Reasons Marijuana should be legal.

[I Peddle Exotic Augies]

Basically every drug that we are talking about legalizing (opiates, coke and such) were all legal in the united states at one point. Nothing terrible came out of this AT ALL. The whole reason drugs started being banned in the first place were because of racism. People started saying black people were going crazy, killing people, raping white women on coke. Of course this was not true. Same most other drugs. They came up with ideas about these drugs making other races act a certain way.

[gg]

Required reading for this thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

Twentieth century

The next great wave of anti-drug legislation began in the late 19th century, and continues to the present day. The United States has been the driving force in the present-day war on drugs.

The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug was a San Francisco, California ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." The primary cause of the movement for the law was a moral panic based on a fear of Chinese immigrants and other railroad workers seducing white women with the drug. This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a mixture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The dividing line was usually the manner in which the drug was ingested. Chinese immigrants smoked it, while it was included in various kinds of (generally liquid) medicines for white people. The laws were aimed at smoking opium, but not otherwise ingesting it. 1 As a result of this discrepancy, modern commentators believe that these laws were racist in origin and intent.

Cocaine was prohibited in the first part of the 20th century. Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine. Many police forces changed from a .32 caliber to a .38 caliber pistol because the smaller gun was supposedly unable to kill black men when they were high on cocaine.[4]

This was followed by the Harrison Act, which required sellers of opiates and cocaine to get a license (which were usually only distributed to white people). The supporters of the Harrison Act did not support blanket prohibition of the drugs involved 1. This is also true of the later Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. Soon, however, the people who were allowed to issue the licenses did not do so, effectively banning the drugs.

The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The prohibition of alcohol commenced in the United States in 1920 and Finland in 1919. Because alcohol was the most popular recreational drug in these countries, reactions to its prohibition were very different to those of other drugs, which were commonly perceived to be associated with racial and ethnic minorities. Public pressure led to the repealing of alcohol prohibition in 1933 in the United States, 1932 in Finland. Residents of many provinces of Canada also experienced alcohol prohibition for similar periods of time in the first half of the 20th century.

In Sweden a referendum in 1922 decided against an alcohol prohibition law (with 51% of the votes against and 49% for prohibition), but starting in 1914 (nationwide from 1917) and until 1955 Sweden employed an alcohol rationing system with personal liquor ration books ("motbok").

1937 saw the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act. Harry J. Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races". This specifically referred to Mexican immigrants who had entered the country, seeking jobs during the Great Depression. The law passed quickly and with little debate. The American Medical Association (AMA) protested the law soon after, both on the grounds of actual disagreement with the law and the supporters' lies on the subject; Anslinger and others had claimed the AMA had vocalized support when, in fact, the opposite was true.

In response to rising drug use amongst young people and the counter-culture in particular, efforts to enforce prohibition were strengthened in many countries from the late 1960s onwards. In 1972 United States president Richard Nixon announced the commencement of the so-called War on Drugs. Later, President Reagan added the position of drug czar to the President's Executive Office.

Lobbying at an international level for the prohibition of non-medical drug use has been a feature of United States policy since the beginnings of the modern War on Drugs in the late 20th century, to such an extent that US support for foreign governments is sometimes contingent on adherence to US drug policy. Major milestones in this campaign include the successful introduction of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances in 1971 and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in 1988.

[arthur pendragon]

Originally Posted by Malakai

If marijuana were legalized, I can almost garuntee that the crime rate would drop (by how much is anyones guess). First, the marijuana black market disappears. MJ is very profitable for the black market because of it's widespread use. Just legalizing it would eliminate a large portion of the drug trafficing market. .


.

This is complete and utter . The black market wouldn’t be affected at all. All that would happen is that the people now selling pot would shift to selling other items. They don’t sell pot because it’s illegal; they sell it because it is a relatively easy way to make money. Here’s some shocking news for you, there is a very health black market for good’s that are perfectly legal. Legalizing pot would have no impact on crime, it wouldn’t go down and probably wouldn’t go up, unless you count the number of DUI’s handed out for idiots driving under its influence. This is what the Netherlands discovered when they legalized pot. What the Netherlands reported was a temporary spike in usage which slowly decreased and then leveled off when the novelty of legalization wore off.

