Do you think Marijuana should be Legalized Federally in the US?

I'm a retired police officer. I know from experience that law enforcement has plenty to do without having to enforce marijuana laws. Plenty.

 

The above is the premise of my comments about Prohibition and marijuana. Prohibition failed because with many people,when something is made "taboo" or mystified through making it illegal, people who like "forbidden fruit" tend to gravitate towards said fruit. As I have stated about marijuana usage, I really do not care about it, but the fact of the irresponsibility of the users of marijuana causes me to favor keeping it illegal. Of course it is not going too stop people from using it, that is not my aim to begin with. With me it is a trade off, enough if my sensibilities are offended everyday living in a veritable free-for-all atmosphere in modern America. Life is filled with options and choices that I would not normally make if others would not behave as though they are in Romper Room. Of course, government eventually capitulated because of reason of profit, bribery, as well as many of those who sell sin gaining a political foothold, such as The Brafmans, and The Kennedys to name a few. Then there were the liquor distillers, both domestically and foreign as well as economic downturn due to employment lose in distilling and alcohol distribution. In short, sin sells and is extremely lucrative in the U.S. of A.

Proves my point about the seemingly innate immaturity in people in regards to "forbidden fruit".

 

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
Basically speaking, it would require a prescription for cannabis.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...es-a-dilemma-for-international-drug-treaties/

 

Well, at this time, it's pretty much just rural counties that do that. Most urban and suburban counties in the Southeast allow alcohol sales. The point is that it is up to the states, just like gambling and prostitution.

 

I recall from when I was a little boy,that on Sundays, even paces that sold alcoholic beverages would not sell them on Sunday. Has that changed?

 

Yep, and taxed at $10/joint with the tax money going to build the wall.

 

Yes, for the most part. In my county, after 1 or 2 pm they can sell alcohol in the stores. They can always sell it in restaurants.

 

Good DEAL! It is refreshing to know that some things have not changed.

 

What is fake about the news articles I posted? Are you saying that no one has ever died as a direct result of using marijuana?

 

I would agree, if it weren't for alcohol. Alcohol is clearly not for medicinal purposes (unless your day has been particularly stressful), yet it's legal. MJ should have a higher priority than grog does, when it comes to legality. Grog has more health implications, just for starters.

 

I agree, but just because alcohol is much more dangerous does not mean that we should avoid acknowledge the negatives associated with marijuana. I do not know about you, but I am into objectively examining the pros and cons of controversial issues, even if doing so damages the strength of my pro marijuana legalization argument. It would be foolish to think that we could sweep the negatives of pot use under the rug and assume that the opposition would never find out. I would rather expose the negatives and objectively assess them as opposed to leaving myself open to being called biased for trying to whitewash the issue.

 

I am not sure why there is any push back on what I am saying. Did you read the news articles I posted? If so did you find them to be objective? If not, why not? I am into objectively examining the pros and cons of controversial issues, even if doing so damages the strength of my pro marijuana legalization argument. It would be foolish to think that we could sweep the negatives of pot use under the rug and assume that the opposition would never find out. I would rather expose the negatives and objectively assess them as opposed to leaving myself open to being called biased for trying to whitewash the issue.

 

Red herring as the topic is not Korea, Syria or Russia.

What false claims did my sources make?

How one judges another says more about the judge than the judged.

 

Prohibition creates a criminal class which costs billions to arrest, judge, jail, feed, cloth, give supplies to and guard. Prohibition creates a black market that funnels billions to violent criminals and who use the money to build vast criminal empires. Prohibition fails as demand does not dip with supply, thus driving up prices which attracts producers such as the cartels which flood the market which drives down price which means that the guy living on the streets can panhandle to get enough money to get their fix. Prohibition makes the drug problem worse but political propaganda would have you believe that it is making the problem better... except an objective examination of the data refutes that claim.

We as a society do not seem to have the collective wisdom to understand that we are pissing in the wind and it is not rain hitting us in the face.

 

Which reveals the hypocrisy of the system. I use to be a civilian facilitator at a State prison and counseled people on addiction. You may be surprised the number of people in prison for violent crimes committed while drunk... I did not meet a single man in there for a violent crime committed while stoned. Anecdotal evidence yes, but compelling none the less.

 

A problem is the Federals have international agreements bent on the prohibition of Marijuana.

Imagine the embarrassment.

​

 

During your time in law enforcement, and in your encounters with intoxicated individuals, how violent or dangerous are stoners vs drunks, meth users, heroin addicts etc.?

 

48.6 percent, that is quite a chunk missing. Don't know how this statistic compares to the states, but either way still quite a chunk. But you know I have no doubt that law enforcement will have plenty to do. I just wonder what will be the new mass production crime will move up to replace the lost product?

As you seem a nice enough fellow, not that I want you to answer this except to yourself; I'm sure you know what is going on in "law enforcement" today, does that really sit right with you?

 

"Seemingly" implies assumption which is not synonymous with fact ergo the saying that all is not as it seems to be. The statistical outliers are very visual as they are the ones who fit the stoner stereotype. Most stoners I have ever known are responsible, respectful, productive and discrete.

 

The more minds we change, then sooner prohibition ends, ergo I am for objectively analyzing the pros and cons so I can effectively counter the misinformation pushed by the government and uninformed people like Jeff Sessions.

 

Voted Yes, though I think it should be decriminalized instead of legalized, an important distinction in precedent in the govts legitimate (or lack of) power to restrict us from things.

Realistically, I think we need to start out by regulating it, taxing it, and using the revenue for education on it.

Ultimately, it should be legislated no differently than dandelions or maple trees.

 

But that's a fair question, and you're going to get an honest answer.

