http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/1...d.ap/index.html

It’s been a while since we had a knock down drag out over how to handle marijuana offenders. The recent bust of Texas legend serves as a backdrop.

Question for debate:


1. Should those caught in possession of marijuana be
a. Jailed?
b. Fined, as was Willie Nelson, and continue and allowed to continue on their merry way?

2. Should marijuana be legalized?

#1
A fine is the only sane solution for people found in possession of Marijuana. How Willie Nelson got around our draconian "dealer" laws with a pound and a half of weed is beyond me, but I'd imagine if you and I had been travelling in Louisiana with the same amount of product in our vehicle, we would be facing very serious jail time.

I imagine the police knew that Nelson would be a martyr and trying to put him in jail over the charges would be disastrous to the county.

#2
Yes, Marijuana should be legalized. In my mind there are two issues:

A.) Marijuana and Psilocybin Mushrooms have both been demonstrated to be outright cures for various diseases with little to no side effects. For me personally, Mushrooms cured a headache disorder I have called "Cluster Headaches."

http://www.clusterbusters.com/

Many neurologists are aware of this cure, but it is against the law for them to prescribe Psilocybin as a treatment. Instead sufferers have to utilize some of the most devastating and addictive drugs on the market in order to get relief from their headaches, including lithium and pain-killing inhalants.

At the very least these drugs need to be cleared across the board for medical usage like what has happened with Marijuana in CA.

B.) Marijuana and Psilocybin are both less lethal than Alcohol and Nicotine. I do not support prohibition of drugs that have proven to be non-lethal (no deaths on record of Psilocybin killing someone, almost all "insanity" stories are urban legends or were due to pre-existing mental problems.) If we look at places where these drugs are legal, there are no demonstrable ill-effects to their society.

I normally use neither drug, and I despise the smell and effects of marijuana. But I also despise the smell of many types of alcohol, and as an ex-smoker, second hand smoke. I don't agree with prohibition or even excessive regulation of either of those drugs either.

As a general rule those caught in possession of marijuana should be fined according to the laws of that locality. As with any misdemeanor offense, should this individual become enough of a repeat offender or end up breaking additional laws as a result of the initial offense (i.e., more than just "pot" is found, he misses his court appearance, and the like) then jail time should be considered. Obvoiusly, this adds nothing new to the debate but to stay that possession of marijuana alone should probably not be grounds for incarceration.

I remain ambivalent about whether marijuana should be considered legal. As seems always the case proponents / opponents will argure about where the line should be drawn and we will get nowhere. Suffice to say I can imagine scenarios / arguements for legalization and keeping it illegal. I do not see the use of marijuana as inherently "wrong" just as I would be against the prohibition of alcohol should the country go in that direction again. I must admit I rest well knowing that by keeping marijuana illegal it will make it that much harder for my now five year old son to gain its access once he hits that "phase".

I belive this comfort you are taking is predicated on a false assumption.

Actually, when I was in high school in the 1990s, scoring Marijuana was signficantly easier than scoring alcohol. People my age had direct and ready access to the drug, while getting alcohol required knowing someone who either had a fake ID or was actually over 21 to score at the liquor store.

Personal anecdote? Yes. But depending on the form of legalization that takes place, keeping high school children off of drugs could be made easier by the delegitimization of drug dealers. Think about it for a moment, would you rather have your kid scoring his Marijuana from a guy in alley trying to make a quick buck and doesn't' care where his weed came from, or from a shop owner who knows he could risk losing his permits by selling to a teenager?

I honestly think anything that can be naturally grown without processing it to alter it's form should be completely legal. They do more to tobacco than they do to marijuana
Jailing people for smoking marijuana seems completely senseless to me.

1. Should those caught in possession of marijuana be
a. Jailed?
b. Fined, as was Willie Nelson, and continue and allowed to continue on their merry way?

Niether- should be a non-event. Takes too much law enforcement resources to deal with this problem. From cops, to prosecutors to jail- too many of a finite resource is being used to deal with marijuana laws.

2. Should marijuana be legalized?

Absolutely, with the same restrictions as tobacco, and the same taxes. I have no problems with it being 10$ a "pack" just like ciggaretes, making places for it illegal to be imbibed, just like cigarettes, and no problem with draconian treatment of those caught selling it to minors, or giving them to minors, just like with tobacco.

One factor which we should note here is that this event took place during a search of a motor vehicle. I think we can agree that operating a vehicle of any kind while under the influence of any psychoactive substance creates a danger to others, and should be prohibited by law. (The appropriate punishment for such a violation is a matter of opinion. Taking away the right to operate a motor vehicle for a certain amount of time seems to be a reasonable first step.)

