Skip to main content

View Diary: Western hemisphere decriminalizing cannabis (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Crime is eternal (0+ / 0-)

    The MJ legalization movement seems to think crime will radically decrease once weed is legal.  That won't happen.  The criminal groups involved are already moving into diversification, including into synthetic narcotics, ID theft, intellectual property piracy, etc.  The "crime will decrease" argument is simply a dodge to avoid talking about the health impacts.  

    Blaming opponents of legalization for the killings done by drug dealers is another dodge.  Why not argue for legalization of meth, heroin and cocaine while you are at it?  Surely arguments over some of those substances are involved in these lethal disputes.  Another empty dodge argument.

    Finally, we have that old stand-by, Prohibition, which allows proponents of MJ legalization to pose as hip and modern and paint those on the other side as dinosaurs.  The fact of the matter is that legalization of alcohol and tobacco use was done as a political matter, not because we decided as a society to tolerate the health risks.  The alcohol and tobacco industries and their lobbies basically set the rules - rules that decree we tolerate 50,000 preventable deaths on our highways per year due to alcohol abuse.  Rules that decree we endure millions of suffering victims of preventable lung diseases as a "price of freedom."  Freedom for whom, one may ask?

    We have since set the rules for tobacco in a different place.  No longer can cigarette companies market to children.  No longer can they deny the adverse health impacts of smoking.  Same with alcohol - there are more restrictions on its usage and marketing now than there were when it was re-legalized in 1930.

    But it took decades and decades.  Decades during which people who might otherwise have lived longer healthy lives instead died or suffered.

    If alcohol, tobacco or weed were absolute necessities it is one thing (e.g. see medical MJ).  But when we trade pure recreational use for health risks - and let those who make the profits set the rules - we have a right as a society to debate that.

    I notice that not one of my critics spent a single sentence talking about the health research of prolonged MJ use on young people.  Clearly people have their priorities.  But let us be honest about them.  

    Money will be made.  The rest of you better get out of the way.  That is what this boils down to.

    "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

    by FDRDemocrat on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 12:12:24 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, the research that doesn't exist? (11+ / 0-)

      Which ones?  The stuff that the DEA promotes?  Of course we can trust that to have no agenda whatsoever...

      Or maybe we can trust the research done by pharmaceutical companies, which have resulted in lovely little patents for the stuff...  Oh, but of course, that's made by a company, so you know... it's cool.

      Oh, and we do ban smoking in bars and restaurants.  Legalizing pot doesn't mean you get to blow smoke in somebody's face.   Just like you aren't allowed to pour alcohol on kids.  Legalizing pot doesn't mean it's immediately available to everyone, advertised on every channel and in every corner store.  (Which IS the argument you're making)  And it doesn't mean no punishment for using irresponsibly, giving it to kids, or any of the other things you're suggesting will "Inevitably" happen.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 12:31:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More Smoke Screens (0+ / 0-)

        I have no issue with Medical MJ.  Please stop conflating that with the argument over recreational use.

        As far as whom to trust, yes I prefer to trust the Food and Drug Administration over any private concern that would make a profit from a particular outcome (how does the DEA get dragged into this? It is the FDA that would be involved.)

        Fair points but really also supportive of my argument.  For MJ proponents to agree on bans on MJ smoking in restaurants, use by children, etc. really confirms the fact that we ARE in fact talking about actions with health consequences.  

        We have some sense of what those health consequences are with tobacco and alcohol.  The science is still out with MJ.

        How will we know where to draw the lines unless we do the science?  How is asking for that a radical thing?

        Bear in mind the pro-MJ movement is reluctant to admit any adverse consequences.  The legalization campaign is about getting votes now, deal with the science later.

        That is the essence of bad public policy making.

        "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

        by FDRDemocrat on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 12:55:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  FDA is subject to political pressure. (8+ / 0-)

          There has been non-stop pressure for over 50 years to find Pot harmful.

          All they can find are some vague correlations.

          With the amount of money spewed at stopping this public health menace, surely they would have found some horrible thing that the drug causes.  They have for every single OTHER drug.

          Even the legal ones like alcohol and tobacco.

          But they still can't DEFINITIVELY point to the hazards of pot despite centuries of research and experience.  That's like saying we still need to "Teach the Controversy" on whether the earth is 6000 years old.

          Nope.  This is just years of propaganda no longer able to cope with people able to see that it's complete bullshit.

          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

          by detroitmechworks on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 01:11:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You just conflated the FDA with the DEA. (11+ / 0-)

          It's the DEA that funds study after study in which researchers desperately try to prove some long-term harm caused by cannabis, only to have their work destroyed upon peer review.  Not the FDA.

          Of course children should be protected from second hand smoke of any kind in public places.  This is no great "Ah-Ha" moment.  

          We know the impact of exposing developing lungs to burning vegetation of any kind for prolonged periods.  We don't need any additional long term studies to tell people they can's smoke in a crowded restaurant.

          Tens of millions of people have routinely smoked cannabis in the US for decades.  We've got the data.  They're not dying younger than anyone else.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 01:18:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Some science does exist despite our guv's (7+ / 0-)

          attempts to stifle it.

          See my sig line for details. Happy reading, there's 686 pages there.

          Then get back to us.

          Granny Storm Crow's MMJ Reference List-686 pages of hyperlinks in PDF format Yesterday's history, tomorrow's a mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

          by elkhunter on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 02:06:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You're 30 years out of date, when you're not 80 (9+ / 0-)

      years out of date.

