DEA to reclassify Marijuana from schedule I to schedule III

[farscott]

Perhaps I am being too simplistic, but I look at the "war on drugs" like I look at "war on gun violence". In both cases, the tool is not the issue. The issue is what the user does with the tool. Use a gun to commit a crime like robbery or homicide, get charged for the crime. Take a dump on the sidewalk or operate a motor vehicle while impaired, get charged with a crime. And not misdemeanors. Make them felonies and back things up with tough sentences.

No revolving door for DUI. Do it once is ten years, forfeit vehicle, and lifetime driving ban. Twice is same as ten but twenty years. No parole. No extenuating circumstances. Kill someone while DUI and you get life in prison with no possibility of parole. Yes, some people will spend more time in prison due to a one-time mistake, but the deterrent on so many others will make it useful. Right now, there is no deterrent for abhorrent behavior. I am aware of more than one person with more DUI convictions than fingers. And they still drink and drive because there is no fear of consequences. In an area where it is easier to Uber to/from a bar than to find a parking spot near the bar.

Never going to happen, but I can dream.

[TGS]

Never going to happen, but I can dream.

I think automatic 1 year suspension + misdemeanor charge for first offense, second offense being a felony with 5 year suspension, and third offense being another felony with a lifetime suspension would be more realistic.

While I agree that DUI penalties are laughably low, the problem with your proposition is that the severity of the penalties is also completely out of sync with penalties for other crimes, just in the other direction.

You typically don't see that level of harshness as minimums for people unless they're involved in drug trafficking or terrorism, as two quick examples.

I think the penalties should be more severe than they are now, but what you're talking about is basically making someone's life unrecoverable for a non-violent crime of negligence.

[farscott]

I think the penalties should be more severe than they are now, but what you're talking about is basically making someone's life unrecoverable for a non-violent crime of negligence.

I agree. I also believe that we need to be too harsh for a while to counteract being much too lenient. My opinion might be swayed a bit as I just returned from a business trip to San Jose, CA. If I did not see it with my own eyes, I would not believe what upper middle class neighborhoods (Los Gatos) have become. San Jose itself was even worse.

[ssb]

I remain convinced that the primary reason law enforcement/adjacent groups in my state, to include my employer, continue to oppose its legalization is because the odor of marijuana is PC for a vehicle search under our case law.

We’ve played this silly one-foot-in-one-foot-out game with hemp-derived products, to include the various delta-whatevers, for several years now. Indeed, a recent legislative change meant that our crime lab could potentially turn legally not-weed into weed through some weird chemistry stuff I don’t pretend to fully understand (in other words, their test can no longer conclusively state the substance is legally marijuana). While they’re working to rectify this, the reality is that they haven’t tested misdemeanor amounts for years now absent a special request — which means that anybody who wants to force the issue probably isn’t worth the resources to prosecute. And if they do force the issue, there’s really not much we can do about jury nullification. I’m aware of a literal semi truck full of weed interdicted that came back as a simple possession (coincidentally, that jurisdiction basically never prosecutes it for resale anymore).

It’s gotten really dumb.

[breakingtime91]

I think automatic 1 year suspension + misdemeanor charge for first offense, second offense being a felony with 5 year suspension, and third offense being another felony with a lifetime suspension would be more realistic.

While I agree that DUI penalties are laughably low, the problem with your proposition is that the severity of the penalties is also completely out of sync with penalties for other crimes, just in the other direction.

You typically don't see that level of harshness as minimums for people unless they're involved in drug trafficking or terrorism, as two quick examples.

I think the penalties should be more severe than they are now, but what you're talking about is basically making someone's life unrecoverable for a non-violent crime of negligence.

Great post and I like your approach. I think it allows people make horrible/stupid choices they have to pay for but not ruin their life.. second time isn't a mistske, lay down the hammer. Obviously if first dui causes I jury or death the severity of that punishment should match the severity of the incident.

[breakingtime91]

Just want to point out, since I've listened to his podcast for the last almost 9 years, Joe Rogan does not say that marijuana is for everyone. He says, from the start, it's bad for young people and can cause mental illness in some people (schizophrenia especially). I really hate when people lie so I needed to point that out. If you have an actual greviance with him fine, don't make shit up. I find him, especially in the last few years, to be more and more on the side of freedom and helping educate a lot of left leaning people on the problems with their thought processes. He used to be liberal and it would annoy me but I used it as a sound board to challenge my own beliefs. Ever since Jordan Peterson joined him for a podcast (circa 2016ish I think) he has been ona journey that has led him to being more and more on the side of freedom. He also went against covid mandates while a lot here took the bait and regurgitated the governments propaganda.


Sorry, but it annoys me how people portray Joe Rogan with no experience actually listening to him. He's doing more for freedom and freedom of thought than most.

This came off harsher than I thought it would. I didn't mean to imply that someone was a liar, I should have worded it differently. Sorry about that.

[DDTSGM]

Perhaps I am being too simplistic, but I look at the "war on drugs" like I look at "war on gun violence". In both cases, the tool is not the issue. The issue is what the user does with the tool. Use a gun to commit a crime like robbery or homicide, get charged for the crime. Take a dump on the sidewalk or operate a motor vehicle while impaired, get charged with a crime. And not misdemeanors. Make them felonies and back things up with tough sentences.

