Drug legalization thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

OMFG PTSD LOL PBUH: Sep 9, 2001

TACD posted:

...and "Drugs ranked by overall harm"
Source

You know what shocks me the most here?

I had no idea that Ecstasy was considered so statistically/medically harmless. I always thought that since it was an amphetamine derivative that it really carried some risks with serotonin syndrome and long term addiction what with all the dopaminergic activity.

How the hell can it be considered safer than Marijuana? That just doesn't seem to pass a first look common sense test for me.

Honestly this graph makes me want to see more about the methodology here..

I mean, are they using pure pharmaceutical grade MDMA used clincally as the basis of the study or something? Because I really can't see how MDMA is less harmful than Marijuana, that just.. that doesn't make the least bit of sense.

# ? Dec 31, 2012 10:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 05:31

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

http://www.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/~mmiller/espanol/Variedades,%20politica/drogas_Journal.pdf

They have a huge list of criteria, but the study doesn't really analyze any the drugs in depth or explain their choices. I can't look it up right now, but erowid has a nice big thing on MDMA safety. There's a serious lack of human testing, but from what's available from animal tests as well as comparing ecstasy users to non-ecstasy users, it probably isn't completely harmless.

# ? Dec 31, 2012 11:15

Flaky: Feb 14, 2011; Can't post for 3 years!

This graph represents the statistical average harm to the individual. The data if I recall correctly factors in things like the chance of the person taking a pill which they thought contains the drug in question but in fact containing something else (which may or may not be dangerous) based on the average quality of street product, along with a host of other considerations. Prof. Nutt goes into some detail on a radio interview where he discusses his findings about ecstasy (which is a bit of a hobby horse for him as he sees a great deal of therapeutic potential for it) from another study which concludes that taking ecstasy is slightly safer overall than going horse-riding. It is not a graph of directly comparable harms of the drug itself, but of the consequences of the consumption of the drug in the current policy environment.

# ? Dec 31, 2012 11:16

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

GAS CURES KIKES posted:

You know what shocks me the most here?

I had no idea that Ecstasy was considered so statistically/medically harmless. I always thought that since it was an amphetamine derivative that it really carried some risks with serotonin syndrome and long term addiction what with all the dopaminergic activity.

How the hell can it be considered safer than Marijuana? That just doesn't seem to pass a first look common sense test for me.

Honestly this graph makes me want to see more about the methodology here..

I mean, are they using pure pharmaceutical grade MDMA used clincally as the basis of the study or something? Because I really can't see how MDMA is less harmful than Marijuana, that just.. that doesn't make the least bit of sense.

A couple of points to note. First, ecstasy is primarily serotinergic and is not physically addictive. And serotonin syndrome is a risk mainly if you are taking MAOI antidepressants at the same time as ecstasy. Long-term effects have been mainly found to be things like disrupted sleep and attention, and some impairment of verbal memory.

Second, note the legend on the chart. A lot of cannabis' score comes from the 'harm to others' factors (everything from 'injury' downwards), which is a very small amount of ecstasy's score. Whether or not you agree with cannabis' score for things like 'crime' (?), it doesn't have any bearing on how medically safe it is.

Also, note that even in the 'harm to self' factors, cannabis scores 0 in 'drug-specific mortality' while ecstasy has a small but non-zero score. Nobody dies from a weed overdose or smoking bad weed. I think the only big surprise here for me is cannabis' relatively high score in 'drug-related mortality' which I can only imagine is due to driving while high or lung disease? Here's how the paper defines each criterion:

quote:

Drug-specific mortality
Intrinsic lethality of the drug expressed as ratio of lethal dose and standard dose (for adults)

Drug-related mortality
The extent to which life is shortened by the use of the drug (excludes drug-specific mortality)�eg, road traffic accidents, lung cancers, HIV, suicide

Drug-specific damage
Drug-specific damage to physical health�eg, cirrhosis, seizures, strokes, cardiomyopathy, stomach ulcers

Drug-related damage
Drug-related damage to physical health, including consequences of, for example, sexual unwanted activities and self-harm, blood-borne viruses, emphysema, and damage from cutting agents

Dependence
The extent to which a drug creates a propensity or urge to continue to use despite adverse consequences (ICD 10 or DSM IV)

Drug-specific impairment of mental functioning
Drug-specific impairment of mental functioning�eg, amfetamine-induced psychosis, ketamine intoxication

