Questions on Decriminalization/Legalization movement

[KevinWestern]

1. Are there any groups pushing for Decriminalization of Marijuana which EMPHASIZE the need to address drug abuse, addiction, and crime AS A PRIORITY
and DON'T DENY or playdown the dangers and addictions associated with marijuana use?

I agree with decriminalization but have been continually disappointed
in not finding groups willing to push solid plans to replace it with.

I see plenty of people making arguments AGAINST the problems,
but I wanted to collaborate on SOLUTIONS.

2. Is there any Candidate or Leader pushing for criminal justice reform
to free up funds to support a State or Party system of covering health care?

This can be any angle, from decriminalization to save state resources, or replacing the death penalty, or managing work programs that don't abuse prison labor but cover costs of prisons.

I was very excited to find a group called RAMP - Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition.
But was disappointed there wasn't enough push to replace ACA with other means of funding more effective health care to address simultaneous issues.

Is this just too much to combine problems under one solution? Are groups just better off addressing criminal reform, health reform, and immigration reform SEPARATELY?

I thought it was more like a Rubik's cube where you can't solve one side of the puzzle without solving all of them. Is there any group, leader or proposed solution offering to resolve several issues at once, or is that too much for people to process?

Just wondering if I'm the weird one here, the oddball out who can't seem to
separate the trees from the forest. thanks for any referrals. I feel lost in the woods, if anyone can point me in the right direction!

Personally, Emily, I strongly believe that when it comes to legalizing marijuana the argument should primarily focus on how illogical the law is, and how it does way, way more harm than good. The health/addiction counseling only complicates the discussion at hand, in my opinion, shouldn't be a "requirement" of legalization. Not at all.

There are 750,000 arrests every year for marijuana possession - alone. An annual $40 billion (I believe) is spent policing the substance, yet 60% of the population still uses the drug AND (to top it off) it's pretty freaking harmless (given that no one ever has died of an overdose, which is something that can't even be said of water).

Why are we wasting all of this time and effort, and losing out on what IS a booming industry by keeping this drug illegal? What are we gaining? Those are the questions we should ask.

Hopefully I understood your post.. Thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Pogo, thanks for all your posts contributing to this thread.
If you do not take issue with marijuana and addiction,
then I am perfectly fine just focusing on addiction issues.

I see nothing gained, but words and time wasted by "pushing anything" people don't follow, believe in or agree with.

There is plenty of work to focus on WE AGREE ON
without arguing over where we may have conflicts.

It is only from my own experience with friends with whom I did find marijuana was part of their addiction, that recovering from the abuse that caused the addiction ALSO involved reducing or stopping their smoking habits as a result of their healing.

So it could be correlated but not necessarily a causal relationship.

If this is not an issue for you, we don't need to argue about it because it is not the point.

I think the real issue preventing legalization is the lack of a unified, effective focus on how
to address the addiction, crime and abuse that people DO have a problem with
whether they are focused on alcohol/drunk driving, or drug trafficking of whatever,
or abuse of legal prescription drugs or other accessible substances.

The more people have faith that a system is working to address criminal abuse and addiction, then we won't have these other arguments or issues that will be resolved
by those same solutions.

Thanks, Pogo. I don't think you or I have to change or views or convince each other in order to focus on solving the real problems blocking decriminalization and legalization.

First of all, my focus IS addressing the addiction issue.

I believe anyone could play with stats all day, or leave this out, or fail to distinguish factors that were thrown together, or as you say mix causation with correlation etc.

This does NOTHING to solve the addiction issue, as you say.
and that is my point also.

As with this thread, it DETRACTS attention and resources AWAY from
solving the problem of addiction, by just arguing "after the fact."

if we can't even address the addiction issue when alcohol is legal
we don't need to be adding more problems by making MORE substances legal.

I guess I AGREE that the problem is with addiction period.

But where we disagree is how to decriminalize pot
WITHOUT promoting or enabling irresponsible use.

Someone else posted on here that people HAVE BEEN KILLED from crashes caused under the influence of marijuana. Arguing about the stats and studies is not going to solve the addiction and abuse issue.

