Christopher Ingraham writes in the Washington Post that many countries are taking a close look at what's happening in Colorado and Washington state to learn lessons that can be applied to their own situations and so far, the news coming out of Colorado and Washington is overwhelmingly positive. Dire consequences predicted by reform opponents have failed to materialize. If anything, societal and economic indicators are moving in a positive direction post-legalization. Colorado marijuana tax revenues for fiscal year 2014-2015 are on track to surpass projections.
Lisa Sanchez, a program manager at México Unido Contra la Delincuencia, a Mexican non-profit devoted to promoting "security, legality and justice", underscored how legalization efforts in the U.S. are having powerful ripple effects across the globe: events in Colorado and Washington have "created political space for Latin American countries to have a real debate [about drug policy]". She noted that motivations for reform in Latin America are somewhat different than U.S. motivations - one main driver is a need to address the epidemic of violence on those countries that is fuelled directly by prohibitionist drug war policies. Mexico's president has given signs he's open to changes in that country's marijuana laws to help combat cartel violence. Sandeep Chawla, former deputy director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, notes that one of the main obstacles to meaningful reform is layers of entrenched drug control bureaucracies at the international and national levels - just in the U.S., think of the DEA, ONDCP and NIDA, among others - for whom a relaxation of drug control laws represents an undermining of their reason for existence: "if you create a bureaucracy to solve a particular problem, when the problem is solved that bureaucracy is out of a job".
Related Stories
Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) blogs:
Testimony regarding the constitutionality of the federal statute designating marijuana as a Schedule I Controlled Substance will be taken on Monday, October 27 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the case of United States v. Pickard, et. al., No. 2:11-CR-0449-KJM.
Members of Congress initially categorized cannabis as a Schedule I substance, the most restrictive classification available, in 1970. Under this categorization, the plant is defined as possessing "a high potential for abuse, ... no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, ... [and lacking] accepted safety for ... use ... under medical supervision."
Expert witnesses for the defense--including Drs. Carl Hart, Associate Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry and Psychology at Columbia University in New York City, retired physician Phillip Denny, and Greg Carter, Medical Director of St. Luke's Rehabilitation Institute in Spokane, Washington--will testify that the accepted science is inconsistent with the notion that cannabis meets these Schedule I criteria.
"It is my considered opinion that including marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is counter to all the scientific evidence in a society that uses and values empirical evidence," Dr. Hart declared. "After two decades of intense scientific inquiry in this area, it has become apparent the current scheduling of cannabis has no footing in the realities of science and neurobiology."
Canada signs on to U.S.-led renewal of war on drugs
Canada was rebuked on Monday by a group of world leaders and experts on drug policy for endorsing a Trump-led declaration renewing the "war on drugs" and for passing up a critical moment to provide global leadership on drug regulation.
The Trudeau government's decision to sign on to the declaration, released by the White House on the sidelines of U.S. President Donald Trump's first attendance at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, contradicts Ottawa's previous skepticism of Washington's drugs war at home and abroad, and comes just weeks before cannabis legalization in Canada.
Former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark said she believed that both Canada and Mexico − which also signed the declaration even though president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has repeatedly said that the "war on drugs" has failed and he will pursue new policy − likely have signed on reluctantly, held hostage by the North American free-trade agreement talks in Washington, over which a critical deadline looms.
Countries that signed the "Global Call to Action on the World Drug Problem" were promised an invitation for their leader to attend a kick-off event with Mr. Trump in New York. The statement was not drafted in the usual multilateral process of a declaration from the UN and the wording was presented as non-negotiable. One hundred and thirty countries signed but 63 did not; the dissenters include major U.S. allies such as Germany, Norway and Spain.
Previously: Canada Becomes the Second Nation to Legalize Cannabis
Related: WP says Marijuana Legalization Makes World a Better Place
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Techlectica on Tuesday October 21 2014, @04:45AM
Buggy whip makers weren't part of a system that results in the growth of organized crime and violence, and in the criminalization and imprisonment of a targeted class of people through the creation of victimless "crimes". The USA needs to come to terms with the demonstrated evidence that there are many cases where trying to impose puritanism is counter-productive, and to stop imposing it not just on their own people but on the rest of the world as well. Provide treatment for addiction and the conditions that lead to it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:17AM
Au contraire.
Depriving Big Pharma and the physicians' cartel a cut of the profits?
What are you? Some kind of commie?
...and I agree with the AC below:
WordPress? Wikipedia? OP/editor should have used WaPo.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:24AM
Word Perfect, of course.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @04:51PM
So why can't Big Pharma grow, package, and market pot just like anyone else?
