children and marijuana.

[tboyer]

Just simply not true. I give you information, you give me back propaganda. You're just making stuff up. Which is pretty typical of the Drug Warriors. They've been using lies about weed for 50 years to justify throwing pot smokers in jail.

The only thing that's increased is the number of people testing positive for THC after fatal crashes. Which is pretty meaningless since they didn't routinely test for THC before. And also not surprising since marijuana just got legalized, and because THC is detectable in blood for weeks after marijuana consumption, especially for regular users.

The overall number of fatal car crashes did not increase from 2010 to 2014 -- especially if you consider that the number of passenger miles driven is soaring in Washington and Colorado. I don't think the 2015 totals are out yet.

In fact there have been indications that overall fatalities per miles driven might DECREASE because people in those states are drinking less alcohol. And there is federal data that shows alcohol impairs driving a lot worse than consumption of pot.

As for skin in the game, what are you referring to? In fact it is the Drug Warriors who usually have a paycheck in it. A lot of fat law enforcement salaries and pensions, a lot of great toys police departments acquire through asset seizure. A lot of psychologists make a great living off "treating" marijuana users who are ordered by the court to pay for therapy whether they need it or not. There are a lot of fat paychecks at stake, just like there were for Prohibition.

But aside from law enforcement -- who really doesn't want marijuana legalized? It's the Mexican drug gangs and all the people in the U.S. who grow and market illegally. That's a lot of money they make now that the black market is going to lose if legalization happens.

If you want to continue the drug war, your average pot dealer is behind you all the way. Legalization has been hell for illegal growers in Washington and Colorado - read the stories.

Actually, there is already data that shows more people are getting killed on highways in states where recreational marijuana is allowed. Do you dispute this ? Why is this such a surprise ? The assertion that it " causes almost no problems and kills virtually no one " is demonstrably false.
The level of emotion in the responses I've been getting for even questioning the legalization of recreational pot is really quite dramatic. I'd guess some people have a lot of skin in the game.

 

[KnightSlayer]

Actually, there is already data that shows more people are getting killed on highways in states where recreational marijuana is allowed. Do you dispute this ? Why is this such a surprise ? The assertion that it " causes almost no problems and kills virtually no one " is demonstrably false.
The level of emotion in the responses I've been getting for even questioning the legalization of recreational pot is really quite dramatic. I'd guess some people have a lot of skin in the game.

Yes, I dispute this. The number of fatal accidents is the same. The number of people testing positive for pot in their system has increased. Since legalization, testing for pot has also increased, which would explain why more people are testing positive. The studies also state that pot wasn't identified as the cause of the fatal accidents. 2/3 of the people involved in the fatal accidents also had alcohol or other drugs in their system at the time of the accident.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Just simply not true. I give you information, you give me back propaganda. You're just making stuff up. Which is pretty typical of the Drug Warriors. They've been using lies about weed for 50 years to justify throwing pot smokers in jail.

The only thing that's increased is the number of people testing positive for THC after fatal crashes. Which is pretty meaningless since they didn't routinely test for THC before. And also not surprising since marijuana just got legalized, and because THC is detectable in blood for weeks after marijuana consumption, especially for regular users.

The overall number of fatal car crashes did not increase from 2010 to 2014 -- especially if you consider that the number of passenger miles driven is soaring in Washington and Colorado. I don't think the 2015 totals are out yet.

In fact there have been indications that overall fatalities per miles driven might DECREASE because people in those states are drinking less alcohol. And there is federal data that shows alcohol impairs driving a lot worse than consumption of pot.

As for skin in the game, what are you referring to? In fact it is the Drug Warriors who usually have a paycheck in it. A lot of fat law enforcement salaries and pensions, a lot of great toys police departments acquire through asset seizure. A lot of psychologists make a great living off "treating" marijuana users who are ordered by the court to pay for therapy whether they need it or not. There are a lot of fat paychecks at stake, just like there were for Prohibition.

But aside from law enforcement -- who really doesn't want marijuana legalized? It's the Mexican drug gangs and all the people in the U.S. who grow and market illegally. That's a lot of money they make now that the black market is going to lose if legalization happens.

If you want to continue the drug war, your average pot dealer is behind you all the way.

