It’s Time to End the War on Drugs
by Gov. Gary JohnsonAs President I will stop one of the biggest wastes and frauds ever perpetrated on the American people – the trillion dollar war on drugs. While falsely promising us a safer, more sober society, the war on drugs is bankrupting our state and local coffers and costs the Federal government $15 billion dollars per year. That’s five hundred dollars every second – mostly for possession of marijuana, a relatively harmless drug the effects of which are certainly no worse than alcohol, the sale of which is legal and regulated.
Think how many tax cuts we could have with the money we are spending. If you’re a Republican – think how many tax cuts (federal, state and local) could be bought with the money you’re spending to lock people up for something as dangerous as drinking. Think how many poor people could be helped with that money. We need to reform our drug laws as soon as yesterday by stopping the prohibition of marijuana and regulating its sale.
If you think the drug war makes you and your children safer, think again. The International Center for Science in Drug Policy stated: “Drug prohibition likely contributes to drug market violence and higher homicide rates.” But you don’t need to be a scientist, or the governor of a border state, to understand why: the drug war creates violent criminals.
Criminals deal drugs because drugs make them money, a lot of money. When that kind of money is in play, people kill for it. Entire armies of crime have built up on our streets and across the border in Mexico. But we can stop that tomorrow – with drug policy reform. We know that prohibition makes prices higher. Our own history with prohibition proves that. When we make something illegal, we keep the supply artificially low, and that keeps the price artificially high – and that means violence.
When marijuana is legal, farmed and taxed, we will suck the lifeblood from violent gangs and place the money in the public good. We tax and regulate alcohol and cigarettes, and we prevent kids from using these dangerous substances. Marijuana is no more dangerous than those, and yet Democrats and Republicans can only unite to allow this weed to fund entire armies of crime.
These criminals take to violence because, in absence of normal market regulations, only violence controls territory and market. Liquor stores don’t shoot each other over territory. If a newsstand up the block starts selling cigarettes, are you going to do a drive by and shoot their family?
Take for example the AP report on New York City. New York’s lowest-level marijuana-possession charge – criminal possession of marijuana in the 5th degree, a misdemeanor – has been the most common arrest charge in the city for much of the past decade, and the numbers have been steadily rising. So far this year there have been 38,359 reported arrests. Last year, there were 50,377 arrests citywide, up from 46,492 in 2009, according to statistics from the state Division of Criminal Justice Services. That represents about 616 arrests per 100,000 city residents.
A report done earlier in 2011 by the Drug Policy Alliance concluded it cost an estimated $75 million in 2010 to process, jail and prosecute the low-level arrests in New York. That figure was a compilation of estimated court costs, police manpower and jail time, averaging about $1,500 per arrest – a cost shared by the state and city. The city budget alone is $65 million.
Every experiment in drug reform and decriminalization has met with a drop in crime. When New York State reformed its harsh Rockefeller drug laws, the precipitous drop in crime rates continued. When Portugal decriminalized drugs, crime dropped. Drug use dropped. New HIV infections dropped. Brute force has failed. And we should know better – our own experiment with prohibition virtually created organized crime in our country. Prohibition doesn’t work – users and addicts find a way to use drugs anyway. All prohibition does is create a black market that kills innocent people, when the DEA isn’t shooting them already.
I’m not soft on crime – as Governor I presided over a drop in the crime index from of almost 20%. If I had the tools to treat drug use as a public health hazard rather than a crime, I could have made that even lower. Thousands of retired drug enforcement agents, police and district attorneys join me in wanting to overhaul America’s drug laws. Democrats and Republicans don’t seem to understand, but as millions of people leave the two parties, independents can find new solutions. So join countless law enforcement officials, and a humble two-term governor; together we can save this country from crime – and our broken two-party system.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
526 Comments
Oh boy, this is gonna be an interesting thread…!
Time for the moral conservatives to damn everyone to hell.
Amen! But the busy bodies who want to control everything they find unacceptable from getting to other people will put up a fight.
