Pot invasion stuns park officials. 600% jump in Sequoia plants may be tied to tight borders.

The Fresno Bee ^ | Sept 25, 2002 | Joan Obra

[Pern]

A new species is appearing more frequently in Sequoia National Park: marijuana. During the past month, park rangers and law enforcement officials have uprooted 19 marijuana gardens from the Mineral King and South Fork areas of the park. Officials disposed of more than 35,000 plants -- with an estimated street value of more than $140 million -- in an undisclosed Tulare County site.

[Man of the Right]

I have no problem with individuals who favor legalization. It is their right.

That said, in college, I remembering wasting an hour listening to Timothy Leary say pot smokers were going to legalize marijuana by taking over the system. Didn't happen. "All the lawyers and Supreme Court Justices are going to be heads, man." Right. Like in a Cheech & Chong movie.

Legalization was a tertiary issue 35 years ago. Now the '60s crowd is in their 50s and 60s, or in Jerry Garcia's case, dead. The world has moved on.

The Iraq campaign is an issue. The economy is an issue. Covering pharmaceuticals under Medicare is an issue. Legalization isn't an issue. It's not on the radar screen. It's not going to happen.

[flamefront]

"Visitors have inadvertently come upon growers while traveling cross-country and have had weapons pointed at them."

pot + weapons,
weapons + pot,
pot + weapons,
weapons + pot,
pot + weapons,
weapons + pot,

legal or not.

[avenir]

But the fact remains that "the more people who switch from alcohol to pot, the better off we all are, simply from the decrease in violence."

Switch? Who says a large portion of pot smokers aren't already drinking...or dropping acid or shrooms...or tooting coke or crank...or smoking cigs? You would be shocked at the open-mindedness (ahem) of pot smokers.

But I can see how your self-admitted lack of REAL experience in the REAL world of drugs might have a tendency to foster illusions.

[MrLeRoy]

But the fact remains that "the more people who switch from alcohol to pot, the better off we all are, simply from the decrease in violence."

Switch? Who says a large portion of pot smokers aren't already drinking

Wrong question. The right question is what proportion of drinkers would take up pot and abandon booze if pot were legalized. Since pot does not result in hangovers or vomiting, I'd bet a significant proportion.

[MrLeRoy]

all of the drug users underachieved, many lead unproductive lives and some died prematurely

How is any of that the proper object of government coercion?

[avenir]

The "right question" is actually "Nice weather we're having today, eh Mr. Leroy?"

[MrLeRoy]

The "right question" is actually "Nice weather we're having today, eh Mr. Leroy?"

Nothing to say but can't shut up. Shame.

[avenir]

Nothing to say but can't shut up.

Gotta go back to work now, have a nice evening!

[MrLeRoy]

Thanks; same to you. For future reference, you'll find mindless blather more welcome in AOL Chat forums.

[Man of the Right]

Because the widespread use of marijuana would be harmful to society. It's ridiculously cheap to grow, its use is hard to detect, and over the long-term, it's harmful to users and society. When I was a kid, we called it "sh*t." That's a surprisingly insightful name.

Marijuana use is harmful for two reasons:

1. Like alcohol, while under the influence, users aren't sober. They can't operate equipment safely and they don't do the things sober people do. There are individuals who have smoked one joint a week for 35 years while continuing to function adequately. But to be honest, there are many more people whose free time is spent inebriated or whose lives are destroyed by illegal drug use. On the individual level, that's a tragedy. Multiply it 100 million times, and U.S. living and health standards would mirror countries where drug use is endemic -- Afghanistan or Yemen, for example.

2. Like tobacco, but unlike alcohol, marijuana is insidious. Take a drink for the first time, and you're aware you've consumed a powerful drug. Most kids puke. Smoke a joint, and you get high. You may feel like you've had a mind-altering experience. In fact, you've done nothing. String together 10,000 nothing nights and you've wasted your life.

Why is marijuana illegal and alcohol and tobacco discouraged and heavily taxed, but legal? It's cultural and historical. The economy of the first and most populous U.S. colony, Virginia, was built on tobacco. The harmful effects of tobacco were suspected, but not known, for three centuries. Similarly, wine was used in the sacraments and wine and beer have food value, unlike marijuana.

The transportation and sale of marijuana have been illegal since passage of the Harrison Act in 1914. It's not like we were raised to use marijuana and then had it taken away from us. From toddlers, we are taught marijuana use is illegal and harmful. It's known universally that the possession or sale of marijuana is a serious crime. It's not like marijuana use is the greatest thing in the world. You smoke a noxious weed, hold the smoke in your lungs, try not to cough, and feel disoriented after a few moments. Some people find the sensation pleasurable. Others regard it as a waste of time. As a practical matter, it's not worth the risks.

Realistically, the severe laws against marijuana are not going to be repealed for three reasons: a strong majority supports them, an entrenched bureaucracy's livelihood depends on them, and few people regard the question of legalization as a matter worth serious public attention. Marijuana users are a small minority. While enebriated, they don't vote. Even in Mendocino County or Berkeley, nobody's going to build a political career as a public advocate of pot use.

