The Failed War On Pot Users

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 10/20/2005 | Debra J. Saunders

[cryptical]

IN 2004, law enforcement officials arrested 771,605 people for marijuana violations, according to federal statistics. Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project was so alarmed he sent out a press release noting that there were more arrests for marijuana charges than all violent crimes combined. The number of arrests for possession alone was 684,319.

Said Mirken of the 771,605 statistic: "This is, in fact, an all-time record. This number of arrests is the equivalent of arresting every man, woman and child in San Francisco." Some 40 percent of Americans say they have used marijuana or hashish in their lifetime, and 34 percent of high-school seniors say they have used marijuana in the last year -- even though the last decade has seen a huge spike in marijuana arrests, according to federal research. When the number of marijuana arrests exceeds the population of some states, the country should be asking: Does it make sense to keep millions of otherwise-law-abiding citizens on the dark side of the law?

[CompSciGuy]

The earliest civilization had to stop hunting and gathering to grow barley...for beer. If not for beer, we would still be hunting goats with speers.

Specious argument, agriculture came before brewing. Brewing was a side product of civilization, not a foundation. (Beer was drunk because of poor potable water quality.) The word is spears by the way (spell check is your FRiend).

Cheers,
CSG

[headsonpikes]

For clarity:

It is my oft-posted opinion that the regulation of consumption of marijuana or any other vegetable matter by citizens ought to be considered by reasonable men to be beneath the dignity of the State, whose responsibilities are far more grave.

[KeepUSfree]

Rats,

Now I might have to go do a bong hit just to be rebellious.

[mysterio]

We will devote the entire nation's resources to finding you and stopping you from getting high. It's what the founding fathers wanted. That's why they made a footnote at the end of the bill of rights that says "all of the above may be thrown out if it's to catch drug users or terrorists." You just haven't seen the footnote because it's written in Captain Crunch invisible ink.

[webstersII]

Pride goeth before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction.

[Joe Beerman]

Sorry, that was my lame attempt at humor.
Abstinance is an alternative, and I really do admire those who choose that path. It's just not the answer for everyone.
.

[Joe Beerman]

The word is spears by the way.

Thanks for correcting my spelling. Not being an educated man of high intellect like you, I sometimes make mistakes.

Specious argument, agriculture came before brewing. Brewing was a side product of civilization, not a foundation. (Beer was drunk because of poor potable water quality.

Beer is older than civilization.
They had a water pollution problem 5,000 years ago?
Would you like references to the history of beer?
.

[wolfcreek]

"If we just doubled the arrests and doubled the tax dollars spent, we can make a dent in the drug trade. Just because it's never worked before doesn't mean it won't work now."

Are you kidding or did you just forget to put (sarc) on the end? I think one of the main reasons people believe the WOD's has failed, is the cost. Three quarter of a million people in jail for pot.......that's insane and you want to send more to jail and spend twice as much. Again, I hope you were kidding.

[Names Ash Housewares]

"Pride goeth before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction."


Audentes Fortuna Juvat

[hadit2here]

Guess I should have payed more attention in geography class in school.

And maybe English class, also.

Guess I should have paid more attention...in school.

[quadrant]

You failed to read my response. I agree that many laws are unjust and cited de jure segregation laws as an example. But laws protecting or attempting to protect public health cannot be called unjust, except in extreme circumstances. Laws banning pot do not remotely meet that level of circumstance.
Do you doubt that laws banning pot were enacted to protect the public health? You may conclude that pot poses no danger to public health and if you do, then enter the legislative arena and have the laws repealed.
In the interim, you - as a good citizen - should be willing to live under the laws that make the US a civil society. When you do become a member of a legislature, you will participate in the making of laws which I presume you will expect the public to obey.
Nor has anyone explained to me why banning pot and requiring that people obey this law makes one a ward of the federal government any more than laws banning moonshine or brewing meth.

[vikzilla]

All you have to do is a little research on these web sites to find out. NIDA, DEA, Hazelden, Marijuana Anonymous and the The White House web site.

