Marijuana.com

weedsmoker3

 

Greenbud

Here's an excerpt from Jack Cole's essay, End Prohibition Now!!. You can read the entire article at www.leap.cc.

I don't necessarily agree with the government-funded treatment of addicts or the free distribution of drugs, although I can see where he's coming from.

FOUR STEPS TO A SOLUTION
The drug policies of the US have failed dismally their dual task of preventing drug addiction and protecting its citizens from the ravages of violent crime.
Every study I have seen in the past ten years indicates that over 80 percent of crime in the United States is drug related (directly: possession, sale and use of drugs; or indirectly: prostitution, breaking and entries, larcenies, muggings and robberies to obtain money for the purchase of illegal drugs, or murders to ensure power arrangements in drug trafficking organizations).
The only way to make any real headway in correcting these terrible problems is to initiate a four-point program that I have been contemplating since 1973.

The first step is to legalize all drugs.
If it is true that over 80 percent of all crime in the United States is drug related, then by simply passing a law to legalize drugs we can effectively do away with 80 percent of our crimes; Therefore, the work load of a very large percentage of our police, courts, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, prisons systems, and corrections personnel will be considerably lightened. Police will then have time to focus on preventing and solving violent crimes and terrorist activities. Our overburdened courts will have resources to commit to civil law where cases languish for years before being heard. Our prisons will no longer have to release violent criminals who are not covered by mandatory minimum sentences to make room for nonviolent drug law violators.
To reduce harm we must not only legalize drugs we must remove the profit motive from the equation. If drugs were legal; produced and supplied by the government, then distributed free to any adult who wanted them - in small quantities for personal use - organized criminals and world terrorists would be monetarily crippled for many years to come.

The second step is to have the federal government produce and quality control the drugs.
There would be several benefits to having the federal government openly import drugs into our country. The first would be that the government would no longer have to hide the fact that they are already facilitating certain individuals’ roles in the importation of illegal drugs into this country and have been involved in that an enterprise for over fifty years. That policy would no longer be necessary or useful with the profit motive gone.
Illegal drugs are for the most part nothing but weeds. They can be grown nearly anywhere for little or nothing and processing those weeds to extract the drugs is a simple, cheap practice. If addicted drug users can't support their habits any other way they turn to theft. A person fencing the stolen goods usually pays the thief about ten percent of what the articles are worth. That means everyday an addict with a $300-dollar-a-day habit must steal $3,000 worth of our possessions. Legalization would put an end to the hugely inflated prices of drugs and to the extremely high rate we have to pay to insure our homes and our vehicles from theft.
It would also put an end to the majority of drug overdoses. If drugs were produced and supplied by the government then users would know the exact potency of the drug. Users don't overdose because they knowingly take more drugs than their bodies can handle. They overdose because some street dealer didn't mix the 50 percent pure product he was supplied carefully enough and he is therefore selling users a product they think is 5 percent pure when it is actually 40 percent pure. When the addicted person injects this concoction, known as a "hot shot" and eight-times as potent as thought to be - that is the end. They don't get a second chance.
Dan Gardner pointed out in his September 14, 2001, article "Terrorists Get Cash From Drug Trade," that "[i]n 1994, Interpol's chief drugs officer, Iqbal Hussain Rizvi, admitted that 'drugs have taken over as the chief means of financing terrorism.'" Jason Burke reported in "Heroin In The Holy War," December 6, 1998, that Osama bin Laden "sees heroin as a powerful new weapon in his war against the West, capable of wreaking social havoc while generating huge profits."
There is currently so much money to be made in the drug business ($400 billion annually spent on illegal drugs throughout the world) simply because drugs are illegal. It is the most artificially inflated product that exists and it creates enormous profits for the drug lords and the terrorists.

