Medical marijuana: The real stakes

TownHall.com ^ | 12-10-04 | Jeff Jacoby

[inquest]

Ashcroft v. Raich, the Supreme Court's medical marijuana case, isn't really about medical marijuana. It's about power -- the power of Congress to exert control, and the power of the Constitution to rein Congress in.

The named plaintiff in this case is Angel McClary Raich, a California mother of two afflicted with an awful array of diseases, including tumors in her brain and uterus, asthma, severe weight loss, and endometriosis. To ease her symptoms, doctors put her on dozens of standard medications. When none of them helped, they prescribed marijuana. That did help -- so much so that Raich, who had been confined to a wheelchair, was again able to walk.

Raich's marijuana was supplied to her for free from two donors who grew it in California, using only California soil, water, and supplies. Under the state's Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which exempts the use of marijuana under a doctor's supervision from criminal sanction, all of this was perfectly legal.

But under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the possession of marijuana for any reason is illegal. The question for the court is which law should prevail in this case: state or federal?

Normally that wouldn't be an issue. Under the Constitution, a valid exercise of federal power trumps any conflicting state law. But is the application of the federal drug law to Raich a valid exercise of federal power? Does Congress have the right to criminalize the possession of minuscule amounts of marijuana, not bought on the illicit drug market, and used as medicine?

Americans often forget that the federal government was never intended to have limitless authority. Unlike the states, which have a broad "police power" to regulate public health, safety, and welfare, the national government has only the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Where does the Constitution empower Congress to bar pain-wracked patients from using the marijuana their doctors say they need?

According to the Bush administration, it says it in the Commerce Clause, which authorizes Congress to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states." And it is true that those words have long been treated as a broad grant of power allowing Congress to control almost anything it chooses.

The Supreme Court's most expansive reading of the Commerce Clause came in Wickard v. Filburn, a unanimous 1942 decision about a farmer who grew more wheat on his farm than was allowed under federal law. Roscoe Filburn argued that his excess wheat was none of Washington's business, since it all remained on his farm -- some of it he ground into flour, for his family, some he fed to his livestock, and some he planted the following year. None of it entered interstate commerce, so what right did Congress have to penalize it?

But a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against Filburn. It held that his 239 excess bushels of wheat affected the national wheat market whether he sold it or not, since wheat he produced for his own use was wheat he didn't have to buy elsewhere. If other farmers did the same thing, demand for wheat -- and its price -- would fall. That ruling threw the door open to virtually unbridled congressional activism. After all, if wheat that never left the farm it grew on was tied to "interstate commerce" and therefore subject to federal control, what wasn't? Not surprisingly, the years since Wickard have seen a vast expansion of federal authority.

Still, the Supreme Court has never actually held that congressional power under the Commerce Clause is unlimited. Twice in the past 10 years, in fact, it has struck down laws that could not be justified as commerce-related even under Wickard's hyperloose standard. But if the government gets its way in this case, the court really will have remade the Commerce Clause into a license to regulate anything. For unlike Filburn -- who was, after all, engaged in the business of running a farm and selling grain -- Raich is engaged in no commercial or economic activity of any kind. She is not buying or selling a thing. The marijuana she uses is not displacing any other marijuana.

But that point seemed lost on the court during last week's oral argument. "It looks like Wickard to me," Justice Antonin Scalia said. "I always used to laugh at Wickard, but that's what Wickard says."

Well, if Wickard says that Congress can ban or penalize Angel Raich's marijuana -- noncommercial, medically necessary, locally grown, and legal under state law -- then it says Congress can reach absolutely any activity at all. When I was a law student in the 1980s, I didn't laugh at Wickard, I was appalled by it. If Ashcroft v. Raich is decided for the government, future law students will have an even more appalling case to study.

[Know your rights]

War on Drugs that can never win given any scenario....

With the possible exception of turning America into a police state (a scenario some WODdites seem to have no problem with).

