Feds will enforce pot ban even if Cali legalizes

[Back]

Eric Holder To Prosecute Distribution, Possession If Prop. 19 Passes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/eric-holder-to-prosecute-_n_764153.html)


SAN FRANCISCO — Attorney General Eric Holder says the federal government will enforce its marijuana laws in California even if voters next month make the state the first in the nation to legalize the drug.

The Justice Department strongly opposes California's Proposition 19 and remains firmly committed to enforcing the federal Controlled Substances Act in all states, Holder wrote in a letter to former chiefs of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter, dated Wednesday.

"We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law," Holder wrote.

The attorney general also said that legalizing recreational marijuana in California would be a "significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other drugs.

He said the ballot measure's passage would "significantly undermine" efforts to keep California communities safe.

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

The fuck? Police state anyone?

[Androidpk]

Significant impediment my ass. The war on drugs has been a total failure and complete waste of taxpayer's money.

[WRoss]

Significant impediment my ass. The war on drugs has been a total failure and complete waste of taxpayer's money.

So wait, if it was legal, there wouldn't be so much cost in smuggling it into the country making it a cheaper product that could be sold in legal manners that aren't conducive to committing crime. No way!!! You are fucking lying!!

[4a6c1]

My 10 minutes of non-hulu tv this week consisted of something on msnbc or pbs and it was about the mom and pop, 'cannabis growers' of humbolt valley california and how they are against legalization because they say it will turn pot into a corporate, mass-production venture that will kill small business growers.

It was an interesting argument.

[Back]

My 10 minutes of non-hulu tv this week consisted of something on msnbc or pbs and it was about the mom and pop, 'cannabis growers' of humbolt valley california and how they are against legalization because they say it will turn pot into a corporate, mass-production venture that will kill small business growers.

It was an interesting argument.

Yeah I imagine one company will become like a Budweiser of buds but there will always be a market for local grown small independent mom n’ pop products just like with everything else.

[Tgo01]

My 10 minutes of non-hulu tv this week consisted of something on msnbc or pbs and it was about the mom and pop, 'cannabis growers' of humbolt valley california and how they are against legalization because they say it will turn pot into a corporate, mass-production venture that will kill small business growers.

It was an interesting argument.

So they basically want to keep their stranglehold on the market by ensuring everyone but their own customers would remain criminals? Interesting argument indeed.

[Methais]

The attorney general also said that legalizing recreational marijuana in California would be a "significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other drugs.

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll154/spinarooni226/25pseoh.gif

[Gelston]

The fuck? Police state anyone?

Of course the Federal Government is going to continue to enforce Federal Laws. California voters aren't the entire citizenry of the US.

[WRoss]

Leaving sarcasm aside, in 2006 (or was it 2008) the DEA said that they would no longer spend federal funding to pursue the "mom and pop" growers in California, specifically Humboldt county. Basically, what this is saying that if you are doing a crime large enough to warrant being prosecuted in a federal courtroom, not state level, that you'll get in trouble. Don't pull a Nate Newton and you'll be all good.

[Methais]

Of course the Federal Government is going to continue to enforce Federal Laws.

You mean like they do with illegal immigration?

[ZeP]

So now we're going to hate on Nate Newton? Open challenge to anyone to get caught with hundreds of pounds twice, in Texas, and live to tell about it. That's right, American legend.

[Androidpk]

You mean like they do with illegal immigration?

:lol2:

[BigWorm]

Of course the Federal Government is going to continue to enforce Federal Laws. California voters aren't the entire citizenry of the US.

This

[Willington]

So now we're going to hate on Nate Newton? Open challenge to anyone to get caught with hundreds of pounds twice, in Texas, and live to tell about it. That's right, American legend.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Newton

Thats alot of Pot

[Michaelous]

just another perfect example to show the drug cartels are still in control, when the government gets paid off by these drug lords and prolly some of the government are drug lords themselvs. legalizing drugs will be a huge loss to them so they are gonna do everything they can to keep it illegal.

[ZeP]

Oh, the arrests were in Louisiana according to that. Minor offense over there.

[Divinity]

My 10 minutes of non-hulu tv this week consisted of something on msnbc or pbs and it was about the mom and pop, 'cannabis growers' of humbolt valley california and how they are against legalization because they say it will turn pot into a corporate, mass-production venture that will kill small business growers.

It was an interesting argument.

