NJ Passes Medical Marijuana Bill
On the final day of the legislative session, Gov. Corzine said he would sign it before leaving office next Tuesday:
The New Jersey Legislature approved a measure on Monday that would make the state the 14th in the nation, but one of the few on the East Coast, to legalize the use of marijuana to help patients with chronic illnesses.
Stricter than most, the NJ bill will prohibit doctors from prescribing marijuana for anything less than a terminal illness or debilitating condition, such as cancer, AIDS or multiple sclerosis.
Meanwhile, on the West Coast, California is looking at legalizing marijuana for adult recreational use. Raw Story:
While voter initiatives have ensured that legalization will be on the 2010 ballot,
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) may be two steps ahead of them. A long time proponent of legalization, Ammiano chairs the assembly’s Public Safety Committee, where he plans to hold the first hearing on marijuana legalization in the history of the United States.
His bill, the Marijuana Legalization, Regulation, and Education Act, would tax and regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol. The committee has scheduled a hearing and vote on Tuesday, after which Ammiano plans to hold a press conference, according to San Diego News Room.
James Anthony, a former prosecutor in Oakland, and a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), says it’s about time:
[F]or the sake of our children, our communities, our law enforcement agencies, the environment, and the well being of the entire state. The myth that marijuana is individually harmful enough to be prohibited has been fully exposed. Marijuana is much safer than alcohol. It cannot even begin to compare to tobacco in toxicity. It is used by hundreds of thousands of Californians safely as medicine.
And in Washington state, five activists have filed a ballot initiative that would legalize all adult marijuana possession.
23 Responses to “NJ Passes Medical Marijuana Bill”
Damn and the doctor said there was absolutely nothing wrong with me.
Oh, this is just wonderful. Of all the harebrained ideas that California could come up with, they want to legalize marihuana now?
As to NJ, this is sad news to me. I had hoped that Corzine would veto this, but I apparently am out of luck. Hopefully Governor Christie manages to ram through a repeal, with increased penalties for use.
good lord, why?
If you haven't guessed, I am a fan of keeping all the illegal drugs illegal, and using the power of prison to at least take these drug users (or abusers, since user=abuser) off the streets.
That power has been shown to be, to put it nicely, less than overwhelming. Prisons are great places to put violent people, and people who just don't respond to fines and warnings. It bites as a deterrent. There's a reason that drug usage doesn't seem to be affected by the drug war — it really isn't. It's like putting out forest fires with machine guns: it looks impressive, it's noisy; it's expensive (in this case, in multiple ways); but it doesn't affect the fires.
PJBFan,
I have a couple of questions based upon your remarks.
1) You specifically mentioned that you wish for illegal drugs to remain illegal. Does this means that you support legaldrugs remaining legal? If so, why is it that you believe that certain drugs should be legal and others illegal? What is the underlying characteristic of a particular drug that would make you inclined to have it be illegal as opposed to legal? Is there any scientific rationale behind which drugs you believe should be illegal? Or do you simple make such decisions based upon whatever the government tells you?
2) You also make the statement that user=abuser. Does this mean that you believe that people who consume alcohol are drug abusers?
3) Do you truly believe that using coercion is the best way to deal with people whose habits you don't approve of? Does putting people in cages simply because they smoke pot make you feel safe? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Or is it more of the tough love approach that you like–that people who engage in drug use must be punished for their own good?
4) Marijuana has been a Schedule I drug since 1970, and therefore has been illegal (from a federal law standpoint), for nearly 40 years. Yet, in spite of that, marijuana has been relatively easy to obtain during those 40 years, even in spite of the fact that billions of dollars are spent every year at the federal, state, and local level on law enforcement efforts against marijuana. Does this suggest to you that marijuana prohibition is working?
Because as we all know prohibition worked out really really well. It did not lead to any crime wave nor to corruption…
I don't feel strongly one way or the other about legalizing marijuana. Having never tried marijuana or alcohol, I wouldn't be able to compare the two in terms of health effects or addictive qualities. Personally I'd prefer people didn't use either, but that doesn't mean they should (or shouldn't) be illegal.
