So much for the myth . . .


PDA






DMF
June 18, 2005, 02:22 PM
. . . that minor drug offenders go to jail for lengthy sentences on their first offense.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050616-9999-2m16meth.html

Campus lab called meth-making site

By Onell R. Soto
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
June 16, 2005

A San Diego State graduate student on probation for drug violations used a university lab to make methamphetamine, Ecstasy and an anesthetic 80 times more potent than morphine, authorities said yesterday.

Matthew Finley, 26, was arrested at his home in Ocean Beach yesterday and the campus lab where he worked was shut down as investigators removed illicit drugs, a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman said.

"He felt he could get away with it. To his disappointment today, he did not," DEA spokesman Misha Piastro said. "His disregard for the safety of the rest of the student body is alarming and not something we take lightly."

After his arrest, Finley told investigators that he manufactured methamphetamine and a chemical used to make methamphetamine, as well as Ecstasy and fentanyl, the powerful anesthetic, according a court document.

Capsules of Ecstasy, vials of fentanyl and three marijuana plants were seized from Finley's home, authorities said.

The second floor of the west wing of the Chemical Sciences Laboratory is expected to reopen today, said university spokesman Jason Foster.

Because it's nearly summer, only 25 to 30 people were working in the west wing of the lab yesterday, he said.

While drug arrests on the large campus are not unusual, Foster said he could not recall another drug incident in the last five years involving the chemical labs.

Finley, who was pursuing a master's degree in chemistry, was convicted of drug charges in Santa Barbara in 2002 and placed on probation, according to a complaint a DEA agent filed with a federal judge yesterday.

At that time, he told investigators he used a lab at the University of California Santa Barbara to convert a liquid form of the drug Ecstasy into a powder, the agent said.

He was caught growing marijuana the following year and again placed on probation. A judge sentenced him to two years in prison but suspended the sentence, according to the complaint.

San Diego State University police approached the DEA late last year after being tipped that someone was manufacturing methamphetamine in the chemistry lab where Finley worked.

A surveillance camera in the lab captured Finley late last month working with a dark liquid that later tested positive for Ecstasy, authorities said.

Some of the chemicals Finley used were likely obtained outside the university, Piastro said.

Foster said there are strict controls on its laboratories, which do some of the more than $100 million worth of research the university performs a year.

"Students have to go through environmental health and safety training," he said. "There are safety officers within departments like chemistry that track the incoming orders for chemicals and disbursements of chemicals."

Finley is expected to appear in court today.

--------------------------------------

See folks this is what really happens. Probation, even for repeat offenders, is the norm, unless the crime is especially egregious.

If you enjoyed reading about "So much for the myth . . ." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
lunaslide
June 18, 2005, 02:39 PM
So much for the myth that minor drug offenders go to jail for lengthy sentences on their first offense.

And so much for the myth that putting minor drug offenders in jail does anything to prevent drug usage or production.

zahc
June 18, 2005, 02:40 PM
"His disregard for the safety of the rest of the student body is alarming and not something we take lightly."

What disregard are they speaking of?

Article doesn't seem to say, but can we assume he was expelled from the school?

Vernal45
June 18, 2005, 02:49 PM
What disregard are they speaking of?

I am assuming they are refering to meth being volatile during the cooking phase.

And let me tell you, it is. We, the wife and I, are going through a problem with our niece. She is like our daughter, we have raised her since her mom abandoned her at age 6. She has started running with the wrong crowd, doing meth, SELLING meth and aiding in the cooking of meth. She moved in with her grand parents (they are softies, knew the problem but igonred it). Grand parents left for a week vacation, she moved some meth heads in to stay for a while. Well, an incident of ether blowback happened, 1 kid in the hospital, kitchen of grandparents house burned, police are now invloved (thank god). Its a mess all around. My wife and I have been threatned, as have the grand parents. Grand pa served the niece with a Notice to Quit, basically evicting her. The meth head boyfriend did not like that. But the niece is 18, she can do what she wants (she keeps reminding us of that). Well, she is kicked out, no place to live, I repossessed the Jeep we bought her to go to college (she quit college when she met these meth monkies). She came crying to use, stating that she cant find a job with out a care. My reply, "you are 18, you can do what you want, no one is in your business."


