Legalize Marijuana?
Willamette Week's cover story on marijuana legalization (reprinted from the Boston Phoenix) included an addendum on the views of Oregon politicos.
Most surprising answer? Rep. Jeff Barker (D-Aloha), a retired Portland police officer and chairman of House Judiciary:
Barker doesn’t want stoned people behind the wheel, but otherwise he says pot is no public threat, and he’s ready to roll on legalizing.“I’m fine with that,” he says. “I don’t mind spending money to lock up violent people, but marijuana just ain’t even close.”
OK, that covers the criminal justice angle. What about the medical angle? Cue Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland), former chair of the Dept. of Public Health at OHSU:
Greenlick says he doesn’t see the logic in treating cannabis differently from tobacco or booze. “It doesn’t seem to me to make a hell of a lot of sense,” he says. “If we can get a serious discussion going, I think [legalization] is possible.”
But despite some high-profile supporters, marijuana legalization was barely a blip in the 2009 session. According to WW, a ballot measure is headed our way:
[Legalization advocates] plan to put the issue on the 2010 ballot with an initiative called the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act.If they can gather 87,000 signatures to put it on the ballot, and voters then approved the initiative, the act would set up the Oregon Cannabis Control Commission. The new agency would sell pot to buyers 21 and over, with 90 percent of the profit going to the state’s general fund and 10 percent for drug treatment.
Activists last put a legalization measure on the ballot in 1986. It got just 26 percent support. But after decades fighting to legalize pot in Oregon, they believe the public has come around.
What do you think? Should Oregon legalize marijuana? Will Oregon voters approve the measure? Will a strong fiscal impact - as much as $200 million in new revenue and reduced criminal justice costs - make a difference to voters?
Discuss.
|
July 9, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (80 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Boats | Jul 9, 2009 8:32:22 AM
I would vote for the legalization of pot, but only if the state were not involved in direct sales like they are with hard alcoholic beverages.
If the state gets its monopolistic clutches with retail head shops, the criminality will still be there but shift from interdiction to tax evasion. The state could legalize head shops and set the tax for legally sold cannabis at a point lower than the overhead premium for dealers running the risk of serving the black market. Eventually, illegal sales would dry up just like they did for alcohol.
Having smoked several pounds of the stuff as a younger man, I think marijuana is less societally harmful than is alcohol. And just like for alcohol, all that prohibition has done for marijuana is drive it into becoming a black market commodity with all of the violence and enforcement costs that such status brings to a perennially desirable product.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Jul 9, 2009 8:58:31 AM
Prohibition does nothing but enrich gangsters and the prison-industrial complex.
If it's smoked away from non-smokers and we can find a way to ID those driving under the influence, who cares what other people do? If it is legalized, I'd encourage increased penalties for selling to minors, though.
Posted by: Jake Leander | Jul 9, 2009 9:12:03 AM
The media did a decent job on medical cannabis. They did not allow the fear mongers to dominate the public discussion. If they approach legalization in an even-handed manner, the public will support it. If the Just Say No forces are allowed to spout their propaganda without challenge, the public will not support legalization.
As to the legislature, my guess is that Peter Courtney, conservative soul that he is, would not be enthusiastic about legalization.
Posted by: Kirk Muse | Jul 9, 2009 9:18:06 AM
The question should not be should marijuana
be re-legalized, but rather: should marijuana remain completely unregulated,
untaxed and controlled by criminals?
Posted by: Dave Porter | Jul 9, 2009 10:07:53 AM
Yes! The initiative sounds like a thoughtful direction to go. Where do I sign?
On my own blog I previously called to “Defund the Mexican Drug Cartels; Legalize Marijuana” (here).
Kudos to Representatives Barker, Greenlick and Buckley for their views, but I would not expect legalizing marijuana to pass as a legislative bill.
I do not expect the initiative to pass, but the percentage voting yes will be higher than in the past.
My thanks to the folks promoting the initiative.
