Posted on 10/22/2017 9:47:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
The war on drugs has been going on since 1971, and we have a winner: marijuana. Back then, possession of pot carried heavy penalties in many states -- even life imprisonment. Today, 29 states sanction medical use of cannabis, and eight allow recreational use. Legal weed has become about as controversial as Powerball.
One sign of the shift came in Wednesday's debate among the Democrats running for governor of Illinois. The state didn't get its first medical marijuana dispensary until 2015, and it decriminalized possession of small amounts of pot only last year. But most of the candidates endorsed legalization of recreational weed, and one supported "full decriminalization."
Those positions are not politically risky, in Illinois or most places. They're mainstream.
In 2016, Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans supported full legalization -- up from 36 percent in 2005. Given the choice, voters generally favor it. Nine states had cannabis initiatives on the ballot last year. Medical marijuana won in four states, and recreational pot won in another four. Only Arizona's recreational pot measure failed.
Next year should further erode pot prohibition. "Campaigns are underway in at least five states to legalize either medical or recreational cannabis," reports Marijuana Business Daily. It also notes that New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont could get recreational cannabis through legislative action.
All this progress has occurred even though federal law bars possession and use -- impeding normal commerce in states that permit dispensaries. Under President Barack Obama, the Justice Department chose to defer to states that allowed cannabis. But banks generally are leery of doing business with pot dispensaries, forcing many to operate on cash alone.
s a candidate, Donald Trump indicated he would follow more or less the same course as Obama. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, however, has been an implacable opponent of liberalization. He once joked -- well, I assume he was joking -- that he had no problem with the Ku Klux Klan until he "found out they smoked pot."
He appointed a task force on crime, hoping it would confirm his preposterous claim that Obama's laissez-faire policy was to blame for rising violence. But the panel report, which has not been made public, recommended sticking with that approach.
The case for full legalization becomes stronger all the time. One reason is that the disproportionate impact on African-Americans has gained more attention. Blacks are nearly four times likelier to be arrested for pot possession than whites even though there is no racial difference in usage.
Drug enforcement has been a major motive for stop-and-frisk tactics that have fostered resentment of cops among black men. Treating cannabis like beer or cigarettes would greatly curtail such encounters.
For years, opponents said legalization would lead to disaster. But as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. noted, "A page of history is worth a volume of logic." We no longer have to rely on ominous forecasts. We now have actual experience in states that have taken the leap, and the results refute the fears.
Studies show that after Colorado permitted recreational pot, there was no increase in adolescent use or traffic fatalities. In Washington, which voted for legalization in 2012, crime rates proceeded to decline. California found that when medical dispensaries closed, neighborhood crime didn't fall; it rose.
This year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found "substantial evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults." That helps explain why states that allow cannabis have far lower rates of opioid overdoses. The simple reality is that marijuana eases suffering and saves lives.
States with fiscal problems -- Illinois being a prominent example -- also stand to gain from allowing recreational pot. First, they don't have to spend so much money arresting, trying and incarcerating users and sellers. Second, they get a windfall from taxing a product that previously sold only on the black market. Washington's cannabis taxes bring in about $250 million a year.
State governments can also expect savings in Medicaid and other health care programs as some patients opt for inexpensive cannabis over pricey prescription drugs. There are also financial savings for ambulances, hospitals and morgues when fewer people overdose with opioids -- not to mention a lower toll in human misery and heartache.
It's too late to undo all the harm produced by the war on drugs. But Americans are realizing it's never too late to enjoy the benefits of peace.
Look at Prohibition. It was a total and utter failure. It spawned a smuggling trade, gang violence, and corrupt government officials. Alcohol was illegal and widely available.
It’s the same with marijuana. Half the people in prison are there for non-violent drug offenses. It costs about $30,000 a year to keep them in prison. It costs less than half as much for drug treatment.
Not only that, asset forfeiture would go away as well as hundreds of intrusive laws meant to be used to catch drug dealers.
From what I understand, today's stuff is full of chemicals and the THC is highly concentrated.