Sorry, got off topic, had to rant. Have not told many what we are going through right now. Thanks for listening.

Back on track, I agree with DMF, drug offenders often, way to often, do not get long punishment. This kid I am talking about that my niece is messed up with is 24, he as been in and out of jail since he was 14, all drug and firearm related. And is currently on probation on a drug charge, he failed to comply with a jugdes order, arrested him again, 3 days, back on probation. Makes you wonder.

DMF
June 18, 2005, 03:04 PM
And so much for the myth that putting minor drug offenders in jail does anything to prevent drug usage or production. Please note the three areas I highlighted in bold print.

Maybe this kid wouldn't have thought he could "get away with it," if he hadn't gotten away with it twice before. We don't know because that not what happens with this type of person. However, your thesis that putting minor drug offenders in jail doesn't work is not supported by this article, because he wasn't put in jail. He was twice given probation rather than jail time.

Also, his first offense was not a minor offense. Processing/manufacturing X is not a minor crime. Finley, who was pursuing a master's degree in chemistry, was convicted of drug charges in Santa Barbara in 2002 and placed on probation, according to a complaint a DEA agent filed with a federal judge yesterday.

At that time, he told investigators he used a lab at the University of California Santa Barbara to convert a liquid form of the drug Ecstasy into a powder, the agent said.

thorn726
June 18, 2005, 03:12 PM
uh what had you under the impression minor offenders went to prison for a long time????

that hasn't been true for years.

unless of course you are black- that generally carries a bit heavier sentence.

also CA is pretty lax on drugs compared to places like the south. jails are too full.

seems pretty cut and dry standard to me.
you can bet guy will get some time out of this last charge for sure though.

DMF
June 18, 2005, 03:16 PM
uh what had you under the impression minor offenders went to prison for a long time? I never was under that impression, but when the "War on Drugs" gets brought up here, I've seen many references to the prisons being filled with minor offenders getting long sentences. This article just highlighted very well that concept is a myth.

Standing Wolf
June 18, 2005, 03:17 PM
My reply, "you are 18, you can do what you want, no one is in your business."

I hope she'll live long enough to thank you for saying so.

Vernal45
June 18, 2005, 03:19 PM
I hope she'll live long enough to thank you for saying so.

I hope so as well. I doubt it, but I can hope. NOT to much that I can do about it.

Preacherman
June 18, 2005, 03:25 PM
Vernal, you have my deepest sympathy. This is a problem I've run into many, many times when dealing with the families of prison inmates. Their usual comments are heartbreaking, in the sense that they have no idea what to do to stop the person, and how can they put him out of their home, etc., etc. It's been my painful duty to tell them that there is nothing they can do to change the person unless and until he/she has come to the realization that he/she is destroying his/her life, and must change. If they let them live at home, they're simply giving them a "safe haven" to continue their destructive behavior, and at the same time putting other family members at risk. Always, the family will come back with "How can you ask us to put our loved one out on the street?" My answer is always "How can you allow one member of your family to risk the lives and/or health of all of the rest of your family, particularly the children?"

Sometimes they have the courage to kick out the offender. Other times, they don't - and almost always, in the latter cases, they regret not having done so... :(

2nd Amendment
June 18, 2005, 03:51 PM
I've seen many references to the prisons being filled with minor offenders getting long sentences.

Manipulating things there just a bit? While there may or may not have been threads where some individual operated under the mistaken impression offenders always get long sentences the statistics say our prisons are indeed full of drug offenders, not how long any specific sentence is. As such I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, except maybe build a strawman to knock over.

zahc
June 18, 2005, 04:47 PM
I am assuming they are refering to meth being volatile during the cooking phase.

That's what I was afraid of, because it's rediculus to think that cooking meth is any more dangerous than the many dangerous processes that take place in chemistry labs.

centac
June 18, 2005, 05:27 PM
The NIJ has released research on the imprisonment of marijuana offenders. Interesting reading, particularly if you think that our prisons are full of personal users.

lunaslide
June 18, 2005, 06:15 PM
Maybe this kid wouldn't have thought he could "get away with it," if he hadn't gotten away with it twice before. We don't know because that not what happens with this type of person. However, your thesis that putting minor drug offenders in jail doesn't work is not supported by this article, because he wasn't put in jail. He was twice given probation rather than jail time.

