Colorado making so much money from drugs they don't know what to do with it all!

[Tgo01]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colorado-is-making-so-much-money-from-cannabis-its-having-to-give-some-back-to-citizens-10020466.html




Colorado's marijuana experiment has been an empirically rousing success thus far, with crime down and tourism up, and now the state has collected so much money in tax from sales of pot that it might be legally obliged to give some back.

The state constitution puts a cap on the amount of tax money that can be taken in before some has to be returned, meaning Coloradans could see a share of the $50 million generated by sales of recreational cannabis.

It's such an uncommon situation that both Democrats and Republicans are in agreement on it - both insist that there is no point in returning the money to taxpayers, not something you usually hear the GOP saying.
420 festival: Cannabis Cup celebrations in Denver, Colorado

"I think it's appropriate that we keep the money for marijuana that the voters said that we should," said Republican Senate President Bill Cadman.

"This is a little bit of a different animal. There's a struggle on this one," added Sen. Kevin Grantham, one of the Republican budget writers.

Coloradans may be asked to vote on making marijuana exempt from the tax cap - the money instead being ploughed into more drug education and police training to spot stoned drivers, as marijuana legalisation is designed to pay for itself without dipping into general taxes.

Last month, a Denver police chief confirmed that a year after legalisation "everything is fine", crime has continued to drop and police are going about their business as usual.

Okay, whatever about the tax money they are generating. What's up with every story I read about this being "Crime rates in Colorado are down! DOWN!!!!"

I'm all in favor of legalizing marijuana but aren't we being kind of silly with attributing supposed drops in crime with the legalization of marijuana? Are we just going to link everything positive since the legalization with marijuana to the legalization of marijuana? If student test scores start improving next year is that because of the legalization of marijuana? What if unemployment goes down? Legalization of marijuana? Someone in Colorado struck it rich and was the Powerball winner? Legalization of marijuana, of course!

We need someone who is good at math and can make graphs and shit explain this to us.

[Jeril]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colorado-is-making-so-much-money-from-cannabis-its-having-to-give-some-back-to-citizens-10020466.html



Okay, whatever about the tax money they are generating. What's up with every story I read about this being "Crime rates in Colorado are down! DOWN!!!!"

I'm all in favor of legalizing marijuana but aren't we being kind of silly with attributing supposed drops in crime with the legalization of marijuana? Are we just going to link everything positive since the legalization with marijuana to the legalization of marijuana? If student test scores start improving next year is that because of the legalization of marijuana? What if unemployment goes down? Legalization of marijuana? Someone in Colorado struck it rich and was the Powerball winner? Legalization of marijuana, of course!

We need someone who is good at math and can make graphs and shit explain this to us.

So, in other words you just want pretty pictures.

[Gelston]

Thanks, Obama.

[Tgo01]

So, in other words you just want pretty pictures.

Yes, dammit!


Thanks, Obama.

No, dammit!

[waywardgs]

Nobody predicted test scores would rise. People were predicting a drop in crime. That's why it's relevant.

[crb]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colorado-is-making-so-much-money-from-cannabis-its-having-to-give-some-back-to-citizens-10020466.html



Okay, whatever about the tax money they are generating. What's up with every story I read about this being "Crime rates in Colorado are down! DOWN!!!!"

I'm all in favor of legalizing marijuana but aren't we being kind of silly with attributing supposed drops in crime with the legalization of marijuana? Are we just going to link everything positive since the legalization with marijuana to the legalization of marijuana? If student test scores start improving next year is that because of the legalization of marijuana? What if unemployment goes down? Legalization of marijuana? Someone in Colorado struck it rich and was the Powerball winner? Legalization of marijuana, of course!

We need someone who is good at math and can make graphs and shit explain this to us.

There is actually a reasonable direct correlation. For instance, the end of prohibition saw a decrease in organized crime activity. Why? They lost their major money maker. It isn't a random attribution. When violent street gangs and drug cartels that sell marijuana suddenly lose their customers, they pack up and move elsewhere. Some may try switching to other drugs, but the market for other drugs is not as strong as the market for weed.

[Thondalar]

When people do things that are illegal and get caught doing it, we call that "crime".

When something illegal becomes legal, it's no longer a crime to do it.

If you arrested 100 people last year for marijuana-related offenses and 0 people this year, Crime has declined.

The math is pretty simple.

[Latrinsorm]

Attributing cause is hard. One easy way to rule out causation is if the cause comes after the effect, though. Colorado's violent crime rate has been in decline since 2008 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cocrime.htm) while it's property crime has been roughly constant since 2009 (ibid). As such, violent crime rate going down in 2014 tells us nothing, because it was already going down. A change in property crime (in either direction) could tell us something. I haven't found any state-wide data for 2014, though, and the article in the OP's ultimate source is an unnamed Denver police officer stating "We found there hasn't been much of a change of anything," which is not much of an empirical case.
There is actually a reasonable direct correlation. For instance, the end of prohibition saw a decrease in organized crime activity.Source? :)

[Androidpk]

Crime goes down for marijuana? What a dirty slut!

[Warriorbird]

Source? :)

When there are literally less crimes (which people were convicted of performing) there is less crime.

[Tgo01]

Nobody predicted test scores would rise. People were predicting a drop in crime. That's why it's relevant.

Yeah but that's sort of what Thondalar said a couple posts under yours here. Are they really looking at crime as a whole, like the year before legalization we had 100,000 total crimes and now we have 98,000 total crimes? If you stop busting people for possession then of course you're going to have less crimes overall. That's like legalizing murder then celebrating because the number of violent crimes goes down.


Attributing cause is hard. One easy way to rule out causation is if the cause comes after the effect, though. Colorado's violent crime rate has been in decline since 2008 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cocrime.htm) while it's property crime has been roughly constant since 2009 (ibid). As such, violent crime rate going down in 2014 tells us nothing, because it was already going down. A change in property crime (in either direction) could tell us something. I haven't found any state-wide data for 2014, though, and the article in the OP's ultimate source is an unnamed Denver police officer stating "We found there hasn't been much of a change of anything," which is not much of an empirical case.Source? :)

Also that. I think?

[Gnome Rage]

When people do things that are illegal and get caught doing it, we call that "crime".

When something illegal becomes legal, it's no longer a crime to do it.

If you arrested 100 people last year for marijuana-related offenses and 0 people this year, Crime has declined.

The math is pretty simple.

It isn't only non-violent possession crimes. Cartels have been impacted, they aren't able to sell their product as easily. Since a lot of the marijuana in the US comes from Mexico, legalization has hampered their ability to make money off of it. "retired federal agent Terry Nelson [was asked] whether legalization was hurting the cartels. “The cartels are criminal organizations that were making as much as 35-40 percent of their income from marijuana,” Nelson said, “They aren’t able to move as much cannabis inside the US now.”'
"A 2012 study from the Mexican Competitiveness Institute found that U.S. state legalization would wipe out around 30% of the cartels' marijuana market. Another by the RAND Corporation in 2010 speculated that if American weed pushed out cartel-grown pot, the latter's profits from marijuana could plummet by 85%."

dis is where I got the second quote (http://mic.com/articles/105510/11-months-after-marijuana-legalization-here-s-what-s-happening-to-mexican-cartels)
dis is where I got the first (http://townhall.com/columnists/cathyreisenwitz/2014/08/11/us-marijuana-legalization-already-weakening-mexican-cartels-violence-expected-to-decline-n1876088/page/full)
here is the link to another article relating to the study mentioned in the second quote (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-us-marijuana-legalization-would-hurt-mexican-cartels/)

Cartels will likely just shift their market, away from pot toward cocaine and unfortunately, human trafficking--but that is not reason to stop legalization and the cartels.

[Tgo01]

It isn't only non-violent possession crimes. Cartels have been impacted, they aren't able to sell their product as easily. Since a lot of the marijuana in the US comes from Mexico, legalization has hampered their ability to make money off of it. "retired federal agent Terry Nelson [was asked] whether legalization was hurting the cartels. “The cartels are criminal organizations that were making as much as 35-40 percent of their income from marijuana,” Nelson said, “They aren’t able to move as much cannabis inside the US now.”'
"A 2012 study from the Mexican Competitiveness Institute found that U.S. state legalization would wipe out around 30% of the cartels' marijuana market. Another by the RAND Corporation in 2010 speculated that if American weed pushed out cartel-grown pot, the latter's profits from marijuana could plummet by 85%."

dis is where I got the second quote (http://mic.com/articles/105510/11-months-after-marijuana-legalization-here-s-what-s-happening-to-mexican-cartels)
dis is where I got the first (http://townhall.com/columnists/cathyreisenwitz/2014/08/11/us-marijuana-legalization-already-weakening-mexican-cartels-violence-expected-to-decline-n1876088/page/full)
here is the link to another article relating to the study mentioned in the second quote (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-us-marijuana-legalization-would-hurt-mexican-cartels/)

Cartels will likely just shift their market, away from pot toward cocaine and unfortunately, human trafficking--but that is not reason to stop legalization and the cartels.

I wonder when the cartels will just start opening up legal shops in Colorado. It's still gotta be a hell of a lot cheaper growing this shit in Mexico illegally then going through the legal route here in the US. Or maybe they have already started selling their shit in legal shops and that's why crime has gone down, because they are busting less dealers now too.

It's just like...okay yeah, "crime" has gone down. Well yeah, you made something legal that was previously illegal, of course crime has gone down. I wonder if there has been an increased in driving while high. Has Colorado found a way to deal with this yet? Once they do is crime going to go up because of everyone driving high?

It's crazy man, crazy!

[Gnome Rage]

I wonder when the cartels will just start opening up legal shops in Colorado. It's still gotta be a hell of a lot cheaper growing this shit in Mexico illegally then going through the legal route here in the US. Or maybe they have already started selling their shit in legal shops and that's why crime has gone down, because they are busting less dealers now too.

It's just like...okay yeah, "crime" has gone down. Well yeah, you made something legal that was previously illegal, of course crime has gone down. I wonder if there has been an increased in driving while high. Has Colorado found a way to deal with this yet? Once they do is crime going to go up because of everyone driving high?

It's crazy man, crazy!

