Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Caught with a Bag of Weed? It Could Cost You More Than You Think

By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted January 26, 2008.


U.S. arrests for pot possession were up to 739,000 in 2006. And the cost to tax payers? $1 billion a year.
Advertisement

What's the current price for a bag of weed? According to the latest figures from the FBI, the human cost is roughly 739,000 a year.

That's the number of American citizens arrested in 2006 for possessing small amounts of pot. (Another 91,000 were charged with marijuana-related felonies.) The figure is the highest annual total ever recorded, and is nearly double the number of citizens busted for pot fifteen years ago.

Those arrested face a multitude of consequences, primarily determined by where they live. For example, most Californians charged with violating the state's pot possession laws face little more than a small fine. By contrast, getting busted with a pinch of weed in Ohio will cost you your driver's license for at least six months. Move to Texas -- well, now you're looking at a criminal record and up to 180 days in jail. Or if you happen to be a first-time offender, possibly a stint in court-mandated 'drug rehab' (one recent study reported that nearly 70 percent of all adults referred to Texas drug treatment programs for weed were referred by the courts), probation, and a hefty legal bill. And don't even think about getting busted in Oklahoma, where a first time conviction for minor pot possession can net you up to one year in jail, or up to ten years if you're found guilty of a second offense. Thinking of growing your own? That'll cost you a $20,000 fine, and -- oh yeah -- anywhere from two years to life in prison.

Yes, you read that right -- life in prison.

Of course, not everyone busted for weed receives jail time. But that doesn't mean that they don't suffer significant hardships stemming from their arrest -- including (but not limited to): probation and mandatory drug testing, loss of employment, loss of child custody, removal from subsidized housing, asset forfeiture, loss of student aid, loss of voting privileges, and the loss of certain federal welfare benefits such as food stamps.

And yes, some offenders do serve prison time. In fact, according to a 2006 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, 12.7 percent of state inmates and 12.4 percent of federal inmates incarcerated for drug violations are incarcerated for marijuana offenses. In human terms, this means that there are now about 33,655 state inmates and 10,785 federal inmates behind bars for violating marijuana laws. (The report failed to include estimates on the percentage of inmates incarcerated in county jails for pot-related offenses.)

In fiscal terms, this means that taxpayers are spending more than $1 billion annually to imprison pot offenders.

Yet this billion dollar price tag only estimates the financial costs on the 'back end' of a marijuana arrest. The criminal justice costs to taxpayers -- such as the man-hours it takes a police officer to arrest and process the average pot offender -- on the 'front end' is far greater, with some economists estimating the financial burden to be in upwards of $7 billion a year. Naturally, as the annual number of pot arrests continues to increase (according to the latest FBI data, marijuana arrests now constitute 44 percent of all illicit drug arrests), these costs are only going to grow larger.

There are alternatives, of course -- options that won't leave this sort of human and fiscal carnage in its wake, and that won't leave entire generations believing that the police are an instrument of their oppression rather than their protection.

'Decriminalization,' as first recommended to Congress in 1972 by President Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, called for the removal of all criminal and civil penalties for the possession, use, and non-profit distribution of cannabis. Such a policy, if adequately implemented, would eliminate the bulk of the human and fiscal costs currently associated with enforcing pot prohibition.

A second option, 'regulation,' would also significantly slash many of society's prohibition-associated fiscal and human costs. Legalizing the commercial sale and use of cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol, with state-mandated age controls and pot sales restricted to state-licensed stores, could also potentially raise billions of added dollars in tax revenue while simultaneously bringing an end to the more egregious and adverse black-market effects of the plant's criminalization -- such as the production of pot by criminal enterprises and its clandestine cultivation on public lands.

