Have you have finally wised up to the fact that the best avenue towards
realistically dealing with drug use and addiction is through proper regulation?
Then fortunately for you there is one last peaceful avenue for change.* It only takes one juror to prevent a guilty verdict. * You are not
lawfully required to disclose your voting intention before taking your seat on a
jury.* You are also not required to give a reason to the other jurors on
your position when voting. Simply state that you find the accused not guilty!* Jurors must understand that it is their opinion, their vote. If the Judge
and the other jurors disapprove, too bad. There is no punishment for having a
dissenting opinion.“It is not only [the juror's] right,
but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best
understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the
direction of the court.” —John AdamsWe must create what
we can no longer afford to wait for: PLEASE VOTE TO ACQUIT!
Re: "Marijuana may not be as immediately harmful as many other drugs,
including alcohol . . . ."And if you don't believe it, just
ask one of the blown-out potheads who will undoubtedly leap to marijuana's
defense in these pages.Marijuana is every bit as harmful as alcohol.
The level of driving carnage it wreaks is inhibited only by its illegal
status.In states that have, either de jure or de facto, legalized
marijuana, the incidence of drugged driving increases, while drunk driving
remains the same or also increases.Legalization of marijuana merely
adds more digits to the hospitality industry's horrific body count.
Banning something vs controlling it. Lets give marijuana a go, let the next
generation(s) decide in 100 years if it was worth it.
While I'm torn on this issue, I think it is important to weigh the relative
merits of legalization and regulation versus the costs to society of the war on
drugs. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world by a long way,
it's not even close. We throw essentially harmless people into prison where
they are not only a burden to society, they become hardened. People use
marijuana any way, and I'm dubious that we would see any more abuse and use
than we already have. Our approach to marijuana is counter-productive and is
slowly crushing us as a country. Millions in prison and the economic burden
makes me think we should legalize. Yes, little good comes from it, but that
could be said about a lot of things.
The argument of this article is that, if kids/teens shouldn't use it,
nobody should.So we should gate all adult behaviors by their
appropriateness for kids and teens. So much for "Free Agency".New state slogan: "Utah, this is the place where nobody is ever allowed to
grow up."It isn't society's job to raise your kids
with your values. If you let them out into the world, the world will show them
what it has to offer. If you can't keep you kids from using pot, then
you've probably failed as a parent.Besides, our last 3
Presidents have used marijuana, as well as the founders of many of the
successful companies. It can't be too damaging.
I say we legalize and control all drugs much like cigarettes and alcohol. Then
teach others how harmful it is. Arrest those that sell to minors or those that
do not inform others of the danger. Lower the cost, drop the crime rates, add
sanity to drug producing nations. These drugs are terribly dangerous. I think
you can legalize without legitamizing as socially acceptable. In many circles
today smoking is not considered socially acceptable yet it is legal(except in
certain locations ie work place). We can do likewise with narcotics and reap the
benefits of a safer nation.
Prohibition isn't working again. Someone tell conservatives reality is
knocking.Why does it make conservatives feel better to make
something illegal that they don't like? I don't like
alcohol and drugs but I can see making them illegal just fills the jails and
takes kid's parents away and ruins lives. Going to jail definetly ruins a
person's life. Growing up in foster care ruins lives. Trying the marijuana
doesn't.They figure 50% of kids are trying marijuana before
graduating from high school. I imagine it skyrockets in college before they
become someone's boss. Prohibition isn't working - why does it make
you feel better? Why in the world does anyone care how you feel? So
what's the point of continuing to ruin the lives of people that sell
marijuana? Just tax it and empty the jails and prisons.
Re: ". . . our last 3 Presidents have used marijuana, as well as the
founders of many of the successful companies. It can't be too
damaging."Ummmm, look around you. Do you really want to make
It is very unwise to legalize Marijuana for the obvious reasons in the article.
If an adult smokes their child will likely smoke. Alcohol is actually more
dangerous than Marijuana as those drinking not only kill themselves, but others.
It would be better for alcohol to be prohibited, but then we would have the
drinkers protesting. They claim probibition did not work but we consume a lot
more alcohol now and lose a lot of lives from it.
To suffer fate of having to live in California, probably justifies special laws
to allow its citizen some means to reduce the pain and suffering.
