Medical MJ in Connecticut

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 08:25:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Connecticut Assembly and Senate passed a bill that permits people suffering from certain health conditions to grow their own marijuana. It isn't clear whether Gov. Rell will sign it.

"In the past, she has been sympathetic to helping the terminally ill and those with debilitating symptoms find relief," [spokesman Rich] Harris said, "but she would frankly prefer to see the policy change at the federal level since it is a chronic problem for any state that takes up the issue."

We'd all prefer to see the federal government do the right thing, but state action is the best way to make that happen. When enough states have legalized medical marijuana, federal legislators will get the message. Sometimes it takes a personal tragedy to bring them around.

State Representative Marie Lopez Kirkley-Bey, a Democrat from Hartford who is deputy speaker, said she had been “vehemently opposed” to the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and voted against such bills in the past because she feared a negative impact on children. But she changed her mind when two of her cousins died of cancer last year.
“When I saw the pain and suffering they endured while trying to maintain their dignity and composure, the bill came to my mind,” Ms. Kirkley-Bey said. “There was a feeling that before, I didn’t do the right thing.”

It's never too late to do the right thing. Gov. Rell should sign the bill.

< Close Guantanamo | SCOTUS Accepts New Sentencing Cases >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Medical MJ in Connecticut | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Marijuana will be legalized in the US (none / 0) (#1)
by Aaron on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 09:34:43 AM EST

We'll probably all be old and gray before it happens, perhaps it will even take the demise of the current generation whose mind has been so polluted with propaganda for this to happen, but it will happen not only here but around the world, and the world will be a better place for it.

: You forget.... (none / 0) (#4)
by kdog on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:04:47 PM EST

the moneyed interests who adore the status quo.
They spend buku-bucks to keep it illegal....and money talks.

maybe (none / 0) (#2)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 10:55:42 AM EST

but, 30 years ago when I was a teenager we thought it was imminent.

I think the medical marijana issue is distinct in many respects. Legalizing legitmate medical use under a doctor's orders is not the same as legalizing it for recreational use and the desire for the latter probably makes the former more difficult to achieve.

Legalize it just like alcohol (none / 0) (#3)
by Dadler on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 01:39:40 PM EST

The medical movement is not enough and still forces good people to jump through hoops and register with the government and generally have their lives invaded in a manner completely and baselessly discriminatory. Booze kills so many people and we still see the chicks in bikinis selling it on TV -- not to mention all the other drugs being hawked.

Marijuana prohibition is the real crime, an absurd and monumental waste of resources and lives jailed, and it is shameful for a country that professes to be free.

Hell, it's legal to brew your own booze at home!! We are out of our minds on this issue. Crazy and prejudiced and lacking the slightest bit of logic.

I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 03:51:42 PM EST

anyone can argue that alcohol is not more dangerous in acute or chronic terms than marijuana.

We also live in a bizarre time where psychoactive drug pushers bombard us with propaganda advising us to pop a pill for every disorder, condition, feeling or just plain mood that they convince us are detracts from our ability to have perfect lives. Turn on the TV or open a magazine and the entreaties to take drugs because you are tired, bored, shy, anxious, lacking confidence, and whatever else keeps you from being what you imagine you want to be never end.

We are so neurotic and over-medicated as a society it is just plain strange that one class of drugs, many with rhather severe potential side effects, are openly exalted while a plant with mild effects is criminalized. But, being plain strange doesn't suffice to change laws.


No Surprise (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:27:55 PM EST

Weed is too easy to grow, unlike tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceuticals which are difficult to produce. If weed needed extensive processing in order to use it , the corps would be lobbying to legalize it for medical and personal use.


Alcohol and tobacco (none / 0) (#7)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 05:42:23 PM EST

are simple and easy to produce as well, and if marijuana became legal don't think for a second that Phillip Morris et al with the production, distribution and marketing infrastructure in place would not quickly dominate the market unless laws specifically intended to prevent that from happening were enacted.