I live in this county. I fucking HATE it. For people who are smoking pot here, as often as they do, are big assholes. Disrespectful fucks. /rant

[Androidpk]

I live in this county. I fucking HATE it. For people who are smoking pot here, as often as they do, are big assholes. Disrespectful fucks. /rant

Tell that to the founding fathers.

[RichardCranium]

Oh, the arrests were in Louisiana according to that. Minor offense over there.

DWI's are minor down here. They'll fuck you over with pot.

[BigWorm]

You guys are missing the point. It doesn't really have anything to do with pot. The federal government cannot let states opt out of federal laws whenever they choose to do so.

[Delias]

You guys are missing the point. It doesn't really have anything to do with pot. The federal government cannot let states opt out of federal laws whenever they choose to do so.

No, the point is a stupid law is a stupid law, regardless of whether it is a state or federal law. I'm not an expert on the constitution but didn't we gain the right to put whatever we so desired into our bodies with the repealing of prohibition, or is that just the right to drink whatever I wish?

[4a6c1]

You guys are missing the point. It doesn't really have anything to do with pot. The federal government cannot let states opt out of federal laws whenever they choose to do so.

Actually that is incorrect. Alaska already has pot laws for Alaska residents. Federal employees are still required to follow federal law while there though so I dont have any fun stories to tell.

[Bobmuhthol]

Alaska can have as many laws as they want but the federal government can still enforce its own laws there.


I'm not an expert on the constitution but didn't we gain the right to put whatever we so desired into our bodies with the repealing of prohibition, or is that just the right to drink whatever I wish?

Neither. Absinthe was illegal well after prohibition ended.

[Androidpk]

Federal level referendums anyone?

[WRoss]

Federal level law enforcement agencies like the DEA and FBI will be following federal laws. California law enforcement will be following California laws. As I stated earlier, the DEA has stated that they won't use federal funding to pursue the grow operations in California. To me, it is clear that the federal government is not going to stop pursuing large traffickers of drugs, but they aren't going to be patrolling the streets of California looking for pot smokers. It seems they are trying to limit the extent of the pot business at the distribution level, not at the user end.

[Gelston]

No, the point is a stupid law is a stupid law, regardless of whether it is a state or federal law. I'm not an expert on the constitution but didn't we gain the right to put whatever we so desired into our bodies with the repealing of prohibition, or is that just the right to drink whatever I wish?

I wonder if kevorkian (sp?) had his upcoming patients use that line.

[Dr Kevorkian]

No I didn't, but I will provide a free consultation for Delias, if he would like.

[Latrinsorm]

"Police state"? Really?

[Back]

"Police state"? Really?

Well, yeah. Exaggeration.

This whole dialogue has reminded me of Nietzsche, AGAIN!

[Methais]

You guys are missing the point. It doesn't really have anything to do with pot. The federal government cannot let states opt out of federal laws whenever they choose to do so.

Yet when states try to enforce laws that the Feds won't enforce, the Feds sue them.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Warriorbird]

DWI's are minor down here. They'll fuck you over with pot.

This...unless you're an attorney, which is hilarious.

[BigWorm]

I would be perfectly fine with states deciding their own drug policies, but that's not how the federal law is currently written.

[Drunken Durfin]

Years ago the Fed tried to force Louisiana to change the legal drinking age to 21 so that it would be in line with the rest of the country. The threat was that all federal funding for roads, bridges and highways would be pulled if they didn't. So, the lawmakers in LA changed the legal drinking age to 21. However, it is still legal for you to buy alcohol at 18 there...you just can't drink it.

Perhaps something similar will come about for CA.

[Methais]

Years ago the Fed tried to force Louisiana to change the legal drinking age to 21 so that it would be in line with the rest of the country. The threat was that all federal funding for roads, bridges and highways would be pulled if they didn't. So, the lawmakers in LA changed the legal drinking age to 21. However, it is still legal for you to buy alcohol at 18 there...you just can't drink it.

Perhaps something similar will come about for CA.

That's not the case anymore. When I first moved here in '94 that was the case for a few years, 18 to buy, 21 to drink. Then for one whole weekend, they dropped the buy and drink age to 18, then changed it again the following Monday, pretty sure to 21 to buy and 21 to drink.

That was an awesome weekend though. I think I was 18 at the time and we went nuts at the bars all weekend.

