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?

[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.

Point well taken, as a balance of powers, - along with checks & balances, was indisputably part of original intent.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

“You expect me to believe that 771,605 people were all in the privacy of their own homes.”

I never said that.  You’re trying to move the discussion to a point that isn’t in contention, so that you can make an argument.  The people who were arrested Under the Influence in public, operating a vehicle or otherwise, would have still been arrested in the decriminalization scenario.

 

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

You: “I am really getting tired of this lame argument.

 

Freedom is the ability of a person to behave without the influence of outside forces, in this case, the government.  So you are saying that citing freedom as an “argument” is “lame”.  Myself? I place much more value on that “argument”.

 

[LibertarianSchmoe]

"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."

And if we made wearing blue jeans illegal, the crime rate would go up. And then, after arresting all of them, the crime rate would go down. And it would prove that....blue jeans are related to crime?

[WildTurkey]

Obviously you were not aware of his program to reduce crime in NYC. Arrest a known criminal on the streets for pot and you get him off the streets. It shows up as a pot bust but it was a burgler, rapist, thief, hyjacker that was taken down. It worked. Crime went down.

[WildTurkey]

I will make it more specific for you. A lot of them were picked up under Guilani's get tough on criminals policy. It worked. Non-pot Crime in NYC went way down. So much for pot not being related to criminals."

[goldstategop]

Its like jailing every cigarette smoker in the country. Tobacco is going the way of marijuana. Our WOD policies are just plumb crazy.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[goldstategop]

So is alcohol. I don't see any of the drug warriors advocating the mass arrests of citizens for the sin of being "wet." Come to think of it, that's exactly what happened once upon a time in America. It was called Prohibition.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[WildTurkey]

I take it that you are also for legalizing crack?

[WildTurkey]

"Does it make sense to keep millions of otherwise-law-abiding citizens on the dark side of the law?"

Wrong logic. Most were not 'otherwise-law-abiding citizens'.

[goldstategop]

People may smoke a joint but that doesn't make them dealers. The reason the copsc bust low level users is because its an easy collar and they're too lazy or the work is too hard and dangerous in going to the dealers. Evidence of possession is not proof someone is a habitual criminal. No one would consider a terminally ill marijuana medicine patient to commit a crime. Sure, some people who smoke marijuana recreationally get addicted to it but the same can be said of people who can't handle tobacco or alcohol responsible. The difference is we don't arrest or jail the latter unless they've committed a crime that endangers other people. Its this insight that led the late Peter Williams to write a book (William F. Buckley was put off by parts of it) advocating a hands-off libertarian philosophy in a free society on the sensible grounds your own life should be your business - its no one else's what you choose to do with it.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[WildTurkey]

The “temperance” (prohibition) movement is currently (and has historically) been made up of Islamofacists and communists as well.

As far as I can tell, the pro-drug movement is made up of leftests, communists and libertarians. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[goldstategop]

I don't think treating users as criminals will ever address the problem. We will never jail our way out of the drug problem. Now we can excute drug kingpins and I'm in favor of it but then if we really targeted those pushing the really dangerous crap on our society like meth and cocaine our drug enforcement apparatus would be much smaller and more effective and we'd be more secure in our liberties. For a lot of reasons, we're not going to have any reform of our drug policies. Too many people have a vested interested in not cleaning things up to keep jobs, perks and the billions in cash that fund a bureaucratic empire going on virtually forever.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[quadrant]

I congratulate you on your decision not to smoke pot.

On what basis would you challenge the "legitimacy" (as opposed to the wisdom or effectiveness)of the laws against pot? The statues were passed by a majority in both houses of Congress, were signed by the President, and upheld as valid by the Supreme Court. The majority of Congress may be wrong but it is elected. If we are going to start ignoring laws, we will become like say Colombia - country of great violence where the government has little power outside the large cities.
Like it or not Congress has a mandate from the people. What mandate do you have?

