Alaska Ponders Pot Initiative

Legalization brings with it a societal legitimacy, a type of sanction or approval. Certainly you see that reflected in today's society where the attitude is, "If it's not illegal, then I can do it, and don't you dare criticize me or impose your values on me".

How often do you hear or read, "Yes, I know what I did wasn't right. But it wasn't illegal!".

In every survey, teens have said that pot is easier to obtain than alcohol. But their drug of choice? Hard-to-get alcohol, 2:1 over pot. Why? I submit that it's because alcohol is a legal product, just not legal for teens -- but only because of their age.

Given that twice as many teens smoke pot in Alaska compared to the lower 48, I suspect that adult marijuana legalization plays a role in that disparity.

"I have yet to see one good reason to legalize just marijuana."

Lemme give ya two...first, it'll free up law enforcement folks from having to deal with these petty, victimless crimes...second, it'll be just one more way we will have scaled back the size and scope of the Federal Leviathan. What Alaska does shouldn't impact Utah on this issue. let the States decide!!

FReegards...MUD

"...if a company does not test for drugs, they will not be able to participate in a federally regulated industry (rail, air, truck, etc.) or a federally funded project. But, that would be their choice."

Zackley...it'd be the cost of doing business. But I know HomeDepot already has a drug testing policy, on the merit that it insures non-druggie employees. Good fer them...but I wonder if an Advertising Agency would benefit from a DrugTesting program?

"And I'll end with this. Under your scheme, if it is not important that a company be required to test their employees for drugs, and that employee harms a non-employee while working (say a truck driver on drugs), then the employer is not responsible unless he knew for a fact the employee was impaired. Deal?"

Hmmmm...liability issues?! How 'bout we start with some genuine Tort Reform?! You ain't a lawyer, is ya?!

FReegards...MUD

According to the NSDUH, teens are smoking marijuana in Alaska at about the same rate as the national average. The national average for past month use according to the 20002 NSDUH for kids 12 - 17 years of age was 8.17%. For that age group in Alaska it was 9.44%, but factoring in the margin for error could actually make the percentage lower in Alaska and the rest of the states. The percentages are fairly close in most of the states regardless of high lax or how harsh the various marijuana laws are from state to state. It's actually fairly surprising to see that in a state like California where medical marijuana has been legal since 1996 marijuana use by teens 12 - 17 was actually below the national average in 2002. Just because a state has decriminalized and treats marijuana more or less as they would a traffic violation does not mean that teen use will be any higher than in some other states where they have the stiffer marijuana laws.

I think the attitude we are dealing with is "If I'm not hurting anyone else, then I can do it, and don't you dare criticize me or impose your values on me". The legal status isn't that important, especially when you're dealing with laws over matters that so many believe the government should stay out of. Couple that with the fact that it's relatively easy for most people to get away with smoking pot without ever being caught, and you have a law that people are going to ignore if they have a desire to smoke pot.

You always talk about this great stigma that comes with breaking a law. Is there a great stigma that comes with driving too fast down a deserted road? Not really, but at least in that instance you have a law that many people will obey because they never know if a cop will be hiding off the side of the road with his radar gun. The likelihood of getting caught smoking pot at a party or at a friend's house or in your own home is much less than the likelihood you'll get caught speeding. People certainly do get caught with pot, but the chance of that happening to most is so remote that the deterrent effect is just not there.

Marijuana use in Alaska by school aged kids is not double that of the national average, not by a long shot. In fact it's lower than in several states where the laws for adults are much stiffer than in Alaska. Use by young teens even in a place like Holland where pot is pretty much legal is lower than it is here. I don't see the correlation you see between the marijuana laws for adults and that rate of marijuana use by children.

Why is it that cigarette use by children in this country has dropped off so much over the years? Did we have to make cigarettes illegal to do it? Or is it because we've been doing a better job of educating kids and a better job of enforcing the laws against providing cigarettes to underage children? Better regulating of the sales of cigarettes has made it harder for kids to get them. All the laws and the cops and prosecutors and the money we've thrown their way over the years hasn't made it harder for kids to get marijuana. In fact it seems like despite those efforts marijuana is easier for kids to get then ever.

Legal or not, marijuana use is going to carry with it some stigma. It will never be as popular as alcohol. First off, it's an intrusive habit in that it usually involves smoking and no matter where you go in public some people are going to be bothered by the smoke. Not only that, but it effects different people differently and a fairly high percentage of those who smoke it find that it makes them feel anxious, nervous, and have difficulty maintaining a train of thought and carrying on a coherent conversation. It's not exactly a great drug to do for most who want to go out and "pick up chicks." Alcohol probably makes them stupid too, but at least it makes them brave and they think they are making sense. It's more of a social lubricant than marijuana for most.

Something else about pot is that people for whatever reason tend to grow out of it. It loses its appeal after a while. I can remember first looking at the statistics on this and thinking that the reason people quit as they get older is that they must become more afraid of the law when they start having more and more to lose. But as I looked deeper into this I found that this trend is the same regardless of the laws. People in Holland where it's virtually legal and in other places where the laws are lax and/or rarely enforced tend to grow out of their pot smoking phase the same as people do here.

The people we need to worry about most with pot are kids whose brains, work habits, social skills, and so on are still developing. We need to regulate it similar to the way we regulate cigarettes and alcohol and try to discourage use by young teens, always trying to raise the actual average age of intitiation of use. We don't need to worry so much about adult use because marijuana tends to lose it's luster for most of us as we get older anyway, and besides it's not a drug that tends to cause problems for adults to the extent that something like alcohol causes problems.

