home

Marijuana Arrests Reach New High

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 08:52:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The FBI released its report on annual crime statistics today. While the MSM is touting the number of murders and other violent crimes, there's another story.

The Marijuana Policy Project, having reviewed the report, writes (received by e-mail):

Marijuana arrests set a new record in 2004, totaling 771,605. Eighty-nine percent of these arrests were for marijuana possession, not sale or manufacture. In contrast, arrests for all violent crimes combined totalled 590,258—a decline from 2003.

"It's important to remember that each of these statistics represents a human being, and in many cases, a preventable tragedy," said Aaron Houston, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "One of those marijuana arrests in 2004 was Jonathan Magbie, a quadriplegic medical marijuana patient who died in the Washington, D.C., city jail while serving a 10-day sentence for marijuana possession. Had Congress not blocked the district's medical marijuana law from taking effect, Jonathan Magbie would almost certainly be alive today.

"Over the weekend, Melissa Etheridge became the latest celebrity to acknowledge using medical marijuana, using it to treat the nausea and pain she experienced while undergoing cancer chemotherapy. Etheridge is a hero to many, and for good reason. But for every Melissa Etheridge or Montel Williams, there are hundreds of thousands more Americans whom most of us will never hear of—ordinary Americans who live in fear, suffer and, yes, sometimes die because of our irrational marijuana laws. It is time for Congress to end this cruel war on the sick and enact marijuana laws based on science and common sense."

The full report is here (pdf).

< High Court Rules Inmate Must Be Afforded Abortion | Bennett's Role in Judith's Tell-All >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Marijuana Arrests Reach New High | 95 comments (95 topical)
    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    It's frightening that there were more arrests for marijuana possession than for violent crime. We keep hearing about missing persons and gang crimes but nothing positive seems to be happening on those fronts. I guess it is easier to go after pot smokers because they are either sitting still or eating, not violent at all. If we spent as much time and money going after public actions instead of personal ones, this might be a different more tolerant nation.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    something i'd be curious to know, if you have those stats handy: what was the breakdown, by race, of all those arrests? my suspicion is, you're going to find that whites make up the majority of those arrested, while blacks make up the majority of those imprisoned. since whites still constitute the majority, this in and of itself wouldn't be surprising. but, and i'm guessing here, i suspect that the number of whites arrested is way out of proportion to their total % in the population, while their incarceration rate is less than their proportion of the total population. for blacks, i'm going to say it's higher for both arrest and incarceration rates. if you have that data available, that would be an interesting comparison.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Well I certainly feel safer now

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#4)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    How many of those arrests were in conjunction with some other investigation or as the result of some other reason for a police contact?

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#5)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    How many of those arrests were in conjunction with some other investigation or as the result of some other reason for a police contact?
    Irrelevant. If there were other reason for police contact, that should be the reason to arrest/not arrest them. If the only way you can get them is on mj possession, then either they've done nothing or the cop's not doing his job. Detainment for possession of pot is a charge made up just to pile on the fines and jail/prison terms.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Peace, It may be irrelevant to you, but I can think of many situations where it might be relevant to others. I also wonder how many of those arrests were actually citations. In california you cannot arrest for simple possession of marijuana unless there are other charges as well.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#7)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    It may be irrelevant to you, but I can think of many situations where it might be relevant to others.
    OK...please help me out here b/c I cant think of any examples unless they were selling pot to a minor. That's the only thing that I can think of where arresting someone for pot possession b/c of an unrelated instance that warranted police presence.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#8)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    And before you start, selling pot to a minor isnt cool in the same way that selling beer to minor isnt cool. (for the record)

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#9)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Peace, I was precluding any involvement is sales. In many instances, I can see where a citation (The functional equivalent of an arrest) for possession or marijuana may be the appropriate course of action to deal with a complaint by a citizen of loitering, where loitering would be difficult to prove, as a result of a discretionary call by an officer when deciding whether or not to charge sales, or to deal with a situation where a person was driving while in possession of marijuana. That's three right off the top of my head without giving it much thought. I'm sure you could think of a few if you wanted to.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    If only the "new high" was not such a bum trip, thing would be more reasonable in the WOD. Perhaps the prosecutors should get their 'new high' from the weed directly and not the ridiculous arrests.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#11)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    My comments related to sales, were meant to reference incidents where there is significant weight and perhaps arguable indicia of sales.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    peace, regardless of the specific examples, I think the main point Patrick hit on was that "information" distilled and supplied by a group such as the Marijuana Policy Project might be somewhat biased toward their avowed agenda and not a completely truthful picture of what these crime stats would actually reveal by unbiased analysis.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    sarc-Who would the "unbaised" ones be then? I imagine that the arresting officers may claim even higher numbers.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Squeaky - there may not be any unbiased analysis of the stats available - except perhaps your own. I've come to realize that it's not likely that the conclusions of an organization with such an overt ax to grind such as the MPP should be accepted blindly.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#15)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Squeaky, I would think that FBI numbers were unbiased, but how did the MPP distill them down is where you may find some bias. I don't know, I haven't looked at the particulars, I was just asking the questions. First off, what constitutes an arrest? Does a citation? many people would feel different about the numbers if they knew that say 50% of them were simply citations for possession and that no physical arrest had taken place. Also, how many of those arrests led to prosection? That would be an important fact in how I viewed the need to change the law. I understand that people who feel strongly about this issue will not be swayed by the technicalities, but many people who do not have a personal stake in it may be. And they should get the proper information so that they can make an educated decision.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    sarc-the info was culled from the PDF supplies by the FBI. Are they biased? Have a look.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#17)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Squeaky, I don't think the raw data is biased, it's in the interpretation where any bias would appear. Do you think the MPP is bais free?

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Link me to the pdf, all I found were news reports. If, for example, there is no breakdown in the FBI files that differentiates between MJ arrests and MJ citations, as Patrick discusses, then any interpretive conclusion that the MPP or anyone else makes regarding the comparison of MJ arrests to violent crime arrests from the data is false.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#19)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Sarc, The link is here. There is also a link at the bottom of the washington post article

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#20)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    I dont know about where you live pat, but in Texas, you dont get citations for mj possession. You go to jail and pay enormous fines. You get tickets for things such as loitering. My point stands. Loitering is hard to prove so they charge him with possession (a stiffer penalty and higher fine). If someone is selling, then charge them for selling. If you dont catch them selling, dont charge them with selling (I also think that the sale of mj to a willing person of legal age should not be an arrestable offense...but...) Driving while in possession of mj? ? ? Such a cop out. You stop somebody for speeding, they're only going to jail if you find something illegal. Once again by putting pot in the stew of illegal things, you increase the chances of getting to throw someone in jail and collect fines.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#21)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Sarc, What you want to really know is where the MPP got their numbers, since marijuana possession is not reportable to the FBI under the UCR.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#22)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Well Peace, I live in California where it's a ticket at best. So my paradigm is diffent from yours.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    The headline to this article on TL is worthy of the New York Post! Pot should be legalized or de- criminalized at the least. I am sure there are more pressing issues that the police could deal with. The real problem with Marijuana is that it is illegal in the first place and that creates an underground economy that goes unregualated. Which in turn attracts the thugs and scammers who then put 15 year old kids, who mishandle firearms, on the streets to peddle thier wares. Bad laws, bad results. And I am a L&O type of guy.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    Our tax dollars at work. And what's amazing, considering the number of arrests, is that most of the cops I deal with think it should be decriminalized so they can focus on meth, crack & violent offenses. Seriously, where I practice, it's the meth tweakers who do all the property crimes and the drunks who commit the violent acts. Decriminalizing pot would erase one of the worst inconsistencies in our criminal law.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#25)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    The real problem with Marijuana is that it is illegal in the first place and that creates an underground economy that goes unregualated. Which in turn attracts the thugs and scammers who then put 15 year old kids, who mishandle firearms, on the streets to peddle thier wares.
    AND....It may have medicinal purposes, but the govt is too hell bent on having just one more way to screw you out of money with fines and jail sentences to see beyond that. This shows that a lot of the propaganda sold to our citizens about mj is completely bogus. For those of you who dont like to click links, it's an article about how recent studies show that pot helps the brain grow new cells that help anxiety disorders and depression. But pot is bad right?

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#26)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    recent studies show
    not "show"... but "indicate"...my bad

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#27)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    hahaha... Wait til they start busting pot-heads who are looking at pornography! The safety we will all feel! The morality which will be mandated! Think fo the utopia to come once we get all these losers (pot smokers, pornographers, hispanics, blacks, orientals, foreign whites, and anyone else who has done or is thinking of doing or looking at pot or porn, in other words the 700 peoplein this country who fit that description) exiled to an island! It will be pure bliss and the milky-white American dream can rush into the future with nothing but alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, prozac, ritalin and any number of "non-dangerous" substances!