Maybe, I suppose that anything is possible. I think that there are a lot of problems with the system, which is to be expected when it is so new. Colorado has shown the country that it can be managed, and I think that as more states legalize there will be better methods to protect the public. I think that one of the huge barriers to federal legalization is the inability to test a driver's sobriety in regards to marijuana. As it stands, you can test levels of THC via urine tests and blood tests. The problem with these tests is that they aren't done until hours after the actual incident occurs, and urine tests will show THC for weeks after smoking. Blood tests, as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong anyone) will show specific levels of THC, which I THINK does indicate whether the drive was "too high to drive". I found a Times article which says, " in Colorado and Washington, where recreational use has been legalized, that limit is five nanograms per milliliter of blood, or five parts per billion" will count as being under the influence while driving. Like I said, this is hard because a person's level of THC can come down between the arrest and the blood sample. Until there is some way to field test, perhaps a finger prick and a mobile testing device, like a diabetes meter, which could give immediate results, it is hard to prove or disprove sobriety when it comes to pot. There have been suggestions regarding lowering the it from five to one nanogram, but I guess this has met opposition because a heavy smoker could have five nanograms of THC in their blood a day after their last smoke. There have been studies that suggest driving while high is not as dangerous as driving while drunk--just because of the nature of the high the person is experiencing. Drunk drivers will speed more, and over estimate their skills, while stoned drivers actually tend to drive much slower, and be more nervous about their road skills which can lead them to actually be MORE cautious than even sober drivers, but even the people who published these findings are hesitant to say that there is a difference. Also, because there is the culture of going to bars to get drunk, it is more likely that someone will be driving drunk than driving high, because people who smoke pot tend to do it in their homes, apparently.

[Androidpk]

Colorado governor just said the other day he thinks it was a big mistake to legalize.. :jerkit:

[Latrinsorm]

When there are literally less crimes (which people were convicted of performing) there is less crime.This does not follow logically. Example:

Population A has 100 people and laws against marijuana use and DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
10 people use marijuana, of whom 0 commit DUI.
20 crimes per 100 people.

Population B has 100 people and laws against DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
30 people use marijuana, of whom 15 commit DUI.
25 crimes per 100 people.

Even if that does not convince you, crb's claim was that organized crime activity went down.

And even if THAT does not convince you, I don't understand why people are always so reticent to just source their claims. Don't you find it fun? Don't you find it more effective than simply repeating your claims? Don't you think it's disrespectful to the person you got the information from to not give them credit for finding it in the first place? I don't understand it.

Therefore psychosis.

[Gnome Rage]

I think there are A LOT of kinks to work out in regards to pot, but I think that ultimately, once we've figured out or regulation, distribution, DUI stuff, etc, it will be a good thing for the country. I mean, just the fact that it will minimize the amount of non-violent drug offenders that we are PAYING to keep in prison, is enough for me... If someone gets arrested at say 18 years old for a non-violent drug offense, that is going to follow them for a minimum of 10 years, it inhibits good people from being viewed as anything but criminals. It creates a cycle, if you get out of prison after being charged with dealing drugs, or even possession of drugs, you have to now write that on every job application, every rental application, every everything, for a minimum of 10 years. As much as we would love to believe that this wouldn't impact the person's life, it does. It means that they are less likely to get a job, finish school, etc, because they are viewed as criminals by society. This leads the person to accept this identity as their own, which causes more crime. I'm sure many of you are of the opinion that criminals are criminals because they are, because they're bad or they're born that way, or whatever--but I am not--I think that society and family and etc influence their behavior.

[Androidpk]

This does not follow logically. Example:

Population A has 100 people and laws against marijuana use and DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
10 people use marijuana, of whom 0 commit DUI.
20 crimes per 100 people.

Population B has 100 people and laws against DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
30 people use marijuana, of whom 15 commit DUI.
25 crimes per 100 people.

Even if that does not convince you, crb's claim was that organized crime activity went down.

And even if THAT does not convince you, I don't understand why people are always so reticent to just source their claims. Don't you find it fun? Don't you find it more effective than simply repeating your claims? Don't you think it's disrespectful to the person you got the information from to not give them credit for finding it in the first place? I don't understand it.

Therefore psychosis.

Therefore STFU and stop coming across as a mental case.

[Tgo01]

I mean, just the fact that it will minimize the amount of non-violent drug offenders that we are PAYING to keep in prison, is enough for me...

That's the thing though; this argument that there are hundreds of thousands of people in jail for "simple possession" is bogus. It's hyped up by the "legalize marijuana NOW!" crowd.

Yes, there are some people in jail just for simple possession, but it's on the low end of tens of thousands. The vast majority of people in jail for simple possession are also in jail for other crimes, most of which are violent crimes.

[Warriorbird]

This does not follow logically. Example:

Population A has 100 people and laws against marijuana use and DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
10 people use marijuana, of whom 0 commit DUI.
20 crimes per 100 people.

Population B has 100 people and laws against DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
30 people use marijuana, of whom 15 commit DUI.
25 crimes per 100 people.

Even if that does not convince you, crb's claim was that organized crime activity went down.

And even if THAT does not convince you, I don't understand why people are always so reticent to just source their claims. Don't you find it fun? Don't you find it more effective than simply repeating your claims? Don't you think it's disrespectful to the person you got the information from to not give them credit for finding it in the first place? I don't understand it.

Therefore psychosis.

It actually does follow. Those people would've gone down for marijuana use. You, in turn, haven't ever sourced how to "properly ban" a drug when it was pointed out your tobacco notions were nonsense and that both the bans on alcohol and marijuana helped increase potency and use.

[Latrinsorm]

I think there are A LOT of kinks to work out in regards to pot, but I think that ultimately, once we've figured out or regulation, distribution, DUI stuff, etc, it will be a good thing for the country. I mean, just the fact that it will minimize the amount of non-violent drug offenders that we are PAYING to keep in prison, is enough for me...What % of people in our prisons do you think are non-violent drug offenders? That is, people in prison for drug possession or distribution and nothing else.
If someone gets arrested at say 18 years old for a non-violent drug offense, that is going to follow them for a minimum of 10 years, it inhibits good people from being viewed as anything but criminals. It creates a cycle, if you get out of prison after being charged with dealing drugs, or even possession of drugs, you have to now write that on every job application, every rental application, every everything, for a minimum of 10 years. As much as we would love to believe that this wouldn't impact the person's life, it does. It means that they are less likely to get a job, finish school, etc, because they are viewed as criminals by society. This leads the person to accept this identity as their own, which causes more crime. I'm sure many of you are of the opinion that criminals are criminals because they are, because they're bad or they're born that way, or whatever--but I am not--I think that society and family and etc influence their behavior.Criminals are criminals because they've committed a crime.

[Warriorbird]

Criminals are criminals because they've committed a crime.

You've now made them commit a precrime. Congratulations. Makishima is also know for his hair.

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130214041001/psychopass/images/thumb/e/e9/Makishima.jpg/500px-Makishima.jpg

[Gnome Rage]

What % of people in our prisons do you think are non-violent drug offenders? That is, people in prison for drug possession or distribution and nothing else.Criminals are criminals because they've committed a crime.

According to The Sentencing Project, "Overall, nearly three-fourths (72.1%) of federal prisoners are serving time for a non-violent offense and have no history of violence."

"Overall, this analysis demonstrates that the federal prison population has reached record levels, that a high proportion of prisoners are non-violent drug offenders, and that racial disparities in sentencing and the proportion of lower-level drug offenders are increasing."

[Latrinsorm]

It actually does follow. Those people would've gone down for marijuana use.What people are you referring to? I included the 10 in population A as crime.
You, in turn, haven't ever sourced how to "properly ban" a drug when it was pointed out your tobacco notions were nonsense and that both the bans on alcohol and marijuana helped increase potency and use.I don't recall any of those three claims being made at all, let alone demonstrated. Putting that aside, I've never CLAIMED that I had the answer for how to "properly ban" a drug. I don't even know what that means.

[Tgo01]

According to The Sentencing Project, "Overall, nearly three-fourths (72.1%) of federal prisoners are serving time for a non-violent offense and have no history of violence."

Yeah but federal prisoners only make up about 5.5% of total prisoners in the US. So 72.1% of that makes it 4% of the total prison population is in jail for non-violent drug offenses. This is assuming of course the 72.1% is referring to only drug offenses, it doesn't specify.

Don't fall for the hype! :O

[Latrinsorm]

According to The Sentencing Project, "Overall, nearly three-fourths (72.1%) of federal prisoners are serving time for a non-violent offense and have no history of violence."

"Overall, this analysis demonstrates that the federal prison population has reached record levels, that a high proportion of prisoners are non-violent drug offenders, and that racial disparities in sentencing and the proportion of lower-level drug offenders are increasing."I'm glad you looked up at least some numbers, but could you look up the ones I asked for, please? :) Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is "people in prison for drug possession or distribution and nothing else." Of course 72% of prisoners are in for a non-violent offense in general, only 12% of crimes in the US are violent.

[Androidpk]

Yeah but federal prisoners only make up about 5.5% of total prisoners in the US. So 72.1% of that makes it 4% of the total prison population is in jail for non-violent drug offenses. This is assuming of course the 72.1% is referring to only drug offenses, it doesn't specify.

Don't fall for the hype! :O

Shut up, latrine

[Gnome Rage]

I'm glad you looked up at least some numbers, but could you look up the ones I asked for, please? :) Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is "people in prison for drug possession or distribution and nothing else." Of course 72% of prisoners are in for a non-violent offense in general, only 12% of crimes in the US are violent.

I'll find them, but I have a friend visiting me so I don't want to be rude and I keep getting engrossed in the things I find.
LET ME GET BACK TO YOU.

[Latrinsorm]

I'll find them, but I have a friend visiting me so I don't want to be rude and I keep getting engrossed in the things I find.
LET ME GET BACK TO YOU.No. >:|

Well, okay. :) Tell her I said hi! And that if she even looks at a joint she'll have a psychotic break!

[Tgo01]

Shut up, latrine

Hey!

Okay :(

[Fallen]

The fact that anyone is thrown in jail for non-violent drug offenses is stupid. Measuring how much stupidity seems rather pointless when the end result is still the act being stupid.

[Androidpk]

I'll find them, but I have a friend visiting me so I don't want to be rude and I keep getting engrossed in the things I find.
LET ME GET BACK TO YOU.

But there are unsolved arguments on the internet! Surely your friends understand.

[Tgo01]

The fact that anyone is thrown in jail for non-violent drug offenses is stupid.

I don't know about that. I think the drug dealers hanging out around schools trying to get kids hooked are about the lowest form of scum in the world, and yet I'm pretty sure drug dealing is considered non-violent.

[Furryrat]

Drug users are patients! Drug providers are the criminals!

[Fallen]

I'd think the pedophiles hanging around a school might count as lower, but yes, dealing drugs to children is wrong. All the more reason to have drug sales regulated. Hell, marijuana is easier to get your hands on than alcohol on average.

