Look on the bright side, they'll get three squares a day at Club Fed, and free health care, too.

Probably better quality than at the VA.

It has nothing to do with the drugs themselves, or the risk to society.

If the agencies don't go after people like that, thugs may complaint of discrimination. Or people may start believing they can use drugs freely. And then the laws would be changed, and then the police budgets would dry out. Can't have that.

Human beings are tribal creatures. The needs of our own tribe supersedes the needs of outsiders. Doesn't matter if the outsider's life is ruined. The tribe needs their overtime check and their pension.

It's easier to go after deese 'mob' guys than to explain to Obama why they should focus on

( http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-the-irs-will-pay-this-conservative-group-50000/article/2550126 )

some other stuff.

Related: http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/a_swat_team_blew_a_hole_in_my_2_year_old_son/

So who are the villains again in all this?

Also related:
http://www.businessinsider.com/health-benefits-of-medical-marijuana-2014-4?op=1

These are 'genuine', too - not just pot-heads trying to justify their habits, the scientific/medical community can back these up.

Here we go again: "(you should have the freedom to grow and ingest whatever the hell you want)".

Still waiting to see just how you plan to keep this from killing the general public, who is not interested in your getting high at their expense.

Here we go again

The general public in the state of Washington voted to legalize marijuana.

You think this is an appropriate penalty? They're facing 10 years.

> who is not interested in your getting high at their expense

If your neighbor smokes a bit weed you do not incur an expense. If you hire an armed SWAT team to go imprison, hire prosecutors and judges, and pay for private prisons to imprison your neighbor ... well then yes of course you incur an expense. But don't pretend that victimless crimes have victims ... what is a crime that does have a victim is an armed gang rounding up and imprisoning a peaceful person for ingesting some plant, and people who support doing that are complicit in human rights violations and should be tried for human rights violations.

I think it's honestly not enough to simply "decriminalize" weed. Supporters and enforcers of the War on Drugs are guilty of human rights violations and should be tried for these crimes and imprisoned. If you support the War on Drugs, you support blowing holes in 2-year old babies.

Banning a substance that might actually contribute to curing cancer in some cases is particularly evil - as e.g. some of the latest research shows:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131014094105.htm

"New research has shown that the non-hallucinogenic components of cannabis could act as effective anti-cancer agents.
The anti-cancer properties of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary hallucinogenic component of cannabis, has been recognised for many years, but research into similar cannabis-derived compounds, known as cannabinoids, has been limited.
The study was carried out by a team at St George's, University of London. It has been published in the journal Anticancer Research.
The team, led by Dr Wai Liu and colleagues carried out laboratory investigations using a number of cannabinoids, either alone or in combination with each other, to measure their anti-cancer actions in relation to leukemia.
Of six cannabinoids studied, each demonstrated anti-cancer properties as effective as those seen in THC. Importantly, they had an increased effect on cancer cells when combined with each other.
Dr Liu said: "This study is a critical step in unpicking the mysteries of cannabis as a source of medicine. The cannabinoids examined have minimal, if any, hallucinogenic side effects, and their properties as anti-cancer agents are promising.
"These agents are able to interfere with the development of cancerous cells, stopping them in their tracks and preventing them from growing. In some cases, by using specific dosage patterns, they can destroy cancer cells on their own.
"Used in combination with existing treatment, we could discover some highly effective strategies for tackling cancer. Significantly, these compounds are inexpensive to produce and making better use of their unique properties could result in much more cost effective anti-cancer drugs in future."
This latest research is part of a growing portfolio of studies into the medicinal properties of cannabis by the research team at St George's. The next step will be to examine in the laboratory these compounds in combination with existing anti-cancer treatments and study treatment schedules to identify strategies that will maximise their efficacy.
The study examined two forms of cannabidiol (CBD), two forms of cannabigerol (CBG) and two forms of cannabigevarin (CBGV). These represent the most common cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant apart from THC."

"According to a 2008 study published by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron, the annual savings on enforcement and incarceration costs from the legalization of drugs would amount to roughly $41.3 billion, with $25.7 billion being saved among the states and over $15.6 billion accrued for the federal government. Miron further estimated at least $46.7 billion in tax revenue based on rates comparable to those on tobacco and alcohol ($8.7 billion from marijuana, $32.6 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs)."

