We’re not hearing much about it – thanks to the depleted State House press corps, we aren’t hearing about most of the stuff happening on Beacon Hill – but sometime between now and November, we’re going to get the chance to debate the appropriate punishment for adults caught possessing marijuana for their personal use.
Whether it will be an intelligent debate is another story. As I write in a column today, reefer madness still reigns in some dusty corners of the State House, and “some media types over at the Boston Herald, in the juvenile end of the talk radio dial and among lifestyle-obsessed local TV news anchors, can’t seem to talk about marijuana policy without giggling.”
As with the casino debate, decriminalizing pot will bring out the nanny conservatives who believe in outlawing sin and the nanny liberals who like to protect people from vices that might be bad for their health. Gay people (with the help of the SJC) stood up to those attitudes a couple of years ago, arguing that their freedom shouldn’t be limited to actions politicians approve of. Whether the state’s pot-smokers will show a similar backbone remains to be seen.
Also blogged at Holmes & Co.
Should be
You lopped off some digits.
Say more.
about 4 years ago I was on the verge of being arrested by the BPD, even though the stuff wasn’t mine or in my possession (but was in my immediate vicinity).
<
p>If I was arrested for that I probably wouldn’t be able to go to a 4yr school because federal aid would be cut off. Now I’m graduating Phi Beta Kappa. Imagine what a deadweight loss that would have been!
travel writer Rick Steves has been on the speaking circuit advocating for the decriminalization of cannabis. the first time i heard of his public involvement on the issue, i thought ‘what the…? a travel writer?’. well, he’s not just a travel writer it seems, but a keen observer of what works and what doesn’t in the societies he travels to and writes about. something that he has observed working for european countries is a cannabis policy that focuses on minimizing harm, not criminalizing. if interested, you can listen to a recent talk he gave at UW-Tacoma at the link above. That page links to some other useful and interesting sites, including Drug War Clock, where you can see the running tally of money spent on the drug “war”, number of people arrested so far this year for cannabis law offenses, etc.. Here’s a snippet of info from that last statistic box
WHat Leonidas said above really rings true. A conviction for possessing a small amount of cannabis can and does ruin people’s entire academic and professional future. To me, it is a clear case of the punishment grossly outweighing the crime.
A little tip: when you’re trying to argue for something, it’s best not to bring up a whole other argument that’s likely to get all the attention. Bringing up casinos and calling people like me ‘nannies,’ isn’t the best way to win. Furthermore, summing up the ‘nanny liberal’ argument as being “nanny” at best shows a true ignorance of the issue. Never once in my writing or advocacy did I object to casinos based on nanny reasons as the primary reason: it was always the economy and the fact that casinos hurt local businesses. The fact of the matter is we can grow revenue and grow jobs with means that not only don’t hurt the local economy – the primary engine of any strong economy – but also through measures that directly help it. That’s the smart thing to do.
<
p>So, to illustrate just how poorly you staked out your point, I would have been in full agreement with you that we need to decriminalize pot. I’d go even further, saying it would be an intelligent idea to fully legalize it and allow for the sale of it in places where we can make sure it’s safe (not laced with anything), sold only to adults and could be taxed, with the added bonus of destroying probably half of the drug trade and saving who knows how much in how much our government spends combating pot.
Who says I was talking about you when I use the term nanny liberal? I’m sure there are people who truly believe casinos should be stopped because the diner on Main Street will lose business to the steakhouse in the casino, and who think state policy should pick losers and winners like that. But I also know people, including House members, who mostly oppose casinos because they don’t want to put temptation in front of people who can’t handle it and whose families would be hurt by the addictive gambling that would ensue. They are prohibitionists – nannies, who choose to limit other people’s individual decisions – but they are liberals, because they are really doing it for your own good.
I was deeply entrenched with the entire anti-casino movement, including almost all of the ‘liberal nannies’ you’ve talked about. I even helped break a few of the important stories surrounding the whole casino debate – from Barrow’s involvement to Diane Patrick’s casino connection. I can tell you that Casino Free Mass mostly formed around economic, not social, issues. Yes, there are a number of people who joined the coalition based on social reasonings, but the group’s entire narrative was primarily set on economic reasons – from the loss of local businesses (which is much more severe than most people would realize) to the fact that the administration’s numbers didn’t come anywhere close to measuring up. Furthermore, at no point did the group advocate banning gambling – it only advocated making sure Massachusetts continues to ban Class 3 gambling, because that’s the kind of gambling that can truly hurt local economies.