You pretty much have it backwards. In the absence of government intervention combination and consolidation tend to occur not diversification. I hate to burst your bubble but legalizing marijuana would be a boon for big corporations and probably put most small distributors out of business. Even farmers would probably need to form larger co-ops to have any chance to market their own product.

Disagree (none / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 06:01:56 PM EST

Have you ever tried to grow tobacco, or build a still? Home brew is ok but hardly refined.

Have you ever tried to grow weed? It is very easy. Indoors or outdoors a person with no skills can grow several varieties of high quality weed for pennies.

Much easier to grow than brussel sprouts.

If the PM et al saw big bucks in MJ they would already be producing for legal markets (Netherlands) and lobbying for other governments to make it legal.


No to growing tobacco ... (none / 0) (#9)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 07:41:28 AM EST

I used to smoke but precisely because it was so much easier and quite cheap to buy commercial tobacco I saw no need to grow my own. Because marijuana, being illegal, is a little more difficult to purchase and a lot more expensive, growing one's own makes much more sense.

As for cultivating, tobacco is no more difficult to grow than marijuana. The only difference I see is that most smokers consume a much larger amount of tobacco than they do marijuana. I don't think very many people smoke the equivalent of a pack a day every day of marijuana (and if they do they probably aren't growing anything other than fat) so most people probably lack the physical space to satisfy their tobacco needs with homegrown.

I do make beer and it is quite good-- not on a par with the best microbrews but much better than BMC products and as good as many microbrews. But, I make it because I enjoy the process not because of any commercial advantage. When I factor in my time and what I could earn if I was working rather than playing, it would be considerably cheaper to buy all my beer.

Distilling spirits is also a simple process-- much easier than say making methamphetamine-- and when alcohol was illegal the practice was very widespread. Once, the 21st Amendment was ratified the large-scale manufacturers quickly recaptured almost the entire market.

I'm not saying that some people would not continue to grow their own and that some small market would not persist for "illicitly grown" marijuana (there are still moonshiners out there-just not many).

What I'm saying is that if marijana was made legal, in the absence of laws intended to prevent it, it would quickly become a commsercial product with a market dominated by large-scale corporate entities-- just like everythjing else that is legal to buy. People grow great tomatoes too but the mostly crappy ones at the supermarket dominate the market.


No Comparison (none / 0) (#10)
by squeaky on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 03:14:09 PM EST

As for cultivating, tobacco is no more difficult to grow than marijuana.

It is more difficult to grow than tobacco. Tobacco is a finicky plant. And as far as being able to smoke the tobacco:

Due to the needs for proper harvesting and curing tobacco, there is very little home or garden production of tobacco for personal use. Another deterrent to home production of tobacco is the need to age the cured tobacco for one to three years or longer.

Not true with MJ. Hang em upside down until dry and then seperate the stems from leaves and buds and smoke.

What I'm saying is that if marijana was made legal, in the absence of laws intended to prevent it, it would quickly become a commsercial product with a market dominated by large-scale corporate entities--

Not going to happen.

And the point of homebrew is exactly that it is a fun hobby. Not going to be able to compete with a master brewer though. Also it is not so expensive to buy.


Not so (none / 0) (#11)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 08:35:26 PM EST

and this is actually something I have more than a little knowledge about - I'm not giving you an opinion.

Home made beer, if you care to do the work, can just as good as any "master brew" - in fact, perhaps better, since it's fresher.

All the ingredients for world-class beer are freely available thorough various specialty shops as is the equipment. Learn a few tricks of the trade, and you're making world-class brew.

Now, home made wine, that's something that you can do for a lifetime and never make a world-class product - because you can't get the world-class ingredients (grapes).

Distilling's a no-brainer.


Yes but (none / 0) (#13)
by squeaky on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:17:22 PM EST

Cost is not the motivating factor in home brewing. That is a hobby. The comparison in question is with weed. YOu can grow one plant outdoors (8.6 - 11.5) and have more than four years supply. Or grow a plants indoors half the size and still have more than a years supply.

