5 ms·

Moving to Schedule 2 is a policy that may have made sense twenty years ago. We're well past that at this point - MJ is legal in several states and the sky isn't

Moving to Schedule 2 is a policy that may have made sense twenty years ago. We're well past that at this point - MJ is legal in several states and the sky isn't falling.

fapjacks 11y ago
Right, quite the opposite. In those states, drug arrests are down, prison population is dropping, tax dollars are being collected. It's looking like the right kind of policy from just about every perspective.
- intopieces 11y ago
  >drug arrests are down Serious question, because this point gets brought up often in this discussion: Did people expect drug arrests to go up or even stay the same? If you remove the ability of police to arrest someone for something, don't arrests then naturally go down?
  - tikhonj 11y ago
    One of the main recurring arguments against legalizing marijuana is that it is a "gateway drug": people who try it are more likely to go on to harder drugs like opium or cocaine. This means that some people legitimately believe that legalizing it would get more people into these other drugs and increase the overall number of drug crimes. It doesn't really make sense to me, but it seems to be one of the most common rationalizations for being against legalization.
    - intopieces 11y ago
      >This means that some people legitimately believe that legalizing it would get more people into these other drugs and increase the overall number of drug crimes. Okay, but according to the ACLU 52% of drug arrests are for marijuana. I know we've already exited the realm of logic with the gateway drug theory but to believe that legalizing marijuana would result in an instant increase in drug arrests -- that is, enough to overtake the majority of drug arrests in a single category, seems patently absurd. [0]https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers
      - betenoire 11y ago
        Yes, that idea is silly and that's why none of us have seen anyone making such a polemic argument. I think you know the answer, people vote with emotion, not with facts.
    - xur17 11y ago
      Shouldn't we really be looking at the growth in usage of other drugs in that case?
  - SquirrelOnFire 11y ago
    The "Gateway Drug" argument is often used against cannabis. Some warned against cannabis legalization, saying that it'd increase cocaine and heroin use. Heroin seems to be doing fine all on its own, thank you very much.
  - drumdance 11y ago
    The argument was more about criminal behavior than arrests. People on the Reefer Madness end of the political spectrum seem to think that pot will make people crazy like PCP, or do-anything-for-a-fix addicts like crack, heroin or meth. It's the same kind of people who argue against transgender rights because "men will be allowed in the ladies room!"

Moving to Schedule 2 is a policy that may have made sense twenty years ago. We're well past that at this point - MJ is legal in several states and the sky isn't falling.

fapjacks 11y ago

Right, quite the opposite. In those states, drug arrests are down, prison population is dropping, tax dollars are being collected. It's looking like the right kind of policy from just about every perspective.

intopieces 11y ago
>drug arrests are down Serious question, because this point gets brought up often in this discussion: Did people expect drug arrests to go up or even stay the same? If you remove the ability of police to arrest someone for something, don't arrests then naturally go down?
- tikhonj 11y ago
  One of the main recurring arguments against legalizing marijuana is that it is a "gateway drug": people who try it are more likely to go on to harder drugs like opium or cocaine. This means that some people legitimately believe that legalizing it would get more people into these other drugs and increase the overall number of drug crimes. It doesn't really make sense to me, but it seems to be one of the most common rationalizations for being against legalization.
  - intopieces 11y ago
    >This means that some people legitimately believe that legalizing it would get more people into these other drugs and increase the overall number of drug crimes. Okay, but according to the ACLU 52% of drug arrests are for marijuana. I know we've already exited the realm of logic with the gateway drug theory but to believe that legalizing marijuana would result in an instant increase in drug arrests -- that is, enough to overtake the majority of drug arrests in a single category, seems patently absurd. [0]https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers
    - betenoire 11y ago
      Yes, that idea is silly and that's why none of us have seen anyone making such a polemic argument. I think you know the answer, people vote with emotion, not with facts.
  - xur17 11y ago
    Shouldn't we really be looking at the growth in usage of other drugs in that case?
- SquirrelOnFire 11y ago
  The "Gateway Drug" argument is often used against cannabis. Some warned against cannabis legalization, saying that it'd increase cocaine and heroin use. Heroin seems to be doing fine all on its own, thank you very much.
- drumdance 11y ago
  The argument was more about criminal behavior than arrests. People on the Reefer Madness end of the political spectrum seem to think that pot will make people crazy like PCP, or do-anything-for-a-fix addicts like crack, heroin or meth. It's the same kind of people who argue against transgender rights because "men will be allowed in the ladies room!"