Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Failed War On Pot Users
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 10/20/2005 | Debra J. Saunders

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: 1dumbdoper; addictedlosers; bongbrigade; burnouts; cheetofreaks; dopers; dorks; dregs; drips; druggies; drunks; potheads; rasta; smoketwojoints; stoners; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 321-339 next last
To: faireturn
"In fact Marshall concludes his remarks in Madison by saying that courts are also bound by the constitution ..."

I never said they weren't. But they are the final arbiters on the meaning of it.

221 posted on 10/22/2005 10:24:36 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Not so. We the people are the final 'arbiters' of our rights.
Especially of our right to bear arms.


222 posted on 10/22/2005 10:28:02 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
"No paulsen, that is not possible under any rational reading of any clauses in the US Constitution."

Care to address my examples of the 7th amendment and the Grand Jury clause of the 5th?

Back up your words, tpaine. Let's see some proof. Convince me.

223 posted on 10/22/2005 10:28:44 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
paulsen wrote:

How can a state law violate an amendment that only applies to the federal government? Isn't is possible that some amendments only apply to the federal government? (Gasp!)

No paulsen, that is not possible under any rational reading of any clauses in the US Constitution. The 2nd applies to state & local governments.
You've simply swallowed the 'incorporation' myth.

Care to address my examples of the 7th amendment and the Grand Jury clause of the 5th?

The "incorporationists" have there own agenda, and I can't imagine why they object to the 5th & 7th. -- The 2nd is obvious.

Back up your words. Let's see some proof. Convince me.

Your type cannot be convinced.
Refuting your misconceptions with the facts about our constitution must suffice.

224 posted on 10/22/2005 10:41:20 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
"The "incorporationists" have there own agenda, and I can't imagine why they object to the 5th & 7th. -- The 2nd is obvious."

Who? The "incorporationists"? Who are they?

I'm asking you -- if the BOR applies to the states (as you claim), they why does the 7th amendment and the Grand Jury Clause of the 5th only apply to the federal government?

Why is the 2nd "obvious", yet the 7th or the Grand Jury Clause of the 5th isn't?

225 posted on 10/22/2005 10:53:11 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
paulsen wrote:

How can a state law violate an amendment that only applies to the federal government? Isn't is possible that some amendments only apply to the federal government? (Gasp!)

No paulsen, that is not possible under any rational reading of any clauses in the US Constitution. The 2nd applies to state & local governments.
You've simply swallowed the 'incorporation' myth.

Care to address my examples of the 7th amendment and the Grand Jury clause of the 5th?

The "incorporationists" have there own agenda,

Who? The "incorporationists"? Who are they?

People like you who support the incorporation 'doctrine'.
and I can't imagine why they object to the 5th & 7th. -- The 2nd is obvious.

I'm asking you -- if the BOR applies to the states (as you claim),

No claim. Its an irrefutable fact.

they why does the 7th amendment and the Grand Jury Clause of the 5th only apply to the federal government?

That's merely a claim of the incorporation doctrine supporters.

Why is the 2nd "obvious", yet the 7th or the Grand Jury Clause of the 5th isn't?

All of BOR's protections apply to the states, as per Article VI, and the 14th amendment.

Back up your words. Let's see some proof. Convince me.

Your type cannot be convinced.
Refuting your misconceptions with the facts about our constitution must suffice.

226 posted on 10/22/2005 11:09:47 AM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: quadrant
And you wish to protect our liberties by drugging yourself with pot? Hardly the stuff of a great defender of liberty.

All of the debate that has gone on here and this is what you resort to? That's pathetic. Guess what? I don't even smoke pot.
227 posted on 10/22/2005 11:16:58 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
"All of BOR's protections apply to the states, as per Article VI, and the 14th amendment."

Nope. The 2nd and 3rd, the Grand Jury Clause of the 5th, and the 7th amendments only apply to the federal government. Needlesstosay, I can back this up with cites from court cases.

