Drugs

[194GVan]

Drug addiction is not a psychological disease (although psychologists would love to have you think that), it is physical addiction to a substance. The only way for someone to rid themselves of the drug addiction is to CHOOSE for THEMSELVES to quit.

Why are there groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous then? Would you go to those groups and say that?

I was required to attended NA meetings at one point, due to legal infractions that i wont get into, but some people really do struggle with it, its really sad. Going to support groups like that every night is the only thing keeping them clean on a day to day basis. Trust me, for some people, it is a psychological disease. However, they are choosing to do something about it, they are seeking help.

 

[Danoff]

I was required to attended NA meetings at one point, due to legal infractions that i wont get into, but some people really do struggle with it, its really sad. Going to support groups like that every night is the only thing keeping them clean on a day to day basis. Trust me, for some people, it is a psychological disease. However, they are choosing to do something about it, they are seeking help.

The word disease gets thrown around too lightly.

I would say that's fine. If some people want a support group to help them through their struggle - they can go fine it (and have). That doesn't mean that I'm obligated to help.

Like I said, I will donate to charities of my choosing. Forced chartiy is not charity.

 

[smellysocks12]

The word disease gets thrown around too lightly.

I would say that's fine. If some people want a support group to help them through their struggle - they can go fine it (and have). That doesn't mean that I'm obligated to help.

Like I said, I will donate to charities of my choosing. Forced chartiy is not charity.

Forced patriotism isn't patriotism either, the patriot missiles launched at Iraq were also paid from taxes collected from people against the war. With that type of thought you can think of thousands of examples like this. You might as well agree with anarchy if you think like that, since a government is there to decide how to spend tax money.


Besides that you are also forced to pay the salaries of the police who have to patrol through problem areas with lots of junkies who are all out to make money for their drugs, why don't you complain about that?


"I didn't cause the trouble that junkies make, so I won't pay for the police patrolling the area"

That's kinda the same type of statement, so why not allocate the money differently? Help junkies get off their addiction with funds from the government which causes less need for police in certain areas. The costs cut in one area will make up for the extra costs in the other. The government eventually might make a profit of it.

 

[Danoff]

Forced patriotism isn't patriotism either, the patriot missiles launched at Iraq were also paid from taxes collected from people against the war. With that type of thought you can think of thousands of examples like this. You might as well agree with anarchy if you think like that, since a government is there to decide how to spend tax money.


Besides that you are also forced to pay the salaries of the police who have to patrol through problem areas with lots of junkies who are all out to make money for their drugs, why don't you complain about that?


"I didn't cause the trouble that junkies make, so I won't pay for the police patrolling the area"

That's kinda the same type of statement, so why not allocate the money differently? Help junkies get off their addiction with funds from the government which causes less need for police in certain areas. The costs cut in one area will make up for the extra costs in the other. The government eventually might make a profit of it.

There is a big difference between what I'm talking about and anarchy (or even removing the police or military). Read the libertarian party thread.

 

[smellysocks12]

There is a big difference between what I'm talking about and anarchy (or even removing the police or military). Read the libertarian party thread.

The libertarian party thread doesn't concern me since I'm not from the USA, so that doesn't apply to me. Drug problems are a worldwide problem though, just like minimum wages are both applied in the USA and Europe. I rather stay out of topics where I don't know any thing about the topic being discussed.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

This is going to take a while...

Wow ...so because you feel that alcohol pot and cigarettes are bad and should be banned everyone is supposed to feel the same way...got it .

I never said that... I never even implied that. Many people will disagree with what I have to say and that's understandable. However, just because 2-3 people say they can drink a 6-pack, or smoke an ounce of weed a day and be unaffected by it, does not mean that that applies to everyone. That is the point I was trying to make.

They all should be banned is not an answer it is an evasion.

Again, another misunderstanding. Don't confuse my feelings on the subject with what I think should or should not been done in relation to the drug trade. Yes, it is true that I believe cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana have NO business being in the human body -- many will disagree. I also said as long as marijuana exists, it should STAY illegal and I cited several reason why.

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL WITH CERTAIN INALIABLE RIGHTS SUCH AS LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS .......etc. etc. It was recognised that each individual was responsible for the OWNERSHIP of themselves .

That's your interpretation -- that doesn't necessarily make it fact.

BTW..you cant say pot has ne medical value..the fact is its being used succesfully as MEDICINE and is legal in some ares to be used as such .Unless of course you know better than the doctors. And the lawmakers...and the patients.

First of all, I never said pot has no medical value. I simply stated the fact that smoked marijuana is not a scientifically approved medicine. Marinol, however, is approved by science.
And as far me knowing better than doctors, lawmakers, and patients... I wouldn't discount the possibility. Doctors have been known to make mistakes... Also, there are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked.

Now we're getting somewhere 👍

I am trying to be as civil and as understanding as possible. Before I go any further, though, I would like to ask everyone who reads this: What do you think I possibly have to gain by informing people of the potential problems related to drug legalization? I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW...


Anyway, I figured I would ask a few questions, to which you [Emad] answered:

1. Do you think ALL drugs should be legalized?

No, just the soft ones

If your definition of soft drug includes marijuana, I would like to point a few potential problems with doing so. Marijuana is not as harmless as some people are trying to make it out to be. Marijuana is actually more powerful now than it used to be in the 1960s (in terms of THC concentration and other substances that I can't remember as I'm writing ALL of this off of the top of my head). I clearly remember reading these interesting facts about pot. Studies show that a person who smokes about 4-5 joints per week is taking in as many carcinogens as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day. Also, smoking just one marijuana joint bring 4x the tar into the lungs than a cigarette with a filter.

