Questions on Decriminalization/Legalization movement

[Disir]

Just by legalizing it - we can cut the number of people in federal prison by about 27,000. That helps solve quite a bit right there.

(Numbers from the Federal Bureau of Prisons)
http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statis...cing_Updates/USSC_2013_Quarter_Report_4th.pdf

Are we planning on using all drugs to make the point of one drug? Are we distinguishing between trafficking and simple possession?

Again. It's the bullshit factor. There are a boatload of people that just want to smoke a couple blunts a day in their home, wearing underwear and eating a bowl of Captain Crunch and playing video games. They don't care what argument is proposed as long as that's what they can do. 'Fess up and say so.

The other group of people saw a whole bunch of money and wanted to get their cut. Throw spaghetti at the wall arguments. Talk about how it's the problem solver when it's not. 'Fess up and say so.

Both camps whip out medicinal use when it's convenient. That is a different type of category.

Dear Disir:
I think KevinW was honest and clear when he stated his motivation was the money and revenue. To me, that contradicts arguments, blaming the alcohol industry and govt for pushing their agenda for money if that is all you care about either, but that is KW world.

In my world, I agree with you that people are jumping on this issue for political convenience for their own benefits, and don't really care about autistic children or cancer or AIDS patients. If they did, they would push for "medical research" into spiritual healing that is even more natural, free, effective and without risks than cannabis.

Instead, they only ask or care about research that focuses on cannabis. What does that tell you? of course they have an agenda.

To give credit, there is ONE person on this board who isn't on drugs, doesn't support that, but pushes legalization to help those who need medicinal access and relief AND DOES RESPOND to the issue of spiritual healing and the ability to help more people this way.

ONE PERSON.

Others may be on a one-track agenda, but at least honest about their arguments as KevinW did not have anything to hide. While the majority of responders on here HONESTLY do not believe in any physical addiction or tolerance issues.

I probably align most with you and K&D,
while I am willing to include and defend the other viewpoints equally in order to reach a consensus on policy that takes ALL our objections and issues into account to resolve them.

Where we do not agree to pay for each other's policies politically, that is where I suggest we all push for the various parties to operate and fund their own separate systems.
We can agree on the central policy on the public level, and then privatize the rest where we believe in funding or following different standards. We only fund what we all agree on, and whatever we don't, we accept responsibility for the implications. That is another reason why i would push for spiritual healing, so I don't have to pay for all the extra costs of criminal addiction and abuse that "could have been cured for free." I believe we could invest in education, housing and health care with the resources we'd save per state.

if the Democrats want to run things through centralized systems of schools, housing and health care as their own govt, that's fine, we could do that through the party system and structures for electing local, state and national reps. Republicans who want to protect free market enterprise, can use funds/taxes for microlending to create a network of independent businesses, charities, schools, and nonprofits to run things instead of govt.

Back to the arguments, it is mighty odd to feel I must be "the only person in the world" who has had friends who are addicted to pot and wouldn't stop because they are convinced they aren't harming themselves or their minds -- where "coincidentally" the only ones who successfully quit ADMITTED THEY HAD AN ADDICTION THAT IMPAIRED THEIR JUDGMENT.

And the only person who seemed to understand the significance of spiritual healing WASN'T ON DRUGS OR TRYING TO JUSTIFY A HABIT. Is that a coincidence also?

So of course, given the fact I have run into too many people mixed into this issue with other political agenda besides public health, I am biased and deeply concerned about spreading any misconceptions underestimating the dangers of addiction and denial.

If we reached an agreement on that, I think that would overcome one of the key barriers in decriminalization and moving from retributive to restorative systems of justice.

We'll see if we can get there, with the few people who aren't in denial about the dangers of marijuana addiction. The rest will benefit also, but in the meantime, they hurt the credibility of the arguments by contradicting their own complaints about the motivation of others.

I think this will diminish the more people get united who do have faith in solutions to end the criminal addiction, abuse and trafficking issues that fuel the fear and dependence on law enforcement to rule by punishment. Assuming there are no dangers just makes the fear and opposition worse. I really wish we didn't have that additional battle to fight that gets tacked on to this issue. but that's part of the process of reaching consensus.

In the end, I think we'll see that our diversity in approach and opinion helps reach out and bring together more people. So it helps more than it hurts. We need to show that our differences do not need to block anybody from developing solutions we all agree with. We don't necessarily need to convert or change minds in order to work things out together.

Thanks again for everyone here!
May the best of what each of you brings to the table make the banquet complete.
You are all very special with valuable insights and contributions. Thank you!

I think Kevin has done a swell job of being one of the very few to talk about the cash. It's refreshing. I have far more respect for someone who is able to shoot straight then someone who ........plays a used car salesman that pulls a piece from this argument over here and that one over there to make the sale.


