Discussions
Why I Don't Give a Crap About Marijuana Legalization
Posted by MadameX • 3/29/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: marijuana legalization
This is a much hotter topic than I ever anticipated. After seeing dramatic statements about Obama's "betrayal" all day, I wrote this post about why I don't think marijuana legalization deserves much of our attention just now:
whatswrongaroundus.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-just-dont-give-crap-about-marijua...
The backlash, especially on reddit, is really surprising me. How is it that people are viewing this as a critical issue given the state of affairs in the U.S. at this moment?
User Comments
-
it's the ostrich with head in sand philosophy. perhaps if we pretend something else is very important, the real problem will disappear.-
That's a very interesting point that I hadn't considered, intarso. It does seem so much more manageable than the economy or Iraq...or so many other things. Just repeal the law. Boom. Problem solved. We can feel like we've done something. Good insight.
-
-
I think so too.
Consider, the total US debt is 3.5 times the GDP! Until this debt is reduced, there is no recovery in site. The second wave of mortgage defaults will peak in 2010 and the third in 2012 when the peak of 5 year r and 7 year AMRs reverts to the prevailing interest level. Is anyone imagining that the interest level in 2010 will be lower than now? Yet, better than 50% of AM-morgtage holders that are currently defaulting cannot pay the current interest rates. Add in an almost inevitable Cap-and-Trade scheme (which failed in Europe, bigtime) and the race to raise fees of all sorts from city to state level, and you really don’t have a lot of disposable cash on the part of consumers to purchase. Look for large numbers of small business failures, retail merchants, small banks, small cities, and on and on. The bottom has not been reached, merely a plateau. -
Womder if that's why he brought it up? -
in all honesty though, I think the vast majority of American's are not, in fact, concerned about this issue though. The pro-marijuana legalization folks are a small minority, but a very vocal one.
-
People are on edge right now - they will latch onto, and argue anything at the moment that is feasible and easy to digest and argue.
-
bingo. most people simply don't have ANY knowledge of how the financial world works. hell, most of the senators and congressman don't even really know.
the important issues are too complex for the plebes to really grasp, so they like to fixate on things that are a bit more colloquial and easy to understand....like pot.
sure, there are a few people out there with well thought out, intelligent arguments for why marijuana should be legalized...but I really doubt they make up the majority of people suddenly championing this cause. -
As Tiffany pointed out in her post, even if Obama replaced Congress via an Executive Order that he signed, the issue would not be resolved. The states have legislation in place as well that Obama would be powerless to affect.
-
Yes, I agree - there are problems that are just too large and complex to argue about - and even those of us who enjoy arguing the more complex things tend to get burnt out on it, because there just doesn't seem to be any real solution in sight.
But also - I think being on edge makes everyone argumentative, anyway. So they will debate, argue, or discuss things that will allow them to easily vent their frustrations. It's a self defense mechanism, I believe - and we are all guilty of it. (Me, definitely me!) -
In fact, TT, when this issue went before the U.S. Supreme Court just a few years ago, the court explicitly pointed out that CONGRESS was free to make a change if it wanted to alter federal law. But even if CONGRESS chose to act in that regard, a tiny portion of marijuana prosecutions would be affected.
-
But even if CONGRESS chose to act in that regard, a tiny portion of marijuana prosecutions would be affected.
I believe that figure was only 1%. Is that correct?
99% of the prosecutions would be unaffected.
P.S. I'm not challenging your figures. My short term memory is not as good as it was previous to the head injury, although it is improving. -
The number according to an ACLU representative quoted in news stories at the time of the Supreme Court decision was 1%. That was a few years back and I haven't seen official data, so I'm treating that as an estimate.
-
Understood
-
"The states have legislation in place as well that Obama would be powerless to affect."
Incorrect. Federal law supersedes state law. -
Jeff, that is simply not true. Period. There are certain areas in which federal law pre-empts state law, but they are limited. The vast majority of powers are, in fact, constitutionally reserved to the states.
-
Correction, an absence of federal law leaves the states laws intact to do as they please - making the state laws greater than the federal law.
Example: Federal law for criminalization of pot is over turned (creating the absence of law or ruling on the matter),
States laws that criminalize pot will still be in tact, and the laws there will still be enforced. -
MadameX is incorrect. Federal law supercedes State law. Anyone interested in the facts may consult Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Constitution. (I'm assuming the Constitution still matter to some people.
