POLL: Marijuana

[ukcanuck]

[img]

Three states have Cannabis legalization on their November ballots including our neighbors to the south in Washington State.

This is a problem, much like in Canada the criminalization of pot is under a Federal statute.....so good luck making a state law supersed a Federal Law....

states and provinces have different powers in making law if I am not mistaken. but besides that if there is a federal law in the USA that criminalizes Marijuana and a state law that says its not its not a Criminal offense to possess or use or grow then wouldn't it just work out that the state troopers and local law enforcement would ignore such activities unless it got a grand enough scale for the FBI and DEA to get involved and any charging of crimes be done at the federal court level?

By the way I apologise if I'm repeating arguments already presented this thread is waay to long to read through to make sure it hasn't already been said.

Anyway...If pot was legal to possess in relatively small amounts then why would I ever want to buy it when its ridiculously easy to grow outdoors? i could be growing it with my tomatoes in my green house, or in my veggie garden out back or in my front window sill? Its not difficult costly or time consuming like beer and wine or even tobacco so where exactly is the tax going to come from I wonder?

Also since drug possession, use, and sales together are the number one reason for being in jail in our society (by a country mile) then wouldn't legalising drugs make half the courts, judges, lawyers, cops, and prison guards redundant? hmmm seems like a win win to me less criminals, less cops. less fat cat lawyers and judges. [/img]

[Glacier]

Also since drug possession, use, and sales together are the number one reason for being in jail in our society (by a country mile)

I call BS on this one.

[ukcanuck]

Also since drug possession, use, and sales together are the number one reason for being in jail in our society (by a country mile)

I call BS on this one.

Well back your call up then, show me how I am wrong

http://open.salon.com/blog/stephannie/2010/05/16/how_many_people_are_incarcerated_for_drug_related_offenses

Approximate number of people incarcerated for drug related crimes:

108,000 people in federal prisons as of April 2010
280,000 people in state prisons across the country as of June 2007
31,500 people in California state prisons as of December 2008
Let's expand a bit by putting it into perspective, and that means understanding how many total people are incarcerated for all crimes:
211,455 inmates at federal prisons as of April 2010
1,395,916 inmates in state prisons as of June 2007
171,161 inmates in California as of December 2008
So that means around half of all inmates in federal prisons are there for drugs, around 20% of inmates nationwide in state prisons are there for drugs and around 18% of inmates in California state prisons are there for drugs.
Lots of information is publicly available about almost every aspect of prisons in the United States, but aggregations seem to take a while to compile. Really excellent information can be found via the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which is a division within the US Department of Justice. But as they are pulling numbers from a variety of different governmental agencies, their reports come out a few years after the fact.

It is worth noting that the United States has the highest prison population rate in the world. In the US, 756 out of every 100,000 people are incarcerated.

[Glacier]

There are 2 million people in prison in the States; 0.5 million are in jail for drugs. More people get convicted of property crimes than drug crimes.

[ukcanuck]

There are 2 million people in prison in the States; 0.5 million are in jail for drugs. More people get convicted of property crimes than drug crimes.

Well the very first hole I'd probably poke in your theory is that property crime is generally a direct result of poverty which goes hand in hand with Drug use so most likely your average property theft criminal was stealing to support an illegal habit in the first place so... I'm claiming all your property theft inmates as actually drug related

But before I do that, I'd like to ask do you just throw stats around like you pulled em out of your exit hole or do you actually have a source?

[ukcanuck]

There are 2 million people in prison in the States; 0.5 million are in jail for drugs. More people get convicted of property crimes than drug crimes.

Well the very first hole I'd probably poke in your theory is that property crime is generally a direct result of poverty which goes hand in hand with Drug use so most likely your average property theft criminal was stealing to support an illegal habit in the first place so... I'm claiming all your property theft inmates as actually drug related

But before I do that, I'd like to ask do you just throw stats around like you pulled em out of your exit hole or do you actually have a source?

[Glacier]

Nice try. Alcohol is the number one drug related reason used for non-drug related crimes though.

Google is your friend. Here is a starting point for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ate#Causes

[ukcanuck]

Nice try. Alcohol is the number one drug related reason used for non-drug related crimes though.

Google is your friend. Here is a starting point for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ate#Causes

well by your stats (the first one anyway) 24% are straightforward drug related, plus you can add an additional another 20% of property crimes where drug money was the admitted reason and then include drug use as a precipitating factor in another 20 percent of the remaining categories and you're still at what I said originally which was that the overwhelming reason for the majority of incarcerations are drug possessions, sales and use. I don't know why you would want to argue that anyway?

As for the Wiki thing, you do know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Even you could go on Wiki and create a page saying you were the smartest guy on the planet if you wanted to.