Restorative justice is national and international wide push with hundreds of organizations for that purpose. There are even organizations that swing to the more holistic.
http://www.restorativejustice.org/

Funding for education while in prison has been a huge issue this past year. It's a political battle against stereotypes as an elected official steps out on stage and says things that folks want to hear. Like, those in prison have it made. Funding has been cut in several states.
Advocates push to renew Pell grants for prisoners, citing benefits of higher education - The Washington Post

Just like funding for public defenders has been cut while no one has been paying attention.
Florida High Court Pushes Back Against State Underfunding Of Public Defenders | ThinkProgress

There is also a nationwide push to alter the view of drug use as a whole as a health issue rather than a crime issue. Every year we come up against the same political bs.
Here is a recent attempt.
Groups push to lift needle exchange ban in funding bill - Baltimore Sun

The above goal is precisely to stop the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. Society pays for this via medical costs. Harm reduction is harm reduction to society.

All of these are not just part and parcel of what we loosely define as justice but have already been in existence for a very long time. It isn't necessary to reinvent the wheel. It is simply a matter of accessing the information that is already in existence.

The difference is in legalization v decriminalization. Both have very different ramifications. There is a point where they work towards the opposite ends.

 

[thanatos144]

No one suggests what? That marijuana is as addictive as chocolate? Marijuana is as addictive as chocolate. It sure as hell isn't as addictive as tobacco cigarettes, alcohol, or Oxycontin.

No one but misguided drug warriors suggest that marijuana causes violence AND laziness at the same time.

You dont know what the fuck your talking about....Go back to watching tv in your moms basement. It is far more addictive then chocolate and EXTREMELY more dangerous. The dangerous part is the reason to consider whether or not pot is legalized....

and you do?.......geezus....

yes I do. I dont delude myself.

 

[thanatos144]

Are we planning on using all drugs to make the point of one drug? Are we distinguishing between trafficking and simple possession?

Again. It's the bullshit factor. There are a boatload of people that just want to smoke a couple blunts a day in their home, wearing underwear and eating a bowl of Captain Crunch and playing video games. They don't care what argument is proposed as long as that's what they can do. 'Fess up and say so.

The other group of people saw a whole bunch of money and wanted to get their cut. Throw spaghetti at the wall arguments. Talk about how it's the problem solver when it's not. 'Fess up and say so.

Both camps whip out medicinal use when it's convenient. That is a different type of category.

Dear Disir:
I think KevinW was honest and clear when he stated his motivation was the money and revenue. To me, that contradicts arguments, blaming the alcohol industry and govt for pushing their agenda for money if that is all you care about either, but that is KW world.

In my world, I agree with you that people are jumping on this issue for political convenience for their own benefits, and don't really care about autistic children or cancer or AIDS patients. If they did, they would push for "medical research" into spiritual healing that is even more natural, free, effective and without risks than cannabis.

Instead, they only ask or care about research that focuses on cannabis. What does that tell you? of course they have an agenda.

To give credit, there is ONE person on this board who isn't on drugs, doesn't support that, but pushes legalization to help those who need medicinal access and relief AND DOES RESPOND to the issue of spiritual healing and the ability to help more people this way.

ONE PERSON.

Others may be on a one-track agenda, but at least honest about their arguments as KevinW did not have anything to hide. While the majority of responders on here HONESTLY do not believe in any physical addiction or tolerance issues.

I probably align most with you and K&D,
while I am willing to include and defend the other viewpoints equally in order to reach a consensus on policy that takes ALL our objections and issues into account to resolve them.

Where we do not agree to pay for each other's policies politically, that is where I suggest we all push for the various parties to operate and fund their own separate systems.
We can agree on the central policy on the public level, and then privatize the rest where we believe in funding or following different standards. We only fund what we all agree on, and whatever we don't, we accept responsibility for the implications. That is another reason why i would push for spiritual healing, so I don't have to pay for all the extra costs of criminal addiction and abuse that "could have been cured for free." I believe we could invest in education, housing and health care with the resources we'd save per state.

if the Democrats want to run things through centralized systems of schools, housing and health care as their own govt, that's fine, we could do that through the party system and structures for electing local, state and national reps. Republicans who want to protect free market enterprise, can use funds/taxes for microlending to create a network of independent businesses, charities, schools, and nonprofits to run things instead of govt.

Back to the arguments, it is mighty odd to feel I must be "the only person in the world" who has had friends who are addicted to pot and wouldn't stop because they are convinced they aren't harming themselves or their minds -- where "coincidentally" the only ones who successfully quit ADMITTED THEY HAD AN ADDICTION THAT IMPAIRED THEIR JUDGMENT.

And the only person who seemed to understand the significance of spiritual healing WASN'T ON DRUGS OR TRYING TO JUSTIFY A HABIT. Is that a coincidence also?

So of course, given the fact I have run into too many people mixed into this issue with other political agenda besides public health, I am biased and deeply concerned about spreading any misconceptions underestimating the dangers of addiction and denial.

