Advocates for legalizing marijuana tout the benefits at Hempfest

Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA) ^ | August 21, 2006 | MIKE LEWIS

[robertpaulsen]

"Now in its 15th year, Hempfest is at its core all about decriminalizing marijuana"

Hempfest? They want to legalize rope or dope?

At its core it's about legalizing not decriminalizing. I wish they'd get it right.

[robertpaulsen]

Pretty funny. Bunch of mellowed-out, pot smoking hippies want to get together to promote the legalization of marijuana and Stamper gets on stage calling for the legalization of ALL drugs. What an idiot.

"Shut up, dude! You're ruinin' it for the rest of us!"

[robertpaulsen]

You left out: 12) It gets you stoned so you can deal with life.

[robertpaulsen]

"So I guess the 41% of Americans who support legalization are unprincipled, anti-family, irresponsible, and indecent?"

I don't know about them, but you certainly are when quoting that statistic. Here's the truth:

In response to a Zogby poll question (sponsored by the pro-marijuana Soros group, the Drug Policy Alliance): "Some people say the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: it should regulate marijuana, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children." , the respondents answered:

Strongly agree with legalization -- 23.5%.
Somewhat agree with legalization -- 17.4%.
Somewhat disagree with legalization -- 11.4%.
Strongly disagree with legalization -- 45.3%.

WHOA! Nearly half the public strongly opposes legalization, and less than a quarter strongly supports it.

So much for your misleading 41%.

[robertpaulsen]

"It will only pass in Blue States, such as CA, NY, etc., where the potheads/liberals reside en masse."

Very true. As proof, here's how they voted in California for Proposition 215 (medical marijuana). Without the liberal San Francisco dopers it wouldn't have passed.

[robertpaulsen]

"The following states have already made small amounts of marijuana posession a minor non-jail offense:"

Those states decriminalized way back in the 70's following Jimmy Carter's poor advice. As a result, marijuana use reached an all-time high in 1979 at 13% (it's less than half that today).

"I think most states would legalize it."

Based on what?

[robertpaulsen]

"Beginning in 1803, with the Marbury opinion, it has been recognized as a principle of our system that laws repugnant to the US Constitution are null & void from enactment, -- "whether YOU approve of it or not"."

And the courts have ruled time and again that the federal drug laws are NOT repugnant to the US Constitution, whether you approve of THAT or not.

[robertpaulsen]

"Mr. Anslinger was a key figure in making marijuana illegal."

He didn't classify marijuana as a Schedule I drug. That was done in 1970 under the Controlled Substances Act passed by Congress, and I saw no references to Mr. Anslinger, Satanic music, white women, or Negroes.

It's disingenuous of you to imply that our current laws against marijuana are based on anything other than the Congressional findings listed in the 1970 CSA. Unless you can provide some kind of proof, that is. Can you?

[microgood]

WHOA! Nearly half the public strongly opposes legalization, and less than a quarter strongly supports it.

At the same time another Zogby poll states that 61% of Americans do not think people should be arrested for smoking it. Go figure.

The WOD is a legacy of the 50s generation which failed at everything it ever attempted to do (WODs, Vietnam War,etc). The WOD will end when a new generation of acheivers emerges in America that will refuse to support policies that acheive nothing except provide welfare to government employees (another WWII type generation).

[robertpaulsen]

"At the same time another Zogby poll states that 61% of Americans do not think people should be arrested for smoking it. Go figure."

The pro-marijuana legalization group, NORML, sponsored that November, 2001 poll, two months after 9/11. This was the question they asked -- a push-poll question if ever I saw one:

"1. In light of the tragic events of Sept. 11th and the increased attention to the threat of terrorism, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose arresting and jailing nonviolent marijuana smokers?

Strongly support 18%
Somewhat support 15%
Somewhat oppose 22%
Strongly oppose 39%

What a joke.

[robertpaulsen]

"to support policies that acheive nothing except provide welfare to government employees"

Let's say we legalized pot. Name one federal employee who would lose his job. One.

Oh sure, we'll stop arresting users and dealers (over 21, that is -- there'll still be illegal underage use). Will police department fire cops? Will some courtrooms shut down? Judges fired? Prosecutors fired?

Will we close any prisons? Fire any guards?