Re: Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT"Besides, our last 3 Presidents have
used marijuana ..."Perhaps that explains why Obama is so
mentally challenged when it comes to balancing our nation's checkbook.
Can't think of a better argument for staying away from the stuff.
I'm not going to use marijuana any more than I'm going to start
drinking but...It's a cost benefit analysis. The
cost to people's lives for being tried and convicted of marijuana crimes is
much higher than the dangers of using it.The cost to society now to
convict people of marijuana crimes is a very high cost vs the taxes generated by
allowing it to be sold legally.The laws for marijuana use would
likely be the same as alcohol. No public intoxication, no public consumption, no
use for under 21 years of age ect ect. With the falling quality of
jobs and conservative argument that most of us don't need a college
education anyway, I fail to see thier argument that we need to preserve every
possible point of IQ so we can throw them in jail and or make them fry cooks
with an above average I.Q.Or could it be that while conservatives
don't want to educate the lower classes they do in fact want thier low paid
help very smart so they can follow every command promptly? So hard to find good
Typical for the Deseret News, this editorial is full of ignorance and guesswork.
Why don't we stick to facts instead of made up fear mongering. Where is the
balance?To those attacking the point that our last 3 presidents have
used cannabis, keep your political views out of this and show why this harmless
plant was detrimental to those men. The point isn't that marijuana made
them better men, it's that they used marijuana and still achieved one of
the greatest feats our society knows. This write-up is disgusting
and an insult to journalism. When cannabis is legalized this fall in Colorado or
Washington or both, and the world doesn't end in those two states, will the
Deseret News continue to side with ignorance?
The only danger in voting after having experienced some pot is probably that
they won't vote republican.
"Perhaps that explains why Obama is so mentally challenged when it comes to
balancing our nation's checkbook."You mean Obama, Bush,
Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and on and on and on and on.Guess they
were all lighting up
@procuradorfiscal"Marijuana is every bit as harmful as
alcohol."Not even close. Alcohol causes liver failure and all
sorts of other serious diseases. Tobacco causes lung cancer and all sorts of
respiratory problems. Both end up with huge death tolls annually. Marijuana?
What exactly does that cause that's going to kill anyone in terms of
disease? It is completely illogical for marijuana to be illegal while tobacco is
legal. Naturally that's why the top funder of anti-marijuana campaigns is
the tobacco industry. They just don't want competition."just ask one of the blown-out potheads who will undoubtedly leap to
marijuana's defense in these pages."Oh, and about that...
I've never used marijuana, nor do I have any intention to ever do so. Heck,
I've never smoked a cigarette or drank an alcoholic beverage either. I just
care about accuracy and consistency. Legalize marijuana or ban tobacco, because
what we have in place right now makes no sense at all.@Rifleman"Perhaps that explains why Obama is so mentally challenged when it comes
to balancing our nation's checkbook."Tax cuts + more
defense spending + preserve entitlement spending = Republicans being high while
RiflemanSalt Lake City, UtahRe: Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT"Besides, our last 3 Presidents have used marijuana ..."Perhaps that explains why Obama is so mentally challenged when it comes to
balancing our nation's checkbook. Can't think of a better argument for
staying away from the stuff.============== I assume you
ment GW Bush, who FYI - was voted for higher in Utah than in anyother
state....TWICE.BTW - George Washington grew hemp.He'd be
sitting in a U.S. prison right now if he were alive today.
procuradorfiscal: just a single reference to any one of your statements, because
none of what you said can be backed up by any scientific data.Do
some minimum research and you might be surprised at one of Gods greatest gifts,
a plant with a 5,000 year old history of man using it for fiber, paper, oil,
food, medicine, and lastly as a political scapegoat, for Dupont and Hearst.who capitalizing on deception increased their profits by eliminating the
competition thru government action (much like today's corporations.) But
don't take my word for it, Look it up.
