# A new record. Congratulations to the US Justice system.



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

A New Record

From *today's NYT.*



> *For the first time in the nation's history, more than one in 100 American adults is behind bars, according to a new report. *Nationwide, the prison population grew by 25,000 last year, bringing it to almost 1.6 million. Another 723,000 people are in local jails. The number of American adults is about 230 million, meaning that one in every 99.1 adults is behind bars.
> 
> Incarceration rates are even higher for some groups. One in 36 Hispanic adults is behind bars, based on Justice Department figures for 2006. One in 15 black adults is, too, as is one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34.
> 
> The report, *from the Pew Center on the States,* also found that only one in 355 white women between the ages of 35 and 39 is behind bars, but that one in 100 black women is.











NYT graph

The report's methodology differed from that used by the Justice Department, which calculates the incarceration rate by using the total population rather than the adult population as the denominator. Using the department's methodology, about one in 130 Americans is behind bars.

Either way, said Susan Urahn, the center's managing director, "we aren't really getting the return in public safety from this level of incarceration."

But Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah and a former federal judge, said the Pew report considered only half of the cost-benefit equation and overlooked the "very tangible benefits - lower crime rates."

In the past 20 years, according the Federal Bureau of Investigation, violent crime rates fell by 25 percent, to 464 for every 100,000 people in 2007 from 612.5 in 1987.

"While we certainly want to be smart about who we put into prisons," Professor Cassell said, "it would be a mistake to think that we can release any significant number of prisoners without increasing crime rates. One out of every 100 adults is behind bars because one out of every 100 adults has committed a serious criminal offense."

Ms. Urahn said the nation cannot afford the incarceration rate documented in the report. "We tend to be a country in which incarceration is an easy response to crime," she said. "Being tough on crime is an easy position to take, particularly if you have the money. And we did have the money in the '80s and '90s."

Now, with fewer resources available, the report said, "prison costs are blowing a hole in state budgets." On average, states spend almost 7 percent on their budgets on corrections, trailing only healthcare, education and transportation.

In 2007, according to the National Association of State Budgeting Officers, states spent $44 billion in tax dollars on corrections. That is up from $10.6 billion in 1987, a 127 increase once adjusted for inflation. With money from bonds and the federal government included, total state spending on corrections last year was $49 billion. By 2011, the report said, states are on track to spend an additional $25 billion.

It cost an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone in 2005, the most recent year for which data were available. But state spending varies widely, from $45,000 a year in Rhode Island to $13,000 in Louisiana.

The cost of medical care is growing by 10 percent annually, the report said, and will accelerate as the prison population ages.

About one in nine state government employees works in corrections, and some states are finding it hard to fill those jobs. California spent more than $500 million on overtime alone in 2006.

We also bear the distinction of the world's leading jailer, according to *this Human Rights Watch report* released in December, meaning we beat out progressive nations such as Libya, Iran, and China.

One of the most glaring reasons our incarceration rate is outpacing population growth is-you guessed it-our drug laws. *

Drug use rates* have remained fairly steady over the past 25 years, but arrest rates for low-level drug offenses *have nearly tripled.*









FBI Reports from the Department of Justice.

Land of the free? Really?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

well, well, well. i suspect according to the liberal press, we are now even more guilty of racial profiling? yeah OK, let's make sure we get driver's licenses in the hands of those illegal aliens (who seldom buy car insurance) as soon as we can......wonderful.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Ummm no.

This thread is more intended to show the "War on Drugs" is folly, and has only gotten us into a worse situation by incarcerating low level (and in many cases non violent) drug (read: marijuana) users into the correctional system whereby they come out more hardened, stigmatized, and institutionalized.

The "war" on drugs has created so many downstream sociological and economic hardships, that it boggles the mind the negative effect it has had on our society.

That is the story.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

let's see......there are so many illegal aliens in this country it is now time to grant them citizenship.

let's see.....there are so many people walking around smoking pot in this country it is now time to legalize it.

ok, yeah.....that makes sense...until *your *5th grader comes home with a joint given to him by his friends' older brother.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> let's see......there are so many illegal aliens in this country it is now time to grant them citizenship.
> 
> let's see.....there are so many people walking around smoking pot in this country it is now time to legalize it.
> 
> ok, yeah.....that makes sense...until *your *5th grader comes home with a joint given to him by his friends' older brother.


so what are you trying to say or compare?

Let's create a baseline. I'm for the legalization of marijuana for adults over the age of 18, when they become an adult. If they are of legal age to vote, take a bullet for the military, or sign a legal contract, I think we should allow an adult to be able to consume THC. It is far less dangerous than alcohol, yet our government demonizes it, in a very similar fashion to the way alcohol was demonized in the early 20th century.

Fair comparison?

Note: I do like having a healthy, reasonable debate, so take this all within that context ok?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

no, sorry, not a fair comparison at all. let's try this once again.

the president has a beer or glass of wine with dinner.

the president smokes a single joint after dinner. (oh wait, Obama has done this, so it should be a good analogy)

suddenly the phone rings at the white house....there is an international crisis brewing.....which drug do you want him to be under when he makes a decision on how to react?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I'm not going to debate this topic unless you can attempt being reasonable. Does everyone have the power of the President? What is your point? Is that a good example on your part?

I'm beginning to think you might not want to be fair.

How about a group of friends is sitting at their house on a Friday night. They are watching TV or playing XBox.

If they can legally drink, should they legally be able to smoke? Smoke pot?

Why or why not.

Very simple example. Try that.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

if you need a specific analogy to make your point, the thought is no good.

don't you think many politicians have wine or beer at state dinners or gatherings? if you are going to equate alcohol with pot, then be prepared for a reasonable analogy, that is, if it is perfectly legal to consume, why shouldn't everyone be allowed to indulge?

your analogy restricts the use of a legal substance to average people who have no responsibility, except to drive themselves home after getting bombed or trashed.....no logic here pal, it doesn't fly.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> if you need a specific analogy to make your point, the thought is no good.
> 
> don't you think many politicians have wine or beer at state dinners or gatherings? if you are going to equate alcohol with pot, then be prepared for a reasonable analogy, that is, if it is perfectly legal to consume, why shouldn't everyone be allowed to indulge?
> 
> your analogy restricts the use of a legal substance to average people who have no responsibility, except to drive themselves home after getting bombed or trashed.....no logic here pal, it doesn't fly.


so let me get this straight. Now you are saying "politicians" at a state dinner... before it was the president specifically, and the little red phone rings.

which is it?


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

I dont mean to interupt your debate but lets consider the source of the article. NYT=liberal media, and only has a 24% favorable rating among americans. I think you might get better stories reading the national enquirer!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ryan pot became illegal at the same time that cocaine and opium became illegal if I am not mistaken. A while back the History channel did a pretty good piece on this very subject. One thing they did was compare the illegal drug trade and the results to that of prohibition.

There are a lot of parallels but one factor that really stood out was the fact that addiction to cocaine and opiates was so high with relatively short use spans.

The affects of these as being so addictive became a very large social dilemma that is just as prevalent today as it was then. Now most people assume that THC is not addictive, but that is not the case. In fact one of the highest increases being seen for abuse is coming from users of pot.

Part of the reason is that todays strains of pot have levels of THC 20 times stronger than the highest testing pot just 15 years ago.

I am in my mid 40's and grew up around it and in an era which saw a lot of the fines and charges for possession reduced to misdemeanor status. Remember that there are a lot of 60's and 70's era people who where busted with small amounts that where convicted of felonies.

As penalties dropped use increased and suppliers saw that producing more potent plants meant more money.

I sat through a drug and alcohol awareness class a couple years ago. The person presenting it showed a comparison. 1 oz of pot today contained more THC than a 23 oz from the past especially the so called hippie era of the 60's.

From a health factor smoking one joint of pot is equivalent in chemicals and poisons in 40 cigarettes. So tell me from strickly a health factor why should pot become a legal substance when as a society we are moving farther and farther away from tobacco.

The old myth that a person is less dangerous behind the wheel of a car, or any other piece of machinery is bogus especially with the levels of THC that is delivered today. Plus THC does a lot of damage to the brain way beyond that of alcohol.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron with that kind of logic alohol and cigarettets should be made illegal immediately, they cause way way more heath problems and death than all "illicit" drugs combined.

Your argument about



> As penalties dropped use increased and suppliers saw that producing more potent plants meant more money.


Makes the legalization point for Ryan, pot would be as worthless as lawn clippings if it wasn't illegal, its a weed and if the government really wanted to eliminate drug dealers and the crime that results for the fact that pot is illegal and therfore very expensive.

The fact is that the entire war on drugs is a failure for the victims and a huge win for the law enforcement beauracracy that the "war on drugs" supports. Law enforcement and the legislators have no incentive to really stop it if they did the huge beauracray would not be needed, In short they would put themselves out of a job.

WE have been dong the same thing for nearly 50 years and more people use it and as Ron correctly states its now much more potent. Billions of dollars have been wasted with no progress actaully its worse yet people refuse to consider another approach so either they are stupid ( we know thats not true) or they are insincere about wanting to treat the drug problems.

I firmly believe its the latter. Follow the money trail.

Pot should be legalized and given to adult users for free with an attempt to counsel them just like AA does, that would immedately take the profit motive out of the drug business.

Drug users most of them, would make an economic decision to opt for free pot vs expensive harder drugs.

Drug dealers would then have no one to sell to and all the violent crime that is a result of drug sale turf wars would subsequently disappear.

This would allow the police to focus on real criminals, the money that is currently wasted with criminalization could then be used to treat a now much smaller group of true addicts that should not be incarcerated but should be treated in clinics again for free to the addicts with no threat of incarceration, but instead with a goal of rehabilitation.

All this could be accomplished for a small fraction of what we now spend.

All non violent drug offenders should be released from our prisons and jails immediately the system is broken and clearly ineffective.

Here in Atanta Fulton county literally cannot afford to have a trial to convict a guy that killed a judge several courthouse employees and innocent civilians because the courts spend so much wasted money on this issue.

It is mind blowing.

Lastly the war on drugs exists in very large part because the alcohol and cigarette lobbies do not want the competition and like so many things in this country they have bribed our legislators to do their bidding.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

One more thing any posts that claim I think using drugs for recreation is healthy or sensible *will be deleted *that is definitely not my point.

Same with arguments that I want give drugs to kids I dont anymore than I would alcohol.

The money we piss away on non violent criminal related to drugs could be used to build great schools and pay teachers so well that the profession would attract the greatest minds in this country.

Money talks


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> One more thing any posts that claim I think using drugs for recreation is healthy or sensible *will be deleted *that is definitely not my point.
> 
> Same with arguments that I want give drugs to kids I dont anymore than I would alcohol.
> 
> ...


Thank you Bob. You stated this about as well as it could be done.

Ryan


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

You can argue all you want about how bad, or not, drugs are.

I will share with you my story, as with most college students, I enjoyed the social use of alcohol. Against what is not the norm anymore, I never used drugs. I had a host of friends, living in a fraternity of more than 80 young men. Most drank alcohol, some used marijuana, some neither. We all seemed to come out of it ok.

Now what may surprise you, none of the known "pot-heads" graduated from college until they quit smoking pot, or they never graduated at all. There were also those that just partied too much.

That being said, you can legalize it if you want, but it is a gateway drug, I have seen those that use it for long times get worse and worse and move on to worse drugs.

Legalizing it will just lead to more problems, not less.

If you want to get rid of it, make the penalties so stiff that no one would want to chance using, having or selling it. Just look at Drinking and Driving, why are the incidents down, because the penalties have went up.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

It's a gateway drug for a extremely small percentage of people. And we should be treating them wwith compassion instead of locking them up they are sick.

I did it when I was in the Army during the vietnam war so did all my friends. None of them use today. And none of them ever used harder drugs to my knowlege, and I would of known.

Legalizing it would not change the number of people that use it very much if at all IMO. The number of people that try pot in college ect is extremely high, the number of people that use hard drugs in our society is not percentage wise

But legalizing it, thus driveing the profit motive out of it, and then useing the huge money savings from reducing the crime related to it to treat it as a mental disorder like Alchoholism would be a huge step in reducing its usage.

Criminalizing it has made it a bigger problem than it would be if it was viewed differently.

Everyone the used it in college in my circle of friends graduated so that theory about is incorrect, there are some folks that are not going to follow though and graduate no matter what.

Again I am not making an argument for its use just the way we approach the issue. If there was a button that would make drugs alcohol cigarettes ( all three are actaully drugs) ect go away I would gladly push it but there is not.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. And thats exactly how the "war on drugs" is fought.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Bob you are a wise man at such a young age, And am in complete agreement.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Go look at Dubai's penalties for drugs and see how much of a drug problem they have.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

adokken said:


> Bob you are a wise man at such a young age, And am in complete agreement.


I agree.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bob the pot you smoked at that time is like comparing 12 oz of 190 proof alcohol to 12 oz of beer!

Until people understand that the intoxication level of todays pot and also the addictive nature of THC at those levels you cannot argue that it is a harmless drug, nor compare it to that of years gone by.

We know that 80 proof vodka or 5.5% beer are the same today as they where 60 years ago.

A gram of pot today vs a gram 20 years ago are not!!!!!

So bring the discussion into the proper comparison and become educated on this. Heck most guys I know who tried to smoke a 1/4 oz in an evening stopped because there lungs could not handle it. Now the same amount of THC can come out of a single joint that was in the old stuff!!!!!

In regards to all these non violent criminals behind bars. It is really hard to argue with the fact that even with the population growing crime went down with the criminals being held out of the general population!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron I never said it was harmless smoking anything is stupid.

I am very well educated in general and particularly on this topic, its a pet peeve of mine the way its approached.

