The Consequence of ‘Come On, It’s Just Pot’
by Gary A. “Rusty” Fleming Jr.It was a little after midnight when I crossed over the bridge from Laredo, Texas into the sister city of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. After having my car searched I was cleared through the Mexican Customs’ check point where the military was staged and drove towards my destination. I had a source of mine, a local reporter, call me four hours earlier to tell me to meet him at a specific restaurant at 1 a.m. because he had some photographs and information I was looking for pertaining to a specific series of brutal murders that had taken place in the Laredo corridor.
This wasn’t all that unusual-most of the investigative journalists in Mexico work under intense circumstances given that they often come into information relating to the drug cartels that they either can not, or will not, report on because it would be a death sentence for them, so they give the information to someone like me who will get it aired or published in way that does not connect them.
I arrived early to the restaurant and since the weather was so pleasant, I decided to take a seat on the patio and have a glass of tea. I sat there for a few minutes when my source arrived and sat down, ordered a drink and handed me a large white envelope. He told me this was everything I had been asking his editor about the day before and that I should be careful how I use them. I thanked him, (by paying him) and we talked for about twenty more minutes and he asked if I could give him a ride home.
He got into my rent car and told me to drive towards his house on the outskirts of town-as we drove past the airport and headed towards Monterrey, and just as I was about to make the turn off the highway to drop him near his home, we saw three sets of headlights about two hundred yards off the main road in a desolate section of land.
I stopped the car and told him I wanted to see what was going on. Without objection from my friend I drove within a few yards of what appeared to be about a half dozen local cops attempting to seal off a crime scene. We exited our vehicle and walked towards the area where the police cars were shining their lights and as I looked down I was standing over three bodies that, appeared to be young boys judging by their clothes, and who were obviously dead. I stepped over to the side a few steps and there were three more lying in the bushes. As the police started talking to my reporter friend I leaned over the first three bodies and even though I’m no forensic expert, I could clearly see they had all been shot execution style in the back of the head. My friend confirmed the other three had the same type wounds.
Within a few hours we were able to piece together some of the basic common threads between these young corpses. They were all teenage boys-the oldest was seventeen, the youngest was thirteen. They had all been working for one of the cartels as couriers and pocketed the money after crossing about a hundred pounds of marijuana (about $2000 worth) into the United States. They had they had been caught by their handlers (the men in charge of supervising the young gang members) and since the cartel uses hundreds of kids just like these all over Mexico and the U.S., someone made the decision to make examples of these kids. A message needed to be sent out so the rest of the young recruits would realize the severity of side dealing and not following orders.
Six .40 caliber bullets to the heads of these boys sent out a very powerful message.
It was a gruesome sight and it made me realize for the first time, that these kids probably never fully understood the “consequences” of getting involved with the cartel and dealing a little harmless weed.
For years I’ve heard people from all over the country, many of them celebrities, politicians and businessmen make the argument that pot is harmless and that it is “just pot” – it’s not like hard drugs and doesn’t carry the same “consequences” as cocaine and heroin.
Let me just respond like this. To the men that manufacture, transport and sell these narcotics, they are all the same thing-money, and no matter what the substance is, it is intended to be converted into money and that is entirely what this is all about for them. This is just but one example of how they will kill a thirteen year old over a load of pot just as fast as they will kill a thirty year old over a load of cocaine, heroin, or meth.
The discussion about the legalization or decriminalization of certain narcotics is starting to pick up traction in our country today and I for one, embrace that discussion. That doesn’t mean I embrace the legalization, but I definitely think its time to have a detailed, mature discussion on the matter. But the discussion is meaningless unless we deal with the truth and the truth is, the illicit narcotics trade is not only more profitable than ever before in the history of smuggling, but more deadly than before too.
The drug policy in America has become almost schizophrenic especially as it relates to marijuana. No doubt we have to have some type comprehensive reform as it relates to the way we are prosecuting the “war on drugs” (dare I even say “war on drugs?”) because what we have been doing has not worked very well by any standard. Maybe legalization is part of that solution, but this problem is far more complex than any ONE solution. Just like the fence that was built to secure our border and hasn’t. What the fence did succeed in doing is curbing one problem in certain areas, but creating more problems in other areas.
Neither will the legalization of narcotics fix everything wrong with the drug war. It will curb some things, but be advised it will also create new problems in areas we are not prepared for today, causing a whole new set of consequences. Unlike those teenage boys lying in the desert-we should take the time to understand and fully comprehend those consequences before we endeavor to take that next step.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
127 Comments
I welcome the discussion as well. personally, I do not believe pot is necessarily more of a serious problem than alcohol or tobacco as a health hazaed. More importantly, since I am a conservative, I believe it is a personal decision. If someone then commits a crime (e,g, driving while intoxicated,) then deal with that swiftly and severely
I welcome the discussion as well. personally, I do not believe pot is necessarily more of a serious problem than alcohol or tobacco as a health hazard. More importantly, since I am a conservative, I believe it is a personal decision. If someone then commits a crime (e,g, driving while intoxicated,) then deal with that swiftly and severely
It also could be taxed and keep money out of the hands of criminals and back into the economy. Since I don't believe government paid for health care is a "right" I don't buy the argument the government has the right to stop unhealthy individual behavior just because government then has to deal with the health care costs of that behavior.
the law of unintended consequences…
For al it's appeal, legalizing marijuana would be a disaster. There seems to be no discussion of the huge downside, namely far more usage. For legalization carries the imprimatur of the State, and, as such the condoning of the practice. This is a psychoactive substance, friends- think carefully about this. You think current DUI's are bad? Some of this potent strain available is 'trippy'. How many people will twist one and drive?
You want to be in their crosshairs? How about the youngsters? They will be chomping at the bit to get their first pack of Lucky Joints- it is legal, after all. So 10 and 12 year olds will be doing it, thousandfold over what is happening now.