And, again, the growers are polluting our rivers and streams with their chemicals (imagine that!), killing wildlife and domestic animals that stray into their groves.
I'll see if I can find the story, but a couple of weeks ago, the Sacramento Bee ran a story about how the pot dispensaries are hiding transactions from auditors and not paying sales taxes. Imagine that. Potheads not paying sales taxes after convincing people that all the sales taxes that legalizing marijuana would bring in would solve all our problems! The nerve of some people.
So then the question becomes, should there be any regulations regarding marijuana, or should we just be completely libertarian? And who decides? And is it a federal issue at all, or something that should just be completely up to the states? There seems to be multiple issues involved here.
If this were true prohibitionists would be sharing actual evidence to validate their claims.
As I noted before, more researchers are becoming interested in studying the effects of marijuana now that this experiment with legalization has become widespread. The evidence of harmful effects of marijuana is growing daily.
www.pubmed.gov; search term = "effects marijuana"; 8075 hits. Samples of recent publications follow:
It’s Not Your Mother’s Marijuana: Effects on Maternal-Fetal Health and the Developing Child: Several studies have shown growth restriction in fetuses and behavioral/learning abnormalities in children who were exposed to marijuana in utero.
Adverse cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular effects of marijuana inhalation: what cardiologists need to know.: The abstract mentions that marijuana use increases the probability of cardiac events. Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall so I cannot read it to get the details.
Effects of Cannabis on the Adolescent Brain: Studies show that adolescent marijuana users perform worse on tests of cognitive abilities, including memory, verbal ability, processing speed, attention, etc. Many of these differences go away after abstinence from use, but the attention deficits remain.
Does Using Marijuana Increase the Risk for Developing Schizophrenia?"Research has shown a connection between marijuana use and an increased risk for schizophrenia in young people who are vulnerable to developing psychosis." Unfortunately, this article is behind a paywall; I would love to see the details here.
And so on. I do not have the time to provide an exhaustive review of the documentation in the medical literature of deleterious effect of marijuana use, but it most certainly is there.
I'm certain that marijuana was made illegal when our ancestors ca. 1900s observed the bad results of use, and I think we are about to learn those same lessons again. It is unfortunate.
As for the people who want to deny any harmful effect of marijuana use despite the growing body of medical literature documenting it, I am reminded of the people who want to believe that smoking or drinking are not harmful. The problem is, if a substance has the ability to affect the brain in such a way as to cause a "high," it is most likely damaging the brain (and other organs). There is a reason such effects are called "intoxication." They truly are toxic effects.
“...the Sacramento Bee ran a story about how the pot dispensaries are hiding transactions from auditors and not paying sales taxes.”
then the full force of the law should drop down upon them...after given one chance to make things right...The taxes should be paid...of course.
As for polluting rives and streams...the state does have a huge problem with illegal grows in the national and other forests. Usually by the time authorities arrive, nobody is there. When they do catch someone, they are usually illegals installed by the cartels. I am hearing that the Chinese are moving into that action now.
I think this is why Butte County moved to the grow regulations that it did. It does allow citizens to have very small grows. This separates normally law abiding folks that want their own marijuana for personal use from those that would flout the law. The only example I can think of is for a home brewer making their own beer or wine for personal use.
I am also in favor of letting those private citizen growers on the very limited space they are allowed to grow to be able to sell to “pot shops” This would be akin to having a farmer’s market and you sell your zucchinis at the market. It would allow the small citizen to make a little money on the side and hopefully force out the cartel growers. There will be those that take advantage so maybe its not such a great idea but if marijuana is here to stay, then it should have some major regulations, but allow the private citizen to get something out of the deal rather then big business interests. And any such laws should have sunset provisions so that it can be revisted every so often to allow for changes as well as the entire removal of the legality of marijuana in the state.
Quite frankly, I do not know what the answer it. Here in Butte County our supervisors have struggled with the question and so far have held back in turning the county into a marijuana county, legally, anyway.
The other option is to regulate like the wine industry (as if that is regulated much) All legal, above board, etc. No room for illegal grows.
