http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Jacobs_Mindelle/2005/08/06/1161331.html

Quote :

"Also, a U.S. report released in May noted that the war on drugs has become a "war on marijuana." Pot arrests in the U.S. increased by 113% between 1990 and 2002 while non-marijuana arrests rose by only 10%, the study by the Sentencing Project found. The U.S. spends $4 billion a year arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating marijuana offenders. As for pot, the price has dropped, potency has increased and use has gone up. "

why the hell is pot such a big deal to everyone

8/7/2005 3:52:35 AM

Quote :

"According to the U.S. Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, there are between 400,000 and 500,000 people in U.S. jails for drug offences - more than all the prisoners in the European Union. "

Approx. Total Population:
European Union ~ 457,000,000
United States ~ 296,000,000





[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 9:32 AM. Reason : []

8/7/2005 9:28:02 AM

I'm just waiting for hempster's response to this thread.

But I will say this much; the whole "war on drugs" is futile. As long as the government keeps putting a restriction on the supply of marajuana (that is, zero), demand will be high, and that means higher prices. As in, anybody who is in the marajuana business will quickly find themselves making very much $texas. Point is, marajuana is simply too profitable a product for the government to completely try to control it and keep it out. The tighter they squeeze, the more is going to slip between their fingers, so to speak.

As a libertarian, I'd be wary of forwarding this alternative, but I think that one thing the government could do is legalize marajuana, but put a special tax on its sale. That way, all the crime associated with marajuana drops, if not disappear completely, and the government makes a nice bit of money off of the whole thing. Not only that, but you'd see that $4 billion in savings, which could go to other things such as, oh I dunno, social security (which I am of the opinion that it will inevitably flop anyway, but that's for another thread).

[Edited on August 7, 2005 at 10:16 AM. Reason : asdf]

8/7/2005 10:14:00 AM

I am not in favor of legalizing drugs. What I am in favor of is drastically reduced sentences.

For example, POT posession without a prescription should be a $100 fine. Selling to minors or people without prescriptions should be a $5000 fine.

Only if people fail to pay their fines should they face jail time. Harder drugs which kill people should have harsher sentences, to be sure, but much lower than they are currently getting.

For example, a drug offence that doesn't result in death or dismemberment or fraud should never be felony.

People just don't kill people to avoid paying a fine. At the same time it keeps drugs off the streets because of confiscation.

Cost benefit analysis: far more people on drugs, far fewer people in prison.

8/7/2005 11:37:46 AM

I wouldn't mind legalizing marijuana, since according to some stats it's now in greater usage than cigarettes.

But as much as I dislike the huge chunks of $texas spent on the "War on Drugs", I wouldn't go beyond marijuana though. Things like meth need to be targeted simply b/c of the externalities involved (the huge amounts of toxic by-products in meth creation, no reporting requirements when people go to buy a house that used to be a meth lab, etc)

8/7/2005 12:23:14 PM

Quote :

"Cost benefit analysis: far more people on drugs, far fewer people in prison."

far more people on drugs is a good thing?

8/7/2005 12:28:45 PM

Quote :

"Things like meth need to be targeted simply b/c of the externalities involved (the huge amounts of toxic by-products in meth creation, no reporting requirements when people go to buy a house that used to be a meth lab, etc)"

I think you're missing the point here. The only reason meth is made in labs in people's homes is because of the War on Drugs. It used to be distributed in pill form "under the table" by licensed physicians, until the government decided to "crack down" on it.

That's like saying that we should exclude cocaine because of all the planes shot down over Columbia. Well, if cocaine were legal, would we need to shoot down planes?

Honestly any end to the War on Drugs should be based on the (rational, logical, easy to comprehend) principle that barring drugs per se to prevent irresponsibility is stupid, just like barring handguns to prevent murder is (which everyone on teh right seems to understand is stupid, but can't follow through their own logic).

8/7/2005 1:37:19 PM

let's use some basic rules of fee enterprise

if meth is legal, I'll just start manufacturing it in my home and then undercut the large distributors in my area.

8/7/2005 1:42:50 PM

^makes a point. If pot were legal but heavily taxed, I could just grow it in my backyard. Of course most people don't grow their own tobacco just because cigarettes are taxed heavy, but it could happen.

8/7/2005 4:17:22 PM

growing tobacco and curing it and shit like that is harder than growing pot and processing it.

8/7/2005 4:20:44 PM

Smoker's basically right, I'd say. My thing is that harder drugs, solely by virtue of their use, turn people into threats to society, not that the processes of creating and distributing contraband are dangerous.