I can tell you from experience, here on the Cape there are plenty of police departments which want to keep all the drugs illegal. Whether it’s because they don’t want to deal with a different set of rules, don’t want to have to do a different job, actually think they can beat or control the parts of the populace caught up in the drug trade, want the headlines they get every time they crack a drug ring, like their part time prison salaries or what, they don’t appear, to me, to be thinking outside their comfortable box.
<
p>Certainly legalizing all drugs would change their lives a whole lot here on the Cape. Detective work in the drug business has got to be a lot more fun than patrolling the roads, getting the drunks off the road on Saturday night and cleaning up car accidents.
<
p>Sorry, I’m a real cynic about our ever getting our act together on drugs in this country. What a stupid mess.
Decriminalizing pot, heck – legalizing it and making sure it’s safe, only sold to adults and taxed not only makes sense, but seems like a no brainer.
<
p>That said, it’s going to take a lot for politicians to step up and have political courage on this issue. I honestly don’t see that happening for at least another decade. Meanwhile, we’re ruining lives that shouldn’t be ruined, and wasting billions in money that could either be saved, or spent more effectively. Meanwhile, if we legalized pot, that would go a long way to effectively ‘winning the war’ on drugs… and many of the worst criminals who sell them.
no one (in this diary anyway) is recommending legalizing all drugs. we’re talking about decriminalizing cannabis, and cannabis only. decriminalizing and legalizing are two entirely different things. decriminalizing just means you won’t be penalized for possession or use. legalizing would involve governmental regulation, licensing etc of the production, distribution, sale etc of the stuff. terminology is everything here.
for three reasons:
<
p>1. It would be safer. Pot comes in various qualities and can be laced with other things that aren’t so good. The best way to make sure that doesn’t happen is by
<
p>
<
p>2. A lot of people smoke pot as it is: it could certainly be an effective means of raising revenue.
<
p>3. We’d also save a crapton of money from not having to find all the drug dealers and sources of the drug; it would also cut into the profits of the various drug lords who actually sell this stuff. Both of those aspects are appealing.
<
p>So, in effect, we could make it safer, raise revenue from it, and save us from spending revenue in preventing its sale. Just decriminalizing it wouldn’t really do any of those things (especially since we’d still have to catch anyone selling to minors, and the minors using it… which is obviously a hefty chunk of the dealers out there).
I would legalize pot and prostitution, if it were up to me.
<
p>But I think it is important to be clear that the article and proposed legislation are about decriminalizing pot. Not a lot of people are clear on the distinction between decriminalization and legalization.
I misunderstood you
…civil penalties rather than no penalties? In other words, my understanding is that you would get a fine like for a traffic ticket, rather than full-blown arrest, trial, and sentence.
the article says
There is no need to spend so much effort on enforcing the law, or put people in jail for so long when they are caught. There are many laws on the books that are not enforced, like fornication, blasphemy, etc, so clearly it is possible to not enforce marijuana possession laws, and there are plenty of laws that don’t have draconian sentences that ruin lives, so clearly not all laws have to have draconian sentences.
<
p>Why not seek saner sentencing and enforcement policies rather than trying to decriminalize it all the way? Is it so important for your conscience not to be committing a crime when you toke up? You need the government to approve of everything you want to do? Come on, buck up, accept your illicit lifestyle. It’s better to have to be discreet about some things.
and I’ve never once smoked pot in my entire life. try again.
Every comment must be about you, now? And aren’t you the same person who regularly lumps others into the most vile categories and ascribes the basest motives to? Oh, I see what your problem is:
Your comment was baseless. Even though it’s two posts ago, I’ll remind you.
<
p>
<
p>I was merely illustrating the fact that not everyone who supports this bill are people that “toke up.” In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked to see that the majority of people who would support such a measure don’t toke up – or haven’t in years, in any case. I doubt Barney Frank smokes it up when he’s not in session, even though he’s introducing a federal version of this bill. More importantly, it’s important we write bad laws off the book and not just resort to the lame “oh, we won’t actually enforce it” excuse… because then nasty laws can be enforced, on specific and certain people. Though, in many cases, I’m sure that suits you just fine. coughmarriageequalitycough
<
p>Finally, I thought I was quite polite. I didn’t even call you any names, or anything. I simply said you made a bad point and you should try again. In fact, if this was your prototypical post, I wouldn’t even think you should be banned… you definitely get bonus points for not mentioning the words “designer baby” or “transhumanist” in the post. I may even be spurned on to kindly give it a 3 or a 4, instead of a zero. Kudos!
