Here's to Congressman Frank!

[theexorcist]

Is there anything else that's a crime at one level and not at another? If it's illegal, it's illegal. Frank's attempt to change that essentially decriminalizes marijuana.

[Bando]

Jul 31, 2008 9:19:43 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

To make clear, I'm not talking about every person who's ever touched weed. I'm talking about the massive, large-scale trend I noticed in the people around me and why I personally hate the drug and consider it dangerous.

This is not a post hoc argument at all. There are dozens of reasons that I think the usage of marijuana causes a person to experiment with, and in many cases become routine users of, more elicit drugs. Whether it's a desire to achieve a different or better high, a boredom with the same old weed, or something else, I believe there is a causation.

I also believe that once a person accepts that they're willing to do something illegal in order to feel different and feel good, it opens a door that it very difficult--arguably impossible--to close. Virtually every person I know who started smoking also began with the mentality "Weed is natural. I'll only do a drug that comes from the Earth, blah blah, bullEdited, blah." But they came to accept the fact that putting a substance in their bodies to get high was ok. Very quickly, that line between marijuana and other drugs began to blur and ultimately disappear. Now, for the most part, they're into a lot more. And there's nothing less "natural" than the prescription pills that show up in an unmarked plastic bag.

I already know what's coming: the comparison to alcohol. And in many ways, I agree that alcohol can have the same sort of impact and can be dangerous in the same sort of ways, especially for kids who start drinking way too young. I didn't drink until I was 18, which is actually kind of old by today's measure. But for 13, 14, 15 year olds, drinking I think can have that same impact, convincing a kid/young adult that it's ok to put whatever you want into yourself in order to get the outcome you want. Fortunately, it seems as though people in general have an easier time drawing that line between alcohol and drugs as opposed to drawing that line between weed and more elicit drugs.

Sure, many people can smoke and be totally functional otherwise and just treat weed as an alcohol equivalent as far as recreational use. But in my estimation, there is something fundamentally different about how people psychologically deal with marijuana, and it is a gateway.

Yeah, the thing is, none of this is "evidence" of anything. It's all anecdotal, and tainted by your (understandable) bias. Your argument why none of this applies to alcohol is simply "well, it just doesn't", which is pretty damn weak. Additionally, you seem to acknowledge that criminalizing marijuana doesn't prevent people from using it, which contradicts your entire point.

I'd like to see someone explain how sending a non-violent drug user to prison accomplishes anything positive.

[Bando]

Jul 31, 2008 10:30:57 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Barney is also working to decriminalize running an escort service out of a Congessman's home...

Shorter Elvado: OMGWTF GAYZ OMGBBQ!

[strummer8526]

Bando--

Some of what you say is absolutely right. It certainly is all anecdotal. I've never done research on the issue because, frankly, as it relates to me and my life, I know what I believe in doing and not doing. But I acknowledge that my own personal experience is not hard evidence. If I were making an argument that had any practical impact and wasn't just a message board discussion, I would think that I could find numbers to support what I say. But then I'm sure you could find numbers in the opposite direction. I'm usually wary of statistics on issues like this b/c they'll be biased on either side.

As far as the alcohol point I made, I guess what I was saying is that I would bet dollars to donuts that there's a greater percentage of people who progress from smoking pot to doing other drugs than there is a percentage of people who progress from drinking to drug use. Maybe that's wrong. It's just my perception that marijuana is sort of like taking the first step into a door. Alcohol, especially for kids, is like standing out on the front porch looking in the window. It's moving in the same direction, but there's a sort of distinct step between alcohol and drugs that I don't think is as clear a line between marijuana and other drugs.

To Hifi--

I was addressing just the overarching issue about marijuana and how in my view, the legalization of it is dangerous and endorses a potentially damaging lifestyle. When we get down to the political angle, you're correct that it is a different matter.

On most issues, I also support states rights. Quite frankly, if Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or Montana want to legislate themselves into oblivion, I don't care. There are a TON of issues that I think should go back to the states. When people inevitably disagree with their legislators, they can either deal with it politically or move. That position actually makes sense to me.

The problem is that, as a nation, we've moved WAAAAY beyond that point. Even those on the Supreme Court who are pro-states rights have accepted how much we've left that port. If the federal government can regulate the array of things that it does, then I think it can and should also regulate drug use. If it's going to give up on that area of law, then there are several others I'd like the federal government to step away from also.

Then, when you get to penalty, I would like to see more treatment before immediate, sometimes disproportionate jail sentences. But there are a lot of elements of our "rehabilitation system" that don't rehabilitate at all. It would be nice to see more treatment and preventative measures rather than lock-up. At some point, though, I am ok with jail time for people possessing even small amounts.

[FewFAC]

Kudos to Barney for realizing we need to redirect War on Drugs budget items to Iraq.

[hifigator]

First things first: Boz, that post at the end of page 1 was classic.

