Say Anything Blog

My guess would be that in a lot of cases the “arrest” is nothing more than being given a citation like a traffic ticket, I know that’s what happens in Texas. Those who are arrested pay a fine and go on their way. It’s a source of revenue, not a drain of resources. That’s what happened to my neighbor’s son 2 years ago, he had less than 4 ounces so he got a $250 fine + taxes(gotta include them)and was out of munincipal court in less than 20 minutes. He wasn’t even fingerprinted. If they are including cases like that and I’m assuming they are it’s kinda misleading. For all I know the laws may have changed since then too, I haven’t spent but about 3 hours on US soil in the last 2 years. If it’s still the same my guess is that my hometown and a lot of others in Texas are probably taking in a sizable amount from the fines.

I typoed that, his fine was $1250, not $250. He had just over 3 ounces on him.

This is all about cops believing they are Andy of Mayberry and in fact are Barney Fife. 

Barney always went for the easy busts.  If it ever got hairy he chickened out. 

Potheads are easy, ergo, bust lots.

You see it with the TSA in airports, you see it with security at courthouses.  Officers with too much time on their hands and little in the gonad department. 

So, the answer (and Dave, this is a joke) is, make certain all potheads are automatically issued an uzzi and a concealed carry permit.  There would be far fewer busts.

I agree that it’s stupid to waste resources on this type of thing. Unfortunely, pot is illegal. I have no sympathy for anyone who knowingly breaks the law, gets caught, and then has the nerve to whine about it.

Apparently, not too many people think it’s trivial because after many decades, pot is still illegal. It’s a tough position to take on smoking in general. If you are against smoking or anti-tobacco, then you’d have to be against pot as well. It’s not OK to smoke a cigarette but pot is cool. I don’t think so.

If we want this problem of over-reaching of manpower and resources to go away, we’ll need to go ahead and change the law. I think my argument against it stands on it’s own. Honestly, I don’t care one way or the other. It’s the same as alcohol. I don’t see the laws changing any time soon.

Mike

Personally, I think it is an incredibly stupid waste of resources, that have huge negative effects on the lives of those who are arrested.

And before I get another “so what? he broke the law and he got what he deserved!”, the point is that as individuals, it may not affect us if one person gets incarcerated by a stupid and moronic law.  When you are talking 700,000+ people, you are talking a real personal impact on each of our lives from the lost productivity of those individuals.  This is a case where societal costs of the law far exceeds its relatively minor benefits.

One pothead arrested is “far too many”.

Equating pot and tobacco:
All the tobacco laws boil down to “none for kids” and “Don’t make me inhale it too” There may be jail time possible for the former (not sure) but the latter are all civil statutes, not criminal.

All the pot laws highly criminalize a fairly benign substance, to such a degree that all of society pays a huge price for mostly harmless behavior.

Smoking pot doesn’t appear to make anyone highly motivated.

That’s the problem!  We’re all sitting on our couches, eating Chex Mix and watching Spongebob Squarepants instead of marching on Washington.

One of the major challenges in changing the law is that the alcohol and pharmaceutical companies like it just the way it is, thank you very much.

My point is that you’ll have to change the law.

Sure, it’s a stupid law. No argument there. What good does it do to cry about it? Change it. Start a grassroots campaign and get it changed.

Smoking pot doesn’t appear to make anyone highly motivated. If it did, I suppose pot would be legal. Whether or not you wish to attach the term “criminal” to it is up to you. It’s still AGAINST the law and splitting hairs or redefining language doesn’t make pot any more or less legal.

It’s like saying that pot is just a little illegal which, I suppose, is similar to being “a little pregnant” too.

If you legalize pot then it’ll be taxed and regulated.All you’ll be able to get will have it’s THC limited by government regulation and will probably cost more than it does today. Nobody will want the “government weed” so we’ll still have smuggling, illegal dealing and illegal possession charges, the main difference will be getting caught with an amount that brings misdemeanor charges and a fine today will be a 2 or 3 felonies tomorrow. It might be club fed but they’ll still be in jail and probably for longer terms on the tax charges alone. You can believe it won’t work out that way but moonshiners still operate their stills and still go to the federal pen on a regular basis for producing what is perfectly legal in a manner that avoids taxation and regulation. That holds true for anyone making distilled liquor products, even if it’s for personal use so the “grow your own’ theory won’t hold up either.What we have now is better than what we’ll get if we legalize it.

Since it is unregulated, I can’t be sure what they are putting in it.

With weed, you’re not sure if you’re just getting sticks and seeds.

The biggest question is “how do we get there from here”? I would suggest that the answer is “wait”. This is a case of conquest by time. Those who disagree are usually older and will die in time, leaving a progressively larger fraction pro-MJ.

Despite my activist tendencies, this is my general attitude on most social restrictions (weed, gay marriage, etc).  As people become more enlightened as a race, the trappings of fear and ignorance slowly fall away.