2. If drugs were legal, should they be limited to be over the age of 21? 18?

I'd say 18 or 19 but legal age in the US is 21 if I remember correctly. The problem with having such a high legal age is that underage usage will skyrocket and it's only more fodder against it. In Europe, legal age is around 16. In Canada, the age is around 18 or 19 depending on the province you're in.

If marijuana (among other illegal substances) were to be legalized, if age restrictions were set on their use, there will still be a black market for underage users. Therefore, there will still be drug-related crime. The only viable solution would be to legalize drugs for users of all ages -- that would virtually eliminate the black market for drugs and the crime related to it. However, the problem with that is (as Dan noted):

Children cannot be expected to make responsible choices and until they are able to do so, some protections are necessary.

3. Should so-called "hard drugs" such as LSD, crack, heroin, meth etc. be made available as well if marijuana is legalized?

No. If marijuana is legalized, law enforcement officials will have the additional funding needed to crack down on the sellers of hard drugs. There's fewer people who sell them, and the ones that do are typically more dangerous.

In all probability, the government could stand to make a large amount of money (in the form of tax revenues). This money could then trickle down into law enforcement agencies in order to crack down on the seller of hard drugs. However, there are potential problems with this. If the government were to collect taxes directly from the sale of marijuana, a new black market could arise (just like with cigarettes) where people will get their marijuana somewhere else in order to avoid the tax.

4. Who do you think should sell the drugs? Private corporations? The government? Both? Neither?

Think of the policy in the Netherlands. Just allow small groups of stores/bars to carry it in properly zoned locales. Government intervention should only be in place for taxing them, regulating access (think liquor licence), and in regulating chemical additives if grow ops were to go corporate.

Unfortunately, the drug policy in the Netherlands has not worked. drug abuse has increased in the Netherlands. From 1984 to 1996, marijuana use among 18-25 year olds in Holland increased twofold. Since legalization of marijuana, heroin addiction levels in Holland have tripled and perhaps even quadrupled by some estimates. Marijuana is not the only illegal drug to find a home in the Netherlands -- ecstasy also has strong roots in the Netherlands. The majority of the world’s "E" is produced in labs in the Netherlands.

5. If drugs were in fact legalized, who would collect the revenue?

The people with the legal licences to sell and the government for the tax money.

That could cause potential problems as well. For example, if only certain people (in your example: people with legal licenses) were allowed to collect revenues, this could create another black market where people will sell marijuana ("off the books so-to-speak") in order to avoid taxation.

6. How would society care for and pay for the social costs of increased drug use?

If the millions of people per year that go to jail on posession of marijuana charges get released, then society has all the money they need in the form of saved tax money. Abusers should be allowed and encouraged access to rehab facilities.

Before I present you with the potential problems with releasing inmates, I would like to clarify something. You say "millionis of people per year go to jail for marijuana possession". This is simply not true.

[img=]http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/page23.gif[/img]

Most "non-violent" drug offenders are ordered into treatment programs, not jail.

7. If drugs are legalized in the United States, how should the government deal with people who come to America from countries where drugs are illegal?

What's to deal with? They're tourists coming to the country to enjoy the things it has to offer, right? As long as they don't overstay their visit or attempt to remain illegally, it should be ok.

I disagree -- but I'm going to have cut this short... other work to do...

8. Why do you think drugs should be legalized? (short answer) << I ask this because I want to know what it is that motivates proponents of legalization.

-They're already readily available to us. If I go downtown, all I would have to do is ask a few random people and I'd have access to a source. If I'm on campus, then everyone will know where to get it.

Some would argue that that kind of availability (according to some) is the reason why drugs should remain illegal. So basically, easy access is one motivation for proponents of drug legalization.

-You've said it before. Some dealers are shady people, you don't know whether or not what you're getting is good or safe if you buy off a random person.

More later...

-legalizing it means that crime gangs lose a major source of income - ie, reductions in organized crime.

Not based on some of your earlier answers as I have pointed out. Unless you can address the above issue relating to organized crime / black market. More later...

Similarly, It frees up police resources to target dealers of more serious drugs. That in itself will help drive down the population of hard drug users.

Not necessarily considering the fact that so-called safe drugs are indeed a gateway to harder drugs -- not to mention the black market issue of so-called soft drugs. More later...

 

[RandomHero]

1. Do you think ALL drugs should be legalized?
2. If drugs were legal, should they be limited to be over the age of 21? 18?
3. Should so-called "hard drugs" such as LSD, crack, heroin, meth etc. be made available as well if marijuana is legalized?
4. Who do you think should sell the drugs? Private corporations? The government? Both? Neither?
5. If drugs were in fact legalized, who would collect the revenue?
6. How would society care for and pay for the social costs of increased drug use?
7. Will people still need prescriptions for medication (antibiotics etc.) if drugs are legalized?
8. If drugs are legalized in the United States, how should the government deal with people who come to America from countries where drugs are illegal?
9. Why do you think drugs should be legalized? (short answer) << I ask this because I want to know what it is that motivates proponents of legalization.

