Marijuana Legalization

[jasignhagj]

Question. If Marijuana becomes legalized in America, should those in jail for possession of Marijuana be pardoned?

[H2PM]

Yes. That would be the logical choice.

[Danqazmlp]

In my opinion, no, they shouldn't. You still committed a crime, so still actively went against the law, thus should be punished. It shouldn't matter if it's no longer illegal.

[obfuscator]

Agreed with Danq - it was still breaking the law.

 

Plus, if it were to be legalized, probably only possession would be, not permission to grow (since they'd want you to buy it resale). I can't see there being too many people in jail just over possession.

[sees_all1]

Laws aren't retroactive, as per the US Constitution. I wouldn't expect this to be the case either.

[Nomrombom]

Agreed with Danq - it was still breaking the law.

 

Plus, if it were to be legalized, probably only possession would be, not permission to grow (since they'd want you to buy it resale). I can't see there being too many people in jail just over possession.

 

About 15k people are in jail for only possession of marijuana at any one time in the US.

[obfuscator]

Agreed with Danq - it was still breaking the law.

 

Plus, if it were to be legalized, probably only possession would be, not permission to grow (since they'd want you to buy it resale). I can't see there being too many people in jail just over possession.

 

About 15k people are in jail for only possession of marijuana at any one time in the US.

Yeah, about what I was expecting. I imagine many more are in there for dealing, trafficking, etc.

[Nomrombom]

About 60k at any one time for marijuana related offences.

[Furah]

Agreed with Danq - it was still breaking the law.

 

Plus, if it were to be legalized, probably only possession would be, not permission to grow (since they'd want you to buy it resale). I can't see there being too many people in jail just over possession.

 

About 15k people are in jail for only possession of marijuana at any one time in the US.

Yeah, about what I was expecting. I imagine many more are in there for dealing, trafficking, etc.

Can't be [bleep]ed grabbing the source, but the majority of people in jail in relation to cannabis are there for simple possession.

[obfuscator]

Probably depends on the country.

 

Not to sure exactly about Canadian laws but I've never heard of anyone even being charged for possession alone, unless it's intent to sell.

[Nomrombom]

Probably depends on the country.

 

Not to sure exactly about Canadian laws but I've never heard of anyone even being charged for possession alone, unless it's intent to sell.

 

I thought marijuana was illegal in Canada...

[obfuscator]

It is, but I've never heard of anyone being charged for possession.

[Nomrombom]

It is, but I've never heard of anyone being charged for possession.

 

http://legal.advicescene.com/ca/question/6167/charged-with-possession-of-marijuana

[obfuscator]

...

 

Obviously I don't mean no one is ever charged. I mean I've never heard of it so it's probably pretty minimal compared to people being charged for possession with intent to sell, or trafficking, or other related offenses.

[Nomrombom]

...

 

Obviously I don't mean no one is ever charged. I mean I've never heard of it so it's probably pretty minimal compared to people being charged for possession with intent to sell, or trafficking, or other related offenses.

 

 

OIC. Do the cops just not care or what?

[obfuscator]

I'm not a drug user so I've no idea. But all the stories I've heard have involved the cop dumping the weed on the ground and leaving.

[jasignhagj]

I honestly think they just cba to do the paperwork. Plus I believe if you have under 1 gram on you you can't be arrested.

 

If that thing about 15k people being in jail just for possession is true, by legalizing Marijuana the US could save $750m a year by not having to jail them. That's assuming $50k a year to keep someone in jail, and I've heard numbers as high as $120k a year.

[jaklumen]

I'm too tired to read through 12 pages + every other thread that's been posted on this so far, so if my take on it is repeating anything that's been hashed to death before, I'm sorry.

 

HEMP

 

As far as I know, no one has mentioned hemp yet. The plant is of the cannabis family, but in most circumstances, the bud (which is what is needed to make marijuana) is bred out. In other words, most hemp plants are cultivars that can only be used for the fiber. And the fiber is EXCELLENT. Paper can be made from hemp that does not require dioxins (which can be toxic) for bleaching-- it is naturally white. Hemp fiber is longer than wood pulp fiber, so not only is paper made from it stronger, it can be recycled more times.

