Leafly.com reports:
[On Thursday] the United States' capital, Washington D.C. (not to be confused with the state of Washington, which debuted its retail stores last week), officially decriminalizes cannabis. Under the new law, police officers can no longer demand identification from people caught possessing up to one ounce of cannabis, nor can they arrest people if they simply smell cannabis on them. Instead, they will confiscate any "visible contraband" and issue a ticket with a fine of $25.
Possession of amounts greater than one ounce can still result in arrest and being charged with a crime, but this is still a small victory for D.C. residents, especially blacks, who are being penalized and face having their lives ruined over a small amount of cannabis. Now how's about you look into legalization next, Nation's Capital?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by ld a, b on Saturday July 19 2014, @09:02AM
I see nothing wrong with cannabis usage or even with other drugs as long as no harm is done to innocent bystanders. That said, I have had no problem staying away from it given that using it could put me behind bars for years where I live now. Moreover, where I come from, dark-skinned people have no more trouble than light-skinned people avoiding a life of crime.
Who is forcing these Black people to smoke weed?
Frankly, if your "culture" involves being locked up in prison with gang members maybe it's time to change it regardless of marijuana legality. At the very least you are hurting your family and friends.
You can have your marijuana revival conventions *after* it is made legal.
10 little-endian boys went out to dine, a big-endian carp ate one, and then there were -246.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Saturday July 19 2014, @01:08PM
Try reading up on the history of blacks in the United States... The basic answer is: when a person knows they have virtually no chance of escaping a life of soul-crushing poverty in the ghetto and watching their loved ones get killed in random attacks, they usually don't bother making decisions based on the need to not fuck up their future. At that point, numbing themselves to the despair and finding little bits of pleasure wherever they can becomes their goal.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @01:24PM
> Moreover, where I come from, dark-skinned people have no more trouble than light-skinned people avoiding a life of crime.
You must not come from the USA.
In the USA blacks and whites use pot at roughly the same rates and yet the rates of arrest for pot are 3x-10x higher for blacks. [washingtonpost.com]
If you think that going to prison does not make it significantly harder to avoid a life a crime, you haven't been paying attention to how society treats ex-convicts.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Saturday July 19 2014, @04:06PM
Why are you bringing race into the discussion? Race has nothing whatever to do with drug use, legal or not. And the culture you refer to isn't "black culture", it's the culture of poverty. Poor whites are no different than poor blacks, except that blacks are more often targeted by the police. Drive through the rough part of your city, you'll see that the white kids and black kids dress alike, talk alike, and act alike. Same as middle class people; a middle class black man is no more different from me than you are. See Gran Torino, it's exactly like a real life poor neighborhood.
As to harm from pot, the only harm is to the smoker himself. Pot doesn't cause cancer, despite what the idiotic Partnership for a Drug Free America says (this has been proven, pot even helps prevent cancer in cigarette smokers) but it can cause COPD. But then, so does smoking cigarettes or bonfires or burning leaves.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @05:44PM
Blacks are arrested and imprisoned at a much higher rate for the same crime, despite similar rates of marijuana use among blacks and whites.
The More You Know.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Saturday July 19 2014, @09:04AM
Outlawing nature is always a no-win situation. Making weed (produce), or any other naturally growing plant, a controlled substance is futile in the long run. When considering that those cravings forbidden, especially those that are of personal nature, will make them more desirable. I am glad to see that /some/ common sense is emerging. If there is a problem, then criminalizing cannot ever solve the problem. Now, at least, you can look at the problematic cases and deal with them in a sensible way without someone slamming down the door.
I'm just waiting for more common sense to prevail. However, I am not entirely convinced that common sense was the driving factor here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @03:12PM
> Making weed (produce), or any other naturally growing plant, a controlled substance is futile in the long run.
It isn't about naturally growing. It is about human nature. Meth, X/Molly, LSD, etc aren't even close to be "naturally growing" but the problems with them are fundamentally the same as with pot. It is human nature to want to get high. That's the "nature" that prohibition always fails at.
Just like copyright is guaranteed to fail now that the internet has removed all practical barriers to information exchange. It is human nature to want to share cool ideas. Trying to prohibit sharing is also a losing fight. A long painful fight with lots of collateral damage, but a losing fight nonetheless.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday July 20 2014, @01:39AM
I'll be a pedant and note that LSD [wikipedia.org] is derived from ergotimine [wikipedia.org] which is a byproduct of a rye fungus. Regardless, the dose and effect of LSD is such that it generally regarded as a synthetic drug.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20 2014, @05:40AM
ergotimine
It's thought by some that that's the stuff that caused those chicks to freak out in Salem, Massachusetts in the 1600s. [wikipedia.org]
(Eating moldy rye bread got them executed for "witchcraft".)
