Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
I hope this topic is not too controversial.
First of all, I'm limiting this topic to the least controversial of drugs that are widely illegal -- the "soft" drug of marijuana.
Crank, crack, smack etc... are NOT included in this discussion.
It is ONLY about MJ.
It crosses party lines here in the USA -- some (usually Libertarian) Republicans are rabidly opposed to all drug laws, but particularly laws against MJ. They see it as an issue of gov't oppression.
Democrats, who you might think would be more open-minded about it have passed some of the harshest laws against MJ, especially in the late 80's when the nation was concerned about the sharp increase in addiction to crack. (Which has since stabilized.)
A "dealer" is someone who is in possession of any amount over an ounce or two of weed, and/or who distributes or grows any amount.
The harshest laws are:
1. Confiscation of property of those ACCUSED (NOT convicted) of MJ dealing. So the cops can seize your house or car for having greater than a small quantity of pot, even WITHOUT a conviction. The assets go back into police coffers, giving police an incentive to arrest and confiscate.
2. Mandatory minimum sentences for so-called pot "dealers" -- people can go to prison for five to ten years, with no chance of parole. Some MJ dealers spend more time in prison than someone convinced of rape or manslaughter.
There are basically four schools of thought on this, therefore I will set up a four Question poll.
1. Legalize, regulate it and tax it.
Pros: Cleans out the prisons, fewer tax dollars will go into supporting all those prisoners (about 50,000 in the USA.) Gov't then earns money f/ the new tax dollar revenue generated. New and saved tax dollars can be invested in treatment programs. No more seizure of private property by the gov't w/out conviction. Antagonisms between police and many citizens would be alleviated. More in line w/ the concept of free market economics. By removing it f/ the black market, drug cartels and terrorists who may be earning money f/ it would lose funding.
Cons: May result in increased casual usage, leading to more addiction and health problems. Entire communities in the US are economically dependent on building and staffing prisons, which is one of our few growth industry in these troubled economic times. Police use MJ laws to bust criminals who have actually done greater crimes, but can't be convicted and taken off the street any other way. The majority of Americans still support laws against MJ (It's around a 60%-40% split.)
2. Keep it illegal, but decriminalize it. (The Amsterdam model.) When busted, the pot is seized and the suspect pays a small fine, but they don't have to go to jail or lose any property.
Pros: Most of the above, but it will still be partly controlled by the black market, and the tax stream is still partly underground. This is the position most Americans support (according to Time Magazine, ?-October-2002.)
Cons: All of the above, basically.
3. Keep it illegal and felonious, but allow folks who have a specific medical condition to buy it w/ a prescription f/ a doctor.
Pros: None of the above, but at least the gov't will be deterred f/ breaking down the doors of cancer patients and old ladies w/ glaucoma. May allow a legal avenue for those who prove need, at least shutting down some black market revenue sources.
Cons: Still have lots of folks in prison, still have property seizures, still have a powerful self-righteous lobby of America citizens w/ a real beef against the gov't. Communities and police forces who depend on revenue f/ the seizure/prison system get to keep their source of revenue.
4. No change, or INCREASE penalties.
Pros: We've lived w/ this system since 1987. MJ has been illegal in most places for-freaking-ever (since 1930-something) and society hasn't fallen apart. The stuff is really, truly a scourge on society and should not be tolerated. Any additional tolerance risks our becoming a nation -- or world -- of addicts.
Cons: Everything stays the same.
***
My opinion: it should be legalized, regulated and taxed. I don't think it's a big deal and the laws against it are worse for society than the most nightmarish scenario of it's detractors. Barring legalization, decriminalization is at least better than the system we have now. Amsterdam seems to do fine w/ a very libertarian stance on it.
First of all, I'm limiting this topic to the least controversial of drugs that are widely illegal -- the "soft" drug of marijuana.
Crank, crack, smack etc... are NOT included in this discussion.
It is ONLY about MJ.
It crosses party lines here in the USA -- some (usually Libertarian) Republicans are rabidly opposed to all drug laws, but particularly laws against MJ. They see it as an issue of gov't oppression.
Democrats, who you might think would be more open-minded about it have passed some of the harshest laws against MJ, especially in the late 80's when the nation was concerned about the sharp increase in addiction to crack. (Which has since stabilized.)
A "dealer" is someone who is in possession of any amount over an ounce or two of weed, and/or who distributes or grows any amount.
The harshest laws are:
1. Confiscation of property of those ACCUSED (NOT convicted) of MJ dealing. So the cops can seize your house or car for having greater than a small quantity of pot, even WITHOUT a conviction. The assets go back into police coffers, giving police an incentive to arrest and confiscate.
2. Mandatory minimum sentences for so-called pot "dealers" -- people can go to prison for five to ten years, with no chance of parole. Some MJ dealers spend more time in prison than someone convinced of rape or manslaughter.
There are basically four schools of thought on this, therefore I will set up a four Question poll.
1. Legalize, regulate it and tax it.
Pros: Cleans out the prisons, fewer tax dollars will go into supporting all those prisoners (about 50,000 in the USA.) Gov't then earns money f/ the new tax dollar revenue generated. New and saved tax dollars can be invested in treatment programs. No more seizure of private property by the gov't w/out conviction. Antagonisms between police and many citizens would be alleviated. More in line w/ the concept of free market economics. By removing it f/ the black market, drug cartels and terrorists who may be earning money f/ it would lose funding.
Cons: May result in increased casual usage, leading to more addiction and health problems. Entire communities in the US are economically dependent on building and staffing prisons, which is one of our few growth industry in these troubled economic times. Police use MJ laws to bust criminals who have actually done greater crimes, but can't be convicted and taken off the street any other way. The majority of Americans still support laws against MJ (It's around a 60%-40% split.)
2. Keep it illegal, but decriminalize it. (The Amsterdam model.) When busted, the pot is seized and the suspect pays a small fine, but they don't have to go to jail or lose any property.
Pros: Most of the above, but it will still be partly controlled by the black market, and the tax stream is still partly underground. This is the position most Americans support (according to Time Magazine, ?-October-2002.)
Cons: All of the above, basically.
3. Keep it illegal and felonious, but allow folks who have a specific medical condition to buy it w/ a prescription f/ a doctor.
Pros: None of the above, but at least the gov't will be deterred f/ breaking down the doors of cancer patients and old ladies w/ glaucoma. May allow a legal avenue for those who prove need, at least shutting down some black market revenue sources.
Cons: Still have lots of folks in prison, still have property seizures, still have a powerful self-righteous lobby of America citizens w/ a real beef against the gov't. Communities and police forces who depend on revenue f/ the seizure/prison system get to keep their source of revenue.
4. No change, or INCREASE penalties.
Pros: We've lived w/ this system since 1987. MJ has been illegal in most places for-freaking-ever (since 1930-something) and society hasn't fallen apart. The stuff is really, truly a scourge on society and should not be tolerated. Any additional tolerance risks our becoming a nation -- or world -- of addicts.
Cons: Everything stays the same.
***
My opinion: it should be legalized, regulated and taxed. I don't think it's a big deal and the laws against it are worse for society than the most nightmarish scenario of it's detractors. Barring legalization, decriminalization is at least better than the system we have now. Amsterdam seems to do fine w/ a very libertarian stance on it.