One plant yield is up to five pounds. That would be consuming an ounce every four days. A small plant would be consuming an ounce every twenty days. Still a lot of weed.

Most do not grow it because it is illegal. Most would grow it if it was legal.

It is not like tobacco, alchohol, or pharmaceutical. It is dead easy to grow for personal use,


Maybe so squeaky, who knows? (none / 0) (#14)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:28:11 AM EST

Personally, my bet would be that the cig co's would take the lion's share of the market and because their product would be so cheap and so consistently good it would make little sense for most consumers to spend the time growing their own - unless they had a hankering for exotic strains or they just get a kick out of growing stuff, as many do.


Many Would Buy (none / 0) (#15)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 11:48:28 AM EST

But most would grow. And those that bought would buy local. Do the math.

And even if one MJ smoker out of ten grew a few plants that would be ten or more pounds, with negligible expense. They could provide enough at minimal cost to friends and family. It doesn't go bad and can be kept fresh. There is no way any corp could or would compete with that.

The only viable way for the corps to profit from legalization would be if they were successfully lobbied for to make growing it illegal and with a stiff penalty.


There are a lot of things we consume (none / 0) (#16)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 12:17:40 PM EST

that we could easily grow for much less money than we buy it for, but many/most of us choose to buy it anyway. Lazy bastards that we are.

imo, legalized dope wouldn't be a whole lot different unless, as you say, big business interests successfully lobbied to get growing illegal.

I'm not sure I can see that happening though.


Comparison? (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:16:12 PM EST

that we could easily grow for much less money than we buy it for

Like what? And how much saved?

I would imagine that if there were big money to be made the corps would be on it already.

The joke product is Sativex:

According to Bayer Canada, the cost of Sativex per vial is $124.95 (base price). Each vial contains approximately 51 sprays. The average dose per day is five sprays at an average cost of $12.25 per day. Based on this dosage, the base cost would be approximately $4,475 (the retail cost will be more depending upon pharmacy dispensing fees and other factors). Since the dosage is variable, to a maximum of 14 sprays per day, costs would increase or decrease accordingly. Private or group drug insurance plans may cover all or some of the cost. Sativex has yet to be approved for reimbursement by any federal, provincial or territorial drug program.

Not as effective for MS as the plant. And way more expensive.

Then there is marinol. More expensive less effective and more psychoactive side effects.

The average cost is $18/ day of med mj and $22/day for marinol. Sativex seems comparable although the figures are not out yet.


Tomatoes, corn, eggplant, zucchini, (none / 0) (#18)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:47:05 PM EST

oranges, lemons, grapes, cucumbers, grapefruit, loquats, peaches, pears, celery, lettuce, apples, basil, potatoes, string beans, peas, carrots, etc., etc., etc.

All relatively easy to grow and easy to preserve for much less money than buying (from the big corps), but many/most of us are too lazy or busy to do it ourselves. Or at least, we don't grow enough on our own to make it un-economic for big corps to grow the lion's share and then sell it to us.

I don't discount your points about how one plant could last a really long time, etc., I just think our society, in general, would rather buy it at our corner gas station, that's all.

Just my opinion, yours differs, no biggie.


Two Joints (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:10:04 PM EST

Equals $20/day more or less.

For those that regularly smoke MJ the comparison to any of your fruity examples is not apt.

And if you look at the current med examples it looks like the $400/ ounce price is here to stay legal or not.


: Well, I disagree on both of these points. (none / 0) (#24)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:14:48 PM EST

But there does not seem to be much purpose to continuing this discussion, as we're both just giving opinions.

that makes NO SENSE (none / 0) (#20)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:07:25 PM EST

Most people do not grow it NOW-- they buy it on the black market. How on earth can you conclude that people upon being able to purchase it legally with convenience and no risk of sanction would switch to growing it when they don't do it now?