Posted by: Deno | Jul 9, 2009 10:14:09 AM
Legalization would be a billion dollar revenue stream for a state with the 2nd highest unemployment rate in the nation.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Jul 9, 2009 10:24:08 AM
Just curious:
If Mary Jane was legal tomorrow, how many people would be released from prison due to possession and distribution convictions and how much would that save the state?
I'm guessing it has to be in the tens of millions in the first year. Police, the courts, prison, parole officers, etc. would all be affected.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 9, 2009 10:38:36 AM
"That hippie lettuce be taxed at a rate equal to or greater than tobacco products.
That wacky tobaccie and it’s users be stigmatized in ad campaigns the same way tobacco smokers are as a way to discourage it’s use as much as possible."
I'm 100% on board with a pot tax equal to tobacco, although there's little in the way of health cost recovery that justifies a high tax on the latter--which is why a stigmatization campaign makes no sense. Tobacco is a terrible killer. Pot is a mostly benign substance. You know how many deaths have been directly been attributed to pot? Zero. Literally, zero.
"If the state gets its monopolistic clutches with retail head shops, the criminality will still be there but shift from interdiction to tax evasion. "
Is there a massive problem with black market liquor in states with state sales? It sure doesn't seem so.
ScottJ, it's likely there would be no retroactivity; if you were busted when pot was still illegal, you'd stay in prison.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 9, 2009 10:44:18 AM
Sorry, that should be "justifies a high tax on the FORMER" -- ie, pot.
Posted by: Bartender | Jul 9, 2009 10:45:21 AM
"...should marijuana remain ...controlled by criminals?"
They wouldn't be criminals if it were legal. They'd be small businessmen and entrepeneurs.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Jul 9, 2009 10:48:12 AM
If Mary Jane was legal tomorrow, how many people would be released from prison due to possession and distribution convictions and how much would that save the state?
I would be curiou to know this, too. My guess is that the number is very small.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Jul 9, 2009 10:50:01 AM
There have been some really gnarly arguments made here, and I'm totally stoked about it. But to get serious....
I was in a band that played the mainstage at the Seattle Hempfest for several years. I prepared some pot humor, but frankly once I educated myself on medical marijuana and the war on drugs, I didn't make any jokes about it at all. This has been a very shameful chapter in medicine where sick people have been allowed to die rather than lessen the death grip of the pharmaceutical industry on our society.
You watch: When the pharmaceutical industry finally accepts that legalization is going to happen, it will do what it can to try and control it using its hired hands in Congress.
The war on drugs is like the war on terror. It's a cover story for something else.
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | Jul 9, 2009 10:53:10 AM
Bill's right. Same reason we won't have a national public option for health care.
And the exact same reason we won't ever shift our health care sector's focus from profit to actual health. Thanks, pharma!
Posted by: Boats | Jul 9, 2009 11:00:40 AM
Is there a massive problem with black market liquor in states with state sales? It sure doesn't seem so.
This would be primarily due to there being no qualitative difference between a bottle of Cuervo bought at a retail shop owned by the State of Oregon and one purchased at any privately owned liquor store in California.
There is a massive qualitative difference in weed and the locally grown stuff is not up to world class standards. Unless the state's proposed cannabis commission were staffed with enthusiasts, there is no way that state controlled pot would be able to compete with private bud sourced using better methods and growing conditions.
Unless there has been a revolution in locally grown weed I haven't been following, it still doesn't favorably compare with BC bud, or even the grass from around Humboldt CA. Just like any agricultural product, soil, cultivation, harvesting practices, and retail preparation for market matter, and in Canada especially, there are some world class farmers at work.
So unless the proposed state run CCC got into world class legal cultivation and gained a market reputation as the best bang for the buck, "illegal" weed would persist in a way that would be reminiscent of the moonshiners that persist in the south and in the Appalachian mountains to this day.
Posted by: Bartender | Jul 9, 2009 11:17:09 AM
Sorry TJ, but Boats has a point. If they decide to tax it too much, there will be a black market. If the tax were so high on liquor that it made it worthwhile to bootleg it, it would happen. I mean, a lot of those beer fans here said they'd start brewing their own if Cannon's beer tax went through. Hopefully, if this initiative did pass, they'd allow people to grow their own, (as with alcohol).
