Legislators aim to snuff out penalties for pot use

[Enigma]

This should have been in place years ago, but better late than never....

The U.S. should stop arresting responsible marijuana users, Rep. Barney Frank said Wednesday, announcing a proposal to end federal penalties for Americans carrying fewer than 100 grams, almost a quarter-pound, of the substance. "The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government's business," Frank said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/...ana/index.html

[Zachstar]

About time! Just like Beer the war against pot is doing nothing but making our country the laughing stock of the world.

I know about the damn treaties. They are worthless in the face of other countries flat out approval of pot use. Reason? You can't stop pot use. The plant is seemingly too easy to grow and just like the DMCA for software piracy. Does NOTHING but weakens the authority of the US .gov

Once this gets signed in many states will do the same. And this idiocy will end..

And after that we can finally legalize the growth of hemp so we have something besides cotton helping the cash crop economy.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Legalize all drugs! Why pay the D.E.A. x-billions per year to not keep drugs out of the country? Did we learn nothing from prohibition?

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Legalize all drugs! Why pay the D.E.A. x-billions per year to not keep drugs out of the country? Did we learn nothing from prohibition?

I strongly disagree.

Meth, Heroin, Crack etc... Are seriously dangerous drugs and oftentimes are full of toxic industrial chemicals.

Pot will not kill you from taking a puff. Crack can kill with a sniff.

And the proliferation of those drugs can be stopped if we stopped focusing resources on pot.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

I strongly disagree.

Meth, Heroin, Crack etc... Are seriously dangerous drugs and oftentimes are full of toxic industrial chemicals.

Pot will not kill you from taking a puff. Crack can kill with a sniff.

And the proliferation of those drugs can be stopped if we stopped focusing resources on pot.

And......?

Why keep people from killing themselves at the expense of others? You can't stop it, so why waste the effort?

[Zachstar]

Adults yes. But as long as youngsters are being offered this crap there needs to be a focus on it.

The pot is in the same lockers in the nation as the crack the heroin and other extremely dangerous drugs. Crash the pot market and less kids are visiting the dealers. And then with a renewed focus on catching the other drugs at their source we can reduce the drug filled lockers overall.

Why was drinking so popular in the prohibition era? Because you usually did not drop dead from drinking even tho the stuff is toxic as hell.

Pot is less dangerous so its use is high as well.

But ask your average pot user and they will never dare to try Crack or Heroin because semi-ok drug education has taught them that those drugs are EXTREMELY dangerous and can cause you to drop dead with a single dose. So if supplies of those drugs tightened up even more then even less youngsters will dare try em.

[Platapus]

This is one issue I don't know where I stand. Or I do know where I stand but I stand on several places.

Emotionally I feel that it would be wrong to legalize such drugs, but emotions are not the way to make decisions. Logic and facts are. The question is, do we have all the applicable facts in order to make a logical decision?

The arguments for legalizing some or all of the recreational drugs have merit.

Why do we allow people the right to harm themselves through drinking, smoking, eating bad food, etc., but somehow draw the line at other specific chemicals?

Sugar, Nicotine, ETOH are OK but THC is bad? Becoming a fat slob is permissible but visiting Mister Brownstone is not?

Another argument is the history of prohibition. This has been tried several times and has not worked out so well. This does not mean that any future prohibition would necessarily fail or succeed. Just because it failed in the past does not mean it will fail in the future (or that it will succeed either). Future is always unknown.

One argument I can't support is the argument that if some or all recreational drugs were legalized that the criminal aspects of the drug industry would disappear. This has not been demonstrated as being true. Drug crime may, in fact, go up as the established drug industries (drug lords) will fight (literally) to keep out the competition regardless of whether the competition is legal.

Another argument is popular opinion. If the majority of people want some or all of the recreational drugs legalized, upon what authority does a government have to infringe on this? A spurious argument at best. One of the many reasons why there are few democracies in the world is to avoid what Thomas Jefferson warned about -- the Tyranny of the Masses. A representative government does not just represent the views of the majority but the minority also.

Can a society allow the popular opinion of the masses to set policy and laws? Suppose a majority of citizens decided that owning the darkies as slaves was not all that bad or that family law has gone far to the extreme in favour of women' rights so let's go back to the old days? Would a government be justified in acquiescing to the masses or should it resist? This is a tricky question that plagues political analysts.

If the majority of the citizens want pot legalized...so what? should anyone care? Does anyone have to care?

The problem is, if the government does not care about the popular view, upon what authority does it have to make this decision? If it does not have this authority then does government have to acquiesce to the vulgar viewpoint?

A counter argument is that we have already made a mistake in legalizing Alcohol and Nicotine. They are bad but the cat's out of the bag and we can't stuff the Jennie back in the bottle (boy I love mixing metaphors!). But just because society messed up with those two does not set a precedence to make the same mistake with recreational drugs. This argument is equally spurious. It presupposes that the legalization of Alcohol and Nicotine were "bad" as well as presupposes that the legalization of some or all of the recreational drugs would be equally "bad" and this has also not been demonstrated.

