Want to Keep Pot Illegal? Time to Justify...

[KevinWestern]

It's time the prohibitionists justify why marijuana should remain illegal.

Why is it on them? It's on them because prohibition means some very negative and real consequences that we as a society have to all deal with, namely:

1.) Policing marijuana costs us billions in taxpayer dollars every year (ie police work, courts, prison overhead, feeding prisoners, ect). This money comes out of my paycheck.
2.) Policing marijuana drains on vital resources (cops could be stopping murders, violent crimes, courts could be freed up).
3.) Marijuana prohibition puts millions of non violent people who pose no threat to anyone behind bars every year. This breaks up families, ruins career opportunities.
4.) Marijuana prohibition gives power to the drug cartels and their violent activities. If pot were legal, much of their revenue stream (to buy guns, ect) would be cut.
5.) Marijuana prohibition means that all the money that could be made from private legal enterprise in the US instead remain mostly in Mexico in the hands of criminals (tax free).

Now, I'm open for a discussion (of course), but I think it needs to start with providing the benefits of Marijuana prohibition (specifically), and how those benefits outweigh all of those combined.

These things are currently impacting us each and every day, so I think it's a very important discussion.

If the US was a company, is prohibition worth the cost? I say NO WAY.

Thanks everyone...

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

n light of those consequences, what are the benefits that we receive as a society for pot prohibition... ?

We get to read about zipperheaded pigs behaving like Gestapo.

We get to see news splibs of ZILLIONS of dollars worth of dope seized in basements.

We get to see potgutted food and alcohol addicts claim pot is addictive.

We get to see govamet "experts" claim there is no medicinal value to pot.

We get to see the fear of independent thought in legislators' eyes.

Basically keeping a God given herb illegal lets us see the worst elements of human scum.

 

[Katzndogz]

Do the costs of drug use outweigh the benefit of legalization?

Look at it this way, the societal costs of alcoholism far, far outweigh the benefits of alcohol consumption. Should we make it better or worse?

The problem is not whether pot should be legal or not. The problem is that so many people have a need to get through the day high.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

If people are otherwise law abiding, what LEGITIMATE business is it of anyone's if other folks want to be high?

 

[KevinWestern]

Do the costs of drug use outweigh the benefit of legalization?

Look at it this way, the societal costs of alcoholism far, far outweigh the benefits of alcohol consumption. Should we make it better or worse?

The problem is not whether pot should be legal or not. The problem is that so many people have a need to get through the day high.

Katz, I listed five huge negative consequences to pot prohibition, that IS a problem if those costs are not giving us any (at least equal) value in return.

I don't know about you, but I'd like to see the drug cartel's revenue stream cut in half. I'd like to see an end to all this violence. Is prohibition worth the costs?

 

[Circe]

Moot question.

Obviously we are now on a track to legalize pot nationally, with it being decriminalized and legalized in several states now, via the "thin entering wedge" of "medical marijuana."

So just wait it out. It's happening now and soon there will be a tipping point. Most states will legalize it and a few will stay "dry" for a couple decades like after Prohibition. Then they'll fold, too.

Same as with no-fault divorce, abortion, etc. No, no, no, no, maybe, a few, then suddenly yes, yes, yes. That's how it works.

 

[Katzndogz]

That is exactly how it works. Then people will start to exercise their own forms of prohibition.

Guys will just love having big boobs of their own.

Attention Pot Smokers: You May Be Growing Man Boobs - RealSelf blog

 

[Katzndogz]

If people are otherwise law abiding, what LEGITIMATE business is it of anyone's if other folks want to be high?

As long as they aren't driving, working, in school, or taking care of children, nothing. Pot smokers should be allowed to get high and rejecting them should be part of a personal exercise of freedom.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do the costs of drug use outweigh the benefit of legalization?

Look at it this way, the societal costs of alcoholism far, far outweigh the benefits of alcohol consumption. Should we make it better or worse?

The problem is not whether pot should be legal or not. The problem is that so many people have a need to get through the day high.

For one Pot is not addictive in the sense that alcohol is. No one ever died from marijuana withdrawals.

And just as in alcohol there can be prohibitions about driving high, working high etc.

There will have to be a test developed though that can tell if pot was used within a certain time frame. After all If a guy smoked a joint on Saturday it would be unjust to cite him for driving under the influence on Monday.

And people have been altering their consciousness for as long as people have existed so I don't see a problem with people getting a buzz.

 

[earlycuyler]

Do the costs of drug use outweigh the benefit of legalization?

Look at it this way, the societal costs of alcoholism far, far outweigh the benefits of alcohol consumption. Should we make it better or worse?

The problem is not whether pot should be legal or not. The problem is that so many people have a need to get through the day high.