Tell me again who is creating the 'expenses' to be incurred? And for what, to ban a substance that helps with:
* Glaucoma
* Cancer
* Epilepsy
* Dravet's syndrome
* Anxiety
* Alzheimer's
* Multiple Sclerosis
* Diaphragm spasms
* Crohn's disease
* Ulcerative colitis
* Arthritis
* Obesity and insulin response
* Lupus
* Parkinson's
* PTSD
* Nightmares
* Stroke

It's absurd.

"Still waiting to see just how you plan to keep this from killing the general public, who is not interested in your getting high at their expense."

I bet you think "Reefer Madness" is a factually accurate documentary.

If your neighbor smokes a bit weed you do not incur an expense. If you hire an armed SWAT team to go imprison, hire prosecutors and judges, and pay for private prisons to imprison your neighbor ... well then yes of course you incur an expense. But don't pretend that victimless crimes have victims....

You're still paying for the "War on Drugs."

You've still paying for that SWAT team.

You're still paying for the erosion of respect for the law and the resulting militarization of the police force - with both your cash and your civil liberties.

Sittin' in your living room smoking illegal weed does indeed incur a subtle but insidious cost on your neighbors ... and on society in general.

... what is a crime that does have a victim is an armed gang rounding up and imprisoning a peaceful person for ingesting some plant....

A plant that they knew was illegal when they grew, bought, or ingested it.

And that "armed gang" was a duly constituted law enforcement agency acting under the supervision of the court system.

...and people who support doing that are complicit in human rights violations and should be tried for human rights violations.

Hyperbole much?

Support for the criminalization of pot is not a human rights violation. It may be misguided, but that's no excuse for putting someone on a par with Saddam Hussein.

A human rights violation?! Geez!

It's this kind of extreme, hate-filled language that reduces debates to nothing more than shouting matches; and results in laws that no one follows and a hyper-militarized police force that ends up subjugating the population more than protecting and serving it.

It is those who support the Drugged War that are creating the expense They just use the power of the state to force everyone in the productive class to pay for it.

Still waiting to see just how you plan to keep this from killing the general public, who is not interested in your getting high at their expense. - Radwaste

Still waiting to see how you plan on testing for OTC drugs which affect the human body more then weed does.

The Harveys were using marijuana that was neither bought nor sold and never crossed a state line. Regulating that under interstate commerce is the height of absurdity. On that I wholeheartedly agree with Clarence Thomas' dissent in Gonzales v. Raich:

"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

The Drugged War is leaving a legacy of unbridled Federal power to future Americans.

Fred; "I think this stuff is bad, so I'm gonna make it illegal."
George; "Oh, what makes it bad?"
Fred; "Don't you pay attention, it's bad because it's illegal. Now shut up!"

If you or I break into some peaceful person's home brandishing guns, we'd rightly be considered violent criminals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/24/new-aclu-report-takes-a-snapshot-of-police-militarization-in-the-united-states
"New ACLU report takes a snapshot of police militarization in the United States"

"62 percent of the SWAT raids surveyed were to conduct searches for drugs.
Just under 80 percent were to serve a search warrant, meaning eight in 10 SWAT raids were not initiated to apprehend a school shooter, hostage taker, or escaped felon (the common justification for these tactics), but to investigate someone still only suspected of committing a crime.
In fact, just 7 percent of SWAT raids were “for hostage, barricade, or active shooter scenarios.”
In at least 36 percent of the SWAT raids studies, no contraband of any kind was found. The report notes that due to incomplete police reports on these raids this figure could be as high as 65 percent.
SWAT tactics are disproportionately used on people of color.
65 percent of SWAT deployments resulted in some sort of forced entry into a private home, by way of a battering ram, boot, or some sort of explosive device. In over half those raids, the police failed to find any sort of weapon, the presence of which was cited as the reason for the violent tactics.
Ironically (or perhaps not), searches to serve warrants on people suspected of drug crimes were more likely to result in forced entry than raids conducted for other purposes."

There was just a big news story out of, I think, California where some guy was high on pot and crashed his truck into stopped traffic, crushing two people to death.

As far as medical benefits, two different studies have shown marijuana use worsens glaucoma, not helps it. It's also been linked to causing multiple sclerosis and other neurological problems. It's also been linked to high rates of autism in children whose mothers used marijuana during pregnancy. While I do believe it is helpful in some medical conditions (cancer, nausea), it can also cause a lot of other problems too. Whether it is legal or not, it's not harmless to society or users.

And that "armed gang" was a duly constituted law enforcement agency acting under the supervision of the court system.