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#28)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    In Florida, a notice to appear is legally the same as an arrest. You also face the same penalties. For under 20 grams, 1 year jail (VERY rare) or one year probation, fine, drug counseling, lose your DL for 2 years, and other penalties

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    Patrick, Sarc, et al. I don't know what you're speculating about regarding marijuana arrest numbers and the supposed bias of MPP, which, yes, is a "biased" group advocating for marijuana law reform. Regardless, facts are facts and numbers are numbers and the 771,605 figure has been widely reported, and it is a fact, not a matter of opinion or bias, that this number is a correct statistic of total U.S. marijuana arrests in 2004, and that that figure has steadily doubled over the past 20 years to current levels. Here's an article from the Washington Post from last May about this phenonmenon. The trends in marijuana arrests discussed in this article *are* tracked by the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department, and, yes, most of these arrests were not incidental and piling on to some other violent crime, like where someone is charged with every prosecutable offense at the time of the arrest...for most of the 700,000+ shelps who got busted, mostly hapless kids in cars and on the streets, marijuana was the most serious offense they were charged with. The Bratton-Guliani style of "broken windows" policing in NYC was also big on marijuana busts. Cops (like my friend H's dad) loved the bonus overtime (4 hrs/bust). I know it's chill in some parts of Cali (but not others?), Patrick, but IMHO, Guliani rode roughshod over NY's "decrim" law when they arrested thousands, including tourists, on trumped up pot charges which were dismissed after the "time served" overnight or over the weekend for some "disorderly conduct" type offense that could also have been ticketable. Read this article I posted on this a couple of years ago on MAPINC with a real-life tale of life in the mean city. Anyway, back to the point at hand, probably the reason for your confusion is a sore point with me: the confusion of FBI "INDEX" crimes, which are reported annually, and "crime", including drug crimes. "Index" crimes are defined by the FBI as SERIOUS crimes like murder, rape, robbery, felony theft, car theft, etc. DRUG CRIMES, OTOH, though they have become the biggest class of serious crime (resulting in about half of all incarceration), are NOT counted in the FBI's "serious" index crimes!!! This means that although we may then read year after year about the Feebs saying crime trends continue to be down, we are being fed a bill of goods while drug crimes feed a huge and ever growing gulag for on those ensnared in the criminal justice net, inflicing misery on their families and communities as well. Why the disconnect? If a crime's serious to draw the serious hard time, the 3 - 5 to 10 to life type sentences for small weights or sales of drugs, why isn't that a serious bad*ss m*ther*f*ckng crime of the century which should counted as an index crime, just like manslaughter. It can get the same time, it should be the same ("index") crime. That's my point, and MPP's as well. There's a disconnect here somewhere folks. Either crime is down or it isn't. You can't say crime is down but arrests are way up. (and no, I don't draw this huge distinction between possession and sales for drugs, if that's the next fallback line of argument that our criminal justice system is peachy keen...small users often sell, and a lot of deft's were often cajoled by narcs or their friends who were ratting out others to save their own necks.) One of these years when the FBI releases it's statistics, someone other than MPP is going to notice the three-card monte going on. It wouldn't be such a big deal if it didn't cost $60B/yr that could well go to other things and constitute another human-rights black eye b/c of the million souls in some needless gulag.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#30)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:07 PM EST
    Jackl, I'm not disputing the 700,000 number, I just would like to know whether or not they included people who were only cited. Nothing dastardly there.
    Why the disconnect? If a crime's serious to draw the serious hard time, the 3 - 5 to 10 to life type sentences for small weights or sales of drugs, why isn't that a serious bad*ss m*ther*f*ckng crime of the century which should counted as an index crime,
    I don't think people charged with simple possession are doing "serious hard time" in the neighborhood of which you are indicating and the post itself (by Talkleft) drew the distinction between sales and simple possession not me. If a fine is too big a deal for using an illegal substance, then don't use it. The best argument I've ever heard for legalization is; "Because we can." All the other stuff is B.S. To better make my point, when you read the number of people arrested, how are you defining "Arrest?"

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#31)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    The best argument I've ever heard for legalization is; "Because we can." All the other stuff is B.S.
    The best argument I've heard for illegalization is; "Because we can." All the other stuff is B.S. (made up a word for affect) Aside from that, do you think that the medicinal uses that mj has are B.S.? Do you not think that it's BS that the US is spending BILLIONS of dollars each and every year to fight a drug "war" that it clearly will never win? Do you not think it's BS that a mandatory minimum sentence would apply to you too if you were riding in a car with someone who had 2 pounds of pot and you didnt know? Do you not think it's BS that it is still illegal to grow a cleaner, cheaper to make synthetic product and source of energy that cannot even be confused with pot to someone who has any clue what they're looking at (hemp) only b/c it is a cannibus plant? If you think all this is BS, sir, clearly your bull has some very interesting sh*t.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#32)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    To better make my point, when you read the number of people arrested, how are you defining "Arrest?"
    Does it matter? The point is that people are being punished more and more...And they say that crime is going down? Is possession a crime? Is it not a crime? If it's not a crime, then why are people being punished for it? How about the federal mand. minimums? "You have X amount of grams of mj, you go to prison for at least 2 years....But it's not a crime. We need to keep our crime stats down."

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    No, Partick, the 700,000+ number does not include NON-ARRESTIBLE, NON-CRIMINAL "violations" (e.g., "ticketing", fines, under a "decriminalized" regime like NY and some other states where possession of some small amount is a violation). I define arrest the same way you probably do, forcible detention, handcuffing, booking, fingerprinting jail confinement, etc. until released by a judge or magistrate on bail. Having your mug shot for this topping every Google search for the arrest in many states, no matter what the later conviction or fine. A night at Riker's Island or a similar hellhole with drunks and other minor criminals. Losing your eligibility for student aid, public housing, maybe freedom for some time. What do *you* mean by "arrest"?

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#34)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Peace, You sound angry, but it's hard to tell in these threads. What we have here is a failure to communicate (In the immortal words of Jackie Gleason) I was not considering medical marijuana in my arguments about legalization because medical marijuana is already the law in California. But since you asked, I have no problem with the current law in California except that it is used by many people as a shield for their illegal/commercial activities. As for the war on drugs, the 20 Billion the feds spend annually on the "War" on drugs is far less than the amount soceity spends regulating and treating people who abuse legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco. The war on drugs will never be won, that is true, but I've always viewed it as more of a balancing act between the desires of drug users and the needs of society. Many recreational users of a variety of illegal substances are never arrested because they maintain a low profile and basically use responsibly (if you can say that) The vast majority of cases where people are arrested for drug use are the result of problematic use. Of course that's just my 20 some years of experience in dealing with that. But it stands to reason that they have somehow called attention to themselves, and intoxication is probably high on the list of reasons. As for manadatory minimums, I have no problem with the concept, as I feel, and we've demostrated in these threads numerous times, the vast difference in potential penalties for various offenses including drug use in different jurisdictions. I believe every case has different aggravating and mitigating curcumstances, and judges should be able to consider those circumstances within reason. The key is who's reasoning should we use, IMO. As for me getting caught up in a case like you mentioned, that's highly unlikely because of the choices I make, but if a person is innocent, I have faith the system will work more often than not. Hemp, I could care less about hemp. Yes, I believe the distinction between custodial arrests and a simple citation makes a difference. With less stringent marijuana laws in many states, it is expected that more people will use, and with that, more people will get caught. So the increase isn't necessarily and harbinger of harsher enforcement, but may in fact be the result of decriminalization. The criminal stats that were mentioned by the FBI and as noted by Jackl are "Index" crimes, and he/she listed them in her post. Like the stock market, they are not a comprehensive list of all crimes, just a selected few which may show trends. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a complex issue and a few posts in the thread hardly do either side of the issue justice. I believe the legalization of marijuana and other drugs will cause an increase in spending and costs associated care and treatment. I don't use and am not willing to let more of my tax dollars be wasted on people who are needy because of bad choices they made.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#35)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Jackl, Do you have a link that shows those 700,000 arrests were custodial? I have never seen that from anyone other than the pro-legalization lobby. I'm not trying to be snide, I'd like to see it. Legally a citation for a misdemeanor is technically an arrest. But many people do not draw that same distinction because they do not know. When they hear of an arrest they think just like you do, incarceration, booking, fingerprints etc...

