Questions on Decriminalization/Legalization movement

[emilynghiem]

The thing is potheads are too drug addled to understand what principles are.

The best thing to happen to them is an accident in the back of a patrol car.

"The thing is alcoholics are too drug addled to understand what principles are".

You see how this is a pointless and vague generalization?

An alcoholic can sober up. The damage that pot does is permanent.

The same process of spiritual healing that can eliminate the depression, abuse and addiction all together at the root source, in the mind and spirit,
can possibly allow the body to recover from the physical damage as well.

But you can't bring people back from the dead.
People killed from violence and/or crashes from either alcohol or drug-related
crime, driving, etc. cannot be recovered. I think that part is undeniable.

If the restitution from these fatal crimes, either negligent reckless or premeditated,
were invested in medical services and facilities we could treat more disease and prevent
a lot more deaths REGARDLESS of the cause.

there is much more benefit and effectiveness by focusing on what we agree on,
that doesn't even depend on us agreeing about the side points we may or may not resolve.

K&D I do not believe you need to justify your beliefs or stance against legalization.

If it is your belief, it should be respected regardless of your reasons you don't owe
to anyone to justify or explain. the First and Fourteenth Amendment do not require
you to justify your beliefs or creed, but just not abuse govt to impose either yours or others beliefs on each other.

Where we stick to policy points where we AGREE, then nobody's beliefs get violated.
That is where we will be protected equally under law, where no one's beliefs are competing with each other for dominance.

We can make the same key arguments we need to work out agreed reforms
WITHOUT going off on issues where people's beliefs don't agree.

The really important points will be universal. Nobody wants anyone to drive reckless and injure or kill anyone. Nobody I know would want anyone to suffer from addiction or abuse without access to free and effective help. Nobody wants to live in fear of crime.

I can see a lot more solutions come forth that people would agree on or be more open to consider trying and proving how well they work first, and we won't need to argue for and against these side issues after the fact that don't really solve the problems.

I think we have the different points of views and beliefs to "check and balance" each other.
So your view of absolute NO is important and should be included as well.

When we really redress all issues, that is where deserve to get a YES.

 

[Disir]

Sure it does - you can still find some unlicensed liquor out there - but it's REALLY hard to find. Compare today's bootleggers with the prohibition era bootlegging ... there's a whole lot less money in it today and bootleg liquor is pretty darn hard to find these days.

Same thing will happen with pot.

Wrong type of comparison. Why would I go to a store to pay more for marijuana than what I could get on the street? The street will have better quality. Like I said, people should just cut the shit, stop pretending that they are actually trying to solve problems and admit that they saw cash and wanted their cut.

Well - you are certainly entitle to your opinion. But I have the lessons of history on the side of my opinion.

Why should people pay more for alcohol at a liquor store than they pay a bootlegger?

And yet - bootleg liquor is pretty hard to find these days.

How do you explain that?

You ever had that liquor? It's pretty rank. It doesn't come with a jukebox either. But, you can still pick it up in rural areas.

That said, let's look at history. The name of the game during prohibition was simply to remove it from the view. In fact, you could legally acquire it.
Medicinal alcohol and Prohibition | Melnick Medical Museum

 

[MikeK]

Legalizing it doesn't dry up the black market.

Sure it does - you can still find some unlicensed liquor out there - but it's REALLY hard to find. Compare today's bootleggers with the prohibition era bootlegging ... there's a whole lot less money in it today and bootleg liquor is pretty darn hard to find these days.

Same thing will happen with pot.

I'm responding to what you've said from a position of ignorance because I do not like beverage alcohol in any form and can count the times I've tried it on one hand.

I like marijuana and have enjoyed it extensively during the sixties and seventies when it was decriminalized in New York City. The pot laws remained intact during this period and were administratively suspended except for distribution to minors, public use, sale, and production. But generally speaking the police didn't bother with discreet use, possession, and sale of marijuana. People grew it in their back yards, grow-rooms, and I knew one fellow who had a veritable pot farm on his brownstone rooftop.

The point I'm making is once pot is decriminalized it soon becomes virtually legal -- except for selling or giving it to kids.

