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?

[webstersII]

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

It's like those commercials on telling your kids about the dangers of drugs. Alot of people feel they can't pass judgement or teach their kids about such things if they ever had a youthful indiscrection.

[robertpaulsen]

Two questions:

1) Does the federal government have the power to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs?

2) If some state or individuals' activity interferes with this interstate regulation, does Congress have the power to legislate that activity?

[LibertarianSchmoe]

"Nice and vague....How many people died because of Prohibition vs. the deaths caused by legal alcohol?"

No more vague than your question, I posit. Admittedly, I don't know the answer to that one, but the right answer should 1) attribute to Prohibition the deaths caused by gangsters' control of alcohol, and 2) include deaths caused directly by alcohol that were not prevented by its prohibition, and 3) NOT include deaths caused by DWI and related "under-the-influence" crimes, since they ARE illegal and are NOT being advocated for decriminalization.

This comparison doesn't even take into consideration other "societal effects", like the diversion of money from the economy into the black market and enforcement (how many BILLIONS is that, anyway?), or normalizing the practice of liberty revocation. A small point I know, but some of us are kind of sticklers for liberty.

"Now, what's more grievous -- Prohibition or legalization?
A truly objective thinker knows the answer to that."

On that, we agree.

Definitely Prohibition.

[Just another Joe]

Where did you get your data?

I will admit to a couple of mistakes here.
I am using anecdotal evidence and I should have said that in my experience more kids have access to drugs than alcohol.

[Know your rights]

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

I don't want my kids to drink or smoke; should I be agitating for bans on alcohol and tobacco? I think that would teach them a worse lesson than the legality of those substances does; I also think my fellow adults shouldn't have to give up their liberties to make my parenting easier.

[MEGoody]

Hey, the war against murder has failed too. Guess we should just legalize it.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

"Hey, the war against murder has failed too. Guess we should just legalize it."

Apples to volkswagons, fellow freeper. The act of murder deprives an innocent person of their liberty, and is justly illegal for that reason. Smoking [insert substance here] does not.

Beware the arguement that states "smoking [blank] and then stealing someone's DVD player is!". Yes, people who get high and then commit crimes ARE criminals. But if you advocate treating a criminal differently because of their motivations, you should also advocate "hate crimes".

[MEGoody]

Apples to volkswagons, fellow freeper.

Hardly. If the 'failed' war on drugs is a reason to legalize drugs, the 'failed' war on murder is a valid reason for legalizing murder.

So is the 'failure' of the war on drugs the reason or not?

The act of murder deprives an innocent person of their liberty, and is justly illegal for that reason. Smoking [insert substance here] does not.

It can and has. People claim drug use is a 'victimless' crime. But drug users affect all those around them. It is not victimless at all.

[robertpaulsen]

... and 4) the sum total of all alcohol deaths since 1933, vs. the number of deaths during Prohibition.

I mean, if we're going to be objective about this, we need to examine the effect of ridding ourselves of that truly horrible thing called "Prohibition", yes?

"This comparison doesn't even take into consideration other "societal effects", like the diversion of money from the economy into the black market and enforcement (how many BILLIONS is that, anyway?), or normalizing the practice of liberty revocation."

Oh, of course. Can't forget about those other "societal effects", now can we?

But we should ignore the "societal effects" of alcoholism and the abuse of alcohol? The countless deaths and injury caused by DUI? The lost productivity? Increased medical costs?

"On that, we agree."
"Definitely Prohibition."

Without any admitted factual evidence, I wouldn't even call that "subjective" thinking. I call that deliberate propaganda (a nice way of saying "bull$hit".)

[faireturn]

fr_freak wrote:

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.

Article VI makes clear that our constitution also applies to all the States, and all state & local officials who are pledged to its support.

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).

The 10th also mentions that some powers are prohibited by the Constitution to the States. IE, - the states do not have the power to ignore constitutional rights in writing legislation.

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.

States too are explicitly forbidden from getting involved in private affairs, or in the matters reserved to the people. [see the 10th]

The states may outlaw it if they wish - the Constitution does not forbid that, but the federal government is denied that authority.

Fed, state, & local officials are all denied the power or authority to unreasonably regulate our private affairs. [see the 14th]

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.

