Sean Parker Contributes $9 Million As States Push To Legalize Marijuana (gazettenet.com)

Sean Parker has now donated nearly $9 million in his effort to legalize marijuana in California. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes Billboard: Whether it's founding Napster, guiding Facebook or investing in Spotify, Sean Parker has developed a reputation for pushing change forward, and now he's at the forefront of California's marijuana legalization movement... [A] competing proposal from the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform was folded into Parker's, making his the leading ballot measure, by default, for 2016 in a state with the largest medical marijuana market in the country.
The U.S currently has a hodgepodge of legislation, with marijuana entirely legal only in Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, as well as in the District of Columbia, and in individual cities in Michigan and Maine. But with five more states now voting on legalization, pro-marijuana campaign ads are being broadcast in Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, California and Arizona. ("You decide who wins -- criminals and cartels, or Arizona schools?") And meanwhile, Slashdot reader schwit1 has identified one voter who's definitely opposing police efforts to hunt down marijuana growers: All that remains of the solitary marijuana plant an 81-year-old grandmother had been growing behind her South Amherst home is a stump and a ragged hole in the ground... Tucked away in a raspberry patch and separated by a fence from any neighbors, the [medicinal] plant was nearly ready for harvest when a military-style helicopter and police descended on Sept. 21...

Comments

It is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

oo legislate against stupid. Marijuana is for burnouts.

Re:It is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

^^ found the guinea pig! ^^

Re: It is hard

[Type44Q]

Your ignorant meme notwithstanding, a vast number of the most successful folks out know under seventy (obviously a generational thing) smoke weed at least occasionally. I'm not at all surprised that you're unaware of this.

Re: It is hard

[Type44Q]

If you read it without the "out now," it makes more sense... :)

Re: It is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I sort of hope you don't smoke weed, because otherwise you're not doing your argument any favors. You wrote a sentence that made no sense, then your correction isn't even correct. You didn't write "out now", you wrote "out know".

Re:It is hard

[kilfarsnar]

to legislate against stupid. Marijuana is for burnouts.

Yeah, so the obvious thing to do would be to put them in prison and ruin their lives.

We wouldn't want them wasting their lives, now would we?

Re: It is hard

[Chrisq]

You know, I sort of hope you don't smoke weed, because otherwise you're not doing your argument any favors. You wrote a sentence that made no sense, then your correction isn't even correct. You didn't write "out now", you wrote "out know".

.... he's obviously had one joint two many ... oh weight

Re: It is hard

[Type44Q]

Or, you know, I had just woken up moments before and my eyes were too blurry with sleep to navigate the stupid-ass autocorrect on my phone... ;)

Oh, and for what it's worth: I am neither the stoner-type nor am I all that successful; I'm not sure what that implies... :)

Re: It is hard

[pr0fessor]

In a world where the majority of people have tried or at least smoke occasionally it's easy to expect a subset of people to also have a majority whether it's successful people or unsuccessful people. Don't reach for straws.

Re:It is hard

[Greyfox]

And while they're in prison they're exempt from the 13th amendment barring slavery. There are actually more legal slaves in the USA now than there were when slavery was abolished in the 1800s.

Re:It is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you care so much about what other people do to themselves? Is your life so devoid of direction and meaning that you need to spend your time trying to wreck other people's lives?

I'd rather be around "burnouts" than busybody cocksuckers like you.

Re:It is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

And while they're in prison they're exempt from the 13th amendment barring slavery. There are actually more legal slaves in the USA now than there were when slavery was abolished in the 1800s.

The above is utter bullshit.

Unlike YOU, I've done time in prison, and a large percentage of the people in prison are there because they did things which were illegal and they were caught and prosecuted. If you think the people who are incarcerated are a bunch of poor innocent victims who are being exploited you are mistaken. The bad things I refer to range from shootings, stabbings, beatings with a deadly weapon, burglaries, robberies, rapes, and other violent crimes that no one who is a decent member of society would find acceptable. These people belong in prison, and society cannot allow such people to run around loose and continue to perpetrate their crimes.

I'm sure this post will be modded down, but that will be proof of the idiocy of those who modded it down rather than any sort of refutation of what I wrote.

Re: It is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's just that when somebody makes a post like that you have to be certain that you get it right or the cruel gods of irony will punish you. Since I was posting on how you screwed up writing, I read it over for like 5 minutes before hitting submit for fear of being punished by the same cruel gods. I'm honestly somewhat surprised it didn't happen. I was sort of expecting to come back with responses about how I screwed up as well.

Re: It is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

One two many? Lol, looks like someone had one too many

Re: It is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

... oh wait

Re: It is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me smoke another bowel

Re: It is hard

[Type44Q]

The above is utter bullshit.

That may well be true but none of the hot air you followed with even remotely backs-up your claim. Parent: 1; You: zilch

Re: It is hard

[Type44Q]

I should add, though, that it clearly depends on the individual and the reason(s) why they smoke (and a ton of other factors as well). All of those people I mentioned were highly intelligent but I can't speculate as to whether or not pot use might be a good idea for someone whose brain doesn't function that well to begin with, or for those who've been conditioned to believe that "pot is bad" and "it leads to even more destructive behavior" which is obviously a self-fulfilling prophecy for many...

Re: It is hard

[Type44Q]

What straws am I grasping at? I only offer my subjective observation, which is to say that while I don't dispute that a majority of "pot heads" are likely unsuccessful (and perhaps even dysfunctional, although I'd argue that also applies to most people in general), an overwhelming majority of the relatively successful and/or productive people I've known from do consume the stuff and I'm sure there are many others who've observed the same.

I offer no explanations, pr0fessor; that's clearly for "geniuses" like yourself. ;)

Re: It is hard

[pr0fessor]

Everyone I know who is successful also wear blue jeans at least on occasion but you can't attribute success or lack of success to the wearing of blue jeans or to an argument that blue jeans cause a lack of success. Same with smoking...

Re: It is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

well when the right wing sells to death the idea that marijuana is a killer, doing anything meaningful while using marijuana is worth mentioning

Good

[DatbeDank]

As my username suggests, this news be dank! The sooner we take a leg out of the narco/DEA racket the better.

What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this related to slashdot? There's not even a cursory connection to tech/science.

Re:What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't smoke weed and code?

Re:What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

The headline used the minimum accepted number of old school buzzword bingo... namely Napster, Facebook and Spotify. However, one demerit for not using Musk/Tesla or Russian hackers.

Re:What the actual fuck

[kilfarsnar]

How is this related to slashdot? There's not even a cursory connection to tech/science.

Sean Parker, a tech entrepreneur, is investing in bringing our drug laws closer to sanity. I'd say that qualifies as a cursory connection.

Re:What the actual fuck

[Viol8]

"bringing our drug laws closer to sanity"

For sanity read: "The way potheads like me want them to be so we can buy and smoke our sorry little losers narcotic without being bothered by the police".

Re:What the actual fuck

[Pseudonymous Powers]

"bringing our drug laws closer to sanity"

For sanity read: "The way potheads like me want them to be so we can buy and smoke our sorry little losers narcotic without being bothered by the police".

And for "potheads" read "about half of Americans".

Not that I'm pro-pothead, necessarily, because I've known my share, and so I can safely say that I like people way better when they aren't high. But continuing to outlaw an activity that 150 million people support seems kind of dumb, not to mention a failure of democracy. See: Prohibition.

Re:What the actual fuck

[dreamchaser]

More than half of the coders and engineers I know use cannabis at least once in awhile.

Re: What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

So you don't drink any alcohol then do you? If you want to talk drugs. Alcohol and tobacco are 1000s of times worse for your body than any amount of weed. There is no reason at all that marijuana should be treated any differently than alcohol or tobacco. You are just spouting off a stereotype and nothing else.

You'd be surprised at how many very productive people smoke weed and I'm no talking about artists or musicians either. I'm talking about CEOS and other very powerful people.

It is impossible to OD on weed. Try drinking 2 gallons of alcohol and get back to me if you live. I'll eat 2 pounds worth of edibles and smoke 2 pounds if that was even possible and report my findings. Oh I'll be alive and 100% sober a few hours after I'm done.

Re:What the actual fuck

[kilfarsnar]

"bringing our drug laws closer to sanity"

For sanity read: "The way potheads like me want them to be so we can buy and smoke our sorry little losers narcotic without being bothered by the police".

Ah look, another stranger on the Internet who thinks he knows me.

Full disclosure: I smoke pot. Fuller disclosure: I do so with minimal risk and without the attention of police. You know why? I'm white and upper middle class. I am a senior systems admin at a global company, make a professional salary, drive a nice car and live in a nice apartment. I have good, quality relationships with my friends and family. I exercise and watch what I eat.

As you can see, I am not a "sorry little loser". But this is the Internet and I could be a dog for all you know. So it's really neither here nor there. No, the real reason I want marijuana legalized is so we can stop wasting lives and resources by locking people up for smoking it. By the logic of our current policy, society would be better served by putting me in prison rather than leaving me free to help run a large computer network for a productive company. But as I said, I am discreet and do not fear arrest, so this isn't about me. My concern is for those whose skin color or socioeconomic status prevent them from enjoying the freedom I do. We ruin their lives, waste our resources and have very little to show for it. It's stupid, whether or not you think pot is okay to smoke pot. Our current policy has nothing to do with taking care of people or helping them stop using pot, and everything to do with punishing them and making them unemployable. Like I said, stupid. Way more stupid than smoking pot could ever be.

Re:What the actual fuck

[ColdWetDog]

You don't smoke weed and code?

Somebody around here sure the hell does.

Re:What the actual fuck

[Maritz]

For sanity read: "The way potheads like me want them to be so we can buy and smoke our sorry little losers narcotic without being bothered by the police".

I'll read what he wrote, thanks all the same. Uptight weirdos like you notwithstanding, everyone with a shred of sense knows that mary jane is demonstrably less harmful, both to the individual and to society, than alcohol. Hypocrisy seems to be a virtue nowadays eh.

Re:What the actual fuck

[Viol8]

"As you can see, I am not a "sorry little loser". "

So you say. More than likely you're a functioning pothead just holding on like a lot of functioning alcoholics. And the common trait of both is that neither recognise they have a problem.

"We ruin their lives,"

They ruin their own lives. No one is forcing them to smoke weed.

Re:What the actual fuck

[kilfarsnar]

"As you can see, I am not a "sorry little loser". "

So you say. More than likely you're a functioning pothead just holding on like a lot of functioning alcoholics. And the common trait of both is that neither recognise they have a problem.

Yes, as I said, I could be making the whole thing up. I might not even smoke pot! But I have nothing to prove to you, so you can think what you like of me.

"We ruin their lives,"

They ruin their own lives. No one is forcing them to smoke weed.

Not too strong in the logic department, eh? It's not the weed smoking that's ruining their lives; it's the punishments of prohibition that do that. The question is not whether or not they will go to jail of caught smoking weed. The question is whether or not that is proper. I maintain that it is not proper. We ruin their lives, over and above the effects of pot smoking, by putting them in prison and a felony on their record. That doesn't help anyone, not even you. It is quite clear that the war on drugs has failed at its stated goal of eliminating drug use. It hasn't even reduced it by any measurable degree. It is a waste of money, lives, time and resources. It should be ended.

You will go right ahead thinking that pot smokers are all worthless burnouts. I cannot disabuse you of that notion. But the failure of prohibition is a fact, not an opinion. It's time to stop locking people up for non-violent, victimless "crimes".

Re:What the actual fuck

[pr0t0]

...I can safely say that I like people way better when they aren't high.

Agreed, but if I had to choose, I like people who are high way better than people who are drunk. I used to be on the fence about this issue because I have seen first-hand how excessive pot use can ruin people. But the same can be said of alcohol and many/most other things that humans consume for pleasure.

I think the biggest driver for anti-pot legal enforcement is/was the privatization of prisons. It would not shock me to hear that private prison companies lobbied hard to push for mandatory incarceration for recreational pot use; probably also jaywalkers and those who spit on the sidewalk.

Re: What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said my fellow smoker, sums up how I feel. Switch alcohol with pot, and I guarentee Voli will change his tune. He's only against it because he doesn't use it, and he doesn't use it because he was lied to and was told it makes you rape white woman.