Would either option be perfect? No, probably not. ('Decriminalization,' for instance, might indirectly encourage pot use; 'regulation' might not entirely eliminate the black market sales of pot.) But how can continue with the status quo? Since, 1990, law enforcement have arrested over 10 million Americans -- more than the entire population of Los Angeles county -- on pot charges. Yet, according to federal figures, both marijuana production and use are rising. Isn't it time we began looking at ways to address the marijuana issue that move beyond simply arresting and prosecuting an inordinate amount of otherwise law-abiding Americans? Or must we wait until another 10 million citizens are arrested before our state and federal politicians find the courage to begin this discussion?

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: marijuana, drug laws, pot sentencing

Paul Armentano is the deputy director for NORML and NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't worry
Posted by: donl51 on Jan 26, 2008 12:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they can always print up more money,we passed the gold worth long ago!Their will always be money for corruption,Amazing whose in jail!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

White Perp White Collar vs Blue Perp Blue Collar
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 26, 2008 12:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Oklahoma you can get life for growing a little weed.

On Wall Street, you can bilk people out of hundreds of millions or billions, do a couple of years in Club Fed & pay a fine and keep the rest. Wiki Michael Milken & Ivan Boesky.

Milken paid a $200 million fine, returned $400 million(a fraction of what he stole) to investors he ripped off and kept the rest. His current worth- $2.1 Billion. He's even talked about nicely as a 'Philanthropist' these days. Isn't it nice that he gives away a sliver of the money he stole for a tax write-off against his investments. He's one of the 500 richest people in the world, stole most of it via insider trading and gets to walk the streets.

Hell of a country, isn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: don't even think about getting busted in oklahoma... Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
» RE: Hell of a country, isn't it? Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
the sensible thing to do...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jan 26, 2008 1:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is, of course, to manage cannabis like alcohol and tobacco...or maybe coffee!
but the complexities of marijuana law reach deeply into jim crow laws; pharmaceutical industry interests (going back to opiates); alcohol interests; cold war (and now war on terror) propaganda; religious interests; funding police departments (though federal monies as well as seizure); control of the population (through drug testing at school and work)...
if industrial uses get added in here then there are the fiber industry interests (why are we growing cotton in the desert when hemp would be cheaper and yield more?); water interests (moving all that water into the desert to grow the cotton); chemical industry interests, paper and logging industry interests...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you for being sensible! Posted by: garry minor
» RE: the sensible thing to do... Posted by: left_libertarian
» Thank you for understanding. Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: the sensible thing to do... Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
Reefer Madness
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 26, 2008 1:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the time you get to be my age (I'll be fifty in August) you can count, at the very least, fifty people you've known personally in your lifetime who have died as the result of too much nicotine or alcohol.

Ask yourself this question: How many people have you known in my life who have died as the result of too much marijuana?

Answer: ZERO

And here's the kicker: Not only have I never known someone to die as the result of an excess of grass, I'm not aware of it happening in all recorded human history!

The fact that we're still having this debate in the year 2008 is insane.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eefer Madness Posted by: richholland
» RE: eefer Madness Posted by: Richard House
» You tell him I said... Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: You tell him I said... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: eefer Madness Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: eefer Madness Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» GREAT POINT! Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: eefer Madness Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Reefer Madness Posted by: froghat
» RE: Reefer Madness Posted by: NickJones
Refugees
Posted by: BeyondBeliefs on Jan 26, 2008 4:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who are intelligent enough to become protestors will use many forms of escape, movies, tv, sports, pot and pills....

Taking away their property, money, and time with jail, is one way for the ''Kremlin'' to get rid of those pesky democrats, independants, and liberated Humans who refuse to be obedient, patriotic slaves to this deregulated military dictatorship currently occupying our America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well said.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jan 26, 2008 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There are alternatives, of course -- options that won't leave this sort of human and fiscal carnage in its wake, and that won't leave entire generations believing that the police are an instrument of their oppression rather than their protection."

