Skip to comments.
The Drug War Refugees
Los Angeles Times ^
| February 2, 2003
| Eric Bailey
Posted on 02/03/2003 11:16:00 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[
] Now a new breed of American refugee has arrived, seeking asylum from a different kind of war--the fight over medical marijuana. [
] The effort languished until 1988, when the chief administrative judge at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration made a startling ruling: Marijuana had a place in medicine. Judge Francis L. Young declared it unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the federal government to stand between "sufferers and the benefits of this substance."
DEA officials quickly rejected Young's ruling, and the courts backed them. [
]
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
TOPICS: Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cannabis; drug; drugskill; marijuana; pot; wod; wodkills; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
To: A CA Guy
I would have thought that pro-illegal-drug threads would be rare on a conservative forum. Not to mention the posts ridiculing and advocating the arrest of law enforcement officers for doing their job. The pro dopers get mean when their orthodoxy is challenged in any way.
To: A CA Guy; Cultural Jihad
Surprising, another gateway drug thread.
Surprise, another "show that the WODdie is wrong on his facts" thread.
CJ said..."Not where I live. No one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years."
He further stated that he lives in California.
The last few replies (16/17/20) have shown that his information was and is incorrect.
Got anything to say about that? Should he at least get his facts straight?
To: Law Abiding American People
The pro dopers get mean when their orthodoxy is challenged in any way.
I don't know about "pro dopers", but I get mean after months of listening to falsities and insinuations and start throwing facts up that so easily refutes mistruths.
Is that a good reason to "get mean"?
To: philman_36
A big bag o' Doritos is your friend.
To: Law Abiding American People
A big bag o' Doritos is your friend.
So in other words...You don't even have enough of an intellect to rationally debate the subject with me so you resort to pettiness.
Works for me, newbie.
To: philman_36
All I know is, the law is on my side.
Don't want to be a "refugee" from the law? Then, don't use illegal drugs.
To: Law Abiding American People
All I know is, the law is on my side.
Well, you've just proven that you really don't know too much, newbie.
To: Law Abiding American People
Educate thyself oh,
ignorant one.
If that is what you support, then you're not saying much for yourself.
The hearings on the national marijuana prohibition lasted one hour, on each of two mornings and since the hearings were so brief I can tell you almost exactly what was said to support the national marijuana prohibition.Snip...
Now, some of you may think that the debate on the floor of Congress was more extensive on the marijuana prohibition. It wasn't. It lasted one minute and thirty-two seconds by my count and, as such, I will give it to you verbatim.Two hours, one minute and thirty-two seconds, about the same amount of time, accumatively, to debunk a whole bunch of stuff presented as fact!
To: philman_36
So, the law is NOT on my side? Is that what you're saying? Well, go ahead and walk into any police station in the country and fire up a doob. Go ahead, but let me know just before you do it, cause I want to watch.
To: Law Abiding American People
So, the law is NOT on my side? Is that what you're saying?
Can you understand the words coming out of my fingers?
If that is what you support, then you're not saying much for yourself.
Do I need to enunciate?
The law isn't on any "side"...
To: Law Abiding American People
Go ahead, but let me know just before you do it, cause I want to watch.
Voyeur! (a prying observer who is usually seeking the sordid or the scandalous)
To: philman_36
Well, not meaning to intrude on your latest nit-picking fight with someone else here, but since this was a thread about so-called medical marijuana, when I stated no one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years, I was reefering to marijuana, dude.
To: Cultural Jihad
Well, not meaning to intrude on your latest nit-picking fight with someone else here, but since this was a thread about so-called medical marijuana, when I stated no one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years, I was reefering to marijuana, dude.
Ah! Well then, let me refine my search parameters, since you've redefined them, and let's see what I come up with...
I'll be back. /Arnold Schwarzenegger impression
To: Cultural Jihad
I stated no one has been arrested for mere possession or use in the past 30 years, I was reefering to marijuana, dude.Odd...the CA AG office Bureau of Criminal Statistics lists 48,495 misdemeanor marijuana arrests in 2001 alone.
To: Trailerpark Badass
More than 28.5 grams? No ID? Using in a car on a public road? I'm sure that among those arrested, there are zero adults who were just sitting in their homes with their lids.
To: Cultural Jihad
Well, here ya go. That was just TOO easy!
pdf conversion (even got you a pdf converter...)
http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/misc/cinc/4system.
pdfCrime in California
Prison Population 1999 Admissions December 31, 1999 to Prison
Average Percent Term
Offenses Inmates of Total Inmates (years)
Drug Offenses
Possession 19,753 12.3 7,335 2.3
Possession for Sale 12,974 8.1 4,915 3.6
Sale 6,850 4.3 1,708 4.8
Manufacturing 2,992 1.9 1,214 4.4
Other drug 948 0.6 225 3.7
Marijuana Possession 27 13 1.6
Marijuana Possession for Sale 936 0.6 548 2.1
Marijuana Sale 714 0. 4 295 3. 0
Other marijuana 134 0. 1 75 2. 9
Subtotals 45,328 28.3 16,328 (-) Anything else?
To: Trailerpark Badass
Was that from one of my links? Did I miss that?
To: Cultural Jihad
Oops...Anything else, dude?
To: Cultural Jihad
2003-30=1973...
Savings in California Marijuana Law Enforcement Costs Attributable to the Moscone Act of 1976: A Summary
TABLE I
CALIFORNIA MARIJUANA ARRESTS 1972-1986*
Year |
Felony |
Misdemeanor |
Total |
1972 |
73,061 |
3,500 |
76,561 |
1973 |
88,110 |
3,500 |
91,610 |
1974 |
99,597 |
3,500 |
103,097 |
1975 |
85,757 |
3,500 |
89,257 |
|
Average 1974-75 |
92,677 |
3,500 |
96,177 |
|
1976 |
19,284 |
34,110 |
53,394 |
1977 |
17,262 |
34,110 |
51,371 |
1978 |
17,397 |
35,424 |
52,821 |
1979 |
19,263 |
32,796 |
52,059 |
1980 |
20,509 |
38,270 |
58,779 |
1981 |
20,771 |
43,791 |
64,562 |
1982 |
20,737 |
42,904 |
63,641 |
1983 |
19,920 |
43,803 |
63,723 |
1984 |
21,350 |
42,219 |
63,569 |
1985 |
24,182 |
43,181 |
67,363 |
|
Average 1976-85 |
20,068 |
39,133 |
59,201 |
|
1986 |
19,938 |
30,105 |
50,043 |
|
*Data provided by Bureau of Criminal Statistics and Special Services, California Department of Justice. Misdemeanor marijuana arrest figures were not recorded by the Bureau between 1972 through 1977, and am estimated based an the averages of the three preceding years and the two following years. al. 1987). |
To: Cultural Jihad
Anything else, dude?
Care to retract your statement now or will you move the goalposts yet again?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson