cannabisnews.com: So Many Criminals? So Many Criminals? Posted by CN Staff on January 11, 2009 at 08:47:55 PT Editorial Source: Daily Press Virginia -- On Election Day, voters in Massachusetts took what they think will be a step forward for their state: They decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana.Before you brush that off with, "Well, that's Massachusetts for you," consider that this is a state with not only a liberal bent but a strong Puritan streak. This is a place where you can't buy wine in a grocery store or pick up beer in a 7-Eleven. By two to one, voters decided that possessing less than an ounce of marijuana will net a civil fine of $100 and no criminal record (and, for young offenders, a required drug-education program and community service). The laws on growing and trafficking in marijuana are unchanged. But unless the state legislature overturns the ballot initiative, the penalty for possession will be, for adults, bigger than a parking ticket, smaller than a misdemeanor. And when the bill takes effect, what will happen? The Bay State will not fall into the clutches of evil and sin, any more than the Netherlands' enlightened drug policy has caused the prosperous, upright Dutch to sink into the sea. But thousands of hours of police time will be freed up, the equivalent of adding a lot of bodies to police forces. Court dockets will be stripped of thousands of cases, clearing the way for cases involving real crimes. Thousands of people won't find their futures compromised by criminal records. And defiance of the law won't be bred by putting otherwise law-abiding citizens in a bind, where an activity they don't believe is wrong lands them on the wrong side of the criminal code.Maybe it's time for Virginia to consider reaping some of those benefits. It's at least worth opening the discussion and talking about drugs and the law, what works and what doesn't, what people want and what they don't.Along those lines, this has to be factored in: When it comes to marijuana, there is a gap between what the law says and what people do, or at least try. In a recent national survey, most adults under the age of 55 said they'd used illegal drugs at some point in their lives. And that's not a relic of long-gone psychedelic days: Drug use was as common among twenty-somethings as forty-somethings. The trend shows no signs of stopping: One in six 18- to 25-year-olds said they'd used marijuana in the last month. And while it's apparent that the war on drugs consumes massive resources and sustains the livelihoods of criminals without stopping either supply or demand, we justify it because some substances are so dangerous.When it comes to distinguishing what behavior is legal from what is not, the line isn't always as bright as we'd like. In the beginning of the 20th century, Coca-Cola was spiked and tonics laced with opium were sold over the counter — and America was consumed by a juggernaut of industry, not a stupor of inebriation. The nation tried prohibiting alcohol; that produced widespread defiance, crime and bullet-riddled bodies. Today, the pharmaceutical industry reaps big profits from some powerful addictive substances; others are banned.It's time to discuss how a rational drug policy should make rational distinctions among drugs. And recognize that marijuana is not the same as crack.It's time to discuss whether a society that allows people to choose some mood-altering substances — not just the obvious and ever-present alcohol but very common (with a cooperative physician) prescription drugs — should be a society that lets them decide for themselves about the mood-altering substance of marijuana.It's time to talk about the fiscal price we pay for criminalizing marijuana. In 2007, police in Virginia arrested 35,196 people for drug offenses. The majority, 19,606, were for marijuana. That's a lot of law enforcement resources. It might be time to go a step further than even Tax-achusetts, and think about the implications of the current policy of ceding the marijuana supply chain to violent hoodlums. What if we regulated — and taxed — it instead? If those surveys about marijuana use are valid, that could turn out to be a lucrative source of tax revenue. Again, like alcohol. Would decriminalizing marijuana lead to wider use? More addiction? The psychological and physiological dimensions of drug use make it hard to say. Alcohol is a problem for some people, but most manage it well and in moderation. Narcotic painkillers are a boon to most people, and push a few down a dark hole. For some people, some drugs are addictive, and some drugs are more likely to be destructive. This isn't to suggest decriminalizing the more dangerous ones, such as heroin, crystal meth or cocaine in any form. But if the risk of addiction was a good enough reason to outlaw a substance, we'd ban alcohol, tobacco and some prescription drugs. Nor is the risk of other forms of physical harm, or we'd yank those substances off the shelves, along with junk food. Millions of Americans have used marijuana, and it's obvious that they haven't been turned into addicts. What they have been turned into is law-breakers. It's time to talk — rationally, openly, calmly — about not making a crime out of an adult's decision to use one mood-altering substance rather than another.Note: It's time for a frank, calm discussion about decriminalizing marijuana.Source: Daily Press (Newport News,VA)Published: January 11, 2009 Copyright: 2009 The Daily PressContact: letters dailypress.comWebsite: http://www.dailypress.comURL: http://drugsense.org/url/nlrJmIkMCannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #85 posted by FoM on January 17, 2009 at 21:03:00 PT Hope I haven't really thought about that. I assume everything we type is as private as a postcard. [ Post Comment ] Comment #84 posted by Hope on January 17, 2009 at 20:37:11 PT Nothing really... There are computer systems that search the internet constantly for certain words of interest that might require the attention of government. [ Post Comment ] Comment #83 posted by FoM on January 17, 2009 at 20:09:23 PT Hope I don't know what a spy machine is. We don't get spam that I know of. [ Post Comment ] Comment #82 posted by Hope on January 17, 2009 at 19:54:19 PT "... accessed over 8,000 times" This is a great thread, but looking quickly through it, it probably tripped every key-word spy machine in the world.:0) [ Post Comment ] Comment #81 posted by FoM on January 17, 2009 at 16:58:58 PT Dankhank I do know you can't sue the government. I have often thought why I feel the way I do over the years. I don't know anyone who doesn't think the way I do other then online. It really is a personal moral decision as to why we believe the way we do. [ Post Comment ] Comment #80 posted by dankhank on January 17, 2009 at 16:51:39 PT FoM FoM asked:Another question about legalizing heroin. If we make our government the sales person for heroin and someone dies could they sue the government? It seems really risky.=========I understand some of your concerns, but, as long as nothing changes violence will be the answer.If we can't sue the Government or anyone for our alcoholic family, I doubt we could sue for addicted family. Which is worse? alcoholism or addiction? Heroin was sold on drug store shelves before prohibition. Andy's got pictures of the bottles and I've see the old bottles in the museum in Guthrie, OK.http://www.drugmuseum.org/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #79 posted by FoM on January 14, 2009 at 05:59:09 PT Thank You Everyone This thread was the most interesting one in a long time. Many people must be checking it out since it currently has been accessed over 8,000 times. [ Post Comment ] Comment #78 posted by sam adams on January 12, 2009 at 19:02:49 PT mexico wow, this thread has taken off - just wanted to respond that I am not trying to demonize guns or advocate for gun control - when I said we shipped mass murder over to Mexico I meant that by enforcing our drug war on the Mexico & the rest of the world we create violence & anarchy in places like Mexico.If they are using mostly AK's then maybe we are supplying the sidearms!Also, no I am not from Oklahoma, the article just came up on a Google search. I think if OK got a chance to vote on MJ reform everyone might be surprised by the