Is This the End of the War on Drugs?

[praetorian-legio XIII]

Oh, and retribution from the Feds will be swift. We'll see it in the order of months, not years. Because if they don't do something quick, like the next two years, Oregon, California, New Mexico, and possibly a couple of east coast states like Maryland and Vermont, will model initiatives after the initiatives in Colorado and Washington and pass legalization as well. Then it'll be too overwhelming for the Feds to deal with.

Also, on a more puzzing note, Washington also had a referendum on the ballot to allow same sex marriage... marijuana legalization passed with a much wider percentage than same sex marriage! Although same sex marriage did indeed pass, but it was close. I wanna know which homophobes voted for pot, but not marriage. LOL.

So now your homophobic if you don't agree with same sex marriage?

(sorry so far off topic but just caught my attention)

Edited November 12, 2012 by praetorian-legio XIII

[The Silver Thong]

So now your homophobic if you don't agree with same sex marriage?

(sorry so far off topic but just caught my attention)

Not really but one may have a religious doctrine they feel owns the word marriage or homosexual feelings themselves that thay may feel shamefull of for the previous reason lol

I don`t smoke pot but I do see the huge amount of money wasted to regulate it.

[aztek]

it is b.s.

we see how it works in Ca. state says you can, than feds come, destroy stores, and arrest owners. and say no you can't.

war on drugs is an industry, they aren't interested for this war to end.

amount of drugs only goes up. drugs are not any harder to find that it was before wod. real streets results of this war, big fat zero.

dealers\cartels themselver wont let it happened.

[+DieChecker]

Even if we accept your lesser figure of 10% my point is equally valid. What is even more significant is if that 10% of youth enter the criminal justice system and prison because of this habit. This will generally cause them to become career criminals and expose them to harder and more dangerous drugs and behaviour. This is one of the primary reasons why America has one of the highest rates of youth imprisonment in the world. This cannot be good for American society as a whole.

As people have pointed out, occasional Pot use is probably highest amongst the professional classes - which puts to bed the notion that it is debilitating and detrimental to society.

Br Cornelius

Well... I agree with you that your point is valid. That putting these kids in jail is not helpful. Probably instead of criminalizing these kids we should give them something else to do that will improve their future. Even public service might be not so helpful. Not sure what the best choice would be, but just letting kids use drugs and hibernate is not going to win for them either.

While I agree that pot is not supposed to harm anyone (other then little kids according to some studies), I don't think making it legal because kids want it is the way to go. Teens want to drive very fast too, and many of them are good responsible drivers, partly due to good reflexes. But that does not mean we need to increase all speed limits by 15 mph nationwide.

Edited November 13, 2012 by DieChecker

[Guest]

Pot has been with us since the beginning of time - failure to acknowledge that is the crime here.

What I find most disturbing is that by leaving it to the criminals we have super skunk - which is dangerous.

Overall though, I find the prevalence of Cocaine use among the rich and influential far more disturbing. It has a corrupting influence on public life which I think is directly responsible for things like the celebrity culture and the financial crisis. Not only that, but it is also one of the most environmentally damaging things imaginable. Terrible on every level.

Br Cornelius

[MissMelsWell]

I would absolutely NEVER advocate for the recreational legalization of cocaine (although cocaine is techically legal for medical use. It's a Schedule II narcotic and certain types of pharmacies actually dispense it in pure form) So essentially, it's on par with a Percocet or Ritalin.

As a non-user, my really big problem with the Feds is that Marijuana doens't even meet their own criteria for being a schedule I narcotic! This is the point I hope Colorado and Washington force on the Feds and make the rest of the country aware of. The United States created the international ban on a pretty darn harmless and sometimes useful and helpful plant. It's time we un-do the wrong we did.

[preacherman76]

I've NEVER heard him say that. I've always understood that he'd side with the feds on state run pot distribution.

He said he wouldn't "use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana." Thats word for word. So obviously he lied.

Then after confronted he said.

What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana ...

Edited November 13, 2012 by preacherman76

[Babe Ruth]

I would absolutely NEVER advocate for the recreational legalization of cocaine (although cocaine is techically legal for medical use. It's a Schedule II narcotic and certain types of pharmacies actually dispense it in pure form) So essentially, it's on par with a Percocet or Ritalin.

As a non-user, my really big problem with the Feds is that Marijuana doens't even meet their own criteria for being a schedule I narcotic! This is the point I hope Colorado and Washington force on the Feds and make the rest of the country aware of. The United States created the international ban on a pretty darn harmless and sometimes useful and helpful plant. It's time we un-do the wrong we did.

I do advocate for the legalization of all the currently illegal drugs, simply because logic demands that it is the prohibition that is harming our society, no matter how many drugs happen to be on the prohibited list.