Katz, I listed five huge negative consequences to pot prohibition, that IS a problem if those costs are not giving us any (at least equal) value in return.

I don't know about you, but I'd like to see the drug cartel's revenue stream cut in half. I'd like to see an end to all this violence. Is prohibition worth the costs?

Not in money, and not in lives lost. Pot is the bread and butter of the Mexican drug cartels. Legalizing it would put a serious dent in their pocket books for a long time.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would require that people have the option of funding research in and access to FREE SPIRITUAL HEALING as opposed to depending on medical marijuana which does not cure addiction while spiritual healing does. People who want drugs can pay for their own health care programs that cover the costs of side effects; people who want all natural healing with NO SIDE effects and NO addictions should not have to pay the costs of those who depend on drugs to placate symptoms instead of curing the root disease as spiritual healing does.

It's time the prohibitionists justify why marijuana should remain illegal.

Why is it on them? It's on them because prohibition means some very negative and real consequences that we as a society have to all deal with, namely:

1.) Policing marijuana costs us billions in taxpayer dollars every year (ie police work, courts, prison overhead, feeding prisoners, ect). This money comes out of my paycheck.
2.) Policing marijuana drains on vital resources (cops could be stopping murders, violent crimes, courts could be freed up).
3.) Marijuana prohibition puts millions of non violent people who pose no threat to anyone behind bars every year. This breaks up families, ruins career opportunities.
4.) Marijuana prohibition gives power to the drug cartels and their violent activities. If pot were legal, much of their revenue stream (to buy guns, ect) would be cut.
5.) Marijuana prohibition means that all the money that could be made from private legal enterprise in the US instead remain mostly in Mexico in the hands of criminals (tax free).

Now, I'm open for a discussion (of course), but I think it needs to start with providing the benefits of Marijuana prohibition (specifically), and how those benefits outweigh all of those combined.

These things are currently impacting us each and every day, so I think it's a very important discussion.

If the US was a company, is prohibition worth the cost? I say NO WAY.

Thanks everyone...

If you REALLY REALLY want to cut the costs of crime, abuse, addiction, disease including mental and criminal illness, then you would support research into spiritual healing which has been shown to cure Rheumatoid Arthritis, Schizophrenia, Cancer, Diabetes, and other medical and mental conditions, where medicine alone often just placates symptoms.

We would save a lot more money on health care by curing and preventing diseases, rather than spending billions on symptoms after the fact, including crimes from abuse and addictions that spiritual healing has long been applied to cure, in various forms of therapy.

 

[Katzndogz]

Do the costs of drug use outweigh the benefit of legalization?

Look at it this way, the societal costs of alcoholism far, far outweigh the benefits of alcohol consumption. Should we make it better or worse?

The problem is not whether pot should be legal or not. The problem is that so many people have a need to get through the day high.

Katz, I listed five huge negative consequences to pot prohibition, that IS a problem if those costs are not giving us any (at least equal) value in return.

I don't know about you, but I'd like to see the drug cartel's revenue stream cut in half. I'd like to see an end to all this violence. Is prohibition worth the costs?

Not in money, and not in lives lost. Pot is the bread and butter of the Mexican drug cartels. Legalizing it would put a serious dent in their pocket books for a long time.

Not even CLOSE. It might start a trade war as the US government becomes the newest cartel on the block but it won't dent the cartel's income. How many cartels are there? Is there not a war over market share going on? Legalizing pot would be beneficial only for the level of violence it would bring.

As far as revenue stream, the cartels are preparing and moving on. If the US has a weapons ban and gun control, it will open up an even more lucrative source. There is also kidnapping for ransom, many other drugs. The Netherlands just banned a strain of marijuana called Skunk because it went beyond what even they could tolerate. Then there is the growing popularity of bath salts. There is no end to means of illegal lucre.

Sadly, though, very sadly, there are Americans who see the legalization of pot as cutting into the cartel's income.

 

[Circe]

As far as revenue stream, the cartels are preparing and moving on. If the US has a weapons ban and gun control, it will open up an even more lucrative source. There is also kidnapping for ransom, many other drugs. The Netherlands just banned a strain of marijuana called Skunk because it went beyond what even they could tolerate. Then there is the growing popularity of bath salts. There is no end to means of illegal lucre.

Interesting points, that organized crime will go wherever a human want is illegal.

Kidnapping for ransom is a big concern.

I often wonder if it wouldn't be better just to make EVERYTHING legal, no matter what, and then do a comprehensive educational campaign along with a draconian penalty system when someone does crimes coked up or whatever. Domestic violence under cocaine or PCP, for instance.

There would be an early die-off as addicts all overdosed, but.....really, wouldn't that be for the better?