I'm not sure law enforcement as a while wants it illegal. Private prisons may like it as it is good for business, but not all of the people enforcing the law are in favor of it.

 

[BBrown]

It becomes everybody's business when that person gets behind the wheel of a car, goes to a job stoned where he can hurt people or decides to share it with his teenage kids. The same is true with alcohol, prescription drugs.

Tell me, do you think all drugs should be legal ? And when I say all drugs, I mean everything. If not, why ?

I would like to see the recent statistics of pot related car accidents to people playing pokemon or talking on their cell phone.
I'm willing to bet in CO, WA, Oregon that those with the phones cause or get into more accidents than people smoking pot.

 

[BBrown]

Actually, there is already data that shows more people are getting killed on highways in states where recreational marijuana is allowed. Do you dispute this ? Why is this such a surprise ? The assertion that it " causes almost no problems and kills virtually no one " is demonstrably false.
The level of emotion in the responses I've been getting for even questioning the legalization of recreational pot is really quite dramatic. I'd guess some people have a lot of skin in the game.

Again I would like to see those studies. Its not that I don't believe you but there is one really important part of the above sentence..."where recreational marijuana is allowed"
is it proven that its the cause?

 

[KnightSlayer]

Again I would like to see those studies. Its not that I don't believe you but there is one really important part of the above sentence..."where recreational marijuana is allowed"
is it proven that its the cause?

He's misrepresenting the studies. Either he doesn't understand them or he's doing it on purpose.

 

[tboyer]

I would never advocate driving while intoxicated by any substance. But recent federal studies showed that people on weed are not only much safer than people who drink, they actually did better on some measurements than sober people. There really may be something to the stereotype that drinkers drive fast, pot smokers drive slow.

If the drug warriors are so worried about highway fatalities, they'd be talking about preventing people from drinking -- so let's bring back Prohibition and see how that turns out. Or ban cell phones, because texting while driving is clearly killing a lot of people.

But no, the pot haters just want to single out pot, which hasn't actually been shown to kill people in in any way.

It just proves once again that the people who want to continue Prohibition II are motivated by hate, not by saving lives or "protecting the children." Federal policy would be laughable except that it isn't laughable to the millions of people (mostly black, by the way) who have had their lives ruined by pot convictions.

For sure, stoned people are going to die. They'll jump off bridges stoned, they'll crash cars stoned. But the numbers are going to be low -- and the reason we know that is that 40 or 50 million people smoke pot now. If Reefer Madness were to come true, it would have happened by now. The fact is that legalization hasn't really changed much in Washington, Oregon, California, and Colorado. Life goes on. Civilization survives! And those states economies are the strongest in the country right now, which might not be a coincidence. The only thing that really changes is that people who like smoking weed don't have to worry about someone trying to throw them in jail for no good reason.

Legalization is progress. We're supposed to live in a land of liberty. We shouldn't be throwing people in jail just because we don't like them. We only just recently stopped throwing people in jail for sodomy, which I think was a pretty similar thing. A lot of people actually fought to keep the sodomy laws simply out of hate for gay people. At this point, the only reason we are throwing pot smokers in jail is out of sheer hate and bigotry.

 

[BBrown]

I would never advocate driving while intoxicated by any substance. But recent federal studies showed that people on weed are not only much safer than people who drink, they actually did better on some measurements than sober people. There really may be something to the stereotype that drinkers drive fast, pot smokers drive slow.

If the drug warriors are so worried about highway fatalities, they'd be talking about preventing people from drinking -- so let's bring back Prohibition and see how that turns out. Or ban cell phones, because texting while driving is clearly killing a lot of people.

But no, the pot haters just want to single out pot, which hasn't actually been shown to kill people in in any way.

It just proves once again that the people who want to continue Prohibition II are motivated by hate, not by saving lives or "protecting the children." Federal policy would be laughable except that it isn't laughable to the millions of people (mostly black, by the way) who have had their lives ruined by pot convictions.

For sure, stoned people are going to die. They'll jump off bridges stoned, they'll crash cars stoned. But the numbers are going to be low -- and the reason we know that is that 40 or 50 million people smoke pot now. If Reefer Madness were to come true, it would have happened by now. The fact is that legalization hasn't really changed much in Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska and Colorado. Life goes on. Civilization survives! The only thing that really changes is that people who like smoking weed don't have to worry about someone trying to throw them in jail for no good reason.