[Tgo01]

I'd think the pedophiles hanging around a school might count as lower, but yes, dealing drugs to children is wrong. All the more reason to have drug sales regulated. Hell, marijuana is easier to get your hands on than alcohol on average.

I don't think drug dealers are going to stop selling to kids just because drugs are legalized :/

I'm also not necessarily just talking about drug dealers selling marijuana to kids.

[Jarvan]

According to The Sentencing Project, "Overall, nearly three-fourths (72.1%) of federal prisoners are serving time for a non-violent offense and have no history of violence."

"Overall, this analysis demonstrates that the federal prison population has reached record levels, that a high proportion of prisoners are non-violent drug offenders, and that racial disparities in sentencing and the proportion of lower-level drug offenders are increasing."

You wana hear something funny?

There would be ZERO non-violent drug offenders in prison, if people didn't do drugs.

I really don't understand where the mentality comes from that the best way to combat crime, is to make it legal.

[Warriorbird]

What people are you referring to? I included the 10 in population A as crime.I don't recall any of those three claims being made at all, let alone demonstrated. Putting that aside, I've never CLAIMED that I had the answer for how to "properly ban" a drug. I don't even know what that means.

You decided random people who weren't going to commit DUIs suddenly were. There'd have been more total crime if the numbers were the same.

You claimed that we'd vanquished evil tobacco through the magic of Bloomberg. I pointed out that it was bigger than ever because of Russia and China.

[Furryrat]

I really don't understand where the mentality comes from that the best way to combat crime, is to make it legal.

It comes from years of repetitive drug abuse.

[Fallen]

We should just stick with prohibition. It's worked wonders so far. Followed by another round of abstinence training for sex ed.

[Gelston]

We should just stick with prohibition. It's worked wonders so far. Followed by another round of abstinence training for sex ed.

We should just summarily execute all potheads on the street.

[Jarvan]

We should just stick with prohibition. It's worked wonders so far. Followed by another round of abstinence training for sex ed.

We should also make all non violent crime legal, it would reduce our crime rate to a staggering low level. And all the feel good liberals can... feel good.

I propose that we have such high crime rates, because people think that the things they are doing shouldn't be crimes, because people tell them so.

If it's illegal, don't do it till you can make it legal. How is this not a simple concept for people?

[Fallen]

Because some people are attempting to say even though a majority of people want MJ legal, it should remain illegal because reasons.

[Gelston]

We should also make all non violent crime legal, it would reduce our crime rate to a staggering low level. And all the feel good liberals can... feel good.

I propose that we have such high crime rates, because people think that the things they are doing shouldn't be crimes, because people tell them so.

If it's illegal, don't do it till you can make it legal. How is this not a simple concept for people?

Non-violent crime is now legal? Time to start robbing houses while people are at work.

[JackWhisper]

Non-violent crime is now legal? Time to start robbing houses while people are at work.

Trust and believe that whatever happens to you in my house while you think I'm at work... will be violent.

[Gelston]

Trust and believe that whatever happens to you in my house while you think I'm at work... will be violent.

Oh, I'll know when you are. I'll put up sensors all over your house to let me know, since that'll also be completely legal. As it is non-violent.

[Androidpk]

Trust and believe that whatever happens to you in my house while you think I'm at work... will be violent.

Suprise butt sex!

[JackWhisper]

Suprise butt sex!

7222

[JackWhisper]

Giggity.

[Gnome Rage]

What % of people in our prisons do you think are non-violent drug offenders? That is, people in prison for drug possession or distribution and nothing else.


"Using one set of criteria which limited offenders to no current or prior violence in their records, no involvement in sophisticated criminal activity and no prior commitment, there were 16,316 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 36.1 percent of all drug law offenders in the prison system and 21.2 percent of the total sentenced Federal prison population."
"Among the low-level offenders, 42.3 percent were couriers or played peripheral roles in drug trafficking."
(The following 'Executive Summary' was prepared by the Office of the U.S. Deputy Attorney General in February 1994).

Yes, I know--this is data from '94.
I'm seeing a lot of shit that says what I'm saying, but isn't giving me numbers. These are the only distinct numbers I have found at this time, still looking!

On topic, but not what you asked for...
"Currently, the Bureau of Prisons says the federal inmate population exceeds capacity by 32%, and the cost of housing those inmates consumes an increasingly large share of the Justice Department's budget."

I found this, from 2006 (Dept. of Justice).
These numbers are in relation to felony offenses.
"Possession (any drug) 165,360 14.6%
Trafficking (any drug) 212,490 18.8%
Marijuana (Related to, specifically) 25,170 2.2%"
table is prettier (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t5442006.pdf)

In 2003, "Convictions resulting from arrests by the Drug Enforcement Administration" pot was 17% of the conv
(3,017 / 17.4%)"
other drugs are on the list too (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t540.pdf)
also found this pretty sweet and interactive (http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_age.jsp)

[Thondalar]

I'm seeing a lot of shit that says what I'm saying, but isn't giving me numbers. These are the only distinct numbers I have found at this time, still looking!


That's because the information you seek is extremely hard to find without specific freedom of information requests, which Latrin assumes you most likely won't go through the bother of following up on for a random forum post. For one thing, you're only looking at Federal incarceration numbers...the vast majority of our inmates are held in State prisons, which keep their own records. Private prisons also keep their own records.

In most cases you can go to the website for whatever State prison system you want and look for a link to their "Annual report", which will have information on inmate admissions for that year. Florida's is on page 37, and shows that 24.2% of the admissions that year were for non-violent (re possession) drug offenses, and that 16.9% of the current population is serving a sentence for non-violent drug offenses, both the largest in whole number and percentage of total out of all categories. This is interesting when we note that the average sentence for drug convictions is less than any of the other categories besides forgery/fraud. http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/1213/AnnualReport-1213.pdf

Don't get frustrated with Latrin, GR. He knows some things are very hard to prove empirically for those of us without ready access to all data, and uses that to try to stump people, because he accepts nothing less as proof.



edit: I goofed...forgery/fraud had a shorter average length of sentence.

[subzero]

Okay, whatever about the tax money they are generating. What's up with every story I read about this being "Crime rates in Colorado are down! DOWN!!!!"

I'm all in favor of legalizing marijuana but aren't we being kind of silly with attributing supposed drops in crime with the legalization of marijuana? Are we just going to link everything positive since the legalization with marijuana to the legalization of marijuana? If student test scores start improving next year is that because of the legalization of marijuana? What if unemployment goes down? Legalization of marijuana? Someone in Colorado struck it rich and was the Powerball winner? Legalization of marijuana, of course!


When this shit is supposed to make people crazed criminals and turns out it doesn't, I guess that is news worthy, no? Just think of all the cannabis-induced rapes that should have happened, but were potentially thwarted instead!

[subzero]

Since a lot of the marijuana in the US comes from Mexico

People still buy that shit? I couldn't find some rubber-smelling brick-weed if I tried.

[Androidpk]

That's because the information you seek is extremely hard to find without specific freedom of information requests, which Latrin assumes you most likely won't go through the bother of following up on for a random forum post. For one thing, you're only looking at Federal incarceration numbers...the vast majority of our inmates are held in State prisons, which keep their own records. Private prisons also keep their own records.

In most cases you can go to the website for whatever State prison system you want and look for a link to their "Annual report", which will have information on inmate admissions for that year. Florida's is on page 37, and shows that 24.2% of the admissions that year were for non-violent (re possession) drug offenses, and that 16.9% of the current population is serving a sentence for non-violent drug offenses, both the largest in whole number and percentage of total out of all categories. This is interesting when we note that the average sentence for drug convictions is less than any of the other categories besides forgery/fraud. http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/1213/AnnualReport-1213.pdf

Don't get frustrated with Latrin, GR. He knows some things are very hard to prove empirically for those of us without ready access to all data, and uses that to try to stump people, because he accepts nothing less as proof.



edit: I goofed...forgery/fraud had a shorter average length of sentence.

Tl:dr - latrin is a troll and will twist data to fit how he wants to view things, no matter how wrong he is.

[Androidpk]

People still buy that shit? I couldn't find some rubber-smelling brick-weed if I tried.

Not these days. So many people growing top notch weed in the US that the cartels in mexico are losing out big time.

[Warriorbird]

It's more just he obsessively scrutinizes everybody's but his own.

[subzero]

I don't know about that. I think the drug dealers hanging out around schools trying to get kids hooked are about the lowest form of scum in the world, and yet I'm pretty sure drug dealing is considered non-violent.

Really? Granted, I don't live in some big city or in Compton or anything like that, but... really? Do drug dealers really hang out around school? There are probably those who attend, but let's not start thinking Pablo gets off the couch around 2-3pm to hang around the bus stop hoping to catch some fish.

[Androidpk]

It's more just he obsessively scrutinizes everybody's but his own.

Because he is only intetested in trolling, not having a serious debate. Either at or he is a serious narcissist.

[Androidpk]

Really? Granted, I don't live in some big city or in Compton or anything like that, but... really? Do drug dealers really hang out around school? There are probably those who attend, but let's not start thinking Pablo gets off the couch around 2-3pm to hang around the bus stop hoping to catch some fish.

Yes but only because dealers around schools are usually students themselves.

[Warriorbird]

Because he is only intetested in trolling, not having a serious debate. Either at or he is a serious narcissist.

http://i.imgur.com/hx5b3fV.jpg

[Gnome Rage]

Really? Granted, I don't live in some big city or in Compton or anything like that, but... really? Do drug dealers really hang out around school? There are probably those who attend, but let's not start thinking Pablo gets off the couch around 2-3pm to hang around the bus stop hoping to catch some fish.

lol.

such a great mental image right now.

[subzero]

We should just stick with prohibition. It's worked wonders so far. Followed by another round of abstinence training for sex ed.

Practice makes perfect!

If at first you don't succeed, try and try again!

[Gnome Rage]

That's because the information you seek is extremely hard to find without specific freedom of information requests, which Latrin assumes you most likely won't go through the bother of following up on for a random forum post. For one thing, you're only looking at Federal incarceration numbers...the vast majority of our inmates are held in State prisons, which keep their own records. Private prisons also keep their own records.

In most cases you can go to the website for whatever State prison system you want and look for a link to their "Annual report", which will have information on inmate admissions for that year. Florida's is on page 37, and shows that 24.2% of the admissions that year were for non-violent (re possession) drug offenses, and that 16.9% of the current population is serving a sentence for non-violent drug offenses, both the largest in whole number and percentage of total out of all categories. This is interesting when we note that the average sentence for drug convictions is less than any of the other categories besides forgery/fraud. http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/1213/AnnualReport-1213.pdf

Don't get frustrated with Latrin, GR. He knows some things are very hard to prove empirically for those of us without ready access to all data, and uses that to try to stump people, because he accepts nothing less as proof.



edit: I goofed...forgery/fraud had a shorter average length of sentence.
whatever, I tried.