However, even though I don't have a dog in the fight, I couldn't resist pointing out the classic slippery slope at work:
“It is used by hundreds of thousands of Californians safely as medicine.”
But at least if you are going to legalize marijuana, all of the taxes you derive from that should only be used to go toward drug use prevention/cessation/rehab programs, not to the general fund. I wonder how much the California budget deficit is driving this.
That's a good idea in theory, but we don't live in Theory. In the real world, government addiction to money is far more powerful and proven and than anyone's addiction to drugs. See your state's gambling money history for an example (note: I don't care what state you live in, the story's pretty much the same).
[....it looks impressive, it's noisy; it's expensive....]–
Expensive? No really it's not. What is your cost reference?
You know, I'm starting to think in your terms regarding some social issues.
Pornography–just let naked people rain down on the population from every billboard and TV add. With riotous sex acts in the streets and mandatory masturbation keyless entry sensors for car door locks.
Military–make everybody serve at least three years without pay or room and board. While serving they must rely on the generosity of the local community for food, etc..
Pot–Available at every convenience store and vending machine.
We’ll just burn everybody out on every vice there is.
Universal Gambling
Legalized bank robbery.
Murder weekends in the park.
Let babies choose if they want beer or milk.
Cell phone helmets with slide down visors for watching DVDs while you drive.
Drive through intervenes cholesterol packs you can jam in your arm or butt on your way to work….with a little touch of heroin or crack to relax your ingestion.
Motorized wheelbarrow races in hospital hallways, indoor malls and lecture classrooms.
The ideas just pour in when you set your mind FREE!
I don't have the details, but can research them more tonight, if you need. But here's a general list:
1. Prisons. It's one of the largest, if not the largest, budget items for all states. Most of those prisoner are there directly or indirectly due to the drug war. Then there are the federal, state, and local law enforcement resources used for fighting drugs.
2. Lives. Since illegal sales can't go back to a proper justice system, all real and perceived bad deals go back to vigilante justice. <sarcasm>Now, I'm all for reducing the numbers of poor people out there, but this method might need a little tweaking.</sarcasm>
3. Corruption. It's a temptation for cops and all other law enforcement.
4. Organized crime. It's been one of the main funding sources for all types of organized crime, including street gangs, the mafia, biker gangs, and even terrorist groups.
5. International relations. Remember the fighting in Mexico? Columbia? It's not unique. 'Nuff said.
Other than that, you're probably right.
As far as the cost of prohibition goes…
A Harvard Economics Professor published a report in 2008 estimating that law enforcement efforts against drugs costs (in 2006 dollars):
$30.3 billion (local & state expenditures)
$13.8 billion (federal expenditures)
———————————————————-
$44.1 billion (total expenditures)
This amount, of however, does not include the cost of counternarcotics operations in Central & South America.
sorry adelin, that doesn't make sense. According to the USDA, it's our #3 cash crop, behind soy and corn and ahead of wheat. The tax revenue obviously would be substantial (far more than wheat tax), as would be the savings from no longer imprisoning potheads ($42,000 a year each according to Schwarzenegger). There is also considerable savings to be had from an end to the weapons-for-drugs trade on the Mexican border and pot eradication efforts not only domestically, but globally (our part in them at least). It would be foolish and unnecessary to expend that much on “rehab.” This would be a tremendous fiscal boon to the USA. And oddly, I don't hear anyone clamoring for billions or trillions to be spent on federal alcohol or tobacco “rehab”. These are much more dangerous drugs by every measure.
The libertarian in me makes this an easy call: It's about time. In fact, it's long overdue.
The real problem imo is that there is no easy test to determine intoxication. If there were, I think there would be more support for this. Nobody wants school bus drivers, airline pilots, or surgeons getting loaded and going to work. Along with legalization there needs to be work on this. Or maybe there has been; this is not an issue I spend a lot of time worrying about.
I'd be a lot more inclined to agree if I thought there was some relation to usage and legality. I say legalize it, forbid it in public, since we're slowly getting there with tobacco anyway, forbid advertising, and keep it behind the counter. Then tax it lightly and observe the results.