@Kent R. Treehorn - This is an editorial, not an article. Editorials are the
OPINION of the editor or contributor writing them. They are not news and
therefore don't have to present both sides. Furthermore, no
one's implying that the "world is going to end" in Washington or
Colorado, or anywhere for that matter. The point the author is trying to make is
that the benefits of legalizing marijuana do not outweigh the negative aspects
and consequences that come along with it. We're constantly
seeing new reports that this drug, which has been promoted by so many as being
"harmless," really isn't that harmless after all. I'm all for
allowing people to choose, but I also believe that at some point we as a society
need to decide where to draw the line. There are numerous narcotics that are
legal, and people still sell them illegally. Drug-lords aren't simply going
to go legit...All we'll see legalizing marijuana is more
impaired driving. And soon, when people are sick of being busted for that,
they'll argue we need to ease up on impaired drivers too because we're
being "too harsh."
I have no doubt that alcohol can be more dangerous than marijuana. And, if I
had to approve one as legal, I might (note the word might) choose marijuana over
alcohol.But neither of these is an argument to legalize it. We have
one often dangerous drug legalized and we simply do not need another. Yes, many
use alcohol with little harm, my folks included, but its negatives (both
individual and societal) are indisputable.Surely there are many
other low level drugs which could be legalized. Should we legalize them all?And, at what level does a drug become too dangerous to legalize? Given
the increased potency of marijuana over the past few decades, would we need to
monitor and "grade" the marijuana making sure it is at a legal level?Simply put, we don't need another drug legalized. We've got
our hands full to overflowing with just one.
Twin Lights asked: And, at what level does a drug become too dangerous to
legalize? Given the increased potency of marijuana over the past few decades,
would we need to monitor and "grade" the marijuana making sure it is at
a legal level?1,000 times the dose that would get a person
"high" is the toxic level or smoking 5 lbs of weed in under 3 minutes
to ingest enough of the active ingredient for it to become lethal.For reference Alcohol is 10 times the dose.It's called a
choice, not an either or.Look at Israel for real research since the
US hasn't been able to get the results that they want honestly.
Re: "When cannabis is legalized this fall in Colorado or Washington or both,
and the world doesn't end in those two states, will the Deseret News
continue to side with ignorance?"If it is legalized, will
heedless, reckless, heartless proponents accept responsibility for the increase
in highway carnage that will certainly, predictably follow? Will they support
the orphans of those massacred so potheads can enjoy a toke? Will they support
the para and quadriplegics resulting from marijuana-impaired driving? Will they
comfort the mothers of those killed by gangs and cartels in order to bring them
their weed?Why do liberal potheads hate the innocent?
procuradorfiscal said:"If it is legalized, will heedless, reckless,
heartless proponents accept responsibility for the increase in highway carnage
that will certainly, predictably follow? Will they support the orphans of those
massacred so potheads can enjoy a toke? Will they support the para and
quadriplegics resulting from marijuana-impaired driving? Will they comfort the
mothers of those killed by gangs and cartels in order to bring them their
weed?"Congratulations your comments are more paranoid and
extreme than any pot smoker or radio DJ I've ever met yet.
Re: ". . . your comments are more paranoid and extreme than any pot smoker
or radio DJ I've ever met yet."So, will you support the
orphans of those massacred so potheads can enjoy a toke?I know
it's a tough question, but it deserves an answer from those suggesting
legalization of marijuana -- with it's certain and entirely predictable
increase in the death toll -- is a solution, not a problem.
How many more law enforcement deaths do we need before we realize that it is
immoral to prohibit consensual activities, including marijuana usage?
Happy Valley Heretic,Reference potency and allowable levels.I was not referring to toxicity. I am well aware that alcohol can
become toxic at easily attainable levels.What I was referring to is
the level of high produced. That is, we may consider allowing a lower level
drug to be lawful (as we have alcohol) but as growing techniques improve and
even genetic engineering introduced, at what level would the marijuana no longer
be acceptable as a low level drug but instead be considered as a more potent
one?That is the issue I meant to address. Sorry for the lack of
procuradorfiscal said: So, will you support the orphans of those massacred so
potheads can enjoy a toke?I know it's a tough question, but it
deserves an answer from those suggesting legalization of marijuana -- with
it's certain and entirely predictable increase in the death toll.Tell you what it's been legal in CA for a bit now, So where are the stats
that say driving while high has increased because of decriminalizing it?Twinlights: Thanks for the clarification, but much like drinking it
effects individuals differently depending on many other factors.