That would put you at odds with Charley’s statement that “it’s not fair to visit its ill effects on a few folks to get tax revenue for everyone else.” Because legalization would surely lead to increased usage, wouldn’t it? And there are some pretty major ill effects on motivation and addiction, which you probably know, and might be why you have never smoked it yourself (or does it being illegal keep you from inhaling?).
<
p>And if your only opposition to casinos was negative economic effects, are you saying you would have been for them if your projections were for positive economic effects, in spite of the ill effects it would have on quite a few folks? Because there were quite a few studies that went the other way, weren’t there? Why would they even have been proposed if they weren’t going to be a positive economic impact?
<
p>Also, does cigarettes being legal lead to a safer cigarette, or do they routinely lace their products with thousands of dangerous chemicals? I’d rather buy tobacco from a home grower if I wanted safer cigarettes. And incidentally, I think cigarettes should be criminalized, so that smokers do have to buy tobacco from a home grower. It should also have very small penalities, just enough to force people to be discrete about smoking and keep it behind closed doors, but not so much that they’re thrown in jail and their families are disrupted. Tobacco farmers should convert to growing industrial hemp and other textile crops. Cigarettes are a major cause of CO2 and fuel consumption, we need to make smoking history ASAP.
<
p>Charley’s a big boy. I’m sure he can handle the fact that we don’t always agree. But, again, this is a straw man, because casinos and pot smoking are completely different things. I haven’t seen any data that shows a correlation between pot smokers and poverty… furthermore, the sale of most anything in Massachusetts is already taxed. A fair tax on marijuana would be perfectly fine.
<
p>
<
p>Who knows? Maybe legalization would make marijuana more expensive and, by taking it out of the black market, would enable us to make sure only legal adults were using it. But one of the points with marijuana is it’s no worse for the body than, say, drinking a few beers, and is probably less addictive. So, even though I’ve never smoked a joint in my entire life, I’m not opposed to its legalization even if it “surely lead to increased usage.”
<
p>
<
p>Again, the straw man… but, if casinos didn’t double the rate of problem gamblers within a 50 mile radius and if the economic numbers did add up, I would have supported it. Absolutely. In fact, about a year or two ago – before I knew all the facts – I did support them.
<
p>
<
p>As sad and pathetic as it is to say this, yes, in fact, I do think government regulation has lead to a “safer cigarette,” at least insofar as we’ve been able to make the public aware of its hazards and get tens of millions of Americans to quit. But, even in terms of regulating what’s in cigarettes, they may have chemicals, etc. but they’re not laced with far worse drugs that are quite illegal for very important reasons.
<
p>
<
p>You think about things in that way quite often. LOL
<
p>I would like to make smoking history, but if the black market drug trade has taught us anything, banning the lesser drugs is neither the answer to that nor an effective means of going about accomplishing it. Education, keeping it away from minors and taxing the hell out of it(in part to pay for its effects on society) seems like a far better way to me.
first off, we’re not talking about legalization in the MA case, but decriminalization. so allow me to edit your question to “would decriminalization lead to increased usage”. my answer is: you tell us. eleven or twelve states have already decriminalized cannabis. they have undoubtedly collected statistics to monitor any changes in usage. so do your homework, and report back to us the answer to your question. my guess is that there has not been an appreciable increase in usage, or if there has been there has been a concomitant decrease in previous negative factors (cost of incarceration, etc) that outweighed it. otherwise, i think we’d be hearing about at least some of those states having reversed decriminalization. but that’s just my guess. i invite you to prove me wrong with facts, if you can.
that moribund laws can and do sometimes get revived. thus if we want to reliably prevent people being branded criminals and thrown into jail for possession of small amount of cannabis, we should amend the law.
<
p>any reason for the personal attack on Ryan?
That civil cases have lower standards of evidence and guilt than criminal cases, and can be used to brand someone guilty also. This is interesting:
<
p>The difference between criminal and civil is also a deeper moral issue of whether something is OK or not. Did you see Quadrophenia, when they all got arrested for rumbling in Brighton and the judge fines them all, and Sting, the coolest mod, just takes out his checkbook and pays the fine right there in court? It was so cool because it was a cheeky insult to the stiff moralist judge and prosecutor, who really don’t care about getting the trivial fine, they want the boys to feel that they did something morally wrong that was an offense against order, and just paying the fine like its a fee says FU to that. But it turns out he was just a bellboy, selling out for tips all along.