The thing that surprises me is what you've said about bootleg liquor being still available. I would think because of the extensive variety of high-quality, proof-measured booze available in any liquor store there would be no reason for anyone to make or to buy "shine." If I'm mistaken I will appreciate being educated on the subject.

 

[KevinWestern]

Wrong type of comparison. Why would I go to a store to pay more for marijuana than what I could get on the street? The street will have better quality. Like I said, people should just cut the shit, stop pretending that they are actually trying to solve problems and admit that they saw cash and wanted their cut.

Well - you are certainly entitle to your opinion. But I have the lessons of history on the side of my opinion.

Why should people pay more for alcohol at a liquor store than they pay a bootlegger?

And yet - bootleg liquor is pretty hard to find these days.

How do you explain that?

You ever had that liquor? It's pretty rank. It doesn't come with a jukebox either. But, you can still pick it up in rural areas.

That said, let's look at history. The name of the game during prohibition was simply to remove it from the view. In fact, you could legally acquire it.
Medicinal alcohol and Prohibition | Melnick Medical Museum

But the whole argument here is that you're saying marijuana prohibition won't dry up the black market.

The question that's being asked is how come alcohol prohibition completely dried up the illegal alcohol market?

 

[Disir]

No, they aren't important. I can make homemade wine or homemade beer. You changed dealers for the cash. That is all. It's all about the cash.

If you were going to make accurate comparisons then you would make comparisons by country. You know why people don't want to do that?

Because it's all about the cash.

Making homemade beer isn't illegal. Selling it is.

The amount of homemade beer that is sold illegally in this country is an infinitely tiny fraction to the amount of legal beer sold in this country. This will ring true for marijuana once it is legalized.

It IS all about the cash. It's much cheaper to do business LEGALLY in this country (on a large scale, of course) than it is illegally, period. Otherwise we'd still have Al Capones floating around + speakeasies (which we obviously do not).

You see, and that is the kicker. It's much easier for a *suit* to tap into that money if you change the rules. That's what is wanted. Tap the cash. But in order to do that we have to play a game where people pretend to give a shit where they don't.

 

[Katzndogz]

Legalization does not dry up crime. The criminals don't become law abiding businessmen once something becomes legal. They remain criminals they just change crimes.

 

[KevinWestern]

You see, and that is the kicker. It's much easier for a *suit* to tap into that money if you change the rules. That's what is wanted. Tap the cash. But in order to do that we have to play a game where people pretend to give a shit where they don't.

I sort of understand you now, but my answer is “who cares”? Are there going to be some huge marijuana companies? Sure. But again, who cares? We’re certainly going to be much better off as a society than we are today.

Would you rather have a “suit” running the operation with a gun and making billions, or a “suit” running the operation non-violently & offering you an honest position at the company?

 

[KevinWestern]

Legalization does not dry up crime. The criminals don't become law abiding businessmen once something becomes legal. They remain criminals they just change crimes.

The money dries up. What's more dangerous - a criminal organization that pulls in 1 billion a year in revenue, or one that pulls in 50 thousand?

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Legalizing it doesn't dry up the black market.

2. Wrong type of comparison. Why would I go to a store to pay more for marijuana than what I could get on the street? The street will have better quality. Like I said, people should just cut the shit, stop pretending that they are actually trying to solve problems and admit that they saw cash and wanted their cut.

Absolutely disagree. Why is it the case that “the street” doesn’t have better quality alcohol? Why don’t people today procure beer from “the street”? Do people buy cheaper tobacco from "the street"?

All you need to do is study historical, real life precedents!

Dear Disir:

yes and no.

If people WANT to have the tricked up type of street drugs with risk of other garbage in there, of course, that will continue to be there. Like how kids keep going for new versions of designer drugs, and find out the hard way how deadly those are. That will keep happening. anyone can make a new mix of chemicals, and hype it up on the street "as the new bad" and get people to try it like Russian Roulette. (Like Nigerian Bankers or email viruses, that risk may never go away no matter what laws you make to punish people.)

However, with the demand for pot, the people who don't have an interest in the black market will either go through the legal routes since the prices will drop, or grow their own, illegal or not.