I don't know what the "right" answer is for this. I choose not to indulge in any of the the recreational drugs but do admit to being a fat slob.

An intriguing issue that once you take away the emotions and biases, becomes a difficult one to answer objectively.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

But ask your average pot user and they will never dare to try Crack or Heroin because semi-ok drug education has taught them that those drugs are EXTREMELY dangerous and can cause you to drop dead with a single dose. So if supplies of those drugs tightened up even more then even less youngsters will dare try em.

Highly dubious. Supplies of "dangerous" drugs will not be curtailed effectively by law-enforcement agencies. While I would advocate harsh, even draconian penalties against those who would sell drugs to children, it is ultimately the responsibility of said childrens' parents/guardians to kepp them away from such substances. As nice as a legal barricade against underage drug use would be, experience tells us that the police are rarely as clever as the criminals they seek to apprehend and the ratio of U.S. law-enforcement funding-to criminal activity proves it.

Even if society could somehow prevent some neglected, misguided youths from using dangerous drugs they will simply resort to another form of self-destruction. There is no shortage of gangs, underage prostituion or violence in the U.S. for them to subscribe to. And before you say that drugs cause them to participate in these activities consider the fact that tendencies toward the aforementioned vices have been and still are practiced by youths without the benefit of drugs.

There is no point in govenrment protection of those who cannot be prevented from destroying themselves.

Tragic? Yes.
Reprehensible? Certainly.
Preventable? Indubitably, no.

[Zachstar]

Fine lets just be simple with this.

You are not going to stop the drug war as long as people give a crap. Ok? The best one can hope for is the focus is not on pot for once. So that the 5 o'clock news is not filled with stories of youngsters being arrested for smoking pot.

So what side on the issue of the drug war is moot. McCain will not Stop it, Barr will not stop it, Obama will not stop it, etc... Feel otherwise? Run for congress on the plan to shut down the drug war... See how fast your political enemies call you soft on super dangerous drugs infecting the children lives.

The drug war on other super dangerous drugs is worth it to keep prices high and out of reach for many youths. That will not change.

[Enigma]

A "war on drugs" is like a "war on terrorism" which is like a "war on jealousy".

Morally I would stand against any legalization of drugs, and I don't consider prohibition of alcohol as being wrong either, however, in reality where decisions should be grounded, I would support a small limit for a person caught carrying pot. Perhaps the permission of growing a plant or two. But any signs this would be profitable I believe should carry the penalties it has now. Should this stuff be encouraged in any way? No. Should tax dollars pay for the incarceration of millions of people who've done nothing but have a joint and got caught? No. The economic realities I believe support carry limited amounts. However, that is carrying. I never want to see it in public, let alone being sold. With so many released prisoners, I'd support a a more extensive program to go after the other drugs. I'd rather have 2 pot smokers than 1 meth addict.

[Zachstar]

Tell me would you support the same penalties for Tobacco smokers?

[DeepIron]

"Dope will get you through times of no money better that money will get you through times of no dope." ~Gilbert Shelton

Oh yeah! Nothing like taking the load off the taxable masses during a recession!

[Sailor Steve]

Platapus, you raised some interesting questions, and I agree that some of them require some thought. That said, I would like to address a couple of your thoughts I do disagree with.

Originally Posted by Platapus

One argument I can't support is the argument that if some or all recreational drugs were legalized that the criminal aspects of the drug industry would disappear. This has not been demonstrated as being true. Drug crime may, in fact, go up as the established drug industries (drug lords) will fight (literally) to keep out the competition regardless of whether the competition is legal.

When was the last time a gang machine-gunned another gang over a case of booze? I know that sounds flippant on the face of it, but I think it's true. Legalize the stuff, allow stores to sell it and tax them to death.

Another argument is popular opinion. If the majority of people want some or all of the recreational drugs legalized, upon what authority does a government have to infringe on this? A spurious argument at best. One of the many reasons why there are few democracies in the world is to avoid what Thomas Jefferson warned about -- the Tyranny of the Masses. A representative government does not just represent the views of the majority but the minority also.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.

Where does that "tyranny of the masses" concept come from? Here's a link to a whole series of letters and speeches that indicate that Jefferson felt just the opposite.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff0500.htm

Can a society allow the popular opinion of the masses to set policy and laws? Suppose a majority of citizens decided that owning the darkies as slaves was not all that bad or that family law has gone far to the extreme in favour of women' rights so let's go back to the old days? Would a government be justified in acquiescing to the masses or should it resist? This is a tricky question that plagues political analysts.

A good question, and one deserving of further discussion.

If the majority of the citizens want pot legalized...so what? should anyone care? Does anyone have to care?

The problem is, if the government does not care about the popular view, upon what authority does it have to make this decision? If it does not have this authority then does government have to acquiesce to the vulgar viewpoint?

An intriguing issue that once you take away the emotions and biases, becomes a difficult one to answer objectively.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Where does that "tyranny of the masses" concept come from? Here's a link to a whole series of letters and speeches that indicate that Jefferson felt just the opposite.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/...s/jeff0500.htm

My apologies. It was Alexis de Tocqueville. I knew it was some dead guy.