
On the quiet, the US is legalising marijuana - Flemlord
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6897958.ece
======
rms
> In an online press conference with his younger supporters, the first
> question was about whether legalising and taxing pot would be a good thing
> to help raise revenues.

That was Reddit.

It seems insane that our last three presidents admitted to smoking weed yet
thousands upon thousands of people are languishing in jail for doing the same
thing. Cognitive dissonance much?

~~~
dtf
The Release charity in the UK has a campaign called "Nice People Take Drugs",
which aims to change drug policy to harm reduction and remove the stigma
associated with drug use. One of their promotional tools is a deck of cards,
each featuring a politician known to be tough on drugs, subtitled with a
confessional quote of drug use from their youth:

<http://www.release.org.uk/nicepeopletakedrugs/deck-of-cards/>

(you can click on each card to see the quote)

~~~
axod
I'm not sure that's an effective argument.

Politicians occasionally break the speed limit also, but it's not a great
argument for increasing the speed limit.

~~~
ugh
You don't go to jail for breaking the speed limit. And breaking the speed
limit has quite a bit more potential of actually hurting other people.

~~~
axod
Not particularly. Driving at 80mph on motorways, where the limit is 70, is not
dangerous. Motorways are the safest roads about. Majority of deaths happen on
the quieter windier roads near peoples houses.

There's a pretty clear evidence based case for raising the limit to 80, since
everyone drives at it anyway, but doing so could be unpopular. So it's
reasonably similar.

~~~
ugh
I'm from Germany. Our motorway has no limits :)

(Incidentally the refernce speed for German motorways is 130 km/h or pretty
much 80 mph. Driving faster or slower is no misdemeanor or felony, but may
increase liability.)

------
dtf
Funny that The Times are running anti-prohibition articles during this whole
furore about the sacking of David Nutt. They can't be a happy bunch at the
Home Office this weekend.

------
awolf
The war on drugs has always been a failure: there has been no measureable
decline in usage. Legalization will eliminate a dangerous black market and
free our law enforcement to focus on more serious crime. Most importantly -
legalization will no longer label hundreds of thousands of otherwise law
abiding citizens "criminals" for enjoying a substance that humans have been
using for as long as we can tell.

------
DanielBMarkham
I support legalization of pot in the U.S., but I don't think it's going to
happen like the article's title predicts.

What will happen, and the article alludes to it, is a mish-mash of conflicting
state and local laws that legalize or decriminalize pot to various degrees.
The federal government will continue to be a wild card. Wholesale legalization
is not in the cards.

That's because the way pot was made illegal was illegal to begin with. When
alcohol was made illegal, it took a constitutional amendment. Ever wonder why?
After all, they tried making alcohol illegal other ways and the courts threw
it out. The government got tired of all that constitutional stuff and decided
that in the future substances would be regulated by administrative fiat. The
DEA maintains a list which it adds and subtracts items whenever it feels like
it. No president is going to completely pull something like pot from the list
-- too much political hassle what with getting into why the list exists in the
first place. Instead pot will be ignored to some degree, leaving the same big
constitutional problem we had to start with to fester for decades.

So the real news is that the people are tired of pot criminal laws, state and
local governments are responding to them, and the federal government, having
taken on itself to tell people what they can ingest or not, is stuck with a
big bag of laws that don't meet the people's needs any more. That could take
50 years or more to work out (if ever).

------
wheels
This seems to be basically a "legalize it!" bent to rehashing an earlier
Fortune / CNN Money article:

[http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_ma...](http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/11/magazines/fortune/medical_marijuana_legalizing.fortune/index.htm)

------
auston
I was approached by a friend who wanted to do a dispensary locator app for the
iPhone and my thoughts were: "No way Apple will EVER let that through!" - he
called me the other day to tell me about an app that got through...

------
patrickgzill
The reality is that states are going to be asserting their rights against
Federal ability.

This is happening in gun-related issues as well, with Montana and Ohio, at the
least, considering the passage of laws that ignore the BATF if the gun is
produced in and sold in the state. This gets around the interstate commerce
clause used by the Feds to claim jurisdiction.

------
stuartjmoore
Let's not forget about Hemp:
[http://books.google.com/books?id=pkMEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA15&#...</a>

------
Goladus
I don't think "decriminalize" really means what the article is trying to
suggest it means. It can still be a misdemeanor.

------
steiger
Too bad Carl Sagan did not live enough to see it happen.

------
ErrantX
This rot always annoys me :(