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    "Do you have a link that shows those 700,000 arrests were custodial?" Not to pile on here, jackl, but can you answer Patrick's question? I am not here to debate, endlessly and uselessly, the value of our MJ laws, because that debate is endlessly useless - the laws exist whether we like them or not. My only point is that the MPP claim that "there are more MJ arrests (commonly understood as handcuffs, prints, jail, court, etc.) than violent crime arrests" looks like a bunch of hooey. In general, if you, or the MPP, or anyone else, wants to engender public support for a cause, presenting untruthful claims always hurts you with the very folks you are trying to convince - the general public - because someone will always figure out your slight-of-hand. Now, if the claim is factual (ie, custodial arrests), I will be the first to say "wtf. Something doesn't seem right here with our laws and/or enforcement."

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    I will find you the citations. They are definitely custodial arrests for crimes > misdemeanors which can involve >15 days imprisonment or whatever the standard is for misdemeanors vs. violations. The statistics are all from official U.S. DOJ or FBI documents, and based on primary statistics, although they may have been compiled and publicized by an org like TRAC at Syracuse University or MPP, NORML etc. But, even if so, the numbers haven't been spun. These are not "tickets". They are arrests. I don't think that point is even debated...the debate with probibitionist/status-quo apologists has mostly been the "yes, there are arrests but no one 'really' goes to jail for 'just' marijuana possession or small sales. (which is not true, just nameless unlucky poor schmoes and kids needed to meet some cops' or bureaucrats' 'quota' of misery on political enemies). I don't know where I'll post the info (this thread has rotated off the front page and I don't even know how to find it in the archives, so I may cross-post in some related thread soon), but I'll try to find it l8tr when I'm not trying to do work stuff ;-)

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    jakl-to continue the thread you can always look under the TL category "Crime Policy" located under the heading Category Archives on the right side of the main page, and post a new comment.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Thanks, Squeaky! I did kind of know that, but once the thing rotated off the front page, the classification of the article at the top as a "Crime Policy" in the little blue "link" type was lost (AFAIK)... But thanks 2 U, now I know!

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    ..or you can just click "Add" and add the link to this thread to your "Favorites" list on your computer. Or bring it up again on an Open Thread. I look forward to seeing the links to support your contention. This could be interesting...

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#41)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    As for the war on drugs, the 20 Billion the feds spend annually on the "War" on drugs is far less than the amount soceity spends regulating and treating people who abuse legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco.
    You dont see that the same as I do apparently. When I see that, I think "wtf? Why keep pooring money into a system that doesnt work? Obviously we are spending this money twice when it could be spent once. It's not balancing anything. Remember prohibition of alcohol (probably not b/c I doubt any of us are old enough) but history lessons from high school showed us that alcohol prohibition didnt work....at all....and violent crime escalated because of it. It's no different for mj and hard drugs for that matter. Instead of criminalizing these people, why dont we just spend $10 billion more to help with the addicts and save the other $10 billion for something else. (And that's not exactly an argument for legalizing mj as much as it is an argument to not be so stringent with the drug policy.
    As for me getting caught up in a case like you mentioned, that's highly unlikely because of the choices I make, but if a person is innocent, I have faith the system will work more often than not.
    Right. Highly unlikely but extremely possible. Let's say...for argument's sake, that you were on the side of the road with a broken down vehicle and something urgent was about to happen that you really didnt want to/could not miss (for example a wedding, family member hospitalized, wife having a baby, etc.) and a good samaritan picks you up, offering to take you where you need to go. You let him know it's an emergency, he speeds and gets stopped. The cop that stops y'all has a k-9 officer with him, (It has happened before). The k-9 smells out 2 pounds of pot kept in various places in the car, including underneath the passenger seat in which you are sitting. Guilty by association right? Mandatory minimum for both of you. And say some of the pot is in little baggies ready to sell. That's intent and you're guilty by association if you cant prove that you have nothing to do with it. But let's say that you do convince a judge that you're completely innocent. You've still missed whatever it was that was an emergency and important enough for you to take a ride with a stranger in the first place, which could cost you your job, wife, girlfriend, whatever the situation, all because of a war on drugs, which by the way turns out to be a war of the govt against its own people. Somehow I didnt think you would care about hemp, but if used it would cut back on toxic emissions tremendously. If you would like I could give you a link that would give you stats on how much hemp could help the environment, but as you said before, you could care less about hemp (and thus the environment as well).
    I was not considering medical marijuana in my arguments about legalization because medical marijuana is already the law in California. But since you asked, I have no problem with the current law in California except that it is used by many people as a shield for their illegal/commercial activities.
    Sounds like CA is a lot less rediculous about its drug policy than my home state of Texas <-- thank you Mr. Obvious, huh? :) But good ole conservative Texas will be the last to loosen up on its drug policies b/c of the bs that has been taught to Americans about pot use for years and years...the same bs that you apparently still take hook line and sinker.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#42)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    (d**n, got cut off) Sounds like CA is a lot less rediculous about its drug policy than my home state of Texas <-- thank you mr. obvious huh? But the old conservative state of Texas will be the last to change it's treatment of drug laws b/c people there still believe the lies that the American people were taught about mj for the last 100 or so years, and these are the same lies that you probably take hook line and sinker as well.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#43)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    excuse the last comment. I guess it wont let me post a 17 billion word comment :) and cuts me off before I'm finished....Ross Perot style

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#44)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Peace, I think we see it alot more alike that anyone cares to admit. $20 billion sounds like a lot, but then you have to consider that illegal drugs account for less than 1% of all accidental deaths. Alcohol, a legal drug is up in the high percentages, (I once had the exact figures, and don't want to be called a liar) but IIRC it's somewhere in the high 60's, low 70's. I believe part of the reason for the low death totals associated with illegal drugs is prohibtion. Would you agree that some people do not use drugs because they are illegal? If you do, and I think that's a likely scenario, then you undertsand that more people will use drugs, including marijuana, if they are legalized for recreational use. That cannot lead to anything good. Alcohol prohibition is not the same as drug prohibition, no matter how you slice it. Alcohol use was much more widely used and accepted than marijuana or any other now illegal drug. The vast majority of our laws are prohibitive. Do you lump all of those together as well? I understand that people should be free to do what they want, and in a perfect world there would be no need for cops, wouldn't that be nice? But we're stuck here trying to balance desires of one with needs of many, and I think the balance is pretty good. As for me getting into that scenario, I would assume some basic investigation would prove that I was telling the truth, ie my broken down car on the road, etc.... Cops are, for the most part, not idiots, and do, do what's right. P.S. 2 pounds of pot won't get me much in California. See, I could just claim it was medical, not be arrested and never see a day in jail, even if it wasn't medical. A hundred pounds and I might see felony probation. I would expect to be able to smell that much without the benefit of a K-9, and wouldn't accept the ride.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#45)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    2 pounds of pot won't get me much in California. See, I could just claim it was medical, not be arrested and never see a day in jail, even if it wasn't medical. A hundred pounds and I might see felony probation.
    Well let's say you were in Texas.... just kidding....I think you get my point tho.
    Alcohol prohibition is not the same as drug prohibition, no matter how you slice it. Alcohol use was much more widely used and accepted than marijuana or any other now illegal drug.
    I dont have any numbers, but from what I see every day, I think including recreational users, addicts, medical users (all 3 of them), the number of mj users will come pretty close to the same number of people who drink alcohol (a much more dangerous substance btw). Alcohol is only more accepted b/c the govt did not feed its people a load of crap about it like they did mj.
    but then you have to consider that illegal drugs account for less than 1% of all accidental deaths.
    How many murders can be attributed to the attainment of drugs or the organized crime associated with drugs. I would argue that if drugs were legal, these numbers would drop temendously.
    Do you lump all of those together as well?
    Not all of them, but a WHOLE lot of them are rediculous, (esp in Texas).
    Cops are, for the most part, not idiots, and do, do what's right.
    Well..........I dont know.........
    I think we see it alot more alike that anyone cares to admit.
    AAAAHHHHHHH!!!!! :)

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    peace, "I dont have any numbers, but from what I see every day, I think including recreational users, addicts, medical users (all 3 of them), the number of mj users will come pretty close to the same number of people who drink alcohol (a much more dangerous substance btw)." No offense, but I think you are very, very, mistaken if you really believe that what you "see every day" can be extrapolated to our society as a whole.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#47)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Peace, Yeah, I get your point, and I've tried to allow that many states are different than California when I read what people are saying about legalization. There's a thred somewhere around here about cultivation is California and how it's out of control. I think that is the result of decriminaization. From what I understand, neither alcohol, nor marijuana are good for you...Except the medical glass of wine and brandy...and I guess medical MJ...Then again, trans fats aren't good for you either. What I'm trying to say is, there has to be alince somewhere....Anarchy is no solution. I think it's good where it is.
    How many murders can be attributed to the attainment of drugs or the organized crime associated with drugs. I would argue that if drugs were legal, these numbers would drop temendously.
    Again, don't know the actual numbers, but IIRC correctly, domestic homicide was numero uno. I think we should outlaw marriage!! ;-)