Happy Valley Heretic,Agreed. Most things we categorize as vice are
similar. Some can drink, smoke, or gamble moderately - walking away when they
choose.But this is not the fate of all.For some, one
drink, one try of a drug, one toss of the dice and they are hooked completely
with financial and family devastation to follow.The problem is we
have no warning written on us. We can look and act alike yet one of us
experiences no particular thrill while the other experiences something that will
call to him or her their entire life.Because the negatives of
addiction translate to the large populace (we pick up the tab for the direct and
indirect problems associated with the vice) we need to have a say in whether or
not these are permitted in our society.We don't allow the
children of the alcoholic to starve. We don't allow the drug addict to
steal. We do allow the gambler to declare bankruptcy and wipe away his debts
(including those to more legitimate businesses). There are many other
examples.Because we deal with some of the costs, we should carefully
consider what is allowed.
I agree that the use of drugs has societal impact, therefore we should have a
say in determining "what is allowed." The only problem is that we
can't completely control what’s available. If we could completely
prevent supply, there would be no problem. It is our prohibition of
consensual activity that contributes to violent crime. We have reached a point
where the violence, perpetrated by both criminals and the state both create
larger ill effects on society than the consensual, but prohibited activity.Yeah, Marijuana is really bad for your health. And, if you drive under
its influence, you may hurt others. But by making it illegal we've
contributed to 1) huge criminal enterprises that cause more crime and violence
and 2) violent, state-sponsored raids on homes that result in expensive court
costs, incarceration costs, and oftentimes death.The best way to
curb the ill effects of marijuana usage, and other consensual activity we'd
like to prohibit, is to reduce demand by affecting people's personal
choices. This is what we have done with tobacco, and we can do it with marijuana
just as well. Persuasion works better than prohibition
@Mukkake"New state slogan: "Utah, this is the place where
nobody is ever allowed to grow up.""Duh! : )Honestly this 'fear' of marijuana is really embarrassing. I mean
really .... it's kind of funny. It's as if the commenters here
watched Reefer Madness in the 50's and, since they've never tried it
in their life, really think those are the effects.
And our good friends to the north of us, Canada, With they legalized
[un penalized] marijuana laws, is such a haven of thugs and Drug-Lords,
stark raving mad and out-of-control a la Reefer Madness.Give
me a break...
@procuradorfiscal"So, will you support the orphans of those massacred
so potheads can enjoy a toke?I know it's a tough question, but
it deserves an answer from those suggesting legalization of marijuana -- with
it's certain and entirely predictable increase in the death toll -- is a
solution, not a problem."Actually that's not exactly
obvious since marijuana doesn't really cause medical deaths and legalizing
it would reduce drug violence since that's one less drug for cartels to
work with. You know who you sound like? Mayor Bloomberg.
Legalizing marijuana would actually cause LESS deaths caused by the illegal drug
trade, LESS tax dollars spent keeping prisoners who partake in this drug trade,
and MORE tax dollars made by selling it legally.So we have less
deaths, more tax money, less tax money spent ... and ... drum roll .... we move
closer to giving American's the freedom this country is supposed to
protect. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
rpm9,Yours is a classic libertarian argument. Using that same logic
there is nothing that should be prohibited. Heroin, prostitution, etc. should
all be allowed.
Big oil pushed alcohol prohibition - can't have farmers running thier
trucks on corn and selling hooch to thier neghbors to drink and drive on.Big Chem doesn't like Hemp or anything like it. Prohibition is a racket.
All those drugs used to be legal. Hemp for Victory!More
recently, and an area of US history the government is very keen to brush over is
the 1940’s “Hemp for Victory” campaign. During the Second
World War, imports of hemp were restricted, meaning that marine cordage,
parachutes and other military essentials were in short supply. The government
responded by distributing free cannabis seeds and allowing men to defer the
draft if they agreed to stay home and support the war effort by growing hemp. By
1943, American farmers had harvested 375,000 acres of hemp.
The hypocrite-in-chief of the USA, who claims he used marijuana is now trying to
crack down on voter-approved laws that allow for medical use of marijuana. That
is so odd since, had he been caught by the police when he was young, his career
objectives would have been severely curtailed.If you look at how
many people are in jail today we have the highest per-capita percentage in the
world. Yes, the USA is a police state (try going through a TSA checkpoint
recently?). Sending a person to jail for marijuana makes as much sense as
cutting jaywalkers feet off as a punishment and then saying it will protect them
in the long-run.