Posted on 10/20/2005 7:51:19 AM PDT by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
quad, you are a real trip. I love your attitude of superiority, and perfection. "One might understand" is your way of saying that all those who use pot, just don't think like you... and that is your fascist, bigoted image showing forth, along with a modicum of ignorance!
I understand.
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.
___________________________________________________________
It is not drugs that screwed/screw up kids in the UK it is the schooling system. No respect, no discipline and lots of PC crap. The curriculum is awful.
And where I come from Cider (alcoholic) is the drug most kids start on and I have seen many, many people end up in hospital because of it.
I agree that there is a danger of oppressive government, but that danger can be mitigated by alert citizens.
You may be one man, but solitary individuals have effected great change. The list is to numerous to mention, but any casual reading of history will supply you with plenty of examples.
Since you are concerned with this issue, let me inquire of your steps to change the laws banning pot. Have you written to the President? to Congress? Have you declared yourself a candidate for Congress? Have you filed a lawsuit to have federal pot laws overturned? Have you organized a peaceful protest? Purchased media space to put forward your views? Or taken the small step of: writing a letter to the newspaper?
I don't think the Founding Fathers had conspiratorial minds. Please cite a quotation from the biography of any of them to support your conclusion. They were men of moderate temperament and prosperous means. They did everything possible to avoid a split with Great Britain and acted only when redress was denied. It is true that they feared oppressive government - the memory of Oliver Cromwell was ever in their minds - but they attempted to mitigate that danger with a separation of power. They were interested in creating political and governmental institutions that would make difficult for one man to become a dictator.
And you wish to protect our liberties by drugging yourself with pot? Hardly the stuff of a great defender of liberty.
All these arrest keep people from holding sensetive jobs where you must have your wits about you. Yeah, yeah, I know 'alcohol is a drug'. So what! If you're a booze hound you cant keep a job either.
"This number of arrests is the equivalent of arresting every man, woman and child in San Francisco" SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD START!
if pigs could fly...
Are you always bentover, huh?
Harmful substance? Do you drive? You are more likely to be in a wreck.
There is no evidence that marijuana is harmful. There is a lot of speculation. Lawyers have made a lot of money on asbestos settlements.
I would say you have your modicum, and someone else's, as well.
"Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey officially classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant yesterday,..."
Yep, the gum't is always right... the public IS stupid!
You are making a distinction that our laws do not, was my point. To what purpose, I have no idea.
I realize that.
You are saying that Congress acted unconstitutionally, that they wrote and passed an unconstitutional statute, signed into law unconstitutionally by the President, and when challenged, was unconstitutionally upheld by the USSC.
Did I get that right?
Now, one question. Where's your "unconstitutionality" coming from? I mean, who says? You?
This law has been on the books for 35 years, has public support, has been challenged in the courts (including the USSC) numerous times, and continues to be found both constitutional and popular with the voters.
I guess you believe it's unconstitutional because you feel that Congress is not allowed to legislate intrastate activity under any circumstance. I say "I guess" because you refuse to admit it.
Certainly if you admit that Congress may legislate intrastate activity under certain limited circumstances, then I can attempt to show you how this is one of those circumstances and, therefore, constitutional.
"and you appear to be coming from the position that because the federal government is doing it, it is by definition constitutional, especially if a group of SC justices said they could."
Well, Marbury v. Madison established the precedent, not I. By definition, if the USSC says it's constitutional, then it's constitutional. I may disagree with some of their recent decisions, but that doesn't change the facts.
Certainly if you disagree, I'd like to know why. I have yet to hear that -- all I get from you is "It's unconstitutional!".
Congress' power is limited to regulating only the interstate commerce that affects public health and safety.
"The earliest such acts were in the nature of quarantine regulations and usually dealt solely with interstate transportation. In 1884, the exportation or shipment in interstate commerce of livestock having any infectious disease was forbidden. In 1903, power was conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture to establish regulations to prevent the spread of such diseases through foreign or interstate commerce. In 1905, the same official was authorized to lay an absolute embargo or quarantine upon all shipments of cattle from one State to another when the public necessity might demand it. A statute passed in 1905 forbade the transportation in foreign and interstate commerce and the mails of certain varieties of moths, plant lice, and other insect pests injurious to plant crops, trees, and other vegetation."
"In 1912, a similar exclusion of diseased nursery stock was decreed, while by the same act and again by an act of 1917, the Secretary of Agriculture was invested with powers of quarantine on interstate commerce for the protection of plant life from disease similar to those above described for the prevention of the spread of animal disease."
-- findlaw.com
How can a state law violate an amendment that only applies to the federal government?
Are you entitled to a jury in a state civil case? Geez, the 7th amendment says so. Why can't you insist on one? What's going on?
If you are charged by your state with a capital crime, why isn't this charge presented by a Grand Jury? The 5th amendment says it must be. What's going on?
Isn't is possible that some amendments only apply to the federal government? (Gasp!)
My understanding is that alcohol is the major problem in the UK with teens, moreso than marijuana. A cultural thing, I guess.
I'm certain you can quote experts who declare that pot harms no one. I can quote those who do. In any event, the opinions of whatever experts we might put forward is irrelevant.
In cases disputing experts, the job of Congress is to sort out the dispute. Congress has decided to come down on the side of those who consider pot harmful and ban the substance. Until Congress changes the law, no has the right to use pot.
Just accept that pot use is illegal. Get used to it. Lobby Congress to get rid of the law, if you want, but grow up.
Lawyers, judges, and juries caused the asbestos problem, not Congress. For several years Congress attempted - and may still be attempting - to find a solution to a problem that was not of its making.
I've never claimed to be anything more than a man of average intelligence.
I never said they weren't. But they are the final arbiters on the meaning of it.
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.