Legalize Marijuana ?

EagleD · July 16, 2009

"George Bush (the elder) says we are losing the war on drugs. Do you know what that implies? There's a war going on and people on drugs are winning it. 'Did you hear there's a war going on? (Passes a joint)'.

"If you don't think drugs have done good things, go home take all your records and throw them away. Because the people who made that music that influenced your life so much...were REALLY HIGH on drugs. Dude, the Beatles were so high they let Ringo sing a couple of tunes. 'We all live in a yellow submarine'? Do you realize how high they were when they wrote that?"

"So what if you get into a car wreck and you've been smoking pot? You're only going 4 miles an hour.

- 'Dude. I think we hit something.'

- 'You forgot to open the garage door, man.' "

- Bill Hicks

I love his legalize pot rants.

aztecskin · July 16, 2009

You're planning on running for some sort of office, sir?

Sure.

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a business man (Check) and godknowswhy: a politician (prolly just so I could say I did it)

So yeah.

yyz28 · July 17, 2009

Would be really interested to know how many who voted yes use marihuana. Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Paper tiger argument of the decade. It doesn't hold water because I can tell you with a straight face that I've never used it, don't care to ever use it, I don't really like being around people who are using it and I voted yes.

EVERY law is a move towards incrementalism, so that argument really doesn't hold water.

Legalizing something that has basically been proven to be mostly harmless and has few to any long term effects does not mean it is suddenly easier to legalize heroin, a drug that can kill with the first dose, has no medical benefit and can impact the lives of others, not just the user.

I agree with the business case for this. Legalize it, let the folks in jail with POT offenses only out of jail, regulate and tax the hell out of it like we do cigarettes and beer, and treat it like alcohol in terms of driving it and minors getting their hands on it.

oldguystudent · July 17, 2009

Paper tiger argument of the decade. It doesn't hold water because I can tell you with a straight face that I've never used it, don't care to ever use it, I don't really like being around people who are using it and I voted yes.
EVERY law is a move towards incrementalism, so that argument really doesn't hold water.
Legalizing something that has basically been proven to be mostly harmless and has few to any long term effects does not mean it is suddenly easier to legalize heroin, a drug that can kill with the first dose, has no medical benefit and can impact the lives of others, not just the user.
I agree with the business case for this. Legalize it, let the folks in jail with POT offenses only out of jail, regulate and tax the hell out of it like we do cigarettes and beer, and treat it like alcohol in terms of driving it and minors getting their hands on it.

I am OGS and I am not a pot smoker.

NT03 · July 18, 2009

UNT90 , are you a doctor or some sort of clinical researcher ?

Edited July 18, 2009 by NT03

GreenMachine · July 18, 2009

I'm going to say no only because people will drive while they're high, which in my book is just as bad as driving while drunk.

then should we make alcohol illegal? I don't smoke the stuff but we are never going to stop it from being illegally sold on the streets, I say we legalize it, regulate and tax it and quit putting casual pot smokers in jail which puts a bigger strain on our over crowded jails.

LoveMG · July 19, 2009

no. will only lead to harder stuff.

gksmith · July 19, 2009

No wait....what was the question?

oldguystudent · July 19, 2009

no. will only lead to harder stuff.

Like calculus or advanced stats?

emmitt01 · July 19, 2009

then should we make alcohol illegal? I don't smoke the stuff but we are never going to stop it from being illegally sold on the streets, I say we legalize it, regulate and tax it and quit putting casual pot smokers in jail which puts a bigger strain on our over crowded jails.

You don't know much if you think potheads are getting jail time.

GreenMachine · July 19, 2009

You don't know much if you think potheads are getting jail time.

I know a lot. I know how to write SQL script, do analysis on P&L statements, reconcile a balance sheet, probably know over 50 formula's in excel and that I have a friend that was arrested for a second offense of having weed in his car. Don't have to be a po po to know things about jail time E dawg.

hickoryhouse · July 19, 2009

Most Marijuana arrests are for people with small amounts of the substance and incur an overnight jail stay, hardly what I would concider "jail time". If the offender has more than a certain amount it is deemed with "intent to distribute", that does incur more jail time.

