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 ...
I think what we have now isn't too nice. Crime rampant, lives destroyed, criminals making a fortune. Drug money ending up with terrorists. I'd prefer that the drug addicts not have to feed their habits by committing crimes and that bad guys not have a source of abundant cash.
Think about it, how does a drug addict feed his illegal habit? By stealing, by dealing or by hooking. In other words, making drug use illegal causes crime to go up, because the cost of drugs goes up, and users have no other way to feed their habit than by committing crimes.
And one of the most troubling crimes being committed is that where users try to get other people hooked on drugs so that they have a bigger base of users to sell to. To restate that, making drugs illegal means that there are more, not fewer users. Again, not too smart.
Finally, I don't care what they look like.
Look again. The source is shown right on the graph.
The Prohibition era in the United States began in 1920, when the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States took effect. The amendment, which made the manufacture and sale of alcohol illegal, was repealed in 1933. This chart shows the equivalent in pure alcohol of the beverages consumed by the average adult person in the United States before, during, and after the Prohibition era. Consumption statistics are based on legal sales; those during Prohibition are estimates of illegal consumption. While a popular conception of the era is one of widespread disregard for the law, estimates indicate that most people obeyed the ban and alcohol consumption was cut by more than one-half.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment"--was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure.
What I like about this is that it cites sound economic theory. In other words, let's take a free market approach. Prohibition causes crime and drug usage to go up. The free market approach will reduce crime, and as imporantly, drug usage.
But, there's more. This goes to the point about alcohol usage going down.
The decrease in quantity consumed needs at least four qualifications--qualifications that undermine any value that a prohibitionist might claim for reduced consumption. First, the decrease was not very significant. Warburton found that the quantity of alcohol purchased may have fallen 20 percent between the prewar years 1911-14 and 1927-30. Prohibition fell far short of eliminating the consumption of alcohol.
Second, consumption of alcohol actually rose steadily after an initial drop. Annual per capita consumption had been declining since 1910, reached an all-time low during the depression of 1921, and then began to increase in 1922. Consumption would probably have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels even if Prohibition had not been repealed in 1933. Illicit production and distribution continued to expand throughout Prohibition despite ever-increasing resources devoted to enforcement... [and] new entrepreneurs in the underground economy improve techniques and expand output, while consumers begin to realize the folly of the ban.
Third, the resources devoted to enforcement of Prohibition increased along with consumption. Heightened enforcement did not curtail consumption. The annual budget of the Bureau of Prohibition went from $4.4 million to $13.4 milion during the 1920s, while Coast Guard spending on Prohibition averaged over $13 million per year. To those amounts should be added the expenditures of state and local governments.
The fourth qualification may actually be the most important: a decrease in the quantity of alcohol consumed did not make Prohibition a success. Even if we agree that society would be better off if less alcohol were consumed, it does not follow that lessening consumption through Prohibition made society better off. We must consider the overall social consequences of Prohibition, not just reduced alcohol consumption. Prohibition had pervasive (and perverse) ef fects on every aspect of alcohol production, distribution, and consumption. Changing the rules from those of the free market to those of Prohibition broke the link that prohibitionists had assumed between consumption and social evil. The rule changes also caused unintended consequences to enter the equation.
The most notable of those consequences has been labeled the "Iron Law of Prohibition" by Richard Cowan. That law states that the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes. When drugs or alcoholic beverages are prohibited, they will become more potent, will have greater variability in potency, will be adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances, and will not be produced and consumed under normal market constraints. The Iron Law undermines the prohibitionist case and reduces or outweighs the benefits ascribed to a decrease in consumption.
The last point goes to my point about the bad guys controlling distribution. Also, keep in mind that I am opposed to drug usage. I just feel that prohibition never works.
Pusher makes money, drug addict gets a rush. Families get broken, children are abandoned, health is destroyed, lives are shortened, jobs are lost, victims get robbed, society picks up the tab.
Where's the mutual benefit?
What I like about this is that it cites sound economic theory.
After all, what's more properous than a squat house?
Sourceless and self-serving invention by the libertines at Cato.