[WRoss]

Years ago the Fed tried to force Louisiana to change the legal drinking age to 21 so that it would be in line with the rest of the country. The threat was that all federal funding for roads, bridges and highways would be pulled if they didn't. So, the lawmakers in LA changed the legal drinking age to 21. However, it is still legal for you to buy alcohol at 18 there...you just can't drink it.

Perhaps something similar will come about for CA.

You might be thinking of Wisconsin because this is exactly what happened there in the mid 90's

[Gelston]

Years ago the Fed tried to force Louisiana to change the legal drinking age to 21 so that it would be in line with the rest of the country. The threat was that all federal funding for roads, bridges and highways would be pulled if they didn't. So, the lawmakers in LA changed the legal drinking age to 21. However, it is still legal for you to buy alcohol at 18 there...you just can't drink it.

Perhaps something similar will come about for CA.

Not true. Grew up in Louisiana. It's 21 now. Louisiana was the last state to switch to 21 from 18. The issue at hand is different though, the Federal Government already had statutes in Place, and Ca is making state laws that conflict.

[Drunken Durfin]

No, I'm not thinking Wisconsin. I was a philosophy major with a huge bong in my room, but I'm not going to confuse what state I was in for the seven years I spent working on my bachelor's degree. I left in the mid-90's, so the change has happened since then.

Do they still have the drive-thru daiquiri places at least?

[Gelston]

No, I'm not thinking Wisconsin. I was a philosophy major with a huge bong in my room, but I'm not going to confuse what state I was in for the seven years I spent working on my bachelor's degree. I left in the mid-90's, so the change has happened since then.

Do they still have the drive-thru daiquiri places at least?

Fuck yes

[Methais]

Do they still have the drive-thru daiquiri places at least?

All over the place.

[RichardCranium]

A lot of drugs are sold at the windows of drive-thru daiquiri shops here. So I've heard.

[Warriorbird]

Mmm. Drive thru mixed drinks.

[Divinity]

Tell that to the founding fathers.

Wtf do the founding fathers have to do with the county I live in and the disrespectful, pot-wielding assholes occupying it?

[RichardCranium]

Wtf do the founding fathers have to do with the county I live in and the disrespectful, pot-wielding assholes occupying it?

They all smoked. Lol @pot-wielding

[Delias]

Wtf do the founding fathers have to do with the county I live in and the disrespectful, pot-wielding assholes occupying it?

What about the respectful, "I like to get high once a month" sort of pot wielders? Or the "I have chronic pain and aspirin doesn't do the trick, and my doctors are fuckers" group? Are they ok, or is your stance entirely anti-weed?

I'm just curious, because I can honestly tell you I've never met anyone more dangerous stoned than they were drunk. They are usually only dangerous to things like nachos.

Edit: Not Nachos. nachos. Lower-case, not a person.

[Kainen]

You guys should try living in pothead central A.K.A. South Lake Tahoe.. we have 3 "wellness clinics" here already. (Tahoe isn't a very big place either) The City Counsel has temp banned the opening of more for an undetermined amount of time.

[Warriorbird]

Personally I'm dangerous to Nachos. But that's on general principle.

[Androidpk]

Personally I'm dangerous to Nachos. But that's on general principle.

You're Chris Hansen?

[Warriorbird]

Why don't you have a seat over there?

[RichardCranium]

You're Chris Hansen?


Burn.

[BigWorm]

All over the place.

Isn't legal as long as you don't put the straw in or something ridiculous like that?

[BigWorm]

Yet when states try to enforce laws that the Feds won't enforce, the Feds sue them.

Yeah, that makes sense.

It would be awesome if we could get something like local option (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_option) for pot, but I don't see that happening any time soon. At best California is going to be a grey market unless this gets fixed at the federal level.

[Androidpk]

At best California is going to be a grey market unless this gets fixed at the federal level.

Until every other state sees how much cash California rakes in and follows suit.

[Gelston]

Isn't legal as long as you don't put the straw in or something ridiculous like that?

They tape the straw down.

[Stanley Burrell]

I just do case files, but it would save me a lot of time if I didn't have to say, "3 bushels, 2 grains and one speckle of 55.5% THC was sold within 10,001ft of a 9-12 school district."

I don't ever agree with peddling to kids, but some of the details I have to write on drug arrests are incredibly and unreasonably detailed. And they're mostly the ganj'. I have to put off spreadsheets (e.g) compiling data on safecrackers and actual bad guys because all of these technicalities I have to enter as data on possession logs. I mean, if there's a real fuckface out there and it's strategic to pull up case files for repeat offenses, then it might make sense, but having to get clearance from authorities able to oversee juvenile case files because little Billy was in the playground smoking a joint; and because I have to compile these datas in order to create possible trends, it's a big waste of time for certain desk jobs in law enforcement.

