The Case For Legalizing Marijuana

It is pretty interesting that having marihuana banned has led to higher rate of use in the USA compared to countries where it is legal, and at such an incredible cost!
Even law-enforcement groups in California concede that it’s time to abandon the losing crusade against a drug that many believe is far less harmful than booze or cigarettes. Prop 19 would decriminalize roughly 60,000 drug arrests made in California each year. There are estimates that national regulation of pot would result in savings of more than $44-billion a year in U.S. enforcement expenditures alone.

The report says those worried about more people smoking legalized pot should consider that the rate of its use in the United States, where it’s outlawed, is almost twice what it is in the Netherlands, where it’s sold in licensed cafés. Portugal decriminalized marijuana in 2001, and its rates of use are among the lowest in the European Union.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/gary_mason/the-case-for-legalizing-marijuana/article1746813/

Decriminalizing is a better word imo, but IT'S ABOUT TIME!!

Keep in mind that decriminalization means it's still illegal. But unless you're caught with trafficing amounts, it means a fine - like a traffic ticket - rather than a criminal record.

I could support legalization, but ONLY if they nail down the supporting rules first.

15 years or so ago in New York, someone kidnapped a kid after breaking in through the window of his ground floor apartment. The city responded by passing a law stating that any 1st or 2nd floor apartment with kids had to have bars on the windows.

Fine, but one building owner installed the bars, and then billed the tenant $1500 for the installation. His logic: Only one tenant in the entire building needed it, so it was a custom renovation for the tenant that the tenant should cover. The tenant refused, saying that it was a modification to the building.

$20,000 in legal bills later, the tenant won. $20,000 after that, the landlord won the appeal. The tenants in turn, appealed. When it was all over the tenants lost - and were stuck with $120,000 in both sides' legal bills.

All to determine one little rule that should have been laid down when the law was passed.

With pot legalization, some rules need to be laid down ahead of time:

- I barely notice when someone smokes a cigarette elsewhere on my apartment floor. But with pot, its like someone set a garbage fire. We need a rule allowing landlords to ban pot in their buildings, and to evict tenants who break the rule.

- What are the rules for driver testing? Is there a test to see if someone is high, WITHOUT a blood test? If not, do we accept alcohol-style roadside testing, but with needles?

- What about bus drivers, truck drivers, pilots, etc? We'd need rules similar to exiting "No drinking X hours before driving/piloting" rules. Not a big deal, but get them in place with legalization, not later.

- Where employees go outside for a smoke on their break, they could now come back high. If they deal with the public or have a job that requires alertness, could they be sent home or fired? Again it's not a big deal, but it could lead to large lawsuits if not decided ahead of time.

RogerStrong wrote:

Keep in mind that decriminalization means it's still illegal.

No it doesn't.

It is one way of saying that the ffukken government has no business deciding what is legal and what is not regarding personal consumption.

JTF wrote:

RogerStrong wrote:

Keep in mind that decriminalization means it's still illegal.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

The idea of decriminalization is to free up the courts from wasting time on small-time possession charges. Those caught avoid *criminal* prosecution, and instead pay a fine much, much like a traffic or parking ticket. Trafficers and dealers still get criminal prosecution and sentences.

In the article above they mention that "Portugal decriminalized marijuana in 2001". The all-sunshine-and-roses article leaves out a few details.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

Each three-person commission includes at least one lawyer or judge and one health care or social services worker. The panel has the option of recommending treatment, a small fine, or no sanction.

Still, decriminalization in Portugal seems to have had a positive effect and lowered the number of drug users.

I favour the decriminalization approach presented by Mr. Strong.

I'm against 'legalization' - The second cigarettes are placed next to joints at the grocery store, it's going to put the illegal grow ops out of business. These people aren't going to go from making thousands of dollars a week growing pot to a job at Piston Ring. They'll move up and start pushing the hard stuff like cocaine.

Coke becomes the new outlet for rebellion for teens. Why do pot when your parents are buying it over the counter at the Esso down the street.

I have zero evidence to back this up. It's pure speculation, so feel free to beat me with a stupid stick!

JTF wrote:

RogerStrong wrote:

Keep in mind that decriminalization means it's still illegal.

It is one way of saying that the ffukken government has no business deciding what is legal and what is not regarding personal consumption.

Certainly in the case of heavier drugs, you are incorrect. The majority of property crimes appearing before the courts are drug related; people who have committed thefts, break-ins, and robberies to support their addictions.

In Zurich's "Needle Park" experiment, local crime skyrocketed. Stoned people tend not to be able to hold a job, but they still need to eat.

Portugal's system on the other hand seems to be working.

Mantha wrote:I favour the decriminalization approach presented by Mr. Strong.

I'm against 'legalization' - The second cigarettes are placed next to joints at the grocery store, it's going to put the illegal grow ops out of business. These people aren't going to go from making thousands of dollars a week growing pot to a job at Piston Ring. They'll move up and start pushing the hard stuff like cocaine.

Coke becomes the new outlet for rebellion for teens. Why do pot when your parents are buying it over the counter at the Esso down the street.

I have zero evidence to back this up. It's pure speculation, so feel free to beat me with a stupid stick!

I don't know about that, as there's no evidence kids are doing pot because cigarettes just aren't "rebellious" enough.

Kids still drink & drive, still smoke cigarettes, etc...even though their parents may be buying the stuff themselves.

Kids will find a way to "rebel" or to 'fit in' no matter what's legal or not.

More kids MIGHT be more inclined to "try" pot if it was legalized...figuring if it's "legal" how bad could it be?

IMO though...the government should be ignoring what people do to themselves as far as prevention goes.