[subzero]

Yes but only because dealers around schools are usually students themselves.

I said that with the bit about "those who attend"!

[Androidpk]

I said that with the bit about "those who attend"!

I don't read any of your posts. I only reply on instinct.

[subzero]

I don't read any of your posts. I only reply on instinct.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA

[Androidpk]

Such great big.. tracts of land!

[Thondalar]

whatever, I tried.

No no, you did fine.

[Tgo01]

Really? Granted, I don't live in some big city or in Compton or anything like that, but... really? Do drug dealers really hang out around school? There are probably those who attend, but let's not start thinking Pablo gets off the couch around 2-3pm to hang around the bus stop hoping to catch some fish.

It's more like the dealers get kids to start selling drugs for them in the school. It's not like some 17 year old just decided to start getting into the drug trade and built up a network of contacts to get his stash from and went from there. Okay maybe some 17 year olds have that entrepreneurial spirit but the vast majority of them are recruited by drug dealers.

And we are not just talking about teenagers in high schools, kids in middle school and even grade school have been caught selling drugs.

Wanting to legalize marijuana is fine, I'm in favor of legalizing also, but let's not go so far in the other direction that we turn a blind eye to how douchey a sizable segment of current dealers/users are.

/Latrin soapbox

[Tenlaar]

Wanting to legalize marijuana is fine, I'm in favor of legalizing also, but let's not go so far in the other direction that we turn a blind eye to how douchey a sizable segment of current dealers/users are.

What you're talking about are people. A sizable segment of the current everybody are douchey.

[Tgo01]

What you're talking about are people. A sizable segment of the current everybody are douchey.

Exactly. And some of those douche bags use/deal drugs and should be in prison, even if marijuana were legalized.

[Gelston]

What you're talking about are people. A sizable segment of the current everybody are douchey.

If the internet is a way to gauge, I'd say 90% of the world population is "douchey".

[JackWhisper]

If the internet is a way to gauge, I'd say 90% of the world population is "douchey".

You, sir, are the most optimistic person in existence.

LOL at you saying 10% of people aren't total douchewaffles.

[Gelston]

I really don't think any of you are bad people. The average person is pretty damn decent. I call people faggots, hippies, hipsters, and whatever other pejorative I've used on here to their face. What gets lost in text is the way you say it. I don't hate any of you and I couldn't give a shit less what you say on our little corner of the internet. That being said, you are all faggots ass bitches.

[JackWhisper]

And yet... you won't stop harassing me to play ESO.

SUCK IT, HIPSTER!

[Gelston]

And yet... you won't stop harassing me to play ESO.

SUCK IT, HIPSTER!

Look here you stupid cocksucker, ESO is fun and bring your faggot bitch ass back to it. Raids and shit. Bitch.

[subzero]

It's more like the dealers get kids to start selling drugs for them in the school. It's not like some 17 year old just decided to start getting into the drug trade and built up a network of contacts to get his stash from and went from there. Okay maybe some 17 year olds have that entrepreneurial spirit but the vast majority of them are recruited by drug dealers.

And we are not just talking about teenagers in high schools, kids in middle school and even grade school have been caught selling drugs.

Wanting to legalize marijuana is fine, I'm in favor of legalizing also, but let's not go so far in the other direction that we turn a blind eye to how douchey a sizable segment of current dealers/users are.

/Latrin soapbox

Well. I'll put it this way. We're looking at two scenarios here and I've seen one of them happen on more than one occasion. I've not seen the other except maybe in some movie.

That's not to say it doesn't happen as I'm sure it does, but it's not like some innocent child is drawn in by some big bad drug dealer (I hate that term by the way) and lured into slingin goods. The people in that situation are likely doing so through gang affiliation or even family members. Of course it's not the right thing for people to do, but at the end of the day, the kids that end up selling stuff are kind of living in that culture. I bet a lot of that goes away when there are shops on the street corner replacing them.

As far as the number of shitbags doing this goes, I don't think anyone has said all drug dealers are fine, upstanding citizens. You could say the same for any group of people once the population reaches a certain point.

[Gelston]

Well. I'll put it this way. We're looking at two scenarios here and I've seen one of them happen on more than one occasion. I've not seen the other except maybe in some movie.

That's not to say it doesn't happen as I'm sure it does, but it's not like some innocent child is drawn in by some big bad drug dealer (I hate that term by the way) and lured into slingin goods. The people in that situation are likely doing so through gang affiliation or even family members. Of course it's not the right thing for people to do, but at the end of the day, the kids that end up selling stuff are kind of living in that culture. I bet a lot of that goes away when there are shops on the street corner replacing them.

As far as the number of shitbags doing this goes, I don't think anyone has said all drug dealers are fine, upstanding citizens. You could say the same for any group of people once the population reaches a certain point.

McGruff would pwn Subzero.

[JackWhisper]

Innocent children get pulled into this shit. Pulling a brick of cocaine out of a nine year old's backpack <--- happened at my elementary school. Drug dealer had gotten him to mule with money for his family. Not that it's an everyday occurrence, but that happened at MY school. And weed was everywhere when I went through middle school and high school. Dealers and users. Even one of the yard duties was a small time pusher. Sucks, but that's life.

[JackWhisper]

McGruff would pwn Subzero.

FUCK YEAH HE WOULD. Mcgruff is Scorpion's #3 enforcer. Fuck yeah Mcgruff. Whup Sub's bitch ass!

[Candor]

Innocent children get pulled into this shit. Pulling a brick of cocaine out of a nine year old's backpack <--- happened at my elementary school. Drug dealer had gotten him to mule with money for his family. Not that it's an everyday occurrence, but that happened at MY school. And weed was everywhere when I went through middle school and high school. Dealers and users. Even one of the yard duties was a small time pusher. Sucks, but that's life.

We need to implement caning. You involve an elementary school child in your drug dealing, you don't walk for a few weeks (if not months). Pain is a very persistent teacher.

[subzero]

McGruff would pwn Subzero.

Not if he took a page from Scorpion's playbook and chained him and that lousy Smokey the Bear to a tree and burned the forest down.

[subzero]

FUCK YEAH HE WOULD. Mcgruff is Scorpion's #3 enforcer. Fuck yeah Mcgruff. Whup Sub's bitch ass!

You're a horrible hype man.

[Latrinsorm]

The fact that anyone is thrown in jail for non-violent drug offenses is stupid.What should people be thrown in jail for?
Because some people are attempting to say even though a majority of people want MJ legal, it should remain illegal because reasons.If laws were based on what a majority of people wanted, interracial marriage would have been illegal until 1995. Be careful throwing your lot with (or against!) the majority of people. The smart play is to disregard it entirely.
You decided random people who weren't going to commit DUIs suddenly were. There'd have been more total crime if the numbers were the same.I think you have missed the point of my example. It is not a statement of what WOULD happen but what COULD. The scenario I describe is internally coherent, therefore it does not follow logically that less crimes = less crime.
You claimed that we'd vanquished evil tobacco through the magic of Bloomberg. I pointed out that it was bigger than ever because of Russia and China.I cited the fact that tobacco use is down, and made what I thought was a reasonable attribution of cause to Bloomberg's anti-smoking policies. You've never made reference to Russia or China in this context before, so you've lost me there.
Using one set of criteria which limited offenders to no current or prior violence in their records, no involvement in sophisticated criminal activity and no prior commitment, there were 16,316 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 36.1 percent of all drug law offenders in the prison system and 21.2 percent of the total sentenced Federal prison population.Thanks! 20% doesn't really seem so bad, does it? And that includes all drugs, not just marijuana. I also bet you thought the number was much higher before you looked it up, right?
That's because the information you seek is extremely hard to find without specific freedom of information requests, which Latrin assumes you most likely won't go through the bother of following up on for a random forum post.I've found it, she found it, you found an even lower number. Who was frustrated? I thought we were having a reasonable conversation based on facts. As an aside, did you get a chance to read my post empirically verifying the effectiveness of BAC laws? :)

[Methais]

What should people be thrown in jail for?

Murder, rape, theft, and other crimes that have actual victims.


I cited the fact that tobacco use is down, and made what I thought was a reasonable attribution of cause to Bloomberg's anti-smoking policies.

Tobacco use is down for the same reason why pot is legalization is up -- People are becoming more and more educated about both.

[Warriorbird]

The scenario I describe is internally coherent, therefore it does not follow logically that less crimes = less crime.I cited the fact that tobacco use is down, and made what I thought was a reasonable attribution of cause to Bloomberg's anti-smoking policies. You've never made reference to Russia or China in this context before, so you've lost me there.

You pretended that suddenly more crime occurred to try to make your point. It's about as logical as vaccines causing autism.

I did too make that reference. You just blocked it out.

The funny bit? It's a similar argument to what you want to make. As America became a less profitable market companies began to market tobacco to the much more successful China/Russia.

[Gelston]

You pretended that suddenly more crime occurred to try to make your point. It's about as logical as vaccines causing autism.

I did too make that reference. You just blocked it out.

The funny bit? It's a similar argument to what you want to make. As America became a less profitable market companies began to market tobacco to the much more successful China/Russia.

Russia is more successful?

[Jarvan]

Murder, rape, theft, and other crimes that have actual victims.



Tobacco use is down for the same reason why pot is legalization is up -- People are becoming more and more educated about both.

So you are saying it's ok to violate the law if it doesn't hurt anyone?

Guess it's ok to do 200 on the highway then, or walk around town naked. Perfectly ok to make your own booze and sell it. That doesn't hurt anyone. Should be ok to ignore the FCC and broadcast anything you want on the Radio, or the FAA and fly anywhere you want at anytime. Or maybe the FDA and sell food without nutrition information.

Sorry.. laws are laws. You break it, you should pay the price. MAYBE the price should have just been fines.. but seriously.. if you think the weed heads would have just paid the fine.. you are nuts. Which then would be a prison sentence for not paying a fine.

Once again. There is a law against it. You don't do it. You do it, you pay the price. The price should be high enough to deter you from doing it, or make you NOT want to do it again. You don't like the law, get it changed, but that doesn't give you the right to violate it because you don't agree with it.

Also, you can argue that you doing pot does in fact hurt other people. So.. it's not a victimless crime.

[Methais]

So you are saying it's ok to violate the law if it doesn't hurt anyone?

Guess it's ok to do 200 on the highway then,

As long as you don't cause a wreck. If you get into a wreck going 70 you're probably doing to die anyway, yet 70 is legal.


or walk around town naked.