I predict that with blanket legalization, Big Pharma will become major marketers of pre-packaged, dose-consistent THC in a variety of delivery methods (something small growers might have trouble accomplishing).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by velex on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:22PM
Marijuana isn't as addictive as opioid pain pills and SSRIs. I imagine the margins won't be as high either. Then there's losing customers to folks who would prefer to just grow their own. Maybe they could sell like a self-contained hydroponics kit or something, but then again that's lost revenue in the long term.
To expand to explore the medical-industrial complex's concerns, they were probably also looking forward to revenue from managing autism (assuming the tales that pot helps with autism pan out with research). I know they're looking forward to replacing my liver, heart, and lungs before I'm 50 and getting me on cholesterol and blood pressure drugs. Maybe they're hoping to invent some miracle weight loss pill and sell it to me. I'd be a shame if I found a way to get back into healthier habits….
I can't be the only person in that boat.
They don't stand as much to lose as the prison-industrial complex and alcohol and tobacco companies, but I imagine they'd certainly like things to stay as they are.
(Note, I actually don't understand why the tobacco lobby is concerned as much as I've heard. It seems to me like they're in the perfect position to sell pre-rolled joints since cannabis likes similar climates to tobacco. Hell, there are even some people who prefer to roll marijuana cigars, so there's another product. Oh well, I should probably see my point about addictive potential above.)
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:10PM
If I were either Big Pharma or Tobacco, I'd be looking to encourage independent growers and suppliers (obviously they're not going to take that on any more than they grow all their current ingredients and crops). Growers would have a steady wholesale market on a contract basis, which is always preferable from a cashflow standpoint to a variable market that depends on people coming to your door. I fail to see any business downsides for anyone, even with lots of homegrown competition -- those will be their future suppliers once they discover the joys of a regular paycheck and getting your mortgage paid off early (in fact I know of two people who did just that, growing for the bulk wholesale market, NOT to local buyers).
Anyway, the corporate world can't be blind to the fact that marijuana is California's #1 cash crop, and was so long before it became even quasi-legal. Might be they're trying to play their cards too close to the vest, just in case the whole thing doesn't pan out legally.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by velex on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:31PM
Might be they're trying to play their cards too close to the vest, just in case the whole thing doesn't pan out legally.
Good call. Getting involved too early might be a PR disaster if legalization stalls or if we even see states that experiment with it, then reinstate prohibition.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:05PM
Yep, and then guess who looks like the bad guys. My guess is they'll wait for federal approval.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:31PM
1) Not addictive, but certainly habit-forming. They'll have *plenty* of lifetime customers.
2) Margins are HUGEEEE right now, even with all the expense to grow the stuff. They'll have decent margins. They'll sell high volume too. It'll be no different than tobacco.
3) People grow their own now because they have to. If you could buy a pack of joints from the local gas station, I don't think too many people would be growing.
4) Hydroponics is largely pointless if it's legalized. The people who are growing now are using very expensive methods to do so largely because they have to grow indoors in the dark. When you can just plant a field of the stuff, the current independent growers will be priced out of business rather quickly.
There's a reason they call it "weed" -- it is literally a weed. Pretty easy stuff, just throw some seeds in the mud and it'll probably grow. If Big Pharma or Big Tobacco enters the market, you're going to need several acres of land to be able to sell this stuff at a competitive price. I'm sure there will be a market for local stuff, just like there's a market for local apples, but that won't be the majority of sales.
They're staying out of it for now because it's still illegal, even in Colorado and Washington. It's banned under federal law, and federal law always trumps state law. By "legalizing" it what the states really mean is that the state agencies will stay out of it, and the federal agencies don't have the manpower to deal with it. Odds of any grower getting arrested are pretty small (but not zero, some have been arrested) since they're all small and independent, but if you start getting massive corporate farms of it the DEA would be breaking down their doors the day they started operating.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @04:58AM
one of the main obstacles to meaningful reform is layers of entrenched drug control bureaucracies at the international and national levels for whom a relaxation of drug control laws represents an undermining of their reason for existence
I can't remember the last time I've heard of any Police agency being shut down in this country. We seem to add them at will, but they never go away. Shutting down other major government agencies is rare enough, but does happen.
But Police or any sort, never go away. Especially at the Federal Level [wikipedia.org].
