Due to the lack of anonymity, I am not expecting much in the way of personal response here. But we have all seen statistics on how widespread the consumption of marijuana is in this country. My question is: Do you feel that the legal status of such a widespread practice affects people's attitude toward the law in general? Does the fact that having ever tried cannabis makes one a de facto criminal have any impact on the likelihood that one may view the laws overall as something malleable? Does having such legislation on the books contribute to a general disrespect for law?

Actually, the laws are malleable - equity law is meant to be so.

As I recall in my reading, the law only works (even "thou shalt not commit murder") if the majority of the people agree and uphold the law. If a majority of the people are not in agreement, then you have either great unrest, flagrant flouting of the law, or rebellion. A prime example of that was prohibition, it seemed like a good idea, but in the end could not be enforced - and so the enforcement provisions were overturned.

The law only works if the people want it. As for marijuana specifically - I have never used it nor would I simply because I don't use any drug I can avoid which includes alcohol, caffeine, etc. So this is not a personal issue for me. But, I can say that I have never seen proof that marijuana does harm either to the individual or others. If this has been proved I have missed it.

On the other hand, alcohol which is legal can injure the person imbibing (if done to excess), can certainly be a hazard on the road, and can erode family relationships. No, I am not for making it illegal - but I can see harmful effects. Those effects have not been proven, that I have seen, for marijuana.

Did I answer the questions? - probably not

Just among those who use it and I think the spread of lack of respect for laws against persons or property by most users is minimal. The fact that prohibition creates a temptation for those who feel discrimaneted against in the job market to deal in the illicit good is a certainty. It is also a certainty that the higher price of a good, due to prohibition, leaves many to commit property crimes. Actually, IMO, legalizing narcotics would lower property crimes to a greater extent than legalizing marijuana.

GREAT poll! So many options

I'm not worrying about anonymity. Marijuana prohibition is one of the most patently insane pieces of legislation to come down the pike. Worse, now you can be made ineligible for student loans for a single misdemeanor drug conviction. Aaargh!

I had to pick irregular, and the reason is mostly a legal one. I have never and will never buy marijuana on the street. It has to be someone I know. I enjoy smoking, but not enough to risk jail too easily. I've got a family, after all. This personal policy necessitates irregularity for me, particularly as we have moved so many times.

Does it engender disrespect for the law? In a way. I think it is possible to keep one's respect for various laws separated. I certainly have no respect for the drug law in this country, and I further think it is one of the most hypocritical positions in the government. To argue for a smaller government and individual rights must include the idea that someone's body is their own.

Even when I have a plentiful supply, I am not a heavy smoker.

Things I like to get high for:
house cleaning
guitar practice
percussion practice
certain movies (like Koyaanisqatsi, Baraka, etc)
going to Reggae concerts (a necessity)

Things I don't like to get high for:
songwriting
balancing the checkbook
posting on AD (Wertz, you can guess what you will about my "war" post the other night...)

I have no problem admitting it. Yes, I have smoked it many times, but have never purchased it off the street. I don't care too, as I don't know what else might be in it. I prefer to bum it off someone I know first

Seriously, making this drug illegal is pretty stupid. It's been proven less harmful than tabacco. I'm not even sure why it was outlawed in the first place...



--cheers

See, now, this shows that, though we disagree often, we could still have fun all getting together and getting stoned!

