34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
Columns

GUEST COLUMN: Pot prohibition ripe for repeal




It's not just some naive twenty-somethings in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana, as a recent letter to the editor asserts; many states already have.

The so-called "War on Drugs" has been a great success, hasn't it? Sure has kept illegal drugs off the streets, hasn't it? Criminalization sure has kept drug dealers from selling drugs and killing each other over the great profits to be made on the black market, hasn't it? The drug laws have sure been effective in keeping big suppliers from becoming multi-millionairs. Drug laws sure have dried up the demand for marijuana, haven't they? What? No? How could this be?

They've been every bit as effective as thousands of other laws, i.e. those designed to keep criminal possession and use of firearms at bay. Haven't they? No gun crime exists, huh?

Bottom line - you cannot and will never be able to legislate morality.

Marijuana became illegal to possess/grow/use in the last century due to the wishes and influence of one Randolph Hearst, who feared hemp, a very tough and useful product, would seriously cut into his timber and paper monopolies. After underwriting the ridiculous propaganda film, "Reefer Madness," and greasing the palms of our legislators, he could go on reaping huge profits without fear of competition from the devil hemp. Alcohol abuse has caused more damage to our society than marijuana use ever could. But alcohol and tobacco, admit it, are drugs and are used and accepted by society as mood-altering substances. Being for sale only to adults has certainly stemmed or eliminated their use/abuse by minors, hasn't it? No? why not?

If America wants to get serious about our drug problem, we should wake up and realize drug laws do not stop illegal drug use, or make the demand vanish, they just fill the coffers of the black market dealers.

Remember Prohibition? Wasn't that a great success, stopping the manufacture/transport/sale and use of demon alcohol across the U.S.? Once the government realized Prohibition didn't work as planned, Prohibition was repealed, and the government made billions in tax revenues putting the black market out of business. Why let drug dealers continue to reap millions off black market sales of marijuana? Let the government control the cultivation and sale to adults only. Tax the hell out of it and what would happen? The government would realize billions in revenue, the dealers would be out of business and law enforcement could concentrate on dealing with real criminals, i.e. murderers, rapists, etc.

I'm well aware that marijuana is not benign, and may have negative health effects after long-term use, as cigarettes do. No one having smoked pot would exhibit the stupidity or perhaps violent behavior of a drunk. "I can drive after a few drinks." (Yeah, right).

Lawmakers in at least 14 states have seen fit to decriminalize/legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use. Obviously, enough of them have seen beyond the fear and propaganda to have passed legislation that ultimately has generated needed tax revenue for many worthy programs, and at the same time kept the innocuous, recreational pot smoker from being subjected to penalties as serious hard drug users, and more importantly, have freed law enforcement resources to pursue more serious issues. Would any sane person favor early release of a murderer or rapist so the cell could be put to use holding someone who has harmed no one?

Ire against a possible repeal of the marijuana prohibition should be directed toward something which needs more urgent attention: government corruption, underage drinking or perhaps my favorite, dangerous idiots who need to text and drive at the same time.

EDWIN TEFFT lives in Seekonk.

 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » 8 comment(s) « Hide Comments

Edmund.Dantes wrote on Nov 7, 2009 10:10 AM:

" Not that I am particularly religious, but the belief in being "our brother's keeper" is important to me and should be to society as a whole. However, there comes a time when our brother/sister decides on a path where the majority of us won't (and shouldn't) tread. Self-destructive paths, whether inspired by thrill-seeking, boredom or ignorance. There's no need to support such activities if they negatively impact the rest of us. I can see offering help to a down-on-their-luck family as long as they aren't milking the help or funding the expansion of their family beyond the statistical norm of 2.1 children per family. You wanna smoke? No health insurance program, private or government,should be required to accept you. You want to sky-dive or go bungee-jumping? Sorry, but you (or your heirs) don't get to sue anyone if the cord snaps or the chute fails and you become a damp spot on the ground.

People needn't wrap themselves in virtual (or actual) bubble wrap to protect themselves throughout their lives, but neither should they expect the rest of us to pick up the tab fo deliberately placing themselves in harms way unnecessarily or engage deliberately in actions that require them to draw on more public resources than the rest of us. That belief, BTW, extend to our public officials who should measure their every action by a yardstick of how much does it cost compared to the rest of us? "

gimmesum wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:23 AM:

" Edmund: Would you agree that people who engage in other "extreme" behavoirs such as extreme sports or extreme pro-creation should either pay more for health insurance or be self-insured?

I don't know about you, but I get a bit annoyed when a woman pops out a litter all at once and she pays the same group rate as my itsy-bitsy family. What about couples in the Quiverfull movement. Or the Duggars? Octomom? John and Kate? When is enough enough?!

Or a guy who ruins his joints because he thinks running miles on pavement is normal or being repeatedly punched in the head is a healthy activity for the participant and the fan? "

Edmund.Dantes wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:31 PM:

" Think about this: Property values have plunged by as much as 50% in many areas of the country, obviously decimating local and state budgets. Marijuana use, on the other hand, according to the NIH, is on the increase, as are prices for the stuff. Think about the steadier tax income that trading in legal marijuana would provide, easing if not eliminating the wild fluctuations associated with property taxes and property values! (For the record, I'm not really in favour of legalization of controlled substances - outside of real medical applications - unless there were guarantees that those who used them could be denied health care coverage to avoid driving up the price of insurance to cover their addictions, treatments and eventual premature deaths and the medical costs associated with them. I'm simply addressing the economic "benefits" exclusive of the moral and medical issues.) "

Edmund.Dantes wrote on Nov 4, 2009 2:22 PM:

" Sure, gimmesum, don't you read the Wall Street Journal? The Recession is over and everything is golden again - on Wall Street, that is... "

gimmesum wrote on Nov 4, 2009 1:14 PM:

" Property values are still climbing? "

Edmund.Dantes wrote on Nov 4, 2009 12:08 PM:

" Billions in taxes from marijuana smokers vs. billions in taxes from grandma & grandpa on fixed incomes based on the value of their properties, which continues to climb. Hmm, tough choice ethically and morally... "

gimmesum wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:52 AM:

" I guess Mr Tefft believes drug prohibition laws are examples of legislating morality. This may or may not be true. I just find it astonishing that he goes on to write "Why let drug dealers continue to reap millions off black market sales of marijuana? Let the government control the cultivation and sale to adults only. Tax the hell out of it and what would happen?"

IMO, it is immoral and unethical, to justify legislation based on the ability of government to reap billions. "

HumphreyPloughjogger wrote on Nov 4, 2009 6:12 AM:

" Amen.
www.MassCann.org "