The third step is to have the government distribute free maintenance doses of any drugs to any adults who choose to continue to use them.
Making drugs free would completely remove any profit motive connected with the use of what had been illegal drugs. The government could supply a heroin addict with a 500-dollar-a-day habit for less than a dollar per day. No one would be forced to steal or prostitute him or herself to buy drugs. The day step three is initiated will also be the last day a dealer or a terrorist will make a penny's profit from drugs. We will not have to worry about corporations trying to lure our children into drug use as the tobacco industries did with the "Joe Camel" ads. There will be no advertisements extolling the virtues of drugs as there are with cigarettes and liquor because no one will be able to make any profit from addicting one more person.
Quite the opposite will be true; the only money to be made off drugs will be by reducing the rate of addiction. As in the bad old days of alcohol prohibition, today most violent crimes are related to the prohibition of drugs rather than to the use of drugs designated illegal. To protect billions of dollars of profits the drug cartels murder with impunity. And what happens in your city when a local dealer's territory is infringed on? Does he go to court and say, "I've been wronged? I had a contract for that location." No, there are no regulations today on the sale of drugs that he can turn to for help. Instead, he picks up his gun and shoots it out with the interloper - or perhaps misses and strikes an innocent child. Most drive-by shootings are due to territorial infringements of drug gangs. These killings need not occur if there is no longer a profit motive in the sale of drugs.
Think of the money that would be saved if these three steps were put in place. The federal government will spend $19.2 billion dollars this year on the interdiction of drugs and the state governments will more than match that $19.2 billion figure in order to arrest more than 1.6 million drug users and dealers. Add to that the cost of prosecuting the violators and imprisoning those found guilty- in many cases for the rest of their lives. Then there is the cost of parole or probation for those who served their time in prison. Add it all up and it amounts to over 60 billion dollars each year that could be saved by simply signing a bill saying drug prohibition has ended.

That brings us to step four: Reallocating those saved billions of dollars to programs for treating the addictions of our ill citizens and proactively working to convince others not to use drugs.
We should treat drug addictions as medical and social problems - not as criminal problems. Instead of arresting our young people for using drugs, giving them a police record so no one wants to hire them, sending them to prison where they learn to be smart criminals, and in the long run giving them a great long list of reasons for continuing to use drugs to numb the pain of their existence - we could try another tactic.

In 1969, the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence wrote,
To be young, poor, male; to be undereducated and without means of escape from an oppressive urban environment; to want what society claims is available (but mostly to others); to see around oneself illegitimate and often violent methods being used to achieve material success; and to observe others using these means with impunity all this is to be burdened with an enormous set of influences that pull many toward crime and delinquency. To be also Black, Puerto Rican or Mexican-American and subject to discrimination adds considerably to the pull.(21)
It has been my experience that most people use drugs as an escape from their world because they have no hope for the future. Give them hope and we will end their addictions to drugs.(22)
Suppose we took all the money saved by this suggested policy and used it to: (1) give hope to the poor and the disenfranchised; (2) educate the illiterate and unnumbered; (3) create jobs for the unemployed; (4) end racism and discrimination in our legal system; (5) provide every person in our country with guaranteed health care. I believe, then, we would soon find that our drug problems, as well as many other problems, would at least be manageable if not a thing of the past.

__________________
"I believe in the near future, the government will use anti-drug hysteria to set up a police state."
-author William S. Burroughs, 1947

Community Posting Guidelines | Front Page Article Submission Guidelines

bocephus

I see the wisdom in both of your replies but respectfully disagree. It used to be that legislation was passed with the litmus test of: does it serve the people and cause no harm. I would submit that legalization of ALL drugs would be a liability none of us could afford. The reasoning behind my statement being that marijuana has been shown to have virtually no ability to induce an overdose although one's 'high' can be unnerving at times. You cannot say the same thing of almost every drug that currently falls in the top 2 categories of the drug policy we now have. I believe it would be not only dangerous but in fact deadly causing gaps that could not be easily mended. Sound policy protects as well as serves all of us.

Take the Netherlands for instance. They have very open laws that regulate drugs as we all know BUT they also have a society that differs greatly from our own. As it is stated in another post we have the largest incarceration system in the world. We also have a greater number of people that may or could use drugs in the commision of a crime i.e. rohypnol, ghb, sedatives. You can see where that is going. Also I have personally see MANY lives that have been ruined by meth and you could NOT convince these people that they have a problem. Treatment doesn't address this issue and the safety of others has to be taken into consideration in the drafting of any type of legislation.