Drug-related impairment of mental functioning
Drug-related impairment of mental functioning�eg, mood disorders secondary to drug-user�s lifestyle or drug use

Loss of tangibles
Extent of loss of tangible things (eg, income, housing, job, educational achievements, criminal record, imprisonment)

Loss of relationships
Extent of loss of relationship with family and friends

Injury
Extent to which the use of a drug increases the chance of injuries to others both directly and indirectly�eg, violence (including domestic violence), traffic accident, fetal harm, drug waste, secondary transmission of blood-borne viruses

Crime
Extent to which the use of a drug involves or leads to an increase in volume of acquisitive crime (beyond the use-of- drug act) directly or indirectly (at the population level, not the individual level)

Environmental damage
Extent to which the use and production of a drug causes environmental damage locally�eg, toxic waste from amfetamine factories, discarded needles

Family adversities
Extent to which the use of a drug causes family adversities� eg, family breakdown, economic wellbeing, emotional wellbeing, future prospects of children, child neglect

International damage
Extent to which the use of a drug in the UK contributes to damage internationally�eg, deforestation, destabilisation of countries, international crime, new markets

Economic cost
Extent to which the use of a drug causes direct costs to the country (eg, health care, police, prisons, social services, customs, insurance, crime) and indirect costs (eg, loss of productivity, absenteeism)

Community
Extent to which the use of a drug creates decline in social cohesion and decline in the reputation of the community

(For fun, look at the chart again and read 'drug-specific impairment of mental functioning' as 'how hosed up will this get me'? That should be rated as a benefit, not a harm :v:

)

While the paper discusses how they weighted each criterion (so a point in drug-specific mortality is much worse than a point in economic damage, for example) they don't break apart the scores any more than separating harm for users vs harm to others:

You might also find this quote from the paper interesting:

quote:

We also investigated drug-specific mortality estimates in studies of human beings.¹³ These estimates show a strong correlation with the group input scores: the mean fatality statistics from 2003 to 2007 for five substances (heroin, cocaine, amfetamines, MDMA/ecstasy, and cannabis) show correlations with the ISCD lethality scores of 0�98 and 0�99, for which the substances recorded on the death certificates were among other mentions or sole mentions, respectively.

This references another paper (An index of fatal toxicity for drugs of misuse) which relates the number of deaths associated with each drug to their availability. Spoiler alert, but cannabis is essentially zero.

...all of which is a really long-winded way of saying, don't worry, cannabis is still less likely to kill you than ecstasy. (Though cannabis is more likely to eventually give you lung disease. I should buy a vapourizer.) They're just both very low-harm drugs and the paper takes a lot of wider societal effects into consideration as well.

TACD fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Dec 31, 2012

# ? Dec 31, 2012 13:25

Cabbages and VHS: Aug 25, 2004; Listen, I've been around a bit, you know, and I thought I'd seen some creepy things go on in the movie business, but I really have to say this is the most disgusting thing that's ever happened to me.

Anabolic steroids and huffing butane are less harmful to users than smoking pot? I don't doubt that the numbers are right in the context of the metrics used, but coming to that conclusion makes me question the usefulness of the methodology. Unless the entire premise is just to demonstrate that alcohol is far and away worse than nearly anything else, which was obviously accomplished.

Warchicken posted:

No, there is no rational or sane way to defend criminalization of any drug.

Rational for who? I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I don't see why someone with deeply puritanical morals couldn't rationally conclude that all drugs are immoral and should be restricted at all costs. You might think that line of reasoning is not 'sane', but there are a lot of people who think that way, and they probably feel the same way about our views.

Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Dec 31, 2012

# ? Dec 31, 2012 17:59

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

GAS CURES KIKES posted:

I had no idea that Ecstasy was considered so statistically/medically harmless. I always thought that since it was an amphetamine derivative that it really carried some risks with serotonin syndrome and long term addiction what with all the dopaminergic activity.

When taken safely MDMA is pretty damned safe. The big danger is in combination with MAOIs as previously explained, serotonin syndrome is pretty rare otherwise. People also have a tendency to become dehydrated at raves and such. There's also the danger of adulteration, a lot of it is distributed as pills whose contents are effectively unknown, there tends to me a lot of MDA and other stuff that goes around too. It carries a fairly low risk of long-term addiction because it's not really something you can do every day. MDMA doesn't directly stimulate your serotonin receptors, it just makes your brain release whatever it has stored up and those reserves take a while to regenerate. This leads to a common side effect, you can be a bit depressed or down for few days after taking MDMA because you just used up all your body's feel-good chemicals.