I don't think there's quite as much 'supervision' as you think there is. Maybe after the fact 'on paper' there was (wink wink).
When they bust into your house and threaten your family, then leave without even an apology, how will you feel then?
How about making police subject to the same kind of penalties that you or I would be subject to if we did the same kind of thing?

...some guy was high on pot and crashed his truck into stopped traffic, crushing two people to death.
Good example. This kind of thing never happens when using legal drugs, right?

> It's also been linked to high rates of autism in children whose mothers used marijuana during pregnancy

Oh FFS. Just about anything during pregnancy can be harmful, including many medications that help people otherwise. Being in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana for medical purposes in cases where it can help sick adults does NOT MEAN YOU THINK PREGNANT MOTHERS SHOULD TAKE IT. How obvious is that?

^ OK, biggest irony, it seems marijuana may actually help people with autism ... sigh:

http://www.denverrelief.com/blog/conditions-treated-by-cannabis/autism-and-cannabis-marijuana-therapy/

> some guy was high on pot and crashed his truck into stopped traffic, crushing two people to death.

One would think it should be INCREDIBLY obvious that arguing for decriminalization does not mean you're arguing that people should be able to drive while intoxicated/impaired. E.g. we don't ban alcohol, but we do have laws against drunk driving. It is so obvious that it should go without saying. (I don't know to what extent marijuana impairs drivers - it's probably impossible to say if being high caused an accident in some particular case - but the whole argument is moot, because if marijuana impairs driving, then the answer is simple, don't allow people to drive while on it. Duh.)

> While I do believe it is helpful in some medical conditions (cancer, nausea), it can also cause a lot of other problems too

Most medicines can cause problems if not taken properly. E.g. you can die from overdosing on paracetamol (acetaminophen, e.g. Tylenol). Should we send SWAT teams into homes in order to imprison people who possess the substance Tylenol because it can cause problems like death?

Just to be clear, based on where present research stands, I don't children should be allowed to use cannabis except for medical reasons. Adults, however, have the right to do what they want with their own bodies.

Bunnygirl is a little light on details in her post. Maybe she's talking about Marijuana activist Keith Kilbey. He did hit a couple parked cars, but it was in Colorado. They were cop cars with their lights flashing. Nobody died, but the cops made a big stink about the dangers of driving under the influence of marijuana. A month later we come to find out that Kilbey had a B.A.C. of .26, something they forgot to mention in their original press release.
Or, she might be making up stories about an entirely imaginary case.

Bunngirl also seems wrong about glaucoma, e.g.:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1772142/
"Glaucoma is one of the leading causes of blindness in the world. In spite of the diverse therapeutic possibilities, new and better treatments for glaucoma are highly desirable. Cannabinoids effectively lower the intraocular pressure (IOP) and have neuroprotective actions. Thus, they could potentially be useful in the treatment of glaucoma"

> Still waiting to see just how you plan to keep this from killing the general public, who is not interested in your getting high at their expense.

Actually the majority of Americans do support decriminalization:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/Record-High-Americans-Favor-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx

> who is not interested in your getting high at their expense

Incidentally I don't take the stuff so I'm not sure what you meant by "your getting high", or are you saying Amy gets high?

Well, at least the drug war is working, and we no longer have to worry about anyone being addicted to drugs.

I'll have to do some hunting since the glaucoma/marijuana article was in a printed medical/science journal, but it said marijuana use relieved some of the symptoms but sped up progression of the disease by actually quite a bit. I've also seen several things recently about marijuana disrupting brain synapses and/or preventing new connections from being established.

Yes, all medications can cause additional problems aside from what it was intended to treat. That's a given. I was responding more along the lines of it not being this super miracle cure for everything under the sun with no side effects or associated problems whatsoever like a lot of marijuana proponents claim. I have nothing against it for medical use and there already exists prescription marijuana for certain conditions.

I also don't view marijuana as harmless to society if it were to be legal, but I also don't view alcohol as harmless either. I haven't formed an opinion on whether or not I think marijuana should be legal or not and I probably won't. I don't want the government making choices for me, but I akso don't want to be put at risk by the choices of others.

The car accident I was talking about was someone else and occurred in Santa Rosa, not the parked cars in Colorado. I'll need to find the story again but basically some guy in a pickup failed to realize cars were stopped in front of him and slammed into a car. The two passengers in the back seat were crushed to death. The story said he was high on marijuana at the time and that they were investigating whether or not cell phone use may have been involved since they found one on him. Also, one of the major news outlets (NBC?) reported in the last couple months how car accidents had risen dramatically in Colorado and Washington since legalizing marijuana and drivers had been found to be under the influence (I didn't read the whole article).