Please feel free to kneel at the alter of Gov't and perform according to their dictates. I will rely on individual responsiblity and personal excellence

Everyone of these groups needs MJ illegal to justify their existence. Why are you so blind?

[fr_freak]

I agree that many laws are unjust and cited de jure segregation laws as an example. But laws protecting or attempting to protect public health cannot be called unjust, except in extreme circumstances. Laws banning pot do not remotely meet that level of circumstance.

No? Do you realize that if the wind blows a few marijuana seeds into your yard and they germinate, you run the risk of having your property seized and your assets frozen, not to mention the possibility of having armed, masked men kick in your door at 2:00am. If you were actually to plant the seeds yourself, and water them, you would virtually guarantee that this would happen.

The most important determination of the unjustness of such laws, however, is how these laws fit in within the founding principles of this country. The Founders created the Constitution in order to specifically limit the powers of the central government, in order to protect against the inevitable tyrannical impulses that all governments have. Any American citizen who values those founding principles, and who values living as a free man, should be horrified at the degree to which the federal drug laws subvert or ignore the highest law in the land, the Constitution. That makes the federal prosecution of drug offenses unjust, and the heavy-handedness in which they're done tyrannical.

If you are a person who accepts that the federal government is fully entitled to do whatever it wants and regulate your personal behavior however it sees fit, then of course the draconian measures to prevent pot use will make sense to you. After all, drugs are bad, especially pot, because the government says so. However, to someone who believes that his rights are derived from God, as the Founders did, or at least believes that the Constitution protects his rights from government based on that supposed derivation, an arbitrary outlawing of an abundant plant would seem like a tyrannical and unconstitutional intrusion upon those protected rights, and therefore inherently unjust.

Now, most people busted for pot smoking are probably not thinking in quite those specific terms, but there is still enough of the spirit of individual rights infused in our culture that the average person, while aware of the governmental restrictions on pot, would simply refuse to believe that the government has legitimate authority to make them, and thus disobeys them at will.

[Sam Cree]

"The power of a national government in a nation of law abiding citizens is minimum. The power of a national government in a nation of criminals is maximum"

Guess we are living in a nation of criminals, then.

[William Terrell]

Guess we are living in a nation of criminals, then.

By statute, not by law.

[april15Bendovr]

http://www.mayoclinic.com/printinvoker.cfm?objectid=0B86DC5A-7D8E-4A34-A24E100EB932A587

[dcwusmc]

Jaywalkers tend to get hit by cars oft enough to become a self-correcting issue. Tax evasion is no more than keeping what is yours to begin with, and to which NO ONE OR NO ENTITY has a legitimate claim unless you voluntarily allow it... such as your Sears credit card. Drug use, done such that the lives of others are not endangered, as with alcohol, is none of your business. PERIOD.

Murder, on the other hand, is almost the ultimate violation of the rights of another. (Government is the ULTIMATE violation of the rights of others. Especially one which, when founded, PROTECTED those rights, but now is exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the Founders.) In other words, murder has a VICTIM other than the perpetrator. Jaywalking, tax-evasion or avoidance and private drug use (including the deadly drugs, alcohol and tobacco) do not. This bogus "claim" of yours has been debunked more times than you could shake a BIG stick at.

[pageonetoo]

Even the most derelict scientists that advocate for the use of marijuana understand that marijuana's THC level is higher now than in the past.

[pageonetoo]

If anyone wants to present a case. Intellectual honesty is important. -bentover

If anyone wants to present a case. Intellectual honesty is important. I haven't seen that from advocates of marijuana. -bentover

Just the same kind of search and avoid arguments bullshiite that liberals use. -bentover, corrected by page

[pageonetoo]

"Honestly, do you think those who never done marijuana before would all of a sudden use it if it became legal?"

Honestly? Yes. You don't think so? -rp

...and the alcohol industry surely doesn't want that to happen. I wonder if they have any lobbyists?

good morning, rp. I see you are trolling again, trying to share your love for your fellow FReepers. Your bent friend is as amusing as you... and just as obnoxious, and full of crap. I guess y'all like that kinda thing...

Happy Halloweenie... (oops, looks like he had one drink too many!)