Alaska has the highest unemployment rate for obvious reasons...its alaska. Not many people reside there because of the lovely weather, climate, and daylight/nighttime ratio and not many visit for the same reasons...hence the education/job curve will be sharper than, say, california.

Watch these numbers turn around if they pass the legislature, along with population followed by corporate presence. Then watch each state follow suit as they are now with the medical agenda.

Alaska ranks quite high among the states in educational level of its citizens.

There I go again talking about statistics and not posting a link. The 2002 NSDUH state drug use tables I was talking about in my last post can be found here: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k2State/html/appA.htm

"I guess it comes down to this. I have yet to see one good reason to legalize just marijuana."

I think that right up at the top of the list would be that we'd take a massive multi-billion dollar illegal industry down and replace it with a regulated industry run by legitimate business people instead of criminals. Marijuana is absolutely without a doubt the backbone of the illegal drugs industry. That's where the brunt of the illegal drug money is being made. That's where the most of the massive drug distribution infrastructure is, on the back of which much of the other much more dangerous illegal drugs flow. The money being made is staggering, and the people getting rich are in many cases the worst kind of thugs.

Aside from taking the money from the criminals and funneling it to law abiding Americans, with regulation government would have at least some control over the marijuana industry and marijuana sales. As it is, the sales and the industry in general are entirely unregulated. Could we keep it away from kids in every case? Of course not, no more than we can keep beer and cigarettes from kids. Would there still be some black market? Sure, just like there is still some black market for moonshine. But the vast majority of the marijuana being sold would go through legal channels if those legal channels were opened up, and most being sold would be sold to adults who can produce an ID and it would be sold to them by tax paying legitimate retailers who don't also sell drugs like meth, crack, and heroin.

Now you were also saying something about how if pot was made legal then people would also want to legalize other "soft drugs" like LSD, peyote, and "magic mushrooms." Personally, I wouldn't call something like LSD a "soft" drug and I don't think most others would either. But I think you raise a legitimate point. These drugs are not addictive like meth and heroin. The fact that a high percentage of people who use drugs like meth, cocaine, and heroin with any regularity develop powerful addictions to these substances is the main justification for keeping them illegal because addictions to these drugs are just too destructive to those who use them and as these addictions take over people's lives all too often innocent people are harmed.

The way I look at it is that people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt other people without justification or create a significant risk of causing some substantial and unjustifiable harm to other people. I think most reasonable people can see that using super addictive drugs like meth and heroin that cause such a high percentage of users' lives to fall apart to the extent that they bring others down with them is conduct that is risky enough to the rest of us that banning this conduct is justifiable even in a free society. We may differ on how people who use these banned substances should be treated, but most agree that these substances should remain banned.

Drugs like LSD and "shrooms" aren't addictive though and those who do try them rarely use these drugs more than a few times if they use them more than once. These are very powerful mind altering drugs. They aren't regular weekend party fare for most who try them. But like anything else there are some who go crazy with these substances and use them quite frequently over long periods of time. Most of the few people I've known who have done that have never been quite been right after doing so. I've seen others use them once or just a few times and have some traumatic bad trip that changed them for the worse for life. This is rare, but it happens. These drugs can make people lose their minds. They can also produce a temporary state of insanity during a "trip" where people can become psychotic and violent and do horrible things. Again, this is rare, but it's a serious concern anyone who contemplates legalizing these substances should consider.

One other thing to consider is that prohibition of substances like LSD and "shrooms" does seem to be moderately effective. Prohibition can never be totally effective at making drugs impossible to get, but it can be fairly effective at making some drugs so difficult to get that many who might try them at some point in their lives will not have the opportunity to do so when they are so inclined. It can also be effective in reducing availability such that people who have tried a drug and enjoyed it will not have the opportunity to use the drug so often that it will cause them great harm that could lead to problems for those around them and society at large. This is only the case though with drugs for which there is little demand. If there is great demand for a drug, as is the case with marijuana, there will be sufficient monetary incentive to supply that demand. Consequently, there will always be ample supply on hand and the greater the supply the greater the number of suppliers and the opportunities for obtaining these drugs. Conversely, when demand is low, supply will be low as will the numbers of suppliers, making it much less likely that people will be able to obtain these drugs when the mood strikes them because those who supply illegal drugs aren't exactly advertising their wares making it easy for the public, including the police, to find them. But even if demand remained fairly low, if these drugs could be sold at even just one legal retail outlet in town anyone who wanted them could go at any time and purchase them.

Personally, I would be against any measure attempting to legalize these drugs. Prohibiting the sale of them does seem to be moderately effective at limiting availability and use. The market for them is relatively small anyway so legalizing them wouldn't deal much of a blow to organized crime. These drugs are not addictive so legalizing them would not reduce property crimes associated with addiction. Since so few people use these drugs there really isn't a great deal of friction between government and a large segment of our society over the laws regarding the drugs and enforcement of same. There really aren't many good arguments for making these drugs legally available to the general public. I think most people would agree that it would be better if we not increase availability of these drugs by selling them at the corner store to anyone who gets a wild hair and wants to try something new and exciting, or make it easier for people who have already done it and liked it to do it again and again until they fry their brains. If we did that along with the lunatic paint huffers and gas huffers that show up again and again in our courts charged with crimes involving antisocial conduct, we'd start getting nut-job acid heads who have permanently wrecked their brains as frequent flyers through our court system. The mental health problems, accidents, crimes and other antisocial behavior that would come along with increased use of these drugs wouldn't be worth whatever benefit we would get from legalization.