Also, his first offense was not a minor offense. Processing/manufacturing X is not a minor crime.
Neither is your thesis supported by this story. Perhaps it is a myth that minor offenders are put in prison for a long time, perhaps it isn't. But this story doesn't make your point for you at all. What point were you trying to make anyway?
The NIJ has released research on the imprisonment of marijuana offenders. Interesting reading, particularly if you think that our prisons are full of personal users.
Provide a source if you're going to quote studies so that people can look up the data for themselves.

The talk of marijuana as a gateway drug misses the root issue. People get turned on to other drugs because they seek out escape and dealers that sell marijuana sell other drugs too. Is alcohol a gateway drug? No. Addiction is the cause. People who need to seek out those types of escape do it no matter what barriers you put in their way. The real aim is to reduce the desire to seek out escape. The world is awash in substances that are intoxicating and the human drive to try them, use them and abuse them will only abate when we can no longer be considered physiologically "human" anymore. The war on drugs is as futile as the war on sandy beaches.

centac
June 18, 2005, 06:25 PM
That would be the National Institute of Justice. I'm not in my office today so I cannot cite the exact title, but it is something like "marijuana and imprisonment." I always figure that if a person is for-real, they'll be able to find what I'm talkin' about.

joab
June 18, 2005, 06:27 PM
Shows what you DMF how can he be a criminal, he's a college student

Vernal45
As hard as it may be, you did the right thing.
I wasn't strong enough to do the same, my son is dead. But at least his death woke up two of his friends and the father of another.
He stopped enabling his son and sent him out on his own. He calls me sometimes and cries a lot

2nd Amendment
June 18, 2005, 06:35 PM
If you cite a source it's your job to provide the link, not everyone else's job to do your work for you. That's how debate works, sorry. I always figure if a person is for real they'll provide their data, at least some of the time...

Once again, in your case, centac, you appear to be manipulating the terms. First it's "small time offenders recieve lengthy sentences", then it is "marijuana and imprisonment" insinuating anyone has claimed pot accounts for the bulk of drug users in prison. The claim is that drug convictions account for a large/inordinate percentage of prisoners in the US. Since I for one don't care what the drug is, or the length of the sentence, all this is immaterial to the issue: Legalize drugs, get the government out of the prohibition business and let the loonies kill themselves while enforcing "drug laws" the same way we handle booze.

Here's you some down-n-dirty data, with sources:

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm

IZinterrogator
June 18, 2005, 06:49 PM
What disregard are they speaking of?

I am assuming they are refering to meth being volatile during the cooking phase.If you have ever seen the music video by Seether for their song "Broken", the trailer park that the video was shot in was destroyed by a exploding meth lab. The trailer park (not just the one trailer) was leveled by the blast.

Here's a link to the video page of their website: http://www.seether.com/index800.html. I believe that the fires and smoke was added for the video, but the devastation was already there when they showed up to shoot the video.

Edit: Okay, the link takes you to the main page. Click on the video link on the lower left side.

GRB
June 18, 2005, 06:51 PM
I have known a couple of minor drug offenders in my time. Two in particular that I can think of were minor crack heads. Yeah they only used it a little bit. The thing is they were both in and out of jail or on probation a large number of times but for short stints at that. Then they went out and mugged an old man for drug money. Guess what, they tried me next. I shot one of em, he lived - too bad as I see it. They went to jail for a whole 3.5 to 4 years for one of them and the other got about a year less in NY, the state with the toughest drug laws on the books at the time - yet their previous drug crimes got them almost no time. What a crock it is for me to hear that these guys go to jail for abnormally long sentences. By the way, they were both minorities.