Sorry, Governor, but I've seen–first hand–what marijuana use does to our kids…and it AIN'T good. If you think "legalization" of pot is going to "prevent minors from using it," you're as nutty as squirrel poop. Marijuana use creates legions of uninspired, lazy and, worst of all, unproductive, citizens, more concerned with getting "high" than much of anything else. Yes, some more creative people have been regular users–musicians, for example–but that doesn't justify looking the other way while truck drivers, equipment operators, assembly-line workers all put the rest of us in danger because of their need to get a buzz on at work. If you think texting while driving is dangerous, wait until the highways are full of drivers with a space-time distortion from smoking pot.
MaryJane, the cure all for all your imaginary ailments. Go ahead, smoke a bowl. Then vote for Paul.
While I do not personally approve of the use of drugs, I agree.
The "War on Drugs" has done more to erode civil liberty in this country and create a police state than anything in our history. Except possibly the "War on Terror" as it is being increasingly morphed into the "War on Domestic Political Opposition".
I can cite no better example of how far away from the Constitution we have leaped pre and post FDR than to point out this fact:
Prohibition, outlawing of alcohol in all states: Enacted by Constitutional Amendment. Repealed by Constitutional Amendment.
The "Drug War", outlawing of drugs in all states: Where's the Constitutional Amendment enacting it?
It should be ended and left up to the states. Funding for it needs to be slashed, and the police need to be DE MILITARIZED. No more SWAT units. No more military gear. No more M16 rifles. They are police officers, not ill trained soldiers who cause more tragedies (mistaken no-knock shoot first search warrants) than they ever prevent.
People who favor prohibition of any kind display ignorance of the laws of supply and demand. Where there is a demand, there WILL be a supply. If the product is illegal, then criminals will supply it.
The same arguments can be made about alcohol and yet that is allowed.
Nail on the head Gov Johnson! More people die each year from the "war" surrounding drug use than drug users who die. That alone should be enough to take a step back and realize what a failure this moral crusade really is.
Well we've been getting rolled for 3 years now, smoke up dammit.
W.Nelson
Plus this would be another campaign promise the dems could use, some pot in every kettle. Plus they could modify the 60 year old message to," the republicans are going to take away your marijauna and they don't care about grandmas glacouma".
Legalize pot today, conservative super majority in house and senate in 6 years.
Sorry, I just don't agree with you on this one. I don't want anyone under the influence of pot or alcohol building bridges, building a house, timing the traffic lights in my community, filling my pharmaceutical prescription, driving a garbage truck or a dump truck or a semi truck on the roads I'm using, taking an Xray of my body, or trying to interpret one of my medical tests. I could go on, but you get the idea.
If you think "legalization" of pot is going to "prevent minors from using it," you're as nutty as squirrel poop.
Walk into a high school today and see which is easier to obtain — alcohol or weed.
The rest of your argument is pointless as there are already laws on the books to handle reckless driving.
Except for the "certainly no worse than alcohol" part of your argument this could be applied to any drug of your choice. Look how much we're spending to stop cocaine or heroine. Should we legalize these as well because we spend money to enforce a prohibition and drug dealers are making money peddling these substances?
Also, cigarettes are no more dangerous than pot? Really? I don't care if people smoke tobacco and drive but I sure has hell don't want people smoking weed and driving down the freeway next to my family.
Far out, man. Like, we can all be like, you know, California or #Obama Weed Smokers. Cool! (sarc)
I've yet to hear one advocate of legalized drug also be in favor of using any psychoactive substance (including alcohol) while performing your job. I think we have much more to fear from a truck driver who's had a few beers or who's taken a substance (legal or illegal) to stay awake and keep driving long after he/she should have pulled over and slept.
So your "solution" is to legalize one more substance, but this time one that can't be ascertained by a simple breath-test in the field??? Now THAT makes a lot of sense. One thing about pot that is never mentioned is that users can FAKE sobriety when necessary.
I agree that the feds have no business in this issue. It SHOULD be up to the States, one way or another. I'm perfectly content to allow California make it legal to smoke pot. The State is going down the dumpers anyway, so who cares?
While I happen to agree with your intent, reality is that people are stoned while doing all of your examples. Sheesh!
I know, I know, drugs are bad and should be illegal but common sense should take hold and find the right solution. Gary's ideas should be examined.
Prohibition contributed more than anything else to the rise of organized crime in this nation. The drug war comes next and the authoritarian types just love it. It has eroded our right to privacy, punched huge holes in some basic constitutional rights and generated a whole new industry in the criminal law system. America incarcerates a larger % of its population than any other nation on earth and its come to the point that prisons are a growth industry.