8/7/2005 4:23:51 PM

If it makes them threats, then they will commit a crime against society and end up in prison. Which, BTW, is the exact same result of making drugs themselves illegal, the individual in question ends up in prison.

8/7/2005 4:48:42 PM

far more people on drugs is a good thing?

8/7/2005 4:49:41 PM

its not like they are focusing on pot....they dont have to.

How many of you people know someone else that smokes pot. I could think of at least 10 without thinking about it that I know or have known personally.

Now, if I go back, I only have known personally two people that have done cocaine. None that have done heroine, 2 that have done x.

Its just more abundant

8/7/2005 4:52:24 PM

Quote :

"far more people on drugs is a good thing?"

insofar as it gets them out of prison, yes it is a good thing.

I supose you would prefer a "lesser evil"

8/7/2005 5:25:59 PM

Quote :

"if meth is legal, I'll just start manufacturing it in my home and then undercut the large distributors in my area."

This is a basic rule of free enterprise? Volume distributors with buying power are "undercut" by individuals?

I bet you make your own vacuum cleaners instead of buying them at Wal-Mart, don't you?

8/7/2005 7:17:37 PM

Quote :

"My thing is that harder drugs, solely by virtue of their use, turn people into threats to society"

Yes, but the illegal users are more dangerous than the legal users because of the black market. The operative question--ignoring pure ideology--is whether it's better to have 1000 legal users who are, presumably, "threats" by virtue of their use, versus 100 illegal users who steal and pillage to sustain their habits.

WFB had a nice discourse on the subject:

Quote :

"This is perhaps the moment to note that the pharmaceutical cost of cocaine and heroin is approximately 2 per cent of the street price of those drugs. Since a cocaine addict can spend as much as $1,000 per week to sustain his habit, he would need to come up with that $1,000. The approximate fencing cost of stolen goods is 80 per cent, so that to come up with $1,000 can require stealing $5,000 worth of jewels, cars, whatever. We can see that at free-market rates, $20 per week would provide the addict with the cocaine which, in this wartime drug situation, requires of him $1,000. My mind turned, then, to auxiliary expenses -- auxiliary pains, if you wish. The crime rate, whatever one made of its modest curtsy last year toward diminution, continues its secular rise. Serious crime is 480 per cent higher than in 1965. The correlation is not absolute, but it is suggestive: crime is reduced by the number of available enforcers of law and order, namely policemen. The heralded new crime legislation, passed last year and acclaimed by President Clinton, provides for 100,000 extra policemen, even if only for a limited amount of time. But 400,000 policemen would be freed to pursue criminals engaged in activity other than the sale and distribution of drugs if such sale and distribution, at a price at which there was no profit, were to be done by, say, a federal drugstore."

("The War on Drugs is Lost", in the National Review at http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html)

8/7/2005 7:35:46 PM

^^ point

8/7/2005 7:50:39 PM

rjrumfel makes a good point. Us potheads are low-hanging fruits, mostly because we don't feel we're doing anything wrong, which leaves us a little ballsier when it comes to buying and consuming marijuana.

8/7/2005 10:56:13 PM

Quote :

"Cost benefit analysis: far more people on drugs, far fewer people in prison"

Quote :

"far more people on drugs is a good thing?"

explanation of the above cost benefit analysis to the retarded:

Cost = far more people on drugs

Benefit = far fewer people in prison

8/7/2005 11:56:19 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but the illegal users are more dangerous than the legal users because of the black market. The operative question--ignoring pure ideology--is whether it's better to have 1000 legal users who are, presumably, "threats" by virtue of their use, versus 100 illegal users who steal and pillage to sustain their habits."

Ultimately, if the only choices were "status quo" and "total legalization," I might agree with you. But those aren't the only choices. We legalize those things that aren't particularly threatening to society -- namely, pot, which doesn't make people prone to violence, accidents, or poverty. Everything else we start going after like we have a brain in our collective head. The legalization of crack is not a "good" thing, it's just a potentially "lesser evil" than the status quo. The eradication of crack, however, is a good thing, and it is not so unacheivable as has been suggested.

I have yet to see any good reason why people who deal or traffic in hard drugs should not be executed. They have a high recidivism rate and are motivated primarily by greed, for which they can be satisfactorily held accountable. Their actions cause untold damage to society. As for the common users, get them help to reduce demand. When demand gets low enough and the price of supplying gets high enough, the problem will become neglible.

8/8/2005 2:53:47 AM

Quote :

"people who deal or traffic in hard drugs should not be executed"

These people are already often under threat of death. The only difference is, instead of you arresting and killing them several years from now, they could be gunned down on their street corner tomorrow. As such, further threat of death most likely would have little impact on their decision making, meanwhile causing extensive social unheaval.

