New Bill to Remove Federal Marijuana Penalties

[Kanastrous]

Seems to me, that if they can afford to enter a treatment program at their own expense, they can probably handle other problems at their own expense and are therefore not really the people I have in mind.

Frankly, as much as marijuana can cost, if they can afford enough marijuana to develop a problem that constitutes hospitalization, they can afford a program to quit in order to receive treatment.

Unless they cultivate their own.

But I see your point.

[Rahvin]

Seems to me, that if they can afford to enter a treatment program at their own expense, they can probably handle other problems at their own expense and are therefore not really the people I have in mind.

Frankly, as much as marijuana can cost, if they can afford enough marijuana to develop a problem that constitutes hospitalization, they can afford a program to quit in order to receive treatment.

Unless they cultivate their own.

But I see your point.

Cultivating sufficient plants to cause significant medical issues also[/i carries a significant cost in most areas. Since the plant is illegal, it must typically be grown indoors using equipment that, while not extremely expensive, would still tend to exclude them from the "so poor they're on public assistance" group.

Rural areas are another matter entirely of course, but at least if they're growing their own outside they aren't using the public dime to buy the pot. If your concern is exclusively the medical problems potentially caused by pot smoking, you need to explain the double standard for alcohol and tobacco use, both of which can cause similar or worse medical problems than habitual marijuana smoking.

Once again, if tobacco and alcohol are allowed, I fail to see any argument for disallowing marijuana without a double-standard. Marijuana carries a lower societal risk of violence than alcohol, doesn't kill your liver, and has a similar lung cancer risk as tobacco when smoked (I have no idea about the heart disease statistics for marijuana users and how that would match up to alcohol and tobacco). It carries the risk of impaired drivers just as alcohol does, but we already have laws in place for dealing with impaired drivers. It's regrettable that welfare recipients could use their public money to purchase marijuana, but no more regrettable than the fact that they can use that same money for alcohol and tobacco today.

The best argument for legalizing pot, however, is that other countries have already done so, and despite the dire warnings of the "Drug Czar" about "gateway drugs" and "your brain thinks it's drowning," the sky has not fallen. Hell, even the laws against marijuana have done little to curtail its usage, and very few people actually get prison time for posession, meaning the laws are very literally nothing mroe than a drain on the time and resources of the police departments and courts. We have people smoking pot in the US right now and the only ill effect I can think of is that caused by the prohibition itself: wasted money prosecuting and occasionally imprisoning non-violent potheads, ruined lives and economic damage from job loss, the societal damage of a "black market" infrastructure with unregulated product, and the simple idiocy of prohibiting the use of a substance that causes negligible public harm while simultaneously allowing the use of alcohol and tobacco.

And let's not forget all of those juicy, wonderful tax dollars we're flushing down the toilet by not immediately legalizing marijuana and promptly taxing it just as we do tobacco and alcohol. How much revenue do you think we could generate from that? I'm fairly certain it would more than cover the potential abuses of welfare smokers, and combined with the savings from no longer prosecuting pot offenders, we could do something a lot more useful for society.

Granted, that's a bit farther than this bill goes.

[Raw Shark]

Those found guilty of marijuana use can lose their jobs, financial aid for college, their food stamp and welfare benefits, or their low-cost housing.

I've got to say that I do support the bolded penalties. The idea of people in the projects being able to afford to blaze a fatter one than I can because my tax dollars pay for their essentials burns my ass.

[snip] That's fucking poor - and if you're in that spot and your 15 year old kid gets arrested for toking the whole family can lose a place to live, food stamps, and all other benefits.

That's not a little draconian in your book? It's not just the violator punished, it's the whole family, innocent with guilty.

Okay, I guess I was being a little harsh there. I think they should try to discourage it more than (say for example) tobacco use among people receiving my hard-earned money, however, because unlike tobacco anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that "that shit kills your motivation" as Samuel L. Jackson says in Jackie Brown.

That said, everybody, I fully support the measure being discussed in the original post because I live in a state that favors the stuff and I want it to be decriminalized because I think it would benefit society and me personally. I'd just rather not buy it for people that I don't know (with the possible exception of medicinal users who are too sick to work regardless).

[Rahvin]

I've got to say that I do support the bolded penalties. The idea of people in the projects being able to afford to blaze a fatter one than I can because my tax dollars pay for their essentials burns my ass.

[snip] That's fucking poor - and if you're in that spot and your 15 year old kid gets arrested for toking the whole family can lose a place to live, food stamps, and all other benefits.

That's not a little draconian in your book? It's not just the violator punished, it's the whole family, innocent with guilty.

Okay, I guess I was being a little harsh there. I think they should try to discourage it more than (say for example) tobacco use among people receiving my hard-earned money, however, because unlike tobacco anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that "that shit kills your motivation" as Samuel L. Jackson says in Jackie Brown.