# ? Dec 31, 2012 18:25

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

Jonathan P. Caulkins is a professor of Public Policy (with a background in mathematics) over at Carnegie Mellon University.

He argues that:

quote:

By most measures the majority of the drug problem in both the US and Mexico does not relate to marijuana, so nothing you're going to do with marijuana is very likely to decisively change the character of the overall drug policy situation. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/12/2012123075050229714.html

In reply to this, Keith Humphries PhD Stanford University says:

quote:

What Jon is saying will surprise many people, but he�s quite correct. Marijuana gets outsized attention in US drug policy debates, yet it matters at most slightly for the security of Mexico (and not at all for Central and South America). http://www.samefacts.com/2012/12/drug-policy/marijuana-the-most-debated-least-important-illegal-drug/

Now these are some seriously qualified people but their views are at complete odds with my interpretation of reality. Could I be wrong?

# ? Jan 1, 2013 00:28

Full Battle Rattle: Aug 29, 2009; As long as the times refuse to change, we're going to make a hell of a racket.

I wonder what it actually is, then. Because, as was pointed out earlier in the thread, don't they receive a large chunk of funding from cannabis cultivation and trafficking?

# ? Jan 1, 2013 04:59

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

Full Battle Rattle posted:

don't they receive a large chunk of funding from cannabis cultivation and trafficking?

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy seems to think so:

quote:

Walters said the U.S. government is seeking additional resources to prosecute traffickers of marijuana, which now earns cartels about $8.5 billion or about 61 percent of their annual estimated income of $13.8 billion. Cocaine sales earn the cartels about $3.9 billion, and methamphetamine about $1 billion, he said.

"While the criminal organizations that are a threat to both of our countries make a lot of money off of heroin and cocaine and methamphetamine, the vast majority of their money to buy guns, bribe, corrupt and destroy lives is from marijuana," said Walters, head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-02-21-2221217072_x.htm

# ? Jan 1, 2013 06:07

Darkman Fanpage: Jul 4, 2012

David Frum on the Perils of Legalizing Pot

# ? Jan 1, 2013 06:14

Full Battle Rattle: Aug 29, 2009; As long as the times refuse to change, we're going to make a hell of a racket.

Crasscrab posted:

David Frum on the Perils of Legalizing Pot

Wow, he seems really worked up. Maybe he should have a brandy or a nice single-malt scotch. Y'know, take the edge off.

# ? Jan 1, 2013 20:20

Morphix: May 21, 2003; by Reene

Full Battle Rattle posted:

Wow, he seems really worked up. Maybe he should have a brandy or a nice single-malt scotch. Y'know, take the edge off.

Don't worry, Frum is on top of it.

L oh L, loving in the same article and everything.

# ? Jan 2, 2013 00:09

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Crasscrab posted:

David Frum on the Perils of Legalizing Pot

The hypocrisy is so loving infuriating.

# ? Jan 2, 2013 08:18

All Of The Dicks: Apr 7, 2012

spengler posted:

Anabolic steroids and huffing butane are less harmful to users than smoking pot? I don't doubt that the numbers are right in the context of the metrics used, but coming to that conclusion makes me question the usefulness of the methodology.

If you look, butane actually has very high ratings for mortality and impairment. Just not much in crime and other things.

# ? Jan 2, 2013 12:45

Cybernetic Vermin: Apr 18, 2005

It really is rather important that everyone who argues for legalization based on principle ("why is tobacco legal then?", "denying people the medical benefits is immoral", etc.) realizes that such arguments really wont fly in the long run if a high social cost can be established. Most of the electorate are fine with less than perfect philosophical purity if they perceive the real effects as better. This is also part of why this local legalization is so great, because there is a lot of data that need to be gathered. I personally expect that this will all work out quite well, but it is foolish to expect there to not be any negative effects, and it is important to remain intellectually honest. Anecdotes about whether or not you drink less when smoking is not really relevant.

# ? Jan 2, 2013 16:33

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Full Battle Rattle posted:

Wow, he seems really worked up. Maybe he should have a brandy or a nice single-malt scotch. Y'know, take the edge off.