It will help to reduce the monopoly the cartels have on this, but won't get rid of drug problems that remain. Since we still have to deal with those, that is why I want to focus on the cure for addictions and abuse, to reduce the demand in the first place.

It makes me wonder what would happen if it was legal to grow it to use it for personal use only, but not sell it except through the regulated/licensed process. Would more people just grow their own, such as through community gardens, and just give it away for free? What impact would that have on demand if there was no monetary incentive to distribute it at all?

 

[Disir]

Well - you are certainly entitle to your opinion. But I have the lessons of history on the side of my opinion.

Why should people pay more for alcohol at a liquor store than they pay a bootlegger?

And yet - bootleg liquor is pretty hard to find these days.

How do you explain that?

You ever had that liquor? It's pretty rank. It doesn't come with a jukebox either. But, you can still pick it up in rural areas.

That said, let's look at history. The name of the game during prohibition was simply to remove it from the view. In fact, you could legally acquire it.
Medicinal alcohol and Prohibition | Melnick Medical Museum

But the whole argument here is that you're saying marijuana prohibition won't dry up the black market.

The question that's being asked is how come alcohol prohibition completely dried up the illegal alcohol market?

You're making the wrong comparison.

History says that with alcohol it was about removing it from sight.

Play that supply and demand game, increase the price and watch that novelty wear off real quick; add some more taxes to it.

Either way, it won't end the gangbanging crap either as marijuana is bulky and not usually worth the time so we can drop the pretense of that as well.

 

[emilynghiem]

Legalization does not dry up crime. The criminals don't become law abiding businessmen once something becomes legal. They remain criminals they just change crimes.

The money dries up. What's more dangerous - a criminal organization that pulls in 1 billion a year in revenue, or one that pulls in 50 thousand?

What if we made pot legal to grow, use and share freely within districts
where all residents sign agreement to a 0% tolerance crime rate,
no abuse, no addictions, no unresolved conflicts that can lead to crime or violence,
but agree to conflict resolution and policy decisions/contracts by consensus.
All residents agree not to contribute to any criminal or abusive behavior,
but will pay for any damages or costs incurred to others, in order to reside there.
And any reports or complaints of threats to violate the security or equality of others will be resolved by counseling and agreement how to resolve the grievances mutually.

What effect would that have on crime and abuse, and demand for any type of drugs?

 

[KevinWestern]

Either way, it won't end the gangbanging crap either as marijuana is bulky and not usually worth the time so we can drop the pretense of that as well.

Do you realize that marijuana sales makes up well over HALF of the overall cartel/street gang revenue? Do you know how extraordinarily significant that is?

Imagine a company the size of General Electric had a product that made up half of its revenue and you were to instantly take it away overnight. You don’t think this will have a significant effect on the power, influence, presence of the company? Sure, you can say “well they’ll just sell their other products more” but the fact of the matter is they’re really never going to get back to the levels they once were at with their prized product now out of their portfolio.

 

[emilynghiem]

Legalization does not dry up crime. The criminals don't become law abiding businessmen once something becomes legal. They remain criminals they just change crimes.

That is why it is important to address the real crime, not just the side issues.

There would be more focused resources to work with if these were not distracted
and wasted on the symptoms or side issues.

Why not go after the crime bosses, gangs and traffickers,
and set up a system of restitution and "earned amnesty"
that in order to participate as residents and owners of
secure cities and community development along the border
(including military security, correctional programs, medical
education and other health and social services)
then people with criminal records would be ENCOURAGED to work with authorities
to invest resources and labor in proportion to the violations they committed.

In exchange for cooperation, their labor can be invested in working for shares in the land and programs for restitution, so no workers are abused. The convicts agree to do the work to pay back their debts and damages to society and to victims. So these
wrongdoers can work off their debts, in place of women and children freed
from sweatshops to receive education as restitution for trafficking.

What if we made such a prison/labor exchange a condition for restitution
or "earned amnesty" and to replace the death penalty with forfeiture of citizenship?

Couldn't the resources be better invested in sustainable solutions to end the trend of drug crimes and gang wars, border trafficking and illegal immigration?

 

[emilynghiem]

http://www.leap.cc/

Dear KevinW: I think the officers with LEAP can make this argument better without any motivation by profit at all.
I think it weakens credibility in the minds of skeptics if you are still motivated by wanting to push or sell it for profit or revenue.