But I would be for laws though that would make it such that it is no longer a felony to be in possession of a personal amount of these drugs. I don't think people who experiment with these drugs are terrible criminals who should be branded with felony convictions for life. Most of the benefit that comes from prohibition if there is going to be any benefit at all comes from the fact that sale of the drug is forbidden. Much of the other nonsense that comes along with the "War on Drugs" approach seems to just cause more problems than it solves. Excessive punishment for doing nothing more than playing around a little with dangerous drugs is unwarranted, unnecessary, and unproductive.

"it'll free up law enforcement folks from having to deal ..."

We can do that by decriminalizing marijuana. That is, making the offense similar to a traffic ticket. We don't need to legalize the drug to free up law enforcement and/or the courts.

"... scaled back the size and scope of the Federal Leviathan ..."

No effect.

The DEA is involved in about 1% of marijuana arrests -- 99% of the arrests are by local law enforcement.

The federal drug war component will not change by legalizing just marijuana, since it will remain in place for the remaining illegal drugs.

"We can do that by decriminalizing marijuana. That is, making the offense similar to a traffic ticket."

That'd be a start...

"... scaled back the size and scope of the Federal Leviathan ..."

"No effect. The DEA is involved in about 1% of marijuana arrests -- 99% of the arrests are by local law enforcement."

Explain again to me why we need a DEA then?!

"The federal drug war component will not change by legalizing just marijuana, since it will remain in place for the remaining illegal drugs."

However, we will be beginning the process of dealing with these more serious drugs via the voluntary RandomDrugTesting program we'll have instituted. And marijuana is such a harmless drug compared to money-suckers like Coke and life-ruiners like Heroine, Crack and the like.

Seriesly, though, I think we can expect drug-related crime to decrease once pot is decriminalized, and the law enforcement agencies presently tasked with enforcing these laws can either be disbanded or assigned to other more pressing duties.

FReegards...MUD

Wow...very well-stated, my FRiend...MUD

"Explain again to me why we need a DEA then?!"

The federal government spends about $20 billion annually on the WOD (<1% of the budget). The budget is split 50-50, with half going to drug education and advertising, and the other half going to drug interdiction (foreign and U.S. borders).

"According to the NSDUH, teens are smoking marijuana in Alaska at about the same rate as the national average."

It was made illegal in 1990, you know. It was only in 2003, one year after your statistics, where the decision in Noys v State negated the 1990 referendum.

I predict, therefore, that we'll see Alaskan teens now start to pull away fron the teens in the lower 48 -- again.

"I think the attitude we are dealing with is "If I'm not hurting anyone else, then I can do it, and don't you dare criticize me or impose your values on me"."

Well, define "hurt". I've heard spokespersons for politicians say this when referring to politicians who cheat on their wives. "It's not illegal".

Was the wife hurt? I guess not by your definition. I'll be sure to tell her to stop her crying -- TkDietz says she's not hurt.

But hurt schmurt. My point is that people are not guided by morality -- they're guided by the law. Hence, the plethora of laws.

"People certainly do get caught with pot, but the chance of that happening to most is so remote that the deterrent effect is just not there."

The deterrent effect is mitigated by court-appointed defense attorneys who weep and gnash their teeth when their client, who "didn't think he'd get caught", is facing serious time for trafficking drugs. Start sending 100% of these scum sucking "mules" to prison and maybe we'd see some deterrence.

Oh no, robertpausem, you don't understand. They're being used. They're the pawns. They didn't mean it. They have a family.

F&^* 'em. They "didn't think they'd get caught". They got caught. Do the crime, do the time scumbag. Get out of the way TKDietz, and let deterrence work.

"Why is it that cigarette use by children in this country has dropped off so much over the years?"

Cigarette use by everyone has dropped off. Why? By the laws written against its use, that's why. It is just short of illegal, and would be, if it weren't for the taxes and the income from the LAWsuits.

"I think that right up at the top of the list would be that we'd take a massive multi-billion dollar illegal industry down and replace it with a regulated industry run by legitimate business people instead of criminals."

You can say this about any drug. You can say this about prostitution. You can say this about child porn.

This is a reason, yes, but not a good reason to legalize just marijuana, yet leave everything else illegal. I'm looking for a specific reason, not some generic "take the profit away from the criminals and tax the legal product".

As I said, you can make that argument for just about anything that's currently illegal.

"The way I look at it is that people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt other people without justification or create a significant risk of causing some substantial and unjustifiable harm to other people."

I understand. Most of those who argue in favor of legalizing drugs, or prostitution, or gambling, or suicide, or gay rights, etc. all have the same philosophy.

Well, our laws are not based on "harm" to others -- there has always been a moral component to them. Unfortunately, people are no longer restricted by morality and so rely on the law for their behavioral guidance.

Give me the moral and religious society as enjoyed by our Founding Fathers and I'd agree with you that our drug laws are unnecessary. Bring back personal responsibility and self-dependency and I'd be more than happy to re-write our laws.

But without all that, you'd be crazy to want to add to our existing burden.