No, my libertarian friends- decriminilization is the way to go. Society has a responsibility to it's citizens, and certain baseline behaviors must be confined.
We are aware how unpopular our position is- how much flack we'll get- but it seems only right…
the law of unintended consequences…
For all it's appeal, legalizing marijuana would be a disaster. There seems to be no discussion of the huge downside, namely far more usage. For legalization carries the imprimatur of the State, and, as such the condoning of the practice. This is a psychoactive substance, friends- think carefully about this. You think current DUI's are bad? Some of this potent strain available is 'trippy'. How many people will twist one and drive?
You want to be in their crosshairs? How about the youngsters? They will be chomping at the bit to get their first pack of Lucky Joints- it is legal, after all. So 10 and 12 year olds will be doing it, thousandfold over what is happening now.
No, my libertarian friends- decriminilization is the way to go. Society has a responsibility to it's citizens, and certain baseline behaviors must be confined.
We are aware how unpopular our position is- how much flack we'll get- but it seems only right…
The first time i watched The Untouchables I kept saying to myself, "all this because of alcohol?"
This is a good post–too bad you're going to catch hell for it from the hardcore libertarian-types who think that simply legalizing this stuff and, poof!, no more problems.
I'll admit some ignorance here- what's the difference between legalization and decriminilization?
I think I'm for either of those options provided:
1. We stop sending people to jail for possession.
2. hmm… well if we stop jailing the traffickers, won't it be effectively legalized?!
I like the idea of taking the business away from organized crime, for the reasons the article above discusses. I also like the notion of taxing it.
Some teens will wind up doing it – but would it be worse than today?
Some people will wind up driving on it… but again, doesn't that already occur too?
"There seems to be no discussion of the huge downside, namely far more usage."
hmmmm… to a degree yes, but then there would also be a huge backlash. The backlash in the form of CORPORATE AMERICA coming down heavily with lots of drug testing. I think the drug testing industry would have a boon. I think anyone in a white collar job or teachers or anyone in construction would all be subject to thorough testing with the latest greatest techniques. Some of this is already true for any one in construction or anyone who does business with the federal government.
"There seems to be no discussion of the huge downside, namely far more usage."
hmmmm… to a degree yes, but then there would also be a huge backlash. The backlash in the form of CORPORATE AMERICA coming down heavily with lots of drug testing. I think the drug testing industry would have a boon. I think anyone in a white collar job or teachers or anyone in construction would all be subject to thorough testing with the latest greatest techniques. Some of this is already true for any one in construction or anyone who does business with the federal government.
So that would limit how much of our societ "went to pot" so to speak.
My fair city of Oakland California just passed such a tax! 1.8%!
really good point…
For every problem there is an opportunity- yes, we see where this could be a huge cottage industry of testing, beating the tests, DUI convictions, and the like. Not just corporate, but 'gummint' as well… you're on to something…
decriminilization is the key…
You do not harass or jail users or small dealers- but you increase penalties on large quantities therefore keeping price high, controlling supply and keeping them out of prison where they do not belong… and you are correct that people are already misusing it; our point is that it would increase thousandfold.
The first year after legalization will be horrible becuase pot heads are stupid and you just know they'll be lighting up in restaurants, driving high and giggling at the bus stop. They will cause a lot of trouble and then when enough of them end up in jail for public using they'll settle down. At least that's the rosy scenaro.
and schools! although… I bet they'd have a fight on their hands if they tried to do that to colleges.
but even with that, I can see a voluntary movement too! e.g. "Dear potential employer / college, here is my application/cover letter, resume, and drug screen documentation…"
"No doubt we have to have some type comprehensive reform as it relates to the way we are prosecuting the “war on drugs” (dare I even say “war on drugs?”) because what we have been doing has not worked very well by any standard."
Replace the middle "war on drugs" rhetoric and you have Pres. Obama detailing how we have to have "comprehensive reform" on all sorts of subjects – see how it works? To wit, my scare quote:
"No doubt we have to have comprehensive reform as it relates to the Bowl Championship Series because what we have been doing has not worked very well by any standard." In short, the sentence construction of the dishonest ideologue. The author does not want marijuana legalization (I don't use, but I do want said legalization) but is open to arguments, just as Pres. Obama is open to all sorts of arguments so he can position himself in speech right in the middle. The writer, illustrating he wants this discussion, but he's against the legalization of dope because … he saw the effects of illegal dope in Mexico? Sort of like Pres. Obama wanting Obamacare because of those mythical letters he gets from, um, people struggling and such.
Legalize marijuana, build the damn fence, and let's talk after that – the rest is silly.
and what, Dear Fellow, would college be without pot?
We suppose they could go back to beer and rye whiskey. Not bloody likely!
[...] Original post by The Consequence of ‘Come On, It’s Just Pot’ [...]
dcase, your point about higher consumption if legalized is baseless. No doubt there would be some increase in usage, but it wouldn't be as dramatic as you think. Plus this talk about 10 and 12 year old's getting their hands on it is ridiculous. I mean you can't prevent ALL kids from smoking weed, just like you can't now while this meaningless prohibition is still going on. And whether or not it's legal doesn't prevent people from smoking and driving NOW, and that would still be illegal. Marijuana being legalized doesn't mean chaos would break out and people can disregard the laws about being impaired and driving. Marijuana is easier to get than alcohol and cigareets by our youth, doesnt that tell you something about how bad our marijuana laws are working?
At least take some good from weed and regulate and tax it, and the drug dealers will be gone…
I have the same exact feeling/position on narcotics that I do on ALL self-endangering recreational activities:
1.) It should be entirely legal for everyone over the age of 18.
2.) If you do it irresponsibly and harm or even merely endanger another innocent life (i.e. driving under the influence) you're goin' to prison for a long, looooong time. Since we're not locking people up for posession anymore, there'll be plenty of room.
