I was wrong.

[Ned Hamford]

Well, one of the biggest reasons the DOJ down to the locals focus on drug enforcement is because that is where the money is.  A disturbing amount of prosecutorial focus is based on nothing more than the potential for cash/property seizures. 

[Seenterman]

of that 50% something like 75% of them is for marijuana.

Ok now I had to go and check. I couldn't find the same stats I saw before but here are some that are almost identical to what I saw a while ago. Yea my memory did mess up that 75% stat was for all possession offenses not solely for marijuana.

in 1980 there were 581,000 drug law arrests, climbing to a total of 1,846,351 in 2005. 81.7% of these arrests were for possession offences, and 42.6% of arrests were for marijuana offences.
(page 3)


19.5% of State prisoners are drug offenders.
53% of Federal prisoners are drug offenders.
(page 7)


http://www.idpc.net/php-bin/documents/Beckley_Report_16_2_FINAL_EN.pdf

Can't find the marijuana specific stats so I'll check later but yea I was wrong 53% of Federal prisoners are drug offenders.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

very few folk in prison for pot  unless they were selling  and even that usually means multiple offenses or some other form of egregious behavior.  never forget that what finally gets on the sheet under "convicted of" often bears lil resemblance to what the offense actually was.
a good case in point?  i fired a shop steward for failing to disclose his aggravated assault conviction on app.  the arbitrator was gonna rule against me till i let her read the police report.  he'd stabbed a previous boss to death while he was asleep. stabbed him 60 times while they were on a pcp binge

[Jamisjockey]

very few folk in prison for pot  unless they were selling  and even that usually means multiple offenses or some other form of egregious behavior.  never forget that what finally gets on the sheet under "convicted of" often bears lil resemblance to what the offense actually was.
a good case in point?  i fired a shop steward for failing to disclose his aggravated assault conviction on app.  the arbitrator was gonna rule against me till i let her read the police report.  he'd stabbed a previous boss to death while he was asleep. stabbed him 60 times while they were on a pcp binge

Like having a firearm.  Your right to defend yourself goes out the window if you have drugs. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

and in some cases it should
dope does not make you smarter  sadly it can make you think you are

ine of my least favorite things to hear from the man in the long black dress was "mr newell! what were you thinking?!"  and then snickers from behind me in court   it was never good

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And prohibition is stopping this 

'Stop' as in 'completely eliminate'?  No.

'Stop' as in 'reduce' or 'decrease'?  Yes.  Definitely.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

'Stop' as in 'completely eliminate'?  No.

'Stop' as in 'reduce' or 'decrease'?  Yes.  Definitely.

i believe based on my experience and that of those i know that prohibition has increased the harm

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

i believe based on my experience and that of those i know that prohibition has increased the harm

I figure there are two prime sources of harm related to drugs, the harmful collateral damage due to someone's drug use, and the criminal harm associated with the black market trade in drugs.

At first glance it's an either/or proposition.  Criminalizing depresses harm from use, but that comes at the cost of increasing the black market trade.  Decriminalize and you reduce the harm due to the black market, but at the expense of more usage harm.

Upon further thought, I don't think legalization would reduce overall crime levels much.  It would certainly reduce the crime associated specifically with the drug trade, but those gangbangers aren't going to turn into choir boys just because the local Walgreens starts selling meth.

[MicroBalrog]

Maybe, but consider drug deaths.

A lot of what is attributed to 'drug deaths' is actually deaths due to impure/misproduced drugs.

Remember that millions of amphetamine and cocaine users fought on the fronts of WW2. They came home and became citizens in their respective countries.

[Perd Hapley]

What was it that caused you to change your position, fisty?  Was it just that a respected evangelist leader told you he was in favor of legalization, or were there specific reasons and arguments that won you over?

Neither one, really.  The thing with the evangelist was just a week ago.  I stated at least a few months back that I favored legalization.  Here it is: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=24901.msg484609#msg484609

It's just the logical conclusion of my view of politics, in general. I don't believe in victim-less crimes, or that govt. should stop people from screwing up their own little lives. Like I said, I would have probably come to this point of view quite some time ago, if I had thought about it more.

Somebody said something about it being hard to reverse oneself on a position one has "parroted" for a long time. I wouldn't quite put it that way. I don't think I've ever been much of a drug-war cheerleader or "parrot." It's just something I've tacitly agreed with up until a few years ago.