If this motivation to promote its use at all is REMOVED from the argument,
I think that is more clear. Above is the website for LEAP where these
officers have more credibility where they make it clear they are against the crime and abusive effects.

The officer who spoke at the meeting I went to had more credibility than another
LEAP member who has published books and makes a career out of lecturing against the drug war.

The skeptics like my bf will reject such people off the bat if there is any side motive at all.
I'm confident you will reach people who respond to this line of reasoning.

maybe I am biased coming from Texas where being "tough on crime" is the culture
and it takes showing proof that the crime problem is corrected for these conservatives to budge.

Many conservatives changed their views on drug recovery programs when they saw proof it worked
and was not enabling addiction but getting rid of the problem by monitoring people while keeping them working and out of jail and off welfare.

That is the focus that has worked in the past in Texas, where I was hoping
joint-partisan solutions to the failed criminal justice system would lead to agreement on how to fund health care reforms IN PLACE of those
mandates the Conservatives reject, including the Governor and the candidates expected to win on the conservative votes.

I don't see how any argument about making money off drug legalization
is going to fly with the predominance of Conservative Christians in Texas.

From what I understand, the Governor is open to decriminalization but not for legalization.
I think your arguments work for the decriminalization part, but it is
going to take some work to put together the legalization plans.

The law students at STCL who were collaborating with Baker Institute
on the different angles of drug policy reform are probably taking the best approach.

I believe the key issues of crime and medical research and treatment
(not only of disease but also addiction and criminal illness itself)
will bring the different sides and solutions together so changes can
be implemented by agreement. I think most of these side
issue will take care of themselves.

I was really surprised more people weren't pushing criminal justice
as part of state reforms to fund health care instead of the ACA mandates.

Either way, it won't end the gangbanging crap either as marijuana is bulky and not usually worth the time so we can drop the pretense of that as well.

Do you realize that marijuana sales makes up well over HALF of the overall cartel/street gang revenue? Do you know how extraordinarily significant that is?

Imagine a company the size of General Electric had a product that made up half of its revenue and you were to instantly take it away overnight. You don’t think this will have a significant effect on the power, influence, presence of the company? Sure, you can say “well they’ll just sell their other products more” but the fact of the matter is they’re really never going to get back to the levels they once were at with their prized product now out of their portfolio.

And what if you carried this argument all the way out to its full conclusion.
Since marijuana is a natural plant and can grow freely, why not make it free?

Why not crash the whole system then, and eliminate any ulterior motive to get anyone to start using it so they will keep buying more. if it were 100% free, would there be any reason to push anyone to use it at all?

 

[KevinWestern]

Legalization does not dry up crime. The criminals don't become law abiding businessmen once something becomes legal. They remain criminals they just change crimes.

The money dries up. What's more dangerous - a criminal organization that pulls in 1 billion a year in revenue, or one that pulls in 50 thousand?

What if we made pot legal to grow, use and share freely within districts
where all residents sign agreement to a 0% tolerance crime rate,
no abuse, no addictions, no unresolved conflicts that can lead to crime or violence,
but agree to conflict resolution and policy decisions/contracts by consensus.
All residents agree not to contribute to any criminal or abusive behavior,
but will pay for any damages or costs incurred to others, in order to reside there.
And any reports or complaints of threats to violate the security or equality of others will be resolved by counseling and agreement how to resolve the grievances mutually.

What effect would that have on crime and abuse, and demand for any type of drugs?

Not sure I follow, lol.

I think we should just make it legal, and have to pay for any crimes you commit while on the drug (with $'s or prison time)?

 

[KevinWestern]

And what if you carried this argument all the way out to its full conclusion.
Since marijuana is a natural plant and can grow freely, why not make it free?

Why not crash the whole system then, and eliminate any ulterior motive to get anyone to start using it so they will keep buying more. if it were 100% free, would there be any reason to push anyone to use it at all?

But free?

What if I don't want to go through the hassle of growing, cultivating, shipping the plant and would rather PAY someone to do all that work for me?