You have to admit, putting a seed or plant in the ground and tending it for a little while is a heck of a lot easier, cheaper, (and safer) than setting up your own still. At least I think most people would feel that way.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Jul 9, 2009 11:24:42 AM
"which is something that could have been prevented if alcohol was illegal."
Because prohibition was soooo successful reducing crime and alcohol related deaths.
Posted by: J Renaud | Jul 9, 2009 11:33:35 AM
Prohibition was successful in a variety of ways. Try reading histories not rewritten by the beverage industry.
Arguments for legalizing marijuana are largely based on "it's not as bad as alcohol." No doubt, but that's not the point.
Because alcohol has been an enormous burden in financial costs and human tragedy which we have, as a society, accepted as manageable. Millions? Billions? Trillions? We don't know the damage it does.
We've failed to mitigate the damage alcohol does in our community. Why do we think we have the capacity to even understand the damage marijuana does?
Posted by: SCB | Jul 9, 2009 11:35:01 AM
Two comments:
1. The first "talking head" I ever saw that supported the legalization of marijuana was William F. Buckley Jr. So, even the "conservations" have a place at the table of legalization.
2. I am a former alcohol/drug treatment center director, attended the First White House conference for a drug free America, was a member of the Board of Directors of the California Alcohol Recovery Home Association, etc., etc. - I have first hand experience, knowledge, and education regarding drugs and recovery. Illegalization is one of the biggest barriers to treatment. I support a combination of legalization of marijuana, taxation of marijuana, and increased treatment for all addictions from part of that revenue.
The rest of the tax revenue could retire the national debt in something like 10 years ....
Posted by: Bartender | Jul 9, 2009 11:35:48 AM
"Unless there has been a revolution in locally grown weed I haven't been following" ... "locally grown stuff is not up to world class standards."
OK, sorry to you this time Boats. It must have been awhile since you've partaken. Oregon has some of the best pot in the world, certainly on par with anything coming out of Cali or BC. Our climate here is as good as either of those. (Folks actually disparage BC bud, these days.) In addition, hydroponics, grow lights, and modern cloning and hybridization techniques allow anyone with a spare room, shed or even closet, to grow almost any kind of pot they want. And they certainly do, right here in Oregon.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Jul 9, 2009 11:42:47 AM
I fully support serious discussion to legalize marijuana and tax it at each point in the distribution system similar to alcohol and tobacco. It is far past time to remove the criminal element from the cultivation of marijuana.
This week the Jackson county Sheriff actually warned folks to stay out of the woods and to slowly back away if they stumbled onto a grow operation. In the Siskiyous there are several well funded criminal grow operations protected by armed guards.
Posted by: Bartender | Jul 9, 2009 11:53:32 AM
"Why do we think we have the capacity to even understand the damage marijuana does?"
Cuz we've been studying it since, what, the sixties? And NOT ONE SINGLE death can be directly attributed to it?
The way things are now, pot "has been an enormous burden in financial costs and human tragedy which we have, as a society, accepted as manageable," simply because it is illegal. Something like 700,000 people per year are incarcerated on non-violent pot charges. Imagine the enormous SAVINGS in financial costs and human tragedy if these folks were not locked up.
Posted by: Boats | Jul 9, 2009 11:59:38 AM
It has indeed been awhile since I have toked. Glad to hear that Oregon has upped its game.
When I was coming up in Hawaii, that was some great stuff, but it began to suffer as the state began aerially spraying suspected grows, moving operations under camo or indoors, jacking the price.
And bringing on a wholly unintended boom in the popularity of "ice," the drug we know of today as meth. The party people didn't stop getting high because of herbicides, a certain percentage switched to something else a lot worse for both them and society.