No revolving door for DUI. Do it once is ten years, forfeit vehicle, and lifetime driving ban. Twice is same as ten but twenty years. No parole. No extenuating circumstances. Kill someone while DUI and you get life in prison with no possibility of parole. Yes, some people will spend more time in prison due to a one-time mistake, but the deterrent on so many others will make it useful. Right now, there is no deterrent for abhorrent behavior. I am aware of more than one person with more DUI convictions than fingers. And they still drink and drive because there is no fear of consequences. In an area where it is easier to Uber to/from a bar than to find a parking spot near the bar.

Never going to happen, but I can dream.

I think automatic 1 year suspension + misdemeanor charge for first offense, second offense being a felony with 5 year suspension, and third offense being another felony with a lifetime suspension would be more realistic.

While I agree that DUI penalties are laughably low, the problem with your proposition is that the severity of the penalties is also completely out of sync with penalties for other crimes, just in the other direction.

You typically don't see that level of harshness as minimums for people unless they're involved in drug trafficking or terrorism, as two quick examples.

I think the penalties should be more severe than they are now, but what you're talking about is basically making someone's life unrecoverable for a non-violent crime of negligence.

I don't know what the absolute answer to the problem is. Drunk/drugged drivers kill over ten thousand folks each year, not to mention the thousands of permanent disabilities which result.

I think that technology could help with the problem, although some may feel those technologies are an unconscionable infringement of civil liberty. I'm talking about requiring new vehicles to have ignition interlocks; I'm talking about bars being responsible for measuring the BAC of those they serve and being forbidden for serving above a set BAC.

While it sounds simple and easy to jail them and throw away the keys, the cost of incarceration would be crippling.

I think we need to rethink how we do DUI diversion, and increase the minimum jail time for first and subsequent offenses. As far as I'm concerned, if you get one DUI, you should never be allowed to drive a vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock, period.

We also need to develop relevant educational programs for teens and young adults that are detailed and compelling in nature.

And finally, we need to do a better job of convincing police officers that the best way for them to be a lifesaver is to put more effort into DUI enforcement. For many officers 'it just ain't my thing' and that's kind of BS when you look at the costs - both human and economic.

[RoyGBiv]

In my novel-in-progress set in a not so distant future the major plot is: all narcotics are legalized and Big Pharma groups become the biggest cartels. To the point they under-the-table employ PMCs to wholesale eliminate cartels in non-US jurisdictions and use politics to increase enforcement on illegal narcotics trade within US jurisdictions.

Sounds like a good story line.

[BillSWPA]

Perhaps I am being too simplistic, but I look at the "war on drugs" like I look at "war on gun violence". In both cases, the tool is not the issue. The issue is what the user does with the tool. Use a gun to commit a crime like robbery or homicide, get charged for the crime. Take a dump on the sidewalk or operate a motor vehicle while impaired, get charged with a crime. And not misdemeanors. Make them felonies and back things up with tough sentences.

No revolving door for DUI. Do it once is ten years, forfeit vehicle, and lifetime driving ban. Twice is same as ten but twenty years. No parole. No extenuating circumstances. Kill someone while DUI and you get life in prison with no possibility of parole. Yes, some people will spend more time in prison due to a one-time mistake, but the deterrent on so many others will make it useful. Right now, there is no deterrent for abhorrent behavior. I am aware of more than one person with more DUI convictions than fingers. And they still drink and drive because there is no fear of consequences. In an area where it is easier to Uber to/from a bar than to find a parking spot near the bar.

Never going to happen, but I can dream.

While I agree with most of your post, in the case of alcohol and drugs, the problem is in part the nature of the tool. They are addictive.

In my rural/suburban county, a person wishing to attend an AA meeting can pick from five on any given day. These meetings range in size from a dozen at a “closed” meeting (you must declare yourself to be an alcoholic to attend) to over 100 at an “open” meeting. There are also at least 2 Narcotics Anonymous meetings that take place weekly within 5 minutes of my home, and both are well-attended. That is just the people who know they have a problem.

I have watched people show up at a grocery store with very little money, but food for their child, then buy cigarettes, and whatever money was left was for their food. They valued their cigarettes more than their food.

I suspect a much larger percentage of our society has an alcohol or other substance problem they do not recognize or will not admit. That addictive nature is part of the cause of repeat offenders.

We know how prohibition went, and we know how the war on drugs went, but legalizing these substances will only lead to more addiction and more problems.

[Eric_L]

I think automatic 1 year suspension + misdemeanor charge for first offense, second offense being a felony with 5 year suspension, and third offense being another felony with a lifetime suspension would be more realistic.

While I agree that DUI penalties are laughably low, the problem with your proposition is that the severity of the penalties is also completely out of sync with penalties for other crimes, just in the other direction.

You typically don't see that level of harshness as minimums for people unless they're involved in drug trafficking or terrorism, as two quick examples.

I think the penalties should be more severe than they are now, but what you're talking about is basically making someone's life unrecoverable for a non-violent crime of negligence.

DUI crashes look somewhat violent to me…….