Some Find Hope for a Shift in Drug Policy

NYT ^ | February 15, 2009 | WILLIAM YARDLEY

[SolidWood]

SEATTLE — Washington State law prohibits the possession of marijuana except for certain medical purposes. Hempfest is not one of them. Yet each summer when the event draws thousands to the Seattle waterfront to call for decriminalizing marijuana, participants light up in clear view of police officers. And they rarely get arrested.

“Police officers patrolling are courteous and respectful,” said Alison Holcomb, drug policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.

One reason for the officers’ approach, said Ms. Holcomb and others who follow law enforcement in Seattle, is the leadership of R. Gil Kerlikowske, the chief of the Seattle Police Department and, officials in the Obama administration say, the president’s choice to become the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, known as the drug czar.

[ozarkgirl]

I want your honest answer. If those states voted to legalize marijuana, would you have a problem with that? Do you think they have the right to legalize marijuana?

[DJ MacWoW]

I think the police have over-reacted. Not all dealers have armory’s in their homes.

[Clemenza]

Interstate commerce clause would make it very difficult for states to legaliza marijuana. The only reason they have so much power over alcohol laws is due to the 21st Amendment.

[DJ MacWoW]

Then I will tell you again that I believe in state’s rights. Some states had legal abortion, which I am against, before Roe V Wade. It was their voted on choice.

[ozarkgirl]

I feel the same, I am a strong defender of states rights. I think the federal government has gotten WAY, WAY too powerful and WAY, WAY too invasive.

[Ken H]

I believe in states rights.

I take that to mean you are against using the Commerce Clause to legislate crime, health and social issues.

Now, do you think using the Commerce Clause to legislate a national prohibition on marijuana is in keeping with its original understanding?

[DJ MacWoW]

I may not like some things that states vote in but I firmly believe that they have the right to do so over the feds. I also believe that education should not be a federal issue. Nor welfare. Or healthcare etc.

[DJ MacWoW]

Does it matter what we believe? Didn’t matter when porkulus was being passed.

[microgood]

I stated before that we have enough drunks on the roads. We don’t need to add the drug addicted.

Then make it illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, since the laws work so well. Oh wait, it already is.

I guess one thing that favors your argument is that it is almost impossible to tell if someone is under the influence of pot, where it is easy to tell if they are drunk. So if a cop pulls over someone on pot, they will never be able to detect it unless they smoked it in the car and they smelled the smoke.

But if a cop cannot tell they are under the influence, then ?????

[SmallGovRepub]

“Wrong. You advocate for pot yopu admit to smoking it, that is what you are. Get used to it, you’ve earned the title.”

I'm sure you used to wet your bed but I don't call you a bed-wetter.

You started the name calling because you are incapable of having a real debate. You can't have a reasoned debate like a grown up so you start attacking people. That's fine. That's who you are. I don't waste my time with people like you.

[ozarkgirl]

I agree. Everytime the feds step into something (i.e. welfare) it becomes a bloated and misused program.

Anyway, gonna go play a game online. I think you are far more reasonable than when I first thought. :)

I don’t think marijuana is that big a deal. I think alcohol has destroyed many a family and I’ve not seen that happen with marijuana. Yes with other hard drugs but not marijuana. And no, I don’t smoke marijuana. Did in high school and just out of high school but that was many, many years ago.

[DJ MacWoW]

Look, if it’s easier to get pot, more people will. AND drive high.

[DJ MacWoW]

Enjoy your game. Hope to chat again sometime. :-)

[microgood]

I think the police have over-reacted. Not all dealers have armory’s in their homes.

It is much worse than that. In 1980 there were 900 SWAT Teams in this country. Now there are over 50,000. The worst abuse has been by paid criminal informants who get paid by the bust. One of the DEAs leading ones admitted to fingering dozens of innocent people who were convicted on his testimony alone.

Here is a good article about some of these abuses:

Stop Abusing Snitchin'

Two things that always happen under prohibition is corruption of the police and declining respect for the laws:

"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."

Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921

[DJ MacWoW]

corruption of the police and declining respect for the laws:

That's happening anyway. There is a general disintegration of society. Legalizing drugs won't change that. I honestly believe that this "great experiment" is nearly at an end. And I believe that the "slippery slope" hastened it. 20 years ago, Obama would have NEVER been elected. But here we are with the chief socialist firmly ensconced in the WH.

[Ken H]

Does it matter what we believe?

Well, you have been partaking in this debate, so you must think so. Anyway, quit dodging and answer the question.

Didn't matter when porkulus was being passed.

So? I'm trying to determine your view of the Commerce Clause as it relates to the topic of this thread. It's a simple YES or NO question, which you should be able to answer with a simple YES or NO:

Do you think using the Commerce Clause to legislate a national prohibition on marijuana is in keeping with its original understanding?

[microgood]

Look, if it’s easier to get pot, more people will. AND drive high.

Maybe in the short term. But it would make it harder for children to get since there would no longer be dealers.

I know if they legalized pot, I would stil not use it, nor would I use heroin or cocaine or crack. I don't use tobacco either and it is legal.

What it would do is eliminate 85% of the drug trade with all its costs and negatives, which makes it worth a try. At least then you could focus on the more serious drugs which are used by a much smaller group.

They claim there are 15 million regular pot users in the country, but it is probably more like 30 million. And the vast majority of them have jobs and are normal members of society. The only ones that get busted are in the urban areas and are mostly unemployed minorities.

[DJ MacWoW]

Truthfully, I hadn’t thought about it. But the clause only relates to interstate trade. In the case of Gonzales v. Raich, it was misused.

[microgood]

That's happening anyway. There is a general disintegration of society. Legalizing drugs won't change that. I honestly believe that this "great experiment" is nearly at an end. And I believe that the "slippery slope" hastened it. 20 years ago, Obama would have NEVER been elected. But here we are with the chief socialist firmly ensconced in the WH.

While I agree with much of this, I think a lot of it is due to people expecting the government to do things that families should be handling themselves, and by launching the drug war, the parents were saying we need the government to raise our children for us, and protect them from these drugs. My grandfather's generation did not need to government to raise its children, which is why there was no large drug war until 1970.

[DJ MacWoW]

Maybe in the short term. But it would make it harder for children to get since there would no longer be dealers.

Again I believe that this is a naive view. Do you honestly believe that kids under 18 don't get older kids to buy alcohol for them?

I still disagree.

And I need to go to bed. Have a good evening. I enjoyed the debate. :-)