Reefer Madness Hits Colorado’s Toddlers

personally I think we should arrest people for the crimes they commit, not just for drinking.... if you drive recklessly, that is a crime, sober or not

but I my premise is correct, drink or do drugs responsibly and you should not be harassed by the cops... it's sad that cops are forced to be jerks because of prohibitionists

.

 

Even if the drugs were legalized those would still be the same crimes.
I think you mean, distribution without a license. If the drugs are legal, then by definition, possession is not a crime.

 

This "tax dollar" argument is so BS. There are plenty more people with extreme unhealthy eating habits, where they need assistance walking, and to the point of handicap parking. You are already subsidizing bad habits. The other posters have done all the leg work in providing all the facts to counter your argument as a selective issue, and hence, "tax dollars supporting a habit", is plain BS.

 

I wasn't talking about possession. Most drug related crimes are manufacturing, distribution, and trafficking, all of which are steal illegal regardless of whether heroin, meth, cocain, or Marijuanna is legal (except kinda sorta in Oregon)

 

By your logic should tax payers cover a person's gambling addiction? Why would that be different than drug addiction?

Addiction treatments should be non profit and charity based, not government and tax payer funded.

 

Marijuana is about 28%, cocaine about 33%.

Contradiction by definition. If it was legal, it wouldn't be a crime.

 

Wrong!!!!! Just keep making things up.

https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers
According to the ACLU’s original analysis, marijuana arrests now account for over half of all drug arrests in the United States. Of the 8.2 million marijuana arrests between 2001 and 2010, 88% were for simply having marijuana. Nationwide, the arrest data revealed one consistent trend: significant racial bias. Despite roughly equal usage rates, Blacks are 3.73 times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana.

 

I suggest you do a little homework before posting. !!!!!!!!!!

This was one the easiest web searches. If you even try to contest the links, they have .gov on their address, which means, it is tax payer subsidized. I guess your taxes already go to help gamblers.

https://www.oasas.ny.gov/gambling/helpline.cfm
https://medlineplus.gov/compulsivegambling.html
https://healthfinder.gov/FindServices/SearchContext.aspx?topic=337

 

A lifetime first - you are concerned about governmental costs.

What a fraud.

 

That is how you frame it, I frame it as possibly a better way to reduce the harm to society and perhaps save taxpayers money as the ineffectual supply side war on drugs costs many billions of dollars and effectively has made the problem worse rather than better.

When many drug addicts are not working anyway because they are unemployable then what does it matter as they now are supporting their habit through criminal activity and or panhandling? Giving them a place to live, food to eat, drugs, and it will cost less than incarceration and will remove the incentive to commit crimes to support their drug habit. To me it is a far better solution than what we are currently doing because what we are currently doing has failed.

Just because you have rigid thinking on this issue does not make me nor the idea of harm reduction dumb or stupid. FYI, I use to think exactly as you do on this issue untill I came to see that the supply side war on drugs is lost and that there are potentially better ways to combat the problem. What is dumb and stupid is the continuation of a failed policy that is costing us billions.

Plausibly the money saved by changing how we fight drug addiction coupled with taxing the currently illicit drugs will offset the cost of a harm reduction program. I posted to another member a CNN report that estimated through various sources that we can save up to 87 billion a year if we end the failed supply side war on drugs, and I argue if that is true that the money would be better spent on harm reduction.

If you stay focused on the negative you will never see the positive. Harm reduction is not a perfect plan but I argue it is a better solution than spending billions of dollars a year on a failed supply side war on drugs.

What is your solution to the problem if not the maintaining of the status quo?

 

- - - Updated - - -

Outlawing pot isn't exactly an unalloyed good, IMO, as others in this thread have pointed out.

Kids mistaking medicine for candy. This happens with prescription legal meds all the time, and it certainly doesn't seem like an adequate argument for keeping cannabis illegal. I see these types of stories in the press from time to time, and I wonder: How many of these cases of kids ending up in the emergency room involved kids actually dying? The above article says the majority of the cases involved "children later presenting symptoms of 'lethargy' and 'sleepiness.'" It did go on to say, "Some cases were more serious, he added, requiring tracheal intubation to treat coma or respiratory depression." The question in my mind when I read this and other articles like it is, did any of those children actually die?

What does toddlers getting into their parents' medicine have to do with economic activity?

Rush Limbaugh is unemployed? Ted Turner is unemployed? Bill Gates is unemployed?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/18/most-famous-marijuana-users_n_5160073.html

I noticed you mentioned both drug AND alcohol. Do you believe the sale, purchase, possession consumption and overall existence of alcohol should be outlawed as is the case with marijuana?