[Know your rights]

Obviously, the laws don't matter that much.

Except to those who wind up in jail for using illegal drugs rather than legal drugs.

[robertpaulsen]

"Why is it that per capita marijuana use is higher in the US than it is in Holland"

So your saying that Holland's culture is just like ours? Why do you insist on comparing our drug use with drug use of different countries?

"Use in states that have decriminalized is about the same as use in states with harsher laws."

Similarly, you continue to make this STUPID comparison between states. The attitude towards drugs in all the states are the same, huh?

I told you before. Give me the usage numbers before and after decriminalization on a state by state basis, then you'll have my attention.

[robertpaulsen]

Ah. So your bit about a "non-physically addictive weed whose mild effects include increased appetite and a euphoric feeling" was ... what? A mistake? Not what you really meant?

Here I thought you were just talking about the legalization of harmless little weeds, and making those of us who are against drugs look like uncompromising extremists.

Lo and behold, enter the real extremist who wants to legalize all drugs. You realize this position puts you among maybe .001% of the population who feel this way?

Legalize all drugs and the gangs would go away? In your dreams.

If they wouldn't be selling to minors they'd be exporting our now-legal recreational drugs to every nation on the globe. Oh, that wouldn't be allowed? Who's gonna stop them -- the DEA is no more. Oh, you'd keep the DEA? Better quadruple their numbers -- they've got a big job to do.

"Everyone knows where to get pot or someone who can get it."

True. In every survey, teens say marijuana is easier to get than alcohol.

Yet, teens use alcohol 2:1 over pot. Why is that? Could it be because alcohol is legal (for adults) and therefore has an implied acceptance by society? And you want this for all drugs?

"100s of billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars spent"

The federal government spends about $11 billion per year on the WOD. Half of that money goes for drug treatment and anti-drug advertising and the other half towards border patrol and overseas drug interdiction.

"70% of our prisoners up on drug charges.

Geez. Where do you get your numbers? In the United States we have about 2 million people in jail and prison. Of that 2 million, 450,000 are there on drug charges, primarily for dealing drugs. That's 22%, not 70%.

"Tax it and spend taxes on rehab and education"

Let's tax it the way we do cigarettes. Tax it high and drive the product underground, then use the revenue for the general fund.

[robertpaulsen]

"nobody on this thread has "posited" that."

One poster did .... wait, that was you, don't you remember? You said, "the ratio could change because of relatively increased use in the lower 48."

Now, weasel out of it by reming us that you said "could" change and "relatively" increased use.

Why do I friggin' bother?

Oh, and keep showing up on these drug threads, MrLeRoy. The more people who know how a banned poster (a banned Soros troll is more descriptive) actually conducts himself, the better.

[Know your rights]

nobody on this thread has "posited" that.

One poster did .... wait, that was you, don't you remember? You said, "the ratio could change because of relatively increased use in the lower 48."

Now, weasel out of it by reming us that you said "could" change

The only weaseling here is yours; to say "could" is explicitly not to "posit." How long will you attempt to defend your latest dishonesty before you slink away?

[Know your rights]

If they wouldn't be selling to minors they'd be exporting our now-legal recreational drugs to every nation on the globe.

Just like the mob gets rich exporting alcohol to dry countries? Peddle your silly fables elsewhere.

True. In every survey, teens say marijuana is easier to get than alcohol.

Yet, teens use alcohol 2:1 over pot. Why is that?

Quite possibly because they prefer its effects.

[robertpaulsen]

What's with your quotation marks around my word? It describes exactly what you were doing.

Posit (v): to suggest something as a basic fact or principle from which a further idea is formed or developed.

You were .... suggesting something ("could change because") as a basic fact ("relatively increased use in the lower 48") from which a further idea is formed or developed (that would be weak evidence that legalization for Alaskan adults did impact teen use).

In 1988, a survey indicated the Alaskan teen rate was double that of the lower 48. Today, after Alaska recriminalized, the teen rate is about the same.