1. only "soft" drugs
2. 18.
3. No. Not to the public.
4. Private corporations. Regulated by the FDA(?) as everything else is.
5. The same people that do so today.
6. A portion of the tax revenue on the sales of these drugs (tobacco, alchohol, marijuana, etc.) should go to helping inform more people and institutions to help those severely addicted.
7. Yes. Those "hard" drugs will be over the counter as the "soft" drugs could be purchased by anyone old enough.
8. By doing so as they have to this day.
9. Because the government has been making money off ciggarette smokers and hard alchohol drinkers, both of which are "hard" drugs. Yet there are "soft" drugs out there that do less harm yet are still illegal.

 

[RandomHero]

This is going to take a while...
If your definition of soft drug includes marijuana, I would like to point a few potential problems with doing so. Marijuana is not as harmless as some people are trying to make it out to be. Marijuana is actually more powerful now than it used to be in the 1960s (in terms of THC concentration and other substances that I can't remember as I'm writing ALL of this off of the top of my head). I clearly remember reading these interesting facts about pot. Studies show that a person who smokes about 4-5 joints per week is taking in as many carcinogens as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day. Also, smoking just one marijuana joint bring 4x the tar into the lungs than a cigarette with a filter.

So what is your point here. For the normal user this means they don't have to smoke as much to get the desired effect, in turn making it safer?

If marijuana (among other illegal substances) were to be legalized, if age restrictions were set on their use, there will still be a black market for underage users. Therefore, there will still be drug-related crime. The only viable solution would be to legalize drugs for users of all ages -- that would virtually eliminate the black market for drugs and the crime related to it. However, the problem with that is

Just like ciggarettes and alchohol. Show me the statistics with those legal drugs and a supposed black market containing crimes. And that will show you the same amount you will find with marijuana when it is legalized.

In all probability, the government could stand to make a large amount of money (in the form of tax revenues). This money could then trickle down into law enforcement agencies in order to crack down on the seller of hard drugs. However, there are potential problems with this. If the government were to collect taxes directly from the sale of marijuana, a new black market could arise (just like with cigarettes) where people will get their marijuana somewhere else in order to avoid the tax.

Not if they can make it widely available to legal buyers and not tax it to death.

Some would argue that that kind of availability (according to some) is the reason why drugs should remain illegal. So basically, easy access is one motivation for proponents of drug legalization.

What other drug is as easily available as marijuana? In terms of time to produce and thing needed for production, to availability on the streets.

 

[RandomHero]

I am trying to be as civil and as understanding as possible. Before I go any further, though, I would like to ask everyone who reads this: What do you think I possibly have to gain by informing people of the potential problems related to drug legalization? I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW...

I think you have done more than just attempting to inform those of us, more like trying to get us to view this subject just as you do.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I think you have done more than just attempting to inform those of us, more like trying to get us to view this subject just as you do.

Thank you for the input and for answering the questions. However, it is not my intent to get people to view the subject as I do -- rather I want people to understand the potential ramifications involved with drug legalization (using information based on facts -- not conjecture/theory).

Again, it's late -- I'll be back later to follow up on a few more posts.

 

[Danoff]

The libertarian party thread doesn't concern me since I'm not from the USA, so that doesn't apply to me. Drug problems are a worldwide problem though, just like minimum wages are both applied in the USA and Europe. I rather stay out of topics where I don't know any thing about the topic being discussed.

I know you're not from the US, but we discussed what you were talking about in that thread. I wasn't suggesting that you actually participate in the topic, just read it and learn.

 

[ledhed]

Marijuana Arrests For Year 2003 Hit Record High
FBI Report Reveals Pot Smokers Arrested In America At A Rate Of One Every 42 Seconds
2004-10-25 >> legal category >> legal article

October 25, 2004

Washington, DC: Police arrested an estimated 755,187 persons for marijuana violations in 2003, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. The total is the highest ever recorded by the FBI, and comprised 45 percent of all drug arrests in the United States.

"These numbers belie the myth that police do not target and arrest minor marijuana offenders," said Keith Stroup, Executive Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), who noted that at current rates, a marijuana smoker is arrested every 42 seconds in America. "This effort is a tremendous waste of criminal justice resources, costing American taxpayers approximately $7.6 billion dollars annually. These dollars would be better served combating serious and violent crime, including the war on terrorism."

Of those charged with marijuana violations, 88 percent - some 662,886 Americans - were charged with possession only. The remaining 92,301 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses - even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use. In past years, approximately 30 percent of those arrested were age 19 or younger.

"Present policies have done little if anything to decrease marijuana's availability or dissuade youth from trying it," Stroup said, noting that a majority of young people now report that they have easier access to pot than alcohol or tobacco.

The total number of marijuana arrests for 2003 far exceeded the total
number of arrests for all violent crimes combined, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

Marijuana arrests for 2003 increased 8 percent from the previous year,
and have nearly doubled since 1993.

 

[ledhed]

Information shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Impartial Analysis | Arguments | Full Text

Shall the ordinance requiring the City of Oakland (1) to make law enforcement related to private adult cannabis (marijuana) use, distribution, sale, cultivation and possession, the City's lowest law enforcement priority; (2) to lobby to legalize, tax and regulate cannabis for adult private use, distribution, sale, cultivation and possession; (3) to license, tax and regulate cannabis sales if California law is amended to allow such actions; and (4) to create a committee to oversee the ordinance's implementation, be adopted?
Summary Prepared by City Attorney:
Title: Cannabis Regulation - An Ordinance that Would Require that the City (1) Establish a System to License, Tax and Regulate Cannabis (Marijuana) Sales As Soon as Possible under California Law; (2) Create a Committee to Oversee the Ordinance's Implementation and Disbursement of Revenue from Licensing and Taxation of Businesses that Sell Cannabis; (3) Adopt Law Enforcement Policies Related to Cannabis; and (4) Advocate for Changes in Laws to Support Implementation and Goals of the Ordinance

Summary: This proposed ordinance would require that the City of Oakland establish a system to license, tax and regulate cannabis for adult use as soon as possible under California law and adopt regulations regarding licensing and taxation of businesses that sell cannabis. The proposed ordinance makes investigation, citation, and arrest for private adult cannabis offenses Oakland's lowest law enforcement priority.