My only point in dabbling with pot nostalgia and misguesstimating the current state of things was this: If Oregon legalizes pot to control it and takes a "near beer" approach, the effort will fail because the black market will adapt itself to tax evasion just as readily as it has to prohibition. Half-assed legalization will just create other headaches that won't address the problem of a contraband creating a criminal class to deliver it to willing buyers.
This thread is making me want a legal joint. LOL.
Posted by: John Silvertooth | Jul 9, 2009 12:10:17 PM
Initially all adults should be able to grow a small number of plants per year- and I mean like 10 or less even 3 or 4- for personal non-commercial use without a permit or tax. (Medical patients should have greater number allowed). After a few years of this and the world does not come to an end, further legalization should be examined and larger scale operations could be regulated and taxed. This will drive a lot of criminal operations out of Oregon. Many police and prosecutors in this state will admit privately the state efforts to prosecute pot laws are wasted energy and legalization would be a positive step but they are afraid to speak out.
Posted by: Bartender | Jul 9, 2009 12:34:43 PM
Yes, I understand and agree to a point with your premise, Boats. (And as a "hippie, bleeding heart liberal", I never thought I'd say that! LOL. But that just goes to show this can be a truly bipartisan effort.) I just believe that "the effort will fail because the black market will adapt itself to tax evasion just as readily as it has to prohibition," if it is taxed too much. As in anything, if you make it cheaper to buy legally than it is to go to the hassle and expense of doing it yourself, there won't be a big black market.
Let's tax it at a rate like beer! LOL! Let's lead the country with our iconic, small "craft" pot growers and breeders. We're already known for our great bud here in Oregon. Let's get some economic development $, and tax breaks to these small businessmen and women. Think of all the jobs...
Posted by: stevenovick | Jul 9, 2009 12:38:46 PM
A moment of silence for Peter Tosh and his untimely death. Does it really make sense to legalize it when he's not here to advertise it?
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 9, 2009 1:16:20 PM
I'll accept the rebuttals by boats and bartender, but it seems like it would take a really significant tax to set prices above what the black market demands now. Last I heard, a standard quarter-ounce bag of quality green would run you from $80 - $100 around here, and I have to figure that you could likely still support grower profit and substantial tax, and still keep the price under $75.
Posted by: Mike Austin | Jul 9, 2009 1:17:27 PM
Something like 700,000 people per year are incarcerated on non-violent pot charges.
At a cost of $25,000/inmate, that comes to 17.5 billion dollars. That doesn't include the legal and opportunity costs of putting them in prison...
Something I haven't seen mentioned here is that the legalization of marijuana would open the doors to the growing of marijuana for non-drug use. Hemp is a great source of fiber for paper and clothing, omega-3 fatty acids, protein powders, etc. There is tremendous potential here for rural Oregon to produce hemp and cannabis products...
Posted by: Daryl | Jul 9, 2009 1:27:27 PM
I have a distinct feeling that Oregon will legalize before California, if that happens I can promise you at least 1 new family that will be taking residence in your state, hahahaha.
When discussing the financial plus's to the legalization argument why doesn’t anyone ever mention the potential tourism boost?
Posted by: Boats | Jul 9, 2009 2:01:57 PM
Done right, legalization would bring the per ounce cost of marijuana down into the range of where quarter ounce bags are now. Heck, get it down to the cost of stevia extract, at about $72.00 per pound and Oregon would have an agricultural boom on its hands. Tourism would skyrocket.
For once, liberals could be supply siders. Selling cheaper, moderately taxed, high quality weed in volume would result in a greater amount of tax income over the same product kept artificially expensive and highly taxed.
The way to cut off illegal pot at the knees in Oregon would be to have real "grass" fields in the hundreds of acres with multiple crops a year. There'd be some security expense, and some high wildlife, and the odd but amusing wildfire losses, but the resultant legal volume would make small and secretive grows or large but risky ones noncompetitive.
The unintended problems would be a likely increase in DWI as well as a lot of static from other states because people would traffic a cheaper source of pot to areas where it was still prohibited.