~~~
bbsabelli
rot?

~~~
ErrantX
All the guff about having legit medical purposes makes it safe for
legalisation :) (how many other drugs are used for medical purposes that are
not legal generally; pain medication for example)

And the other thing about it being less harmful than alcohol (which is more of
a case for banning alcohol really ;)).

Round and round we go :)

It's important to remember that by that Alcohol and Tobacco is NOT at all safe
- it causes society and individuals no end of problems. Do we want to add
another drug to that mess :P

It's important to consider everything in perspective rather than just go with
either the govt. line or the supposed experts line (for example we have one
here in the UK on record saying ecstasy is no more dangerous than horse riding
- which might be statistically true but, as most here will appreciate, is just
sensationalism that ignores the obvious problems :D)

EDIT: I should point out I am biased; one of my friends was killed after
smoking marijuana and driving and another friend is now a dribbling wreck
after 10 years regular smoking (one of the smartest people I know now has the
intelligence of a 15 year old). I dont see how these problems wont be
multiplied :)

~~~
steiger
Add another drug? Millions of people _already_ smoke pot in America today, and
legalising it will only make it _safer_.

EDIT: Also, I feel sorry about your friends, but it is my view that this is
not what happens with the majority of the users, and the laws should adapt to
that reality.

~~~
ErrantX
Unfortunately no it wont. The 2 places it has been tried the experiment failed
reasonably badly (portugal and amsterdam). There certainly wasnt an outbreak
of drug deaths - but the situation didnt improve as much as people tend to
claim.

(sorry this is no place to have the discussion :) Ill shaddup)

EDIT: thanks for the condolences. Unfortunately I disgree; through them I
explored (but never joined thankfully) the drugs sub culture in Leeds (UK). If
that is in anyway representative, and I see no reason to suspect otherwise,
this is the norm.

I also have a friend in his 40's who grows his own drugs and is fairly well
adjusted (if a little air headed and often stoned). From my experience,
though, _he_ is the exception not the rule.

~~~
steiger
How did it fail, exactly? According to Wikipedia, drug use in the Netherlands
is lower than America's in every possible category. The number of drug-related
deaths in the Netherlands is lower than the EU average. The Dutch Government
is able to help 90% of the drug users that seek help. Sorry, can't see that as
'failure'.

Legalization makes marijuana (and other drugs) safer for a lot of reasons:

1\. You could buy pot from government-controlled places, where quality of the
drug is guaranteed (no fillers!).

2\. Users whom drug intake become problematic can legitimately seek help,
which is more unlikely if your drug of choice is illegal and stigmatized in
your society.

3\. You don't have to get into illegal, dangerous drug trade in order to get
your drug of choice. You can buy pot in the nearest coffee shop, safely (for
example).

 _That_ surely happened in the Netherlands. I fail to see it as failure. What
I see as failure is the growth of a culture that condemns drug use, as if it
is something absurd and immoral, when in fact it _isn't_. People has been
smoking pot world-wide, for thousands of years, without causing harm to
others.

I could go on and on about the immorality and degenerating effects on society
caused by the _drug war_, which is much more damaging than drug use itself,
but I think I'll stop here.