Just about every one of those listed as being defunct [wikipedia.org] are actually morphed into other agencies and still exist under different names.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by citizenr on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:45AM
>I can't remember the last time I've heard of any Police agency being shut down in this country
I read a story this year about reduction in car crimes in New York(?), stolen vehicles per year went down more than 50% (or some other very high percentage), at the same time car crime unit grew from 20 to 120 officers, they are chasing 'organized car crime!' now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @04:53PM
I have often wondered -- since crime is down so much, why we need more police and more enforcement? More police caused a drop in crime? No, more police followed the drop, so they had nothing to do with it.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by Whoever on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:09AM
Which of these is true?
1. Alcohol Legalization Makes World a Better Place
2. Marijuana Legalization Makes World a Better Place
There are no serious disputes about 1, since the USA experimented with prohibition. Yet, is there any significant extra risk with Marijuana? Yes, it is dangerous in excess, but so is alcohol.
Obviously, both 1 and 2 are true.
(Score: 5, Informative) by fadrian on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:13AM
Yes, it is dangerous in excess...
And how do you get an excess when it's smoked? You'll pass out long before you ingest enough to have dire physical effect.
The cannabinoid receptors are neither as central to the body's operation as the many physiological systems and receptors alcohol influences nor as problematic for key metabolic functions (say breathing) as opioids and dissociatives. Nor does it have the many ill-effects of stimulants. In fact, about the only way you can plausibly overdose on cannabis is by eating too many edibles - that's not a problem for most folks (unless you're Maureen Dowd [nytimes.com]). And, even though the number of children being brought into ERs for "cannabinoid poisoning" is increasing, I've never heard of any long-lasting effect coming from accidental ingestion - maybe little Suzy might need an IV for fluids because she's too stoned to drink, but it wears off in a few hours.
In fact, here's what the Oregon Board of pharmacy had to say about the toxicity of Cannabis:
According to that citation that a 20 lb. child (~9 kg) could ingest up to 270 100 mg. infused chocolate bars and still not die (at least not from the cannabis - that amount of chocolate might well do him in, though, Halloween notwithstanding).
So, in summary, I wish we'd put the myth of cannabis overdose behind us. It may make you uncomfortable, but it's not going to kill you, unless you're mentally unstable enough that you really shouldn't be taking any drugs at all.
And, yes, Maureen Dowd, I'm looking at you!
That is all.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:12AM
Not completely without risk [latimes.com], though. But... how could you know what side effects are there if until recently it was a crime?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday October 21 2014, @02:07PM
From the first paragraph of your link: "a panicked Denver mother told a 911 dispatcher her spouse was acting erratically after swallowing marijuana candy and a prescription painkiller for back pain."
Prescription pain killers are very similar in effect to alcohol, completely unlike marijuana. Like alcohol, many people get violent on opioids. They don't on marijuana.
That sensationalist propaganda you linked is like a headline screaming "candy kills child" when the child had a Hershey bar and then drank drano.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by black_trout on Tuesday October 21 2014, @04:36PM
Also, the implication that this wouldn't have happened if this man didn't have easy access to legal marijuana (or opioids) seems out of place. Instead, this is a story of an unstable man who could have just as likely been pushed over the edge by something more mundane:
"a panicked Denver mother told a 911 dispatcher her spouse was acting erratically after hearing on the television the McRib was Back."
(Score: 2) by velex on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:32PM
Picking out the first incident makes it easier to discredit as being a propaganda piece, especially since there's a drug interaction involved. For all we know, the guy might have had a few beers in his system to boot.
There was a second incident apparently, and this one is more concerning since it involved edibles only:
The dispensary clerk told the group of four friends to cut the cookie into six pieces and eat one at a time, one of the friends told police. They complied, but said nothing hit them. Experts say it’s common for edibles to produce a delayed high.
But Levy Thamba, 19, ate an entire cookie.
Thamba started “freaking out,” “getting spiritual and talking about his sins” in French, another friend told police. He wrecked the hotel room and then ran out to the hallway before friends could pull him away from a railing.
No other drugs or alcohol was involved, his friends said.
I would conjecture that what we have here are inexperienced marijuana users who aren't prepared for the effects of a powerful medicine at that dosage. That data isn't included in the article, but according to this source [nhtsa.gov], we can say if you use half a gram to roll a joint and keep the math simple then bogart the whole thing you'd probably get 25 mg at most given a very strong cultivar. Let's assume average at 12.5 mg.
So what appears to have happened in both cases is that somebody decided to do the equivalent of smoking little over 5 joints in a row before the effects of the first joint had even set in, then completely unexpectedly started tripping balls.
