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

Marijuana users don't go on crime sprees. Their crimes are ones of negligence. The mother who put her baby on top of the car then drove off. The person who forgot they left the stove on, candle burning or the baby in the bathtub. Like my step granddaughter who put a six year old as baby sitter of an 8 month old, took the three year old to the store and forgot the child until she got hit by a car. That's what pot users do. Pot users don't beat their wives, they forgot to put the brownies away until the children are poisoned. I have relatives in Colorado, since pot was declared legal, the veterinarians have seen a boom in treating animals that have been poisoned by pot. Use among children has skyrocketed with the result that schools are dealing with kids too high to learn anything.

Pot might be worse than heroin simply because it is more insideous. However, there is nothing to stop legalization as long as others are permitted to protect themselves without legal impediment.

Do you have a link proving these accusations concerning Colorado? They just passed the law in November.

Drug Testing Company Sees Spike In Children Using Marijuana « CBS Denver

Colorado Vets See Spike In Cases Of ?Stoner Dogs? « CBS Denver

Dogs getting high on marijuana is an increasing problem in Colorado, vets say* - NY Daily News

What a very sad world we are creating. Perhaps, in time, the addicts will kill themselves off, but between now and then, we have a very bad way to go.

How does marijuana use affect school, work, and social life? | National Institute on Drug Abuse

Those poor children, thinking they are just having fun. But then the whole world has come down to just having fun.

Are they having the same problem in Washington? It seems that they came up with these statistics quickly, considering that it was just passed in November. Can you even buy it legally in Colorado yet?
 
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.

Its pretty simple. Why in the hell would someone buy an inferior product, when a superior product is available? And yes, it will cut deeply into there income. Pot is there money, not meth, coke, heroin, but pot. The DEA and border patrol agrees with me on that to the point they say as much on TV at times.
 
You are actually very wrong. The big money isn't drugs. The really big money is in weapons and women. While drugs were where the money was, it's now almost a sideline, the way cigarettes have been added to drug smuggling.

That's even not considering that cartel chemists are busily coming up with more drugs all the time. Where do you think bath salts came from?
 
You are actually very wrong. The big money isn't drugs. The really big money is in weapons and women. While drugs were where the money was, it's now almost a sideline, the way cigarettes have been added to drug smuggling.

That's even not considering that cartel chemists are busily coming up with more drugs all the time. Where do you think bath salts came from?

Katz- I think you're very, very wrong here. The main source of income for the cartels are drugs, period, and marijuana makes up a huge percentage of that. This is because the drug is so prevalent and widely accepted.

Sure, the cartels will continue to push illegal drugs, but guess what? They'll no longer have their star product, and will be hurting for revenue big time. Less revenue means less employees on the front lines (gangs, dealers), less money for guns, and less power overall.

Pot legalization will be devastating to their business.
 
Last edited:
You are actually very wrong. The big money isn't drugs. The really big money is in weapons and women. While drugs were where the money was, it's now almost a sideline, the way cigarettes have been added to drug smuggling.

That's even not considering that cartel chemists are busily coming up with more drugs all the time. Where do you think bath salts came from?

Katz- I think you're very, very wrong here. The main source of income for the cartels are drugs, period, and marijuana makes up a huge percentage of that. This is because the drug is so prevalent and widely accepted.

Sure, the cartels will continue to push illegal drugs, but guess what? They'll no longer have their star product, and will be hurting for revenue big time. Less revenue means less employees on the front lines (gangs, dealers), less money for guns, and less power overall.

Pot legalization will be devastating to their business.

I am not wrong. Your information is just about ten years out of date. Think about it. Process the information. How long has there been a movement to legalize pot? Do you think that the cartels have been ignoring that? They intend to just make money while they can and expect to give up. These are businessmen. They might employ ignorant gunmen but they are not ignorant gunmen. The majority of pot clinics in Los Angeles are cartel owned and operated. They can pedal other drugs, weapons and launder money through these facilities. One of the factors in the US that helps drug dealers is how long it taked before a drug is banned. Designer drugs like bath salts are sold legally. Right out of a cartel lab.

Whether or not pot is legalized cutting organized crime income is not part of the issue.

Up until the end of prohibition the Mafia had a hard and fast rule. They did not deal in drugs. To violate that was to bring instant death even for a made man. As soon as prohibition ended that rule went out the window. All the producers and distributors became drug dealers. As an extra bonus income went up with a more valuable product.

Criminals are always going to be a step ahead and they are now.
 
J
You are actually very wrong. The big money isn't drugs. The really big money is in weapons and women. While drugs were where the money was, it's now almost a sideline, the way cigarettes have been added to drug smuggling.

That's even not considering that cartel chemists are busily coming up with more drugs all the time. Where do you think bath salts came from?