)
TEXT: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
I realize you'll probably try to dispute this, however, everyone reading here should be aware that this has been a settled matter of law for, oh, only 190 years. (McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819) -
Or you could read the whole Constitution, and put it in context. Or consult any basic legal text. Jeff, you're simply dead wrong--which is somewhat comical on the heels of your whole thread about how people here pretend to be "experts" when they don't know what they're talking about.
-
Madamex, I'll take 190 years of settled law and the Supreme Court's adherence to that precedent.
I'd like to point out that I cited one of the Supreme Court's earliest cases that established the precedent. Nothing of equal weight was presented in rebuttal.*
This is the second time in two days you have touted your legal expertise and been wrong. You can argue with history if you feel the need, but that doesn't make you right.
I think I'm done with these exchanges. You may have the last word. (Suggestion for the last word: Perhaps you can tell us what you know that the USSC doesn't.)
*For those interested, a good read on this is here: supreme.justia.com/us/457/624/case.html - EDGAR V. MITE CORP., 457 U. S. 624 -
Jeff, the important piece that you're missing is that the text you quote specifically references laws made pursuant to the Constitution--and one of the things the Constitution does is specifically reserve the vast majority of powers to the states. I really suggest that you read a little further.
I'm sorry that your understanding is so limited, and would be glad to explain further if you weren't so hostile. Instead, I will suggest that you do a bit more research. You might even consider actually reading the cases you cite. If you did, you would learn, for instance, that the Edgar case references a commerce clause issue, and that the commerce clause is a Constitutional provision that specifically empowers the federal government to make laws in areas impacting interstate commerce, because such issues affect interstate relations.
Where the Constitution has specifically granted a power to the United States government, that power supersedes state law if there is a conflict and may even prevent states from making laws on the same subject, though they are not inconsistent.
However, the Constitution reserves a VERY LIMIMTED number of powers to the federal government. By contrast, it reserves EVERYTHING ELSE to the states. The 10th Amendment provides: " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
What part of "RESERVED TO THE STATES" is unclear? -
Well, this is going nowhere. I'll end with this: I cited the specific relevant clause in the Constitution and listed two important USSC cases that deal with this subject.
You posted vague terms such as "certain areas in which federal law pre-empts state law, but they are limited" and "specifically reserve the vast majority of powers" without even attempting to explain them or offer any proof. (By the way, how does one "specifically" reserve "vast majorities" of anything? I realize you wrote it that way to sound more authoritative, but it just highlights the fact that your responses are vague and full of misinformation.)
The relevant part of Edgar is in Section 3 - "Of course, a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute; and
[a] conflict will be found 'where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility..."
If you were really a lawyer, I would think you'd know this.
Again, I'd be very interested to know what information you have that the USSC doesn't. Would you mind telling us what they've been missing since McCulloch? I bet they'd be very happy to hear from you!
People reading this can decide if you are right or if 190 years of established legal precedent is right.
P.S. Putting words and phrases in all caps doesn't make you right, either.
Cheers. -
Sigh.
Jeff, are you even TRYING? There isn't a single relevant line to a Supreme Court case--it is context dependent. And, of course, it requires an understanding of the relevant terminology. For instance, "conflicts" doesn't mean simply that it's different--state and federal laws set different standards all the time, and they don't "conflict" unless it is impossible to comply with both at the same time. If the federal prohibition on marijuana possession were repealed, it would NOT impact state statutes. That's a ridiculous concept, in that states criminalize all sorts of things that federal law does not, and often set forth different standards where both state and federal law exist.
More importantly, as your quoted text clearly conveys, the ability to supersede applies only to a VALID federal statute. A federal statute that attempted to pre-empt an area Constitutionally reserved to the states would not be valid.
I'm sorry that you're having so much trouble understanding this, but it would be better if you didn't confuse others. The fact that you are under the mistaken impression that what I'm saying conflicts with the cases you've cited only demonstrates how thoroughly you misunderstand them. -
I know this (and I am no legal expert). Medical marijuana is legal in the state of California yet several medical marijuana establishments were shut down by the DEA (which is the federal government) a few years ago. I believe they were able to reopen--but in those cases, the feds came in and shut them down without a thought to state's rights.
-
-
Listen.. we can make alot of money on this. A pack of cigarettes costs about a nickel to make, we buy em in new york for $9.50 now.. Most of that is government 'you shouldn't be smoking anyway' tax - If everyone quit smoking today the economy would crumble.
