The Young Pay the Price for Dutch Drug Experiment

"Alcohol has always been preferred over mj in the US, regardless of the changing legal status of each"

Oh, you have a 1936 SAMHSA 12-17 survey handy?

And what were the teen alcohol and marijuana percentages in Alaska in 1988?

"where further research is recommended, you gloss right over that part"

Hah! I emphasize that part.

"poo-poo the report and their conclusions/recommendations"

The only thing I recall "pooh-poohing" is your incorrect interpretation of their conclusions.

Yes legalizing all drugs, well except the several that can have profound effects in only several uses over a life time, like Ecstasy because even using it causally will lead to permanent and very direct health problems that can't be cured. It would be like selling poison for consumption. 10-15 hits of ex can give a person depression permanently.

But other than that yes, everything legal. Right now the market is flooded with drugs, which proves its impossible to stop unless the government has a camera in every house and does mandatory drugs tests on everyone every several days. Since thats the case why not take the money away from drug dealers who use it to buy guns that accidentally kill children, and put it into Phillip morris or whoever would grow the drugs. Plus the government would probably tax it like alcohol and tobacco to pay for the drain addicts cause.

Oh, you have a 1936 SAMHSA 12-17 survey handy?

No. Now that that's out of the way-- Between alcohol and mj, which do you think teens in the 1920s and 1930s preferred?

And what were the teen alcohol and marijuana percentages in Alaska in 1988?

You tell me. And provide a link to the study, please.

Hah! I emphasize that part.
I've been looking for such a thing from you and can't find one. Got an example?

Boy, they should have seen Holland 20 years ago. The place was drug city. It sounds like (from the stats) that it's improved quite a bit since then.

I guess it's a little late to worry about "wholesale introduction" of marijuana into this country. That introduction took place decades ago.

No, "wholesale introduction" means when you see it next to the wine at Safeway and 7-11. When you have marijuana smoking lounges with faddish "micro-brew" varieties. When every little mom-and-pop store has the faded marijuana poster next to the faded beer poster. "Wholesale introduction" is when Brown and Williams gets ahold of it and starts having different brands of pot, along with enticing commercials, and every other type of Madison Avenue push that the law will allow.

I know what the availability of marijuana in the United States is like. I know what it's been for the last 30 years, I know what it is now, and I know which direction I don't want it to go in the future. Just because some vice exists now, that doesn't mean that we are under some obligation to push it further. Are we going to do that with prostitution too? Or with any of the other 1001 vices that mankind has been living with for the last 5000 years?

I'm not preaching, I'm not ignorant, and I'm not a virgin. Yes, it might be easier for me if I could go down to the corner store for my bud, but I'm trying to put my own self-interests aside for a moment, take an objective look at things, and do what I believe to be in the best interests of my country and my society. Pushing another drug? Sorry, still don't buy it.

Why would it have to be as you described? I do think marijuana should be legal, but if it were up to me it would only be sold at a limited number licensed retail facilities. They could be nondescript buildings without giant signs an advertisements. There could be as little or less advertising than we see for cigarettes. If it were up to me it would not be sold in establishments where they sell alcohol, because I think it would be a good idea to discourage mixing the two. There could be all sorts of restrictions on it. It does not have to be sold from every corner store.

As it is, pot is already easy to get. I don't know about where you live but it is cheaper where I live than it's been in a good twenty years. People with good connections are regularly paying $50 or $60 an ounce for Mexican. The going rate for pounds is $600. It's easy as can be for people to find it, especially young people. More young people smoke it than older people, and when it comes to a black market item like this the more people you know who are consumers of the product the easier it is for you to obtain it. That's one of the screwy things about the marijuana ban, the people we really worry about, the younger folks, are the ones who have the most access to it. They're also the least likely to be deterred by the laws against it. Young people tend to feel invincible, and they are far less likely to have things like really good jobs and children that tend to make folks a little more aware of what they might lose if they are arrested for pot. Older people with good jobs and families to worry about are less likely to smoke marijuana because of those things, and would still be less likely to smoke it because of those things even if it were legal.

I don't think that the laws against marijuana really deter many from smoking it. I think most who want to do it already do. Most who don't do it don't do it because of factors other than the law. That tiny percentage who would smoke it but for the law against it I believe are probably for the most part the responsible types who would probably handle it well anyway. The wild irresponsible types who want to smoke marijuana already do it anyway. The slugs who would rather sit around and smoke pot and mooch off family and the government than work are already doing that. The low life criminals who steal and commit all sorts of other crimes already smoke pot if that's something they like to do. They aren't deterred by the laws against pot.