All of this is being done to protect us from ourselves. Well thanks, but I don't need Big Brother to tell me what I should or should not consume.
Your "solution" of keeping these drugs illegal kills more people than those who die from drug use each year. At what point do you wake up and realize what a mistake this moral crusade has been?
The biggest problem is our definition of "War". Today we send troops to invade without formal declarations, you know we call it a police action or kinetic something. Let's try targeting the drug cartels with Navy Seals and or Delta for one year. Make the price of narcoterrorism certain death. Let's see how many folks sign up for that. When we come across a boat or plane smuggling drugs, splash it, don't send search and rescue. All in or all out. Likewise when we send our troops off to "war" let's give them a strategy to win and the freedoms to execute the mission. It all got FUBAR during the Vietnam war that wasn't a war. All in or all out, no more blurring the line. Progressives gave us this crap, add it to the list to fix. PS progressives, demecrats, liberals, BLOW!!!!
Morning All
I don't want anyone under the influence of…
Why is that always the default response from any moral crusader? That if we legalize a substance all of a sudden everyone we encounter will be a substance abuser. Why do you assume that to be the case? If marijuana was legalized tomorrow, would you begin using it? If not, then why do you assume everyone else would?
Holy roller conservatives are for freedom, but only freedoms they agree with. They're just as hypocritical as the liberals they rail against. Ever watch the old films of the manic "drys" back in the day of prohibition standing on their soap boxes flailing their arms in uppity, religious, holier-than-thou fashion saying the most comically outlandish things trying to keep booze illegal? Yeah, that's how these people crying about a plant sound to me.
I don't want drunks near me on the road, I don't want drunks filling my prescriptions, I don't want drunks building my bridges, I don't want drunks teaching my kids, blah, blah, blah, blah. It would be no different than marijuana, there are laws preventing this. Let's make booze illegal, it's infinitely more dangerous. Can't do that because the religious "I'm better than you" people like their booze.
Are you for freedom or against it? It's really no more difficult than that.
In 1973 as a USMC officer I attended UCLA's drug education program in order to develop a drug amnesty program for our returning Vietnam Vets. The head of the department, Dr Brown, presented a paper from the President's Council on Marijuana and Dangerous Drugs….the conclusion? Legalize marijuana. The President who had spearheaded the study and supported the conclusion? Richard Nixon
Just imagine the trillions of dollars spent since then…over forty years of money poured down the drain in our court system, police departments, and prisons.
Now guess what organization KILLED the momentum in the legalization process? The Mormon Church…which came out with its own study that allegedly demonstrated a link between THC and genetic problems…a study which was never replicated.
you can't get much more conservative than Wm Buckley,read up on his opinion.
Fact is, marijuana is completely natural and grows almost anywhere. It's effects are mild and harmless – stoned hippies don't usually attack anything except a package of Kit Kats. It should be legalized – any any grown for personal consumption should not be taxed or regulated any more than tomato plants or herbs are. Commercial sales should be regulated and taxed, I agree. As for the folks arguing about people under the influence operating machinery, etc. We already have remedies on the books for that. Making it legal doesn't mean removing all responsibility. No, you cannot get high and drive. No, you cannot get high on the job. Same as drinking in every way – except pot use never killed anyone.
I never said that I had a "solution." I said that legalization is NOT a viable solution. Try to focus.
Got a Policeman friend who worked the roughest substation of town for his entire career. He is staunch in his opinion that he never once answered a Domestic Violence call because of the Hippie Lettuce.
Personal liberty – and responsibility. Our rights are INHERENT – not bestowed or granted by any king or government.
alcohol has designed your roads and bridges, esp. if you live in Pgh., alcohol use was and is hidden
This has nothing to do with "morality." It is not a "moral crusade." It's a crusade to keep people safe in public when a significant percentage of the population is out of their minds because of drug use–be it alcohol, pot, meth, cocaine, heroin or acid. If you think legalization is a good idea, take a look at the Netherlands. Drug use skyrocketed when it was legalized, HIV infections tripled, crime increased (not mere possession crimes, of course) and they are now reinstituting drug use legal restraints, seeing the error of their policies.
