, or more useful, than guns. Opiates provide pain relief and make people more productive. To a lesser degree, the same applies to marijuana which provides a calming effect to alleviate stress and an appetite stimulant to those underweight. Speed is a fantastic work drug - you can do a line and work non-stop for the next 16 hours. Psychedelics (such as LSD and mushrooms) stimulate the imagination and result in books, music and films.

Indeed, except for cocaine which is already "out of fashion", I can justify any drug the same way you justify retaining your weapons. People using drugs need to make sure they are using them in a sensible way. People possessing firearms need to keep them secured as appropriate.

 

[radcen]

Decriminalization would retain the criminal element, which is a huge part of the issue.

 

[What if...?]

Gee, he has an opinion© and wants you to buy his book so he can profit from his opinion©

Somehow, I'm not impressed.

Basically the new LE line on pot.

Job security.

 

[ttwtt78640]

All drugs are as, or more useful, than guns. Opiates provide pain relief and make people more productive. To a lesser degree, the same applies to marijuana which provides a calming effect to alleviate stress and an appetite stimulant to those underweight. Speed is a fantastic work drug - you can do a line and work non-stop for the next 16 hours. Psychedelics (such as LSD and mushrooms) stimulate the imagination and result in books, music and films.

Indeed, except for cocaine which is already "out of fashion", I can justify any drug the same way you justify retaining your weapons. People using drugs need to make sure they are using them in a sensible way. People possessing firearms need to keep them secured as appropriate.

A gun on your person does not "stimulate your imiagination resulting in books, music and films" while you should be concentrating on driving that work truck or whatever else your boss is paying you to do.

 

[ttwtt78640]

How about the myth that making and keeping marijuana illegal will eliminate or greatly reduce its use? Or the myth that organized crime does not make billions per year by keeping recreational drug sales illegal?

 

[marduc]

ok, let's see

myth 1: Marijuana is harmless and non-addictive

Compared to other substances it is significantly less harmful. This is not saying it is all good, yes, there are harms associated with marijuana. I argue from a standpoint of harm reduction. the black market created and fueled by illegality does more harm than the drug itself. Also, a controlled distribution which would significantly reduce the scope of the black market would make it more difficult for youth to attain marijuana.

myth 2: smoked or eaten marijuana is medicine

The article touts marinol as an alternative. Marinol is 100% THC, while marijuana has ~70 different cannabinoids and THC is not the only one that has potential medicinal effects (unfortunately study has been severely limited due to barriers to research because of its scheduling). I wrote more in detail on marinol a long while back, here is the link to that post: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-non-msm/59016-marijuana-legalization-hearing-tomorrow-california-15.html#post1058336825

Sativex is not the answer either. The answer here is more research and isolating what cannabinoids are beneficial for what conditions. Until this happens, people who can benefit medically from marijuana have little recourse but to use the raw plant (which can be selectively bred to enhance certain cannabinoids over another ie: strains high in CBD and low in THC so as not to deliver a high while still being beneficial).

myth 3: people behind bars for smoking marijuana

This conveniently overlooks people who are behind bars for distributing marijuana, as well as other crimes committed because of the black market. legalization would reduce the prison population and not just directly through the extreme minority are there simply for smoking marijuana. It would free up room fro our violent offenders who are the ones who need to be behind bars the most (granted how much is up for debate - but IMO any reduction that allows room for more serious offenders is a plus). legalizing marijuana (and other drugs) wold reduce our prison population simply by reducing the cash allure of the black market and reducing its scope.

myth 4: legality of alcohol and cigs strengthens the case for marijuana.

nah, it does not strengthen the case, but it does expose a hypocrisy. Anyhow our alcohol policy is worth copying for one simple reason: there are controls in place that make it more difficult for youth to attain.

myth 5: legal marijuana will solve budget problems

Despite people distortig this argument and claiming that it will solve budget problems, the argument that it will assuage budget problems is valid. instead of throwing billions of dollars away on enforcement costs it gets replaced with a revenue stream. Sure it is not enough to magically put fed. state or local budgets in the black, but it would equate to a lower figure in red.

myth 6: Portugal and Netherlands provide successful models of legalization

they decriminalized - which is all they can do thanks to international treaty. this still leaves the monster in the room, the black market. That aside - both countries have seen a reduction in minors using marijuana, that is a huge win in my book, even if there is a small increase in usage among adults. The decrease of hard drug usage and fatalities is a huge win here.

myth 7: people always have smoked and always will why try to stop it:

Well first off our attempts to stop this has been completely ineffectual and futile. Secondly the black market is worse than the drug itself, and every study and case example we have to go by shows that if there is any increase of usage with legality it is negligible. The harms caused by prohibition are worse than the harms caused by the prohibited substances themselves. People will use despite its legal status, instead of fighting them and creating an enticement into criminality we should reduce the criminal stranglehold on distribution, try to delay the age of first use (take steps to keep drugs out of the hands of children), and offer hope and help for those who do fall into problematic usage of substances.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

While the issue of marijuana legalization isn't particularly high on my list of political issues I'm not a big fan of outright legalization. The "medicinal" argument is nonsense and the tax argument is pie in the sky optimism. While I agree that it is more or less on a par with alcohol as far as effect goes I don't believe that justifies outright legalization.

Imho, the costs of keeping it illegal are not justified by the benefits of keeping it illegal. To me it's just that.

 

[specklebang]

A gun on your person does not "stimulate your imiagination resulting in books, music and films" while you should be concentrating on driving that work truck or whatever else your boss is paying you to do.

The right tool at the right time. Don't take your gun to the airport either. Or in the shower.

 

[FreedomFromAll]

A gun on your person does not "stimulate your imiagination resulting in books, music and films" while you should be concentrating on driving that work truck or whatever else your boss is paying you to do.

A writer is a writer and that is their job etc. and not everyone has a boss.
As a firearm owner I do not take my weapon into certain situations.

really wish though that weed was legal. Perhaps it would help Stephen King to write a imagitive book for one. Not that same old 'and they went into a trance and repeated some stupid thing that had nothing to do with anything in the plot' crap.

 

[black_squirrel]

7 big myths about marijuana and legalization

7 big myths about marijuana and legalization

There are generally less problems with marijuana in the Netherlands, compare to the USA. There is a problem of drug tourism. Since marijuana is illegal in
many other European countries, and one can travel freely between European countries, there are "drug tourists" visiting the Netherlands. And sometimes
they become a burden in Amsterdam, or in border towns such as Maastricht.