I had my nose rubbed in the fact that drug use often damages people other than the user himself.  People that never have used and never would use drugs are still subjected to the harms of drug use, and subjected to it against their will.  People like me.  I was forced to re-evaluate my opinions on drug legalization, and I reluctantly began to see that my parents were right and I was wrong.

That's definitely something to keep in mind, and mine is not totally closed on the subject. I could still be persuaded. But I think that's similar to one of the arguments against the War on Drugs; that it is responsible for a general loss of Fourth Amendment freedoms, due to overzealous enforcement. I'm not sure either argument is very cogent, at least for me, because they deal with secondary effects. For good or ill, I tend not to base my politics on a lot of statistics and pragmatics. For me, it's a moral issue. Can I justify the use of force against someone who wishes to harm themselves, or someone who sells drugs to those with self-destructive tendencies? I don't think I can.* But can I argue that drugs should be legalized, because law enforcement and legal authorities have gone too far in their enforcement efforts? I don't think I could do that either.

*That doesn't mean I couldn't see fit to prosecute those who sell drugs to minors, or cut their cocaine with rat poison, or maybe some other caveats.

[roo_ster]

Crackbabies, Classmates, Narco-terrorists

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Classmates, Organized Crime Syndicates controlling major American city governments

Point to ponder: crackbabies manage to recover and have fewer long-term effects than babies with FAS

Heres the wiki link to FAS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome

"Fetal alcohol exposure is the leading known cause of intellectual disability in the Western world."

1/100 births in the West are damaged by FAS, is the estimate.


Here's the crack baby link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_baby (AKA, Prenatal cocaine exposure)

"No disorders or conditions have been found to result for people whose mothers used crack while pregnant.[1]  Studies focusing on children of six years and younger have not shown any direct, long-term effects of PCE on language, growth, or development as measured by test scores.[3] PCE also appears to have little effect on infant growth.[4] However, PCE is associated with premature birth, birth defects, attention deficit disorder, and other conditions. Cognitive, motor, behavior, developmental, and language problems also appear to result from PCE. The effects of cocaine on a fetus are thought to be similar to those of tobacco and less severe than those of alcohol."


If we could only get severe alcoholic pregnant women to give up cold ethyl for cocaine, we'd all be ahead.

of that 50% something like 75% of them is for marijuana.

no

Yes.

For all intents and purposes, the War on Drugs is the War on Marijuana.  MJ is where the big numbers are and is what gets most drug users/dealers in prison.

If the WoD were WWII, Marijuana would be Nazi Germany + Japan, all the others combined would be Italy. 

If the WoD were WWI, Marijuana would be Imperial Germany + Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and all others combined would be...Italy.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on Today at 15:53:44
of that 50% something like 75% of them is for marijuana.

no

Yes.


sorry  no

i go into prisons weekly to do volunteer work with drug addicts and alcoholics

its not pot putting folks in there  don't believe normls hype

http://www.californiapolicechiefs.org/nav_files/marijuana_files/files/CDP_Paper08132005.pdf

not even close

[erictank]

Interesting interview at PBS with Mr. Eric Schlosser on the War On Some Drugs, focusing on marijuana: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/interviews/schlosser.html

It appears to date from 1997, and I understand that marijuana imprisonment rates have gone up since then - but one stat he mentioned early on was that 1 out of 6 inmates in federal prison is there for marijuana (as of 1997), and that with murderers serving sentences averaging 6 years, there's little to no reason to have non-violent marijuana users clogging up the system.  I'd have a hard time arguing against that, even if I was not already in favor of doing away with the War On Some Drugs, I think.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

for possesion? or moving weight? i know several hundred inmates currently inside maybe a dozen tops are in for any kinda pot crime and those are for moving weight

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i read the article  he talks about montana law providing for a life sentence for growing one pot plant?  is that true?  they have medical marijuana in montana!

[MicroBalrog]

Elsewhere in Portugal:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

but did portugal have several multi billion dollar industries that depended upon a war on drugs to survive?   thats one of the driving forces here

[Fitz]

As a former recreational drug user, I can say that the substance isn't the problem, it's the person and personality type.

Take away the drugs, and the addictive-personalities will find something else to medicate their sorrows.