It isn't that there are a bunch of guys named Dude rotting in jail after getting caught with a joint.

aztecskin · July 19, 2009

Most Marijuana arrests are for people with small amounts of the substance and incur an overnight jail stay, hardly what I would concider "jail time". If the offender has more than a certain amount it is deemed with "intent to distribute", that does incur more jail time.
It isn't that there are a bunch of guys named Dude rotting in jail after getting caught with a joint.

but even that uses up police time and resources. Think of the paperwork. There is an opportunity cost there. Police could be out policing other crimes.

Or, if there is nothing for them to do, we can reduce the force, thus saving money.

Shuke-D · July 19, 2009

but even that uses up police time and resources. Think of the paperwork. There is an opportunity cost there. Police could be out policing other crimes.
Or, if there is nothing for them to do, we can reduce the force, thus saving money.

Perhaps it all comes down to assessing what a society deems as the difference between enforcing Order and Justice. By the current laws, the police should be prosecuting these crimes as they are on the books. Justice. But Order is a more slippery slope. When I first moved to Los Angeles in 1997, I went to change my auto insurance provider. My new agent talked me through things, and asked where I had moved from (He was from the Midwest). He then advised me "If you get in a wreck. Just get the other party's insurance info. Don't call the Police. They won't come. They're too busy dealing with violent crimes." Order I guess. Out here, it's not really deemed as enough of a threat to the social order to be worth spending resources on. I could really care less whether someone purchases or smokes the stuff, so long as they don't do it and then get behind the wheel or go to work, just the same as I expect people to treat consuming alcohol.

meangreendork · July 19, 2009

but even that uses up police time and resources. Think of the paperwork. There is an opportunity cost there. Police could be out policing other crimes.
Or, if there is nothing for them to do, we can reduce the force, thus saving money.

The opportunity costs of marijuana remaining illegal are really the major sticking point here. If your department only has 15 officers, would you rather have them preventing violent crimes and handling domestic disputes or arresting someone for simply having pot in their home? Your officers being deployed costs $x thousands of dollars. Do you want them making arrests over $50 bags of pot or catching uninsured drivers and making DUI arrests?

I would rather deploy my force to the most imminent and direct threats. You know, "closest target" philosophy.

UNT90 · July 19, 2009

It's funny how some on here think Police are out there looking for people with a dime bag. Doesn't happen. When Police run into these situations, sometimes the people are arrested, sometimes they are not. It is even a ticketable offense in this state now. It is very common for other drugs to be found after a stop is made on a car with marihuana smoke pouring out the window.

No one who possesses less than 4 ounces of marihuana (a QP for all you stoners) does any serious jail time, and any time they do is done in county jail, not TDC (there goes the argument for clogging up the jails). Normally, they only do jail time if they choose that over probation. And this is in conservative Texas. Laws are much more liberal on the coasts (CBL smiles as he avoids jail time ).

People always focus on the small picture with this issue. Democracies have a history of incrementally slipping closer and closer to anarchy until the democracy falls, usually to a dictator style of government. Also, do you really think that the insatiable appetite of the government for more tax dollars will stop if you open this gate? It would be the first step to total legalization of all illegal narcotics.

JayDub · July 19, 2009

Oh noes! The mary janez might make people not believes in the Jeezus!

emmitt01 · July 19, 2009

Take it from someone who works quite closely with narcotics (some might even use the term "Narcotics Detective"). Getting caught with a little weed, hell even selling a little weed, will get you...everyone together now..."pro-ba-tion". And for your second offense, if you have half a brain, again everyone...."pro-ba-tion." Don't know what to tell you about your friend GreenMachine. On second thought, yes I do. Second offense? Really? So you're telling me that, after getting popped once so the "I didn't know any better" excuse is out the window, he got arrested again? Whether you believe in marijuana laws or not that is what I call dumb. The myth that our state, federal, or even county jails are overflowing with potheads is just that...a myth. It's viewed as minor crime, but yes still crime.