<
p>Decriminalization really means removing the moral stigma of doing something wrong, and I don’t think we should do that. I think it should still be considered wrong to use pot. But the sentences shouldn’t be so harsh.
<
p>And as to not being able to get a job because of a crime on your record, doesn’t that injustice apply to more than just pot convictions? After you’ve done your time, you should have the same rights as anyone.
Voice Over
<
p> This is drugs.
<
p>Visual
<
p> Stoned hippies
<
p>VO
<
p> This is war on drugs
<
p>Visual
<
p> Air force dropping bombs on terrified stoned hippies
<
p>VO
<
p> Any questions?
<
p>seen online someplace ages ago.
I see nothing wrong with decriminalizing it, fining people is still a good deterrence and it just doesn’t make any sense to fill up our jails and prisons with drug offenders.
<
p>Conservatives should support this since it saves the taxpayer a ton of money, and arguably if the fines are enforced could be a source of revenue.
<
p>As to the nanny liberal debate I support decriminalizing gambling but I was opposed to the specific casino proposal on the table since the net gains in crime, pollution, and the net losses in money and revenue did not just add up to any real gain for the state. And yes I will fully admit thats a bit protectionist but there are some industries I don’t want in my state. Im sure if we repealed our environmental laws it would make the state so much more friendly to business and be that much more competitive but personally Id prefer clean air and clean water to the gains in revenue we might make by letting polluters into the state.
I’m in favor of legalizing pot, but we’re talking about Massachusetts here. This is the state that couldn’t agree to sell beer and wine in grocery stores last year. Nobody could make a good case for why to prevent it; they just said it would be bad somehow, and the liquor stores threw a lot of money around to make it go away. If we couldn’t all agree to sell that drug in a different kind of store, how can anyone think decriminalizing pot can pass?
<
p>What’s going to happen is that we’ll see a lot of scare tactics and, as rick points out, reefer madness nonsense throughout the media, and the local police departments will talk about your town being overrun by addicts, and the whole thing will fall apart.
<
p>Wake me up when we can have an intelligent discussion of drugs in the U.S. public discourse.
then you need to get that conversation rolling sometime. start now. i’m reminded of that rabbi’s saying that goes something like “If not now, when? If not me, who?” if you wait for some golden future time to talk, that time will never come.
<
p>you’re probably right that some people will try to make a joke of the conversation. imo, that is all the more reason to initiate the discussion now so that we can get the preliminary foolishness addressed and out of the way. the next discussion will got better. that’s how it works.
<
p>we can all start making this a useful conversation immediately by not interchanging the terms “decriminalization” and “legalization”. once we know what we’re really talking about (decriminalizing), we’ve won half the battle.
<
p>i think that we may all be pleasantly surprised to find out how many people are firmly behind decriminalizing. But again, we won’t know until we start the discussion.
I thought I was starting now. I thought most of the comments on this posting, as well as the original posting itself, were starting now. So you’re preaching to the choir, I think.
<
p>And I haven’t seen anyone interchanging the terms “decriminalization” and “legalization”. I used each term in my post in very deliberate ways. I favor legalization. I also think that not even decriminalization will pass in Massachusetts with the discourse the way it is now. The two are not interchangeable, but they are equally unlikely.
<
p>And, as I said, we’ve already started the discussion. I’d be pleased to hear how we can convince a public that can be gulled into keeping wine and beer out of the supermarkets to allow marijuana to be a civil offense instead of criminal.
i took “wake me up when…” to be an expression of defeat. i’m glad i was wrong!!
<
p>people are mixing up the terms, even in this diary. i hope that the people behind the current initiative have an effective ad campaign planned to prevent confusion and to keep the debate solely on decriminalization and solely on cannabis.
<
p>your comparison to the alcohol sales question is a good one. i hadn’t given that thought. offhand, though, i’m guessing that they won’t be related in most peoples minds. the reason is that most people don’t consider alcohol a drug. but as i said, i haven’t though much on this angle. what is the reason that the people behind the alcohol petition say they lost? i look forward to hearing more thoughts on this.
The grocery store referendum is instructive, but that was a fight between two well-funded lobbies that felt they had a lot to gain or lose. I don’t know who would step forward to oppose decriminalization and be willing to spend as much as the package store owners spent shooting down the wine initiative. If the campaign starts getting national coverage, maybe some pro-drug war money would come in. But the fact that 11 other states already have civil penalties makes the marijuana referendum seem less extreme.