Granted the legalization of all drugs seems all right but I don't believe we are a nation that can hand over these types of intoxicants to those that have the ability to do themselves and others great harm. It is just not feasible. You have to take into account that people today are subject to fits of road rage and some have almost no control over their emotions. Would you feel safer with the knowledge that those individuals have access to mind altering substances? Marijuana is safer than asprin but to certain individuals it may have detrimental effects, but the fact remains that while there are more dangerous drugs currently available to people marijuana is among the safest. That should be of some consolation.

Please know that I enjoy this debate and mean no disrespect. After all we are a diversity of people that still agree on one thing and that is why we are here.

Yana Usdi

You know, the saddest part is that I agree with what you say. I just don't see what we've done so far as successful. If it's failed, why keep doing it?

We can't even keep drugs out of our own *prisons*, in what way are we going to win the war on drugs with our current approach? A policy is judged by its results, a crusade is judged by how it makes the crusader feel. Which do we have here? If we can't even keep it out of our own prisons and with a 6 times growth in the inmate population since the 70's we haven't even managed to raise the price of cocaine since it costs less than it did then, where's the win in all of this?

Now if you read back through the thread I don't suggest that everything be available to everyone just over the counter, some should be by prescription only or such like that. But that's not the same as purely illegal, at least not for the vast majority of drugs. I'm always open to debate though, there just has to be a rational alternative, something better than "gee we wish this would reduce the supply" cause we aren't willing to look at alternatives. Jack is a bit more libertarian than I am, I don't see the Government as dealer for instance, but he's 100% right in that law enforcement hasn't done anything but eat at our rights and make the problem worse.

All those attitude differences you mention have more to do with 70 years of lies than with a need for this policy. If even people such as ourselves who are persecuted because some some don't accept what we smoke can't understand the idea of harm reduction, we've been indoctrinated badly enough that success of a policy isn't the measure anymore.

As far as road rage and such goes, what's going to be different? People do drugs now, even in prison, they don't believe half of the warnings they are given and it's "cool" to say screw the man with drugs. So we take some of those hundreds of billions of dollars that we're spending on enforcement now and phase changes in as we phase law enforcement out, work on that attitude change we were talking about. If anything things should improve I'd think, we're still somewhat segregated but the racial education we did since the 70's seems to have sunk in as far as attitudes go in most cases. Treat this the same way with more effort, if anything the roads should be safer with less drunks on them and a better educated public.

I enjoy the debate too, as long as we don't piss off the mods since it's supposed to be a marijuana board and I don't know yet how much leeway that leaves

bocephus

I think part of the problem is not understanding the WOD ourselves. For almost 70 years we have been on the losing end of a battle we are illl-equiped to fight. The first thing one should use in any situation such as this is KNOW THE ENEMY. For all of the arguements and all of the points of view we are overlooking the most important fact. What makes the United States the most formidable fighting force known to man? 3M's Men machinery and money. Those 3 things are unattainable for any nation besides Russia and China.

Part of the downfall of the current administration is they have underestimated the ability of their foe. Another no-no. Look at how the opponent has held the troops at bay in the citys of Fallujah and the other towns. Do you think they are a superior force? Not hardly but they have a much better understanding of the rules of engagement than even our most brilliant general at this point. They use to their advantage ALL of the resources available to them. Beginning with loyalty. The Iraqi people are loyal to their own irregardless of the regime because of their common thread. Unity in suffering and overcoming ALL invaders. This is not the first holy war they have fought and probably not the last.

What are the tactics that the government uses to have the upper hand in this battle? Fear, misinformation, yes that's all well and good but you are overlooking the obvious. Their most cunning and effective weapon in this war is division. Division? Hunh? They have kept the people with knowledge and ability separated. The thing that won California and other states it's ability to say no to our government is the PEOPLE. Knowledge = power no matter how you slice it. We are, even though they are trying, still a people with fundamental rights and provisions. We can educate the people but if you don't give them conclusive evidence to base their opinion on you are swimming upstream. Part of the problem has been the governments iron-fisted control of information and the peoples fear of the unknown.