Check out the movie Grass narrated by Woody Harrelson. It is posted in parts on YouTube. Or read Jack Herer's book The Emperor Wears No Clothes if you want more information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush Smoked Pot & Never Got Busted
Posted by: colleenwhalen on Jan 26, 2008 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
O.K. let me get this straight....Bush can legalize sexual torture in Abu Ghirab and Guantanamo, lie to Congress about WMD, engage in felonious illegal wiretapping without warrants - but a little bit of pot in Oklahoma can get you life in prision?

I don't smoke pot and don't endorse any form of recreational drugs - but shouldn't it be legalized for people caught with less than a few ounces for their personal consumption?

The money spent on prosecuting and incarcerating the poor 700,000 people who get busted each year for marijuana - that money could be used for so many more important things.

Here in California, we passed a ballot proposition a couple of years ago legalizing Medical Marijuana - but all over the state the police are arresting and harrassing the Compassionate Care clinics which sell Medical Marijuana to disabled people who have valid prescriptions.

The cops in Placerville are so zealous they ruined the life of a person who owned a nursery who sold blacklight plants. He was arrested and put on trial, but aquitted and charges were drop but his business was ruined and legal fees bankrupted this man who was proved innocent of having anything to do with growing pot.

The police in my area take surveillance photos and write down license plates of people who shop at nursery stores who sell blacklight equipment. In a Sacramento suburb, Elk Grove the cops make huge busts of pot growers who bought homes and were commercially growing pot inside the entire house. The busts are extremely well publicized on the news. I think it strictly to frighten citizens and keep Average Joes from growing a pot plant in their back yard.

I think smoking pot is incredibly boring, but it should be legalized and law enforcement should be using their resources to arrest wife beaters, child molestors and heroin dealers, not some schmoe who smokes a little pot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Posted by: chronic420
» RE: Bush Smoked Pot & Never Got Busted Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
the crack lobby
Posted by: dbaker on Jan 26, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The cocain and herion producers/ importers lobby is effective in redirecting attention from themselves to a non-issue POT!

Capitalism at its best.
The real question is when will Pot users be considered TERRORISTS, and POT be considered a WMD? When the prison poulation declines!

Dennis Baker

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: terrorists Posted by: VickyinSD
» RE: terrorists Posted by: Lauren
The Risk/Reward of Feeling Good ...
Posted by: gazooks on Jan 26, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... is most tragically demonstrated in the loss of life and freedom resulting the insane persistence and futility of prohibition.

It's one more lost lesson of history, one more denial of choice, one more hysterically hyped fiction of the domination by ignorance through fear, and the corruption of law through greed.

The inherent need that humans have to just feel good, however prone to over indulgence we are to intoxicants by nature, and not in itself a criminal act, is made criminal by the same oppressive irrationality that users seek to escape. A self perpetuating horror of injustice and corrupting influence on law, law enforcement and foundation for violent criminal enterprise.

It's vexing indeed that our culture relies on it's own moral contradictions, hypocrisy, ignorance and denial to justify the destruction of lives ... by the destruction of lives.

..." an' for each unharmful, gentle soul misplaced inside a jail, an' we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Heres an idea....
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Jan 26, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dont leave home with a bag of pot... the way I get around it is .....I dont smoke that stuff...Not worth it at all. They dont call it dope for nothing.. I know all you pot heads are going to give me a buncha crap...but thats my opinion. you can have yours personally it should be legal.. and I still wound not smoke it... signing off high on life.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Talon
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: chronic420
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Heres an idea.... Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Actually, I want to thank you, Fat Man... Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
"And I'm sure it wouldn't interest..."
Posted by: marykmusic on Jan 26, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Anybody outside of a small circle of friends. Phil Ochs' last verse in this song was about getting busted for pot.