Maybe you think about this as a right-left issue, but it's really not. There are people on both the right and left of the political spectrum who favor legalization or decriminalization in some form or another. I've mentioned Rush Limbaugh supporting medical marijuana. Gary Johnson, for as long as I've been familiar with him, has supported legalizing MJ, and he's not what I'd call a "leftist". On the other hand, I've never seen anything in Obama's or Hillary's speeches or on her campaign web site that would indicate that either of them are in favor of legalizing marijuana or any other currently illegal drugs.

 

Wow. Mark me down for sex addiction and cocaine.

HOOKERS AND BLOW, BABY! Pay me.

 

Why would you say that? I've objected to unnecessary Govt expenditures on a number of items.

I was decrying Govt deficits when conservatives were trying to sell us that tax cuts increase revenues.

 

I feel your pain. My iPad will sometimes reload the page when I switch between browser tabs making me lose all that I typed.

I am not going to dispute your numbers as I have yet to do a deep dive into the actual numbers. But is the money all that matters? If we spent the money on harm reduction and saw a decline in crime, lower levels of incarceration, and more people taking advantage of recovery programs and reintegrating into society and the work place, would that be worth the cost?

To me throwing in the towl means surrendering, and to me a harm reduction program is not surrendering, it is a continuation of the fight using a new tactic.

So you value money over life? I hope you are simply speaking out of frustration. I use to be an addict and I am so glad that the social norm is not to kill addicts as I have been a law abiding citizen and turned my back on my old ways in the 80's. I have worked, raised a daughter and done many of the normal things that good people do.

You and I define reward in a different way. I am not talking about a reward, I am talking about harm reduction and possibly saving us money and lives. If there is a reward it will be in the form of reduced crime in society and possibly being able to do it for less money than our failed supply side war on drugs.

Indeed. So why would harm reduction not be a plausible solution?

I volunteered to help addicts for 10 years and was even a civilian facilitator at a State Prison where I counseled addicts. The main reason treatment fails is because it is often forced. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Treatment only works when one of their own volition comes to the conclusion that they need treatment and are at the end of their rope and willing to do what it takes to defeat their addiction.

The argument for people who are pro drug use always comes down to two things

I agree with your assessment minus the risk not worth taking. We must do something different as a continuation of a failed policy to the tune of many billions of dollars is just silly.

 

Wow. You clearly are beyond saving. No one is in jail for possession of weed? Give me a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing break. You play with words to deny fact.

Ridiculously childish bogus bull(*)(*)(*)(*) assertion, as is typical of right wing charlatan scum pitching snake oil to continue controlling the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing public.

 

The public is already (*)(*)(*)(*)ing paying for addicts. They lock them up, send them to jail - the tax payers have to pay for it.


THANK YOU - for admitting the argument I made is correct. Now, (*)(*)(*)(*) off with your nonsense. You just admitted you have no point.

 

If you argue that the above is true then what evidence do you have to back such a claim? Have source citation?

Have you researched pot? If so then link us the source you base your claim on.

Only the ignorant believe that pot causes no harm to anyone and I say this as a pot user.

Incorrect, it's just that we will not acquiesce to your baseless claims. Again back your claims with source citation if you seek to change minds else all you have is unqualified opinion.

Thus your bias is revealed.

 

Theres been stoned kids going to the ER here also. Many times by eating a loaded brownie. lol
No it wont kill them but its something adults need to be careful of.

 

•A survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that 0.7% of all state inmates were behind bars for marijuana possession only (with many of them pleading down from more serious crimes).i

•In total, one tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of all state prisoners were marijuana-possession offenders with no prior sentences.ii

•There are very few people in state or federal prison for marijuana-related crimes. It is useful to look at all drug offenses for context. Among sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction in 2008, 18% were sentenced for drug offenses.iv

•For federal prisoners, who represent 13% of the total prison population, about half (51%) had a drug offense as the most serious offense in 2009.v

•And federal data shows that the vast majority (99.8%) of federal prisoners sentenced for drug offenses were incarcerated for drug trafficking.vi

• Carnegie Mellon’s Jonathan Caulkins, formerly the co-director of Rand’s drug policy research center, found that more than 85% of people in prison for all drug-law violations were clearly involved in drug distribution, and that the records of most of the remaining prisoners had at least some suggestion of distribution involvement. Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession, he found. He noted that this figure was consistent with other mainstream estimates but not with estimates from the Marijuana Policy Project (a legalization interest group), which, according to Caulkins, “naively … assumes that all inmates convicted of possession were not involved in trafficking.” Caulkins concluded “an implication of the new figure is that marijuana decriminalization would have almost no impact on prison populations.”


So there you have it... Nearly all people in prison for drug related crimes are there due to distribution and trafficking. Possession is not why people end up in prison.

 

I'll give you the same response which uses real filtered data explaining those arrest vs. who is actually in prison.