Strummer, I understand the sentiment that you have. I too have seen people throw their lives away with drugs. And it is very easy to blame the activity rather than the individual. Such is the case here.

But I think you would have to agree with this argument:

Right now, with the exception of a very few places and only with a prescription, marijuana is illegal. In spite of that, the most recent statistic I have seen shows 42.6% of Americans have at some point smoked weed. Also between 25% and 30% identify themselves as pot smokers. Both of these numbers put us at the top internationally, aside from the fact that weed is legal in many other places. I just don't see how your fear of weed being the gateway drug makes any sense in that light. Additionally, the argument that it indoctrinates people towards the ideology of doing illegal things doesn't fly either, since in spite of escalating weed numbers, the harder drugs have been in decline. Furthermore, numerous other countries have higher usage of the harder drugs such as opium, heroin and cocaine. Now I understand a degree of that is because the poppy and coca plants only grow in certain places, while pot is a weed in more than name only. But still, if anything those types of statistics wouldn't support your position. That being said, like I mentioned before, I too know of those who have thrown everything away on drugs. Some have lost their friends and family, their jobs and their whole lives -- and not just the ones who literally died. But in all honesty, not one single person that I have ever heard of could be in that category from marijuana. In actuality, alcohol is far worse in that situation. Many have lost jobs and families from alcohol abuse, but again not from weed.

exorcist: I'm not sure what the point is in your question.

you wrote:

Is there anything else that's a crime at one level and not at another? If it's illegal, it's illegal. Frank's attempt to change that essentially decriminalizes marijuana.

As far as "level," there are many things that are on a graded scale. Simple battery is a misdemeanor. Aggravated battery is a felony. So I think having a small amount of weed being considered a lesser crime than a large amount only makes sense (and sinse' too ...)

Here in Florida, possession of less than 20 grams is a misdemeanor. Possession of over 20 grams is a felony.


Now if by "level," you mean something else then please explain.

Franks bill is attempting to do 2 things in my mind. On the grand scale it is attempting to return the right to decide whether weed should be legal back to the states.

It also opens the door for states to decriminalize it while still making it a violation. Like I mentiond before, there are numerous things that are "illegal" but not criminal. Minor traffic violations, open container, jaywalking, fishing or hunting without a license and smoking in a restaurant would all be examples. And of course the list goes on. Frank is essentially trying to allow states to decide which category possession of marijuana should fall into.

[Boz]

There is actually a fair bit of research (non-anecdotal) on the "gateway" phenomenon, including surveys, identical twin studies, and more.

What seems to be most unresolved from those studies is whether or not the gateway effect would diminish (or disappear) if marijuana was not an illegal substance.

You guys all want to spark up, be my guest. As long as you don't burn your houses down, don't get into a car, don't spill your bong water on me and....most importantly... DO remember to shower every once in a while, no skin off my nose.

(yes, you heard me....shower! I have a fair amount of anecdotal evidence -- Jack knows what I'm talkin' about -- revealing an inverse relationship between the amount of pot someone smokes and their level of personal hygeine.)

[SFHoya99]

Jul 31, 2008 12:29:19 GMT -5 Boz said:

Jul 31, 2008 10:55:20 GMT -5 hifigator said:

If you throw a cig butt out the window, should you be arrested?

YES!
Except that, in this country, it won't be long before the libero-fascists take away my right to smoke even in my own home or car, so the question is moot.

Boz, why are you so upset about the anti-smoking laws? I was under the impression you never leave your house.

[Bando]

As far as the alcohol point I made, I guess what I was saying is that I would bet dollars to donuts that there's a greater percentage of people who progress from smoking pot to doing other drugs than there is a percentage of people who progress from drinking to drug use. Maybe that's wrong. It's just my perception that marijuana is sort of like taking the first step into a door. Alcohol, especially for kids, is like standing out on the front porch looking in the window. It's moving in the same direction, but there's a sort of distinct step between alcohol and drugs that I don't think is as clear a line between marijuana and other drugs.

Even if you're right (a point which I am not at all conceding), doesn't this speak to the socialization of alcohol vs. that of marijuana in our society, and isn't that a point in favor of legalization? Your argument is completely circular here: marijuana is worse than alcohol because it's illegal, and it's illegal because it's worse than alcohol. Furthermore, alcohol is a drug, you're creating a dichotomy here where none exists. Your (or anyone's) gut feelings are a terrible basis for national policy.

Why, in your mind, are you so set on punishing drug users? What does drug use by itself do that warrants retribution? How are you or anyone else harmed by someone else smoking pot?

[Boz]

Jul 31, 2008 14:33:41 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Boz, why are you so upset about the anti-smoking laws? I was under the impression you never leave your house.

HEY now!

Well played, sir.

I must now retreat to my home to plot an adequate comeback to SF.