Re: What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyday***

FTFY. How do I know? Because we all smoke together xd

Re:What the actual fuck

[freeze128]

For a moment, I thought the article was referring to Sean Murray. Now *THAT* would explain a lot.

Re:What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I assist some young people in need, and I've often been asked about weed.
My answer hasn't changed in decades:
The worst thing about cannabis is that it's still illegal, and getting caught by the law could irrevocably alter your life in a very bad way. Be very careful.

But in good conscience, I can't condone or promote it.
A good tool in the wrong hands can kill as easily as heal.

Re:What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this worry you, being surrounded on all sides by criminals, renegades, anti-authoritarian rebels?

Re:What the actual fuck

[chihowa]

They ruin their own lives. No one is forcing them to smoke weed.

Smoking weed may make them unmotivated or spacey, but at its worst will do nothing close to the harm to their lives that arrest, incarceration, and a felony on their record will do. Further, just like there's a difference between hardcore alcoholics and people who enjoy a beer every now and then, not everybody who smokes post is stoned every waking moment of their lives.

Full disclosure: I don't smoke pot, but I know people who do. You sound like the sort of person who would be surprised to learn who around you smokes pot, though they'd likely never tell you. You sound like you've been hitting the D.A.R.E. pipe pretty hard.

Re:What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you live in a small-town. Midwest or southern.

Come to NYC, the city that runs the nation and to a great extent, the world. Everyone smokes here.

Re:What the actual fuck

[al0ha]

Sean Parker is only doing this for his own self-interest. He has investing heavily in the burgeoning California marijuana industry on the hopes that legalization will happen.

So let's see this as it is, another wealthy capitalist bent on becoming even wealthier,,,

Re:What the actual fuck

[Sperbels]

More than likely you're a functioning pothead just holding on like a lot of functioning alcoholics. And the common trait of both is that neither recognise they have a problem.

I've smoked marijuana before. Can't say I liked it all that much, or that I think it was very addictive. It certainly never turned me into a dangerous asshole like alcohol does with a lot of people. I do have a problem with nicotine and caffeine though. They don't turn me into a dangerous asshole either. An extremely strong argument can be made that alcohol and nicotine are both far more dangerous than marijuana. They are legal, while marijuana is not only illegal, it is a schedule 1 drug but has demonstrable medical value and is blatantly safer than alcohol. Whatever society gains by preventing a certain number of people from turning into potheads, it loses by transforming otherwise productive members of the community into criminals, militarizes the police, and puts a large financial burden on the tax payers to imprison and capture users. It's stupid, pot is not worth all the effort.

Re: What the actual fuck

[dreamchaser]

I have written some of my best code while high, although later I have to clean it up by changing function names from things like 'manthesedoritostastegood' to something more professional.

Re:What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

And for "potheads" read "about half of Americans".

Where "half" is 10%? Is pot bad for math skills? http://www.popsci.com/survey-s...

Re: What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have this printed on a T-shirt and sold at concerts, because every pothead I've known invariably rattles this argument off, then ten minutes later asks me why their life is so lousy.

Re:What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

"As you can see, I am not a "sorry little loser". "

So you say. More than likely you're a functioning pothead just holding on like a lot of functioning alcoholics. And the common trait of both is that neither recognise they have a problem.

Yes, as I said, I could be making the whole thing up. I might not even smoke pot! But I have nothing to prove to you, so you can think what you like of me.

"We ruin their lives,"

They ruin their own lives. No one is forcing them to smoke weed.

Not too strong in the logic department, eh? It's not the weed smoking that's ruining their lives; it's the punishments of prohibition that do that. The question is not whether or not they will go to jail of caught smoking weed. The question is whether or not that is proper. I maintain that it is not proper. We ruin their lives, over and above the effects of pot smoking, by putting them in prison and a felony on their record. That doesn't help anyone, not even you. It is quite clear that the war on drugs has failed at its stated goal of eliminating drug use. It hasn't even reduced it by any measurable degree. It is a waste of money, lives, time and resources. It should be ended.

You will go right ahead thinking that pot smokers are all worthless burnouts. I cannot disabuse you of that notion. But the failure of prohibition is a fact, not an opinion. It's time to stop locking people up for non-violent, victimless "crimes".

Don't feed the trolls (unless it's poison). There's a certain class of idiot that will NEVER be anything but a moron of the highest order. These people can't be reasoned with, they can't be taught, they can't even be considered human. On the internet, the best thing you can do is ignore them and hope that the crushing loneliness of their miserable, sad, worthless lives leads them to kill themselves. Being unquestionably worthless in every aspect of their own lives they aren't capable of doing this except via negative attention. They lash out for the attention they desperately need so for one fleeting moment they feel like they matter. Someone has seen them and recognized them as a human being. This is a mistake because they aren't human beings. Human beings have value while creatures like Viol8 have none. They are completely devoid of anything redeeming. Take comfort in the fact that they don't live very long. After all, what does a creature like that have to live for?

Re:What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Chutulu?

Re:What the actual fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

...who smokes post...

...ends up potting smoke. Or something like that.

Re:What the actual fuck

[hyades1]

With rare exceptions (mostly people too stupid to know the difference between warm rain and being pissed on), the only people who won't admit the "War On Drugs" is an outright failure are law enforcement slackers with an unbreakable liplock on the public teat.

GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!! OMG!!

[CajunArson]

Oh wait.. nevermind, we like his position. Money in politics is good again.

Re:GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!! OMG!!

[kilfarsnar]

Oh wait.. nevermind, we like his position. Money in politics is good again.

Getting money out of politics might (might) enable us to have laws based on science and reasoning, rather than propaganda and hysteria. The alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries all contribute and lobby hard to protect their businesses. At least people like Mr. Parker provide a countervailing force. Wanting to get money out of politics is not the same as wanting to do it unilaterally.

Re:GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!! OMG!!

[rtb61]

You also forget the major organised crime drug dealers and their money laundering banks, laundering billions and taking a percentage. In reality they are the people skulking in the background keeping the drugs they profit from illegal because once legal they lose that profit. Now that is serious money and seriously debauched parties (they require evidence to take down any politician who accepts their money only to betray them) and serious pay to speak scams. Crime at the highest levels with collusion between those banks, organised crime gangs, terrorist organisations, certain three letter US government agencies and specific corrupted politicians to keep it all going and no one prosecuted.

Re: GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!! OMG!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that if marijuana was legal the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries would be all over it.

Re:GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!! OMG!!

[kilfarsnar]

You also forget the major organised crime drug dealers and their money laundering banks, laundering billions and taking a percentage. In reality they are the people skulking in the background keeping the drugs they profit from illegal because once legal they lose that profit. Now that is serious money and seriously debauched parties (they require evidence to take down any politician who accepts their money only to betray them) and serious pay to speak scams. Crime at the highest levels with collusion between those banks, organised crime gangs, terrorist organisations, certain three letter US government agencies and specific corrupted politicians to keep it all going and no one prosecuted.

Oh, I know quite a bit about that. Gary Webb told us something about that as I recall. And HSBC's troubles were more recent. But yes, it's a good point to make. Things are not all that they seem.

Re: GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!! OMG!!

[kilfarsnar]

You do realize that if marijuana was legal the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries would be all over it.

Yeah, probably. What are you gonna do? Money in politics and the workings of American capitalism are much bigger issues than legalizing pot.

Re:GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!! OMG!!

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Several of the biggest opponents in California AGAINST legalization were drug dealers. They too want to protect their revenue stream.

Re:GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!! OMG!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability to teleport would bring all kinds of amazing benefits, including reducing pollution, traffic accidents, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that it is logically impossible.

The same is true of all efforts at taking money out of politics. The only reason the statement even makes sense when uttered is because the words we use ("money","politics") obscure their true meanings. Money is an abstract representation of how much influence you have over other people. Politics is the enterprise of exercising influence over other people. You cannot separate them!

You are better off praying to the Flying Spaghetti monster for world peace.

Send me money

[Anonymous Coward]

If he has $9 million to piss away, surely he can pay off my student loan while he's at it.

Re:Send me money

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you assume that someone else should "piss away" their cash on your folly?

Re:Send me money

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should he have it and I shouldn't?

Sanders 2020.

Re:Send me money

[jshackney]

$9M? That'll barely get you a cheap house in Beverly Hills.

This is the problem

[houghi]

I am all for legalizing it.The issue I have is that people buy the laws. Because that way you end up in a pissing contest where only the rich decide what becomes law.

Re:This is the problem

[Mr0bvious]

Welcome to the oligarchy that is our world.

Re:This is the problem

[swillden]

I am all for legalizing it.The issue I have is that people buy the laws. Because that way you end up in a pissing contest where only the rich decide what becomes law.

The money only buys advertising. It can raise visibility and work to convince voters, but it can't ultimately buy anything the voters oppose. If you want to bypass the voters' will, you need to focus on backroom negotiations and parliamentary tricks. Money can be useful there -- though it isn't strictly necessary -- but not open money like this.

Re:This is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point the law that banned the substance was put through by another set of rich people. Who gains the most from the arrests? Follow the money... The criminals do not want it legalised, follow the dots.

Re:This is the problem

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Or just hacking the highly insecure voting machines.

Re:This is the problem

[swillden]

Or just hacking the highly insecure voting machines.

Again, money is neither required or even very useful. That's all about access.

The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[rmdingler]

Marijuana should be decriminalized to separate it from being grouped with cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, etc. ...at least in the minds of our youth.

When we were growing up, it was all dope to our parents and probably misleadingly associated with the same risk assessment. It seems clear, even to the opponents of legalization, that this is not the case.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is only a matter of scale. Marijuana messes with your head and so of course it's a drug. We should lock up anyone in possession, no questions, no pardons.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

You support locking up alcohol and nicotine users too?

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not OP. I suppose the use of lethal force against drunk drivers, having been hit by two of them, one of which totaled my car. I keep an aluminum bat in my car to deal with them now. I don't call 911 anymore.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

*support

damn autocorrect

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they drugs?

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[burtosis]

Caffeine, the drug we give to children specifically to make them high, is the real gateway drug.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[alexo]

Chemically speaking, yes.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[kilfarsnar]

It is only a matter of scale. Marijuana messes with your head and so of course it's a drug. We should lock up anyone in possession, no questions, no pardons.

How the fuck did you arrive at the conclusion that all drug users should be locked up? My OTC cold medicine messes with my head, and supposedly it's only a matter of scale.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, you need to relax and smoke some pot. You're way too strung up.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Opportunist]

Capable of passing the blood-brain barrier and altering the behaviour of the brain, as well as having a nontrivial effect on your nervous system, while at the same time not being essential to the body's functioning.

They fit the description.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Them's some mighty large keyboard muscles you've got there, numbnuts. That being said, bullshit. To get hit by a drunk driver, you'd have to leave your the comfort of your mother's basement to work to pay for a car. So we all know you're completely, 100% full of dogshit.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Caffeine, the drug we give to children specifically to make them high, is the real gateway drug.

Maybe in Europe. I've never really seen children given caffeine in the US. Hell, when I was a child, people still thought caffeine stunted growth.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[fbobraga]

So do alcohol: you are favor of prohibiting them? (Al Capone loves you!)

Re: The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... Cola? (Heh, Coke...)

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you can actually trip pretty good off of dextromorphan based cough medicines (just don't try it with the ones that also contain other ingredients like acetaminophen) like Delsym.

That stuff is OTC and will fuck you up.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[fbobraga]

Caffeine, the drug we give to children specifically to make them high, is the real gateway drug.

exactly

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[swb]

Criminalizing marijuana actually *contributes* to the gateway phenomenon by creating a false equivalence between marijuana and other drugs. People end up using marijuana relatively harmlessly and then discount the dire warnings given in equal measure to marijuana and all other drugs.

Since almost no single drug used casually for the first time results in catastrophe, they then begin to believe that occasional use of other drugs which have a greater intrinsic risk profile are equally harmless. They lied to me about the dangers or pot, why would I believe they're telling me the truth about methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin or anything else?

