New Federal Marijuana Legislation

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/fra...uana/index.html

 

 

Allen St. Pierre, spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), likened Frank's proposal -- co-sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas -- to current laws dealing with alcohol consumption. Alcohol use is permitted, and the government focuses its law enforcement efforts on those who abuse alcohol or drive under its influence, he said.

 

"We do not arrest and jail responsible alcohol drinkers," he said.

 

St. Pierre said there are tens of millions of marijuana smokers in the United States, including himself, and hundreds of thousands are arrested each year for medical or personal use. iReport.com: Is it time to legalize pot?

 

There have been 20 million marijuana-related arrests since 1965, he said, and 11 million since 1990, and "every 38 seconds, a marijuana smoker is arrested."

 

Rob Kampia, director of the Marijuana Policy Project, said marijuana arrests outnumber arrests for "all violent crimes combined," meaning that police are spending inordinate amounts of time chasing nonviolent criminals.

 

 

Agree 100%. I give this about a 2% chance of becoming law, but one of these days reality will come in to play and voters will realize what a waste of money it is going after pot smokers. I love the idea of making it the same as alcohol - don't punish the use of it, punish the abuse of it.

 

 

 

[BigSqwert]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/fra...uana/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

Agree 100%. I give this about a 2% chance of becoming law, but one of these days reality will come in to play and voters will realize what a waste of money it is going after pot smokers. I love the idea of making it the same as alcohol - don't punish the use of it, punish the abuse of it.

[Texsox]

Makes a lot of sense, but it has made sense for fifty years. And I was thinking the smoking bans around the country may make it easier to pass this. It would be unlikely to have pot smokers in bars, etc. since tobacco has been banned in so many places. Have they ever developed an instant roadside check so that the impaired driver issue could be better resolved? That to me is still a huge hurdle. We can nail drunk drivers pretty easy, we would need the same for pot smokers if this was to pass.

[lostfan]

I talk to a few cops I know here and there and the laws for marijuana are really half-assed. Like... you can arrest someone for possession but you have to have so much of it in order to be charged with anything that it's really a waste of time. I'm 100% in favor of at least decriminalizing use/possession.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I really dont have an opinion on this.

 

But I will throw this out there:

It's much easier to grow pot than it is to make Beer. Therefore, wouldn't pot have a tenancy to maybe get overused?

Also one joint is far more "effective" than one beer or one glass of win.

 

I'll throw that out there for debate.

[lostfan]

I really dont have an opinion on this.

 

But I will throw this out there:

It's much easier to grow pot than it is to make Beer. Therefore, wouldn't pot have a tenancy to maybe get overused?

Also one joint is far more "effective" than one beer or one glass of win.

 

I'll throw that out there for debate.

I think if you look at stats from Amsterdam that would debunk that argument. Also, the fact that it's illegal doesn't stop people from using it. Hell before I left my parents' house, if I wanted to get it I know I didn't even have to leave my block. Cops know that too and they don't even bother.

 

In any case, people get drunk and get violent and stupid... I've never known anybody to get stoned and then beat his wife or start a fight at the club. They're more likely to just offer to go half on a pizza and pass out.

[Jenksismyhero]

I knew much more about this back in my college days but...

 

Basically there's not an easy test to tell if you're driving high, but it's the same as someone who is expected of driving drunk - you have the obvious physical signs, and also the ability to smell it. There's nothing like a breathalyzer, but that's really not needed. Basically the system is in place currently, it's just a driving while impaired charge.

 

And the laws generally are pretty relaxed, especially in big cities. I know the city council here in Chicago considered making it just a parking ticket type fine because even when you were caught the police wouldn't attend any court date so you'd get off anyway. I have friends in Denver and that's essentially what they do - they'll throw a ticket at you and fine you unless you have over X amount (a quarter I think).

 

I watched Super High Me the other day (Greg Benson spoofing Morgan Spurlock) and they focused a lot on the California situation. Basically it's legal there if you have a doctors note, but the federal government still arrests people. California has created an entire system for opening up "pharmacies," including having to be licensed, getting permits, having testing/inspections, the whole nine yards, but the DEA still makes random raids, takes everything and then charges the proprieters as huge drug dealers. It's such a s***ty system. They also had a graphic that if it was legalized and taxed California would have an extra 2-3 billion dollars to play with.

 

Here's a report about the "savings" for the country if it were legalized- 10-14 billion a year.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I knew much more about this back in my college days but...

 

Basically there's not an easy test to tell if you're driving high, but it's the same as someone who is expected of driving drunk - you have the obvious physical signs, and also the ability to smell it. There's nothing like a breathalyzer, but that's really not needed. Basically the system is in place currently, it's just a driving while impaired charge.

 

It would be the same as driving on a bunch of vicodan or something. It's still illegal and I don't see it as a good argument for keeping pot illegal.

 

 

I watched Super High Me the other day (Greg Benson spoofing Morgan Spurlock) and they focused a lot on the California situation. Basically it's legal there if you have a doctors note, but the federal government still arrests people. California has created an entire system for opening up "pharmacies," including having to be licensed, getting permits, having testing/inspections, the whole nine yards, but the DEA still makes random raids, takes everything and then charges the proprieters as huge drug dealers. It's such a s***ty system. They also had a graphic that if it was legalized and taxed California would have an extra 2-3 billion dollars to play with.

 

Here's a report about the "savings" for the country if it were legalized- 10-14 billion a year.

I'm shocked that the Federal government oversteps their bounds and doesn't respect states' rights.

 

[BigSqwert]

But I will throw this out there:

It's much easier to grow pot than it is to make Beer. Therefore, wouldn't pot have a tenancy to maybe get overused?

 

It's not like there's a shortage of alcohol in the United States. I don't see the relevance in making your own booze or growing your own pot.

