Decrim Petition

[shockmonster]

Middle school kids already smoke plenty of pot.

I don't think any credible source is advocating for broad drug legalization. It's limited to marijuana.

As for middle school kids access to pot. It isn't anywhere close to what it will be when their parents have it in a cabinet and smoke it recreationally when they get home from work and on Friday nights. But we already know that our kids don't have a problem with motivation. LOL

As for a"credible source" not advocating for drug legalization, that is only a matter of time. I don't know how credible he is, but these sources are mobilizing. Don't kid yourself.

A vision that goes far beyond pot

But Nadelmann has much more than just legalized weed riding on the success of Colorado and Washington. In recent speeches and a series of exchanges with NBC, he laid out a more progressive long game, a vision for drug policy reform that goes far beyond pot.

At a standing-room-only talk at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs earlier this month, Nadelmann delivered an antic hour-long stump speech for broader legalization.

“I’m always telling my marijuana reform allies, when they say we need to legalize marijuana and get tougher on the other drugs, ‘shut the hell up,’” he said, returning to form as the Princeton professor he was before turning to drug policy two decades ago. “We don’t need to end one discrimination and prohibition to double down on another.”

“It’s absolutely pivotal,” he continued, “for building a broader movement for freedom and justice that we treat this thing as of-a-piece.”

The whole, of course, is safe and legal access to all drugs. Cocaine. Heroin. Hash. Ecstasy. You name it, Nadelmann wants people to have the right to get it, hold it, use it and even pass it in small quantities.

[Play Angry]

Eh, the slippery slope argument just doesn't do it for me (here or elsewhere).

@WuDrWu raises an interesting point regarding marijuana being harmful to minorities. How much of that is because it is criminalized and the resulting consequences, and how much of it is caused just by use?

If the harm mostly comes from the system of prosecution and its unintended consequences, then decriminalizing seems very logical. If use is the primary harm, then the argument goes that we must protect these folks because they fall prey to a product which they lack the knowledge or willpower to resist on their own.

Does that not logically extend to very much supporting the Bloomberg nanny state restrictions on food and beverage sales in NYC then? Again, it is protecting against predatory practices that have a disproportionate harm on the lowest rungs of the socieconomic classes. Those harms cost taxpayers enormous amounts each year as elderly fats suck the budget dry with health care costs.

But that does not jive very well with libertarianism. I'd be interested in folks' thoughts.


P.S.- I hate the Bloomberg restrictions and find them repulsively intrusive. Then again, I also think banning private businesses from allowing smoking in their establishment is b.s. and nobody batted an eye at that in most cities, so what do I know (cigarette smoke is objectively disgusting but if it bothers me so much, I would just avoid the place and let the market work it out eventually).

[shockmonster]

When I talk about legalization, I'm not talking about a slippery slope. I'm talking about individuals (maybe you are one of those) who are too smart to talk about their true goals to legalize drugs but instead use a step by step approach so that the general public stays out of the argument.

[Play Angry]

Mess with the bull and you get accused of being part of a cocaine-pushing Illuminati, I see how it is :)

[SB Shock]

So what is the benifit to society?

[shockmonster]

This vision for legalizing drugs in America is obviously from the extreme liberal wing. (probably close to George Soros). At least, (I could be wrong) I don't think that the libertarian wing usually goes this far. But the libertarian wing without meaning to is in close agreement and contributes perhaps without intent to this agenda. You'll notice that he refers to drug opposition as a "discrimination and rights" issue.


A vision that goes far beyond pot:
But Nadelmann has much more than just legalized weed riding on the success of Colorado and Washington. In recent speeches and a series of exchanges with NBC, he laid out a more progressive long game, a vision for drug policy reform that goes far beyond pot. At a standing-room-only talk at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs earlier this month, Nadelmann delivered an antic hour-long stump speech for broader legalization. “I’m always telling my marijuana reform allies, when they say we need to legalize marijuana and get tougher on the other drugs, ‘shut the hell up,’” he said, returning to form as the Princeton professor he was before turning to drug policy two decades ago. “We don’t need to end one discrimination and prohibition to double down on another.”“It’s absolutely pivotal,” he continued, “for building a broader movement for freedom and justice that we treat this thing as of-a-piece.” The whole, of course, is safe and legal access to all drugs. Cocaine. Heroin. Hash. Ecstasy. You name it, Nadelmann wants people to have the right to get it, hold it, use it and even pass it in small quantities.

[WuDrWu]

@WuDrWu raises an interesting point regarding marijuana being harmful to minorities. How much of that is because it is criminalized and the resulting consequences, and how much of it is caused just by use?

If the harm mostly comes from the system of prosecution and its unintended consequences, then decriminalizing seems very logical. If use is the primary harm, then the argument goes that we must protect these folks because they fall prey to a product which they lack the knowledge or willpower to resist on their own.