result. [ Post Comment ] Comment #77 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 18:21:40 PT CommonSense Let's just hope that Obama stays on top of it all. He did during his campaign and that was a feat. How many years ago was that issue with Holder? People don't view marijuana like they did even only a few years ago. As time progressed Gays have more say and are shown respect but that wasn't always the case. Maybe the same thing will happen with marijuana reformers. [ Post Comment ] Comment #76 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 18:04:52 PT FoM (on Holder) I don't know if there was serious gang violence related to marijuana or not, but he claimed that there was and pushed for mandatory minimum sentences for selling marijuana. Talking about Washington DC, he said, "the city is on the verge of an explosion in violence associated with the sale and use of marijuana." A wee bit melodramatic maybe? He was a big fan of New York's zero tolerance policies. He wants officers and courts to be tougher on minor crimes, including marijuana offenses, so it would have a ripple effect with other crimes. He's a typical prosecutor. [ Post Comment ] Comment #75 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 17:31:13 PT Holder Didn't he have serious gang violence surrounding marijuana on his watch and he was trying to do something about it? [ Post Comment ] Comment #74 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 17:28:13 PT Commonsense I don't like all the money that has been thrown around but I know we need to do something not to fall further then we have already. For instance my husband made a good deal of money this summer and I was happy but I wondered if it would continue. When the economy crashed steel stopped too. We will survive because our equipment is paid off and our mortgage payment is lower then our electric bill. We are the lucky ones this time but I know it will be a disaster for many families and that concerns me.Obama is inheriting a big mess and much of it he won't be able to fix. It won't be his fault though. [ Post Comment ] Comment #73 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 17:23:48 PT Paul "I too hope he honors his campaign pledge not to bust state-authorized medical marijuana patients and their providers -- though that decision is ultimately in the hands of his Attorney General pick Eric Holder, who at least in the past, was rabidly anti-marijuana (even going so far as proposing mandatory minimum sentencing for weed.)"Some of his picks have been a little troubling. If Holder starts acting up with respect to medical marijuana and Obama does nothing to contain him, a lot of folks aren't going to be happy with Obama. [ Post Comment ] Comment #72 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 17:19:36 PT FoM I just don't want to see people turn on him because they had unrealistic expectations to begin with. I like Obama. The only thing that worries me about him is that he seems to want to throw money at all our problems and I'm afraid he'll just get us a lot deeper in debt than we already are, and our current level of national debt scares the heck out of me. Other than that concern I'm happy to have him as our president. I think he could be great. [ Post Comment ] Comment #71 posted by paul armentano on January 12, 2009 at 16:59:16 PT Commonsense "Did you guys expect anything else from the Obama administration? I expect to see pretty much business as usual. I hope he honors his promise not to go after medical marijuana users in states where it is legal. Beyond that I don't expect to see much of anything that "pro pot" coming from the Obama administration, especially in his first term."I would tend to agree with you, although there are some minor, related issues I'd like to see the new administration act on as well (such as removing the Barr amendment, which has prohibited WDC from enacting medical marijuana legislation approved by the voters). I too hope he honors his campaign pledge not to bust state-authorized medical marijuana patients and their providers -- though that decision is ultimately in the hands of his Attorney General pick Eric Holder, who at least in the past, was rabidly anti-marijuana (even going so far as proposing mandatory minimum sentencing for weed.) NORML has an action alert here:http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=12412501re: how you can make sure that Eric Holder is asked his position on this issue during his confirmation hearings.***Help NORML Impact the US Attorney General Confirmation! During his election campaign, President-elect Obama pledged numerous times to end DEA raids on individuals who use or provide medical cannabis in accordance with their state law. The U.S. Attorney General is the member of the cabinet who will implement Obama's criminal justice policies--including federal marijuana enforcement.Confirmation hearings for Obama's nominee, Eric Holder, are scheduled to begin on January 15th before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Please help NORML make sure the next Attorney General keeps the promises made by President-elect Obama!Call or write Senator Leahy's office at (202) 224-4242 today. Use the following text as a guideline.Call or write Senator Leahy's office at (202) 224-4242 and say:"Hi, my name is ___________ and I am calling about the Attorney General confirmation hearings. President-elect Obama said numerous times during his campaign that DEA raids on individuals legally qualified to use medical cannabis in their states are a waste of resources and that he would end that policy. 72 million Americans live in the 13 states with medical cannabis laws. Please ask Eric Holder if he will uphold Obama's promise and end DEA raids on legal medical cannabis patients." http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=12412501 [ Post Comment ] Comment #70 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 16:25:07 PT CommonSense I didn't expect President Obama to legalize marijuana. I want him to change the laws to treatment instead of jail for hard drug addicts. I want him not to send a Drug Czar to try to turn over Initiatives. I want him to let the people decide and hope that he will respect it. I mostly want him to leave medical marijuana patients alone in states that have those particular laws on the books.I've come to the conclusion that some people don't like Obama and they will never like him mostly because he is a Democrat. I am absolutely thrilled to finally have a top notch Democrat as POTUS. [ Post Comment ] Comment #69 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 16:17:46 PT Paul Did you guys expect anything else from the Obama administration? I expect to see pretty much business as usual. I hope he honors his promise not to go after medical marijuana users in states where it is legal. Beyond that I don't expect to see much of anything that "pro pot" coming from the Obama administration, especially in his first term. The majority of Americans are still against legalization. The most powerful lawmakers are a bunch of old farts with long track records as anti-pot drug warriors. Obama couldn't get a decriminalization or legalization bill through our legislative branch even if he went all out pushing for it. Those guys won't even vote to stop messing with people in medical marijuana states, even though the majority of Americans are for medical marijuana. I was looking at demographics statistics the other day for our new Congress and Senate. The average age of a new Senator this time was 57. The average age of Senators has now crept up over 63. I don't know what the average age of a Senate committee leader is now but it's probably higher than it was with the last bunch, 67. There are some groups out there that rank legislators by how powerful they are. One can be found here: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/power_rankings/overall.tt If you take the top ten in Congress and average their ages, you'll see that the average age os the top ten most powerful people in the House of Reps is now 71 years old. In the Senate it's only a little over 67. These old geezers haven't smoked any pot and none of their contemporaries have either. They probably still refer to it as a narcotic like my 72 year old dad. There is no way we're going