The only way that does NOT mean that legalization for Alaskan adults had an impact on teen use is if teen use in the lower 48 DOUBLED from 1988 to the present to equal that of Alaska.

Now, if you are not saying that, then shut up. My statement stands.

[TKDietz]

"So your saying that Holland's culture is just like ours? Why do you insist on comparing our drug use with drug use of different countries?"

The Dutch are different than us, but really not that much. We're both western nations, predominantly white, predominately of Judeo-Christian upbringing. We dress similarly, listen to a lot of the same music and watch a lot of the same TV shows and movies. We live similar lives. The governments are a little different but the average person on the street isn't much different than the average person on the street here.

I insist on comparing different countries because it makes sense to look at how various laws work in other places to get an idea of how they might work here, or an idea of what we could possibly do to make our system work better. That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

What always gets me is your utter lack of faith in the American people. What makes you think that we are so much more weak and depraved than our European counterparts that if our marijuana laws were is lax as most of theirs that we would all become hardcore potheads? You have so little faith in your fellow countrymen. I think I'd be seriously depressed if I had as little faith in my fellow man as you.

"Similarly, you continue to make this STUPID comparison between states. The attitude towards drugs in all the states are the same, huh?"

You say the comparisons between states are stupid because you are maintaining an indefensible position and the best thing you can think of to do in that situation is be insulting and play other cheap debating tricks. There is absolutely nothing wrong with comparing the laws and marijuana usage rates in the various states. The fact that marijuana use is about the same in states that have decriminalized as it is in states that have not says a lot. If the marijuana was such an enticing drug that everyone would want to do it and the only thing stopping them was the fear of arrest you would think that instead of having less than 10% overall past month marijuana use in all states whether they have decriminalized or not we'd see use numbers upwards of 25%, 50%, or more in states that have decriminalized. Instead, use rates are about the same in states that have decriminalized and those that haven't. Who is making the stupid argument here?

"I told you before. Give me the usage numbers before and after decriminalization on a state by state basis, then you'll have my attention."

This is classic robertpaulsen. You and I both know that there weren't any state by state numbers being collected back in the late seventies when most of the states decriminalized. SAMHSA didn't start breaking the survey down state by state until 1998. In typical robertpualsen fashion, you want to set the rules of the game up such that your opponent cannot possibly win, because you are incapable of defending your position on the merits. If you can play like this and still be proud of yourself when you look in the mirror, fine, but I don't think anyone else is impressed. Anyone that looks into this with half a brain could see that if decriminalization encourages marijuana use as much as you argue that it does we'd see really high use statistics in states like California that have decriminalized. Instead, use in these states is about the same as in other states.

As for getting your attention, that's never going to happen. You aren't someone concerned with the getting to the truth. All you are concerned with is winning the debate, at whatever cost. This is just a game for you and you play to win even if it takes dishonorable means to get to that end. That's why I always get so frustrated with you.

[TKDietz]

"Except to those who wind up in jail for using illegal drugs rather than legal drugs."

Jail is one thing, and some people do go to jail or even prison for simple possession of marijuana. But what's probably worse is that so many are arrested and lose jobs because they can't bond out or because they have to take off work for court and their employers find out they were arrested for drugs. That most of them are left with lifelong criminal records is probably the worst part about all of this. These criminal records can really limit what a person can do in life. Statistics show that more than half of all adults born from the mid fifties on have at least tried marijuana. It's crazy that a few million out of close to a hundred million get stuck with criminal records that make it harder for them to get ahead in life because they did something when they were younger that probably hurt no one, especially when you consider that most of their contemporaries did the same thing but didn't get caught.

[robertpaulsen]

"that we would all become hardcore potheads?"

Not all. With marijuana legalization, I'd say we'd go from 6% to 20%, half of them under 21.

In 1979, when marijuana was illegal, we were over 13%. So I think 20% is a conservative figure under legalization. Maybe 25%.

