98 Percent Of All Domestically Eradicated Marijuana Is "Ditchweed," DEA Admits

Oh, sure, like the facts will have any affect on your thought process.
I would say that my thought process would depend upon what "facts" you presented.
However, if you were to claim that public opinion hasn't changed or has changed in favor against the issue simply because a few initiatives have failed is folly and I believe you know it. Therefore, you divert.

He's no longer governor.
And? Your point?
He is no longer governor. He is no longer married.
And? Your point?
The author of your link, like most anti-WOD posters on this board, is long on criticism and short on remedy.
In the article linked in particular or overall?
Unless the remedy is similar to that of ex-governor Gary Johnson -- a remedy that less than 2% of the American people support.
So one attempt at a remedy eliminates all other possibilities of success. I see, and very well.

Again, this article is long on criticism and short on remedy -- he suggests that we "study the issue". C'mon.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's sweet. You narrowed it down. I should've read this reply before replying to the other. Are you familiar with other articles he's written or should I link them as well? Perhaps you'll find your remedy there.
And how have those "studies" he suggested gone since that time? Is somebody making it a little difficult to do such "studies"? Let me know if you need some help there as well and I'll do so.

The illegality of herb is based on the commerce clause of the Constitution.
The illegality of crimes perpetrated one against another is based in the
fundamental rights of people to life and liberty.
Not the same thing! There is no commerce to regulate in crimes of one against another! So, there is nothing for them to fail at regulating.
Do you comprehend what it means to regulate? Because there is commerce
going on and they are not regulating it.

So what? It also says that...That legalization of marijuana question, well, it's age related. This isn't a great shock -- it wouldn't have been a shock in the '70s to see this, but it's still the case today when we ask it: Should marijuana be legalized? Well, young people, 18 to 29, 1/2 of them say, oh, yes, you should legalize it. Those of us who are getting a little older, much less likely to support legalization; 65 and older, it's only 12 percent...
And you should've given a more complete snip...
Let's show you a very basic question now, which relates to what we just saw from General McCaffrey: progress, standing still, or losing ground on the war on drugs? Here it is: Just a few months ago you can see about half of Americans say that we have made progress. Very good news: only 29 percent said we're losing ground; kind of in line with those statistics that he was putting forth there. (and the Drug Czar wouldn't lie or put out faulty statistics to support his claim, would he?)
We have trended this, as you mentioned, for about a quarter of a century. Go all the way back to the '70s and it was more pessimistic; just about 1/3 of Americans said that we had made progress. That number has gone up and now, in our most recent asking, it's up to about 1/2 of Americans; pretty good news.
Half does not make a whole.

I was commenting on this article and the article to which you linked. Both articles were long on criticism and short on remedy.

The reason?

They know their remedy, legalization of all drugs with free drugs for addicts, has so little support it's laughable. So they gloss over it.

They're little men, sitting on the sidelines, criticizing those who are trying to make this country a better place, telling them how wrong they are.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.
-- Theodore Roosevelt

"BTW, you do recognize that the poll is an old poll, don't you?"

It references an old poll. You never bothered to provide a link, so I have no idea of any of the details.

As a matter of fact, if asked that question, I have no idea what they're talking about. Progress? How do you define progress? Number of users? Supply? Interdiction amounts? Overseas efforts? Purity? Availability? Tougher laws? Incarceration? Arrests? ER visits?

There are people on this board who say we're losing the war because supply is up and prices are down. I say we're winning the war because demand is down RESULTING in a larger supply and lower prices.

Stupid poll questions.

"So, there is nothing for them to fail at regulating."

Correct. They're failing at legislating. They're failing in their primary duty to protect through legislation.

Their laws against murder are not working. People are still committing murder -- still violating the fundamental rights to life and liberty of others!

Their laws are not working! They're failing their duty!

Their laws against murder are not working. People are still committing murder -- still violating the fundamental rights to life and liberty of others!

Horrible analogy. When someone is murdered, people complain. People want something done. When someone is smoking pot in their home, noone complains since it does not affect anyone else and noone even knows it happened.

People want all murderers caught because they harm other people when they kill: their neighbors, friends, family. If someone sits in their house and smokes pot, noone complains because noone else besides the potsmoker is affected or even knows it happened. It is the perfect non-crime. Get it?

"OK, then. In the USA, abortion is legal. Following your logic, you should simply accept that and support those who are having them. All laws are not sensible. Do you ever drive just a little faster than the speed limit? If so, why do you not obey the civil laws."

I do accept that abortion is the law of the land. But I do vote against it whenever I have the chance. Abortion is wrong, because God taught us that human life was sacred and we are only authorized to take it under certain circumstances.

The abortion law directly contradicts God's law. Laws against pot do not.

I don't blame anybody other than myself when I get a ticket for speeding. And I hardly think you are arguing that speeding laws are nonsensible. I'm for fairly strict enforcement of laws. I believe poor enforcement of the laws, breeds contempt for the law.

"... and noone even knows it happened."

