The Financial Crisis Just Might Lead to Legal Pot

[marmar]

via AlterNet:



The Financial Crisis Just Might Lead to Legal Pot

By Marcelo Ballve, New America Media. Posted March 13, 2009.

The recession is spotlighting the rationale for decriminalizing marijuana.



NEW YORK -- In 1977, President Jimmy Carter asked Congress to decriminalize marijuana possession (it never did). The next year, the Ladies Home Journal described a summer jazz festival on the White House's South Lawn where "a haze of marijuana smoke hung heavy under the low-bending branches of a magnolia tree."

The late 1970's may have been the high-water mark for permissiveness regarding marijuana. But advocates of decriminalized pot believe a confluence of factors, especially the country's economic malaise, are leading to another countrywide reappraisal of the drug.

"There is momentum of the sort I haven't seen since I've been involved in this," says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, which supports easing marijuana laws.

He says incidents like then-candidate Barack Obama's early admission of pot use or the flap over Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps's bong-smoking may lead to initial public hand-wringing, but in the end they tend to legitimize pot use. So does the growing recognition of medical marijuana.

But, he adds, "the economic crisis is the single most important factor" in this new shift in perceptions. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/131522/the_financial_crisis_just_might_lead_to_legal_pot_/

[Beam Me Up]

1. Some good comments below that article

Decriminalization vs. Legalization, Pt I
Posted by: atheistcable on Mar 13, 2009 10:04 PM

This article could have been better written. What annoys me most is the casual interchanging of "decriminalize" and "legalize."

Decriminalize, as the article states, is: "a minor offense punishable by a low fine."

I am opposed to decriminalizing drugs. I favor only legalization.

A decriminalized drug cannot be sold in a commercial establishment. It cannot be taxed. It cannot be withheld from people under the age of 18 (or 21, if a state so chooses). If decriminalized, enforcement becomes low-priority, so the drug continues to be sold, untaxed, in residential neighborhoods which breeds turf wars. Disputes cannot be bloodlessly settled in a court of law. Only legalized drugs can.

Unregulated drugs means that the buyer may or may not get what is claimed by the corner dealer. As in the case of heroin, one most likely will not know the strength of the drug--and is more likely to overdose.

In short: Decriminalization is bad policy.

Legalized drugs can be sold in a store, merchants can ask for ID, underage people can be excluded. If underage people are caught with Schedule One drugs, police can find out how they got the drug and go after adults who gave or sold it to them.

As is the case with legal cigarettes and alcohol, drug dealing will not take place in residential neighborhoods.

Then let's take a statement made by Eric Voth, M.D. "Pointing to alcohol and tobacco, which are taxed, he argues the resulting revenue hardly compensates for the social and public health damage wreaked by both substances, including spillover use among youth."

What do we mean by "youth"? If a 21-year-old is "youth" then let's be clear and specific. No jurisdiction is required to sell drugs to people under 21. I don't see why a state could not raise the age limit for Schedule One drugs to 28, for example.
(continued)

Decriminalization vs. Legalization, Pt II

When Dr. Voth expresses opposition to legalization out of concern for health damage, he is assuming that the drug war is working.

No it is not! I live in an area of North Minneapolis that is notorious for drug dealing. I know that the law is utterly irrelevant to those who want to sell, buy and use drugs. I am quite unconvinced that legalization will make any difference on how many people will buy drugs, and if they will be buying more drugs than before. Removing the "Forbidden Fruit Effect" could actually reduce purchase and consumption of Schedule One drugs. As a society, we need to experiment. Legalize everything nationwide for a 5 year period and observe. This is called the Scientific Method.

The other problem with "health damage" concerns is purity of drugs. Legalization will guarantee purity of what is being advertised. Additionally, when we talk about regulation, we could make a law stating that all Schedule One drugs must be sold in a box. Inside the box would be literature--truthful, scientific and without exaggerations--about what the drug will do. On the literature will be URLs directing the consumer to get more information from an official website. This will help to prevent much health damage.

Example: in the 60s when LSD was the rage, I was tempted to experiment. But before I did, I went out of my way to find information that would explain the upside of LSD--and the downside. Well, there was enough downside (psychological ramifications) that I decided not to take LSD or any other hallucinogen. Finding this information was not easy.

Likewise with alcohol. When I learned, in 1968, that excessive drinking could destroy more brain cells in a day than what normally takes place, I stopped drinking alcohol on the spot.

People need scientific information. When they get it, it can do wonders in controlling drug use: from tobacco, alcohol, to all other drugs. All the police do is eat up tax dollars, terrorize and negate our Constitutional rights.

More on "health damage." No one ever mentioned the biggest health hazard to illegal drugs: Turf wars. You know, bullets flying here and there. Maybe if we coated bullets with Vitamin C, they might be healthier. I don't know. But today's bullets kill. Dr. Voth: is this "health damage"?

If we legalized (not decriminalized) all drugs, guns and bullets would suddenly have no place even in economically-depressed areas like I live in. This is another reason why all drugs--not just marijuana--must be legalized. Every year, the majority of the thousands of homicides in this country, are drug-related.

I appreciate someone taking the time to write that out fully. I'm not sure I totally agree with everything said but close. My problem with "legalization" is that it leads to "commercialization" -- that is the one thing I do NOT want to see whether with pot or any other drug (and I've been a pot smoker for over 40 years). IMO, there need to be very strong controls on who can grow it and, market it and so forth. I don't want pot grown and marketed by RJ Reynolds. I want it to be along the lines of varietal wine or micro brews. The "harder" drugs should only be available by prescription or a registered clinic where users can be assured of quality while receiving both information and education.

[blue neen]

2. I know of a cancer patient here in PA whose doctor told him,

"I can't legally prescribe marijuana for you, but if you can get your hands on some, you'd probably get good pain relief."

The time is right to legalize pot. Economically and socially, society is ready.

[truedelphi]

3. As an elder care provider, it has made a big difference to me

That California has legal medicinal marijuana. I can "leave behind" articles on the relief that med marijuana provides, without worrying that I can lose my CNA license if a patient or some relative of theirs were to report me.