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.
Posted on 08/21/2006 5:54:00 PM PDT by Know your rights
Former Seattle police Chief Norm Stamper doesn't have dreadlocks, a Zig-Zag T-shirt or a single Phish album. He just sounds like it. "It's laughable when people say we are winning the drug war," said Stamper, who had just finished a main-stage speech to the crowd gathered Sunday at the Seattle Hempfest in Myrtle Edwards Park. "The people who are prosecuting the drug war are invested psychically and financially. It's a holy war for them.
"We should legalize all drugs."
While the comments might be unusual for most law enforcement careerists, they are nothing new for Stamper, who was Seattle's top cop from 1994 to 2000. That is why organizers brought him in for the popular two-day, pro-pot festival.
Organizers estimated 150,000 people flowed into the waterfront park, which for the weekend turned into a dense village of food booths, stages, arts-and-crafts sellers, hemp product manufacturers, leafleteers, hackysack circles and picnickers.
Now in its 15th year, Hempfest is at its core all about decriminalizing marijuana. So is Stamper, especially after years of witnessing firsthand what he sees as the futility of the federal drug war.
The drugs are winning, he said. It's time to change tactics.
"Police should be focused on violent crime," he told the crowd.
Stamper, a member of pro-legalization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said many of his peers agree with him but will only say so privately. He told a story about a recent chat with a police chief in a "major American city" who had read Stamper's 2005 book, "Breaking Rank."
In it, Stamper advocates legalizing and regulating drugs as a way to reduce collateral problems such as addiction, violence and property crime.
"He came up to me after a talk and said he agreed with the chapter on drugs," Stamper said. "I asked, 'Can I quote you publicly?'
"He said, 'What have you been smoking?' "
Stamper saw similar reticence Sunday, as he preached to the choir in the sunny, 90-degree heat.
Waiting for hand-dipped ice-cream bars in the festival's munchie midway, Seattleites Tony Witherspoon, 31, and Neil Toland, 28, said they don't see pot as a rip in society's fabric.
"I wouldn't think a little weed is going to hurt anybody," Witherspoon said.
Added Toland, "There needs to be a little space for (pot)."
Creating that political space is what the festival is all about, chief organizer Dominic Holden said.
Hempfest has matured over the decade and a half it's existed, he said. Initially, it went unnoticed by local police. Then, Holden recalled, it became tense and even adversarial between organizers and police in the late 1990s -- at a time when Stamper was chief.
"For a while there, it seemed like it would go downhill," Holden said. "They were doing backstage raids looking for pot. They didn't find any."
Since then, the political landscape has changed, Holden said.
First, state voters approved medical marijuana. Subsequently, Seattle residents said they are not worried about pot as a law enforcement issue.
Now, he said, the relationship is much more mellow.
"We all want it to be a safe festival," Holden said. "The police have been great. Very collaborative.
"This might be our biggest festival ever."
Hempfest? They want to legalize rope or dope?
At its core it's about legalizing not decriminalizing. I wish they'd get it right.
"Shut up, dude! You're ruinin' it for the rest of us!"
You left out: 12) It gets you stoned so you can deal with life.
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%.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.