[Buckets]

Another aspect of the socialization argument, part of the gateway effect is that you probably wouldn't ask your local liquor store owner where you could get some weed, but it would be perfectly reasonable to ask your dealer where to score some blow and they would probably be able to tell you.

Considering that most of us have probably never seen anyone's life fall apart from marijuana use alone, I don't see why we can't make it an aggravating factor as opposed to a criminal offense.

[hifigator]

Jul 31, 2008 15:01:37 GMT -5 Buckets said:

Another aspect of the socialization argument, part of the gateway effect is that you probably wouldn't ask your local liquor store owner where you could get some weed, but it would be perfectly reasonable to ask your dealer where to score some blow and they would probably be able to tell you.

Considering that most of us have probably never seen anyone's life fall apart from marijuana use alone, I don't see why we can't make it an aggravating factor as opposed to a criminal offense.

That is a fair point, but if anything would favor legalization. If weed remains illegal, then the progressive questioning makes sense. But if weed is legal, then I don't think you would be nearly as inclined to ask the guy behind the counter at Walgreens where to get some blow.

[hifigator]

Incidentally, somebody's statistics are way off. Also I misstated one of them. While the 42.6% overall figure for having used weed at some point is purported to be accurate, the federal number for "marijuana users" stands at 7.2%. Strangely enough, there is zero difference between whites and blacks, yet the number is lower for hispanics, much lower for asians but higher for native Americans.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Interesting chart:
tinyurl.com/276mdy

I generally support the kind of thinking regarding decriminalization. People have been smoking and using weed since time immemorial. While that in and of itself isn't a good reason to enact or not enact a law about it, it does speak to the human tendency to do things regardless of whether we're allowed to. Economically, it makes a lot more sense to decriminalize and fine the heck out of use/possession of small amounts (emphasis on small - like just enough for personal use) than it does to send folks through the ringer and cost the courts time and money.

Besides, everybody knows that weed was demonized by the cotton industry as a way to undercut hemp!

Fun fact: the closest relative to our friend hops (humulus lupulus) is .... cannabis sativa!

[hifigator]

Jul 31, 2008 17:12:31 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

Interesting chart:
tinyurl.com/276mdy

I generally support the kind of thinking regarding decriminalization. People have been smoking and using weed since time immemorial. While that in and of itself isn't a good reason to enact or not enact a law about it, it does speak to the human tendency to do things regardless of whether we're allowed to. Economically, it makes a lot more sense to decriminalize and fine the heck out of use/possession of small amounts (emphasis on small - like just enough for personal use) than it does to send folks through the ringer and cost the courts time and money.

Besides, everybody knows that weed was demonized by the cotton industry as a way to undercut hemp!

Fun fact: the closest relative to our friend hops (humulus lupulus) is .... cannabis sativa!

What ^He^ said!

[TC]

I don't think legal marijuana is a good thing (imagine if we diverted food related land towards growing a marijuana crop like we have with corn-based ethanol...), but I don't think throwing large amounts of money in terms of enforcement, jails, and judicial costs at an intractable problem is a good thing either. There has to be some middle ground on this problem and that's what Frank is looking for.

[hifigator]

Here is a radical thought that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, since it won't make cents, I doubt it would ever get adopted.

But just for kicks and giggles, what if mj possession is decriminalized but is illegal to consume on public property. Think of it as a kind of "open container" for weed. You can grow your own weed. You can smoke it on your own property or go to a friends private property and partake. But you can't sell it. (We all know that this part would be somewhat ignored, but it already is, so I don't think that factor should weigh in the decision.) And you can't smoke it in public or quasi-public places. And of course, you would be subject to any and all DUI laws just as you are now with alcohol.

Like I said, I think that makes a lot of sense, but since there would be no cents generated, I doubt this very logical policy would ever get adopted.

Thoughts?

[Bando]

Aug 2, 2008 11:12:13 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Here is a radical thought that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, since it won't make cents, I doubt it would ever get adopted.

But just for kicks and giggles, what if mj possession is decriminalized but is illegal to consume on public property. Think of it as a kind of "open container" for weed. You can grow your own weed. You can smoke it on your own property or go to a friends private property and partake. But you can't sell it. (We all know that this part would be somewhat ignored, but it already is, so I don't think that factor should weigh in the decision.) And you can't smoke it in public or quasi-public places. And of course, you would be subject to any and all DUI laws just as you are now with alcohol.

Like I said, I think that makes a lot of sense, but since there would be no cents generated, I doubt this very logical policy would ever get adopted.

Thoughts?

I agree on the hopelessness of this ever happening, at least anytime soon. Also, is it me, or do legalization opponents always go the "people will be high at work/while driving and there's nothing you can do" argument. I would think marijuana would be subject to the same rules as alcohol if legalized.

Did anyone here watch The Wire? I think that show had a lot to say on this issue. Not that legalization is some sort of panacea (Hamsterdam had a lot of problems, after all), but that we can't get away from our failed policies because to question them looks politically weak.