Posted by: Crim Justice Person | Jul 9, 2009 2:03:10 PM
Last week several 45-50 year olds sitting around a pool on vacation, some with hangovers, were all complaining that if MJ was just legal, some of them would be feeling a lot better right now.
There is the probability that legalization would create a few more users, and some would end up using harder drugs. I think it would be very few, but how many is too many. So lets not kid ourselves there. Admit it and weigh the benefits.
But on balance, it makes Sooo much sense to legalize/educate/Regulate and tax, (LERT)
Posted by: will | Jul 9, 2009 2:05:26 PM
If its working with medical mj, then legal mj I would consider, but what about the bad effects to those who dont know how to use this special plant? And for the wrong reasons?
Posted by: Buckman Res | Jul 9, 2009 2:09:42 PM
”You know how many deaths have been directly been attributed to pot? Zero. Literally, zero.”
That’s setting bar a little high. Considering the negative effects any intoxicant can have on any number of activities, from driving to operating a chain saw, I think an active campaign to deglamorize and minimize the use of Mary J is warranted in the event it is legalized.
I thought of a slogan for the campaign,
Be a “Don't bee”, not a “Doobie”
Posted by: Boats | Jul 9, 2009 2:12:36 PM
What about them? It has always been wrongheaded, and morally bankrupt, to punish everyone who exercises moderation to save a few clodhoppers from themselves.
I don't care if we are talking about alcohol, sex, drugs, porn, sugar, trans fats, guns, or what have you, prohibition has never been the correct answer.
Posted by: Bartender | Jul 9, 2009 2:22:02 PM
Yes, Oregon should legalize marijuana. It is, at best, a miracle "drug" (and I use that term very loosely here) that provides countless benefits and relief to millions worldwide without the side effects and addiction issues associated with the legal drugs routinely used now. At worse (and again, I use that term loosely) it is a mellow and short-lived buzz; a benign, mild and temporary alteration of the senses, like drinking a beer.
But will Oregon voters approve the measure? Based on history, probably not, it pains me to say. It pains me, because I do feel that we pot smokers are forced to remain "in the closet," the way the WW article mentions. I can really relate to that aspect of this issue. Not trying to jump on, or create, the newest victimization bandwagon (we potheads are nothing if not independent and self reliant!) but it bugs me that the stereotypical MJ user is still some derivative of the Cheech and Chong characters or a smelly kid in tie dye and dreads. If everyone who partakes "came out," we wouldn't be having this discussion. We'd have credibility.
Selfishly, I'd like to see it made legal and the government stay out of it all together. Folks could get good, cheap (well, cheaper than it'd be if the government taxed it) bud from a variety of sources - as most do now... just without the fear of ruining their whole lives for it. But I accept that with the good comes the bad, and that taxing it is going to go hand-in-hand with legalization. Not to mitigate any costs to society - I believe those are few - but as the only way this could gain mainstream acceptance.
Posted by: Greg D. | Jul 9, 2009 2:31:57 PM
With appologies to you political historians, as I recall just after the Revolutionary War ended newly elected President George Washington sent the US Army into Western Pennsylvania to quash a rebellion by distillers of alcohol who objected to the new federal government trying to regulate and tax it. I think it was called the whiskey rebellion.
For those who may be thinking that the current budget crisis is a good opportunity to legalize pot using the "revenue generation" argument, I say be careful what you wish for as it may turn around and bite you. Right now possession of small quantities is very unlikely to be prosecuted as a serious criminal offense. Tax evasion on the other hand is very likely to be prosecuted as a serious criminal offense.
Posted by: jrw | Jul 9, 2009 3:51:17 PM
I just have one word for those of you wondering how to regulate cannabis--Amsterdam.
Seems like the Dutch have figured out how to manage things reasonably well, including driving under the influence.
Posted by: Old Ducker | Jul 9, 2009 3:59:12 PM
Of course it should be legalized. Whatever social costs are incurred with any increase of use (which may not even occur) would be more than offset with savings from law enforcement. It would also be a wonderful boost to the 10th amendment. I also agree with some others, keep the state out of the reef trade.