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#48)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    I think we should outlaw marriage!!
    HAH, Good idea! I'm not talking about anarchy. I'm talking about spending billions of dollars every year on a "war on drugs" that is never going to do anything but criminalize people who otherwise are law abiding citizens. I'm also not saying that all drugs should be legal either, b/c i'm not sure they all should. However, I just think that the way our govt treats mj is quite redicuculous. MJ when smoked is bad for your lungs, esophogus, mouth, etc. due to the smoke. But when it is eaten, there is little proof that it does any harm at all. It is not physically addictive, it produces a short lived high, and studies indicate that it helps with anxiety and depression. I think everyone would agree that the US definately needs to take a collective chill pill. (A chill pill by the way is probably a pot capsule) I guess I just dont see why a substance that is less dangerous to health than a cigarette (and much less dangerous than alcohol) and produces about the same intoxication affect as alcohol should incite a war on drugs or even be illegal for that matter. And i'm not convinced that prohibition cuts down on users much, b/c I went to college. Drugs everywhere. Always. My view is that drug prohibition for our society is a lot like underage drinking is for kids between 18 and 21. It doesnt really stop it, maybe even encourages it b/c people feel cool for doing something not completely accepted by the system. It's like they think they're sticking it to the man (but, you are the man...yeah...so you're sticking it to yourself?....maybe).

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#49)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Peace, Well don't tell anyone cause I'd lose my job as s drug warrior, and probably have to go on welfare with my 8 kids...But there is a legitmate argument to made for the gov't to understand that there is never going to be an end to the war on drugs, and punish people appropriately. I'm not sure I would support the loss of student funding for a simple MJ possession case. Perhaps in those cases, there could be some way to continue the funding if the student were on some sort of academic probation and had to maintain a certain GPA, but I have to admit I'm not all that familiar with some of the non-criminal sanctions that happen to people. Here's my suggestion. Everywhere, less than an ounce of MJ, fine only. You wanna smoke it, be prepared to pay the fine. It never goes up (except of inflation), gets harsher or anything no matter how many times you are caught. Don't want to pay the fine? Work it off at a charity, or other not for profit organization that is agreeable to all parties. Complete that, case closed. Expunged, gone for ever. harder drugs, keep as they are. They don't do anyone any good anyway. Sell drugs same thing, go to jail. People can grow their own weed. If you can't grow it yourself, then I guess you'd better learn or pick another vice.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Why not allow commerce in MJ? Seems to me it would be a very lucrative tax for the government, and might go a long way towards financing the rest of the (apparently unwinnable) WOD.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#51)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Patrick, You are on the same page with NORML! I'll learn to grow if it's a fine only. In Florida, growing even one plant is a felony!

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#52)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Adept, I don't think you can tax it and be consistant. Thats why. And if you read the thread about California pot cultivation just below this one in the crime policy archive you'll have an opportunity to see why. Roger, No I'm not their clear platform is complete unregulated legalization. I've seen them dress it up differently before.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Sure you can tax it. Just treat it like tobacco, except for a potency system of ratings like the proof system for alcohol. RJ Reynolds would probably kill their competition to get the first brands on the market. And you can still enjoy the rest of the WOD, with the added revenue of pot taxes to help fight it. Win/Win.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#54)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Adept, Usually, whether I agree or not, I find your posts well thought out, but I have to take exception to this idea. How can you tax something that anyone can grow? Tobacco is not an easy crop to tend, and even if you did, the processing is much harder than rolling a joint or stuffing a pipe. Read the other thread.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    peace- Evidentially, a recent study shows MJ does not cause cancer and may even lower the risk compared to non-smokers of both MJ and tobacco.
    Marijuana smoking -"even heavy longterm use"- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airwaves, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year's meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society.
    norml

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Patrick- I've read it. I also know that potheads are lazy. It's my understanding that developing and maintaining a high-potency strain of MJ is difficult. Given the choice of investing many hours of labor, or popping down to the 7-11 and dropping $20-$25 on a pack of potent joints (arbitraily arrived out, but comparable to a fifth of decent low-end booze), I'm pretty sure which the majority of casual potheads would choose. Even the hardcore smokers would be sorely tempted, IMO. "It's just too much work...dude."
    Usually, whether I agree or not, I find your posts well thought out
    Patrick, thanks. Right back at you, my good man. ;)

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#57)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Squeaky, There was a similar study about cigarettes too. One would think you were trying to say smoking MJ is not harmful.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Pat-The study, you mention, was funded by the tobacco industry, and obviously crazily corrupted. As there is no corporate big bucks behind MJ right now the study seems pretty clean. It has got to do with the anti-oxidents in MJ. Worth a read. It was certainly surprising as I was sure that any smoking was cancer causing.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Adept, ever grow any doobage? Heck of a lot easier than my wife's roses. And the high-potency seeds are as easy to find as your local high school. Of course, your local Home Depot would probably do a brisk business in baby pot plants as well, so maybe there would be some commercialization. Hey, here's your opportunity, quick, go trademark the brandname "Maui Wowie!"

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#60)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Squeaky, The very last line of that NORML article...
    His [tashkin's] study was funded by the University of California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.


    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#61)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    here's another issue...
    Marijuana users in the study smoked three or four joints daily for 15 years on average, while tobacco smokers in the study smoked 25 cigarettes daily over a period of 20 years, indicating a marked difference in exposure to smoke. "There is a seven-fold difference in the amount of smoke to which marijuana and tobacco smokers are exposed," he said. "It's the quantitative difference in smoke exposure that might explain the difference in the degree of lung injury as assessed by these physiologic indices." Moreover, the phagocytes gathered from the lungs of marijuana smokers do not have the same properties as those gathered from the lungs of tobacco smokers.
    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    SUO- Nope, never tried. Tried it, and was not really impressed. Give me a good bottle of Vino instead anyday. That said, the commercialization is exactly what I'm talking about. Now, stop and think which is more likely: Joe Pothead, already not terribly motivated due to his chemical of choice, has two options: 1) Invest hours of time and effort in growing, harvesting, drying, and whatever else is involved for some MJ they can enjoy at some time in the future or 2) Joe Pothead saying "that's too much trouble dude", and popping down to the 7-11 for some federally taxed, and still relatively cheap, MJ? There is the possiblity of others growing it and selling it outside of the regulatory structure, but that's what revenuers are for, isn't it?

