posted
There has been a fair bit of talk in various circles, both local and national, about various attempts at either legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Earlier tonight, Gary Johnson , a former Governor of New Mexico for two terms, advocated for decriminalization. I also heard a story today on NPR's "Fresh Air" with Daniel Okrent, who has a new book out about Prohibition, and relates Prohibition to the current ongoing national debate over Prohibition. He believes that the current economic climate makes it more likely that states will legalize and tax, in order to raise revenues.
There's also a push here in Detroit to decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of weed. It'll either make it onto the ballot this Fall or be directly taken up by the City Council. Denver and Seattle have already done this, and other cities around the country are considering it as well.
I've personally always been in favor of some form of legalization/decriminalization, though I'm not sure I know quite enough about the current mishmash of laws nation-wide to say exactly what I think that should look like. Off the top of my head, I favor decriminalizing possession of small amounts of weed for personal use, as well as licensing the sale of weed for vendors in much the same way that we license liquor vendors at the local level. Then tax it for everyday users. Not a prohibitive tax, at least, not at first. Something that would keep the price on par with what people currently pay, if not cheaper. And keep all the laws that criminalize it in concert with various other activities, like driving, or acts committed under the influence, and keep it away from teenagers.
I've read various articles in Detroit that say the biggest opponents of the ballot initiative are drug dealers, who fear a massive disruption in revenue.
I would also be in favor of a gradual amnesty plan for some non-violent drug-related offenders currently in prison, so long as it didn't flood the streets in an uncoordinated fashion with ex-cons who have no means to support themselves.
So, is this the rise of weed, or just a blip in history of the drug war?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Instead of 'blip in history of the drug war' I'd call it something much more sensational. Something like "nail in the coffin" of the drug war.
Dispensaries popped up within weeks of becoming legal here. Now, there's entire pages of ads of competing pot sellers. I drive past two on the way to work. I built four.
Give it a few more years and the states that still don't have legal marijuana will seem like oddities.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nationwide decriminalization is definitely coming. It's just a matter of when and how it will be regulated.
What I'm wondering is at what point employer-mandated drug testing becomes a publicly recognized form of discrimination. And polygraphs for that matter, but that's a different discussion.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Instead of 'blip in history of the drug war' I'd call it something much more sensational. Something like "nail in the coffin" of the drug war.
Dispensaries popped up within weeks of becoming legal here. Now, there's entire pages of ads of competing pot sellers. I drive past two on the way to work. I built four.
Give it a few more years and the states that still don't have legal marijuana will seem like oddities.
Yes but, isn't there still a gulf between acceptance of medical marijuana and recreational marijuana? I think you'll find that most polling data suggests the two are not in sync, though, they are among younger people.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It honestly doesn't matter. At all. To sort of underscore the point, you asked whether this was the rise of weed. It's not, really. That happened well before, with or without the blessing of even the law.
It would be pretty easy to map out the future trends. First, you would take the opinion of all Americans as a whole. You would get an opinion roughly equally divided between legalization for recreation, and opposed to legalization for recreation.
Then, cut out everyone above the age of 65 and calculate the percentages again.
Then, cut out everyone above the age of 40. Then 30. Etc. Map it. Observe what happens. With little convolution, and barring any radical sort of discovery involving the chemical, you're looking at the future trend of popular support for legalized marijuana. I would bet money it'll be legal for recreational use here well before I'm 30.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I asked the wrong question then. Is the nearing of the high-water mark for proponents of legalization? Asking if it's the rise of weed, thinking about it now (now that I've had 40 min to think about it, you know), makes it sound more like I mean the rise of weed use in general, which isn't what I meant, I meant the legalization efforts via the political process.
I absolutely agree that opinion poll demographics makes it a foregone conclusion that it will be legalized some day in the next couple decades as old people die off, but a couple of decades doesn't suggest that a movement has reached its pinnacle. I turn 26 in a month, and I'd be surprised if it was legal nation wide before I turned 30. Or for that matter, where ever I happen to be living when I'm 30.
Do recent trends suggest that the movement is really picking up steam, or is this just a minor outgrowth of a long term trend?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I couldn't find a way to conclude 'minor outgrowth' if I tried. If I had to describe it, it would be more like a 'dam break' event. The dispensaries really, really enhance the erosion of the public and political recalcitrance against legalization. They come up, become an established industry, nothing gets worse, people get comfy with it, then, bam, there's little holding people back from wanting to sell more pot and tax the crap out of it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, I think what gets overlooked in the debate is that weed is not only not as dangerous as alcohol, but it is also very different in its effects. People will always be calling it immoral and a devil-weed because it has a real propensity for causing anxiety and panic attacks. For people who don't suffer those negative side effects from weed, this is a big mystery. For me, I get it. I am in favor of legalization, but I would *never* be a regular or even what one might call an occasional user. I might be likely to use it once every 2 years, and that would never be my idea of a good time. I have no problems with drinking, though. It just doesn't do that to me. For all that booze has these terrible side effects, many worse than weed, weed has one very big mark against it in the popular imagination.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I absolutely agree that opinion poll demographics makes it a foregone conclusion that it will be legalized some day in the next couple decades as old people die off ...