Even if the driver had not been using the substance, having it somewhere in the vehicle where the driver could easily get to it would seem to be something that should not be allowed. Many localities have "open container" laws about alcohol, and similar laws should apply to other substances which I would classify as "minor" psychoactives. I have no idea where the drugs were in this particular case; it certainly makes a big difference if they were locked in the trunk or inside the body of the vehicle.

For possession only of marijuana by an adult, I don't think there should really be a punishment at all. If society insists that it must be illegal, then I would go with a very minor fine, of the traffic ticket kind.

In general, I tend to think that marijuana should be treated by the law in the way that it treats alcohol. I would make it legal, but carefully regulated.

I really have a comment that doesn't pertain whether how to handle a marijuana offender or a druged mushroom.
My thought when I heard of this is Geez they are not young kids
The youngest I think I saw is 50.
Yes it is against the law.
But I kind of find it amusing at the same time.
I am over 50 and I do not do drugs of any kind. (at least not anymore)
Marijuana is not a harsh drug or a mushroom that I know of.
Maybe they have glucoma, cancer, etc. They need this for medical reasons.
(yeah I think that is the reason)

I really believe that it is silly and nonsensical to do anything but legalize it. Does anyone really believe that the drug has ruined Willie Nelson or that he will have changed as a result of this? I do agree with our libertarian friends that there is a "right to do wrong" so long as you don't harm another person. We would undermine the underworld realm of this drug by legalizing it and criminalizing it only continues to make it a glorified market. The sales could go to projects where that money would be best served-treatment facilities and government care agencies that specialize in treatment programs.

1. Should those caught in possession of marijuana be
a. Jailed?
b. Fined, as was Willie Nelson, and continue and allowed to continue on their merry way?

Personal opinion, a fine should be more than enough. But, laws differ from state to state, and I have to go with the local rules.

2. Should marijuana be legalized?

Yes.
But to expand on that with another question, how can anyone make something illegal that just grows?
Did anyone mention to God that it was illegal? You know it has been a long time since a divine representative showed up, maybe he (or she) didn't get the word.
I didn't read it in the manual anywhere, so if it's natural, and it isn't in the book, it must be ok.
Same with the mushrooms. If it's natural.. it makes no sense to make it illegal. However, if it is processed (i.e. cocaine, tobacco, heroin etc.. ) with additional ingredients, then that is an entirely different issue.

I agree to some degree other than today's marijuana is far from natural. Its potency is 100% greater than it was 10 years ago and studies have shown that delta 9 THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana, make candidates more susceptible to schizophrenia.

Jailing people for marijuana possession is absolutely a waist of tax payers dollars and at best, should only be punished either by a fine or even community service.

Tim, I'm with you up until this: Why punish people for smoking pot [or for doing any drug at all for that matter]at all? I'm curious as to why you believe that there should be any penalty for excercizing your natural right to sovereignty over your own body.

CP

Notice I said at best. As a conservative, are you prolife? Are there not limits regarding the sovereignty of your own body?

In responce to you, I am merely playing devils advicate here.

Fair point. I'm conservative in the traditional sense of being small government, so I'm not pro-life per se. I have a fairly uncommon stance on abortion [or at least I haven't heard anything like it]. I believe that the moment it is determined that a fetus still inside a mother can sustain life independent of the mother, that that fetus should be legally protected from abortion. Until then abortion should be legal. I make that judgement because up until the point at which the child can live independently he is still part of the mother. So to answer your question, no, I do not believe that there should be any legal limitations on what someone can do to their own body so long as it harms no one else.

CP

Excellent response and I was anticipating such a reply. My stance on abortion is simular to yours with some additional caveats that limits unnecessary abortions.

My argument being though, there should be NO jail time for possession of marijuana and if there must be a penalty, then it should be as minimal as possible. A "slap on the wrist" one might say at best.

Ohhhh, okay, no, then in that case I'm right there with you. I was caught up on what you meant by "at best", I wasn't sure whether you meant the best a pot user should get or the most...My fault, I completely agree with you .

CP

I'm curious about the source of this information regarding pot potency. Don't bogart that link, my friend.

A friend of mine tells me that the pot available in the 1970s was potent to the point that a single toke would carry you for hours, if you had the good stuff.

Such as:

Maui Wowie
Sticky Bud
Thai Stick
Aculpulco Gold
Panama Red
Columbian of all colors
Skanky ocean-soaked flotsam (friend smoked that trash with cherry blend, so he says)

And then there was:

Brown Hash
Blonde Hash
Black Hash (still not over that one, my friend says)
Hash Oil (same stuff, just a liquid--sayith the friend)

And just in case you were hard up, the stuff grows wild in the south of Minnesota and northern part of Iowa, dense like little forests along rivers and country roads. Very mellow cows out that-a-way, says friend.

