T Nation

Californial Decriminalizes Pot


#1

Today, if we are caught with less than 1 oz....we get a 100 dollar ticket, no arrest, no court. With prop 19 coming, I'm unsure what to think yet. I think that this will just increase the violence and illegal crossings of cartels, until full legalization is passed.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/oct/01/california_governor_signs_mariju


#2

Nah, I doubt the border crossing issue could get much worse. It's not like people who want it can't get it or something.
Prohibition is bullshit. Anything that does away with it, I am for. We are either free or we are not. Prohibition trumps freedom.


#3

Decriminalize it and the crime goes away.


#4

However, it is illegal to sell and distribute, so crime will stay the same. Over 1 OZ stays the same. It does nothing to stop the illegal flow of drugs..in this case pot.

With my limited.... cough... experience, the pot around these parts of NORCAL..... NEVER comes from Mexico. I have not known anyone in 15 years to smoke the brown brick!

Here illegals (sorry for the racist comment) occupy federal and private land to cultivate locally. Distribution is still criminal, so this law only help users, but it does cut COSTS.

I agree though, Once it is ok to distribute legally, THEN the cartels will have less effect and less of a market. But as it is now, it won't stop the border drug issue in any significant way. The border also sends narcotics over.


#5

I really wonder what would happen to these cartels if they suddenly legalized pot and cocaine. I really do.


#6

It's about time some one got it at least half right


#7

Fed Ex, and Invoices.


#8

You wonder? We already have a test case for that with alcohol. It's very simple the cartels go bust and usage increases.

This is easy stuff. Decriminalize and deal with the problems that increased use will cause.

There you have it.


#9

If I might add:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

Although I think most of us are aware of this.


#10

So making the drug laws less strict has reduced the use of drugs? I don't think that's what they're saying and I don't think that it would make sense do you?

If when you awoke on Saturday there were no speed limit laws you would not drive faster? I know I would. The only thing that keeps me even near the speed limit is the threat of a ticket. And if you awoke and there was suddenly a death penalty for speeding the rate of speeding would quickly drop.

What you are saying seems to fly in the face of logic. If not, why not remove all laws from the books and we'd see the crime rate drop like a rock in a deep pond.

I'd find that very hard to believe, it makes no sense.


#11

Zeb, you are assuming there is a large population that wants to smoke but is being held back by the current laws. Do you know allot of people that fall in this category? To me it seems like the majority of people that want to smoke will. Those that don't, do so because their own personal beliefs not for fear of the law. I'm not saying that usage wont go up, but it wont be huge. I mean please if they repeal the laws on smoking are you really gonna go out and buy a bag?


#12

Are you saying that if it was not criminal to use drugs everyone would do it? I really do not think that is the case. With speeding you always have to be on the look out for the cops. It is real easy to get drugs and do them in your home with out anyone ever knowing.


#13

It is my understanding from the report, that the policies implemented by Portugal have decreased the amount of usage, and increased the ability of addicts to receive treatment for addiction and associated problems.

I don't think its reasonable to make inferences outside the subject of the decriminalization of drugs. It might not even be reasonable to make inferences to what happens outside of Europe. But it seems to have had a very positive effect. The Cato report is admittedly lacking in explanations, and relies heavily on government statistics for its work (suspiciously heavily, for a libertarian think-tank), but if its data are accurate, it has interesting implications.

I say let California try it out. The States are laboratories of democracy, and few are so willing to experiment as California. It is good to watch them.

And, yes, if you eliminate all laws, you would see the crime rate drop. But that doesn't mean what you think it meant when you wrote that sentence.


#14

Yeah I get it no law, no crime. But you also know what I meant. Anyway, this is the craziest thing I've seen in a long time. But given California's track record I shouldn't be surprised. Let's see what happens, but logic tells me no good will come from it.


#15

Sell and control it like liquor.

Let private enterprise experiment with farming the dankest strains, sell it by brands with expiry dates and the whole 9 yards.

Oh, and tax the SHIT out of it, god knows Cali needs the revenue lol


#16

You're mixing up logic and FUD.


#17

12 states have decriminalized marijuana back in the 70's. The sky didn't fall. In my state you can have up to 3 1/2 oz. and still get a 150 fine. But paraphernalia will get you 30 days.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4557


#18

Quite likely. Only complete legalization will destroy the violence associated with the illegal drug trade. It is quite strange how individuals understand this in relation to alcohol prohibition yet fail to do so with other substances.


#19

And you're assuming that there will not be more pot available if it is not a crime to have it. I think that's a naive assumption. As more becomes available then more people will have the opportunity to try it. Will I, or people of my generation try it? No, I'm not saying that. There will be large segments of the population that will not try it, even if it were given away free at the local grocery store. But that's not the part of society I'm concerned with. If it becomes more available then the 13-26 age group will either try it, or increase their use of it.

I wonder how pot is different than anything else that's illegal. If gambling were decriminalized more people would gamble as it would be more available to the general public. I understand that, like pot, certain segments of the population would not gamble. But what about the young and impressionable? Certainly they would at least try gambling. Some would develop a life long habit, others may not do it again. But more would at least try it.

Now, I could be wrong, you all seem very sure of yourselves. But I wonder if you're using this argument to somehow rationalize the use of pot because you are all smokers? You use it and find nothing wrong with it and this somehow bolsters your own personal views.

Educate me on this topic, I'm all ears.


#20

I don't smoke pot and I agree that it should be either decriminalized or legalized.

Not 100% percent of the population who uses is a hardcore user. There is a wide berth of what constitutes a pot smoker, just as their is with people who drink.

The hard core user is going to no matter what the law says (as I used to do) and many people are going to pass on it simply because they don't see it as their cup of tea, or tried it and for what ever reason, didn't like it (as many people have done and continue to do).

The patterns of use have long been established. Availability has never been a problem. The only thing in question that has ever changed has been "What happens when you get caught?".