Legalization is progress. We're supposed to live in a land of liberty. We shouldn't be throwing people in jail just because we don't like them. We only just recently stopped throwing people in jail for sodomy, which I think was a pretty similar thing. A lot of people actually fought to keep the sodomy laws simply out of hate for gay people. At this point, the only reason we are throwing pot smokers in jail is out of sheer hate and bigotry.

Pretty much agree with everything. But I don't want to be driving with a bunch of slow people either. INMO they are almost as much a hazard as fast drivers.
Last thing I want to come up on is someone doing 45 in the "slow lane" on i95 because they are either stoned or paranoid or both.

 

[mn78psu83]

I would never advocate driving while intoxicated by any substance. But recent federal studies showed that people on weed are not only much safer than people who drink, they actually measure safer than sober people. There really may be something to the stereotype -- drinkers drive fast, pot smokers drive slow.

If the drug warriors are so worried about highway fatalities, they'd be talking about preventing people from drinking -- so let's bring back Prohibition and see how that turns out. Or ban cell phones, because texting while driving is clearly killing a lot of people.

But no, the pot haters just want to single out pot, which hasn't actually been shown to kill people in in any way.

It just proves once again that the people who want to continue Prohibition II are motivated by hate, not by saving lives or "protecting the children." Federal policy would be laughable except that it isn't laughable to the millions of people (mostly black, by the way) who have had their lives ruined by pot convictions.

For sure, stoned people are going to die. They'll jump off bridges stoned, they'll crash cars stoned. But the numbers are going to be low -- and the reason we know that is that 40 or 50 million people smoke pot now. If Reefer Madness were to come true, it would have happened by now. The fact is that legalization hasn't really changed much in Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska and Colorado. Life goes on. Civilization survives! The only thing that really changes is that people who like smoking weed don't have to worry about someone trying to throw them in jail for no good reason.

Yeah. There isn't much of a rational scientific argument for singling out Mary Jane prohibition, as far as driving goes - and I'll stay on that, in light of the fact that a driver with a blood alcohol level of just .12 is far more likely to be in an accident, as is a hands-free cellphone driver (legal in all states). It would also be really hard to enforce and prohibit screaming and fighting children from being driven around by their parents too.

 

[83wuzme]

Just simply not true. I give you information, you give me back propaganda. You're just making stuff up. Which is pretty typical of the Drug Warriors. They've been using lies about weed for 50 years to justify throwing pot smokers in jail.

The only thing that's increased is the number of people testing positive for THC after fatal crashes. Which is pretty meaningless since they didn't routinely test for THC before. And also not surprising since marijuana just got legalized, and because THC is detectable in blood for weeks after marijuana consumption, especially for regular users.

The overall number of fatal car crashes did not increase from 2010 to 2014 -- especially if you consider that the number of passenger miles driven is soaring in Washington and Colorado. I don't think the 2015 totals are out yet.

In fact there have been indications that overall fatalities per miles driven might DECREASE because people in those states are drinking less alcohol. And there is federal data that shows alcohol impairs driving a lot worse than consumption of pot.

As for skin in the game, what are you referring to? In fact it is the Drug Warriors who usually have a paycheck in it. A lot of fat law enforcement salaries and pensions, a lot of great toys police departments acquire through asset seizure. A lot of psychologists make a great living off "treating" marijuana users who are ordered by the court to pay for therapy whether they need it or not. There are a lot of fat paychecks at stake, just like there were for Prohibition.

But aside from law enforcement -- who really doesn't want marijuana legalized? It's the Mexican drug gangs and all the people in the U.S. who grow and market illegally. That's a lot of money they make now that the black market is going to lose if legalization happens.

If you want to continue the drug war, your average pot dealer is behind you all the way. Legalization has been hell for illegal growers in Washington and Colorado - read the stories.

I read a 2016 study that attributed pot legalization to increased traffic deaths in Washington. It is by no means the only study to recently come out on this subject and it was obviously not " 50 year old " data.
A good place to see a lot of these studies is Science Daily. Just search anything relating to marijuana on their site and quite a lot of recent publications will come up.