to see much marijuana legislation we like coming out of either house. Obama knows that, and he knows how badly he and the Democrats in general will be attacked if he starts pushing for pro marijuana legislation in a time when we have serious economic issues to deal with. I can already here the people on the right saying "all those damned liberals care about is their pot" and if the economy hasn't done a u-turn by the 2010 elections we'd see Republicans taking an awful lot of seats at the mid-term election. Obama doesn't want to risk that.It could be worse. We could have a raging drug warrior as president. I don't think Obama is like that. He's not going to veto any pro pot legislation that comes out, in the unlikely event some comes out. He's probably not going to talk about marijuana like it's the scourge of society like we've seen some past presidents do. But anyone who thinks he's going to legalize it or anything like that will end up being sorely disappointed. [ Post Comment ] Comment #68 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 16:02:52 PT About President Elect Obama He had his staff answer that he isn't for marijuana legalization. I thought he answered that question already. I would have said the same thing because marijuana legalization allows so many open doors like what about minors? They'd say he wants kids to get stoned! He's a smart man and knows when not to talk. [ Post Comment ] Comment #67 posted by The GCW on January 12, 2009 at 15:54:56 PT paul armentano, With that in mind; being ignored...It's time to look ahead at protest oppertunities coming up in the near future.Without checking, the million marijuana march is coming up in what is it March?If as much attention as President-Elect’s website Change.gov has received may be an indicator, it may be a chance to make this protest and others the biggest yet.I'd like to help Obama be put in a position unable to ignore Us. [ Post Comment ] Comment #66 posted by paul armentano on January 12, 2009 at 15:43:54 PT DEA Says NIDA Pot Monopoly Must Continue [excerpt]Thanks to a parting shot by outgoing DEA Deputy Administrator Michele Leonhart, the new administration may never get that opportunity.On Wednesday, January 7th, Ms. Leonhart published a 118-page decision setting aside DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner’s 2007 ruling. The DEA’s decision constitutes a formal rejection of University of Massachusetts at Amherst Professor Lyle Craker’s petition, filed initially June 24, 2001, to cultivate research-grade marijuana for use by scientists in FDA-approved studies aimed at developing the drug as a legal, prescription medication.Full text at:http://blog.norml.org/2009/01/12/dea-ja-vu-drug-enforcement-agency-overrules-its-own-administrative-law-judge-says-nidas-marijuana-monopoly-must-continue/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #65 posted by paul armentano on January 12, 2009 at 15:42:26 PT Obama Site Ducks Marijuana Reform Questions [excerpt]Voting ended late last week on the President-Elect’s website Change.gov. As was the case in December, questions regarding marijuana law reform proved to be extremely popular.Of the more than 76,000 questions posed to Obama by the general public, the fourth most popular question overall called on the incoming administration to cease arresting and prosecuting adults who use cannabis. And in the sub-category “National Security,” the most popular question posed by the public pertained to amending U.S. drug policies.But you wouldn’t know it by listening to the administration’s latest video response (posted online here) — as neither issue received even a passing mention from incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.Full text at:http://blog.norml.org/2009/01/12/o-blow-off-obama-site-ducks-marijuana-reform-questions-again/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #64 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 15:40:25 PT The GCW I believe if people had inexpensive quality cannabis available hard drugs would slowly just fade away. [ Post Comment ] Comment #63 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 15:36:12 PT Commonsense Thank you. Drug legalizers have totally freaked me out over the years. I try to stay out of it and not connected to it as best as I can. Cannabis reform is my issue and if and when the time comes the laws are changed I can find a million other causes to become involved in but not drug legalization. [ Post Comment ] Comment #62 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 15:31:18 PT FoM Don't worry FoM, we won't legalize heroin. There have been a few polls where people have been asked about legalizing all drugs and usually not even 10% think it's a good idea. There will never be enough support to legalize the hard stuff. About the only people I see talking about that these days are a few died in the wool libertarian types and the drug warriors. The drug warrior types like to say that marijuana legalizers are trying to legalize all drugs. They want people to be afraid of some sort of domino effect, where if we legalize marijuana we'll just keep going until all drugs are legal. It won't happen. The tiny few who would like for it to happen can try all they want but the overwhelming majority will never stand for it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #61 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 15:24:30 PT E_Johnson I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. I think the Mexican government, with our help, will be able to do enough damage to these cartels to make them lay low for a while. We might even see a cartel or two pretty much fall apart and be replaced by new cartels. This kind of violence can't go on. It's bad for business. It's attracting all the wrong kind of attention. We'll probably see some big guys getting taken down, killed, imprisoned, whatever. It will be kind of like when they took out Pablo Escobar and the fellow that came after him. The violence in Colombia largely subsided, but of course the Colombians are selling more cocaine than ever. This thing in Mexico will pass. The biggest part of the violence will abate. The drugs won't stop flowing and there will still be plenty of corruption, but the war that's going on there now will end for the most part. [ Post Comment ] Comment #60 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 14:49:27 PT CommonSense I never thought of anyone selling heroin in a free market system. Look what we are going thru now in our country because of the lack of conscience we have seen. I also believe if heroin would be legalized and regulated like some think might work I don't believe it would work because a regulated system will push addicts (who need higher doses because of building up a tolerance) to the streets to get more because it would be regulated so we're back to square one. [ Post Comment ] Comment #59 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 14:48:28 PT GCW Good post. I don't think we'd see a lot of activism for legalizing drugs like meth. When marijuana is legalized the money for organizations like NORML, the DPA, the MPP will dry up. How many people do you suppose would show up for a meth legalization rally? There will never be enough support to legalize drugs like that. Only a very tiny minority want all drugs to be legalized and that's not going to change. We might very well still see groups actively trying to get the laws changed such that drug offenses are treated more as health issues than criminal issues, and I'm all for that, but we'll never see the kind of activity and excitement over legalizing these other drugs like we see with marijuana today. I agree with the rest of your post too. On Mexican marijuana though I would say they have to overcome that "Mexican shwag" mindset people have before they'll ever be able to position their product as a premium product. And low labor costs aren't everything. American farmers are remarkable. They know how to maximize production and bring costs down. I think labor costs will probably end up being only small portion of the final price consumers pay. I bet wholesale costs drop through the floor but the government keeps the prices up close to where they are today with regulatory costs and massive taxes. [ Post Comment ] Comment #58 posted by E_Johnson