There was an outbreak of ergotism in France as recently as 1951 (also on that page).
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Insightful) by anubi on Saturday July 19 2014, @09:21AM
Just as I hate to fund patent trolls, I feel this is a step in the right direction to stop mandating the funding of gangs and organized crime. This marihuana fiasco is just as bad as that alcohol fiasco back in the 20's, which provided the funding to gangland America.
There are some things one has a helluva time trying to enforce - and this ranks right up there with sharing music and peeing in the pool. Somebody may not like it, but it is hard as hell to enforce.
Now, speaking as one seeing the units in my industrial complex being used for growing pot - once anyone who wants some can grow some, then the bottom is going to fall out of the "risk markup" of this stuff and these buildings will revert to more practical uses. All these kids being lured into the life of easy money by the "crime" of growing pot will find few customers willing to buy anywhere close to current street prices. All this money has been going into the wrong hands, being used to buy guns for gangs and the like, so they can "protect their turf" against anyone else trying to make a buck there.
I, for one, will welcome the end of this damned federally enforced monopoly where only the crooks have the goods.
And there are a lot of other federally enforced monopolies that should follow in its path.
AFAIK, the only monopoly I respect is called a "natural monopoly", and that one exists because of economies of scale.
All I ask is that the marihuana be used responsibly, no different than paint, fuel, or motor oil. Those can make a helluva mess if misused. So can many other things... and we seem to get along with them.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Informative) by theronb on Saturday July 19 2014, @02:24PM
Both the "marihuana fiasco" and "alcohol fiasco" seem to have arisen from the perceived need to address the social problems caused by the minority of users who cannot control their intake or the associated behaviors. For alcohol, this appears to be about 10% of the general population (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism#Epidemiology [wikipedia.org]). So rather than do the rational thing and provide counseling and treatment, we have tried to prohibit even occasional, casual use. Legalization, coupled with extensive public health education and treatment measures would seem to be much more rational, fair and economical. Now, what do we do about the much more highly addictive substances? I don't think the same legalization model works for crack, heroin and meth but what's the answer?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Saturday July 19 2014, @04:17PM
Both the "marihuana fiasco" and "alcohol fiasco" seem to have arisen from the perceived need to address the social problems caused by the minority of users who cannot control their intake or the associated behaviors.
That's true of alcohol, but not marijuana. Look up "Harry Anslinger". He was the head of the federal narcotics unit and pushed for marijuana to be outlawed so he could divert anti-pot money to fighting heroin.
Marijuana was outlawed on the backs of lies for the benefit of liars. Its being against the law is actually what leads to harder drugs; the potsmoker sees he has been lied to, and figures that what they say about crack is probably bullshit as well -- and you buy pot from people who sell all kinds of illegal drugs. Everywhere except Colorado, where all kinds of crime both property and violent and use of other drugs has dropped sharply since legalization.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20 2014, @12:30AM
Harry Anslinger
Another name you're likely to encounter is Fred Vinson, a congressman and notorious liar who was obviously destined to become Chief Justice of the USA.
The Fiorello LaGuardia commission of 1938 told the truth about marijuana--and was ignored by the Feds.
The Truth About Marijuana [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wordpress.com]
The Prohibition of Marijuana in Three Acts [counterpunch.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday July 19 2014, @06:27PM
For more info about how Hemp got turned from a common textile plant that had some medicinal uses in 1936 into the "reefer madness" that we hear about today
"The Emperor Wears no Clothes" by Jack Herer
Background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes [wikipedia.org]
read on-line: http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/ [jackherer.com]
Buy it: http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperor-Wears-Clothes-Conspiracy/dp/1878125028 [amazon.com]
After reading this book I went from being a "Just say No" spouting anti-drug teen to a staunch advocate of Cannabis legalization.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday July 21 2014, @08:18AM
Looks like it will be an interesting read. And thanks, Jack, for making it public.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Funny) by cafebabe on Saturday July 19 2014, @12:04PM
So, when someone asks "What are they smoking?" we'll have a good idea.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by fnj on Sunday July 20 2014, @01:30AM
Thanks for nothing, goddam fascist pigs. They are keeping it a misdemeanor, there will still be fines applicable for any amount, and it's still big-time criminal prosecution for an ounce or more. Wake me when they get it through their thick skulls that it is NOBODY'S GOD DAMN BUSINESS what anybody eats, smokes, or injects into their own body.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Sunday July 20 2014, @02:49PM
Given the way things are progressing, with dissatisfaction with the status quo spiking, I would expect the powers-that-be to legalize drugs post-haste so they can continue their mass theft for a few years more while the oppressed and depressed majority gets stoned and drops out. Cable TV and Walmart credit cards don't hold the diversionary power they once did.
Washington DC delenda est.