Depends on who the naked person is.


Perfectly ok to make your own booze and sell it. That doesn't hurt anyone.

That hurts the tax collector.


Should be ok to ignore the FCC and broadcast anything you want on the Radio, or the FAA and fly anywhere you want at anytime.

As long as you're not crashing into other airplanes and know how to fly the plane, sure.


Or maybe the FDA and sell food without nutrition information.

Nobody's forcing you to eat it.


Sorry.. laws are laws. You break it, you should pay the price. MAYBE the price should have just been fines.. but seriously.. if you think the weed heads would have just paid the fine.. you are nuts. Which then would be a prison sentence for not paying a fine.

Once again. There is a law against it. You don't do it. You do it, you pay the price. The price should be high enough to deter you from doing it, or make you NOT want to do it again. You don't like the law, get it changed, but that doesn't give you the right to violate it because you don't agree with it.

Also, you can argue that you doing pot does in fact hurt other people. So.. it's not a victimless crime.

There a lot of states/counties/whatever that have laws against oral sex. Some even have laws against having sex in any position besides the missionary position.

What's your opinion on that?

[waywardgs]

So you are saying it's ok to violate the law if it doesn't hurt anyone?

Guess it's ok to do 200 on the highway then, Public safety/health.

or walk around town naked.
Kids.

Perfectly ok to make your own booze and sell it.
Public safety/health.

That doesn't hurt anyone. Should be ok to ignore the FCC and broadcast anything you want on the Radio, or the FAA and fly anywhere you want at anytime.
Public safety/health.

Or maybe the FDA and sell food without nutrition information.
Public safety/health.


Sorry.. laws are laws. You break it, you should pay the price. MAYBE the price should have just been fines.. but seriously.. if you think the weed heads would have just paid the fine.. you are nuts. Which then would be a prison sentence for not paying a fine.

Once again. There is a law against it. You don't do it. You do it, you pay the price. The price should be high enough to deter you from doing it, or make you NOT want to do it again. You don't like the law, get it changed,
That's what's happening.

but that doesn't give you the right to violate it because you don't agree with it.
Nobody said that.


Also, you can argue that you doing pot does in fact hurt other people. So.. it's not a victimless crime.

lol @ "doing pot." Also- who is the victim? I mean besides that bag of doritos.

[Gelston]

Public safety/health.

Kids.

Public safety/health.

Public safety/health.

Public safety/health.


That's what's happening.

Nobody said that.



lol @ "doing pot." Also- who is the victim? I mean besides that bag of doritos.

America is the victim. Also, I'd put it under public safety/health the same way you did with the boozeries.... Which is not illegal. You just need a license. I think the same for Cigaweed.

[Thondalar]

I cited the fact that tobacco use is down, and made what I thought was a reasonable attribution of cause to Bloomberg's anti-smoking policies.

Or it could be because it's not generally socially acceptable anymore, or because it's ridiculously expensive now to maintain.


Thanks! 20% doesn't really seem so bad, does it?

Taking the BJS report for 2012 (most recent available) (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf) it's about 1.3 million people on some form of supervision, and about 500,000 actually incarcerated, if we take an average of 20%. That's a lot of people.


I've found it, she found it, you found an even lower number. Who was frustrated? I thought we were having a reasonable conversation based on facts.

She found some Federal statistics, I found some State statistics for my State. The overall number is much harder to find, and requires collecting data from different sources and putting it all together. We're writing a forums response, not a term paper. Hell, the Bureau of Justice Statistics even says they guesstimate a lot of their information because certain military, territorial, Indian, and private prisons aren't complete in their survey data.


As an aside, did you get a chance to read my post empirically verifying the effectiveness of BAC laws? :)

No, must've missed it. I'm sure it went something like "laws passed X year, rate at year X was A, rate in 2013 was B, proof".

[Gnome Rage]

--

It is about what I expected, maybe a little lower but that is federally, there is state information missing here.

Regardless, if even 10% of the prison population, in a country with one of the higher incarceration rates in the world, are in jail for a non-violent crime--related specifically to the possession of marijuana, that is enough. It is ridiculous how much money is spent on the policing of non-violent drug offenders.

[subzero]

There a lot of states/counties/whatever that have laws against oral sex. Some even have laws against having sex in any position besides the missionary position.

What's your opinion on that?

Oh, there are a ton of great laws in this country.

(Florida)
798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.
If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

823.01 Nuisances; penalty.
All nuisances that tend to annoy the community, injure the health of the citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals are misdemeanors of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.083, except that a violation of s. 823.10 is a felony of the third degree.
--- Fuck your morals, buddeh!

72.45 TOWING.
No operator of a bicycle shall tow or draw any coaster, sled, person on roller skates, wagon, toy vehicle or other similar vehicle on any public road, sidewalk or public place.

http://159.54.242.46/news/article/183936/58/Dumb-Laws-in-Florida-and-Tampa-Bay

TAMPA BAY, Florida - You can't cruise down a hill with your car in neutral. If you want to bring wine home from a restaurant, you must first order an entree, a vegetable or salad, and bread. You can't drive cattle through the streets of St. Petersburg without permission.

Yes, all those laws are actually on the books in Florida and you could be thrown in jail for violating them. Of course, you won't be.

Of the thousands of laws that keep order in the state, a small percentage of them are decades old and routinely ignored. Why? Because repealing the outdated language is often too difficult...

According to researchers at Stetson Law School, some of the online oddities are extreme interpretations of legitimate laws. Others are old wives tales. However, a majority are actual laws that have become insignificant over time but were never actually repealed.

"To do the research to go back and determine what still may be a valid law would take a lot of time," said Alyssa Folce, Research Librarian at Stetson. "I think it would take a lot of money as well, so I think sometimes, over the years, things just tend to fall out, but not necessarily repealed."

One representative in the Florida House is determined to change that. Rep. Ritch Workman, R-Melbourne, filed a handful of bills this year to repeal what he considers outdated laws:

HB 4007 - Involves chauffeur's licenses, which are no longer distributed.
HB 4009 - Related to regulations on outdoor theaters for movies, plays and operas.
HB 4017 - Repeals language that makes adultery illegal as well as unwed couples lewdly and lasciviously associating or living together.
HB 4019 - Involves a law that prohibits motor vehicles from coasting down hills in neutral.
HB 4021 - Related to regulations on water-dispensing machines.
HB 4113 - Repeals language that makes riding a bike with no hands illegal. --- And now that goddamn song is stuck... fuck me!
HB 4121 - Related to regulations on sale, possession, transfer, or other disposing of clove cigarettes.

Some other weird Florida laws appear to have been wiped off the record books as municipalities renew their ordinances every few decades. They include an old Madeira Beach law that prohibits newspaper delivery from a plane and a Sarasota law that bans singing in a swimsuit in a public place.

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-ridiculous-law-in-every-state-2014-2

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/812.htm

Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

(1) Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. -- I suppose the other two could be debated (again x1 zillion), but this one is pretty solid.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

(c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:

(17) Tetrahydrocannabinols.


They're all outdated and I rightfully ignore them all.

[Latrinsorm]

Murder, rape, theft, and other crimes that have actual victims.Drug use has actual victims: the user and therefore everyone who relies on them financially, emotionally, etc. Let us agree, therefore, that a person can use drugs without criminal liability only if they have (a) no children or other dependents (b) no living family of any kind and (c) no job.
Tobacco use is down for the same reason why pot is legalization is up -- People are becoming more and more educated about both.That's a wonderfully optimistic belief, but the science on tobacco has been settled since the 50s, and on marijuana since the 00s. People in general don't care about science. Why should they? They're not scientists.
You pretended that suddenly more crime occurred to try to make your point. It's about as logical as vaccines causing autism.I'll give it one last go. If you say that A -> B, and I say that doesn't follow logically, all I have to do is find one possible grouping that doesn't satisfy the relationship, an A that does not -> B. This is not the same as saying A -> not B; that would be a false dichotomy. The easy play for you is to concede that it does not follow logically, but that it so happens to be the case that repealing prohibitions in case X, Y, and Z were followed by reduced crime. You can't do that, though, because... well, mainly because you don't believe in data, but even if you did the murder rate in 1914 was the same as in 1934, crb's "organized crime activity" has still never been sourced, etc. It's just something that everyone knows, but far too frequently no one can prove what everyone knows, because it's factually incorrect.
I did too make that reference. You just blocked it out.I encourage you to do an advanced search for your posts containing the word Russia (because it so happens you've made less posts with Russia than China). You will find that you have not, in fact. :)
The funny bit? It's a similar argument to what you want to make. As America became a less profitable market companies began to market tobacco to the much more successful China/Russia.Neither China nor Russia are subject to the laws of New York City, therefore pointing to them as examples of Bloomberg's failure makes no sense. And as it turns out, when Russia enacted legislation similar (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DHa6doWdoY8J:www.themoscowtimes.com/article.php%3Fid%3D504760&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1) to Bloomberg, their % of smokers decreased too.
Or it could be because it's not generally socially acceptable anymore, or because it's ridiculously expensive now to maintain.For the record, one of Bloomberg's policies was to increase the tax on cigarettes.
That's a lot of people.The purpose of the exercise was for Gnome Rage to examine what she has been told in the cold, clear light of empirical fact. There's no conversation about "a lot". If there's a specific number, we can talk about that, and in this case the specific number people have in mind is 0%. The real discussion has nothing to do with how many people are in jail, the real discussion is whether marijuana usage is a crime at all. Looking up and talking about specific numbers lets us brush away the chaff and get to the wheatmeat of the discussion.
No, must've missed it. I'm sure it went something like "laws passed X year, rate at year X was A, rate in 2013 was B, proof".And yet I'm the person accused of trolling, ignoring data, etc. Ha! Ha! You have to laugh.
Regardless, if even 10% of the prison population, in a country with one of the higher incarceration rates in the world, are in jail for a non-violent crime--related specifically to the possession of marijuana, that is enough. It is ridiculous how much money is spent on the policing of non-violent drug offenders.Why 10%?

[Latrinsorm]

They're all outdated and I rightfully ignore them all.I'm not sure that word means what you think it means, and I strongly discourage you from testing your hypothesis in a court of law.

[subzero]

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means, and I strongly discourage you from testing your hypothesis in a court of law.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUX0y4EptA

[Thondalar]

Drug use has actual victims: the user and therefore everyone who relies on them financially, emotionally, etc. Let us agree, therefore, that a person can use drugs without criminal liability only if they have (a) no children or other dependents (b) no living family of any kind and (c) no job.