I have known plenty of drug users, pushers and smugglers to get a lot less time than you would probably expect. That is a sad thing about the USA, lots of laws on the books, but too many people who want to bend over backward to appease the criminals and make them out as some sort of oppressed class of really good guys. That is just not the case in my experience, criminals are not such nice guys no matter what race, color, creed or ethnic background. Nor are they as oppressed as many would make them ut to be. They choose a life of crime instead of a life of trying to become educated and get a decent but hard job. They are quite often the types who like the hours, like the lure of easy money, like not having a boss so to speak, like breaking rules and, do not give a rats behind about whether or not they hook, hurt or kill you as long as they get what they want. Jail is too good for some of them.

centac
June 18, 2005, 07:30 PM
2A

No

2nd Amendment
June 18, 2005, 07:48 PM
No, you can't cite data to support your claim? No, you're not for real? No, you don't mind misrepresenting what has been or is being said? No, you don't care to read actual statistics provided? No, you don't care about anything but your own narrow definition of enforcement and what the BoR actually says, etc?

We already knew all that, but thx anyway.

Vernal45
June 18, 2005, 07:59 PM
But he knows about them dangerous Coffee Cans.

centac
June 18, 2005, 08:04 PM
I'm not playing your game, 2a. I'll post the report title when I'm back in the office Tuesday.

DMF
June 18, 2005, 08:28 PM
http://www.dea.gov/demand/speakout/10so.htm

http://www.dea.gov/demand/speakout/07so.htm

armoredman
June 18, 2005, 09:04 PM
Federal prisons, federal time, district courts, etc. Most inmates are in state prisons, not federal. Here is the AZ report of incarcerated inmates by sentance type, May 2005. For men, drug DEALING is number 3,(3,378), right behind theft, (3,398), and number 1, assault, (3,630), while women are skewed far and away towards drug DEALING as thier number one crime,(528), as opposed to the number 2 crime, theft, (367). When the numbers are added together, drug DEALING becomes number one, followed closely by assault and theft.
The question was minor drug crimes, of which drug DEALING is not, so simple drug POSESSION is a grand total of 1,970, both men and women. Thats significantly less than those incarcerated for child molestation, (2,456), and DUI, (2,606), robbery, (2,549), and murder, (2,067)
There is your breakdown by sentance type for one state. BTW, anyone stating it's always minorities going to prison? AZ populations are 43.7% Caucasion, followed by 25.1% Mexican Americans, as number 2.
No blather, no speeches, just hard cold facts and numbers.
http://www.azcorrections.gov/reports/Who.htm
Here's a snapshot of the whole system, too. http://www.azcorrections.gov/reports/CAGApr05.pdf

2nd Amendment
June 18, 2005, 09:09 PM
I'm not playing your game, 2a.

What game? You made a claim and failed to back it up. The one time I did that here I heard about it for months from the LEO Apologists. Meanwhile you know as well as I that this thread, as with most you, I and Vernal participate in, will be locked by Tuesday. But OK, you've already established you think it is all a game to be won or lost anyway so have it your way.

Chris Rhines
June 18, 2005, 10:14 PM
Also, his first offense was not a minor offense. Processing/manufacturing X is not a minor crime. Indeed. Processing/manufacturing of drugs is not a minor crime. It's not a crime at all. Crime requires a victim - where is the victim in this case? There isn't one, so why should I (or anyone) care?

And please, anyone thinking of trotting out the whole broken homes/shattered families thing, don't. I really don't want to waste time knocking down that tattered straw man.

- Chris

armoredman
June 18, 2005, 11:01 PM
Perhaps if possession or manufacturing with intent to distribute, is the charge, it makes more sense? I agree the simple act of making/growing plants/substances that are classified as illegal "drugs" IN AND OF ITSELF causes no hurt or violence....but everything around it does. The act of distribution, the violence associated with the control of the sale/profits of same, the violence and corruption that naturally follows illegal activity of such a nature, etc. If you think that such an activity is similar to our stance that making Class 3 at home should also be legal, then contact your elected officials to change the law. Until that time, I guess you'll have to be unhappy, or move somewhere that allows the activity you desire.

Art Eatman
June 19, 2005, 02:04 AM
And keep it to facts, numbers and conclusions and just flat-out omit the personal stuff.

I don't care how strong anybody's OPINION is. Sincere belief does not create reality. Either emotions get controlled or I start controlling.