If we reached an agreement on that, I think that would overcome one of the key barriers in decriminalization and moving from retributive to restorative systems of justice.

We'll see if we can get there, with the few people who aren't in denial about the dangers of marijuana addiction. The rest will benefit also, but in the meantime, they hurt the credibility of the arguments by contradicting their own complaints about the motivation of others.

I think this will diminish the more people get united who do have faith in solutions to end the criminal addiction, abuse and trafficking issues that fuel the fear and dependence on law enforcement to rule by punishment. Assuming there are no dangers just makes the fear and opposition worse. I really wish we didn't have that additional battle to fight that gets tacked on to this issue. but that's part of the process of reaching consensus.

In the end, I think we'll see that our diversity in approach and opinion helps reach out and bring together more people. So it helps more than it hurts. We need to show that our differences do not need to block anybody from developing solutions we all agree with. We don't necessarily need to convert or change minds in order to work things out together.

Thanks again for everyone here!
May the best of what each of you brings to the table make the banquet complete.
You are all very special with valuable insights and contributions. Thank you!

I think Kevin has done a swell job of being one of the very few to talk about the cash. It's refreshing. I have far more respect for someone who is able to shoot straight then someone who ........plays a used car salesman that pulls a piece from this argument over here and that one over there to make the sale.


Restorative justice is national and international wide push with hundreds of organizations for that purpose. There are even organizations that swing to the more holistic.
http://www.restorativejustice.org/

Funding for education while in prison has been a huge issue this past year. It's a political battle against stereotypes as an elected official steps out on stage and says things that folks want to hear. Like, those in prison have it made. Funding has been cut in several states.
Advocates push to renew Pell grants for prisoners, citing benefits of higher education - The Washington Post

Just like funding for public defenders has been cut while no one has been paying attention.
Florida High Court Pushes Back Against State Underfunding Of Public Defenders | ThinkProgress

There is also a nationwide push to alter the view of drug use as a whole as a health issue rather than a crime issue. Every year we come up against the same political bs.
Here is a recent attempt.
Groups push to lift needle exchange ban in funding bill - Baltimore Sun

The above goal is precisely to stop the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. Society pays for this via medical costs. Harm reduction is harm reduction to society.

All of these are not just part and parcel of what we loosely define as justice but have already been in existence for a very long time. It isn't necessary to reinvent the wheel. It is simply a matter of accessing the information that is already in existence.

The difference is in legalization v decriminalization. Both have very different ramifications. There is a point where they work towards the opposite ends.

Making something legal does not mean all the junkies magically get better.

 

[Disir]

And that is different than Anheuser-Busch how? The parallel with alcohol and MJ are extremely close. We are better off without prohibition and we will be better off without the same for MJ. The historical proof is already there.


It’s not about tapping the cash either btw. It is about not allowing the government to control all the asinine decisions that a person can make. It is about addressing the ACTUAL problems that drug abuse brings – something that prisons do not do but rather exacerbate the problems. It is about real regulation on drugs rather than illegalization that leads to dangerous and unknown products. It is about removing the various other infringements on our rights that come along with a failed war against personal actions. It is about removing the dealers and the crime that they perpetuate. It is about securing a border that is mainly breached with murderous drug runners who will rape and kill at will. In short, it is about restoring basic freedoms and sanity to a failed system.

It's all about the cash. At no point in time have the actual problems been addressed and there is a reason for that. Again. It's all about the cash. Morality can be bought 2 for a dollar at your local 7-11. State rights my ass. If you don't change it at the federal level then it can be taken away at any time. Last time I checked federal law supersedes state law.
So, since you have no intention of reading what I wrote earlier and every day is a brand new day let's recap.

First, the black market is going to exist because the street has better quality and a lower price and in places such as Colorado---you can buy it after 7PM. Quality and price have been a primary bitch since this started. And where was one of the sources in January off the street in Colorado? Grown in Nebraska.

Territory. So, what's the problem with a couple of corporations that are involved? Well, as we have seen from your pals at ALEC they have a tendency to write the legislation. Just like they do in places like Arizona where the privatized prisons profit off of inmates. It's just business, right? And these corporations are different, right? Tell me how those six plants grown at home are going to impact business. Tell me what the repercussions are going to be for those that are popped for dealing without a license. Tell me you care just as much about those folks going to prison as you did in using them to justify passing it. You know, the whole destroy lives thingy? Kind of like how at the very same time there is a desperate attempt to attach a morality in buying from the dispensaries because it's not attached to violence.

What did Al Capone actually go down for? Tax evasion.