 

[KnightSlayer]

I read a 2016 study that attributed pot legalization to increased traffic deaths in Washington. It is by no means the only study to recently come out on this subject and it was obviously not " 50 year old " data.
A good place to see a lot of these studies is Science Daily. Just search anything relating to marijuana on their site and quite a lot of recent publications will come up.

Link? The study I read said there are more people testing positive for pot in fatal accidents than before legalization. That is very different from what you are saying. The number of fatal accidents didn't actually increase.

 

[83wuzme]

I'll try to link it :
https:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160510103131.htm

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Where the older generations get their solidly informed opinions from. The next year it was made illegal.

 

[tboyer]

Pretty much agree with everything. But I don't want to be driving with a bunch of slow people either. INMO they are almost as much a hazard as fast drivers.
Last thing I want to come up on is someone doing 45 in the "slow lane" on i95 because they are either stoned or paranoid or both.

I agree 100%. When you're in that car, you have a responsibility for the safety of not only the people in your car but everybody else on the road.

I just can't understand people who are so self absorbed and so stupid that they're risking their lives and the lives of people around them to save 10 minutes by going 90 MPH, or texting while driving, or being impaired by any substance (or, for that matter, sleepy). Or people who are so selfish they put their cruise on 60 MPH and sit in the left lane and force people to pass them on the right.

But no, continuing to jail people for pot is not going to prevent car crashes - there's no evidence to show much of a connection.

Jailing people for texting while driving -- that might have a positive impact. But no politician wants to propose that unfortunately.

 

[BBrown]

I agree 100%. When you're in that car, you have a responsibility for the safety of not only the people in your car but everybody else on the road.

I just can't understand people who are so self absorbed and so stupid that they're risking their lives and the lives of people around them to save 10 minutes by going 90 MPH, or texting while driving, or being impaired by any substance (or, for that matter, sleepy). Or people who are so selfish they put their cruise on 60 MPH and sit in the left lane and force people to pass them on the right.

But no, continuing to jail people for pot is not going to prevent car crashes - there's no evidence to show much of a connection.

Jailing people for texting while driving -- that might have a positive impact. But no politician wants to propose that unfortunately.

On the flip side if they legalize MJ then the jails will have a lot of vacancies for the the texting drivers. LOL.
So it is kind of a win/win.

 

[tboyer]

I'll try to link it :
https:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160510103131.htm

Yeah read more carefully. It simply means more people are being tested positive for THC following fatal crashes. Which is happening mainly because they're testing for THC now and they weren't before. Fatal crashes have not increased since legalization at least through 2014. That AAA person is trying to spin it in the press release but the argument is specious.

We'll see about 2015.

But I think we pretty much know by now what the answer will be. Pot has been de facto legal in California (easy availability of medical cards) since the mid 2000s. Young people are more likely to be vaping than drinking in CA these days. As you see, highway fatalties went down by 38% from 2005 to 2011. Up slightly the last couple of years, but still WAY below 2005 levels.

I'm not arguing that legalization will save lives (though there is a good possibility it will). I'm just saying there's no indication that it's leading to highway carnage in California, which is the weed smoking capital of the US

Year Deaths
2014 3,074
2013 3,000
2012 2,857
2011 2,791
2010 2,715
2009 2,816
2008 3,434
2007 3,974
2006 4,236
2005 4,329

 

[indynittany]

They already are somewhat with Nicotine and alcohol.

....and gambling!

I think it's a huge moral hazard. The only reason weed is being legalized is because the states are seeing $$$$ and are desperate for the revenue.

 

[83wuzme]

Yeah read more carefully. It simply means more people are being tested positive for THC following fatal crashes. Which is happening mainly because they're testing for THC now and they weren't before. Fatal crashes have not increased since legalization at least through 2014. That AAA person is trying to spin it in the press release but the argument is specious.

We'll see about 2015.

But I think we pretty much know by now what the answer will be. Pot has been de facto legal in California (easy availability of medical cards) since the mid 2000s. Young people are more likely to be vaping than drinking in CA these days. As you see, highway fatalties went down by 38% from 2005 to 2011. Up slightly the last couple of years, but still WAY below 2005 levels.