You are a pot smoker. You know as well as I do that pot smokers could easily smoke pot thousands of times over the course of their lives without ever getting caught. There may be 700,000 pot busts a year or whatever, but those getting caught are usually the idiots, and a lot of them end up getting caught several times so a decent sized chunk of the hundreds of thousands who become statistics in the war on marijuana this year were part of the statistics last year or the year before or whatever. How much of a deterrent can a law be when the odds of you getting caught if you are just a little careful are slim to none? You obviously aren't deterred. You are no doubt aware that the odds you'll get caught are slim to none if you refrain from doing stupid things likely to get you caught. There are millions and millions of other pot smokers in this country aware of that fact too.

Would use shoot through the roof if it became legal? I really don't think so. Again, I think most people who want to smoke it already do, especially when it comes to those most likely to be the problem users. The hardcore compulsive impulsive party warrior types who overdo everything are far less likely than most to be deterred by a law that deters few others who want to smoke pot. And already over half of those people under the age of sixty or so have tried marijuana according to government statistics. Whatever their numbers say the real numbers are probably higher still because those surveys rely entirely on self reporting to federal government workers who come to people's homes. You know there has to be some percentage of folks not willing to admit to the federal government that they have done something illegal. Most people who cam of age from the early seventies on have already tried pot, as have significant numbers who came of age in the 1960's. Our anti-marijuana laws are much more harsh than countries all over the world where far lower percentages of people have ever even tried pot. We have right at or closest the highest per capita percentage of people who have tried marijuana, and the percentage of current users is usually around the highest if not the highest. Current use numbers fluctuate some, regardless of which country we are talking about.

Do you really think the laws a country has concerning marijuana use have much of an effect on the percentage of people who will use the drug in a given country? Look at a place like Holland where it is virtually legal. They tend to have lower current use numbers than we have and they sell pot from coffeeshops set up to sell pot. These places have menus with all sorts of varieties of marijuana and hashish listed on them. Some have glass shelves like at a bakery or something with product on display. Some of these are national chains. Some have neon marijuana leaves adorning their store fronts. They've had these places for decades yet per capita marijuana use there remains in the middle range for European Union countries and it is lower than per capita use here.

Why is that? Why is it that here in the United States where marijuana laws vary such that in some states it's no worse than a traffic ticket, but in others the punishments are fairly severe, yet use in some of the states that have decriminalized is a good bit lower than the national average and in some where the laws are more severe use is a good bit higher than the national average? I think it is because the laws with respect to marijuana don't much affect the level of marijuana use you'll find in a given area. The laws don't really set the social norms. Laws like this aren't particularly effective at controlling how people choose to live their lives. This is pot smoking for gosh sakes, not murder or theft or anything like that. Most people who violate the law and smoke pot and a lot of others too think the laws against simple possession of pot by adults are just a ridiculous imposition by a government bent on trying to tell people how to live their lives. Do people feel that guilty about breaking laws they think are stupid laws if whatever illegal act they did hurt no one nor was it likely to hurt anyone? Of course not. The government is just never going to be able to stop many who want to smoke pot from doing it. I suppose something like the death penalty for pot smokers might cut into the numbers who smoke pot a good bit, but nothing like that will ever happen. The general public will not support harsh penalties for simple possession of a little bit of pot for personal use. Most don't believe that any jail time at all is warranted. Those who think we'll ever "get serious" and impose ridiculously harsh sentences on pot smokers are dreaming.

Our pot laws are more harsh than the laws in most western countries. There are places in this country where you will go to jail for a first offense. In my state jail is a possibility for a first offense but judges in most counties will not impose a jail sentence. Still the fines are quite high. People are put on supervised probation for several months forced to pay for and complete a marijuana class. They lose their drivers licenses for six month and in most cases end up with a criminal record for life. A second offense, even just being caught with a joint twenty years after the first offense, is a felony. Even with all that it is my understanding that according to government statistics a greater percentage of folks in my state smoke pot than do in Holland where no adults are arrested for smoking pot and where you can just go to a shop with a wide selection of all sorts of fancy marijuana and hash and buy the stuff.