And for what? What do we, society, get in return? Nada (that's Spanish for bupkis).

Actually, what we'll get is, "If marijuana, why not peyote? Nitrous? Shrooms? LSD? Ecstasy? GHB? Ketamine?

Not that you care. Hell, you probably agree. So, this isn't about marijuana at all, is it?

I"m just not interested in opening up a Pandora's box for no reason. Even with a good reason or two I'd be reluctant. But this is a no brainer.

[Blast_Master]

Robert I seem to have hit a nerve... is it because you back the current never win, always spend, contributing to crime method? Don't worry, you are right, a lot of people want to keep drugs illegal.. like the crack slinging murderers on the streets. Odd that both my govt. and law enforcement agree with street murderers and drug lords alike. Let me take the time to respond if I may. I have left your comments in quotes.

rp"Ah. So your bit about a "non-physically addictive weed whose mild effects include increased appetite and a euphoric feeling" was ... what? A mistake? Not what you really meant?
Here I thought you were just talking about the legalization of harmless little weeds, and making those of us who are against drugs look like uncompromising extremists."rp

I assume you think marijuana is physically addictive by your quotes? Wrong, it can be psychologically addictive like sugar and food however. It is not a matter of being 'against drugs', society would indeed be better if they never existed, but they are here and will ALWAYS be. Accepting this fact, a fact you understand cannot change regardless of money spend and policy... should we not look for alternative methods for dealing with it? Extremism would be if I advocated the injecting of innocents with drugs against their will, I am only offering an alternative. Snatch the pebble from my hand grasshopper.

rp"Lo and behold, enter the real extremist who wants to legalize all drugs. You realize this position puts you among maybe .001% of the population who feel this way?"rp

I think I dealt with the extremist issue above, no need to keep beating a dead dog. Do you really think that I represent only .001% of opinion? I understand it is not the majority opionion currently, but most people have not given it any thought. Since I am not running for office or trying to be necessarily popular, this does not concern me and does not affect my judgement.

rp"Legalize all drugs and the gangs would go away? In your dreams."rp

Tell me Robert, what would the gangs do in ways of making up the vast quantities of cash they had so easily made prior to drugs becoming legal? Is it in your dream where gangs are just a bunch of hooligans hanging out under an overpass waiting to mug an old lady? You know damn well what I am talking about... gun slinging gangstas that would bust a cap in your ass. They have mo' money and use it to buy the finest in illegal weaponry and for controlling and terrorizing entire neighborhoods. I just can't imagine the Crenshaw Crips sustaining their empire on purse money. No sir, this is not a dream but a distinct reality that modern powerful gangs are completely propped up by the smuggling, distribution and selling of drugs. If you don't think so, then it is you who is dreaming on a white cloud where the clouds are beautiful all the time...

rp"If they wouldn't be selling to minors they'd be exporting our now-legal recreational drugs to every nation on the globe. Oh, that wouldn't be allowed? Who's gonna stop them -- the DEA is no more. Oh, you'd keep the DEA? Better quadruple their numbers -- they've got a big job to do."rp

Where does this logic come from? Why would Columbia bother to ship cocaine to the U.S. for distribution (where it would be made legally) when it already has the means to get drugs to Europe etc.? The DEA guys should be converted to border guards.. and ipso facto.. you now have tight border control btw. If you mean however what about those who would ship U.S. made drugs to other countries... let them worry about it.. not our concern, let thier DEA or whatever inspect or planes and shipments if they like. Also make it a fine punishable by a minimum 20 years in prison for the exportation of drugs for those who are caught passively.

"Everyone knows where to get pot or someone who can get it."

rp"True. In every survey, teens say marijuana is easier to get than alcohol.