Your cartels aren't the violence. Listen to what they are telling you. Violence is useful to teach someone a lesson but it's really bad for business as a full time gig and if it was all about the cartels there wouldn't be violence across the border. Marijuana is bulky and here and there is fine but it's not worth the risk by the time it hits here. It isn't the be all that it's made out to be. Marijuana is not the cause of violence with the gang bangers. So, we can cut the shit there. But your right, they do morph. But, if we focus on the cartels then any marijuana that would come from them wouldn't impact the businesses. Won't do a damn thing about the violence but it would be great for business in the states--unless the source is coming from what's grown in the states.

Even in the article provided, the violence is not from the cartel. The cartel provides the drug. It's like blaming a cartel for the gangbanging in the 90s.

But, I haven't heard too many opposition arguments either. If people were really concerned with addiction then they would start looking into what works and what doesn't. AA/NA isn't too damn successful. The 12 step programs are a billion dollar industry and they don't have to keep records beyond 3 months and if there are failures that are recognized then it's because of the individual. There's no comparison into the research. There is no comparison made between countries. Nothing. Nobody even bothers to mention dual diagnosis.

So, lets cut the shit on how this is a problem solver. It's not. Let's not pretend that this is going to impact the cartels. It's not. Let's not pretend that there is any actual caring involved in whom will be going to prison. It isn't there. Let's not pretend that this is actually going to rid the violence. It won't. It's about cash.

Meanwhile, the problems persist.

I read what you wrote previously. The problem is that every single one of those points has been addressed and destroyed by other posters already. You are still clinging onto the false assertion that there is a massive black market for alcohol. This is completely and absolutely false. The black market evaporated when it was made legal. It was the entire point of making it legal again – making it illegal failed miserably.

A lot of the problems are addressed with legalization. A point that has been made over and over again without any refutation from you other than demanding it’s about money over and over again. What problems does keeping drugs illegal solve? What exactly is the ‘benefit’ of such unsound policy? There is none – not a single benefit that is gained through the illegalization of MJ. We should start right there because if taking a freedom to act in one way provides zero benefit then the government has no reason or right to restrict that behavior.

I didn't make an argument that there was a massive blackmarket for alcohol. You have a hard time wrapping your brain around that.

There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization. Look into that.

Make a comparison by country. Because the "I just want to get high" argument is a failure.

 

[Disir]

Dear Disir:
I think KevinW was honest and clear when he stated his motivation was the money and revenue. To me, that contradicts arguments, blaming the alcohol industry and govt for pushing their agenda for money if that is all you care about either, but that is KW world.

In my world, I agree with you that people are jumping on this issue for political convenience for their own benefits, and don't really care about autistic children or cancer or AIDS patients. If they did, they would push for "medical research" into spiritual healing that is even more natural, free, effective and without risks than cannabis.

Instead, they only ask or care about research that focuses on cannabis. What does that tell you? of course they have an agenda.

To give credit, there is ONE person on this board who isn't on drugs, doesn't support that, but pushes legalization to help those who need medicinal access and relief AND DOES RESPOND to the issue of spiritual healing and the ability to help more people this way.

ONE PERSON.

Others may be on a one-track agenda, but at least honest about their arguments as KevinW did not have anything to hide. While the majority of responders on here HONESTLY do not believe in any physical addiction or tolerance issues.

I probably align most with you and K&D,
while I am willing to include and defend the other viewpoints equally in order to reach a consensus on policy that takes ALL our objections and issues into account to resolve them.

Where we do not agree to pay for each other's policies politically, that is where I suggest we all push for the various parties to operate and fund their own separate systems.
We can agree on the central policy on the public level, and then privatize the rest where we believe in funding or following different standards. We only fund what we all agree on, and whatever we don't, we accept responsibility for the implications. That is another reason why i would push for spiritual healing, so I don't have to pay for all the extra costs of criminal addiction and abuse that "could have been cured for free." I believe we could invest in education, housing and health care with the resources we'd save per state.

if the Democrats want to run things through centralized systems of schools, housing and health care as their own govt, that's fine, we could do that through the party system and structures for electing local, state and national reps. Republicans who want to protect free market enterprise, can use funds/taxes for microlending to create a network of independent businesses, charities, schools, and nonprofits to run things instead of govt.

Back to the arguments, it is mighty odd to feel I must be "the only person in the world" who has had friends who are addicted to pot and wouldn't stop because they are convinced they aren't harming themselves or their minds -- where "coincidentally" the only ones who successfully quit ADMITTED THEY HAD AN ADDICTION THAT IMPAIRED THEIR JUDGMENT.

And the only person who seemed to understand the significance of spiritual healing WASN'T ON DRUGS OR TRYING TO JUSTIFY A HABIT. Is that a coincidence also?

So of course, given the fact I have run into too many people mixed into this issue with other political agenda besides public health, I am biased and deeply concerned about spreading any misconceptions underestimating the dangers of addiction and denial.

If we reached an agreement on that, I think that would overcome one of the key barriers in decriminalization and moving from retributive to restorative systems of justice.

