Boxer: Legalizing pot could increase crime, car accidents

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Boxer: Legalizing pot could increase crime, car accidents

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0405/boxer-legalizing-pot-increase-crime-car-accidents/

By John Byrne
Monday, April 5th, 2010 -- 8:08 am



California Sen. Barbara Boxer has a message for marijuana law reform activists: Just say no.

The liberal senator's position might come as a surprise, but it's no surprise to those who follow California politics: Boxer is facing perhaps the toughest reelection race of her career in 2010. She's neck-and-neck with former GOP Rep. Tom Campbell and slightly ahead of former Hewlett Packard chief Carly Fiorina.

In a statement issued late Friday to liberal blog Talking Points Memo, Boxer's campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski said the senator opposes a California ballot measure that seeks to legalize and tax marijuana.

"Senator Boxer does not support this initiative because she shares the concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials that this measure could lead to an increase in crime, vehicle accidents and higher costs for local law enforcement agencies," Kapolczynski said. "She supports current law in California, which allows for the use of medicinal marijuana with a doctor's prescription."

Boxer's six-year Senate term comes to a close this year. She'll stand for election Nov. 2 against a yet-to-be-determined Republican challenger.

[Cal Carpenter]

1. Why would anyone expect otherwise?

I asked this on a recent LBN thread about this subject and no one replied...

Wouldn't it be much more newsworthy if Boxer, or any US Senator, cane out strongly in favor of legalization?

[hlthe2b]

18. THis will be a people- driven and state driven movement

to its conclusion. Only when a significant number of states have not only approved medical use, but decriminalized it totally for general use, will congress take it up and start to change. Boxer is like 99% of them in being afraid the RW will club her with this in her reelection campaign. As idiotic as her comments sound, she'd undoubtedly right as to what the result would be if she came out even mildly in favor.

[Cal Carpenter]

31. They aren't afraid of the right wing

That's not what is keeping pot illegal and keeping thousands of people in jail for it.

For decades the Dems have been on the same side of this issue as the right wing. My question is, why do people expect something different?

I see this huge disconnect - the folks on the ground who think they can pressure the dems into changing their minds on an issue like this (or Afghanistan, or health care, or...). When in reality the Dems have been clear on these issues for a long time, and they aren't going to be pressured by lowly citizens to completely revamp their platform. They have and always will support the war on drugs. And you know why they won't change their positions? Because the people will still vote for them.

I think people are in total denial about who it is they have voted for all these years, and will continue to vote for...

Put away the rhetoric and look at the material evidence and the Dems are a whole different party than what many people here seem to want to believe...

[Flaneur]

48. She might want to read the polls.

A Field poll last year had legalization winning 56% approval.

If Boxer isn't willing to lead, she should at least consult her constituents.

[Cal Carpenter]

55. Why?

Why bother consulting the constituents when they are either gonna vote for her anyway, or not vote at all?

I mean, if Dems as a rule consulted their constituents we'd have health care, we'd be outta the wars, our overall foreign policy would be very different, we'd still have decent public schools, etc...

Thing is with this particular issue - pot legalization - it isn't just about our ability to go to a store and buy weed, or grow our own without threat of arrest. It has to do with the war on drugs, our entire justice system, our prison system, which is at this point a profitable private industry. The needs of that industry far outweigh the wants of the populace.

That's not even to mention the deep issues of race and class that come into the picture...

[tridim]

2. Nobody supports it except the majority of the people.

If the politicians need a clue, there it is.

[slackmaster]

3. She jumped the shark years ago. She needs to be "primaried".

Feinstein too.

:nuke:

[notadmblnd]

4. Nope, not going to happen.

I don't think there will be a big rush of new users.People don't steal to get money for the MJ, and if stopping at green light and driving slower causes more accidents, then whose fault would that be? All the people who don't use in a hurry to get where they are going, it won't be the MJ users that are currently on the roads driving.

[KG]

9. stoners are good at stopping at traffic lights, even if they aren't red.

don't ask me how i know this :P

[BuelahWitch]

63. +1!

:rofl:

[Lost4words]

5. Yea we better stick with legalized booze, much safer community on booze.

any time I see someone destroying their life and future by smoking pot I go out and buy them a six pack and a bottle of Jack Daniels. Its my way of saving the world from daemon pot.

You dont have to thank me I do it for all of our safety.

Those who know me know this is just pure jimmy style :sarcasm:!

:smoke:

[Echo In Light]

7. +1

[hatrack]

6. But think of the increased tax revenue from soaring Doritos sales!!

:eyes:

[Webster Green]

8. She is on the verge of losing my vote with this stupid crap.

I never thought I would be saying that. Increased crime? Car accidents? BULLSHIT!

