Could legalising marijuana save the US economy?

[DigitalBuddha]

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

[BikerDude]

Not sure.
But that is not the reason to legalize it.
It makes no sense to have Marijuana classifed as a schedule 1 drug which puts it at the same risk as heroin.
Morphine, Cocaine and Oxycodone and a lot of other very heavy drugs are schedule 2.
Meaning that according to the idiots in charge those are less dangerous than weed,
The point is that the laws against Weed make no sense at all.
And any arguments that it is a "gateway drug" are also lame.
Even if you buy that argument, keeping it legal makes it EASIER for kids to get.
Every underage kid will tell you it is 100 times easier to get weed than Alcohol.
Because they get proofed to buy alcohol.

Don't even get me started.
It's just ridiculous.  

Check out..
http://www.cannabisculture.com/

[Leopoldrose]

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!

[cckeiser]

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.

[rev-jaholbrook]

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. 

[DigitalBuddha]

They fear hemp, as they fear freedom.

[BikerDude]

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
 

[DigitalBuddha]

[cckeiser]

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

[cckeiser]

http://weedgeist.blogspot.com/2012/09/gary-johnson-wants-marijuana.html

"It is no secret that presidential candidate Gary Johnson is all for ending the prohibition of marijuana, and he is growing impatient of the current candidate front runners whom show no support for ending the failed war on drugs.

As the former governor of New Mexico (a bordering state with Mexico), Gary Johnson saw first hand the crime activity that spilled over into the US across the border. Illegal drugs were more accessible in his schools due the war on drugs and all crime was climbing because of it."

[Boston Rockbury]

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.

[DigitalBuddha]

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

The dude makes a lot of sense!

[Masked Dude]

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.

[Stever]

Make it legal,tax it,use hemp products for paper,clothes,fuel...I have been preaching this for years..What a boost it would be...products,JOBS,money...I think it would help..spending tons of cash to keep it out is a fucking waste,and its not working...
Making it legal?..I mark it an 8,all the way around.

[Zen Dog]

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?