"My point is that people are not guided by morality -- they're guided by the law. Hence, the plethora of laws."

Hogwash. Do you think that the reason most people don't steal or rape or kill is just because these activities are illegal? Most people don't do these things because they know these things are wrong. Most people don't want to go out and hurt other people. They are guided by their sense of morality, by their sense of right and wrong. You put so much stock in the power of laws to deter conduct, as if the laws create some magical wall along the edges of the straight and narrow path of righteous living. I don't see that laws are endowed with such magical powers. The fact is that those who might be inclined to engage in conduct that happens to be unlawful are rarely deterred by the laws themselves. They may certainly be deterred by the possible legal consequences of violating the laws, but the level of that deterrence is directly proportional to the perceived risk of getting caught. When the chance of getting caught is nil or next to nil, as would usually be the case in the situation where one is offered a puff from a marijuana cigarette at a friend's house, the magical deterrent effect from the law is just not going to be there. And if the person wants to smoke the marijuana and is not worried so much about the possible health ramifications of doing it, and if he doesn't feel that taking a hit off of a joint is going to hurt anyone else, he's probably going to do it despite the laws against it. Just like I might drive a few miles an hour over the speed limit down a vacant country road if I'm in a hurry and I know there are no police there to write me a ticket.

I said:
"People certainly do get caught with pot, but the chance of that happening to most is so remote that the deterrent effect is just not there."

You said:
"The deterrent effect is mitigated by court-appointed defense attorneys who weep and gnash their teeth when their client, who "didn't think he'd get caught", is facing serious time for trafficking drugs. Start sending 100% of these scum sucking "mules" to prison and maybe we'd see some deterrence.

Oh no, robertpausem, you don't understand. They're being used. They're the pawns. They didn't mean it. They have a family.

F&^* 'em. They "didn't think they'd get caught". They got caught. Do the crime, do the time scumbag. Get out of the way TKDietz, and let deterrence work."

My what a nasty tone you have there, Robert. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed or something? Maybe if you weren't in such a foul mood you would have been better able to read the sentence you quoted in context. I was talking about pot smokers. These are the people I talking about who in reality are highly unlikely to ever get caught by the police. I was not talking about mules. I suppose I could have made myself more clear.

Now, apparently I have offended you with some past comment about marijuana mules. Let me see if I can clear the air. I do not feel particularly sorry for pot mules who get caught and go to prison. They were trying to profit by breaking the law. They knew up front what might happen to them if they get caught. They played the game, lost, and it's only fair that they have to pay the price that they knew they might have to pay when they agreed to haul the drugs.

I do though think that it is unfortunate that we have to send so many people to prison for driving down the road with a load of pot, and believe me Robert almost everyone charged with this does go to prison for a long time at least in my neck of the woods. A tiny few might be spared by the prosecutor in plea negotiations or by a jury at trial if there is fairly convincing evidence that they didn't know about the drugs stashed away in the trailer or trunk or false compartments. And in almost every single case like that where one person might escape conviction, one or more others in the vehicle will go to prison for a long time. The only other cases where someone might receive a lesser sentence or in rare cases escape prosecution altogether is when they are able to help law enforcement put bigger fish away, which usually involves doing something particularly risky like wearing a wire and participating in a controlled delivery where the police try to catch the people on the receiving end of the load.

Oh and also I suppose I say something about those who escape prosecution when the judge excludes evidence because of an illegal search or seizure or some other constitutional violation by the government. Contrary to popular belief, that almost never happens. One was dismissed a few months ago in our county for a bad stop where the lawyer was able to prove that the officer was lying, but I can't remember any other marijuana mule cases in this county in the last several years getting tossed completely over a motion to suppress. And we get several of these cases each month in our office alone, usually involving loads in excess of a hundred pounds. We got one last week with over 400 pounds and have had other cases involving loads much bigger than that. The interstate running through our county goes from the west coast to the east coast and is a major drug trafficking pipeline.

It is true that I believe that in the grand scheme of things the guy driving the Budweiser truck is probably helping cause more misery and suffering in this country than the guy with a load of pot in his trunk. And it is also true that I believe that while certainly many of the drug mules are rotten evil career criminals, quite a few of those I've represented have been people fairly goodhearted people who aren't the type who would intentionally hurt other people. They're like the rum runners from the alcohol prohibition days, some hardened criminals and some pretty regular folks. Most all of them think of marijuana as being a relatively harmless drug compared to alcohol and they don't see the harm in helping transport it. And they know that if they say no someone else will transport the load. While they are breaking the law and should be punished for it I don't think they are all as bad as the child molesters who usually get probation here and the career thieves and violent offenders and other depraved thugs I often end up representing who more often than not get lighter sentences than the marijuana mules, if they get sent to prison at all.

You try to insult me for it, but I'm not ashamed of the fact that I sometimes feel some measure of sorrow when I see some of these people sent away for years and years to a place where a lot of bad things will likely happen to them. They did bring it on themselves so I can't feel too sorry for them, but it's often depressing to see this happening and it's always frustrating because it is clear to me that sending all of these people to prison is never going to put an appreciable dent in the marijuana supply. This Mexican marijuana, thousands of pounds of which are seized every year from the small patch of interstate highway running through the tiny county where I work, thousands of tons of which are seized at the Mexican border and throughout the various states every year, is cheaper and probably easier to get at least where I live than it was twenty years ago. There is absolutely no shortage of cheap marijuana on the streets here. Demand is high and there is a never ending supply of people willing to take the big risks involved in transporting this product to meet that demand, and as long as there is great demand for marijuana in this country, that is never going to change.