In an ideal world, we'd have honest, accurate and widely understood studies about the actual risk profiles of all common mind altering drugs, including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, and we'd come up with a way to teach people about them and the real-world risks of immediate harm (overdose, extreme side effects, long-term effects, etc).

My sense is that for the general public, this really isn't that practical, and the best public health benefit would be to remove marijuana from the more dangerous drugs category completely.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Maybe in Europe. I've never really seen children given caffeine in the US.

Huh? You've NEVER seen a child drinking a Coke or a Pepsi? How about an iced [black] tea (e.g., Snapple, or any number of more generic brands)?

Hell, when I was a child, people still thought caffeine stunted growth.

Yeah, people have said that usually about coffee. I didn't know many kids who drank coffee when I was growing up. When I started drinking some around age 15 or so, my parents were still mildly concerned.

But iced tea, hot tea, various types of cola drinks, etc. were all incredibly common drinks among friends. I personally was never a fan of cola myself, but iced tea was my beverage of choice since I can remember. (Always only slightly sweet; not that "sweet tea" syrupy stuff they serve in the South.)

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

So does high fructose corn syrup, but there is no call to make it a Schedule I substance, nor an entire heavily-armed industry built around it's eradication..

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Dextromethorphan hydrobromide can fuck you up, on a per-trip basis, WAY more than almost anything else. When you get up to the higher dosages, your jumping through the rabbit hole and pulling the hole in behind you for the next 8-12+ hours.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Pepsi. Coca-Cola. Tea. Coffee. Pretty sure all of those fit your specification for "drug".

So, should we make all of those illegal?

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about that jimsonweed?

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[PatientZero]

Sadly, HFCS is probably the one substance mentioned in this entire thread that actually deserves to be treated militarily,* and we gleefully pump our kids full of the shit every day.

* Note, I still wouldn't condone that action.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Opportunist]

Quite frankly, when facing the question whether HFCS or Marijuana should be scheduled, the former would make way more sense.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Opportunist]

No. Instead, make the rest legal. And tax the living hell out of it.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[sjames]

Same here. Coffee was distinctly for adults, all the other caffeines were just fine for kids.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[Anonymous Coward]

What he was referring to is that formulations with acetaminophen can lead to a gruesome, painful death due to liver failure if you take enough of it to "trip".

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[ausekilis]

Many of the kids I hung out with in high school started with marijuana and alcohol... then quickly moved on to other drugs such as mushrooms, cocaine, heroine, etc... Best I can tell, the harshest side effects of marijuana are the munchies and some impaired movement. Really it's not that much different than alcohol. My vote would go for decriminalizing (remove some glamour from it), possibly regulating much like what is done in CO.

Those teenagers I hung around saw their lives as so messed up (alcoholic or drug addicted parents, etc...) that the drugs were their escape from reality and they found solace in brotherhood in one another, as they got high. Most of them did not even care if they made it to their 30's and I would honestly be surprised if a quarter of them were alive today. For them, marijuana was the gateway to other substances. Often it was the first drug of the night, which was basically priming the pump for whatever other stuff they managed to get that night. They may not be a representative example for today's teens, but seeing them gradually end their own lives was enough for me to steer clear of drugs myself.

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[basecastula]

Datura you mean?

Re:The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[rmdingler]

It is easy to argue that alcohol is the gateway drug, since it is likely the first conscious-altering substance imbibed in one's youth. Of the adults I know who struggle with addiction to substances other than alcohol, booze's legendary inhibition-dissolving characteristics act as a trigger for relapse.

Though preferences are constantly changing, intoxication has lost none of its luster in the present day. As an escape, an experiment, or an endorphin release, it is an alternative to everyday existence that increasing numbers covet.

Good luck! You're gonna need it!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at who is against it - it's mostly law enforcement and people who want to keep the broken system going.

I doubt it will pass, but if it does, it should be interesting to see what the DEA does when people can legally grow X amount of plants but still not allowed at the federal level.

Re:Good luck! You're gonna need it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think in general most LEOs are actually in favor of legalization. They know more than anybody how much time and resources it wastes busting college kids for smoking/selling weed. They would really rather be catching real criminals.

Re:Good luck! You're gonna need it!

[kilfarsnar]

If you look at who is against it - it's mostly law enforcement and people who want to keep the broken system going.

I doubt it will pass, but if it does, it should be interesting to see what the DEA does when people can legally grow X amount of plants but still not allowed at the federal level.

You can see what they are doing now. Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Alaska all allow private cultivation. The Feds are basically quietly doing nothing.

No hodgepodge of legislation - It's illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal law is being selectively enforced (for now), but Federal law makes it is illegal everywhere. State laws legalizing it do not trump Federal Laws that criminalize it.

If the will of the people is for it to be legal politicians would run on that, get elected, and change the laws. It's a brilliant system, when it's allowed to work. One citizen, one vote works. Once citizen spending $9 Million to get his way is how we got into this situation.

I don't care what people do as long as I don't have to pay for it. My primary objection is that I find many people to be adequately stupid without chemically exacerbating the situation.

Re:No hodgepodge of legislation - It's illegal

[kilfarsnar]

I don't care what people do as long as I don't have to pay for it. My primary objection is that I find many people to be adequately stupid without chemically exacerbating the situation.

Well, you're currently paying to incarcerate these people. So get on board.

Slashdot editors. a little editing goes a long way

[tkrotchko]

Nobody knows who Sean Parker is.

Nobody even remembers what Napster is anymore. C'mon. One sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Slashdot editors. a little editing goes a long

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody cares who Sean Parker is. Hopefully he dies in a fiery plane crash

Good for him

[damn_registrars]

He's putting his money where his mouth is.

However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed. The notion that schools will benefit immensely seems to be a slightly more realistic version of the old claim that legalized sale of pot would generate $599 godzillion in tax revenue per picosecond to the end of eternity. The problem with either claim is that it assumes that legalization would cause people to want to buy at retail what they and their friends could grow in their backyard.

(there are other dishonest claims from the pro-pot camp but this one directly ties to the summary)

Re:Good for him

[The-Ixian]

You know... I could grow tomatoes in my back yard... but I don't... I buy them at retail.

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

Growing is quite an operation. I doubt most consumers don't grow marijiuana just because it is illegal, some yes, but I doubt the number who are interested is over 10%. You have to have the space, money, time, blessing of your landlord, etc. The real reason legal marijuana is less of a tax boon than anticipated in some states is because the largest and most consistent users fall under medical marijuana laws in the same area. So only tourists and very occasional users buy retail, anyone for whom it's a staple goes through a medical supplier because that is exempt from the taxes. Blame the prohibitionists for the sudden popularity of medical marijuana. The same thing happened with alcohol (although that is even less medicinal), then eventually they cracked down on that, then we got legal booze. It's true that the political ads for LMJ make questionable claims, but compared to the prohibitionists claims over the last few decades, I'm willing to let it slide.

Re:Good for him

[dnaumov]

Growing is quite an operation. I doubt most consumers don't grow marijiuana just because it is illegal, some yes, but I doubt the number who are interested is over 10%. You have to have the space, money, time, blessing of your landlord, etc.

You can literally have a grow inside a large PC case (and many people do exactly that for purposes of stealth). That removes the "space" and "blessing of your landlord" from the equation.

Re:Good for him

[kilfarsnar]

He's putting his money where his mouth is. However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed. The notion that schools will benefit immensely seems to be a slightly more realistic version of the old claim that legalized sale of pot would generate $599 godzillion in tax revenue per picosecond to the end of eternity. The problem with either claim is that it assumes that legalization would cause people to want to buy at retail what they and their friends could grow in their backyard. (there are other dishonest claims from the pro-pot camp but this one directly ties to the summary)

It's happening right now:

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/26/marijuana-sales-tax-revenue-huge-boon-for-colorado-cities/

People buy beer even though they can brew it at home.

Re:Good for him

[Air-conditioned cowh]

You know... I could grow tomatoes in my back yard... but I don't... I buy them at retail.

The operative word here being "could". Why shouldn't we be allowed to grow tomatoes, or even cannabis?

Re:Good for him

[damn_registrars]

He's putting his money where his mouth is. However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed. The notion that schools will benefit immensely seems to be a slightly more realistic version of the old claim that legalized sale of pot would generate $599 godzillion in tax revenue per picosecond to the end of eternity. The problem with either claim is that it assumes that legalization would cause people to want to buy at retail what they and their friends could grow in their backyard. (there are other dishonest claims from the pro-pot camp but this one directly ties to the summary)

It's happening right now:

http://www.denverpost.com/2016...

Those numbers are not even in the least bit close to what the pot propagandists claimed would be instantly and eternally realized in tax revenue. Sure, it is greater than zero but it is not the huge numbers they promised.

People buy beer even though they can brew it at home.

That isn't even close to the same thing. Marijuana needs almost nothing to grow beyond what dandelions or any other plant need. I've seen plenty of places where it has grown by accident. You can't make beer by accident, you have to set out to make it. There are other spirits that can be made by accident but beer isn't one of them.

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

_Commercial_ growing is quite an operation. Cannabis itself almost weed-like (no pun intended) in that it can grow in even the worst conditions. Anybody can grow it quite easily. Naturally you don't get as much output as if you had a high tech commercial grow house, but you can easily make up for it in volume.

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot ate my longer reply which delved into the economics and challenges involved more specifically, but suffice to say you're comparing being able to run a webserver on your local machine with running a datacenter. Home growers are not competition for commercial operations any more than your neighborhood PC builder is competition for Alienware. These things are related, but they are not the same field.

It is not to say that it is not possible to grow high-quality marijuana in an extremely confined space, but that plant's genetics are telling it to be a much bigger plant, and making a plant thrive in those conditions is extremely challenging. Even for the experienced home grower, large commercial growers are going to have an advantage in the volume and variety available, and likely in cost as well. My local retail outlet has some strains at $6/gram, of high quality and known potency. With some luck and cheap electricity and over the long run your marginal cost might approach twice that figure, but you are not going to enjoy the economies of scale that would allow you to beat that.

Arguing that "anyone can grow" and "retail is uneconomical" is like suggesting that rock concerts are uneconomical because anyone can sit down with a guitar and play "Wonderwall". This is not actually a game everyone can play, and even those with the ability are not necessarily going to be any good at it. Your particular suggestion is a recipe for shitty weed in all but the most exceptional cases. It doesn't sound like you have any experience whereof you speak, but even if so, what you're describing has little or no relevance to the commercial markets.

TFP, HAND.

Re:Good for him

[kilfarsnar]

Those numbers are not even in the least bit close to what the pot propagandists claimed would be instantly and eternally realized in tax revenue. Sure, it is greater than zero but it is not the huge numbers they promised.

Okay, so some of them were wrong. Cities and towns are still getting more tax revenue, so what's the problem?

People buy beer even though they can brew it at home.

That isn't even close to the same thing. Marijuana needs almost nothing to grow beyond what dandelions or any other plant need. I've seen plenty of places where it has grown by accident. You can't make beer by accident, you have to set out to make it. There are other spirits that can be made by accident but beer isn't one of them.

People are manifestly buying instead of growing in Colorado (and other states). Your position is contradicted by current reality. Sure, some people will grow it for themselves. But that's not preventing the governments from reaping more tax revenue. Like I said, we don't have to speculate; it's happening right now.

Re:Good for him

[bfpierce]

Hell, I *do* grow tomatoes in my backyard and still buy them at retail.

Sometimes you just can't grow enough, or a crop doesn't do that well, or you're looking for the purple ones you didn't grow.

People like the OP seem to imply that all you need to do to garden is throw seeds in the ground and wait. It's a lot harder than that, and a lot more work then you'd think haha.

Re:Good for him

[swb]

Have you ever tried "wild" marijuana? It's truly only useful as a fiber source.

A friend has a wild marijuana plant in his back yard that comes up every year -- he does nothing to cultivate it, it just reseeds itself every year. One year I tried what looked like the best part of it and it was awful. Not even remotely stoned. It can be relatively easy to grow moderately good marijuana, but it requires active cultivation -- you can't dump the seeds in the ground and come back 3 months later and expect anything useful for smoking.