3.) If you harm yourself as a consequence of doing it, it's you're own damn fault for doing something stupid and you don't get a SHRED of federal help with the medical expenses. None. Your insurance covers it? Fine. You can cover it in cash? Even better. If not? Tough luck, party-animal
Good old Natural Selection takes care of the rest.
Too bad the users who smoke "just pot" don't understand what it took for that stupid drug to get into their hands: the lives of others they never knew.
It's a tragedy that affects not just the couriers, but their families as well.
STAY AWAY FROM THE FRAKKING STUFF!!!
My two cents…
It's been pretty well proven that we cannot win this war on drugs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial. Like a conventional war, this war is very violent, destructive, and carries an enormous civilian body count. The thought of America continuing to wage this war on it's own people should make every free thinking conservative purple with rage.
There are other ways to reduce drug usage. The first step towards a solution is stopping the violence. That is something that is entirely within our power if we are willing to look beyond the slogans and fear.
Too bad I can only give one thumbs up. I don't know why we cry for personal responsibility in some areas but then abdicate it in others.
Just like the fence that was built to secure our border and hasn’t. What the fence did succeed in doing is curbing one problem in certain areas, but creating more problems in other areas.
Wait, they built the fence?
Stay off the dope, kids, or Rusty Fleming will EAT you.
[...] about the Drug Cartels as of August 5, 2009 Wednesday, August 5, 2009 The Consequence of ‘Come On, It’s Just Pot’ – bighollywood.breitbart.com 08/05/2009 It was a little after midnight when I crossed over [...]
Part of this discussion seems to hinge on the difference between the words "legalization" and "decriminalization".
Yes, there's a huge difference between buying a $10 lid of Mexican weed back in the day and what is available now. Today's pot is much more potent. Why not legalize 75 mics of acid also or a few mushrooms or a little peyote?
What the hell, your 14 year old daughter has a couple hits off her 18 year old boy friend's legal joint, has a couple beers, while intoxicated pops ecstasy, puffs a little crack and then gets out of the back seat and goes to school the next day.
I'll bet NAMBLA would love to see pot legalized.
I know 6 guys who are no longer on the earth because of drugs and every one of them started with grass as their doorway into drugs.
Shooting speed twice, I caught Hep C – and yes, I had been smoking pot for a year before then.
You want to tax it? You are absolutely certain that when the government begins producing revenues that it is going to do its best to slow down kid users? That's something like saying that if we legalize whores that the locals can be the pimps and that once the girls are under the power of the state that they will be allowed to leave the "life' whenever they want.
If you want to end the marijuana problem, you have to cut it off where it is grown. If weed isn't available, users are not possible. And don't tell me that that it can't be done. It was illegitimate to prohibit alcohol. It has over 10,000 years going for it. Weed, barely 30 in America. It can still be taken down.
So far I have not seen something mentioned. The proposals floated, as for "rescuing" Kalifornia, involve legalizing pot and slapping on high taxes.
At which point, the volume sold will skyrocket, maybe a hundredfold or more, and that will nearly all be black market. There is already a very good business going on selling real cigarettes in counterfeit packaging with fake tax stamps, to get around paying the relevant tobacco taxes and have a cheaper product to buy wholesale for more profits. As soon as the police stop caring if you have it, at worst for very large quantities a smuggler might need a fake shipping slip, the black market will surge. And with the supply having been restricted for so long, as demand swells the buyers will mainly care that they are getting a good product that will not arouse suspicion, not that it is "fully" legal with all the taxes paid.
You will see an increase in social costs similar to that for alcohol, and nowhere near the tax revenues expected, leading to possibly a net loss and an ongoing problem that will prove nigh impossible to restrain again.
BTW, have these proponents of legislation ever checked on how many days it takes THC to leave the body? Alcohol is predictable and the effects pass relatively quickly, with THC you can have a joint "on your own time" the night before and still be arguably impaired the next day at work. Drug testing will be a small nightmare as they set the "allowable" blood levels, and since there is nothing, that I know of, that can do on the spot testing for THC as a Breathalyzer does for alcohol, a whole lot of people will be hauled off by the cops for blood tests. I wonder how many people are ready to lose an hour or more as they get detained at a hospital for having a whiff of pot smell on their clothes while simply being dead tired.
Just to throw in my opinion, the way I see it, it all boils down to this: Marijuana (or any drug for that matter) being illegal is not the problem so much as demand for it is. Even the Black Market is subject to the laws of supply and demand. This is the main reason why drugs are so incredibly profitable for the cartels – repeat business is so often built in with each sale because of the high addiction factor.
Let me just take a second to make a distinction here. I know a lot of the pro-weed side out there will try to claim that Marijuana is not addictive. This is incredibly wrong. It's not likely to cause chemical dependence. Make no mistake, the difference between chemical dependency and addiction is very important. Addiction is a mental thing. People become addicted to all kinds of things from internet porn, to donuts, to sex, to candy, and yes, even to weed. Some things are easier to become addicted to than others (why do donuts come to mind here again?), and whether or not you want to believe it, the feelings that come with getting high from Marijuana can be very addictive indeed.
Now with that distinction in mind, I think what needs to be done in order to combat the problems associated with Marijuana and drugs in general is to nip it in the bud. And it's something that's really right in line with the overall mission of this website in general. The best way to do it is to shift the focus of pop culture away from the glorification of this kind of crap. This isn't to say we need to portray weed in the same light as the old "Reefer Madness" nonsense, but like the author here says, we do need to be honest about the consequences of marijuana. And that means everything from the psychological and physiological aspects of marijuana usage to the example of the unfortunate deaths recounted in this article. It may sound cheesy, but if you eliminate the desire to use, you'll eventually make the legality of the substance a moot point.
I'm not for legalization or de-criminalization but I do find the laws in some places idiotic. The user basically get's a ticket but the guy who sold it to him would go to jail? That makes no sense.