•A survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that 0.7% of all state inmates were behind bars for marijuana possession only (with many of them pleading down from more serious crimes).i

•In total, one tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of all state prisoners were marijuana-possession offenders with no prior sentences.ii

•Other independent research has shown that the risk of arrest for each “joint,” or marijuana cigarette, smoked is about 1 arrest for every 12,000 joints.iii

•There are very few people in state or federal prison for marijuana-related crimes. It is useful to look at all drug offenses for context. Among sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction in 2008, 18% were sentenced for drug offenses.iv

•For federal prisoners, who represent 13% of the total prison population, about half (51%) had a drug offense as the most serious offense in 2009.v

•And federal data shows that the vast majority (99.8%) of federal prisoners sentenced for drug offenses were incarcerated for drug trafficking.vi

• Carnegie Mellon’s Jonathan Caulkins, formerly the co-director of Rand’s drug policy research center, found that more than 85% of people in prison for all drug-law violations were clearly involved in drug distribution, and that the records of most of the remaining prisoners had at least some suggestion of distribution involvement. Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession, he found. He noted that this figure was consistent with other mainstream estimates but not with estimates from the Marijuana Policy Project (a legalization interest group), which, according to Caulkins, “naively … assumes that all inmates convicted of possession were not involved in trafficking.” Caulkins concluded “an implication of the new figure is that marijuana decriminalization would have almost no impact on prison populations.”

- - - Updated - - -

I'm quoting actual research data. Not just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. I'm not even a damn republican you moron.

•A survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that 0.7% of all state inmates were behind bars for marijuana possession only (with many of them pleading down from more serious crimes).i

•In total, one tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of all state prisoners were marijuana-possession offenders with no prior sentences.ii

•Other independent research has shown that the risk of arrest for each “joint,” or marijuana cigarette, smoked is about 1 arrest for every 12,000 joints.iii

•There are very few people in state or federal prison for marijuana-related crimes. It is useful to look at all drug offenses for context. Among sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction in 2008, 18% were sentenced for drug offenses.iv

•For federal prisoners, who represent 13% of the total prison population, about half (51%) had a drug offense as the most serious offense in 2009.v

•And federal data shows that the vast majority (99.8%) of federal prisoners sentenced for drug offenses were incarcerated for drug trafficking.vi

• Carnegie Mellon’s Jonathan Caulkins, formerly the co-director of Rand’s drug policy research center, found that more than 85% of people in prison for all drug-law violations were clearly involved in drug distribution, and that the records of most of the remaining prisoners had at least some suggestion of distribution involvement. Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession, he found. He noted that this figure was consistent with other mainstream estimates but not with estimates from the Marijuana Policy Project (a legalization interest group), which, according to Caulkins, “naively … assumes that all inmates convicted of possession were not involved in trafficking.” Caulkins concluded “an implication of the new figure is that marijuana decriminalization would have almost no impact on prison populations.”

 

Those are simply resources that explain what gambling addiction is. No more, no less. They all direct you to two treatment services,

http://www.ncpgambling.org/
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/ga/

Both of which are non profit organizations.

Nice try though

 

If someone is an addict the habit will be eventually be supported through crime, which all suffer from. Additionally, when doses are legal the price goes down considerably.

 

I don't see why you think there is a distinction whether its for possession or distribution. If it is fully legal, you don't have people sitting in jail for selling a joint.

 

Finally, someone worth having an actually conversation with. We don't agree on a lot but at least its constructive and reasonable. Unlike most, I don't care about the money at all. I personally believe the money being spent to fight the war on marijuana is far, far, far lower than whats thrown out there. I don't believe marijuana related crimes would change our prison population almost at all (see the stats I previously posted). I don't believe legalization would result in more people taking advantage of recovery programs nor do I think they are effective anyway. Now if you're talking about legalizing, selling, and taxing hard drugs like coke, heroin and meth those numbers would all change but I cannot, and will not get behind that idea in any way, shape or form.

I agree with your statement that harm prevention isn't surrendering. Its also not mutually exclusive to drugs being illegal or legal. We have harm prevention now. I don't agree that it should be government funded and I've seen no evidence that its effective enough to be a solution for the number of addicts we have.

I'm not suggesting we kill drug addicts. When I said that I intended it to be a general response. I specifically feel that way about murders, rapist, and people who abuse children.

Why should the people who pay for this country be the ones that get the least benefit from the government and the ones that provide the least reap all the benefit? I don't get help with medical, dental, food, housing, or income. How does that make sense? That sounds like a reward to me.

I'm open to changing my opinion but I haven't seen any case studies within the USA that show there is a better solution to the war on drugs and I'm not convinced that your option is better than what we're currently doing. I think they are both (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Legal to own is not the same thing as legal to sell. How is it supposed to be regulated and taxed if anyone can sell anything to anybody?

Or are you arguing that it shouldn't be taxed or regulated either?