Some Find Hope for a Shift in Drug Policy

NYT ^ | February 15, 2009 | WILLIAM YARDLEY

[SolidWood]

SEATTLE — Washington State law prohibits the possession of marijuana except for certain medical purposes. Hempfest is not one of them. Yet each summer when the event draws thousands to the Seattle waterfront to call for decriminalizing marijuana, participants light up in clear view of police officers. And they rarely get arrested.

“Police officers patrolling are courteous and respectful,” said Alison Holcomb, drug policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.

One reason for the officers’ approach, said Ms. Holcomb and others who follow law enforcement in Seattle, is the leadership of R. Gil Kerlikowske, the chief of the Seattle Police Department and, officials in the Obama administration say, the president’s choice to become the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, known as the drug czar.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

What does what USED to be in Coke have to do with allowing the dysfunctional to have another legal panacea?

Only refuting your assertion that these drugs were never legal and this has nothing to do with prohibition.

More legal mind altering substances is not what people need.

More liberty is what people need.

[DJ MacWoW]

which is why there was no large drug war until 1970.

Yeah. Right after the hippie revolution. *eyes rolling* A generation of spoiled brats. My generation.

The 60's did a lot of damage to our society.

Night! :-)

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

That’s pretty funny considering hookah’s are middle eastern.

I'm not laughing Ms. Taliban.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Look, if it’s easier to get pot, more people will. AND drive high.

Does everyone drive drunk simply because it's legal and available?

Does everyone smoke cigarettes because it's legal and available?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

But if a cop cannot tell they are under the influence, then ?????

How does a cop tell if someone is under the influence of valium or some other prescription drug?

There's no odor...

[microgood]

How does a cop tell if someone is under the influence of valium or some other prescription drug?

It can be difficult. And if they cannot tell, is it really a problem (they obviously followed you and if they pulled you over for something else, and could not tell from your driving that you were under the influence, does it really matter)?

Funny you should bring up valium. Apparently pot operates on the body in a way similar to valium, only on a much smaller scale (valium is way more potent than pot).

[Ken H]

Truthfully, I hadn't thought about it.

Well, that's part of the reason we have a massive fedgov legislating crime, health and social issues, IMO. Supporters of a particular policy jump on board when the fedgov does something they like, and they often don't stop to think about the Constitution.

I think it shows a degree of contempt for the Constitution. Fair statement?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

And if they cannot tell, is it really a problem

Exactly.

[DJ MacWoW]

I think it shows a degree of contempt for the Constitution. Fair statement?

No considering I seldom post or pay attention to threads like these. The public is being steam rolled by the Fed. It's like having a thousand cracks in a vase and only two hands to stop the leak..............pick two. But which two?

[MeanWestTexan]

The fact that the Netherlands, which has essentially legalized these drugs has HALF the drug use rates of the USA, is a fact, not an opinion.

The opinions that legalization would cause spiraling drug use in the Netherlands were WRONG.

If your goal is to REDUCE drug use, this is the solution.

[DJ MacWoW]

I see. So we should just legalize all drugs since it’s been proven that easy access means drug use goes down, right?

[Ken H]

The public is being steam rolled by the Fed.

So why are you not arguing against Fed involvement in this issue?

It's like having a thousand cracks in a vase and only two hands to stop the leak..............pick two. But which two?

But are you not using using one of those hands to support, rather than oppose, fed control of a health, crime, or social issue? Now that you've had time to think about it, let me ask again:

Do you think using the Commerce Clause to legislate a national prohibition on marijuana is in keeping with its original understanding?

YES or NO?

[DJ MacWoW]

But are you not using using one of those hands to support, rather than oppose, fed control of a health, crime, or social issue? Now that you've had time to think about it,

YES! Singlehandedly! It's all ME!

Dude, you are too much.

[Ken H]

You're still dodging.

Do you think using the Commerce Clause to legislate a national prohibition on marijuana is in keeping with its original understanding?

YES or NO?

[DJ MacWoW]

No, I'm not but you are browbeating and I don't respond to that well.

Does your pot mean that much to you?

[08bil98z24]

I will never understand people who say things like this.

I will never understand so called "conservatives" who claim to support freedom but allow and support government to interfere in our private lives by telling us what we can or can not put in our body.

[DJ MacWoW]

Other people have the right to be safe from those who believe drugs are fun.

[Ken H]

No, I'm not but you are browbeating and I don't respond to that well.

You refuse to answer a simple YES or NO question on a constitutional issue, so you ARE dodging.

My point about your contempt for the Constitution is validated.

[08bil98z24]

Those who advocate legalizing pot are still potheads.

Those supporting the WOD are definitely not conservatives, and sure as hell do not care about freedom or liberty.