Education is key... x drug does this, y drug does this, these are the risks involved.

and deterrence can be pushed...such as making it illegal to SELL the drugs or buy the drugs, but not to use the drugs.

decriminalization n. the repeal or amendment (undoing) of statutes which made certain acts criminal, so that those acts no longer are crimes or subject to prosecution....

Currently, there is a considerable movement toward decriminalization of the use of some narcotics (particularly marijuana) by adults, on various grounds, including individual rights and contention that decriminalization would take the profit out of the drug trade by making drugs available through clinics and other legal sources.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/decriminalization

de·crim·i·nal·ize (d-krm-n-lz)
tr.v. de·crim·i·nal·ized, de·crim·i·nal·iz·ing, de·crim·i·nal·iz·es
To reduce or abolish criminal penalties for: decriminalize the use of marijuana.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/decriminalized


de·crim·i·nal·ize   /diˈkrɪmənlˌaɪz/ Show Spelled
[dee-krim-uh-nl-ahyz] Show IPA

–verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing.
to eliminate criminal penalties for or remove legal restrictions against: to decriminalize marijuana.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decriminalize

____________________________________

Where are you getting your definition from Roger?

JTF wrote:de·crim·i·nal·ize (d-krm-n-lz)
tr.v. de·crim·i·nal·ized, de·crim·i·nal·iz·ing, de·crim·i·nal·iz·es
To reduce or abolish criminal penalties for: decriminalize the use of marijuana.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/decriminalized

Where are you getting your definition from Roger?

I get them from the real world. When the government and police discuss decriminalization in Canada - as opposed to legalization - they refer to removing criminal penalties. It's still illegal, but like with a speeding or parking ticket, you do not get a criminal record. Likewise in Portugal drugs are still illegal, but in small amounts you don't get a criminal record.

Your definition above does not contradict this. "To reduce or abolish criminal penalties." There are many minor crimes that you'll get a fine - not a criminal penalty - for.

Rogers definition was in fact what the Libs were going to do.

Roger Roger Rpger...you speak like a true solcialist.

Now...if you use the word re-legalize, it'sd a bit better.

JTF wrote:Roger Roger Rpger...you speak like a true solcialist.

Except that it's the socialist parties that always want to legalize it. When Bob is holding up stores to support his coke habit, it's the conservatives who most object to having his problem socialized - shared by everyone.

Not really.

People such as Bill Buckley, Milton Friedman, George Schultz and even Walter Cronkite were in favour of decriminalization.

The National Review is on record as being in favour of decriminalization. Hell, Buckley was in favour of decriminalization of ALL drugs.

JTF wrote:People such as Bill Buckley, Milton Friedman, George Schultz and even Walter Cronkite were in favour of decriminalization.

Whereas "The War on Drugs" is a Republican creation from the Reagan years. It's traditionally the American Republicans and the Canadian Conservatives who want stricter drug laws, and the parties to the left who want the laws relaxed.

i would put roger in charge of nitpicking.
the point is that a huge economic sector is decided by guns and gaols, not taxes and choice.

tick wrote:i would put roger in charge of nitpicking.

And we'll put JTF in charge of easily disproven broad generalizations.

tick wrote:the point is that a huge economic sector is decided by guns and gaols, not taxes and choice.

And you can be in charge of non sequiturs.

RogerStrong wrote:

It's traditionally the American Republicans and the Canadian Conservatives who want stricter drug laws, and the parties to the left who want the laws relaxed.

I suppose People such as Bill Buckley, Milton Friedman, George Schultz and even Walter Cronkite don't count as Republicans....


and you say that I should be in charge of broad generalizations...that's rich.

[/quote]
And you can be in charge of non sequiturs.
[/quote]

that is better then job i got now.
I'll take it!

my friend the seed is a gift.

i need a seed.
we all live on seeds.


roger thinks my government should deny me a seed.

no poppy no hemp no radish no onion.
no seeds for you.

It is illegal in thr USA and where it is not illegal consumption is 1/2.
What does that tell you?

rosencrentz wrote:It is illegal in thr USA and where it is not illegal consumption is 1/2.
What does that tell you?

ummm...what?

What?

Well, that decriminalization may, indeed, cause a drop in the usage of marijuana.

Where it is legal, the consumption is half of what it is in the States.

JTF wrote:What?

Well, that decriminalization may, indeed, cause a drop in the usage of marijuana.

Where it is legal, the consumption is half of what it is in the States.

True, if you you go with Portugul's definition of decriminalization - where people are still convicted of possession, but are instead put before a three-person commission - with at least one lawyer or judge and one health care or social services worker - to recommend treatment or a fine.

It really is a matter of semantics Rog.

I was taking the role of TMan there kinda.

ie: the government's role in deciding what's good for us etc.

Quite honestly, I think marijuana (and other drugs) should be treated the same as alcohol or tobacco.

With either, if you want to make your own, there's nothing really stopping you...even to make a little extra to give to your friends.
But if you decide you want to open your own brewery, or tobacco farm, you need a license, and to meet specific standards/regulations.

Otherwise, you can go down to the local store and (with proper ID) buy what you want to take home and enjoy.

The same could/should be done with marijuana (or even other drugs).
There could be specialty shops for the more elaborate stuff (like cigar shops today), or just simple doobs in cartons for OTC purchases at Safeway.

Stores should have the option NOT to sell any, even if they sell tobacco, so it could limit availability.

Like it was mentioned before...doing so won't STOP the bootlegging (there's still bootleg alcohol & tobacco out there and always will be), but it will control costs, product stability (ie. not lacing the marijuana with coke), safety, and gather a tax revenue currently avoided by the "dealers".