The proposed ordinance would require that the City create an eleven (11) member committee to oversee the implementation of the ordinance. The Committee's responsibilities include (1) ensuring timely implementation of the ordinance's provisions and (2) overseeing disbursement of revenues generated from licensing, regulation and taxation of licensed cannabis businesses to ensure that revenues are spent on City services such as schools, libraries and youth programs.

The ordinance also requires that the City advocate for changes in state and other laws that would allow taxation and regulation of cannabis and end prosecution, arrest, investigation and imprisonment for adult, private cannabis offenses.

s/JOHN RUSSO City Attorney

Fiscal Impact from City Auditor:
SUMMARY

This measure authorizes the City of Oakland to submit to the voters a ballot measure that would require the City to:

1. make law enforcement related to private adult cannabis (marijuana) use the lowest law enforcement priority;

2. lobby to legalize, tax and regulate cannabis (marijuana) for adult private use, distribution, sale, cultivation and possession;

3. license, tax and regulate cannabis (marijuana) sales if California law is amended to allow and authorize such actions; and

4. create a Community Committee to oversee the ordinance's implementation. The "lowest law enforcement priority" provision shall not apply to minors. The Community Oversight Committee (to insure the timely implementation of the Oakland Cannabis Regulation) shall be composed of members appointed by the City Council, the Mayor, the City Auditor, and the City Manager. The committee's responsibilities shall include implementation of the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority policy; making recommendations; monitoring the disbursement of funds generated by the cannabis revenue; and reporting annually to the Council on the implementation of this ordinance. The ordinance does not contain a specific provision to finance the costs of performing annual audits.

FISCAL IMPACT

The City of Oakland has not prepared an estimate related to changing enforcement priorities based on the passage of this measure. Therefore it is difficult to render an opinion with insufficient data.

s/ROLAND E. SMITH, CPA, CFS City Auditor
The argument for ;
The federal government's war on drugs has been costly, ineffective, and unjust. Criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) has unfairly imprisoned thousands of non-violent offenders, including a disproportionate number of people of color.
Measure Z allows Oakland police to focus their time and resources on fighting violent crime and reducing the murder rate, instead of wasting their time on adult nonviolent marijuana offenses.

Every year California spends $150 million to arrest, prosecute and imprison marijuana offenders. It makes more economic sense to raise money by taxing and regulating the adult use of marijuana, instead of spending money to criminalize it.

Revenue raised will help pay for vital city services like schools, libraries, and health care. Furthermore, allowing marijuana to be sold by licensed businesses will get drug dealers off the streets and break their hold on our neighborhoods.

Measure Z makes it easier for medical patients to buy medical marijuana from licensed Oakland businesses. Patients deserve safe, secure and affordable access to medicine. While we can't change federal law, we can instruct our local police not to arrest or harass marijuana users. Measure Z controls marijuana sales; it does not legalize sales on the streets, near schools or to minors. It does not promote marijuana use, or allow broadcast or billboard advertising.

The Drug War has failed. It's time for a new approach. That's why community groups, elected officials, educators, religious leaders, and doctors all agree: Measure Z is the right thing to do. Measure Z is endorsed by the Metropolitan Greater Oakland Democratic Club, the Family Council on Drug Awareness, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, California Superior Court Judge James P. Gray, and many others. Please join us in voting YES ON MEASURE Z. For more information, please visit http://www.YesonZ.org.

s/NATE MILEY Alameda County Supervisor, District 4

s/DR. FRANK LUCIDO, MD Family Practice Physician

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The total number of marijuana arrests for 2003 far exceeded the total number of arrests for all violent crimes combined, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

The reason for that is because there are more people smoking pot than there are people killing, abusing, and stealing.

Marijuana arrests for 2003 increased 8 percent from the previous year,
and have nearly doubled since 1993.

Usually after they get arrested, they are given treatment -- not thrown in jail. I am fully aware that marijuana arrests are numerous -- but the fact remains that most of the people who get arrested are ordered into treatment.

 

[ledhed]

The argument against measure Z
Marijuana growers, distributors and advocates from outside Oakland are spending hundreds of thousands of collars on politicians and consultants to pass this Initiative. Why? Because, if passed, this Initiative would force the City of Oakland to spend your TAX DOLLARS to lobby for statewide legalization of RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA USE.
It would require Oakland government to appoint and staff a committee to study how to sell and distribute marijuana.

The Initiative would make Oakland the only California City that doesn't enforce against marijuana production, distribution and sales. Taxpayers would bear the health and safety costs of an unregulated mega-marketplace for marijuana buyers and sellers form all over the State.

This Initiative DOES NOT relate to medical marijuana, and threatens Oakland's medical marijuana program already in effect.