I mean, holy shit. So maybe dispensaries should keep foods with that much THC “in the back” and strongly encourage everybody but regulars to try something a bit less potent first. What can you do though? There's nothing that will stop people from being irresponsible asshats, not being able to follow instructions, and not realizing that they're just experiencing a drug when it finally kicks in. Although mostly not having respect for marijuana as a powerful medicine. Maybe one guy needed to go to prison for getting messed up on opioids, having way too much marijuana, and committing murder, and another guy needed to Darwin himself before fewer asshats decide to do the same thing.
Of course to put this into perspective [cdc.gov]:
Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.
Alcohol: 88,000 deaths / 5 years / 50 states = 352 deaths / year / state
Marijuana: 2 deaths / 5/6 of a year / 1 state = 2.4 deaths / year / state
Even if we say both of these deaths were directly related to marijuana consumption in general, I'd say marijuana's doing pretty damned good. Two orders of magnitude better good. Is this the best the fear-mongers can come up with? Or are we just insensitive to the deleterious effects of alcohol?
(Note, what I linked isn't clear whether the 88,000 figure does not includes drunk driving or victims of violence perpetrated by people under the influence of alcohol. Might contain the former, but probably not the latter, so my rough calculation may be comparing apples to oranges.)
(Score: 2) by velex on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:45AM
Oh shoot! My rough estimate is all screwed up. Remove the divide by 5. Multiply the alcohol deaths per state by 5, and now we're looking at three orders of magnitude safer for marijuana.
My apologies!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:28PM
I would conjecture that what we have here are inexperienced marijuana users who aren't prepared for the effects of a powerful medicine at that dosage.
I saw something similar once when I was in the USAF in Thailand. He wanted to try LSD, which I think was nonexistant there. I saw his erratic behavior, and guys who were with him the night before said it was a burn, he had freaked out on a placebo. He was given a medical discharge, I don't know if he ever got better.
There are a lot of possible explanations for the guy you mentioned. The numbers put it nicely into perspective, especially since some people go crazy for no obvious reason at all.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:13AM
Anecdote:
A friend who was a heroin addict told me a story when we were discussing his past addiction. He once invited friends over and they wanted to smoke weed. So he shoots up AND smokes weed with them. He went into a bit of detail, which doesn't need to be repeated, but in short: he went berserk. He did not attempt to harm anyone but he started acting really crazy, speaking incoherently, throwing things and jumping around like a lunatic. His friends pretty much ran out of the apartment fearing he might become violent. He doesn't remember the incident but was told by his friends.
So there might be a connection to erratic behaviour when mixing opioids and cannabinoids. Then again, mixing drugs is always risky business. The Gp's link is just FUD.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:18AM
Still, in Colorado, they have had problems with edibles, mostly because there is no standards for dosage or marking.
In Colorado Sales of infused edibles make up about 45 percent of the legal marijuana marketplace, and have accounted for nearly 100% of all hospital admissions related to marijuana use in the state.
Yet, as far as I know there has't been a single auto accident that could definitively be blamed on pot [washingtonpost.com] in the state.
You can't find an alcoholic drink without it being labeled as to alcohol content. There probably needs to be developed some sort of content markings for edibles.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:38AM
It seems your FDA are not in control of either the food or the drugs designated suitable for human consumption.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Tuesday October 21 2014, @02:50PM
Uhmm. All manufactured edibles (at least here in Oregon) have strengths notated on the package - they are hard to miss. And, in fact, most of the manufacturers are going to even more medicinal-like packaging to make sure that folks can tell the difference (it is a medical market here, though, not a retail one - YMMV, depending on state). I guess there might be folks making homemade stuff that isn't marked and little Suzie could take the wrong tray of cookies to school. Even so, her classmates aren't likely to be physically harmed by ingesting them, unless they fall off a slide during recess or something.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:34PM
Oregon doesn't have a recreational marijuana law, so they have to pretend its medicine.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Wednesday October 22 2014, @01:27PM
Well, yes. Until the coming election and when they get the control system set up. Just time. Until then, there is medical.
It's not like half the state can't nip over the river to Washington any time they want anyway (although the supply problems they're having up there makes the medical card here in Oregon a much better deal, where Cannabis is about 30% less expensive).
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @03:27PM
Edibles in Colorado, bought from the store, are clearly marked with THC/CBD content.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:01PM
It sounds to me like she had an idiosyncratic allergic reaction (probably due to a genetic inability to metabolize THC), which a few people will unpredictably experience no matter what drug, food, drink, or other ingestible chemical is the subject. A few people die from peanut butter and seafood allergies too. That doesn't mean we should ban peanut butter and seafood. If you discover you're allergic to pot, have sense enough not to ingest it. But yeah, you'll probably discover that allergy the hard way, like most folks discover allergies (barring broad-spectrum testing).
