Posted on 12/22/2004 1:56:04 AM PST by Gorons
Did you hear about Jessica's original problem with "Chicken of the Sea"? That's what the SNL sketch is taking off on.
No. I just skimmed the article real quick. Not much there worth my time.
This article is a joke. Marijuana isn't more potent, it's about the same. In fact, 2% THC marijuana is good for one thing...a killer headache. In the olden days the study of potencies only had access to Mexican ditchweed(poor mexicans growing pot in whatever little piece of exposed dirt they could find) that crossed the border. Even today, this ditchweed is good for a headache.
Today they intercept more high-grade American, Canadian, and European pot. Legalization would solve so much. It'd eradicate gangs, save money, and it would atone for reefer madness...the early-to-mid 1900's campaign that basically said all marijuana users were evil mexicans who wanted to rape your wife, mother, and little sister...it's ridiculous.
There is actually a positive correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the percentage of heroin addicts.
Iran has the highest rate of heroin addiction in the world and they've executed around 10,000 heroin traffickers over the last decade or so.
In 1996, Singapore had proportionally slightly more heroin addicts than the US. And Holland has a lower rate of heroin addiction than the US, using late 90's figures for both. These were the latest government figures I could find.
It does not mean that harsh laws cause higher rates of heroin addiction.
It means lenient laws don't necessarily lead to more of it.
It's called the ACLU/NEA, and they won't stand for it.
Actually I agree. When prohibition was passed in this country, there was an explosion of alcoholism. I'd rather see the DEA eliminated or greatly downsized and spend the money on better things. The current system certainly isn't working that well.
Don't really care if you grow enough for your friends and family too. Keep it out of the hands of kids and I'm happy.
These days, about all I bother with is a couple of beers, but to each his own.
I'm with you.
Yep. Haven't touched the stuff in 6 years.
First, the space is not "wasted". These are scumbag drug traffickers and drug dealers. Good riddance to bad garbage. Second, the statistic is for all drug offenders, not just marijuana. Third, we have 2 million people in prison (state and federal) in the U.S. 77,000 of them are drug offenders in federal prison. Let's put things in perspective here, Chicken Little.
"I'd think it would be a lot more. Got a source?"
The federal budget is about $2 trillion. The federal WOD is about $20 billion (ie., 1%).
Under the 2003 WOD budget, a number of enforcement agencies were included. This skews the "supply/demand" budget split to 2/3 - 1/3. The 2004 WOD budget transfers some of the enforcement budget to other federal agencies, resulting in a "supply/demand" budget split of about 50-50.
This restructuring (detailed in the link) also reduces the ONDCP budget from $20 billion to $12 billion. The largest reduction, $5 billion, came from the removal of 10 accounts in the DOJ, the largest of which, $3 billion, was for the incarceration of federal prisoners.
Pot legalization would not eradicate the gangs -- of all the money Americans spend on illegal recreational drugs, marijuana represents about 15%. That still leaves a huge illegal market for the gangs.
Save money? Not at the federal level. Some money would be saved at the state and local level in reduced incarceration costs. But I believe it would actually cost society money due to increased usage (health, accident, treatment, etc.).
Currently, marijuana usage is about 6% of the population over 12. It was as low as 4.7% in 1993. It was as high as 13% in 1979.
So we know that it can go pretty high even when it's illegal. Legalizing marijuana could result in use as high as 20%, half of that number under 21 years of age. Would that also increase the use of hard drugs? I would think so, especially since the gangs are now focused on nothing but.
Legalize marijuana to "atone for Reefer Madness"? Nice try.
Besides, the film has now achieved "cult" status, and is a favorite among teens. So look on the positive side.
Not like those plants wouldn't attract every teen in a ten miles radius like bees to nectar.
Well, there was an explosion of drinking, yes.
Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929
But that only brought the consumption level back to what it was before Prohibition (actually lower).
There is no relationship to drugs. Drug use declined when we got serious about enforcing the Controlled Substances Act.
So the decline started halfway through Jimmy Carter's term and continued falling until the WOD was elevated to cabinet level status. Since then, it's gone up. Plus the WOD has utterly failed on the supply side, assuming the goal is to reduce supply..
So we know that it can go pretty high even when it's illegal. Legalizing marijuana could result in use as high as 20%, half of that number under 21 years of age.
Not necessarily. The rates of mj use in the Netherlands is in the same ballpark as the US, maybe slightly lower.
Would that also increase the use of hard drugs? I would think so, especially since the gangs are now focused on nothing but.
Not necessarily. Using the latest government figures I could find (1999), the rate of heroin addiction in the Netherlands was about half that of the US.
You currently grow tomatoes inside? And if marijuana were legal to grow, just how many people would choose to grow it indoors? Besides you.
"I'll bet you half the kids don't know what a plant looks like."
Perhaps. Legalize the growing of marijuana and I'd bet that percentage would increase to about, oh, 100%.
If all I have to worry about is teenagers, I can deal with that ..."
Here's the problem. We'd all have to worry about the teenagers if marijuana were legalized for adult use in the home -- as they found out in Alaska. Teen use was double that of the lower 48.
Personally, I'm not willing to take the chance of teen drug use doubling in order to legalize marijuana so that some irresponsible, selfish, individualistic, immoral, hedonistic doper can smoke at home. Like they would restrict their usage to home.
They don't now.
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.