I'm not arguing that legalization will save lives (though there is a good possibility it will). I'm just saying there's no indication that it's leading to highway carnage in California, which is the weed smoking capital of the US

Year Deaths
2014 3,074
2013 3,000
2012 2,857
2011 2,791
2010 2,715
2009 2,816
2008 3,434
2007 3,974
2006 4,236
2005 4,329

I did find an article in " Reason " that indicated an increase in Washington in 2015. There was some difficulty teasing out cause versus association because of some inconsistentcy in data collection. The publication I linked was by no means the only recent one pointing to increased traffic accidents.
You'll get no argument from me that people are using pot and driving whether or not it is legal. I would also point out that people very frequently combine psychotropic drugs, most commonly alcohol and pot, which potentiates their effects.
I would expect that the more acceptable and available pot becomes, the number of people driving under it's influence will increase. I recall a lecture I saw with a Pharm D on street drugs and he pointed out a Canadian study that shows the variety of ways pot can affect people as opposed to alcohol, which is generally more predictable. With pot, some people experience temporospatial perception distortions for many hours after they no longer feel high.
As another poster pointed out, once states get used to the revenue from legal pot, it's going to be very difficult to make it illegal once again.

 

[wbcincy]

....and gambling!

I think it's a huge moral hazard. The only reason weed is being legalized is because the states are seeing $$$$ and are desperate for the revenue.

Who are you or the government to determine what's moral and not? Gambling? That's my money and none of your business. We should punish those who infringe on the rights of others, not limit what rights we have.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

....and gambling!

I think it's a huge moral hazard. The only reason weed is being legalized is because the states are seeing $$$$ and are desperate for the revenue.

Well that and it is a "free society" which has people calling out the 80 year old lies the government put out. Don't forget the war on drugs is a job/money machine created by the government as well.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Who are you or the government to determine what's moral and not? Gambling? That's my money and none of your business. We should punish those who infringe on the rights of others, not limit what rights we have.

Yep, don't like something...don't do it. If that caused harm to that person, so be it. You can't regulate diet and social matters to an adult. It's the thinking of a few powerful people from a century ago and has been kept alive to fuel this imaginary war on drugs. If it were truly a war, we LOST, but we keep on dumping money into it.

 

[mn78psu83]

Yep, don't like something...don't do it. If that caused harm to that person, so be it. You can't regulate diet and social matters to an adult. It's the thinking of a few powerful people from a century ago and has been kept alive to fuel this imaginary war on drugs. If it were truly a war, we LOST, but we keep on dumping money into it.

Lay off the twinkies LaJolla. Also, I think anyone who drinks Fresca should be incarcerated. That's some bad $h!T!!! Supersize me though. I'm jonesin' for a 1/4 Pounder with cheese.

 

[indynittany]

Who are you or the government to determine what's moral and not? Gambling? That's my money and none of your business. We should punish those who infringe on the rights of others, not limit what rights we have.

You aren't understanding the meaning of 'moral hazard'. A moral hazard is created, in this case, when the government benefits by the potentially deleterious activities of its citizens.

Or go back to the housing bubble. Countrywide, for example, could originate sketchy loans without concern for the risks because they knew they could sell those loans to Fannie and Freddie, getting them off its books in a 48 hour period. That's a moral hazard.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was clearly loyal to Hillary Clinton. Her position as chair of the DNC was a moral hazard.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

You aren't understanding the meaning of 'moral hazard'. A moral hazard is created, in this case, when the government benefits by the potentially deleterious activities of its citizens.

Or go back to the housing bubble. Countrywide, for example, could originate sketchy loans without concern for the risks because they knew they could sell those loans to Fannie and Freddie, getting them off its books in a 48 hour period. That's a moral hazard.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz was clearly loyal to Hillary Clinton. Her position as chair of the DNC was a moral hazard.

The problem is they created the beast by lying and outlawing something they should never have. I don't see that as a moral hazard, it was a move done by a government that lied to it's people. Plain and simple.

 

[indynittany]

The problem is they created the beast by lying and outlawing something they should never have. I don't see that as a moral hazard, it was a move done by a government that lied to it's people. Plain and simple.

I don't disagree. When I think of the murders, gun violence and lives of recreational users ruined by incarceration simply because government intervention it makes me sick. And that's on top of the resources wasted.

