Has ANYONE ever been imprisoned for smoking pot?

09/21/02 | Libloather

[Libloather]

Liberteens come, and Liberteens go. But they seem to have an awful time with their own (and biggest - maybe only) issue - pot.

As far as anyone can tell, not ONE person has been placed behind bars for smoking pot. But the Liberteens paint an entirely different picture. They claim that HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS are behind bars for smoking.

Can anyone provide any proof either way?

[Libloather]

As a lawyer, I can tell you that anyone smoking marijuana is, by legal definition, "possessing" it.

Then it makes perfect sense to deduct that possessing it is, by definition, smoking it - no?

[Libloather]

The whole thread is an exercise in tortured semantics.

Only to those that don't understand...

[Libloather]

...lock up pot smokers...

So far, it's been determined that the UCMJ has imprisonment provisions for smoking pot. Do you know of any others?

[Dakmar]

Then it makes perfect sense to deduct that possessing it is, by definition, smoking it - no?

Following that line of reasoning, I wouldn't be able to purchase a case of beer and transport it home, since possessing that case of beer means I drank it. Or is that what you are getting at, that I can't possess somethning I've already consumed?

[scholar]

The whole thread is an exercise in tortured semantics.

I confess to being nailed by semantics, however folks, get a grip!!!. This thread has been going on for at least a week!--there must be something more important to strain our brains with eh?

[Libloather]

This thread has been going on for at least a week!--there must be something more important to strain our brains with eh?

I was hoping for the truth. Care to try it?

[CzarChasm]

An interesting exercise in futility

For those that believe the War on (Some) Drugs is justifiable, no citing of evidence is acceptable "enough", and no amount of semantic contortion is too great to justify an endless unwinnable war; Constitutional logic resembles a pretzel in this area.

For those that understand that Prohibition didn't end, it just switched drugs and kept going, the request to pass the salt grows tiresome ;-)

But, what the heck: it only took 2 minutes to find some numbers, from 1997, from the U. S. Department of Justice's own website http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/satsfp97.htm (since any anti-Wo(S)D site's stats would be automatically discounted). For some reason, only the numbers from 1997 are available .

Look at the spreadsheet SATS9701.WKS and add up the "possession" columns for state and federal prisoners. The total is 102,467 prisoners in state and federal prisons in 1997 for drug posession alone, equating to 9.03% of all prisoners (just under one in ten, but remember that drug-related arrests have reportedly risen since 1997 and that many 'trafficking' charges are simply posession charges with greater quantities attached).

Caveat: the DOJ data here does not distinguish one drug from another, but usage and arrest statistics provide strong circumstantial evidence that the vast majority were for simple cannabis posession [the most popular illegal drug by far]

One wonders at the point of a week-long "discussion" (and I use the term loosely) while waiting for someone else to do the legwork (figuratively). I suspect that a thread spawned by the related question "where in the Constitution does it give the fedgov authority over plants and/or medications?" would be equally long and pointless. [Hint: the much-abused Commerce Clause is not an enumerated power.]

That aside, a quick browse through some of the other data available at the DOJ paints an interesting picture. Note, for example, that 62.57% of federal prisoners are incarcerated for "drug offenses", while this number is only 20.66% of state prisoners.

I guess we should be glad that the state police have better things to do... this also might explain why many federal LEOs are still so adamant about prohibition. Drug posession is the "low-hanging fruit" of federal law enforcement.

Personally, I'd rather use the $17 billion dollars per year spent on the Wo(S)D on something more Constitutional - like national defense.

[Libloather]

...no citing of evidence is acceptable "enough"...

All I was expecting was SOME evidence. Right now, ANY evidence will do. Do you have any?

The question still remains - Has ANYONE ever been imprisoned for smoking pot?

The answer still remains - the UCMJ has imprisonment provisions for smoking pot. Do you know of any others?

[Cato]

Lay off the bottle.

You know darn good and well people have been imprised for POSSESSION of marijuana. You must possess it to smoke it.

But your stupid article points out quite well WHY the law is wrong.

IT IS APPLIED SELECTIVELY TO BE USED AGAINST ANYONE WHO IS A THREAT OR PERCIEVED TO BE A THREAT TO THE GOVERNMENT OR THOSE WHO CAN USE THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR OWN AGENDA.

Maybe that selectiveness is why you can make that stupid statement.

Anyone who Possesses/Smokes it is a NON-PERSON and therefore NO ONE got imprisoned for smoking it. Same darn arguement used by the Nazis to ease their conscience.

Keep up the yeoman work on perpetuating the Eternal War,
CATO

[Dakmar]

I suppose we could debate the what the meaning of 'is' is, but that's been done to death. My point is that I refuse to let would-be tyrants like LibertyLoather re-define the terms of the debate by re-defining the essential meaning of the English language with legalistic parlour tricks.

[CzarChasm]

Correction: should read ...the much-abused General Welfare clause is not an enumerated power

[Libloather]

You know darn good and well people have been imprised for POSSESSION of marijuana.

Yeahbut, scholar wrote:
"Our prison system is overburdened with non-violent, pot-smoking "criminals."

Scholar must be wrong - no?

[Libloather]

...re-define the terms of the debate...

Can you name one law, besides whatever is in the UCMJ, that would place an individual behind bars for the crime of smoking pot?

(Is this REALLY that hard to understand?)

[scholar]

Don't know about anyone else here but I have to work for a living and can't follow this thread blow-by-blow. For someone who can only check pings occasionally, the discussion has become so bizarre it is impossible to follow.

BTW, I don't want anymore pings for this thread either.

[takenoprisoner]

Has anyone ever been imprisoned for smoking pot?

Nah, doesn't happen. Never happened.
<(sarc off)> duh

[Libloather]

Nah, doesn't happen. Never happened.

I didn't think so. Thanks so much for backing me up!

[Libloather]

BTW, I don't want anymore pings for this thread either.

Yet another Liberteen bites the dust...

[takenoprisoner]

sorry to inform you, but folks do get arrested for smoking pot.

312 ARRESTED IN POT-MARCH BUST New York Daily News; New York; May 7, 2000; RICHARD WEIR and SALVATORE ARENA DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS;

Abstract: Cops arrested 312 people for openly smoking pot during the Millennium Marijuana March in lower Manhattan yesterday, locking up nearly one-third of the demonstrators.

Many of the arrests were made in Battery Park, where the march turned into a rally with bands and speakers, and where marijuana smokers were easy prey for plainclothes police dressed in tank tops and T-shirts.

So to answer your question, yes, people do get imprisoned for smoking pot. Any more stupid questions?

[Cato]

Yes, he is wrong. I bet Libloather would be all screwed up in prison. It can be arrainged.

*******

[Dakmar]

Has anyone ever been issued a traffic ticket for speeding?