For anyone who thinks legalization would end the violence and end the imprisoning of people for drug use think again. The government legalizes pot,the tobacco companies have a ready made pipeline to begin growing and selling it, the drug cartels aren't going to like that. On top of that the Cartels will still be selling coke,meth and all the other drugs,legalizing pot wouldn't stop any violence.
The government will tax the hell out it, but unlike tobacco, people can and will continue to grow their own so they won't have to pay taxes and we'll end up with people going to jail for tax evasion instead of possesion.
Finally, the obsession people have with pot, whether legalization is a good idea or not, right now it's illegal and people knowing this still will risk going to jail just to high……..don't anyone tell me pot isn't addictive.
The Gateway drug theory is a myth. It is a fact that there is no science behind it….get over it you are a sucker for propaganda if you still believe this myth has any merit. Pot is no worse or better for you than cigarettes or alcohol (which still means it is bad for you but not as bad as some would make you believe) If someone is dumb enough to smoke pot … it is their problem, not yours.
There is an existing case study on the societal effects (aka The Netherlands) and as it turns out it's not the end of the world.
As far as the war on drugs goes there is just as much blood on the hands of the politicians and people who refuse to do the logical thing here as there is on the people who buy pot.
I think the strongest arguement here is that there is a Western country who has legalized pot and it is not a country of raving drug smoking lunatics…in fact I bet if you look up every meaningful statistic that you would want to quote regarding crime, drug use and other social ramifications the Dutch would score better than the US.
I see that every time I go eat out, drinking and driving and not knowing when to stop! How many alcohol related deaths compared to marijuana related? If a pot head is so stupid, why would it only take them a year after legalization to settle down? How many years has it been since Prohibition got axed? Apparently, it's taking the people who drink alot more years to do the settling down. Alcohol makes people depressed and violent (especially when listening to love songs or country music!), Police are called out for domestic disturbances and I can bet it's not someone who's smoking marijuana. It's someone who's had their fill of alcohol and to make themselves feel better start hitting their wives/girlfriends/significant others, slamming things around and yelling. The marijuana smoker is leaning back relaxing after a stressful day, connecting with their mate, a lot like social drinking, just enough to unwind.
It's quite difficult to reconcile an allowance of alcohol and legal pain pills, but the intolerance of other narcotics. It is also quite difficult to reconcile a hatred of the nanny state, but legislate that people stay off things that aren't "good" for them.
The photograph is chilling. Reminds me of February 14, 1929, when seven men were similarly murdered in a Lincoln Park garage, victims of another drug cartel, this one run by Al Capone. Prohibition was repealed in 1933, and cheap, readily available, high quality booze forced crime syndicates into other lines of vice, and the bloodshed stopped.
I don't agree a lot with Hillary Clinton but when she said that the "drug problem" with Mexico was as much our fault as theirs, I think she was right. If there weren't a market for it there would be no drug cartels. I'm trying to remember the number – 4,000 or 8,000 – good Mexicans died last year fighting the drug cartels.
____I believe it is the last 30 to 40 years of drug use that has led to the decline of our society and making it more accessible is like going further into debt to regain our properity. I don't believe small time users should be jailed for longer than some murderers but we should never legalize it just to make a profit.
Too much to post but here are the highlights. I was in a pot haze for over two decades. I was also a liberal. The bigger issues are more stealth. Pot is very unhealthy and very destructive but in a slow, misleading way. Being high gives you the delusion that you are smarter than you are. It also makes you lazy and unproductive but you don't accept that its true. It is a gateway to other drugs. Once I tried pot and decided it was virtually harmless, I tried almost everything else. Pot keeps you at the maturity age of the time you start using it. Once I stopped, I started to gain wisdom and have my eyes opened. I started to question the liberal ideology. I realized that liberalism is basically being stuck as a teenager. You believe you have all of the answers and that you know more than your elders. You also believe you have the right to do whatever you want but someone else (parent/government) should bail you out when things don't work out. When things don't work out, it's someone else's fault.
The graveyards are full of people who thought Pot wasn't a Gateway Drug and should be Legalized. Bad enough that Booze is Legal and Glamorized. This is a very tough problem to solve Way to much Money involved and that Money is going very High-Up on both sides of the Border.
So the former users who have posted above are lying about it having a 'gateway' effect for them? What is their motivation? Are they just weaker or more prone to propaganda than the Dutch?
We're all welcome to our own opinions, but you just called the personal (and possibly painful) experience of real people here on this site lies. Don't be surprised if they don't appreciate being called a 'sucker' and told to 'get over it'.
Society has the right to, if it's agreeable with the majority of members of that society, protect itself from people who do certain things. We prohibit certain activities because they MIGHT impact others. For instance, we discourage smoking in public areas because of the fear that we'll die from second hand smoke. Given that we protect ourselves to that degree, I don't see how we could possibly, as a society, condone the use of marijuana for anything other than medicinal purposes — and even then it would have to be in private. Recent research shows that pot is not benign and carries the risk of causing or worsening several respiratory conditions (see <a href=”http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html)…” target=”_blank”>http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html)… Given that the govt considers certain components of marijuana smoke to be carcinogenic, I fail to see how they could allow anyone to legally use it.
< /sarcasm >
Agreed!Decrim,no penalties for posession on your private property.Grown at home,no cartels,etc.
I turned 40 years old on Monday. On Thursday I smoked pot for the first time in my life. I have MS, nothing, I repeat nothing was taking away the pain I was having. I could not walk, sleep or think due to the pain. One joint and I could enjoy 5-6 hours of relative peace, a damn sight cheaper than from the doctor as well. So give me natural selection any day.
Make lettuce illegal and see what happens. The "war" on drugs just makes it all more profitable for "good guys" and bad guys alike. Great for crime and criminals and not so good for the rest of us. It's time to try something else.