To open a serious debate regarding legalization, you've got to push Al-Qaeda, Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, the economy, the stock market crash, social security and Medicare to the back burner. Is that going to happen, in your judgment?

[Jeff Gordon]

While most busts take one or two days, this one lasted five days, yielding scales, .... , slingshots and pellet guns.

OMG! Druggies are now using slingshots and pellet guns? We must take immediate action to eliminate these dangerous weapons from our society. </sarcasm

[avenir]

Thanks; same to you. For future reference, you'll find mindless blather more welcome in AOL Chat forums.

They say marijuana decreases hostility and aggression, Mr. Leroy. Just thought you might like to know.

[rb22982]

You must not be on top of events then. Nevada has a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in this election, and in polls is coming in neck and neck. Alaska failed legalization up to 3 oz by less than 6% (53-47).

There have been literally several dozen ballot initiates on drugs in the last few years. While I agree the economy and national security are 2 very big issues (the two biggest issues IMO), drug legalization is still an issue, even if you want to bury your head in the sand about it.

[MrLeRoy]

Why is marijuana illegal and alcohol and tobacco discouraged and heavily taxed, but legal? It's cultural and historical.

Insufficient reason for maintaining an irrational policy. Legal slavery was once "cultural and historical."

[Man of the Right]

Not a good analogy. Few slaves had the opportunity to escape their condition. Drug users have a choice: observe the law, move to a country where drug laws are not enforced, or break the law and risk the consequences.

[Man of the Right]

Not a good analogy. Few slaves had the opportunity to escape their condition. Drug users have a choice: observe the law, move to a country where drug laws are not enforced, or break the law and risk the consequences.

[MrLeRoy]

Few slaves had the opportunity to escape their condition. Drug users have a choice: observe the law, move to a country where drug laws are not enforced, or break the law and risk the consequences.

So if the law allowed slaves to leave the country, legal slavery would be OK?

[Man of the Right]

You have identified the most libertarian state in the union (Alaska) and one of the most (Nevada) whose combined population is 0.5% of the U.S. Drug policy is made at the federal level, influenced by sentiment in populous states such as Calif., Tex., N.Y. & Fla., all of which are clamoring for help to seal the border. Increased budgets for the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and Customs may be designed to stop terrorists and weapons of mass destruction from entering the U.S., but the practical effect will be to increase drug seizures and prosecutions.

If a state passed a referendum liberalizing sanctions for possession and sale of illegal drugs, it would have little practical effect because federal law is supreme and drug enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility.

There is some sentiment that sentencing guidelines should be reviewed for non-traffickers, and if appropriate, revised downward. Also, in principle voters favor access to psychoactive drugs by terminal cancer patients, though law enforcement strong opposes it. This is the extent of the liberalizing trend.

On the other hand, there is a strong punitive trend in society reminiscent of the 1930s.

With weapons of mass destruction becoming available to any state or group that wants them, and tens of thousands of terrorists waging a war of extermination against America, this is not going to be a time when civil liberties expand. The pressure will be on for individuals to act responsibly and do their part to win the war and rebuild the country and economy following future attacks. Drug use is viewed as self-indulgent and harmful. In this climate, I would expect less tolerance for drug use, less funding for drug treatment, and more punitive law enforcement.

Finally, you should not underestimate the economic importance of the pentitentiaries that have been built to warehouse drug traffickers and users. Many Congressional districts have benefitted economically. What you're up against is a strong political majority against liberalization, a powerful policy-making bureaucracy opposing it, and an important economic interest supporting prison construction and prison operations.

[Man of the Right]

Before we go deeper into this rhetorical morass, let me say I favor the exercise of free will. If you support marijuana legalization, I support your right to work for it. If you elect to accept the risk of smoking marijuana, you have been granted the free will to choose by our Maker.

I oppose legalization, but regard the issue as lacking even tertiary importance. There have been drugs since the founding of the Republic. The degree of punitiveness has tended to move in cycles with the perceived degree of risk, both external and economic.

In the trough of the last liberalization cycle, in the 1960s, marijuana didn't come close to legalization. At this time, my perception is that voters are willing to give up a measure of personal freedom, however unwise, in the hope of greater security. In this environment, I don't see the slightest possibility that drug use will be legalized.

Perhaps you see it differently. Perhaps you live in a locale -- Alaska, Oregon, or Idaho -- where there is significant public support for liberalization. Perhaps drug use is rising in the counter-culture. I wouldn't know. I don't indulge.

Having lived in the '60s, this era doesn't feel like the '60s. From reading history, it feels more like the '30s or '40s. Commodity prices have reversed a 22-year downtrend and have begun to rise. The stock market is in the 3rd year of a structural bear market that will last a minimum of 7 years and could last until the threat of mass destruction wanes. (The previous one lasted 16 years.) And we're at war. In this difficult environment, the emphasis will be on sobriety and responsibility, like it or not, and not on self-indulgence, personal exploration and freedom.

[rb22982]

Oh I know what we're up against. I just disagree that it is still not an issue.

Btw, the feds laws have never been constitutional challenged as far as I know. Since banning alcohol required an amendment, the same logically for drugs ala 10th amendment. My guess is USSC would rule the US's laws unconstitutional since they have no jurisdiction.