And in terms of tax revenue, you have to remember the best government spending benefit of marijuana is from not enforcing marijuana prohibition. Billions of dollars are spent specifically on marijuana enforcement, especially in places with widespread outdoor cultivation.

Every dollar *not* spent on marijuana enforcement has a benefit greater than the equivalent tax increase resulting in an addition of a dollar of revenue. For one, there's zero economic penalty from repurposing existing tax revenue -- a tax increase has an additional drag on the economy greater than the additional revenue raised. It's like suddenly not having to pay your utilities anymore -- you didn't get a raise or incur the costs of taking a more demanding job, but you suddenly have more money to spend without working any harder to do it.

Look at Denver -- $29 million in tax revenue from marijuana -- positive revenue that they would have never collected in addition to the significant amount of tax revenue they would already collect that they no longer need to spend on marijuana prohibition enforcement.

I hope someone is working hard on actually quantifying the cost savings from not enforcing marijuana prohibition, although I suspect law enforcement probably doesn't want it known. If it was a *really* large number, they look bad for opposing legalization and essentially wasting money on a hopeless cause. Even a semi-large number could invite people to ask questions about law enforcement effectiveness. If your boss removed 5 hours of work from your responsibilities per week but your net productivity on other tasks didn't improve, it could prove embarrassing.

Re:Good for him

[swb]

However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed.

I agree that some in the marijuana legalization camp are prone to over-promoting the medical value of marijuana, which is little understood and could vary between being moderately useful to extremely beneficial but is best categorized honestly as "don't really know because prohibitionists won't even let us run studies". But the real intellectual dishonesty in marijuana legalization comes from opponents who make a false safety argument -- basically, because marijuana isn't as neutral as purified water, it is unsafe and should remain criminalized.

The safety of marijuana is, IMHO, really beyond questioning at this point. We've had 50-odd years (since the 1960s, at least) of widespread public use of marijuana and almost no evidence of overdoses or acute risks. In fact, we have more evidence of long-term widespread use being neutral or at worst mildly negative for a subset of the population who are prone to compulsive behavior. Millions of adults have been long-term recreational marijuana users with no ill effects.

And even if marijuana had a larger risk profile, the other implied dishonesty is that the criminalization of marijuana is an effective public policy. As far as anyone can tell, it's been an unmitigated disaster -- trillions spent over the decades with absolutely no positive effects, millions of people jailed and constitutional rights like search and seizure systematically undermined by decades of assault by law enforcement.

Marijuana legalization advocates may overstate revenue or medical benefits, but these aren't the principal reason for legalizing it. The principal reason for legalizing it is that marijuana prohibition is a completely ineffective and wasteful public policy with extremely negative side effects, like the corrosion of civil rights, enabling criminal enterprises and the corruption of law enforcement.

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't even close to the same thing. Marijuana needs almost nothing to grow beyond what dandelions or any other plant need.

What a wonderful sentence to show that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're suggesting that because any computer can run mysql, therefore anyone should be able to run a datacenter.

Notice also that you are not supporting your assertion of massive profits with any numbers. It's okay, we know that you would just shift the goalposts if you were confronted with facts.

I could go into some detail about the challenges of producing high-quality marijuana with a small-scale grow operation (years of experience doing so in Alaska, where it has been legal to do so for 40 years). Your ignorance of these challenges is total, however, so I would instead suggest finding a book on the subject. Essentially though it's not a challenge to grow a plant, but your job as a grower is to control the environment around that plant. You need a certain amount of light, humidity, temperature, soil (or other medium) pH, nutrient concentration, CO2 levels, and the right balance of all of these factors varies day-to-day as well as during the day. It's not rocket science, but it is a science, and scaling up to commercial production levels is an entirely different set of challenges. Do things right, and you have something equal to what you can find at retail outlets for $6/gram, and it will only have taken you three months and thousands of dollars to produce.

This page depicts a small-scale, high-quality grow op. You could perhaps use only four bubble buckets and one light, but most of these components are going to be necessary if you want any sort of consistently good result. You can grow weed on the side of the road, and make vodka in an old boot, but comparing either to the products found at retail outlets is disingenuous verging on insane. You have completely disqualified yourself from holding a valid opinion on the subject of growing, and your remaining complain is that some growth projections were optimistic. Intel's projections for Itanium sales were much more wildly optimistic than even the most frothy pot proponent could devise, but we don't hold that against them because they're the ones bearing the economic loss for it. The product isn't as profitable as a naive projection showed. If you can find a way to get hard numbers for sales projections before the market exists, I'm sure you'll never lack for work.

This is slashdot, so the game is to be more knowledgeable than other people about a topic, and thus score points. You are simply embarrassing yourself, please sit down and let the adults talk.

Re:Good for him

[Rande]

What about all the tax money we're saving by not locking them up now?

Re:Good for him

[damn_registrars]

Those numbers are not even in the least bit close to what the pot propagandists claimed would be instantly and eternally realized in tax revenue. Sure, it is greater than zero but it is not the huge numbers they promised.

Okay, so some of them were wrong. Cities and towns are still getting more tax revenue, so what's the problem?

The problem is that a standard refrain from the propaganda pushers was that we would instantaneously - and for all eternity - see such an overwhelming influx of tax revenue that we would immediately be able to balance the budget, bring about world peace, colonize Mars, and cure all human diseases. We have clearly fallen far short of that, and will never reach it. As I said before, neither side is fully honest with their claims.

I really, truly, don't give a shit how much pot someone wants to smoke at home or in other private places. I don't care if they want to campaign for legalization of it. I would, however, very much prefer if they kept their argument to one based on truth instead of fantasy. I would also like to see the prohibitionists use a fact-based argument.

Sure, some people will grow it for themselves. But that's not preventing the governments from reaping more tax revenue.

Yes, some people are buying it at retail, and paying taxes on it. That's not a bad thing. But some will grow it and some will buy it through alternative - non-retail - channels. The amount of tax revenue that is actually coming in is many orders of magnitude less than what the people who were pushing for legalization were claiming we would see.

Re: Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

^^ this. I grew 2 pot plants for the lulz one time.
After the initial seedling to sap stage, I spent about 2 hours a day tending to them. Pruning leaves, checking the PH, checking the soil, watching for pests and disease, controlling the temp, humidity, lights, and waterings. This was just two plants. If I had grown 50, it would have been a full time job. Guess what I did before the plants were ready? You guessed it, I purchased my buds from my dealer.

Growing buds is not an easy job. And not everyone will do it. For high quality buds, a lot of work goes into it. Just like a lot of work goes into high quality alcohol. We could all purchase microbrew kits, but we don't, because it's a fucking hastle. Sometimes you just want a nice fat sack of dank right NOW, not 5 months after you put a seed into the dirt.

Re:Good for him

[kilfarsnar]

The problem is that a standard refrain from the propaganda pushers was that we would instantaneously - and for all eternity - see such an overwhelming influx of tax revenue that we would immediately be able to balance the budget, bring about world peace, colonize Mars, and cure all human diseases. We have clearly fallen far short of that, and will never reach it. As I said before, neither side is fully honest with their claims.

Do you have a citation for that? I think various people have made various predictions. Colorado ended up collecting a lot more tax than they expected to:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/marijuana-legalization-and-taxes-lessons-other-states-colorado-and-washington

This is all still very new, but I don't think things are really that far off from expectations. If you can provide a link to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to guess you're not from Colorado, but I am. We have this thing called TABOR, the tax payer bill of rights. Basically in this state a tax cannot be levied without going to a popular vote. Why is this relevant you ask? Because as the tax bill was passed for the taxation of marijuana, they were only allowed to collect up to X number of dollars per year in tax revenue. Last year we had to vote if the government could keep tax revenue from it because the amount of tax collected exceeded that amount of money. Yeah, tax revenues exceeded projections. Stop and think about that for a second.

Re:Good for him

[damn_registrars]

What about all the tax money we're saving by not locking them up now?

That is another argument that is generally lacking in honesty. Are there a lot of people in jail for possessing or using pot? Unquestionably, yes there are. The question though is how did they get arrested? They did something that attracted the attention of law enforcement. They did something that warranted a search or somehow gave away the fact that they had or used contraband. I have never heard of anyone getting arrested for smoking pot at home so long as they committed no other offense that caused someone to call 911.

I even agree that sentences for non-violent drug offenses are absolutely too long for a great number of cases. What I haven't seen though is any support whatsoever for the notion of a huge number of people thrown in jail only for having or using pot. The propagandists tell us this is true but not once have I seen them support this.

Frankly I don't give a shit if you want to buy pot, walk around with pot, and go smoke it in someone's house or on someone's private property. That would be treating it the same as alcohol. I can't drink a beer in a public park, and many places don't allow smoking tobacco in a public park either. But I can stop at a park on my way home form the liquor store with a case of beer in the back and that is no problem as long as I'm not drinking it - or under the influence of it - while there. I'm fine with doing the same for pot.

Re:Good for him

[bigfinger76]

The problem is that a standard refrain from the propaganda pushers was that we would instantaneously - and for all eternity - see such an overwhelming influx of tax revenue that we would immediately be able to balance the budget, bring about world peace, colonize Mars, and cure all human diseases. We have clearly fallen far short of that, and will never reach it.

Because it's hyperbole that you manufactured. Sure, some people have exaggerated the benefits, but to deny that it can increase tax revenues is silly. And this doesn't even take into account the savings from enforcement efforts; flying military helicopters over old ladies' houses is expensive.

Re:Good for him

[thegarbz]

The problem with either claim is that it assumes that legalization would cause people to want to buy at retail what they and their friends could grow in their backyard.

Just look at the Netherlands. People buy it legally, it's a very big business despite it also being available on the street. Best thing is when you buy it legally you also know exactly what you get.

Re:Good for him

[drinkypoo]

The notion that schools will benefit immensely seems to be a slightly more realistic version of the old claim that legalized sale of pot would generate $599 godzillion in tax revenue per picosecond to the end of eternity.

It's a lie anyway, because...

The problem with either claim is that it assumes that legalization would cause people to want to buy at retail what they and their friends could grow in their backyard.

...they're not going to spend the money on education. They're going to spend the money on enforcement because they actually have thought of that.

The current push for legalization in California is a cash grab. Pretty much every issuing county is issuing a small number of permits at a very high price and they're spending the revenue on cracking down on the smaller growers — to protect the [literally] permitted oligopoly.

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

But some will grow it and some will buy it through alternative - non-retail - channels. The amount of tax revenue that is actually coming in is many orders of magnitude less than what the people who were pushing for legalization were claiming we would see.

God DAMN you're a pedantic sack of shit. Has anyone ever told you to shut the fuck up ?
Because if they have not, the only possible reason is that they were deaf or lacked the courage
to do it.

SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Re:Good for him

[damn_registrars]

The problem with either claim is that it assumes that legalization would cause people to want to buy at retail what they and their friends could grow in their backyard.

Just look at the Netherlands. People buy it legally, it's a very big business despite it also being available on the street. Best thing is when you buy it legally you also know exactly what you get.

I don't disagree with the value of buying it retail - though I am not a pot user myself. I think the bigger question here though is if a pot user in the US spends $5 on retail-sold pot to make a joint versus $3 on enough pot to make a joint when he buys it off a guy on the street corner, will that person really want to spend the extra $2? I don't have the answer to that though I can tell you that I've never had a wealthy friend who was in to pot.

Re: Good for him

[TJHook3r]

What if your tomatoes cost $100 an ounce?

Re:Good for him

[PatientZero]

Are there a lot of people in jail for possessing or using pot? Unquestionably, yes there are. The question though is how did they get arrested? They did something that attracted the attention of law enforcement.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons says that number was just under eighty-four thousand last month, 46.4% of all prisoners. I don't know exactly how they build the graph, but I assume someone arrested for murder while high would be counted as homocide rather than a drug offense. The numbers add up to 100%, so it doesn't appear to be overlapping.

That doesn't count state prisons which—while housing far more prisoners—have a smaller percentage locked up for drug offenses. "According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are 1,358,875 people in state prisons. Of them, 16 percent have a drug crime as their most serious offense."