This is where my Libertarianism kicks in, and like the founding of this country, I believe in freedom and that includes freedom to be dumb. Destructive people are going to be destructive no matter what the law says. IMO just as was the case with prohibition it does not work. But like so many things in this country once we institutionalize something like “The Drug War,” it becomes entrenched, and will probably never go away. I say legalize it all, if you endanger someone by getting behind the wheel of a car, buy it for minors, etc. you go to jail for a very long time. Deal with drugs like we deal with booze, not perfect, but IMO better that having another six kids get a bullet to the brain ala …St. Valentines Day Massacre. Most drug addicts are poor pitiful people that need mental help not prison IMO.
I knew quite a few people who are no longer with us. Every one of them drank water. Ban it as well.
I'm 40 yrs old, and I smoke pot. I have an engineering degree and an MBA, served my country in the first gulf war, and have a successful career. Pot has not made me lazy, or stupid, or caused me to suffer dementia. What gives the government the right to determine what substances I can use in my own home? I can have all the beer I want and smoke a carton of cigarettes, but somehow pot is what's going to kill me? We live in a capitalist society – so let the market decide. If there's a supply and a demand, no amount of prohibition is going to prevent its sale and distribution. It didnt work for alcohol in the 20's, and it wont work now.
You're an intelligent man, explain to me why you risk possible jail time,(yes I know, depending on where you're at it may just be a fine) just to get high? Would you risk your freedom for a twinkie, or a pizza?
Forget for a moment whether you think it should be legal or not, why take the risk? Why not fight for legalization first and then use it?
I'd agree with you if we all lived in a truly free society where one person's decision to indulge in pot could at most affect them and their immediate family members and associates. Unfortunately, in today's USSA someone's decision to smoke pot could affect far more them just that small, isolated group. If you lose any ambition to work, our tax dollars will subsidize you. If you have health problems related to smoking pot, our health care system will subsidize and that will only get worse if we wind up socialized, then it's our tax dollars via the health care system subsidizing you.
A person who decides to smoke pot and sinks will pull down far more of us than just his immediate associates and family.
Now, get the government out of our lives to the extent where we mainly sink or swim on our own and any subsidizing is done primarily through the charity of others … and I'll happily revisit this argument again.
I assume then that you are also calling for a return to prohibition, and how about a ban on non-nutrious food as well. After all, the fatties are a drag on those of us taxpayers who eat healthy.
Actually, if marijuana were legalized, it would fall under FDA regulations. Anyone legally producing marijuana would have to meet all the FDA standards for safety. My husband works in the pharma industry in a position where he deals with regs; he's firmly convinced that any version of legalized pot would wind up so watered down and scrubbed clean that it would essentially be extremely weak by the time the FDA allowed it out of any company's doors. Private growers would also have to meet FDA standards.
There would likely still be a black market for "real" weed, and it's possible that the weak, legal stuff could lead to far more indulgence in the illegal stuff.
The question is not whether narcotics are bad for you. The question is whether criminalising what people choose to put into their bodies is either effective or moral. The answer is clearly No! on the first and, if you think people own their own bodies, no on the second.
great reply.
This is what we were referring to- think this one through, people- is this the society you really want? legalization sounds attractive, as does taxation. But one suspects the costs in other areas to be huge…
Pot is the largest cash crop in America. Some farmers have lost their land because either someone planted some pot on it or they were trying to supplement the acres of nearly worthless food stuff to grow a plant that is worth more then gold. If that is your only concern, it is misguided. I should also point out that the pot prohibition includes Hemp, which was grown throughout America up until the year after prohibition ended and the pot war began.
There are THC receptors in the brain and THC is a natural substance. Most studies of pot suggest that it is benign in most regards and may actually prevent cancer, even when smoked.
Pot is more highly regulated then morphine – and that is crazy.
Gee, think about the people attending the service academies (West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force and Coast Guard Academies) as well as institutions such as the Virginia Military Institute – not only is there no pot, but no drinking as well! Add to that arduous academic requirements (no womyn's or "Queer" studies) with military discipline – uniforms, physical conditioning, inspections, close-order drill. Even for an ROTC candidate, college was a cake-walk compared to the service academies.
once again, the unintended consequences issue…
Your husband is most likely correct; there would be attempsts to regulate the potency but when you can grow it in your closet that's not going to work… so the taste would need to be satiated illiegally once again.
Ah, yes. All those people who are willing to shoot teenage boys in the back of the head for taking $2,000 out of their profits will simply roll over and play dead as soon as there is legal competition. The drug cartels will turn on the little light bulb over their heads and realize that instead of shooting people, intimidating people, kidnapping raping and torturing people, they should start dressing in suits and getting FDA approval for their goods.
If anyone thinks legalizing pot is going to significantly decrease the power of the cartels, they are clearly smoking something (maybe pot!) First, they would be able to undercut the prices of legal growers significantly – they don't have to pay their workers living wages, they don't have to get government licenses, meet regulation standards, and pay taxes. Secondly, they have no moral compunction against using arson, intimidation, kidnapping and murder against their opposition. Do you want to tell me who would be willing to set up shop knowing that you're competing against the cartels, especially with border security the way it is now?
How about we start with securing the border, and then we talk.
I remember my first pot.
Someone had laced it.
For hours (I don't know how many) the sky bled.
I haven't tried the stuff since.
Indeed. I lived in Ottawa a few years ago during the last Liberal federal regime. They had legislation moving through parliament to decriminalize marijuana — that is, possession was still a criminal offense, and yet from the moment the bill was introduced cops stopped enforcing the law. Anyway, here I was living in a nice residential area of the city and the stink of pot was nauseating. One would go to the bus stop to see a couple of kids smoking up, they'd be in the parks, at the swingsets around small children, etc. It went on for weeks, and then the bill died on the order paper because parliament recessed and then there was an election.