[gg]

Originally Posted by arthur pendragon

This is complete and utter . The black market wouldn’t be affected at all. All that would happen is that the people now selling pot would shift to selling other items. They don’t sell pot because it’s illegal; they sell it because it is a relatively easy way to make money. Here’s some shocking news for you, there is a very health black market for good’s that are perfectly legal. Legalizing pot would have no impact on crime, it wouldn’t go down and probably wouldn’t go up, unless you count the number of DUI’s handed out for idiots driving under its influence. This is what the Netherlands discovered when they legalized pot. What the Netherlands reported was a temporary spike in usage which slowly decreased and then leveled off when the novelty of legalization wore off.

You're right, those marijuana dealers would move on to selling other illegal items to make black market profits.

However, the black market will still lose billions of dollars of income. If marijuana is legalized, demand for other illegal items stays the same, thus the former marijuana dealers will begin competing with sellers of other black market goods for a share of the same profit.

And legalizing marijuana would decrease crime significantly. Millions of marijuana users, who are going to smoke regardless of legality, are now no longer considered a legal priority, because they engage in an activity which doesn't hurt others. In addition, all the theft comitted by marijuana users to get drug money would be eliminated, as well as the violence that accompanies the marijuana trade.

[gg]

The war against marijuana is ripe with hysteria and misinformation. Take this interesting tidbit, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_of_cannabis

Use of capital punishment against the drugs trade

United States
Available

Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1996 proposed to introduce a mandatory death penalty for a second offense of smuggling 50 grams of marijuana into the United States, in the proposed law H.R. 4170.

The proposal failed. Under the 1994 Crime Act, the threshold for sentencing a death penalty in relation to marijuana is the involvement with the cultivation or distribution of 60,000 marijuana plants (or seedlings) or 60,000 kilograms of marijuana.

The death penalty is also possible for running a continuing criminal enterprise that distributes marijuana and receives more than $20 million in proceeds in one year, regardless of the weight of marijuana involved.

[arthur pendragon]

Originally Posted by g

You're right, those marijuana dealers would move on to selling other illegal items to make black market profits.

However, the black market will still lose billions of dollars of income. If marijuana is legalized, demand for other illegal items stays the same, thus the former marijuana dealers will begin competing with sellers of other black market goods for a share of the same profit.

And legalizing marijuana would decrease crime significantly. Millions of marijuana users, who are going to smoke regardless of legality, are now no longer considered a legal priority, because they engage in an activity which doesn't hurt others. In addition, all the theft comitted by marijuana users to get drug money would be eliminated, as well as the violence that accompanies the marijuana trade.

In addition, all the theft comitted by marijuana users to get drug money would be eliminated, as well as the violence that accompanies the marijuana trade

Niggar please................................

[ApathyEcstasy]

the people dealing with gro-ops will just switch over to meth labs

things would get better in some ways..but in other ways they will only get worse

[gg]

Originally Posted by ApathyEcstasy

the people dealing with gro-ops will just switch over to meth labs

things would get better in some ways..but in other ways they will only get worse

Exactly....and further saturate that market. Legalization of marijuana will not increase rates of meth use.

Users smoke marijuana because they like the effects.
Dealers sell marijuana because it is illegal, and generates enormous profits.

Thus, there will be more dealers in a smaller illegal drug market. Eventually, many of them will be forced out by increased competition and lesser profits, but also because the police will have the time and resources to pursue users of harder drugs, once marijuana enforcement is no longer a priority.

[ApathyEcstasy]

Originally Posted by g

Exactly....and further saturate that market. Legalization of marijuana will not increase rates of meth use.

Users smoke marijuana because they like the effects.
Dealers sell marijuana because it is illegal, and generates enormous profits.

Thus, there will be more dealers in a smaller illegal drug market. Eventually, many of them will be forced out by increased competition and lesser profits, but also because the police will have the time and resources to pursue users of harder drugs, once marijuana enforcement is no longer a priority.

i'm confused..are you in favor of or against legalizing marijuana?

sorry but the thread is just too long and uninteresting for me to be bothered with reading it all

i.m.o. action or inaction...each one has its ups and downs..so it depends on whether you badly want to raise tax revenues or not

[pyramid]

Originally Posted by arthur pendragon

This is complete and utter . The black market wouldn’t be affected at all. All that would happen is that the people now selling pot would shift to selling other items. They don’t sell pot because it’s illegal; they sell it because it is a relatively easy way to make money.