Additionally, why do I need a starting point? you're the one making the BS call, its up to you to prove it.

[Glacier]

No, that's not how it works. You are the one that made the claim, so you must back it up. If I claim that 56% of people pedophiles, it's not up to you to provide the pedophile data. Your claim did not talk about drug related crimes, it only mentioned direct drug crimes, though I can see now that you may have meant drug related crimes as well.

Also since drug possession, use, and sales together are the number one reason for being in jail in our society (by a country mile)

If you did indeed mean theft, etc. caused by people feeding their habits, then you would also have to provide some evidence that legalizing or decriminalizing drugs would lead to a dramatic drop in theft and the like. This makes the problem very complex, and in that case, highly speculative, and therefore hard to prove or disprove.

[ukcanuck]

No, that's not how it works. You are the one that made the claim, so you must back it up. If I claim that 56% of people pedophiles, it's not up to you to provide the pedophile data.

Actually if I wanted to disagree with your supposition and call it BS then it would be up to me to show how preposterous your claim might or might not be.

Besides that I did back it up for you , but you chose to ignore it and use your own stats which is why I hate stats btw, but that's another argument

Your claim did not talk about drug related crimes, it only mentioned direct drug crimes, though I can see now that you may have meant drug related crimes as well.

Also since drug possession, use, and sales together are the number one reason for being in jail in our society (by a country mile)

I thought that the words drug "use" implied all of the issues that come with drug use including violent crime, property crime, domestic crime etc etc . However, I can see how one might take a too narrow interpretation.

If you did indeed mean theft, etc. caused by people feeding their habits, then you would also have to provide some evidence that legalizing or decriminalizing drugs would lead to a dramatic drop in theft and the like. This makes the problem very complex, and in that case, highly speculative, and therefore hard to prove or disprove.

Well yes you would be right if this were a sociological study, but who has time to go trough the data to make watertight conclusions?
However, I for one am happy with the wild statement that if all illicit drugs were completely legalized a staggering amount of inmates would need to be released and a goodly number of prisons could be converted into low income housing and the entire war machine of "the war on drugs" could be dismantled and put to much better use, namely preventing more addiction through the uplifting of the poor out of their abject misery....
this would have the added benefit of society needing even less cops judges and courts as the reduction of poverty would greatly reduce the amount of incarcerations for all reasons.

[Glacier]

That much is true, however your statement, "since drug possession, use, and sales together are the number one reason for being in jail in our society (by a country mile)" is not (unless you can clearly define country mile).

I didn't ignore your stats, they just didn't match your claim.

So that means around half of all inmates in federal prisons are there for drugs, around 20% of inmates nationwide in state prisons are there for drugs and around 18% of inmates in California state prisons are there for drugs.

But you claimed:

since drug possession, use, and sales together are the number one reason for being in jail in our society (by a country mile)

Clearly less than 50% are there for drugs. There are over 2,000,000 people in jail in the States, and I have not found once source that lists the drug related population at even close to half that. Still 500,000 is a lot, that is for sure.

[ukcanuck]

That much is true, however your statement, "since drug possession, use, and sales together are the number one reason for being in jail in our society (by a country mile)" is not (unless you can clearly define country mile).

I didn't ignore your stats, they just didn't match your claim.

So that means around half of all inmates in federal prisons are there for drugs, around 20% of inmates nationwide in state prisons are there for drugs and around 18% of inmates in California state prisons are there for drugs.

But you claimed:

since drug possession, use, and sales together are the number one reason for being in jail in our society (by a country mile)

Clearly less than 50% are there for drugs. There are over 2,000,000 people in jail in the States, and I have not found once source that lists the drug related population at even close to half that. Still 500,000 is a lot, that is for sure.

Okay I guess you could say "about half" and a "country mile" are not exactly the same, but since a "country" mile is kind of undefinable,( is it more or less than a city mile, or a statute mile, or imperial mile, or a US mile I don't even know?) And the term about half is inherently inexact, I'd say I was being as accurate as one needs to be considering the forum ( no pun intended )

[Static]

What is the proportion of MJ smokers who do not break the law (other than hit the herb) compared to those who smoke and break the law?

[ukcanuck]

What is the proportion of MJ smokers who do not break the law (other than hit the herb) compared to those who smoke and break the law?

You're not suggesting that being a stoner turn one into a saint are you?
Cause I think the percentage wouldn't change much.

[JLives]

What is the proportion of MJ smokers who do not break the law (other than hit the herb) compared to those who smoke and break the law?

It would be pretty difficult to provide statistics on people who don't break the law as there is no paper trail. The vast majority of smokers that I know do not break other laws and are all skilled employees but that is anecdotal.