Look out folks, you just hit my favorite topic. First of all, I'm not going to lie. I have been an avid user and supporter for 11 years now. I have found marijuana to be an excellent anti-depressant, pain killer, and relaxer. It's also fun. Anyone who uses knows what I'm talking about. Now I'm not going to say there are no negative side effects like some. Marijuana slows your reaction time making driving or operating machinery dangerous. It creates short term memory loss. Every stoner knows that to stump a fellow smoker simply ask "What were we just talking about?" The usual answer is "um.... ". Weed smoke also contains it's own fair share of tar and carcinogens like cigarettes. And it's these effects that first led to laws making it illegal. The problem is they did the same thing with alcohol years ago and look how that turned out. Alcohol has caused more deaths in the past year than marijuana in the past ten. Yet, the U.S. government still amended their laws and legalized booze. Why not bud? After all, they realized prohibition of alcohol was a failure when the amount of booze consumed by Americans only went up the more they tried to stop it. Well hasn't the same thing happened with marijuana? Why can't they see that? What's worse is all the people who are serving time in our jails and prisons today for nothing more than weed. I mean, come on folks. In a world that suffers from crack houses and meth labs are pot dealers that dangerous? Aren't our jails already overpopulated? We'd make a lot of room if we let the pot dealers and users go. And that's not the only problem we'd solve. I think the war on the harder drugs might be won if we give drug attics this simple choice: 1) I can risk my life and/or freedom buying crack from some street dealer who may have laced it with some deadly chemical or 2) I can drop $20 at the local gas stations for a pack of "Mary Jane" joints and get high on my front porch without worrying about where the cops are. All the gov't has to do is let tobacco companies turn 1/3 of their tobacco fields into weed fields. Then they just package it, stamp it, and put a tax on it. Hey there's a way to balance the budget, huh? These anti-weed commercials these days make me laugh. They think legalizing weed would result in traffic accidents, work place accidents, and chaos. Come on, do they really think the gov't would allow that? Of course not, they just have to do the same with weed that they do with alcohol, you know, that legal drug that slows your reflexes, creates short term memory loss, and has harmful, if not deadly contents. They simply have to put a 21 year old age limit on it, set the same DUI and public intox laws on it, and, as with booze, make it illegal in the work force. And set the punishments for violating these laws the same. You smoke, you drive, you lose your license and go to jail. It's that simple. I know this has been a long post and I'm almost done. Lastly, do you want to know why the gov't is fighting the legalization of medicinal marijuana?? Because the moment they allow doctors to prescribe weed, they are telling this country that they believe weed is more helpful than harmful, unlike alcohol or nicotine. And once they've done that, then all the legalize it groups have a foothold. Within 1 year the gov't would be forced to legalize consumer bud, that's why. Well until that day comes, if smoking marijuana means I'm a crook, than I guess that's just one more thing I have in common with our elected officials besides being long winded, isn't it. Smoke on people.

See here's the thing; when marijiuana was outlawed they hadn't even identified that these chemicals existed in cigarettes or that they were harmful. Nobody outlawed marijiuana for it's deleterious effect on the lungs. Then again I doubt anyone in Washington could remember WHY it was banned since the War on Drugs (which has imprisoned more people than those who died in the Vietnam war) has become a completely self-serving excercise.

I am what people would call a "pothead" I buy it when ever I can, meaning when I got 20$ and my homeboy can hook. I won't buy it off the street, too many people have been busted for that.

I picked irregular because those two cirrcumstances aren't always able to be met. hugo said legallizing narcotics would lower general property crimes, and I agree, but weed should be included in those drugs. my personal opinions on drug laws are this: If I want to dump mass amounts of heroin into my body, I should be allowed to. if it were legal, it would cost less, and I cold probably support my habit with a temporary job (like with a first come, first serve company) as long as I don't endanger others while high, what I do with my body is my business. stupid laws were meant top be broken.

also, how many people started doing drugs because authority said they couldn't (I'd geuss at least a 1/4 of all drug users started because it was rebelious)

reason I smoke:
helps me sleep
calms me down (I have a bad temper)
to play video games
deal with evil customers at work
among other things

the original laws against pot were racsit in nature, as were many other drug laws. at the time mostly mexicans that were coming over to america's southwest states were using it (they brought it with them) the original laws were meant to deprive them the use of it (as opium laws were set to discourage use among the asian population) I wouldn't trust the ciggerette companies to grow my weed, they use phosphate fertilizers on their crops, something they use in the fertilizer absorbs and traps radon gas, which causes polonium 210 isotopes to be in the smoke.(radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer) they've known this for close to 40 years BTW. ( Radioactive Polonium in Tobacco they would likely use the same fertilizers on weed. I would trust a company run by hippies though. (people that have been clandestinly growing the stuff for 30 years and such)

I also like hallucinogens, like LSD, shrooms, LSA(morning glory seeds, heavenly blues, pearly gates, flying saucers, LSA is very similar to LSD, check erowid.org if interested) DXM(robitussien)

I never take a substance without researching it as much as possible, which I do at erowid

It is very hard to take anyone seriously who openly admits they make stuff up.

jamie, I don't know the actual numbers of people that started using to be rebelious, and haven't found any thing on it. I am guessing on how many people started for this reason based on people I know. most all info I have found says things like "many" or "most" kids interviewed, etc....

if it isn't a guess, I will back it up with references, and if it is I'll say I am guessing.