Now, on to my all-time favorite fallacy. Every person that I have ever arrested for what they viewed as minor crime has had the same dumb-ass commentary on the situation..."You should be out there catching real criminals instead of harassing me." Let's examine that for a moment shall we:

1)I have a hard time defining it as "harassment" when I am enforcing a law which is currently part of statute. You have every right to band together with your fellow Americans and change statutes...or, you can bitch and moan about enforcement of the ones you don't agree with. Perhaps I'll begin illegally searching vehicles...you know, cuz I don't agree with that particular amendment.

2)Violent crime is not, despite what you have been led to believe by the news, happening every second of every day. That means that, when rapes and murders and robberies aren't occuring, police officers are off doing little things like writing tickets, getting drunks off of the road, arresting for dope, solving disputes between ornery teens and their parents and answering every other general nuisance complaint that the citizens see fit to call about. The image of the lazy beat cop who just picks on the little guy gets a little too much play amongst those who wish to demonize law-enforcement for their own benefit...the truth is police officers are tasked with being cops/social workers/counselors/attorneys...yes, attorneys, because no officer can sit down to enjoy a meal without someone coming up and saying "I don't want to interrupt your meal but I have this question about a ticket......." Which brings us to the popular retort of "Well then let's just reduce the number of officers......"

3)If you take a number of beat cops off of the street then one of two things must necessarily occur. One, you screen 911 calls and tell people with minor issues that no officer is coming so that they may stay available for "major" crimes. No more telling your child to listen to you, no more getting your drunk boyfriend to leave your home, no more responding when the neighborhood kids spraypaint on your fence, not even responses when someone breaks into your car b/c the suspect is long gone and why tie up a unit over your purse and/or cd collection? Your second option if you reduce the number of officers is to continue fielding all of the calls per usual but then lack the requisite number necessary to respond to the "real" crime. Oh, you didn't know that it takes a minimum of six officers to respond to a shooting? There's the officer who takes the report, the 2-3 who track down and detain witnesses, the several who keep onlookers out of our crime scene...and did I mention the 10 or so who are actively looking for your suspect on your "real" crime?

4)Certainly, though, things would work much more smoothly if officers weren't wasting time with potheads though, right? Well, as has been said already, it is against the law. And while the term "gateway" gets bandied about a bit erroneously in my opinion (I don't buy the gateway drug argument) it is rather accurate in one regard. The smell of burning marijuana has allowed officers into many a vehicle which contained cocaine, heroin, contraband from a robbery or burglary, persons with warrants...and let's not even begin to talk about the number of legitimate arrests for "real" crime that have been made because the officer had probable cause to enter your home after seeing your bong burning on the coffee table. Oh, and did I mention guns? Yeah, that's right weed dealers, are generally armed. Now before someone makes the wrong-headed argument that dope dealers are armed because they're protecting against other criminals and if it weren't illegal they wouldn't need to understand two things...(1)They're armed because they're general scum bags, not for protection and (2)Legalizing marijuana and taxing it, the cure all for potheads everywhere, would not stop the mom and pop dealers on every corner...and they'd still be armed. What, you thought because Uncle Sam got into the weed business that Bill, John or Tyrone from up the block would get out of it? Uhhhh...grow houses are not that hard to put together so why would I give up my profit margin to the government just because they want a slice of the pie? And what are you gonna do about it now, it's legal.

Edited July 19, 2009 by emmitt01

KingDL1 · July 19, 2009

It's funny how some on here think Police are out there looking for people with a dime bag. Doesn't happen. When Police run into these situations, sometimes the people are arrested, sometimes they are not. It is even a ticketable offense in this state now. It is very common for other drugs to be found after a stop is made on a car with marihuana smoke pouring out the window.
No one who possesses less than 4 ounces of marihuana (a QP for all you stoners) does any serious jail time, and any time they do is done in county jail, not TDC (there goes the argument for clogging up the jails). Normally, they only do jail time if they choose that over probation. And this is in conservative Texas. Laws are much more liberal on the coasts (CBL smiles as he avoids jail time ).
People always focus on the small picture with this issue. Democracies have a history of incrementally slipping closer and closer to anarchy until the democracy falls, usually to a dictator style of government. Also, do you really think that the insatiable appetite of the government for more tax dollars will stop if you open this gate? It would be the first step to total legalization of all illegal narcotics.