Hogwash? Hogwash? And now for a special TKDietz Olympic event, the backpedal:

"They may certainly be deterred by the possible legal consequences of violating the laws, but the level of that deterrence is directly proportional to the perceived risk of getting caught."

Here's my point. Without the laws making drugs illegal, more people would do them (I cannot believe that you disagree with this). Furthermore, it didn't used to be this way. People were guided by morality, not laws.

Sure, there are many people today who wouldn't do drugs even if they were legal and free. But there are those who are deterred by the law.

If drugs (marijuana in this case) were legal, I believe more people would smoke it (in 1979, three times as many people smoked marijuana as do today -- the potential is there). In addition, I believe that the individual amount of drugs consumed would increase if they were legal and cheap. In addition, I believe that teen use of the legalized drug would increase. In addition, I believe that it wouldn't stop with marijuana -- that pressure would be brought to bear for the legalization of other "soft" drugs.

For you to deny this and cry, "hogwash" is a bit melodramatic.

"You can say this about any drug. You can say this about prostitution. You can say this about child porn.

This is a reason, yes, but not a good reason to legalize just marijuana, yet leave everything else illegal. I'm looking for a specific reason, not some generic "take the profit away from the criminals and tax the legal product."

I think I did give specific reasons but I’ll be more specific if you insist. Marijuana is not just any other drug. Compared to most of the other illegal drugs, and alcohol for that matter, marijuana is _relatively_ safe. It is a relatively mild intoxicant. There are no deadly overdoses. It is far less likely to contribute to violent behavior than alcohol and some other drugs. It's not an extremely addictive drug that produces addictions so powerful that they lead to property crimes and prostitution as means for supporting the habit. Unlike some of the other drugs, it does not appear cause serious health problems for substantial numbers of regular users. In fact, most regular users have either quit entirely or at least moderated their use by the time they reach their thirties. This is the case not only in this country, but also in other countries from which I've been able to find statistics, like Australia, and the whole of Europe, including places like Holland where retail sales, possession, and use of marijuana are basically legal. It is the most used illegal drug in this country by a long shot. It's already as easy or easier for teens to get it than it is for them to get cigarettes or beer. For the most part, it's already affordable even for low income Americans. It is so pervasive that despite the best efforts from our government, government has never been able to put any real dent in the marijuana supply. Tens of millions of Americans smoke it at least occasionally, while some of the other big names in the drug business like heroin, LSD, and PCP will be used by less than a million people in a given year. More than half of all American adults under the age of 55 have smoked marijuana. The market for it is enormous. Billions and billions of dollars change hands in this market every year. Because the demand for marijuana dwarfs the demand for all other illegal drugs, the distribution infrastructure is much larger and involves far more people than that for any other illegal drug. The broad distribution networks for marijuana are perfect channels for marketing other more dangerous drugs too the millions of pot smokers out there.

I have explained to you before at length before why other drugs should remain illegal. We don't want to lower prices and increase availability of the really addictive stuff, because if we make a drug like cocaine, for instance, dirt cheap and available at the store down the street, more and more people would use it and those who use it could afford to use it much more often than the average person could at today's prices. Addiction and associated problems would skyrocket. Marijuana on the other hand is already relatively cheap and easily available for most all Americans, especially young people since such a high percentage of their peers smoke marijuana and know where to get it. Legalizing marijuana and regulating its sale could not make marijuana much more available to young people than it already is. In fact, since sales to minors would no doubt be prohibited the fact that retailers would be required to card young people might even make it more difficult for minors to purchase marijuana just as carding minors has made it more difficult for them to obtain cigarettes.

Legalizing marijuana would not drastically increase the level of ease in obtaining the drug since marijuana of adequate quality is already cheap enough in most parts of America for people even of modest means to afford, and if it did get cheaper even after taxes and regulatory costs were factored in it wouldn't make any difference for most Americans since most can already afford to keep supplied with more marijuana than they care to smoke even at today's black market prices. Legalizing other drugs would cause a major increase in availability and make these drugs much easier to obtain for most Americans though. There are far fewer users of these other drugs and far fewer suppliers which makes it less likely one will have friends who can either supply the drugs or help him find a supplier he can trust. So many smoke marijuana and so many sell it or at least will help a friend buy some that normally its much easier to find than harder drugs. If people find it difficult or even impossible to find one of these other drugs when the mood strikes, it is logical to conclude that they are using these drugs less often than they would if they were easy to get. My guess is that if these drugs were cheap and easy for anyone to get at any time more people would become addicted.

The laws against marijuana are failing at making it impossible or even moderately difficult to obtain. It's still cheap and easy to find. Prohibition does though actually seem to be working to some small extent with many drugs other than marijuana in that the difficulty it creates for many to obtain these drugs due to exorbitant prices, excessive risk in obtaining the drugs, and lack of availability, undoubtedly deters some who would try these drugs, deters others from continued use, and in many other cases I have no doubt it keeps those who do use these drugs from being able to use them enough to develop addictions or other serious problems from excessive use.