Now, if you can prove me wrong with your own cites, I'd like to read them. Without them, you're simply blowing smoke and are not to be believed.

228 posted on 10/22/2005 11:17:44 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; faireturn
Care to address my examples of the 7th amendment and the Grand Jury clause of the 5th?

He'll run.

As the U.S. Supreme Court noted:

Two propositions as to the operation and effect of the 7th Amendment are as conclusively determined as is that concerning the nature and character of the jury required by that Amendment where applicable. (a) That the first ten Amendments, including, of course, the 7th, are not concerned with state action, and deal only with Federal action. We select from a multitude of cases those which we deem to be leading: Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L. ed. 672; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410, 434, 12 L. ed. 213, 223; Twitchell v. Pennsylvania, 7 Wall. 321, 19 L. ed. 223; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 174 , 44 S. L. ed. 119, 120, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 93 , 53 S. L. ed. 97, 103. And, as a necessary corollary, (b) that the 7th Amendment applies only to proceedings in courts of the United States, and does not in any manner whatever govern or regulate trials by jury in state courts, or the standards which must be applied concerning the same. Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469, 552, 8 L. ed. 751, 781; Supreme Justice v. Murray (Supreme Justice v. United States) 9 Wall. 274, 19 L. ed. 658; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 22 L. ed. 487; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 , 23 L. ed. 678; Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U.S. 294 , 24 L. ed. 436. So completely and conclusively have both of these principles been settled, so expressly have they been recognized without dissent or question almost from the beginning in the accepted interpretation of the Constitution, in the enactment of laws by Congress and proceedings in the Federal courts, and by state Constitutions and state enactments and proceedings in the state courts, that it is true to say that to concede that they are open to contention would be to grant that nothing whatever had been settled as to the power of state and Federal governments or the authority of state and Federal courts and their mode of procedure from the beginning.

But then, what chance does a mountain of facts have in the face of deliberate and willful ignorance?

229 posted on 10/22/2005 12:30:25 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

You seem to be ignoring the points I'm trying to make and bring the argument over to something it's not.  And you continue the fallacy of assuming that a person who advocates against prohibition does so because they want to be able to consume the prohibited.  If I wanted to smoke pot, I know I could, the laws and your opinion notwithstanding.  I choose not to because of the ill effects we both agree exist associated with pot smoking (or smoking anything else, for that matter).  I don’t even drink alcohol anymore.

 

The discussion here (and, dare I say, the point of F.R. in general) is to get concerned people talking about these issues.  I said in my previous post, no one is arguing whether Congress can pass laws.  We're talking about the legitimacy (and effectiveness) of this law.  It's very easy when your opinion is in the majority to blithely say "Well, that's just the way it is, and you can try to change it if you want".  The idea that the majority opinion is the right one simply because it is the majority is a fallacy as well.  Plenty of things we consider wrong today were once approved by the majority.  I’d give you an example, but what good would that do?  It’s simple enough to (again, blithely) declare any valid comparison as invalid, because the very nature of analogy is to compare DISIMILAR things.

 

“One can argue in the abstract that smoking pot is a personal issue, but legal issues are not argued in the abstract.”  Who’s being abstract?  You’re trying to justify making something that a MAJORITY of Americans engage in (taking drugs – ANY drugs) selectively legal without being able to cite as proof ANY of these “public health concerns”.  The argument that pot poses some large-scale societal problem above and beyond the personal health issue is simply not proven!  Any ill effects you could cite (again, beyond the personal health effects which I’m not arguing against) are either due to the PROHIBITION ITSELF or the NON-POT-SPECIFIC EFFECTS of engaging in any kind of obsessive, family-detrimental behavior, like a gambler who loses his (and his family's) house.  In other words, there are PLENTY of things a person can legally do that I could argue have an impact outside the individual.  We don’t outlaw everything that’s bad for people, and the reasons we don’t are self-evident (to the objective person, anyway).