on January 12, 2009 at 14:37:30 PT Commonsense what I'm starting to fear This Mexico stuff scares the heck out of me. I wonder if we'll even get a choice about marijuana legalization. Maybe the gangs will end up making all the choices for us. Maybe rule of law will just plain break down from all the pressure put on it by the WOD.Maybe we won't be able to end it in time. That's what I fear now. [ Post Comment ] Comment #57 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 14:34:51 PT FoM It's hard to sue the government, and I would think that people would have to sign a release or something when buying an inherently dangerous product like that.I wouldn't want heroin to be legal, and I'd really feel uncomfortable with having the government sell it. There are a couple of countries that have heroin maintenance programs now where the government supplies a small number of registered addicts who have not been able to quit. That might be a good idea. The idea is that it stops these people from having to commit property crimes or be prostitutes or drug dealers or whatever to get money for drugs, and it also takes some of the regular business away from the local heroin dealers. They monitor the addicts and encourage them to switch to methadone and eventually get off of all of it. These programs get mixed reviews. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing us experiment with something like this in a few large cities where heroin is prevalent. I would be opposed to the government just setting up shop and selling heroin cheap to any adult who wants it. That would be even worse than having private business do it. Either would be unacceptable to me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #56 posted by The GCW on January 12, 2009 at 14:34:25 PT RE-legaliztion realization & dont forget the Gold. If America re-legalizes cannabis, there would be less talk about legalizing hard drugs.-0-One important benefit will come in the form of more honest drug awareness programs which will lower hard drug addiction rates. Then it will be more difficult to brainwash youth into believing lies, half-truths and propaganda concerning the relatively safe, socially acceptable, God-given plant cannabis. They will be taught the truth; cannabis is not nearly as dangerous as honest hard drugs. How many citizens try cannabis and realize it's not nearly as harmful as taught in DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) type government environments? Then they think other substances must not be so bad either, only to become addicted to deadly drugs. The old lessons make cannabis out to be among the worst substances in the world, although it's never killed a single person. The federal government even classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance along with heroin, while methamphetamine and cocaine are only Schedule II substances. For the health and welfare of America's children and adults, that absolutely must change. To further help citizens avoid hard drugs, cannabis would be available from regulated businesses so people do not often come in contact with sellers of hard drugs. -0-The threat to the U.S. isn’t due to Mexico’s drug wars; it’s due to a war over unregulated drugs. It was the same during the original prohibition with alcohol. Murder rates decreased for 10 years after ending the original prohibition and there is reason to believe ending the sequel will have the same results.Mexico will not have gangs selling cannabis and there will be less people addicted to hard drugs (lower demand) if cannabis is RE-leglaized.-0-ONE more thing.There will be a market for cannabis from Mexico too.Think Corona. Think Acapulco Gold. Think lower labor costs... [ Post Comment ] Comment #55 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 14:23:01 PT FoM "I don't think we would need cannabis from Mexico if people could grow it outside in front of God and everybody. Fresh Cannabis is much better then processed and shipped marijuana from many miles away."Yeah, Mexican "shwag" has a bad reputation too. People will prefer American grown. But, in my area at least you'll pay at least four or five times as much for indoor grown bud as you'll pay for decent Mexican so almost no one buys the pricey stuff. If Mexican is still a whole lot cheaper than American grown in a legal market a lot of people would still buy the Mexican. There will probably be a lot more outdoor grown American weed available when it's legal, and almost no indoor grown bud available except maybe connoisseur bud grown in greenhouses, so there ought to be competitively priced American bud that will sell really well. "I think Canada has turned to the conservative side of government and nothing will change until they get a liberal Prime Minister in charge."I think it's going to be a long time before marijuana is legalized here in the states so I imagine we'll see the government in Canada change hands a few times by then. I think they have about for more years of Harper's government and if things don't turn around for them we'll see another party in charge after their next election. [ Post Comment ] Comment #54 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 14:12:38 PT CommonSense Another question about legalizing heroin. If we make our government the sales person for heroin and someone dies could they sue the government? It seems really risky. [ Post Comment ] Comment #53 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 14:06:15 PT CommonSense I tried Cocaine 1 time and thought it was a big waste of money and that was that. As far as Heroin goes it appears to be making it's way into my state. I lost family and friends from drugs like heroin and meth and if they had been legal they'd still be dead. [ Post Comment ] Comment #52 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 14:01:26 PT FoM As for the violence continuing even if drugs are legalized, the extreme violence we are seeing in Mexico is over drugs, or the money there is to be made selling drugs to be more exact. It would subside if we legalized all drugs. Of course we'd have a lot of new problems if we legalized the hard stuff and started selling it cheap from nice clean stores. Most people would have sense enough to leave it alone but more would mess with it than do today and more would become addicted and then we'd have more of these problem addicts causing us lots of problems and clogging up our criminal justice system. Heroin is pretty much nonexistent in my area for instance. You don't see it. The only heroin case I ever had as a lawyer was one where a couple of guys got caught with a couple of pounds of it while they were passing through on the interstate highway that runs through my county. We never see little heroin delivery cases or even simple possession cases in court. Most lawyers here have never had a heroin case. Most cops here have never made a heroin arrest. We really don't have a heroin problem here. If we legalized it and started selling it cheap from nice clean stores most people would leave it alone but some would start messing around with it and before long we'd have a small contingent of heroin addicts causing us a lot of problems along with our meth heads and coke addicts. And drugs like cocaine, while they are available here, they’re expensive and you have to deal with some pretty creepy people if you want to be a cocaine user. You mess with it very long and you will end up dealing with people who are trouble you don't want anything to do with. I fooled around some with cocaine back in the eighties. I always had the same feeling the next day. I couldn't believe all the money I had blown the night before. I'd be sick about it, think of all the things I could have bought, how many six packs, how many cheeseburgers. It was probably the expense of it more than anything that kept me from doing it enough to become a raving coke fiend. I liked it. Cocaine is fun. If they were selling it for ten bucks a gram at the 7-11 I'd probably be dead by now or at least I'd be horribly addicted to cocaine. I have no doubt that legalizing the hard stuff it would reduce the violence we see occurring in Mexico today because that violence is all over illegal drug money. I think though that it would be a bad idea to legalize the hard stuff. But again, marijuana is really