Here's a link to a study bu the Cato institute which examined the effects of decriminalizing all drugs in Portugal starting in 2001, the study was conducted in 2006,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080
To summarize it for those who choose to not read it
None of the fears promulgated by opponents of Portuguese decriminalization hascome to fruition, whereas many of the benefitspredicted by drug policymakers from instituting a decriminalization regime have been realized. While drug addiction, usage, and associated pathologies continue to skyrocket in many EU states, those problems—in virtually every relevant category—have been either contained ormeasurably improved within Portugal since 2001. In certain key demographic segments,drug usage has decreased in absolute terms in the decriminalization framework, even as usage across the EU continues to increase, including in those states that continue to take the hardest line incriminalizing drug possession and usage.
By freeing its citizens from the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for drug usage,Portugal has dramatically improved its ability to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of treatment. The resources that were previously devoted to prosecuting and imprisoning drugaddicts are now available to provide treatment programs to addicts. Those developments,along with Portugal’s shift to a harm-reductionapproach, have dramatically improved drug-related social ills, including drug-caused mortalities and drug-related disease transmission.Ideally, treatment programs would be strictly voluntary, but Portugal’s program is certainly preferable to criminalization.The Portuguese have seen the benefits of decriminalization, and therefore there is no serious political push in Portugal to return toa criminalization framework. Drug policy-makers in the Portuguese government are virtually unanimous in their belief that decriminalization has enabled a far more effective approach to managing Portugal’s addiction problems and other drug-related afflictions.Since the available data demonstrate that they are right, the Portuguese model ought to becarefully considered by policymakers around the world
And history has shown us continued illegalization is not a viable solution either. Since something is either legal or illegal, wouldn't that narrow down our available options?
As a small (l) libertarian/conservative/Republican I totally agree. The same dummy’s who do drugs now will do them once they are legal.
Control it, tax it. It's already here and it's overly abundant, which is enough evidence that this "war" has failed. If a pothead wants pot, he or she will get it — legal or not.
Why not put the violent, kidnapping, execution-happy douches on the other side of our border out of business?
Everything in DC should be about CUTTING – not increasing – spending. Pot taxation could be a windfall for the feds and states as well.
I despise pot and believe that potheads are the laziest people on earth, but they exist and will continue to exist. We're just tossing billions down the federal toilet.
Bing Crosby said it best on how alcohol's destruction makes pot's effects like nothing.
Outstanding.
There's a powerful parallel between the effects of the War on Drugs and the effects of the current regime in medical care. In both cases, the supply of a desired good is being restricted by law. In both cases, the price of that good is rising faster than inflation. And in both cases, there are serious "turf battles" going on about who shall have control of the supply.
That's not to say that recreational drugs are in any sense "good for you." With the exception of cannabis's power to bring relief to some chemotherapy patients, and the painkillers made from opioids, I don't know of any beneficial effects of the drugs that the DEA currently bans. But the laws of economics don't care about our evaluations of such things; they operate strictly on supply and demand.
No, no one is being gunned down in the streets in a "prescription drug war." But ObamaCare has yet to reach cruising speed. We shall see.
maybe you think the money spent on the war on drugs is well spent. land of the free? land of the most people in jail or prison.
actually studies have shown damage to the lungs is much less than tobacco, any impaired driver, be it pot or texting should not drive, as for tobacco it exacerbates allergies, asthma to others, and that's just the linger of smoke on their clothes
I have never in my life smoked a joint, nor do I pan to. Yet, I think making marijuana illegal is exactly like Prohibition. Take the pot out of the drug dealers' hands and allow it to be sold and taxed like cigarettes. Most people who want to smoke pot can easily get a hold of it, and if they are caught they are out of jail the next day. A waste of time and money!!
The moment you want to use the force of gov to "protect" me from me, then it is a moral crusade. It's also beyond the scope of the proper role of gov't.
While those things in the Netherlands are obviously not good, that's not guaranteed to happen here. As GJ noted, Portugal legalized marijuana and associated crime decreased. I look at the collateral damage associated with the "war" on drug users, and it's sickening. Police execute no-knock search warrants, bust into homes and shoot people first. Then they realize they're at the wrong house. That isn't an isolated event either. It happens quite frequently, actually.
