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?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You stand head and shoulders above them all...

[pageonetoo]

Good morning, maam. I am not sure I like your self portrait!

[quadrant]

As one who cherishes the Constitution, I consider it laughable to equate its provisions with the right to grow and consume pot.
People who believe such inhabit a parallel universe where any restrictions on whatever desires may pop into their heads constitutes a violation of their rights. If one wishes to be classed with the Mike Stivics (remember All in the Family) of the world, so be it.
The use of pot and other drugs has brought untold misery
to millions of Americans. And for what? For nothing, except a childish desire to temporarily escape from reality.
When civil rights demonstrators demanded an end to de jure segregation, they acted to eliminate injustice. And they were willing to suffer the penalties prescribed by unjust laws. They did not grow and smoke pot in secret but protested in streets and fought in the courts and legislatures. What sort of nobility of purpose elevates the motives and actions of pot advocates?
The promotion and use of pot and other illicit drugs encourages violence and lawlessness. It is a criminal enterprise - one cannot say that about those who sought full civil rights - and one of the worst scourges to effect this country in its history.
No man is an island entire of himself. No society can
allow people to engage in activity that is dangerous to themselves or others. Those who represent the public must act in the public interest, and the use of pot and other drugs is by no means in the public interest, regardless of the drivel of pot advocates./p>

[robertpaulsen]

"I see you are trolling again ..."

Trolling? Nah.

Just getting people to face reality, that's all.

[pageonetoo]

Just getting people to face reality, that's all.

Just getting people to face YOUR IDEA OF reality, that's all. Isn't that what you really mean. You don't like those bad pot smokers, and you're gonna make sure they all know it, right? They are all EVILLLLLLL! Right?

When are you going to wake to the sounds of silence? Why are you so wound up that you seek to impose your will (that ideal of a WOD, with which you agree, and support) on some citizens of this country?

You are more obsessed than any pot smoker I know... and more embarrassing to those of us that consider the Constitution a living document, because of your constant vociferous support of this assault on personal liberty.

So what if I choose to smoke a dooby? How does that affect YOUR life? Would you prefer that I abstain from using any drugs? Would that make your life any better, or rewarding? What IS your consideration, rp?

[pageonetoo]

The promotion and use of pot and other illicit drugs encourages violence and lawlessness.

You sure got that one backwards... The prohibitions against the use of pot and other illicit drugs encourages violence and lawlessness. There are profits to be made, and protected. Show me some pot-crazed guys (LOL). I'll show you a room full of drunks, more likely to create mayhem and violence.

Do you drink alcohol? Do you feel the same way about it, as the other drugs you mentioned?

[pageonetoo]

...And for what? For nothing, except a childish desire to temporarily escape from reality...

...and the problem with that is...? I am sure that you live your life by your guide book, but some us have a different set of instructions. Does that mean we are condemned?

[tonycavanagh]

I agree with pageonetoo.

More dangerous to society is the money that criminals can make from supplying illegal drugs.

And for every one you put away another takes there place, because of the obscene amounts they can make.

This money is more of a corrupter, it corrupts our youth, it corrupts many in the law enforcement agencies and I do not mean this as as a slur on many of those brave honest police and prison officers who put there life on the line over and over again.

It corrupts whole countries.

I agree that it would be nice to look out for each other and those who feel strongly about the dangers of drugs and I am one of them can volunteer to help and work with those who have allowed drugs to take over there life. Throwing them in Prison doesn't work there is easy access to drugs inside

We cant even control the drug problem inside prisons because of the money involved and what it can buy.

But the blunt instrument of the law does not work and that has been proved over and over again.

[robertpaulsen]

"Just getting people to face YOUR IDEA OF reality ..."

Nope. Reality, period. You're saying that legalizing pot will NOT increase usage? Is that YOUR idea of reality?

"So what if I choose to smoke a dooby? How does that affect YOUR life?"

As the Alaska study demonstrated, when the adult use of marijuana at home was legal, Alaskan teen use was double the national average. When made illegal by public referendum, teen use dropped.

So yeah. Your selfish, immature, hedonistic use of pot DOES affect the rest of us.

Surely you don't favor the legalization of pot if it means more teens will be using it? You don't want that, do you?