Assuming that people don't become more conservative as they age of course.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way it will work is if it is leaglized across the board. Legal to make it, market it, and distribute it.
Legalizing an ounce or less in your possession may help you individually but I see it as making matters worse. The source of the marijuana remains the same. The gangs and international drug trade remains a problem. More people will not be afraid of buying it giving more money to the dealers.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Assuming that people don't become more conservative as they age of course.
I have actually gotten more conservative as I have gotten older but politically I am more liberal. I am a monogamous married man with 3 kids. I don't do drugs, have no attraction to men, and would never have alcohol in my house while I am raising kids, and I have certainly never tried nor will try drugs.
I support gay marriage and drug legalization. I wonder how many other "younger generation" people who support decriminalizing pot would continue to favor it's legality while still choosing to avoid the stuff. I don't think supporting a change in the law and becoming more conservative are mutually exclusive.
quote: Legalizing an ounce or less in your possession may help you individually but I see it as making matters worse. The source of the marijuana remains the same. The gangs and international drug trade remains a problem. More people will not be afraid of buying it giving more money to the dealers.
I think Lyrhawn's idea of favoring "decriminalizing possession of small amounts of weed for personal use, as well as licensing the sale of weed for vendors in much the same way that we license liquor vendors at the local level" would solve the bigger concern. The thought of licensing its' growth out of criminal's hands is one of the main reasons I support decriminalization.
* Edit: Somehow I missed your first sentence.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I absolutely agree that opinion poll demographics makes it a foregone conclusion that it will be legalized some day in the next couple decades as old people die off ...
Assuming that people don't become more conservative as they age of course.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Samp, I think what gets overlooked in the debate is that weed is not only not as dangerous as alcohol, but it is also very different in its effects. People will always be calling it immoral and a devil-weed because it has a real propensity for causing anxiety and panic attacks. For people who don't suffer those negative side effects from weed, this is a big mystery. For me, I get it. I am in favor of legalization, but I would *never* be a regular or even what one might call an occasional user. I might be likely to use it once every 2 years, and that would never be my idea of a good time. I have no problems with drinking, though. It just doesn't do that to me. For all that booze has these terrible side effects, many worse than weed, weed has one very big mark against it in the popular imagination.
Orincoro, Have you ever read "The Botany of Desire". It tells the story of the evolution of four historically and socially interesting plants: tulip, apple, potato and cannabis. If not I recommend it highly, even if you have no interest in marijuana. Cannabis has undergone some very rapid changes in the past 3 decades driven by the drug war. But the reason I brought it up is that the author, like you, had little interest in marijuana because it made him feel paranoid. In researching the book, he tried some of the new stuff in one of the coffee houses in Amsterdam and found that either because it was legal or because of the particular strain, it didn't trigger anxiety.
One of the things that has happened as a result of legalization in the Netherlands, is that growers have developed different strains of weed that have different psychotropic effects. One of the things that is virtually certain to happen if weed is legalized in the US, is that the quality control will improve and the varieties of weed available will explode, just like it did with alcohol after prohiibition. If (when) marijuana is legalized in the US, expect to see brands and grades of marijuana becoming available. I fully expect that a lot of people who didn't particularly like weed, may find a kind they enjoy occasionally when its legal.
If moonshine were the only kind of alcohol available, there would be far far fewer social drinkers.
Having said all that, I've noted that even in parts of Europe where weed is decriminalized, beer and wine continue to be more popular. Weed is something that a lot of people try occasionally, but its no where near as prevalent as the beer with friends after work or the glass of wine with dinner and I don't foresee that it ever will be.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
But thats not really my main point. The part I quoted was about the inevitability of political change based on demographic projections two decades out. Given that we don't have a time machine and the fairly fragile nature of such projections based on assumptions about immigration and growth or unpredictable events such as 9/11, I wouldn't bet much money on it either way.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only that but conservatives in our day are different than conservatives 50 years ago. Some of their philosophies are the same, such as gun control, abortion, etc. Some of the philosophies today would have been considered ultra liberal back in the 50's.
I know a lot of conservatives that agree with legalizing marijuana so that the drug trade would suffer. If people could grow their own marijuana and sell it (with a license to do so) domestically then they would effectively put the drug cartels out of business.
I'm a conservative that believes in legalizing prostitution as well. Go ahead and legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. If it were legal and regulated, I truly believe there would be less underage prostitution, rape, etc.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Not only that but conservatives in our day are different than conservatives 50 years ago. Some of their philosophies are the same, such as gun control, abortion, etc. Some of the philosophies today would have been considered ultra liberal back in the 50's.
hem, her, haw... I think I would quibble with the idea that the "philosophy" has really changed. Certainly the positions, as stated publicly, are very, very different in many respects. The republican party now favors racial integration, is against anti-miscegenation, in favor of equal protection under the law for women and for the most part for gays as well, in favor of medicare, and on down the list. Granted many policy changes have been made.