 

Also one joint is far more "effective" than one beer or one glass of win.

 

People who get high from pot typically smoke enough to get high. You don't hear people bragging about how many joints they smoked last night.

[bmags]

legalizing marijuana would save the states so much money.

[southsider2k5]

legalizing marijuana would save the states so much money.

 

Are the health care costs for cancer figured in that?

[lostfan]

Are the health care costs for cancer figured in that?

To my knowledge there are no links between marijuana use and cancer. There was a guy on another board I go to that had access to databases of medical studies (not open membership unfortunately or I'd go dig it up) and he couldn't find any studies that said there was.

[Texsox]

To my knowledge there are no links between marijuana use and cancer. There was a guy on another board I go to that had access to databases of medical studies (not open membership unfortunately or I'd go dig it up) and he couldn't find any studies that said there was.

 

I wonder who would fund such a study? To determine if an illegal substance also caused cancer? I'd have been more surprised if he found one.

[Jenksismyhero]

To my knowledge there are no links between marijuana use and cancer. There was a guy on another board I go to that had access to databases of medical studies (not open membership unfortunately or I'd go dig it up) and he couldn't find any studies that said there was.

 

Well, you'd have to admit that the tar in your lungs wouldn't be good.

 

But that's such a bs line of logic. Let's refuse people the right to use cars or to eat fast food. God knows how many trillions of dollars governments spend on those health care related costs (yet another reason why a government funded health care is a terrible idea).

[Soxbadger]

But I will throw this out there:

It's much easier to grow pot than it is to make Beer. Therefore, wouldn't pot have a tenancy to maybe get overused?

Also one joint is far more "effective" than one beer or one glass of win.

 

1) Growing marijuana is possible as it is a weed and therefore can grow pretty much anywhere. The problem is that its hard to grow high quality marijuana without investing in the right materials. So while people may grow on their own, they would be growing plants that generally have lower THC content.

 

2) Depends on the user. Some people have extremely low alcohol tolerance but extremely high marijuana tolerance. They are different drugs and its just really impossible to compare.

 

Are the health care costs for cancer figured in that?

 

Even if marijuana is as bad as cigarettes health wise (which is unlikely), its not only savings, but the govt would be making money.

 

The govt is losing sales tax on all that money, they are losing income tax on all that money, its just a black hole of nothing. Not only that, but they are expending money to prevent it.

 

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html

 

Not sure who that guy is, but he estimates that the govt could make 6.2 bil in revenue off marijuana taxes.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Soxbadger

[lostfan]

Well, you'd have to admit that the tar in your lungs wouldn't be good.

I'm not a doctor or scientist or anything so I'll admit my knowledge is limited, but we're talking different substances with different circumstances around them.

[southsider2k5]

To my knowledge there are no links between marijuana use and cancer. There was a guy on another board I go to that had access to databases of medical studies (not open membership unfortunately or I'd go dig it up) and he couldn't find any studies that said there was.

 

No offense but that sounds like some tobacco company type propaganda. Besides how many people could conduct a study of an illegal activity? Sounds kinda shady to me.

[Texsox]

Well, you'd have to admit that the tar in your lungs wouldn't be good.

 

But that's such a bs line of logic. Let's refuse people the right to use cars or to eat fast food. God knows how many trillions of dollars governments spend on those health care related costs (yet another reason why a government funded health care is a terrible idea).

bs line of logic?

We would be taking an illegal substance and legalizing it. You are describing legal things and then making them illegal. The bs logic would be since A is bad we should allow all bad things as well.

 

Would legalizing cause usage to increase or decrease? I believe it would increase. So why would it be a bs line of reasoning to actually look at the risks and health costs before taking that step? It would seem that a prudent thing to do is analyze all factors before acting.

[lostfan]

No offense but that sounds like some tobacco company type propaganda. Besides how many people could conduct a study of an illegal activity? Sounds kinda shady to me.

I don't have the ability to prove it. If I find the guy, I'll ask him to explain it to me again.

[bmags]

Are the health care costs for cancer figured in that?

 

If that is a high causation for cancer, I'm sure the # of people no longer appearing in court and overcrowding jails would be comparible.

[Texsox]

I don't have the ability to prove it. If I find the guy, I'll ask him to explain it to me again.

Not finding a study that confirms or denies something is far different then actually finding a study. Basically all research is funded by someone.

 

So try and imagine who would spend the millions of dollars the research would cost. If they used human subjects, they would need to find someone willing to commit an illegal act, repeatedly, over some time.

 

Another problem with studying pot and cancer is there is no standard propduction. Impurities could be introduced by unregulated producers. Just testing for "pure" ingrediants probably would not be of much significance.

 

So it could be pot does contribute to cancer, it just has never been studied.

[lostfan]

Not finding a study that confirms or denies something is far different then actually finding a study. Basically all research is funded by someone.

 

So try and imagine who would spend the millions of dollars the research would cost. If they used human subjects, they would need to find someone willing to commit an illegal act, repeatedly, over some time.

 

Another problem with studying pot and cancer is there is no standard propduction. Impurities could be introduced by unregulated producers. Just testing for "pure" ingrediants probably would not be of much significance.

 

So it could be pot does contribute to cancer, it just has never been studied.

FWIW, this is all academic so they'd have no reason to lean in one direction or the other.

[Rex Kickass]

Marijuana can cause cancer. But so can lots of other legal things, including the nalgene bottles people use for their water.

[lostfan]

If you got cancer from smoking marijuana that must mean you were fried to the point of being functionally retarded every day for like 15 years.

Edited July 30, 2008 by lostfan

[Texsox]

If you got cancer from smoking marijuana that must mean you were fried to the point of being functionally retarded every day for like 15 years.

 

really, how did you arrive at that amount?