I am for legalization of narcotics as well, we can not stop the use or the sales of these drugs. It is a complete detachment from reality to think laws against drugs will ever stop them.

I have never met anyone that wanted narcotics, or weed that could not get it with relative ease. Its not just the police departments, its the DEA, FBI, and I imagine the CIA when we send billions abroad to help other countries stop the drug crops.

The bottom line is people who want drugs have no problem getting drugs. But being illegal makes drugs expensive, and thats why too many people get killed over bad drug deals, turf wars, etc, same as how organized crime made money during prohibition.

Drugs are bad mm'kay, in my opinion even weed, so Educate, educate, educate, is the only weapon you have against drugs of any sort even alcohol. Use the tax money saved from fighting drugs on other things, use the tax revenue from these drugs to support the education, rehab, regulation, and other services. Why line the criminals pockets with money, let the corporations make the money. More income tax, more corporate tax, more sin sales tax.

Keep all the driving laws against being under the influence. Keep drug use in sports and employment under the same rules as today. Don't make drugs any more favorable to do.

UNT90 · July 19, 2009

I
Drugs are bad mm'kay, in my opinion even weed, so Educate, educate, educate, is the only weapon you have against drugs of any sort even alcohol. Use the tax money saved from fighting drugs on other things, use the tax revenue from these drugs to support the education, rehab, regulation, and other services. Why line the criminals pockets with money, let the corporations make the money. More income tax, more corporate tax, more sin sales tax.

I can just imagine the 5th grade drug education class, during the question and answer portion, when the smart little kid in the class asks "If drugs are so bad, how come my daddy can buy them at the store?". The education program will evolve into drugs are bad, but they are for adults, so you can't have any until you are an adult. And we all know that middle and high schoolers have really bought off on this when it comes to tobacco and alcohol.

More tax, more tax, more tax. Didn't this country basically form to avoid this thought process?

Edited July 19, 2009 by UNT90

NT03 · July 19, 2009

Take it from someone who works quite closely with narcotics (some might even use the term "Narcotics Detective"). Getting caught with a little weed, hell even selling a little weed, will get you...everyone together now..."pro-ba-tion". And for your second offense, if you have half a brain, again everyone...."pro-ba-tion." Don't know what to tell you about your friend GreenMachine. On second thought, yes I do. Second offense? Really? So you're telling me that, after getting popped once so the "I didn't know any better" excuse is out the window, he got arrested again? Whether you believe in marijuana laws or not that is what I call dumb. The myth that our state, federal, or even county jails are overflowing with potheads is just that...a myth. It's viewed as minor crime, but yes still crime.
Now, on to my all-time favorite fallacy. Every person that I have ever arrested for what they viewed as minor crime has had the same dumb-ass commentary on the situation..."You should be out there catching real criminals instead of harassing me." Let's examine that for a moment shall we:
1)I have a hard time defining it as "harassment" when I am enforcing a law which is currently part of statute. You have every right to band together with your fellow Americans and change statutes...or, you can bitch and moan about enforcement of the ones you don't agree with. Perhaps I'll begin illegally searching vehicles...you know, cuz I don't agree with that particular amendment.
2)Violent crime is not, despite what you have been led to believe by the news, happening every second of every day. That means that, when rapes and murders and robberies aren't occuring, police officers are off doing little things like writing tickets, getting drunks off of the road, arresting for dope, solving disputes between ornery teens and their parents and answering every other general nuisance complaint that the citizens see fit to call about. The image of the lazy beat cop who just picks on the little guy gets a little too much play amongst those who wish to demonize law-enforcement for their own benefit...the truth is police officers are tasked with being cops/social workers/counselors/attorneys...yes, attorneys, because no officer can sit down to enjoy a meal without someone coming up and saying "I don't want to interrupt your meal but I have this question about a ticket......." Which brings us to the popular retort of "Well then let's just reduce the number of officers......"
3)If you take a number of beat cops off of the street then one of two things must necessarily occur. One, you screen 911 calls and tell people with minor issues that no officer is coming so that they may stay available for "major" crimes. No more telling your child to listen to you, no more getting your drunk boyfriend to leave your home, no more responding when the neighborhood kids spraypaint on your fence, not even responses when someone breaks into your car b/c the suspect is long gone and why tie up a unit over your purse and/or cd collection? Your second option if you reduce the number of officers is to continue fielding all of the calls per usual but then lack the requisite number necessary to respond to the "real" crime. Oh, you didn't know that it takes a minimum of six officers to respond to a shooting? There's the officer who takes the report, the 2-3 who track down and detain witnesses, the several who keep onlookers out of our crime scene...and did I mention the 10 or so who are actively looking for your suspect on your "real" crime?
4)Certainly, though, things would work much more smoothly if officers weren't wasting time with potheads though, right? Well, as has been said already, it is against the law. And while the term "gateway" gets bandied about a bit erroneously in my opinion (I don't buy the gateway drug argument) it is rather accurate in one regard. The smell of burning marijuana has allowed officers into many a vehicle which contained cocaine, heroin, contraband from a robbery or burglary, persons with warrants...and let's not even begin to talk about the number of legitimate arrests for "real" crime that have been made because the officer had probable cause to enter your home after seeing your bong burning on the coffee table. Oh, and did I mention guns? Yeah, that's right weed dealers, are generally armed. Now before someone makes the wrong-headed argument that dope dealers are armed because they're protecting against other criminals and if it weren't illegal they wouldn't need to understand two things...(1)They're armed because they're general scum bags, not for protection and (2)Legalizing marijuana and taxing it, the cure all for potheads everywhere, would not stop the mom and pop dealers on every corner...and they'd still be armed. What, you thought because Uncle Sam got into the weed business that Bill, John or Tyrone from up the block would get out of it? Uhhhh...grow houses are not that hard to put together so why would I give up my profit margin to the government just because they want a slice of the pie? And what are you gonna do about it now, it's legal.