the cash cow for these Mexican drug trafficking organizations. If we take that from them, we take most of their income. With considerably less money for people to make, fewer people would be attracted to the illegal drug trade. There would still be fighting between competing trafficking organizations, but with less money these organizations would be smaller and so would the death toll. At first there might be more violence as these people kill each other fighting over what’s left of the illegal drug business, but in time that will all sort itself out and there would be less fighting, less government corruption, and so on. All that money there is to be made is what is causing all this violence we are seeing in Mexico today. It causes a lot of corruption and other problems too. If we take the lion's share of this money out of play, we'll see a corresponding decrease in the problems this money leads to today. [ Post Comment ] Comment #51 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 13:30:49 PT CommonSense I don't think we would need cannabis from Mexico if people could grow it outside in front of God and everybody. Fresh Cannabis is much better then processed and shipped marijuana from many miles away. I think Canada has turned to the conservative side of government and nothing will change until they get a liberal Prime Minister in charge. [ Post Comment ] Comment #50 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 13:26:32 PT EJ I Believe Maybe I'm wrong but years ago I went out to see my son in LA and he took me to his college which was CalState Northridge. There was a McDonalds I think it was in the school and my son ordered in Spanish. I asked him why he did that. He looked at me very seriously and said Mom this was theirs and we took it from them. I'm trying to show a little respect. I got what he meant and he made me proud.I think they never got over losing parts of the USA and they want it back. I really believe violence will continue even if heroin or cocaine was legalized but heroin is already legal by pill in Oxycontin or Oxycodone ( hillbilly heroin ) or one of those drugs. You can shoot it and it is purer then street heroin I think.Meth probably can be made anywhere so it doesn't need to come from Mexico. [ Post Comment ] Comment #49 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 13:25:12 PT FoM Mexico and Canada might legalize marijuana before us. Their governments have talked about it before, and of course this talk was met with stern warnings from our government. There does seem to be more support for legalizing marijuana in those countries than in ours, so my bet is that if they do not legalize before us, they'll do it soon after we do because they'll want to participate in our legal market for it. They won't want to lose all those billions they have coming in now. American grown would probably sell very well here, because it's so good, but I imagine we'd probably also have some foreign grown marijuana being sold from our shops as well. [ Post Comment ] Comment #48 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 13:15:42 PT Commonsense I really appreciate your stand on marijuana. That is my stand too. Drugs and marijuana don't mix well with society or the powers that be. Grown in the USA would be a good thing for cannabis. Marijuana has minimal side effects compared to other substances and you won't go thru painful withdrawal if you have to stop smoking it. Why is it illegal? It seems totally stupid to me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #47 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 13:10:22 PT FoM I don't believe in legalizing drugs other than marijuana either. But just legalizing marijuana would be a huge blow to Mexican organized crime. We saw in articles not too long ago that the ONDCP estimated that Mexican drug trafficking organizations grossed about $13.8 billion selling drugs to Americans. Of that, about $8.6 billion was from marijuana, about $3.9 billion from cocaine, about a billion from meth and about $400 million from heroin. Marijuana was about 62% of their gross sales. They didn't even gross half that from cocaine, and they probably netted less from the cocaine because they are just the middlemen for cocaine. They have to buy that from Colombia or Bolivia or Peru and smuggle it into Mexico before they smuggle it here. Marijuana is their cash cow. If we took marijuana from them a lot of people involved with these organizations would just get out of the drug business and the rest would be killing themselves over what is left of the business. In the end these drug trafficking organizations would be a lot smaller and much less powerful. I think it would even help with the problem of hard drugs because these organizations would no longer have the massive marijuana distribution networks that reach every corner of America to use as a conduit through which they move these other far more dangerous drugs. People would buy their pot at licensed shops and these shops wouldn't be selling meth or cocaine. I know I've sure run into a lot of other drugs while looking for pot over the years. Not only that, but today being a pot smoker means you are part of the illegal drug using world. People aren't so afraid to break the other stuff out in front of you if they know you already break the law by smoking pot, so the fact that you smoke pot just increases the likelihood you'll have the opportunity to mess with other drugs. When marijuana is legal those who use it will not be illegal drug users and it won't necessarily be cool to break the other stuff out in front of someone just because he or she smokes pot. I think legalizing it and having it go through legal channels will reduce the exposure people have to the hard stuff. Within a few years marijuana will be no more of a "gateway drug" than alcohol or cigarettes, and those selling the hard stuff will find it harder to get their product out there to such a wide base of end consumers. This may sound terrible, but I think all this drug cartel violence in Mexico is kind of a blessing in disguise for us. It kind of brings home the fact that the marijuana business is a multibillion dollar business that will never be stopped. It illustrates the fact that prohibition comes with consequences. It's also just the sort of thing that will bring some of the ultra-conservative types to consider marijuana legalization. A lot of them are anti Mexican to begin with and they hate the thought of Mexican drug trafficking organizations making all these billions of dollars selling marijuana to Americans. Now of course they hate all the "liberal hippy potheads" too, but it is clear to many of them that marijuana isn't going away and as appealing as punishing liberals for smoking pot is to them, the thought of these Mexican criminals making all this money irks them even more. The violence going on in Mexico now is just one more very good reason to legalize pot. [ Post Comment ] Comment #46 posted by E_Johnson on January 12, 2009 at 13:09:45 PT FoM think economy, not crime "I know that if hard drugs were legalized some other crime would take it's place."I think of drugs as an economy. It's an economy that is run by criminals because the economy has been criminalized.You seem to be saying that the criminals who profit from the drug economy would find another economy that is also criminalized that they could apply their criminal talents to and get rich.This is how I think of it. Think of a giant pie. That pie consists of all the potential profits from the sale of all things that are banned -- sex, guns, gambling, etc.Every time one of those pieces of economic flow is integrated into the legal economy, that criminal money pie gets smaller.Making drugs legal will not increase the number of consumers of prostitution, for example. The prostitution part of the pie will stay the same size even after the drug part is cut out.Many states have been legalizing gambling to cut out the gambling piece of the pie. That's one reason why we see less of the type of crime associated with illegal gambling, like for example people getting their legs broken due to bad debts.With legalized gambling, instead of breaking your legs, they take you to court and sue your pants off, which is happening to many gamblers right now. [ Post Comment ] Comment #45 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 12:47:38 PT rchot I believe that people who live in big cities know that martial law could be imposed at any time. An example is a serious disease that could spread. They would shut off the city, treat those they are able to treat and let the disease run it's course. That could happen anywhere in a big or small city. I don't think a revolution is going to happen since then we trade one mixed up system for another mixed up system. We can accomplish a lot of things because of the Internet which is a precious gift I believe. [ Post Comment ] Comment #44 posted by The GCW on January 12, 2009 at 12:42:09 PT JaWarha, Bible belt?They are disobedient Christians is what they are. If they were to actually follow the Christ's requests they would not be so bent to cage one another for using a God-given plant.They stumble starting on the very 1st page of the Bible!It's sinful rebellion against the will of Our Father in heaven.