Making a drug illegal has always been a lot easier than making it legal again, so if it goes badly then we can honestly say that the lesson was learned.
1) No, I do support the banning of tobacco, and restrictions on the purchase of alcohol as well. Although, unlike most illegal drugs, marihuana being the obvious exception, there actually is a cultural significance to alcohol and tobacco consumption.
2) I stick by my statement in regard to a large number of alcohol users, and all users of illegal drugs.
3) I favour the tough-love approach. A harsh punishment is the only thing I think appropriate for dealing with drug users. As well, this puts to work many blue-collar workers, as their labour is required to build new prisons.
4) It suggests to me that enforcement of the marihuana laws has been lax, at best. We should be putting these people away for a minimum of five years in the general population of prison. Just for using marihuana. Similarly, we should increase penalties for all Schedule 1 narcotics use that is illegal. I have seen the fact that little to no money is spent on the prosecution of lower level marihuana offences. As such, if we were to allocate the resources to actually prosecute these offenses, as well as create reasonably stiff penalties for drug use, then we would see a decrease in drug crime.
Finally, I would add, I favour the forcible defoliation of drug crops. If Colombia or Bolivia cannot stop the flow of drugs into the United States, the United States should seek to make unproductive the land used to grow drugs.
okey doke Professor. Full the torpedoes, damn speed ahead.
heh, I'm all for it now. I just don't think we should ignore some of the implications. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Right, build on failure; stamp out crime — make it illegal.
The only reason that most cities raise speeding penalties is to raise revenue. They assume, quite accurately, that the increased fine will have no effect on the number of people that speed. Penalty has no effect on crime because people assume that they won't be caught. It's simply not a deterrent.
As it stands right now, those who are accused of using marijuana spend, on average, more time in prison than those who are accused of murder. We also have the worlds third largest country and the worlds largest prison population, that is, the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized nation. At this point, the only way we could get any tougher on drug users is to take them out back and shoot them.
So, what evidence do you have that increased penalty leads to lower crime rates?
I'm opposed to the idea of using money from the tax on a vice (and in my opinion, general marijuana use qualifies) for general purposes, mainly because that sets up a perverse incentive where the general public actually benefits from behavior that we want to discourage. And I would apply that same logic to tobacco and alcohol.
Regarding the amount of money that would bring in, I'll point out that I didn't just refer to rehab, but also to prevention. Certainly there are a lot of creative things that could be done in that area. And also I'm not just talking about marijuana rehab (if there exists such a thing), but drug prevention/cessation/rehab in general, including tobacco and alcohol.
If after we've implemented every prevention/cessation/rehab program that we can think of, and we still have extra money, then the tax is probably too high. If we are taxing undesirable behavior to a greater degree than in costs to mitigate the effects of that undesirable behavior, then we've taxed it too much.
You might argue that it is wasted money, and that there are more beneficial programs that could be implemented if the money were in the general fund. I'd argue that paying money for marijuana is a waste in the first place, and so taking some of that waste and putting it to work to limit the amount of economic waste is a good thing, and results in a more productive society where people can pay more taxes of the ordinary variety for beneficial programs. And maybe even more importantly, we avoid the perverse incentive that I mentioned above, which is the overriding principle here.
But of course, I would expect those who don't view marijuana use as behavior that we should discourage would obviously disagree with me and would see marijuana tax as no different than any other tax.
Test comment…
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, adelinesdad. You might want to look for a copy of an old (might be his first) book by Dr. Andrew Weil, “From Chocolate to Morphine”. One of the themes is that humans have ALWAYS sought out and found every single psychoactive plant in their environment. We don't know why we are driven to alter our consciousness, but there is no doubt whatsoever that throughout history, we have, and do. We will NEVER stop people from using psychoactive substances, whether tobacco and alcohol, marijuana, caffeine or the myriad OTC and Rx drugs that alter the mind. So yes, I consider it a waste of money to try to prevent people from using mind altering substances. I believe our efforts should focus first on those that do most harm to society, which is clearly alcohol (violence, fights, drunk driving, ruined careers, marriages and lives). But we already tried prohibition. It failed. I oppose using finite resources on hopeless causes. That's my bottom line.