Now, the culture in Holland is going to be a little different than it is here. Not tremendously different, but there are differences between people here and there. It may be that those cultural differences explain why people there can have legal marijuana available to them yet a lower percentage of people there smoke it than do here. I think though that we are far more alike than we are different from the Dutch and don't believe that cultural differences account for their surprisingly low marijuana use rates. My gosh, they can go buy the stuff at a store there. The government even looks the other way if people want to grow a little pot for personal consumption. The law there is not holding them back, yet they haven't just gone crazy with marijuana over there. Are Americans so irresponsible compared to the Dutch that we couldn't handle that kind of freedom? What does hold the Dutch back? I think they still have some social stigma attached to smoking pot even without laws creating that stigma, just as we would if it was legal here. Aside from social stigma, like people anywhere else not all Dutch like smoking pot. Certainly not everyone likes it here. A lot of people try it, but relatively few continue to smoke it very long. I think there is just a limit to the number of people who would choose to smoke pot whether it is legal or not, and that there will always be stigma associated with pot smoking, especially toward those who smoke it too much. Total stoners are never going to be very well accepted on the whole in any country, regardless of their marijuana laws. Coming to work high would never be accepted for most jobs regardless of whether pot is legal to purchase. Driving stoned will never be accepted. Flying airplanes while stoned would never be accepted. If marijuana were legalized tomorrow, people's attitudes toward these types of things and toward slothful useless stoners would remain the same. It really wouldn't change much of anything for most people except those who smoke pot would buy it from a store instead of from a drug dealer.

I don't think use would go up tremendously high if it became legal. At first there would probably be a pretty good spike in use. Those few who would smoke but don't because it is illegal would start smoking it, and others who don't smoke might fool around with it some just because of the novelty of marijuana finally being legal. But after a "honeymoon period" I think use would level off again. You'd have for example older folks who had smoked when they were younger but gave it up who would buy some just for the heck of it but would soon realize that they still don't like smoking pot enough to continue doing it. It still tends to make people sound like stupid scatterbrains when they talk. It still makes a lot of people who use it anxious in social settings instead of lowering their inhibitions and making social settings more lively like alcohol tends to do. It's still the same crap that some people who try really like but most find that for them the downsides to it outweigh whatever enjoyment they might derive from it. It's just never going to be something that everyone wants to do. Use rates will spike at first and then go down and then we'll see fluctuations in the future like we do now as different fads come along.

And if use does go way up, so what? It's pot. We're not talking about something like methamphetamine that is extremely addictive and extremely destructive to those who use it and those around them. If we see a big marijuana fad come along and see use go up to heretofore unheard of levels, it wouldn't be the end of the world. That fad would pass because pot just isn't that much fun and it does cause people problems. We'd see use drop again. It would go down just like we are seeing with cigarettes. And I don't know if you smoke cigarettes as well as pot, but if you do I would guess that you would agree with me that cigarettes are much harder to quit than pot. That certainly was my experience having done quite a bit of both. It was nothing for me to cut down on pot smoking and even quit, but quitting cigarettes or even cutting down substantially is hard as heck. I would have to say from my experience and also from studies I have seen that cigarettes are far more addictive than marijuana. But look what's happening with them. They are a legal product sold everywhere and use of them has steadily been going down despite the fact that nicotine addiction is a really tough one to beat.

I think marijuana will be eventually be legalized, and I say the sooner the better. We spend a fortune trying to fight against marijuana, investigating these cases, prosecuting them, defending most of those charged, trying the cases, incarcerating those convicted and doing things like caring for their children while they are away, and we really end up with very little good to show for all that continuing investment. According to the last government estimate I saw, in 2003 there was between 12,000 ans 25,000 metric tons of marijuana available on our streets. That's a huge amount of pot, and from what I understand production was thought to be way up in 2005 in Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Pot is dirt cheap where I live now. It's everywhere.

I really am hearing reports that people are paying $50 or $60 an ounce and I talk to a lot of pot smokers, especially in my job as public defender. Our office handles thousands of pounds worth of pot cases every year. I get a lot of these cases myself. Most of the weight involved is in our drug mule cases where people are caught on the highway going through our county with dozens or hundreds or more pounds of pot. I get these cases all the time. These mules go to prison left and right, but there is a never ending supply of people stupid and/or desperate enough to transport large amounts of weed down our highways for a small fee. I also handle an awful lot of smaller cases, although I rarely ever handle the simple misdemeanor possession cases unless there are more serious charges because almost all of those people just caught with a little weed and maybe a pipe plead guilty without a lawyer and take the standard deal. I do get a lot of second offense cases because those are felonies and I also get a lot of smaller delivery or possession with intent to deliver cases.