This Initiative DOES NOT allow Oakland to tax or regulate marijuana sales until the state government legalizes marijuana sales for recreational use. That won't happen anytime soon! Oakland cannot afford this Initiative given the City's many unfunded priorities, such as violence prevention and fixing potholes. This Initiative provides NO RESOURCES for enforcement against sales to teenagers and children and NO MONEY to pay for treatment of smoking-related illnesses.

This Initiative threatens Oakland's carefully implemented medical marijuana program. Under this program, the City of Oakland has licensed nonprofit organizations to dispense quality and safe medicinal marijuana to those with health needs.

If passed, this reckless measure would flood our streets with unsafe and unregulated marijuana. It would invite unwelcomed attention from federal prosecutors who are eager to make an example of Oakland by shutting down our medical marijuana providers.

THE CITY ATTORNEY SAYS THIS INITIATIVE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL.

Don't put Oakland's medical marijuana patients, safety and tax dollars at risk for a reckless campaign to benefit marijuana growers and distributors! VOTE NO ON MEASURE Z.

s/DANNYWAN Oakland City Councilmember

s/DAVID KAKISHIBA School Board Director

s/ROBERT L. JACKSON Bishop "Bob" Jackson Acts Full Gospel Church

s/FRAN MATARRESE Community Leader

s/ELLEN WYRICK PARKINSON West Oakland Community Leader.
I see no argument on the " harm" it will cause hmmmmmmmmm wonder why ?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm in favor of the argument AGAINST measure Z.

 

[ledhed]

The reason for that is because there are more people smoking pot than there are people killing, abusing, and stealing.



Usually after they get arrested, they are given treatment -- not thrown in jail. I am fully aware that marijuana arrests are numerous -- but the fact remains that most of the people who get arrested are ordered into treatment.

And you know this because ? Its a felony in most states do you know what happens when you get arrested for a felony and convicted ? Its worse than prison for some. And they are put in jail until araignment . Stupid... stupid... law.
In most states if not all there is little or no guidlines for treatment..if at all its left to the discretion of the courts . its different from state to stae with some states giving a 1 year jail term for 1 st offenders . You dont have a clue ..you really should do a little research.
EDIT;
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE Z If the opponents of Measure Z really want to help medical marijuana patients, they should listen to those patients and the doctors who treat them and support Measure Z.

Opponents claim the city provides for medical patients; but the fact is Oakland has SHUT DOWN most of our medical marijuana dispensaries, forcing patients onto the streets. Measure Z makes it easier for patients to have safe access to medical marijuana. That's why patients and doctors support Measure Z.

Measure Z is a citizen initiative signed by 23,000 Oakland voters. It's a sensible approach that makes private adult marijuana offenses the lowest police priority for Oakland, as it is in Seattle. According to the Seattle Times "despite predictions of naysayers, there is no evidence of widespread public pot consumption as a result of the measure."

Measure Z controls marijuana sales; it does not legalize sales on the streets, near schools or to minors. It does not promote marijuana use, or allow broadcast or billboard advertising. Opponents claim Measure Z could cost the city money; in fact it raises money for vital city services by allowing for the taxed and regulated sale of marijuana.

People who fear reform often lay claims of unconstitutionality. They said that about the California medical marijuana initiative, Prop 215, but the initiative passed and took effect. Citizens have a constitutional right to voice their opinions.

The Drug War has failed. It's time for a new approach. That's why doctors, nurses, and patients agree: Yes on Z.
/MARTHA KUHL California Nurses Association

s/DON PERATA California State Senator, District 9

s/DR. MIKE ALCALAY, MD HIV Education and Prevention Project of Alameda County

s/JANE JACKSON Medical Marijuana Patient; Founder, Mayor's Commission on Persons with Disabilities; Member, Oakland Medical Marijuana Task Force

s/STEPHANIE SHERER Americans for Safe Access

 

[ledhed]

Sorry couldnt get this all in one post ...the people have spoken...heres the law they voted on by refferendum. 87,201 / 65.2% Yes votes ...... 46,563 / 34.8% No votes

Section 1: TITLE

Oakland Cannabis Regulation and Revenue Ordinance

Section 2: FINDINGS

The people of Oakland, California find as follows:

WHEREAS it is a goal of the people of Oakland to keep drugs off the streets and away from children, and to eliminate street dealing and violent crime; and

WHEREAS each year California spends over $150 million enforcing cannabis (marijuana) laws, expending valuable law enforcement resources that would be better spent on fighting violent and serious crimes; and

WHEREAS medical and governmental studies have consistently found cannabis to be less dangerous than alcohol, tobacco and other drugs; and

WHEREAS otherwise law-abiding adults are being arrested or imprisoned for nonviolent cannabis offenses, clogging our courts and jails; and

WHEREAS controlling and regulating cannabis so that it is only sold by licensed businesses would undermine the hold of street dealers on our neighborhoods; and

WHEREAS in the face of the severe state and local budget crisis, the revenues from taxing and licensing cannabis would help fund vital Oakland city services; and

WHEREAS the current laws against cannabis have needlessly harmed patients who need it for medical purposes, and impeded the development of hemp for fiber, oil, and other industrial purposes; and

WHEREAS it is the hope of the people of Oakland that there will be state and federal law reform that will eliminate the problems and costs caused by cannabis prohibition;

THEREFORE the people of the City of Oakland do hereby enact the following ordinance establishing the cannabis policy of the city.

Section 3: DEFINITION

"Cannabis" - Means "marijuana" as currently defined in California Health & Safety Code Section 11018.

