Could legalising marijuana save the US economy?

Four decades ago, President Richard Nixon officially launched America's "war on drugs". Generations of US politicians since have continued to crack down on illegal substances, including marijuana.

In his new book, Too High To Fail, author Doug Fine argues that the campaign against cannabis has been expensive and counterproductive.



Burn a J - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19336816

I used to teach a family law class and the one thing all of the students, conservative and liberal agreed on was how dumb the war on drugs is, and marijuana in particular. Seems like this issue is out of touch with college age kids concerns, and hopefully will end when younger folks make up a larger percentage of the vote. Hope for the future dudes!

If they could just slack up on the law enough to allow for the manufacture of hemp products here that would help a lot.  That's just that side of it. 

http://books.google.com/books?id=KPQVAQAAIAAJ&q=jury+nullification&dq=jury+nullification&source=bl&ots=gErnUusVbu&sig=ziBJ1wxLpeVSUXWoKM2DXTPD-4Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o1cwUNLQC-LN6QGstoGwCw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA

"Central to the history of trial by jury is the right of jurors to vote "not guilty" if the law is unjust or unjustly applied. When jurors acquit a factually guilty defendant, we say that the jury "nullified" the law. The Founding Fathers believed that juries in criminal trials had a role to play as the "conscience of the community," & relied on juries' "nullifying" to hold the government to the principles of the Constitution. Yet over the last century & a half, this power of jurors has been derided & ignored by American courts, to the point that today few jurors are aware that an important part of their role is, in the words of the Supreme Court, to "prevent oppression by the government."..."

In the last decade or so Jury Nullification has been promoted as a way around marijuana laws....the jury simple returns a verdict of Not Guilty for any marijuana arrests.

They are pretty crafty about that.
It hardly ever goes to trial because for less than an ounce it is a civic violation and if "in public" a misdemeanor. But that's where the nonsense starts. The cops "stop and frisk" so any amount is "in public" and at least a misdemeanor. Then instead of going to trial the judge typically offers a deal where as long as the person does not get arrested again it is completely dismissed after a year.
Of course almost all people accept that and then the cops go back to stopping and frisking virtually randomly and inevitably the same person gets arrested again and now they don't have a trial. It is a crime on their record and they don't have a trial because they took the deal.
They are trying to change the law.
Of course they aren't doing anything about the stupid stop and frisk bullshit which as far as I'm concerned is 100% unconstitutional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymxu16J8_m8
 

A good video on this on YouTube!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwVbf07pasw

http://books.google.com/books?id=KPQVAQAAIAAJ&q=jury+nullification&dq=jury+nullification&source=bl&ots=gErnUusVbu&sig=ziBJ1wxLpeVSUXWoKM2DXTPD-4Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o1cwUNLQC-LN6QGstoGwCw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA

"Central to the history of trial by jury is the right of jurors to vote "not guilty" if the law is unjust or unjustly applied. When jurors acquit a factually guilty defendant, we say that the jury "nullified" the law. The Founding Fathers believed that juries in criminal trials had a role to play as the "conscience of the community," & relied on juries' "nullifying" to hold the government to the principles of the Constitution. Yet over the last century & a half, this power of jurors has been derided & ignored by American courts, to the point that today few jurors are aware that an important part of their role is, in the words of the Supreme Court, to "prevent oppression by the government."..."

In the last decade or so Jury Nullification has been promoted as a way around marijuana laws....the jury simple returns a verdict of Not Guilty for any marijuana arrests.

There's a similar concept in English law where a jury has the right to aquit a defendant for ANY reason they choose. It has been used in high profile weed prosecutions. We have more power than we realise. It would be a fascinating experiment if cannabis was fully legalised in say one state. I suspect that the fears of conservatives would prove to be unfounded. We really need to trust people more.

Hopefully after 16 October, there will be at least a tiny breakthrough. If Americans for Safe Access win their case against the DEA. Sure, it would be for medical marijuana only, but at least it's a start. I just think it's a ridiculous thing, keeping it illegal. I probably wouldn't try it anyway, but damn, it's not worth it.

Nah.The Taliban would just turn into capitalists,create a monopoly and screw us that way.Still,I s'pose it's better than blowing us up.Or was that some Irish blokes.What year is this?