I do not know what you are talking about. David Frum is a noted opponent to the 21st amendment:

David Frum, circa 1933 posted:

We�re not doing well providing work for our young people. When they do find work, they�ll probably earn less than their parents, probably form less stable intimate relationships, and age into more uncertain retirements.

But, hey, don�t say we do nothing for our kids. Instead of work, marriage, and security, we can offer booze, porn, and jazz music. Booze possession is now legal in Colorado and Washington. California also allows alcohol possession, if users can pay a doctor to prescribe it as �medicine.�

Yet even in the 47 states that formally ban alcohol, the drug is available everywhere and at modest cost. Although data are difficult to come by, it�s generally scientifically accepted that Americans drink more alcohol per person than any other people on earth.

And really, why should that be surprising? Americans smoke more than other people, eat more, crash their cars more, and shoot themselves (and each other) more. Name a risky behavior, and the United States is, if not No. 1, then usually in the top two. Alcohol use is just one more example of a consistent national pattern.

When we discuss alcohol, we usually bog ourselves down in a too-familiar debate about legalization. Prior to that question, however, let�s consider another: what should we think about alcohol and the way Americans use it? For if there�s one thing on which we can all agree, it is that legalization will mean even more use by even more people.

Habitual drinkers experience more difficulty with learning and schooling. They do worse at work, miss more workdays, and suffer more accidents. They have fewer friends and occupy lower rungs on the socioeconomic ladder.

Does alcohol cause these problems? That�s hard to say. The National Institute for Alcohol Abuse offers a cautious read of the brain science: �Research has shown that, in chronic users, alcohol's adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks ... As a result, someone who drinks alcohol every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time. Research into the effects of long-term cannabis use on the structure of the brain has yielded inconsistent results. It may be that the effects are too subtle for reliable detection by current techniques.�

It�s also possible that habitual alcohol use is a symptom rather than a cause of other troubles. Maybe people who have more difficulty at school and work are more likely to drink. Whichever way the causation runs, drinking alcohol is a sign of trouble, a warning to heed, a behavior to regret and deplore.

The good news is that many�most�young people will experiment with alcohol, quit, and suffer no long-lasting ill effects. The bad news is that more young people are experimenting with alcohol, raising the absolute numbers of those who will become habitual users.

The young people most likely to become habitual users are those who already face declining opportunities. Over the past generation, American society has closed route after route into the middle class. Wages are stagnant, upward mobility has slowed, job security has deterior�ated, higher education has become more expensive, and two-parent families have dwindled. Meanwhile, we have opened more and more roads to self-harm. Must we now open another?

It�s baffling to me that people who profess anxiety about the trend to social inequality will so often endorse alcohol legalization. A world of legal booze will be a world in which the fates of the top one third of Americans and the lower two thirds will diverge even more than they already do. A world of weaker families, absent parents, and shriveling job opportunities is a world in which more Americans will seek a cheap and easy escape from their depressing reality. Legalized alcohol, like legal tobacco, will become a diversion for those who feel they have the least to lose.

�People tend to think if you�re against legalization, you�re in favor of increasing the jail population,� says Kevin Sabet, until recently a senior staffer in the Roosevelt administration�s Office of National Alcohol Control Policy. �The reality is, we can reduce alcohol use as well as incarceration rates. They are not mutually exclusive goals. We can do that through smart measures such as brief medical interventions along with more intensive treatment when needed. Our choices are not as stark as advocates would like us to believe.�

Sabet is forming a new group to find a third way between those stark alternatives. He deserves support, because young Americans deserve better than to be led to a future shrouded in a booze-induced haze.

# ? Jan 2, 2013 20:09

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

Here's more coverage of the alcohol cannabis relationship.

quote:

In the debate over what marijuana legalization means for Colorado, the best drug-policy brains in the nation say there is one question getting short shrift: If people can more easily toke, does that mean they will drink less?

It is, for now, a question without an answer. But what that answer is, the experts say, will be a big factor in determining whether marijuana legalization is worth it. http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_22300820/do-alcohol-and-marijuana-mix-colorado-is-about

Once again though, no one assigns any value to having fairer and more just laws. 'Good' cannot always be decided on the basis of a cost benefit analysis.

KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jan 5, 2013

# ? Jan 5, 2013 22:42

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Here's why State's legalizing weed doesn't matter in the long run...