Art

DMF
June 19, 2005, 02:39 AM
Indeed. Processing/manufacturing of drugs is not a minor crime. It's not a crime at all. Crime requires a victim - where is the victim in this case? There isn't one, so why should I (or anyone) care? And keep it to facts, numbers and conclusions . . . Mr. Eatman's directive is easy to comply with, even with this question:

http://www.dea.gov/demand/speakout/03so.htm

http://www.dea.gov/demand/speakout/05so.htm

http://www.dea.gov/demand/speakout/07so.htm

Vernal45
June 19, 2005, 03:06 AM
Indeed. Processing/manufacturing of drugs is not a minor crime. It's not a crime at all. Crime requires a victim - where is the victim in this case? There isn't one, so why should I (or anyone) care?



UM, Alice, you need to back out of the Rabbit Hole.

HKUSP45C
June 19, 2005, 06:10 AM
UM, Alice, you need to back out of the Rabbit Hole.

He's right

Chris Rhines
June 19, 2005, 08:51 AM
DMF, you have obviously misunderstood the question.

First off, the DEA has a vested interest in making sure that drug manufacture and drug use remain illegal. As such, they cannot be considered an unbiased source. By the same token, you won't see me quoting "statistics" from NORML or High Times magazine to back up any of my points - even though I agree with much of what they say, any stats they produce are automatically suspect.

Secondly, I find utilitarian statistics totally uncompelling in the face of what is a moral argument. When you advocate drug prohibition, you are telling me what I can or can not do with my own body, in my own home, on my own time. That kind of behavior should be verboten in any society that claims to be free.

Fact 3: Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful. I agree that some drugs are harmful. That is not an acceptable reason to make the manufacture, sale, or personal consumption of them illegal. For instance, NHSTA estimates around 40,000 deaths due to vehicle accidents (only) every year, costing over 230 billion dollars. One can conclude from such a statistic that the ownership and operation of motor vehicles is harmful. Is that an acceptable reason to criminalize motor vehicles? Of course not.

Considering all the other products available for sale that are more dangerous and more harmful than scheduled narcotics, one cannot reasonably conclude that the government restricts drug possession and use because they are harmful. There must be some other rationale at work, but I won't guess at what it is.

As much as I'd like to continue this chat, I've got a 3-gun match to shoot. I'll see if I can wade through the next two links this evening, but I doubt they'll be any more compelling, relevant, or factual than the first.

Laters.

- Chris

BryanP
June 19, 2005, 09:28 AM
That's what I was afraid of, because it's rediculus to think that cooking meth is any more dangerous than the many dangerous processes that take place in chemistry labs.

Except that in most chemistry labs the work isn't being done by people who are impaired either by use of the drug or by the withdrawal symptoms they're going through because they didn't brew up a new batch in time. Here's what was left of a trailer after such an incident:

http://www.wpln.org/news/methlabs/photos/trailer-remnant.jpg

Keep in mind that no home or apartment is a proper chemistry lab. Disposal of the chemical leftovers is a problem. Mostly they get poured down the sink. We recently had a case in Tennessee involving a family who kept getting sick. Mother, father and children. They weren't sure what was happening. They later found out that the people in the apartment above them were brewing meth.

Meth has become a particularly virulent problem in parts of Tennessee, particularly up in the Cumberland Plateau area. The local public radio station produced a weeklong story consisting of five segments, each highlighting a different aspect of the problem. You can listen to the individual segments and view photos that go along with them here:

http://www.wpln.org/news/methlabs/

Particularly interesting is the 4th segment, "Meth Real Estate." I highly recommend listening to that one.

thereisnospoon
June 19, 2005, 09:57 AM
Vernal45

Sorry to hear about your neice. There is nothing more draining than the worry associated with the care of a loved one trapped in the world of addiction. Although it is really hard to do, making tuff choices NOW will hopefully pay off in the long run, at least for you and your family, if not for your neice.

javafiend
June 20, 2005, 01:48 AM
DMF wrote:
http://www.dea.gov/demand/speakout/10so.htm

Here's a site where the DEA argues against decriminalization. Pardon me, but in a free society the role of police agencies is to enforce the law, not weigh in on political debate with taxpayer-funded propaganda.