I think most reasonable people would agree that there are clear reasons why legalizing other drugs would be worse for us than legalizing marijuana. I also think though that there are several valid arguments for legalizing marijuana. As I said before, right up at the top of the list would be that we'd take a massive multi-billion dollar illegal industry down and replace it with a regulated industry run by legitimate business people instead of criminals. You didn't like that reason because you said it wasn't specific enough and that it's some general argument that could be used for any drug, or for prostitution, or even for child porn. I don't think the general argument is nearly as strong for any of these other issues, but I’m going to stick to the topic at hand and not get into talking about prostitution or child pornography (which by the way should remain illegal). The argument doesn't work nearly as well when we are talking about drugs other than marijuana because first of all, marijuana is the backbone of the illegal drugs industry over which much of the other illegal flow. Demand for marijuana dwarfs demand for all other illegal drugs. In order to facilitate the distribution of the thousands of tons of marijuana consumed in this country every year the distribution infrastructure has to be much larger than that for other drugs and it involves far more people than other distribution networks. Since the marijuana distribution networks are broad and well established reaching millions of potential consumers, these networks already in place for marijuana are perfect channels for marketing other more dangerous drugs.

The way it works is that most of the marijuana sold in this country is produced south of the border and then it is smuggled into the country where it generally change hands several times before reaching the end consumer. Up at the top, you have that producer or a distributer who pools product from several producers. These people up at the top deal with huge quantities. After the pot is smuggled into the country it is usually brought up to safe houses that act sort of as distribution centers. Mules are hired to transport loads of these drugs from the distribution centers to destinations all over America. The drugs change hands and are divided into smaller parcels several times as they make their way down the distribution networks. The number of people involved grows exponentially as the product changes hands and is divided amongst various distributers, who in turn divide it and sell it on their customers and on and on it goes until it reaches the end consumer.

A load that started out as one 2000 pound batch of pot with one owner may change hands a few times until ends up being divided out to 8000 or more retailers who in turn pass it on to 80,000 or more end consumers buying a quarter ounce or two from their friendly neighborhood pot dealer. Now let's say the guy up at the top who had the 2000 pounds of pot gets a deal on a couple of hundred kilos of cocaine. He may not have moved any cocaine before, but it won't be that hard for him to move this, because he already has people who can smuggle stuff across the border, and he already has customers in the marijuana distribution networks, and while maybe not all of them would be interested in cocaine, he’ll be able to find people to take it off his hands either from within the ranks of the people in the marijuana distribution network or through the contacts he’s made in the industry.

As the coke moves down the marijuana distribution chain, some of the distribution channels will be closed because there are going to be those who aren't interested in handling cocaine. But others in the distribution chain who will get a big chunk of it and move it down the same marijuana chain the 2000 pounds of pot went down and just like the pot it will change hands several times and spread out to a wide base of end consumers, with most of it reaching consumers through the same distribution networks the 2000 pounds of pot went through. And if the average end consumer purchase is one gram, that 200 kilo purchase the big guy made originally, about 440 pounds coke, would come out to about 200,000 to 250,000 end consumer purchases, depending upon how much the cocaine is cut with other substances before it reaches the final customers.

There at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in this country at any given time who sell pot to end consumers. Most are not full time dealers. Most buy in larger quantities than they need so they can get a quantity discount and then they sell enough to friends at a profit to pay for their pot and maybe provide a little spending money. Not all of these people would sell a hard drug like cocaine. But even if just ten percent would do it, that would still mean that there would be thousands and thousands of people selling this coke to their friends who in many cases would never have seen cocaine before the guy they get their pot from offered to sell it to them.

I took an awful lot of time laying all that out, but I'm hoping to paint a picture for you that helps you understand the scope of this problem. If we were to legalize and regulate marijuana, we could eliminate thousands and thousands and thousands of potential hard drug sellers who would come by those drugs by virtue of the fact that someone on up in the chain knows that they are already dealing a little pot, so it would most likely be safe to offer them a little of something else to sell. Each of these thousands and thousands of people would be selling those drugs to several end consumers, many of which may not have ever been offered those drugs before. If we take out the massive marijuana distribution networks, the people moving the cocaine and the other drugs are going to have a harder time moving their product, and they are going to lose a lot of their potential customer base that would have stumbled onto their product when they went to buy their pot. Most of these people probably aren't going to seek out hard drug sellers. They might still try the drugs if a friend offers them, but the likelihood of that will decrease as well because their friends will be much less likely to come in contact with hard drugs since they'll be buying their at the store too instead of from guy who sells other drugs besides just pot.

There would still be a black market for pot, only it would be much smaller. Instead of a massive distribution chain that stretches all the way back to Mexico, the black market pot consumers will be more likely to see would be from small locally grown crops. There wouldn't be a need for massive illegal distribution networks like there are today. Adults would be able to purchase consistent product from licensed retailers that was produced in large commercial growing operations. Teens would still buy their pot on the "black market," but most of it is going to come from the store and get to them the same way they get their beer today, from older siblings or friends, or through the use of fake ID's. They'll probably get some untaxed homegrown too, but it will be less likely that the marijuana will come through massive distribution networks through which other drugs also pass, as is the case today.

The remaining illegal drug business will adapt, but they are going to have a harder time moving their product since there won't be marijuana dealers who sideline in other drugs throughout the distribution chain to help these drugs reach a wide base of end consumers. The thousands and thousands of little guys buying a quarter pound or single ounces of pot and selling smaller bags to their friends will no longer be there as the final link in the huge distribution chain that starts way down south of the border. Today these people are an important part of the hard drugs markets because many will do a little small scale dealing of hard drugs to their established customer base. Without them the people on up the hard drugs chain lose a lot of their market.