Section 4: PURPOSE

The purpose of this ordinance is:

a) To direct the City of Oakland to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis for adult use, so as to keep it off the streets and away from children and to raise revenue for the city, as soon as possible under state law.

b) To direct the Oakland Police Department to make investigation, citation, and arrest for private adult cannabis offenses the lowest law enforcement priority, effective immediately upon the passage of this ordinance.

c) To advocate for changes in state law (and at other levels as necessary) to authorize the taxation and regulation of cannabis and eliminate criminal penalties for private, adult cannabis use.

Section 5: REGULATION

The City of Oakland shall establish a system to license, tax and regulate cannabis for adult use as soon as possible under California law. At that time, the City Council shall promulgate regulations that include, but are not limited to, the following provisions consistent with California law:

a) The sale and distribution to minors will be strictly prohibited;

b) The city shall establish a licensing system for cannabis businesses, with regulations to assure good business practices, compliance with health and safety standards, access for persons with disabilities, and nuisance abatement;

c) Minors shall not be permitted in areas where cannabis is sold, nor shall minors be employed by licensed cannabis businesses;

d) No business licensed to sell cannabis will be located within 600 feet of a school;

e) Cannabis businesses shall be required to pay taxes and licensing fees;

f) The public advertising of cannabis through television, radio or billboards will be prohibited; and

g) Onsite consumption shall be licensed so as to keep cannabis off the streets and away from children, subject to reasonable air quality standards.

Section 6: LOWEST LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY

a) The Oakland Police Department shall make investigation, citation, and arrest for private adult cannabis offenses Oakland's lowest law enforcement priority.

b) This "lowest law enforcement priority" policy shall not apply to distribution of cannabis to minors, distribution or consumption of cannabis on streets or other public places, or motor vehicle violations.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Don't assume I haven't.

There is a myth in this country that U.S. prisons are filled with drug users. This assertion is simply not true. Actually, only 5 percent of inmates in federal prison on drug charges are incarcerated for drug possession.

Drug treatment courts are working. Researchers estimate that more than 50 percent of defendants convicted of drug possession will return to criminal behavior within two to three years. Those who graduate from drug treatment courts have far lower rates of recidivism, ranging from 2 to 20 percent.

“99 percent of [drug] offenders sentenced to prison had one or more prior felony convictions or multiple charges.”

 

[ledhed]

Quote:
Drug treatment courts are working. Researchers estimate that more than 50 percent of defendants convicted of drug possession will return to criminal behavior within two to three years. Those who graduate from drug treatment courts have far lower rates of recidivism, ranging from 2 to 20 percent.

Not every state HAS a " drug treatment " court
You would use ONE state as representative of the country ?????? How many are in FEDERAL prison ? How many in Municipal lock up ? How many in TEXAS are in jail for 5 years for possesion ?
ERIC SCHLOSSER

Under the laws of fifteen states, you can get a life sentence for a nonviolent marijuana offense. And the average sentence for a convicted murder in this country is about six years. In the state of California, the average prison sentence for a convicted killer is about 3.3 years. So that enormous discrepancy between how violent crimes tend to be treated and how some nonviolent drug crimes are treated points to a very irrational impulse in this country to punish when it comes to marijuana.

In terms of the discrepancies between marijuana laws in different states--most people don't realize that the drug laws of this state operate at the federal, local and state level so you can be charged under any one of those three types of laws for a marijuana crime. And the punishment that you're going to receive for the same crime can vary enormously depending upon what state you're in and who decided to prosecute you.

For example, in Montana you can get a life sentence for a first offense for growing one marijuana plant. In New Mexico, which is not far away, you can be growing ten thousand marijuana plants for a first offense and get a punishment of no more than three years. Under federal law, you can get the death sentence for a first-time marijuana offense even if there's no violence involved. Anyone who's caught with 60,000 plants, which seems like a lot of pot, but if you're the person driving the truck for that conspiracy you may not be the kingpin can be given the death sentence under federal law
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/interviews/schlosser.html
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=7&sortorder=articledate

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Not every state HAS a " drug treatment " court

Blame that on the people who believe in individual rights. If the state had even a modicum of control of court issues every state would have a drug treatment court.

You would use ONE state as representative of the country ??????

I did not use one state as representative of the country. I used one state as an example. I'm trying my best to keep my posts as short and as readable as possible. Not too many people were interested in reading my Libertarian essay, so I am trying a new approach -- and when I make my Fascism vs. Conservatism thread, I'm going to try to put as much information in as possible without making the post TOO long.

How many are in FEDERAL prison ?

5%, just as the quote said. However, what you didn't read (or at least comment on), was the fact that 99% of all drug incarceration are for prior convictions and multiple charges. Most people go into rehab after they're arrested and thrown in jail whether its for 1 day or a 1 week. The time frame is of no concern to me because I don't do drugs.

How many in Municipal lock up ?

I don't know. Either way, that figure is irrelevant.

How many in TEXAS are in jail for 5 years for possesion ?

According to these statistics, they are in jail not ONLY for possession... and even if they were in jail ONLY for possession, hopefully that'll teach them to stop the nonsense.

Under the laws of fifteen states, you can get a life sentence for a nonviolent marijuana offense. And the average sentence for a convicted murder in this country is about six years. In the state of California, the average prison sentence for a convicted killer is about 3.3 years. So that enormous discrepancy between how violent crimes tend to be treated and how some nonviolent drug crimes are treated points to a very irrational impulse in this country to punish when it comes to marijuana.
In terms of the discrepancies between marijuana laws in different states--most people don't realize that the drug laws of this state operate at the federal, local and state level so you can be charged under any one of those three types of laws for a marijuana crime. And the punishment that you're going to receive for the same crime can vary enormously depending upon what state you're in and who decided to prosecute you.

For example, in Montana you can get a life sentence for a first offense for growing one marijuana plant. In New Mexico, which is not far away, you can be growing ten thousand marijuana plants for a first offense and get a punishment of no more than three years. Under federal law, you can get the death sentence for a first-time marijuana offense even if there's no violence involved. Anyone who's caught with 60,000 plants, which seems like a lot of pot, but if you're the person driving the truck for that conspiracy you may not be the kingpin can be given the death sentence under federal law
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../schlosser.html

All your doing is giving reasons to make punishment on murders etc. harsher -- not legalize drugs.

 

[ledhed]

I think pot should be legal. Just as legal as Beer . The other drug laws are stupid and need to be reformed. I do not want to legalize all drugs but I do want to decriminalize the use of drugs . The way things are now is ample evidence that the current laws are stupid and unfair . Change is good sometimes .
http://www.lindesmith.org/library/mjlawti.cfm
http://www.lindesmith.org/docUploads/sos_report2003.pdf
The second link is a report on how the states are trying to change laws to reflect reality.
Different drugs produce different effects and pose different risks. The legal status of any given drug is not necessarily a reliable indicator of its potential for harm. Whereas marijuana has never been shown to cause an overdose death, alcohol poisoning kills more people every year than all illegal drugs combined. Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D. has described tobacco as more addictive than heroin. Anti-social behavior is oftentimes associated with illegal drugs, when drug prohibition plays a critical role in exacerbating problem behavior. During a 1988 government hearing Dr. Koop testified that "f tobacco suddenly were unavailable and was as expensive as heroin and cocaine, I think that you would find that the behavior of some tobacco addicts would be very much like the behavior of some addicts of heroin and cocaine."
http://www.larryelder.com/drugs/reefermadness.htm
http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/g1/lvw208.shtml

 

[Goomba]

I agree and disagree. I agree that (in almost all cases)we only have ourselves to blame for drug addiction. I disagree with the part about it's not the "large business" looking to turn a profit. It is a large business, marketing their product, IMO.

When I think of business, I think of something that you have to go down to the city building, request a couple of permits, and pay some cash. You also have to record sales and pay sales and in some types of businesses, income tax. However, there is no real face for the drug business. No one goes into the business city building and requests a business for "Selling Marijuana" because its stupid and unlawful. Therefore I do not think of drug trafficking as a business.

This is the same reason why I think that legalizing drugs, but allow anyone to distribute them to be highly unlikely. It would be hard to penalize users because they could say they got it from a legal source, when they didn't. From the drug dealers point of view, it would suck to pay tax on this. While penalties like unlawful distribution of drugs could apply, it doesn't seem to be a big enough deterrent. Especially since the price of drugs would drop sharply once they became legal.

Regarding people being sent to jail for using drugs because drugs are against the law. It seems a lil' unfair, doesn't it? I mean, your average Joe can be sent to jail with some violent people, just for simple, non-violent possession? Yes, its illegal, but so is speeding and most people only get fines for that.

Also, I really don't see why the hell drugs are so bad and why America would hit this huge wall if we were to legalize them. First off, they're drugs. They are not the most horrible thing to grace the world since... well, the start of time (yes, I know, man-made drugs do not apply). Many different people take drugs for many different reasons, and some are not always the most responsible when making those decisions. Yet I'm not going to ban everything just because a group of idiots cannot use it correctly. Personally, I haven't used or really want to try marijuana because 1) it doesn't really thrill me and 2) I'm afraid I'd become a stoner-idiot. So I stay the hell away from 'em! Also, we've lived with these drugs for quite some time now. People who want to use drugs will find them and use them, whether they're illegal or not. I also imagine most people have a more of an ethical and personal reason they do not take drugs, rather than not using them because of their illegal status. I seriously doubt legalizing drugs would send America into a downward spiral.

 

[a6m5]

When I think of business, I think of something that you have to go down to the city building, request a couple of permits, and pay some cash. You also have to record sales and pay sales and in some types of businesses, income tax. However, there is no real face for the drug business. No one goes into the business city building and requests a business for "Selling Marijuana" because its stupid and unlawful. Therefore I do not think of drug trafficking as a business.

Ok, you were talking about legal businesses. Well, I'll just say that they are large "illegal" business, looking to turn a profit. Legal or not, business is a business, IMO.

Regarding people being sent to jail for using drugs because drugs are against the law. It seems a lil' unfair, doesn't it? I mean, your average Joe can be sent to jail with some violent people, just for simple, non-violent possession? Yes, its illegal, but so is speeding and most people only get fines for that.

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't know about comparing drug users to speeders though. I don't know where you are from, but in Oregon(USA), if you're doing the speedlimit on the highway, you are in the way(except on Friday nights & Saturday nights ). It would be extremely hard to put 90%(guesstimate) of the population in jail. Also, difference between speeding and not speeding is just 1-6 MPH, depending on who you talk to. It's an very minor offense, compared to doing illegal drugs and not doing it at all.