If your daughter was caught smoking pot would you advocate locking her up or counseling and treatment, we both know the answer to that question. Oh! but shes different shes a good kid from a good family so she needs help and couseling, while the mostly black poor kids should be tossed in jail. Thats how the current system works in this country.

Just to be clear I rarely have a drink and if I do its one drink and I dont smoke anything.

The THC levels have nothing to do with my approach which again is to treat these people with compassion and modern medicine, while eliminating the resulting crime by taking out the profit motive.

But it should be clear to anyone that has studied this topic that the law enforcement crowd has a vested interest in not solving the problem so they cannot ( really will not)see the most important fact of all, the so called "war on Drugs" HAS NOT WORKED!!

I have a lot of friends that are LEO's that freely admit privately that the whole system is broken and not working.

The very fact the the pot has been hybridized to be stronger and more addictive while your side has been locking all these non violent dumbasses up as a "solution" for the last 40 years is obvious proof of that.

Why can't we try a different approach??? thats what I find unbelievable frustrating for forty years we've done the same thing over and over and as you correctly stated its now even more potent and more debilitating.

Does that sound like what you are advocating is working to you???????

This goes round and round I've pretty much given up any hope that it will be solved and the cynic in me sees very clearly that the people that make a living in the drug interdiction "industry" have no real concern for the people that use them. And no industry has any incentive to put itself out of business.

All they care about is the top to bottom political power that they have 
amassed fighting this phony "war".


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Bobm said:


> Ron I never said it was harmless smoking anything is stupid.
> 
> I am very well educated in general and particularly on this topic, its a pet peeve of mine the way its approached.
> 
> ...


Who gets locked up for Pot? Unless you have like 10 fricken pounds and are a multiple time offender you get a slap on the wrist. Thats the problem, not a lack of compassion, a lack of consequences for breaking societies rules. The same thing goes for these poachers, until they have been caught like 10 times, nothing is done about it to speak of.

Is it heartless, sure, but treating the problem with "kid gloves" has gotten us where we are today, the war on drugs would work, if we actually treated it seriously. It should be called the slap of the wrist on drugs or the paddle your but on drugs, not the war on drugs.

You have a 6 month information campaign that explains that anyone caught with drugs after this date is going to prison, period. Will there be lives ruined, probably, but less than there is now by the drugs themselves and in 2 years, there will be no more drug problems, except for the terminally stupid.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

my final comment is this......i would rather meet a guy on the road who just finished 2-3 beers than someone who had just finished smoking a whole joint. there is no comparison when it comes to impairment.

and the argument for legalizing a substance that we cannot effectively restrict from getting in the hands of users is not an excuse for legalization.

what next, legalize heroin or cocaine? sorry, this makes no sense, at least the legalization part...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/poor/ppexec.html


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

And why do more and more people get into drugs and then end up in the pen, there are no penalties until they are hopelessly hooked on the drugs, can't hold a good job or get an education, and after the 4th or 5th time they are caught, then they end up in the pen.

If the penalties were very harsh right away, people would see it, feel it, and quit.

Maybe you don't put them in prison on the first go round, but you fine them $10,000, which goes to decrease prison costs, second go round, prison.

Treating with no punishment for the crime is enabling the criminals to run the system.

If you had cancer in your hand and the doctor told you that there is a 100% chance you will live if you cut it off, and a 20% chance if they treat it with chemo, what do you do? You cut it off.

A few 15 year old kids see their friends get some major penalties for this crap and it will all but dissapear. They see them get two or three slaps on the wrist, maybe get sent to rehab, and probation, they think well big deal.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

It has been a long time since I have heard or known anyone who has went to jail for recreational possession of pot! Even people who have had numerous convictions.

The so called non violent types is funny. We have a case on going in ND right now where a simple small sale turned into a gruesome murder. Seems a dealer fronted some pot to a guy who then sold it and spent some of the money he was suppose to return. Hence they took him outside of town here and beat him with a baseball bat.

We have a group of guys who ran a auto detail business in town as well who where drug dealers. When they busted the operation the armament that they had was unreal. During the follow up investigation it was discovered they where also running a shake down racket.

So Bob if your state is locking up people for small amounts then lobby to change that, but most who get sent up are deserving.

Oh and in regards to counseling,it seldom works unless the person getting counseling wants change. If you want facts regarding this I will gladly PM you a whole bunch of information that does not need to be put into the public forum.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I am confused on this issue. On one hand if it was legal it would run many criminals out of business. They would perhaps have to go back to mugging which isn't nearly as lucrative. On the other hand my conscience tells me there would be many people addicted to it. 
One fellow in our archery club tells of his younger years. He said he thought he was cool, but came to realize he was just getting more stupid by the month. He says he does feel he is less intelligent after smoking five to six joints a day for a year when he was young.
I don't know what to think of this. My conscience tells me to do what is right at any cost, but what is right is sort of nebulous for me right now. I thought this debate may solidify some of my thoughts, but it has just confused me more.
What to do? Maybe we could send the illegal aliens home and the guys who have smoked themselves stupid could take those jobs.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

hmmm.... i kind of like that idea.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

The world needs ditch diggers too. :lol: We had huge debates on this in one of my college classes and I think both sides have valid points. After listening to both arguments I came to the conclusion that I dont care what someone does to their self. And pot is a weed it grows in almost every climate. Anyone thats driven through Wahpeton has probably seen it growing all over. Look at Amsterdam pot and mushrooms are legal check to see how it affects business and crime rates. I feel that what you do on your own time is your business. I just hate seeing my tax dollars wasted.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

As an aside, I spent over a year in the Netherlands where pot has been legal for a long time. It is interesting to me that none of my Dutch friends (or their friends) ever smoke. In general, they really seemed to frown upon it. Who uses these pot-smoking establishments then? I hear that by far the majority are Brits coming to the Netherlands for a vacation.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron Gilmore said:


> It has been a long time since I have heard or known anyone who has went to jail for recreational possession of pot! Even people who have had numerous convictions.
> 
> The so called non violent types is funny. We have a case on going in ND right now where a simple small sale turned into a gruesome murder. Seems a dealer fronted some pot to a guy who then sold it and spent some of the money he was suppose to return. Hence they took him outside of town here and beat him with a baseball bat.
> 
> ...


MAke it so cheap there is no money in it and none of that would of happened, thanks for makeing the point.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bob it still does not address the issues of heath and addiction! Unless you address that facet first making it cheap does nothing more than encourage additional use and the problems that come along with it.

When was the last time you saw an alcoholic who had lost everything drinking Crown Royal or 30 year old Scotch? No they are drinking the cheapest whiskey or vodka or wine like Mule Train!

Your logic does not work!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Bob it still does not address the issues of heath and addiction! Unless you address that facet first making it cheap does nothing more than encourage additional use and the problems that come along with it.
> 
> When was the last time you saw an alcoholic who had lost everything drinking Crown Royal or 30 year old Scotch? No they are drinking the cheapest whiskey or vodka or wine like Mule Train!
> 
> Your logic does not work!