[Delias]

I just do case files, but it would save me a lot of time if I didn't have to say, "3 bushels, 2 grains and one speckle of 55.5% THC was sold within 10,001ft of a 9-12 school district."

I don't ever agree with peddling to kids, but some of the details I have to write on drug arrests are incredibly and unreasonably detailed. And they're mostly the ganj'. I have to put off spreadsheets (e.g) compiling data on safecrackers and actual bad guys because all of these technicalities I have to enter as data on possession logs. I mean, if there's a real fuckface out there and it's strategic to pull up case files for repeat offenses, then it might make sense, but having to get clearance from authorities able to oversee juvenile case files because little Billy was in the playground smoking a joint; and because I have to compile these datas in order to create possible trends, it's a big waste of time for certain desk jobs in law enforcement.

The last really bad thing I think I did on weed that might be considered a crime was having carnal knowledge of a (modified) torengo's can.

[Divinity]

What about the respectful, "I like to get high once a month" sort of pot wielders? Or the "I have chronic pain and aspirin doesn't do the trick, and my doctors are fuckers" group? Are they ok, or is your stance entirely anti-weed?

I'm just curious, because I can honestly tell you I've never met anyone more dangerous stoned than they were drunk. They are usually only dangerous to things like nachos.

Edit: Not Nachos. nachos. Lower-case, not a person.

I don't know where I said that I was "anti-weed". 0_o I'm not against marijuana or its use. I'm pissy about the people that are disrespectful while using it.

In Humboldt County there are a lot of individuals that believe they can smoke marijuana in public because of Prop 215; bus stations, store fronts, parks, on the street are all places I have seen people smoking publicly. I will be walking around with my daughter and, if not paying attention, will walk through a cloud of it. I've asked people to take their blunt, joint, pipe elsewhere and I am met with anger.

At least in Portland, Oregon they are respectful about it. Humboldt sucks ass.

[Gan]

I don't know where I said that I was "anti-weed". 0_o I'm not against marijuana or its use. I'm pissy about the people that are disrespectful while using it.

In Humboldt County there are a lot of individuals that believe they can smoke marijuana in public because of Prop 215; bus stations, store fronts, parks, on the street are all places I have seen people smoking publicly. I will be walking around with my daughter and, if not paying attention, will walk through a cloud of it. I've asked people to take their blunt, joint, pipe elsewhere and I am met with anger.

At least in Portland, Oregon they are respectful about it. Humboldt sucks ass.

But don't they have a right to smoke in public? I mean, if you really don't want to be exposed to 1st or 2nd hand smoke from someone's blunt/pipe/joint then you should not go out into public right?

It's not their fault that the smoke lingers around in the air where other people, who may or may not be smoking, breathe...

[Divinity]

But don't they have a right to smoke in public? I mean, if you really don't want to be exposed to 1st or 2nd hand smoke from someone's blunt/pipe/joint then you should not go out into public right?

It's not their fault that the smoke lingers around in the air where other people, who may or may not be smoking, breathe...

They don't have the right to smoke it in public. Prop 215 doesn't give people allowance to public displays.

[Bobmuhthol]

I really enjoyed the serious response to Gan's comment but I think I might have been more amused by the notion that standing next to someone is exposure to "1st hand smoke."

[TheEschaton]

Yet when states try to enforce laws that the Feds won't enforce, the Feds sue them.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Believe it or not, we live in a republic where federal law trumps state law, where federal law is allowed to exist. You can't opt out of a federal law, but federal law can sure override state law in subject matters where it has jurisdiction.

You might want to try living in that alternate universe where the Articles of Confederation made the states superior to the federal government, and somehow didn't become a total clusterfuck.

[radamanthys]

I don't know where I said that I was "anti-weed". 0_o I'm not against marijuana or its use. I'm pissy about the people that are disrespectful while using it.

In Humboldt County there are a lot of individuals that believe they can smoke marijuana in public because of Prop 215; bus stations, store fronts, parks, on the street are all places I have seen people smoking publicly. I will be walking around with my daughter and, if not paying attention, will walk through a cloud of it. I've asked people to take their blunt, joint, pipe elsewhere and I am met with anger.