I don’t partake and you don’t either. Its the choices we make. I don’t drink alcohol either. Did all of it when younger. A lot of us did things when we were younger and because it was illegal, it didn’t stop us. When of legal age and able to drink legally, yup got in trouble there. Stopped and that was that. Not all will stop though, will they? So it its legal or illegal, it well not stop.
Just a thought while typing here. If marijuana becomes totally above board and regulated like alcohol here in California, will/can the cartels be pushed out? As of yet, no...but if the choice is keeping out the “bootleggers” or losing the priveledge of legal dope...what will win out? Like I said earlier...I just don’t know the answers.
Cannabinoids remove plaque-forming Alzheimer’s proteins from brain cells
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/cannabinoids-remove-plaque-forming-alzheimers-proteins-from-brain-cells/
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Harvard Study Shows
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
Sure. As long as some self-righteous mob wants to throw someone in prison for merely possessing something, go for it, say many so-called nanny-staters "minimal government conservatives". It is to laugh.
And of course, we must also have the ever-expanding Police State that necessarily goes with enforcement of Contraband Law.—asset forfeiture, search which lack probable cause, no-knock warrants, increased violence at both the street level and by militarized police, and in general widespread trampling of Unalienable rights.
Threatening someone with prison for possessing one of God's own creations? A plant? What a joke. And the petty Drug War fascists have the unmitigated gall to call that Liberty?
Prohibitionists were dead wrong when they criminalized alcohol—which is hands down the worst drug on the face of the earth—worse than all other drugs combined—and they remain dead wrong about the entire idea Contraband Law in general.
Actual crime exists when someone's rights are infringed upon via force, fraud, or negligence—not just because some nanny-state zealots decide that trampling the Constitution and basic tenets of Liberty would make imposing "law and order" more convenient.
Arbitrary Law is illegitimate on its face, and is the doorway to Tyranny. Once it's tolerated—by either side of the political spectrum—it becomes equally justifiable by the other side. That's why allowing it to flourish invariably results in increasing loss of Liberty for everyone.
Those who believe in Authoritarian shortcuts (whether well-intentioned or not) are forcing others to choose whose version of Tyranny is most palatable: Left wing flavor or Right wing flavor—as if those are the only choices.
No thanks. I'll take door number three, Monty: the animating contest of Freedom; I'll take actual Liberty—warts and all—with all of its annoyances, inconveniences, and challenges, instead of demonstrably failed and shortsighted policies of over a century Prohibitionist shortcuts, which have exacerbated the problems as opposed to solving them.
Education, rehabilitation, and compassion are the answers—not incarceration. That's right: the only thing worse than decriminalization is the Tyrannical situation that exists now. Not to mention the fact that decriminalization has the minor advantage of actually being Constitutional, and consistent with the timeless principles of American Liberty...
So then you believe heroin should be legal. As you said, you don’t want the government protecting you from everything.
Amen, bro. Not sure who on this thread espoused any of those things.
I’ve read that back in the 1970s MJ was expected to be legalized in the future so many the most popular names had already been trademarked.
In places where recreational marijuana is legal, prescriptions for sleeping pills, antidepressants, and opioates and other pain meds drop almost 25%. Drunk driving arrests significantly decrease, crime stays on a decreasing trend. There are trade offs with everything, in this case I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. (Disclamor: I am a daily user myself, have been all my life, now 61 yo. Had to take an IQ test for a job I was applying for 10 years ago and it came up 137, suggesting minimal to no brain damage. It's been only in the last 3 or 4 years I've felt my intellectual ability wane significantly, but I assume thats just age. I never use it in public because it causes social anxiety in me, just in the evenings to relax and help me sleep. Relieves depression, eases pain, and is way healthier than alcohol. Just keep it away from kids whose brains are still developing.
Reading through these comments, having lived for the last couple of decades through de facto legalization in California, I’d like to try to add some perspective.