And then the El Stupidos would still take drugs, but they could have all they like so they'd drop out and become addicted and die young, and so this policy would have a pro-high-IQ effect on the whole society. A way to breed for the smarter and more able as the people into drugs drop out and go away.

I'd like to see that tried.

 

[Katzndogz]

As far as revenue stream, the cartels are preparing and moving on. If the US has a weapons ban and gun control, it will open up an even more lucrative source. There is also kidnapping for ransom, many other drugs. The Netherlands just banned a strain of marijuana called Skunk because it went beyond what even they could tolerate. Then there is the growing popularity of bath salts. There is no end to means of illegal lucre.

Interesting points, that organized crime will go wherever a human want is illegal.

Kidnapping for ransom is a big concern.

I often wonder if it wouldn't be better just to make EVERYTHING legal, no matter what, and then do a comprehensive educational campaign along with a draconian penalty system when someone does crimes coked up or whatever. Domestic violence under cocaine or PCP, for instance.

There would be an early die-off as addicts all overdosed, but.....really, wouldn't that be for the better?

And then the El Stupidos would still take drugs, but they could have all they like so they'd drop out and become addicted and die young, and so this policy would have a pro-high-IQ effect on the whole society. A way to breed for the smarter and more able as the people into drugs drop out and go away.

I'd like to see that tried.

I'd like to see that tried too. The prisons would be just as full because of the crimes committed while high, but that might be just temporary until they die off. It is an excellent measure to really deal with the drug problem.

 

[KevinWestern]

I'd like to see that tried too. The prisons would be just as full because of the crimes committed while high, but that might be just temporary until they die off. It is an excellent measure to really deal with the drug problem.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. There are currently millions of non-violent offenders in prison simply for their connection to marijuana. That's a lot of people you're going to need to "replace" to fill up the prisons once again.

When you get high, you don't just go on a crime spree, lol. We're not talking Bath Salts or LSD or something that severely changes your perception of the world and ability to think rationally. You are the exact same person that you were before smoking the drug (specifically when we're talking marijuana); in fact, you're likely to be a bit more paranoid and cautious and much less likelier to commit a crime in my view.

Have you tried marijuana? If so, compare to your experience with alcohol. I'd say that a person is much more likely to commit a crime while drunk than while high.

.

 

[konradv]

I'd like to see that tried too. The prisons would be just as full because of the crimes committed while high, but that might be just temporary until they die off. It is an excellent measure to really deal with the drug problem.

Are you just talking pot or other, harder drugs? I don't believe the prisons would be nearly as filled or that people would die off any faster, if MJ were legalized. One big upside is that taxing it like alcohol and cigarettes, would help pay for prisons and drug treatment.

 

[KevinWestern]

I would require that people have the option of funding research in and access to FREE SPIRITUAL HEALING as opposed to depending on medical marijuana which does not cure addiction while spiritual healing does. People who want drugs can pay for their own health care programs that cover the costs of side effects; people who want all natural healing with NO SIDE effects and NO addictions should not have to pay the costs of those who depend on drugs to placate symptoms instead of curing the root disease as spiritual healing does.

If you REALLY REALLY want to cut the costs of crime, abuse, addiction, disease including mental and criminal illness, then you would support research into spiritual healing which has been shown to cure Rheumatoid Arthritis, Schizophrenia, Cancer, Diabetes, and other medical and mental conditions, where medicine alone often just placates symptoms.

We would save a lot more money on health care by curing and preventing diseases, rather than spending billions on symptoms after the fact, including crimes from abuse and addictions that spiritual healing has long been applied to cure, in various forms of therapy.

I'm definitely all for the spiritual healing stuff, but I doubt anyone connected to the gov't (and ultimately the huge Pharm industry) would support such a measure. If it's cheap, inexpensive, and works very well than it's going OFF the list because it won't make any money!

I support medical marijuana not as a cure all (by any means), just a nice, cheap, non-toxic alternative to some of the more artificial and devastating cancer meds that can really do some damage to you.

Spiritual healing is great, but sometimes (when it comes to pain, nausea) you need some immediate, tangible results. I'd rather someone smoke natural marijuana than take an artificial drug born in a lab with chemicals...

 

[Circe]

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. There are currently millions of non-violent offenders in prison simply for their connection to marijuana. That's a lot of people you're going to need to "replace" to fill up the prisons once again.

When you get high, you don't just go on a crime spree, lol. We're not talking Bath Salts or LSD or something that severely changes your perception of the world and ability to think rationally. You are the exact same person that you were before smoking the drug (specifically when we're talking marijuana); in fact, you're likely to be a bit more paranoid and cautious and much less likelier to commit a crime in my view.