Yet another unconstitutional expenditure of punlic monies to defend unconstitutional drug laws.

Firethorn
June 20, 2005, 03:08 AM
Federal prisons, federal time, district courts, etc. Most inmates are in state prisons, not federal. Here is the AZ report of incarcerated inmates by sentance type, May 2005. For men, drug DEALING is number 3,(3,378), right behind theft, (3,398), and number 1, assault, (3,630), while women are skewed far and away towards drug DEALING as thier number one crime,(528), as opposed to the number 2 crime, theft, (367). When the numbers are added together, drug DEALING becomes number one, followed closely by assault and theft.

While I'm not going to argue that all the drug dealers will just go 'straight' if drugs are legalized, I would like to point out that legalizing would mostly eliminate their market. They simply can't compete with Walmart, Costco, Walgreens, etc. Thus, they'll have to find other work. Also, does Arizona have 'automatic dealer status' if you're caught with over a certain amount of drugs? There was an incident in florida where a man was convicted as a dealer just through the amount he had(he was forging prescriptions, and a one month supply broke the level), and even the prosecution admitted that he wasn't selling the stuff.

The question was minor drug crimes, of which drug DEALING is not, so simple drug POSESSION is a grand total of 1,970, both men and women. Thats significantly less than those incarcerated for child molestation, (2,456), and DUI, (2,606), robbery, (2,549), and murder, (2,067)
There is your breakdown by sentance type for one state. BTW, anyone stating it's always minorities going to prison? AZ populations are 43.7% Caucasion, followed by 25.1% Mexican Americans, as number 2.
No blather, no speeches, just hard cold facts and numbers.

Oh, I'll admit, the number of people in for just possession/use is small, but those of us who argue for legalization do so because we believe that the cost to society would be less with it legal. As in the price would drop, so people wouldn't have to steal(or, at least, as much) to get it. Dealers would be right out of business. Selling to children would still exist, but it wouldn't be worth it if you're only getting a few years out of them, and are looking at spending long periods in prison for doing so.

Oh, and I agree with Javafiend. The DEA is hardly an unbiased source. rather than the violent and irrational behavior that drugs themselves prompt.
I've seen plenty of violent and irrational behavior. Number 1 cause: Alchohol. Number 2 cause: Plain stupidity.
Yet, under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. And it would be a vast black market. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of illegal drugs, and so an illegal market and organized crime to supply it would remain—along with the organized crime that profits from it. After Prohibition ended, did the organized crime in our country go down? No. It continues today in a variety of other criminal enterprises. Legalization would not put the cartels out of business; cartels would simply look to other illegal endeavors.

Like the vast, organized black market providing alchohol to kids under 21. Oh wait, they're not organized, and the general response to cops arriving is to run, not shoot at them!

And after prohibition ended, Organized crime did quiet down a bit, until it branched out into the other illegal drugs, prostitution, and such.

As long as a demand exists, a market will evolve to service it. If you make it legal, you have far more control over it. If you were to legalize drugs and prostitution, the profit potential for illegal activity would drop, and many of those currently aiding in the drug market will find honest employment to be a better deal than the remaining illegal activities.

Firethorn
June 20, 2005, 03:26 AM
BryanP, in this specific instance, the drug manufacturer was a chemist in training, using college facilities and equipement designed for the safe handling and processing of chemicals and their reactions.

publius
June 20, 2005, 07:33 AM
Justice Thomas (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html) put an end to another myth: that drug warriors respect the Constitution. None of them seem to want to get into why Thomas is wrong...

Gun relevance? Right here:


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-617.htm

Jun 13 2005 Petition (http://www.mp5.net/info/wilson.pet.app.pdf) GRANTED. Judgment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf) VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ____ (2005).

Group9
June 21, 2005, 01:46 AM
Justice Thomas put an end to another myth: that drug warriors respect the Constitution. None of them seem to want to get into why Thomas is wrong...

I have noticed that there are a lot of people who suddenly lose all respect for the Constitution and the government it formed when things don't go the way they want.

publius
June 21, 2005, 05:44 AM
Huh? I had no respect for prohibition long before I knew who Raich was.

