I fully support the legalization of weed. I'd grow some myself (although I would probably never use it, since the only thing it does for me is put me to sleep). I could pick up a few bucks bringing jars of it over to fleamarkets. I'd grow the best I could. Grow lights, fertilizer, etc. The whole nine yards.

I'd rather deal with potheads than raging drunks. Potheads merely hang out, eat and be mellow. Drunks, on the other hand, often get behind the wheels of cars and kill people.

A co-worker apparently knew for a fact that a patient of ours was a crackhead, a fact that infuriated him. I asked why, since he himself admits to smoking pot. His reply was, "Ever hear of a pothead, breaking into your house with, stealing your money, to get their next fix? Crackheads are known to do that!"

He got me there.

I'd read somewhere long ago that the continental US is actually a better climate for raising marijuana than Mexico is. But I wonder just what portion of the drug cartels' revenue comes from marijuana? Is the real money (at the producer level) in weed or cocaine or what? Chapman's pretty sure the cartels would take a substantial hit, but I'd like to see some figures to back that assertion up.

"Is the real money (at the producer level) in
weed or cocaine or what? "

I think it's in weed, because of the volume. There are lots of official sources that track this kind of thing, if you are interested, and if you are inclined to trust their information.

In fact there is a lot more money in meth than in cocaine, and Mexican groups control the distribution of both meth and Mexican-grown weed, and also to a large extent weed that is grown on public land in the US, which is a big problem. However the Canadians still produce the lion's share of high quality weed, with the Hell's Angles controlling the importation.

Legalizing weed in California will collapse the market for Mexian and Canadian weed because it can all be grown quite well in California, like just about everything else. It will starve both the Mexican cartels and the Hell's Angels, which the Canadians consider their primary organized crime threat. It will also cut something like $2-3B out of British Columbia's $18-20B a year ecomony.

In addition to the Mexican Drug Lords - The hippies in Humbolt County don't want pot legalized(the ones that grow this illegally or for med marijuana) because it will create too much competition and negatively impact the monopoly they've had going. Oh ya, and they will be taxed on profits too!

I'm going to take a wild guess and say the majority voted for Obama.

I say legalize it!

Switzerland doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about drugs. You can get a mild fine or something, but youre not going to go to jail. They have very little violent crime. However, they have a very high teenage drug rate.

It is a trade-off

>>His reply was, "Ever hear of a pothead, breaking into your house with, stealing your money, to get their next fix? Crackheads are known to do that!"

>>He got me there.

Only because crack is also illegal. The same principles apply as for hemp. Those who want it are getting it anyway. So, why destroy several nations to try to stop the unstoppable. We already tried this with alcohol, WHICH IS THE MOST HARMFUL SUBSTANCE!

I don't need any of that stuff, but most problems connected with drugs go away when it is legalized.

...but most problems connected with drugs go away when it is legalized.

Exactly. That's why there's still a "War on Drugs", because the CIA and the DEA have to justify their existance (and all the money they spend) somehow.

If I liver in CA, I would vote "yes." The state level, for now, is the level on which legalization should take place, to make sure the kinks get ironed out.

Oh, and all federal drug laws should be repealed immediately. They are unconstitutional.

And, if this referendum passes, hopefully, 0b0z0 will give it the same respect that he is giving medicinal marijuana.

but most problems connected with drugs go away when it is legalized.

Right, because there are no DUI checkpoints infringing on my liberty because people remain irresponsible.

Legalizing debilitating drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin, and the like will not substantially reduce the crime associated with the end users. There will still be burglary and robbery (often armed) so people who are incapable of doing anything else because of their drug-addled brains need their fix.

You might see a drop in crime on the distribution end, but I doubt it. The cartels aren't going to take kindly to having their income stream cut off. They'll probably end up as the suppliers to the drug stores, so the inter-cartel wars will continue, and the people of Mexico will continue to be murdered to satisfy the American belief in an unrestricted right to get high and become useless.

I'd rather deal with potheads than raging drunks. Potheads merely hang out, eat and be mellow. Drunks, on the other hand, often get behind the wheels of cars and kill people.

I've raised this point numerous times when arguing drug legalization. I'll take potheads over drunks any day -- especially young potheads vs. young drunks.

You might see a drop in crime on the distribution end, but I doubt it. The cartels aren't going to take kindly to having their income stream cut off. They'll probably end up as the suppliers to the drug stores, so the inter-cartel wars will continue . . .

The suppliers and distributors in the U.S. would be crushed by Wal-Mart, KMart and your neighborhood pharmacy.

. . . the American belief in an unrestricted right to get high and become useless.

People have that right. They don't have the right to be rescued from their bad decisions.

