[B]Marijuana: It's Time for a Conversation[B]

[Kittyclaws]

The ACLU has teamed with travel writer Rick Steves to produce "Marijuana: It's Time for a Conversation," a half-hour TV program about the history and current impacts of marijuana laws. The program is available to Comcast cable subscribers in western Washington, but local network stations have refused to sell us any time slots before 1:00 a.m.

So, we're bringing the video online, where you can watch it anytime and share it with your friends and family. Please visit www.MarijuanaConversation.org to watch the entire half-hour program, plus bonus features such as extended interviews with experts who appear in the video.

The enforcement of marijuana prohibition has led to far-ranging erosions of civil liberties, especially of protections against unreasonable search and seizure. It is a major part of the nation's misguided "war on drugs." In Washington state, anyone convicted of possessing even a small amount of the drug for personal use in private faces a mandatory jail sentence and fine.

http://www.marijuanaconversation.org/interviews/

[Jon_Stripe]

Marijuana v.s. Tobacco.


Which has a worse impact?

[TragicMonkey]

Marijuana v.s. Tobacco.


Which has a worse impact?


In terms of total damage done, I think high fructose corn syrup beats them both.

[mrbaracuda]

I can't get it out of my head the ACLU is a bunch of hippies! :D

[GreNME]

In terms of total damage done, I think high fructose corn syrup beats them both.

That has got to be the best answer to that question I have ever seen.

[Drudgewire]

I can't get it out of my head the ACLU is a bunch of hippies! :D


Join the ACLU and be on their e-mail alert for 20 minutes and you'll never question that belief again. :D

[JoeEllison]

Marijuana v.s. Tobacco.


Which has a worse impact?

Who cares?

ETA: Part of having an honest conversation will likely involve dropping illogical non-arguments like "tobacco and alcohol are bad and legal" and "marijuana is a gateway drug."

[Marquis de Carabas]

This conversation won't be about how, like, maybe the whole universe is, like, really just a, you know, like a molecule in some bigger universe. And maybe, like, that universe is just a molecule in an even bigger universe. Whoa, man. Will it?

[ravdin]

Here's a good starting point for the conversation:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-mayor0807,0,4563211.story

The question I'd like to ask: does marijuana pose such a grave threat to our society that we require law enforcement policies like this to deal with it?

[Kittyclaws]

The video is just 30 minutes-please give it a look.

One of the issues brought up in the vid was the fact that although several states have passed "medical marijuana" laws, the federal gov't/DEA continues to bust these users. WTF?

Recently in Seattle, a man was denied a place on the liver transplant list due to his medically authorized use of marijuana:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004375764_webtrnsplant26.html

I couldn't believe that no one on the transplant board could reason out that his medical (and probably all) use of pot would likely cease if he got a new liver, as the reasons for medical usage would be gone and informing the patient of the consequences of recreational usage would deter that as well.

[Darth Rotor]

One of the issues brought up in the vid was the fact that although several states have passed "medical marijuana" laws, the federal gov't/DEA continues to bust these users. WTF?
Ever heard of the commerce clause, specifically the interstate commerce clause?

DR

[Jon_Stripe]

In terms of total damage done, I think high fructose corn syrup beats them both.

Very good answer.

I've also heard (but haven't done my own research into) that milk contains many chemicles that over time are quite hazardous.

So why's weed an issue?!???

[WildCat]

So why's weed an issue?!???
Because Mexicans and blacks like to use it.

At least, that was the original reason way back when.

[Kittyclaws]

That is mentioned in the vid. Originally it was referred to as hemp. The powers that be started using the Mexican term "marijuana" when they wanted to vilify the herb by showing that people of color were using it.

[Kittyclaws]

Ever heard of the commerce clause, specifically the interstate commerce clause?

DR

No, I haven't. How does it apply?

[Praktik]

It refers to a supreme court decision, wherein it was decided that the interstate commerce clause of the constitution permitted federal raids on medical marijuana targets.

Forget the actual legal reasoning behind it since many of these operations never cross state lines in terms of delivering the weed...

But there was some nice legal gymnastics they used to get to the answer they wanted.

We'll need a president who decides to make a formal decision to end such raids, but politically it would be hard to manage.

If they could include other perceived federal "incursions" into state matters they could argue from states-right point and not have it exclusively about marijuana, which the repubs would run with if it was the only thing dealt with in such a presidential decision.