KingDL1 · July 20, 2009

I can just imagine the 5th grade drug education class, during the question and answer portion, when the smart little kid in the class asks "If drugs are so bad, how come my daddy can buy them at the store?". The education program will evolve into drugs are bad, but they are for adults, so you can't have any until you are an adult. And we all know that middle and high schoolers have really bought off on this when it comes to tobacco and alcohol.
More tax, more tax, more tax. Didn't this country basically form to avoid this thought process?

I agree but its not like it makes a difference, if you can teach your kids not to smoke you can teach them not to do drugs. Drugs being illegal is not a deterrent, we can't win and it just an money pit.

GreenMachine · July 20, 2009

Take it from someone who works quite closely with narcotics (some might even use the term "Narcotics Detective"). Getting caught with a little weed, hell even selling a little weed, will get you...everyone together now..."pro-ba-tion". And for your second offense, if you have half a brain, again everyone...."pro-ba-tion." Don't know what to tell you about your friend GreenMachine. On second thought, yes I do. Second offense? Really? So you're telling me that, after getting popped once so the "I didn't know any better" excuse is out the window, he got arrested again? Whether you believe in marijuana laws or not that is what I call dumb. The myth that our state, federal, or even county jails are overflowing with potheads is just that...a myth. It's viewed as minor crime, but yes still crime.
Now, on to my all-time favorite fallacy. Every person that I have ever arrested for what they viewed as minor crime has had the same dumb-ass commentary on the situation..."You should be out there catching real criminals instead of harassing me." Let's examine that for a moment shall we:
1)I have a hard time defining it as "harassment" when I am enforcing a law which is currently part of statute. You have every right to band together with your fellow Americans and change statutes...or, you can bitch and moan about enforcement of the ones you don't agree with. Perhaps I'll begin illegally searching vehicles...you know, cuz I don't agree with that particular amendment.
2)Violent crime is not, despite what you have been led to believe by the news, happening every second of every day. That means that, when rapes and murders and robberies aren't occuring, police officers are off doing little things like writing tickets, getting drunks off of the road, arresting for dope, solving disputes between ornery teens and their parents and answering every other general nuisance complaint that the citizens see fit to call about. The image of the lazy beat cop who just picks on the little guy gets a little too much play amongst those who wish to demonize law-enforcement for their own benefit...the truth is police officers are tasked with being cops/social workers/counselors/attorneys...yes, attorneys, because no officer can sit down to enjoy a meal without someone coming up and saying "I don't want to interrupt your meal but I have this question about a ticket......." Which brings us to the popular retort of "Well then let's just reduce the number of officers......"
3)If you take a number of beat cops off of the street then one of two things must necessarily occur. One, you screen 911 calls and tell people with minor issues that no officer is coming so that they may stay available for "major" crimes. No more telling your child to listen to you, no more getting your drunk boyfriend to leave your home, no more responding when the neighborhood kids spraypaint on your fence, not even responses when someone breaks into your car b/c the suspect is long gone and why tie up a unit over your purse and/or cd collection? Your second option if you reduce the number of officers is to continue fielding all of the calls per usual but then lack the requisite number necessary to respond to the "real" crime. Oh, you didn't know that it takes a minimum of six officers to respond to a shooting? There's the officer who takes the report, the 2-3 who track down and detain witnesses, the several who keep onlookers out of our crime scene...and did I mention the 10 or so who are actively looking for your suspect on your "real" crime?