-0-The 1st page of the Bible:Gen. 1:11-12, Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. -0-The only Biblical restriction placed on cannabis:1 Timothy 4:1-4Apostasy 1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.*This section predict cannabis prohibition beforehand. It also tells Us who and what kind of people will prohibit cannabis.-0-They live in "the Bible belt, but the do the work of the devil. And they continue driving nails in Jesus Christ, The Ecologician.And who leads them? Clergy. Failed clergy. Read: "Sin of the Priests" from the last book of the Old. Malachi 1:6-14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=46&chapter=1&version=49The wicked ones kill Our Master perpetually.But Our Friend and Father, Christ God Our Father, through His spirit of truth teaches Us all things.We know through His truth, cannabis and hemp is good.We can alway pray to Him and receive the truth; He exposes evil, and He delivers Us the truth.The Green Collar Worker. [ Post Comment ] Comment #43 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 12:33:05 PT Commonsense I look at the big picture differently then some people. I always have. I don't believe in drug legalization except marijuana. I know that if hard drugs were legalized some other crime would take it's place. ( I don't believe in putting people in jail for an addiction though) I basically think Mexico wants it's country back and they will keep working towards that end. [ Post Comment ] Comment #42 posted by rchot on January 12, 2009 at 12:30:44 PT guns to have or not have personally I think guns should only be used for sporting, and when I say sporting I mean range use. I don't believe in hunting wild animals. Sure I love to shoot guns for recreation, but I know how easy it is to kill someone with a gun. For that reason I think the only people who should have access to them are the military, not the police because of what happened to Oscar Grant in Oakland.On the other side of the coin, if private citizens aren't allowed to own guns then there is no way for a revolution if the government gets out of control. (Its not really like we could really have a revolution in the U.S. anyway our military is way too powerful with moabs and satellites and what not)just think if they decided to declare martial because of the financial situation all people in gun control states would be at the will of their officials. [ Post Comment ] Comment #41 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 12:23:27 PT FoM "If guns come from other countries track them down too. Drugs haven't been killing people in Mexico at the border but guns have."Guns aren't the problem, FoM, it's the gangsters. In Mexico high caliber weapons are illegal and only people with money can get permits to have the firearms that are legal. The gangsters down there have the illegal firearms. They even fully automatic machine guns and all sorts of other military hardware and instrumentalities of death. The government is not going to be able to track these guns down. They're not going to be able to stop the black market for guns, just like they aren't going to be able to stop the black market for drugs. The drug war is causing all this. There is an obscene amount of money to be made in the black market for drugs, which naturally attracts organized crime. And these guys are always fighting with each other, just like the mafia was doing here back during alcohol prohibition. Legal or not, these people are going to get their guns, and it's just wishful thinking to think that any government has the power to stop this. They'll stop the proliferation of guns when they stop the proliferation of drugs, sometime after snowballs begin freely floating in Hell. (Pardon my French) :0) [ Post Comment ] Comment #40 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 11:56:28 PT Hope Those other ways seem unlikely around here. When there have been murders around this area they have always been by a gun. [ Post Comment ] Comment #39 posted by Hope on January 12, 2009 at 11:49:27 PT Of course... "There will always be a reason in a warped person's mind for someone to use a gun against another."Or a knife, fists, or a baseball bat, poison, booby traps, or boiling water, or a poisonous snake in the mailbox ... or something... anything. Brrr. I'm getting creeped out. [ Post Comment ] Comment #38 posted by JaWarha on January 12, 2009 at 11:48:56 PT: I feel your pain Dankhand I am an okie myself straight outta nompton and i wonder the same thing day in and day out, tired of always having to worry if im gonna get popped for a little nug...its hard to see the bible belt conforming to such liberal amendments [ Post Comment ] Comment #37 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 11:28:04 PT Hope Guns are so far removed my my thinking that I find it hard to care. I care about people getting killed with guns. There will always be a reason in a warped person's mind for someone to use a gun against another. If it isn't drugs it will be something else. [ Post Comment ] Comment #36 posted by Hope on January 12, 2009 at 11:22:23 PT It's not the gun... it's who is in control of it. "Drugs haven't been killing people in Mexico at the border but guns have."You can walk all around a gun, even a loaded gun, all day long and it won't do a thing by itself. But depending on the hands that pick it up... a lot of stuff can happen.Used to, working at night in a restaurant on the side of a busy highway, we used to discuss the possibility of robberies and considering such, would we prefer to be cut with a knife or shot. Most of us thought that if we had to be killed by an attacker... like choosing between burning and drowning... the bullet seemed easier than the knife. It's all hard. Dang it."Love one another" and not want to hurt anyone, ever, for any reason. That would do it right. So far, though.... [ Post Comment ] Comment #35 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 10:51:29 PT Dankhank I really hope we can change the laws federally. It won't make it better in my state but states that are not up with the changes that are happening would benefit with a federal at least decrim law change I think. [ Post Comment ] Comment #34 posted by dankhank on January 12, 2009 at 10:45:00 PT Okies out of luck forever? don't know if it will ever change 'round here. :-)I'll spark to the story, though, that's how I am.curious how you found kswo, Sam, could you be an Okie, too?Otherwise, HTH, sorry, you find this sad story?peace to sanity, in short shrift 'round here ... :-) [ Post Comment ] Comment #33 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 10:37:56 PT Guns I personally don't care if people want to own a gun for self protection but guns are killing people down there. If guns come from other countries track them down too. Drugs haven't been killing people in Mexico at the border but guns have. [ Post Comment ] Comment #32 posted by Hope on January 12, 2009 at 10:27:43 PT Commonsense comment 29 I think you're exactly right. [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by Hope on January 12, 2009 at 10:22:50 PT I love Mexico. I hate that this is happening. Extreme pressure in lots of areas, especially drug control, or lack of it, by governments, I think, brought it all to this point. There have always been and always will be dangerous