Katz- I think you're very, very wrong here. The main source of income for the cartels are drugs, period, and marijuana makes up a huge percentage of that. This is because the drug is so prevalent and widely accepted.

Sure, the cartels will continue to push illegal drugs, but guess what? They'll no longer have their star product, and will be hurting for revenue big time. Less revenue means less employees on the front lines (gangs, dealers), less money for guns, and less power overall.

Pot legalization will be devastating to their business.

I am not wrong. Your information is just about ten years out of date. Think about it. Process the information. How long has there been a movement to legalize pot? Do you think that the cartels have been ignoring that? They intend to just make money while they can and expect to give up. These are businessmen. They might employ ignorant gunmen but they are not ignorant gunmen. The majority of pot clinics in Los Angeles are cartel owned and operated. They can pedal other drugs, weapons and launder money through these facilities. One of the factors in the US that helps drug dealers is how long it taked before a drug is banned. Designer drugs like bath salts are sold legally. Right out of a cartel lab.

Whether or not pot is legalized cutting organized crime income is not part of the issue.

Up until the end of prohibition the Mafia had a hard and fast rule. They did not deal in drugs. To violate that was to bring instant death even for a made man. As soon as prohibition ended that rule went out the window. All the producers and distributors became drug dealers. As an extra bonus income went up with a more valuable product.

Criminals are always going to be a step ahead and they are now.

Katz, I agree with your point that they are businessmen and are currently looking into new avenues to make money.

However, they are currently making BILLIONS in revenue via pot and that will all go away. There will not be an equivalent replacement to full the void.

Did the Italian Mafia become weaker or stronger after the legalization of alcohol?

Where are they now?
 
Last edited:
[...]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..
There is abundant evidence to support that observation. And any seasoned police officer, including narcs, will attest to it.

There is in fact an organization of former (and existing) police officers, LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), who strongly advocate the legalization of marijuana. LEAP | Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

This is a good organization. These fellows stand in open opposition to the D.A.R.E. program and one need not be in law enforcement to join their organization and support them.

It is worthwhile for anyone who opposes marijuana prohibition to support this organization because it represents a voice that people listen to.
 
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...
Also, there is no more effective tranquilizer available than marijuana -- and it isn't addictive as many prescribed tranquilizers are!

So consider that tranquilizers are among the most profitable prescription drugs.
 
Hell no make it legal. You should have the right to smoke it. And I should have the right to shoot you in the face when you run your high ass into my car.
 
I agree with a lot of what you said, but at this time I think we should just focus on Marijuana specifically.

[...]
And you're quite right in that belief, mainly because public opinion has become receptive to the truth about marijuana being relatively benign and non-addictive. By focusing on marijuana, alone, there is a good chance the Congress can be swayed by a public majority to consider the first step toward legalization, which is decriminalization.

Decriminalization is not a permanent status. It can easily be withdrawn if the experiment produces negative results, which it surely will not. And once the public realizes that marijuana is not the demon they've been convinced to believe it is, the next step, full legalization, will come naturally.

Then, and only then, and after a time, will it be prudent to suggest a similar experiment with heroin (which can be managed with relatively low negative effect). But I don't believe it would be wise to consider legalizing such substances as as methamphetamine, which is known to impart severely pathological and socially destructive effects. I would have no problem with the DEA focusing its entire efforts on such truly dangerous substances.
 
Not sure how involved you've been with marijuana in the past, but "chasing the high" generally doesn't apply to pot as much as it does something more intense like heroin. People will drain their life savings, steal from friends, ect to experience the first "mega high" from heroin and will become highly addicted and enslaved to the drug.

Marijuana is non-addictive, and more or less a simple plant that makes people relaxed (while still retaining all normal cognitive function). I'd compare it to no more dangerous or mind altering than many over the counter pain medications.

Pot makes SOME people more relaxed. Pot also skrockets the heart rate and leads to heart attack and stroke. Take you chance which one are you.

I've known MANY heart attack and stroke victims from marijuana use. Now if you really think marijuana does not impair cognitive functioning you might be too high to accept that it really does. Not only during use, but for at least a day after use.

The Effects of Marijuana on Cognitive Functioning

Hi Katz, the article says that although marijuana can affect short term memory, it likely does not impact the intelligibility of the user (see conclusion).

Either way, yes, Marijuana has effects on its users, but enough to justify the billions of dollars, prison space, court resources, and police offers used to enforce prohibition?

I think the answer is a resounding no.

I would like the people who are for prohibition to step forth and justify those costs.

Again, if marijuana prohibition was free and had no negative financial impact on society (other than the prohibition of marijuana), my plea for legalization would be more difficult. But because prohibition costs us SO MUCH in a time of deep deficits, I think those who want it to stay legal must justify why.
That article is pure propaganda with a credibility level approximately equal to the Reefer Madness film. Just consider the source and the bona fides.