(My sister is so allergic to pot smoke she can't even be in a room where someone has smoked it; her whole head swells up like a basketball. She has general pollen allergies too, so maybe her reaction to pot smoke is not so surprising.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:09PM
Colorado ban on edible pot goes up in smoke [politico.com]
9 cases, and no fatalities. Eating a pot brownie and missing school for a day seems a lot better than dying from drinking bleach.
Another fun scare story:
The Mythical Menace Of Marijuana-Infused Halloween Candy [forbes.com]
Whoever It's been said that vaping or eating edibles is even safer than smoking it, since that would reduce any likely carcinogens.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:28PM
To be fair, there's more to "danger" than just the risk of overdose. It's dangerous if you smoke it and then try to drive; it's dangerous if you fall asleep with a lit joint and burn your house down; it's dangerous if you get addicted (yeah, not PHYSICALLY addictive, but can be psychologically) and that prevents you from fulfilling whatever responsibilities.
Still nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol or the effects of our current drug prohibition regime though...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:00AM
Alcohol in the United States directly kills 88,000 people a year. In Europe that same number is 200,000. Alcohol kills between 3 and 8 times as many people in any given country as gun violence. I would call that a serious dispute to the claim "Alcohol Legalization Makes World a Better Place"
Legalized alcohol (as in for drinking) makes the world a far, far darker place.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday October 21 2014, @02:13PM
Since you apparently know little about the history of the 1920s in the US, you might want to read this chapter [virginia.edu] from a book that was required reading in a history class I took at SIU in the late '70s.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by velex on Tuesday October 21 2014, @02:15PM
Yes, but prohibition gets you speakeasies and organized crime. Implement that today and you'd probably see the date rape problem go through the roof. Oh, and the speakeasies won't waste time carding, so there goes any chance you had of keeping the stuff out of the hands of minors. Also, since it's illegal, good luck to alcoholics to get treatment.
A world without alcohol might be a better place, but we live in a world where alcohol is easy to make, has a marked effected on behavior and even overall health, and is fairly addictive. The answer is treatment, not prohibition. The problem is the issue of legalization, not one of alcohol.
Now what I wonder is what effect legalized recreational marijuana has on alcohol consumption. My personal experience with Spice (before it became crap when they were no longer able to use HU-210, which is very similar to THC iirc; this was years before Spice hit the news) leads me to believe that it would fall, especially alcohol-related incidents. I found I was able to stop daily and sometimes excessive use of alcohol.
Allow me to digress in general.
I also exercised more, improved my diet, and lost about 35–40-ish lbs. I don't think I'd ever been that thin and fit before. I wish I would have monitored my blood pressure as well. Well, then the DEA cracked down and that was that. I was good for a few months; I don't believe this was some kind of withdrawal. Then, gradually, everything got affectively worse, and I slid back into my old habits.
Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting HU-210 should be legalized. Mother nature will provide, if only policies will stop being irrational. Not everybody who wants to use marijuana knows where to get it or is comfortable breaking the law and getting arrested due to lack of street smarts to get it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:54PM
Alcohol in the United States directly kills 88,000 people a year. In Europe that same number is 200,000. Alcohol kills between 3 and 8 times as many people in any given country as gun violence. I would call that a serious dispute to the claim "Alcohol Legalization Makes World a Better Place"
You assume prohibition resulted in the reduction of alcohol consumption. It didn't.
Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became moredangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to thebreaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity orreduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased governmentspending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangeroussubstances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.
Reference [cato.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:20PM
The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences. [slate.com]
In addition to the organized crime and bribery associated with Prohibition, add deliberate mass poisoning. Bootleggers poisoned to stretch profits, and the government poisoned to stretch a failed technocratic experiment in moral manipulation to its ultimate conclusion.
Check out the Ken Burns doc [pbs.org] to learn more.
Marijuana criminalization has done even more harm. The drug war will be remembered by historians as one of the greatest policy mistakes of the 20th century.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday October 21 2014, @01:59PM
Yet, is there any significant extra risk with Marijuana? Yes, it is dangerous in excess
Please define "excess" and list these so-called risks. The only risks I've ever seen or heard about is use by minors, and possible lung problems if smoked.
Note that I and half the people I know have been using marijuana "in excess" for decades and I know of no harm it has caused any of us.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:09AM
You wanna abbreviate Washington Post? Use "WaPo".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:50AM
Even "The Post" is better than WP.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:43AM
At first I thought why the hell should we care about what Jimmy Wales thinks about marijuana legislation?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:14AM
And I thought it was "WordPerfect", though I could not make out how that could be remotely appropriate.