Since it would seem evident the force of illegalization has failed in every conceivable way, the only other option is legalization.
It would save more money by ending the War on Poverty.
Uh, wrong again. Read this: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2926/marijuana...
I've had a long term stance on marijuana and that is I'm fine if it's legalized, as long as we treat marijuana smokers like we do regular smokers. Treat them as lepers and prevent them from smoking in public places. Marijuana smoke makes me sick because it just smells awful.
Pappadave,
You were debating and holding your own. Right up until you lost with this insult "Try to focus."
who let the rino in?
The “War on Poverty” achieved the exact opposite effect as well.
No "insult" intended. I just despise the use of straw-man arguments in a debate. Making the assumption that I think continuing criminalization is a "solution" when I was merely pointing out that LEGALIZATION was NOT a solution is a straw-man argument. Saying I'm for criminalization as a "solution" and then trying to knock it down is a straw-man tactic that the pro-pot folks always use in these discussions.
When a guy gets drunk and walks to a public place, he gives a lot of people the heebie-jeebies.
When a guy gets stoned and walks to a public place, he gives a lot of people hugs.
If you think "legalizing" pot in the US will slow down the pot smugglers in Mexico, you've got another think coming. Pot will STILL be illegal for kids to use, even after de-criminalization (if that ever occurs). THERE'S your market for their smuggled pot and they'll just expand into the legal market as well. They'll continue to smuggle it to avoid paying the taxes on it and may even open manufacturing plants, and invest their formerly illegal money in politics like Joe Kennedy did when his bootlegging operation wasn't illegal any longer, creating one of the most destructive political dynasties of the 20th Century.
If you think "legalizing" pot in the US will slow down the pot smugglers in Mexico, you've got another think coming. Pot will STILL be illegal for kids to use, even after de-criminalization (if that ever occurs). THERE'S your market for their smuggled pot and they'll just expand into the legal market as well. They'll continue to smuggle it to avoid paying the taxes on it and may even open manufacturing plants, and invest their formerly illegal money in politics like Joe Kennedy did when his bootlegging operation wasn't illegal any longer, creating one of the most destructive political dynasties of the 20th Century.
Let's face it Gary…I voted for you..twice…and you lost it on the second term when you went tilting at this particular personal windmill of yours…
You have a place…as Comptroller of the Office of Management and Budget…something you could be outstanding at…
You and I both know that you want to TAX the hell out of marijuana as a budget enhancer…while playing this "war on drugs" card to make it more palpable to illegal users to vote for it…and throw on even more restrictions than what tobacco smokers endure now…all while having it "legal"…
You really should stop blowing "smoke" into everyone's eyes about this…
David that is your opinion. Insults have no place in a debate.
Pappadave is articulate enough so that insults should not be necessary for him to make his point.
It's not the war on drugs that's bankrupting the state and federal governments, it's entitlement programs like welfare, food stamps, free college tuition, Medicaid, Social Security disability payments for those who aren't disabled, 99 weeks of unemployment checks, ad nauseam.
Not entirely true. There's a HUGE black-market in Oxyconton, Lortabs, Percodan, etc. and wars are being fought over "territory" there, too.
"Smoke" should be decriminalized.If you are carrying more than OZ but less than a 1/2 pnd. fine $ 250, if you are caught again in a seven day period; Fine+ 7 days in jail.(reasoning is this; WHY ARE YOU GOING AROUND WITH a "o").A Pound or more You're trafficking and regular rules apply.Less than 1oz 75 dollar fine PERIOD
Making it legal to get high doesn't make any sense; even though alcohol is legal, being drunk is not automatically legal (and should not be legal). Comparing an overdose of alcohol to regular levels of consumption of marijuana is also not intellectually honest. If we're going to compare marijuana with alcohol, it should be done right.
It is an A/B choice when it comes to legalization/illegalization. But if continued illegalization is not your solution and you don't support legalization, what is your solution?
While I believe that some drugs should be kept illegal, I do not believe so in the case of pot. The effects are very mild and it is non-addictive. We waste way too much money trying to "fight" this war, a war we can no more win that the war on alcohol. Tax it and sell it like booze. Hard to do because it grows like a "weed", but most won't grow and will buy the product. Many states already ignore the federal law with "medical use", a taxed sale situation. Lets get this stupid law off the federal books and let people freely determine their own lives.