Charley asks: How would you categorize me? Nanny liberal? Nanny-hippie?
<
p>I don’t want to get into name-calling with an esteemed BMG editor, but I detect a nanny element in your thought process. Decriminalizing pot is OK because jail is worse for people than the damage the drug might do. Casinos aren’t, because the damage done won’t be matched by the revenue raised. The nanny watches out for other people’s children, weighing the pluses and minuses of their behavior before deciding which of their wishes she will allow them to indulge.
<
p>The alternative is to assume that adults don’t need a nanny to decide whether they should have the freedom to smoke weed, drink beer or drop their hard-earned cash on a poker table.
There’s a great, substantive discussion about decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana in this state. I don’t know why you insist on bringing casinos into the fray, because they’re completely different – and, believe it or not, can be opposed for completely different reasons.
<
p>Casinos, unfortunately, don’t make economic sense. The best reasons for being against it is because they’ll put our local economies out of business. It’s that simple. It has little to do with deciding what people should or shouldn’t do for themselves, and everything to do with deciding what makes economic sense. Again, gambling is legal in many forms in this state, so I reject the sentiment we’re just a bunch of liberal nannies in Massachusetts – if that was really the case, all gambling would be illegal.
<
p>By inserting casinos into your argument, you’re making your entire point weaker. Just saying.
“Economic sense” used to be the refuge of cold hearted republicans. Welfare didn’t make economic sense, health care didn’t make economic sense, etc. I think “economic sense” is in the eye of the beholder. Are you only for gay marriage because it makes economic sense, or are you just fortunate that it does?
That wasn’t the republican attitude. Giving out welfare and free health care didn’t make sense to them, in their minds, because the people who didn’t have it were a bunch of lazy bums. As the economy gets worse and worse, and health care behind more and more affordable, a few Republicans are starting to learn that maybe that wasn’t such a great policy of their’s to have.
<
p>As a progressive, I can support things for two reasons: freedom/equality, or because they make numerical, economic sense. That’s why an alternative name to the progressive, netroots community is often the “reality-based community,” because we don’t think we can rely on peoples’ gut instincts or hearts in knowing what makes good policy.
<
p>But good job lowing your bar, again, by bringing marriage equality into the discussion. LOL
I don’t really want to argue casinos because I don’t feel all that strongly about it, but I felt obliged to answer Charley’s question. Now I feel obliged to note that, in this case, your progressive preference for “economic sense” (enforced by the power of the state over certain investment decisions) outweighed your inclination toward freedom/equality. Fine. After years of wrestling with the casino issue, I decided my default mode is set for freedom.
to get to work. Not because they were so concerned with their moral dignity, but because they wanted them to contribute to the economy.
<
p>Let’s look for somewhere there might be a conflict between economic benefit and freedom/equality. It’s hard because our economy thrives on individualism and me-first consumerism, it is an anti-family, anti-religious, anti-humility economy. But surely there’s something…umm, gee, pot smoking and drug use is not good for the economy, is it? One the one hand, stoned people don’t feel like working hard, and don’t try for the promotion, but there aren’t enough spots at the top anyhow, so that’s fine with the straights. It’s easier to sell stoners stuff, it’s easier to use them and exploit them and keep them in the dark about how rich everyone else is getting. Marijuana is the opium of the masses. They do come up with funny stuff and good music and brilliant ideas that nobody else understands, and that can be exploited too. So maybe it is, overall, good for the economy.
<
p>There’s got to be something that is conflicting…hmmm Can you come up with one? Otherwise it’s kind of damning, maybe they’re the same thing…
are at stake, then freedom and equality trump. People need to be treated equality, regardless of ethnicity, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, handicap, etc. People need a freedom of religion. People need a freedom of speech. Due process. Etc. Those are the lines that can’t be crossed.
<
p>Freedoms, in my mind, end at the individual. So, we can create zoning laws, implement broad-based economic policy and make decisions like what kind of gambling is legal, and what isn’t, etc. At that point, it’s time to argue for policy that makes sense for communities and for the economy.
<
p>
<
p>You have a problem with stereotypes. I know lots of people who have smoked pot – or even continue to do so – and are exceptionally intelligent, driven individuals. Personally, from all the data I’ve read and after careful consideration of the issue, I think it makes sense to decriminalize and even legalize marijuana. It isn’t any more dangerous than alcohol and the only reason why it’s illegal in the first place is because of the cigarette lobby back in the day.