Posted by: Ron Mexico | Jul 9, 2009 5:13:55 PM
With all due respect, Greg D., anti-prohibitionists are doing the opposite of the Whiskey Rebellion: they are *begging* to be taxed.
Posted by: Lou | Jul 9, 2009 5:15:40 PM
If it does happen in 2010--that's great. It will happen sometime in the next 10 years and I think a state like Oregon will benefit if it is the first to the dance. In my opinion, legalization of marijuana is the only defensible reason to keep our ballot measure system in place. When a ballot measure legalizes weed, it will actually model why the system was created in the first place--- to do the will of the people when the politicians can't. Let's face it, the Millienial generation voters are tired of hiding it from their parents and the Gen X voters are tired of hiding it from thier kids. It is going to happen. People want to be happy and not be criminals.
My only concern would be to ensure that the government does not try and monopolize production in the same way that some tried to dissuade or prohibit homebrewing. I would support taxed and regulated weed to be sold, but also allow the annual purchase of a grower's license similar to a fishing license that would allow folks to grow at home.
Here's my campaign slogan. "It's better than Viagra!"
Posted by: Jim | Jul 9, 2009 7:22:48 PM
JRW--exactly on Amsterdam and other parts of the Netherlands. It's just like going to the deli, you order a little of this and a little of that, maybe get a slice of space cake. Furthermore, they deal with the problems in a more humane way, based upon the premise that you will never stop people from trying stuff. Doesn't really apply to pot too much, but take the red light district: lots of violence and disease associated with prostitution, so they legalize it and make sure prostitutes are well-educated and, I think, registered. If you are new to the trade there, you go down to the police department, and a prostitute gives you a state sanctioned class on the ins and outs, no pun intended.
They are not so puritan there, ironic considering Leyden is where the Puritans were before heading to England.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Jul 9, 2009 8:04:03 PM
This is a remarkable discussion. People representing a rather broad ideological spectrum are agreeing on what would have been an intensely divisive "culture war" issue not that long ago.
Another vote here to legalize it for all the reasons given above.
Posted by: shizzle | Jul 9, 2009 8:27:53 PM
"which is something that could have been prevented if alcohol was illegal."
That's the problem. How do you make something illegal, if it's easily manufactured such as alochol: sugar / water / yeast? Or Psilocybin, which grows in cow shit all over the Willamette valley? Or somebody planting pot seeds?
Do we want to continue jailing non-violent people, and funding a police state or let individuals make their own medical decisions.
Reasonable taxation and usage laws would go a huge way to solving some crucial problems: prison over-crowding and tax revenue, crime - people stealing.
Until drugs are treated and handled within the medical context of society, we'll steal be captives of a police state...
Posted by: shizzle | Jul 9, 2009 8:36:47 PM
"It would be a disaster, because there probably would be people trying to get behind the wheel and drive, which is already a problem with alcohol ."
Pot effects people much differently than alcohol - not advocating that behind the wheel, but pot is not nearly as debilitating as alcohol. You may stop on your way home to get jelly doughnuts and take the long way home, but you aren't likely to have a head-on collision with someone.
But- agreed, there would have to be reasonable usage and taxation laws to make it work.
Posted by: regular guy | Jul 9, 2009 8:45:52 PM
I've been smoking weed since 1966. Before that, I didn't worry about cops, since I didn't break any laws.
Now I don't know about the rest of you, but I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN I CAN HAVE A COP FOR A NEIGHBOR OR A FRIEND again without fear, because I no longer have to hide my weed use from them -- and then I can feel like a regular citizen again.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 10, 2009 1:10:38 AM
Jack Roberts responded:
If Mary Jane was legal tomorrow, how many people would be released from prison due to possession and distribution convictions and how much would that save the state?I would be curiou to know this, too. My guess is that the number is very small.
Jack, I don't know off-hand how many prisoners we're talking about - but nationally, something like 45% of all drug arrests are for marijuana. Even if they get diverted or wrist-slapped, that's still a healthy load on the system.