Yet, teens use alcohol 2:1 over pot. Why is that? Could it be because alcohol is legal (for adults) and therefore has an implied acceptance by society? And you want this for all drugs?"rp

They do these surveys in high school... Do you think kids are going to say they do drugs on a public form in school? Some do, most do not. I took a survey at school in my math class in front of a PE teacher I respected and lied about not smoking cigareetes. I bet if I took a anonymous survey of every divorced father in front of a police station that I would have amazingly high percentages of men who pay their child support regularly and on time.

"100s of billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars spent"

rp"The federal government spends about $11 billion per year on the WOD. Half of that money goes for drug treatment and anti-drug advertising and the other half towards border patrol and overseas drug interdiction."rp

Yeah.. right. How many people are employed by the Federal govt. just to find or fight drugs? How many extra police are needed because of drugs? Don't we send AWACS and special forces to burn down coca plantations? I dunno, I admit I took that number out of the air, but there is sure more than 11 billion if you look at all the related expenses. I would sure appreciate if it someone could find a true number... I will post if I find one. Lots of money that goes to agencies and state and local govt.s gets tied up with "War on Drugs"

"70% of our prisoners up on drug charges.

rp"Geez. Where do you get your numbers? In the United States we have about 2 million people in jail and prison. Of that 2 million, 450,000 are there on drug charges, primarily for dealing drugs. That's 22%, not 70%."rp

From what I see, about 13% on possession alone, total of 30% from selling... now.. what about the murder rate? Why are one in six young black men murdered? Gangsters are not only locked up for drug possession you know... I should have stipulated 'drug related' Drug-related crime can be considered to include criminal offences in breach of drug legislation, crimes committed under the influence of illicit drugs, crimes committed by users to support their drug habit (mainly acquisitive crime and drug dealing) and systemic crimes committed as part of the functioning of illicit markets (fight for territories, bribing of officials, etc.). Except for drug law offences, routinely available data do not provide information on these categories and, when available, they come from ad hoc local studies and are not suitable for extrapolation.


"Tax it and spend taxes on rehab and education"

rp"Let's tax it the way we do cigarettes. Tax it high and drive the product underground, then use the revenue for the general fund."rp

Now Robert, why would we want to do that? That would go against the whole point right? Honestly Robert, the point is it should be taxed and those revenues earmarked for such programs... not to negate the whole idea.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

[Blast_Master]

Looks like I sold myself short pulling that figure out of my...

Cost of the War on Drugs

$s Billions

 

 

   Year                `89      `90      `91      `92      `93      `94
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 1 Stolen              148      154      160      168      176      184
 2 Incarceration        73       80       88       96      104      112
 3 Lost taxes           41       43       45       47       49       51
 4 Construction         20       21       23       25       25       25
 5 Federal War           7       10       12       13       20       25
 6 Extra Welfare        13       14       15       16       17       18
 7 Harrassment          10       11       12       13       14       15
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Totals              312      333      355      378      405      430

Reagan's 8 years: $1.860 Trillion Bush's 4 years: $1.378 Trillion

Notes

 

1. Value of goods stolen. These goods are later replaced at additional cost by owner or insurance.
2. Total for additional police, judges, courtrooms, prosecutors, court costs, maintenance of jails, guards, probation personnel, and the entire police, justice and prison system required to deal with the WoD.
3. Income taxes associated with perpetrators' lost wages.
4. Construction of new jail and other facilities to deal with burgeoning case load.
5. Federal WoD consists of arming and paying interdiction forces along with international efforts to stem flow of drugs.
6. Extra welfare needed to support families of drug offenders while they are in prison.

[TKDietz]

"Not all. With marijuana legalization, I'd say we'd go from 6% to 20%, half of them under 21.

In 1979, when marijuana was illegal, we were over 13%. So I think 20% is a conservative figure under legalization. Maybe 25%."

Marijuana use in 1979 was high, but that was it's absolute peak after the whole thing started in the 1960's. The whole "drugs, sex, and rock and roll," thing was in full swing. Things have changed since then, and people are a lot smarter about drugs.

