Currently mafias are making "an assload of money" by providing and selling pot worldwide. We don't want mafias to gain power out of something far from being as dangerous as alcohol, do we? No sadly, there are still too many dumb people who don't get it. I started to think some of them (the powerful ones) have direct economic interests. Meanwhile all our homes are filled with legalized drugs. The pills that prevent you from being anxious, nervous, the pills that make you sleep, the pills that make the pain vanish etc. Most of them being addictive. One would have only to see how much benzodiazepines are overused in our world. antianxiety agents, muscle relaxants, sedatives, hypnotics... I am sure the major pharmeceutical companies are making "an assload of money" out of it. Legalize pot and make it possible for (example) heroin addicted ppl to assume it in hospitals at low costs while at the same time using the money to help them (such as it is done for alcoholism) and you will manage to Take away an incredible huge amount of money from criminal organizations thus highly reducing their power. Take away from the streets a lot of annoying microcriminality. Actually saving a lot of unfortunated ppl from overdose deaths and infections. Yes, probably more ppl will give a try at pot from time to time, uh [sarcasm]I am really worried by this prospect...[/sarcasm]
BTW, the Supreme Court took the medical-marijuana case yesterday. WHich can have consequences further than marijuana. They are deciding the scope of Federal powers - which effects everything the feds try to do under the Commerce Clause.
True to an extent. But it is also true that the crack epidemic wrecked havoc on cities in the 1980s. The problem seems to have died down a bit, and whether that's because of the harsh punishment or other social factors is up for debate. One of my Public Policy profs in school said that the crack epidemic basically made every policy analyst throw out all of their previous assumptions on urban policy.
Don't get too euphoric with this contact high, if they actually assume the commerce clause to be restrictive there's alot of bogus liberal programs that would not stand up to scrutiny. But it's probably not in the cards, they would bring down an avalanche of new cases for commerce clause interpretation if they allowed this one. Can't they just tell the wacky appeals court here in SF to reconsider it until they get it right, without elevating the entirely phony issue to the supreme court level?
I voted in favor of the federal power based on Commerce Clause, not based on the fact that Ashcroft abused the federal power by prosecuting people in this case.