Which is to say that a drug's toxicity or potential for abuse cannot be the controlling factor for its legal status. If toxicity were the standard, then aspirin, alcohol and tobacco would be at the top of the list.

It is the prohibition that harms, hence LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

[+OverSword]

I voted no on I-502 (missmellswell, who knows me is possibly shocked at that) because I was watching a debate where a hidden agenda was addressed. They plan on regulating not only the production and sale of pot for legal use but also plan on limiting the potency of legal pot to about 15% THC. Current typicaly grown pot is about 70%. If you want to get stronger than 15% you will have to go through black market chanels which will then be subject to much harsher penalties than are currently the norm. I-502 was voted through by people who just couldn'd wait to have legal pot and didn't really examine the initiative in thier rush to have it.

PS. I know the MMW does not smoke pot and her heart was in the right place.

PPS. Last night I informed my mother (who also voted yes on 502) that I voted against the legalization of recreational marajuana and for gay marriage and she wanted to know what I did with her son.

[MissMelsWell]

I voted no on I-502 (missmellswell, who knows me is possibly shocked at that) because I was watching a debate where a hidden agenda was addressed. They plan on regulating not only the production and sale of pot for legal use but also plan on limiting the potency of legal pot to about 15% THC. Current typicaly grown pot is about 70%. If you want to get stronger than 15% you will have to go through black market chanels which will then be subject to much harsher penalties than are currently the norm. I-502 was voted through by people who just couldn'd wait to have legal pot and didn't really examine the initiative in thier rush to have it.

PS. I know the MMW does not smoke pot and her heart was in the right place.

PPS. Last night I informed my mother (who also voted yes on 502) that I voted against the legalization of recreational marajuana and for gay marriage and she wanted to know what I did with her son.

Hahaha! I LOVE your mother!

And no, believe it or not, I assumed you would vote "no" on it for those reasons and maybe even some others. In fact, most of the medical users I know voted against it as well.

I voted yes on it because I want it to be heard that there's a changing attitude, I actually don't believe that we'll see any state run pot stores in a year. I think the Feds are going to throw a hissy fit and do whatever is in their power to stop it. I've always thought that.

At one time in Washington, you couldnt sell alcohol above 3.5% or whatever it was... but the law has been ammended several times and now we have no limits on precentage of alcohol by volume in this state. You can walk out to 711 and buy a 10% beer and you can go to QFC and buy a fifth of vodk as of 6 months ago. These laws are subject t change and ammending. The language that's in there was to get it passed in the first place. It won't stay as written, they never do.

But in the end, I don't think we'll see legal state run pot sales anyway.

Edited November 13, 2012 by MissMelsWell

[keithisco]

Marijuana, and Cocaine are both mind altering drugs...overuse leads to periods of psychosis and the long - term effects can lead to impotency, psychotic behaviour, self - harming, and withdrawal from society at large. I will not tell you how I know this, but I have older children, and am still picking up the pieces.

This is NOT Cheech and Chong humorous movies, this is reality!!!

[MissMelsWell]

That's funny, I know a LOT of pot smokers. They are regular, daily users who have been partaking for 30+ years. They're as normal today as they were 35 years ago. In fact, I probably only know one person in all my years that shouldn't have been smoking pot. He did get a little nutty... I'm going to take a shot at the reason why... he was an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic. Pot escalated that condition.

Edited November 13, 2012 by MissMelsWell

[Babe Ruth]

I voted no on I-502 (missmellswell, who knows me is possibly shocked at that) because I was watching a debate where a hidden agenda was addressed. They plan on regulating not only the production and sale of pot for legal use but also plan on limiting the potency of legal pot to about 15% THC. Current typicaly grown pot is about 70%. If you want to get stronger than 15% you will have to go through black market chanels which will then be subject to much harsher penalties than are currently the norm. I-502 was voted through by people who just couldn'd wait to have legal pot and didn't really examine the initiative in thier rush to have it.

PS. I know the MMW does not smoke pot and her heart was in the right place.

PPS. Last night I informed my mother (who also voted yes on 502) that I voted against the legalization of recreational marajuana and for gay marriage and she wanted to know what I did with her son.

Thanks for that info. That is a perfect example of a regulation that was not thought through all the way. Allowing only 15% THC content is just asking for a black market to eventually materialize.

[+OverSword]

Thanks for that info. That is a perfect example of a regulation that was not thought through all the way. Allowing only 15% THC content is just asking for a black market to eventually materialize.

You don't have to wear a tinfoil hat to see the conspiracy here. They figured out a way to tighten controls that currecnt prohibition wasn't accomplishing.

[jugoso]

I voted no on I-502 (missmellswell, who knows me is possibly shocked at that) because I was watching a debate where a hidden agenda was addressed. They plan on regulating not only the production and sale of pot for legal use but also plan on limiting the potency of legal pot to about 15% THC. Current typicaly grown pot is about 70%. If you want to get stronger than 15% you will have to go through black market chanels which will then be subject to much harsher penalties than are currently the norm. I-502 was voted through by people who just couldn'd wait to have legal pot and didn't really examine the initiative in thier rush to have it.