So...you're going to hurt them financially and emotionally by locking their loved one up. Ah...it makes perfect sense now.


It's just something that everyone knows, but far too frequently no one can prove what everyone knows, because it's factually incorrect.

Or because exact and precise data, the only kind you'll apparently accept, aren't kept on all the things we're talking about.


For the record, one of Bloomberg's policies was to increase the tax on cigarettes.

I'm totally cool with that. Counties/States should be allowed to tax whatever they want.


The purpose of the exercise was for Gnome Rage to examine what she has been told in the cold, clear light of empirical fact. There's no conversation about "a lot". If there's a specific number, we can talk about that, and in this case the specific number people have in mind is 0%. The real discussion has nothing to do with how many people are in jail, the real discussion is whether marijuana usage is a crime at all. Looking up and talking about specific numbers lets us brush away the chaff and get to the wheatmeat of the discussion.

Alright, approximately half a million people are currently incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. Now that that's out of the way, what were we actually talking about?


And yet I'm the person accused of trolling, ignoring data, etc. Ha! Ha! You have to laugh.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware I was supposed to wait with bated breath for your every post, and respond immediately. You asked if I read one of your posts, I said I did not, but gave a close approximation of what I assumed it contained. That is neither trolling nor ignoring data, it's answering your question.

[Methais]

Latrin clearly knows what he's talking about with drugs, because he's had so much experience with them, as well as other things like going outside or talking to real people.

[Atlanteax]

When Latrin creates posts like this:


This does not follow logically. Example:

Population A has 100 people and laws against marijuana use and DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
10 people use marijuana, of whom 0 commit DUI.
20 crimes per 100 people.

Population B has 100 people and laws against DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
30 people use marijuana, of whom 15 commit DUI.
25 crimes per 100 people.

Even if that does not convince you, crb's claim was that organized crime activity went down.

And even if THAT does not convince you, I don't understand why people are always so reticent to just source their claims. Don't you find it fun? Don't you find it more effective than simply repeating your claims? Don't you think it's disrespectful to the person you got the information from to not give them credit for finding it in the first place? I don't understand it.

Therefore psychosis.

it actually creates the impression that Back is a rocket scientist by comparison.

This is a crime against the PC that no words can appropriately describe.

Shame on you Latrin. Utterly shameful.

[JackWhisper]

All I know is that when porn became easy access due to the internet, sex crimes went down like 30% in America.

Woo.

[Methais]

When Latrin creates posts like this:



it actually creates the impression that Back is a rocket scientist by comparison.

This is a crime against the PC that no words can appropriately describe.

Shame on you Latrin. Utterly shameful.

See sig.

[Gnome Rage]

Why 10%?
Arbitrary number I picked, half of the original number we were discussing.

My point is, these people shouldn't be in jail. If a person (with no children) is using ANY drug within the confines of their house, and not taking it onto the road, I don't think that they should be in trouble for that legally. Yes, perhaps they should be referred to a counselor, but I don't think that they should go to jail. If they are not impacting anyone's life but their own, directly with their drug us (you know, not neglecting children or getting in the car to drive), they have the right to decide to put themselves and their own body at risk. I don't think that deserves jail time. I think this especially applies to pot. If joe schmore wants to go out, buy some weed, come home and smoke all of it to his face and then go to bed, let him do it. If he wants to do it with heroin, and he dies, that fucking sucks but THAT WAS HIS CHOICE, and he has the right to do that. Yes, if joe schmore is a child, or is raising a child, or is going to get behind the wheel of his car -- these should be offenses because they put others in danger.

The impact that going to jail has on a person is significant. It took family members of mine years to get out of this "prison mentality". Things are NOT the same as in the outside world and it changes your perspective and makes it extremely hard to reintegrate, especially when you have to constantly be reminded of your time spent there. It curtails a person's options. Maybe the solution is mandatory drug education and rehabilitation, but not jail. The idea of putting an addict in a room, with other criminals, for months (if not years with mandatory minimums), and expecting them to come out "better" for society is bullshit. Criminals become criminals in prison, before that they are usually just people who made a mistake, who didn't have the supportive homelife, who didn't get the attention they needed, who felt less-than, who thought the crime was their only way, and so on and so forth. Putting potheads in prison, or any non-violent drug offender is just being lazy. It isn't actually addressing any problem in our country, it just spends our tax money to, what?, send them to "school for criminals" so they can learn new and inventive ways to break the law from their fellow "criminals". So they can be attacked or killed? During my family member's stay at a transitional, low-security prison where most members were non-violent or at the very tail end (less than 3 months) of their sentences, a kid got beaten to death with a lock in a sock because he didn't draw a picture well enough for another inmate. The kid that got beaten to death, was in jail for a non-violent drug offense and just trying to trade his artistic skills for ramen noodles, and now he's fucking dead. Why? Couldn't he have been sent to a mental health facility? Oh right, we don't believe in that. We have emptied out mental health facilities, because they were often times abusive, but we gave very little community infrastructure, we just let everyone fucking go, to go be homeless, and addicted, and suffering from very serious mental illnesses, with absolutely no one looking out for them. So what do we do? WE PUT THESE PEOPLE IN FUCKING PRISON? Yep. Thats what we do. Instead of surrounding them by trained, educated, mental health workers, we put them with other violent criminals, correctional officers who aren't trained well enough to manage inmates with addictions and other mental health problems.

Our prison system is CHOCK FULL of patients who would be better served by doctors and psychologists and social works, and pretty fucking much anyone except correctional officers and other higher ups in prisons.

/rant
/breathe

WHATEVER GUYS. IM OUT.
/grumpy

[JackWhisper]

smoke all of it to his face

.... I stopped reading at this, and immediately thought of you screaming this insult at a pothead.

YO MOTHAFUCKA! SMOKE ALL DAT SHIT TO YO FACE, BITCH!

Instant win.

[Gnome Rage]

GRAAAARRRR!

You can't fix people in a prison environment. You fucking can't. STOP TRYING.

[Atlanteax]

GRAAAARRRR!

You can't fix people in a prison environment. You fucking can't. STOP TRYING.

We need two kind of prisons.

One is run as a Boot Camp, and is filled with rehabilitation candidates (such as people who made dumb mistakes). Ideally they complete their short-term sentences and reintegrate with society.

The other is run as a no-man's land and is filled with hardened criminals (of the serial variant). Ideally they die within the walls and are never seen by society again.

[Gnome Rage]

Did you know the mandatory minimum for treason is 5 years, but the mandatory minimum for "1st offense, manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute,
no death or serious bodily injury" is 10?

* has to be
1 kg+ heroin
5 kg+ cocaine
280 g+ crack
100 g+ PCP (pure) or 1 kg+ PCP (mixture)
10 g+ LSD
1,000 kg+ marijuana or 1,000+ marijuana
plants *
A large quantity.

Still interesting imo.

[Gelston]

Did you know the mandatory minimum for treason is 5 years, but the mandatory minimum for "1st offense, manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute,
no death or serious bodily injury" is 10?

* has to be
1 kg+ heroin
5 kg+ cocaine
280 g+ crack
100 g+ PCP (pure) or 1 kg+ PCP (mixture)
10 g+ LSD
1,000 kg+ marijuana or 1,000+ marijuana
plants *
A large quantity.

Still interesting imo.

There is a very large range of things that can be charged as treason. Treason can still lead to the death penalty though. Far as I know, no state has a death penalty for non-violent drug crimes.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

My point is, these people shouldn't be in jail. If a person (with no children) is using ANY drug within the confines of their house, and not taking it onto the road, I don't think that they should be in trouble for that legally. Yes, perhaps they should be referred to a counselor, but I don't think that they should go to jail. If they are not impacting anyone's life but their own, directly with their drug us (you know, not neglecting children or getting in the car to drive), they have the right to decide to put themselves and their own body at risk. I don't think that deserves jail time. I think this especially applies to pot. If joe schmore wants to go out, buy some weed, come home and smoke all of it to his face and then go to bed, let him do it. If he wants to do it with heroin, and he dies, that fucking sucks but THAT WAS HIS CHOICE, and he has the right to do that.

I agree with you for the most part - I've always thought it was silly that doctors are essentially dealers, and if you don't go to an approved dealer, you'd get in trouble. But, I will say this - driving while drunk is a crime, and people still do it. People will do drugs and drive. Or pass out in their apartment complex with a lit bud and catch the place on fire... etc. Other people will be impacted by someones "right" as you put it, to put themselves and their own body at risk. Also, as Obama pushes us more and more towards a socialist government / country of dependent citizens it begins to become more important that people don't put themselves and their own body at risk. Why? Because everyone pays for it when they do.

And while I think the drug laws are retarded, I still obey them - because we are a country ruled by laws. Consequences of drug use is easily researched, if it's 5 minutes in jail or the death sentence, no one is forcing you (general you) to use, sell, distribute, etc. It's personal choice - just as you say they have the right to put themselves at risk, they have the right to break the law and suffer the consequences. It's all about choice.

[Androidpk]

If no one ever broke the law we'd all be drinking tea right now.

[Fallen]

What should people be thrown in jail for?

Let's start with everything that's illegal now sans possession of marijuana without intent to distribute and go from there.


If laws were based on what a majority of people wanted, interracial marriage would have been illegal until 1995.

Yep. Isn't it fucking retarded when people try to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body?

[Gelston]

I can just see the future. Pot completely legal! Oh, but no smoking anywhere in public.

[Androidpk]

I can just see the future. Pot completely legal! Oh, but no smoking anywhere in public.

I'd be okay with that.

[Tisket]

All I know is that when porn became easy access due to the internet, sex crimes went down like 30% in America.

Woo.

Where did you get that stat?

[Gnome Rage]

I can just see the future. Pot completely legal! Oh, but no smoking anywhere in public.

Fine with me. You can't drink in public (outside of bars and restaurants, you know, you're not supposed to just drink on the street).

[Gnome Rage]

All I want is for pot to be subject to the same laws as alcohol. Obviously drinking while taking care of your baby and passing out and the baby dying is a bad thing, same goes for weed. Drinking and driving, same thing. Drinking in public, fine, same fucking thing.

[Gelston]

Fine with me. You can't drink in public (outside of bars and restaurants, you know, you're not supposed to just drink on the street).

Yeah, no smoking in bars either. Hell, New Orleans just passed a thing banning smoking (and vaping) in all bars, public or private... And in the French Quarter, you can drink on the streets. (Just not out of a glass container.)

[JackWhisper]

Weed may be legal, but there's going to be a shitload of arrests for people who lace the weed they sell with shit like angel dust. It'll be the new 'war on drugs' shtick.