"Well, at least the drug war is working, and we no longer have to worry about anyone being addicted to drugs."

I don't care what side of the drug debate you come down on this statement is fuckig stupid.

We haven't eradicated murder yet ether, stump monkey, but that isn't a reason to suddenly legalize it. Come up with a real argument.

> but that isn't a reason to suddenly legalize it. Come up with a real argument.

The burden of proof falls on those initiating force to justify why they should do so, not the other way round .. if you want to have SWAT teams invade the homes of peaceful old people who aren't harming anybody, you have to come up with 'real arguments' to do so ... the burden doesn't fall on those peaceful people you want to attack (like these old people) to try explain why you shouldn't attack them. They aren't hurting anyone and even a child can see that.

In any case, there's a long list of arguments above.

Come up with a real argument.

OK, weed was outlawed on the fears that the daughters of white voters would fuck niggars.

Hows about you come up with a real argument for outlawing it instead of demanding those in favor of legalizing it come up with "real argument" as no science based reasoning can ever contend with the visceral racism that lead to its outlaw in the first place?

This is why weed was outlawed

“Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice.”

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

“Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.”

If you are going to support its continued criminalization, fucking OWN the reason for it as well

"Also, one of the major news outlets (NBC?) reported in the last couple months how car accidents had risen dramatically in Colorado and Washington since legalizing marijuana and drivers had been found to be under the influence (I didn't read the whole article)."

Here's another article on the subject:

"Two new University of Colorado studies paint an ominous picture of the direction of the state since marijuana commercialization, but neither provides conclusive evidence that legal pot is causing harm."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25770838/more-colorado-drivers-fatal-crashes-positive-pot-study

Even if weed causes impaired driving, at best that just means it should be illegal to drive while under its influence. And perhaps a good idea to avoid heavy machinery. You know what does kill people though? Armed SWAT gangs invading homes.

Another glaucoma study shows it helps:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182967
"The smoking of marijuana has decreased IOP in glaucoma patients. Cannabinoid drugs, therefore, are thought to have significant potential for pharmaceutical development"

The only challenge still seems to be finding safe ways to deliver the treatment, and also better understanding the precise mechanisms and dosage ... there seems to be no dispute in the scientific literature that it is helping. I suspect Bunnygirl read one of the earlier studies relating to side effects of specific delivery methods e.g. smoking.

@"... the annual savings on enforcement and incarceration costs from the legalization of drugs would amount to roughly $41.3 billion"

Another argument for decriminalization: If we'd decriminalized just 25 years ago, we would have shaved over A TRILLION DOLLARS off the national debt.

Over the average person here's lifetime we will spend another THREE TRILLION DOLLARS on the War on Drugs if we don't end it now. Is that "worth it" to blow up 2-year old babies and imprison harmless old people to try keep people from using a substance that has a substantial list of medicinal benefits?

Even if weed causes impaired driving

If? I think you misspelled "though".

C'mon, let's get real and honest here. Marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, etc. alter your senses, and if you choose to get behind the wheel, the chances of something terrible happening will increase.

Yeah, the SWAT story is sickening. Here are just a few more sickening stories:

http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_25293626/alcohol-pot-present-system-chico-state-student-accused

http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_24174701/alleged-driver-fatal-hit-and-run-has-2012

One of the most ridiculous and counter productive things legal marijuana advocates claim is that marijuana hasn't been involved in a single death.

Maybe after it's decriminalized, people won't be so delusional about it.

"Hows about you come up with a real argument for outlawing it instead of demanding those in favor of legalizing it come up with "real argument" as no science based reasoning can ever contend with the visceral racism that lead to its outlaw in the first place?"

If you are going to change minds, you need to give a reason to change them. I happen to be on the legalization side of the argument like you so you are speaking to the fucking choir with me. The statement I commented on made a ridiculous statement which would not give anyone a reason to change their mind. I can see why you would come to his aid.

Come up with a real reason to outlaw it? It is already outlawed whether you fucking like it or not so that ship has sailed. You have to convince the majority it needs changing. I think the public is slowly coming around but I am sure you will win hearts and minds by telling people the only reason they might disagree with you is that they are racist assholes or maybe just their parents were. Yeah, I see that working.