While I admit erradicating crack would be a benefit for humanity, it isn't going to happen. The best solution is one that minimizing trauma to society, not necessarily to every individual.

8/8/2005 8:25:53 AM

the only benefit i see to the war on drugs and expenditures, is the jobs created. you have law enforcement, ADA's, detectives, additional inmate housing, construction to buid those facilities, etc.

if ALL drugs were legalized, would usage increase, or would people who choose to use continue to do so, with a few trying them out of curiosity, and no signifigant increase in usage?

i definitely see the tax/revenue benefit to marijuana being legal, or at least reduced to a fine. there is currently an excise tax for pot, but something like 9 tax stamps have ever been bought in NC.

8/8/2005 8:49:11 AM

Quote :

"I bet you make your own vacuum cleaners instead of buying them at Wal-Mart, don't you?"

producing meth is much easier than making a vacuum.


oh and more people on drugs is not a good thing.

8/8/2005 9:03:51 AM

Quote :

"producing meth is much easier than making a vacuum. "

So what? If meth is easier to make, then it is easier for anyone to make. You can cook it up in giant vats, producing millions of pounds of the stuff a day for pennies an ounce. Or, you can go home and make it yourself, expending hours of work for a few ounces.

That is even before we mention that you are paying retail price for your ingredients while "meth. inc." probably makes its own ingredients for a higher quality product.

8/8/2005 10:53:40 AM

Quote :

"These people are already often under threat of death."

I bought, sold, and traded all kinds of hard drugs. I was never once under the threat of death. I never once met anyone who had a gun. YOu can;t believe everything you see in the movies. A lot of drug users are not violent.

Quote :

"Or, you can go home and make it yourself, expending hours of work for a few ounces."

And possibly blow your house up.

8/8/2005 11:36:43 AM

Anyone who has made meth in their house knows it isn't fun.

8/9/2005 12:28:32 AM

Legalizing pot would create a lot of jobs as well...

8/9/2005 1:25:34 PM

why pot is illegal is beyond my comprehension

8/9/2005 1:28:31 PM

Quote :

"its not like they are focusing on pot....they dont have to. How many of you people know someone else that smokes pot. I could think of at least 10 without thinking about it that I know or have known personally. Now, if I go back, I only have known personally two people that have done cocaine. None that have done heroine, 2 that have done x. "

I think you have to take into consideration the social impacts of admitting you have a hard drug addiction. It's still frowned upon when someone says they do hard drugs. Pot seems to be different.

Think about these general stereotypes:

Potheads are usually less intelligent, lazy, and creative. Crimes associated are things like petty larceny and vandalism.

Crackheads are usually poor, with serious mental and/or physical problems. Crimes associated are things like grand larceny, domestic violence, and murder.

Assuming these are the general stereotypes for hardcore drug users and potheads, it's no wonder you cant think of many friends that came out and told you they did x, coke, or heroin.



And I only bring stereotypes up to illustrate society's view on druggies. It's not really how I feel and I am fully aware that they are completely incorrect at times (i.e. Chris Farley was a creative, non murdering coke head).


Someone go ahead and correct me if my general stereotypes are way off.

8/9/2005 1:58:09 PM

i never think of anyone stealing anything to buy pot

8/9/2005 2:01:29 PM

Not so much stealing for the drug money, but stealing in general.



Kind of like the 13 year old that takes candy from Eckerd's for kicks.

8/9/2005 2:05:22 PM

i associate that with "diagnosis:bad babysitting"

8/9/2005 2:07:03 PM

Nobody steals stuff to buy ecstasy either. It's not really a hard drug, it's just for a different scene than sitting around the house watching Tom and Jerry and eating cookie dough.

8/9/2005 2:08:11 PM

Quote :

"no wonder you cant think of many friends that came out and told you they did x, coke, or heroin."

That's true because the few people I can think of who have done those things, it usually comes as a suprise. Pot smokers do tend to be more open about their usage because it's more socially acceptable than crack, heroin, meth....

I know this is a generality and probably not realistic but it would be nice if we could save some on that 4billion in spending and use it to reduce health care costs, or dump it back into the urban communities to help rehabilitate areas that have the worst drug problems.

8/9/2005 2:09:49 PM

Quote :

"i associate that with "diagnosis:bad babysitting" "

haha; fair enough.


The stereotypes I threw out are pretty close to your own ideas of what they would be, though; correct?

8/9/2005 2:14:09 PM

think about all the money they could make by charging a tax on legalized, domestically grown pot.

And the savings in the judicial system, penal system, and law enforcement.

[Edited on August 9, 2005 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ]

8/9/2005 3:50:33 PM