420 Policies and Laws

[Bigblue1]

Govegan I love you man, but the facts don't pan out to what your saying. I mean for instance, If the money that's being wasted in the drug war was diverted to a good cause like treatment and rehabilitation, the funds already allocated would be far enough to treat all the the addicts and alcoholics that don't and can't receive treatment now. We all know that prohibition is not the answer. All criminalization brings is a black market and all black markets bring are crimes. I know your coming from a good place, your probably in the substance abuse industry and mean well, but the fact is making a substance illegal does little to stop the need or want of said substance..........

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

Help us Jesus, is all I have to say........

...if a majority of people share GoVegan's views.... then i hear ya...

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

It may be harder to abuse than a lot of other drugs out there but the potential is still there. Marijuana can still be a dangerous drug and people still become very addicted to it. Besides, the laws regarding marijuana use, at least in California, are very lax and the only time I see people getting busted for it are when they do something stupid and draw attention to themselves. I am thinking that we may just want to let sleeping dogs lie and leave things as they are.

...sounds like an "above the influence" commercial repeated verbatim... we really need to get beyond this backwards thinking... it's just sad. smh...

[visiON]

Only way marijuana can become VERY ADDICTIVE, is when the dealer is a crook and adds something to the product you buy.. < -- that won't happen when marijuana get's legalized/decriminalized

[GoVegan]

Allright! I was really against proposition 19 and was hoping it wouldn't pass. Today I saw a news article stating that Attorney General Eric Holder still intends to enforce laws against marijuana use no matter what the outcome of proposition 19 is. In my own opinion, this is a clear violation of states rights and sovereignty. This also seems to be an example of our nanny government at it's worst. Although I still disagree with it, I now intend to vote yes on 19 this election.

[sgreger1]

Allright! I was really against proposition 19 and was hoping it wouldn't pass. Today I saw a news article stating that Attorney General Eric Holder still intends to enforce laws against marijuana use no matter what the outcome of proposition 19 is. In my own opinion, this is a clear violation of states rights and sovereignty. This also seems to be an example of our nanny government at it's worst. Although I still disagree with it, I now intend to vote yes on 19 this election.

Lol, the feds cant control marijuana distribution as it is, even when all the dealers have websites and you can google their addresses. They manage to pick one off every now and then, but have no real power. I love seing the feds become powerless to enforce their lame agenda.

If weed was legal in ca, they could only afford to pop a few big guys every year, meanwhile there are several million people in the state who will be left alone.


I dont smoke weed anymore but i agree, this is about states rights and realizing what does and doesnt work. If ca was really as "progressive" as it claimed, we would quit wasting money arresting people for smoking some herbs

[chadizzy1]

Prop 19

I'm not a marijuana user/drug user or anything, but I'm curious how you guys think it's gonna go?

And those of you in Cali - if you wanna share - what's your vote on it?

[Mr. Snuffleupagus]

I don't think it will pass. I'm mixed on it but I'm going to vote for it. This war on drugs crap is bogus.

[snusjus]

I don't live in California anymore, but I would have voted for Prop 19. In my opinion, marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes, since it's less harmful than alcohol and does not cause lung cancer. While I don't believe it's 100% safe, there are other legal substances (cigarettes, prescription pain killers, etc.) that are much more dangerous.

[sgreger1]

On its face, california is a bunch of hippies, but time and time again weve seen that those who vote are more conservative. I mean we managed to vote for an ammendment to our constitution to stop gays from being married for gods sake. Id like to think it will pass, but im pretty certain it won't.

Im voting tomorrow, hopefully the people win but i doubt it.

[khalid]

Decriminalization works for me but any move to legalize concerns me. I don't think that legitimate business is likely to have a responsible attitude to the cultivation and sale of cannabis. At least, no more that illegitimate business does.

More available, accessible and cheaper weed on the market is like giving out free whisky on the day that prohibition is lifted and after all socially accepted norms for alcohol use have been forgotten.

More than anything we need some social norms for cannabis use to develope in the same way we have around alcohol. We frown on alcohol use first thing in the morning but a morning spliff seems acceptable.

I used to give talks on cannabis to teens and roped in the local Rasta temple to provide speakers. They were happy to berate the youth for smoking in a none responsible way, whilst extolling the virtues of cannabis as a meditative aid. They were also very keen on promoting set and setting for cannabis use; be in good mindfulness, be in a supportive setting.

[Joe234]

Decriminalization works for me but any move to legalize concerns me. I don't think that legitimate business is likely to have a responsible attitude to the cultivation and sale of cannabis. At least, no more that illegitimate business does.

More available, accessible and cheaper weed on the market is like giving out free whisky on the day that prohibition is lifted and after all socially accepted norms for alcohol use have been forgotten.

More than anything we need some social norms for cannabis use to develope in the same way we have around alcohol. We frown on alcohol use first thing in the morning but a morning spliff seems acceptable.

I used to give talks on cannabis to teens and roped in the local Rasta temple to provide speakers. They were happy to berate the youth for smoking in a none responsible way, whilst extolling the virtues of cannabis as a meditative aid. They were also very keen on promoting set and setting for cannabis use; be in good mindfulness, be in a supportive setting.