PS. I know the MMW does not smoke pot and her heart was in the right place.

PPS. Last night I informed my mother (who also voted yes on 502) that I voted against the legalization of recreational marajuana and for gay marriage and she wanted to know what I did with her son.

Not exactly sure where you got your figures from. My understanding is that in the early 70´s the THC content in Marijuana was 2-3% and over the last few decades has increased to as much as 20%+. I don´t know why anyone would need marijuana with a THC content of 70%. A THC content of 15% is more than enough to for a user to get the effects they want.

There is a good chart here

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/thc-content/

Stronger cannabis products aren't "more dangerous" -- they're just stronger, which means less product is required to get the same effect. It's quite similar to the range of alcohol products between beer and whiskey. Whiskey may be "10 times stronger" than beer, but the drug in question (alcohol) is still the same thing.

[+OverSword]

Not exactly sure where you got your figures from. My understanding is that in the early 70´s the THC content in Marijuana was 2-3% and over the last few decades has increased to as much as 20%+. I don´t know why anyone would need marijuana with a THC content of 70%. A THC content of 15% is more than enough to for a user to get the effects they want.

There is a good chart here

http://www.briancben...ta/thc-content/

Stronger cannabis products aren't "more dangerous" -- they're just stronger, which means less product is required to get the same effect. It's quite similar to the range of alcohol products between beer and whiskey. Whiskey may be "10 times stronger" than beer, but the drug in question (alcohol) is still the same thing.

My figures are based on the debate about I-502 I was watching on the CSPAN of the state of Washington prior to the election. The percentages I quoted came from a retired police officer who was arguing the con side of the debate, and while I don't recall all of the exact numbers he said I am positive that he stated that when he was in the Washinton state patrol in the 1970's the THC content was 15%. Again I don't know about the accuracy of his numbers, this is just what he said.

edit for: After looking at your charts I've got to point out that the hydroponic pot grown in the pacific northwest was for decades stronger than other pot. When I was a kid my nieghbors blend won best bud in high times 5 years in a row and was finally defeated by someone else in this state. Back in the 80's on the occassion that we would partake with people from other parts of the country they were consistently impressed with the quality.

Edited November 13, 2012 by OverSword

[Guest]

Not exactly sure where you got your figures from. My understanding is that in the early 70´s the THC content in Marijuana was 2-3% and over the last few decades has increased to as much as 20%+. I don´t know why anyone would need marijuana with a THC content of 70%. A THC content of 15% is more than enough to for a user to get the effects they want.

There is a good chart here

http://www.briancben...ta/thc-content/

Stronger cannabis products aren't "more dangerous" -- they're just stronger, which means less product is required to get the same effect. It's quite similar to the range of alcohol products between beer and whiskey. Whiskey may be "10 times stronger" than beer, but the drug in question (alcohol) is still the same thing.

Not true. Cannabis has two drugs in it. One is THC the other is an anti-psychotic.; The super skunk varieties have increased the THC content which has the side effect of reducing the anti-psychotic. Hence super Skunk is more likely to induce psychosis.

Br Cornelius

[+OverSword]

Not true. Cannabis has two drugs in it. One is THC the other is an anti-psychotic.; The super skunk varieties have increased the THC content which has the side effect of reducing the anti-psychotic. Hence super Skunk is more likely to induce psychosis.

Br Cornelius

LOL! Really? Well that expklains alot about my friends then!

[Drayno]

if pot gets legalized it will be just a question of time for the rest.

This is very flawed logic.

Having something statistically safer than Alcohol legalized, like Marijuana, will not give every one the option to legally become Meth addicts.

That is very presumptuous...

[Grandpa Greenman]

I didn't know how much good it was doing for my pain until I lost my source and quit. It wasn't hard to quit, but my pain ramped up, so I do miss it. There is nothing I get from the doctor that works as well. Opiates do nothing they might as well be candy. I wish they would legalize to to grow for your own use. Even if I could buy it in the store I really couldn't afford it.

[jugoso]

Not true. Cannabis has two drugs in it. One is THC the other is an anti-psychotic.; The super skunk varieties have increased the THC content which has the side effect of reducing the anti-psychotic. Hence super Skunk is more likely to induce psychosis.

Br Cornelius

I am confused by your statement that there are two drugs in marijuana. There are over 400 chemicals in marijuana with THC being the one causing the main psycho-active effects. Which is the anti-psychotic you refer to?