Many of the people now selling a little pot on the retail market who also deal a little in hard drugs would continue to deal in hard drugs, although not as many as you might think. The risks involved are too high. Obviously the chance of going to prison for a long time is much greater if they get caught, but that’s just part of it. They would be dealing with a whole different class of people. Instead of dealing with pot suppliers who sometimes have some other drugs to offer, they’d be dealing with people who specialize in hard drugs and this is a much more ruthless crowd. Their customer base would change too from pot smokers who might sometimes use the hard stuff on to more serious hard drug users who are often addicts whose lives tend to spiral downward and who often take others down with them. And in order to maintain a steady customer base instead of getting say a quarter ounce of cocaine a month that they’ll use part of and sell the rest to some of their established pot clients, they’ll have to keep a steady supply of the hard stuff they carry on hand and that will greatly increase their risk of becoming addicts unless they are able to be one of the exceedingly rare retail dealers who don’t also use the drugs they are selling. The risk of addiction, arrest, and long prison sentences goes way up.

And they will have to deal with one of your favorite things to talk about, social stigma. They may not care about what people think about the fact that they are pot smokers, especially given the fact that most people in their peer groups probably smoke it themselves. The fact that they were selling a little bit of pot would have carried with in some measure of social stigma if that fact got out past their inner circle, but being heavily involved with hard drugs carries with it a fairly large social stigma even within their peer groups where many smoke pot and some occasionally use hard drugs. Just as alcoholics are often looked down on even by other drinkers, people heavy into hard drugs are looked down on to a certain extent even by those who occasionally use the same drugs. And the stigma for dealing these drugs is much worse. Not only that but stigma or no stigma he would alienate a lot of his friends because they aren’t going to want to hang around where hard drug activity is going on all the time, drug addicts are coming in and out, and so on.

Now things are not going to be the same everywhere or with every dealer. There are all sorts of dealers, but most pot dealers on the retail level are only dealing in small amounts and mainly doing it for free pot and maybe a little spending money. It’s different in big cities where you will find what are basically open air drug markets where dealers hawk their wares to passers by. One of these guys might be making all sorts of money selling to end consumers. In rough neighborhoods in bigger cities there are crack houses where dealers sell through tiny windows to everyone in the neighborhood and anyone else they have reason to believe is not part of law enforcement. These types of retail dealers are the most visible in our society and I’m sure many people think that most drug users are buying their drugs from dealers like these. But that is not how it works.

Behind the scenes in those big cities and throughout the small towns and suburbs and rural America people dealing in drugs usually try to keep a low profile and deal with as few people as possible. The retail pot dealers are generally guys who will buy a quarter of a pound or less at a time. Some might buy an ounce a week and sell three quarters of it and make only enough profit to pay for the quarter he kept. Others might go through a quarter of a pound in a week, selling quarter ounces, halves, and ounces, and they are covering the cost of all the pot they smoke themselves and with their friends and customers and might be making over a hundred dollars a week or more profit on top of that. They aren’t getting rich that way. They are just getting free pot and maybe supplementing their income some. If they wanted to make more money selling pot they could try to buy more and sell to more and more end consumers but then they would have the hassle and risk of dealing with more people, so most would just quit selling to end consumers and start dealing to dealers.

One reason I keep talking about small retail dealers is that they have to number at least in the hundreds of thousands if not in the millions and not only are they the crucial link to the broad base of the millions of drug users out there, they make up the core of the heaviest drug users and those at risk of becoming addicts because they get all their drugs for free as long as they sell enough to cover their “party” expenses. Run retail sales of pot through regulated retail outlets and not only will these hundreds of thousands or more not be able to reach the millions of marijuana consumers with the hard drugs many sell along with pot, but most of them are going to have to cut way down on the drugs themselves because they’d have to pay for them like everybody else.

Another plus from legalizing would be that the distribution networks for these other drugs would shrink in most cases and not only will that limit access to the wider marijuana consumer base, but forcing these drugs through dedicated hard drug networks will make it easier for law enforcement to trace the drugs back up through the distribution chain and get to the big fish. And since there will be less retail sellers without the marijuana retailers who also deal a little in hard drugs, those who are still selling hard drugs will each have to move more product to more customers, which will increase their chances of getting caught. When these people get caught and are faced with the reality that they are probably going to prison, many will work with law enforcement chipping away further at the distribution network that already shrunk in size and effectiveness when the vast marijuana distribution networks lost their reason to exist. The hard drug market won't disappear, but it's quite likely that these drugs will become at least a little harder to obtain, which would hopefully result in less people trying the drugs, less who have tried them continuing to use, and a decrease in frequency of use for those who do continue to use on a casual basis. That would mean we'd have less addicts out there causing all of the problems addicts cause, which is really what's most important to society.

You wanted me to be more specific in my argument and I’ve tried to do that but now this post is way too long, so I'm not even going talk about the importance of taking money away from the criminal element, tax revenues that could be generated, money that we are throwing away that could be put to better uses, and so on.

"Without the laws making drugs illegal, more people would do them (I cannot believe that you disagree with this)."