Most people would undoubtedly buy it as they always have, the question would be from whome would they buy it. it seems obvious people would choose the legal and cheap market and it is self-evident that unless the government enacted laws to influence the market that large corporations would be able to deliver the product most cheaply to consumers.

I happen to buy a lot of organic and locally grown meat and produce. I pay more but I'm willing to do it and can afford it. Most people buy meat they know is raised using hormones, antibiotics,etc. and produce grown using pesticides, etc. because it is cheaper and it available at every supermarket.

Most people buy beer from the big 3 because it is cheaper. They don't buy better beer because it is more expensive and most people (although there is a sizable vocal minority) have nothing against the mega-corps. Even those who do have "political animus toward the big 3 mostly buy beer from COMMERCIAL sources which include plenty of fairly big companies even if dwarfed by the BMC folks.

A tiny percentage of people make their own beer. thjat segment roughly corresponds to the segment that would rely on homegrown marijuana after legalization. most people smoke pot to get high not because they want to make a political statement. This isn't 1967.

Home Growing (none / 0) (#25)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:16:02 PM EST

Is Illegal and if you own your property there is a good chance that the Federal gov will take it away if you are growing MJ on it.

Personally I would not risk my losing my property for a few plants.

On the other hand were it legal I would certainly grow it.


And (none / 0) (#27)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:31:10 PM EST

If the drug corps, or gov projects are any indication, the cost of MJ will not go down under corp control. That amounts to much more $$ way than Budweiser or Duval. $400/oz is $10/joint.

If you have a backyard throw a few seeds down and the rest is nature. Yes, you can nip the flowers off and preen when it matures (two months) 10 minutes every several days.

And two 8 foot plant yield enough supply for the whole neighborhood.


Come off it (none / 0) (#28)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:44:56 PM EST

In terms of relative risk, people wanting weed for purely personal use are considerably safer growing a plant or two in their closet or basement than dealing on the black market. As YOU pointed out it doesn't take but a very small growing operation to provide one's personal needs.

Either making frequent small purchases or occasional larger purchaes places one at a much higher risk of apprehension than small-scale growing.

Not only is the elimination of interacting with other people a major advantage in avoiding detection, the fact that the police need a warrant supported by probable cause to search your home but have much more power to detain and search you away from it makes growing less risky.

I've only had a few cases of personal use growing in my career (mostly because it is such an extremely low priority for police) and in every one the charges were either dismissed or reduced to simple possession and a slap on the wrist. no one ever lost their home for growing a plant or three to get high. the grow operations that resulted in more serious cases were larger scale commercial operations-- the type that i said would likely be put out of business if weed was legal because economies of scale and access to distribution markets would make it unprofitable.

People who enjoy growing marijuana as a hobby would do it but large commercial entities would dominate-- unless the government specifically sought to prevent it from happening (which is unlikely in the event marijuana were to be legalized).


: No Matter (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:11:02 PM EST

For me the risk of losing several Million $$ in property for growing MJ far outweighs buying for it personal use which is a petty crime. Sorry, with all due respect, but I won't take your word that if caught growing my property is safe from forfeiture.
I have grown plants as a teenager when I was without property and living in a rural area (over 30 years ago). Now living in the city I would grow it again, outdoors on my roof, were it legal.
It it too easy not to grow, compared to the expense, were it legal. I can understand not comprehending that fact if you have not grown the plant yourself, and maybe as an abstract idea the hassle would not be worth it for many.
And unlike beer the only special skill involved to grow top of the line weed is to have a good source for seeds. Indoor hydroponic is more like making beer and needs equipment and some skill. Outdoors, just sun water and soil.

I've been making beer for 20 years (none / 0) (#19)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 01:50:20 PM EST

(off and on) and I won't claim to match the world's best-- not even the world's best homebrewers, but you can definitely make a very fine product and the most fun is you can pursue styles and variations of styles to your heart's content. I like British ales from Imperial Stouts to ordinary bitters and browns. A more advanced friend of mine makes Belgian style ales that have won awards. Another guy I know loves Mead (fermented honey) and makes a whole range of them.