My logic is fine and reiterated in every post, you cannot read :-? .

Actaully I know thats far from true you read fine you just wont admit it.

But just in case I will repeat it one more time you take the money we would save from the cost of incarceration and law enforcement and spend it on treatment centers ect.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> But just in case I will repeat it one more time you take the money we would save from the cost of incarceration and law enforcement and spend it on treatment centers ect.


I understand what you where referring to, but it does not address the underlying issue of counseling and effectiveness! If the patient or person receiving counseling is not a willing participant it is a bigger waste of time and resources than in doing nothing until the person has hit a point that triggers the need for change!!!!!

CA I do believe is the state with the highest court ordered counseling for most criminal acts. You just might want to find out how affective it has been!

Then come back and read your position and you will see that it is as affective as trying to scoop water with a fork!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

ANd your position has fixed the problem :roll: , gee then why after forty years of your postion has the problem got worse, the drugs stronger and the violence associated with the added monetary value your position gives the drugs more violent, ?????? answer that.

But lets not try something different no way :eyeroll:

My position hasn't been tried, period.

Why?

Because politicians and lawyers have a vested interest in not trying it, the existing system is very profitable for them.

What do you do for a living Ron??


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bob you are wrong the fact is that counseling has been tried. In fact it is the first step especially in offenders under the age of 18, yet incident of use in these people is not affected to any measurable degree.

That is why I suggest looking at the state of CA and what has transpired for the answer to your proposal.

Check on it then we will talk!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

My position is not just counseling it is a complete revision of how we deal with drugs in this country.

AS an aside

I have no illusions that all people want to quit using, and never suggested anyone under age should be legal.

So whats your point, this thread is about locking up people for non violent crimes.

But once again you did not answer my questions above, you keep picking at small issues in the big picture.

You never did tell me why we can't just lock up adult achohol abusers, you can't if they are just using.

But you somehow say"thats different, that drug is legal and this one isn't" well why???

Almost all the crime associated with abitrairly called "illicit" drug use is directly related to the fact that they are illegal and therefore prohibitively expensive not only to purchase, but to society as a whole because we taxpayers subsidize your position .

ANd it hasn't worked thats plain as day to evryone that looks at it, and freely admitted in private by LEO whom I know many.

ANd keep in mind when I say "your Position" I am not just speaking of you personally but our country at large at this time, this discussion is not to be taken personally, I agree with 99% of the stuff you write on the baord and like you.
I am just debating public policy.
Thanks


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bob, here are some things to consider. Simply making pot legal is not going to change the culture of drug pushers. Take prohibition for example once booze was legal the mobs moved to other products to sell and to other forms of illegal activity. 
So to affectively change street behavior all drugs would need to be made legal. Opium,heroin,coke, LSD,Angel Dust etc.. Now what do you do with prescription drugs as well.

When you simply focus on pot it is easy to loose site of the social ramifications that would take place in regards to these other products.

Hence the catch 22 that comes with the talk of legalizing one product alone. The drug dealers will still be dealing but instead of pot it will be the other products. With pot being a gateway drug the use and abuse of cocaine and other products will increase and thus the market and money spent off grid will still remain and most likely grow.

When that takes place you do not have any money to fund these new ideas that you seem to believe in. But before we get to far off track here, does anyone know the number of people who are in jail for simple possession of pot?

I think it is important in this debate, because I get a feeling those who are advocating legalized use of pot are insinuating that the majority in jail are there because of small amounts of pot possession!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Two things,

pot is not a gateway drug for all people that smoke pot not even close, it may be for most of the harder drug users. While the focus of this discussion is pot I would also advocate giving people addicted to cocain or any other drug the prescription version of it for free if they would agree to atleast accept counseling.

I believe some of them would accept counseling and many of the rest would take advantage of the free drugs.

Normal people would not so don't waste your time I don't think anyone that now doesn't use coke would because it was free, not legal just decriminalized just free and out of the criminals hands and into the doctors.

Lets face it there are people in this world that will not straighten up so with those people we then we can monitor their addiction and take the criminal element that the profit motive of criminalzation creates out of the equation, for a lot less money and violence than the present system has created.

And I keep coming back to the fact, the inescapable fact that the current system of dealing with this issue DOES NOT WORK.

A fact you will not aqddress.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bob, I guess I will ask the obvious question. Why do you think it is not working? The amount of people in jail? The amount of black males in jail?

Or could it be that it is working at least from what society expects and that is a reduction in crime!

Maybe Bob we should address the core of many of those in jail and has led them to be drug dealers. Could it be the fact that many of them are the product of a family that has been generational welfare recipients? Could it be that many of those incarcerated have had no father figure that worked in their lives?

Could it be the evolution of many leaders in the social reform area spewing the idea that there is no need for personal responsibility and that we find an excuse for bad behavior?

So here is my take on this issue. Take a look at the people who are involved, look at the age group,ethnic make up, education level and where they grew up.

Then compare it with the benevolent social policy's that have shaped those areas for the last 50 years. I am willing to bet that those serving in jail are the product of those past policy choices that enabled this to perpetuate. Eliminate them and start at the root of the problem and work up from there. By the next generation we will have empty beds in many of these prisons and no need for any changes to the current laws or review of our sentencing guide lines.

The only thing I can see that does need looking into is the disparity of sentence times based on your race. I do believe there is something there that needs looking at.

Cost of incarceration is a price society it seems is willing to pay to make sure criminals stay of the street. I would look at better re-entry skills and education being looked at to help reduce the temptation to commit another crime.

There is need for stiffer action in the juvenile level and if money is going to be spent this area is where it should go. By the time they turn 18 unless they commit a violent act, the penalty for destructive behavior and choices is a slap on the wrist.

Bob, answer this, tell a child to stay out of the cookie jar or pay the penalty. Catch him in the cookie jar and simply scold him while he eats the cookie and you have just trained that child to keep going into the cookie jar.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron you wamt some reasons why anyone looking at the drug war objectively knows it has failed and why it should be ended.

There are a number of reasons why Congress should end the federal
government's war on drugs. First and foremost, the federal drug laws are
constitutionally dubious. 
However misguided the alcohol prohibitionists turned out to have been,
they deserve credit for honoring our constitutional system by seeking a
constitutional amendment that would explicitly authorize a national policy
on the sale of alcohol. Congress never asked the American people for
additional constitutional powers to declare a war on drug consumers.
That usurpation of power is something that few politicians or their court
intellectuals wish to discuss. Big surprise there :roll:

*Second, drug prohibition creates high levels of crime. Addicts commit
crimes to pay for a habit that would be easily affordable if it were legal.* Police sources have estimated that as much as half the property crime in some major cities is committed by drug users. More dramatic, because drugs are illegal, participants in the drug trade cannot go to court to settle disputes, whether between buyer and seller or between rival sellers. When black-market contracts are breached, the result is often some form of violent sanction, which usually leads to retaliation and then open warfare in the streets.
Our capital city, Washington, D.C., has become known as the ''murder
capital'' even though it is the most heavily policed city in the United
States. Make no mistake about it, the annual carnage that accounts for
America's still high murder rates has little to do with the mind-altering
effects of a marijuana cigarette or a crack pipe. It is instead one of the
grim and bitter consequences of an ideological crusade whose proponents
will not yet admit defeat.