Anyway, that's what my, uh, friend says.

Me, I'm all for complete legalization and regulation. Get rid of the black market, and your kids will have a harder time getting stoned. Throw the book at suppliers to minors. Card every legal purchase. Stop being so Nixonian about the whole thing.

1. Should those caught in possession of marijuana be
a. Jailed?
No, it´s insanity to make hardcore criminals out of sometimes well-functioning youths, which is what happens if jailed.

b. Fined, as was Willie Nelson, and continue and allowed to continue on their merry way?

According to severity this must be more than adequate.

2. Should marijuana be legalized?

My old man´d always, when he was trying to guide me in the walks of life, use the method of dividing it down to +´s and -´s.
First the positive aspects;

1) an end to at least the part of organized crime that concerns marijuana (hash).

2) a nice provenue for the state to use in wellfare areas (legit taxed outlets).

3) a stop to pushing innocent youths out into hardcore invironments, only because they want to experienment with MJ.

4) a huge amount of taxpayer money saved on policework, legal cases, prisons (overfilled in DK).

5) less violence. (it is commonly known, that smoking MJ, is less prone as to making you violent, than alcohol is).

6) and numerous more, but it´s late....

The negative aspects are; let´s look to Holland, where there´s been a liberal legislation for many years.
Quote:
Bruce Bullington1
(1) School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The Florida State University, 32312 Tallahassee, FL, USA

"Abstract National drug policy has recently been a source of much debate and discussion in the United States. This paper provides a comparison of the key components of the respective drug policies that have been developed in the United States and in the Netherlands. It is argued that the Dutch approach has generally produced more desirable outcomes than have U.S. efforts, and that policy planners here should consider adopting and/or modifying several of these methods for local application."

FYI here in Nevada I think question 7 is legalization of 1 ounce or less of pot. It will be sold only in specially licensed stores, taxed at $40.00 per ounce. At the same time the law will require very very stiff penalties for driving under the influence.

We are also the only state that prostitution is legal if the county approves it. I think only clark county it is not legal, ie in vegas. But the pot would be legal state wide.

Thus getting on an airplane here with less than an ounce will be legal.

I guess we will be seeing more of some of you and getting more tourism... well it has to pass first.

sin city at its best? soon the language will be Dutch... ie tolerance...

I do not think people in possession of marijuana for personal use should be jailed or fined. In general I agree with Tim when he wrote:





Because I do not think use of marijuana should be punished, it is only logical that I also support legalizing possession of this drug.

My view how this should be done, resembles CR's view:



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I fully support Tim's arguement that the potency of marijuana has increased dramatically over the years. I also found some sources of information:

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/thc-content.htm

This page shows how the percentage of THC in marijuana and hashish (in the U.S) has increased over the period 1972 - 2004. Hashish went from 0.6 to 11.22: marijuana increased from 1.23 to 5.81.

This same trends happened in Holland, although the percentages more than doubles that of the U.S. (which makes Dutch homegrown weed and hashish the strongest in the world)

In the period 1999 - 2006 the percentage of THC in Dutch Marijuana went from app. 8.6 to 17.5 (the strongest type of weed has a percentage of 25.5!!!)
In the period 1999 - 2006 the percentage of THC in Dutch Hashish went from app. 20.8 to app. 33.3 (the strongest type of hashish has a staggering percentage of 55.7!!!!!)

http://www.trimbos.nl/Downloads/Producten/...-2006%20def.pdf
(the trimbos institute conducts yearly research and is the official source for the Dutch government: see page 33 (written in English))
(for references of percentages see pages 19 and 25)

I have smoked marijuana and hashish in large quantaties from the time I was a teenager (16 years) till my mid-twenties. Although I am a supporter of legalisation I will never say the use of marijuana is completely harmless. Although your body will not get addictive to it (like heroine, cocaine etc) there is a strong mental addiction when you use it regularly, making it difficult to just quit. Marijuana can have negative effects on your body, more than tobacco, it breaks down vitamins in your body. THC can trigger schizophrenia if you are already susceptible for this mental disease. (I have seen this first hand when my friend was diagnosed with schizophrenia)

So just like alcohol, using it occassionally is fine and harmless, but do not go overboard with it!

Okay, so by that page the potency of hash has increased by 18.7 times since 1972 and pot's by 4.7 times.

My friend is

A question is therefore begged: How do we control this situation?