California vs. The Feds

quote:

the United States Justice Department indicted Mr. Davies six months ago on charges of cultivating marijuana, after raiding two dispensaries and a warehouse filled with nearly 2,000 marijuana plants.

The United States attorney for the Eastern District of California, Benjamin B. Wagner, a 2009 Obama appointee, wants Mr. Davies to agree to a plea that includes a mandatory minimum of five years in prison, calling the case a straightforward prosecution of �one of the most significant commercial marijuana traffickers to be prosecuted in this district.�

This is the exact risk every state-legal grower is potentially up against. Is it really worth it when you're looking at a 5-year minimum sentence and no other alternatives aside from a pardon - which is impossible for a variety of reasons.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 00:36

Reznor: Jan 15, 2006; Hot dinosnail action.

All Of The Dicks posted:

If you look, butane actually has very high ratings for mortality and impairment. Just not much in crime and other things.

I feel like that section of the graph should be weighted more strongly.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 01:02

tastethehappy: Sep 11, 2008; What part of highly classified do you not understand?

Tab8715 posted:

Here's why State's legalizing weed doesn't matter in the long run...

California vs. The Feds

This is the exact risk every state-legal grower is potentially up against. Is it really worth it when you're looking at a 5-year minimum sentence and no other alternatives aside from a pardon - which is impossible for a variety of reasons.

Yes, every state legal grower (with 6 plants) is totally at the same risk as someone growing 2,000 plants.

If you're growing a warehouse full of weed, you're going to get arrested. If you're within the state limits, the chances of being charged by the Feds is roughly zero. To claim that that case is in any way comparable to someone growing 6 plants in their house in a state where local resources can't/won't be used is ridiculous concern trolling.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 01:13

Riven: Apr 22, 2002

tastethehappy posted:

Yes, every state legal grower (with 6 plants) is totally at the same risk as someone growing 2,000 plants.

If you're growing a warehouse full of weed, you're going to get arrested. If you're within the state limits, the chances of being charged by the Feds is roughly zero. To claim that that case is in any way comparable to someone growing 6 plants in their house in a state where local resources can't/won't be used is ridiculous concern trolling.

I think this is going to be more of a problem when the alcohol style distribution channels are set up.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 01:15

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Riven posted:

I think this is going to be more of a problem when the alcohol style distribution channels are set up.

Or anyone that operates a dispensary.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 01:16

redshirt: Aug 11, 2007

Tab8715 posted:

Or anyone that operates a dispensary.

Maine has just started a dispensary system, and they are limited in the number of plants they can grow by the number of patients directly registered to them - 6 per patient. So if they've got 30 patients listing them as their provider, they can grow 180 plants. And so on.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 04:07

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 13 hours!

tastethehappy posted:

Yes, every state legal grower (with 6 plants) is totally at the same risk as someone growing 2,000 plants.

If you're growing a warehouse full of weed, you're going to get arrested. If you're within the state limits, the chances of being charged by the Feds is roughly zero. To claim that that case is in any way comparable to someone growing 6 plants in their house in a state where local resources can't/won't be used is ridiculous concern trolling.

He was within state limits - he meticulously followed every applicable state law, as far as I can tell.

But more to the point, how is a system where arrest and imprisonment are arbitrary acceptable? We all know the FBI, for example, has a history of being racist fuckers. Matthew from Stockton might not be raided until he has 2,000 plants, but what about Jamal from Oakland or Mohammed from Anaheim? Are you just going to assume the federal law enforcement officers are going to enforce things evenhandedly, because they have done very little to warrant that faith. Arbitrary enforcement can be used as a cudgel against demographic groups, political dissidents - really anyone the regime in power wants to put pressure on.

And even if enforcement is limited to "fairly" targeting the big fish, this is will have a chilling effect on anyone who is interested in legitimately pursuing growing as a legal business. Keep everything above water, and you might get raided. Try to be surreptitious about it, you still might get charged with tax evasion or something. The Justice Department is saying outright that this raid and prosecution are intended to subvert commercial growers.

quote:

�Mr. Davies was not a seriously ill user of marijuana nor was he a medical caregiver � he was the major player in a very significant commercial operation that sought to make large profits from the cultivation and sale of marijuana,� the letter said. Mr. Wagner said that prosecuting such people �remains a core priority of the department.�

They are trying to contain growing and distribution to some cottage industry that can never benefit from economies of scale, serious investments in research, and so on. This is a deliberate attempt to undermine an industry and state laws, plain and simple.

AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jan 15, 2013

# ? Jan 15, 2013 13:41

Necc0: Jun 30, 2005; by exmarx; Broken Cake

And? Of course they're doing that they follow and enforce federal law. I'm having trouble seeing what your point is.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 15:15

Murmur Twin: Feb 11, 2003; An ever-honest pacifist with no mind for tricks.

Necc0 posted:

And? Of course they're doing that they follow and enforce federal law. I'm having trouble seeing what your point is.

That people are following the letter of the law (pot = jail, federal != state) and not the spirit of it. Do you think the federal law that is putting this guy in jail is generally in the interest of the people? The same people who voted to make what he was doing legal in their state?

I get it. He broke a rule and needs to be punished. I just have trouble justifying putting people in jail for a decade for doing something that wasn't ethically wrong at all. If they're allowed to do that because of bad rules, then my anger is both at those who enforce them and those who continue to keep them as laws. Even worse is the fact that when pot becomes legalized - and I have reasonable faith that it will - that this guy will probably continue to rot in jail.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 15:35

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 13 hours!

Necc0 posted:

And? Of course they're doing that they follow and enforce federal law. I'm having trouble seeing what your point is.

I was replying to someone who said that if you just follow state law you'll be fine.

That, and do we really need to break out the Nazi analogies? An action being legal or illegal has nothing to do with whether it is moral, and we should all speak out against immoral laws.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 16:00

Necc0: Jun 30, 2005; by exmarx; Broken Cake

I'm not defending it but don't act surprised when the Feds enforce their own laws. Also you were asking of anyone would find it worth it, which I'd point at the pretty healthy pot markets that have sprung up all across the country as evidence that yes, they do think it's worth it. People found it worth it back during the height of the drug war.

It's not perfect but this environment is thousands of times more friendly than it was just a decade ago. We have a model towards pushing legalization that has been working and all signs are saying will continue to work. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. Its really really dumb to throw up your hands and say it isn't worth it because we had one step back after 100 forwards.

Necc0 fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jan 15, 2013

# ? Jan 15, 2013 16:07

tastethehappy: Sep 11, 2008; What part of highly classified do you not understand?

Whoa whoa whoa, I don't think anyone is saying "he was growing a lot of weed, he deserves to be in jail!". All I'm saying is when you grow that much, you're a target for the feds.

Also, the difference between CA and WA or CO, is that the feds won't have the resources of WA or CO police, and they don't have the resources on their own, to pursue private growers. With large scale operations, yeah, they may try to take a few out. But the average person will have little to worry about.

My problem was with the way Tab was saying "you might go to jail! is it really worth it then for states to try and legalize it?!?" which is a dumb defeatist attitude.

Yes, commercial growers in states where it is legal may still face risk of federal prosecution. But 1, that chance is much less than if it were still illegal (or quasi-legal) in that state; and 2, the only way progress is made is if people keep pushing for it. If you say "there's still a federal risk, so it's not worth it for states to legalize it", nothing will ever change. Some people are going to have their lives ruined by draconian federal drug policy, but they know and assume those risks when they decide to become commercial growers. It is a travesty that it is going to be that way, but the only way to move forward is to push back, not give up and wait for changes at the federal level.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 16:09

Murmur Twin: Feb 11, 2003; An ever-honest pacifist with no mind for tricks.

Necc0 posted:

It's not perfect but this environment is thousands of times more friendly than it was just a decade ago. We have a model towards pushing legalization that has been working and all signs are saying will continue to work. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. Its really really dumb to throw up your hands and say it isn't worth it because we had one step back after 100 forwards.

I'm fine with the 100 forwards, but your "one step back" is another person's "10 years in prison". On a macro- level we're winning, but to me it doesn't justify glossing over the lives that are being ruined due to the process not taking overnight.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 16:18

tastethehappy: Sep 11, 2008; What part of highly classified do you not understand?

Murmur Twin posted:

I'm fine with the 100 forwards, but your "one step back" is another person's "10 years in prison". On a macro- level we're winning, but to me it doesn't justify glossing over the lives that are being ruined due to the process not taking overnight.