At least in Portland, Oregon they are respectful about it. Humboldt sucks ass.


You don't really have the right to demand that everyone else around you change their behavior to suit your tastes.

There's little harm in it. If it was a cloud of mustard gas, I could see your complaint.


Believe it or not, we live in a republic where federal law trumps state law, where federal law is allowed to exist. You can't opt out of a federal law, but federal law can sure override state law in subject matters where it has jurisdiction.

You might want to try living in that alternate universe where the Articles of Confederation made the states superior to the federal government, and somehow didn't become a total clusterfuck.

I'm curious: what's the basis for jurisdiction in this matter? I don't remember the article that says "the federal government has the sole right to set laws regarding drug enforcement".

[Bobmuhthol]

An individual might not have that right, but lawmakers do, and it's pretty fucking illegal.

[crb]

Fucking Obama. Fucking Holder. Fucking Police Unions.

Prohibition of something the majority of the country has done, doesn't work. It never will. Give up.

[crb]

Believe it or not, we live in a republic where federal law trumps state law, where federal law is allowed to exist. You can't opt out of a federal law, but federal law can sure override state law in subject matters where it has jurisdiction.

You might want to try living in that alternate universe where the Articles of Confederation made the states superior to the federal government, and somehow didn't become a total clusterfuck.

Powers not specifically enumerated to the feds are reserved to the states.

AFAIK drug control on the federal level has always been based on the interstate commerce clause. One would think that couldn't apply if no borders are crossed.

Has anyone ever tried a constitutional challenge to federal drug laws?

Perhaps we will get one (or a new one) if prop 19 passes. Would be a good test of states rights.

[Divinity]

You don't really have the right to demand that everyone else around you change their behavior to suit your tastes.

There's little harm in it. If it was a cloud of mustard gas, I could see your complaint.


I complain about what a person does IN PUBLIC PLACES around my child and myself. Do what you want.. in your home. I think it's naive thinking that anyone would believe that there is "little harm" in any type of smoke inhalation, especially drugs.

I never said I demanded anything, I asked them to politely remove themselves from my space since they decided to occupy it. I should be able to enter a store without having to wait for the person to finish their blunt. I should be able to walk around, in public, and not have to worry about inhaling some other persons bad habit and how it affects my pregnancy.

[Bobmuhthol]

Has anyone ever tried a constitutional challenge to federal drug laws?

Yes. Timothy Leary, United States Supreme Court, challenging the Marijuana Tax Act. Marijuana is still illegal but at least you don't have to pay taxes on it anymore!

[g++]

I think In a public place I would rather be surrounded by people smoking pot and huffing ether than other peoples children.

[TheEschaton]

The interstate commerce clause is an enumerated power of the federal government, and no one will ever be able to successfully argue that all the pot in one state is grown completely within that state, which is the argument you'd have to win to challenge the federal drug statutes on that ground.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Fucking Obama. Fucking Holder. Fucking Police Unions.

Prohibition of something the majority of the country has done, doesn't work. It never will. Give up.


FIGHT THE POWER!

[Latrinsorm]

There's little harm in it.I am disappoint. How can this be established?
Prohibition of something the majority of the country has done, doesn't work. It never will. Give up.Did you know that during capital-p Prohibition the average alcohol intake of American adults dropped to approximately 20% of its previous level? Does that unassailable fact change your opinion in this matter?

[Danical]

I am disappoint. How can this be established?Did you know that during capital-p Prohibition the average alcohol intake of American adults dropped to approximately 20% of its previous level? Does that unassailable fact change your opinion in this matter?

Measured how? Wouldn't there be a massive amount of non-reported alcohol consumption?

[Latrinsorm]

Measured by the thoroughly peer-reviewed and fully verified method of "from some guy I heard on the Colbert report".

[Gan]

I would find it amusing if the whole state of California managed a perpetual state of dazed and confused.

I say legalize it and spliff out Californians!

[Delias]

I am disappoint. How can this be established?Did you know that during capital-p Prohibition the average alcohol intake of American adults dropped to approximately 20% of its previous level? Does that unassailable fact change your opinion in this matter?

And look at all of the fabulous wealth it provided for the bootleggers, too.

Sounds fucking familiar to me.