4)Certainly, though, things would work much more smoothly if officers weren't wasting time with potheads though, right? Well, as has been said already, it is against the law. And while the term "gateway" gets bandied about a bit erroneously in my opinion (I don't buy the gateway drug argument) it is rather accurate in one regard. The smell of burning marijuana has allowed officers into many a vehicle which contained cocaine, heroin, contraband from a robbery or burglary, persons with warrants...and let's not even begin to talk about the number of legitimate arrests for "real" crime that have been made because the officer had probable cause to enter your home after seeing your bong burning on the coffee table. Oh, and did I mention guns? Yeah, that's right weed dealers, are generally armed. Now before someone makes the wrong-headed argument that dope dealers are armed because they're protecting against other criminals and if it weren't illegal they wouldn't need to understand two things...(1)They're armed because they're general scum bags, not for protection and (2)Legalizing marijuana and taxing it, the cure all for potheads everywhere, would not stop the mom and pop dealers on every corner...and they'd still be armed. What, you thought because Uncle Sam got into the weed business that Bill, John or Tyrone from up the block would get out of it? Uhhhh...grow houses are not that hard to put together so why would I give up my profit margin to the government just because they want a slice of the pie? And what are you gonna do about it now, it's legal.

don't be such a f'n smartass. 4 years ago I had a car stolen. I talked to 3 different police officers and was told 3 totally different things to do, it was obvious none of them had a clue what they were talking about. I then went to a detective and told him about my experience with the 3 cops. He basically shook his head and commented about what a bunch of dumbasses they were. There have been in the past and still are people getting arrested for small amounts of pot. Maybe if you were as smart as you tried to portray on here, you wouldn't be a cop.

Censored by Laurie · July 20, 2009

don't be such a f'n smartass. 4 years ago I had a car stolen. I talked to 3 different police officers and was told 3 totally different things to do, it was obvious none of them had a clue what they were talking about. I then went to a detective and told him about my experience with the 3 cops. He basically shook his head and commented about what a bunch of dumbasses they were. There have been in the past and still are people getting arrested for small amounts of pot. Maybe if you were as smart as you tried to portray on here, you wouldn't be a cop.

Seven pages in and we've finally strayed and this has gotten fun.

I think I may blaze one up and see where this goes.

emmitt01 · July 20, 2009

There have been in the past and still are people getting arrested for small amounts of pot. Maybe if you were as smart as you tried to portray on here, you wouldn't be a cop.

I apologize for your bag experience with those officers. Scratching my head as to why that reflects in any way/shape/form on how "smart" I am but I'll just assume your misplaced aggression is due to this being a personal cause issue for you or something of the like. And as for being a smart ass, guilty as charged...perhaps next time I'll couch my truisms in more kid friendly terms.

Now, with that out of the way, show me where I stated that people are not arrested for pot possession? I'll wait...

Edited July 20, 2009 by emmitt01