Yes, it's horrible. But what are you going to do? Give up on all future progress? If you're going to push the boundaries, you're going to have to accept the risks.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 16:24

Necc0: Jun 30, 2005; by exmarx; Broken Cake

Murmur Twin posted:

I'm fine with the 100 forwards, but your "one step back" is another person's "10 years in prison". On a macro- level we're winning, but to me it doesn't justify glossing over the lives that are being ruined due to the process not taking overnight.

Yes I would rather we go back to how it was in the 80s and throw tens of thousands of people in jail for ten years instead, pushing prisons to 400% capacity. This is what we should do because gently caress effort and not everything is perfect right now.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 16:32

Murmur Twin: Feb 11, 2003; An ever-honest pacifist with no mind for tricks.

Necc0 posted:

Yes I would rather we go back to how it was in the 80s and throw tens of thousands of people in jail for ten years instead, pushing prisons to 400% capacity. This is what we should do because gently caress effort and not everything is perfect right now.

Me too, you totally nailed what I was trying to say!

Tastethehappy posted:

Yes, it's horrible. But what are you going to do? Give up on all future progress? If you're going to push the boundaries, you're going to have to accept the risks

Government: Find some way to fix the conflicts between state and federal law, enact the will of the people you represent.
Feds: Stop arresting people in legal/medical states who are clearly not doing anything unethical while the government works on fixing the above contradiction.
People: Start/continue being vocal about the fact that this is an issue that needs to be paid attention to/resolved. Vote accordingly.

I want to go into pot-related business when I eventually move out to CO/WA. It's clearly accepted by the culture (who voted it to be legal). I would love to, say, open a restaurant where people can order a nug, smoke it, and then get their munchies. The idea that I can't do this, despite the fact that there's a clear market for it, because I might end up spending the rest of my life in jail is ridiculous to me.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 16:53

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006; Can't post for 13 hours!

tastethehappy posted:

Yes, it's horrible. But what are you going to do? Give up on all future progress? If you're going to push the boundaries, you're going to have to accept the risks.

Keep applying pressure on the federal government to drop these pointless prosecutions.

You were the one saying he was just asking for it by wearing a short skirt or growing a bunch of plants or something, and that the rest of us should just dress more modestly and not worry about getting tossed into prison because a federal prosecutor can't get his head out of his drug warrior rear end.

AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jan 15, 2013

# ? Jan 15, 2013 16:56

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

tastethehappy posted:

Yes, every state legal grower (with 6 plants) is totally at the same risk as someone growing 2,000 plants.

If you're growing a warehouse full of weed, you're going to get arrested. If you're within the state limits, the chances of being charged by the Feds is roughly zero. To claim that that case is in any way comparable to someone growing 6 plants in their house in a state where local resources can't/won't be used is ridiculous concern trolling.

Umm there are literally warehouses growing weed all over Colorado and I'm sure California and Washington too. It's estimated that over 1 million square feet of warehouse space is dedicated to growing just in Denver. The Feds putting one guy in jail for 5 years every so often is laughable when you realize that this is the strongest response the Feds have. They're screwed.

Murmur Twin posted:

I'm fine with the 100 forwards, but your "one step back" is another person's "10 years in prison". On a macro- level we're winning, but to me it doesn't justify glossing over the lives that are being ruined due to the process not taking overnight.

What about the thousands of people who have had their citations and court cases dropped in WA and CO? Those people would have had to spend time in prison or pay fines and now they have been pardoned. Objectively less lives are being ruined.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Keep applying pressure on the federal government to drop these pointless prosecutions.

Guess what, being arrested for doing an activity prohibited by Federal law but allowed by State law is probably the highest form of civil disobedience. This is how you put pressure on the Feds, by making them defend the indefensible and forcing change in the Supreme Court.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 17:34

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Murmur Twin posted:

Government: Find some way to fix the conflicts between state and federal law, enact the will of the people you represent.

A federal officer by definition does not listen to the people in the area he happens to be stationed in, but the country as a whole. the country as a whole does not (or has not indicated anyway) that they support marijuana.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 17:36

800peepee51doodoo: Mar 1, 2001; Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

Tab8715 posted:

Here's why State's legalizing weed doesn't matter in the long run...

That's ridiculous, state legalization makes a huge difference for the vast majority of people involved with mj and when more states are eventually successful with legalization efforts there will be more pressure applied to the feds to change their stance. It matters big time, especially in the long run.