*Third, since the calamity of September 11, 2001, U.S. intelligence
officials have repeatedly warned us of further terrorist attacks. *Given that danger, it is a gross misallocation of law enforcement resources to have federal police agents surveilling marijuana clubs in California when they could be helping to discover sleeper cells of terrorists on U.S. territory.
The Drug Enforcement Administration has 9,000 agents, intelligence analysts, and support staff. Their skills would be much better used if those
people were redeployed to full-time counterterrorism investigations.

*Fourth, drug prohibition is a classic example of throwing money at a
problem. The federal government spends some $19 billion to enforce the
drug laws every year-all to no avail*. For years drug war bureaucrats
have been tailoring their budget requests to the latest news reports. When
drug use goes up, taxpayers are told the government needs more money
so that it can redouble its efforts against a rising drug scourge. When drug
use goes down, taxpayers are told that it would be a big mistake to curtail
spending just when progress is being made. Good news or bad, spending
levels must be maintained or increased.
*Fifth, drug prohibition channels more than $40 billion a year into the
criminal underworld *that is occupied by an assortment of criminals, corrupt
politicians, and, yes, terrorists. Alcohol prohibition drove reputable companies
into other industries or out of business altogether, which paved the
way for mobsters to make millions in the black market. If drugs were
legal, organized crime would stand to lose billions of dollars, and drugs
would be sold by legitimate businesses in an open marketplace.

Drug prohibition has created a criminal subculture in our inner cities.
The immense profits to be had from a black-market business make drug
dealing the most lucrative endeavor for many people, especially those
who care least about getting on the wrong side of the law.
Drug dealers become the most visibly successful people in inner-city
communities, the ones with money and clothes and cars. Social order is
turned upside down when the most successful people in a community are
criminals. The drug war makes peace and prosperity virtually impossible
in inner cities.

Students of American history will someday ponder the question of how
today's elected officials could readily admit to the mistaken policy of
alcohol prohibition in the 1920s but recklessly pursue a policy of drug
prohibition. Indeed, the only historical lesson that recent presidents and
Congresses seem to have drawn from Prohibition is that government
should not try to outlaw the sale of booze. One of the broader lessons
that they should have learned is this: *prohibition laws should be judged
according to their real-world effects, not their promised benefits.* If the
Congress will subject the federal drug laws to that standard, it will
recognize that the drug war is not the answer to problems associated with
drug use.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So Bob I do not want to put words in your mouth, so I am asking again are you advocating complete legalization of any current street drug or simply pot?

Your anwser is dependant upon the validity of your last post!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I'm not sure what you are asking??

I already stated that in a previous post. And what do you mean by "complete legalization"???

SIMPLY stated I want the criminals out of it and doctors running the issue not politicians, that cannot be done without taking the profit out of it, which cannot be done without making it legal and controlled much like alcohol.

I WANT THE APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM CHANGED BECAUSE THE CURRENT ONE DOES NOT WORK AND CREATES MORE PROBLEMS WORSE PROBLEMS.

How simple is that??

I've asked you a bunch of questions in this thread you have avoided all of them. WHY???

I've tried to answer all yours in a forthright manner.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Very simple Bob are you advocating a complete legalization of all street drugs or simply pot?

Because if it is simply pot your theory on cost savings is out the window.

If you are advocating all street drugs then the costs of treatment and facilities exceeds that of prison interment.

You are normally a bit quicker on the up take.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

No treatment does not even begin to approach the current arrest and jail cost WHICH HAS NOT WORKED IN THE LAST 40 YEARS

I notice you continue to always ignore my other questions, with good reason.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> The U.S. government estimates the cost of the War on Drugs by calculating the funds used in attempting to control the supply of illegal drugs, in paying government employees involved in waging the war on crack, and to satisfy rehabilitation costs. This total was estimated by the federal U.S. government's cost report on drug control to be roughly $ 12 billion in 2005. Additionally, in a separate report, the U.S. government reports that the cost of incarcerating drug law offenders was $ 30.1 billion-$ 9.1 billion for police protection, $ 4.5 billion for legal adjudication, and $ 11.0 billion for state and federal corrections.
> 
> *In total, roughly $ 45.5 billion was spent in 2005 for these factors.[2] The socioeconomic costs, as well as the individual costs (i.e., the personal disadvantages in income and career), caused by the incarceration of millions of people are not included in this number. Nor are the many real wars fought in the name of the "War on Drugs" included.*


 Source Wikipedia War on drugs

So Ron heres the US GOVERMENTS ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF THE DRUG WAR not all reals costs are included in their estimate.

SO acording to the govt own estimates at 45 billion per year RON you are now claiming that nearly one billion dollars per year/ per state would not be enough to treat drug abusers.

You are so wrong, your assertions are ridiculous.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

ANd incase you wont accept that source here it is right from the horses mouth

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/

459 BILLION this year right from the WHITEHOUSE BUDGET

Damn its too bad that there is so much info available at the click of a mouse isn't it :roll:

The best estimate of the number of users I can find using US government figures is around 13 million most of whom are pot users that would not need a lot of expensive medical assistance

for anyone wondering one BILLION = one thousand million


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bob simple question are you advocating the legalization of all street drugs?

A simple yes or no?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> 459 BILLION this year right from the WHITEHOUSE BUDGET


Wow, how does that compare to the war in Iraq that everyone complains about?


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Personally, I would rather pay for users being in jail then have the crackheads running around doing god knows what.

If they legalize drugs, treatment costs will mirror incarceration costs. Plus about the third time someones kid dies, gets killed, or raped by a legal drug addict the litigation costs will then skyrocket out of control.

I have said it before, you are looking at the numbers in jail as we are being too tough on drug users. The whole problem is we aren't tough on drug users until they have destroyed their lives to the point of no return.

Nobody is in prison for smoking pot once or twice, these are habitual offenders that most of the time have graduated to higher crime because their drug use has rendered them worthless to working society so they have no choice but crime to continue the habit.

Maybe if it wasn't a slap in the wrist the first half dozen times they got caught in possesion it wouldn't have gotten to that point.

There is no "war on drugs" because the touchy feely do-gooders will not allow a "war on drugs". Legalization will do nothing but make it worse, as we have basically legalized it to the point that possesion and use has become less of a penalty than alcohol.

To eliminate the problem the penalty has to be harsh enough to deter the crime.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gee RON a minute ago we couldn't afford treatment then when I put the facts up you again change the course of the topic, wonder why.

the facts I put up about about cost include ALL DRUGS NOT JUST POT as I already stated



Ron Gilmore said:


> Bob simple question are you advocating the legalization of all street drugs?
> 
> A simple yes or no?