[robertpaulsen]

"More dangerous to society is the money that criminals can make from supplying illegal drugs."

Then you would have to support the legalization of all drugs, including prescription drugs.

In addition, A) taxes on these now-legal drugs will have to be kept low in order not to drive the drugs back underground (a la cigarettes, a multi-billion dollar smuggling enterprise today), and B) the selling price will also have to be low in order to discourage users from stealing to support their addiction -- perhaps even a government-subsidized free-drug program (similar to the methadone program).

Currently, 30% of marijuana users are underage. That percentage will probably grow with legalization. Who will service this market? What will be the public's reaction to this -- ie., what would be our reaction if it were announced that almost half the cigarette smokers or beer drinkers were underage?

Lastly, what's to prevent the existing gangs from getting into the drug export market, smuggling our legal drugs into countries where the drug remains illegal? Who's to stop them, especially if we close down the ONDCP and disband the DEA?

Or is it your master plan to not only legalize all drugs, but all drugs worldwide?

[Just another Joe]

It's not about keeping someone from getting high..that deflects from the real reasons: some of those are--drug users steal your stuff, attack you and make your free enjoyment of life difficult; do you want the chief of police high every day? Do you want your kid's teachers high every day? Do you want lots of people roaming around our highways high?

Even if you make it legal, people would still steal to pay for it, and not just do it at home on thier on time..

"Man, I can drive this forklift between hits!!! Besides, it's legal, man!!" or "Now today , children, we will study colors..do any of you see the colors in this white wall?? Yes, Johnny, you see them, are you using Columbian or South East Asian stuff???"

YEs more kids would be doing drugs if their parents are and it is legal..

No, it's not about keeping people from being high. It DOES deflect from the real reasoning
It SHOULD be about Can you do your job according to the guidelines of your employer, no matter WHO that employer is.

If your employer has urinalysis to check for drugs, alcohol, nicotine, etc and clearly states in their policies that you will be fired for doing (insert here) then that becomes your choice to work or not.

If your employer says that you must be able to do your job according to their standards and they don't care if you're high as a kite, drunk as a skunk, etc then it shouldn't matter as long as you meet their expectations.
IMO, this includes all private and public employers.

Do you really posit that the people that don't get high now WILL if drugs are legalized? What is your reasoning behind this position?

Alcohol is legal for people over 21. Kids today have much greater access to drugs (illegal) than alcohol (legal) and more kids do drugs of some kind than drink alcohol.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Your cherishing of the Constitution is touching, but seems to be limited to what YOU think it means to you; like a lot of libs, you want the Constitution to protect YOUR interests, but are unwilling to view it as the Founders intended. It is NOT a document to list the select, most important rights you are LIMITED TO, but rather, it limits the governent from taking certain rights that had, at the time it was written, been used to subjugate citizens in previous years. The reason they did NOT include a "Right to put whatever you want into your own body" is because it was unthinkable at the time that a government would care to. The right to chew gum is a trivial one, but to gum chewers, an important one. Just because I don't chew gum, I shouldn't care if Big Brother outlaws it?

"The use of pot and other drugs has brought untold misery
to millions of Americans" - this should read "The criminalization of pot and other drugs....". Objective thinkers (read: libertarians) know that the societal effects of prohibition are far more grievous than the consumption of the prohibited.

Our rights are ONLY limited by their deprivation of OTHERS' rights, regardless of what laws are in place (laws CAN be unjust, as we all know). They are not limited to those the Constitution explicitly protects, or even to what the majority of the country might be "propagandized" into approving. Rights may be trivial or not, but the SUSPENSION of rights is NEVER so.

[tonycavanagh]

Ok lets start first at legialising drugs like we have legalised alcohol.

Underage drug dealing deal with the same way we deal with underage drinking.

Crime committed on or in the pursuit of drugs deal with the same way we deal with those who commit crime under the influences of drink or in the pursuit of drink.

Fighting the drug war is expensive and diverts resources from fighting other crime.

In London we had operation BumbleBee its job to deal with burglary.

It worked by targeting known areas and known criminals we were able to cut down the burglary rate while upping the arrest rate.

Then the media had its periodic drug scare, an areas in SoHo was known to have a high concentration of crack dealers.