We'll see if we can get there, with the few people who aren't in denial about the dangers of marijuana addiction. The rest will benefit also, but in the meantime, they hurt the credibility of the arguments by contradicting their own complaints about the motivation of others.

I think this will diminish the more people get united who do have faith in solutions to end the criminal addiction, abuse and trafficking issues that fuel the fear and dependence on law enforcement to rule by punishment. Assuming there are no dangers just makes the fear and opposition worse. I really wish we didn't have that additional battle to fight that gets tacked on to this issue. but that's part of the process of reaching consensus.

In the end, I think we'll see that our diversity in approach and opinion helps reach out and bring together more people. So it helps more than it hurts. We need to show that our differences do not need to block anybody from developing solutions we all agree with. We don't necessarily need to convert or change minds in order to work things out together.

Thanks again for everyone here!
May the best of what each of you brings to the table make the banquet complete.
You are all very special with valuable insights and contributions. Thank you!

I think Kevin has done a swell job of being one of the very few to talk about the cash. It's refreshing. I have far more respect for someone who is able to shoot straight then someone who ........plays a used car salesman that pulls a piece from this argument over here and that one over there to make the sale.


Restorative justice is national and international wide push with hundreds of organizations for that purpose. There are even organizations that swing to the more holistic.
http://www.restorativejustice.org/

Funding for education while in prison has been a huge issue this past year. It's a political battle against stereotypes as an elected official steps out on stage and says things that folks want to hear. Like, those in prison have it made. Funding has been cut in several states.
Advocates push to renew Pell grants for prisoners, citing benefits of higher education - The Washington Post

Just like funding for public defenders has been cut while no one has been paying attention.
Florida High Court Pushes Back Against State Underfunding Of Public Defenders | ThinkProgress

There is also a nationwide push to alter the view of drug use as a whole as a health issue rather than a crime issue. Every year we come up against the same political bs.
Here is a recent attempt.
Groups push to lift needle exchange ban in funding bill - Baltimore Sun

The above goal is precisely to stop the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. Society pays for this via medical costs. Harm reduction is harm reduction to society.

All of these are not just part and parcel of what we loosely define as justice but have already been in existence for a very long time. It isn't necessary to reinvent the wheel. It is simply a matter of accessing the information that is already in existence.

The difference is in legalization v decriminalization. Both have very different ramifications. There is a point where they work towards the opposite ends.

Making something legal does not mean all the junkies magically get better.

Agreed. Harm reduction. Harm reduction. Harm reduction.

 

[KevinWestern]

I think Kevin has done a swell job of being one of the very few to talk about the cash. It's refreshing. I have far more respect for someone who is able to shoot straight then someone who ........plays a used car salesman that pulls a piece from this argument over here and that one over there to make the sale.

Well just to be absolutely clear, let me state why I think we should legalize marijuana (and yes, many points are about $). 7 reasons:

SAVING OUR PUBLIC RESOURCES
1.) Tax money saved by not having to pay for millions of inmates in jail for non-violent drug charges
2.) Tax money saved by reducing DEA, reducing marijuana arrests (750k arrests/per year!)
3.) Tax money saved by reducing court cases surrounding those arrests
4.) Revenue earned by marijuana tax

BOOST TO OUR ECONOMY
5.) All the growing, harvesting, preparing, shipping, and selling jobs (that currently are with criminals now) will be shifted up to the United States and given to hardworking, law abiding citizens. We're already spending billions a year on it, how about we keep that money HERE IN THE US??
6.) Many gang members will be forced to find legit work. Drug revenue is #1 right now, and marijuana is 50% of that.

COMMON SENSE
7.) A free adult should be able to smoke a non-toxic plant, that only mildly alters your thinking (no more than alcohol) for an hour or so if he/she sees fit. I hate the idea of a "nanny state" that says "no guns, no this, no that, etc".





.

 

[KevinWestern]

Making something legal does not mean all the junkies magically get better.

Neither does making something illegal.

Say I'm a "junkie" and get arrested for doing a drug (peacefully) and get thrown in jail for 1 year (for being caught 4 times doing cocaine). Does that help things? When I get out will I have a good chance of getting a job? What do kids do when their dad is in prison?

If someone commits a crime while on a drug, then arrest them. I'm all for that. If a drunk guy stabs his wife you arrest him for stabbing his wife. There are millions of people (the majority) who can handle their drinks and WON'T break the law while intoxicated. Same goes for marijuana.

 

[KevinWestern]

Did you type that smoking a joint? Like you have since you were a kid?

His entire paragraph was clear and cohesive.

 

[Disir]

The serpentine arguments against the legalization of pot wither away under close scrutiny.

It's going to happen. Some states will lag behind but eventually it will be legal in all 50. It is inevitable. Once some people enjoy a freedom, others demand it. Colorado and Washington started the ball rolling and I just don't think you are going to be able to get that toothpaste back into the tube.