Now I don't really think that establishes a different "philosophy" quite necessarily. While some of the more daft ideas promulgated by the conservative movement have just been proven flat wrong- or wildly unpopular, that doesn't change the machine that produced those policies or those attitudes. I wince at the unfair comparison, but the modern white supremacist movement, inasmuch as it has a mainstream face, is all about "seperate but equal" these days. Their PR basic says that they want to be left alone, and have "no problems" with people of other races, only problems with being forced to integrate. I don't think we can reasonably believe those people.
While the case of Republicans is nowhere near as cut and dried to me, I get the same sense. I think the political philosophy of conservatism has not changed much, and I think it's just gotten more out of date as people have moved on and educated themselves, and been educated by experience. Put the same people with the same philosophy back into a similar situation to one our country was in a century ago, and I think their policies would flip right back- they have no real philosophical stake in a lot of the more progressive things that they have publicly adopted in the last 50 years. Race was a bad example- I think racial tolerance has probably been one of the bigger areas of actual philosophical improvement... but then I think a lot of those improvements have also been in name only. Now it's not the blacks, it's hispanic people. In decades to come it will be Roma people from Eastern Europe, and it will be white eastern Europeans, and it will be north Africans and middle easterners. I've heard it from too many conservative screws: "my neighbor is a __________ but he's a fine upstanding citizen." That's good I guess. That's a little progress, but the attitude isn't so different- it just sets its sites on something else. The conservative movement is, for that reason, just as destructive as its been in the past. Probably not more so, although I think the stakes are higher for the US these days than they have been in some time.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Orincoro, Have you ever read "The Botany of Desire"
There's also a documentary version of the book. It was available on Netflix streaming the last time I checked.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a related note, the other day one of my students showed me a mobile picture of the pot growery he has going in his one bedroom flat. I was sort of shocked- it's not even a criminal offense here, so there was no need to get angsty about it, but it's funny how if you don't think about pot on a daily basis, and you find out somebody else has an intimate relationship with it, it can be surprising.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Not only that but conservatives in our day are different than conservatives 50 years ago. Some of their philosophies are the same, such as gun control, abortion, etc. Some of the philosophies today would have been considered ultra liberal back in the 50's.
hem, her, haw... I think I would quibble with the idea that the "philosophy" has really changed. Certainly the positions, as stated publicly, are very, very different in many respects. The republican party now favors racial integration, is against anti-miscegenation, in favor of equal protection under the law for women and for the most part for gays as well, in favor of medicare, and on down the list. Granted many policy changes have been made.
It's probably not worth it to start a big tangential argument in this thread, but I can't let this go unchecked.
When you say "the Republican party now favors racial integration" that implies that this is a turnaround from its previous position. But that is factually untrue. The Civil Rights Movement had significant Republican Support. A significantly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
The idea that the Republican Party has a sordid past of white supremacy is a particularly insidious bit of revisionist history that gets tossed around quite a lot.
There was a big difference between being a conservative, and being a southerner.
To be a bit more on-topic: I agree with most of what Samprimary has said here. I'm strongly in favor of legalization and don't really have anything to add to what's already been said.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To bad the R's have pretty much thrown out the baby with the bathwater, though. It doesn't pay to even be a moderate R now, let alone a liberal one.
There was significant support from BOTH sides of the aisle for some of those issues, that's for sure.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: To bad the R's have pretty much thrown out the baby with the bathwater, though. It doesn't pay to even be a moderate R now, let alone a liberal one.
I don't really agree, but then I'm a crazy libertarian so perhaps I'm not in a position to objectively evaluate moderate/liberal/conservative Republicans. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Kwea is referring to the fact that far right-wing Republicans have systematically been ousting more moderate members of the party for years now. In particular, hostile conservatives this year are attacking even generally acceptable conservatives, what with the centrists largely rooted out, for even more radical right-wingers.
It is far easier to be a centrist in the Democratic party than in the Republican party, but a lot of that also has to do with the fact that Democratic leadership has considerably less control over their members than Republican leadership does.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
More accurately, Dan, conservatives generally oppose racial integration; the Republican Party has opposed it since it became a conservative party in the '60s (i.e. as long as we've all been alive).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I ought to have been much more clear. Conservatives, no matter what color they are wearing, have not changed their philosophies that much. The republican party has changed, but its membership distribution has also changed- that adds to my point, but I should have said it at the first.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A significantly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
Only because a significantly higher percentage of southern politicians were democrats. If you want to play "cherry-pick statistics", then I'll respond that 100% of southern Republicans voted against it while only 93% of Southern Democrats opposed it. In northern states 94% of Democrats voted in favor, compared to 85% of Republicans.
The bigger picture is that the voting pattern for the Civil Rights Act has much more to do with geography than party affiliation and the overall percentage only swings against Democrats because they dominated southern politics. (94 house seats vs 10 for southern republicans, 21 senate seats vs 1)
Then there's the whole Southern Strategy thing which the GOP has just finally admitted to in the last month or two.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