<
p>I wouldn’t agree with most other currently illegal drugs, which take a huge negative toll on society because of addiction, disease and death. They ruin lives and ruin communities in more ways than I could count. I haven’t seen any reasonable analysis that’s shown pot to do the same thing – in fact, our draconian way of dealing with pot smokers is exacerbating overall drug problems, diverting resources where they don’t need to be and ruining lives and communities through unnecessary CORE records and prison time.
is one of the most basic liberties. Within it lies the freedom to marry the person you love, the freedom to pursue activities you enjoy (as long as they aren’t harming others), the freedom to drink, to smoke weed, even the freedom to gamble.
the necessity of state-sponsored casinos. just thought it was worth mentioning…
I guess this comment is mostly for Rick, but Laurel really addresses one of my key points.
<
p>I’m not opposed to gambling. If you want to go buy a lottery ticket and that’s what lightens your day, go for it. I don’t support Grayhound racing as it’s currently operated, but if they treated the animals well and gave them loving environments – I wouldn’t have a problem with racing. Large-scale resort casinos, on the other hand, I oppose for a completely different reason. Indeed, it extends beyond personal freedom and into the catagory where it effects communities, effects the local economy and has a negative effect on all of society.
Well, as Ryan says, by injecting the casino argument into it, you’re essentially arguing by analogy, which tends to lead to weak and tendentious arguments. I have different opinions about pot and casinos because … they’re different things.
<
p>As far as looking out for the choices of others, Rick, how about crack? Meth? Shouldn’t a hard-working stiff be able to plunk down his hard-earned cash for a few rocks to while the night away? Those things are different, aren’t they?
<
p>As a citizen, do I “weigh the pluses and minuses” of certain kinds of behavior to decide what I think ought to be legal, and what ought not? Well, yeah. And I think that’s pretty unremarkable.
<
p>Furthermore, the casino discussion differs in that We The People would be made into We The House. There’s a different level of moral responsibility when you’re talking about actively encouraging people to gamble so that you can get a cut, in the form of state revenue and all that it buys.
you know, i’d never considered this aspect of the argument before.
It does bear consideration. Should the state ever be involved in setting people up to fail for a profit, is what that statement asks me. For those who believe the answer is “yes” or “who cares”, perhaps they should advocate for the state also getting involved in related big money makers like payday lending. I mean, if we’re going to officially fleece the public, might as well go all the way.
between allowing someone to pursue a potentially destructive activity and profiting from it. There’s a difference, of degree, between having the state tax a gambling operation and have the state own one. I also see a difference between the most addictive forms of gambling – basically games where the payoff follows quickly after the bet, which etches the addiction into your brain – and the least addictive forms – like a Megabucks drawing you have to wait for.
<
p>My compromise (which I explained at greater length here would be allow private business to operate casinos, taxed like other businesses, and have the Lottery drop scratch tickets and keno, the more addictive games now being promoted in our name.
<
p>It may not be practical or political, but it’s an attempt to balance individual freedom and collective moral responsibility. I don’t mind people drinking, but I’d choose not to invest in a bar – or a casino.
I think there is something underhanded and selfish about the “under an ounce” rule. OK, so most people don’t ever buy more than a quarter ounce at a time, most people don’t carry more than an eigth with them to work a party, so most voters will be happy. It will cut down on the court cases, but it’s obnoxiously selfish.
<
p>All these hip people don’t mind if their dealer gets sent down to the penitentiary for ten years? How is that fair? That guy is evil and should be punished, but not them? That guy has to take all their annoying phone calls and midnight visits, and he fronts all the cash, and he hardly makes enough for his own head stash, if that. And the growers, who go to so much work only to have their plants ripped up and their houses and cars taken from them, they’re evil too?
<
p>If it’s still going to be illegal for those guys, then it had better be illegal for everybody, or else it’s just a selfish abuse of democracy.
<
p>It is kind of like the wine issue, where yuppies just wanted to look out for themselves, they didn’t care if it put mom and pop liquor stores out of business (liquor stores are low class and dirty) and raise the price of beer for beer drinkers (which it would have done). Thankfully the beautiful people lost that vote, and hopefully they’ll lose this on this issue too. They’re not better than everybody else.
That would be stupid, and would just end up protecting middle class project cruisers like me 10 years ago at the expense of the poor kids we bought from. Most people who smoke do not grow it.