I hope there is a dem primary challenger that will agree with the desire of the people of the state, instead of the fucking pigs.

[rsmith6621]

10. And what Does Budwieser and Jim Beam Do When!!!....

.....Those that get behind the wheel of a car and how many family's and futures does consuming alcohol destroy.....and how many people die on the roads from drunk drivers....,.

....Seems the Alcohol LOBBY could be in Barbara's back pocket....

[Lost4words]

16. Back pocket, Hell, they are half way up her...............

pants leg, what did you think I was going to say?

Its the golden rule.

He who has the gold makes the rules.

Do unto others until you get all their gold. then let them die its all good as long as profits climb.

[Lost4words]

11. well its good, why waste time on pesky jobs, she has hers and it pays well with great health care.

when did humans become spineless?

[Deep13]

12. How can eliminating one catagory of crime increase crime?

And what danger can a stoner who drives 12 m.p.h. be anyway?

[Lost4words]

19. Its about godless profits not safety!

the politicians could give a shit about our welfare, isnt that obvious, there is very little humanity left in this self rule experiment gone terribly wrong.

The good ship USA has run aground, and all the captains are in the first life boat. Little people are locked below deck, how long can we hold our breath.

[ixion]

13. Way to support criminal enterprise, Ms. Boxer

because by continuing this ridiculous 'war,' all you're doing is supporting drug cartels.

[Lost4words]

20. YUP!

[lame54]

14. That's great Barbara - Keep putting people in jail...

I've always liked Boxer but this pisses me off

She is so fucking wrong on this one

[Lost4words]

22. dont forget most prisons are Corporate for profit Prisons today.

did you catch the story of one judge in PA taking kickbacks for each person they sent? That happend right here in the good ole rip-off USA and I dont think he got more than a slap on the wrist.

Is this a great country or what?!

[notadmblnd]

27. It wasn't just people, it was kids.

Which I think is even more despicable.

[Lost4words]

32. Yes, you are correct and I agree totally!

If it happened once its happening right now as well, I would be willing to bet.

[marmar]

15. Wrong side of history, Barbara. Wrong side of history.

nt

[NikRik]

17. Or Course Police Against Legalization !

Except for some ,most police are going to be strongly against legalazation of Pot ! First of all pot being illegal is part of their job security ,when crime is down they will turn to setting up small time pot sellers and putting them in jail!As far as Boxer not endorsing legalization I do not think any politician would admit to legalizing pot even thou they may privatly know its the right thing to do and a way for them to help the economy thru taxzation!I wonder if Boxer is thinking about the pro legalization group ,and the younger voters who will now not vote due to making this public.Coming out against the proposition may hurt her more then coming out against it? Ethier way it shows her true colors always the politics first then doing whats right a distant second !
IMHO, NikRik

[sequioa]

21. Drugs and death

What is the answer to the horror on the Mexican US border with the drug wars?

[Lost4words]

26. when there is no profit to be made there will be no crime.

the profit potential is massive as long as it is illegal.

[SOS]

33. Money and death

In the 1920s and early 30s,, crime was at an astronomical high.
Machine gun street battles, massacres, bombings...all commonplace.
Was it the substance, alcohol, which fueled the crime and violence?
Or was it fueled by organized criminals protecting their money?

The substance is pretty much irrelevant.
Once alcohol was legalized the machine guns went silent.

The solution is in the Dutch and Swiss harm reduction models.

[Ian David]

23. I'd think it would decrease crime but increase accidents.

Especially in the first few months of legalization before pot-based DUI arrests get widespread publicity.

But it's possible that the trade-off between the lives destroyed by criminalized pot will be a net gain over the lives destroyed by DUI pot accidents.

[Lost4words]

29. hitting a shopping cart at 4 mph isnt much of an accident.

90 mph on the wrong side of the hwy is a little different. I'll match dexterity, motor skills and mental clarity over a boozer any day of the week.

[Ian David]

35. Or a child running out of a driveway while you're doing 30. n/t

[Lost4words]

38. that could happen to you cold sober! yes no?!

or a police cruiser if the child ran out between two cars, your point is week.

[Ian David]

41. Yes. But under the influence your reaction time is slower making you more likely to hit them. n/t

[Webster Green]

46. Links?

Bullshit!

[Lost4words]

47. in the case you example neither of us and the brakes could react in time.

I understand your point that reaction time is reduced and grant you that. But if I am driving more cautiously to begin with I might actually have a better chance of avoiding the child than you. And what is the reaction time of someone on a cell phone? Or someone looking away momentarily to look at something in someones yard or reaching for the IPod, of lifting that cheeseburger to your mouth, or looking down at the soda you spilled on your suit. What if you were taking antihistamines or pain meds. Or in a rush to get to work? I do not recommend driving impaired on anything. And safety behind the wheel is paramount.