I can make (in my opinion) a better beer than Guinness or Bass but I can't match Stone or Three Floyds, etc.


I'm with you (none / 0) (#21)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:08:13 PM EST

I made my first batch of home brew in HS - definitely not world-class.

However, in my circle now is the largest and oldest home brew club in the US. With the right ingredients, equipment and attention to detail, the world is the home brewer's oyster.


Maltose falcons? (none / 0) (#23)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:14:16 PM EST

I will agree that some small percentage of homebrewers make world-class beer. Most, even experienced ones, do not. By and large homebrewers make some of the most interesting beers on the planet but professional brewers who seek to do it have expertise, equipment and quality control procedures that the typical homebrewer cannot match.

Now, some argue that means more that amateurs can't match the consistency and uniformity of professionals and that is not a bad thing. I tend to agree to an extent.


: Yep, the Falcons. (none / 0) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:49:26 PM EST

Those with the right ingredients, equipment and attention to detail make world-class beers.
Now, that is not to say their beer is necessarily identical to any particular beer that has been deemed "world-class," as everyone has their own distinct recipes, but the guys with full-on scaled-down breweries in their garages often make brew that is most assuredly of that quality level.
It's a little like car racing; when the race car owner asks how fast his car can go, the car builder asks how much money he has to spend.
The original point I was making was generally to compare home brewers to the home vintners who literally cannot get the world-class raw ingredients - the grapes Screaming Eagle, Domaine Romanee Conti, Château d'Yquem and Aldo Conterno make wine from are simply not available to the home wine maker (nor most any commercial producer as well, for that matter). Commercial production levels also help mightily with quality and consistency.
Although, having said that, everything has its price, I suppose...

Sounds Delicious (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 02:16:47 PM EST

And fun.


I'm with Decon here..... (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:16:02 PM EST

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that big tobacco has contingency plans to have brand name packs of Marleys and Doobies on the shelves not long after the repeal of mj prohibition.

And I'm ok with that...as much as I piss and moan about the misdeeds of corporate America, it has its good points. I like that I can buy a pack of cigarettes at 5 in the morning within walking distance....thats pretty damn cool. And as much as I piss and moan about government, I'd like the FDA, USDA...what have you, to keep an eye on things...corrupted as such agencies are.

Just like produce...you could buy the plentiful crappy corporate stuff at 7-11 for convenience, or support your local farmer for the fresh good stuff. Speaking of which...I can't wait till the local Long Island corn is harvested, the supermarket crap is garbage.


They are both right (none / 0) (#31)
by Peaches on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:14:24 PM EST

It is easier to grow Marijuana, than tobacco. Tobacco is a very finicky plant, and just about everything can go wrong from planting to harvesting. According to the writings of Wendell Berry (I've never grown Tobacco, but I have grown some very good weed in the past and it was very easy, just put some seeds in a pot and set it by a window), it is virtually impossible to to have a perfectly successful season and something is bound to go wrong during the whole process from planting to selling that will detract from the value of the final product sold to the tobacco buyers. So, Squeaky is right there.

However, I agree with Decon, Sarc and Kdog that if it were made legal, the market would quickly consolidate to a few buyers and we would be able to buy Marijuana in forms that are much more convenient than going through the whole process of growing. Our society [pays for convenience and most people will choose convenience over supporting a local product or growing their own. Vegetables are a good example because we can easily grow our own and preserve them, but when we can buy an inferior product at any time of the year from God know where it was grown in the world, using who knows what chemicals and slave labor, we will choose convenience over quality almost every time.

When its legal, we won't smoke a joint, blount, or do a oney. Just like we drink a Bud, or a Genuine Draft, we will smoke a Marlboro High life, or a Winston Rasta. A small contingent will grow their own high quality stuff, but the market will be saturated with cheap alternative that are lower in quality.