Don't forget who's running the majority of smuggling and manufacturing industry in the US: the CIA and other organizations. They have a huge stake in NOT legalizing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Punishment Never Ends
Posted by: MizLee17 on Jan 26, 2008 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1978, my husband was busted with 4 lbs of weed and sentenced to 40 years plus a fine. He had an honorable discharge from the Army, was in medical school (paying his own way) but was kicked out before he went to trial. He served a year in the local jail rather than "real" prison, paid his fine, and obeyed the other court requirements. He just got his voting rights back 5 years ago, can't get a contractor's license above a certain dollar amount, and career advancement is severely limited since he can't pass a background check (although he has a Masters in Drug and Alcohol Rehab Counseling). Virginia would limit him more if it could figure out how.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How sad! Posted by: garry minor
Don't forget pot tax stamps!
Posted by: amphead on Jan 26, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also in Oklahoma, you have to pay taxes on the pot you sell. You have to produce the weed to get the stamp. Guess what would happen if you actually tried to get a stamp! So, if you get busted with pot in OK, then you also get busted for not paying taxes on an illegal product. That adds a stiff fine and maybe some jail time, I think. My memory is not that good anymore ;)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't forget pot tax stamps! Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
Unfortunately, it's gonna get worse, before it gets better.
Posted by: jackl2400 on Jan 26, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything NORML's Paul Armentano says is spot on. Most Americans agree with this, especially younger voters who went through DARE propaganda in middle school, but the issue is still a political non-starter, not on the agenda. And, what's worse, arrests and imprisonment are mushrooming over time, even as people forget that when these bad laws were written in 1970-72, most people didn't think mj was "that" bad.

Why is this so? Well, it's obvious that since it's been a political "culture war" litmus test since Nixon and Reagan, it's a "third rail" for moderates and progressives. The "Willie Horton" factor. And while some minor presidential candidates have raised it (Kucinich, Paul), there's not a chance the other major candidates will breathe a word about it, except to fend off charges of "youthful indiscretion" as has been the pattern of boomer hypocrisy on the issue.

And while it's understandable why presidential candidates would try to shy away from the issue, it should be noted that GWB-43 promised to let the medical mj patients enjoy "state's rights" before he later sent the DEA to raid hospices, dispensaries and send Tommy Chong and others to prison.

We were told at a drug policy convention that Speaker Pelosi doesn't want drug issues on the agenda until maybe 2010, in order to prevent defeat in 2008 (understandable), but they don't want reformers to have even modest "moral victories" in the meantime, like increasing House support for the amendment to stop hassling medimar patients in the 12 states which allow it and completely overturning the ban on student loans for drug offenders. We were told the top house dems were initially angry when SSDP, the student lobby, publicly "spanked" the dem reps who voted against the removal amendment, and then called their lobbiests to try to mend fences and make promises that if reformers shut up till 2010, dems would come through for them.

Assuming, of course, that a dem wins the White House in 2008. Which IMHO, reading some of the other threads here today about the SC primary, leads me to believe that we're going to end up with President McCain (probably) or Clinton or Obama and none of those three (except perhaps Obama) is going to be particularly enthusiastic about making drug law reform any part of his/her admin's agenda or revoke its "political third rail" status.

But all I ask (plaintively) is that the upward ratcheting STOP. A good place would be to disband the infamous NYPD narc unit which is responsible for 10% of the 800,000+/- annual marijuana arrests, and makes illegal frisk searches and misdemeanor arrests (typically with overnight jail stay) in a state where marijuana was supposedly "decriminalized" in 1976.

But even that hope is faint right now. Ultra-liberal (supposedly) Governor Spitzer is pushing for one of those phony "drug tax stamp" laws, where those caught with drugs would need to show a revenue stamp on their baggie of face additional "civil taxes and penalties" for failure to have a stamp. (Does anyone recall "the Boston Tea Party" from grade school history?) And the state DA's association is pushing to amend Spitzer's bill to get DNA samples from all convicted felons to roll back the sampling to the time of ARREST. Think of how this would interface with the illegal shakedown now being run by the corrupt NYPD, who view this data collection as useful "broken windows"policing and would be thrilled to add this bad mj search/arrest + DNA data base expansion + tax stamp trifecta to their arsenal of dirty tricks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Example of How F...ked Up This Nation Is
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 26, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This nation's obsession with pot is one of the best examples of how truley screwed up and backward this nation really is.