I will say this, If 5% of drivers are impaired on the HWY, I sure hope their are not boozing.

[Webster Green]

56. Your cell phone example is excellent!

Your entire post actually. Absolutely correct.

Any of those activities are far more dangerous than being cannabis enhanced. :hippie:

[Lost4words]

57. thanks WG good to see you around again! you are one of the old timesr

:hi:

[Webster Green]

36. I totally disagree.

Stoned drivers are safer drivers. They are more cautious, and of course they are more "tuned in" to their surroundings.

Driving stoned brings the driver into a perfectly focused state of interaction between man and machine. It is a wonder to behold!

I wouldn't dream of leaving the house without twisting a couple of doobs for the road. :smoke:

[Lost4words]

40. And the prospect of an accident would be such a buzz kill, Bummer as well.

I great reason to avoid risky behavior. On booze I drove my MG Midget on the sidewalks of Chicago ! Never got caught.

[Ian David]

42. I've changed my mind. As long as people as ignorant as you exist, keep pot criminalized.

Thanks for making up my mind for me.

[Webster Green]

44. Ignorant?

Far from it, asswipe!

You, however...well, your ignorance of this particular subject is quite evident.

BTW, The idiotic pot laws have NO effect on my decision to drive or do anything else while stoned, so don't allow my lifestyle to sway your decision.

[Lost4words]

51. you are unable to have a discussion so you tantrum, go to your room!

nt :banghead:

[unpossibles]

39. I don't agree

It's not legal now, and that doesn't stop those who choose to drive under its influence. Driving stoned is already illegal, and will continue to be so after pot eventually gets legalized.

I also don't see legalization starting a bunch of new users (some, sure; most who want to smoke it already do).

[Beetwasher]

24. Love Boxer, But She's Wrong On This

And I suspect she knows it, but she's taking the "safe" political stance. That's fine. Let the voters decide.

[kentuck]

25. But most of the accidents would only be fender benders...

Because they would only be driving 28 mph...

[asdjrocky]

45. I resent that statement.

The fastest I ever drive is 22 :smoke:.

[still_one]

28. I support Boxer for Senator, but her logic is misguided. People drink and drive today

and even though that is illegal, it doesn't stop them

[Uben]

30. "...a higher increase in crime."

There were over 61,000 misdemeanor arrests for pot in California in 2008. Were it legalized, that is 61,000 arrests that would not have been made. So she is saying she expects an increase in crime if it is legalized? What category of crime does she expect to increase if 61,000 are removed. How much manpower would be saved if these 61,000 arrests were removed? She's grasping at straws.
I hate it when politicians tell half-truths and lies to justify their positions. Either she is ignorant of the facts or is being fed bogus information. Either way, she is wrong.

[asdjrocky]

34. What a clueless move for an otherwise smart woman.

Fine Senator Boxer, you just say no to us and we'll just say no to you.

She still has time to educate herself and change her position on this issue that is so critical to California.

Here's her numbers, maybe we can educate her about Cannabis Bigotry-
DC- 202 224 3553
Ca- 916 448 2787

[Canuckistanian]

37. INCREASE crime? How?

The supply and distribution of illegal pot is a MAJOR source of crime.

If I could buy some at a legal, licensed and controlled retailer (like alcohol) OR grow my own, that would be less business for the biker gangs and the "hard drug" dealers. Plus, I'd be getting a more consistent quality.

Boxer knows this. It's a shame she has to act like a politician instead of doing what's REALLY beneficial to society.

[Ganja Ninja]

43. And I suppose no one is driving around high right now.

It's already proven that using cell phones and texting while driving are causing accidents. Why haven't we outlawed them?

[sakabatou]

49. Hey, Nancy, what's liquor now?

[amborin]

50. disagree w/ her but she's fearful of rethugs and pandering to them to win

[robdogbucky]

52. At least her office could get the facts straight first

To say that doctors "prescribe," marijuana is factually incorrect. That is her office's first mistake and I would hope someone would correct the record before they continue to look even more foolish if this ever gets debated and they participate with this erroneous information. Once again, currently doctors don't prescribe marijuana. One would think a lawmaker's office would research an issue before making themselves look foolish. Some knowledge of the actual facts would not hurt. Those statements make her seem as out of touch as John Woo with his recent reactionary statements about counterculture elements in Berkeley.

