Unintended Effect Of War On Drugs Found In Study

LA Times ^ | 20 September 2002 | EDDY RAMIREZ

[JediGirl]

WASHINGTON -- More than half of convicted drug offenders at state prisons have no history of violent crime or serious drug offenses, and a disproportionate number of them come from poor, minority communities, a study to be released today has found.

The study by the Sentencing Project, a Washington- based advocacy group that promotes alternatives to prison, offers a detailed look at state-incarcerated drug offenders, who made up almost a quarter of all inmates. It is based on information collected in 1997, when the last federal survey of state drug prisoners was conducted. An estimated $5 billion is spent each year to keep drug offenders locked up.

[Schmedlap]

I don't see the relevance to this thread. Hemp is useful and different from the normal marijuana that people smoke to get high. Ok. And?

[Dakmar]

You didn't read far enough, and that was my fault for not being more specific. If you woulk, please revisit that page and scroll down to the "Hemp as public enemy #1" section. My point is that hemp and marijuana were outlawed as the result of the manueverings of a small group of extremely well-connected special interests.

[Thumper1960]

Sincerity?

From a Drug Warrior?

LMFAO!!!!

How can a sincere person be part of an insincere campaign? Impossible, eh? You'll not see a Drug Warrior have sympathy for those brown-skinned arrestees.
Pssstttt! Wanna know a secret? The more of "them" behind bars, the less trouble we'll have with "their kind".

;^)

[Kevin Curry]

Arch-socialist George Soros's vision of a drug abuser-coddling nanny government gets "statistical" support in the arch-liberal rag LA Times. Now watch the libertarians crawl out of the sewer and defend that vision.

Marx-Gramsci was their daddy, and they want to do their daddy proud.

[Roscoe]

Since 1991, Mr. Soros has contributed well over $15 million to:

The Lindesmith Center, part of his Open Society Institute
The Drug Policy Foundation
Alaska 1998 Medical Marijuana Initiative
Arizona 1996 Proposition 200
Arizona 1998 Proposition 300
Arizona 2000 Proposition 201
California 1996 Proposition 215
California 2000 Proposition 36
Colorado 1998 Medical Marijuana Initiative
Colorado 2000 Medical Marijuana Initiative
Florida 2000 Medical Marijuana Initiative
Maine 1999 Medical Marijuana Initiative
Massachusetts 2000 Petition P
Nevada 1998 Question 9
Nevada 2000 Question 9
Oregon 1998 Medical Marijuana Initiative
Oregon 2000 Ballot Measure 3
Utah 2000 Initiative B
Washington 1998 Medical Marijuana Initiative

http://www.nationalfamilies.org/guide/gsoros.html

[Schmedlap]

I assumed that you were trying to respond to something that has significance to this thread. Hopefully this does not sound sarcastic, because it is not meant to be. Are you giving this information because it is significant to this thread, or just because it is good to know? If it has some significance to this thread, I do not see the connection.

[Dakmar]

I posted links to that information because it is my belief that hemp was outlawed by a clique of industrustialists who saw it as a threat to their bottom line. The executive branch also lent a hand, by demonizing "marijuana" with insane lies, such as:


"I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigarette can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That's why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions."
Floyd K. Baskette
Alamosa, Colorado
quoted by Harry J. Anslinger,
Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
during the hearings on the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act



There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others. -- Harry Anslinger, 1937 testimony to Congress in support of the Marijuana Tax Act

[Schmedlap]

"...it is my belief that hemp was outlawed by a clique of industrustialists who saw it as a threat to their bottom line. The executive branch also lent a hand, by demonizing "marijuana" with insane lies..."

Do you think that this is justification for decriminalization?

[rb22982]

Well yes and no. A lot of it has to do with white's as a rule affording better private lawyers and therefore getting less time or lower charges

[rb22982]

Why on earth would you do that? Marijuana is safer than alcohol. Must be Reefer madness I tell.

[rb22982]

Isn't it true that crack is more dangerous than "regular" cocaine, and that this is the reason for stricter sentences

Everyone knows I'm anti-WoD, but this is correct. Crack is far more harmful & addictive than cocaine.

[rb22982]

Do you think that this is justification for decriminalization?

Throw in the fact that it isn't physically addictive, it's less harmful than alcohol, yes that is grounds for complete legalization.

[Schmedlap]

"...it is my belief that hemp was outlawed by a clique of industrustialists who saw it as a threat to their bottom line. The executive branch also lent a hand, by demonizing "marijuana" with insane lies..."

"Throw in the fact that it isn't physically addictive, it's less harmful than alcohol, yes that is grounds for complete legalization."

A substance should be legal if:

1) The people who support outlawing it have dubious motivations

2) The substance is not addictive

3) The substance is less harmful than a legal substance

Is this correct?

[coloradan]

Crack is far more harmful & addictive than cocaine.

That only gets you half way there. Alcohol and tobacco are far more harmful and addictive than marijuana, but the latter is more illegal than the former are. So there must be some other agenda at work behind the harsher criminal penalties for crack.

[coloradan]

If A occurs, then B occurs, that does not mean that B occurs as a result of A. Unless you can show a causal relationship, your argument is inadquate.

I am unable to find it right now, but I have read a statement from a government agency basically stating that drug control was an admitted policy to control certain groups of people.

[Schmedlap]

"I am unable to find it right now, but I have read a statement from a government agency basically stating that drug control was an admitted policy to control certain groups of people."

Would this be justification for legalizing the drugs in question?

[rb22982]

Yes, in addition to the 10th amendment which says the Feds have no jurisdiction for it.

3) The substance is less harmful than a legal substance

Not only far less harmful.

4) Causes no deaths each year. Marijuana is impossible to OD on. Alcohol causes over 100,000 deaths a year

5) The war on it itself cost far more than any societal costs on it.

6) It has medical benefits.

[rb22982]

While that is true, with the exception of marijuana all other drug penalties are based on how harmful they are IIRC.

[Schmedlap]

I think that your 4th reason is sufficient, by itself, and stronger than the others combined. If the Constitution forbids the government from waging such a prohibition, then the government is forbidden - regardless of social costs, relative toxicity, etc.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/738016/posts

[rb22982]

I disagree, simply because too many judges see the Constitution as a living breathing document.

It's far more logical to compare the substance itself in comparison to tolerated drugs to examine why the substance is illegal in the first place.