Like the simple answers you wont give me??

BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY AS I HAVE EVERY TIME

Yes,all drugs, just like I've said all along just like alchohol adults only, drugs free to addicts or anyone uses, take the cime and the criminal out of it. Alchohol pot cocain cigarettes DRUGS ARE DRUGS there is no point in differentiatiing one drug from the next all can be and most are abused by some in the population.

Hand the problem over to the medical establishment and let them try a different approach, the one you advocate has not worked and will not work and we have a 49 year record of its abysmal failure to work.

I ask again what do you do for a living???


----------



## Benelliman (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> my final comment is this......i would rather meet a guy on the road who just finished 2-3 beers than someone who had just finished smoking a whole joint. there is no comparison when it comes to impairment.
> 
> and the argument for legalizing a substance that we cannot effectively restrict from getting in the hands of users is not an excuse for legalization.
> 
> what next, legalize heroin or cocaine? sorry, this makes no sense, at least the legalization part...


You are correct there is no comparison of impairment. The drunk driver buzzing on alcohol is much MUCH more dangerous!

How much experience have you had with smoking a joint hunter9494? Do you have any first hand experience at all? How many times have you personally smoked an entire joint in the amount of time it took to drink 3 beers? Is it a fair comparison?

I just want to make sure that everyone here is comparing apples to apples as much as possible. People that smoke pot in moderation don't smoke an entire joint in one quick sitting. A better equivalent to 3 beers is taking a couple of hits off of a pipe. Smoking an entire joint is equivalent to drinking a 6 pack of beer in an hour, or taking 3-5 shots in the same amount of time.

I agree with Bob and Ryan. We should legalize pot immediately. It is definitely not a gateway drug. That term of gateway drug was invented by the DEA and DOJ to scandalize pot and attempt to frighten the public, in order to further it's efforts.

I found this stuff while searching.

http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/gateway.html
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/mjgate.htm

Take some time to read these sites guys.

They should help those of you who regurgitate things you believe are facts.

Benelliman


----------



## Benelliman (Apr 4, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Bob, here are some things to consider. Simply making pot legal is not going to change the culture of drug pushers. Take prohibition for example once booze was legal the mobs moved to other products to sell and to other forms of illegal activity.
> So to affectively change street behavior all drugs would need to be made legal. Opium,heroin,coke, LSD,Angel Dust etc.. Now what do you do with prescription drugs as well.
> 
> When you simply focus on pot it is easy to loose site of the social ramifications that would take place in regards to these other products.
> ...


Ron I read alot of your posts, and want to offer some different thoughts.

I believe your heart is in the right place, but your message is entirely wrong.

I believe we should not equate pot with other drugs. It is an entirely seperate issue to the drug war. Pot is not the big demon that people make it out to be. *It should not be classified as a gateway drug. That term is a myth* like I stated in my previous response.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

As someone who is around pot alot, I feel I can offer some personal insight into all the different logic you've discussed so far.

First of all, I do not smoke pot. For the record, sure I've tried it. But I stopped, as it makes me soft in the middle, and I can't lift weights and be as cut and ripped as I would like. But I have tons of friends who smoke around me, and I can tell you what their experience is like, and what I have witnessed being around them. That is more direct experience than it would appear many here have.

Pot is the drug of choice. My (large) group of friends has no interest in regularly consuming other types of drugs. We have become extremely educated in the risks associated with harder drugs. Consequently, if someone wants to try something different, they usually try something that doesn't have the hard effect of hard drugs. They usually huff nitrous oxide if they do any other kind of drug. Nitrous and pot when done in moderation do NOT have any serious effects. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to scare you. I don't need a lesson on how the chemicals react or metabolize in the body. I know what they do.

My point is, like has been mentioned by Bob, I believe, is that any drug taken by someone irresponsible whether it be tobacco, alcohol, pot, nitrous, caffeine etc, will likely end up hurting them. If they have addictive and/or dependent personalities, no laws will prevent them from becoming addicted or finding a way to acquire their drug of choice.

What we want is to be able to purchase drug X the same way we can now purchase drug Y. I don't want the government telling me which drug gets to be X or Y, provided it doesn't have immediate pharmacological detriments. Soft drugs like alcohol, tobacco and pot all fall into that category.

There is a HUGE segment of the population that only consumes pot and never ventures near any other drug. Many of us have no interest in anything but pot, not even alcohol. To lump anyone who considers taking pot open and willing to becoming a hard core drug user is riduculous.

Thank you for listening and hearing me out.

Benelliman


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Benelliman said:


> hunter9494 said:
> 
> 
> > my final comment is this......i would rather meet a guy on the road who just finished 2-3 beers than someone who had just finished smoking a whole joint. there is no comparison when it comes to impairment.
> ...


If you haven't figured it out yet, you can find anything to support any possible position on the internet. Heck you can probably find a website that says the sun is blue or purple if you look hard enough.

The problem with your logic is this, with alcohol, there are solid tests (breath alcohol and blood alcohol levels) for law enforcement. Now I realize there are drug recognition tests, but how does the common law enforcement officer determine how much is too much with pot? It is impossible to enforce a "legalization" similar to alcohol.

Society goes in cycles, some decades it lessens its acceptance and the next it will be stricter. The late 90's and earliest years of the new millenium saw a move towards more acceptance. Now we are seeing the reversal.

Most professional careers are going the way of monthly drug testing, and some are not going with the random one out of fifty employees but testing all employees. So society is going to weed out these people anyway, so why would anyone want to legalize it.

As a professional, and a supervisor in charge of hiring and firing. If one of my employees tests positive, they are gone, period. No matter if they are the best of employees or friends. I could care less if an employee drinks on the weekend, as long as its out of there system by work on monday. But what do you do with a drug that can affect judgement and mental capacity up to 6 weeks? And those numbers are published by the American Medical Association.

And no, I never smoked it. I did see many friends that did, and the ones that habitually used it, even 1/2 a joint a day as you say, never amounted to anything until they quit, most that did use it amounted to about 50% of what they could have, and the ones that didn't quit moved on to worse drugs, so yes, it would seem it is a gateway drug.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Benelliman at the age of 25 my opinions and thoughts where much the same as yours. I had a host of friends and workers who used. Some used at work because unlike booze if they smoked there was no tell tale smell.

Now 20 years later I still am friends with some of the people from back then and some I have chose to no longer associate with. All that I knew back then took two paths. Those that quit using and those that continued.

Roughly 80% of those that quit have led productive lives. Held down jobs with no issues and never faced the problem of not being able to take advantage of a job opening because of a urine test.

Those that did not run almost parallel to the others only on the opposite end of the spectrum. Getting stoned 9 term from my era) was more important than being a father or mother. Getting stoned led to lethargic attitude and behavior and led to no advancement in their jobs. Some no longer can work in the profession they chose in school because of use. Most moved to other forms of drugs when they had the money. Some have spent a lot of the time over the last 20 years in jail as well for dealing to support a habit. What amazes me is that they get out and the first thing they did was get stoned again and failed a urine test sending them back. Those people Bob went through extensive treatment for addiction by the way while in prison.