Car radios and screaming kids cause accidents too. So does fast food and makeup if it is put on in the car. If you want pot banned then you have to accept going back to prohibition since alcohol kills more people in more ways than pot will.

We simply need to handle it the same way we do alcohol, use the DUI law, it isn't just for alcohol.

C'mon, let's get real and honest here. Marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, etc. alter your senses, and if you choose to get behind the wheel, the chances of something terrible happening will increase.

As do caffeine, nicotine, opioids and amphetamines, all of which are legal.

You have to convince the majority it needs changing.

The majority has no idea that the reason it was outlawed is becuase their great & grandparents were racists who didnt want their daugters getting fucked on jazz club tables by black men

so does fast food and makeup

i was driving don the highway, and as we were making a trasition from one onto another I glnced to my right.

The woman, in her left had held a cup of coffee and a mascara roller, in her right a breakfast burrito and a tube of lipstick.

So was also smoking a cigarette, rolling it from one side of the mouth to the other depending on what she was doing with her hands and driving the car with her knee at 65mph on a merging transition curve sloped for 45mph

> If? I think you misspelled "though".

The reason for the "if" is that I never make claims without first checking the scientific literature, no matter how "obvious" something might seem (I bet you did make the claim without checking). But I'm under no illusions that it might be possible - that should be obvious if you read my comments.

As it happens, there do seem to be actual studies suggesting this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120210111254.htm
"Cannabis use doubles chances of vehicle crash, review finds"
"Drivers who consume cannabis within three hours of driving are nearly twice as likely to cause a vehicle collision as those who are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, according to a new review."

If that research holds, then (as I said) there is a case to be made for banning driving while under the influence, just like we do for alcohol. But this is so blindingly obvious it's bizarre we're even discussing it? It in no way whatsoever validates a general case for banning a substance in all circumstances ... if it did, then even basic things like antihistamines would have to be banned, as they can make you drowsy.

> You have to convince the majority it needs changing.

The public are already convinced - I posted some figures higher up in this thread - since at least 2011 the majority of Americans have favored decriminalization of marijuana, and in fact the latest figures are closer to ~60% of Americans.

So actually the majority are already convinced - so now it's up to the holdouts keeping it illegal to explain why they're still doing so.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/22/gallup-poll-finds-58-of-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana/
"Gallup Poll Finds 58% Of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana"
So the 'convincing the majority' ship has long sailed.

Some scientific research on cannabis showing promise in treating Alzheimer's and other neurodegenerative disorders:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19228180
"Cannabidiol: a promising drug for neurodegenerative disorders?"
http://www.thcint.com/uploads/1/9/3/7/19371199/2011_cannabinoids_microglial_activation.pdf

Cannabis can help with some varieties of epilepsy and even the Epilepsy Foundation supports this:
http://www.epilepsy.com/article/2014/2/epilepsy-foundation-calls-increased-medical-marijuana-access-and-research

Scientific study supporting therapeutic/medical use of Cannabis as a painkiller:
http://www.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article?id=127603

Obviously it's not all good, some studies show negative effects in some situations, so 'use with caution' - but the evidence has become overwhelmingly impossible to ignore that there are many positive medical uses.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/
"Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal"
"Ten years ago, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. One decade after this unprecedented experiment, drug abuse is down by half:

Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

“There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered “problematic” — those who repeatedly use “hard” drugs and intravenous users — had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people"

> You've still paying for that SWAT team.

We'd still be paying for the SWAT team even if we got rid of the SWAT teams? What kind of bizarre logic is that? If we get rid of something we still keep paying for it? Huh? Conan, I'm sure you can see this doesn't really make sense.

According to the new ACLU report, "just 7 percent of SWAT raids were “for hostage, barricade, or active shooter scenarios.”" ... that means we could cut the number of SWAT teams and raids by ~90%. And that's just the beginning - there'd be a reduce load on the police, a reduced load on the courts, a reduced load on the prison system, and a reduced load to help support families who have lost breadwinners because a previously economically productive parent is now sitting in prison for owning a bit of plant.

...decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.
Never happen in this country, there's no money in it. There is money to be made by sending these "criminals" to prison.

"As do caffeine, nicotine, opioids and amphetamines, all of which are legal"

You're right.

We can only hope that the unwashed masses will learn to finally "wake up" the way evolutionary design intends: with a cup of frigid water to the face.