My big fear around legalization or decriminalization is a repeat of this but only as a permanent situation. The house I live in now backs onto a public park, and we have enough issues already with illegal beer parties (with, of course, a lot of pot smoking) involving teens. I can't imagine what it will be like if they are given free rein.
It's often forgotten why the temperance movement was so powerful in North America. I wasn't aware of the situation until, as a Canadian, I studied some of our national history. In the late nineteenth century public drunkenness was epidemic in some localities (in the particular history I was reading, Toronto was the centre of much of the debate), and booze was ruining families like a plague ripping through society. Admittedly, the problem peaked in the late 1800's, and was confined to urban, industrializing areas. But the movement continued long after the social problem was brought under some measure of control. The 1920s saw a resurgence of alcohol abuse which reinvigorated the movement and brought about their greatest legislative victories in the enactment of prohibition, but alas killed the movement dead when it was revoked.
Don't feel bad about not thinking about it. We never really thought about it either until he started working QC and got exposed to all the thousand and one things that must be done to try to ensure that our drugs are safe. Some are necessary, but most are redundancies for all but the most unscrupulous companies.
"I think the strongest arguement here is that there is a Western country who has legalized pot and it is not a country of raving drug smoking lunatics…in fact I bet if you look up every meaningful statistic that you would want to quote regarding crime, drug use and other social ramifications the Dutch would score better than the US."
I think you need to check your facts on the Netherlands again. Pot is still illegal in the Netherlands – its legal status was never changed when the acts that allow coffeehouses to exist were passed. What the Dutch did, however, was to create coffeehouses in which people could consume marihuana and hashish without interference from the police. If you don't believe me, go light one up in front of a police officer outside of a coffeehouse. You'll find out quickly that cannabis use still isn't legal there.
You also might learn some things by talking to the people of less urban areas in Holland. The rise of the coffeehouses was paralleled by the rise of the drugs tourism industry. People from all over the world come to the Netherlands to partake in drugs use. Unfortunately for most smaller Dutch towns, that's resulted in lots of people camping out in their town squares using drugs, using the grass as a toilet and occasionally dying of an overdose (most drugs users don't have the 'civility' to limit their drugs use to just marihuana and hashish – lots of heroin and methamphetamine there too).
You also might be interested to learn that in the past two years, the City of Amsterdam has revoked about 1/3 of the charters for coffeehouses in an effort to gain greater control over the sprawling problems that drugs tourism has brought them.
Please arm yourself with the facts before making broad pronouncements which are inaccurate. The Dutch are a tolerant society, not foolhardy. They wanted to extend a hand of tolerance to marihuana and hashish users; they never intended to legalise those drugs fully.
"Lighting up in restaurants"? Have the Smoking Police been disbanded?
There were other reasons that the Temperance movement became so strong: wages were paid in the form of cash; and between the factory and home, there were a lot of saloons. Unlike in Europe, North Americans drank not beer or wine, but hard liquor. And women did not have control over a family's property at the time, so if the husband gambled the farm away, she had no recourse in law. Further, with so much drunkeness, family violence was common, something that Prohibition helped control. John Gray wrote an interesting history about western Canada, called "Booze."
I hear you on legalization, but legalization doesn't get people out of the drug trade. they''ll still be cooking meth, stealing prescriptions and shifting to other drugs. It's just not that easy an issue, is it?
You wouldn't want to live next door to a homegrower. My sister did for a couple of years. During warm weather it would have been nice to sit outside on her porch but for the stench of pot wafting over from her neighbour and his buddies.
well what about them? Would legalization change any of that? If they already cannot drink alcohol, for good reasons, when why should they start smoking pot just because it is legal?
Likewise, I don't think legalization will cause individuals enrolled in Martial Arts studies to all of a sudden start smoking.
It may be legal, but if anything, there will be many many "narrow path" elements of our society who continue to live clean. And as far as the rest… well, as long as they don't hurt anyone then I really don't care.
"What the hell, your 14 year old daughter has a couple hits off her 18 year old boy friend's legal joint, has a couple beers, while intoxicated pops ecstasy, puffs a little crack and then gets out of the back seat and goes to school the next day. "
the availability of these harder drugs has been INCREASED as a result of the war on pot. something to consider.
Yeah – like after the country's been turned into a complete police state monitoring everyone's every action. – all to stop people from seeking a little pleasure.
Former Governor Gary Johnson, R-New Mexico, more or less forfeited his political career to point out the horrendous problems with our, "war on drugs." Two of his points were; over crowding in our prisons with nonviolent offenders and corruption of law enforcement.
Before his speech, he was one of the darlings of the Republican party. A state budget surplus and lowered crime rates just to name two positives. After his speech he became persona-non-grata. So let us not forget that there are some very powerful interests who need the "war" to continue.
Maybe if we change the language of the debate it will help change the focus to where it belongs, economics. Instead of continuing to use the scary mexican word, marijuana, we should call it by its scientific name, cannabis indica. Then we can include its cousin cannabis sativa (more commonly known as hemp). Our nation was partially founded on the later and would add an economic boost due to all of its environmentally beneficial uses; paper, our constitution is written on it; clothing fibers (replenishes the soil instead of depletes it like cotton; industrial oils, far superior to soy for ink as well as bio-fuels. Yet, here again there are powerful lobbies which prefer the status-quo. Now I may have the two back wards as to their scientific names but the info is good.
So stop calling them by the name the MSM first used to vilify them, you might as well call it refer.
The deaths from alcohol and tobacco dwarf the deaths from all other drugs combined by orders of magnitude. So booze and cigarettes should be the first drugs stamped out, right? Oh – we tried that with booze already. Didn't turn out too well did it.? When will the freedom haters ever learn?
I believe it is the last 30 to 40 years of government taking away our freedoms (including enacting vicitmless crimes such as drug use) that has led to the decline of our society. Your views are contrary to the principles of liberty this country was supposedly founded on.