So I would say that down the road 20 years your observations will be a lot more credible

Now Bob, here is the devil in the details as they say. Your plan is to give the drugs away free or make them affordable. You claim by the Gov numbers that 495 billion is spent on drug enforcement. To make your idea work one has to assume that all crime and activity connected would end. Thus a total savings of that money. But just like alcohol all that will change is what is being trafficked and so enforcement will simply switch to another avenue.

Then add on that the lost production throughout the economy use of pot is especially harmful to youth and the non fully developed brain. Memory both short term and long term are affected greatly. These people are not going to with the availability you propose benefit in the long run.

Bob when you come up hunting this fall give me a call. I would love for you to meet some of the stoner's I know who started using in the 60's and are still using today. While booze may burn out the liver, pot burned out the brains in these people. They now live on disability and food stamps but still find money to get stoned.

The overall costs of treatment, lost production and health care will eat up that amount of money in short order and continue to grow. Just as housing projects in Chicago and other areas did not elevate the residents to chose a better life. Instead it created a bigger blight.


----------



## FallsGuy16 (Oct 4, 2006)

I think the whole problem is a simple economic issuse of Supply vs Demand. The "War on Drugs" has tried and failed for 40 years to control the "Demand" on drugs by making it illegal, and demonzing it. The Demand for drugs is *NOT* going away no matter how illegal it is, like Bob said maybe it's time to try a new approach.......from the Supply side. If person could buy drugs from licensed vendor that has quality control on the product they sell vs. Joe Blow in a dark alley and has no idea what is in the drugs that he is buying where do you think that person will go? Especially if there is no difference in price? How many people that consume alcohol on this forum buy it from somewhere else other than a liquor store? I don't see alot of illegal alcohol dealers out there, or alcohol deals gone bad ending with violence.

Making drugs legal will have little affect on the Demand. If people have a need to alter their mind, legal vs illegal they will find a way to do it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

At a time when we are suing the heck out of tobacco companies I think it's appropriate to ask what the heck is in pot? The guys suck it in and hold their breath. That has to be leaving a lot of residue in the lungs. What health affects are there. I ask because I am thinking about the overall affect on the economy.
Jail vs. the government paying for rehabilitation by a $100/hr shrink. Then the cost of health care who everyone will have under Hillary or Obama. Which really is cheaper? What other problems may pop up with legalization? What will the insurance companies do to our premiums when the pot heads start sucking at the system? I can see benefits, and pitfalls, but I don't know which outweighs the other.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> At a time when we are suing the heck out of tobacco companies I think it's appropriate to ask what the heck is in pot? The guys suck it in and hold their breath. That has to be leaving a lot of residue in the lungs. What health affects are there.
> 
> I ask because I am thinking about the overall affect on the economy.
> 
> Jail vs. the government paying for rehabilitation by a $100/hr shrink. Then the cost of health care who everyone will have under Hillary or Obama. Which really is cheaper?


Plainsman,

I'd suggest to review the link above posted by Benelliman:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

Alot of your questions are covered in there. That research was done by respected members of the medical and research community.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

A new story just out today... interestingly ironic timing to this debate.

The war on drugs isn't working. Which is why *Chicago wants to ban baggies.* 



> *Drug cartels running rampant, says UN*
> 
> *The UN will warn today* that major drug traffickers are operating with virtual impunity because governments across the world are failing to target cartels.
> 
> ...


Words to ponder ....

The INCB is considered another similar institution with little credibility about it's failed "War on Drugs" campaign strategy. It refuses to read the tea leaves that are sitting in front of them.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Nice Find Ryan

I read the article on Chicago banning the little baggies that was an interesting article. I think the media and the government like drama. I went to high school in a fairly populated area out east and I never saw any drugs in that school. Not to say it wasnt happening but the way the media portrays it you would think every kid in the school is on drugs or at least has access to them. Thats just not the case. Even in college I only saw 2 different types of drugs pot and mushrooms. I wouldnt know what crack, meth, or x was if you laid it on the table right in front of me. But after watching commercials and listening to the media I could see how someone with a troubled past or present would search for these drugs. And for that reason I dont think drugs are portrayed in the correct manner. If they were legal and not maid such a fuss over people might become more educated on this subject. Drugs are no different than alcohol there is always going to be people who abuse substances. We all no our limits some choose to ignore some choose to be careful.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the Netherland's drug policy. It resembles something akin to what BobM describes:



> The drug policy of the Netherlands is based on 3 principles:
> 
> 1) Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal matter
> 2) A distinction between hard drugs and soft drugs exists
> 3) High drug related public expenditure, the highest drug related public expenditure per capita of all countries in EU (139 EUR per capita, 2004).[/


How well does it work?



> In the Netherlands 9.7% of young boys consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than as in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%)[citation needed], but much higher than in, for example, Sweden (3%), Finland or Greece.[1] Dutch rates of drug use are lower than U.S. rates in every category. [9] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average(3 %) of 15 compared countries in EU.[1]
> 
> The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is lower than the EU average.[10] but the relevance of this is unclear since the methods for registration differ from country to country. The Dutch government is able to support approximately 90% of help seeking addicts with detoxification programs. Treatment demand is rising. [11]
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_polic ... etherlands


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

And This Week in the News

*Bush Poses:* Releases drug-control strategy for *2008.* Hey, that looks like the same strategy that was so effective in *2007.*

*Bill of Wrongs:* "I regret more than I can say that we didn't do more on it," Bill Clinton said of racially disparate sentencing for crack and and powder cocaine under his watch. *"I'm prepared to spend a significant portion of whatever life I've got left on the earth trying to fix this*because I think it's a cancer."

*Bill of Sale:* Amherst reconsiders charging *pot-fest organizers*for cops.

*Chewed Up: *UN tells South American nations to *ban chewing of coca leaves.*

*Chewed Out:* UN decries *Canada's safe-injection sites.*

*Staying in Business:* Federal *judge allows*medical-marijuana dispensary.

*Staying in Jail:* Denver makes *more arrests* after lowest-priority vote

*Dutch Ado About Nothing:* Consider banning sales of *pot growing equipment.*

*Little Ado About Something:* UN angry at UK for being soft on *celebrity drug use.*

*Where There's Smoke:* The mayor of Moss Point, Mississippi attempted to oust a fire department captain who had tested positive for marijuana after being caught with pot and pills. The captain was supposed to be canned under the city's zero-tolerance drug policy, though he wasn't accused of being under the influence while working. A majority of the city's board of aldermen concluded the firefighter should remain on the payroll, and then they overrode the mayor's veto of their first ecision. In response, editors of The Mississippi Press spat that the *"aldermen are content with the erosion of the fire department's credibility."*

Ohh and if you want an interesting comments discussion on our topic here... go read the comments section at the bottom of this story.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... uana-votes

Have a great weekend!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I think I'll occasionally post up some ridiculous decisions, speeches, or other actions by "officials" in their crazy attempts to deny the obvious about the effects of pot, pot legalization etc etc...

