A Smarter Way to Deal with Pot Than Arresting 20 Million People

[one...two...tree 2,762]

According to a new report released by the Centers for Disease Control, fewer Americans are smoking cigarettes than at any time in modern history. "The number of U.S. adults who smoke has dropped below 20 percent for the first time on record," Reuters reported. This is less than half the percentage (42 percent) of Americans who smoked cigarettes during the 1960s.

Imagine that. In the past 40 years, tens of millions of Americans have voluntarily quit smoking a legal, yet highly addictive intoxicant. Many others have refused to initiate the habit. And they've all made this decision without ever once being threatened with criminal prosecution and arrest, imprisonment, probation, and drug testing.

By contrast, during this same period of time, state and local police have arrested some 20 million Americans for pot law violations -- primarily for violations no greater than simple possession. And yet marijuana use among the public has skyrocketed.

There's a lesson to be learned here, of course. Tobacco, though harmful to health, is a legally regulated commodity. Sellers are licensed and held accountable by federal and state laws. Users are restricted by age. Advertising and access is limited by state and federal governments. And health warnings regarding the drug's use are based upon credible science.

By contrast, marijuana remains an unregulated black market commodity. Sellers are typically criminal entrepreneurs who, for the most part, operate undetected from law enforcement and are free to sell their product to any person of any person. Unlike tobacco, marijuana's packaging carries no warning label, and government 'education' campaign's regarding pot's use are based almost explicitly upon hyperbole, propaganda, and laughable stereotypes.

Is it any wonder why use of one drug is going down at the same time that use of the other is rising?

If federal lawmakers truly wished to address marijuana use, they would take a page from their successful campaign to reduce the use of cigarettes. This would include taxing and regulating cannabis -- with the drug's sale and use restricted to specific markets and consumers.

While such an alternative may not entirely eliminate the black market demand for pot, it would certainly be preferable to today's blanket, though thoroughly ineffective, expensive and impotent criminal prohibition.

Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML and the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.

[IAMX 3,055]

I prefer it this way. It's not hard to get good sh*t, and it isn't taxed. Police don't do much about it, hell, I remember straight out of high school doing pizza deliveries, always delivering to this guy who had his entire house around a cloud of pot -- oh yeah, his neighbor was a cop with his police cruiser parked out front.

If it's legalized, then it becomes taxed and there becomes less incentive to buy it. Then again, people can just grow their own anyways if it were legalized, so no, I doubt the government will, in my lifetime, actually legalize marijuana entirely.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I prefer it this way. It's not hard to get good sh*t, and it isn't taxed. Police don't do much about it, hell, I remember straight out of high school doing pizza deliveries, always delivering to this guy who had his entire house around a cloud of pot -- oh yeah, his neighbor was a cop with his police cruiser parked out front.

If it's legalized, then it becomes taxed and there becomes less incentive to buy it. Then again, people can just grow their own anyways if it were legalized, so no, I doubt the government will, in my lifetime, actually legalize marijuana entirely.

So having 20 million Americans in jail isn't enough to persuade you?

[Amby 490]

I think the cops should smoke out with them!

[IAMX 3,055]

In CA we've prioritized pot users to be pretty much down to not-worth-the-time. The only people really gone after are the dealers, or those dumb enough to operate a vehicle while smoking pot/high (equivalent to drunk), or those dumb enough to do it in public. There is no shortage of potsmokers in the Bay Area, especially.

Sufficed to say, if pot smokers were rounded up, there'd be FAR more than 20 million. You really have to be pretty dumb to get caught.

Edit: I will point out this was going on with our party on Halloween, from when I arrived at like 8 or 9PM, until like 3AM, out in the front yard. Cops went by several times, no one cared.

Edited November 17, 2008 by SRVT

[Peikko 1,575]

Effecitively, taxes would be cheaper SRVT. You are paying via your taxes to have 20 million people processed through the law. Paying a sales tax on good dope would be a vastly more cost effective way to go.

[mud 0]

I prefer it this way. It's not hard to get good sh*t, and it isn't taxed. Police don't do much about it, hell, I remember straight out of high school doing pizza deliveries, always delivering to this guy who had his entire house around a cloud of pot -- oh yeah, his neighbor was a cop with his police cruiser parked out front.

If it's legalized, then it becomes taxed and there becomes less incentive to buy it. Then again, people can just grow their own anyways if it were legalized, so no, I doubt the government will, in my lifetime, actually legalize marijuana entirely.

I see you live in california.. you might have a different perspective if you lived in say.. any other state..

[IAMX 3,055]

Effecitively, taxes would be cheaper SRVT. You are paying via your taxes to have 20 million people processed through the law. Paying a sales tax on good dope would be a vastly more cost effective way to go.