I figured all this talk of growing stuff (none / 0) (#32)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:21:43 PM EST

would bring Peaches out!

How's the spring shaping up in MN?


Hot (none / 0) (#33)
by Peaches on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:27:23 PM EST

But, my garden is very prolific. I've been giving away a lot of greens and soon the cabbages and Broccoli will be ready. My God, Usually my cabbage and broc is just ready to eat by the the time I am worried about the first frost. I don't know what I am doing right this year, but it is pretty nice. And Kale...... I planted a lot of Kale this year because I wanted to eat more of it, thinking it was something I needed more of in my diet. Well, I got more Kale than I ever imagined and Kale just looks so nice. I almost lose myself in the thought of lying down right in the middle of it while I am walking the paths and admiring it.

Everything is good here.

and Cali?


Dry (none / 0) (#34)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 03:49:03 PM EST

Driest spring on record I think. And hot.

If I can balance the irrigation right, my vineyard should produce nicely, the eggplants are starting to flower, my Purple Widow's about 3' high, my neighbor's already unloading zucchini on us.

Kidding about the PW.


Purple Widow?.... (none / 0) (#36)
by kdog on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:13:05 PM EST

Is that a cross-strain of White Widow and Purple Haze?...lol


: yep, I had to google marijuana varieties. (none / 0) (#38)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:19:44 PM EST

I'm not at all that hip. In my day it was sensimillion, maui wowie, thai stick and skunk weed.

Think about it (none / 0) (#35)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:02:28 PM EST

How low $$ could the corps go. MJ is the biggest cash crop in America 35 billion/year.

That is an estimated 22 million pounds annually.

If corps thought that they get could control of the industry at that price the MJ prohibition would well be over.

Why don't you think that the corps are not lobbying for reform of MJ laws?

My guess is that they see it a big money loser.


OR (none / 0) (#37)
by Peaches on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:13:13 PM EST

Someone makes more money off it being illegal and benefits from it remaining that way.

That was the whole deal with Reefer Madness, right?

If my memory is correct, 3M produced the film so they would not have to compete with the hemp producers and the rope produced by hemp. So we got 3M rope made out of nylon.

Maybe an urban myth? I'm not sure. But, I think right now there is cultural resistance from anti-drug groups that keep Marijuana illegal. Maybe, there are also even benefits for the suppliers of equipment that is used for the drugwar and gives us a reason to be interfering in Latin American countries. I don't know. You could be right about the money, in some ways it makes sense. Maybe it would be too hard to market Marijuana conveniently and sell it like alcohol in smokeshops that are regulated. Perhaps, the corps do realize that people would grow it instead of purchasing it like we do alcohol. You might be right. But, I still think it has more to do with cultural inertia and social constraints against legalizing drugs.


Paper and Booze (none / 0) (#40)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:39:39 PM EST

The paper industry (Lumber) is largely responsible for making MJ illegal.

Hemp produces acid free paper at a fraction of the cost as there is less processing and it grows like weeds.

That would put the timber biz in dire straits.

Also the taxpayer pays over 7.6 billion/yr to keep it illegal.


oops (none / 0) (#41)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:47:00 PM EST

Make that $10-12 billion/year to the taxpayers . A mj arrest happens every 40 seconds in America.

The total number of marijuana arrests in the U.S. for 2005 far exceeded the total number of arrests in the U.S. for all violent crimes combined, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

Norml


: Formidible Nunbers (none / 0) (#42)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:58:06 PM EST

When almost $50 billion dollars is spent annually on a product that is illegal there is little interest in tinkering with a goose that lays golden eggs.
The tax man must be way too stoned out to put it all together.

i don't see any conspiracy other than (none / 0) (#39)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jun 13, 2007 at 04:34:37 PM EST

a conspiracy of politicians scared to death to appear soft on drugs in a climate they view generally hostile to open minded consideration of marijuana prohibition. It's easier to just pretend to be hard on drugs but wink when marijuana possession laws are not enforced very vigilantly. That keeps the pressure low.