Cocaine for me was fun. Then I decided to stop. And once I made that decision, I immediately stopped, and never touched it again.

Willpower is all it takes. Those without it will find something to abuse, always, no matter what's available, legal, or illegal.

That said, i'm in favor of attempting to eliminate the black market for it, regulate production, tax the hell out of it, and honestly I don't care much if someone of weak constitution overdoses or can't quit. In the meantime, let's try to eliminate the incentive for narco-terrorists to kill and profit off it.

[Seenterman]

of that 50% something like 75% of them is for marijuana.

Ok lets stop quoting these figures as facts, I was recalling from memory a stat and I was wrong. But I did post accurate facts in my next post. 

very few folk in prison for pot  unless they were selling

That's inaccurate. They can charge you with intent to sell if you have your personal stash in more than one baggie, or if your personal stash is deemed to much for one person.

See look it's divided up for re sale!

No, that's so I don't smoke my whole stash in one night man :dirty hippy:

According to the new BJS report, "Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004," 12.7 percent of state inmates and 12.4 percent of federal inmates incarcerated for drug violations are serving time for marijuana offenses.

police arrested an estimated 786,545 people on marijuana charges in 2005 -- more than twice the number of Americans arrested just 12 years ago. Among those arrested, about 88 percent -- some 696,074 Americans -- were charged with possession only. The remaining 90,471 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use.

http://www.nowpublic.com/pot_prisoners_cost_americans_1_billion_a_year

Sorry but all the stats refute this anecdote / assertion that "you don't go to prison for possession of pot only."

[Tallpine]

I figure there are two prime sources of harm related to drugs, the harmful collateral damage due to someone's drug use, and the criminal harm associated with the black market trade in drugs.

You left out #3: the harm caused by the drug prohibition enforcement 

Upon further thought, I don't think legalization would reduce overall crime levels much

So you don't think legalization would increase the crime rate either 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Quote
very few folk in prison for pot  unless they were selling
That's inaccurate. They can charge you with intent to sell if you have your personal stash in more than one baggie, or if your personal stash is deemed to much for one person.


its very accurate  come down thursday nite we can go inside let you count heads



did you read the report i posted a link to that broke down the numbers from the doj?

and even the doj claims 12%

in your imaginary world the percentage of folks popped for possession correlates directly to that number doing time for possession?  really?  i was a wake and bake stoner for 2 decades have 8 possession arrests and never even one conviction.  they don't care about possession. the only guys i know pulled time for possession copped a plea down or snitched and getting to cop to possession let em serve a couple months and go back out to snitch more. take a look at the police chiefs report and analysis.  don't get me wrong i'm pro legalization just anti bs.  if you bs folks seize on the obvious falsehood and you lose credibility as does your cause

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You left out #3: the harm caused by the drug prohibition enforcement 

That was not an omission.  I wanted to comment on the two prime sources of harm, not any of the lesser secondary issues.

So you don't think legalization would increase the crime rate either 

I said crime rates wouldn't go down, not that they wouldn't go up.

 

That's a question worth discussing, though.  Would increased drug use increase overall crime?

[roo_ster]

That's a question worth discussing, though.  Would increased drug use increase overall crime?

1. I doubt you'd see much increase in drug use.  Any increase would be minor relative to different use patterns and shifting use rates of particular drugs relative to one another.  Less ethyl, more MJ, less crack, more powder cocaine, or some such.

This assumes we consider ethyl alcohol a drug, which is reasonable. 

2. Any increase would likely be among non-addicted recreational users.  The addicts are already using.  The addicts are really the users who matter, from a crime /social ill POV.   

3. For addicts, if the price drops 75%, that is 75% fewer TVs to steal to get a hit. 

4. For those in chronic or terminal pain, fewer broken laws to get the painkillers and/or anti-nausea meds they need to function or tame their terminal pain.

[AJ Dual]

Another side effect of prohibition is the type (and danger) of drugs being used. Markets ALWAYS seek alternatives.

If powder Cocaine were legal, would you have ever seen crack?

If medical grade amphetamines were legal/OTC, there never would have been Ice or crystal meth.

If all the other drug enforcement that really got going in the 60's hadn't happened, would anyone have bothered with PCP?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the price could drop more than 75%

and you need to remember a junkie with a 300 dollar a day habit steals close to 3 k a day to feed it since they get a dime on a dollar for what they steal