So much for the myth . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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:

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.
 
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.
 
Armoredman said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?"
 
That's not a link centac, it is the words underlined. What you want is this: Who's Really in Prison for Marijuana. 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.
 
Last edited:
I had to go back and check but I was pretty certain this thread wasn't limited to marijuana use only. Thx anyway, centac.
 
Hey, read it and make up your own mind. I am sure there isnt any "propaganda" from the pro-dope side, :rolleyes:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
2 cents...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top