That said, everybody, I fully support the measure being discussed in the original post because I live in a state that favors the stuff and I want it to be decriminalized because I think it would benefit society and me personally. I'd just rather not buy it for people that I don't know (with the possible exception of medicinal users who are too sick to work regardless).

Receiving your hard-earned money, eh? Because "that shit kills your motivation?"

Fuck, man, you'd better "discourage" people on welfare from using alcohol or watching television, too. Hell, discourage them from eating heavy meals - that always makes me tired. No more turkey for welfare recipients, their lack of motivation is using Raw Shark's har-earned money!

That's a really retarded argument. Of course abuse of any substance or activity should be discouraged. But once again, you're making an argument regarding marijuana usage and yet other substances and activities with the same or similar effects are allowed.

You seem to be taking the position that, simply because someone is poor, they deserve to live in squalor with no mode of entertainment available to them so long as they are on the public dime. Do you have the same reservations about welfare recipients going to the movies, or paying the cable bill? Why do they need any further discouragement beyond the economic ramifications of unnecessary expenditures while on an extremely limited fixed income? Could not the responsible usage of marijuana, like the responsible usage of alcohol or television, be allowed even while on welfare so long as the individual has enough money to do so on occasion?

The purpose of a welfare system is to help people going through difficult financial times while they seek gainful employment. While the system, like any system, has its predators and flaws, I don't see how that translates into "expenditures of publicly-granted funds for entertainment purposes are explicitly disallowed, or at least discouraged, even after the necessary cost-of-living expenditures have already been covered."

[lazerus]

I see this as a half-assed measure. I dislike any kind of recreational drugs on principle, but recognize that -- like the prohibition -- trying to cap all of them is a massive and ultimatly futile waste of government resources. Why not just legalize it completly so we can tax it in much the same way we do alcohol and ciggarettes?

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps I'm admitting to more than I should, by observing that (not to brag) I smoke four or five times weekly, and that (not to brag) I somehow manage to bring home a six-figure income, all the same.

My point being, if you are a schlub who's gonna sit around and get nothing done, you will do that while drinking a beer, or smoking cigarettes, or filling a pipe.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think the end of "Thank You For Smoking" basically sums up my feelings towards the legal/ethical side of smoking (cigarettes or marijuana).

[Kanastrous]

I think the end of "Thank You For Smoking" basically sums up my feelings towards the legal/ethical side of smoking (cigarettes or marijuana).

How are the two congruent?

Is there a massively-funded, politically powerful, nationally-influential industry promoting marijuana use at astronomical (and taxable) profit, with legislators in-pocket and White House access, pushing a conspiracy to suppress evidence of the plant's baneful properties?

[Kanastrous]

edit - I see you were talking about the ending.

Never mind.

Sorry.

[RedImperator]

While the discussion in this thread is interesting, the bill really isn't, at least not in this Congress. Even if it got out of committee (doubtful), passed the House (very doubtful), and survived a filibuster (extremely doubtful), there's no way the Wonder Chimp signs it--this is a very anti-drug administration. Maybe they have a point--the Wonder Chimp did drugs, and look how he turned out.

[Raw Shark]

[snip] You seem to be taking the position that, simply because someone is poor, they deserve to live in squalor with no mode of entertainment available to them so long as they are on the public dime. Do you have the same reservations about welfare recipients going to the movies, or paying the cable bill? [snip]

I personally cut both of those things out of my budget months ago to save money because I, too, am currently poor despite being lucky enough to have a job. I've been busting ass to make my rent this week with no money for entertainment besides the internet bill. That's probably why I have a wild hair up my ass about this sort of thing right now, so I'm going to abandon attempts at unemotional debate and conceed that what I proposed would probably do more harm than good.

[Covenant]

I've never understood the fascination with the substance, or had any interest in it myself. I find it somewhat depressing that people's demand for it would be so high that we're actually wasting so much time and energy on it, to the point that it's simpler just to ignore it and move on, but I suppose that's the best option in this circumstance.

I'm not really sure what kind of point you're making here, but how exactly are we wasting time and energy by ceasing the persecution of a relatively harmless act? This seems backwards to me.

Oh, I see what you mean--I just popped back to this thread now. Yes, that would be backwards, what I had meant to convey that it's depressing that use of these substances is so widespread that enforcing any control on it has gotten so pointless as to be a needless burden on our police force, court system and society at large.

And that in such a case, despite the desire to curb usage, it would probably make more sense to just ignore the problem and let people carry around their small amount of recreational dope and divert all those manhours elsewhere. Less potheads in the court system and in prison would probably be for the best, since these aren't exactly violent offenders.