Heightened enforcement did not curtail consumption.
ibid
As the Cato Institute illustrates, and as I'm saying, it's prohibition that leads to the problems that you list. Repealing the idiotic laws now sure can't make things any worse, and clearly will make things better.
Cars get stolen too. Maybe we should all start leaving our keys in the ignition with the windows rolled down.
A non-sequitor. Clearly, you have your mind made up. Too bad, if you'd actually read the article, you might see things differntly.
A non sequitur would be something like claiming that "it's prohibition that leads to the problems that you list."
It's drug sales, use and addiction "that leads to the problems that" I listed.
I've substantiated my points.
Fox News Video- Cannabis Controversy
They report you decide.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player05.html?102405/fr_mckinley_102405&FOX_Report&Cannabis%20Controversy&acc&Only%20on%20FOX&-1&exp
Charlie Brown Doesn't Want SAFER Denver
Denver City Councilman Charlie Brown is fuming about the "Make Denver SAFER" message on campaign signs pushing a city ballot measure to legalize adult marijuana use.
He says the wording is designed to fool residents into thinking that Initiative 100 on the Nov. 1 ballot is about highly publicized efforts to combat rising crime and falling arrest rates by boosting police staffing.
"The slogan is so vague," Brown said Wednesday, "I had no idea what they were for" until he read the small print at the bottom of the sign.
It states: "Paid for by SAFER and authorized by the Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative Committee."
SAFER stands for the sponsor, Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation. The measure would amend Denver law to make it legal for adults to possess 1 ounce or less of marijuana.
"It is incredibly misleading, it is devious, it is deceptive," Brown said. "This initiative does not put more cops on the street. It puts more marijuana on the street."
Supporters of the ballot measure say the slogan speaks to their mission to amend city ordinances to make adult use of an ounce or less of marijuana a legal and "safer" alternative to alcohol, which they contend fuels violent crime and deaths caused by drunken-driving collisions and alcoholism.
SAFER's Web site - www.saferchoice.org - cites national studies that show alcohol-related disease and crime kill more than 85,000 Americans annually, while marijuana causes zero deaths.
City Council members, however, strongly oppose the marijuana measure as a bad idea that will only encourage drug abuse and tarnish the city's image.
The council was forced to put the measure on the ballot after supporters collected more than 12,000 signatures.
Police and the city attorney say an ordinance change would have little impact because the vast majority of Denver's pot-possession cases are prosecuted under state law as a petty offense, punishable by a fine up to $100.
- Rocky Mountain News
http://www.fox30online.com/common/printstory/default.aspx?content_id=896dcb39-4813-497a-bd2a-34fffda03320
Oxymoronic falsehood.
I've substantiated my points.
Plain old falsehood.
Substantiating points makes no difference to the oxymoronic.
It is obvious to them that communities can only be protected by prohibitory laws. We must learn to live with it.
I'm not for the use of drugs, I'm just against the phony war on drugs because the WOD actually increases drug usage and crime.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
The most notable of those consequences has been labeled the "Iron Law of Prohibition" by Richard Cowan. That law states that the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes. When drugs or alcoholic beverages are prohibited, they will become more potent, will have greater variability in potency, will be adulteratedwith unknown or dangerous substances , and will not be produced and consumed under normal market constraints. The Iron Law undermines the prohibitionist case and reduces or outweighs the benefits ascribed to a decrease in consumption.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
The most notable of those consequences has been labeled the "Iron Law of Prohibition" by Richard Cowan. That law states that the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes. When drugs or alcoholic beverages are prohibited, they will become more potent, will have greater variability in potency, will be adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances, and will not be produced and consumed under normal market constraints. The Iron Law undermines the prohibitionist case and reduces or outweighs the benefits ascribed to a decrease in consumption.
Guess it would be...
Maybe marijuana advocates don't want legalization after all?
Maybe they are fearing a reduction of THC levels along with the requirements of a filter? Looks to me like they want to slip decriminalization on the voting ballet out of desperation.
It is also ironic that this group in Denver even thinks that Marijuana has nothing to do with domestic violence. One withdrawl symptom from smoking pot is agitation which people do act out on. You can read about that at Marijuana Anonymous if you want to be informed.
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.