(Score: 1) by andrew_t366 on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:34PM
WordPerfect endorsing marijuana! And all this time I thought they were a pack of Mormon teetotalers...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:52AM
Or "Bezos"
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:29AM
Not a sole principal, but an important one, is that a law should not make illegal an activity that often leads to some type of crime, since that other crime is already illegal. Drug use itself should be a personal freedom...and shouldn't be a crime. Some consequences of that drug abuse should be crimes however. We know that some drug abuse leads to criminal neglect of children. Instead of making that drug illegal, prosecute the criminal child neglect. Seat belts. They're smart to wear, but it shouldn't be a crime to not wear one. However, it should failing to secure a child properly while driving is a different matter, since it is generally child endangerment.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:37AM
Not a sole principal, but an important one, is that a law should not make illegal an activity that often leads to some type of crime, since that other crime is already illegal.
Say what?
So because murder is already against the law, its unnecessary to make a law against pointing a gun at your head and threatening to shoot you?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:12AM
So because murder is already against the law, its unnecessary to make a law against pointing a gun at your head and threatening to shoot you?
I think the grandparent point is that buying the gun shouldn't be made illegal, which makes sense.
Also, that walking up to someone shouldn't be illegal and shouting at someone shouldn't be illegal either. But in the very specific combination you give, yeah that's illegal.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 21 2014, @01:10PM
However, driving a blinged-up BMW to the place where you intend to perform this assault should not be a crime, even if it's a show of poor taste.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:30PM
Some would say that subjecting a blinged up BMW to gunfire is Good Taste.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday October 21 2014, @02:16PM
Dew knot truss yore spill checker. It's a "principle," not a "principal" (I add this comment for those who speak English as a second language and are trying to improve).
They used to teach this in grade school, when and why did they stop?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:44PM
why did they stop?
Apparently, it isn't on Pearson's corporate-prepared fill-in-the-bubbles test that they teach to these days.
...and everybody's school-district-provided iThingie comes with a spillcheckr.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by velex on Tuesday October 21 2014, @02:31PM
I like your logic, but I don't think it applies here.
The idea that marijuana use leads to crime is a bit tortured or at least is yet to be seen. Maybe thoughtcrime. Prohibition creates crime (i.e. if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns). I am fairly certain that in 50 years we'll look back on the war on drugs and wonder, “What could we have possibly been thinking?”
Or, at least I hope. I'm surprised there haven't been a rash of false-flag crimes in Colorado yet to conveniently blame on legalization. I was expecting that, too. But who knows. It seems the only people complaining are bordering counties being bankrupted by over-zealous enforcement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @03:25PM
"child endangerment" is the exact kind of a law you are saying to get rid of.
Laeb
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:08PM
I disagree on your last point. After long observation and consideration, I've concluded that it's better that some children (and animals) suffer neglect or abuse or endangerment, than that all of us should be under the jackbooted heel of overzealous enforcement, such as today's typical "Child Protective Services" -- as it is not possible to enforce "child protection" without invasive monitoring of each and every parent.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Thursday October 23 2014, @12:12AM
That is bullshit dude.
subicular junctures
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:34AM
The headline sort of makes it sound like the Post is endorsing marijuana like the NYT editorial board did [nytimes.com], when it's actually talking about a Brookings Institution event.
William Brownfield's little speech at the UN is symptomatic of the molasses-like response of the U.S. to altering marijuana policy. Here's a plant that ought to have been decriminalized 40 years ago. Public support for legalization climbs, medical marijuana legalization spreads, and finally 2 states decide to give the feds the finger on purely recreational use. The federal government could crush state-legal marijuana operations, but chooses not to. There's no will in Congress to deschedule marijuana, but the Democratic executive at least has chosen a wait and see approach on enforcing the rules. Who can say if a Republican successor would do the same? Maybe Rand Paul would. Brownfield feels the need to stretch treaty law beyond imaginable limits, instead of simply pulling out of the treaty, which any nation has the power to do. The Supreme Court has never tested [wikipedia.org] the President's ability to pull out of a treaty unilaterally, but it's unlikely that any President would do so for a non-defense treaty. A Democratic President would not approach Congress on this issue unless many more states took matters into their own hands. So we're stuck waiting on individual states to decriminalize marijuana, flaunting federal law, before anything gets done at the federal level.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:51AM
Nah, you've read the situation wrong. Things are moving very fast by governmental standards. We are moving much faster than most countries.