As Tom Degan above said how could we still be having this debate in 2008?

Of course in addition to the author of this article's fine work read the work of Ethan Nadelmann.

I believe we have hit bottum though :)

Dr Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes. I remember Nadelmann. Posted by: oldwoman
» RE: Yes. I remember Nadelmann. Posted by: drricklippin
No more disenfranchisement
Posted by: callejero on Jan 26, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the answer: www.ortholex.blogspot.com
Action. . .people . . .action.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even being a legal patient
Posted by: VickyinSD on Jan 26, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in the first state to pass medical marijuana laws doesn't provide you with any protection.

I was "busted" by a local cop on a bicycle who quietly snuck up on me while I sat in my truck, in an empty, secluded parking lot taking a hit before going into a local bar to hear a band.

Even though I showed him my Dr. recommendation, along with my driver's license, he still issued me a ticket, saying "This is our policy. We issue the tickets, and let the courts figure it all out."

So, off to the courthouse I went, all my paperwork in hand, only to get the case transferred over to superior court after pleading not guilty in traffic court.

That resulted in 2 more trips to the courthouse. The first DA wouldn't drop charges, but offered me "creating a public disturbance" (huh?) with a $160 fine. The original fine, had I decided to pay it, was only $100. I told the public "defender" who was pushing me to take the "deal", NO WAY, I'm not guilty, so another court date was set, in another courtroom a week later. Then the pub. def. told me it would probably be dropped, since the DA in the next courtroom was "more lenient".

She was right, and the DA dropped it entirely at the next hearing. But that was a lot of wasted time, not only for me, but for the system... starting when the officer wasted 1/2 hour or more issuing me the ticket, all the way through 3 different court appearances!

My next step is filing a complaint with the city that the issuing officer works for, citing the CA State Constitution:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulation. (There has been no such appellate ruling)

The officer... in fact the department itself, made the choice not to enforce the state law that has been in place for over 10 yrs., instead choosing to "let the courts" handle it. Bullshit!!!

The head DA (bitch) in San Diego County has publicly stated that she wants to "overturn" voter approved Prop 215, passed by voters over 10 years ago.

I guess freedom has a long way to go, even in states where MMJ is legal.

Thank you Paul for the excellent article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ven being a legal patient Posted by: VickyinSD
My expeirence
Posted by: SBohn1980 on Jan 26, 2008 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While serving as an active duty Army drill sergeant I was diagnosed with cancer. After surgery and radiation treatment I was placed on seven different medications, then three more to treat the side effects of the previous seven. I was depressed, losing weight rapidly and constantly in pain. A freind gave me a joint and it changed my life. No nausea, no pain, hello appetite, I was happy again. I threw away all the other meds.

I spent my career as an infantryman with the 82nd Airborne division, checked myself out of Walter Reed and drove from DC to Bragg after back surgury... I am no wimp or cry baby. I hate drugs, especially the tax payer provided, un-necessary and dangerous ones prescribed by Army doctors.

THC is a drug. Like all drugs it has proper and improper uses. It is my right to put whatever I want into my body, drugs included. The problem is one segment of our country thinks it is their right or even their duty to tell others what to do.

To overeaters food is a drug. Do we outlaw food because it is harmful to them? Do we arrest, prosecute and imprison them for being caught with food? That would be silly. So are our pot laws.