Anyone who wishes to read an authoritative summary of the biological effects of marijuana should read, Marijuana, The Forbidden Medicine, by Dr. Lester Grinspoon, MD, Ph.D., Professor of Psychiatric Medicine, Harvard University. (Available from Amazon.)

There is a credential worth paying attention to, as opposed to the nonsense this Katzenjammer character is peddling.
 
1. Like tobacco, marijuana is primarily ingested by smoking, which causes lung diseases in people around you, especially children (in additional to other effects).

2. Unlike alcohol, it is difficult to measure driving impairment and is more likely to be a gateway drug.

3. The minimum age to be President should be 55, because people younger than that do not have sufficient life experience to appreciate the potential consequences of currently popular ideas.
 
Isn't Harvard the same university that hosted incestfest not long ago? Didn't Harvard make obama editor of the HLR when he had never published a thing. Harvard, Yale the ivy league used to be such prestigious schools.

I really can't fault you for dismissing the unpleasant facts. You will learn.
 
1. Like tobacco, marijuana is primarily ingested by smoking, which causes lung diseases in people around you, especially children (in additional to other effects).
First, smoking is not the only way to ingest marijuana, nor is it the best way. If you've ever had a few bites of a properly baked "pot" brownie, carrot cake, etc., you would understand why.

The reason smoking is presently the most common means of ingestion is cost and suppression. It takes a lot more leaf and bud to render the necessary ingredient ("pot butter") for baking than to just burn it and inhale the smoke. Baking with it also requires experience and certain expertise, which would be more common if it were legal. But the suppresive effect of prohibition has driven the technique outside the grasp of the average person. If marijuana were legally available you would see all sorts of edibles -- as presently are available from all legal medical marijuana dispensaries.

Also, the use of vaporizers, which carry the THC in vaporized (non-smoke) form are becoming popular. Right now they are relatively expensive but will predictably come down in price as demand increases through legalization.

2. Unlike alcohol, it is difficult to measure driving impairment . . .
Again, suppression has eliminated the profit motivation to develop a useful test for impairment. If marijuana were legal it is a matter of time before demand motivates research and development of a (probably saliva-based) test. Right now there is no demand, mainly because there are very few instances in which police have cause to suspect marijuana DUI.

. . . and is more likely to be a gateway drug.
That is pure Reefer Madness nonsense. And if you wish to continue believing it you will have chosen to remain ignorant of the facts.

If it were true that marijuana is a "gateway drug," considering the number of Americans who use marijuana (DEA estimates around 40 million) there would be hard-drug junkies nodding out in every doorway of every main street in America.

The notion that marijuana is a "gateway drug" derives from the convenient fact that most junkies use it in addition to anything else that will get them high. In the case of these addictive personalities it may be said that chocolate and Pepsi Cola are "gatetway" substances.

If you know a hard-core junkie who claims to have gotten started on pot, don't believe it. That individual is inclined to use anything, up to and including paint-thinner, to assist in his self-destructive determination. The vast majority of responsible marijuana users wouldn't consider using an addictive or harmful drug -- including alcohol!
 
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.

And I work with one of those. While she is dependable is many ways, her short-term memory loss causes her to make many more mistakes than those who work with her.

Yesterday, after leaving her car for a minute to run back to her house because she forgot something, she came back to her car, with the engine on and found she had locked herself out....:lmao:

Can this happen to someone who isn't on the good weed? Yes, but these kind of things happen to her on a daily basis. She drives loaded, all the time, too and the other day, while looking, ( but not driving ) for something on her car floor, thoughtlessly opened the driver's side door into oncoming traffic and BAM. Her door was hit but all were safe.

Her pot dependency has been the source of most of her challenges in life. It also alters her personality and brings out a more extroverted person, which is why I think she needs the weed. I know for others, it induces a more solitary state. I like being around her better, when her "high" has worn off and she resumes her more natural personality state of mind. Either way though, she is a wonderful person in most every way.

No, to the legalization of pot.
If you allow this one example of the addictive personality to prejudice your opinion of a euphoric tranquilizer which many millions of Americans routinely enjoy with absolutely none of the dementia-related effects you've described, then you need to get out more and pay attention.

It is likely that girl is using something else in addition to marijuana -- or she simply is using too much of it, which is a psychological dependency and is far from typical. You might say she is analogous to the emerging alcoholic who carries a pint or a flask with them and needs a slug every half hour. They are forgetful, too.
 
While I would like to see marijuana legal, I think a couple things have to happen;
1) Give notice to the other countries we have treaties with that make marijuana smuggling an international crime. Until these treaties are either negated or revised, we would be in violation of existing internatiuonal treaties to legalize marijuana. Might not sound like a big deal, but broken treaties can affect our credit rating, credibility and could conceivably cause other countries to issue trade sanctions (far fetched extreme case)against the usa.