That's great if you're the only one paying for it, but you're overlooking one big thing -- pot smokers are very generous. Cigarette smokers aren't as much.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I prefer it this way. It's not hard to get good sh*t, and it isn't taxed. Police don't do much about it, hell, I remember straight out of high school doing pizza deliveries, always delivering to this guy who had his entire house around a cloud of pot -- oh yeah, his neighbor was a cop with his police cruiser parked out front.

If it's legalized, then it becomes taxed and there becomes less incentive to buy it. Then again, people can just grow their own anyways if it were legalized, so no, I doubt the government will, in my lifetime, actually legalize marijuana entirely.

So having 20 million Americans in jail isn't enough to persuade you?

The obvious flaw in SRVT's reasoning.

Yes, they could grow their own if it's legalised--but then they also have to comply with lotsa bureaucratic regs which will act a a "check/balance".

Also of note: it was a big CEO, Bill Hearst, who actually was driving-force behind illegalisation of charas--because he had much invested in timber-paper firms, which supplied cent-percent of his newsprint stock (so as to eliminate competition from charas-based paper).

charas--a common Hindglish term for maryjane.

[IAMX 3,055]

I prefer it this way. It's not hard to get good sh*t, and it isn't taxed. Police don't do much about it, hell, I remember straight out of high school doing pizza deliveries, always delivering to this guy who had his entire house around a cloud of pot -- oh yeah, his neighbor was a cop with his police cruiser parked out front.

If it's legalized, then it becomes taxed and there becomes less incentive to buy it. Then again, people can just grow their own anyways if it were legalized, so no, I doubt the government will, in my lifetime, actually legalize marijuana entirely.

So having 20 million Americans in jail isn't enough to persuade you?

The obvious flaw in SRVT's reasoning.

Yes, they could grow their own if it's legalised--but then they also have to comply with lotsa bureaucratic regs which will act a a "check/balance".

Also of note: it was a big CEO, Bill Hearst, who actually was driving-force behind illegalisation of charas--because he had much invested in timber-paper firms, which supplied cent-percent of his newsprint stock (so as to eliminate competition from charas-based paper).

charas--a common Hindglish term for maryjane.

How are people gonna comply with "bureaucratic regs" when they can grow it in their own yard or inside their own house?

That's like suggesting the government can regulate squash or tomatoes. If the government could regulate it -- IT WOULD BE LEGAL. The whole reason it isn't legal is because they can't.

Edited November 17, 2008 by SRVT

[Jenn! 918]

Also of note: it was a big CEO, Bill Hearst, who actually was driving-force behind illegalisation of charas--because he had much invested in timber-paper firms, which supplied cent-percent of his newsprint stock (so as to eliminate competition from charas-based paper).

I'd always heard it was something to do with Dupont and rope making. I've also heard it was to discourage immigration from Mexico. Who knows.

[Peikko 1,575]

Effecitively, taxes would be cheaper SRVT. You are paying via your taxes to have 20 million people processed through the law. Paying a sales tax on good dope would be a vastly more cost effective way to go.

That's great if you're the only one paying for it, but you're overlooking one big thing -- pot smokers are very generous. Cigarette smokers aren't as much.

Oh, really? 20+ million dope heads use and pay nothing at all? Clearly you have been smoking a little too much there SRVT

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I prefer it this way. It's not hard to get good sh*t, and it isn't taxed. Police don't do much about it, hell, I remember straight out of high school doing pizza deliveries, always delivering to this guy who had his entire house around a cloud of pot -- oh yeah, his neighbor was a cop with his police cruiser parked out front.

If it's legalized, then it becomes taxed and there becomes less incentive to buy it. Then again, people can just grow their own anyways if it were legalized, so no, I doubt the government will, in my lifetime, actually legalize marijuana entirely.

So having 20 million Americans in jail isn't enough to persuade you?

The obvious flaw in SRVT's reasoning.

Yes, they could grow their own if it's legalised--but then they also have to comply with lotsa bureaucratic regs which will act a a "check/balance".

Also of note: it was a big CEO, Bill Hearst, who actually was driving-force behind illegalisation of charas--because he had much invested in timber-paper firms, which supplied cent-percent of his newsprint stock (so as to eliminate competition from charas-based paper).

charas--a common Hindglish term for maryjane.

Good point. It just doesn't make any logical sense to continue keeping it illegal.

[rocks 494]

The obvious flaw in SRVT's reasoning.

Yes, they could grow their own if it's legalised--but then they also have to comply with lotsa bureaucratic regs which will act a a "check/balance".

in the netherlands you can grow upto five plants without being prosecuted, it is not legal though so no bureaucracy involved.

Edited November 17, 2008 by rocks

[Jasman0717 9]

Let the cig companies switch to growing pot. It probably costs near nothing to grow an acre of pot. The government could tax the heck out of it and we would be out of debt in about six weeks