Well, to bring back the original question of this debate. . .



I feel that widespread practice definitely has negative affects on the peoples attitudes towards law and law enforcement. I have talked to several cops and investigators in my Police dept. about this topic, and the cops don't even take it very seriously. For instance, in law enforcement all drugs are separated into categories called "schedules" all drugs are put into 6 schedules. Schedule I would be a drug that is completely devoid of any medicinal value. . .like LSD. Whereas Schedule VI drugs are drugs that have definite medicinal value but can be abused, like allergy medication, steroids, etc. I had this explained to me by one of the higher ups in the Vice Dept.. So I asked him, "what schedule is Marijuana in?". He responded, "it is the only drug that is not any schedule. . .it is a ticket, kinda like a traffic ticket". I don't know what that says to you all, but that said to me that even in the eyes of the law, use of marijuana is a very petty and pointless charge.

-Kisov

I figured a cop would know this: cannabis (more commonly known as hemp and marijauna) is schedule 1. ( ttp://www.erowid.org/donations/incentives_shirt1.shtml - not a complete listing - the dea's schedules(listed as marihauna) though most cops will simply do one of two things: dumb out ypur sack on the ground, or confiscate it for their use. periphenial (pipes) in colorado is a misdemeanor, and a 100$ fine, possesion of up to an ounce in CO. is a mis. and 100$ if the do decide to carge you (which they usually don't, too much paper work)

Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that cops confiscate pot for their own use?

In my waaay past experience, having a little bit of weed on your person was usually too much trouble for them to take you downtown for, they just dumped it on the ground and ground it into potdust.

I'm just assuming. there may be a few, but most just dumb it. I wouldn't be surprised to meet a cop that said "I need to take this as evidence, but you can go" though

unabomber, I check in marijuana as "Found Property" for destruction all the time (several times a day). . .no one is listed as the owner and no one is listed as the arrestee. Meaning the marijuana was confiscated and the pot smoker was let go. I want to tell you that I was talking to one of the heads of the West Metro Drug Task Force, who told me that marijuana is not treated or charged as any schedule. . .I feel he is a pretty good reference. If marijuana was treated like a Schedule I drug. . .the penalty would be, and is, a heck of a lot worse. Marijuana/paraphernalia is a misdemeanor. . .but what I was trying to confer is the general idea that a majority of law enforcement does not regard it as a serious crime.
Also, unabomber, your "assumptions" are not reputable and should be kept to yourself; because they are useless in an educated debate. I deal with members of the law enforcement community everyday. . .I doubt your experience with law enforcement is as cordial.

-Kisov

I feel the DEA is a better source for schedule information then a know it all cop. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html listed as marihauna, alphabetically listed.

I am positive there are cops that smoke pot, but won't admit it.
and yes my experiences with the fuzz haven't been "cordial" I avoid the police like the plauge.

unambomer, I think you and Kisov are missing each other here. She is specifically referring to state law, whereas you are referring to federal law. They are set up and enforced differently by different agencies.
(I think these dual regulations would make an interesting debate...if only I had the time )

To get back to the original topic, the government attempted a response to those who flagrantly violate the law and smoke marijuana in public. The now defunct* H.R. 3782 attempted to hold owners of venues such as concert halls, sporting arenas and clubs/bars liable if anyone were caught possessing any sort of drug on their premises, including marijuana. Interesting tactic.

*all my searches indicated it was defunct, if anyone knows more recent information, please share it.

I do. I have personally smoked with no less than 20 cops from 3 states who have repeatedly walked in, pulled out a bag and said "look what I got off some punk I pulled over today." or something to that point. Not to mention the military MP's I've smoked with who've done the same.

Yes, I think having that law on the book, and any law that's disrespected by a majority, does engender general disrespect for the law. I think not making laws that are generally disrespected should be a main goal of legislators.