Of course, we now consider as wrong things that were once considered normal. Such is the nature of society. But we have processes to deal with change of this sort. Yet those who advocate legalization of pot have made little if any efforts to change the laws in Washington. They have changed the laws in several states, but given our history and federal system, it is the laws made by Congress that count.
All the referenda in California and elsewhere don't mean a thing.

You're equating the taking of drugs with the illicit use of pot. The two are not the same. One may "take drugs" legally. One may legally smoke tobacco. One may legally consume alcohol. One may gamble legally. But all these activities are regulated; one cannot do all these things everywhere and at all times.
However, except under very rigid controls one may not legally smoke pot.
There is a reason for this. Congress, acting in the name of the American people, has chosen to ban this activity.
If the prohibitions against pot were so oppressive to a majority of Americans - as were prohibitions forbidding the consumption of alcohol before repeal of the 18th Amendment -the political pressure to change the law would be strong enough to force a change. The pressure is not, so one can but conclude that the consensus is to keep the laws as they are.

I prefer to handle issues at the local/state level rather than the federal level. My reasons for this are personal. I spent most of my formative years in South Carolina, the origin of the Doctrine of Interposition and Nullification and the first state to secede from the union. States rights remains an article of public faith in the Palmetto State. Yet I cannot recall any serious politician of either political party in South Carolina ever questioning the right of the federal government to ban the consumption of pot or any other drug.

I may not have any grounds to stand on except the law, but that is enough. I suggest you view A Man For All Seasons. In one of the most moving passages of the film, Thomas More states that he obeys the law for his own protection; and that when you chop down all the laws, you won't be able to stand upright in the winds that will blow.

[Mojave]

The “temperance” (prohibition) movement is currently (and has historically) been made up of Islamofacists and communists as well.

The libertarian movement is currently (and has historically) been made up of lunatics and liars.

[Mojave]

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

The 7th Amendment never created any privileges or immunities for citizens of the United States relating to actions in state court. Don't be willfully and deliberately ignorant.

[Mojave]

Freedom is the ability of a person to behave without the influence of outside forces, in this case, the government.

No, anarchy is the ability of a person to behave without the influence of outside forces.

"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson

[Mojave]

Sure, some people who smoke marijuana recreationally get addicted to it but the same can be said of people who can't handle tobacco or alcohol responsible. The difference is we don't arrest or jail the latter unless they've committed a crime that endangers other people.

Possession of cigarettes packs without tax stamps. Smoking on a commercial airline flight. A car trunk full of moonshine. Public intoxication. A still in the backyard.

[Mojave]

Crime in NYC went way down. So much for pot not being related to criminals.

The city of Denver did a study of drug test results for arrestees and found out that "three out of four adults arrested for robbery tested positive, as did two-thirds of all theft arrestees."

[Joe Beerman]

Perhaps the Founders

Perhaps the founders were pot smokers.
According to Dr. Timothy Burke, president of the American Historical Reference Society and a consultant for the Smithsonian Institute, they were. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce were pot smokers. "Early letters from our founding fathers refer to the pleasures of hemp smoking."

Washington & Jefferson exchanged smoking blends as personal gifts. Washington preferred a pipe full of hemp to alcohol.
Madison once remarked that hemp gave him insight to create a new & democratic nation.
Monroe, creator of the Monroe Doctrine, began smoking it as Ambassador to France & continued to the age of 73.
Burke wrote "Pot and Presidents", a great read if you're into American history.
.

[Mojave]

American Historical Reference Society

What's their URL? Or address?

Burke wrote "Pot and Presidents"

No such book listed on Amazon.

There was no such person as “Dr. Burke.” The Smithsonian Institution knew nothing of the so-called American Historical Reference Society. And the hoax was eventually traced to an underground New Left newspaper, the Chicago Seed, which had copied the fabrication from another underground paper, which had apparently made it up.