While I have to admit my sample size is small, at my work based upon many discussions over the years (MANY) and watching families grow up around me, I'd conservatively estimate marijuana use amongst one particular minority group at 70%, with basically all of those using before 21. As far as I know, and I could be mistaken here or there, but none of them have a record regarding smoking, using or otherwise. They all could get all the weed you wanted within 15 minutes, tops. It's beyond sad.

[Shocker-maniac]

Addiction is a very bad thing whether it's pot, alcohol, or just about anything else.

[Dave Stalwart]

While I have to admit my sample size is small, at my work based upon many discussions over the years (MANY) and watching families grow up around me, I'd conservatively estimate marijuana use amongst one particular minority group at 70%, with basically all of those using before 21. As far as I know, and I could be mistaken here or there, but none of them have a record regarding smoking, using or otherwise. They all could get all the weed you wanted within 15 minutes, tops. It's beyond sad.

Sorry about your sample size. Mine is pretty decent sized, but still not necessarily spectacular like @WstateU:.

Was there a serious discussion happening around here?

[The Mad Hatter]

Addiction is a very bad thing whether it's pot, alcohol, or just about anything else.

[Start tangent]

Highly addictive substances (and judgement impairing ones) certainly come with a lot of problems. Alcohol is interesting because it's relative benefit to society has historically been substantially different from other drugs for two main reasons:

1. Clean water has historically, and today in many parts of the world, been a struggle to find. In addition, poor food preservation options have meant that humans have often been forced to eat semi-spoiled food that could potentially cause disease. Alcohol has always played a key disease prevention by disinfecting the food and drink of most humans.

2. For poor populations in human history, beer/ale of some variety has often been a staple of the diet. Often thicker than modern beers, this drink served as liquid bread that is relatively cheap to produce and does not spoil like bread would. It is simply one of the most important food sources in human history.

This historic role of alcohol in society has entrenched its use. Ironically, the two aforementioned benefits have little place in modern first world contexts. Clean water and food preservation options are plentiful and beer is not need as caloric staple (indeed, we are actively reducing the caloric content with light beers).

[End tangent]

[Dave Stalwart]

[Start tangent]

Highly addictive substances (and judgement impairing ones) certainly come with a lot of problems. Alcohol is interesting because it's relative benefit to society has historically been substantially different from other drugs for two main reasons:

1. Clean water has historically, and today in many parts of the world, been a struggle to find. In addition, poor food preservation options have meant that humans have often been forced to eat semi-spoiled food that could potentially cause disease. Alcohol has always played a key disease prevention by disinfecting the food and drink of most humans.

2. For poor populations in human history, beer/ale of some variety has often been a staple of the diet. Often thicker than modern beers, this drink served as liquid bread that is relatively cheap to produce and does not spoil like bread would. It is simply one of the most important food sources in human history.

This historic role of alcohol in society has entrenched its use. Ironically, the two aforementioned benefits have little place in modern first world contexts. Clean water and food preservation options are plentiful and beer is not need as caloric staple (indeed, we are actively reducing the caloric content with light beers).

[End tangent]

Plus, craft beers and microbrews all along the spectrum of styles are extremely interesting and tasty. :) When enjoyed properly, beer is no different than fancy coffee or a delicately prepared steak or a good cigar. I've always had the impression that marijuana was actually about the high, not the flavor. Well, if beer is ABOUT the drunkenness, it is pretty dangerous. But if beer is about the finer aspects of it, it's pretty innocent and nice. If marijuana is about the high only, then I'm probably against it. I just don't know much about it because I've never had it. I do have a soft spot to listen about it though because I love cigars.

[Play Angry]

Addiction is a very bad thing whether it's pot, alcohol, or just about anything else.

Marijuana is less addictive than caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol. I get what you're saying, but to be addicted to pot you have to be an extremely heavy user. It's about equivalent to requiring someone to drink a case a day of beer before they develop alcohol dependency. Possible but rare.

So what is the benifit to society?

A good question that I think you could pose regarding most vices (alcohol, gambling, etc.). For me, the main upside is the large tax revenue boost at state and federal levels. If you buy into the decriminalization benefits, then you could expect lower incarceration rates and decreased gang-related activities, resulting in tax savings in addition to the revenue boost.

Kids and adults, IMO, will smoke no matter what. Would I rather have them buying from Altria or XYZ broseph behind the QuikTrip? Probably Altria, since it would be subject to the FDA and revenues from sales taxes, corporate income taxes and dividend taxes would fill our decidedly empty public coffers. It would take a lot of "off the books" personal income and create a high number of "on the books" jobs subject to personal income tax, etc. It is a big industry, no doubt.