No kidding it's my opinion (although I base it on the Bible, so I do not claim it to be original) — and what you wrote is your opinion. You're merely pointing out the obvious; we have opinions. So what? Do you think you can resolve a conflict of opinions by stating it more firmly?
okay lets add a little fact here. Is pot worse than booze? The truth is, it depends on how you measure "worse". smoking puts 3 to 5 more times the tar into your lungs. Pot smoke is 50 percent more carcinogenic. Alaska tried an approach to legalization and the youth use rate doubled. Marijuana users have 55% more industrial accidents than non-users and have been shown to have a 78% increase in absenteeism over non-users. Workers who tested positive for marijuana use had disciplinary problems at work 64% more often than workers who test negative for marijuana. Accident records from one study showed that up to 12% of non-fatally injured drivers and up to 16% of fatally injured drivers had marijuana in their bloodstream.
You've apparently never met a union worker.
Well played!
Too many of the evangelical/social conservatives are willing to use government to initiate force to alter an individual's behavior to what they deem acceptable, just as progressives do. I don't want either side telling me how to live.
Then we should just execute those who are guilty of any crime, that would deter the major crimes. Yes this puritanical approach led to many an earless Quaker in the day.
Dunno so much if it's 'holy roller,' syndrome all around, although some certainly fit the bill. I think many are just fed up with the lack of personal responsibility rampant in the U.S. for decades. We all know the local drunkards that causes all kinds of hell and walks away from the responsibility for his actions. Any mind-altering chemical can have similar effects under the right circumstances. Maybe folks are just tired of troublemakers walking away due to some excuse, and that such legalization would just exacerbate the problem….
Just a thought though….
Never said I HAD a "solution," John. What I SAID (to reiterate) is that decriminalization is NOT a solution to our drug problems. Maybe what we need to do is concentrate on teaching our kids that smoking pot is something of which they should be profoundly ashamed instead of lionizing those who do. Maybe we should teach our kids that any "celebrity" caught smoking pot is NOT a "hero," but a pitiable specimen who needs treatment…not more of our hard-earned dollars to support his habit.
DAmn YOU Einy!!! Heh..thought I would get it started off right!
but those bus tours to Canada have stopped, sometimes a gun is not needed to kill, actually who is not more afraid of the IRS is naive
LOL COSMOS MAGAZINE!!!???
Very very funny!
Here is ANOTHER article in COSMOS: "Climate change could quadruple deaths "
LOL! COSMOS is your source?????!!!!
are you gonna eat those fries?
Decriminalisation makes so much more sense than outright legalisation. Unchecked cannabis use carries with it a host of other problems (physical, mental and social) which we probably don't want to encourage in our society and the tax revenues from legalisation are a bit of a mirage – if the taxes are high enough to generate meaningful revenues, they're also high enough to encourage a black market in untaxed goods – which is exactly the situation we have today. Plus, since it takes exactly zero skilled knowledge and very little effort to grow small amounts of cannabis on your own, can someone please tell me who's going to enforce collection of cannabis taxes and how they're going to do it? Do we hire an army of "revenuers" to trudge through the backyards of America seeking untaxed cannabis plants? Get real.
There is a REASON most industries have random drug testing of employees and it ISN'T because they want to have them arrested.
euthanize users: no users = no demand = plummeting crime rates
win/win situation for society
Wasn't the "Quakers" who did this. It was the Puritans. Not the same bunch.
Three out of the last four presidents smoked pot (or pretended too.) Bush Jr, Obama, Clinton all smoked it. Reagan probably smoked it when he was young too: he was in hollywood in the thirties and forties when everyone was so it would not be surprising.
Clearly it did not stop these men from becoming president. It isn't as bad as you make out. Many people used it and had very prosperous lives.
If you've seen marijuana use so much you should be well aware that it can be ascertained by a simple sniff-test in the field, just like smoked tobacco use.
Marijuana smoke gets into clothes very easily, and leaves a very distinctive smell for a very long time.
You are correct!
Typical. Don't like the results, denigrate the source.
OK, Then. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/0906...
All well and good, but . . .
Why tax it?