Posted by: Roy McAvoy | Jul 10, 2009 6:56:32 AM
Kari, the interest in busting pot growers/users was much higher when assets were being seized, then used to fund the investigation of more cases. Those were the days when drug units were measured by the amount of money seized for the fiscal year, rather than the threat posed by the offender to the public. I think many seizure laws have changed, and so has the focus.
Not to say that if you ran into the back of a patrol car with weed on your dashboard and a doobie in your hand you might not be in trouble.
I have to say that the thought of drivers eating, texting, and driving while stoned does scare me a bit. At least driving while texting will soon be illegal, although that will probably be another failed prohibition as well.
Posted by: William | Jul 10, 2009 7:36:54 AM
INCARCERATING PEOPLE "FOR PROFIT" IS IN A WORD....WRONG!
Even if one does not ask or pretends not to see the rope and the flashing red flag draped around the philosophical question standing solemnly at attention in the middle of the room, it remains apparent that the mere presence of a private “for profit” driven prison business in our country undermines the U.S Constitution and subsequently the credibility of the American criminal justice system. In fact, until all private prisons in America have been abolished and outlawed, “the promise” of fairness and justice at every level of this country’s judicial system will remain unattainable. We must restore the principles and the vacant promise of our judicial system. Our government cannot continue to "job-out" its obligation and neglect its duty to the individuals confined in the correctional and rehabilitation facilities throughout this nation, nor can it ignore the will of the people that it was designed to serve and protect. There is urgent need for the good people of this country to emerge from the shadows of indifference, apathy, cynicism, fear, and those other dark places that we migrate to when we are overwhelmed by frustration and the loss of hope.
My hope is that you will support the National Public Service Council to Abolish Private Prisons (NPSCTAPP) with a show of solidarity by signing "The Single Voice Petition"
http://www.petitiononline.com/gufree2/petition.html
Please visit our website for further information: http://www.npsctapp.blogspot.com
–Ahma Daeus
"Practicing Humanity Without A License"...
Posted by: alcatross | Jul 10, 2009 8:30:26 AM
torridjoe says: ...although there's little in the way of health cost recovery that justifies a high tax on the latter--which is why a stigmatization campaign makes no sense. Tobacco is a terrible killer. Pot is a mostly benign substance. You know how many deaths have been directly been attributed to pot? Zero. Literally, zero.
I'm not against the legalization of marijuana - but do take issue with some of tj's claims here.
RE: health cost recovery: marijuana smoke contains virtually the same toxic gases and carcinogenic tars as tobacco. Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections. So if more people are free to smoke more marijuana more often, there are likely to be higher health costs to society incurred.
RE: zero deaths directly attributed to pot: it may be true marijuana hasn't been shown to directly cause deaths due to lung cancer, emphysema, or other diseases normally related to cigarette smoking. But daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant, though not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and coordination at complex tasks including driving. There have been numerous reports of pot-related accidents --- some of them fatal, belying the attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of 1023 emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of these (16.5%) used both pot and alcohol in combination.
Just keepin' it real here...
Posted by: alcatross | Jul 10, 2009 8:47:03 AM
jrw says: 'I just have one word for those of you wondering how to regulate cannabis--Amsterdam.
Seems like the Dutch have figured out how to manage things reasonably well, including driving under the influence.'
eh... the relative low incidence of traffic accidents/fatalities in Amsterdam has more to do with the high usage of bicycles and public transit than any great strategic master plan to make the roads safe for pot smokers.
Bicycles are used by most everyone due to their convenience, Amsterdam's small size, the large number of bike paths, the flat terrain, and the inconvenience of driving an automobile in a city where parking fees are expensive, and many streets are closed to cars or one-way.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Buckman Res | Jul 9, 2009 8:25:09 AM
I would support legalization on a trial basis with these conditions:
That hippie lettuce be taxed at a rate equal to or greater than tobacco products.
That wacky tobaccie and it’s users be stigmatized in ad campaigns the same way tobacco smokers are as a way to discourage it’s use as much as possible.