Law And Order, Your Tax Dollars, And Your Right To Own, Smoke, And Sell Plants
A quote from an article by Ashley Portero at IBTimes on how drug offenses are filling up Federal prisons -- more than violent crimes:
Statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation reveal more people were arrested for marijuana possession than all violent crimes combined in 2011.
More:
Since 1998, individuals arrested for drug crimes have constituted the largest portion of federal prison admissions, followed closely by those arrested for immigration and weapons-related offenses. Meanwhile, the CRS reports there has been a significant drop off in the number of inmates entering prison for violent or property-related crimes, which only made up about 4 percent and 11 percent of prison admissions in 2010.A huge portion of those drug offenders are arrested for marijuana offenses, even though the substance - now legal in 18 states for medicinal use- has become increasingly mainstream.
So, instead of your tax dollars going to fund stopping muggers, murderers, rapists, they're prosecuting and jailing potheads.
Oh, and by the way, also from the piece:
Federal prisoners do not have the ability to receive parole, when correctional authorities release low-risk inmates into community supervision for the remainder of their sentences.Inmates sentenced after November 1, 1987 are no longer eligible for parole, meaning every offender sentenced since then must serve the entirety of his or her sentence. As a result, there have not been enough prisoners released to make way for new inmates as federal sentencing rates ballooned in the 1990s and early 2000s.
This cant possibly be right, Obama was supposed to be the anti Bush, not Bush^10
This is obviously a lie, our great leader would never jail more weed smokers than the civil rights violating Bush, especially in an era when its legal in nearly 40% of the states
lujlp at January 31, 2013 11:02 PM
What, quit now, when victory in the war on drugs is just around the corner?
Prison guards have to eat, too.
How else will the government steal your stuff without those asset forfeiture laws?
Anybody else got a reason to keep doing what isn't working? I'm out.
MarkD at February 1, 2013 5:41 AM
> Since 1998, individuals arrested for drug
> crimes have constituted the largest portion
> of federal prison admissions, followed
> closely by those arrested for immigration
> and weapons-related offenses.
Really? Are you certain?
Because I wouldn't be surprised if those CONVICTED for drug possession constituted the largest portion etc.
I can imagine any number of arrests for which witnesses wouldn't appear, or for which evidence was despoiled, causing the prosecutor to say
Hey, we've already done this one:
And that's should have said "can't tell the difference."
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at February 1, 2013 6:29 AM
Wow. Yeah. We should stop enforcing the law. I mean all these poor people, going to jail in ignorance . . .
Wait, you mean they KNEW they were breaking the law?
If people would quit growing, selling, and smoking pot, then they would quit getting incarcerated for it.
There may be many reasons to legalize pot. A high incarceration rate isn't one of them.
Lamont Cranston at February 1, 2013 7:40 AM
There may be many reasons to legalize pot. A high incarceration rate isn't one of them.
Actually...when a law is generally disregarded, that is a pretty good sign that it is a bad law.
What's missing from this picture is sufficient outrage, just like that outrage is missing from all of the other police-state stuff the government pulls today. People are too damned scared to stand up for their rights, and the rights of their neighbors: They don't want to draw attention to themselves for fear they will be targeted next.
a_random_guy at February 1, 2013 7:49 AM
So, instead of your tax dollars going to fund stopping muggers, murderers, rapists, they're prosecuting and jailing potheads.
Potheads are much easier to find, and less trouble to apprehend than violent criminals.
V-Man at February 1, 2013 9:05 AM
Potheads are much easier to find, and less trouble to apprehend than violent criminals.
Taking all those potheads off the streets is why Hostess went under, ya know.
MonicaP at February 1, 2013 9:29 AM
"I can imagine any number of arrests for which witnesses wouldn't appear, or for which evidence was despoiled"
Good point. It would be interesting to see more background data on these federal marijuana convictions. How many have prior history of theft or domestic aggression, etc
Jason S. at February 1, 2013 11:14 AM
"Potheads are much easier to find, and less trouble to apprehend than violent criminals."
That's true. All you have to do is set a trap for them, baited with Cheetos.
Cousin Dave at February 1, 2013 1:17 PM
So, can I grow poppies and sell opiates without taxation, regulation or harassment from the law?
Time to specify just what process you want legalized.
Again: change the law, then do the deed. That's what responsible citizenship looks like. Be ready to live with the consequences, too, because you have things going on right now you don't like, and that's not going to stop just because you say, "I wanna...".
