Here is the bottom line. Over the past 70+ years, the United States has spent billions of taxpayer dollars enforcing marijuana prohibition. Nine out of 10 marijuana offenders are charged solely with simple possession. Many people have been sent to prison because of these laws, and even more have acquired a lifelong criminal record for a marijuana offense. But, here's the situation-
1)Marijuana use has only increased over this period of prohibition, therefore, strict enforcement has NOT lead to a decrease in use.
2)Marijuana has been scientifically proven (over and over again) to be less harmful and less addictive (most evidence shows that marijuana is not chemically addictive) than other legal and regulated drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco (not to mention the whole slew of pharmaceuticals), yet we treat it as if it is more dangerous. In addition, there is now no question that marijuana has medicinal benefits, and patients who find relief in marijuana are currently subject to criminal sanctions.
3)Marijuana prohibition, not marijuana use, has lead to a great deal of violent crime. Marijuana does not make people violent (and really you can't even use that argument because we all know an violent alcoholic or two- and that's perfectly legal). What makes people violent is the black market in which drugs are being dealt. Think about it...as soon as we ended alcohol prohibition, violent, organized crime dropped dramatically. I suppose that this is an argument for legalization and regulation, which I fully support. Either way, putting criminal sanctions on marijuana users makes no sense and does nothing to stop violent crime.
4)Decriminalizing small amounts (or any amounts, in my opinion) of marijuana DOES NOT send the wrong message to our youth. Please stop saying that it does...it's a ridiculous theory. Think about it. If we don't want our youth to use mind-altering substances, it is much more effective to regulate the substance. This is why every high school and junior high school survey shows that it is easier for kids to access marijuana and other illegal substances than alcohol and cigarettes. And, marijuana's criminal status has done nothing to deter young people from using. In addition, the harm that is caused by our current policy sends the message to youth that in our country, the government gets to create laws based not on science and research, but on draconian moral standards. In my opinion, that is the wrong message. On another note, if we want to create laws to send the "right" message to youth, we might as well put a ban on fast-food and artificial ingredients, since heart disease and cancer cause more deaths than anything else in this country.
Let responsible adults make their own decisions. Let's inform young people of the real harm from drugs, but let's not lie to them in hopes that they won't use. Let's put money toward education, drug prevention and rehabilitation. Stop using taxpayer dollars to punish individuals for an offense that 75 million Americans think is OK. What happened to majority rules? Let's create drug policies that actually work(there is such thing- check out the Netherlands' drug policies), and stop punishing people for choosing a different drug than yours. You can come home from work and sip on your martini...I'd rather spark a joint.
19 comments:
FYI- You know where I stand, but even I can't deny the logic here. Can I at least negotiate a larger fine? I suggest $1,000,000.00.
Would you like to be fined for enjoying a beer or a cocktail?
Just theoretically, Why should you be fined for making a choice about yourself that doesnt effect the people around you any more significantly than having a drink or taking medications?
That's what I'm sayin', yo
How can Marijuana be compared to a beer or cocktail? Once MJ is ingested, you are in an altered state. A beer or cocktail require some quantity (some more than others)to impair judgment or senses. If legalized or decriminalized, do you think MJ will be only consumed in a home friendly environment and not affect a driver's instincts when taken outside the home?
Anonymous...you've got it all wrong. Marijuana can be compared to beer and liquor in that it is actually less harmful to one's health and consumption can most certainly be regulated, especially when you are talking about experienced users. Just like how drinkers can easily have a cocktail or two without complete intoxication, a smoker can take a puff or two and hardly feel the effects. You cannot say that it is OK for people to alter themselves with one substance and deny them another that is actually less harmful. In addition, is getting really drunk a crime? No...but there are laws regarding when and where you can do it, and what you cannot do when you are intoxicated. No one is asking for lesser regulations with marijuana, just a little freedom to choose. I'm quite curious...What exactly do you fear would happen under a decriminalization policy???
I am in favor of revising our drug policies, as they have proven to do more harm than good in the case of Marijuana. But let's bring it back, for all those who want to be educated on these facts, to how and why the "War on Drugs" began in the first place. I believe it had something to do with pharmaceutical companies, the government, the use of a "fear tactic", and a shit load of money. Hug a tree, can you elaborate on this?
treehugger,
how many pot smokers do you know that take one or two puffs, not feel any effects, then not take that third or fourth puff that "intoxicates" them? Plus, if their not getting somewhat high after one or two puffs, maybe get a new dealer with better weed.
The point is it can't be compared to enjoying "a" cocktail or beer.
Where in my blog do you sense that I "fear" decriminalization? I've been smoking pot for over 25 years and enjoy it, but use it responsibly by not driving after smoking. I know most do NOT do this.
How many drinkers do you know that drive to a bar and don't think twice before they get back in to their cars and drive home after a few cocktails? No one is disagreeing that people should not drive while intoxicated. It is beside the point of decriminalization. We don't want to decriminalize driving while high, just like we do not allow drunk driving. If your concern is that by decriminalizing more people will use pot and therefore more will use it irresponsibly, you should consider the fact that marijuana use has continued to rise alongside stricter criminal pot policies. Regardless, marijuana can certainly be compared to alcohol because whether or not you choose to get high or higher, you can still regulate your intake, as you can with beer and liquor. I often take a puff or two just to effectively relieve anxiety, without the desire for the high. And guess what...for me, it works. Believe me, some of us are much better off smoking than drinking. When was the last time you saw a belligerent pot-smoker? In addition, this policy would not just benefit marijuana users, but taxpayers and families alike. We do not need our government to act as a babysitter. We are adults...some of us responsible. And I must ask, if you are not fearful of decriminalization, what constitutes your concern?