What makes it a moral hazard is that you have two parties to a transaction where one party benefits without taking any of the risk. IOW, the pot smoker is taking all the risk and the government is benefiting regardless of the outcome. The government will have a financial incentive for the behavior to continue or even increase even if that behavior is bad for the individual.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

I don't disagree. When I think of the murders, gun violence and lives of recreational users ruined by incarceration simply because government intervention it makes me sick. And that's on top of the resources wasted.

What makes it a moral hazard is that you have two parties to a transaction where one party benefits without taking any of the risk. IOW, the pot smoker is taking all the risk and the government is benefiting regardless of the outcome. The government will have a financial incentive for the behavior to continue or even increase even if that behavior is bad for the individual.

It can also be a beneficial relationship if done correctly. One can help govern and research the product more to possibly put out a safer product while collecting those taxes. There has to be some give and take somewhere along the way. Locking people up over this plant in 2016 is in itself criminal IMO.

 

[tboyer]

Just be careful because so much of what is out there is seized upon by one side or another (and usually the Drug Warrior forces who are grabbing and throwing everything they can against the wall, because, frankly, they don't have a lot of real arguments that cut mustard right now)

For sure people experience pot differently but that's true for every substance. Some people become almost homicidal after two or three cups of coffee. My wife drinks a single glass of wine and is not safe behind the wheel of a car -- even though she would pass a breathalyzer.

Pot is like every substance -- everyone's experience is different. But that says nothing about whether pot is dangerous or not.

And really, the evidence is pretty clear it's not dangerous in the way that a lot of other substances are. It doesn't make people homicidal. It doesn't make them psychotic. It doesn't make them into sex fiends or cold-blood killers, nor does it make them stupid like the Hollywood stereotypes. You probably encounter people in your social life who are high and you have no idea. It's just like being gay -- you can't tell someone is gay by looking at them, and you won't know unless they choose to share the information with you.

I think you're right, once pot is legalized, it will be hard politically to ban it again. Just like once alcohol prohibition ended, nobody wanted to return to that. Prohibition was a disaster, and the War on Drugs will be seen (and is seen today by a lot of people) as a disaster.

But heck, marijuana never should have been made illegal to begin with. Making marijuana Schedule 1 (i.e. more dangerous than meth, heroin and cocaine) is one of the most ridiculous things Washington has ever done, and the decision to do it was predicated on the assumption that research would find marijuana to be extremely dangerous. The research found just the opposite, but they never changed the classification. In other words, federal marijuana law is based on a series of lies.

I did find an article in " Reason " that indicated an increase in Washington in 2015. There was some difficulty teasing out cause versus association because of some inconsistentcy in data collection. ...

I recall a lecture I saw with a Pharm D on street drugs and he pointed out a Canadian study that shows the variety of ways pot can affect people as opposed to alcohol, which is generally more predictable. With pot, some people experience temporospatial perception distortions for many hours after they no longer feel high.

As another poster pointed out, once states get used to the revenue from legal pot, it's going to be very difficult to make it illegal once again.

 

[SLion]

"Recreational marijuana products are supposed to be packaged in child-safe containers, but Roosevelt said about half of the children treated appeared to have reached for marijuana-laced baked goods or other edibles that their parents, relatives, or a neighbor or friend had left around the house."

Here is the key part of the article. Colorado should have eased into edibles and restricted the marketing/packaging to minors. Instead we get candies, brownies and junk food lookalikes that can be easily mistaken for non-marijuana brand. MJ should be sold, taxed and regulated by each state. It should be decriminalized too. Just should not market to minors. Statistically, it would be non-event if edibles were not involved.

 

[83wuzme]

Do people sometimes still wonder how we got to now ? People will cite the many failures of the War on Drugs as if by making all manner of currently illicit drugs legal, all of the drug - related problems in our society will vanish. The prescription drug abuse problem in America suggests this is not the case.
Dentistry ( my profession ) has come under fire recently for it's purported role in the skyrocketing epidemic of opioid ( narcotic pain reliver ) abuse. The Expert Consensus is now that dentistry has a lot of the responsibility for this. The only evidence that this could actually be true is if dentistry had somehow dramatically changed it's prescribing practices before and during this epidemic. I don't know of any such evidence, but it has apparently become one of those assertions that some people believe that by repetition will be made true.
One reason I am interested in pot legalization is that it suggests something else changed. There is a different societal attitude not just about pot but all manner of recreational drug use ( including alcohol ). What I can't tolerate is the attempt to fix blame for the consequences of this attitude shift to somebody or something else. It's not only dishonest it's also ineffective.