A benefit folks don't really like to acknowledge is that alcohol and pot help people blow off steam in relatively less harmful ways. Some people can be teatotalers and be very happy. Prohibition proved that most people can't or won't. A lot of people need a release and alcohol and marijuana provide it in a way that is somewhat controlled, at least by historical standards. I used to think this was sort of a dumb reason, but a friend brought up a while back that we still use a very similar rationale for the death penalty. It's use as a (stronger) deterrent has been disproved, it is more expensive, and on increasingly rare occasions, innocent people are killed. Why keep using it? Satisfying society's need for retribution or a personal sense of "justice" is really the best argument left. A release of sorts. Food for thought.

Fun discussion so far even though it feels like 1 vs. 10 :) I would still like someone to respond to the question regarding Bloomberg's nanny state food and beverage restrictions. Although I'm guilty of it too sometimes, I think a lot of folks are "selectively libertarian," in that they hide behind it when the government is trying to meddle in something they support (HANDS OFF OUR GUNS, OBAMA) but conveniently it is a-okay when the restrictions are something that goes against their moral fiber (GAY MARRIAGE??? GUFFAW!).

[The Mad Hatter]

Plus, craft beers and microbrews all along the spectrum of styles are extremely interesting and tasty. :) When enjoyed properly, beer is no different than fancy coffee or a delicately prepared steak or a good cigar. I've always had the impression that marijuana was actually about the high, not the flavor. Well, if beer is ABOUT the drunkenness, it is pretty dangerous. But if beer is about the finer aspects of it, it's pretty innocent and nice. If marijuana is about the high only, then I'm probably against it. I just don't know much about it because I've never had it. I do have a soft spot to listen about it though because I love cigars.

Just as there is a flavor component to coffee that is independent of the fact that it has a stimulant drug in it (caffeine) there can absolutely be flavor component to beer, wine, etc. that is independent of the fact that it pschoactive drug in it (alcohol).

Clearly, as you note, the flavor enjoyment role can be a reasonable use case for such a substance. If some of the research about the effects of wine on heart health are to be believed, that would provide another case. Furthermore, I would even say that there may be a place for using alcohol for its psychotropic effects in moderation. Just as moderate amounts of caffeine can be reasonable to consume to stay alert, moderate amounts of alcohol can be reasonably consumed to relax, and potentially a similar case can be made for marijuana. However, the question with such substances is always whether the probability and consequence of abuse justifies the proper use.

The differentiation I would make with my initial post is that the uses I noted were aspect of alcohol consumption that historically have been important to human survival at a basic level. However tasty a craft beer might be, it is a hard sell that it is the frontline defense against dysteria or starvation in the modern world.

[Shocker-maniac]

Marijuana is less addictive than caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol. I get what you're saying, but to be addicted to pot you have to be an extremely heavy user. It's about equivalent to requiring someone to drink a case a day of beer before they develop alcohol dependency. Possible but rare.

Doing a quick google, here's a couple of things that I found.

Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction; that is, people have difficulty controlling their drug use and cannot stop even though it interferes with many aspects of their lives. It is estimated that 9 percent of people who use marijuana will become dependent on it.10 The number goes up to about 1 in 6 in those who start using young (in their teens) and to 25-50 percent among daily users.11,12 Moreover, a study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs found that the twin who had used marijuana before the age of 17 had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twin who did not use before age 17.13

According to the 2010 NSDUH, marijuana accounted for 4.5 million of the estimated 7.1 million Americans dependent on or abusing illicit drugs.1 In 2009, approximately 18 percent of people aged 12 and older entering drug abuse treatment programs reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse; 61 percent of persons under 15 reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse.14

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publication...uana-addictive

Contrary to common belief, marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana; this number increases among those who start young (to about 17 percent, or 1 in 6) and among people who use marijuana daily (to 25-50 percent).

Long-term marijuana users trying to quit report withdrawal symptoms including irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which can make it difficult to abstain. Behavioral interventions, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational incentives (i.e., providing vouchers for goods or services to patients who remain abstinent) have proven to be effective in treating marijuana addiction. Although no medications are currently available, recent discoveries about the workings of the endocannabinoid system offer promise for the development of medications to ease withdrawal, block the intoxicating effects of marijuana, and prevent relapse.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publication...acts/marijuana

[Play Angry]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the long-term use referenced on drugabuse.gov that leads to addiction relies heavily on the psychological dependency of the long-term repetition and less so on chemical dependency as a factor. It is not comparable at all to most other illegal substances in terms of habit-forming traits.

I am too lazy to go find an AMA or [insert journal article here] citing specifics about its low level of addiction but they are out there if you are curious. I notice there are a lot of questionable claims on the other side of me going unchallenged so I'm fine with sharing the heavy lifting.