All,
The problem isnt about whether or not marijuana should be decriminalized, the problem is lack of information and understanding of the proposed bill. If you live in MA send the proposal to everyone you know that is a registered voter. On Nov 4th, voters are focused on the major elections in their districts, ballot questions are consistently overlooked and people are forced to vote on a whim. The only thing that will get this bill passed is education.
I am not agreeing with your point of view sorry, smoking weed and drinking a beer do not equate! people who enjoy a beer or cocktail after work or at night do so for the taste, not the effect. Smoking pot is done for "effect" as you state when you take two puffs to effectively relieve anxiety. Now when compared to drinking multiple beers or cocktails the comparison gets similar. I will be voting no on Q2 on 11/4 as a responsible Massachusetts citizen who uses marijuana in the home. I have no fear of being arrested in my home for casual marijuana usage. Those who put themselves out there to be arrested are probably doing something else criminal and marijuana is just another charge added. Decriminalization is unnecessary in my opinion, and not about fear.
Anonymous...once again, kind of beside the point. Not to mention, you are a hypocrite. Do you think that you are the only person in Massachusetts, or in the country for that matter, that uses marijuana responsibly? Of the 830,000 people who were arrested for marijuana charges in 2006, 9 out of ten were for simple possession- no other offense. If I am a responsible adult who uses pot to relieve anxiety, why shouldn't I be able to do that without the threat of obtaining a criminal record? I have a strong sense that you do not fit into any of the groups that are so frequently targeted for marijuana offenses (my guess is that your're a white, middle-aged male, perhaps?)and therefore are not concerned about being caught. Regardless, why go along with a law that spends our tax dollars criminalizing people for doing the same thing that you are doing, with no positive results or criminalization? Who does the criminalization of marijuana benefit?
However, you do realize what you are doing is still illegal, and therefore punishable by law, thereby confirming your "criminal activity".
I suppose you grow your own weed?? or do you have to pick it up from someone?
I hope for your sake and/or your dealer who may make house calls.. that you're carrying less than an ounce and this bill passes. So when a responsible user, such as yourself, is coming home and you get pulled over, you just get a fine... instead of being booked and having a criminal record created for you...wasting your time, wasting taxpayers money, and totally killing your high from smoking a bowl at your dealers house.
The bill offers decriminalization for multiple reasons. Decriminalizing an act to fit the 'crime' saves time and money, and has more to do with logic than fear.
TreeHugger,
Where are your stats coming from? If you are going on your original post: "Nine out of 10 marijuana offenders are charged solely with simple possession.", I am sure the "solely" means without an intent to sell enhancement, or felony amount charge. Not "solely" as in the lone charge in the arrest.
Where is the hypocrisy you speak of? Just because I am a responsible user of marijuana doesn't mean I have to be pro decriminalization, why must I be or fit in a label or be targeted? White I am, middle age yes, male no, heterosexual no. What does it matter? Males, Young, Students, African-Americans, those are the people that put themselves "out there" and that's why you feel they are targeted.
And what do you mean "besides the point"? My original post's point was that marijuana use should not be compared to sipping on a Martini as you put it. That's the point I intended to make.
Lo,
Know your rights! When I get pulled over on my way home from my dealer, I wouldn't be so naive to agree to let a police officer search my car. Also I am a casual user, not an abuser. An ounce would go stale by the time I got around to finishing it.
Continue being responsible - VOTE NO ON #2
Anonymous...
Do some research, then we can continue this conversation if you would like. The point of this bill is so that we stop wasting resources and tax dollars on enforcing a law that 70% of our population breaks, such as in your case, because they feel that their behavior is either acceptable or excusable. Again, I ask, who benefits from the policy the way it stands?
in 1979, after 11 states decriminalized private marijuana use, marijuana use among 12th grade students was almost 51 percent and in 1992, when stricter marijuana laws were put in place, the usage rate reduced to 22 percent. When Alaska decriminalized marijuana, the marijuana use rate among youth rose twice as much as the youth usage rates nationwide; even though the law did not apply to anyone under the age of 19, the pamphlet explains this is why Alaska re-criminalized marijuana in 1990.
Anonymous...
First and foremost it must be acknowledged that although marijuana use is considered a criminal activity, it is admittedly used by over 75 million Americans. Seventy-five million Americans aren't criminals, so there is clearly something wrong with our policies. Further, since 1973, 12 states have decriminalized marijuana. Studies have shown, time after time, that decriminalization does not lead to increased marijuana use, not among adults; not among youth. Perhaps your statistics about Alaska are true, but if you take into consideration the rest o of the decriminalized states in this country, in addition to other decrim. countries, such as the Netherlands , then perhaps it isn't decriminalization that can be attributed for an increase in marijuana use. But (and I'm starting to feel like Katie Couric here), I continue to ask who benefits from our current marijuana policies if marijuana use continues to rise with stricter regulations and tax dollars continue to be poured into a system that labels almost a third of Americans as criminals? And how is claiming something should be illegal while committing that illegal offense not hypocritical?ghnijip
treehugger,
where do your stats come from? I say: in 1979, after 11 states decriminalized private marijuana use, marijuana use among 12th grade students was almost 51 percent and in 1992, when stricter marijuana laws were put in place, the usage rate reduced to 22 percent.
then you say: since 1973, 12 states have decriminalized marijuana. Studies have shown, time after time, that decriminalization does not lead to increased marijuana use, not among adults; not among youth.
something has to give!
increased use of marijuana among our youth leads to experimenting with other illicit drugs. This is not needed.
I have done well smoking weed in my lifetime without getting arrested. I have a feeling you have too. If criminalization puts the fear into at least 1% of our youth, then it is working!
Post a Comment