I believe in focusing those research studies and resources
on SPIRITUAL HEALING to address addiction and abuse.

That will not only prove the impact on curing cancer and other physical and mental sickness
(by addressing the root cause not manipulating symptoms); but will specifically address BOTH alcohol, smoking and other addictions and abuse; AND provide avenues for the truly criminal gangs, organizations, and cults to end their violence and warfare (as former gang members and criminals can attest to spiritual healing as changing their lives where they commit to helping society instead of continuing on their self-destructive patterns).

No research or stats "comparing or correlating alcohol, marijuana or a mix of drugs" is going to do a damn thing to address the cures for addiction, abuse, or criminal behavior.

i think I should delete that and not even go there. I was trying to be helpful but it
seems to give the wrong impression when my priority and focus is on curing addiction
so we don't have any of these risks in the first place. The more we even bring up these arguments that go nowhere it just distracts from the solutions. Sorry that wasn't clear.

Emily: your link notes correlation -- not causation. Important distinction.

>> "This study shows an alarming increase in driving under the influence of drugs, and, in particular, it shows an increase in driving under the influence of both alcohol and drugs,” Jan Withers, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, added. <<

Again, when you have an incident and find that A, B and C are present, it doesn't mean they all caused it. What you have is an observation that (apparently) an increase in stoned driving. What you don't have is a causal relationship.

There are studies too numerous to list proving impaired judgement and reaction times as a result of alcohol ingestion. I don't believe there is such research showing the same effect from cannabis. Correlation is not causation.

I'd add that a study of how many accidents occur as a result of road rage, which is not a substance at all but may be just as deadly, might be illuminating. And then it might be worth pondering the effect of cannabis on that and calculate how many accidents did not happen because of the calming effects of cannabis.

It's not a simple matter of piling on to the alcohol model. Alcohol's effects are quantifiable. Cannabis.... not so much. You're trying to jam apples and oranges into the same box.

On the other points, once again it's been repeatedly established that there is no such thing as "addiction" to cannabis. Anything can be a habit, but habit is not addiction, and you lose credibility hawking known fallacies. I believe IIRC you'll also run into a dead end on the carcinogen front as well, though I don't have time to find a link right now.

That's why I don't depend on that as an argument.

I am more concerned with research on how the process of natural spiritual healing can cure the CAUSE of cancer at the root, not whether X Y or Z causes greater risk of it.

OK this is confusing. Are you saying your thrust is addiction to substances that actually are addictive? If so, the presence of cannabis in the discussion is irrelevant and misleading.

Someone else posted on here that people HAVE BEEN KILLED from crashes caused under the influence of marijuana.

-- and their evidence of causation is where?

Talk is cheap. "Reefer Madness" was cheap. Neither have a basis in fact. One of the posters here also advocates that pot smokers should be shot in the face; that doesn't make it either reasonable or right.

Anyone can make an empty claim, including the old myth that cannabis is addictive. Without a basis in reality it's not a legitimate argument.

That's fine if you don't agree. I know as many people who will not budge from their opinions either, so I think we should take an approach that does not depend on either side being right or wrong, but unconditional. I do not want such differences to impeded or detract from the process of solving the real issues with criminal abuse and addictions.

I really do need to thank you and drifter.
I was about to give up thinking we could not work together, me as a Conservative Democrat and these Liberal Republicans I could barely comprehend how they intended to address fellow Texans if they didn't focus on addressing the crime issue. but you and drifter give me hope we can focus even despite our different approaches. Thanks for that. I will keep trying and not let it bother me how far off from each other we are on some points.

this still seems very foreign to me like I am wandering in nowhere land between camps of people I don't fit into. now it seems there are more and more splintered groups to unite.
I think that is what blew my mind. I realized there was a bit more work to get aligned.

 

[emilynghiem]

Personally, Emily, I strongly believe that when it comes to legalizing marijuana the argument should primarily focus on how illogical the law is, and how it does way, way more harm than good. The health/addiction counseling only complicates the discussion at hand, in my opinion, shouldn't be a "requirement" of legalization. Not at all.