So it was decided to target them instead.

Bumble Bee was declared a success run down while surveillance was reassigned to the drug suppliers.

What happened, well after a very expensive and man power intensive operation, they arrested 10 dealers.

The operation was declared a success.

Within 3 to 5 days new crack dealers were out in force.

Mean while house breaking had crept steadily up.

Deal with real crime, the crime where the victim and criminal is not one and the same.

Its a parents job to warn children of the dangers of drugs, the dangers of cigarettes, the dangers of alcohol.

Just because something is legal means you feel you have no power to tell your child it is wrong.

There is a word that people will have to understand its called finite.

We have finite resources to deal with crime, lets use them to clear up murder, sex crimes, theft, car jacking, mugging ,GBH.

[webstersII]

Fortune favors that bold, that's true. But it doesn't favor the arrogant.

[robertpaulsen]

"Underage drug dealing deal with the same way we deal with underage drinking."

Underage drinking in the U.S. represents only about 10% of all drinkers. It's a problem, but not the problem that marijuana (for example) would be, and I don't think we can "deal with it" the same way.

"Just because something is legal means you feel you have no power to tell your child it is wrong."

So, how's your reclassification decision (from "B" to "C") being accepted by the general public? Sure would be nice, I'd guess, to have the government on your side when telling your child something is wrong, rather than the government taking the opposite stand and saying that marijuana is not so bad -- just so they can save a couple of pence.

(Oh, and your psycho "British soldier" in the The Patriot got what he deserved in the end.)

[april15Bendovr]

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:trN-hBFJ_wgJ:www.casacolumbia.org/pdshopprov/files/Marijuana_Paper_on_Letterhead.pdf+Columbia+university+withdrawal+marijuana&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[robertpaulsen]

"Alcohol is legal for people over 21. Kids today have much greater access to drugs (illegal) than alcohol (legal) and more kids do drugs of some kind than drink alcohol."

Whoa!

I have 2002 "past month" figures for the 12-17 age group that are contrary to that statement. For marijuana (only), 8.17%. Any illicit drug, 11.63%. Alcohol, 17.63%.

Where did you get your data?

[fr_freak]

As one who cherishes the Constitution, I consider it laughable to equate its provisions with the right to grow and consume pot. People who believe such inhabit a parallel universe where any restrictions on whatever desires may pop into their heads constitutes a violation of their rights.

You may cherish the Constitution, but you'll forgive me if I suggest that you may not fully understand it. The purpose of the Constitution was never to be a full outline of each and every right of the citizens, but rather to be a limit on the power of the FEDERAL government to regulate the lives of its citizens, or to interfere with the sovereignty of the States. A good number of the Founders objected to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights for this very reason, that specifically enumerating any rights is unnecessary since all rights are reserved to the people which are not granted specifically to the federal government (see the 10th amendment).

So, what this means is that there does not need to be an explicit right to grow and consume pot in the Constitution, because the federal government is explicitly forbidden from getting involved in private affairs, or in the matters reserved to sovereign states. The states may outlaw it if they wish - the Constitution does not forbid that, but the federal government is denied that authority.

And that brings up another point which should have any real Conservative unhappy about the federal drug war: the federal WoD is yet another usurpation of State sovereignty. The Founders set out specifically to avoid a powerful central government, and so placed specific limitation on it in favor of allowing the more local governments, which were assumed to be closer to the actual will of the people, to engage in the actual details of governance. Instead, we now have a federal government that micromanages local affairs. We have the Founders' worst nightmare: members of Congress who mostly originate from places thousands of miles away from any one locale passing laws which dictate how that locale can conduct its affairs.

[robertpaulsen]

"Objective thinkers (read: libertarians) know that the societal effects of prohibition are far more grievous than the consumption of the prohibited."

"Societal effects". I like that. Nice and vague.

Oh, "more grievous"? Really? OK. How many people died because of Prohibition vs. the deaths caused by legal alcohol?

Now, what's more grievous -- Prohibition or legalization?

A truly objective thinker knows the answer to that.

[headsonpikes]

Do you doubt that laws banning pot were enacted to protect the public health?

You are asking this question with a straight face?

Unbelievable!