I have a friend on a regional drug team. With marijuana out of the picture in my state, he told me that they just focus on heroin, meth, cocaine, opioids, and designer drugs. That's plenty of stuff to work on, and the absence of marijuana crimes won't make any difference to them.

But here's the deal, straight up. Quite frankly, law enforcement doesn't really care if drugs are legal or illegal. That may come as a surprise to you, but it's true. What law enforcement cares about is upholding the law. They don't make the laws, they uphold the law. So, for example, for as long as it's illegal to distribute and possess heroin, law enforcement is going to do its duty and uphold those laws against heroin. Throughout the law enforcement culture is a strong belief in the idea of the rule of law. Generally speaking, law enforcement believes that if laws are passed against something, that means to them that law-abiding citizens who employ them want them to enforce those laws. They are also obligated by the law enforcement code of ethics to uphold and enforce those laws. They are going to do their jobs and uphold the law. That's what they do.

One of the most disturbing things to me are these instances where law enforcement is forced to not do its job. The most glaring examples of this in recent times are when these antifa types decide to hold a riot, and timid, weak kneed mayors of cities order their police departments to stand down and just let them run amuck. Let them destroy property and terrorize citizens ... Ugh! This runs against every fiber of what law enforcement is supposed to do, and I know that law enforcement hates it. Nevermind what the politically correct police chiefs say about it. I can tell you that it's all BS.

Now if you believe that anti-drug laws are unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money, your issue is not with law enforcement. Your issue is with the politicians and the people who vote for them. If we were to decriminalize all the illegal drugs tomorrow, frankly, law enforcement wouldn't care. Law enforcement would rather quickly adjust to that, allocating its resources elsewhere. Even the DEA wouldn't really care. My guess is that their employees would all get absorbed into other federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI, Secret Service, Marshals, or the Border Patrol.

And keep in mind one other thing. "Law enforcement" is not a monolithic institution that can speak with one voice and influence public policy as one gigantic united front. "Law enforcement" in this country is largely administered by thousands of small agencies that are quite independent of each other. Consequently, public policy is really not heavily influenced by law enforcement. Law enforcement can provide statistics and information to lawmakers, but generally, lawmakers pass laws and form public policy based upon what the perceive to be the wishes of their constituents, not the preferences of law enforcement.

Before I retired, when I went on duty, I left my personal opinions about the law behind. I went out and upheld the law. That means that if I was told to take part in a raid to take down a marijuana grow, I did it without objection. If I caught someone with a baggie of marijuana, I confiscated it, wrote the person a citation, and later went to court if necessary. I just took a totally professional attitude about the job with me when I went out on the job. This professionalism is what we should expect from law enforcement, not individuals out there picking and choosing what they will enforce and what they won't enforce because of their personal opinions.

Now, all of that said, my personal opinion about drugs is that we would be better off decriminalizing drugs. I would prefer that addicts receive their drugs through safe, legal means. We would cut the legs out from under the drug cartels and the gangs that terrorize our cities with their drug turf wars. We can't put them out of business through law enforcement and incarceration. That simply doesn't work. We can put them out of business by taking their business away from them. That would be my approach if it were up to me.

Seth

 

Stoners were generally benign. Marijuana usually has a mellowing, calming effect. I almost never encountered aggressive behavior from people who had only marijuana on board.

I thought of alcohol as a "truth serum". If a person is gentle, friendly, and mostly happy, alcohol will show that. This is the drunk who wants to tell you over and over that they love you. They want to hug, kiss, whatever. But if the person is angry, resentful, hateful, thinking bad thoughts about people, they may be OK when they're sober because they hide it. Get them under the influence of alcohol and these are the people who turn into complete jerks. These are the ones who end up in fights and disturbances and, often, jail. And there was a very high percentage of domestic abuse related to alcohol use and abuse. A huge percentage of domestics I went to were when one or both were intoxicated on alcohol.

Meth users were unpredictable and dangerous. That is a bad, bad drug. People on meth could go violent on you suddenly. And meth kills. We had a saying ... "There are no old meth users." If a meth user doesn't stop, they'll die before they ever get a chance to grow old.

Cocaine users could also be unpredictable and dangerous, although they were usually just big mouths.

Heroin addicts were generally benign unless they were desperate for their next fix.

The most dangerous drug I think I ever encountered was PCP. People on PCP become hugely paranoid and can feel no pain. Zero pain. You can't stop them from fighting unless you choke them out or kill them. Dealing with them always required at least a 3 to 1 advantage... the more the better. That is one seriously dangerous drug.

 

I appreciate the perspective, thank you.

 

Good morning Robin123, When it comes to drug users, be they methheads, potheads, cokeheads, alcoholoics, etc, I seriously do not have any sympathy for their self-inflicted plights, the problems in which they face are wholly and solely THEIR FAULT, so when it comes to having sympathy, compassion, and empathy for them, I have absolutely none. It is because of people such as them and others, why we are currently living in a police state, be it defacto or clandestine. It is partially because of them, i.e., druggies, alcoholics, etc. why I have to be leery when I am in public. As a matter of reality, when you are of darker hue side, everything in this society is potentially a deathtrap. I will give you an anecdotal scenario, I am walking towards a crowd of people, and suddenly lights and sirens come up behind me. All eyes in the crowd look in my direction, meanwhile in reality, I am simply going for an afternoon stroll. The emergency vehicles pass. To me, I was ignoring the sirens and lights, but the crowd, yes the crowd, the suspicious minds of the crowd automatically viewed me as a criminal, though it may or may not have been known to me. Why would the crowd think I am a criminal, because of the dirtbag so and so's who have selfishly given all Black Men the same stigma, so "f" them.

P.S. I know the post contains harsh words, but guess what? THIS MAN DOES NOT GIVE A BLANKETY BLANK BLANK!