It's the bullshit that pisses me off. It's the pretense that doesn't solve a damn thing.

Just by legalizing it - we can cut the number of people in federal prison by about 27,000. That helps solve quite a bit right there.

(Numbers from the Federal Bureau of Prisons)
http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statis...cing_Updates/USSC_2013_Quarter_Report_4th.pdf

Simple possession under federal law is treated as a civil offense for first time offenders or 1 year (prosecutor discretion). You need to look at the histories behind the individuals. Like I said before. You aren't going to prison for smoking a joint on the porch.

BEYOND THE CLAIMS
It would be wrong to suggest that simple*possession offenders
never see the inside of a prison cell. Sometimes they do, of course. A few may be sentenced outright even when no other charges or aggravating factors are involved. But there is also a range of other circumstances under which a simple*possession marijuana offender might receive a prison sentence. For example, this could happen if:

• the marijuana offense was committed while the offender was on
probation or parole;

• an offender charged with a more serious crime pleads guilty to the lesser
offense of marijuana possession but, as part of a plea bargain, is required
to serve a prison sentence;

• the offender has a criminal history, particularly one involving drugs or
violent crime;

• the violation took place in a designated drug*free zone (such as on school
property); or

• the marijuana sentence piggybacks (runs concurrent with) the sentence
for one or more other offenses;

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there is no shortage of claims
about so*called victims of the drug war who, charged with nothing more than
minor marijuana violations, are serving long prison terms. Some of these allegations
are grounded in truth but lack crucial elaboration or context. Most are exaggerations
or blatant fiction. On the next two pages are a few claims that have been put
forward by marijuana advocates, followed by facts that tell a different story.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf

The above takes a much more hard core approach towards marijuana than I do. The most recent statistics that I have found are from 2004 on the DOJ site but they reiterate the same found above.

 

[Rocko]

If marijuana isn't addictive them somebody ought to tell all those potheads in NA to GTFO!

 

[Rocko]

also a lot of overwhelming evidence that it is made out to be much worse than it is.....and quit being a hypocrite Rock.....Alcohol is much worse and yet you have no problems with that and the damage it has done......is the reason because you do some drinking once in a while?....

I hardly ever drink. Like I said before - I'm very health conscious. I realize alcohol may be worse then pot when abused and alcohol abuse is a problem. I don't think prohibition of alcohol would effectively deal with the problem. The problem with pot is that the potential for abuse is greater and even in moderation it is bad for you.

I realize alcohol may be worse then pot when abused and alcohol abuse is a problem.

but yet when i asked you about this you said..."you can drink responsibly"....i got news for you....so do 95% of the people who smoke Pot....

I highly doubt that's true, besides there's no such thing as smoking pot responsibly.

 

[KevinWestern]

I highly doubt that's true, besides there's no such thing as smoking pot responsibly.

Sure there is.

"I only smoke after work in the comfort of my own home to unwind when I don't have any more obligations left in the day"

That is smoking responsibly, lol. That was an easy one.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You dont know what the fuck your talking about....Go back to watching tv in your moms basement. It is far more addictive then chocolate and EXTREMELY more dangerous. The dangerous part is the reason to consider whether or not pot is legalized....

and you do?.......geezus....

yes I do. I dont delude myself.

sure you dont.....you cant even discuss a view that doesnt sit well with your anti-pot views....thats called....deluding yourself....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I hardly ever drink. Like I said before - I'm very health conscious. I realize alcohol may be worse then pot when abused and alcohol abuse is a problem. I don't think prohibition of alcohol would effectively deal with the problem. The problem with pot is that the potential for abuse is greater and even in moderation it is bad for you.

I realize alcohol may be worse then pot when abused and alcohol abuse is a problem.

but yet when i asked you about this you said..."you can drink responsibly"....i got news for you....so do 95% of the people who smoke Pot....

I highly doubt that's true, besides there's no such thing as smoking pot responsibly.

ok Rock i thought you would discuss this stuff with some common sense...i will just lump you in with Katz and Thanatos....the 3 morons who think they know the Pot World....but yet have zero practical experience with it....

 

[nodoginnafight]

If marijuana isn't addictive them somebody ought to tell all those potheads in NA to GTFO!

ANYTHING can be psychologically addictive.

So yeah, I'm sure there are some folks who are psychologically addicted to pot. And there are some people who are psychologically addicted to video games or thousands of other things. That doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of people who do not form a psychological addiction should be prohibited.

If pot "destroys" lives, how come three of our last four presidents (who have admitted to smoking pot) have been able to achieve so much? Like 'em or not - they have succeeded in their profession to the highest level possible.

If your arguments against legalization require that everyone just accept all this harm - that you cannot document, insulting pot smokers, or extreme generalizations that you also cannot document, then you really don't have any good arguments do you?