From the 1996 book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Country" by the late Peter McWilliams (you can read the whole book online):

Quote by Judge James Gray:

"Our laws are telling people, 'If you're concerned about getting caught, don't use marijuana, use cocaine.' Well, that is not necessarily what people want to do."

Judge Gray wrote the book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It."

And from Barbara Ehrenreich's "Drug Frenzy" column from her collection of columns from the 1980s: "The Worst Years of Our Lives: Irreverent
Notes from a Decade of Greed":

"Alcohol is the drug that undid my parents. When my own children reached the age of exploration, I said all the usual things - like 'No.' I further told them that reality, if carefully attended to, is more exotic than its chemically induced variations. But I also said that, if they still felt they had to get involved with a drug, I'd
rather it were pot than Bud."

(And I assume she meant she would always feel that way, no matter how old the kids got to be. Unfortunately, thanks in part to the social atmosphere created by the anti-tobacco forces, I bet it'll be quite a while before national pot laws loosen.)

And, about the highly-rated 2003 book "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use" by Jacob Sullum:

"Jacob Sullum has produced a thoughtful, sane, and logical analysis of our drug laws. Is that even LEGAL?"
-- Dave Barry.

"I've never used a recreational drug (or even had a sip of alcohol) in my life, but Jacob Sullum makes a great case to stop the drug wars. He
exposes the tricks of the drug warriors, who scam the crowd with huckster patter about magical substances that force people to do evil."
- Penn Jillette, the larger, louder half of Penn & Teller

And, for a chilling reason to call off the war on pot, especially - namely, the need for more money to prevent nuclear terrorism - search in Google Books for the following phrase, "under our current laws it is safe to say" and then finish that page and the next two pages. (It's from Sam Harris' book "The End of Faith." I'd give the link, but I'm afraid to.)

Finally, check out the Feb. 2009 letter that Michael Phelps could have written - but didn't. (Maybe you've seen it already? It was quite popular.) It was written by Radley Balko. Google on any of the first lines:

"Dear America, I take it back. I don’t apologize. Because you know what? It’s none of your goddamned business. I work my ass off 10 months per year. It’s that hard work that gave you all those gooey feelings of patriotism last summer. If during my brief window of down time I want to relax, enjoy myself, and partake of a substance that’s a hell of a lot less bad for me than alcohol, tobacco, or, frankly, most of the prescription drugs most of you are taking, well, you can spare me the lecture. I put myself through hell. I make my body do things nature never really intended us to endure. All world-class athletes do."

(It's much longer than that. It appears at theagitator dot com. There are well over 200 comments there.)

Anyone think when drugs are gone, so are the cartels? We still have the mob after Prohibition. I'm not saying we don't waste money and resources and jail space needlessly, I just don't think letting the mom down the street get her crack at HEB before school pick-up is really going to create the utopia some people imagine. Of course, a lot of legalizing fans just want to legalize their personal drug of choice-it's better than the others, you see.

Potheads don't drive, Patrick? Who knew!

Of course, when people can get high openly instead of skulking at home, I bet they'll be just as likely to drive their wasted asses home as the drunks are.

"We still have the mob after Prohibition. "

Lots of bathtub gin and smuggled Canadian whiskey being peddled in your local speakeasy, Mom? That's kind of funny.

*knock*

"What's the password?"

*Jesus hates liberals*

"Enter, friend, and enjoy the tax-free hooch."

Nobody plays chess.

Pseudonym:

The suppliers and distributors in the U.S. would be crushed by Wal-Mart, KMart and your neighborhood pharmacy.

Those companies have to get the drugs from somewhere. And due to liability laws, I don't see Merck being that supplier. In fact, I don't see Wal Mart or CVS willingly selling cocaine over the counter due to liability issues.

Plus you've got this dream in your mind that somehow the drugs will be so cheap that indigents will be able to afford them with their begging money. They won't. Which means more muggings and street crime.

Pseudonym:

People have that right. They don't have the right to be rescued from their bad decisions.

When they pass a law that says a self-inflicted overdose is an implied (and legally binding) DNR order, maybe I'll agree. Until then, they will be rescued from those decisions.

Gog -

No, the mob got into protection, numbers, prostitution, drugs, car theft, technology counterfeiting, and spam.

So the few single-tasking drug lords out there will simply move to some other form of contraband or some other criminal enterprise where there's more money for less work than a day job.

The "mob" such as it is will hardly notice, as they control the wholesale distribution anyhow, and will for the forseeable future.

The only people put out of business by legalization are the street dealers/pushers and their immediate suppliers. And crime is the only life they know, so they'll simply turn to greater incidences of property crime to support their habits instead of being dealers to cover it.

It's a lose-lose proposition.

I agree with Brian. I'm all for legalization (don't use, but I don't believe in legally telling people what to do with their body even if I think they're wrong)but I worry that since the Mexican cartels have grown so powerful and violent (unlike the 60s and 70s), that they would immediately retaliate against legal dealers, and also the violence would shift to the meth area, or to other areas. Once people have become violent gangs, they aren't so willing to back off.