There are 750,000 arrests every year for marijuana possession - alone. An annual $40 billion (I believe) is spent policing the substance, yet 60% of the population still uses the drug AND (to top it off) it's pretty freaking harmless (given that no one ever has died of an overdose, which is something that can't even be said of water).

Why are we wasting all of this time and effort, and losing out on what IS a booming industry by keeping this drug illegal? What are we gaining? Those are the questions we should ask.

Hopefully I understood your post.. Thanks!

Hi KevinW
1. if this is your forte, that you have more success in working with people from this angle, then go for it. I have found the opposite. the people who already do not trust the agenda of the legalization advocates, generally reject these arguments.
They work for "decriminalization"

but what I find with human psychology is people want something to replace the current policy before they agree to change it. there is something blocking that process.
so this is where I focus, on what is blocking people from being ready for change

2. by focusing on solutions
Do you realize this can also solve the blockage with the ACA/health care conflicts?
-- with the immigration policies
-- with the death penalty and issues of criminally ill people
-- and prison/criminal justice reform (and waste of taxes on failed systems
of both prisons and mental health)

guess what, the same mental and political barriers prevents change in policy in
all these areas.

so what I found is changing how we approach things in any one of these areas
opens the door to the others. we change the whole paradigm once we focus on solutions.

so we free up a lot more resources and collaborative efforts that way.
Kevin I think we will see an escalation of reforms the more people figure out
how connected they are. thanks for your posts and sharing your input here and elsewhere.
you give me hope we can collaborate and take our different ideas and make things work.

 

[Pogo]

Emily, you probably have the most evenhanded and generous spirit on this website, so you of all people have nothing to worry about being unable to dialogue. Believe me, you're a gem.

Just a wee correction here though - when you say:

That's fine if you don't agree. I know as many people who will not budge from their opinions either, so I think we should take an approach that does not depend on either side being right or wrong

Those are not opinions to be agreed or disagreed with. When a poster declares "people HAVE BEEN KILLED from crashes caused under the influence of marijuana", when a poster declares that "cannabis is addictive", those are assertions presented as facts, and as such they're either true or not true. It either is or is not. Without proof, it's not a fact. Not a matter of opinion.

The burden of proof is on the asserter. And that burden has not been borne. Ergo, not facts. And if you base your position on unfounded assertions just because someone said so, you'll find yourself in a deep hole.

 

[KevinWestern]

The world is ramping up for WWIII but this is what you guys are worried about..... Lord protect us from fools like these.

Think of it this way thanatos; I don't push for legalization because "I want to smoke it without hassle", I push for legalization because:

1.) I'm sick of wasting $40 billion/annually, and dedicating 750,000 arrests per year for possession. Those funds/resources can be used for more important things and each year we don't legalize we're WASTING those two things over, and over, and over!

2.) I want to see a new, vibrant industry that could potentially be worth tens of billions of dollars in the US, and take all the growing, shipping, selling jobs away from criminals and give them to honest, hardworking people.

3.) I want to cut gang revenues in half, which will cut in half their power to buy weapons that kill 8,000 Americans annually from gang-shootings

4.) I want to quit destroying the lives of people, and breaking up their families by sending non-violent drug offenders to a cage for ingesting a drug that cannot kill you, is not addictive, and makes you calm, reflective for a few hours when smoked.

It's not a bullshit argument.

 

[Katzndogz]

The thing is potheads are too drug addled to understand what principles are.

The best thing to happen to them is an accident in the back of a patrol car.

"The thing is alcoholics are too drug addled to understand what principles are".

You see how this is a pointless and vague generalization?

An alcoholic can sober up. The damage that pot does is permanent.

 

[KevinWestern]

An alcoholic can sober up. The damage that pot does is permanent.

Completely untrue. Alcohol kills brain cells and these brain cells cannot be regenerated or regrown. This is well accepted science. You really need to elaborate here.

.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's obvious that some folks on this thread got their information about marijuana from watching "Reefer Madness"

Reminds of what Reagan said (paraphrase) It's not that they don't know anything - it's just that they know so many things that aren't true.