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what delusion enables you to maintain your world view, but weed is *cheaper* at the retail store, not more expensive. The local store near me has grams for $6, and everywhere else you'd be lucky to get it for twice that price. Drugs are more expensive/profitable under prohibition. Economies of scale exist. 90% of your posts on this subject are counterfactual. Do stop spouting ignorant shit.

Re: Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you have spent a great deal of money to produce them. I will skip the details on plant physiology and the kind of environmental controls that are required, but in this world, prices reflect the marginal cost of producing those goods, even in illegal markets. Marijuana is expensive because it's not easy to grow well. A cannabis plant left to its own devices will not turn into anything salable.

It's like you hear the word "cannabis" and your brain flies out the window. CPUs cost a lot, why doesn't everyone make them themselves?

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

He's putting his money where his mouth is.

However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed. The notion that schools will benefit immensely seems to be a slightly more realistic version of the old claim that legalized sale of pot would generate $599 godzillion in tax revenue per picosecond to the end of eternity. The problem with either claim is that it assumes that legalization would cause people to want to buy at retail what they and their friends could grow in their backyard.

(there are other dishonest claims from the pro-pot camp but this one directly ties to the summary)

Several other replies have patently proven you wrong so I'm just going to fill in what they didn't.

You're an idiot.

Thank you.

Re:Good for him

[damn_registrars]

The Federal Bureau of Prisons says that number was just under eighty-four thousand last month, 46.4% of all prisoners

That is a helpful link, and it deserves some thought. Thank you for posting it.

I will start by pointing out that the category BOP is using there is simply "drug offenses". Yeah, this includes some people who were ultimately charged only with having pot on them. However this also includes people who were dealing heroin, crack, etc. In other words it isn't a very reasonable picture of how many people are in jail for pot offenses.

I don't know exactly how they build the graph, but I assume someone arrested for murder while high would be counted as homocide rather than a drug offense.

Most likely true. IANAL but I would interpret "drug offenses" to mean something along the lines of "there was no steeper category to charge them under".

That said, I was previously questioning the line we hear about people serving massive terms "only for pot". My argument is that the overwhelming majority of people arrested for pot-related offenses were caught doing something else illegal. If you are driving with a busted taillight (which is a citable offense in every state I have lived in) and the cop found reason to search your vehicle and found pot, the charge would be for possession.

Basically I state that my earlier claim stands. Very few people are arrested only because there was reason to suspect they had pot on them. They did something else to attract the attention of the law, and the pot charge was what stuck. Would it really reduce prison population significantly to fully legalize it? I'm not convinced. Yes, it would lead to some prisoners not being there but many would still be there and go back in.

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that a standard refrain from the propaganda pushers was that we would instantaneously - and for all eternity - see such an overwhelming influx of tax revenue that we would immediately be able to balance the budget, bring about world peace, colonize Mars, and cure all human diseases. We have clearly fallen far short of that, and will never reach it. As I said before, neither side is fully honest with their claims.

Do you have a citation for that? I think various people have made various predictions. Colorado ended up collecting a lot more tax than they expected to:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/marijuana-legalization-and-taxes-lessons-other-states-colorado-and-washington

This is all still very new, but I don't think things are really that far off from expectations. If you can provide a link to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.

No, OP doesn't have a citation or ANY evidence backing any of it. He's the main source of hyperbole and I'm not even sure why if he actually doesn't have a problem with pot. I really, truly don't care if OP want's to hate on the tax revenue, doesn't understand what an order of magnitude is and is secretly either jealous he can't legally smoke pot or simply wants to suck the joy out of life for others. I would, however, very much prefer if they kept their argument to one based on truth instead of fantasy.

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Mexican dirt weed, sure, you can grow that anywhere. Sinsemilla is much harder to produce, and if you're not operating on a commercial scale, what makes you think you can "make up for it in volume" ? High quality cannabis is the result of a very carefully controlled environment. Same thing with high quality alcohol. Anyone can make alcohol, right? Tell you what, pick a drug, make it, then tell us how easy it is.

Re:Good for him

[thegarbz]

I think the bigger question here though is if a pot user in the US spends $5 on retail-sold pot to make a joint versus $3 on enough pot to make a joint when he buys it off a guy on the street corner

Now you're making assumptions as to the price. In the Netherlands it's illegal to buy and sell unlicensed, and the price isn't too different between legal and illegal means. Cigarette companies have been using the same kind of FUD for years in a battle in Australia. Everytime Australia raises the taxes on cigarettes they say all that will happen is the black market will fill in the gaps, yet what happens every time is the smoking rate reduces even further. There's two things at play here, legality and laziness. Would I pay $5 for something I could get for $3? No. Would I pay $5 for something I could get for $3 if getting it for $3 meant either doing something illegal, or having to arrange some convoluted meetup, or go find someone on the street at a specific time rather than just casually stroll into a shop? Yeah. Convenience wins out in a lot of ways. Kind of like how we go out of our way to buy pre-packaged herbs in the supermarket instead of throwing a plant in a pot and watering it once a week.

I don't have the answer to that though I can tell you that I've never had a wealthy friend who was in to pot.

That's actually interesting. It's probably just my social circle but most of the pot users I know are white collar and in good jobs, predominantly engineering and finance.

Re:Good for him

[Scarletdown]

I don't know what delusion enables you to maintain your world view, but weed is *cheaper* at the retail store, not more expensive. The local store near me has grams for $6, and everywhere else you'd be lucky to get it for twice that price.

If my calculations are correct, $6 for a gram comes to approximately $168 per ounce. When I buy, it is $100 an ounce, and that is from a grower who primarily grows for the medical industry, but is more than happy to sell to individuals as well.

Hopefully, once I get the hang of growing consistently, I can reduce my per ounce cost down to whatever the potting soil and the cost to run the LED grow lights in the basement would be.

Personally, I think learning to grow ganja is a valuable skill to pick up on, especially as the off the beaten path C-G-A based local economies become more prevalent. That G will become the most important of the three letters.

Re:Good for him

[sjames]

Do you buy food at the grocery store? Even though it's perfectly legal to grow at home? How many smokers do you know who grow their own tobacco?

The states that have already legalized are enjoying significant tax revenue from people who prefer to buy retail.

Re:Good for him

[sjames]

Some get arrested by stop and frisk. In many other cases, it's the consolation prize when cops search a home for more serious offenses and come up empty. In still more cases, it in connection with a moving violation or a busted tail light.

Where I live, I have seen police helicopters flying around with a spotlight looking for plants growing in fields or people's back yards. Those things are quite expensive to fly.

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Seattle. People here buy weed at retail because it's convenient, always available, consistent quality etc. If you value your time at all, it's also cheaper than growing your own (just like it is with food plants). There are also specialty products like vape oil you can't easily make at home, and a huge selection of edibles/drinkables. The black market for weed has utterly vanished because nobody wants to pay money for unproven goods. The businesses seem very successful - in some cases there are three recreational weed stores in one street intersection, competing with each other and thriving because many people want their product. I believe there is a 25% tax on weed sales, so it must be creating significant revenue for the state as well. In spite of the local govt screwing it up in the early days, the legalization has become a complete success.

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are trying to find dishonesty, you should look in the mirror.

The FBI data shows that of the 700,000 cannabis-related arrests in 2014, 90% were for possession only. Being arrested and spending even a day in jail is enough to cause significant long-term consequences, like loss of a job and in some states, the loss of custody of your children.

Re:Good for him

[PatientZero]

I will start by pointing out that the category BOP is using there is simply "drug offenses". Yeah, this includes some people who were ultimately charged only with having pot on them. However this also includes people who were dealing heroin, crack, etc. In other words it isn't a very reasonable picture of how many people are in jail for pot offenses.

That's true. More of my interest in the subject is in decriminalizing all drugs and focusing the money saved into harm reduction and education. Others have done deeper research to separate cannabis from other drugs if you're interested. The history of drug prohibition is fascinating and more than a bit sickening. It's time to end it for countless reasons.

My argument is that the overwhelming majority of people arrested for pot-related offenses were caught doing something else illegal. If you are driving with a busted taillight (which is a citable offense in every state I have lived in) and the cop found reason to search your vehicle and found pot, the charge would be for possession.

I don't see how that follows. If nearly half of all federal prisoners were convicted solely for drug offenses, how can the overwhelming majority of drug offenders be convicted of other crimes? That would require every single prisoner to be a drug offender. Or are you saying they were caught doing something illegal, but those charges weren't pursued once drugs were discovered? That seems unlikely.

I may just be missing your point. Please explain if I am.

Very few people are arrested only because there was reason to suspect they had pot on them.

Possibly, but I would bet a lot of people got locked up for possession during stop-and-frisk where it was pretty clear the "reason to suspect" was often having dark skin. I wouldn't be surprised if it was used to crack down on street dealers as well.

Re:Good for him

[damn_registrars]

My argument is that the overwhelming majority of people arrested for pot-related offenses were caught doing something else illegal. If you are driving with a busted taillight (which is a citable offense in every state I have lived in) and the cop found reason to search your vehicle and found pot, the charge would be for possession.

I don't see how that follows. If nearly half of all federal prisoners were convicted solely for drug offenses, how can the overwhelming majority of drug offenders be convicted of other crimes? That would require every single prisoner to be a drug offender. Or are you saying they were caught doing something illegal, but those charges weren't pursued once drugs were discovered? That seems unlikely.

I may just be missing your point. Please explain if I am.

I might not have articulated the point well. I thought the example I gave of the busted taillight - which could ordinarily get you a fix-it ticket but not jail time on its own - was pretty fair but I might not have fleshed it out. From my understanding if a cop pulls you over for a non-criminal offense such as that, and then smells weed in the car or has a reason to search the car (I personally do not see the smell of unburned weed as something that should justify a search), then drug charges could be brought for possession if weed is found. Hence the person with the busted taillight was not pulled over because the cop thought they had weed, but they were charged with it because they had it.

This isn't far from my own experience in New York years ago. They had passed a law requiring that you use hands-free devices to make cell phone calls from your car, and made it an offense you could be pulled over for. I happened to be driving through a shitty part of town (ie, lots of drug dealers in that area) and had out-of-state plates at the time. The cop pulled me over and gave me a stern talking too while sniffing and hoping to smell contraband (or to see it through my windows). I had none and he had no justification to search for any, but had I had any the criminal charge would have been drugs while the citation - and reason for being pulled over - would have been the cell phone law.

There are also trivial criminal offenses that could be used similarly - say jawywalking (or even spitting, in places where it is still banned on the sidewalk and street) - to try to warrant a search for drugs.

Make no mistake I do not support using the law that way. I do support stopping people who are clearly behaving as though under the influence of any drug and treating them the same way we handle people who are drunk in public. Possession while sober, however, I don't give a shit about.

Very few people are arrested only because there was reason to suspect they had pot on them.

Possibly, but I would bet a lot of people got locked up for possession during stop-and-frisk where it was pretty clear the "reason to suspect" was often having dark skin.

I do not support stop-and-frisk. You very likely hit the nail on the head regarding how it was abused. There are better ways to handle suspected criminals, ways that do not require the blatant violation of their civil rights.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was used to crack down on street dealers as well.

I have mixed feelings about street dealers. If they are selling what they claim - and only what they claim - then for the most part I don't care. The biggest problem I have is when they are selling something other than what they claim it to be. One particular challenge in that situation though is figuring out who along the chain knew the product to be something other than what it was being sold as. Which is generally a good call for legalization, although the recreational drug industry being what it is right now I don't see it going away just because we would end up with Philip-Morris brand pot and Anheuser-Busch brand heroin.

Re:Good for him

[PatientZero]

Awesome! I'm so glad I asked for clarification rather than assume I knew what you meant. tl;dr I think we're 99% on the same page here. But I'd be remiss if I let one of the few good /. threads peter out due to agreement. :)

I thought the example I gave of the busted taillight - which could ordinarily get you a fix-it ticket but not jail time on its own - was pretty fair but I might not have fleshed it out.

It wasn't so much that as I suspect that you, as I, don't feel this is a good use of law enforcement. If someone is behaving in a dangerous manner or committing something more serious than an infraction, I'm okay with police stopping them and escalating if there is a good reason. Conversely, if they aren't, leave them alone.