First, I don’t think there’s much basis for the idea that legalization equals huge increase in use. I think most people by the time they hit 21 years old (when it’s legal to use marijuana where it’s been legalized) have made up their own minds about whether they are interested in it or not, and that decision has never had much to do with its legality. Most people simply don’t enjoy using marijuana for all the reasons stated above, and that won’t change whether or not it’s legal. For the minority who do enjoy it, nothing changes, other a reduction in impact of their use on the rest of their life.
That said, even as an advocate of legalization myself, I have no problem with preventing it from being advertised, promoted, made available especially to minors. We used to actually have rules against advertising prescription drugs, which I think should also be brought back, and there are similar rules having to do with cigarettes and alcohol that I think should be applied with greater force against marijuana. We do need to express societal disapproval of recreational marijuana use, especially by minors. I just don’t think we should do that via the criminal justice system. There are other ways. If the pro-pot forces are opposed to this, then I’m opposed to them on that.
I find people who make arguments against legalization based on the negative impacts of prohibition particularly annoying. Illegal grows are a horrible scourge against our environment and public safety. The whole point of legalization should be to eventually eliminate them in favor of regulated marijuana growing, thereby eliminating those very same impacts. It’s just stupid to argue against legalization because of “cartels, and dangerous hiking conditions, and environmental contamination”. You might as well just say that we shouldn’t legalize marijuana because look at all of the people who have ruined their lives by getting busted for selling pot.
The only distinctly negative impact that I have seen in California, something I really think should be addressed, however, is public consumption of pot. When I was a young guy, we took great pains to find an out of the way place to smoke, making sure that nobody else could see or smell us doing it. Now, in California, cigarette smokers basically do that, and marijuana smokers blow clouds of smoke into heavy crowds anywhere they feel like it. But that’s a very solvable problem, we simply need to treat all smokers the same, tobacco and marijuana, bust a few people for violating that, and they’ll go back into private pretty quickly.
Your 1st link is not a valid link.
Your 2nd link merely states what anyone with a lick of sense knows: Smoking ANYTHING while pregnant is a bad idea.
Your 3rd link concludes: “In conclusion, the potential for increased use of marijuana in the changing legal landscape suggests the need for the community to intensify research regarding the safety of marijuana use and for cardiologists to maintain an awareness of the potential for adverse effects.”
In reality this article says there needs to be more research.
Your 4th link says what we’ve known for a long time: Kids shouldn’t use cannabis. Nothing new there.
Your 5th try at the apple is hilarious. Of course people with thought disorders will behave badly if given cannabis. There was a thread a few weeks ago with a link to that very article with no firewall. In any case, it’s hardly earth shaking lol.
Cannabis is like anything else. Too much of it isn’t good for you. Just as with alcohol, some folks shouldn’t use cannabis.
It would be great if Fedzilla pulled it’s head out of the sand and allowed real unbiased research on the subject. Then all of us could find a new issue to burn up bandwidth over lol
‘One particularly worrisome effect is that marijuana triggers psychosis; this can make a person violent.’
sorry, that’s nonsense...because...
‘Marijuana users are infamous for not being able to do anything, for being content to sit around and contemplate the world.’
The Nanny Staters must be very sad these days. That’s a real shame.
In the 30’s it made you violent, because that’s how you best scared the populace. In the 60’s it made you a pacifist who wouldn’t go fight the Vietcong, because that’s how you best scared the populace. Now we’re back to violence. It’s like a carousel of lies.
Amen! And the evidence indicates that prohibition for adults is counterproductive on that front: kids have been reporting for years that they can get illegal-for-adults pot more easily than legal-for-adults beer or cigarettes.
The actual historical record gives no support to your "certainty" - it shows that marijuana was criminalized at the behest of recently unemployed Prohibitionists with propaganda about "crazed Mexicans."
Name three - or drop this tired straw man.
Many things are harmful: pot, alcohol, tobacco, triple scoop sundaes ...
But I can assure you my time in The Marines and out I’ve run into numerous violent drunks under the effects of alcohol and they far outnumber any predisposed number of supposed violent pit heads
You and your pesky facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.