I don't disagree with it completely. I just don't think it's people's great respect for the law that keeps them from doing drugs. The biggest reasons people who don't use illegal drugs don't use them are entirely unrelated to the law. People who don't use drugs don't use them because they are dangerous and they cause health problems and all sorts of other misery. For a lot of people religious convictions and their sense of morality play a big factor in their choice to not use drugs. And aside from those reasons, many would prefer to live life sober. There are so many reasons that really have nothing to do with whether the powers that be seek to prohibit use of a particular drug or not.

The laws do have some effect though and do deter some from using drugs who would use them if they were legal, but it's no so much because these people have such great respect for the laws that they would never break them. I'm more than a little amused with the way that you think people in our society were all once so moral and perfect but now we are all so depraved and immoral, yet oddly enough you think people in our depraved and immoral society dutifully bow down in reverence for the precious laws we are forced to obey. I don't think people on the whole in this country have ever had as much dutiful respect for laws as you imagine. In fact I say we've had a proud tradition in this country of ignoring asinine laws. Naive goody two shoes like you who think that just because some jackass politicians write a law it becomes the new divine morality have always been in the distinct minority here.

I stand by what I said. Most people who want to do drugs who aren't being held back by other considerations not related to the laws are going to do drugs despite what the laws say. Only a tiny few who want to do drugs are going abstain for no other reason than that they have some profound respect for things written in law books. As I said, they certainly may be deterred by the possible legal consequences of violating the laws, but the level of that deterrence is going to be directly proportional to the perceived risk of getting caught.

"in 1979, three times as many people smoked marijuana as do today ..."

This isn't even close to being accurate. Check your facts.

I really don't think marijuana use will go up that much when it becomes legal. I don't doubt we'll see a spike when the laws start changing, but I expect that the novelty will wear off, and I doubt people are going to like pot anymore than they ever have here. Already more than half of all people here try it by the time they are 21. Around a 100,000,000 Americans have smoked it. On a per capita basis, Americans smoke more pot than people do in just about every other country in the world that keeps statistics on these things, including places like Holland where for decades they've had coffee-shops with all sorts of varieties of marijuana and hash on the menus. Holland is not the only country that has been allowing marijuana sales. It's just really hard for me to believe Americans are going to fall so madly in love with marijuana if it's legalized. It's not that fun to smoke pot. Most people who try it end up not liking very much. Marijuana smoke stinks. It makes most people turn into dumb-asses when they smoke it. I don't really understand the fascination some people have with it but if they want to smoke it, I say puff away. They're not bothering me, and I must admit I did it myself when I was young and silly. If it was an extremely addictive drug like meth or heroin or something like that I'd understand why you want to fight so hard to keep people from using it. If it turned people into obnoxious jerks and made lots of them violent like alcohol does, I'd be more willing to accept the fact that my government wastes so much money and effort and treats so many of my fellow Americans like dirt fighting against this drug. But pot is just not that bad, not to the extent that my government should ban it and declare war on everyone who uses it.

"Compared to most of the other illegal drugs, and alcohol for that matter, ___________ is _relatively_ safe. It is a relatively mild intoxicant. There are no deadly overdoses. It is far less likely to contribute to violent behavior than alcohol and some other drugs. It's not an extremely addictive drug that produces addictions so powerful that they lead to property crimes and prostitution as means for supporting the habit. Unlike some of the other drugs, it does not appear cause serious health problems for substantial numbers of regular users."

Again, if these are the criteria, I can use them to make the case for a number of other drugs -- especially if alcohol is the gold standard. Maybe you don't care.

Also, I don't agree with your rosy scenario regarding distribution. I believe the traffickers would just concentrate on other drugs. Ending Prohibition didn't put an end to organized crime, neither will the legalization of marijuana.

You're making a huge assumption that the rest of the world will follow our "lead". If they don't, organized crime will use the United States as a legal growing ground for their illegal exports. That's a nice thought, huh?

The Alaska experiment showed us that, with very limited legalization, teen use of marijuana will double. You can make all the theoretical claims you want, but you can't argue the facts.

And with more teens experimenting with mind altering drugs, I believe that more teens will try other drugs.

"I don't think people on the whole in this country have ever had as much dutiful respect for laws as you imagine."

Who said anything about "respect" for the laws? Your amusement at my imagination is misplaced.

The behavior is not based on respect, but fear. Do you respect the IRS laws or do you fear them? Give me a break.

"Naive goody two shoes like you who think that just because some jackass politicians write a law it becomes the new divine morality have always been in the distinct minority here."

Nice straw man. "Naive goody two shoes" has nothing to do with the Controlled Substances Act. We don't want drugs. We don't like drug users. We hate predatory drug dealers. We're tired of supporting drug addicts. The 1970 CSA says nothing about morality, and cares nothing about your respect for it. It is the law, and it represents the will of the citizens of the U.S.

"in 1979, three times as many people smoked marijuana as do today ..."

How about this then: In 1979, 13.2% of those 12 and older smoked marijuana at least once per month. With legalization, we can easily return to that percentage, and, more than likely, exceeed it since marijuana was illegal in 1979.

"I really don't think marijuana use will go up that much when it becomes legal."

Think? More like hope. Where do get the facts on which you base your thinking? Maybe from marijuamnaiscool.com, but certainly not from actual history.

And what if marijuana use among teens triple, quadruples? Then what? Would you then repeal the law? Like Alaska tried to do?

It's a Pandora's Box and you know it. And I'm personally not willing to open it.