I wasn't trying to argue against some measure decriminalization, just adding that it's frustrating to see how common it is, since it just means my exposure to it is only going to go up, and I want to stay as far away from all that stuff as possible, along with cigarettes and alcohol.

[General Zod]

I wasn't trying to argue against some measure decriminalization, just adding that it's frustrating to see how common it is, since it just means my exposure to it is only going to go up, and I want to stay as far away from all that stuff as possible, along with cigarettes and alcohol.

Okay, I thought that's what you might have been saying. But I wasn't sure considering the minimal context.

[FSTargetDrone]

So if this Bill actually became reality, what happens to all of the people who were arrested/prosecuted/jailed for breaking laws that no longer apply?

[Broomstick]

They stay in jail unless their sentences are reduced to time served or pardoned.

[General Zod]

So if this Bill actually became reality, what happens to all of the people who were arrested/prosecuted/jailed for breaking laws that no longer apply?

Nothing. Just because an action is no longer illegal doesn't mean it still wasn't a crime when you committed it. Retroactive apologies or the like are unlikely to happen for anything short of extreme circumstances.

[Rahvin]

So if this Bill actually became reality, what happens to all of the people who were arrested/prosecuted/jailed for breaking laws that no longer apply?

Nothing. Just because an action is no longer illegal doesn't mean it still wasn't a crime when you committed it. Retroactive apologies or the like are unlikely to happen for anything short of extreme circumstances.

I would imagine, however, that when such individuals come before a parole board, it would be extremely easy for them to convince the board that they are no longer at risk of re-offending since the law they broke no longer exists

But as the article stated in the first place, very few people ever go to prison for the type of marijuana possession that this bill would legalize. Arrested, charged, and brought to court, sure...but not prison. In many locations possession of less than an ounce is a misdemeanor, and typically results in community service and probation. It's a huge waste of public money and resources, and people can lose their jobs, but it's doubtful we'll have the circumstance above occur very frequently.

I've heard that some states have far harsher rules and no-tolerance policies, but I don't know anything specific.

[FSTargetDrone]

I've heard that some states have far harsher rules and no-tolerance policies, but I don't know anything specific.

Yeah, I was thinking along those lines.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I keep saying that by the time the Baby Boomers have taken over the AARP Pot will be legal and on it's way to being covered by medicare....

of course those same baby boomers will be working until they are 120 to pay off the debts created by chimpus nero.

You know, this the part that still disturbs me. Why the fuck is marijuana and drug use linked to healthcare issues? For those who insist that "smoking" a weed is better than a pill or an inhaler, get a life.

You will have to go after the underground counterculture and it's mythos around marijuana in order to stop that cold in it's tracks. Word of mouth, internet websites like erowid and other pillars of the counterculture receive literally no rebuke from skeptics whose time is all sewn up around religion or politics or whatever to offer even a tiny bit of counterpoint that could nip a lot of descents into sickness in the bud.

[Kanastrous]

Anyone who thinks that inhaling hot ash and resin droplets is in some way good for them, is probably beyond helping, anyway.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Some of these people are simply misguided and prone to magical thinking, they're not beyond the techniques that deconvert some of the fundies that this board or the Dawkins board has helped. I was one.

[madd0ct0r]

Regarding the 'medicinal' effects there have been some trials:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/p ... 625124.stm
and that took less then ten seconds on google.

I've a friend with cerebral palsy we've been attempting to test for any discernable affect (beyond giggling hopelessly).
the trials were far from scientific though and much more work needs to be done.
Unsuprisingly it reduced his startle relfex (normally unrestricted - an unexpected tap on the shoulder can make him jump out of a chair).

He feels it also improved motor control - normally his left hand is screwed up in a fist that he can't relax. After some cake he managed to pick up wine glass with it. Later trials with similar conditions minus the weed failed to produce this affect.
He's reasonably sure of it, I'm less so. More work will have to be done (and maybe a test for the placebo effect?)

[darthdavid]

I would just like to state that if pot was legalized a lot more people might well use marijuana orally (which all data I'm aware of shows to be harmless) or with a vaporizer (which may be much less hamful (I haven't seen much data on vaporizer use but studies would be easier to conduct if marijuana was legal). The reason for this? Preparing marijuana for oral use is time consuming, uses lots of marijuana (which is currently sold at vastly inflated prices due to the black market) and creates a lot of "pot odor" which, depending on circumstances, could easily get you busted. Vaporizers are expensive and hard to hide.

This all boils down to making marijuana use healthier by making it legal.

[Broomstick]

Smoking causes lots of "pot odor", too

I think part of the appeal of smoking the shit is that, I presume, it also takes effect quicker.

[madd0ct0r]

eating browines, cakes, pizzas, cheese on toast for example does take a while to kick in and it's mild when it does.

The worst part (if you only had one slice to start with) is you suddenly feel peckish...