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#63)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    1) Invest hours of time and effort in growing, harvesting, drying, and whatever else is involved for some MJ they can enjoy at some time in the future
    That is not necessarily an accurate assesment of what it would take. I think it would more closely relate to watering a couple of house plants. Once they's mature hang them for a week in the garage and presto... Oh don't forget to invite the neighbors over for a clipping party...Don't want that nasty shake.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#64)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    There is the possiblity of others growing it and selling it outside of the regulatory structure, but that's what revenuers are for, isn't it?
    And as I said they'd have their work cut out for them. I can't even imagine how huge that Gov't agency would have to be in order to be even remotely effective.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    No bigger than the DEA I'm sure, who is charged with the mandate of preventing all illegal drug sales, distribution, and manufacture. Of course people will get around the law. All I'm suggesting is why shouldn't the government profit off those that would take the easier route? As it stands, MJ is a money loser for the US Govt. (i.e. DEA funding, Incarceration costs, etc.) At least with decriminalization and a tobacco/alcohol approach, the govt. gets something out of it other than a hole to throw money down.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Besides, it's really quite easy to brew your own beer or make your own wine. How many people do this as opposed to purchasing it at a store? I'm willing to bet that homebrewing wasn't cutting into the tax revenues from alcohol too much, or the govt. would be trying to make it illegal, IMO. We may just have to agree to disagree.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    A_H Well where is the money going? Do you thing the people on the WOD payroll think it is a money loser? I bet that they form a significant lobby arguing that the money is far from lost. Move that money to the education and health sector (rehab programs), no chance.
    As it stands, MJ is a money loser for the US Govt.
    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Squeaky- I chose my words poorly. I was only trying to point out that right now, MJ policy doesn't provide tax revenue for the govt. It eats it. If handled as Alcohol/Tobacco, It becomes a moneymaker for the Govt. Even if some people grow independently to avoid the taxes, it still is a net gain, as opposed to the current state of affairs. Right now, everyone is going around the law. However, regarding the WOD payroll members, private industries like Lab One, and others certainly do see current MJ policy as a moneymaker. Especially those that profit from the absurd property seizure/forfiture laws surrounding MJ.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    A_H-Your words were chosen well and I understood your point exactly. My point was to change the direction of your comment so as to show that legal MJ has a long road ahead of it. Fantasy money has few lobbies (MJ tax), WOD money keeps a lot of people employed. They would be mighty angry if they lost their jobs. Legalizing MJ would hurt the economy as a whole. In other words the WOD is big business and has nothing to do with drugs per- se.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Patrick said:
    Alcohol, a legal drug is up in the high percentages, (I once had the exact figures, and don't want to be called a liar) but IIRC it's somewhere in the high 60's, low 70's. I believe part of the reason for the low death totals associated with illegal drugs is prohibtion. Would you agree that some people do not use drugs because they are illegal? If you do, and I think that's a likely scenario, then you undertsand that more people will use drugs, including marijuana, if they are legalized for recreational use. That cannot lead to anything good.
    I think you give prohibition laws too much credit in reducing supposed harm from marijuana. In fact, the laws are highly ineffective in keeping pot out of the hands of those who would want to smoke it or discouraging them from doing so. Although this may just seem like unsupported faith on my part, it actually has been subject to some academic study. Here is a study by professors Craig Reinarman and Peter Cohen comparing marijuana use in San Francisco, where pot smoking is illegal, with that in Holland, where it is quasi-legal (and finding no significant differences in actual habits, based on the sanctions and discouragement "messages" provided by criminal laws). In point of fact, the law doesn't really influence people's behavior. It just means a lot of poor shmoes end up being in the wrong place at the wrong time with a cop going through their ashtray looking for roaches during a traffic stop. I also don't know how having at least half the population hating and fearing cops instead of looking to them for protection is a good thing. I sense with these "stop snitching" T-shirts and jury nullification in some towns that have been pushing this "zero tolerance", "it's the law" type of stuff (e.g., DA Capeless in Great Barrington, MA) that the cops and law enforcement are losing the battle for hearts and minds on this issue). As to my earlier discussion with Patrick and Sarcastic about whether the 700,000+ "arrests" were real-to-life criminal arrests, not "tickets", with fingerprinting, booking and the like, I found the original study I was referencing, which, BTW, was the study referred to in the May 2005 WaPo article I linked to above in the thread. The study was prepared by The Sentencing Project and is titled "The War on Marijuana: The Transformation of the War on Drugs in the 1990s" by Ryan S. King and Marc Mauer. The report doesn't define "arrest", but it's pretty clear from the overall context of the report that they are talking about ALL ARRESTIBLE CRIMINAL OFFENSES resulting in arrest, INCLUDING the most serious FBI index crimes, and the proportion of of those total criminal arrests that relate to marijuana sales and possession. I think if you read this report, you will see that the 700,000+ number is just that MARIJUANA ARRESTS, as everyone understands the word "arrest". The report also raises the issues I cited, how this one category of arrest and criminal justice system intervention is soaring while, paradoxically, more rates for more serious crime is falling and at relative lows. Lastly, the report also disproves the contention that the arrests are benign, that "no one really goes to prison for (just) marijuana" and that serious and counterproductive sanctions are not imposed on people and society generally on account of these sorry laws. And Adept et al, if you want to see how legalization/regulation would work, go to Holland. Coffeeshops don't sell to kids, don't advertise and abide by strict licensing regulation. If you want to pay a reasonable amount for some great pot, you can get it for ~6 euros/gram and can get 5 grams in one sale (enough to get get high a bunch of times). The government gets some tax cut on that. If you're cheap, or you have a green thumb or are a conisseur (like home brewing beer or winemaking) you can grow it yourself for less or about the same if you use lights, hydroponics, etc. In other words, it's not a big problem where it's quasi-legal, like Holland (despite what you read from the drug czar). All of this handwringing about "how it would ever work" if pot is legal is totally wasted mental energy. Go to Amersterdam, check out one of the nicer coffeeshops out of the touristy district like the Tweete Kamer or the Dampfkring and you'll see what I mean.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    Jakl-From my experience and the Dutch are not big pot smokers, they are just tolerant of others who want to get high. Most of the 'coffee shop' patrons are not locals, but tourists.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#72)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    Jackl, That was quite a bit of reading, sorry it took so long to get back to, and I admit I didn't finish completely the King/Mauer study. But What I did glean from it is that there is an argument to be made for the approach MYC took. They decided to go after "quality of life" crimes in an attempt to reduce major crimes as defined in the UCR. The end result, arrests (Including citations) for minor offenses did result in a decrease in major crime, causation or correlation? Anyway, it's all in how you interpret the data, and smarter people than me disagree on what it means. I still believe the 700,000 number includes all arrests including citations, since a citation in this case is technically an arrest. In reading it, it was something like 33% of the 6% of people who were convicted of marijuana felonies went to prison. What is 1/3rd of 6%? You'll get no argument from me that simple possession should not result in a prison sentence, but there are certainly a number of people who go beyond simple possession who deserve what they get. This study does not draw that distinction. At least what I read of it. If I missed it, please enlighten me.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    Just for the record, making good beer at home requires much more time and money than growing good pot. Making good wine at home is much more difficult than home beer, can almost require a second mortgage and, especially now during crush/ferment season, can almost be a second, full-time, job. Growing good pot is less expensive and takes less time than my wife's roses, i.e., much less time than keeping the lawn green and mowed. And in the US, growing stuff is a passion shared by many millions. You really can't compare making home beer and wine to growing pot at home.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    sarc-you can compare the two if you are growing hydroponic weed.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    Patrick, I think most folks who have looked at the question of Bratton/Guilani style "broken windows" policing have concuded contra the theory you posited that the overall rates of crime declined because of vigorous enforcement of minor crimes, like pot possession, begging, etc. Why do they say that? Simply because major crime fell uniformly everywhere, and only in some places like NYC and LA was "broken windows"/"zero tolerance" policing all the rage (especially when John Q. Wilson and other conservative social critics promoting the policy were still hyperventalating throughout the Clinton years about "superpredator youth gangs" that were supposedly massing). Indeed, even more conventional programs such as (100,000) COPS (on the streets) have had little impact. As the GAO reported several days ago:
    The federal Community Oriented Policing Services program (COPS) started by President Bill Clinton had only a small impact on the crime deline the nation experienced in the 1990s, says the federal Government Accountability Office, the congressional watchdog agency. In an extensive review of the program, GAO concluded that "factors other than COPS funds accounted for the majority of the decline in crime." Between 1993 and 2000, crime fell by 26 percent. About 1.3 percent of the drop was due to COPS, the GAO estimated.
    Full report here. The reason for the crime rate fall, probably, demographics (see also, Freakenomics "abortion" theories). Not because of turning cities into armed camps where people have to get rousted by the cops in many neighborhoods and on the highways as they go about their daily business in the land of the supposedly "free". Couple of other responses: Yeah, Squeeky, you're right...the Dutch are not big pot smokers themselves (as big as we are here) and probably the "forbidden fruit" daring, anti-authoritarian nature of that enjoyment as folk protest is absent in Holland. There, it's mostly a kid thing you grow out of, and perhaps for the older Dutch, a tourist thing, kind of tacky. Although there are some serious Dutch pot conuisseur heads of all ages too, that's for sure. The coffeeshops aren't all filled with Americans and other tourists. But the Dutch also have something that at least 51% of the American population lacks, an attitude called "gedogen", which is kind of a "live and let live" tolerance, rather than 51+% of the population always looking to declare something sinful and illegal and cram it down on the other 49% using cops and prisons as their subtle social engineering strategies. But that just goes to prove the point that the laws themselves, whether massively prohibitory like here or basically legal make any difference in behavior, if anything, it's the places where its ILLEGAL that people use more. So that should tell the supporters of these prohibition laws that they produce exactly the opposite effect as intended. And to Sarcastic and Squeeky: I don't get why beer brewing and wine making don't compare to pot growing. I think they're quite similar, and which one requires the greatest skill and effort is really beside the point, really. My experience sampling the homemade efforts of all three intoxicants lead me to believe a fair amount of effort and care is needed to get decent results which are OK but that like most things, some are better than others and the sky is the limit for what you can do if you want to make a "blue ribbon" "best of breed" wine, beer or cannabis bud. Yes, a lot of homegrown weed is barely tolerable compared to commercial, but some of it is valued fairly on the open market we pray to daily for more than its weight in gold, literally, so go figgure...if that was your point in making comparisons. Forget comparisons. Think analogies. Alchohol is far from a "harmless" drug, and it was once prohibited, now it's fairly tightly regulated. It's sold in stores to keep it out of the hands of minors (as compared to the anything goes black market). Its manufacture and distribution is regulated and it is heavily taxed. Yet still, most people buy their wine, beer and booze from commercial sources AND IT'S NOT CONSIDERED EITHER A SOCIAL (criminal) PROBLEM OR A TAX AVOIDANCE PROBLEM to allow folks to informally brew or vint their own, without problems. Only the moonshiners are still inconvenienced by the law, for some reason.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    Patrick: On an earlier point, we were talking about "citations" vs. "arrests". I still think you cannot make that argument. An arrest implies at least a misdemeanor charge, not a violation punishible for up to 15 days in jail, for which a jail sentence from 15 days up to 1 year can be meted out. A felony charge is, of course, even weightier, defined as something which can result in a charge of >1 yr in state or federal prison, not local jails). Misdemeanors and felonies are crimes. Violations (punishable by very short jail time or fines) are not. If you are charged with a misdemeanor level crime and above (other than traffic/DWI), you have to go through the arrest and booking process, just like any other crime. The misdemeanor is also the "crime" you have to say "yes" to on job applications, etc., not a violation. Again, the use of the word "arrest" in the article strongly implies that the defendants were charged with crimes of at least misdemeanor level. The comparison was not to "all marijuana arrests and infraction tickets". it was to marijuana arrests, for which jail time up to a year could have been imposed. And in other states not like NY (NV or TX) for instance, there is no "ticket" for personal use possession: ANY amount is a felony! Maybe the word "arrest" is confusing, but let's consider another example. If I say Tom DeLay is being arrested today for a misdemeanor and will stand trial", maybe he can surrender voluntarily, avoid a televised "perp walk", cover his handcuffs with a raincoat, or avoid the "roach motel" overnight jail stay of most small-time drug defendants (see Roach Motel article i posted previously). You can, in other words, be indicted or the subject of a prosecutors' "information" on a misdemeanor charge and get turn yourself in voluntarily to be fingerprinted and booked just like every other criminal in the criminal justice system, and avoid a nasty cop, overtight handcuffs, a miserable night or weekend in jail and a perp walk, but it's still an "arrest" for a "crime" in my book. Claiming otherwise, Patrick, is just a semantic quibble.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    Jackl, my only point was that from my experience the difficulty and expense of making good beer/wine is far, far in excess of that of growing good weed. This is relevant to the main conversation regarding our guesses as to whether pot would become commercialized if legalized. Some point out that home beer/wine do little to impact commercial beer/wine sales and suggest that pot legalization would have the same results. Others suggest that home beer/wine has little impact on commercial beer/wine because it's very expensive and time consuming to make good beer/wine, and that good pot takes much less time and money and more people would do it at home rather than buying commercially produced weed. We're all specualating, of course, but maybe now you get why the conversation is occuring.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    Yeah, there are a lot of variables, and a big one has to do with how the taxation (and therefore price) levels are set for pot if it's ever decrimmed. The idea that you're going to maintain a $400 oz. price for primo bud and tax 50% of it is probably wrong, because, as Prof. Jeffrey Miron and others who have looked at this have concluded, the prices need to be set realistically if the black market is to go away or submit to regulation and tax. But again, assuming the Dutch example as well as wine and beer assumes that (1) there will still be a market for those who wish the convenience of buying from a commercial source at a reasonable, even high price, for a quality product, if the market allows, and (2) it is not a problem for hobbiests, the "roll your own' thrifty, or conouisseurs to homebrew with little reason to reglate their activities with criminal or civil laws, taxes or prohibitions. IOW, in a legalized world of the future, you could buy at coffeeshops, drugstores or other regulated licensed outlets or you could grow your own without regulation. Contrary to those who claim the skies would fall and myriad, unfathomable and insurmountable problems would result, too grave to even consider thinking about.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#79)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    Squeaky notes
    WOD money keeps a lot of people employed. They would be mighty angry if they lost their jobs. Legalizing MJ would hurt the economy as a whole. In other words the WOD is big business and has nothing to do with drugs per- se.
    I dont think legalizing mj would hurt the economy necessarily. It adds an industry that did not previously exist. That means new jobs. And if you're talking about regulating who can grow pot and who cant, that keeps the jobs open for the anti drug warriors. Their job roles would just shift slightly from trying to stop the trade and use of mj to trying to regulate who can grow it and who can sell it. The govt money produced from fines of people being arrested/ticketed for pot possession or sales is erased, but taxes on what is sold make up for it. Also, income from liscenses to grow it or sell it can be another source of income for the govt. AND the govt doesnt have to pay to house and feed people who get arrested for possessing bud. AAAAAAND....If you can grow pot, you would probably be able to grow hemp (another plant altogether that has been lumped with pot only b/c it's a cannibus plant). This would create yet another industry: the growth and cultivation of hemp and the production of hemp products. More sales taxes and more products, more companies and more jobs, more revenue from lisence attainment and more jobs stemming from this regulation. I think all this outweighs any job loss that may occur for people who are fighting on the anti drug side of the war on drugs. Also, we would still have those out there trying to keep meth, crack, coke, and other hard drugs off the market. Essentially, I see way more jobs being created than being lost with the legalization of mj.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#80)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    As for the ease of growing it, think about it this way...Apple trees are easy to grow and you only need a few to be able to get as many apples as you want. But realisticly...nobody grows their own apples. Why? b/c the market has reached an equilibrium at which the consumer is willing to buy from another person and the sellers can still make a profit. The same thing would happen if pot were legal. Perhaps if it were too expensive people would grow their own until the price went down to a level that would make it easy and convenient to purchase instead of growing. Also, to be able to grow and cultivate pot, you have to have land. There are many many many US citizens who do not own land and thus could not grow their own. Sure you could grow a few stalks in a little pot with potting soil in the house, but that starts to be troublesome as cannibus plants can grow to be quite large. As an economist, I should also mention that govt regulation could have a lot to do with the supply and thus the price of smokeable pot. The higher the regulation, generally, the higher the price. Also though, the higher the regulation and price, the higher the possibility for a black market to form which sells the pot at a lower price than offered by the stores to whomever, including children. With that in mind, that's what we have now, pot prices that are probably near the highest level they could be, sold in the black market to kids and whomever b/c there is no regulation of these people selling the pot. And we have the war on drugs to thank for our pot being sold to kids. With the right amount of regulation, we could have pot prices at equilibrium, sold only in stores, which can be regulated to not allow minors to purchase pot, and a situation for pot that is very similar to the situation we have for alcohol.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#81)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    jackl, I hear what you are saying, but in california, where it is legal to grow (Up to 100 plants in some jurisdictions and a minumum of 6 mature plants statewide), legal to sell (Cannabis clubs), legal to possess (prop 215), the circumstances you are claiming will exist, do not. Here's a recent thread from TL's own archives which indicates the likely results will be more on line with my predictions. I don't know how to better illustrate it than with the real live circumstances that will likely develop. As you said, the rest is pure speculations, except in California where we have a model for the reformers, and it is not working.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    I remember that thread, Patrick, I commented on it as well. While I'll agree California is somewhat more "iiberal" about pot than some other (mostly "red" states), it's hardly the example of "legalization" that you cite. As I think you know, Prop 215 is for medical marijuana use, despite the presumption of prohibitionists that medical use is a fraud and excuse for people who really just want to get high or legalize all drugs or even murder (to cite a frequent criticism). And while some in California want to tug on Superman's cape and assert "states rights" to local drug control laws, you are aware of the Gonzales v. Raich case that said from the fed's perspective, there is no "legal" marijuana in California or the other 12 states whos citizens dared to differ. Try aruging pot is legal in Cali to Tommy Chong, or Peter McWilliams or Brian Epis or others who have seen the inside of federal prison recently based on misjudging the legal situation as you did. And, again, the growing of pot in the National Forests or other public or parklands shows that pot cultivation is ILLEGAL not legal, since the people causing the problems you cite on the other thread are believed to be violent Mexican mafia-type gangs. If pot were legal, it wouldn't be hugely profitable and dangerous enough only to be grown by criminals in the surreptitious, problematic way it is. Again, if you want to make a fair comparison, you have to consider California in the "illegal" category and compare it to something more "legal". As I said earlier, a good comparison is the one the CEDRO professors used: San Francisco (illegal) and Amsterdam (legal). Or even San Fran today and the way it was 30 years ago before all this drug war crap started when it really was just notionally illegal the way you still seem to think it is. And, despite the propaganda of drug czars and similar Chicken Littles, it's pretty clear that the Dutch drug policy does work pretty well and a damn sight better than American-style prohibtion. See, e.g., this.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#83)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:13 PM EST
    Jackl, Well, once again this is an issue where we will apparently not reach a consensus. Despite some federal prosections which may or may not be justified, depending on your point of view, marijuana is essentially legal in California. I personally know a Dr who gives a money back guarantee that you will get a recommendation as required by prop 215 for a small fee of $175. Hmmmm, guarantee? Sounds fishy to me. His office is a dilapidated piece of junk. The only piece of equipment newer than circa 1970 is the nice new high tech credit card machine. Also, California courts will, and have, allowed persons charged with marijuana crimes to present "evidence" of medical use after cases have been filed, where no such evidence even existed at the time of their arrest. Yes, they got a recommendation after the fact. Despite your obvious negative labeling of prohibitionist, many people in California know and live with the fact that legitmate medical use is frequently overshadowed by people using the law as a shield to use recreationally. I read recently in High Times where a California grower was arrested for something like 60,000 marijuana plants, claiming it was medical use. When that didn't work, suddenly it was a religious freedom defense. California allows, as a bare minimum, 12 immature plants, or 6 mature plants, AND 8 ounces of processed marijuana (Bud) per person per medical recommendation. Those amounts can be raised in any given county, or jusrisdiction, but cannot be lowered. That's California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7. Now with that and a guaranteed recommendation, how can you argue that it is still illegal in California? I do not know where you are posting from, but your understanding of the legal situation in California is far from accurate, IMO. This has been an interesting and enlightening thread, but we are not going to agree, and that's OK with me. I have been involved in this for many years, looking at both sides of the argument at length. I believe that eventually marijuana will be completely legalized, despite my beliefs. I won't support it, and will not vote for it, but I believe it's coming. When that happens, I think I will have the opportunity shortly thereafter to say, "I told you so." Or I will have been wrong. Either way, I'll still have my job, life will still go on, and I'll have other dragons to slay. If it's what you want, good luck.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    Patrick: I'm not disagreeing with you that pot enforcement is laxer in Cali than some other places in the U.S., but I don't agree with what most prohibitionists and cops like to believe, that Prop 215 is simply a fraud. Personally, I don't believe that...most people who go to the cannabis dispensaries strike me as genuinely sick people looking for a cure or palliative than hippies faking glaucoma. And "street" pot's not that hard to get without a medical ID and a scrip, so it's not like people have to go to the doctors all of whom you assume are quacks. However, that's certainly only part of the story. Even within Cali, some places are cooler than others. For every San Fran or Oakland or Mendicino where things are cool, there's a Merced or Orange County where things might be not so cool. I'm certain my definition of cool is different than yours Patrick ;-), but I did think it was cool when on one of my last trips to SF, the cabdriver pulled out a big bowl and asked me if i wanted to smoke. ;-) Anyway, it certainly is possible to get busted for pot in Cali, and the DEA and retrograde local cop allies are busy putting their fingers in the dike at great expense, I'm sure. And, ultimately, what's the point? After 30 years, we should be seeing that drugs are not going to go away, and the tough "zero tolerance" enforcement policies aren't working and are just making things worse. AFAIC, every pot bust is a bust for a violent, serious crime that DIDN'T happen. I read of "rape kits" (DNA evidence) sitting for years unanalyzed because the police didn't have time or money to test them or pursue real the real criminals. I can understand why cops would prefer to hassle unarmed 20 year olds who are engaged in no other criminal activities and roust them for pot or other drugs. It's easier and less life threatening to the cop. But such cowardice and self-interest oughtn't to continue to be rewarded. Let's get rid of narcs and put them out on the street solving real, violent crime, not getting poor people to snitch on each other for bad habits which are hurting mostly themselves, if anyone. Lastly, I loath most cops and law enforcement (DAs) for their antidemocratic meddling in those peacefully trying to change the drug laws. The biggest resistance to this change is from organized cop groups and DAs, who gush incorrect propaganda and parades of horribles with no basis. I don't get that. On the one hand, cops like to pose as neutral enforcers of laws ("I didn't make that law, I just enforce it, call your legislators). On the other hand, they are the biggest, most voiceiferous supporters of the status quo. They are always making false associations between "crime" and "drugs", obscuring the fact that most "drug crimes" are really related more to the black market than the myths that (e.g.) smoking pot makes you into a raging lunatic murderer (as it was claimed in 1937 by the gov't when pot was outlawed in the U.S.). (If two drug dealers get into a dispute or someone steals the stash or money, what are you gonna do, call the cops? I don't think so. But this is not a "drug crime" either. Drugs are just another form or property. If someone is robbed of their iPod or wallet, it's not a "money robbery".)