[GreNME]

Let me preface to say that I don't have a problem with people who want to toke up or people who use medical cannabis. I don't oppose decriminalization.

That said, this video is not an honest conversation about marijuana. The percentage statistics it gives (x% of people have used MJ, etc) are irrelevant to the argument of whether or not it should or shouldn't be legal. In fact, it reminds me of truther videos who cite Zogby polls for how many people "question" the "official" story of 9/11 or polls taken on how many people believe Kennedy may have been killed by the US government.

The descriptions about the origin of marijuana criminalization are fairly accurate. It was criminalized under a huge cloud of hyperbole and racism. Its ties to Prohibition are real and historically accurate. The "Just Say No" campaign was ridiculously overblown against marijuana, but the problem was that marijuana was already criminalized and, as such, it was tied to other (harder) drug use. The video is giving the impression that the "drug war" was only against marijuana when it wasn't-- by the 1970's much harder drugs were becoming present, by the 1980's cocaine had become the vogue, and by the 1990's crack cocaine was also greatly in the public eye. Yes, the use of marijuana as one of the faces of the "drug war" was a focus of the government, but the implication of the video is that marijuana was practically the sole focus when that's not accurate. Basically, the video overemphasizes the prosecution of marijuana to the point where they come close to engaging in the same hyperbole that was used to criminalize it to begin with.

The health coverage as well isn't providing an accurate picture. Pharmacologically speaking, while THC does indeed have beneficial analgesic properties, one of the side-effects of it is nausea, which can work in detrimental ways just as often as it does beneficial ways. I would agree there should be an allowance for better research as to why it has analgesic properties, but glossing over detrimental side-effects from a medical perspective is irresponsible.

The video-- while I would say it brings up a valid point, that there should be an intellectually honest discussion of marijuana-- doesn't stick to its point it brings up in the first place. Instead it provides several emotionally-based arguments to make the intellectual equivalent of the "hey, it's not so bad... not as bad as x, y, or z" argument, which have their own flaws.

I wasn't impressed by the video as a whole, and I should be the type of person for whom after watching it I'd feel like my beliefs-- which aren't in disagreement with the video's premise-- have been affirmed. After watching it, the only thing that's been affirmed for me is that neither side is yet prepared to take this conversation on in an intellectually honest fashion. The only really logical point made in the video was that the criminalization was accomplished through arguably questionable means. Since we can't go back in time 70+ years, that's not going to make a convincing case that it should be decriminalized now unless the other parts of the concerns people have are properly (and logically) addressed.

[Mycroft]

That said, this video is not an honest conversation about marijuana. The percentage statistics it gives (x% of people have used MJ, etc) are irrelevant to the argument of whether or not it should or shouldn't be legal. In fact, it reminds me of truther videos who cite Zogby polls for how many people "question" the "official" story of 9/11 or polls taken on how many people believe Kennedy may have been killed by the US government.

Respectfully, I disagree. The fact that a lot of people have used it without harmful effects is a powerful argument for decriminalization.

[Ladewig]

Ever heard of the commerce clause, specifically the interstate commerce clause?

DR

I took a law class a fair number of years ago, but have since forgotten all the details of the interstate commerce clause. How does that law affect folks who grow and sell MJ within a particular state?

[GreNME]

Respectfully, I disagree. The fact that a lot of people have used it without harmful effects is a powerful argument for decriminalization.

That's not how the "statistics" were couched (that one was brought up early on, before health effects were even mentioned, for instance), and the percent having used is only one of many. So, while you certainly have a point on the health aspect, that is only mildly touched on in the video, instead making emotional arguments (along those lines) like "cops would rather arrest someone intoxicated on marijuana than someone intoxicated on alcohol." Yes, it's very effective imagery, but it's missing the goal of having an actual honest conversation about marijuana.

I agree there are strong arguments for decriminalization. I just don't think this video makes them.

[Egg]

That said, this video is not an honest conversation about marijuana. The percentage statistics it gives (x% of people have used MJ, etc) are irrelevant to the argument of whether or not it should or shouldn't be legal. In fact, it reminds me of truther videos who cite Zogby polls for how many people "question" the "official" story of 9/11 or polls taken on how many people believe Kennedy may have been killed by the US government.