EDIT: I'd like to make clear that, although a pot smoker myself, I don't think
using drugs is inherently good or bad. In fact, in most cases, it can be
(very) bad. But the fact is that people do drugs and will always do drugs,
most without major bad consequences for themselves and others. Drug use is a
fact in most societies (if not all), and that being so, it would be better
that we manage it the best way we can. Criminalizing it certainly is not the
best way (probably the worse).

~~~
ErrantX
Yes the drug use is lower; what they never say is that it was lower anyway.
And is still comparable to other EU countries with much much stricter drugs
laws. Also they are not the _lowest_ in the EU.

I do feel like points 2 and 3 could be fixed without legalising.

Point 1 is something I dont feel would happen anyway; it would have to be
opened up to companies (and taxed). Which potentially ends up legitimising the
drugs gangs :)

 _could go on and on about the immorality and degenerating effects on society
caused by the _drug war_, which is much more damaging than drug use itself,
but I think I'll stop here._

This is a dangerous argument; Im not sure legalising drugs would stop all
that. Firstly because there are plenty of other drugs. And secondly because
there is no way they would let the drugs be legalised without a fight.

These are serious, organised and very rich gangs.

\------

I should also ask if you've been to Amsterdam; they are very strict about
smoking on the street. And possibly stricter on drinking in the street. A
large number of the coffee shops have been closed down too (and they are by no
means "safe" in the way you suggest).

~~~
steiger
About Dutch and American drug policy:

Yes, of course there are countries with a lot lower drug use rate. But I bet
this is a cultural thing. It is a fact that the drug war has negligible
effects on controlling drug use. It failed completely in the US, for example:
drug use didn't go down in general just because it's illegal. In the
Netherlands, when pot was decriminalized, the percentage of people doing it
didn't fluctuate much, as you pointed out. That makes me believe that making
drugs legal or illegal won't do much for controlling drug use.

I'm sorry for not citing any sources for the info I provided here, but one can
always Google it.

About point 1:

People have distorted views about marijuana traffic in the US: a lot of it is
made by middle-class citizens, who grow their own pot and sell to friends
(specially in California). This is absolutely non-violent.

Unfortunately, _because_ of current drug laws, the great majority of the drugs
still come from violent, armed drug cartels. Unfortunately, that violent
nature of drug trade is unlikely to change for some drugs (like cocaine),
since so much dirty money is made from it.

Yes, there are very serious, very rich, very organized drug cartels. Many
politicians and other powerful people _are_ involved with drug money, and the
drug cartels' influence in world politics is _enormous_. That is the main
reason why drugs are still illegal. Legalizing drugs is not appreciable by the
giant, violent drug cartels. It is only appreciable by the users themselves,
and should be appreciable by the whole society (which unfortunately is not the
case, since the big media successfully makes it's case for keeping drugs
illegal).

If drugs were legal from the start, today it would be probably be taxed and
opened up to companies like any other business. No problems with that!

This is a good read: <http://www.drugwar.com/howmoneyworks.shtm>

Well, about points 2 and 3, I very strongly feel that they are inherently
associated with drug legalization.

I _do_ agree that legalizing drugs is very hard to legalize. That is so
because of the big cartels influence in the world. I strongly feel, however,
that it should be our goal.

~~~
ErrantX
> I strongly feel, however, that it should be our goal.

The key issue to get sorted first is whether the aim is to help lower drug use
(the camp I am personally in) or just to relieve some of the issues.

If it is the former then I think Sweden's example is the best; they have a
very strong anti-drugs policy and there's is amongst the _lowest_ rates of
drug use in the EU. That's quite strong evidence for tougher laws.

If the aim is the latter (alleviate issues) then we need to discuss
legalization or decriminalization. Decriminalization is much more likely but
doesn't really alleviate the drugs gangs problems and the worries about
control.

The other issue with drugs is control: if you limit the THC content in Weed
how do you control that? And how do you stop a trade springing up (like in
Holland) of stronger cannabis strains outside of the restricted THC limits?

It's a vicious cycle; the best way to stop the gang problems is stamp out drug
use. THEN talk about proper legalisation. IMO. There is no other way to start
with a clean slate.

Speaking personally I am _for_ the relaxing of personal possession laws. I
think a lot should be replaced with counselling and support (optional). But
conversely I am behind much much stricter laws for drug distribution and
supplying. Stuff like instant deportation, asset freezes / seizures, longer
stricter jail terms.