"No, the mob got into protection, numbers, prostitution, drugs, car theft, technology counterfeiting, and spam."

Government?

Are you schizophrenic? Take this simple test:

1) Alcohol is directly responsible for thousands of deaths per year in the USA. Is this a success, to be emulated?

2) When you use the term, "legalization", do you mean that a commercial industry, licensed to produce and distribute the material you fancy, should be established and regulated?

3) If your answer to #2 was "Yes", do you expect to be protected by American consumer law?

4) The Big Tobacco Settlement cost someone billions of dollars, enriched a ton of lawyers, and somehow exempted states, whose public health departments told them repeatedly that the subsance they were licensing, regulating and even subsidizing was deadly. Do you expect to be protected by your government from the consequences of your drug usage after it is legalized, and you and others may do whatever they want?

5) Do you admire the capabilities of the big pharmacalogical companies?

6) If you answer to #5 was, "No", who do you expect to provide your material of choice - and how do you expect police to be able to tell the difference between your supplier's product and one genuinely harmful to you?

7) Near your residence, there are semi-tractors, trains and aircraft carrying hazardous materials, such as mercury, dynamite, gasoline, propane, chlorine gas and ammonium nitrate - in quantities measured in tons. Material handlers are now allowed a zero-tolerance policy which rests on the concept that testing can find the illegal substance. Do you approve of causing new legislation to protect the public from the misuse of your favorite substance once it is "legalized"?

Everything has a price. While I suppose people who can't think, can't see or have unbearable pain might imagine they "need" a drug (remember the thread about addiction?), you need to figure out what your pleasure is going to cost.

It might be damned stylish to imagine that you get high by yourself, but you can't count on people doing that. I have the documented misconduct of alcohol abusers and current lawbreakers to point at. Can you show anyone the public will be responsible? Got an example?

My solution Rad would be to legalize all drugs.

Give em away for free. Every town would have have a dozen clinics. Go down get tel us our drug of choice and we'll put you in a room with everyone else dong that drug and a automated dispenser.

Saty in until you come down off of your high or in a body bag, I dont care.

"Can you show anyone the public will be responsible? Got an example?"

You sound like exactly the kind of nanny state babysitter who enacted the "health care" bill. Don't you get it? I expect people to take care of themselves, and if they don't, it's THEIR problem! I have no idea whether the public will be responsible or not. They are adults, and it is totally up to them. If not, it's more jobs available for me. I'M NOT INTERESTED!!!

Jo -

You can expect it all you want. The moment I have to concern myself with having to repel a home invader because he wants my shit so he can get his fix, it ceases being his problem, and becomes my problem.

And when someone else's problem in the course of becoming my problem includes the probability of me losing my life, I take exception.

If you can prove to me that addicts will be left to die and if they fuck with anyone for the purposes of feeding their habit they will be locked up until they rot, then you can legalize everything.

In fact, I don't see Wal Mart or CVS willingly selling cocaine over the counter due to liability issues.

They sell alcohol, and they have good lawyers. I don't think liability is the impediment you do.

It doesn't have to be Merck making the stuff; if it's legal, there could be a bunch of entrepreneurs making a go of it. But big drug companies like making enough money to swim in. If it's an image thing they'll use a subsidiary, like Disney does when it makes movies not geared towards kids.

What will drive the price down is the fact that lots of drugs are not actually expensive to make. Under this scenario you might even see marketing of drugs, including claims that name brand cocaine is somehow better than the generic stuff. I don't claim that all drugs will necessarily be cheap, but just yesterday I picked up a prescription that was free at Publix.

People have that right. They don't have the right to be rescued from their bad decisions.

When they pass a law that says a self-inflicted overdose is an implied (and legally binding) DNR order, maybe I'll agree. Until then, they will be rescued from those decisions.

Just because they will be rescued doesn't mean that they have the right to be rescued. We do lots of things that we're not obliged to, out of the goodness of our hearts.

Considering that the current system provides so much income for the drug cartels that they build their own submarines, I'd have to say yeah, something needs to change, and it's probably the market.

Demand certainly isn't going down much and supply is pretty constant even after billions upon billions were spent trying to destroy it. Might as well undercut the bastids and siphon the profits into the tax base.

"I expect people to take care of themselves, and if they don't, it's THEIR problem!"

This illustrates the problem nicely.

You don't think anyone is employed in a dangerous job.

Giggle test: which do you think is worse - the gasoline tanker driver texting on his cell phone, or driving while high?

She's on the highway with you - right behind you. Will she hit the brakes in time?

The entire drug market is the result of people thinking of themselves first. What a wonderful way to live - we should encourage that, right?