Certainly not by keeping pot in the black market. That's having zero control over potency. The logical thing to do is to legalize and regulate, thereby controlling potency.

My friend is

You are of course right that Tim made an exagaration when he wrote that the THC percentage increased by 100% (which is probably why you friend is ), but it is clear that the potency of marijuana is steadily increasing over the years.

This rise will probably not stop untill some sort of regulation comes into play.



I fully agree with you that legalizing and regulating the sale and possession of marijuana could be a good step in controlling the THC percentage.

The biggest question is if the majority of the U.S. population is willing to go that far. Even in Holland with its liberal, yet double standard attitude towards the 'soft-drug' marijuana (smoking and buying is legal, but supplying coffeeshops is illegal ) the complete legalisation and regulation of cannabis is facing a lot of resistance.

Pardon my delay on responding but I also noticed someone provided a link with the pertinent data. If you need more, I have an abundance of them.






Actually, I am not that far off. By your statistics, marijuana increased from 1.23 to 5.81. That is a 79% increase while Hash has increase by 95% in potency.

If you look at the numbers in that way you are of course not that far off. 79% and 95% seem huge figures but we also need to take in consideration that this increase has been carried on over a relatively long period of 32 years.

BTW I have taken a look at the numbers and I found something strange:

The 0.6% THC in the hashish of 1972 seem to me extremely low, certainly if you compare them with the marijuana percentage (1.23) in the same year. Normally hashish has by its very nature a higher concentration of THC. I am not sure if I should trust this number.

I will concede to that. I did state 100% in the last 10 years which is quite a stretch now that I think about it.

From what I read in the data, to date no other pot derivative has a higher concentration of THC then the hash oil of the beginning in 1973 at an average of around 15%. Since that product has been distributed since 1973 and we do not see people gone wild like the moves of the feds show occurred we have nothing to worry about that we would not have already seen from those who have used the oil products.

I think Vancouver Canada is another city area that informally has decriminalized small amounts. I have many canadian friends (30-50) whom I know smoke that seem to be excellent humans beings.

Also from what my friends tell me there is a product called a vaporizer that allows only the active ingredient to burn because the burn temperature of the THC is a lower level than the normal carcinogens in the leafy so much healthier for the smoker. I have no idea what the percentage of use these are at. This device has a set temperature and will not allow the leafy part to burn. Thus the normal arguments of a the amount of bad potential carcinogens like in tobacco are significantly decreased. This is also true by having more potent ratios of pot. When the government studies were done on the carcinogens 20-40 or so years ago you had to smoke much more for the same level of "high" . So the increased potency has a potential health benefit vs using the poor quality,, that is for those who are users of the product.

Denver citizens voted last year it legal to possess an ounce or less, but the bloody police are still arresting people for those quantities, stating the federal law supersedes local and state law. Buggers

Perhaps you have a different data, but from what I see, the concentration of THC in 1973 was 22, while the concentration of THC in 2004 was 42.51, which is almost twice as high.
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/thc-content.htm



In Holland a lot of medicinal smokers use a vaporizer. It gives a stronger effect and it is indeed better for your health than smoking marijuana in a normal way. But then again you could also make a 'space-cake'/ cannabis browny', realy tasty with a cup of coffee.

same data, if you notice I used the word average.

I used average because of what we in engineering call a part of the data that appeared to have noise. IE the one you sited the last one was close to 3 times over the average without any of the other fields showing such a change shows that one would be a fool to base their argument on something that does not seem reasonable to the years of data. IE maybe they only had one sample that year or their testing method changed. No-one knows without getting to the data to figure it out. I would wait two more periods before I would use that as a fact. Possibly there is a new way for them to make oil? and the data would show it later. But we also had noise many years ago when it hit 29 a few years ago and dropped.

And it is a fact that we have not seen the DEA gone wild because of a new super powered product called oil since 2004. So one can assume that it is not accurate or the differential does not make a difference that causes society to be alarmed.


Next Nevada seems to be a bit different than Denver, gambling is legal, prostitution is legal, and possibly THC will be legal. Also this is a state law not just a city. But we do have a conservative governor, and even if a liberal one it is tough for an elected official who is not Jerry Brown to allow something like this under their watch. This is the thing you would be known for, and not many want to be know for the one who fought the feds for making pot legal.

Even if the percentages of 2004, in regard to has oil, are correct (and you made a good point that there is a chance that the numbers might be inaccurate), I do not think the DEA would go all wild and would organise a hunt for this stronger derivative of marijuana. Compared to other drugs, cocaine, heroin, LSD, XTC etc, it is still pretty harmless.