Somewhat related, I wonder if this guy in your news story was a member of the medical growers alliance that torpedoed CA's legalization efforts. Because that would be some irony right there...

# ? Jan 15, 2013 17:40

tastethehappy: Sep 11, 2008; What part of highly classified do you not understand?

Murmur Twin posted:

Government: Find some way to fix the conflicts between state and federal law, enact the will of the people you represent.
Feds: Stop arresting people in legal/medical states who are clearly not doing anything unethical while the government works on fixing the above contradiction.
People: Start/continue being vocal about the fact that this is an issue that needs to be paid attention to/resolved. Vote accordingly.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Keep applying pressure on the federal government to drop these pointless prosecutions.

Did I say anything to the contrary? Does recognizing that there are risks with pushing back against federal law, but that it's necessary for progress to be made, make those courses of action invalid/inaccessible? People can, and should, and ARE, working on those very issues. But currently, that is an issue, it is something that is happening, and it's something that is going to keep happening until federal law is changed. The only thing I'm taking exception to is people acting like the fact that there can be federal repercussions means states shouldn't try anything and that it's somehow not worth it to pursue state-level legalization. Changing federal law is one course of action that needs, and is, being addressed. Tackling state-level legalization is just another prong of the same fight, one that can, and I think should, exist concurrently. One doesn't negate or diminish the other.

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

You were the one saying he was just asking for it by wearing a short skirt or growing a bunch of plants or something, and that the rest of us should just dress more modestly and not worry about getting tossed into prison because a federal prosecutor can't get his head out of his drug warrior rear end.

Are you serious? Saying that someone who breaks federal law, on a large scale, is going to be subject to federal prosecution, is the same as slut shaming/victim blaming? Get the gently caress out of here with that. I'm saying that for the vast majority of people, who are not trying to grow commercially, who are going to grow privately, in a state where it is legal, will most likely have little to fear from federal prosecution. It would be nice if people *could* grow commercially on large scales without federal prosecution, but that's just not where we are as a country yet. However, these "small" victories, which will afford some level of safety and protection to a large number of people in those states, are still victories, and to claim that these victories are somehow not worth it because it's not 100% perfect for every single person in the country at once, is ridiculous.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 17:46

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

computer parts posted:

A federal officer by definition does not listen to the people in the area he happens to be stationed in, but the country as a whole. the country as a whole does not (or has not indicated anyway) that they support marijuana.

Would he go to trial in California? I'm sure it won't actually go to trial, but jury nullification here would be amazing.

# ? Jan 15, 2013 17:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 05:31

Murmur Twin: Feb 11, 2003; An ever-honest pacifist with no mind for tricks.

tastethehappy posted:

Did I say anything to the contrary? Does recognizing that there are risks with pushing back against federal law, but that it's necessary for progress to be made, make those courses of action invalid/inaccessible? People can, and should, and ARE, working on those very issues. But currently, that is an issue, it is something that is happening, and it's something that is going to keep happening until federal law is changed. The only thing I'm taking exception to is people acting like the fact that there can be federal repercussions means states shouldn't try anything and that it's somehow not worth it to pursue state-level legalization. Changing federal law is one course of action that needs, and is, being addressed. Tackling state-level legalization is just another prong of the same fight, one that can, and I think should, exist concurrently. One doesn't negate or diminish the other.

You're saying that feds ignoring state laws to enforce federal ones is happening. I'm saying that there are cases where it shouldn't. I don't think we're in disagreement.

quote:

However, these "small" victories, which will afford some level of safety and protection to a large number of people in those states, are still victories, and to claim that these victories are somehow not worth it because it's not 100% perfect for every single person in the country at once, is ridiculous.

Totally agree, and the small victories (state legalization, medical marijuana) are completely worth it. It's just that when I put myself in the shoes of Davies or any of the other people who did nothing morally wrong but are going to lose years of their life in prison, I get really upset.

quote:

A federal officer by definition does not listen to the people in the area he happens to be stationed in, but the country as a whole. the country as a whole does not (or has not indicated anyway) that they support marijuana.

That's my problem. We're putting the letter of the law (technically it's still federally illegal) over common sense (jailing someone following state laws to provide medicine to people, all in the framework of what people in that area voted for).

# ? Jan 15, 2013 18:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

«‹›266 »