Actually, most small time dealers don't make much money. They usually sell so they can have free smoke. The money they make is usually not enough to live off of and if they aren't living at home they often have a legitimate job where they usually make more money than they do dealing weed. You don't really make much money unless you are farther up the food chain and you move a lot of product. You have to be a middle man moving larger amounts from higher up to dealers below you before you are even earning close to what you could with a halfway decent legitimate job. If you weren't growing your own weed you probably couldn't make money dealing weed if it were legalized and cheap. Granted, people might grow their own and sell it illegally but so what, that's would be small time tax evasion on home grown produce if we legalized it.

Further up the food chain, yes, they probably will shift to sellling something else that makes money. However, if they aren't making money on weed anymore and we aren't spending billions trying to fight weed anymore then it's still a win win for us. That would be a bigger victory over drug cartels and organized crime than all the drug busts where marijuana was ever siezed put together.

Here’s some shocking news for you, there is a very health black market for good’s that are perfectly legal. Legalizing pot would have no impact on crime, it wouldn’t go down and probably wouldn’t go up, unless you count the number of DUI’s handed out for idiots driving under its influence.

Indeed. There is quite a bit of illegal dealing in legal products and, again, we help foster those markets with our sin taxes. Where we artificially inflate the price of a product that allows someone willing to dodge our taxes to make money by undercutting the prices of legitimate sales and not paying any tax on the take. It also helps if you steal the product you intend to sell tax free...

This is what the Netherlands discovered when they legalized pot. What the Netherlands reported was a temporary spike in usage which slowly decreased and then leveled off when the novelty of legalization wore off.

Indeed, and now their rates of use for all drugs except alcohol and tobacco are lower than ours in lifetime, past year, and past month users. That sounds like a good thing. Even so, it is not necessarily use that we worry about, it is the harm associated with use that we need to concern ourselves with.

[ApathyEcstasy]

Originally Posted by pyramid

Actually, most small time dealers don't make much money. They usually sell so they can have free smoke. The money they make is usually not enough to live off of and if they aren't living at home they often have a legitimate job where they usually make more money than they do dealing weed. You don't really make much money unless you are farther up the food chain and you move a lot of product. You have to be a middle man moving larger amounts from higher up to dealers below you before you are even earning close to what you could with a halfway decent legitimate job. If you weren't growing your own weed you probably couldn't make money dealing weed if it were legalized and cheap. Granted, people might grow their own and sell it illegally but so what, that's would be small time tax evasion on home grown produce if we legalized it.

Further up the food chain, yes, they probably will shift to sellling something else that makes money. However, if they aren't making money on weed anymore and we aren't spending billions trying to fight weed anymore then it's still a win win for us. That would be a bigger victory over drug cartels and organized crime than all the drug busts where marijuana was ever siezed put together.


Indeed. There is quite a bit of illegal dealing in legal products and, again, we help foster those markets with our sin taxes. Where we artificially inflate the price of a product that allows someone willing to dodge our taxes to make money by undercutting the prices of legitimate sales and not paying any tax on the take. It also helps if you steal the product you intend to sell tax free...

Indeed, and now their rates of use for all drugs except alcohol and tobacco are lower than ours in lifetime, past year, and past month users. That sounds like a good thing. Even so, it is not necessarily use that we worry about, it is the harm associated with use that we need to concern ourselves with.

you are now president of the united states...with a majority in the house and senate..and every supreme court justice is your puppet bitch...what do you do?

[arthur pendragon]

Originally Posted by ApathyEcstasy

you are now president of the united states...with a majority in the house and senate..and every supreme court justice is your puppet bitch...what do you do?

Go to Diddleland................

[ApathyEcstasy]

Originally Posted by arthur pendragon

Go to Diddleland................

you win this time..but i will be back...with a crackpipe ten times the size of the earth

[darwin]

Originally Posted by I Peddle Exotic Animals

Basically every drug that we are talking about legalizing (opiates, coke and such) were all legal in the united states at one point. Nothing terrible came out of this AT ALL. The whole reason drugs started being banned in the first place were because of racism. People started saying black people were going crazy, killing people, raping white women on coke. Of course this was not true. Same most other drugs. They came up with ideas about these drugs making other races act a certain way.

A lot of that stuff happens in downtown Baltimore, but it's not black on white crime, it's just black on black.

Then again Baltimore is the heroin capital of the world, and it's usually the top murder city in the US.

[CaptRR]

I am for legalization, with in limits.

Reason why is simple for me. If you are doing drugs in your own home, and are by your self you are not infringing on anyone else’s rights to life and liberty. Now once you step outside your home, and start doing it (i.e. Driving, hunting, whatever), or subjecting your family or child to it, that’s different.