Due to staunch federal resistance to any change in the legal status of cannabis, namely that it is a Schedule 1 narcotic to them and is highly illegal like harmful drugs such as PCP or crack or heroin, they treat it like that. In other words, no doctor can "prescribe," marijuana. They don't because they can't under federal laws. What is happening in Cal and other medical marijuana states is this. The doctors can only write medical marijuana "recommendations," not prescriptions. A prescription is something that is taken to a pharmacist for a controlled substance, legal but controlled substance. That is what all prescriptions are for. A recommendation is taken to a cannabis club or cannabis medical dispensary, where their recommendation is filed and where that patient can become a member for the purposes of purchasing their marijuana. There is usually no cost to become a member, but the recommendations from the issuing doctor usually cost a nominal fee and are issued only after evaluating the medical case history and an examination is done to verify that person's condition requiring the recommendation. That recommendation expires in one year and one has to re-apply and be examined again before a new recommendation can be issued.

The only drug akin to marijuana that can be "prescribed," is the big pharma version of cannabis, marinol, a synthesized derivative, a liquid medicine. It is not the plant, you do not smoke it, it is a distillate that the pharmaceutical companies came up with. It is more of a brewed concoction from some of the essences of the plant, but it is not the plant itself at all. It does have some limited medical applications, but effect and dosage is a whole different ball game from vegetative marijuana plants and the inhalation of the smoke or vapors from the combusted plant. Needless to say this liquid big pharma version is not the same thing as the vegetative cannabis plant. One cannot get a "prescription," for cannabis.

The other points to correct from the excerpt, if accurate, would be the erroneous assertions that "legalization," would cause some increase in crime and the allusion to some increase in traffic accidents. There is no evidence to support either assertion. To further mislead the public on the increased auto accidents claim (no doubt at the behest at least of the corrections industry which does prosper in the current legal environment surrounding cannabis), does not comport with the current wisdom on that score. There is no data to support it. Just like there is no data to support that there has ever been a fatal overdose of the combusted cannabis plant's smoke. One need only to look at history and what happened after prohibition was repealed. There was no spike in crime, just the opposite, as the mobs had to find new sources of income, namely hard narcotics. It would be nice and no doubt beneficial to society as a whole, if real reliable documented, unbiased research could take place for cannabis and that the many uses of this plant could be put into action to benefit peoples' lives. I guarantee there would be profitable avenues for people to exploit these beneficial uses of the plant.

The current wisdom is that the transition from the current disingenuous marijuana prohibition that was based on lies originally and was politically and economically motivated (see energy industry, chemical industry, alcohol industry, timber industry, etc.)and that this has been a necesary transition. These lies and false models are not valid any more and can no longer support the fraud carried out on our populace in regards to cannabis laws and its prohibition. What will happen is there will be a great shift to tourism if legalized here in Cal, the cannabis trade is estimated to generate anywhere from $12-18Billion in revenues annually, compared to the existing wine industry, that produces about $52Billion annually. If California could ever export the crop legally there is no end to the growth that could occur. It is like every other agricultural crop, it is grown, sold, consumed and would be grown, sold and consumed ad infinitum, just like food and wine are.

It really doesn't matter in the long run and this is only a matter of time before the tide of truth and public opinion's acknowledgement of same overwhelms all government deception, including the current phase of medical marijuana and its ridiculous conditions and premises in and of itself. The medical marijuana phase is necessary to first allow those that have legitimate need to address that need through safe and reliable means. I personally know at least 3 MM users that have benefitted greatly from this program. They suffer from migraines, from arthritis, from insomnia respectively. Modern medicine and pharmacoepia did not offer reliable solutions to their medical problem, but the medical marijuana program did.

Get real and get educated at: http://www.taxcannabis.org/


Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[asdjrocky]

64. Nicely put.

Wish I could rec this reply.

[WilliamPitt]

53. Weed is everywhere already.

EVERYwhere.

So, leagalizing that which is already ubiquitous will not increase its usage, nor will the country become a more dangerous place.

The Senator is wrong.

[Echo In Light]

54. Plentifully EVERYwhere, too. And in High Grade form, I might add

;)

[change_notfinetuning]

58. Shame on Boxer. Legalization will solve more problems than it will cause and

she knows that. Too bad she can't be honest about it. Term limits for all so they can show some courage. Nothing kills courage and honesty like wanting to be re-elected. The real disappointment here is that it's Boxer, one of the best.

[RedCloud]

59. What about free pot for tea baggers just to see if they do "crash" a lot?

[spanone]

60. she's still buying into the reefer maddness bs propagated by the law enforcement agencies

[walldude]

61. Yeah nice liberal attitude.. and that bullshit about the cops

is just that, bullshit. Most cops don't want to waste their time dealing with pot smokers, they have real crimes to deal with. Boxer should just shut up and get out of the way. If the reform passes in November she better get with the program.

[eShirl]

62. Don't be this dumb, Senator. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

65. Driving while stoned would require me to get off the couch. Not gonna happen. eom