But pot CAN be addictive - for some folks - It's a psychological addiction, not a physical addiction. But if we criminalized everything that someone could develop a psychological addiction to, EVERYONE would be in jail.

For underage folks, pot is easier to get than alcohol. Black market drug dealers don't ask for ID. Legalizing it and drying up the black market will actually make it a lot harder for kids to get their hands on.

 

[Disir]

Legalizing it doesn't dry up the black market.

 

[MikeK]

An alcoholic can sober up. The damage that pot does is permanent.

Completely untrue. Alcohol kills brain cells and these brain cells cannot be regenerated or regrown. This is well accepted science. You really need to elaborate here.

.

Kevin,

You're wasting your time with this character, which is why I have him on Ignore.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Legalizing it doesn't dry up the black market.

Sure it does - you can still find some unlicensed liquor out there - but it's REALLY hard to find. Compare today's bootleggers with the prohibition era bootlegging ... there's a whole lot less money in it today and bootleg liquor is pretty darn hard to find these days.

Same thing will happen with pot.

 

[Disir]

Legalizing it doesn't dry up the black market.

Sure it does - you can still find some unlicensed liquor out there - but it's REALLY hard to find. Compare today's bootleggers with the prohibition era bootlegging ... there's a whole lot less money in it today and bootleg liquor is pretty darn hard to find these days.

Same thing will happen with pot.

Wrong type of comparison. Why would I go to a store to pay more for marijuana than what I could get on the street? The street will have better quality. Like I said, people should just cut the shit, stop pretending that they are actually trying to solve problems and admit that they saw cash and wanted their cut.

 

[KevinWestern]

Legalizing it doesn't dry up the black market.

Disir, how many gallons of alcohol (in the United States) do you think regulated, legal entities sell in comparison to illegal, unregulated entities? When was the last time you purchased vodka from an illegal street dealer vs. a convenient/liquor store?

The answers to those questions are very important in this discussion.

 

[KevinWestern]

Wrong type of comparison. Why would I go to a store to pay more for marijuana than what I could get on the street? The street will have better quality. Like I said, people should just cut the shit, stop pretending that they are actually trying to solve problems and admit that they saw cash and wanted their cut.

Absolutely disagree. Why is it the case that &#8220;the street&#8221; doesn&#8217;t have better quality alcohol? Why don&#8217;t people today procure beer from &#8220;the street&#8221;? Do people buy cheaper tobacco from "the street"?

All you need to do is study historical, real life precedents!

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Are there any groups pushing for Decriminalization of Marijuana which EMPHASIZE the need to address drug abuse, addiction, and crime AS A PRIORITY and DON'T DENY or playdown the dangers and addictions associated with marijuana use?

[...]

Please provide some specifics about the "dangers and addictions associated with marijuana use."

Pot can be Mentally addicting.....this is from Psychology Today:

between 10 to 30% of regular users will develop dependency. Only about 9% will have a serious addiction....Mental not Physical......

The large majority of people who try marijuana do it experimentally and never become addicted. Unlike other substances, pot has very few severe withdrawal symptoms and most people can quit rather easily. When present, withdrawal symptoms might include: anxiety, depression, nausea, sleep disturbances and GI problems.

Compared to other substances, marijuana is not very addicting. It is estimated that 32% of tobacco users will become addicted, 23% of heroin users, 17% of cocaine users, and 15% of alcohol users. Cocaine and heroin are more physically harmful and nicotine is much more addictive. It is much harder to quit smoking cigarettes than it is to quit smoking pot.

Still, I wouldn't want to take any risks with people driving under the influence of any of these things, addicted or not. Then again, I am one of those people who would support a zero alcohol level for driving, just to make it consistent across the board, if everyone
in a district or city/county agreed to that. I am more focused on reaching a unified agreement, regardless of what a certain community is able to come to a consensus on.

Since there are currently no tests for marijuana levels or impairment, I can see why law enforcement would have an issue with legalization without setting up some kind of restrictions, but it is hard to test for and enforce consistently.

We shouldn't wait until after someone drives and kills others with a high BAL to intervene.

