Issue 3.4

In response to a few of your points. I see what you are saying about Puritanism as it is perceived in our popular culture. However, I tend to think of Puritanism as a restriction of sundry behaviors because they are perceived as immoral through a religious perspective. Asking people to redirect their behavior in a verifiable, socially advantageous manner does not seem Puritanical.

Maybe the problem with medical marijuana and decriminalization efforts is making it a campaign. It makes it too big of an issue. They ask politicians to do something with a small upside in increasing support among their constituents, while those same politicians face the real potential of a downside in constituent support. This does not make it impossible to change marijuana policy but it needs to be done differently. You can't make a public campaign out of it if public support is narrow and shallow. It means legalization is out of the question you have to change the policy so it is not visibly different. I would say decriminalization and medical marijuana are the best options. It would be easy for people not to see a noticeable difference in their day to day life. However, it would have dramatic effects on the expenses of the state in enforcement and incarceration, not to mention the positive impacts on the lives of people who choose to do this. It should be approached in the same way that companies have regulations and laws changed, they do it quietly in the middle of the night in a huge omnibus bill. In this instance, it should also be vague because it such a public issue thanks to NORML. Make it so the press can not say for certain whether is has been decriminalized.

To your question about me applying a stereotype to marijuana users/ dealers, it is not a stereotype. In a democratic society, when you break the rules that everyone agreed upon you are stepping outside of society. This is the definition of criminal. If you disagree with the behavior you work to change the rules, except in extreme circumstances. I don't think marijuana or any other illegal drug falls into the category. We have a whole process for doing this. So it is not a stereotype, rather it is the application of a definition. To then make the leap that these dysfunctional members of society would not have an interest in participating in a throughly civil process is more like a deducation and less of a stereotype.

The fact that drug users/dealers are operating outside of societal boundaries brings up the other problem with this idea. Violence is inherent in drugs. They have no recourse for their wrongs. There only option for righting a wrong is violence.

Yes, I will admit it was a knee-jerk reaction to protests. This is certainly a siuation that makes sense for a protest. You don't have to rub it in.

Finally, in the end the problem with this is it is not scalable to other drugs. You started this with saying that you were going to talk about Marijuana because it is the easiest. In retrospect, you had to pick Marijauna because this would not work for any other drug, because marijuana is not addicitive. At a certain point in most drug users experience they have to get high. There only concern is scratching their addiction, not violence in Juarez which is related to the cocaine and heroin trade. That is my challenge to you how does this idea scale. Show me the socially concerned heroin user.