Also, I really don't see why the hell drugs are so bad and why America would hit this huge wall if we were to legalize them. First off, they're drugs. They are not the most horrible thing to grace the world since... well, the start of time (yes, I know, man-made drugs do not apply). Many different people take drugs for many different reasons, and some are not always the most responsible when making those decisions. Yet I'm not going to ban everything just because a group of idiots cannot use it correctly. Personally, I haven't used or really want to try marijuana because 1) it doesn't really thrill me and 2) I'm afraid I'd become a stoner-idiot. So I stay the hell away from 'em! Also, we've lived with these drugs for quite some time now. People who want to use drugs will find them and use them, whether they're illegal or not. I also imagine most people have a more of an ethical and personal reason they do not take drugs, rather than not using them because of their illegal status. I seriously doubt legalizing drugs would send America into a downward spiral.

Reason, why hard drugs stay illegal is quite obvious. The reason why marijuana is illegal, IMO, is the permanent affect it will likely have on your brain.

I don't know about the "huge wall" or the "downward spiral", but I'm sure we will see many side effects by legalizing previously illegal drugs.

 

[Goomba]

I suck at posting.

 

[Goomba]

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't know about comparing drug users to speeders though. I don't know where you are from, but in Oregon(USA), if you're doing the speedlimit on the highway, you are in the way(except on Friday nights & Saturday nights ). It would be extremely hard to put 90%(guesstimate) of the population in jail. Also, difference between speeding and not speeding is just 1-6 MPH, depending on who you talk to. It's an very minor offense, compared to doing illegal drugs and not doing it at all.

Yes, but driving speeding or even driving unsafely can kill other people, while drugs will typically only harm the user. I would bet damn good money that if you totalled automobile accidents it would be many times more than that of drug users killing themselves. This brings me to my next point.

We probably all know about gross profit, demand and supply, right? Lets put drugs into this equation. I'll take some time later to find it but I found a legitamite source that says its relatively cheap to produce acres of drugs. Then these prices go skyrocketing in the US. Why? Because of supply and demand. Drugs can be sold for a huge gross profit percentage, much higher than any retailer could do, because the demand is great and the supply is low. Users are glad to pay it because they want (and sometimes need) it, so they'll do whatever it takes. However, because of these high prices sometimes an addict will rob or kill someone or steal something.

But, what if we made them legal, yet only have the American Government sell the drugs? They could start several plantations for assorted drugs and the supply would start to even out with the demand (hopefully). So, the government could still crack down on drugs coming in illegaly, charging them with unlawful distribution (or something) to in part keep the dealer's prices high, while they sell low. People would start turning to the government to get their drugs because they're cheaper. This could cut down on violent crimes commited by drug users so they have enough money to get their fix.

While it seems very basic yet logical, I think it would be very hard to implement. But to me, the basics are there.

Reason, why hard drugs stay illegal is quite obvious. The reason why marijuana is illegal, IMO, is the permanent affect it will likely have on your brain.

Again, I think its another personal responsibility thing. As Erowid says, "Know your body. Know your mind. Know your substance. Know your source.". Also, I have a friend who is a major pothead and drinker, and is going for his PhD and is very intelligent. While its one example, I know he isn't the only one.

 

[PS]

Again, I think its another personal responsibility thing. As Erowid says, "Know your body. Know your mind. Know your substance. Know your source.". Also, I have a friend who is a major pothead and drinker, and is going for his PhD and is very intelligent. While its one example, I know he isn't the only one.

I'll second that, I know many stoners/potheads, and half the time they aren't stupid while high anyway. They consistently maintain honour roll averages.

 

[a6m5]

I have no doubt that there are many intelligent people, who smoke pot regularly. However, I have no doubt in my mind that their mind's being negatively affected by marijuana. There are people who smoke cigarettes heaviliy, nearly their entire life and their body won't be affected by it at all. It still doesn't change the fact, most people will experience the negative side effects from smoking.

 

[blargonator]

i don't have the time right now to start by reading the whole thread, just this page. ok.....by the replies i noticed quite a few people were saying its a large industry. obviously it is. it is a bad one. addiction of any kind is bad. the argument that it does not effect people is very stupid. i don't trust anyone who "uses". if it was legal what could happen? many bad things would most likely occur, do you want people driving while lighting up a spliff? it slows down your reaction time greatly, that is why driving while drunk is illegal. speeding is illegal because you are going too fast for the average situation in the area. drugs (obviously things such as cocaine, marijuana, heroine, and the many others) should always stay illegal.

people dealing with drugs are generally not safe to have walking the streets. drunks are not a good thing to be around because they are in a depressed state. people smoking pot are paranoid and might attack someone.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

i don't have the time right now to start by reading the whole thread, just this page. ok.....by the replies i noticed quite a few people were saying its a large industry. obviously it is. it is a bad one. addiction of any kind is bad. the argument that it does not effect people is very stupid. i don't trust anyone who "uses". if it was legal what could happen? many bad things would most likely occur, do you want people driving while lighting up a spliff? it slows down your reaction time greatly, that is why driving while drunk is illegal. speeding is illegal because you are going too fast for the average situation in the area. drugs (obviously things such as cocaine, marijuana, heroine, and the many others) should always stay illegal.

people dealing with drugs are generally not safe to have walking the streets. drunks are not a good thing to be around because they are in a depressed state. people smoking pot are paranoid and might attack someone.

*sigh of relief* Just when I thought I was the only one... someone who actually see the harm in drug legalization. Blargonator, you should read a few pages back to hear some of the arguments.