Having another income stream like this could help the democrats in office boost us out of this depression. There would be packs of rolled up joints or whatever, in amersterdam the popular 'cones' are made of weed, tobacoo and little bits of hash.. Anyway, Obama can charge $9.50 for a pack of these things (Keep in mind, Marijuana is also dirt cheap to produce - if you don't have to hide it)
An average 3.5 grams of pot now costs around 40$, this is how much would fill an entire pack of cones or joints, which would be made available at $9.50 - same thing as cigarettes, you shouldn't be smoking it anyway, remember?-
I so agree. Make it legal and tax it--and with some of the money, open treatment centers so that addicts who want to change and seek help can find it.
Right now, they can't.
-
-
god how do the pot smokers afford it?-
I'm thinking that 3.5 grams of pot is kind of a lot of pot. Enough to fill a pack of cigarettes means about 20 joints. Seeing as you don't smoke them like cigarettes, pot is probably cheaper than smoking
-
-
thanks anok I have no clue when it comes to pot just seemed a lot to me
-
It is a lot of money - but yo have to figure, you don't buy that much at once, and if you are, you're probably splitting it with friends (so you're splitting the cost too).
-
-
Here's another thing that I have observed. The voters elected a President and Vice President but there seems to be an expectation that Obama can change everything single-handedly, as though Congress does not exist.
Not a day has gone by since the election when I have not seen people twittering and posting to forums like these saying words to the effect of ... Well, I hope Obama does this or that ... and frequently what they are referring to is a state matter and not a federal one.
Even if what they refer to is a federal matter, if the President did have that much power then what role would Congress have?-
TT, this is why I question our electoral process. I know it's an unpopular view and perceived as elitist, but I don't think someone who chooses not to learn what the President does is really qualified to be choosing the person to fill the job.
-
I like to say 'Obama' instead of 'government' because it make me less angry - when I pay the 8.5% sales tax on every coffee I buy (7 a day, no less) I say it's going to Obama, like he's going to decide what to do with that particular 84 cents. It's actually going towards an AIG Jet.
-
@MadameX
Agreed. While reading blogs I discovered that some Americans are clueless or something. The latest thing that I have read is that the bail-outs are all Obama's fault -- say what? No references to Congress or the past Administration were made at all. No kidding, I have read blogs that implied that the day Obama took office all that had happened in the last 8 years and prior to that, and all those who had the votes in Congress that carried the legislation simply did not exist and everything became his doing. -
TT, this is why I question our electoral process. I know it's an unpopular view and perceived as elitist, but I don't think someone who chooses not to learn what the President does is really qualified to be choosing the person to fill the job.
Very good point. One that finds accord with the inventors of democracy too:
"Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike"
"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. ...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector. "The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. ...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."
"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Plato
War on drugs? War on communism? War on terror? War on poverty?
I'm not sure of an alternative though. As much individual autonomy as possible? -
@MadameX - I can see why you question the electorial process.. It must be hard to go on surrounded by so many idiots.
I guess you're right, in fact it would be best if only educated republicans can vote.
In fact, let's make it so gay and black people can't vote either..
Grow up, Communist. -
Codesucker, it is indeed hard being surrounded by so many people who choose not to bother to educate themselves and thereby damage society. I wouldn't expect someone in a corporation to be given responsibility to hire someone for a position without knowing what the position entailed, and I can't imagine why the people of the United States think it's okay for them to make "hiring" decisions about elected officials without having even the most rudimentary understanding of what the person they choose will be called upon to do.
I'm afraid we'll have to part company on the issue of Republicans, though. In my mind, education isn't about having been able to afford a degree, but about bothering to learn what you're talking about before you start shouting opinions. I'm sure there are some good Republicans out there somewhere, but I can't recall ever having voted for a Republican candidate. -
For the record, both Obama and McCain were in favour of bailouts. To an outsider, the differences between Republicans and Democrats seem to be the colour of their T-shirts and the animal farm on their banners.
-
-
Sorry, dealers. No bailouts. Car manufacturers, bankrupt banks and porn mongers, they get bailouts.
-
What distresses me most is that many people seem to be convinced that it is possible to wage "war" on a general noun.-
The "war on drugs" was only coined that way for attention and media. It's not an actual "war". Did I really need to post this? -
It's not only the "war on drugs". There is also the "war on terrorism" or a while back the "war on poverty". IMHO, this mis-use of language contributes greatly to the extreme lack of efficacy these "wars" have on their intended targets.