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#85)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:16 PM EST
    most people who go to the cannabis dispensaries strike me as genuinely sick people looking for a cure or palliative than hippies faking glaucoma.
    OK, even if that is totally true, the problem isn't with the dispensaries, that was an example of how to easy it is to get legal marijuana. California's problems are with the explosion of illegal cultivation. Despensaries pose completely different legal issues. Just read the papers from the counties you've mentioned. Every county, including Mendocino has problems with them and has taken steps to abolish or restrict them greatly.
    it's not like people have to go to the doctors all of whom you assume are quacks.
    I never said all Dr's were quacks, not even the one I described, he's just found a niche where he makes a lot of money, and does nothing to medically diagnose the patients. If that makes him a quack by your definition then so be it.
    AFAIC, every pot bust is a bust for a violent, serious crime that DIDN'T happen. I read of "rape kits" (DNA evidence) sitting for years unanalyzed because the police didn't have time or money to test them or pursue real the real criminals.
    Well, nothing could be further from the truth, but if your convinced it happens, then as we say, perception is reality to some.
    On the other hand, they are the biggest, most voiceiferous supporters of the status quo.
    Perhaps because we see, first hand, the devastation to society as a result of drug use, including those that are legal and illegal.
    related more to the black market than the myths that (e.g.) smoking pot makes you into a raging lunatic murderer (as it was claimed in 1937 by the gov't when pot was outlawed in the U.S.).
    Well I wasn't arguing the government's position in 1937. I'm talking about California in the 21st century. As far as the two drug dealers, my agency responds to numerous reports of theft of marijuana, sometimes during the commission of armed robberies. In fact there was an armed home invasion robbery in my jurisdiction within the past week. The target was marijuana. I have no problem with some reform to the system of drug laws. You could say, I would support some changes, but not the outright legalization of marijuana or others. You have a different