No crimes, no problem, is the idea.

If everything is legalized, what would it matter if someone took a non-toxic drug in careful circumstances where they wouldn't kill or die or hurt someone?

But when they take bad drugs like meth or PCP or "bath salts" and, you know, eat someone's face off, that would send them to prison or they'd die soon. And everyone else would be better off.

I figure it might be quite a circus for 20 years, but then all the people who do that sort of thing would be dead or marginal and the rest would be smart enough to stay away from bad drugs.

I would pair this freedom with educational campaigns. Now there is not much education against drugs, not as much as there could be, because drugs are illegal so it's a bad idea to publicly assume everyone can get them anyway, though of course that is probably true to some extent. It could be like the anti-smoking campaigns. Assume people are freely doing this and hit it hard as incredibly stupid and unhealthy and generally bad. That would help young people and confused people, maybe.

 

[Katzndogz]

I'd like to see that tried too. The prisons would be just as full because of the crimes committed while high, but that might be just temporary until they die off. It is an excellent measure to really deal with the drug problem.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. There are currently millions of non-violent offenders in prison simply for their connection to marijuana. That's a lot of people you're going to need to "replace" to fill up the prisons once again.

When you get high, you don't just go on a crime spree, lol. We're not talking Bath Salts or LSD or something that severely changes your perception of the world and ability to think rationally. You are the exact same person that you were before smoking the drug (specifically when we're talking marijuana); in fact, you're likely to be a bit more paranoid and cautious and much less likelier to commit a crime in my view.

Have you tried marijuana? If so, compare to your experience with alcohol. I'd say that a person is much more likely to commit a crime while drunk than while high.

.

This is a very popular myth. There has been alternative sentencing for simple possession cases for decades. There is community service, rehab, counseling, there are dozens and dozens of alternatives so that the casual pot smoker does not get sent to prison. Where they are sent to prison is where the pot use was coincidental to some other crime. Or, when the suspect is a well known criminal and there is insufficient evidence to get them off the street so they charge him or her with some pot offense and give the surrounding neighborhood a vacation.

I have never tried marijuana. I have been drunk one time in my entire life. My experience with pot users is the vast number of users I have known personally, those that have been my criminal case clients and civil case clients who were the victims of someone else's pot use. Those number in the hundreds.

I have known a number of criminals who plea bargain a more serious criminal charge by admitting to possession or even possession for sale. Yes, they go to prison, but for a far less period of time they were facing.

 

[KevinWestern]

I'm going to have to strongly disagree. There are currently millions of non-violent offenders in prison simply for their connection to marijuana. That's a lot of people you're going to need to "replace" to fill up the prisons once again.

When you get high, you don't just go on a crime spree, lol. We're not talking Bath Salts or LSD or something that severely changes your perception of the world and ability to think rationally. You are the exact same person that you were before smoking the drug (specifically when we're talking marijuana); in fact, you're likely to be a bit more paranoid and cautious and much less likelier to commit a crime in my view.

No crimes, no problem, is the idea.

If everything is legalized, what would it matter if someone took a non-toxic drug in careful circumstances where they wouldn't kill or die or hurt someone?

But when they take bad drugs like meth or PCP or "bath salts" and, you know, eat someone's face off, that would send them to prison or they'd die soon. And everyone else would be better off.

I figure it might be quite a circus for 20 years, but then all the people who do that sort of thing would be dead or marginal and the rest would be smart enough to stay away from bad drugs.

I would pair this freedom with educational campaigns. Now there is not much education against drugs, not as much as there could be, because drugs are illegal so it's a bad idea to publicly assume everyone can get them anyway, though of course that is probably true to some extent. It could be like the anti-smoking campaigns. Assume people are freely doing this and hit it hard as incredibly stupid and unhealthy and generally bad. That would help young people and confused people, maybe.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but at this time I think we should just focus on Marijuana specifically.

It's a HUGE source of revenue for the drug cartels (whereas Meth/Bath Salts not so much), and people smoking it do not pose the same type of threat to society as when they take some other drugs (alcohol, meth, bath salts). Just seems like an easier fight at the moment to stick to one thing, taking things slowly with a plant that clearly poses no significant threat to society yet costs us so much to prohibit.

There's just too many costs we pay for Marijuana prohibition (prisons, broken families, police force, court time, all the revenue lost from private enterprise, ect) that don't seem to be offset by whatever 'benefits' society gains as a result of it being prohibited.

I mean, sure we'll have a few more people smoking more frequently, and some of those people might be marginally less productive, but is preventing that worth ALL of those costs? I don't think so.

It's like investing $50 million into saving a company that only generates $50,000 of revenue each year. Doesn't make sense....