-
-
If you can get people asking the wrong questions, the answer does not matter. The question should not be "should marijuana be legal?" The question should, "should adults have the right to decide?" This is a freedom issue and you either support an adult’s right to freedom or you do not.
I wrote an article about this subject and I gave it a very bold title. Most people were not able to "get it" because they were too busy asking the wrong questions. They were too busy with "drugs are bad" and "drugs harm people". I think we can all agree with that, but there are a lot of things in this world that are bad. If we start making things illegal based on if they are bad for us, there will be a whole lot of things that will be made illegal.
I am sure this will cause quite a stir-
www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html-
I disagree. I think at this moment in the United States, the right question is "Is this really what we should be focusing on right now?"
-
If we as a country are only able to focus on one problem at a time then how did we make it this far? The country as a whole focuses on many ordeals at once, however the media usually latches onto the one or two that will give better ratings while the rest just goes on behind the scenes.
IMO the timing is perfect for legalization. -
Have we "made it this far"? That's an interesting way of putting the question, given that we're killing people off daily in a pointless war, our unemployment rate is skyrocketing, and millions of peple are losing their homes. Our corporations make the conscious choice to kill people in order to increase profits, and the law ensures that there are no consequences for having done so. Despite increasing technology and medication available, medical problems are mounting and life expectancy falling because of stress, pollution, bad food, and countless other problems--not the least of which is that more than 40 million Americans are without any kind of medical coverage and medical expenses are multiplying out of control.
I'd say we haven't "made it this far" at all. I'd say we've damn near destroyed everything. -
MadameX, I was only saying "made it this far" to stress the point that we can focus on legalizing marijuana while also focusing on other important factors as well. Our legal system was built to handle more than one topic.
Also, I find your attitude very negative. "Damn near destroyed everything"? Relative to what year? Let's compare that phrase to the late 1930's and see how well it holds up. -
Is that part of a script from a "Debbie Downer" sketch?
-
Fantastic points. Thank you. Great article, also.
-
-
You're absolutely right, MadameX: This is not a critical issue. Sure, legalizing marijuana and taxing the crap out of it might serve to increase government revenue (which would mean more money would be available for the government to help the economy), there are better ways to do things and more important things to do.-
But voodoo, Legalizing Marijuana will take profit away from the huge drug, paper and fuel corporations while creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs, clean energy, cheaper drugs and renewable paper forests. Gasp!
-
R&D is more worthwhile.
-
-
Not sure if polybore agrees or disagrees with MadameX here. On the one hand polybore does not care if dope is legalised in the US or not for the simple reason that millions of people use dope regardless of the law so what is the difference?
On the other hand democracies are founded on law and to have millions of people flouting a law should be a serious concern.-
That's an interesting point, Polybore--perhaps it does undermine the "government of laws" to keep laws on the books that are widely disregarded.
-
@MadameX: Further, what state interest does the law serve? The more arbitrary and toddlerish law becomes, the more it rightfully loses its mandate. People drove a lot better in California before there were speed limits.
-
-
Marijuana has already been legalized in California. It doesn't seem to change much honestly...-
According to California NORML ( www.canorml.org/ ) that bill would have been voted on tomorrow, but has been postponed.
-
-
-
I'm speaking of medical marijuana
-
Hi there -
I'm an old UK user (rarely bother these days) & there's a majority opinion in the hidden society of the 10 million UK dope-smokers nowadays, i.e., that the very notion of marijuana legalisation is, nowadays, of little concern to us. Effectively, most of us don't really give-a-toss! Those people who use marijuana (be they policemen, bakers, tax-drivers, solicitors, politicians, drug-squad officers, shopkeepers, etc) will continue to use it, regardless of the retarded law-makers (who tend to deal it in huge quantities, pocketing the massive illicit cash as a result). Those of us who can spell I.Q. have long known that the regulation of marijuana would bring billions into the economy; and as the greedy capitalists are after as much of the tax-payer's cash as they can get their hands on, it seems completely illogical NOT to legalise something which has little social adversity on its hands (compared to the billions in damage tobacco & alcohol inflict). So leave 'em to it. Let the criminal law-makers & politicians keep importing their drugs, in their underhand ways (telling the blind that they don't do such things), and let the people smoke it if they want to.*
On the specific issue of medical marijuana: it's use should be promoted wholesale. Imagine the outcry if they suddenly decided to stop using the atropines and heart-drugs which save people's lives. Anyone who thinks NOT using medical marijuana is wrong needs to grow up!