This gets into unequal enforcement, stop-and-frisk, expanding infraction laws that give police an excuse to pull "everyone" over... But as we have both seen, this tends to be enforced on certain minorities more than the populace as a whole. Again, not this exact topic (percentage of incarcerated due to drugs alone), but a pressing next question once you look at who eventually gets incarcerated.

I wanted to give you the opportunity to choose a different example to see if you felt using small infractions like that was justified, but it seems we're in agreement. That still leaves the question of whether or not "a large percentage of inmates" would be released under decriminalization of cannabis or even other drugs. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers for pot alone, but the numbers above seem to answer the question w.r.t. drugs as a whole. Not the subject of this thread, but to me, the entire landscape of drug prohibition—and the vast destruction it has brought with it—is the more interesting and meaty discussion topic. :)

I have mixed feelings about street dealers. . . . [explanation of the problems they introduce] . . . Which is generally a good call for legalization, although the recreational drug industry being what it is right now I don't see it going away just because we would end up with Philip-Morris brand pot and Anheuser-Busch brand heroin.

You must ask yourself how many people have died from an overdose or drug interaction due to incorrect packaging of beer, wine and spirits combined. The answer, in my view, is the only evidence needed to argue for decriminalization and legalization of nearly every* drug—from pot to heroine. Why are people dying from bath salts? Pot is illegal and they are not. Why do we have a heroine epidemic? People are getting cut off from their legal source of Oxy.

My point is that street dealers would almost entirely disappear with regulation. I have a very small investment with a cannabis edibles company in California (I have a dog in this race, but the race is essentially won), and the amount of testing that we put into every step of the process is considerable. Each plant is randomly tested. Each batch of combined plants is again randomly tested. Each batch of oil is randomly tested. All of our confections are randomly tested. Anywhere along the way, you can pick up any product, scan its label, and track every single seed that went into it. Hell, I'd bet you can't even do that with wine and grapes. Of course, wine has been around for much less time than cannabis use.

* I view drug use on par with extreme sports. You might injure yourself severely or even die while engaging in either activity, and people will engage in both regardless of the law. Given that, why is there so much research into safety equipment and better regulations for extreme sports? The law. If reasonable people are going to engage in both activities, isn't it society's responsibility to work to make both as safe as possible and minimize the drag on society's productiveness? Prohibition has clearly devastated productivity for a large portion of society and fails the test immediately.

T

Re:Good for him

[Chrontius]

Why is marijuana outlawed? The real reasons are worse than you think.

Not the webpage documenting the perjury in front of congress - and while I can’t find the best presentation of these facts, I did find this here:

This was the final salvo in the battle for control of America’s paper production. Randolph Hearst the newspaper and lumber baron, reportedly feared a major loss of revenues and aligned with his son-in-law Harry Anslinger, an opportunistic minor government official. Anslinger hated Mexicans and blacks, and demonized cannabis as “marijuana”—a denigrating reference to its Hispanic name.

He rallied support against this “marijuana” drug being imported from Mexico and the Caribbean, so that many of the legislators who voted for his bill did not realize that they were criminalizing the hemp plant grown in their own gardens and communities. To strengthen support, Anslinger and his cronies suborned perjury to the US Congress about the American Medical Association (AMA) position. In 1937, the AMA actually opposed Prohibition, regarding cannabis as a safe drug.[4]

Re:Good for him

[Anonymous Coward]

Citations needed. You sound like you're just making shit up at this point to save face. I've never heard or seen any pro-legalization folks claim the tax revenue would solve every problem known to mankind, or anything even approaching that. If you're talking about honesty, it's hands-down the legalization folks that are being far more honest than the other side. Have you -SEEN- any of the opposition's commercials? It's almost Reefer Madness all over again.

Re:Slashdot editors. a little editing goes a long

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking stupid millennials think they are important and the only people alive.

Re:Slashdot editors. a little editing goes a long

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha, disregard that, I suck cocks!!!

Not legalization.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me up when a state actually means legalize when they say legalize, as in you could grow it yourself. From everything I've seen what they mean when they say legalize is to decriminalize it's use and build/protect an industry. I'm OK with the first part the second part is really kinda disgusting.

Phase two after decriminalization never seems to be legalization, what it ends up being is a bunch of people swooping in to corner the grow/supply market and once they are in place they tend to lobby for laws that make it that much harder for competition to move in. Even if that perceived competition is the average citizen growing their own marijuana for personal use.

Re:Not legalization.

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators: this one scores as 'pants on fire'. It is legal to grow your own in Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Colorado. It's been legal in Alaska since 1975 (Ravin v. State).

There is also nothing wrong with having an established industry. This is a drug, and I much prefer any retail establishment selling this crap go through established, legitimate businesses to ensure a consistent product. For cannabis derivative products I want lab testing -- which happens to be exactly what is mandated. Now, if your argument is that people should be able to grow an unlimited amount of this drug anywhere they want and sell it to whomever they want with no oversight at any point, please name any other food or drug for which that is possible, thanks.

Yeah, okay, little bit of a straw man there, but what you're saying is so flagrantly at odds with reality that making sense of it requires invention. Private citizens are not competition for large growing operations. They can't produce the required volume or consistency of product, and they aren't selling it, and they can't generally prove that what they are growing is suitable for public consumption. Whatever you're smoking, you should lay off it.

Re:Not legalization.

[kilfarsnar]

Wake me up when a state actually means legalize when they say legalize, as in you could grow it yourself. From everything I've seen what they mean when they say legalize is to decriminalize it's use and build/protect an industry. I'm OK with the first part the second part is really kinda disgusting.

Phase two after decriminalization never seems to be legalization, what it ends up being is a bunch of people swooping in to corner the grow/supply market and once they are in place they tend to lobby for laws that make it that much harder for competition to move in. Even if that perceived competition is the average citizen growing their own marijuana for personal use.

Hey, wake up.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_(2016)

From that link: "An individual would be permitted to grow up to six plants within a private home, as long as the area is locked and not visible from a public place"

Colorado's laws are similar; one is allowed to grow a limited number of plants. When they say legalize, they mean legalize. Consider me your alarm clock.

Re:Not legalization.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all states legalize in the same way. In Co you can grow your own in your backyard. I think it was Ohio that tried to pass a legalization law that amounted to what you said, aka setting up a legal cartel but only them and no one else.

I haven't read the entire California proposal to know if that's what they intend here or if we will be able to grow our own.

Growing in and of itself is actually a lot of work and to actually get a high yield of none seedie MJ is a lot more difficult then you would think. Perfectly doable, but definitely not something casually done.

Re:Not legalization.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wake me up when a state actually means legalize when they say legalize, as in you could grow it yourself"

Found the LEO.

Re:Not legalization.

[dryeo]

Think beer and wine. The average person is allowed to produce X amount for personal use. They are not allowed to sell it but no-one cares if you give a few bottles away or even do a friendly trade for labour, as in help me do this and there's a beer in it for you.
The industries also have a relatively low barrier to entry. There's tons of craft beer producers now and wineries likewise. Sure there's regulation but as long as it is low and applies to everyone equally, that's fine.

Re:Not legalization.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me up when a state actually means legalize when they say legalize, as in you could grow it yourself. From everything I've seen what they mean when they say legalize is to decriminalize it's use and build/protect an industry. I'm OK with the first part the second part is really kinda disgusting.

Phase two after decriminalization never seems to be legalization, what it ends up being is a bunch of people swooping in to corner the grow/supply market and once they are in place they tend to lobby for laws that make it that much harder for competition to move in. Even if that perceived competition is the average citizen growing their own marijuana for personal use.

I'm legally growing 12 plant right now. Granted, part of that is on an extended medical card but I could grow 6 without one no problem. Walk into any local store, but everything I need and start growing today. I could have the police help me carry it to the car if one happened to be around. No idea what world you're living in.

Hell, if I REALLY wanted to I could get a license and grow over a 1000 plants. It cost about $4500 the first year, something like $1800 each year after that. The real challenge is finding a place to do that affordably with the insane real estate costs around here.

Re:Slashdot editors. a little editing goes a long

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha...well played sir. I see the dawning of a new age of AC retractions is upon us.

Well...

[johnsmithperson123]

I think that marijuana is going to be the sequel to tobacco. Smoking different stuff isn't healthier. Around the 2030s we will probably see lung cancer and throat cancer go up again along with everything else as the second anti-smoking campaign begins. Or, you know, we could just try to stop it now.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or everyone could jump straight to vaporizing rather than combusting. (proper temperature controlled not some hot wire with a wick) and around 2030 we will probably find that the cancers we see are no longer masked by inhalation of combustion byproducts and we can chase down the industrial polluters that will be shown to be the continuing cause.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for that fact that the reason MJ even got to a medical footing is because it has been show to reduce the growth of tumors of all kinds. Tumors are usually what eventually become cancerous in the first place.

Not to mention, you can consume MJ in many different ways and it all gives a different high. Smoking a pipe, blunt or using a bong all provide a different sensation. Then there is also vaping and consuming the substance in food. Both different highs.

MJ also works different for different people. My wife uses MJ to help her focus while I use it to stop worrying about stupid shit.

Re:Well...

[kilfarsnar]

I think that marijuana is going to be the sequel to tobacco. Smoking different stuff isn't healthier. Around the 2030s we will probably see lung cancer and throat cancer go up again along with everything else as the second anti-smoking campaign begins. Or, you know, we could just try to stop it now.

Do some research. Pot smoking is not linked to lung cancer or COPD.

https://www.hellomd.com/health-wellness/marijuana-found-to-shrink-aggressive-brain-cancer

In fact, marijuana has been shown to have an anti-tumor effect. From the linked article:

In addition to the recent findings that cannabinoids may be an effective treatment for glioma, researchers have discovered over the years that marijuana may also have powerful anti-tumor effects, which could stop cancer from ever forming in the first place. While the research isn't new, it paved the way for further evaluations of the connection between cannabis and cancer. In one 1996 study, researchers found that lab mice given doses of THC over a two-year period experienced a decrease in the rate of certain cancers and benign tumors in areas such as the pancreas, uterus, testes and mammary tissue.

More recent research has shed some light on how cannabis produces these effects. According to a 2014 study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, THC acts on cannabinoid cell receptors to inhibit the interactions between them, thus decreasing the risk that cancer will form or interrupting cancer that is already growing. Further research has shown that THC is capable of decreasing the rate of lung cancer cell growth by 50 percent as well as preventing pre-existing cancer from metastasizing throughout the body. Studies have also shown that cannabis is capable of killing brain cancer cells. The anti-cancer benefits of cannabis are extensive and clearly noted, and, when used correctly, can help providers offer powerful cancer treatment without the dangerous and uncomfortable side-effects present in other treatment options."

Marijuana really is medicine. It just so happens that it's also nice to enjoy recreationally.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize this has been studied. Marijuana isn't new, and it's legalization in some areas hasn't made it more popular (to use).

Re:Well...

[no-body]

I think that marijuana is going to be the sequel to tobacco. Smoking different stuff isn't healthier. Around the 2030s we will probably see lung cancer and throat cancer go up again along with everything else as the second anti-smoking campaign begins.

Amateur!

Ingesting THC from MJ has 5 x the potency compared to smoking. Why is anyone smoking that stuff?

Re:Well...

[ColdWetDog]

Those are tissue culture studies. Pretty much anything can be shown to do something good / bad / earthshattering in a tissue culture study. In fact, those are the kind of crappy studies that were used in the 1970's to implicate marijuana as a causative agent for various cancers.

It is virtually impossible to do decent medical studies on marijuana. You can use Marinol (delta-9-THC) but that isn't marijuana and good luck finding anybody to pay for that.

While I'm OK with marijuana being completely legal - the 'War on Drugs' has shown itself to be as a complete a failure as anything the Feds have managed to try in the past 100 years - we're a long way from figuring out what, if any, actual medical uses the stuff has.

Remember, nicotine is actually a pretty potent neurotransmitter and has been (poorly) linked to efficacy in treating a number of bad psychiatric disorders.

Re: Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't just eat the plant tho. It must first be cooked using a fatty substance like butter(I like salted butter, more fat the better). THC binds to fat. Once the thc is extracted from the plant into the butter, is when it becomes digestible and will get you high.