Maybe you'd better let knowledgeable, intelligent people discuss the pros and cons. You do great harm to your position with your lack of information, your crass insults, and your taking things for granted without any documentation.

Just MHO

 

[Disir]

Making something legal does not mean all the junkies magically get better.

Neither does making something illegal.

Say I'm a "junkie" and get arrested for doing a drug (peacefully) and get thrown in jail for 1 year (for being caught 4 times doing cocaine). Does that help things? When I get out will I have a good chance of getting a job? What do kids do when their dad is in prison?

If someone commits a crime while on a drug, then arrest them. I'm all for that. If a drunk guy stabs his wife you arrest him for stabbing his wife. There are millions of people (the majority) who can handle their drinks and WON'T break the law while intoxicated. Same goes for marijuana.

When you are dealing with junkies, if it isn't nailed down consider it stolen. There are countries that will prescribe heroin for those that fail at all other programs. You have to go in to the medical clinic and receive a very small dose but it is enough to reduce crime and to help those users with reintegrating with their families. They are able to hold down jobs.

 

[Disir]

I think Kevin has done a swell job of being one of the very few to talk about the cash. It's refreshing. I have far more respect for someone who is able to shoot straight then someone who ........plays a used car salesman that pulls a piece from this argument over here and that one over there to make the sale.

Well just to be absolutely clear, let me state why I think we should legalize marijuana (and yes, many points are about $). 7 reasons:

SAVING OUR PUBLIC RESOURCES
1.) Tax money saved by not having to pay for millions of inmates in jail for non-violent drug charges
2.) Tax money saved by reducing DEA, reducing marijuana arrests (750k arrests/per year!)
3.) Tax money saved by reducing court cases surrounding those arrests
4.) Revenue earned by marijuana tax

BOOST TO OUR ECONOMY
5.) All the growing, harvesting, preparing, shipping, and selling jobs (that currently are with criminals now) will be shifted up to the United States and given to hardworking, law abiding citizens. We're already spending billions a year on it, how about we keep that money HERE IN THE US??
6.) Many gang members will be forced to find legit work. Drug revenue is #1 right now, and marijuana is 50% of that.

COMMON SENSE
7.) A free adult should be able to smoke a non-toxic plant, that only mildly alters your thinking (no more than alcohol) for an hour or so if he/she sees fit. I hate the idea of a "nanny state" that says "no guns, no this, no that, etc".

.

Highlights:

In 2012, the number of admissions to state and federal prison in the United States was 609,800 offenders, the lowest number since 1999.
The number of releases from U.S. prisons in 2012 (637,400) exceeded that of admissions for the fourth consecutive year, contributing to the decline in the total U.S. prison population.
In 2011, the majority of state prisoners in 2011 (53%) were serving time for violent offenses.
New court commitments made up 82% of state admissions in 1978, 57% in 2000, and 71% in 2012.
New court commitments to state prisons for drug offenders decreased 22% between 2006 and 2011, while parole violation admissions decreased 31%.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Prisoners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and Releases, 1991-2012

Suspects arrested and booked for federal supervision violations increased 91%, from 12,716 arrests in 1994 to 24,344 arrests in 2010.
Five federal law enforcement agencies referred 77% of suspects prosecuted in U.S. district court in 2010.
In 2010, non-U.S. citizens comprised 47% of suspects charged in U.S. district court, 26% of offenders in federal prison, and 5% of offenders on post-conviction supervision.
Immigration was the most prevalent offense at arrest and investigation in 2010.
Drug offenses were the most prevalent offense among defendants sentenced to prison, in prison at yearend, and on supervised release in the community.
Ninety-one percent of felons charged in U.S. district court in 2010 were disposed by a guilty plea.
In 2010, immigration (88%), violent (86%), and drug trafficking (84%) offenders were more likely to be detained prior to case disposition.
At yearend 2010, over 400,000 federal offenders were under some form of correctional control.
Fourteen percent of the 59,391 offenders released from federal prison in 2008 returned to federal prison within three years of release.
Among those offenders who were released from federal prison in 2008 and returned within three years, 59% returned for a supervision violation and 39% returned for a new offense.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Federal Justice Statistics, 2010

I had posted this on another thread and had to hunt it down.

I am not going to deal with #7 because I have stated my position and it's neither here nor there within the discussion that you and I are having. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are all related and there has been a decline in state prisons. Federal prisons, I posted an earlier link to what they are tied to in a post to nodog. Decriminalization accomplishes those goals as well. The DEA has been underfunded for quite some time.

Number six would count if marijuana was where the money was at. As I already posted, it isn't. Furthermore, they can get a minimum wage paying job at McDonalds. So, pretending that another minimum wage job will somehow be more glamorous will not get the job done. The black market that does exist will continue due to quality and price.