[Danical]

Is/Are there academic/economic papers on the potential financial impacts of legalizing it? I'd like to get some numbers more than, "lol, the foundations of society will crumble?!!1" or "lol, the entire CA deficit will be erased!!!1"

[BigWorm]

Is/Are there academic/economic papers on the potential financial impacts of legalizing it? I'd like to get some numbers more than, "lol, the foundations of society will crumble?!!1" or "lol, the entire CA deficit will be erased!!!1"

Even just the sales tax would be like printing money. And that's before they add whatever ridiculous excise tax they add on top.

Some numbers from this ABC news article on Prop. 19 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-elections-proposition-19-marijuana-legalization-ballot/story?id=11906253)

Esimated $14 billion in pot sales per year in California
$14 bil at sales tax of 8.25 (California base state sales tax) = $1.155 bil in sales tax alone.
Estimated $960 mil a year savings in enforcement costs.
Plus a projected $50 per ounce excise tax.

So $2bil increase on the bottom line before the excise tax is added on top.

[Methais]

Believe it or not, we live in a republic where federal law trumps state law, where federal law is allowed to exist. You can't opt out of a federal law, but federal law can sure override state law in subject matters where it has jurisdiction.

You might want to try living in that alternate universe where the Articles of Confederation made the states superior to the federal government, and somehow didn't become a total clusterfuck.

You seem to be missing the part where the feds aren't doing their job and enforcing their own laws.

Why have laws if you're not going to enforce them? Serious question.


FIGHT THE POWER!

Any retard can do that. See?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kgdikuVQOU

[Methais]

I am disappoint. How can this be established?Did you know that during capital-p Prohibition the average alcohol intake of American adults dropped to approximately 20% of its previous level? Does that unassailable fact change your opinion in this matter?

Did you know that organized crime went up by approximately 9001% during that time too?

I'm using the same source as you btw.

[Valthissa]

Even just the sales tax would be like printing money. And that's before they add whatever ridiculous excise tax they add on top.

Some numbers from this ABC news article on Prop. 19 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-elections-proposition-19-marijuana-legalization-ballot/story?id=11906253)

Esimated $14 billion in pot sales per year in California
$14 bil at sales tax of 8.25 (California base state sales tax) = $1.155 bil in sales tax alone.
Estimated $960 mil a year savings in enforcement costs.
Plus a projected $50 per ounce excise tax.

So $2bil increase on the bottom line before the excise tax is added on top.

It will be an interesting case study in economics and human behaviour, if it happens.

You would think the price would plummet once agribusiness can grow marijuana on an industrial scale. I would also think tax compliance would be an issue on a product that hasn't been previously taxed.

The nice part of people making specific claims about tax revenues is that they will be easy to check if the laws are changed. A harder number to verify would be the enforcement savings (if pot was legalized on a national level).

Since California has decriminalized marijuana I wonder if they have seen a enforcement savings (I'll ask tomorrow and see what I find out).

C/Valth

[Androidpk]

The feds are only doing what's best for us right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/26/obama-takes-pot-legalizat_n_179563.html

[Latrinsorm]

Did you know that organized crime went up by approximately 9001% during that time too?

I'm using the same source as you btw.I actually did look up crime rates for that era once, want to see something really neat and terribly formatted?

1930 600 5620 0.106761566
1990 2245 7323 0.306568346

These are the number of murders, number of people in thousands, and resulting murder rate for New York City in 1930 and 1990. You were over 3 times more likely to get murdered in Koch's NYC than Luciano's. Chicago wasn't even in the top 15 of murderous cities in the United States in 1926: the top 10 were totally populated by Southern cities, Kansas City, and Dallas.

http://www.1920-30.com/law/

Now, of course crime in general went up. We had invented a new crime, it only stands to reason that if we caught anyone the overall crime rate would increase, but it turns out that homocides went down during Prohibition. Isn't that weird?

[Danical]

I actually did look up crime rates for that era once, want to see something really neat and terribly formatted?

1930 600 5620 0.106761566
1990 2245 7323 0.306568346

These are the number of murders, number of people in thousands, and resulting murder rate for New York City in 1930 and 1990. You were over 3 times more likely to get murdered in Koch's NYC than Luciano's. Chicago wasn't even in the top 15 of murderous cities in the United States in 1926: the top 10 were totally populated by Southern cities, Kansas City, and Dallas.

http://www.1920-30.com/law/

Now, of course crime in general went up. We had invented a new crime, it only stands to reason that if we caught anyone the overall crime rate would increase, but it turns out that homocides went down during Prohibition. Isn't that weird?