 

[tboyer]

Public opinion has changed extremely rapidly on pot, just like it did on gay rights. Sometimes I think the country just kind of grows up and stops listening to bigots and stupid people. Maybe it's the millennials, maybe it's the Internet, I don't know why it's happening, but it's a big change in a short amount of time.

Action is so overdue. The Drug Control Act of 1970 at least attempted to rank each drug based on potential for harm. That was good. They just got it wrong with pot because the Nixon Administration in 1970 was convinced marijuana was extremely dangerous (and Nixon associated pot with the anti-war protestors as well -- it's well documented that his anger was part of the reason he came down so hard on marijuana.) They made it Schedule 1 when even heroin and cocaine are Schedule 2 which looks pretty ridiculous.

Meanwhile the War on Drugs has failed in every conceivable way. And not for lack of good intentions. I think the people behind it, people like Nelson Rockefeller and Reagan, meant well.

The costs have been almost inconceivable -- $200 billion in direct costs, but the indirect cost is pretty much impossible to measure. How do you put a value on a young person arrested for selling dime bags of pot -- and for the REST OF HIS LIFE he can't go to college (ineligible for student loans) or get any job above the level of fast food worker. That takes that person out of the productive taxpaying workforce for a LIFETIME. How do you put a price on that. And you multiply it by 5 or 6 million people. Not saying they're innocent, many of them deserve some punishment, but nobody ever said it would be a lifetime punishment. The law enforcement response to drugs has done many times as much damage to people's lives and the economy as the drugs themselves.

Also as a result of the war on drugs we have blown huge holes through the Constitution, such as asset forfeiture, which is basically a license for state troopers in Oklahoma to become highway robbers, stopping cars randomly and taking cash from everyone they encounter. Asset forfeiture has corrupted police in many jurisdictions because, well, large sums of money does that to people.

And what did all this buy us really? The DEA is having as much success preventing trafficking as the Border Patrol is preventing illegal immigration. Kids everywhere have easy access to drugs -- they get drugs easier than they can get beer. U.S. illegal drug use is among the highest in the industrialized world. You can order heroin from a smartphone and have it delivered to you for less than the price of a case of beer. The heroin gangs are so sophisticated they have online customer service surveys -- for heroin deliveries.

One of the benefits of pot legalization is it just removes this big distraction and lets law enforcement focus on drugs that actually kill people. To me that's a first step but only a first step. I think we need to recognize that there is a limit to what police can accomplish. They're not social workers. Police and jail can't solve all social ills, just like the U.S. military can't magically bring democracy to the Middle East. There are limits to what good intentions can accomplish, limits to what goverment can accomplish. That's something right-wingers and left-wingers ought to be able to agree on.

Do people sometimes still wonder how we got to now ? People will cite the many failures of the War on Drugs as if by making all manner of currently illicit drugs legal, all of the drug - related problems in our society will vanish. The prescription drug abuse problem in America suggests this is not the case.
Dentistry ( my profession ) has come under fire recently for it's purported role in the skyrocketing epidemic of opioid ( narcotic pain reliver ) abuse. The Expert Consensus is now that dentistry has a lot of the responsibility for this. The only evidence that this could actually be true is if dentistry had somehow dramatically changed it's prescribing practices before and during this epidemic. I don't know of any such evidence, but it has apparently become one of those assertions that some people believe that by repetition will be made true.
One reason I am interested in pot legalization is that it suggests something else changed. There is a different societal attitude not just about pot but all manner of recreational drug use ( including alcohol ). What I can't tolerate is the attempt to fix blame for the consequences of this attitude shift to somebody or something else. It's not only dishonest it's also ineffective.

 

[83wuzme]

Public opinion has changed extremely rapidly on pot, just like it did on gay rights. Sometimes I think the country just kind of grows up and stops listening to bigots and stupid people. Maybe it's the millennials, maybe it's the Internet, I don't know why it's happening, but it's a big change in a short amount of time.