[Tisket]

Yeah, no smoking in bars either. Hell, New Orleans just passed a thing banning smoking (and vaping) in all bars, public or private.

Smoking is disgusting. It's hard for me to get worked up over people unable to smoke because it's illegal and costly.

[Androidpk]

Cambridge, MA just raised the smoking age to 21 and banned e-cigs in public.

[Gelston]

Smoking is disgusting. It's hard for me to get worked up over people unable to smoke because it's illegal and costly.

I'm talking about legal smokes. Were weed to be legalized in Louisiana, I'm pretty certain that would be included in the ban.

Although the thing says you can smoke at cigar bars, hookah bars, and vape bars... Which I imagine a bunch of French Quarter bars will turn into.

[Gnome Rage]

Yeah, no smoking in bars either. Hell, New Orleans just passed a thing banning smoking (and vaping) in all bars, public or private... And in the French Quarter, you can drink on the streets. (Just not out of a glass container.)

dude, idk who would really want to smoke in a bar.

Maybe a pot bar would be a different scene, but I can't even stand being in a normal bar as is. Shit makes me skin prickly. so many people packed into small spaces.

[Fallen]

I'd be okay with that.

Me too.

[Androidpk]

Where did you get that stat?

Personal experience.

[Gelston]

dude, idk who would really want to smoke in a bar.

Maybe a pot bar would be a different scene, but I can't even stand being in a normal bar as is. Shit makes me skin prickly. so many people packed into small spaces.

I'm pretty sure tons of people who, like, you know, enjoy going to bars would. They bust people smoking pot in the bathrooms at the bars here all the time. By they I mean the bartenders/owners, not the police.

[Gnome Rage]

Oh man. I was once in a smoking room at the the airport and I wanted to die...

Cigarette smoke is suffocating in any sort of confined space.

I don't really think anything should be smoked in public spaces. I don't even smoke on the street when I walk anymore. I only smoke at home on the back porch, or in my car. When I was still smoking outside of work / on the street I would tuck myself as far away from other people as possible, hide it when children walked by, or dogs.

I don't think other people should be subjected to what -you- want to do, whether it's drinking or smoking cigarettes or smoking pot, but I think you have a right to do it in your own space.

[Gelston]

Oh man. I was once in a smoking room at the the airport and I wanted to die...

Cigarette smoke is suffocating in any sort of confined space.

Where the living fuck did you find an airport that still had a smoking room? Last one I saw was in Amsterdam.

[JackWhisper]

Smoking is disgusting. It's hard for me to get worked up over people unable to smoke because it's illegal and costly.

Agree. I am a big non-smoker. I lived in an apartment when my son was three, and we had next door neighbor potheads set up their chairs to smoke weed from a huuka...hooka?.... whatever. Smoke weed from a communal bong. On the third story no less, with my son having to walk past them to get up and down the stairs on a narrow walkway.

One day they refused to move, and my son walked through a cloud of smoke to get to our door. I politely walked past, deposited my son in the apartment, asked him to sit on the couch, closed the door and locked it behind him, and walked over and chucked their bong over the railing. And nearly one of them too. I was so far past angry about it that it has soured me on tolerating anyone smoking. I just don't associate with smokers now. To each their own, just don't smoke around my kid.

[Tisket]

I'm talking about legal smokes.

So was I.

[Gnome Rage]

Where the living fuck did you find an airport that still had a smoking room? Last one I saw was in Amsterdam.

washington dulles (http://www.metwashairports.com/dulles/5323.htm)

[Gelston]

So was I.


Smoking is disgusting. It's hard for me to get worked up over people unable to smoke because it's illegal and costly.

The second sentence... Cigarettes are neither of those? STOP BEING A CONFUSING PATRIOTS FAN.

[Gnome Rage]

Agree. I am a big non-smoker. I lived in an apartment when my son was three, and we had next door neighbor potheads set up their chairs to smoke weed from a huuka...hooka?.... whatever. Smoke weed from a communal bong. On the third story no less, with my son having to walk past them to get up and down the stairs on a narrow walkway.

One day they refused to move, and my son walked through a cloud of smoke to get to our door. I politely walked past, deposited my son in the apartment, asked him to sit on the couch, closed the door and locked it behind him, and walked over and chucked their bong over the railing. And nearly one of them too. I was so far past angry about it that it has soured me on tolerating anyone smoking. I just don't associate with smokers now. To each their own, just don't smoke around my kid.

Maybe a little overreaction, but they needed to learn their lesson. Not around kids. Not around animals. Not around people who don't want to be around it. But to me, these rules apply to every drug except coffee.

[Gelston]

washington dulles (http://www.metwashairports.com/dulles/5323.htm)

When I landed at the Kuwait Airport, they had a little smoking... Booth. Hardly a room. Yeah, all the Arabs just continued to walk around the airport smoking wherever they wanted.

[Gnome Rage]

When I landed at the Kuwait Airport, they had a little smoking... Booth. Hardly a room. Yeah, all the Arabs just continued to walk around the airport smoking wherever they wanted.

Dude lit a cigarette while still inside our store once... I didn't really even say anything, he was leaving. I guess it was windy, so he didn't think he'd light it outside or something. He stood at the door, lit it, and then opened the door and left.

Shop still smelled like cigs tho.

[Latrinsorm]

So...you're going to hurt them financially and emotionally by locking their loved one up. Ah...it makes perfect sense now.Yes, jail is a bad thing. That is why it functions as a deterrent. People don't believe in science. People do believe the government can lock them up. Ideally we would increase the government's ability to follow through on its threat of conviction, but that's an entirely different discussion, altogether.
Or because exact and precise data, the only kind you'll apparently accept, aren't kept on all the things we're talking about.Since when? I only ever request data. Did I criticize your source's methodology? Did I say it was inexact, or imprecise? You hold so many grudges against me for things I don't do.
Alright, approximately half a million people are currently incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. Now that that's out of the way, what were we actually talking about?"the real discussion is whether marijuana usage is a crime at all." If you believe it is not, any non-zero number of people in jail for it is too many. If you believe it is, no number of people in jail for it is too many. See also the Gnome Rage portion of this post.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware I was supposed to wait with bated breath for your every post, and respond immediately. You asked if I read one of your posts, I said I did not, but gave a close approximation of what I assumed it contained. That is neither trolling nor ignoring data, it's answering your question.Ignoring my post (full of data) isn't ignoring data? That's a neat trick. :)
If they are not impacting anyone's life but their own, directly with their drug us (you know, not neglecting children or getting in the car to drive), they have the right to decide to put themselves and their own body at risk.You specify that people should not be driving while under the effects of a drug, and surely we agree on that, but what if a drug has long-term effects in addition to short-term intoxication? Specifically, long-term effects that increase a person's threat to those around them? For example: severe ataxia, certain kinds of mental illness, or even something as simple as increased capacity as a vector for disease. We have already agreed that you can't do something to your body that threatens others to a certain degree, after all, all we are really discussing is whether drugs can have long-term side effects. Surely we agree on that as well?
WHATEVER GUYS. IM OUT.I have previously advocated for a complete overhaul of our judicial system, and stand by it. I think that your disgust with the current system is well-founded, but decriminalization is not a solution. It just puts less people into the same flawed system, it doesn't address the flaws itself.
Let's start with everything that's illegal now sans possession of marijuana without intent to distribute and go from there.Okay, can you agree that that sounds rather arbitrary?
Yep. Isn't it fucking retarded when people try to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body?No, not really. I think it's very well-conceived for the government to protect other people from me if I pose a threat to them with my own body or anything else. As I said, what is ill-conceived is to base anything on general opinion. I ignore it when it came to interracial marriage, and I ignore it when it comes to drug law: say what you will, but I am consistent in my beliefs. You are also consistent in your beliefs, you simply overreached for rhetorical power. "Everyone else is doing it", if you will, even though you don't find that compelling in general.

[Gelston]

Dude lit a cigarette while still inside our store once... I didn't really even say anything, he was leaving. I guess it was windy, so he didn't think he'd light it outside or something. He stood at the door, lit it, and then opened the door and left.

Shop still smelled like cigs tho.

Probably better than the hipster cloves it smells like in there already.

[Tisket]

The second sentence... Cigarettes are neither of those? STOP BEING A CONFUSING PATRIOTS FAN.

It still applies since you were talking about the banning of legal cigarettes in a public bar.

SEAHAWKS FOR THE WIN IN SUPER BOWL 2016.

You heard it here first.

[JackWhisper]

Maybe a little overreaction, but they needed to learn their lesson. Not around kids. Not around animals. Not around people who don't want to be around it. But to me, these rules apply to every drug except coffee.

Yeah, it was an overreaction. I'd justify by saying it wasn't the first time they'd been asked not to smoke near the stairs like that, but it's sort of moot. Had that been the first time, I'da done the same thing. Normally we walked up the other side's stairs to avoid it, but my son was excited to get home and eat his rainbow goldfish he'd gotten at the store, so he was ahead of me before I knew he was running through a cloud of bong haze.

Ah well. Live and learn. =)

[Gelston]

It still applies since you were talking about the banning of legal cigarettes in a public bar.

SEAHAWKS FOR THE WIN IN SUPER BOWL 2016.

You heard it here first.

I don't mind that they banned them in public bars. That it includes private clubs kinda irks me.

I already said the Saints would win first.

[JackWhisper]

All I called was the Seahawks not being able to double down on the bowl win. I was almost wrong but....#BizarreSlantPass FTW!

[Gnome Rage]

Probably better than the hipster cloves it smells like in there already.

What?

It smells like dead cow. Its a leather shop. FUCKING EVERYONE TELLS ME.

"I love the smell of leather in here" hurhurhur

I can't fucking smell it. it just smells like dust and work.

[crb]

I don't know why people continue to try to argue with Latrine who has like a girl-boner for drug prohibition.

Prohibition increases the harm of drug use. When people in a commercial transaction cannot go to the police or the courts when they have a dispute, they resort to violence. This is why prohibition is the root cause of drug related violence, as evidenced by our experience with alcohol prohibition (and seriously asking me for a source on bootleggers and violence? read a history book).

If something is nonviolent and victimless, is it a crime?

I'll throw out a tangent: Prostitution should be legal. It is the world's oldest profession, most other nations have already legalized it in one form or another. By prohibiting it what you do is create unsafe working environments for women who choose that profession. Since they cannot go to the police for protection they rely on violent pimps, they're often encouraged to use drugs, and are physically abused. There is of course also the STD issue. If you think you can legislate away the world's oldest profession you're an idiot, so the solution is to reduce the harm it causes to society. There is also the issue of minors and sex slavery, which is encouraged, or at least not discouraged, by the general prostitution prohibition.