750,000 people were arrested on marijuana charges last year. Someone knows.

"If someone sits in their house and smokes pot, noone complains because noone else besides the potsmoker is affected or even knows it happened."

Really? In Alaska, possessing small amounts of marijuana and smoking at home was legal. A 1988 University of Alaska study found that Alaskan teens were smoking marijuana at twice the national teen average. A public referendum was passed in 1990 making marijuana illegal. Within ten years, Alaskan teen use dropped to within one percentage point of the national teen average.

Based on that, I'd say others ARE affected. Now, what do you base your statement on?

750,000 people were arrested on marijuana charges last year. Someone knows.

The point is that these arrests, unlike murder, do not occur because people complain about the act, but because cops go out and look for offenders to harass and arrest.

Really? In Alaska, possessing small amounts of marijuana and smoking at home was legal. A 1988 University of Alaska study found that Alaskan teens were smoking marijuana at twice the national teen average. A public referendum was passed in 1990 making marijuana illegal. Within ten years, Alaskan teen use dropped to within one percentage point of the national teen average.

I would have to see the study and who funded it because neither the state or federal government have any credibility on this issue, especially the DEA, who lied repeatedly that the potentcy has increased over the years, a complete lie. That is another difference between murder: you cannot really lie about the murder situation, but you can repeated make up lies about drugs which the state and federal government have done for 80 years and counting. That is another reason why these kinds of laws are so bad, because liars in the government influence public policy to the detriment of us all.

BTW, it is again legal in Alaska in your home, because the referendum (which you hate) was struck down by the Alaska Supreme Court.

"but because cops go out and look for offenders to harass and arrest."

Unless they're busting down 750,000 doors each year, your marijuana users are NOT smoking pot in their home, it DOES affect others and people know it's happening. Your assumption is wrong.

"I would have to see the study and who funded it"

The study was conducted by the University of Alaska in 1988, and consisted of interviews with 12-17 year olds.

"because neither the state or federal government have any credibility on this issue"

Do you believe polls funded by pro-marijuana groups?

"BTW, it is again legal in Alaska in your home, because the referendum (which you hate) was struck down by the Alaska Supreme Court."

This is true. Together now, we can watch teen use rise again. This should give you the proof you need, right? If teen use rises, it will be due to the effect of adult legalization. You agree now, ahead of time?

Unless they're busting down 750,000 doors each year, your marijuana users are NOT smoking pot in their home, it DOES affect others and people know it's happening. Your assumption is wrong.

Actually, I would think most arrests are in cars or at parties or at the beach, etc, not in the privacy of one's home, as they would have no way of knowing that was happening, and would need a search warrant, which they are not going to get unless they suspect they are a dealer or something.

The study was conducted by the University of Alaska in 1988, and consisted of interviews with 12-17 year olds.

Actually I have a theory about these polls. The first one I saw was as a junior in high school in 1972. The teacher passed the "anonymous" poll out to the class and said the response would be anonymous. I remember looking at the paper, even holding up to the light for a special remark as there was no way I was going to believe it was anonymous. Then I wondered if they could tell by our actual penmanship. There was no way I was going to admit to anything on that survey. Nor anyone else I knew.

It could very well be the reason the survey showed larger numbers was because, since it was no longer illegal, students might have felt less threatened than before in admitting to pot usage.

Even today, I would never admit to doing anything illegal on any survey anytime. Would you? That is like giving up your right not to self-incriminate.

AMEN and AMEN.In case no one has been paying attention,our not-so-new epidemic is ice or speed or crank,all variations of speed, that destroy.When I hear pot is a gateway drug I have to wonder how many drinks they have had that day and how apt a stoner is to get up off the couch for anything but munchies.......Just a thought..........

wow...

When I was on camp staff, we had a plant that grew along the edges of the woods, roads, and campsites that closely resembled the pot plant--and we called that ditchweed.

Heck, after all the times I've been at camp, there's a few of those things growing in my yard...

Hi everybody! I'm new here, hope you don't mind me tossing in my 2 bucks.

The survey in question from the 1988 University of Alaska is being compared to the National Household Survey. The Alaska survey was done anonymously, whereas the NHS was conducted by interview in the home. 12-17, hmmm, wonder where Mom and dad were during the survey. "Double the national average" would be the lifetime use category.

Below find a link to "The Economic Implications of Marijuana in Alaska" by Scott W. Bates, Principal Investigator Boreal Economic Analysis & Research Fairbanks, AlaskaYou can skip to page 24 and read a reasonable criticism. Also points out that comparing 1988 to 1976 is simply invalid, as there was no comparable statistics gathered in Alaska until 1983. Also, the author of the study says that the trans alaska pipeline had an indisputable influence. It seems there are also a lot of indigenous folks in Alaska, and that they seem to have a worse time with intoxicants than other people grouped by skin color and physical characteristics.

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/FinalBatesreport.pdf

The link is to an MPP web site, let's just stipulate that 'George Soros is the devil' and move on.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.