One erroneous argument for the banning of THC is the use of “marijuana” as a “gateway drug”.  I say erroneous, simply because as an illegal drug, it provides the “case flow” for drug dealers, who, of course, also sell heavier shit.  Remove MJ from the black market, and the market will crash.  Most illegal drugs will become much harder to get access to.

I think that Bullwinkle is correct that there will be some trade in illegally grown MJ… but the crop will be a fraction of what it is now.  How many places can you buy privately grown tobacco?  I’ve never encountered an opportunity to purchase moonshine and nor would I: Since it is unregulated, I can’t be sure what they are putting in it.  The same probably goes for how the MJ is treated chemically during production.

The biggest question is “how do we get there from here”?  I would suggest that the answer is “wait”.  This is a case of conquest by time.  Those who disagree are usually older and will die in time, leaving a progressively larger fraction pro-MJ.

That’s an interesting point.

Ok marijuana shouldn’t be legal, and it is costing the tax payers lots of money for them to be charged and go to court and all that stuff but, marijuana still hurts the body and people should not use it.

marijuana still hurts the body and people should not use it.

Replace “marijuana” with “alcohol.”  Should we ban everything that’s bad for you?  If so, put down that cup of coffee, twinkie, and/or non-ergonomically correct mouse.

Legalization would probably lead to the destruction of the domestic industry.
A huge domestic engine of the economy would be destroyed. Pot prices would fall percipitously.

Hey Carrick, how many people are arrested for cigarette tax evasion, smuggling and hijacking cigarettes every year? The illegal cigarette trade is a big enough business at a few dollars a pack that even the Mafia is in on it. The cost, taxes, and profits will be much higher on legal pot and so will the the temptation to break the laws regulating it.

Bullwinkle shows me how it is.

Then I say… Well!  That’s cool.  I had no idea. 

MI:

Replace “marijuana” with “alcohol.” Should we ban everything that’s bad for you? If so, put down that cup of coffee, twinkie, and/or non-ergonomically correct mouse.

The other thing to remember is many things taken in large quantities are unhealthy for you, but may have beneficial effects taken in small enough doses.  This includes even substances like arsenic, which is a carcinogen at higher levels, but kills cancer cells in low dosages and may even been an essential nutrient in ultra low dosages.

As I have pointed out on this blog before, THC is oil soluble, leading to increased concentrations in the fatty tissues of the body and brain if the usage level is too high.  Going through the research on my own suggests that two hits a week should be completely safe, and this dosage level may even be somewhat cautious.

My only objection with it personally is that THC is rather broad spectrum, and does other things besides “getting you high”.  Since the “other things” are still being learned, I would rather not participate in the self-referal guinea pig society on this one.

Sphagnum:  I have two points. The first is that public laws are in place to protect the common good.  If the law does not protect the common good but does great harm, it is a bad law and should be repealed.

The second is I am as quite familiar with people who use pot having problems…. but I think the directionality is “drug use as a form of self medication” to treat personal psychological problems rather than “drug use ruins lives”.  (If you bump it up to heroin you are singing a different tune however.)

If the drug use is occurring as a result of self-treatment of psychological problems, then this makes imprisonment for its use even more reprehensible, not less.

Rob, I take issue with your position (maybe unintentional, but certainly implied) that because there are SO MANY PEOPLE that are breaking this law there is probably something wrong with the law itself and not the people that are breaking the law.  It’s kinda like the whole “There are so many illegal aliens that we should just give them licences” type thing.  Whether or not you think the law is stupid, it is the law and the prosecution of people that break said law it therefore justified.

On to more important points, I am against the legalization of pot if for no other reason than personal experienced.  I’ve never touched the stuff myself, but I’ve seen many friends and family members do so.  Based on my personal experiences, the substance has a very overall negative effect on lives, more so than anyone I know that drinks or smokes tobacco.  Whether the smoking of marijuana is the symptom of a greater problem in their lives or part of the problem IS debatable… but I’ve seen far to many people use the substance and lead to a ruined, broken childhood/life to feel good about encouraging the legalization of the substance.

Just to clarify… Woof, are you saying you are against the legalization of pot because it would hurt the economy?

Good Point.

Fine, but how about we call off the “war”?

You’d get my vote. Ending the “War on Drugs” would probably lead to a decrease in drug abuse… so everybody wins!

Since the “other things” are still being learned, I would rather not participate in the self-referal guinea pig society on this one.

Hey, no biggie, leaves more for me.

Whether or not you think the law is stupid, it is the law and the prosecution of people that break said law it therefore justified.

Fine, but how about we call off the “war”?

I think the directionality is “drug use as a form of self medication” to treat personal psychological problems

Is there any other reason to do drugs?

would probably lead to a decrease in drug abuse

That’s a pretty big assertion that I don’t buy into… If it were made legal, I’d probably try some of it.  I might not turn into a user, but I’d for sure try it…

Exactly. More importantly, though, when (the currently illegal) drugs hit the free market, the consumers would get to decide how much they wanted. Since the majority of people take drugs because they like the high (not because they like the Near Death Experiences of abuse), they will almost certainly choose a lower-strength version of their drug of choice (for example, marijuana with less THC than normal).