Radwaste at February 1, 2013 5:33 PM
They have. There are eighteen states that have some form of legal pot possession. That means they have changed the laws in their states.
The problem is "The war on drugs" was/is not done legally. They have passed myriad drug laws that have no ties to the Constitution other than Wickard. Or they blackmailed the states into complying with the federal government by withholding highway funds, etc. Or the bribed the states by giving gifts such as guns, helicopters, money and other gifts.
There is no 18th amendment to challenge.
For that matter why is the federal government even involved in the "drug war"? Show it to me in the constitution.
Jim P. at February 2, 2013 7:19 AM
Jim P., you posted too hastily. Drug traffic clearly occurs without regard to state borders, and thus is immediately a Federal issue. There's lots of precedent as well as reason for that. In other news, Federal game laws are effective everywhere for the same reason: those animals somehow don't pay attention to the borders described in a legal document.
The states might find some serious flaws in their logic here shortly, when traffic accidents show up. This won't matter at all to stoners, who simply want to get high, screw everybody else.
Radwaste at February 2, 2013 5:41 PM
"The states might find some serious flaws in their logic here shortly, when traffic accidents show up. This won't matter at all to stoners, who simply want to get high, screw everybody else."
i'm skeptical that accidents will increase dramatically.
The state of Washington voted to legalize pot. The law says that drivers will be arrested for blood tainted with cannabis. This is why many who support legal pot voted against this initiative -- because pot stays in the blood longer. Wouldn't this new law deter driving stoned, or driving all together?
Jason S. at February 2, 2013 7:19 PM
And alcoholics don't give a flying duck about their driving when they're high.
Legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin, mushrooms, mdma, LSD and amphetamines. And let's bring back the prohibition of alcohol. It's poison.
Jason S. at February 2, 2013 7:34 PM
The original intent of the commerce clause was to regulate businesses between states. If you were shipping steel from Pittsburgh down the river to someone in Mississippi, the states along the river couldn't tax or tariff it just because it passed by or through the state.
From your linked article:
Did that review including validating the conclusions, or just taking conclusions. Meta-analysis does not make it fact. Otherwise the food pyramid would look a hell of a lot different.
The half-life of marijuana is approximately 30 days. The half life of cocaine of is 60-90 minutes, the half-life of heroin is about 8 hours. What do you think they are going to detect in the bloodstream of dead drivers?
About the only way the federal government should really be involved in pot or cocaine is if businesses want to bring it in from Columbia and they want a customs tax on it. If it is legal for sale in an individual state, the federal government should not be regulating it.
Just as if I go to Amsterdam and spend 30 days stoned out of my mind. Should I not be allowed to come back into America?
For that matter, their are still townships, villages, and other jurisdictions in my state that the sale of alcohol is still illegal.
You are living in a world that you believe that the federal government is and should be the supreme authority. Get over it. Learn that the federal government is a compact of the individual states and should not be touching about 90% of the crap they are involved in.
When you say that there will be bad effects from legalizing a drug you are repeating the same argument from "authorities" that say there will be blood in the streets after legalizing concealed carry.
Get a fucking clue.
Jim P. at February 2, 2013 11:56 PM
No, Jim.
You just argued that drugged drivers are better than those who are not drugged.
Try again.
And Jason? That's the "two wrongs" fallacy.
Radwaste at February 3, 2013 6:19 AM
No I'm not. I'm saying that if you test for drugs and alcohol at 8AM in the morning three days after a night of partying, you would probably not know the person had been using cocaine, heroin, or alcohol. But marijuana deposits itself in the fatty tissue and bleeds off over time.
I asked this question on another of Amy's post. But I'll repeat it here:
Please show me an example of government driven prohibition of anything that has worked at a federal or state level.
When you can come up with an example, please let me know.
Jim P. at February 3, 2013 8:31 AM
Radwaste, so we agree that alcohol is toxic. If we're going to keep marijuana, cocaine, heroin and MDMA underground, then why is alcohol legal?
Anybody who says driving high on alcohol or anything else is "right" is probably brain damaged. It's a strawman. Of course it's unsafe and wrong. Making something legal doesn't make it right, either. Why can' t we experiment with getting these substances in the open and tax and regulate it like alcohol?
Jason S. at February 3, 2013 11:58 AM
Leave a comment