For the same reason we do not need the prohibitive taxes we have on alcohol and tobacco, why ruin ending the War on Drugs by replacing it with yet another expansion of the War on Businesses and Consumers?
The article asks us to think about how many taxes we can cut, but proposes a new one in the middle of it. Well, I'm thinking we can add a whole bunch of "Sin" Taxes to the list of those we can cut, starting with not imposing one on this to begin with.
The latest study has shown much less effect than tobacco. My one pot smoker clerk is less -nitpicky-(this should prevent deletion) and my most productive. Marijuana stays detectable even in urine for 30days being fat soluable, alcohol does not stay detectable as such, if it did these stats would be much worse.
True, but smelling it on someone's clothes is NOT proof that they are operating a vehicle under it's influence. You can smell alcohol on someone, too, but only a breath-test will determine that they've been drinking enough to be impaired.
Go watch Trainspotting and tell me again why all drugs should be legalized.
Fine, go ahead, legalize pot but if you kill someone in a car wreck or kill somebody on the job because you're high…
Automatic death penalty, no exceptions.
This principle should apply to any legal or legalized drug.
Perhaps not, but it certainly didn't help them be GOOD presidents–and none of the three WERE particularly good and one has been an utter disaster.
He supported legalization. I don't have to go look. He spoke about it often.
To borrow from "Black Books" (a biting, funny-as-hell Britcom) and paraphrase, so THAT's why Portugal is one of the dominant world powers.
yes the Puritans cut off noses and ears if Quakers would not repent their evil heretical beliefs, that's why many Quakers were earless and noseless (fanatical belief for a bizzare pride award)
If you'll check, I think you'll find that virtually NO ONE is being incarcerated any longer for simple possession of marijuana…certainly not in amounts that are obviously for personal consumption. The "possession" cases that result in prison are possession of a couple of BALES of the stuff–obviously for the purpose of sale or other transfer.
Wait . . .
Is it under its influence or impaired by some legal benchmark?
Do you want to detect its mere use, or whether it meets a particular concentration?
Looks like you want to move the goalposts on that one.
I have to agree with the Governor. Drug abuse is a medical problem, not a crime.
Having been involved in the drug wars from 87 to 95 in South/Central America and Mexico, I can state drugs are dangerous. It's not necessarily the drug itself, but rather the chemicals used in the production process and those used to cut it. Drug usage may also affect one's genetic pattern which may be cause for concern if desiring children at a later date..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2174024
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20030325/marijuana...
http://www.maleinfertilitycure.com/Marijuana_indu...
Scary.
The caption says end the war on "drugs" but clearly the implied headline is "legalize pot" since the picture is one of a leaf of maryjahoochie.Which is it…..
drugs as in cocaine, X, meth, heroine, crack, percoset, vicodin, valium, soma, ocycodone, etc… or just pot?
Makes a difference. Pot's no more potentially harmful to a user or innocent bystanders than alcohol. The others pose serious health risks to users, innocent bystanders, and fetuses as well.
What's the point of legalizing pot when other, more lethal drugs are far more popular and because they are also far more harmful to "innocent" non users, they still need to be controlled?
And if they do need to be controlled…….how much will dropping pot from the list save taxpayers?
Absolutely, except we tend, still, to equate republican w/ conservative.
Being drunk is most definitely legal.
Damn straight. We need another program? MORE PROGRAMS?
Grow it or make it yourself, it's all the same with alcohol or growing tobacco. You can do these things at home too, and it's not against the law unless you try to sell them. So, I do think taxing pot would make a difference!
No way. The cartels will not be able to compete with the low prices. It will be far far cheaper for kids to hang around outside the Liquor/Pot stores and get some irresponsible adult to get it for them. The cartels will make no money at commercial prices. They will be forced out of business.
I'm speaking generally, and saying that the state of being drunk is not an absolute right.
Not so. You claimed that the presence of marijuana could be detected by smell, but having the smoke in one's clothes doesn't mean the wearer had used marijuana. That can only be ascertained by (as of today, anyway) a blood or urine test–or testing one's hair in a very complicated and expensive test. I know a guy who flunked a company drug test because he'd been sitting in a closed up car where the driver and another passenger were smoking pot, even though he'd not smoked at all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.