http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/02/11/audacity-dope?gt1=38001 Was nice to check some news and find this article. What do you all think?
How isn't it? Look at your MSN homepage. Or maybe try clicking the link next time before you open your mouth.
I don't see it at MSN.com? Anyway if California does this than the rest of the country will follow soon after.
Does it matter who wrote it? It's being headlined on MSN. Anyways, I think it's great that our country is actually considering legalization, the negative though is that it's only for the money. Not the actual point of the drug being nearly harmless.
The beautiful thing about it is, The reason doesn't matter. In fact, the more reasons that are being used, the better. The economic argument is among one of the best, if not the best one out there. The economy directly influences every single individual. The reason why marijuana wasn't legalized in the sixties is that the proponents of legalization were nearly all part of the counter-culture movement, and their arguments only appealed to those who inhaled. The new legalization campaign has many points that will affect not only those who consume, but every individual. That should be the main point in the legalization campaign, how it will benefit our economy and lower crime by taking money out of the black market. Then, when or if the problem of the toxicity of cannabis gets questioned, you can cite the evidence that cannabis has killed zero people in it's history of use, compared to the half million American's that die every single year from tobacco and alcohol.
Nice! More media attention. I don't know why they bother with the concern that "usage might go up" if it is legalized. If it's the #1 cash crop in the economy, that pretty well says a LOT of people are already doing it. The only questions remaining are: do you try to lock up all these people and get your taxation the hard way and ruin people's lives and further erode the tax base, or do you figure out a way to tax it and benefit from it? If they have ANY sense at all, the latter must be adopted.
When one is concerned about whether or not usage will go up as a result of legalization, they should be met with this statement: People would be healthier if they consumed cannabis rather than alcohol or tobacco anyways. Although this response can be met with stereotyping cannabis consumers as lazy potheads, referring to how the entire society will be as a result of legalization and usage rates going up. This response can be met with: Although your belief that all cannabis consumers are the stereotypical stoner are false, let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a second. Would you rather have a nation of alcoholics, many of whom abuse their wives and children, or a nation of peaceful, loving stoners?
Sorry, but I don't think that really furthers a case for mj legalization. Even with medical mj, the concern is that once you legalize, like alcohol, it would be damn hard to go BACK to prohibition again. So the question invariably comes up about, "should we really be PROMOTING drug use?" The answer, of course, is "no." The relative saftey is a good point, but comparing alcohol is a tough one becuase most opponents or the uninformed don't know that MJ is safer. You'd really have to make a case for the relative saftey before you could move forward with this argument. Also, to suggest that drug use of any kind (alcohol) is going to cause people to beat their wives isn't exactly the image you want floating about in peoples' heads. 1. Economic Benefits 2. Relative Safety 3. Harm Reduction Model Implementing Treatment Programs via taxation from sales. 4. Reducing child/teen usage These, as I see it, are going to be the most compelling reasons for people to lend an ear when it comes to legalization. Fighting stereotypes is tough because they are not founded in reality or factually based. I think people feel better making decisions when informed on the facts, so I think the truth is our biggest ally. P.S. Just came back from my 5 miles of hiking in 20ºF. Take that stereotypes!! LOL!
How would you address the issue of usage going up without making cannabis appear harmful by fighting the issue of usage rates going up?
Well according the talking points NORML lists, usage increase won't be a concern. TALKING POINT #3: Decriminalization does not lead to greater marijuana use. Government studies conclude that marijuana decriminalization has had virtually no effect on either marijuana use or beliefs and related attitudes about marijuana among American young people in those states that have enacted such a policy. REFERENCE: L. Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series: Paper No. 13. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Citizens who live under decriminalization laws consume marijuana at rates less than or comparable to those who live in regions where the possession of marijuana remains a criminal offense. REFERENCE: E. Single et al. 2000. The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalization in Australia and the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy 21: 157-186. There is no evidence that marijuana decriminalization affects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (such as alcohol) or illegal (such as marijuana and cocaine). REFERENCE: C. Thies and C. Register. 1993. Decriminalization of marijuana and demand for alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. The Social Sciences Journal 30: 385-399. States and regions that have maintained the strictest criminal penalties for marijuana possession have experienced the largest proportionate increase in use. REFERENCE: Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997. Drug Policy in Connecticut and Strategy Options: Report to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut Assembly. State Capitol: Hartford. Rates of hard drug use (illicit drugs other than marijuana) among emergency room patients are substantially higher in states that have not decriminalized marijuana use. Experts speculate that this is because the lack of decriminalization may encourage the greater use of drugs that are even more dangerous than marijuana. REFERENCE: K. Model. 1993. The effect of marijuana decriminalization on hospital emergency room episodes: 1975-1978. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88: 737-747 as cited by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, 103. TALKING POINT #4: Criminal laws prohibiting marijuana possession do not deter marijuana use. Marijuana use remains consistent despite a high level of enforcement, and there is no detectable relationship between changes in enforcement and levels of marijuana use over time. REFERENCE: J. Morgan and L. Zimmer. 1997. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. The Lindesmith Center: New York, 46. Marijuana users believe that their behavior will go undetected; thus fear of arrest is usually not a factor in people's decisions whether or not to use it. REFERENCE: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse National Working Group on Addictions. 1998. Cannabis Control in Canada: Options Regarding Possession. Ottawa. Marijuana laws have no "specific" deterrent impact on drug taking behavior. Studies show that marijuana offenders continue to use marijuana after their conviction at rates equal to those prior to their arrest. No relation between the actual or perceived severity of their previous sentence and subsequent use has been found. REFERENCE: P. Erickson. 1980. Cannabis Criminals: The Social Effects of Punishment on Drug Users. Addiction Research Foundation: Toronto. In surveys, most individuals cite health concerns and family responsibilities rather than legal concerns as their primary reasons for ceasing (or never initiating) marijuana use. REFERENCE: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1982. Marijuana and Health. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. A California police officer's study concluded, "The reduction in penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use does not appear to [be] a factor in people's decision to use or not use the drug." REFERENCE: California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. 1977. A First Report on the Impact of California's New Marijuana Law. State Capitol: Sacramento.
To argue against that point, usage rates could very go well up in a market that allows individuals to purchase cannabis in a legal, non-threatening environment. This isn't decriminilization, this is legalization. And if companies were allowed to promote their product at all, you bet your ass usage rates would go up. There are a large amount of people who follow whatever the government tells them, and right now they tell them that marijuana is pure evil. If, all of a sudden, if cannabis were legalized, many new people would certainly use it.
Of course usage rate would go up, it's just simple economics supply goes up demand follows. Now my question is why does usage rate even matter? I mean seriously so what if more people use it? The people who do now (like ourselves) look worse because the way some of us acquire our loved cannabis plant is through drug dealers, who along with the cannabis carry other more harmful drugs. That's how marijuana is a "gateway" drug, Because it's often sold with more dangerous drugs. Eliminate that factor and the fallacy that marijuana is a gateway drug will be non-existent. Correlation doesn't nearly, in most theoretical subjects/situations never equals causation. I think that's what should be argued.
That of course it will go up, just like any other consumer product as it gains popularity or ease to acquire. Then I would ask why it matters that the usage rate would go up? I mean it's pretty black and white now, people who smoke MJ will continue to do so if it's legalized. And there are basically two types of people who don't smoke MJ now (I know I'm making a lot of assumptions) but those two types of people who don't smoke are.. 1. They simply have no desire to 2. Those who don't because it's simply illegal and in fear of getting into trouble avoid the drug all together. Keep in mind I'm talking adults. Legalize it and the second group of people are the ones who will raise the feared "usage rate". Now children/teens who can't make smart decisions on thier own. Simple, make an age limit. It will be no harder for an underage person to get MJ then it is already being illegal.
Age limits are just a facade. It's not hard at all for a minor to obtain tobacco or alcohol. Not to mention they are complete BS. In the US, you can join the armed forces and die for your country once you turn 18, but you can't enjoy a nice cold beer until you're 21? On the topic: California would be out of debt instantly, and would actually be able to give out tax returns instead of IOUs.
That's the real world facts. But hey I'm speaking to a politician, everything on paper comes out that way in real life, right?
I think the Netherlands is the answer to that question. De-crim'd yet youth user percentages are supposedly lower than that of the U.S. You could also look to other substances that have been legalized like heroin in Switzerland. Are there going to be more users just because it is legal? Probably not, given the nature of the substance itself. I think that some alcohol users might transition to mj, but I have no idea if there is such a study to prove as much.