[420 Girl]

A pro-pot student group is holding a three-day symposium in Boulder starting this weekend, leading up to the annual 4/20 campus "smoke out" session on Monday. The talks and event are aimed at the decriminalization of marijuana, which many people think is a drug that should remain illegal. What do you think?

This question was posed to the editorial advisory and virtual editorial boards

Would you argue against government's banning a book by citing the positive outcomes of free speech? Of course not. This concedes that free speech takes a back seat to whatever authorities consider to be "good for society." Free speech derives from our individual rights: our freedom to take action and pursue our goals through the voluntary and peaceful cooperation of others.



Drug prohibition is unjust because it violates these rights. Don't be distracted by arguments about prison overcrowding and marijuana's medicinal benefits. These are important issues, but do not concede your rights. Pregnancy aside, you have the right to ingest, inhale, or inject whatever you want.

Legitimate law enforcement is a response to aggression -- like restraining a violent drunk from further pummeling someone. We properly celebrate civilians who do so. But we should condemn civilians who forcibly interfere with someone's selling, buying, or smoking politically-incorrect plant. Such interference is not a response to aggression; it is aggression. Sensibly, civilians who favor drug prohibition do not partake in such aggression themselves; they delegate it to government employees.

Yes, some people will ruin their lives by abusing drugs, whether they are banned or not. If this concerns you, consider supporting drug rehab charities instead of destructive prohibitions that violate our rights.

Brian T. Schwartz



I find it hard to justify the laws of man attempting to outlaw and eradicate one of God's, or Mother Nature's, creations on this Earth -- the cannabis plant. Cannabis, or marijuana, is a native plant to this continent, and it has many beneficial uses.

It is encouraging that we are more willing to discuss this once taboo subject. We need to bring some sanity and justice to this subject.

Prohibition creates "black markets." It has been proven over and over in history. Witness the prohibition on alcohol -- it created horrific violence and wide spread black markets. The black markets encourage lawlessness. Instead, the subject matter needs to be exposed to the light of day, and dealt with openly in our society.

Our society now regulates, and even enjoys tax revenues from the alcohol business now, and it put Al Capone and the black markets out of business.

We need to do the same thing for the cannabis black market.

Rick Beaufait



For our governments' budgets, yes.

The public imagination is tingling with

the view that we should finally legalize cannabis.

Considering our failed, $2.5 trillion "war on drugs" of the past four decades plus the legitimate demands we still need to

put on our strained public budgets, and now the drug-gang violence that terrorizes our nation, we can't afford not to regulate and tax the legal sale of pot.

The risk factors brought by pot use will fit neatly into the regulations and societal pressures which already curb alcohol and cigarettes.

"Pot could be legalized. It was never a thought that the use of marijuana led directly to the commission of a crime -- other than the possession itself. It doesn't seem to impair judgment in the sense of leading to criminality. But it should not be used while driving," says Rob Bresciani, Boulder's retired chief of probation.

The only violence linked to pot is where its illegality is exploited by our impoverished neighbors in Mexico, who strain to profit from our steady demand. This can be subverted through a free and regulated market. The state has proven time and again its incompetence at curbing behaviors that are chiefly a matter of conscience. So instead of extending this conservative brand of the "Nanny State", let's reap the national security and free market bonanza that can come from the sound regulation and taxation of marijuana.

Anne B. Butterfield



Our prisons are overflowing, our border with Mexico is a free fire zone (both sides supplied by U.S. arms manufacturers), our need for tax revenues is increasing exponentially and our resources for law enforcement are stretched to their limits. Prohibition of marijuana isn't working any better today than prohibition of alcohol worked in the 1920s.

Police chiefs all over the country are beginning again to use the "D" word (Decriminalization was popular in the 1960s and early 1970s), but now they do so for practical, not simply philosophical reasons. Keeping pot "illegal" has not enabled educational efforts to administer a coup de grace, though it has placed many otherwise law-abiding and non-threatening people behind bars (mandatory sentencing guidelines too often tie the hands of thoughtful judges).

Marijuana is less addictive than nicotine and causes far less harm directly to the body (and indirectly to other people) than alcohol. To the extent irresponsible use leads to unlawful behavior, enhanced penalties can remain (i.e., stop sign sober, 4 points; stop sign under the influence, 8 points and up). However, those laws exist today and pot-smokers are not our DUI problem. They are more of a threat to Frito's than to other drivers.

Finally, keeping pot's use criminal means users with substance abuse problems must weigh legal repercussions before seeking help.

Ed Byrne

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/in...ory-board.html