I mean… if coffee joined heroin on the list of illegal drugs, and was sold only on the streets, would ANYONE drink de-caf? If it was sugary pop, would anyone drink diet? If alcohol, would anyone drink wine coolers? NO! “Drug dealers” wouldn’t make de-caf coffee because it wouldn’t be worth the risk of jail or death; thus, the consumers wouldn’t have any say in it.

You’re probably familiar with everclear, right? The, like, 190-proof brand of grain alcohol. When do you think it first became popular? The Prohibition! Bootleggers weren’t risking prison time transporting Coors light!

Don’t get me wrong; legalizing drugs would almost certainly lead to an increase in drug USE. But, that’s not what I said, and that’s not really a problem for society. Drug abuse IS the problem, and almost everything I have seen leads me to believe that it would go down after legalizing.

True, it’s all conjecture, but there is overwhelming precedent to suggest that it is true.

Further, though, shouldn’t we support this for ideological reasons? As a conservative, why would you want the government regulating someone’s decision to use drugs? Aren’t you in favor of “small government”? The easiest way to slim down the government would be to end the drug war.

Dave: 

...would probably lead to a decrease in drug abuse

Sphagnum:

That’s a pretty big assertion that I don’t buy into. If it were made legal, I’d probably try some of it. I might not turn into a user, but I’d for sure try it

If you only tried it, you’d hardly be an abuser, would you?

HAHAHHA!!! not me that’s for sure…I want my bud triple strength!

But if your choices were either the nearly toxic everclear or no alcohol at all, you would probably go with the everclear, which would possibly lead to alcohol poisoning and almost certainly lead to cirrhosis (a disease which reached its highest levels during and in the first decade following the Prohibition).

It is only through the free market that you’d even get a choice to order your “triple strength budweiser”, and it is that lack of a free market that contributes to the rampant drug abuse we see in America today.

Since the majority of people take drugs because they like the high (not because they like the Near Death Experiences of abuse), they will almost certainly choose a lower-strength version of their drug of choice (for example, marijuana with less THC than normal).

HAHAHHA!!! not me that’s for sure…I want my bud triple strength!

for all you unsympathetic with prosecution “because it’s the law”...you leave yourselves wide open for the ol’ “what about slavery and prohibition?” argument. Yes, they are different subjects and substances but your argument is blanket. If you have broken an unjust law, it is equally unjust that you are prosecuted for breaking it.

Everclear is actually not too bad when enjoyed in moderation.  Because it doesn’t have a very strong flavor, it’s very good mixing with fresh fruit (cherries, watermelon, and apples work well).

I also wanted to comment on this:

If you legalize pot then it’ll be taxed and regulated.All you’ll be able to get will have it’s THC limited by government regulation and will probably cost more than it does today. Nobody will want the “government weed” so we’ll still have smuggling, illegal dealing and illegal possession charges, the main difference will be getting caught with an amount that brings misdemeanor charges and a fine today will be a 2 or 3 felonies tomorrow.

The amount of crime that will be prosecuted and discovered after pot is legalized will be far less than the nearly 800,000 arrests a year now.  There will still be crime (people smuggle cigarettes and other legal drugs now, as mentioned above), but that crime will not be as widespread.

And if the normal person has a choice of legal, decent pot/beer/cigarettes or going through all the trouble of spending twenty bucks more for stronger pot/beer/cigarettes, most rational people would just take the easier option.

It’s vaguely like Occam’s razor - instead of the simplest explanation, it’s the simplest method of getting stoned/drunk/buzzed.

[...] Every year we put hundreds of thousands of people in jail on marijuana charges, the vast majority of them simply for possessing the drug. Yet simultaneously we let thousands of high-risk sex offenders, captured illegal aliens and other types of criminals back out into our communities every year, all because our prisons are overcrowded. Is anyone else thinking that we have our priorities backwards here? I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’d rather put the potheads back on the street and keep the sex perverts in jail. [...]

hay bulwinkel whoese to say the governments pot would be low grade and whose to say that the government would be growing pot anyway. The government dosnt produce alcohol they just tax it. And even if they do regulate it whose to say their wont be diferent levels of pot.alcohol can range from 5% alcohol as in beer but you can still legaly buy everclear which is almost 100% alcohol. You just sound like a drug dealer who dosnt want his market taken from him.

CS,

If you’ll look carefully, you’ll notice that there are dates posted after the name of the person who posted each individual comment.

What that means, Genius, is that the comment by Bullwinkle (note the correct spelling, please) that you are answering here is a little over two years old!!!

If pot ever is legalized, whoever sold you sour stash is gonna make a small fortune.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”