Tax dollars. A dealer is a dealer is a dealer. I remember some ten years ago when an elected official in California spent a great deal of time discussing the tax revenue. The potential tax revenue. By year. I remember thinking at the time.....the gang bangers at the top look exactly like the gangbangers at the bottom.

 

[KevinWestern]

I am not going to deal with #7 because I have stated my position and it's neither here nor there within the discussion that you and I are having. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are all related and there has been a decline in state prisons. Federal prisons, I posted an earlier link to what they are tied to in a post to nodog. Decriminalization accomplishes those goals as well. The DEA has been underfunded for quite some time.

Fair enough, but I've read that over 750,000 arrests per year are because of marijuana possession alone. that's still a lot of time/energy/money, right? But I kind of get the feeling you're for decriminalization so perhaps we're on the same page here.

Still I have some questions. Don't you think consistency with our laws is important? Recreational alcohol is legal, and all of its side effects are arguably equally (or more) harmful than marijuana. Why is one okay and the other not? Get my point?

Number six would count if marijuana was where the money was at. As I already posted, it isn't. Furthermore, they can get a minimum wage paying job at McDonalds. So, pretending that another minimum wage job will somehow be more glamorous will not get the job done. The black market that does exist will continue due to quality and price.

Minimum wage jobs? I'm talking growing jobs, shipping jobs, advertising jobs, innovation jobs (new MJ products), biotech jobs (growing MJ efficiently, potently). Those aren't min wage jobs. There's hundreds of new startups in Colorado; hardly the equivalent to working at a McDonalds.

Also, you say the black market will continue to exist but I ask you why doesn't it exist (in a significant way) when it comes to alcohol in the US? Do you know of anyone who will choose to call up their "alcohol dealer" when looking for a six pack before a football game? Or will call up their "alcohol dealer" when buying mixers for a party?

Tax dollars. A dealer is a dealer is a dealer. I remember some ten years ago when an elected official in California spent a great deal of time discussing the tax revenue. The potential tax revenue. By year. I remember thinking at the time.....the gang bangers at the top look exactly like the gangbangers at the bottom.

Are Congresspeople though doing drive by's, spraying 12 year olds with bullets over "drug dealing territories" right now in American cities? Although I agree their are many "thugs" in the gov't - indeed - I still benefit more when they have the money vs. a Mexican Drug Lord who lives in a different country.

 

[Disir]

I am not going to deal with #7 because I have stated my position and it's neither here nor there within the discussion that you and I are having. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are all related and there has been a decline in state prisons. Federal prisons, I posted an earlier link to what they are tied to in a post to nodog. Decriminalization accomplishes those goals as well. The DEA has been underfunded for quite some time.

Fair enough, but I've read that over 750,000 arrests per year are because of marijuana possession alone. that's still a lot of time/energy/money, right? But I kind of get the feeling you're for decriminalization so perhaps we're on the same page here.

Still I have some questions. Don't you think consistency with our laws is important? Recreational alcohol is legal, and all of its side effects are arguably equally (or more) harmful than marijuana. Why is one okay and the other not? Get my point?

Number six would count if marijuana was where the money was at. As I already posted, it isn't. Furthermore, they can get a minimum wage paying job at McDonalds. So, pretending that another minimum wage job will somehow be more glamorous will not get the job done. The black market that does exist will continue due to quality and price.

Minimum wage jobs? I'm talking growing jobs, shipping jobs, advertising jobs, innovation jobs (new MJ products), biotech jobs (growing MJ efficiently, potently). Those aren't min wage jobs. There's hundreds of new startups in Colorado; hardly the equivalent to working at a McDonalds.

Also, you say the black market will continue to exist but I ask you why doesn't it exist (in a significant way) when it comes to alcohol in the US? Do you know of anyone who will choose to call up their "alcohol dealer" when looking for a six pack before a football game? Or will call up their "alcohol dealer" when buying mixers for a party?

Tax dollars. A dealer is a dealer is a dealer. I remember some ten years ago when an elected official in California spent a great deal of time discussing the tax revenue. The potential tax revenue. By year. I remember thinking at the time.....the gang bangers at the top look exactly like the gangbangers at the bottom.

Are Congresspeople though doing drive by's, spraying 12 year olds with bullets over "drug dealing territories" right now in American cities? Although I agree their are many "thugs" in the gov't - indeed - I still benefit more when they have the money vs. a Mexican Drug Lord who lives in a different country.

I am for decriminalization. I thought that you knew that. Before I continue does that change things?

 

[MikeK]

[...]

If pot "destroys" lives, how come three of our last four presidents (who have admitted to smoking pot) have been able to achieve so much? Like 'em or not - they have succeeded in their profession to the highest level possible.

[...]

You can add Michael Phelps to that positive example. He is the only man in history to win eight gold medals as an Olympic swimmer -- and he has admitted to being a regular marijuana user.

I wonder how Phelps would respond to the brainwashed Reefer Madness cyphers' fanatical ranting.