If caffeine is the primal gateway drug, as our neurobiologists tell us, are we ready to embrace a brave new world of coffee prohibition and freedom from the morning brew? Let's hope -- and let's finally prepare for peace, prosperity and enlightened contentment.

That was a joke.

Yes, I voted to decriminalize marijuana. I think we can treat other substances the way we treat alcohol.

> It's this kind of extreme, hate-filled language that ... results in laws that no one follows and a hyper-militarized police force

Wait, what? You say calls to end the "War on Drugs" are what results in a 'hyper-militarized police force', but not the War on Drugs itself? Calls for violence are what create violence. Calls to end violence are all that ultimately end violence. It's absurd to say that calling to end violence is what causes violence, while simultaneously defending what overtly and obviously causes violence. Again, look at the ACLU study:

"62 percent of the SWAT raids surveyed were to conduct searches for drugs."

But calling to END this results in militarization of the police force? You can surely see that makes no sense.

And yes, the War on Drugs is human rights violation on a massive scale - let's call a spade a spade, OK? Stop trying to sugarcoat this violence. We've thrown what, upwards of a million people in prison for possession of a plant that is less harmful than alcohol and has many more medical benefits? These are human rights violations, and the criminals perpetrating these crimes should be brought to trial and charged.

Bunnygirl, I found it. The guy's name is Nicholas Tognozzi. Here's a note from his preliminary hearing: "Judge Rene Chouteau said following a preliminary hearing that Tognozzi was not impaired by alcohol or marijuana when he barreled his GMC pickup into their Toyota Camry on Highway 12 at Farmers Lane."
He was texting. That's my experience too. I was in a car where the phone was distracting the driver. Our car was totaled, but nobody was hurt.

IMHO, officials involved in the prosecution of sick people who are using medical marijuana are utterly disgusting ...

http://www.angryharry.com/Why-Hurt-People-Who-Are-Sick.htm

Lobster,

If you're sitting at home smoking some homegrown, you're still paying for a SWAT team to raid [other] people's houses.

You're likely still voting for politicians who legislate that marijuana is illegal.

We are a country of hypocrites.

We run from any candidate who says marijuana should be legal (labeling that candidate a "kook" or a "nut bag") while blazing up and insisting it's none of the government's business.

We insist the dealers go to prison for life for even the minutest possession, but insist that our precious snowflakes busted with near-dealer quantities be set free (they were only "curious" or "experimenting"). Bust the "other" guy.

We vote for politicians who legislate that drug use is illegal and vote to expand police powers to combat the scourge of illegal drugs, but laugh at stoner movies and in doing so make millionaires out of people barely qualified to flip burgers at the local fast food place.

We look down upon the guy dealing to us, avoiding him in public lest people think we're like him, but fund his kid's college education with our "harmless" habit.

Meanwhile, Mexican drug cartels deal swift and blinding violence to anyone who stands in the way of them funneling more pot into this country to feed the habits of people who insist it's a victimless crime.

I'm all in favor of legalizing it, but until we do, don't delude yourself that smoking a little on the couch doesn't hurt anyone.

"The majority has no idea that the reason it was outlawed is becuase their great & grandparents were racists who didnt want their daugters getting fucked on jazz club tables by black men"

No, they don't probably don't and it doesn't matter now anyway because racism isn't the reason most people today don't believe in legalizing drugs. What matters now is getting them to change their minds on whether legality is the proper path. I believe Lobster has stated that has already happened. You think so. I think some polls may indicate that for marijauna but I seriously doubt that most politicians feel secure in following that path any farther or they would.

I think it is time for Federalism to come back in vogue and allow the states to make these choices. They should never been been decided at the level of the Federal government but my opinion on this has no more bearing than the reason for the initial ban was racism. It is my opinion and an opinion is all that it is.

and it doesn't matter now anyway because racism isn't the reason most people today don't believe in legalizing drugs.

Given the reason most people think it should remain illegal is because it is illegal I think the reason it was originally made illegal is quite relevant.

Despair.

Some of you have no idea what a fallacy is. There are over a dozen applications of "Two Wrongs" on this page.

Diversion, dishonesty... nobody smoking pot is doing it to cure their cancer. And there's the ref to other drugs, including alcohol, as if they don't have their own problems. They do. Every drug - every drug - has a cost to others who do NOT use it.

Your ability to get alcohol is going to kill over 17,000 people in the country this year directly - and this is called a success by legalization advocates?

Nothing must stand in the way of the next buzz, because, y'know, real life sucks so badly. No one can cope.