people. Danger is part of life. But these extreme pressures and prohibitions, I think, have caused the percentage of dangerous people to increase. I'm not dangerous on my own. But if you apply extreme pressure to my life and make me feel threatened and endangered... I, even a gentle person, will likely become somewhat more dangerous, poised to strike back, myself. It's not just human nature... it's the nature of all things. [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 10:17:50 PT Hope We don't let Brink's truck get stolen. Guns are deadly in the wrong hands. Guns have always been something I don't get so I see things differently I guess. [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by Commonsense on January 12, 2009 at 10:15:30 PT Sam Adams "Meanwhile, we're literally shipping guns, violence and mass murder into their country every day:"We aren't shipping violence and mass murder over there. Their drug trafficking organizations are committing the violent acts. As for the guns, most of the pictures I've seen show these people with AK-47 assault rifles, which are not made here. They're getting those from somewhere else, especially the fully automatic weapons. Full auto weapons are tightly controlled here and very expensive. You will not find them at regular gun shops. You're only going to find semi-automatic weapons. I don't doubt that firearms are being smuggled into Mexico from the US, but mostly this will be handguns, and semi-auto rifles and shotguns. The heavy duty stuff they find these trafficking organizations with, machine guns, hand grenades, rocket propelled grenades, etc., is mostly all Chinese or Russian made or made in Eastern Block countries. If it's coming through the U.S. it is coming through illegal arms dealers. What's more likely is that these people are purchasing these items from people south of their boarder. There are a lot of paramilitary groups and actual national armed forces in Central and South America that use these weapons. A used Chinese AK47 can be had for a couple of hundred bucks on the world arms market. That's the kind of weapon you see being used by insurgents in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. I think a lot of this is just propaganda by people who want us to ban guns. The Mexicans use iut because they want to be able to point their fingers at us too. The fact is though that there is an incredible amount of money to be made in the illegal drugs industries. The ONDCP estimates that Mexican drug trafficking organizations make about $13.8 billion a year selling drugs to people in the U.S., about $8.6 billion of that is coming from marijuana alone. Those are just sales to Americans. They have domestic sales and they're increasingly taking over cocaine distribution around the world. These are illegal organizations. They can't use the courts to resolve their disputes, so they use guns. They're gangsters, not unlike the mobsters we had during Alcohol Prohibition who were always killing each other over turf or whatever. Whether guins were legal here or not, they'd get them. They're fighting over billions of dollars. They're going to arm themselves one way or another. [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by Hope on January 12, 2009 at 10:13:35 PT Why aren't they caught before they get there? I don't know. I'm sure they try. It's probably like the drug war. Likely, it's the same reason they don't get all the drugs and all the cannabis before they get where they are going.It's impossible? [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 10:01:09 PT Border Issue I only care about our border with Mexico. If the guns come from other countries they must come into Mexico some other way. [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 09:59:04 PT Hope Why aren't the companies that make guns made to be more responsible then? If lots of guns are stolen then why don't they follow the trail and bust those that do it? [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by Hope on January 12, 2009 at 09:57:25 PT A lot of their guns will be Russian... and from Spain, Germany, and on and on.Our gun makers aren't selling, knowingly, to Mexican citizens. [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by Hope on January 12, 2009 at 09:54:23 PT "We" aren't selling guns to them... They are being smuggled... not sent by manufacturers. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 09:53:33 PT Hope It really is a shame that we are selling them guns. People blame drugs for the problem but it seems more and more it is from people who make money in the gun business. [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by Hope on January 12, 2009 at 09:53:33 PT Guns in Mexico are like loose Oxycontin... more likely to have been stolen then sent by the manufacturer to their destination. In fact, except to police and military... I would think that all the guns that go in there are stolen. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by Hope on January 12, 2009 at 09:49:19 PT Mexican citizens can't legally own guns... Used to... before the drug war... you were more likely to get "cut", or literally, tortured to death in Mexico, than shot.Of course, even when they have guns... the "enforcers" seem to still like their old gunless ways... beat, cut, and torture. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by Sam Adams on January 12, 2009 at 09:46:30 PT Virginia Let's not forget that Virginia is the home of Thomas Jefferson, radical Libertarian of his day.The thing people in Virginia should be thinking about is not whether marijuana is a bad thing for their kids - they should be thinking about the fact that the officers who arrest them for weed could quite possibly be violent http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_nncoparrest_0112jan12,0,4602608.storyrapists with a gun and badge:http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_nncoparrest_0112jan12,0,4602608.storyNEWPORT NEWS - The Newport News Police Department arrested one of its own Sunday — the second arrest of a city police officer on abduction charges in two weeks.Officer Christopher E. Miner, 37, of the 700 block of Harpersville Road was arrested Sunday morning and placed in the Newport News City Jail. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 09:42:20 PT Sam I understand what you are saying. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Sam Adams on January 12, 2009 at 09:41:10 PT guns it's just like Oxycontin - there's only one place guns come from...the gun factories.What is happening in Mexico is a prime example of how the US military/industrial complex operates.Use foreign and domestic policy to de-stabilize foreign states, then sell them guns, ideally to both sides of the conflict.Look at Iraq/Iran - we sold all the guns to Iran in the 70's, then Iraq in the 80's, and then when they started using them we "had to" go to war for 6 years and $2 trillion. Follow the money - where'd the 2 trillion go? [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 09:20:02 PT The GCW and Hope Cannabis grown in the USA would make the prices drop and they would need to find another way to make money.I didn't know they didn't have guns in Mexico. That shows me we are a part of what is happening as far as the violence goes if we sell guns to them. That is so wrong. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Hope on January 12, 2009 at 09:08:34 PT Citizens aren't allowed to own guns in Mexico. Prohibition. Works about the same on everything it's applied to. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by The GCW on January 12, 2009 at 09:01:53 PT FoM, MexicoHoly problem.Not another nickel should be given to Mexico and it's corruption nightmare.The problem is so bad that it may actually help to bring credible drug law reform.One of the substances being implicated is cannabis, which could be cultivated and sold with dignity by farmers etc. Re-legalizing cannabis will also help hard drug addiction rates. So Re-legalizing cannabis would help clean up the problem with out legalizing all drugs...Cannabis legalization is the key, -not more money to continue the same thing. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Hope on January 12, 2009 at 08:52:24 PT Tintala comment 7 It's not illegal to drink and then drive, as much as some law enforcement, including here in Texas, try to convince us of that. They even put it on billboards... but it's not true. It only gets illegal if you drink enough to have a certain blood alcohol level. "Drunk" driving, is of course, illegal and you will be considered drunk if you get stopped or have an accident and test over that set level of alcohol to blood, whether you are actually "drunk" or not. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 08:38:53 PT Sam I'm not at all interested in guns personally because I just am not. I did read in the article today about stopping the US from running guns to Mexico. I never knew that. Where in the world do these guns come from? If you sell violent people guns you get violence I believe. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Sam Adams on January 12, 2009 at 07:54:33 PT Mexico FOM, here is an expanded version of the article you posted. Very sad days for Mexico, more war deaths there than in Iraq last year. Their people are being attacked and jailed in the US for the crime of being exploited by the corporations in unsafe and slavery-like work conditions. Meanwhile, we're literally shipping guns, violence and mass murder into their country every day:http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2009/01/12/calderon_to_focus_talks_with_obama_on_mexican_drug_war/look at this tibit, herein lies the reason for Mexico's drug war - juicy profits for the US war industry:Obama supports that plan, known as the Merida Initiative, and promises to take up another cause that Calderon champions: stopping the smuggling of guns from the United States to Mexico, which the Washington-based Brookings Institute says has reached a volume of 2,000 weapons a day. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Sam Adams on January 12, 2009 at 07:49:44 PT Okies out of luck for now Looks like Oklahoma is gettin' a little nervous, all them Ted Kennedy-loving Massachusetts liberal varmints have them running scared. Do they have a referendum process? If so change might be closer than they think:http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=9653557Marijuana laws in Oklahoma not likely to changeAssociated Press - January 11, 2009 1:15 PM ETOKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Those on both sides of the issue say that despite a growing tolerance for marijuana use in other states, Oklahoma laws concerning the drug likely won't change soon.Massachusetts recently decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana, joining 11 other states in doing so.Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the Washington-based National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, says that is a sign of a, quote, "generational cusp of change."He acknowledges that such a change is not, however, coming to Oklahoma in the near future. Oklahoma law stipulates that marijuana possession is a misdemeanor for the first offense, with a punishment of up to a year in jail.Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs spokesman Mark Woodward says it's, quote, "absolutely frightening" that some people are becoming more tolerant of marijuana.Woodward says he's seen more lives ruined by marijuana than any other drug. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 06:47:31 PT Just a Comment Here we go again with Mexico. I wonder how much money Mexico wants this time.Mexico's President, Obama To Meet Todayhttp://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/other/123175274338731.xml&coll=2 [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on January 12, 2009 at 06:35:32 PT OT: Article from Drug Policy Alliance on AlterNet Five Key Areas for Reforming America's Idiotic War on Drugshttp://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/119061 [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by ezrydn on January 12, 2009 at 02:58:21 PT: Criminals The only criminals after reform will be the cops because they'll be being paid for something they completely forgot how to do! After all, they have to relearn "policing" all over again! [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by tintala on January 11, 2009 at 22:07:45 PT: DRINKING AND DRIVING IS ILLEGAL TOO But MOST americans do it. I would bet that most americans speed faster than the speed limit too. With a bar on every corner, it's a wonder that it's still legal to drive to a bar, get drunk, and drive home. BUT IT IS. to scrutinize someone for smokin pot , in their house, is deranged. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on January 11, 2009 at 14:40:10 PT observer You are a blue state like Ohio is now too. That makes me happy. I'm also glad that Senator Webb is a Democrat and cares. I think he was a Republican at one time. I believe people are tired of hearing about Marijuana just like they are tired of hearing about Gays and Abortion. I don't care how the law changes if it is because they throw up their hands and say anything to shut us up or from a sincere concern for people caught in the web of the justice system over marijuana. I'll take reform anyway it comes about. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by observer on January 11, 2009 at 14:27:51 PT Virginia It is a so-called "conservative" state, the democrats there seem to take as much glee in persecuting potheads as the repubbies. It is a "bipartisan" agreement that the idea of legalizing marijuana is public enemy number one. So in this case (in the past at least) there was not a dimes worth of difference between them, even though their coats turn from red to blue and back again - somewhat like flashing police-car lights of which they have been both so very fond. Hopefully the times, they are a-changin' ... I seem to remember (in the 1970's) Daily Press optimistic marijuana should-be-legalized editorials back then, too. Hopefully this time we won't be lulled into complacency before we reach our goal of simply not jailing people for growing or using cannabis. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on January 11, 2009 at 12:55:13 PT observer I don't know much about Virginia. Has Virginia been a blue state or red state most of the time? I know it's a blue state now and things might change if blue is a new color for Virginia. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by observer on January 11, 2009 at 10:55:06 PT My Hometown Paper I grew up in Newport News, Virginia, and the Daily Press was the paper I grew up with - I have even toured the printing plant and offices once in the 70's. It is good to see some sanity shining through there from the Daily Press editorial board. Unfortunately, many Virginians are not so enlightened. To them, jailing pot smokers is doing the Lord's Work. The deviant pot smoker, a perfectly jail-able scapegoat, is the evil other and so helps Good Virginians define their own goodness. "If we can't jail pot smokers," they reason, "that might cast doubt on us, the Good Americans who have been earning their livings from jailing pot smokers all these years. If the pot smoker is not Evil, then how can we be Good?" So the very idea of ceasing to imprison cannabis users is abhorrent to those who define their goodness as not using drugs, like those evil potheads. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 11, 2009 at 10:09:29 PT museman I agree with you. I do not talk with cops about ending marijuana prohibition. I do not talk to people who are from the right and don't like my culture from the 60s. I listen to my heart. I resent being looked down on. I have gotten good at ignoring them too. You know: la la la la la la I can't hear you! LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by museman on January 11, 2009 at 09:54:07 PT good article And not one cliche about 'hippies' 'up in smoke' or any of the many other wornout, un-original paragraph fillers that most 'journalists' like to use these days. You see? One can make an intelligent statement about the insanity of cannabis prohibition without being lame, or sarcastic, or bending over too far to kiss the ass of the status quo.It is certainly time for a 'frank, calm, discussion' -and it probably will be calmer if you leave the cops, lawyers, judges, and other governmental agenda supporters outside.FREE HERB REKNOWN FOR EVERYONE [ Post Comment ] Post Comment