You're an intelligent man. Explain to me why you critisize someone for seeking a little pleasure that may never be obtainable waiting for the immoral drug laws to change. Maybe slaves shouldn't rebel until slavery is outlawed either. Or perhaps you should focus on changing these idiotic laws instead of condemning someone who is hurting no one else.
And how many of those can you attribute their deaths to drowning?
The reason the government has been able to accomplish this is because we are a society of apathetic stoners. "Who cares what the government does, I'm high so all is good!" Victimless crime? You are clueless. I was a drug user for over two decades and left a wake of victims including myself. You are in denial of the facts in order to justify wrong doing. What principle of liberty am I contrary to? No accountability for your actions? Being a drug adled member fo society has nothing to do with life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. you are destroying your life, you are interfering with others liberty and it is a delusion of happiness.
Hey Brother you have all the Freedom in the World to Kill Yourself. I hope you don't, but you do what you deem best for you to have a long successful life. Bad enough with alcohol and the cancer sticks . Now you want to legalize Pot. In your heart you know better….and you do.
That's a misinterpretation.
The harder drugs increased for a number of reasons.
They are very interesting. LSD can morph you for a while into a highly spiritual person. The intensity of our emotions are hyped by adrenalin. It is very difficult to match anything that speed or crack can make you feel. Humans are curious and these drugs supply info that is available nowhere else for most.
As an aside, this is the source of one of thebiggest ideological confusions perpetuated on the public. The rules that seem to govern spirituality demand calm and peacefulness (btw, I am not absolutely sure that those ultimately are the real rules), while those that will keep you alive if an Ali Baba sword might cut your head off are in opposition. The confusion between the two is part of what allows folks to want to “give peace a chance” in the face of imminent execution of themselves and their loved ones.
Drugs were habitually hyped and still are (see Entourage) by Big Media. Just like when I was growing up I was asking myself where these women were that James Bond was forcing into his embrace and kissing until they eventually fell onto his bed, kids are nowadays asking, "Wow, where can I find weed that strong?" I really enjoy That 70s Show. Every actor in it is fall down funny, especially Debra Jo Rupp, but every episode is a pot advertisement.
Criminal organizations flood various parts of the world with drug product.
Prohibition is what actually causes the crime which you speak. Marijuana by itself is not responsible for the atrocities of the men who transport the plant. Prohibition creates the black market and prohibition creates the large profits. Should marijuana become legal, these crimes would not occur.
Just as Al Capone ran liquor in the 30's, drug runners will run drugs today. There is a HUGE demand for the substances and if the government can't deliver the goods, someone else will. Unfortunately, the underground runners won't follow the law the same as a legitimate business would.
I call B.S. 'Laced' marijuana is an urban myth and DOES NOT HAPPEN in the real world. Sure, sure you will refute me calling you out, but I know better.
First, dealers aren't going to lace a relatively cheap drug like marijuana that can be found on every street corner in America with a drug that is 100x the cost.
Furthermore, more Marijuana consumers would be turned off by the new taste and sensation of their 'laced' marijuana and probably would not return to the same dealer (since pot can be found just about everywhere).
Third, most marijuana dealers are NOT drug dealers. Most sell pot to help cut back the costs of their own habits and the others who sell to make money have no interest in using all of their profits to invest in additional product that would only be given away for free (laced).
SO I CALL B.S. to your story.
You had probably been drinking or just not accustomed to the sensation, but your stuff was NOT laced.
Yea, history repeats itself prohibition = blood in the streets legalization = good times on friday night & taxes
no brainer…
I do hold issue with one thing: when a bust is made, and they find, say 10 plants, i hear the policy is to weigh with dirt in pots.. so one plant weighs 30+ lbs.. but obviously isn't 30lbs of MJ.. then they quote the highest street price for those 30 lbs.. say 400/oz = hundreds of thousands of dollars… but when "just a little pot is killing children" they move 100lbs of grass and its only a $2000 sacrifice they died for? so is pot $10,000 a pound or more like $175?
Yea, history repeats itself prohibition = blood in the streets legalization = good times on friday night & taxes
no brainer…
I do hold issue with one thing: when a bust is made, and they find, say 10 plants, i hear the policy is to weigh with dirt in pots.. so one plant weighs 30+ lbs.. but obviously isn't 30lbs of MJ.. then they quote the highest street price for those 30 lbs.. say 400/oz = hundreds of thousands of dollars… but when "just a little pot is killing children" they move 100lbs of grass and its only a $2000 sacrifice they died for? so is pot $10,000 a pound or more like $175? Having an agenda in the media doesn't make pot in my neighborhood drop in price that much, I dont think it does in yours either..
How do clandestine growers growing small patches in the woods without the benefit of modern farm equiptment undercut prices of corporate farmers with giant farms able to produce it for just a few bucks a pound? Did gangsters burn down liquor stores after Prohibition ended? We could take the marijuana business away from organized crime. We could do it and have not much more of a black market for pot than we have for alcohol.
Would it hurt cartels? Former drug czar John Walters said marijuana the "bread and butter," the "center of gravity" for Mexican cartels. The ONDCP estimates that cartels earn more than 60% of their income from marijuana bound for the U.S. There have been other government estimates putting the percentage of
cartel earnings from marijuana even higher.
Will they just switch to selling cocaine, meth and heroin? They can't. They already bring in and diistribute most all the cocaine, meth and heroin consumed in this country. They're already involved in human trafficking and all sorts of other criminal activity. They're just not going to be able to replace these many billions of dollars a year they'll lose when they lose marijuana.
The other guy says pot is never laced. It is extremely rare for dealers to sell lace pot for the reasons he stated. But, it does happen on rare occasion.