My main point was that marijuana with a 70% THC content just doesn´t exist to the best of my knowledge.

http://original-ssc....is-strains.html

Edited November 14, 2012 by jugoso

[+DieChecker]

What is the percentages based on? Weight? If so, then 70% would seem to be impossible, unless the finished product was highly processed. Even when dried out, plant matter would seem to require more then 30% of its mass to be used for non-THC functions.

[ColoradoParanormal]

I am not sure whom posted about the Federal Government closing banks that had these Marijuana businesses as customers, but this is simply not the case. I know this because Colorado has had Marijuana legalized for a number of years now. Not to this degree, but it has been legal in a "medical" form. We have dispensaries on every street corner literally and the Fed's are yet to step in and do anything.

[+DieChecker]

I've been firmly Anti-Pot in the past, and still am. When people ask if I would make Liquor/Alcohol and Tobacco illegal, I always say YES. If I thought it was possible to implement and have people do so, I'd make those illegal too.

I've always been of the opinion of if we have trouble with alcohol and tobacco now... why do we then need to toss pot in on top of that? If you have two health/social problems that are not controllable, why add more?

The social problem is not people sitting at home and smoking one every now and then, just as people taking a brandy, or drinking a couple beers, or a bottle of wine... in their home, is not an issue. It is these kids that go out, and drive around stoned on pot, who "know" they are better drivers while stoned, and end up causing problems.

The problem is not pot, it is keeping it out of the hands of kids... which cannot be done.... just like alcohol and cigarrettes.

Since many 12 year olds want to Drink and Smoke, I guess we might just as well make those legal for them to do??? Where do we say, "This the public can't have, to protect those who would misuse it."? For me that includes pot.

End rant.

[Orcseeker]

I've been firmly Anti-Pot in the past, and still am. When people ask if I would make Liquor/Alcohol and Tobacco illegal, I always say YES. If I thought it was possible to implement and have people do so, I'd make those illegal too.

I've always been of the opinion of if we have trouble with alcohol and tobacco now... why do we then need to toss pot in on top of that? If you have two health/social problems that are not controllable, why add more?

The social problem is not people sitting at home and smoking one every now and then, just as people taking a brandy, or drinking a couple beers, or a bottle of wine... in their home, is not an issue. It is these kids that go out, and drive around stoned on pot, who "know" they are better drivers while stoned, and end up causing problems.

The problem is not pot, it is keeping it out of the hands of kids... which cannot be done.... just like alcohol and cigarrettes.

Since many 12 year olds want to Drink and Smoke, I guess we might just as well make those legal for them to do??? Where do we say, "This the public can't have, to protect those who would misuse it."? For me that includes pot.

End rant.

The problem with that is, making it illegal doesn't stop the problem, in fact it makes it worse.

I will outline reasons why:

- If it is illegal, shops cannot sell it, those who sell on the streets don't need to confirm to any age law restrictions.

- You say keep it out of the hands of kids. What happens when kids start to grow up? They get rebellious. So in turn will look to illegal things. One of which, Marijuana.

- Since alcohol is sold in stores and generally at a price the black market cannot compete with due to production on a larger scale and better quality/security of content. It meant that alcohol that we saw in the prohibition era to be bootlegged, made no sense to do so. It is easier to buy an illegal, prohibited substance than the same one, this time legal, in a shop. (ie. not selling alcohol to underage kids)

- I have seen many kids turned to crime over the illegal distribution and production of marijuana. Due to the high demand of the substance it means a higher amount of these kids become involved with such.

- Because alcohol is legal for people at a certain age to buy and consume, does it mean those not allowed will all drink it and hop in a car to drive while intoxicated?

Since you focus mostly on younger people I will summarise the key problems as a result of illegality:

- Easy avaliability

- Illegality encouraging use

- Little to no regulation

- Stigma attached

- Introduction to crime

- Lack of education

I have read some stories where people have been at risk of death due to their friends not wanting to be incriminated after taking substances and dropping off a friend to a hospital and not telling the doctors or anyone anything. Resulting in administered medicine being potentially lethal when combined with the induced substance.

When I was first intoxicated from alcohol, I was 16. I am not an alcoholic now, I don't drink often at all, at most once maybe every few months these days. I'm not irresponsible, I don't start fights or anything of the like. Much like this, which is even a lot less than in moderation, you can take many substances an not be a risk to people if do so responsibly. Which means, don't drink if you are prone to violence, much like don't smoke if there are any mental ailments that may be worsened as a result.

The amount of problems that arise from making Marijuana illegal just simply don't justify what the intended purpose for illegality is.

Marijuana is also the biggest profit turnover for Mexican cartels. They have also started using children as hitmen. Not to mention innocent civilians being killed in the crossfire and young youths is impoverished areas turned to the drug trade to make money.

Make weed legal, without any little exploitations and just simply a fair and safe system. And we will see an immense drop in crime and death.

Can you justify why we should keep this illegal? The problems I just outlined, how do you think they will get any better or cease to exist?