Aside from the health aspect, laws do need to be practical to enforce and one would hope in the case of a democratically elected government, representative of the population. While it is not a complete argument in itself, pointing out that a high percentage of the population would be classed as criminals under the law should raise questions about that particular law. Obviously this would have to be balanced with the effects of the action on others or on society, but I think it's a relevant factor to bring up.

It's not an entirely fair comparison to compare it to a poll about whether something is true or false.

[GreNME]

Aside from the health aspect, laws do need to be practical to enforce and one would hope in the case of a democratically elected government, representative of the population. While it is not a complete argument in itself, pointing out that a high percentage of the population would be classed as criminals under the law should raise questions about that particular law. Obviously this would have to be balanced with the effects of the action on others or on society, but I think it's a relevant factor to bring up.

It's not an entirely fair comparison to compare it to a poll about whether something is true or false.

Okay, let me try to re-frame what I was saying: the video does not present the argument in the way you just did, instead relying on a bevy of emotional tugs, flashing random "statistics" with very little in the way of tying them into actual arguments.

So, again, like I said: it's not that I disagree with the argument you make. It's that the video doesn't necessarily make them.

[Egg]

Okay, let me try to re-frame what I was saying: the video does not present the argument in the way you just did, instead relying on a bevy of emotional tugs, flashing random "statistics" with very little in the way of tying them into actual arguments.

So, again, like I said: it's not that I disagree with the argument you make. It's that the video doesn't necessarily make them.

True enough. It is a very one sided "conversation" in the video and fairly reliant on emotional responses. I think it does hint at some of the good arguments, but often doesn't really go into them.

[GreNME]

Yeah, I thought it was a pity.

Incidentally, it was an intellectually honest conversation with a friend of mine who advocates decriminalization (and smokes pot) that convinced me to rethink my position.

[Piggy]

As far as I'm concerned, no one should have to justify why marijuana should be legal.

The government should have to justify why it should be illegal, why the government has the right to deprive people of liberty and property -- and, the way things are now, ruin their careers, etc. -- because they want to grow a plant and use it to alter their mental states.

Seems to me it should be like alcohol. If you go out and drive while intoxicated on it, or if you provide it to children, etc., then you've committed a crime. Otherwise, no.

None of the justifications hold water.

Ok, so it's bad for your health. Is jail better for your health? If you have the right to sit on the sofa and eat nothing but potato chips and drink soda pop all day, or to smoke cigarettes, then you can't justify jailing people for smoking marijuana.

Ok, so it reduces productivity. So does a lot of stuff, like spending too much time playing video games. And does jail improve someone's productivity? A government which jails people for being unproductive is fascist.

All these laws do is to create a black market, and to expose pot smokers to harder drugs because they get their weed from an illegal dealer.

It's ridiculous and there's no justification for it beyond cultural bias and the greed of police departments and local jurisdictions who love them some seizure.

[linusrichard]

I took a law class a fair number of years ago, but have since forgotten all the details of the interstate commerce clause. How does that law affect folks who grow and sell MJ within a particular state?

Because there's a national (interstate) market for MJ. If you grow your own, you're not buying from someone else, and you're affecting the interstate market. If you buy within the state, that's that much less in-state MJ available, and someone else will buy from out-of-state.

That's the exact argument from Wickard v. Filburn (1942) (although Wickard dealt with wheat), and although I thought Wickard was a dead letter after Lopez (1995), the Supremes resurrected it in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), saying it still applies, and it applies to MJ.

The Commerce Clause is one of very few areas that finds me agreeing with the "conservatives" (and even Clarence Thomas!). The liberal in me wants the feds to have the ability to ban MJ (although I don't want them to use that ability), but I can also read the Constitution, and unless you really twist it around a la Wickard and Raich, it ain't there.

[Ron_Tomkins]

So... come on. Lets drop the act here. I think everyone knows why we're here in this thread... talking... you know..... so who's got some weed?

And a nice terrace.

[JFrankA]

I'm all for legalizing pot. I don't smoke at all, legal or no, but I don't see why it's illegal. (And for the record, I'm not a libertarian. Just an independent. Sorry.) :)

But I think the biggest problem with legalizing pot in the US is the fact that so many people are "brainwashed", for lack of a better term, into believing how the whole country would go to hell the instant it's legal.

I may be stating the obvious here. But to me, it boils down to what the "right sound bite" should be for a candidate to get elected to a position.