      10,000 people died in drunk driving accidents in 2011.

      http://www.madd.org/...

      That's right - public education and sound law enforcement have tanked the number of drunk driving fatalities.  

      Prohibition, on the other hand, caused it to skyrocket.

      we have a right as a society to debate that.
      No one is questioning your right to advocate on behalf of the prison industrial complex.  You're entirely free to do that.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 01:13:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: (8+ / 0-)

      Crime is eternal, but its levels can change radically. To say otherwise is to simply to throw up your hands in defeat - in which case you should stop standing in the way of legalization anyway.

      The "crime will decrease" argument is simply a dodge to avoid talking about the health impacts.
       First of all, the "crime will decrease" argument is the opinion of almost every expert out there. Secondly, what "health impacts"? Be specific. I don't think you can be.
      Blaming opponents of legalization for the killings done by drug dealers is another dodge.
      I blame the policy, and for good reason - because it is a fact. It's a weed. It would be almost free if it was legal. Without the money caused by it being illegal there would be no crime associated with pot. That isn't just the opinions of experts, that's common sense and historic examples. To deny this is to deny reality. Do you deny reality?
      Why not argue for legalization of meth, heroin and cocaine while you are at it?
      Because those drugs are different. They have addictive qualities that pot doesn't. Lumping them together with pot is like lumping a hunting rifle in with a nuclear weapon (i.e. a bullsh*t argument).
      The fact of the matter is that legalization of alcohol and tobacco use was done as a political matter, not because we decided as a society to tolerate the health risks.
      Prohibition didn't end because it politics. It ended because it made things worse. Alcohol use actually went up because of Prohibition. Crime skyrocketed. It seems you aren't actually aware of the facts of Prohibition.
      But when we trade pure recreational use for health risks - and let those who make the profits set the rules - we have a right as a society to debate that.
      No one is saying otherwise. That's why I am actually glad to see you posting your comments here. This way I can see for myself that the Prohibitionists haven't came up with anything but the same old discredited ideas.
      I notice that not one of my critics spent a single sentence talking about the health research of prolonged MJ use on young people.
      #1) You seem to overlook the fact that your Prohibition isn't stopping these young people from smoking pot. #2) Exactly what are these effects? Be specific.
      Money will be made.  The rest of you better get out of the way.  That is what this boils down to.
      Money is being made on Prohibition. A lot more money than would be made if it was legal. A lot money that goes to bad people. That doesn't seem to bother you for some reason.

      ¡Cállate o despertarás la izquierda! - protest sign in Spain

      by gjohnsit on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 01:36:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Alcohol use went down a bit during Prohibition, (5+ / 0-)

        but binge drinking went way up.

        A person doesn't pay a guy for a secret password and then drive half way across town to find a speak just so he can have two beers.  By the time he goes through that, he's damn well getting drunk.

        America went from a country in which MOST men hit a pub or bar for 2-3 pints most days, to a country where a third of the men went out and got stinking polluted on bathtub gin twice a week.

        Technically, this meant fewer total liters of alcohol were consumed.  The impacts on families, however, were a lot of a lot worse.

        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

        by JesseCW on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 02:52:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Do Miller and Coors Have Turf Wars in the Streets? (6+ / 0-)

      "Blaming opponents of legalization for the killings done by drug dealers is another dodge.  Why not argue for legalization of meth, heroin and cocaine while you are at it?"

      Do Miller and Coors have turf wars in the streets with bullets flying everywhere?

      And yes, I am arguing for the legalization of meth, heroin, and cocaine while I am at it.

      •  I'm with the decriminalization of meth, heroin (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hammerhand

        and cocaine, and treating illness as illness.

        I lean toward the full legalization of heroin for one simple reason - junkies with junk are no threat to anyone.  

        Meth, on the other hand, turns people into fucking monsters after a while.  It's not DEA propaganda.  It fucks up their heads and destroys their ability to feel any degree of empathy for any other living thing.

        Still doesn't make jail magically into an addiction treatment program, of course.

        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

        by JesseCW on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 01:14:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  good points Jesse (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          I disagree on across-the-board legalization. And it isn't really the junkies that I'm wprried about, it's the pushers. That said you're absolutely right that putting a person in a little cage is hardly a good method for anything, let alone something like heavily physically addictive drug use.

          Also right on about the evils of meth being no propoganda. But that made me think: The first "illicit" drug most kids come into contact with is marijuana, and I knew from about 10th grade onward that the information I was getting from the government on marijuana was almost complete bullshit. My question: Why should a kid trust anything the DEA says?

          I have a diary drafted right now on this exact subject actually.

          "Every book is like a door"

          by Hammerhand on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 06:44:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Doctors don't give prescriptions for "drugs" (0+ / 0-)

          They give them for a certain drug. Because each drug is different.
             Thus the Prohibition people want to lump pot in with heroin and meth, when science would say that is rediculous.

           Don't fall for the argument. It's a distraction.

          ¡Cállate o despertarás la izquierda! - protest sign in Spain

          by gjohnsit on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 07:13:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It really not. There is an important question (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PennsylvaniaProgressive

            as to whether it's ever ok for Government to tell grown people what drugs they can use to improve their Friday night after a long week.

            Then, if conclude that it is ever ok, there's a whole 'nuther conversation about how Government ought to be telling them that.

            income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

            by JesseCW on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 02:23:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site