So where did Justice Thomas get it wrong?

Do you believe that if you explained the Raich decision to the Founders, they would think it respects the limits they were trying to put on Federal power? Because I don't. In Federalist 45, Madison said:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

So do you believe that homegrown cannabis plants (or machine guns) for personal use were intended to be among the "few and defined" powers of the federal government, or are those the kinds of "objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State?"

centac
June 21, 2005, 10:50 AM
Who's Really In Prison for Marijuana

Office of National Drug Control Policy
www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov

Sindawe
June 21, 2005, 12:43 PM
That's not a link centac, it is the words underlined. What you want is this: Who's Really in Prison for Marijuana (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/whos_in_prison_for_marij/). Of course, coming from the ONDCP, its not exactly an unbiased sourse, now is it?

From the foward of the propaganda piece: The goal of drug laws, after all, is not just to penalize, but to keep people from harming themselves and others. Funny that, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution do I find "keeping people from harming themselves" as one of the powers delegated to the federal .gov.

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 12:53 PM
I had to go back and check but I was pretty certain this thread wasn't limited to marijuana use only. Thx anyway, centac.

centac
June 21, 2005, 01:05 PM
Hey, read it and make up your own mind. I am sure there isnt any "propaganda" from the pro-dope side, :rolleyes:

2nd Amendment
June 21, 2005, 01:10 PM
Somewhere back there I linked figures for "drugs", not pot. I don't care how many are in just for pot. I don't think anyone in this debate has limited themselves to just pot, pro or con, but so far it appears your link deals with nothing else. So how is it relevant to the thread and why did we wait days for it?

publius
June 22, 2005, 07:18 AM
Funny that, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution do I find "keeping people from harming themselves" as one of the powers delegated to the federal .gov.

Harming yourself would tend to affect interstate commerce, wouldn't it? When Madison said that the powers of the federal government were to be "few and defined" he forgot to mention that among those few, there is one that is all-encompassing.

CAS700850
June 22, 2005, 10:54 AM
I've been a prosecuting attorney for 10 years, and I can say without reservation that in my court, minor drugs cases (possession of small amounts) of any drug will not only not get you sent to prison, more often than not it will get you I.L.C. status. I.L.C. is Intervention in Lieu of Conviction. IN plain English, it is a quasi-probation status, which if successfully completed results in not only a non-conviction, but also the expungement of the case from your record.

then again, here in Ohio, possession of less than 200 grams of pot is a minor misdemeanor, meaning a fine of $100 (max) and a driver's license suspenion.

odysseus
June 22, 2005, 03:12 PM
Since I for one don't care what the drug is, or the length of the sentence, all this is immaterial to the issue: Legalize drugs, get the government out of the prohibition business and let the loonies kill themselves while enforcing "drug laws" the same way we handle booze.


Yeah... but do you and your kids want to live through and around this? It's not a "pretty" picture.

I think I can speak to a lot of people, in that this issue leaves me pretty conflicted. On one side I see the pure waste of resources, tax payers money, and issues on liberty, and abuses, that the war on drugs really is.

However on the other hand I have seen the real evil and destruction illicit, mind altering, addictive drugs do to people and families. Marijuana and alcohol are one thing, but no one really wants to see meth, cocaine, heroin, extasy, yada yada yada out floating around. People abuse perscription pills already like vicadin, oxcycontin, valium, etc... so I don't think most people can stomach a total legalization open store on this stuff. I think the mass silent majority doesn't see a path here. Right now it's looking FUBAR, right now as we have it too.

Also: I think Centac's point is pretty relevant - dare I say :D . Pardon me for not having stats, but it pretty much should be conventional wisdom, most users of marijuana are NOT ever convicted. The sheer millions of people who use, or have used, will ring some truth to this. Is there any doubt of this? I agree on one part of the report - often a perp is rolled on this after pleading off heavier charges.

Again the whole issue of the equity of convictions, poverty and minorities, wasted resources on the war on drugs, is another additive story to this - but we need to keep a balanced perspective on this issue.

If you enjoyed reading about "So much for the myth . . ." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!