Argument for legalizing the adult use of cannabis was to stop the harm caused by disproportionate enforcement of drug laws in Black, Latino and other minority communities.
Legal challenges over the permitting process in states like New York have slowed implementation.
After settling other cases, New York — which has issued 60% of all cannabis licenses to social equity applicants, according to regulators — is facing another lawsuit. Last month, the libertarian-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation alleged it favors women- and minority-owned applicants in addition to those who can demonstrate harm from the drug war.
It’s not going to help minority communities if there are groups hell-bent on never doing anything to help minority communities.
I feel like this article is missing the main point. Yes; assholes trying to prevent black and minority success continue to be a thing same as ever.
But getting the police boot lifted off your neck a little has got to be a good thing, right? Tell me about that! Have arrests and hassling gone down or not?
Agree 100%. You put it much better than I did.
So when do we start talking about all the reparations the US owes for the millions of lives it destroyed with it’s decades-long “War On Drugs” terrorism campaign?
Removed by mod
You mean themselves too?
Yeah I love weed and would honestly rather it’s mandatory than restricted but drug prohibition was popular in its day.
A lot of people here seem to think that if you kill a few politicians everyone will agree on leftwing principles and unite as one - that’s very much not what will happen.
Don’t forget the hippies and socialists. McCarthyism is baked into that as well, because political persecution.
Get fucked prohibitionists.
There will come a time when humanity wins the war on drugs, and everyone has the bodily autonomy to put what drugs they want in their own body.
And when that day happens… will you see drug users persecuting people for not being high?
Will you see prisons built for those who dare stay sober?
Will people be given felonies for being straight edge?
Will drug users militarize the police and erode our constitutional rights in a vain quest to enforce thier way of life on others?
NO
Who would want to do that to someone? Prohibitionists.
And we are NOT them.
Marijuana legalization will not end the worst consequences of the war on drugs.
Full legalization of all drugs is maximum harm reduction.
deleted by creator
Out of curiosity, what drugs have you done? I rank powder cocaine as a low/medium level drug for addiction potential and effects. It seems like it gets its hooks in as a facilitator for alcoholism.
Crack, while the same drug, is an entirely different experience. If powder cocaine is a roller coaster, crack is like covering the same distance, but shot out of a cannon. Every thing is faster, harder on your body, and a lot more intense. The rush is so big that you immediately feel like you’re in a pretty heavy withdrawal within an hour, and there is no fatigue from a whole night of partying to inform you not to do more.
Maybe the law should pay attention to methods of ingestion and the effect each one has on behavior rather than demonizing a chemical by itself.
Part of full legalization includes adding resources for education and rehabilitation. We educate people so they are less likely to succumb. We remove stigmas that create barriers to people getting help with addiction, and then we help people.
Honestly, removing demand for crack would do more to shatter the supply.
I honestly think most people wouldn’t go for crack if power was more accessible and cheaper. Most crack users I’ve met in my life have either gotten there because they were from a place where powder wasn’t available, or because the cost of powder overwhelmed their financial ability.
Crack is a much better revenue source for dealers too, so it is often easier to find than powder cocaine unless you run in wealthier circles.
Idk, look at Portugal. Full drug legalization is not doing too hot.
Really? You care to source that? Because everything I can find has them significantly less burdened by drug problems than other European countries or most US States.
Aside from being there many times and seeing the problem first-hand here are a few articles:
The idea that decriminalization leads to less hard drug usage is seen to have an initial positive effect (which could be why you had previously thought it was better) but unfortunately has led to a larger unmaintainable drug problema:
- locations become drug trafficking epicenters
- rubber band effect from expiring and unmaintainable government funding
- number of users growing
The number of Portuguese adults who reported prior use of illicit adult drugs rose from 7.8% in 2001 to 12.8% in 2022 — still below European averages but a significant rise nonetheless. Overdose rates now stand at a 12-year high and have doubled in Lisbon since 2019.