You can spend your money imprisoning me but I will excercise my God given rights until my death. I spent my career defending your rights why do you deny me mine?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My expeirence Posted by: Lauren
» RE: My expeirence Posted by: MildGreens
» RE: My expeirence Posted by: Lauren
Keeping the "Underclass" in Line: You Won't See Cops Hassling a Pot Smoking Wall Street Banker!
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 26, 2008 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right wing has done the best it can to confuse the issues. They talk about "drug abuse" and "child molestation" in the same sentence when they talk about people smoking marijuana. It's just a ridiculous way for these people to keep power and keep "defining issues" alive for them. But, even beyond that, is how the illegal definition of marijuana for them is a way to hassle those in the lower socioeconomic segments of society. Now, do you see cops going after some Wall Street bankers for smoking pot? Do you see cops going after prominent lawyers, judges and doctors for smoking pot? No, all you see is that they hang around in the poorest areas of the cities, and when they cannot arrest somebody on a trumped up prostitution or like criminal charge, they turn instantly to busting them for pot. Pot then, is just a way for the police and society to keep this segment of the society in line. It keeps them out of the streets and out of the way as far as demanding any societal and political change. Such as higher minimum wage laws and universal health care. Now, you can bet your bottom dollar that the rate of pot use is hardly any different in the wealthier segments of society. But, money and power speak volumes when it comes to who gets hassled, arrested and charged with a crime, in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Cost to taxpayers" not an economic statement
Posted by: billwald on Jan 26, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Essays that claim marijuana arrests (drunk drivers, smoking, whatevet) "costs taxpayers . . .) are only looking at one side of the balance sheet. It is equaly true that those activties create many jobs and generate much economic activity.

For example, do a thought experiment about the entire nation becomming Baptists (Mormons, SDA, whatever) and going on the wagon. How long would it take for a severe economic depression to set in? The layoffs would start in less than two months. Yes, eventually the lost jobs would be replaced with other jobs but in how many years? How many people would lose their homes in the meantime?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: do a thought experiment Posted by: vasumurti
There is only one reason pot remains illegal
Posted by: Fishbone Soldier on Jan 26, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marijuana is extremely easy to grow. You could grow it in your closet. It is, literally, a weed. Tobacco, on the other hand, is a challenging crop that you could not grow, in your closet or anywhere else. The tobacco companies do not want pot legalized because they fear their customers will switch from difficult-to-grow tobacco to "freely available" marijuana. They pay our politicians to maintain the status quo on this issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

marijuana
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 26, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A pamphlet entitled "10 Things Every Parent, Teenager and Teacher Should Know About Marijuana" produced by the Family Council on Drug Awareness tells us marijuana is not physically addictive. The 1980 Costa Rican study, the 1975 Jamaican study and the 1972 Nixon Blue Ribbon Report all concluded that marijuana use does not lead to physical dependency. The FBI reports that 65 to 75 percent of criminal violence is alcohol-related. On the other hand, Federal Bureau of Narcotics director Harry Anslinger testified before Congress in 1948 that marijuana leads to nonviolence and pacifism.

In a message to Congress on August 2, 1977, President Jimmy Carter insisted: "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself."

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Law Judge Francis L. Young wrote on September 8, 1988: "Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

After years of suppression by the government, the truth about medical marijuana is finally coming out. Dr. Tod Mikuriya, former director of marijuana research for the entire federal government, wrote in 1996: "I was hired by the government to provide scientific evidence that marijuana was harmful. As I studied the subject, I began to realize that marijuana was once widely used as a safe and effective medicine. But the government had a different agenda, and I had to resign."

Tobacco kills about 430,700 each year. Alcohol and alcohol-related diseases and injuries kill about 110,000 per year. Secondhand tobacco smoke kills about 50,000 every year. Aspirin and other anti-inflammatory drugs kill 7,600 each year. Cocaine kills about 500 yearly alone, and another 2,500 in combination with another drug. Heroin kills about 400 yearly alone, and another 2,500 in combination with another drug. Adverse reactions to prescription drugs total 32,000 per year, while marijuana kills no one.