Re:Well...

[Sperbels]

And some not bad psychiatric disorders. It's somewhat effective at treating my ADD.

Posse Commitatus

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it not a violation of the Possee Commitatus Act to use National Guard units for policing actions?

zero till the feds change it

[sdinfoserv]

There won't be any real progress till it's decriminalized at the federal level. Till then, banks won't get involved fearing account forfeitures and asset freezing - which can happen any time. Once it it's decriminalized however, there will be enormous and swift changes. Big tobacco will swoop in with billions and develop the supply chain, profit and squeeze out or buy up local growers and dispensaries.

Escalation?

[alexo]

“No,” the trooper said. “Are you escalating? Because if you need a warrant we’ll go get one.”

So now asking that police follow the law is "escalating"?

Re:Escalation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing anything besides dropping to your knees and fellating them is "escalating".

Re:Escalation?

[Kernel Kurtz]

Pathetic little men with guns and no redeeming value to society.

Schedule status is complete BS

[burtosis]

The schedule I status needs to go. Certain chemicals in marijuana have shown themselves to be the best treatment for specific kinds of seizures, far better than anything currently available, to say nothing of the myriad of other uses. The evidence it has some medical value is insurmountable and being schedule I prevents much of the research that could be helping people while ensuring that grandma gets the full swat experience.

Getting a realistic categorization based on facts and not propaganda will help to pave the way for legalizing it on the federal level.

Re:Schedule status is complete BS

[Opportunist]

The problem with this "medical" angle is proper dosage. Marijuana is still a natural product and as such subject to considerable variation in "quality" so to speak. Now, overdosing isn't that big an issue (as far as I know, at least, don't quote me on that), but as with every drug, the perfect use is still using it with a steady, controlled dose per unit.

This said, I'm all for legislating it, if only to make research in this area possible. There are so many other drugs that should at the very least be de-demonized to allow research again.

Re:Schedule status is complete BS

[avandesande]

With the recent inclusion of Kratom as schedule 1 the idea that we will see any sanity from the Federal govmt should be discarded.

Re:Schedule status is complete BS

[sjames]

Dosage is a smoke screen. The therapeutic index is high enough that a wild guess results in safe and effective treatment. That is actually true of a lot of drugs. There are only a few (like Warfarin) where exact dosing is critical.

Re:Slashdot editors. a little editing goes a long

[swillden]

Hyperbole much?

Many people don't know who Sean Parker is.

Some people don't even remember what Napster is anymore. C'mon. One sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

FTFY.

It ain't easy having pals.

[Anonymous Coward]

Charley Bowdre: Hey, Chavez, how come they ain't killing us?

"Dirty Steve" Stephens: Because we're in the spirit world, asshole. They can't see us.

Marijuana use aside

[no-body]

This is exactly how the new "people for the people" democracy works: Wealthy people or corporations use money in bribes to influence legislature bypassing unbiased education and disclosures of facts for voters.

Re:Marijuana use aside

[kilfarsnar]

This is exactly how the new "people for the people" democracy works: Wealthy people or corporations use money in bribes to influence legislature bypassing unbiased education and disclosures of facts for voters.

This is a ballot measure in California. It's direct democracy. What are you on about?

It is going to be a tough battle

[MrKaos]

The alcohol lobby does not want the recreational use competing against their alcohol sales and the pharmaceutical lobby does not want the medicinal use competing against their drug sales.

So much for a free market.

Re:It is going to be a tough battle

[ColdWetDog]

You're kidding, right? You can bet your last bong hit that both groups of businesses are covertly and actively following this very closely.

There's gold in them hills.

Re:It is going to be a tough battle

[dryeo]

Around here (BC) the private alcohol sellers along with the government alcohol sellers union are really pushing for it, along with them being the legal place to buy. Their theory being they have practice selling stuff to adults only.

Re: It is going to be a tough battle

[Anonymous Coward]

There's gold in them hills.

FTFY: There's gold in them thar hills.

You 1nse8sitive clod..

[Anonymous Coward]

going to Continue,

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

When we were growing up, it was all dope to our parents...

Correction: when you were growing up, the government told your parents what they wanted them to believe, and your parents believed it.

Let's not beat around the bush here. The very concept of "drug prohibition" was concocted by the ruling class, for the ruling class.

I hate marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

That crap fucking stinks. Like we hadn't enough stink from the tobacco smokers already.

Re:I hate marijuana

[kilfarsnar]

That crap fucking stinks. Like we hadn't enough stink from the tobacco smokers already.

Yeah, you're right. We should keep putting people in prison so you don't have to smell something unpleasant.

Re:I hate marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about prison? Do you see tobacco smokers in prison?

Re:I hate marijuana

[kilfarsnar]

No, but the subject of this discussion is the support of the legalization of marijuana. I'm not sure how liking or disliking the smell enters into it

Re:I hate marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? Using marijuana doesn't automatically equal prison in most countries.

L0L!

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone who modded this bullshit up is a straight up dipshit.

Funny. . .

[smooth wombat]

I don't see anyone reaching for willow bark when they have a headache.

Re:Funny. . .

[tepples]

Willow bark has been used for thousands of years. Once modern medicine came around, the active ingredients (salicin and flavonoids) were characterized, and one of these was refined into Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid). This was practical because there wasn't nearly as much federal red tape associated with research on willow bark as there is today with research on Schedule I controlled substances.

Re:Funny. . .

[sjames]

If aspirin tablets cost as much as marinol does, you would.

Disingenuous arguments

[sjbe]

However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed.

Agreed. My beef with them is the whole "medical marijuana" movement. I don't have a problem with people smoking pot as long as no one gets hurt. I think it is a stupid thing to do but it's clearly less harmful than lots of other perfectly legal activities. I also don't have a problem with people using pot to treat legitimate medical conditions provided there is actual scientific (not anecdotal) trials evidence of efficacy for the condition. There seems to be clear evidence that pot can be a useful treatment in some rare cases. Key word there is "rare".

What I have a problem with is people falsely claiming medical conditions in vast numbers in order to get legal cover to use pot when they clearly have no actual medical condition. This describes the VAST majority of pot users. I have a huge problem with making policy based on lies. That's how pot got illegal in the first place. It irritates me that pot proponents think I'm stupid enough to believe transparently false stories that only pot can cure whatever made up ailment they have. They want to get high and they should own that fact. I see it as no worse (and probably safer) than someone drinking beer to get a buzz. If someone wants to get high and can do so responsibly without hurting anyone else I don't see that as a problem. Just don't pretend I'm dumb enough to believe that most pot users happen to suffer from rare medical conditions that only pot can treat. Go ahead and get it legalized and drop the ridiculous "medical marijuana" nonsense.

Re:Disingenuous arguments

[dryeo]

Well perhaps with decriminalization/legalization we can get some scientific studies. Currently it is very hard for researchers to study the medical effects of marijuana due to the laws

Re:Disingenuous arguments

[bfpierce]

To be fair here, the "legal cover to use pot when they clearly have no actual medical condition" also covers a vast majority of the people prescribed Oxy/Hydrocodone for pain relief.

Pain is pain, and when you can mediate it people live a bit better with it. Unless of course you believe that 'pain' is a 'nonsense medical condition', but I can tell you the medical community doesn't think so based upon how many people are being medicated for it.

Re:Disingenuous arguments

[jez9999]

I don't have a problem with people smoking pot as long as no one gets hurt. I think it is a stupid thing to do

Out of interest, do you think drinking alcohol is a stupid thing to do?

Re:Disingenuous arguments

[drinkypoo]

I don't have a problem with people smoking pot as long as no one gets hurt.

Oh yeah? So why do you then go on to say this:

What I have a problem with is people falsely claiming medical conditions in vast numbers in order to get legal cover to use pot when they clearly have no actual medical condition.

Sigh. Really? Wait, I need to quote a little more of your comment before I can reply.

Go ahead and get it legalized and drop the ridiculous "medical marijuana" nonsense.

That's like saying 'flap your arms and fly to the moon and drop the ridiculous "strength training" nonsense'. Perhaps you missed that the feds officially refused to reclassify it just a moment ago, even though the current classification is essentially a criminal act of fraud against the supposedly free American people. You obviously do have a problem with it if you're objecting to a perfectly reasonable workaround. It's also a bullshit argument anyway; as long as stress is being said to be one of the biggest killers in the modern age, every single person has a valid medical argument for consumption of medical marijuana.

Re:Disingenuous arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

There seems to be clear evidence that pot can be a useful treatment in some rare cases. Key word there is "rare".

Lol. It can be used to alleviate or treat so many symptoms, with none of the risks associated with traditional drugs, that it's simply laughable for you to use the word "rare" here. If this is what you truly believe, you are grossly mis- or under-informed.

How many states?

[Anonymous Coward]

> five more states now voting on legalization

So, Arkansas doesn't exist?

You know what's cooler?

[tylersoze]

You know what's cooler than donating 9 million dollars? Donating 9 billion.

One toke over the line

[Anonymous Coward]

Thomas Jefferson planted that bell and let it ring for personal use. I'd bet Jesus indulged too.

Cookie buds don't make the idiot. Appeal the prohibition!

Half of americans?

[Viol8]

You wish. Thats just a number you plucked out your backside to justify your sad little habit.

And even if it were true, I suspect a similar number of people would happily see lynching brought back. It doesn't necessarily make it right.

Re:Half of americans?

[bfpierce]

I do believe in my heart of hearts that you have some habits that are a lot sadder than smoking weed.

Re:Half of americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats just a number you plucked out your backside to justify your sad little habit.

Says the person clearly on enough cocaine and meth that your eyes can't even focus on the words you are replying to.

I just hope you get shot dead during your next "pickup", loser

Re:Half of americans?

[thegarbz]

justify your sad little habit.

That's interesting. As someone who lives in the Netherlands I see nothing sad about people enjoying a recreational joint. Now there are a myriad of other legal activities that have people circling down the hellhole into a decrepit state of anti-social welfare dependence, but we don't criminalise those either.

Re:Half of americans?

[thegarbz]

Thats just a number you plucked out your backside

http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://prospect.org/article/ma...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

There you go. There's three references. One a university study, one from a polling company, and one from a government organisation. Those were just the first 3 links on Google in order. Let me know how far down you get before you find one that suits your agenda.

Re:Half of americans?

[Viol8]

The number who would support legalising it is not the same as the number who smoke it.

Re:Half of americans?

[Viol8]

"As someone who lives in the Netherlands I see nothing sad about people enjoying a recreational joint."

You probably also see nothing sad about whores standing in a shop window either.

Re:Half of americans?

[beastofburdon]

You're right, the number who actually smoke it is much higher.

Re:Half of americans?

[thegarbz]

You probably also see nothing sad about whores standing in a shop window either.

Not at all. The only thing sad is they probably make more money than you do.

Re:Half of americans?

[Viol8]

Can't say I'm surprised. One of them is probably your girlfriend.

Re:Half of americans?

[Viol8]

Yeah, and Elvis is the man running all the dealing.

You should cut down on it, the delusions have started already.

Re:Half of americans?

[thegarbz]

And if she were? What's sad about a perfectly legitimate and legal profession?

The really sad thing here is internet tough people. I think I'll start a charity for you sad little people. At least the whores of Amsterdam are nice to their fellow man.

Re:Half of americans?

[beastofburdon]

Your delusions are not mine.

Re:Half of americans?

[Viol8]

Sad little people says the pot smoking whore loving loser. You nederlanders certainly have a sense of humour , even if you have fuck all else going for you and your sad teeny weeny country.

Re:Half of americans?

[thegarbz]

Who's a Netherlandser? Just another thing you have no idea about. But spending Sunday afternoon on your computer arguing with the internet. Man the pot smoking whores are less sad than that.

Re:Half of americans?

[Viol8]

"But spending Sunday afternoon on your computer arguing with the internet"

An ironic comment given you're the one who seems to be checking constantly all his old threads and reply after a couple of hours whereas I check once every one or 2 days. You're coming across as a bit desperate, but hey, go smoke some pot and pay your girlfriend for some sex. Perhaps you can convince yourself you have a life.