 

Growing hemp is less demanding on the soil than growing trees. If the plant drops leaves, the leaves will return nutrients to the soil. As tobacco smoking is ever increasingly restricted in a number of Western nations, I would assume many farmers that currently grow tobacco could make an easy transition to hemp-- so the rebuttal that growing hemp takes away farmland that can be used for other crops is not terribly valid.

 

WAIT A MINUTE. WHAT DOES HEMP HAVE TO DO WITH MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION? I'm so glad you asked. At a glance-- if you can't quickly distinguish which plants have buds and which ones don't-- it's hard to tell the hemp plants apart from the marijuana ones. At a distance, they look VERY similar. Many farmers in the U.S. that WANT to grow hemp are very stymied by current laws. Hemp products in most cases must be imported because there is no real way they can grow the crop without legalization for the cannabis family in general.

 

That brings me to a horse that has been beaten to death indeed... but I think it's a real thorn for most legalization efforts within the U.S. and possibly North America generally. There are legitimate uses for cannabis-- pain management is the one I hear most about. It's my personal opinion that those that are just looking for ways to be legally stoned all the time have posed a real obstacle.

 

Now I dated and had intimate relations with a pothead years ago, before I got married. Understand, people-- it's the pot culture I'm not really a big fan of. Despite the very hot sex, I just wasn't thrilled to get conversation after conversation about Rastafarianism, reggae, and intricate ways to smoke cannabis.

 

HOWEVER

 

I had back surgery two (almost three) years ago (fusion of two vertebrae in my spine), and have dealt with chronic pain for a long time now. My father has two serious chronic neurological conditions that have left him in great pain for many, many years.

 

We have discussed how we both have considered marijuana as a pain medication. So I am NOT anti-marijuana. But I would prefer to take it in very controlled and specific ways-- either by vaporization, or by sub-lingual (place under the tongue) drops. But I am not interested in advertising it or partaking of the pot culture I described. Let me be straight with you-- I've taken the heavy hitter narcotics, muscle relaxants, and other pain relievers. Vicodin. Oxycontin. Morphine. Valium. Quite a few of these I KNOW are much more powerfully addictive than marijuana. Since I'm very sensitive to medication in general (and I know-- having had to take a plethora of psychiatric drugs) I have been extremely sparing and careful with all of them. Some I detested because of side effects-- I did NOT like how Valium woke me up in the middle of the night.

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH you bored yet? In a nutshell, I favor regulative control, much like is done with alcohol. QUICK LAUGH-- c'mon, the ATF has got to have something else to be tough about. Seriously, I think it's needed for a couple of reasons. I know that most marijuana grown in recent years has a much higher THC content. I know this is NOT the pot of my baby boomer parents' generation. If marijuana was regulated in the U.S. much like alcohol is, then it probably be of the same THC content or much lower than in the '60s. And I think the way that it's done in the Netherlands-- Asterdam specifically-- is a good model to follow. Basically, it's illegal on the streets. You must have it at home or smoke at at "head shop".

 

Besides those in the illicit drug trade being opposed to legalization and regulation (because of course it would destroy their profits) I potentially see highway patrol officers being very opposed to legalization of marijuana. Those that are familiar with seat belt and speeding laws in the U.S. I think should understand that many of them are simply tired of cleaning up messes and deaths on the road, and in a word, those foolish enough to combine alcohol AND marijuana (if marijuana didn't impair judgment enough) would be an extra danger on the road. Too stoned to drive presents a danger-- but stoned and drunk is worse. Now can you imagine someone drinking, toking, munching on food, and talking on their cell phone at the same time? I'm partly joking, but seriously...

 

To sum up, I think legalization WITH restriction can be done but I do think that highway police would not be thrilled about it.

[Sam]

Hemp can be used to make loads of items! I've got friends that own hemp bags, caps, trousers - they're great, and very comfortable. Even my new longboard actually uses hemp fibre in it's construction.