Nonsense We don't need to wait for social norms to develop. Apparently London is behind the West Coast USA.

All drugs should be legal.

The War on Drugs is Lost
http://old.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html


Full Article Click Here
NATIONAL REVIEW has attempted during its tenure as, so to speak, keeper of the conservative tablets to analyze public problems and to recommend intelligent thought. The magazine has acknowledged a variety of positions by right-minded thinkers and analysts who sometimes reach conflicting conclusions about public policy. As recently as on the question of troops to Bosnia, there was dissent within the family from our corporate conclusion that we'd be best off staying home.
For many years we have published analyses of the drug problem. An important and frequently cited essay by Professor Michael Gazzaniga (Feb. 5, 1990) brought a scientist's discipline into the picture, shedding light on matters vital to an understanding of the drug question. He wrote, for instance, about different rates of addiction, and about ambient pressures that bear on addiction. Elsewhere, Professor James Q. Wilson, now of UCLA, has written eloquently in defense of the drug war. Milton Friedman from the beginning said it would not work, and would do damage.
We have found Dr. Gazzaniga and others who have written on the subject persuasive in arguing that the weight of the evidence is against the current attempt to prohibit drugs. But NATIONAL REVIEW has not, until now, opined formally on the subject. We do so at this point. To put off a declarative judgment would be morally and intellectually weak-kneed.
Things being as they are, and people as they are, there is no way to prevent somebody, somewhere, from concluding that ``NATIONAL REVIEW favors drugs.'' We don't; we deplore their use; we urge the stiffest feasible sentences against anyone convicted of selling a drug to a minor. But that said, it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.
We are joined in our judgment by Ethan A. Nadelmann, a scholar and researcher; Kurt Schmoke, a mayor and former prosecutor; Joseph D. McNamara, a former police chief; Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge and former prosecutor; Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist; and Steven B. Duke, a law professor. Each has his own emphases, as one might expect. All agree that the celebrated war has failed, and that it is time to go home, and to mobilize fresh thought on the drug problem in the context of a free society. This symposium is our contribution to such thought.
--THE EDITORS


Wm. F. Buckley Jr.

[tom502]

The illegalization, I believe, is more harmful to society than the decriminalization of drugs. Look at all the gangs, murders, filled prisons, it's all related to the drug war, because of the profit of illegal drugs. I'd say 95% or more of random killings, and gang related killings and crime is drug war related.

[khalid]

Nonsense We don't need to wait for social norms to develop. Apparently London is behind the West Coast USA.

All drugs should be legal.

The War on Drugs is Lost
http://old.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html


Full Article Click Here
NATIONAL REVIEW has attempted during its tenure as, so to speak, keeper of the conservative tablets to analyze public problems and to recommend intelligent thought. The magazine has acknowledged a variety of positions by right-minded thinkers and analysts who sometimes reach conflicting conclusions about public policy. As recently as on the question of troops to Bosnia, there was dissent within the family from our corporate conclusion that we'd be best off staying home.
For many years we have published analyses of the drug problem. An important and frequently cited essay by Professor Michael Gazzaniga (Feb. 5, 1990) brought a scientist's discipline into the picture, shedding light on matters vital to an understanding of the drug question. He wrote, for instance, about different rates of addiction, and about ambient pressures that bear on addiction. Elsewhere, Professor James Q. Wilson, now of UCLA, has written eloquently in defense of the drug war. Milton Friedman from the beginning said it would not work, and would do damage.
We have found Dr. Gazzaniga and others who have written on the subject persuasive in arguing that the weight of the evidence is against the current attempt to prohibit drugs. But NATIONAL REVIEW has not, until now, opined formally on the subject. We do so at this point. To put off a declarative judgment would be morally and intellectually weak-kneed.
Things being as they are, and people as they are, there is no way to prevent somebody, somewhere, from concluding that ``NATIONAL REVIEW favors drugs.'' We don't; we deplore their use; we urge the stiffest feasible sentences against anyone convicted of selling a drug to a minor. But that said, it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.
We are joined in our judgment by Ethan A. Nadelmann, a scholar and researcher; Kurt Schmoke, a mayor and former prosecutor; Joseph D. McNamara, a former police chief; Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge and former prosecutor; Thomas Szasz, a psychiatrist; and Steven B. Duke, a law professor. Each has his own emphases, as one might expect. All agree that the celebrated war has failed, and that it is time to go home, and to mobilize fresh thought on the drug problem in the context of a free society. This symposium is our contribution to such thought.
--THE EDITORS


Wm. F. Buckley Jr.

Good for you. I am happy to be advised that some decorum in cannabis use is already developed in Cali. This is very much not the case here in the U.K IMO.

[CoderGuy]

Prohibition back in the early 20th century is an example of how restricting something doesn't work. During prohibition people still got alcohol, it just wasn't legal, and was very expensive, and run by crime organizations. It actually launched many criminal careers. Wonder what history would have been like had there never been alcohol anti's back then. On the other hand the only reason it's even being considered by the state as they are seeing the 100's millions of new tax dollars they will gain.