Reported homicides.

[Delias]

Reported homicides.

This.

Check under "Missing Persons".

[Latrinsorm]

Couldn't find any missing persons statistics from 1930. Let's try reason:

The overwhelming majority of missing persons reports are filed about children (~95% (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/forensics/americas_missing/2.html)).
People, even murderers, generally don't murder children (~90% (http://www.murdervictims.com/murder_statistics.htm)).
Hence, it is reasonable to assume that out of X missing persons cases, only about 7.5% are even eligible for murder.

There were about 20,000 missing persons cases in NYC in 1990. 7.5% of that would be 1,500. If we assume that none of them were murdered in 1990, we would have to assume that the missing persons rate was 30% higher in 1930 and that every one of the 7.5% were murdered for 1930 to even have the same actual murder rate.

So even in the extremely implausible best case scenario for a more murderous 1930, 1930 struggles to keep pace. I think this is a pretty solid case.

[AnticorRifling]

How many people were living in the same square footage of NYC in 1930 as compared to 1990?

[g++]

I actually did look up crime rates for that era once, want to see something really neat and terribly formatted?

1930 600 5620 0.106761566
1990 2245 7323 0.306568346

These are the number of murders, number of people in thousands, and resulting murder rate for New York City in 1930 and 1990. You were over 3 times more likely to get murdered in Koch's NYC than Luciano's. Chicago wasn't even in the top 15 of murderous cities in the United States in 1926: the top 10 were totally populated by Southern cities, Kansas City, and Dallas.

http://www.1920-30.com/law/

Now, of course crime in general went up. We had invented a new crime, it only stands to reason that if we caught anyone the overall crime rate would increase, but it turns out that homocides went down during Prohibition. Isn't that weird?

Those are some very peculiar data points to pick as well. New York has gotten dramatically safer in the past 20 years. I think alot of people would point at 1990 as the peak of crime in New York. At least I would if i had to guess.

I just grabbed the murder statistics, despite a steady population increase murders have decreased in New York City ~500% in the past 20 years. On top of that 1990 was a spike even for the 1985-1995 era. There were more than 400 more murders in 1990 than 1989.

New York had 778 murders last year with a population of 19.5 million. In 1990 it had 2,605 murders with a population of 17.9 million. If anything all it really proves is that the year 1990 was one of the bloodiest in the US.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

[RichardCranium]

Those are some very peculiar data points to pick as well. New York has gotten dramatically safer in the past 20 years. I think alot of people would point at 1990 as the peak of crime in New York. At least I would if i had to guess.

I just grabbed the murder statistics, despite a steady population increase murders have decreased in New York City ~500% in the past 20 years. On top of that 1990 was a spike even for the 1985-1995 era. There were more than 400 more murders in 1990 than 1989.

New York had 778 murders last year with a population of 19.5 million. In 1990 it had 2,605 murders with a population of 17.9 million. If anything all it really proves is that the year 1990 was one of the bloodiest in the US.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

I blame rap music. Thank God Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer came along to save the day.

[Bobmuhthol]

You can't decrease by a percentage greater than 100%, so....

[g++]

You can't decrease by a percentage greater than 100%, so....

there were ~500% more murders in 1990 than today.

[Bobmuhthol]

Thanks.

Now I'll tear apart your numbers.

There were 3.35 times as many murders in 1990 than in 2009. This represents 235% more murders in 1990 than in 2009, and thus a 70% decrease from 1990 to 2009. A 500% difference is a gross overestimate.

What is really important though is the murder rate, not the murder total. There were 144.8 murders per million people in 1990 and 39.8 murders per million people in 2009; there were 3.64 times as many murders per person (264% more) in 1990 than in 2009, and this translates to a 72.5% decrease in murders per capita from 1990 to 2009.

[Cephalopod]

there were ~500% more murders in 1990 than today.

And we already know one of those was Glenn Beck, who still has not denied raping and killing that poor girl.

[g++]

Thanks.

Now I'll tear apart your numbers.

There were 3.35 times as many murders in 1990 than in 2009. This represents 235% more murders in 1990 than in 2009, and thus a 70% decrease from 1990 to 2009. A 500% difference is a gross overestimate.

Meh whatever I just rounded to 500 and divided 2500 and got 5 in my head. Thats what the ~ is for im not writing a dissertation on crime. The point is New Yorks murder rate in 1990 was extremely high compared to other years which I stand by. Coincidently with no math to back up my statement I will say the murders in 1990 were likely due to another substance being illegal : crack cocaine.