 

Here is the basis of your argument (finally, you’re addressing the point: SHOULD pot be illegal?):

"Pot should be illegal because the consensus of medical opinion is that it is harmful to human health."

Lots of legal things fall into that category, not the least of which are cigarettes and alcohol.  What's so special about pot?  You also said:

“To compare the legislation banning pot with the actions of the Soviet Union involves a stretch of the imagination so great as to stagger the mind. The Soviet Union acted to protect the interests of the ruling elite. And even a Communist government may take actions that are beneficial. The Chinese Communist government closed down opium dens; surely, you cannot condemn such a decision.”

 

So, my comparing the legislation banning pot to the Soviets involves some staggering stretch of the imagination, but one sentence after your melodramatic declaration, YOU MENTION THE COMMUNIST CHINESE BANNING OPIUM!!!!  This is what makes this issue so frustrating for those of us who are thinking with clear heads.  You can’t even see how ironic you become when trying to apply a double standard; trying to be liberal AND conservative.

 

Liberal?  Yes, the prohibition position is the liberal one:

1)      The GOVERNMENT should tell people how to behave in the privacy of their own home.

2)      If something is dangerous, it needs to be outlawed.

3)      The WELFARE of the COMMUNity is always more important than individual liberty.

4)      The best way to handle this issue is at the FEDERAL, rather than the state or local level.

5)      The citizens of the country should be MOLDED into better people (social engineering), and the instrument of that molding should be Nanny Government.

 

“It is foolish to argue the legality of Congress' legislation banning pot. To fixate on such a closed question is the act of a child.” – To continue manufacturing points that are not even being argued (by me anyway) is the act of a child who has no ground to stand on.


230 posted on 10/22/2005 1:02:23 PM PDT by LibertarianSchmoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

You have made a wise choice.


231 posted on 10/22/2005 1:02:30 PM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianSchmoe
the prohibition position is the liberal one

FDR and the liberals opposed prohibition because of the loss of federal alcohol tax revenues.

232 posted on 10/22/2005 1:19:38 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Me:  the prohibition position is the liberal one

You: FDR and the liberals opposed prohibition because of the loss of federal alcohol tax revenues.

 

FDR also took us to war to fight an oppressor: an act that, by today’s standards, is most certainly conservative.  Like marijuana, the concentration of G.U.V. (the mind-altering active ingredient in liberals) is much higher today than in the liberals of our grandparents.


233 posted on 10/22/2005 1:50:55 PM PDT by LibertarianSchmoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianSchmoe
"The GOVERNMENT should tell people how to behave in the privacy of their own home."

I am really getting tired of this lame argument. Read the very first sentence in the above article: "In 2004, law enforcement officials arrested 771,605 people for marijuana violations." 771,605!

You expect me to believe that 771,605 people were all in the privacy of their own homes, the cops broke down the front door, and arrested them? Geez Louise. Get series.

234 posted on 10/22/2005 1:59:47 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianSchmoe
FDR also took us to war to fight an oppressor

War was declared by Congress, joint resolution (S. J. Res. 116).

The temperance movement was made up of Christians and business owners.

FDR, like the Democrat party, wanted repeal of prohibition. "This convention wants repeal. Your candidate wants repeal."

235 posted on 10/22/2005 2:03:41 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You expect me to believe that 771,605 people were all in the privacy of their own homes

Some of them were in the privacy of their wrecked cars.

236 posted on 10/22/2005 2:10:15 PM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

War was declared by Congress, joint resolution (S. J. Res. 116).

How ridiculous of me to suggest that the President was our leader during a time of war.

 

The temperance movement was made up of Christians and business owners.

That doesn’t mean they weren’t espousing liberal ideas.  The “temperance” (prohibition) movement is currently (and has historically) been made up of Islamofacists and communists as well.

 

FDR, like the Democrat party, wanted repeal of prohibition. "This convention wants repeal. Your candidate wants repeal."
See above point.