I don't think there is any reason to think that past month use numbers would go up to 25%. Our use numbers are already among the highest in the world with just over 6% of our population reporting past month use of marijuana. This puts us over most countries with much less restrictive marijuana laws, including Holland where you can buy marijuana openly in shops. No country in the world has use rates of 20% or 25%, not even close. Why would you think Americans would be so much more depraved than the rest of the world? Marijuana is not that much fun. Most people who try it don't like it. Most who do like it and continue to smoke it end up getting tired of it and leaving it alone.

As for your comment about half the people who will try marijuana being under 21, I don't know where you are coming up with that wild guess. According to the government numbers, right now only about 30% of those who report past month use are under 21, and that keeps changing as the years go on because the percentage of those over 21 who smoke marijuana keeps growing. The reason it keeps growing is not that so many more over 21 are trying pot, it's just that more and more of the people who came of age before pot started becoming popular are dying off and being replaced by people who have tried it and a tiny fraction of those people still smoke it.

One other thing that is important to note about the numbers of people under 21 who smoke marijuana is that this 30% of total current users is not made up of a bunch of little kids. The biggest part of these people are 18 through 20. While it may be that 30% of those who report current use are under 21, those under 18 only make up 13% of the total number, and those under 16 make up less than 5% of the total number of persons reporting past month use of marijuana in this country. Most of the under 21 crowd smoking pot are college aged young adults, not little kids. And the ratio of young users to older users will continue to shift to older users as more of the people who came of age before marijuana became popular die off, whether marijuana is legalized or not.

There is absolutely no reason to think that if marijuana was made legal for adults that 50% of whatever growth in marijuana use resulted would come from people under 21. For that matter, there is no reason to think that marijuana use in general would go up as much as you think it would.

"Actually, what we'll get is, 'If marijuana, why not peyote? Nitrous? Shrooms? LSD? Ecstasy? GHB? Ketamine?'

Not that you care. Hell, you probably agree. So, this isn't about marijuana at all, is it?"

I don't want those drugs to be legalized. Most of those aren't addictive, so I am not as worried about them as I am drugs like meth, cocaine, and heroin, but I still wouldn't want to see them legalized and made more available than they already are. Marijuana is much safer for users than the other drugs you listed. It's also safer for the general public because it isn't nearly as impairing or prone to causing crazy behavior as some of the other drugs you mentioned. Moreover, it is far more available on a national level than those drugs and far more people use marijuana than those drugs. Legalizing marijuana wouldn't increase marijuana availability much. It shouldn't increase availability at all for teens who already report that it is as easy or easier to get marijuana than it is to get beer. These other drugs are more dangerous, and not nearly as easy to come by for most people.

I do not believe that simple possession of these drugs should result in a felony conviction. I don't think that simple possession of a personal use amount of any drug should result in a felony conviction. There is no need for it. Most of the people who fool around with these substances are young and still at that stage where they feel invincible. Most will grow up stop fooling around with drugs. The fact that possession of these substances is a felony does not deter many who are interested in using the drugs. A misdemeanor with fairly certain consequences would be just as much of a deterrent and it wouldn't leave so many with a felony record that will severely limit their ability to succeed in this world.

As for giving you reasons why marijuana should be legalized, I've done that for you before as have so many others, but you aren't interested. So, I won't waste my time going over all of that again.

[Know your rights]

You were .... suggesting something ("could change because") as a basic fact

Wrong; I suggested it as a possible alternative, not a fact ("basic" or otherwise).

In 1988, a survey indicated the Alaskan teen rate was double that of the lower 48. Today, after Alaska recriminalized, the teen rate is about the same.

The only way that does NOT mean that legalization for Alaskan adults had an impact on teen use is if teen use in the lower 48 DOUBLED from 1988 to the present to equal that of Alaska.

That follows only if Alaskan teen use remained steady. (Then there are the methodological problems that TKDietz has so ably explained.)

[robertpaulsen]

"Wrong; I suggested it as a possible alternative,"

Oh, I see. No basis in fact.

So, basically, you simply pulled that statement out of your a$$, posted it, and called it debate, huh?

This is what we, at FR, call "trolling", MrLeRoy -- people who post just to get a reaction from someone.

Now, either support the basis of your statement, "the ratio could change because of relatively increased use in the lower 48" or I report it as abuse. I told you before, I'm tired of your silly games.

[robertpaulsen]

"Why would you think Americans would be so much more depraved than the rest of the world?"

Think? History says we're capable. And, that 13.2% was when marijuana was illegal.

"Things have changed since then, and people are a lot smarter about drugs."

Make the argument when it suits you, TKDietz. You're flexible. Need I remind you that not too long ago you were posting that drug use was increasing?

"As for your comment about half the people who will try ... right now only about 30% of those who report past month use are under 21 ..."

Let's go back to Alaska. Legalize marijuana for adults (in a restrictive manner, to boot) and teen use is double. That 30% becomes 60%. I used a conservative 50%. It's possible, is my point.

"The biggest part of these people are 18 through 20 ..."

Currently. Why do you insist that percentage would remain after legalization? Some older teens, knowing marijuana is legal in a year or two, may wait rather than getting in trouble. Use among 14 to 16-year-olds may explode.

But, for sake of argument, let's go with your numbers. That means the vast majority of those arrested are 18 to 20, yes? Almost all, if you're to be believed. And we both agree that they are not "a bunch of little kids".

My question. How long before there comes the cry (from public defenders like you) to lower the legal marijuana age to 18? That would drastically reduce ..., well, that would drastically reduce what you're trying to drastically reduce today, now wouldn't it?

"I don't want those drugs to be legalized.

YOU don't want. Why am I not reassured?

Legalizing marijuana will make it that much easier to legalize the other soft drugs, whether you want that or not. Similar arguments can be made for those drugs that are/were made for marijuana.

So, to summarize. We legalize marijuana for those 21 and older, followed some time later by reducing the age to 18.

Marijuana use increases, teen use doubles. More are introduced to drugs at an earlier age.

Now, other soft drugs are legalized for 18-year-olds. Use of those drugs increases.

And for what? What have we gained by legalizing these drugs to 18-year-olds?

Besides the obvious -- making your job easier.

[Texaggie79]

[TKDietz]

"Think? History says we're capable. And, that 13.2% was when marijuana was illegal."

So what, that was a whole different time with a different dynamic at work. Things have changed since then. And I'll bring it up again, you haven't seen use going up to 20% or 25% or more in places like Holland where they sell marijuana in shops. It hasn't ever gone anywhere close to that. It's never been anywhere close to that in any of the countries that keep this kind of data. What makes you think that Dutch people or others in places with much less restrictive marijuana laws are so much better able to control themselves when it comes to marijuana than we "weak" Americans?

"Make the argument when it suits you, TKDietz. You're flexible. Need I remind you that not too long ago you were posting that drug use was increasing?"

It has gone up some. That's what it does. It goes up and down with the times. It will always do a little fluctuating. What I was pointing out to you before was that it even goes up when the drug war is cranked up several notches. We can seize more pot and lock up more people than ever but if it's going to go up, it's going to go up. If it's going to go down, it's going to go down. The government has little control over that.

"Let's go back to Alaska. Legalize marijuana for adults (in a restrictive manner, to boot) and teen use is double. That 30% becomes 60%. I used a conservative 50%. It's possible, is my point."

You say teen use doubled based on some survey the University of Alaska did once and compared with SAMHSA's numbers. The survey isn't published anywhere where any one can find it. We have no way of knowing how many people where surveyed, the questions asked, or methods used for collecting the data. We also don't know what the numbers for teen use before and after the survey.

I don't believe that teen use doubled in Alaska. You don't have any proof that it doubled.