A November 4, 2002 Time/CNN Poll found that eighty percent of those polled felt marijuana should be legal only for therapeutic (i.e., medical) purposes. 72 percent felt recreational users should get fines rather than jail time, which is essentially decriminalization. The complete legalization of marijuana was favored only by 34 percent of respondents, but this figure is twice as large as it was in 1986. Marijuana is safer than alcohol and tobacco, and our drug laws should reflect this reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

marijuana (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 26, 2008 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Throughout history, the legal and moral status of psychoactive drugs has kept changing. During the 17th century, the sale and consumption of tobacco were punished by death in much of Europe, Russia, China and Japan. For centuries, many of the Muslim domains that forbade alcohol sale and consumption simultaneously tolerated and even regulated the sale of opium and cannabis.

Each year, the U.S. government spends more than $30 billion on the drug war and arrests over 1.5 million people on drug-related charges. Over 318,000 people are now behind bars in the U.S. for drug violations, greater than the total number of people incarcerated for all crimes in England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.

Our government is calling for billions of dollars to fight a drug war it can't win. Roughly 75 percent of this money goes to enforcing laws and regulations, but only 15 percent goes to drug education and prevention, and a only a meager 10 percent goes to treatment for addicts.

During the 1950s, long-term prison sentences against drug users choked the courts, strained and disrupted prisons and drove black-market prices even higher. The latest casualty in the drug war has been our civil liberties: mandatory drug testing so we can all be “drug free”. Some of these tests have been struck down by the courts, where the government is the employer. But others have been upheld. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia denounced these drug tests as “an immolation of privacy and human dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use.”

Even putting America under martial law will not solve the nation's drug problem. Iran executes hundreds of drug offenders. Malaysia has hanged dozens of drug users in the past few years. In neither country has the drug problem receded. In fact, in Malaysia, the addiction rate continues to rise. On the other hand, the Dutch government, with its liberal social and political philosophy, tolerates drug use, and the addiction rate is declining.

According to a 2003 Zogby poll, two of every five Americans say “the government should treat marijuana the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children.” Close to 100 million Americans, including over half of those between the ages of 18 and 50, have tried marijuana at least once. Military and police recruiters often have no alternative but to ignore past marijuana use by job seekers.

In 1996, California voters passed a law to regulate medical marijuana within the state. In 2000, voters in California approved an initiative allowing people who are arrested for simple possession of drugs to go through a rehabilitation program rather than through the court process that would result in prison. Since the program began, most agree it has been very successful. It results in less recidivism and is considered cheaper than imprisonment.

Richard Posner, Chicago's chief judge of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and one of the nation's leading legal scholars, says marijuana use should be legalized as a way of reducing crime. Posner, a Reagan administration appointee once described by American Lawyer magazine as “the most brilliant judge in the country,” explained his views on marijuana in The Times Literary Supplement, a British publication, and in later interview:

“It is nonsense that we should be devoting so many law enforcement resources to marijuana," says Posner. "I am skeptical that a society that is so tolerant of alcohol and cigarettes should come down so hard on marijuana use and send people to prison for life without parole.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

marijuana (part 3)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 26, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posner is the highest-ranking judge to publicly favor the repeal of marijuana laws. Several judges of the federal district court, a level lower than the appeals court, have made similar calls, including Robert Sweet of New York and James Paine of Florida, both Carter Administration appointees.

New York University law professor Burt Neuborne said it's significant that “one of the leading intellectuals in the judicial system recognizes that the laws don't seem to be working well.”

Posner and other federal judges have complained that sentencing guidelines force them to give unjustly severe prison sentences to relatively minor drug offenders. Says Posner: “Prison terms in America have become appallingly long, especially for conduct that, arguably, should not be criminal at all. Only decriminalization is a sure route to a lower crime rate. It is sad that it appears so far below the horizon of political feasibility.”

Rufus King, a Washington, DC lawyer who has served on the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, calls the drug war, “A worthless crusade.” According to King, drug use is a social problem, not a law enforcement problem.