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    We may still be the only two people reading and following this thread, but I cannot let the following go unremarked:
    Well, nothing could be further from the truth, but if your convinced it happens, then as we say, perception is reality to some.
    This just makes no sense to me. I assume that law enforcement resources are spent in a productive way. Most of these pot busts came about by application of street and car stops and some surveillance and interdiction of the mj market, some undercover detective resources, helicopter surveillance every summer, buy and bust operations,SWAT teams (orignially to take down armed-hostage guys like Manson etc. etc., now to do penny ante house siege/arrests for a nickel bag of pot), etc. Every one of the busts took a few hours of police time and counted towards an "effectiveness" quota for the PD, however defined. Now, AFAIK, and correct me if I'm wrong, the "closure" rate on many violent or serious crimes like robbery and rape isn't that great, and if you're talking some burglary or car theft or whatever, that's pretty low. I assume police resources are "zero sum", and since the closure rate on these crimes is low, and since there are some places where (because of lab budget or staff/operational problems), turnaround for DNA tests for rape and other crime ID *is* very slow. (And *please* don't use the circular reasoning that "drugs fuel crime" by causing burglaries and robberies or even credit card theft. You can't confuse crimes that arise because of the unregulated, violent black market with crime. There's nothing intrinsic to mj which makes anyone violent or want to do criminal things. As the Sentencing Institute report cited above says, most arrests for mj were mere possession, not sales. But if someone steals money to buy drugs or someone's stash or "contracts" are "enforced" with violence rather than lawyers, that's not "drug crime", AFAIC, anymore than Al Capone was "alcohol crime"...at least they charged Capone with a real crime -- tax evasion -- and not some b.s "violating prohibition" crime. If the black market caused by prohibition went away with legalization/regulation, so would the violent crime. Just like Al Capone being replaced by Anheuser-Busch and Adolph Coors who don't ventilate each others employees with machine guns to compete for market share or settle old scores.) So, to say we still have a difference of opinion, I'm trying to figure out why. We've agreed that LE is pissing away perhaps as much as half its budget on this totally counterproductive frolic and detour, yet you blithely go on to assume it's OK and to argue, I guess, no changes in the status quo are needed. I don't get it. Is is all about job protection or being able to admit that you guys ever get anything wrong or make any mistakes? Tell me how the USA survived like 200 years without arresting 750,000 people/yr for some dumbass crime of political un-correctness in their choice of intoxicants and even as recently as 1970 or 1980 arrested like 10% of the people we did for pot in 2004. Who's doing the social engineering here? Why don't we be conservative rather than radical and just go back to the way things were 30 years ago? Is this progress? Tell me how this morning's story about the skyrocketing number of women in prison, 50% for drug crimes, is a good thing. Please, I'm really interesting in hearing you spin that (or more likely, just hide behind some nebulous blanket "disagreement" or claim I'm doing the spinning or distortion of the facts). Truth hurts.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#94)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    I just stumbled on this site today. I am a Canadian living the last 12 years in Florida. I wasn't sure whether everywhere was clamping down on marijuana or just here. I'm very middle aged & never have seen the problem with the use of mj. I also suffer from hepatitus C along with chronic pain. It slays me to know that the pain medication I receive from my physician is tremendously more addictive than mj. This, combined with the fact that traditional pain medications are poison to my liver leads me to believe that I am much better off smoking pot. My doctor agrees. Big pharmecutical companies would just blow a fuse if mj became legal wouldn't they? Look at all the revenue they would lose Daryl