So today...here's my little gem:

Nowadays, if you want to justify denying medicine to someone dying with cancer, just explain that doing so could make people sell their babies.

Here's a letter from Iowa Senator Tom Harkin to a constituent who asked why medical marijuana, _*despite recent support from the American College of Physicians*_, is still illegal.



> Dear XXXX:
> 
> Thank you for contacting me. I am always glad to hear from you.
> 
> ...


This gem was posted on AlterNet by Ron Fisher of NORML

Okay, so setting aside the fact that Senator Harkin's response pertains to legalization of marijuana, and not medical cannabis as the constituent asked about, let's deconstruct some of the myths propagated in this letter.

1. "The number of marijuana related emergencies has nearly reached the level of cocaine related emergencies. As this statistic indicates, marijuana use often has fatal consequences."

This is *an untruth propagated*  by the drug czar's minions. The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) collects its data on 'marijuana related emergencies' by noting every single time someone tells their doctor that they use marijuana. So if I were to accidentally break my leg and go to the ER, and my doctor asked if I use any drugs and I say I occasionally smoke marijuana (as I should, as we should all be honest with our physicians), then this would be a 'marijuana related emergency,' even if I hadn't smoked in weeks.

_*And fatal?*_ Please! As Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School Lester Grinspoon *wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association, * "There is no known case of a lethal overdose; on the basis of animal models, the ratio of lethal to effective dose is estimated as 40,000 to 1. By comparision, the ratio is&#8230;between 4 and 10 to 1 for ethanol (alcohol)." Additionally, a 1994 report by the Australian National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre found that "There are no recorded cases of fatalities attributable to cannabis, and the extrapolated lethal dose from animal studies cannot be achieved by recreational users."

2. "I was deeply troubled when I learned of another recent study which found that nearly one-third of all eighth graders had tried marijuana."

I do not doubt that marijuana is easier to obtain for minors than alcohol, which troubles NORML as well. But this problem is precisely why prohibition is a terrible policy-there is no incentive at all for suppliers to keep their product out of the hands of children. This is in stark contrast to alcohol, whose vendors must protect their valuable liquor licenses (often costing around $100,000) by ensuring they do not sell to minors. You didn't think they did it out of the kindness of their own heart, did you? In a regulated market, government can incentivize suppliers in this way. On the black market, we leave kids out in the cold-and the prohibitionists point to us and say, "What about the children?" Which brings us to&#8230;

3. "The victims of the drug war are many -* the small child whose parents are so addicted to illegal drugs that they sell everything including perhaps their own children to obtain a fix*; the police officer's family which must now learn to cope with the loss of their loved one as a result of a violent drug bust gone awry."

Classic drug war rhetoric-let's avoid serious policy discussion and instead flee to hyperbolic appeals to emotion, without serious examination of how these nightmare scenarios are facilitated by current policy.

First, marijuana is *less addictive than current legal drugs, *according to the Institute of Medicine, let alone illicit drugs one might associate with the type of dependency described above.

While marijuana generally is not associated with the same level of violence that other illicit drugs are, there is no doubt that there have been fatal incidents (some involving law enforcement) involving marijuana. The tragic aspect of this fact is that given marijuana's proven relative safety and lower addiction rates compared with legal drugs, _*the prohibitionist policy towards it-sustained by the same kind of rhetoric that Senator Harkin uses-has contributed more to the violence than any other factor.*_

Indeed, when one looks at the alcohol industry today, there is no violent crime in the production and shipment of their goods; yet were one to see the same industry in the 1920s during alcohol prohibition, one might have seen other Senators making the same empty arguments about alcohol.

Something to chew on... or smoke as it were...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

for medical use, sure, it can help. legalizing it would still be a huge mistake, it just plain does not make sense, unless selling alcohol to minors does as well?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> for medical use, sure, it can help. legalizing it would still be a huge mistake, it just plain does not make sense, unless selling alcohol to minors does as well?


*sigh*

You obviously aren't following this thread very closely my friend. Please enlighten all of us with your logic on how it doesn't make sense to legalize it? On what basis of fact? Please include cited references like I have done.

Ohhh and as I'm sure you read in a previous thread, we are looking to legalize it and treat it the same as alcohol is currently treated. I'll put it a little more clearer for you... Once you turn 21, you may legal purchase personally consumable amounts of marijuana.

As was stated previously



> Your statements are classic drug war rhetoric- e.g... let's avoid serious policy discussion and instead flee to hyperbolic appeals to emotion, without serious examination of how these nightmare scenarios are facilitated by current policy.


Please do tell... we are all sitting on the edge of our seats.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

ryan-

having a debate over this is useless, you are in the liberal camp, i am not.
i will not waste my time or yours citing references and examples from authorities you would discredit. you have proved nothing to me, other than just like alcohol, kids would find a way to get their hands on widely distributed marijuana.

maybe your generation can get it legalized, if you guys need it so badly.

i would hate to meet a guy all smoked up on the highway, just as bad if not worse than meeting a drunk, as reaction time and attention span
(wow dude, look at the flashing red light!) are about the same.

and we are trying to ban cell phones while people are operating vehicles,
smoking dope? i would hope you would be thinking more like a young adult than a college student......


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunter9494 said:


> you see for me, any more liberalization of substances that can harm my kids or would provide an easier opportunity for them to be harmed just doesn't make any sense for me.


I sure hope you spend time campaigning against the alcohol and tobacco industry. The likelihood of your children getting harmed by someone in those groups is 1000 times greater than someone on THC. Make sure you give proportional outrage ok?



hunter9494 said:


> so debate on genius, tell me how legalizing marijuana will make for a safer world for my kids. and if legalizing marijuana is acceptable, then i am sure you are for legalizing cocaine and meth as well. and if not, why would YOU differentiate between these substances??


I am only advocating for treating all organic drugs the same, and having the government quit picking and choosing which ones it deems need regulating while letting others be sold OTC. I rate a drugs dangerousness to society based on it's effects, its addictiveness and it's potential to cause others to do harm on others when consumed.

If a given drug when consumed causes someone to behave violently and in an uncontrollable fashion, it should be banned. With this example, I would ban Meth and PCP for example.

Every substance is different. Every substance has a different level of danger. The simple fact is you've been tricked by your government on which ones should be ranked worse than others. Pot should be at the very bottom of the list below alcohol and cigarettes.

You can either take a look at the truth, as many groups have done their research and homework to bring you the real facts, or you can trust your government, which I'm sure hasn't been corrupted by special interest groups to sway your opinion. Right?

Keep drinking the Kool Aid :koolaid:

The alcohol and tobbaco (and pharmeceutical) industry are counting on you! :thumb:

Ryan


----------