One thing we could pretty much bank on is that if we legalized pot, pot stores would not lace it, and they wouldn't sell LSD or meth or cocaine or any other illegal drug either, just like liquor stores don't sell illegal drugs. If you buy pot from dealers, there is a very slight chance that it might be laced with another drug. There is a much greater chance that it might have some dangerous pesticides or mold inhibitor or some other dangerous chemical used on it when it was being produced. And it is a near certainty that if you are pot smoker people who sell you pot will offer to sell you other drugs in time. They may not all be professional drug dealers, but a lot of them are going to mess around with other drugs some and they're going to offer them to their customers too, either to make money and/or so that the drugs they are using are free. This is just one more of many reasons why it would be better to have pot run through legal channels and be sold through licensed shops similar to liquor stores.
A former foreign minister of Mexico has pointed out how Mexico has very limited options until the US changes drug policy.
One of my points is that if you make the state the pusher and the pimp, I don't think that you have any idea what a real pusher or pimp is.
Both depend on keeping their victims enslaved. Once Barney Frank or Schumer figure out that they can use the local police captain or possibly the Special Forces to ensure their drugs flow (for which pharmaceutical companies are contributing to their coffers) or that none of the government whores or child porn stars run off after the government has invested so much in drugging and beating them into submission for the pleasure of the Saudis or the local NAMBLA financiers, you will begin to know the real horror of a police state.
Ever heard of "wet"?
No, I didn't think so.
The dealer didn't lace it.
I'm pretty sure it was a prank.
Not funny…
All I'm saying is that smoking pot did not put a crack pipe or needle in anyones hand the 2 are scientifically unrelated.
It is a pretty straightforward concept that a higher percentage of people who don't have an inhibition to trying pot (vs. those who would never think of trying it) would also inherently be more willing to experiment with other drugs…this has everything to do with predisposition to the idea of drugs and a person's personality, it has nothing to do with the actual act of smoking pot.
PS – I don't mean to insult anyone – but frankly I do think that many people purposefully refer to old or discredited studies to support a broad anti-drug arguement. I think that anything related to public health is a serious issue and that honest information should be provided to the public. On the subject of pot I truly believe there is alot of misinformation purposefully spread for a political agenda. That is irresponsible government. Why is this important? Propogating the myth of false causes could prevent or delay discovery of real reasons for drug addiction delaying the development of effective treatment or prevention.
What fence? Like I wrote before:
Clear a thousand foot area in American soil along the border and move the buildings the people want to keep if need be. Mine the ENTIRE ground on American soil. Don't mine perhaps twenty feet at the border so as not to create a International Incident. Post an excessive amount of warnings in all languages spoken south of the border. Have loudspeakers "calmly" mention in All those languages that DEATH will be had if one is stupid enough not to understand. the signs for the learned and the sound for the 'not' so learned. Win – Win solution. We have millions of unused mines in our arsenal and what better way to use them than this? Finally, build a THREE story sized wall at the end of the thousand feet with mounted motion sensor vulcan machine guns every ten yards at the top. Hire commercial security or move the Army or National Guard into stations every 70 miles to patrol the wall.
…
Use the Air Force and Navy commissioned / enlisted as well because they aren't doing squat these days. I was in the navy and the four years on board a carrier. That ship spent most of its time -outside of our time in the Persian Gulf during the 2003 war- just going in circles and launching jets for practice so they must have plenty of time doing nothing.
Wow…great point. I never considered what the FDA would do. I do not know why I didn't see that angle.
That would completely defeat the point of any action now, or at any time, really.
One would have to become a horticulturist, or turn to the black market if one would like to actually feel the effects.
This is a very interesting article. Great story, interesting subject, and a good read.____Another problem that I see with legalization is that marijuana these days is 100x as potent as it was in it's natural form. It's more like tobacco with crack in it. ____We also have to remember that there are millions of dollars in the hands of lobbyists and propagandists trying to tell people that there is nothing wrong with pot in order to legalize it. It's legal to try and make money marketing misery as pleasure and they do an effective job. To me those negative influences are much more dangerous than the cartels because they are EVERYWHERE, not usually recognizable, and the victims are usually vulnerable children.____The "heroin chic" advertising that glamoraized the drugged out hazy look is just one small example of what is being spoon fed to our children. Don't let them be decieved.____I'm really thankfull there was never any supply around me in my more vulnerable years or moments.
This is a very interesting article. Great story, interesting subject, and a good read. Another problem that I see with legalization is that marijuana these days is 100x as potent as it was in it's natural form. It's more like tobacco with crack in it. We also have to remember that there are millions of dollars in the hands of lobbyists and propagandists trying to tell people that there is nothing wrong with pot in order to legalize it. It's legal to try and make money marketing misery as pleasure and they do an effective job. To me those negative influences are much more dangerous than the cartels because they are EVERYWHERE, not usually recognizable, and the victims are usually vulnerable children. The "heroin chic" advertising that glamoraized the drugged out hazy look is just one small example of what is being spoon fed to our children. Don't let them be decieved. I'm really thankfull there was never any supply around me in my more vulnerable years or moments.
mar low
So pot being illegal is on the same level of immorality as slavery? hmmmmm…..I see.
Funny, starting to smoke weed is what made me question the liberal ideology.
Legalize pot, the violence would end? What about the violence from the coke, meth and heroin that the same cartels and gangs also smuggle? Legalizing pot wouldn't end any of the violence.
They should be legal too – as they once were withno noticable societal ill effect.
Yep, I found that pot really does make one stupid, careless and depressed a lot like alcohol. The legalization could possibly take some of the $'s out of criminal, terrorist as well as crooked politicians.
well what about them? Would legalization change any of that? If they already do not drink alcohol, for good reasons, when why should they start smoking pot just because it is legal?
Likewise, I don't think legalization will cause individuals committed to Martial Arts studies to all of a sudden start smoking.
It may be legal, but if anything, there will be many many "narrow path" elements of our society who continue to live clean. And as far as the rest… well, as long as they don't hurt anyone then I really don't care.
You must be logged in to post a comment.