If 4 or 5 more states legalize on the next election, the entire country will legalize within 2 years. Once a majority of the states legalize the federal government is out of the business, because once a state steps in and regulates something the constitution denies that power to the federal government. Anyone wanting to keep that cushy senate or house seat will overturn federal regulations as soon as they see which way the wind is blowing.
Remember what horrible programs have come from the federal government when congress gets ideas of their own. I'd much rather have them taking their que from the people than the other way around.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:19AM
Nah, you've read the law wrong.
GONZALES V. RAICH (03-1454) 545 U.S. 1 (2005) 352 F.3d 1222, vacated and remanded. [cornell.edu]
Gonzales v. Raich [wikipedia.org]
The government's Commerce Clause powers are so vast, they extend to intrastate production of marijuana. Congress can vote to decriminalize marijuana, and Eric Holder has backed down on enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in some states under some circumstances, but don't be fooled into believing that the states can suddenly supersede the federal government on the regulation of drugs.
I also believe your prediction of a swift turnabout on recreational marijuana by the states and then the federal government is premature. It's a prediction that works for gay marriage, a civil rights issue that is enjoying support from the courts, and will probably lead to a successful Supreme Court challenge. Marijuana is going to be easier for politicians to oppose, even if more than 2 states legalize recreational marijuana.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:13PM
“Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”
--Thomas Jefferson.
I think it will take more than 4 or 5 states; rather, it will take enough of a majority that these states' representatives can ram legalization through Congress.
Meanwhile, there have been a few cases where county Sheriffs have put a stop to questionable or overreaching Federal operations; we need more of that kind of courage.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by velex on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:45PM
Well, I think it'll take 4 or 5 states before it catches on. That might be what GP was talking about.
Then the magic number is 38, because Congress doesn't want to be shown up in the event there's an Article V convention [wikipedia.org]. One of those would also threaten to drag the rest of the states into legalization kicking and screaming depending on how they worded an amendment.
But who knows. There is a lot of backwards and superstitious thinking about marijuana, and it has never been legal in the lifetimes of the vast majority alive today. Unlike alcohol prohibition, marijuana isn't something that many people have cultural and practical experience with. Then again I'm never sure when somebody I consider an intelligent critical thinker repeats some batshit “fact” about marijuana like they're saying the sky is blue whether they're just saying it because they don't want others to think they're a “pothead.”
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @08:44PM
Well, I think it'll take 4 or 5 states before it catches on. That might be what GP was talking about.
Then the magic number is 38, because Congress doesn't want to be shown up in the event there's an Article V convention [wikipedia.org].
Exactly, when 4 or 5 states vote to legalize and tax recreational use, the rest will follow, because everyone will see that nothing bad happened, reefer madness did not set in, and traffic accidents actually went down.
And when I refer to the other states following, I don't refer to the "State Government" I refer to the people. In both Washington and Colorado, state government was dragged kicking and screaming to recreational use by voter initiates.
As for Congress not wanting to be shown up, I will remind you that Congress is not immutable, and voters will kick their asses out just as they did their state legislatures. The day when voters don't dare vote out "Good Ol Boys" because of the influential committees they sit on is slowly fading.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:16PM
Or more likely, they eye the tax revenue that Colorado has been making, money from heaven with no effort on their part and at worst minimal downside, and far more tax collected than they ever expected -- I think THAT will convince cash-strapped states, far more than any arguments over whether pot is safe or harmful or whatever.
I do wonder how much of the anti- propaganda is funded by foreign wholesalers who are presently making a killing exporting their weed to the U.S., whose profits would drop precipitously if the U.S. grew all its own weed (as it easily could).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 21 2014, @09:26PM
I think the propaganda I've seen is coming from law enforcement at all levels.
I've seen a local officer with a straight face declare it a gateway drug. Not in 1985, just last month.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:01PM
Yeah I think we've all seen a local police union or police chief come out against marijuana decriminalization and repeat the "gateway drug" meme recently, with a few exceptions [wikipedia.org].
Here's a fun story [forbes.com] I just found.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @10:07PM
Likely so, but they don't have influence at the legislative level like a hired lobbyist does... I'm thinkin' the big wholesalers hire lobbyists.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:38PM
You think law enforcement doesn't have lobbyists? [tmpa.org]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:49PM
Sure they do, but they certainly can't have the budget of the underground-drug industry.
And if anything, law enforcement lobbies for more and harsher laws, lest they be found surplus to society and downsized. So if anything, they're a bonus for anyone lobbying to protect their currently-illegal sales.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:54PM
cases where county Sheriffs have put a stop to questionable or overreaching Federal operations
The Feds have jurisdiction anywhere in the USA, so, no.
What the local cops -can- do is not supply additional manpower for things they consider nonsense.
The Feds get stretched too thin and their efforts look like a ridiculous patchwork.
This was how alcohol prohibition enforcement fell apart.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:59PM
That's not how it works. Federal law always trumps state law, not the other way around. Tenth amendemnt says the states have all powers *not already designated to the feds*, but the courts have ruled that drug enforcement is the power of the feds through the commerce clause. The states can pass whatever laws they want, it's still technically illegal. Growers complying with state laws are still being arrested by federal agents. If they wanted to they could arrest the state officials doing things like collecting these taxes, possibly even those who passed the law, but that would almost certainly end in disaster. So instead they pick off a few small sellers hoping to keep people scared. And it seems they're starting to give up, because there's no way to win in the states that have legalized.
The root of their problem is that there really aren't that many federal agents. The DEA currently has about 5000 field agents. That's 100 per state. 1.5 million people are arrested annually for drug charges. Assuming they're working normal hours, that gives ~1.2 arrests per agent per day -- just to enforce the status quo! I bet it takes more than one day just to do the paperwork for one arrest, let alone the investigation and prosecution and everything else. They simply can't afford to enforce these laws without cooperation from the states, and now that the states can start to see that this money is being wasted, they're going to stop cooperating.
Might actually be beneficial if it takes a while for the federal law to reverse. Because if the states legalize, the federal law becomes unenforceable anyway. BUT...it'll keep the corporate interests out. The DEA can't raid every single dispensary selling a few ounces a week. But if Philip Morris starts cultivating this stuff in fields measured in square miles? THAT will still get raided as long as those federal laws stand. Easy target, easy morale boost for soldiers who know they've already lost. Keep the federal ban until all states have legalized and a solid supply chain has been established. Give small business a solid head start.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:10AM
What will they do with all the illiterate TSA goons?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 21 2014, @07:22AM
At every bus stop. Because, you know, what if somebody flies one of them buses into skyscrapers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @11:52AM
Streets need to be clean, so…
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday October 21 2014, @12:28PM
I propose sending them to W. Africa to 'stop ebola at the borders'. ;-)
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 21 2014, @05:15PM
I had the exact same thought... then a second thought: Considering how demonstrably well they do their job at the U.S. borders (per various journalists who've deliberately sneaked through all manner of 'contraband'), I can't think of a better way to spread Ebola throughout the world. :/
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by JimmyCrackCorn on Wednesday October 22 2014, @02:57AM
As a red card holder, and a dope smoker, i ask you to understand something that may be important.
Now that i can buy and smoke, eat and ingest cannabis legaly it has changed my habits.
Cannabis no longer erodes my income or my time for acquiring.
I have an easier time enjoying my high and not high time.
I am better off financially, socially, and healthier too.
And, most of all is that the rule of law is not invalidated from some stupid law that simply invalidated the rule of law.
(Score: 2) by velex on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:37AM
I'm glad to hear it. Reports like yours are encouraging.
I was musing outside earlier that I can openly enjoy two chemicals that are destroying my health without feeling the slightest bit of guilt (unless I'm too hung over tomorrow to go into work): alcohol and tobacco. No stigma at all at committing suicide in slow motion.
Yet, were I to somehow gain access to marijuana, howley fucking goddamn shit, I'd better not let ANYONE know, and I'd better keep it discrete as fucking possible.
And, most of all is that the rule of law is not invalidated from some stupid law that simply invalidated the rule of law.
I think this is the salient point. The 9th and 10th amendments imply that everyone has the right to grow and smoke or eat or whatever cannabis. If not, than surely the states should have the say, not the Masters of the Universe.
My state has a medical program. Unfortunately, all it means is that you become a target for being pulled over while driving and being convicted of DUI based on a piss test. If not that, your home is invaded and constantly harassed by inspectors making sure your grow cage meets security requirements. I might be able to qualify, but the $500 per year sin tax is a bit hard to swallow for all those services my state government has to offer me.
Be excellent. Party on, dude.
(Score: 1) by JimmyCrackCorn on Wednesday October 22 2014, @04:08AM
Wow. Great reply.
You caught my salient statement with aplumb . Or something. It is great to not fear our laws. And, it is great to harbor no ill will toward our paid "protect and serve" segment. The Best part of life for me is to appreciate. Now that i can without paranoidia it is only better may the force be with you!!!