All the best -
* if there's any halfwits amongst you who think otherwise, I hope you are also against the legal use of tobacco and alchol. If not, go away, educate yourselves, or shut up! -
I am less concerned about making marijuana legal and more concerned with fixing sentencing. To me, it makes no sense to fill prisons with minor non-violent drug offenders. If the states want to maintain the illegality of marijuana, fine. I just think users need a fine and counseling, not jail time.
I believe Sen. Jim Webb is introducing prison/sentencing reform this week in the Senate.
Here's the link:
politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/a_push_for_prison_reform.php-
Well that's what happens when you let private companies run prisons. When there is a profit motive involved then the more people you can get in prison the more money you make. -
Amen to that, MM! The sentencing is what is really twisted with drug laws.
Clogs up our entire CJ system to have people prosecuted and jailed for nonviolent crimes like smoking weed!
-
-
Obama has named a farily liberal Seattleite to head the DEA and they have already announced that the Feds will no longer prosecute med mj users who are in compliance with their state's medical marijuana laws. It's a far cry from legalization but it does give hope that this administration may look beyond the truly failed "war on drugs" rhetoric and strategy and focus our law enforcement resources where they could be more effective, like say investigating and prosecuting corporate criminals.
-
Thank God--what a waste of human energy that was to prosecute the people who need marijuana, medically. Sure, some people are using it who don't really have a need--but are they really hurting anything? My answer is no.
-
Melinda,
That is one of the things I just keep coming back to. Unlike drunks, cocaine users or meth users, people under the influence of marijuana are most likely to stay home, watch tv and perhaps make love, rather than go out and get into horrible fights and car crashes.
I also agree with polybore that the marijuana prohibition laws are bad public policy Because they are widely ignored and even if you are caught, the amount of money you have to spend and the color of your skin can greatly affect how harshly or leniently you may be dealt with. It does seem to me that this ineffective and largely unenforceable prohibition is indeed damaging to the body politic by eroding respect for the law itself. Some excellent points have been raised here. bravo
-
-
Apparently it's really easy to get medical marijuana...you just have to go to the right doctor. I saw a program on "The Doctor's" that showed one undercover reporter getting a prescription because she said she had insomnia.
-
As a medical patient in California, I understand well the amount of money being spent on this product with no taxes being collected. Instead of squeezing our other tax sources a little more, why aren't we creating a whole new tax source? We have the regulatory and distribution system in place - liquor laws. Just apply them to marijuana and move on. How much better for you if your child receives a better education because I want to smoke a joint?-
That "regulatory and distribution system" requires licensing, inspection, labeling, scientific standards, etc. Do you really believe that everyone who is lobbying for legalization is willing to see all of that applied, with the attendant increase in prices and increased penalties for cultivation outside of the system?
-
-
There is no doubt that Marijuana is a health hazard…Some people would argue that Mcdonalds type fast food,junk food snacks, candy etc. are perhaps even greater health hazards…Cigarrettes and alcohol are also known health hazards..
What would be the downside of legalizing Marijuana ?….More Usage and increased physical/mental health problems…Perhaps even greater driving and work “impairedment” problems….
There is very little evidence if any that supports any arguments that allowing marijuana use would increase criminal or behaviour that would hurt society..
Some benefits of allowing marijuana use include using the other parts of the plant for the manufacture of pulp products we currently chop down the planet’s forests for..
By legalizing marijuana do you mean a citizen could legally grow marijuana in his home(w/electrical permit etc.) or yard and smoke what he/she grows himself ?
Or do you mean you could smoke marijuana but only buy it from government authorized agencies at government set prices and failure to so would result in criminal charges ?-
It would seem that the people of Maine disagree with you.
-
-
Actually marijuana legalization is very critical at the moment because our nation is badly in debt and a new, politically palatable tax could help ease the crisis a little. Further, why do we need regulatory standards? I don't know of too many people who have died smoking joints even illegally - it's really a very simple drug. You just grow it, it takes minimal care, and then it's ready for you to burn and use. And anyways, considering all the nonsense done with tobacco (including broken glass and rat poison) I'd say it couldn't be any worse.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