I can't imagine a presidential candidate getting up on a podium and saying "Pot should be legalized". Unfortunately, that's political suicide in the US. In fact, at the present time, for a politician trying to get elected making a statement that medical Marijuana should be legal is a big, big mistake and will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get elected.

It's a strange situation to me, because a lot of the people I've talked to say it should be legal. But despite that, it seems like the that's who the political candidates believe that "legalizing any drugs = political suicide".

ETA: As for the child pornography issue, can we please start a separate thread for that? I would really like to comment, but if everyone started to do both on this one thread it would get awfully messy.

[JFrankA]

....can we get back to the pot discussion??? :)

[Piggy]

....can we get back to the pot discussion??? :)

Sure.

After viewing the video, I consider it a crank production.

It's obviously staged. You can tell that from the first question -- blatantly set up.

They don't mention any of the very real problems with "medical marijuana" which is largely a front, and not a word about standardized marijuana derivatives which control the dosage and don't require smoking, which is a highly problematic means of delivery.

Their medical pot expert also advocates black cohosh? Scary!

It goes on from there.

There are much better arguments to be made for repealing marijuana prohibition. And they do make some of them, but I wish they focused entirely on the legitimate issues which they tease during the intro.

[prewitt81]

Off topic discussion split to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120973

[JFrankA]

Yay!!! Thank you, Prewitt81!

ETA: No offense to the people in the child porn discussion, I'll be adding my two pennies there soon, it's just that this topic was not about that.

[Alex Libman]

Big thanks to prewitt81. But my first post was relevant to this thread:

I've never done any illegal drugs and never will, and I occasionally get pissed off at my fellow libertarians for pushing this issue far more than some other issues I consider to be more important, but, yes, I do support full legalization, as well as an end to prosecution of all other victimless crimes [...]

[Bikewer]

Way back when I started in police work, in 1968, the individual who was in charge of the department's drug unit had bought completely into the notion that MJ was somehow undermining the fabric of American society.
He used to write up diatribes on the dangers of deadly weed, and send them out to all and sundry. This was when half the coppers I knew were smoking dope "so they wouldn't drink"....

The "official" response to marijuana seems outdated and downright silly. A panel of research physicians on NPR's Science Friday last year said unequivocally.."Marijuana is the most benign of intoxicants".
Certainly more benign than tobacco, alcohol, or likely the high-fructose syrup mentioned above.

Now it must be said that in most jurisdictions, mere possession of small amounts will likely net you little more than a fine. However, the line between an amount deemed suitable for personal consumption and for "trafficking" is pretty fine. Just divide your stash up into several containers and you may be looking at a felony trafficking charge.
Our jails are filled with individuals from such a background. NPR is doing a series this week on "who's in prison", and they visited a women's facility where the vast majority of inmates are there for drug offenses, and most (75%) have families.

Treating such people as criminals and incarcerating more citizens than any other "civilized" society is.....Silly.

Still, you have the "Marijuana is a gateway drug" notion that's apparently enshrined somewhere in the Justice Department.
Billions spent on enforcement, interdiction, trial, "corrections" and essentially ruined lives after the offender's sentence is completed....All to no purpose whatever.

IMO.....

[billydkid]

The ACLU has teamed with travel writer Rick Steves to produce "Marijuana: It's Time for a Conversation," a half-hour TV program about the history and current impacts of marijuana laws. The program is available to Comcast cable subscribers in western Washington, but local network stations have refused to sell us any time slots before 1:00 a.m.

So, we're bringing the video online, where you can watch it anytime and share it with your friends and family. Please visit www.MarijuanaConversation.org to watch the entire half-hour program, plus bonus features such as extended interviews with experts who appear in the video.

The enforcement of marijuana prohibition has led to far-ranging erosions of civil liberties, especially of protections against unreasonable search and seizure. It is a major part of the nation's misguided "war on drugs." In Washington state, anyone convicted of possessing even a small amount of the drug for personal use in private faces a mandatory jail sentence and fine.

http://www.marijuanaconversation.org/interviews/
Did you know that the DEA actually has teams that go out to find and destroy "feral" Marijuana? That is, they go to the trouble to find and destroy this weed growing wild in ditches and such. This is the kind of idiocy our tax dollars go toward.

[billydkid]

Treating such people as criminals and incarcerating more citizens than any other "civilized" society is.....Silly.
.

I agree with you, but I would argue that it's much worse than merely silly. It is a hysteria that is destroying lives and costing us hundreds of billions of dollars.