You say illegal pot provides welfare to government employees, but you can't show me any "welfare" savings if we legalize it. What's your point?

I'd be willing to bet good money that if we legalized and regulated pot, we'd actually end up with more government employees handling tax collection, licensing, and enforcement of regulations.

[microgood]

What a joke.

Ok, show me the details of your Zogby poll.

[microgood]

You say illegal pot provides welfare to government employees, but you can't show me any "welfare" savings if we legalize it. What's your point?

684,000 people were arrested in 2004 for possession of marijuana alone, and another 87,000 for dealing in it, more than for all violent crimes. 40% of all arrests are drug related. I would expect the need for police and prisons would decline significantly if marijuana was legalized.

In Washington state the King County Sheriff, who is pretty conservative, became a representative and wrote an article complaining that the Bush Administration was cutting funds for meth lab eradication because they wanted to put more emphasis on marijuana, which they believe is more dangerous than Meth.

Also, if you watch the LEAP video, the New Jersey cops say that before the Nixon drug war his department had 7 officers dealing with drugs in that department and it immediately went to 76 when the drug war started, an increase of 1000%. Back then, if you passed a joint to a cop it was considered dealing, and you could get 7 years.

In Washington state, you have to get arrested 7 times to do time for car theft, so even if they did not reduce the prisons, they might have room for the real criminals around us.

[robertpaulsen]

"Ok, show me the details of your Zogby poll."

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is the result of the collective opinion of the citizens of this country. That's the only "poll" that counts.

The people don't want pot to be legal, and very few want it to be decriminalized or made available for medical use.

People will tell pollsters anything. Why not? It doesn't mean anything. But when it actually gets down to voting, they speak their real mind.

[microgood]

I'd be willing to bet good money that if we legalized and regulated pot, we'd actually end up with more government employees handling tax collection, licensing, and enforcement of regulations.

Here is a pretty informative link about the cost of the drug war in terms of incarceration:

Cost of the drug war

What I find amazing is that the incarceration rate was between 90-120 per 100,000 before the war and is now up to a staggering 325 per 100,000. You can deny that has increased the cost of government and number of employees but you would be fooling yourself.

[robertpaulsen]

"I would expect the need for police and prisons would decline significantly if marijuana was legalized."

Unless, as you said later in your post, we would use those resources to go after the "real" criminals.

So, which is it? Will we actually fire people and close prisons or will we maintain the same number of government employees?

[microgood]

So, which is it? Will we actually fire people and close prisons or will we maintain the same number of government employees?

Because of the sheer number locked up for drugs (40% of the prison population), there is no way they could find enough other criminals to take their place unless they start incarcerating smokers or something so there would definitely be an overall decline in the size of government.

My guess is that when the baby boomers retirement hits full steam, the drug war will abate just due to the fact the Federal and State governments will simply not have the funds to continue to fund that particular social experiment.

I was just reading the other day where company drug testing is on the decline because it is ineffective and only catches pot smokers anyway, so now the testing lobby is going after public schools.

[robertpaulsen]

"You can deny that has increased the cost of government and number of employees"

First, I have never denied that. What I have denied is your claim that once marijuana is legalized, this number would diminish. Even you concede the number of prisons might stay the same. They will, as will the number of prison guards (and police, and court rooms, and judges, and prosecutors, etc.).

Second, those increases referenced in your link cover ALL drugs, not just marijuana.

[robertpaulsen]

"Because of the sheer number locked up for drugs (40% of the prison population)"

Out of 2 million prisoners, about 450,000 of them are drug offenders (ALL drugs). That's 22%, not 40%.

Of those 450,000, only about 10% are there on "marijuana only" charges. So that's 45,000 out of 2 million -- about a 2% reduction. Don't look for any prisons to close.

[microgood]

Out of 2 million prisoners, about 450,000 of them are drug offenders (ALL drugs). That's 22%, not 40%.

That is NY State Prisons. But 61% of them in Federal prisons are there for drugs. I would guess it varies from state to state.

Of those 450,000, only about 10% are there on "marijuana only" charges. So that's 45,000 out of 2 million -- about a 2% reduction. Don't look for any prisons to close.

The 40% figure I got was from this other site, but is the number of arrests and not the number in prison:

Drug War Facts