2) Marijuana must be rescheduled to a class 3 or 4 drug by our federal government. Until this is done there is no chance of legalization. The "medical marijuana" laws should have directed their energy to this end. The medical marijuana crowd didn't work to accomplish this, without rescheduling marijuana to at least a class 3 drug, the real doctors can't and won't prescribe it, even if they believe it will help their patient. If marijuana was rescheduled to a class 3 drug you wouldn't need dispenseries, it would be available in the local pharmacy just like it was in the early 1900's in the USA. The entire 'medical marijuana' movement is nothing more than a dishonest attempt to legalize marijuana through a perceived backdoor. It ain't working.

You want marijuana legal like I do, work to get it reclassified by the feds as a class 4 drug like alcohol. there is no reason it shouldn't be. Part of this effort must be addressing the international treaties that deal with marijuana.

Too many people who claim to know how our government works seem to think that if they can get a referendum and the voters vote for legalization, that it would over rule constitutional law and international law. It doesn't work that way. You could easily get a majority of voters to vote yes on a referendum to execute child molesters without a trial, and it would still be illegal under US law.
That's the beauty of our constitutional republic, the rest of the population cannot be forced to do anything by a 'tyrannical majority'.
If we want marijuana legal, we must grow up and work within the existing mechanisms of the law, anything else just looks like a bunch of children stamping their feet in a temper tantrum.
Thank you for the refreshingly substantive and extremely useful commentary.

Everything you've said is relevant and important. I am encouraged by the fact that such rarely considered but critical circumstances are finally being publicized. Because until these facts become part of the marijuana dialogue the prospect of legalization is limited.
 
Let's see, "policing" illegal alcohol and guns is expensive so why not legalize the manufacture of alcohol and guns? It costs a lot to prosecute rapists and afford shelter to abused women. Should we forget about it? It almost seems funny that at a time in history when cigarette smoking has become almost illegal the pot heads want to make a buck selling narcotics to our kids.
I don't say this to offend, but that is a shamefully ignorant commentary.

If there are "potheads" (a really stupid designation) who want to sell narcotics to our kids, do you believe legalizing marijuana will increase their activities? The fact is they are doing that now, mainly because the price of illegal marijuana makes it irresistably profitable to them. If marijuana were legal the reduced profit margin would make it not worth the risk to "push" it.

The simple fact, whether or not you choose to accept it, is it is easier for kids to obtain marijuana today than it is to obtain beer, which is legal! Because the price and availability of beer is such there is no profit in bootlegging it anymore.
 
1. Like tobacco, marijuana is primarily ingested by smoking, which causes lung diseases in people around you, especially children (in additional to other effects).
First, smoking is not the only way to ingest marijuana, nor is it the best way. If you've ever had a few bites of a properly baked "pot" brownie, carrot cake, etc., you would understand why.

The reason smoking is presently the most common means of ingestion is cost and suppression. It takes a lot more leaf and bud to render the necessary ingredient ("pot butter") for baking than to just burn it and inhale the smoke. Baking with it also requires experience and certain expertise, which would be more common if it were legal. But the suppresive effect of prohibition has driven the technique outside the grasp of the average person. If marijuana were legally available you would see all sorts of edibles -- as presently are available from all legal medical marijuana dispensaries.

Also, the use of vaporizers, which carry the THC in vaporized (non-smoke) form are becoming popular. Right now they are relatively expensive but will predictably come down in price as demand increases through legalization.

2. Unlike alcohol, it is difficult to measure driving impairment . . .
Again, suppression has eliminated the profit motivation to develop a useful test for impairment. If marijuana were legal it is a matter of time before demand motivates research and development of a (probably saliva-based) test. Right now there is no demand, mainly because there are very few instances in which police have cause to suspect marijuana DUI.

. . . and is more likely to be a gateway drug.
That is pure Reefer Madness nonsense. And if you wish to continue believing it you will have chosen to remain ignorant of the facts.

If it were true that marijuana is a "gateway drug," considering the number of Americans who use marijuana (DEA estimates around 40 million) there would be hard-drug junkies nodding out in every doorway of every main street in America.

The notion that marijuana is a "gateway drug" derives from the convenient fact that most junkies use it in addition to anything else that will get them high. In the case of these addictive personalities it may be said that chocolate and Pepsi Cola are "gatetway" substances.

If you know a hard-core junkie who claims to have gotten started on pot, don't believe it. That individual is inclined to use anything, up to and including paint-thinner, to assist in his self-destructive determination. The vast majority of responsible marijuana users wouldn't consider using an addictive or harmful drug -- including alcohol!

Nice try at deflection, but the facts remain:

1. Smoking IS the most common means of ingestion; and

2. People who first use marijuana are more likely to use harder drugs.

3. According to your assertion, the vast majority of marijuana users are either irresponsible or teetotalers. Which is it?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top