"Currently. Why do you insist that percentage would remain after legalization?"

Because it's only going to be legal for adults and we're still going to encourage teens not to use it and punish them if they do, just like we do now. At least where I live, we are much harder on teens than we are adults for marijuana possession, except that they aren't really fined and they don't get left with a criminal record that stays with them through their adult lives. Lot's of them do get sent away to a 45 day treatment program though, and they are put on restrictive probation where they are drug tested. They have to perform community service, make it to school with no unexcused absences, tardies, or disciplinary referrals, and their case goes on and on until they have a couple of good reports at review hearings. Bad reports get them juvi hall or get them sent off for six months to a year at some facility somewhere half way across the state. This wouldn't all just stop happening if marijuana was legalized for adults.

The ratio of young pot smokers to old is going to keep shifting to older people, whether marijuana is legalized or not. The reason for this is simple, a higher and higher percentage of older people are those who came of age after marijuana became popular. Over 50% of those born from about the mid 1950's on have at least tried it according to government statistics. Many born before that have also tried it but the percentage of those who have tried it drops off sharply as we start going back in the years to people born much before that. Hardly any of those born in the 1920's and 1930's or before have ever tried it, and the fact is that each year more and more of these people pass on. Certainly not all of the people who have tried marijuana still smoke it. Only a small percentage do. Nevertheless this causes the percentage of persons over 21 who smoke marijuana to grow each year and tilts the ratio of young to old marijuana smokers toward older people.

"But, for sake of argument, let's go with your numbers. That means the vast majority of those arrested are 18 to 20, yes? Almost all, if you're to be believed."

I didn't say anything about arrests. I don't know what the arrest numbers are. I was only talking about use numbers. If you don't believe me on the use numbers, simply look at the link breaking down marijuana use by detailed age categories I'm going to provide you and do the math yourself.

See table 1.2A: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k3tabs/PDF/Sect1peTabs19to27.pdf

"My question. How long before there comes the cry (from public defenders like you) to lower the legal marijuana age to 18?"

So what if people "cry?" A lot of people want alcohol to be legal for 18 year olds but it isn't happening. And who listens to public defenders anyway? Yea, we public defenders are a powerful force to be reckoned with in the political arena.

"YOU don't want. Why am I not reassured?"

Who cares?

"Legalizing marijuana will make it that much easier to legalize the other soft drugs, whether you want that or not. Similar arguments can be made for those drugs that are/were made for marijuana."

So you think drugs like LSD, ketamine, GHB, and that sort of thing are soft drugs? That puts you in the distinct minority. These drugs are much more dangerous than marijuana. Marijuana doesn't make you lose control of yourself. Marijuana is not addictive like some of the drugs you call soft drugs. Some of these drugs are much riskier for the user and innocent people who might come in contact with people using these drugs. And unlike marijuana, we don't already have millions and millions of people using them regularly and even more millions and millions using them occasionally. Marijuana is already a very common drug, easily available everywhere. These other drugs are not even close to being as available everywhere as marijuana. Making them legal would change that.

I still do not believe that simple possession of these or any other "recreational" drugs should be a felony though. Shoot, huffing paint isn't a felony anywhere I know of but it's much worse than most any other drug out there. Felonies should be reserved for much more serious crimes where people are causing serious harms to others or putting others at serious risk. At a minimum it shouldn't be a felony the first time or two someone gets caught with one of these other drugs. There are plenty of sanctions available for misdemeanors that would act as just as much a deterrent as a felony would, and we wouldn't have so many people out there with criminal records that can really make it hard for them to get ahead in this world just because they went through a wild partying stage in their lives and happened to be unlucky enough to get caught with an unsanctioned drug. An awful lot of decent, productive citizens have fooled around with drugs at one point in their lives.

[TKDietz]

Oops, I meant to say look at Table 1.20A: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k3tabs/PDF/Sect1peTabs19to27.pdf