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#87)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    We've agreed that LE is pissing away perhaps as much as half its budget on this totally counterproductive frolic and detour, yet you blithely go on to assume it's OK and to argue, I guess, no changes in the status quo are needed.
    We have? I certainly don't feel that way and if you've garnered that from my comments, then you are misunderstanding them.
    Tell me how this morning's story about the skyrocketing number of women in prison, 50% for drug crimes,
    I don't know, but in looking back at the thread it was 39.1% IIRC not 50%. AFAIC, I'm done discussing this with you. Your tone is starting to show, and there's nothing I'm going to say that is going to convince you otherwise. That much is clear. If you want to label that as hiding behind some nebulous blanket then so be it. I think it's more like understanding the definition of futile. Oh well, potato-potatoe, you win, and can have the last word.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#88)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:20 PM EST
    Patrick, Patrick, Patrick... I'm not looking to have the last word, but before you take your rhetorical ball and go home, I'd like you to clearly answer my very simple questions: (1) whether LE resources, including incarceration, are appropriate for enforcing marijuana prohibition? and (2) if some quantum of LE resources applied to this social problem were not spent on mj "interdiction", whether other laws could be more productively enforced and more serious crimes addressed? What you perceive as my "tone" is the simple exasperation from your beating around the bush for three days to avoid conceding or addressing two points that should be obvious to most people who aren't totally contrary, while implying I'm just full of beans... Or, if you really *do* disagree, tell me (1) how mj enforcement benefits society and is a prudent use of presumbly limited LE resources, or (2) give me some basis for your counterintuitive belief that if mj ceased to be criminalized, LE resources would not be deployed to solve or prevent other crimes (or that LE resources are now fully capable of addressing drug AND "index" crimes. (This would seem to suggest PDs are overstaffed and could use some layoffs, something I wouldn't expect you to advocate).

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#89)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    I have been following this thread from day 1 and threw in a few lines here and there. It seems to me that jackl, myself, and a few others have made various common sense and factual arguments for at least the softening of treatment of mj possession and some pretty darn good arguments for outright legalization. Patrick on the other hand has not given any position on why the status quo is good. He has only danced around the issue and tried to refute the facts and arguments presented to him. I dont understand why it is so hard to convince some people that things are not working when it is rediculously clear that they are not. Questions for Pat (if he ever comes back): Why, if prohibition and manditory minimus keep usage numbers down, do drug related arrests seem to keep rising? How do you differentiate between what substances are legal and illegal, and who's to draw that line? If social acceptance is the answer to the previous question, why has the war on drugs been so persistance even though there are more mj users now than ever? How does your side think the legalization of pot would affect the US economy?...and finally...How much money is too much to poor into a system that doesnt work?

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#90)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    *persistant - not persistance

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#91)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:29 PM EST
    Well, curiostiy got the better of me, and I hate to leave questions unanswered, so against my better judgement,
    (1) whether LE resources, including incarceration, are appropriate for enforcing marijuana prohibition?
    Yes
    (2) if some quantum of LE resources applied to this social problem were not spent on mj "interdiction", whether other laws could be more productively enforced and more serious crimes addressed?
    Since it's really not a zero sum issue, the answer is marijuana enforcement does not detract from other law enforcement duties. My agency funds all of its enforcement with dedicated funds that would not otherwise be present. Equipemt purchased for marijuana enforcement call also assist in other invetigations. MJ investigators assist general crimes investigators depending on the priority of the crime, index crimes being among those with a higher priority than MJ enforcement.
    1) how mj enforcement benefits society and is a prudent use of presumbly limited LE resources,
    I've discussed my beliefs on this issue at length in other threads and won't waste your time with all of it, but I believe it keeps the social costs in check. Society spends billions on health and treatment related costs just on alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs, that many claim are as or more harmful than marijuana. Making another substance legal will, in my opinion increase those costs which are mainly a burden to the taxpayer. The gov't gets enough of my money in taxes already.
    (2) give me some basis for your counterintuitive belief that if mj ceased to be criminalized, LE resources would not be deployed to solve or prevent other crimes
    If Mj were legalized, those who enforce would stop doing that, could some departments lay off people, I would think that in some circumstances it could happen, but probabaly wouldn't. There would be an increase in costs and staff to whatever government agency would be charged with regulating it, like ABC or ATF and whatever state agency as well. PD's would then either find other job specific funding for the people who were doing MJ enforcement or absorb the loss of MJ funding with general fund money. Peace,
    Why, if prohibition and manditory minimus keep usage numbers down, do drug related arrests seem to keep rising?
    Let me limit my comments to marijuana. And preface my remarks with the fact that I beleive it is far more complex that can be covered here, but I think relaxing marijauana laws and marijuana being viewed as more socially acceptable are the two big reasons for the increase. People are far more likely to be less secretive about what they are doing when the "Benefit outweighs the risk."
    How do you differentiate between what substances are legal and illegal, and who's to draw that line? If social acceptance is the answer to the previous question, why has the war on drugs been so persistance even though there are more mj users now than ever?
    Well, it is my belief that it is based on what is socially acceptable, and despite increased number of marijuana users, they are still far in the minority. As with most issues, who draws the line? It's fair questions, and only by chance am I on this side of it. Society changes back and forth and we'll all see changes that we agree with and disagree with. It's the nature of the beast.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    Patrick, I didn't ask for an bald, one word affirmation of your faith that mj enforcement is worthwhile. I asked for REASONS WHY harsh criminal enforcement is appropriate for that. Your attempt at supposed candor utterly fails. I am left still believing that the only agenda which is supported by mj enforcement is simply LE demanding blind bootlicking to their illegitimate authority and lording it over the rest of us as long as you can. "Because I said so". Appropriate for disciplining your kids, not for a free people. And BTW, if you're arguing that mj enforcement "costs nothing" because of a dedicated funding source, I have a bridge you may be interested in. And STEALING money to fund your pathetic fascistic programs by ASSET FORFEITURE DOESN'T COUNT. That's THEFT. Conservatives used to froth at the mouth when socialists and communists wanted to do redistributive stuff from "enemies of the people". Hey, here's another report that doesn't agree with you released today that says a SMART on crime approach makes more sense than your BRAIN DEAD WAR ON DRUGS. Have a nice day and enjoy the gravy train while you can. Your days are ending if you can't do a better job of articulating ANY reasonable argument (Hint: if you were willing to be more flexible and realistic intead of wanting to be 100% Nancy Reagan about this, you could prolong the regime. But as long as marijuana = heroin = reefer madness = terrorism, you're going to lose most people,,,including a lot to meth). I guess some people (most cops?) can't see the forest for the trees.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#93)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    I didn't ask for an bald, one word affirmation of your faith that mj enforcement is worthwhile. I asked for REASONS WHY harsh criminal enforcement is appropriate for that.
    Like I said, against my better judgment, and I'm losing patience with you. Show me where I have called for harsh criminal enforcement. In this very thread I took a position of decriminalization. If you lack the very basic ability to effectively digest what you're reading without invoking your own prejudices, then there is nothing I, or anyone will be able to do to communicate opposing ideas to you. I've refrained from name calling, when you've called me brain dead, and other names, You're not worth my time.

    Re: Marijuana Arrests Reach New High (none / 0) (#95)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:46 PM EST
    Hey patrick, just a quibble, but What we have here is a failure to communicate (In the immortal words of Jackie Gleason) is Strother Martin in Cool Hand Luke. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

    Marijuana Arrests Reach New High | 95 comments (95 topical)