[Bobmuhthol]

You rounded 778 to 500?

[g++]

You rounded 778 to 500?

Dude like I said I free form wrote this in under two minutes. I didnt bust out a calculator or think it through too much. You are right. I dont know what else to say.

[Delias]

Dude like I said I free form wrote this in under two minutes. I didnt bust out a calculator or think it through too much. You are right. I dont know what else to say.

Just keep saying the "You are right part" until he shuts up.

[Latrinsorm]

How many people were living in the same square footage of NYC in 1930 as compared to 1990?Overall density was 22.9k in 1930, 24.2k in 1990. You can see a borough by borough breakdown here (http://www.demographia.com/dm-nyc.htm).
New York has gotten dramatically safer in the past 20 years.This is certainly true. Say, when did President Reagan start the War on Drugs? :)

[Delias]

Overall density was 22.9k in 1930, 24.2k in 1990. You can see a borough by borough breakdown here (http://www.demographia.com/dm-nyc.htm).This is certainly true. Say, when did President Reagan start the War on Drugs? :)

Not 20 years ago.

[Valthissa]

Overall density was 22.9k in 1930, 24.2k in 1990. You can see a borough by borough breakdown here (http://www.demographia.com/dm-nyc.htm).This is certainly true. Say, when did President Reagan start the War on Drugs? :)

In 1971 Nixon popularized the term "War on Drugs"



C/Valth

[Parkbandit]

Doesn't look like we're going to have to worry about it:


Californians are souring on a ballot measure to legalize adult recreational use and cultivation of marijuana, according to a new poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California.

The poll found that 44 percent of likely voters support Proposition 19, the marijuana ballot measure, while 49 percent are opposed. The results are a significant decline from last month, when the same survey found Prop. 19 leading 52 to 41 percent.

Prop. 23, which would suspend the state's greenhouse gas law, lost support in the latest poll as did Prop. 24, which would overturn corporate tax breaks. Prop. 25, which would allow the Legislature to pass a budget with a simple majority vote, gained slightly, and is the only measure of those polled that is winning. Five other measures on the ballot were not polled.

"In an initiative campaign, the burden of proof is always on the 'yes' side," said Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California. "The yes side has to do a very convincing job of explaining not just why, in concept, something is good, but why it is a good law."

For Prop. 19, he noted the array of high-profile figures who have come out against the proposition, including every candidate running for statewide office, while the proponents have yet to gain such high-profile endorsements.

The biggest drop in support is among independent voters. Last month, 65 percent of independent voters supported the initiative and that number has shrunk to just 40 percent. The poll also found a significant decline among Latino voters, whose support dropped from 63 percent in September to 42 percent today.

"This was in concept something that Californians were evenly divided on and I guess they are just not hearing reinforcing messages that would put them in the position of support," Baldassare said.

For Prop. 23, the measure to suspend the state's climate-change law known as AB32, 37 percent of likely voters are in support while 48 percent are opposed. Last month, voters were almost evenly split on the initiative, which would suspend the greenhouse gas regulation law until unemployment falls to 5.5 percent for an entire year.

The voters polled knew the least about Prop. 24, a measure that would repeal three corporate tax breaks that have been included in budget negotiations the past few years. The measure is losing, with 31 percent in support and 38 percent opposed, but a large number of people - 31 percent - said they did not know how they would vote.

"I think voters can't figure out what this one is all about," Baldassare said.

The only ballot measure of the four polled that is leading is Prop. 25, which would allow the Legislature to pass the state budget by a simple majority. Current law requires a two-thirds majority vote, which forces it to be bipartisan, and earlier this month lawmakers finally approved a spending plan 100 days after the start of the fiscal year.

Forty-nine percent of likely voters support the measure, while 34 percent are opposed. The findings are nearly identical to the survey taken a month ago.

The survey polled 2,002 Californians who said they are registered and active voters. The poll was conducted between Oct. 10 and Oct. 17 and has an error rate of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2010%2F10%2F20%2FBACB1FVD UL.DTL#ixzz135SauCH0

[Gan]

I will laugh heartily if this passes.

Then I will watch happily as all the pot-heads move to California.

*It will be like the mass migration of the hippies in the late 60's.

[Androidpk]

If it doesn't pass I would say that the recent decriminalization law is the reason why.