Action is so overdue. The Drug Control Act of 1970 at least attempted to rank each drug based on potential for harm. That was good. They just got it wrong with pot because the Nixon Administration in 1970 was convinced marijuana was extremely dangerous (and Nixon associated pot with the anti-war protestors as well -- it's well documented that his anger was part of the reason he came down so hard on marijuana.) They made it Schedule 1 when even heroin and cocaine are Schedule 2 which looks pretty ridiculous.

Meanwhile the War on Drugs has failed in every conceivable way. And not for lack of good intentions. I think the people behind it, people like Nelson Rockefeller and Reagan, meant well.

The costs have been almost inconceivable -- $200 billion in direct costs, but the indirect cost is pretty much impossible to measure. How do you put a value on a young person arrested for selling dime bags of pot -- and for the REST OF HIS LIFE he can't go to college (ineligible for student loans) or get any job above the level of fast food worker. That takes that person out of the productive taxpaying workforce for a LIFETIME. How do you put a price on that. And you multiply it by 5 or 6 million people. Not saying they're innocent, many of them deserve some punishment, but nobody ever said it would be a lifetime punishment. The law enforcement response to drugs has done many times as much damage to people's lives and the economy as the drugs themselves.

Also as a result of the war on drugs we have blown huge holes through the Constitution, such as asset forfeiture, which is basically a license for state troopers in Oklahoma to become highway robbers, stopping cars randomly and taking cash from everyone they encounter. Asset forfeiture has corrupted police in many jurisdictions because, well, large sums of money does that to people.

And what did all this buy us really? The DEA is having as much success preventing trafficking as the Border Patrol is preventing illegal immigration. Kids everywhere have easy access to drugs -- they get drugs easier than they can get beer. U.S. illegal drug use is among the highest in the industrialized world. You can order heroin from a smartphone and have it delivered to you for less than the price of a case of beer. The heroin gangs are so sophisticated they have online customer service surveys -- for heroin deliveries.

One of the benefits of pot legalization is it just removes this big distraction and lets law enforcement focus on drugs that actually kill people. To me that's a first step but only a first step. I think we need to recognize that there is a limit to what police can accomplish. They're not social workers. Police and jail can't solve all social ills, just like the U.S. military can't magically bring democracy to the Middle East. There are limits to what good intentions can accomplish, limits to what goverment can accomplish. That's something right-wingers and left-wingers ought to be able to agree on.

I would not conclude the country has " grown " up. Quite the opposite. I would say adolescence has been extended, and for some people, indefinitely. A lot of social science academicians have been saying this for decades. Redefining marriage wasn't so much an expansion of gay rights as a recognition of the failure of marriage in our society. Legalization of marijuana for recreation isn't so much a society - benefitting decision as an outcome of people simply wanting to get high.

The present opioid epidemic is an example of the lack of maturity. I lived through the 70's and back then, even the Hippies figured out wiithin a few years that you stay away from heroin. That can't be said today. Collectively, people seem to have more trouble learning or remembering.

I do agree about asset fortfeiture in drug policing being unambiguously unComstitutional and sometimes maliciously applied. However, before bragging about some new approach that legalizes recreational drugs, it would be wise to establish some metrics ahead of time to determine if some policy change is actually beneficial. I will predict that if pot is legal, more people are going to use it. If more people are using it, we're going to see an increase in a number of bad outcomes for people.

 

[KnightSlayer]

You should do some research on Portugal's drug policy.

Link

 

[83wuzme]

You should do some research on Portugal's drug policy.

Link

The article didn't conclude a causal link between decriminalization and the positive trends in that country's drug situation. But I can see where an unexpected benefit occurred with the reduction of poor and dangerously bad quality drugs after legalization. That would probably reduce overdoses, if nothing else.

America, of course, is not like Portugal demographically. All drugs are also not the same. Opioids can be fiercely addictive. If making them more available from a legal standpoint reduces addiction levels, it begs the question as to why the federal government is cracking down on legal opioid prescribing ?
Over the years, I have seen many people on things like Methadone or Suboxone. As far as my experience, few seem willing or able to get off of these substitutes. Better to never risk getting involved at all with opioids. How does that happen on a policy level, if at all ?