The thing that is turning the tide in these states is people getting information and results and basing their opinion on those two subjects. Californians are making the government put sick people on trial and that alone is causing a great deal of erosion in the archaic laws. No longer are people believing just because big brother said. Although with the rise in violent attacks to dispeneries it may soon change. The government can only exercise the rights that we give them. It doesn't matter if they sneak something into a bill we, not they have the ability to veto the measure. As bleak as it sounds until people start risking their liberties we will never see any real reform.

Okay this guy has piqued my curiosity what next. Well get involved. I know that is a scary thought for most of us but it is that fear that keeps us from making real steps to sanity in our drug policy. What can I do? Get educated in the law and the people that keep it from us. Norml no longer operates in my state because of waning intrest. Can I change that? Even risking the livelyhood and safety of my children I will see what I can do to resuscitate this group. It doesn't have to be about smokers. We are looking at the forest. Compassion sanity benevolence. Easing the suffering of those that need help. We may only win a partial victory at first with MED use only but decriminalization can't and won't be far behind.

This is a reach but if there were a way to group all members even at other site into states we could ALL work together toward the reality of a relaxed opinion of marijuana. It would require a measure of trust and faith on the individuals involved but I believe it is a possibility. How and when to organize this would be up to the participants but hooking up with your local NORML would be a start. We can. Participation on a national level will have dramatic effects. There are high profile people out there that have already stuck their necks out. Education and reform will have an unparralleled effect on everyone involved.

Just a pipe dream or the beginning of the end to having to live in a closet? I am not ashamed of what I do nor do I consider it a criminal offense. Now can we relay that attitude to others? I believe we can.

 

teg21

Bill Mahr said it best, "back in the 20s a guy couldn't buy a drop alcohol legally but could go to the corner store and pick up a bag of coke and as much as he wanted in the end it just shows how pointless it all is"

not the exact quote but close enough, his wording is much better

solutions

Yep, I want this so called War on Drugs to end.

The silliness of even calling a health issue a War is enough for me not to be able to support it. In the Netherlands we use the Dutch word "oorlog" to describe armed conflict (and for french fries with mayonaise and peanut sauce, known as "patatje oorlog"), not to describe an effort of achieving an unachievable goal like the drug free society.

Drugs have existed long before manking invented (or discovered if you will) the concept of God(s), and are less likely to disappear than religion. The problem with drugs is not the drug. The problem is not even the behaviour we call addiction. The biggest problem is the way society deals with people who use drugs. The biggest problem with drugs is the War on Drugs itself, a witchhunt under the pretext of achieving the frivolous fallacy of a drug free society.

From Peter Cohen's Bewitched, bedevilled, possessed, addicted

I largely agree with Jack Cole's position. I do support legalization (as in not punishing the use or possession of any drug) and a government producing (hard)drugs and supplying longtime users for free. I just want to note there should be a distinction between drugs with relatively little harm such as cannabis and drugs with significant harmfull health effects. I do not support government produced and quality controlled cannabis, unlike harddrugs it should never become a government monopoly but left to a (loosly) regulated market.

I am waiting for those addicted to the War on Drugs to finally hit rock bottom. Could be any day now

__________________
3 monkeys sitting under a coconut tree
discussing things as they are set to be
Said one to the other, now listen you two
there's a strange rumor that can't be true
they say man was descended from our noble race
but the very idea is a big disgrace
no monkey ever deserted his wife
or her baby to ruin their lives.
Damian Marley - Educated Fools

BurgerHut

i think it should stop because it is just getting annoying

VolcomStoned

i personally don't really care..
although i do believe that marijuana should be legal.. it being illegal is not keeping me from being able to use it.. so whatever haha
they can keep me from being conspicuous about smoking.. but they can't keep me from smoking.

wisdomweed

I think this "war" on drugs should end. The government spends millions upon millions on it, while people are still hungry on the streets. I'll take a line from a Tupac song....
"Instead of war on poverty, they got war on drugs so the police can bother me."