[Furah]

Hemp paper is also far superior to timber paper.

[Nomrombom]

I know that most marijuana grown in recent years has a much higher THC content. I know this is NOT the pot of my baby boomer parents' generation.

 

Not really true. There are better growing practices and better strains today, sure, but it really depends on what level you buy. Schwag is still crappy schwag and dank will be dank. You could still get really good pot back then and you can get it now, there's no big difference.

[dusky]

I know that most marijuana grown in recent years has a much higher THC content. I know this is NOT the pot of my baby boomer parents' generation.

 

Not really true. There are better growing practices and better strains today, sure, but it really depends on what level you buy. Schwag is still crappy schwag and dank will be dank. You could still get really good pot back then and you can get it now, there's no big difference.

 

It may true that weed has higher THC levels today, but this is really irrelevant in terms of damage, as THC is not a dangerous chemical to begin with.

[jaklumen]

Hemp paper is also far superior to timber paper.

 

Well, yes, which includes the reasons I mentioned. I wish I'd managed to snag some of the stuff I was fortunate to observe. It really is high quality.

 

I know that most marijuana grown in recent years has a much higher THC content. I know this is NOT the pot of my baby boomer parents' generation.

 

Not really true. There are better growing practices and better strains today, sure, but it really depends on what level you buy. Schwag is still crappy schwag and dank will be dank. You could still get really good pot back then and you can get it now, there's no big difference.

 

It may true that weed has higher THC levels today, but this is really irrelevant in terms of damage, as THC is not a dangerous chemical to begin with.

 

As I tend to ramble on and on, I would have wasted a lot more space trying to clarify what I was saying. The sublingual drops are basically pure THC. No, I don't think the chemical ITSELF is inherently dangerous, but I do think the impaired judgment while under its effects has been fairly well documented. In particular, much of the documentation points to impaired judgment while driving, particularly when combined with alcoholic intoxication. This is why I think law enforcement-- particularly the highway patrols and other such street police-- would not be too fond of perceived consequences of legalization. They simply do not want to scrape more wreckages (including dead bodies) off the road. I don't think that would be an enjoyable part of a job-- would you?

[Furah]

As I tend to ramble on and on, I would have wasted a lot more space trying to clarify what I was saying. The sublingual drops are basically pure THC. No, I don't think the chemical ITSELF is inherently dangerous, but I do think the impaired judgment while under its effects has been fairly well documented. In particular, much of the documentation points to impaired judgment while driving, particularly when combined with alcoholic intoxication. This is why I think law enforcement-- particularly the highway patrols and other such street police-- would not be too fond of perceived consequences of legalization. They simply do not want to scrape more wreckages (including dead bodies) off the road. I don't think that would be an enjoyable part of a job-- would you?

Most drugs affect your ability to drive, hence why it's illegal to drive under the influence and why, at least here in Aus, someone involved in a car crash will always be charged with negligent driving and driving under the influence if they're over the limit or have illegal substances in their system even if the other person is at fault, they only get fined for whatever offence they committed, such as a fine if they ran a stop sign and hit you.

[jaklumen]

Most drugs affect your ability to drive, hence why it's illegal to drive under the influence and why, at least here in Aus, someone involved in a car crash will always be charged with negligent driving and driving under the influence if they're over the limit or have illegal substances in their system even if the other person is at fault, they only get fined for whatever offence they committed, such as a fine if they ran a stop sign and hit you.

 

I do get what you are saying, but negligent/reckless driving and DUI infractions aren't enough for certain jurisdictions. In my home state of Washington, driving while operating a mobile phone is now a primary infraction. In Utah where my sister lives, cell phone distractions still falls under negligent driving, but quite a few states are where Washington is at.

 

It's a fine case for "enforce the laws that are on the books," but clearly, in practice, there is more following of "need some clarifications here with more laws." I admit, the reputation of U.S. law doesn't help my argument, but I am trying to simply state how it is, and not really so much how it should be. So again... I'd say law enforcement still has a reason against it, although you will find individual officers here and there that support it.