Check Portland, OR. Not going so great now. The drugs nowadays are synthetic and designed to be addictive to most people. Decriminalizing them isn’t going to get them off the streets and stop people from getting hooked.
Wharton handwaives the fact that they’re still lower than the European average and much lower on hard drug usage. Yes the usage rates in Portugal went up. The entire world’s usage rate went up. Turns out bad economic times make people turn to drugs to deal with the grind. And it’s not some initial effect either, Portugal did their decriminalization 20 years ago.
As to the effects, the Guardian Article has a great snippet for you-
The real test is among problematic users. Here, the picture is less conclusive. After falling dramatically at first, for instance, drug-induced deaths have begun to climb back up. Even so, the numbers remain small. In 2021, Portugal registered 74 deaths from overdoses (compared with 37 in 2014). In Scotland, by contrast, a country with a population of about half the size, “drug misuse” deaths for 2021 stood at 1,300.
So yeah deaths have gone up but it’s from a miniscule number and is still far below other countries, including ours. The US lost 31 per 100,000 people in 2021. Portugal lost .71 people per 100,000 in 2021. Whatever they’re doing is far more effective than what we’re doing.
Portland did it right before Covid, during the opioid crisis, and never funded the treatment part or took any of the other measures Portugal did. Basically they did it in the worst way possible.
So please attempt to tell me again, without the conservative business school’s mud, how Portugal is some kind of failure?
edit - Oh god that Wharton link is worse than I thought, he’s flogging a book. No wonder he’s doing hot takes. He wants to sell copies.
You originally said that you find Portugal less ‘burdened’, I am just pointing out that that is not the case. Decriminalization takes significant amount of spending and burden for both Portugal and Portland and isn’t showing improvements in the community. If a policy isn’t making an impact it’s not a working policy: this experiment has been alive in Portugal for over 20 years. Feel free to look at more sources, or provide proof that it does work, I’m all ears.
I have heavy drug users in my family. Giving them access to more supply and mobility to shoot up whenever they want isn’t going to help them. They don’t think that way.
I didn’t realize providing health care was considered a burden in civilized countries. But you’re also mischaracterizing what I said. I Said they were less burdened by drug problems than other countries. So unless you’re saying we should just let our friends and family die you’re demonstrably wrong. Portugal is vastly improved from where they were and this minor uptick in problems does not negate that.
I did provide proof. Out of your own source that’s a respected newspaper. I’m sorry you’re dealing with addiction in your family but the evidence has been clear for decades. Decriminalize and treat. Portland forgot the second part and tried to make a large policy change during a pandemic. And instead of course correcting they’re throwing the whole thing out and going back to the system that didn’t work before.
Thank fuck they didn’t use “decimate” like a dumbass. 🤘🏽
edit: The whingy downvotes here only underline the issue of confident illiteracy, vernacular morphology be damned. Just because some lazy fuck barely remembered the feel/sound/look of “devastate” and settled for the wrong word, doesn’t mean you have jump off the bridge too, kiddo. Read a damn book.
To “decimate” means “to destroy 10%.” I agree with you that “decimate” would be inaccurate, in the sense that the destruction wrought by the drug war easily exceeded 10%.
I’m well aware of what the term means and its historical usage. I’m also glad to see you know at least half that, and thank you for your support. 🤓
people have been using “decimate” to mean “to remove 90% and leave only 10% remaining.” When I was younger I was surprised to learn it didn’t mean that.
We already have a different word to indicate “to remove 10%” : tithe.
That might be your tithe, other places, groups, and organizations have different levels of tithe. Decimate has been to destroy 10 percent since the Romans used the word and killed every tenth man in a legion as punishment. This is not a new thing.
Removed by mod
What a stupid take. This is just DARE propaganda.
Consuming cannabis is not a gateway to other drugs. Needing to have regular contact with a drug dealer that wants to sell you more addictive drugs is the gateway. It’s that fucking simple.
Incorrect. That’s commonly known as propaganda actually.
Poor people have always sold things that are illegal or not available through other channels because they are desperate or ignorant enough to take the risk so I’m with you