 


237 posted on 10/22/2005 4:27:05 PM PDT by LibertarianSchmoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
All of BOR's protections apply to the states, as per Article VI, and the 14th amendment.

Nope. The 2nd and 3rd, the Grand Jury Clause of the 5th, and the 7th amendments only apply to the federal government. Needlesstosay, I can back this up with cites from court cases.

Such 'Cites' are worthless, as we all know that the 'incorporation doctrine' has been well established in court by fed, state, & local governments who wish to ignore the individual rights protected by our constitution.

Now, if you can prove me wrong with your own cites, I'd like to read them. Without them, you're simply blowing smoke and are not to be believed. 228 paulsen

'Believe' the plain words of Article VI, the BOR's, and the 14th amendment as you wish. Court cites cannot refute those words.

______________________________________

Mojave wrote:

He'll run.

Why would I run? The constitution is clearly the Law of the Land, and all levels of all governments are bound to support its protection of individual rights.

As the U.S. Supreme Court noted:
Two propositions as to the operation and effect of the 7th Amendment are as conclusively determined as is that concerning the nature and character of the jury required by that Amendment where applicable.

Apparently, you intend to contend that Supreme Court decisions are infallibly conclusive? Dream on..

(a) That the first ten Amendments, including, of course, the 7th, are not concerned with state action, and deal only with Federal action.

The words in the 10th about the prohibited powers of States 'concern' themselves with such 'state action', and belie your contention.

We select from a multitude of cases those which we deem to be leading: Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L. ed. 672; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410, 434, 12 L. ed. 213, 223; Twitchell v. Pennsylvania, 7 Wall. 321, 19 L. ed. 223; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 174 , 44 S. L. ed. 119, 120, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 93 , 53 S. L. ed. 97, 103.
And, as a necessary corollary,
(b) that the 7th Amendment applies only to proceedings in courts of the United States, and does not in any manner whatever govern or regulate trials by jury in state courts, or the standards which must be applied concerning the same.

The wording of the 7th says -- "in any Court of the United States"; it does not say "only". The comments about state courts are suppositions.

Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469, 552, 8 L. ed. 751, 781; Supreme Justice v. Murray (Supreme Justice v. United States) 9 Wall. 274, 19 L. ed. 658; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 22 L. ed. 487; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 , 23 L. ed. 678; Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U.S. 294 , 24 L. ed. 436.

So completely and conclusively have both of these principles been settled, so expressly have they been recognized without dissent or question almost from the beginning in the accepted interpretation of the Constitution, in the enactment of laws by Congress and proceedings in the Federal courts, and by state Constitutions and state enactments and proceedings in the state courts,

'Almost from the beginning' of the republic, we have been arguing about state power vs constitutional powers. -- And to date none of these principles have been settled completely and conclusively.

that it is true to say that to concede that they are open to contention would be to grant that nothing whatever had been settled as to the power of state and Federal governments or the authority of state and Federal courts and their mode of procedure from the beginning.

The clear words of the constitution as amended by the 14th should have "settled" the matter, as they are still unrefutable:
" --- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ---"

But then, what chance does a mountain of facts have in the face of deliberate and willful ignorance?

Indeed, could those who contend that those clear words of the 14th need some 'incorporation' to apply to our BOR's be termed deliberately and willfully ignorant?

238 posted on 10/22/2005 4:33:12 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
Some of them were in the privacy of their wrecked cars.

A lot of them were picked up under Guilani's get tough on criminals policy. It worked. Crime in NYC went way down. So much for pot not being related to criminals.

239 posted on 10/22/2005 4:36:37 PM PDT by WildTurkey (I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
'Almost from the beginning' of the republic, we have been arguing about state power vs constitutional powers. -- And to date none of these principles have been settled completely and conclusively.

The founders had to leave it vague inorder to get it drafted and ratified. There was no intent that it would ever be resolved.

240 posted on 10/22/2005 4:39:12 PM PDT by WildTurkey (I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 321-339 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson