SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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".
(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