I really hope with the push for health care reforms, that this issue of drug addiction and abuse can be addressed in constructive ways that people agree to follow.
Since prevention on that level depends on "voluntary commitment" to follow standards or report threats, I think it really depends on constituents per region agreeing to a policy,
similar to civic or homeowners associations ordinances that all residents in a neighborhood agree to write up and sign their names to.

I think the real benefit and effective factor coming out of these reform campaigns,
is people agreeing on what policies to enforce. the more unified we are as a citizenry,
that is where we will naturally compel common respect for the laws.

Even just resolving these conflicts is going to help deter the conflicting behavior
and attitude of "rejection" that is attracts or fuels criminal elements in society.

so that is good in itself, and I see how the rest can get resolved in the process.
this is really good dialogue to have, so I hope to see more of these types of corrections
and constructive reforms.

Thanks everyone for your posts here, this is great!

 

[nodoginnafight]

Legalizing it doesn't dry up the black market.

Sure it does - you can still find some unlicensed liquor out there - but it's REALLY hard to find. Compare today's bootleggers with the prohibition era bootlegging ... there's a whole lot less money in it today and bootleg liquor is pretty darn hard to find these days.

Same thing will happen with pot.

Wrong type of comparison. Why would I go to a store to pay more for marijuana than what I could get on the street? The street will have better quality. Like I said, people should just cut the shit, stop pretending that they are actually trying to solve problems and admit that they saw cash and wanted their cut.

Well - you are certainly entitle to your opinion. But I have the lessons of history on the side of my opinion.

Why should people pay more for alcohol at a liquor store than they pay a bootlegger?

And yet - bootleg liquor is pretty hard to find these days.

How do you explain that?

 

[Disir]

Legalizing it doesn't dry up the black market.

Disir, how many gallons of alcohol (in the United States) do you think regulated, legal entities sell in comparison to illegal, unregulated entities? When was the last time you purchased vodka from an illegal street dealer vs. a convenient/liquor store?

The answers to those questions are very important in this discussion.

No, they aren't important. I can make homemade wine or homemade beer. You changed dealers for the cash. That is all. It's all about the cash.

If you were going to make accurate comparisons then you would make comparisons by country. You know why people don't want to do that?

Because it's all about the cash.

 

[KevinWestern]

How do you explain that?

You absolutely cannot.

You pay a premium to buy something that's illegal because the people selling it require a premium in their wages for the extra risks/inconveniences that come with selling an illegal product.

If pot was legal, you can ship it freely (for example) using the cheapest, easiest means possible. Since it's illegal, however, perhaps the cheapest, easiest means is also the riskiest and may not make the most sense. This drives up costs. A worker might demand $20/hr if his job risks a jail sentence but only $10/hr if it doesn't. This drives up costs.

These are just some of the reasons why an illegal alcohol industry is virtually non-existent.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Legalizing it doesn't dry up the black market.

Disir, how many gallons of alcohol (in the United States) do you think regulated, legal entities sell in comparison to illegal, unregulated entities? When was the last time you purchased vodka from an illegal street dealer vs. a convenient/liquor store?

The answers to those questions are very important in this discussion.

No, they aren't important. I can make homemade wine or homemade beer. You changed dealers for the cash. That is all. It's all about the cash.

If you were going to make accurate comparisons then you would make comparisons by country. You know why people don't want to do that?

Because it's all about the cash.

Yeah - the lessons of history ... versus ....... um ..... nothing.

 

[KevinWestern]

No, they aren't important. I can make homemade wine or homemade beer. You changed dealers for the cash. That is all. It's all about the cash.

If you were going to make accurate comparisons then you would make comparisons by country. You know why people don't want to do that?

Because it's all about the cash.

Making homemade beer isn't illegal. Selling it is.

The amount of homemade beer that is sold illegally in this country is an infinitely tiny fraction to the amount of legal beer sold in this country. This will ring true for marijuana once it is legalized.

It IS all about the cash. It's much cheaper to do business LEGALLY in this country (on a large scale, of course) than it is illegally, period. Otherwise we'd still have Al Capones floating around + speakeasies (which we obviously do not).