Our prosecutors are pretty tough on those cases. I just got an offer today on one where these people only had a little over an ounce and the prosecutor is offering them two years in prison with an additional eight suspended even though there was absolutely no evidence that they intended to sell it other than the fact that they had a bag that weighed a few grams over an ounce. In fact from the number of "blunt roaches" the police found in the home it's pretty darned obvious these are heavy pot smokers who no doubt like to buy bigger bags to get the volume discount. If you smoke a lot of pot it doesn't make sense to buy seven gram quarter ounces for $20 or $25 when you can pick up an ounce for $60 or two ounces for $100 so your "blunts" cost about half what they'd cost if you bought smaller bags, and it would save you a few trips to the dealer too.

I also get a lot of second offense possession cases. These people don't tend to get sent straight to prison, but unless they want a trial most get forced into drug court, a program that lasts anywhere from fifteen months to three years that requires weekly court appearances along with several mandatory meetings every week. I'm talking about even people caught with a tiny little pin joint for a second time. Most employers will not put up with their employees missing so much work so a lot of these people lose their jobs and have to find other jobs that will work around drug court, and those are often not exactly the best jobs. A fair amount of these people do end up failing out of the program and end up getting sent to prison for a two year stint. Often it's for something stupid. They don't make it to all the meetings they are required to make or something like that. Or they get crosswise with the drug counselor and she drums them out. That happens to a lot of them because this lady is first class jerk. Or they continue to cheat through the program and get popped on a few drug tests and get kicked out that way. The net effect is that several people end up going to prison in my county every year for really nothing other than smoking pot. It could be worse though. One neighboring county doesn't have a drug court and the prosecutor there offers everyone with a marijuana possession second offense prison time. I just think all this is insane. What the heck are we doing wasting prison space on people who have done nothing wrong but smoke pot? Shoot, as far as I'm concerned it's pretty stupid to waste prison space on those people driving down our highways with trunk loads of pot or those selling a little to their buddies. If they don't do it someone else will. These guys caught on the highway with a hundred pounds of pot in their trunk are facing possibly several decades in prison. The prosecutor will talk about all the kids who would have gotten that pot. What about all the kids who will get ahold of the beer in the big Budweiser truck going down the highway. Maybe we should punish the Budweiser truck driver because some underaged people will get ahold of the product he is transporting.

We need to legalize it. We need to get Mexican organized crime and other organized crime out of the picture. They rake in billions of dollars every year because marijuana is illegal. The marijuana trade is the backbone of the overall illegal drug trade. The same smuggling routes and distribution networks developed for the massive marijuana industry are used to supply the much smaller markets for the hard stuff like meth, heroin, and cocaine. Those selling a little pot are often recruited to sell the other stuff which is all coming through the same channels. There have to be at least hundreds of thousands if not a few million out there who sell a little pot. Because marijuana is illegal there exists this giant pool of pre-qualified recruits with established customer bases to sell the hard stuff to. If we take marijuana out of the picture it will be harder for the hard drug suppliers to get their products out to end consumers. It will be easier for law enforcement to target them too, because they won't be able to hide their business in the much larger marijuana trade that is so big law enforcement can't really begin to tear it down.

We need to quit screwing around with all of this and just allow for the creation of a legal marijuana industry. Let's let tax paying law abiding farmers grow it. Let's hire regulators and/or shift duties of other government employees to regulate the industry. We could create a lot of legal tax paying jobs. We could tax the product like we tax things like alcohol and cigarettes and generate enough to pay for the cost of regulating the industry with plenty left over for other uses. We could regulate for a safe product not full of toxic chemicals. We could require licensed retailers check ID's. No doubt underage people would still get pot, but instead of going to drug dealers who sell other drugs to get it they'd get their pot in the same ways underaged persons obtain things like cigarettes and beer today. We could really create some separation between marijuana and the hard stuff such that not so many who smoke pot fool around with the other drugs that they come across in their dealings in the illegal drugs trade. Pot smokers will no longer be "cool" to the people with the hard stuff. As it is pot smokers are "cool" because they already use one illegal drug so they aren't likely to report another person for using or selling another illegal drug. We don't want pot smokers to be "cool" in that way. We don't want so many people who are going to do what they do anyway to be breaking the law when they do it because that only diminishes overall respect for laws in general. We are never going to be able to stop the marijuana trade. Marijuana is not so bad that it justifies a costly never ending battle. Keeping it illegal is just creating more problems than it solves. We need to just make it legal and get it over with, the sooner the better.

You implied that someone claims that ALL those arrested for pot have their lives permanently ruined

That's what you lawyered into what I said. I wasn't that that specific

Your claim -- that pro-legalizers would say that particular guy "would" have his life ruined -- made sense only if pro-legalizers claim that ALL those arrested for pot have their lives permanently ruined. Your post was either factually false or logically false ... and all your Slick Willy-style "wasn't that specific" won't change that.