Re:Half of americans?

[thegarbz]

I'm not doing it on a Sunday afternoon.

Given I do neither of those things how about we can come to an agreement on how to proceed with the conversation, every time you have a thought just realise that you're wrong and you'll save everyone a whole lot of effort.

Have a nice day.

Hold on, let's think about this

[fyngyrz]

You do realize that if marijuana was legal the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries would be all over it.

You do realize that even being "all over it" wouldn't get them the same margins as the drug and alcohol sales they would lose, as pot doesn't just add to all sales, it replaces some sales?

You do realize that pot is an easily-grown weed, and a lot easier and less complicated to grow on your sun-porch than making something like beer or wine is?

You do realize that anyone having a few plants in the house or garden would be a lot less likely to buy "professionally produced" pot?

Re: Hold on, let's think about this

[Anonymous Coward]

That why we have a black market my friend xd

Re: Hold on, let's think about this

[fyngyrz]

Yes, that was my entire point. :)

Re:Hold on, let's think about this

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

At it's FAR easier than growing poppy and manufacturing the plants into viable heroin/Oxycontin/morphine. The only real difference is an acetyl molecule, and once in your bloodstream all three are the same thing. But one is Schedule I, the other two are Schedule II. My adderall is Schedule II, but just amphetamines are I. This is all culture-based legislation from 40+ years ago and has little if anything to do with actual medical science.

I'm for this, and I'm not a user

[ErichTheRed]

I don't understand why people don't see that trying to curtail the supply of drugs and locking people up doesn't work. You're never going to convince people who use drugs that they shouldn't. Look how hard it is to get the hardcore cigarette smokers to quit -- our state has the highest tobacco tax in the country, and you basically can't smoke anywhere anymore, and there is still a cohort of people who will do it until they die. It's way less than it was in, say, the 50s where absolutely everyone smoked, but it's there and keeps the cigarette makers employed.

I think the entire war on drugs should just be dropped. I've never done anything in my life (OK, alcohol, but that's legal.) And even though I'm not a user, I think the overall cost of drugs in society would go way down if everyone had easy access to safe, cheap sources with no questions asked. Imagine being able to go into a pharmacy to get painkillers -- people wouldn't have to resort to heroin. Overdose incidents would also go way down because users would know what they're getting -- this is a major driver to the "opioid crisis" where inexperienced users OD because they were given a dose they weren't used to...it's not like dealers are testing the concentration of their product.

If enforcement just stopped, and supply were regulated and made available to everyone who wanted it, the crime surrounding drug use would drop to zero, which is what most people who don't have a moral problem with it are upset about. The other thing I think this would help is the upcoming mass-unemployment event that's going to come from automation of all jobs. As a society, do we really want 90% of the population unemployed with nothing to do, or should we give them something to do that's cheap and keeps them out of trouble if they choose?

Not fully legal in Washington DC

[Anonymous Coward]

In Washington DC you can legally use marijuana in the home only. You can grow 2 plants (I think it's 2), but no one can buy or sell because the Federal Government shut down regulation making on this topic before the city could come up with guidelines. So you can smoke it, but you can't buy it.

Re:Not fully legal in Washington DC

[Scarletdown]

In Washington DC you can legally use marijuana in the home only. You can grow 2 plants (I think it's 2)

Here in Oregon, it is 4 plants per person (though technically, I think they meant 4 per household). Although that doesn't really get enforced in the Eastern half of the state here, 4 is really enough once you know what you are doing. Once you get your growing and cultivating techniques down, a 4 plant harvest can conceivably provide enough bud to last an individual or small family a year, and perhaps even give the grower some significant "influence" in the growing C-G-A* based economies.

* Cash-Grass-Ass

Wickard v. Filburn

[tepples]

what you're saying is so flagrantly at odds with reality that making sense of it requires invention. Private citizens are not competition for large growing operations

That invention is so old its patent has expired several times over. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

Re:Wickard v. Filburn

[Anonymous Coward]

That's certainly a valuable piece of information to one side or other of this argument; pray describe which position you intended to support.

Re:Wickard v. Filburn

[tepples]

I'm stating what is the law, not supporting a position on what ought to be the law.

Self-interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting money out of politics might (might) enable us to have laws based on science and reasoning, rather than propaganda and hysteria

Replace "propaganda and hysteria" with self-interest, and the picture becomes perfectly clear. The problem is that the laws are based on self-interest.

Hahahah Buncha geeks, Stoners..

[Anonymous Coward]

This is stoopid, why is this on /.

Stupid vs harmless

[sjbe]

Out of interest, do you think drinking alcohol is a stupid thing to do?

Without putting too fine a point on it, as a general proposition yes I do think drinking alcohol is a stupid thing to do. Usually harmless but not rational or a smart thing to do. There are some pretty tragic downsides to drinking recreationally and the only meaningful up side is that it apparently makes people feel good. I don't really see much benefit in taking drugs that make you stupid, clumsy, and potentially a danger to others no matter how good they taste or how good they make you feel. If people could be trusted to drink only occasionally and in moderation and only when safe then it would be a harmless non-issue but that's not the reality we live in. Same thing with pot. If people wanted to smoke a joint now and then on their own time to blow off some steam nobody should care. Under those conditions it's dumb but relatively harmless. If someone wants to have a single glass of wine with dinner and doesn't have to drive anywhere who cares? Again dumb but harmless.

Re:Stupid vs harmless

[jez9999]

Well I disagree that it's dumb. People do things all the time just to feel good. No really, JUST to feel good. They don't learn anything, they don't help anyone... anything. Like eating chocolate, or horse riding, or reading fiction, or watching movies, or masturbation, to name a few. Unless you think they should all be banned, I fail to see why THEY'RE ok for feeling good, but vaping some pot isn't. The principle is identical.

More fig leaf arguments

[sjbe]

Pain is pain, and when you can mediate it people live a bit better with it. Unless of course you believe that 'pain' is a 'nonsense medical condition', but I can tell you the medical community doesn't think so based upon how many people are being medicated for it.

There are numerous and demonstrably effective treatments for pain which are perfectly legal. The use of pot "to treat pain" is a really nice way to pretend you have a condition when you don't since it isn't provable with current technology. I have seen no evidence that most if not all pot users would not be equally or better treated with other medicines if they genuinely are experiencing physical pain. Let's be frank. The number of people with medical marijuana cards hugely exceeds the number of people who reasonably could be likely to have genuine medical conditions requiring treatment with pot smoking even under the most generous of assumptions. It's a transparent white lie to get around the legal system. Nothing more.

People want to smoke pot because they like how it makes them feel. They are willing to bend some laws to facilitate this. Let's not pretend that most pot smokers are in any way, shape, or form using the drug to treat real medical conditions. I don't care if they do smoke pot so long as it doesn't harm anyone but don't pretend I'm dumb enough to believe such nonsensical arguments.

Re: More fig leaf arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

/s/pot/opiates.

Replace pot with opiates. And it's the fucking same exact argument. I know woman who are grandmothers who shop for doctors to get pain pills. I know a couple full time moms that doctor shop so they can have 2-3 prescriptions of Xanax a month.

People abuse laws. News at 10. Ban guns and only criminals have guns. Makes sense.

Re:More fig leaf arguments

[drinkypoo]

There are numerous and demonstrably effective treatments for pain which are perfectly legal.

Literally all of them have severe side effects; cannabis has no severe side effects. In addition, it has recently become much more difficult to get prescriptions for effective pain killers, because doctors have recently been made more responsible if patients come to harm due to a prescription for painkillers — ironically, as part of the War On [some] Drugs. They still won't get in trouble if your boner pill gives you a heart attack, but they will get in trouble if you overdose on [legal, prescription] opiates.

The use of pot "to treat pain" is a really nice way to pretend you have a condition when you don't since it isn't provable with current technology.

It's not news. People have been using cannabis to treat pain for literally thousands of years. Your insistence on "proof" echoes that of the federal government, which is sitting on reams and stacks of medical evidence that it won't recognize literally because it wasn't gathered from a FDA-approved study. Not that the studies weren't good studies, just because the FDA wasn't involved. Of course, the FDA won't permit the kinds of studies that need to be done...

It's a transparent white lie to get around the legal system. Nothing more.

The law is an ass because the legal system is designed to be shit. Why are you upset that people want to get around a shitty legal system that they can't change without violence? People have tried reason, they've tried petition, they've tried every other thing and yet the federal government is still perpetrating criminal fraud (for profit) against The People — in the form of prohibition against marijuana. And it is not legal anywhere in this country, state laws notwithstanding.

Re:More fig leaf arguments

[sjames]

Actually, there aren't many good treatments for pain that don't carry some serious risks. Would you prefer they use opiates? Or they can risk liver failure with long term high dose analgesics.

I have no doubt some people are using thin excuses. It's only natural since otherwise they face outrageously long jail sentences. I also have no doubt a lot of people exaggerate a bit when they take tax deductions too.

Still a Federal crime

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, for all you stupid potheads, it's still a Federal crime, Federal law trumps state law. You can still be arrested for felony drug trafficing, and posession. Dispensaries can and will still be shut down by the FBI.

Re:Still a Federal crime

[Anonymous Coward]

The more states legalize it, the more pressure imposed on the feds to degrade it's Drug Scheduling.

Been legal here in Alaska for decades

[AKCoder]

Nothing new for us Alaskans. Been legal for decades... aka statehood ...

Not legal anywhere

[Brett Buck]

Had to break it to the dope-smoking wasters, but marijuana IS NOT LEGAL anywhere in the US, period. It is still a Schedule I narcotic, and a Federal crime to possess it.

Re:Not legal anywhere

[Sperbels]

Colorado resident here. I will just go ahead and confirm that that doesn't matter. There are stores that openly sell it, and people opening smoke it on their patios.

Re:Not legal anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal government doesn't posses that kind of authority. Only states do, and there are several states that have chosen not to with respect to marijauana.

Re:Not legal anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you feel better about yourself now?

Re:Not legal anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Had to break it to the dope-smoking wasters, but marijuana IS NOT LEGAL anywhere in the US, period. It is still a Schedule I narcotic, and a Federal crime to possess it.

Hate to break this to you, but the highest law in the land is the Bill of Rights, not Congress.

The 9th Amendment retains any rights to the people they choose to assert, superseding the authority of Congress.

Even one state legalizing marijuana is far more than sufficient to establish a right retained by the people in any ethical court.

This means the entire marijuana portion of the war on drugs is and has always been illegal - it violates the highest law in the land. Government officials that do not understand these need to study events at a place called "Nuremberg", as it is not within the legal authority of government at any level to provide immunity or right to pardon for violates of rights retained by the people (that would violate the right to ethical practice of law).

Just as Japanese-Americans who were illegally imprisoned in WW2 would eventually receive compensation for that, so to can we expect people who were illegally imprisoned for possession of marijuana to receive compensation. It may take a few decades - reversing widespread criminal conduct on the part of government is not a fast process.

Priceless

[PatientZero]

You sound like you've been hitting the D.A.R.E. pipe pretty hard.

Brilliant! :)

Yes... YES!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you can stay in California! *grumpily shakes fist* "Stay my lawn you kids!"

CA, if voting to legalize, pay head

[WindBourne]

You should consider following post prohibition and NOT Colorado's model. Colorado allows for retailers to grow the plant locally. Basically, it is creating localized monopolies that grew relatively small amounts of weed, so to increase sales, they sell to out of state or sell the store to those with drug-lords/gang connections. And yes, Colorado has that.

BUT, if you require a clean separation of wholesaler vs retailer, you avoid the local monopoly of better weed, AND will likely see competition drive down prices quickly. In addition, if you only monitor say 300 wholesalers vs 2000 stores, it is easier and cheaper.

pot needs to remain schedule 1

[WindBourne]

Until all states have legalized it AND are growing their own, it makes little sense to do schedule 1. Once schedule 1 is changed, then anybody can sell their pot to America. China and Drug lords WILL DUMP on America.
And to be fair, the pot that Colorado grows is top notch. So, if they wish to remain that way AND to have lots of future business, they need to allow legalization at state level only, but stop it at the federal level. Can't export out of the state, BUT, neither can it be legally imported.