I'm not just paying for the plant itself, I'm paying - willingly - for the convenience of having someone do all the work preparing it for me.

If it's free, that means I have to find someone nice enough to grow and cultivate it for me or would have to spend hours doing that myself. Right?

 

[emilynghiem]

China's method of dealing with drugs is the best. There is no arrest or trial. It is a medical problem determined by blood test. The addict is ordered to work rehabilitation for three years. Plenty of time to detox. Work is on a farm or in a factory. If they reoffend they spend another three years. That's six years to recover from drugs. If they reoffend again, they are chronic addicts and never released. It is fair and cost effective.

Yes, i do believe that work-study programs should be offered for both victims and offenders in the trafficking crimes. See also Earned Amnesty

Here are the links I left out of the OP:
LEAP | Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition - RAMP
Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition

Or maybe this should be RINO's?
I think I should start a partnership network for RINO's and DINO's to collaborate on solutions where we help each other to organize effective solutions that all sides agree on.
We would have our own veritable zoo or circus, wild RINO's and DINO's, can you imagine?

 

[Disir]

You see, and that is the kicker. It's much easier for a *suit* to tap into that money if you change the rules. That's what is wanted. Tap the cash. But in order to do that we have to play a game where people pretend to give a shit where they don't.

I sort of understand you now, but my answer is “who cares”? Are there going to be some huge marijuana companies? Sure. But again, who cares? We’re certainly going to be much better off as a society than we are today.

Would you rather have a “suit” running the operation with a gun and making billions, or a “suit” running the operation non-violently & offering you an honest position at the company?

Now, it's a "friendly neighborhood dealer"...........a little closer to cutting the bullshit. Yet, still carries that used car dealer smell.

What kind of penalties will happen for those caught dealing without a license? Because that will be hurting somebodies cash flow.

 

[KevinWestern]

Now, it's a "friendly neighborhood dealer"...........a little closer to cutting the bullshit. Yet, still carries that used car dealer smell.

But don’t fully follow you Disir! What do you mean by “cutting the bullshit”? I want to make pot legal because (1) locking up people for smoking a plant that can’t physically hurt you is ridiculous and destroys lives, (2) our country is hurting for jobs/new industries and this could serve as a MAJOR way to kick start the economy in many areas.

What’s “bullshit” about that?

What kind of penalties will happen for those caught dealing without a license? Because that will be hurting somebodies cash flow.

The same ones a bar would face for selling liquor without a liquor license.

 

[Disir]

1. Legalizing it doesn't dry up the black market.

2. Wrong type of comparison. Why would I go to a store to pay more for marijuana than what I could get on the street? The street will have better quality. Like I said, people should just cut the shit, stop pretending that they are actually trying to solve problems and admit that they saw cash and wanted their cut.

Absolutely disagree. Why is it the case that “the street” doesn’t have better quality alcohol? Why don’t people today procure beer from “the street”? Do people buy cheaper tobacco from "the street"?

All you need to do is study historical, real life precedents!

Dear Disir:

yes and no.

If people WANT to have the tricked up type of street drugs with risk of other garbage in there, of course, that will continue to be there. Like how kids keep going for new versions of designer drugs, and find out the hard way how deadly those are. That will keep happening. anyone can make a new mix of chemicals, and hype it up on the street "as the new bad" and get people to try it like Russian Roulette. (Like Nigerian Bankers or email viruses, that risk may never go away no matter what laws you make to punish people.)

However, with the demand for pot, the people who don't have an interest in the black market will either go through the legal routes since the prices will drop, or grow their own, illegal or not.

It will help to reduce the monopoly the cartels have on this, but won't get rid of drug problems that remain. Since we still have to deal with those, that is why I want to focus on the cure for addictions and abuse, to reduce the demand in the first place.

It makes me wonder what would happen if it was legal to grow it to use it for personal use only, but not sell it except through the regulated/licensed process. Would more people just grow their own, such as through community gardens, and just give it away for free? What impact would that have on demand if there was no monetary incentive to distribute it at all?

Harm reduction method. The whole nine yards. Decriminalize smaller amounts of all drugs and smack the holy hell out of them with the larger amounts.

But, you won't reduce the monopoly in the states. You have merely changed dealers.