Reasonable regulatory "details", of course. -- Prohibitionry decrees? of course not.

Instead, we now have a federal government that micromanages local affairs.

And state/local officials who micromanage everything the feds miss.

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.

And petty local bureaucrats, backed up by their state & fed counterparts, who all ignore our Constitution.
We agree on one thing, it's a nightmare.

[robertpaulsen]

"and I should have said that in my experience more kids have access to drugs than alcohol."

In every survey I've seen, teens have responded that marijuana is easier to obtain than alcohol (I don't know about cocaine, heroin, or meth). Yet teens use hard to get alcohol 2:1 over marijuana.

I say because alcohol is legal, and the resultant message is that society thinks that alcohol isn't so bad.

[fanfan]

"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???"

Yeah, I guess. Just like all the drunk teachers and forklift drivers. /s

[Joe Beerman]

I wonder if they have any lobbyists?

Of course they do.
Most bar owners believe marijuana will compete with alcohol sales. I believe just the opposite, and I am a bar owner. Some problem drinkers would find marijuana a safer alternative to booze, and that would be good for business.
.

[robertpaulsen]

"I think that would teach them a worse lesson ..."

Teaching a worse lesson is teaching your kids to ignore the laws they don't agree with. So don't waste your time giving me any of your objectivism parenting tips.

The UK undermined parenting efforts by relaxing their drug laws. It had nothing to do with drinking or smoking, and absolutely nothing to do with making some legal product illegal.

Your analogies are juvenile, laughable, and predictable.

[robertpaulsen]

"Article VI makes clear that our constitution also applies to all the States, and all state & local officials who are pledged to its support."

No, he had it right. You're the one misreading the constitution.

Article VI makes clear that the contract between the states and the federal government (known as the constitution) and the laws written under the contract are supreme.

It does NOT state that everthing IN the contract is binding upon the states.

[Stone Mountain]

Indeed Marijuana is stronger today due to extensive strain selection and breeding techniques. I havent seen any conclusive data that shows that increased potency leads to increased side effects but would like to see a study done if there hasnt been one already.

What you won't hear, is that the stronger marijuana is actually safer than the old stuff. The carcinogens aren't from the THC, it's from the organic matter that is burned when smoking marijuana. A stronger product means that less weed needs to be smoked to get a similar effect, and thus less carcinogens inhaled.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

"... and 4) the sum total of all alcohol deaths since 1933, vs. the number of deaths during Prohibition."

I see. In your "objective" opinion, comparing the few years of prohibition to the decades of legality is a fair one?

"The countless deaths and injury caused by DUI?" - which IS justly illegal and no one is proposing otherwise.

"The lost productivity?" - This is a free market (for now). Individuals have THE RIGHT to do whatever they want with their own productivity. Perhaps you think it takes a village...?

"Increased medical costs?" - Lots of perfectly legal things cause increased medical costs: fast food, cigarettes. Gosh, if we outlawed guns, we'd be able to save a couple of lives at least.

"Without any admitted factual evidence, I wouldn't even call that "subjective" thinking. I call that deliberate propaganda (a nice way of saying "bull$hit".)"

I must have missed all of the factual evidence you provided in support of YOUR propa...bullsh...subjective opinion.

"I mean, if we're going to be objective about this"

Oh, if only "we" could...

[Stone Mountain]

Can you correlate how advocating the use of Marijuana is somehow dumbing down America as a whole?

The opposite may be true...

[somniferum]

Look up the difference between malum en se and malum prohibitum.

And if you know the difference, your argument that legalizing drugs is in anyway analogous to legalizing murder is sophistry of the worst sort.

[fr_freak]

1) Does the federal government have the power to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs?

2) If some state or individuals' activity interferes with this interstate regulation, does Congress have the power to legislate that activity?

1) The federal government is granted the power to regulate interstate commerce, period. This, of course, includes the interstate commerce of drugs. However, this does not include the use of pot by an individual within a state, or growing and selling pot within a state. That is the state's sole domain. Unfortunately, we're told by the courts that regulation of interstate commerce means that the federal government can tell you what you can ingest in your own home, or grow in your backyard, or sell within your own state.

2)Once again, if interstate commerce is actually occurring, then the federal government can regulate it. If it is not occurring, then the federal government cannot regulate it.