So instead if you legalize it you get clean hygienic brothers and clean hygienic working girls, you almost entirely reduce the threat of violence that pervades it currently, and you greatly discourage anyone to prostitute a minor or a sex slave. If someone is able to get sex for a nice clean safe brothel, why would they go to some dirty apartment to bang a Thai illegal immigrant who can't speak english and is held in bondage? If he is really into roleplaying he can pay the prostitute at the hotel to be submissive. As long as you get past the victorian/feminazi moral sensibility that women don't own their sexuality or aren't allowed to express it any way they see fit, including by charging money for it, then you literally remove just about every negative influence on society that prostitution currently provides.

Making it illegal didn't stop people from doing it, but making it legal might just stop people from getting beaten, raped, and murdered. The name of the game is harm reduction, and with drugs it is the same. Making marijuana illegal did not stop people from using it, but it did provide violent gangs with a cash source, it did provide drug dealers opportunity to up sell weed customers on actually dangerous drugs, it did provide drug cartels and terrorist groups with an industry. So why don't we reduce all those harmful things and make it legal?

Which, by the way, Colorado even hasn't done it. You need to allow a farmer to grow it in bulk in an open field, then it will have finally been legalized. Artificial supply limits still provide a window for the black market.

[Fallen]

I don't know why people continue to try to argue with Latrine who has like a girl-boner for drug prohibition.

It's mostly because of the absurdity of his believing people are better off in pound-me-up-the-ass prison than allowed to do what they want with their own body. It's doubly nonsensical because he actually approaches it from the position of some insane mockery of a compassionate high ground.

[Gnome Rage]

I don't know why people continue to try to argue with Latrine who has like a girl-boner for drug prohibition.

Prohibition increases the harm of drug use. When people in a commercial transaction cannot go to the police or the courts when they have a dispute, they resort to violence. This is why prohibition is the root cause of drug related violence, as evidenced by our experience with alcohol prohibition (and seriously asking me for a source on bootleggers and violence? read a history book).

If something is nonviolent and victimless, is it a crime?

I'll throw out a tangent: Prostitution should be legal. It is the world's oldest profession, most other nations have already legalized it in one form or another. By prohibiting it what you do is create unsafe working environments for women who choose that profession. Since they cannot go to the police for protection they rely on violent pimps, they're often encouraged to use drugs, and are physically abused. There is of course also the STD issue. If you think you can legislate away the world's oldest profession you're an idiot, so the solution is to reduce the harm it causes to society. There is also the issue of minors and sex slavery, which is encouraged, or at least not discouraged, by the general prostitution prohibition.

So instead if you legalize it you get clean hygienic brothers and clean hygienic working girls, you almost entirely reduce the threat of violence that pervades it currently, and you greatly discourage anyone to prostitute a minor or a sex slave. If someone is able to get sex for a nice clean safe brothel, why would they go to some dirty apartment to bang a Thai illegal immigrant who can't speak english and is held in bondage? If he is really into roleplaying he can pay the prostitute at the hotel to be submissive. As long as you get past the victorian/feminazi moral sensibility that women don't own their sexuality or aren't allowed to express it any way they see fit, including by charging money for it, then you literally remove just about every negative influence on society that prostitution currently provides.

Making it illegal didn't stop people from doing it, but making it legal might just stop people from getting beaten, raped, and murdered. The name of the game is harm reduction, and with drugs it is the same. Making marijuana illegal did not stop people from using it, but it did provide violent gangs with a cash source, it did provide drug dealers opportunity to up sell weed customers on actually dangerous drugs, it did provide drug cartels and terrorist groups with an industry. So why don't we reduce all those harmful things and make it legal?

Which, by the way, Colorado even hasn't done it. You need to allow a farmer to grow it in bulk in an open field, then it will have finally been legalized. Artificial supply limits still provide a window for the black market.
This might be the first time where I pretty much have agreed with everything said.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It's mostly because of the absurdity of his believing people are better off in pound-me-up-the-ass prison than allowed to do what they want with their own body. It's nonsensical because he actually approaches it from the position of some insane mockery of the compassionate high ground.

I'm better off when law breakers are in pound-me-up-the ass prison... and yet I still don't care if drugs are legal or illegal. I truly wish we let people do whatever they wanted to themselves because frankly there are too many people on this planet as it is, and I've no issue with them killing themselves.

[Fallen]

I'm better off when law breakers are in pound-me-up-the ass prison... and yet I still don't care if drugs are legal or illegal. I truly wish we let people do whatever they wanted to themselves because frankly there are too many people on this planet as it is, and I've no issue with them killing themselves.

I think the prison system is deeply, deeply flawed. Sending people in there in the name of "rehabilitation" is an absolute joke. I'm not saying we should do away with prisons, i'm just saying we need to recognize that anyone going into prison is by and large going to come out worse than when they went in. Add to that all of the associated consequences of having a prison sentence on your record, and it only gets worse.

We should throw people in prison as a last resort. The people coming out of it will in no way be reformed, or can be expected to be a productive member of society.

[Johnny Five]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/No_escape_poster.jpg

I honestly think this type of idea would be a valid option.

[Methais]

I can just see the future. Pot completely legal! Oh, but no smoking anywhere in public.

Remember when Louisiana law let you buy alcohol at 18, but you still couldn't drink until 21?

[Methais]

dude, idk who would really want to smoke in a bar.

People who go to bars that also smoke.

Sometimes, GR, sometimes...

http://theseoasis.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/5aXpg294Bf-2.png

[JackWhisper]

.....Yeah. Like anyone ever thought anyone from Louisiana would ever make sense! PFFT!

[Fallen]

I don't know why people continue to try to argue with Latrine who has like a girl-boner for drug prohibition.

Prohibition increases the harm of drug use. When people in a commercial transaction cannot go to the police or the courts when they have a dispute, they resort to violence. This is why prohibition is the root cause of drug related violence, as evidenced by our experience with alcohol prohibition (and seriously asking me for a source on bootleggers and violence? read a history book).

If something is nonviolent and victimless, is it a crime?

I'll throw out a tangent: Prostitution should be legal. It is the world's oldest profession, most other nations have already legalized it in one form or another. By prohibiting it what you do is create unsafe working environments for women who choose that profession. Since they cannot go to the police for protection they rely on violent pimps, they're often encouraged to use drugs, and are physically abused. There is of course also the STD issue. If you think you can legislate away the world's oldest profession you're an idiot, so the solution is to reduce the harm it causes to society. There is also the issue of minors and sex slavery, which is encouraged, or at least not discouraged, by the general prostitution prohibition.

So instead if you legalize it you get clean hygienic brothers and clean hygienic working girls, you almost entirely reduce the threat of violence that pervades it currently, and you greatly discourage anyone to prostitute a minor or a sex slave. If someone is able to get sex for a nice clean safe brothel, why would they go to some dirty apartment to bang a Thai illegal immigrant who can't speak english and is held in bondage? If he is really into roleplaying he can pay the prostitute at the hotel to be submissive. As long as you get past the victorian/feminazi moral sensibility that women don't own their sexuality or aren't allowed to express it any way they see fit, including by charging money for it, then you literally remove just about every negative influence on society that prostitution currently provides.

Making it illegal didn't stop people from doing it, but making it legal might just stop people from getting beaten, raped, and murdered. The name of the game is harm reduction, and with drugs it is the same. Making marijuana illegal did not stop people from using it, but it did provide violent gangs with a cash source, it did provide drug dealers opportunity to up sell weed customers on actually dangerous drugs, it did provide drug cartels and terrorist groups with an industry. So why don't we reduce all those harmful things and make it legal?

Which, by the way, Colorado even hasn't done it. You need to allow a farmer to grow it in bulk in an open field, then it will have finally been legalized. Artificial supply limits still provide a window for the black market.

No arguments here.

[Methais]

All I called was the Seahawks not being able to double down on the bowl win. I was almost wrong but....#BizarreSlantPass FTW!

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10922830_10152796985147535_6378293524325729700_n.j pg?oh=68b3ef385caa2661c1855d71388c6247&oe=5555CFB6

[Latrinsorm]

Prohibition increases the harm of drug use. When people in a commercial transaction cannot go to the police or the courts when they have a dispute, they resort to violence. This is why prohibition is the root cause of drug related violence, as evidenced by our experience with alcohol prohibition (and seriously asking me for a source on bootleggers and violence? read a history book).I have read many history books. I know of none that say organized crime activity decreased after the repeal of Prohibition. If you would like to cite one, my girl-boner and I will be happy to investigate. Gnome Rage and Thondalar have both been able to pretty easily obtain and produce the facts about their position, and I of course am renowned for doing so. Surely you can as well?
If something is nonviolent and victimless, is it a crime?No, but drug use is not victimless.
Making marijuana illegal did not stop people from using it, but it did provide violent gangs with a cash source, it did provide drug dealers opportunity to up sell weed customers on actually dangerous drugs, it did provide drug cartels and terrorist groups with an industry. So why don't we reduce all those harmful things and make it legal?This is the problem with absolutes. Nobody believes that making something illegal eradicates it entirely: people will always murder. The question is how much occurrence is deterred, and how much that costs, and how much it would cost if not deterred. Boring, tedious accounting. That's the only way to calculate things. Nothing in this world is perfect, if you honestly believe that legalization would be all benefit and no cost you're fooling yourself.
It's mostly because of the absurdity of his believing people are better off in pound-me-up-the-ass prison than allowed to do what they want with their own body. It's doubly nonsensical because he actually approaches it from the position of some insane mockery of a compassionate high ground.I do consider myself compassionate, but I do not recall claiming that this policy is so. It is in fact exactly the general policy that crb describes: harm reduction [on net for society]. I think it would be in your best interest to examine the contrast between your vigorous response to me saying it and your mild response to him saying it. I also think I have offered a pretty cogent and concise explanation for why drug use does not constitute people doing "what they want with their own body". As Gnome Rage and I agreed, you can't put intoxicants in your own body and use a car with your own body because that poses a threat to other people. Please note that it is only a threat, not a guarantee. I don't see why the same reasoning can't apply to other effects of drug use that persist after intoxication has abated, and that present broader threats than control over motor vehicles. Doesn't that seem consistent?

[Androidpk]

Latrine don't you ever get tired of going full retard?

[subzero]

Latrin clearly knows what he's talking about with drugs, because he's had so much experience with them, as well as other things like going outside or talking to real people.

...but, papers and studies and stuff!


GRAAAARRRR!

You can't fix people in a prison environment. You fucking can't. STOP TRYING.

They aren't trying to fix anyone. They want criminals to continue coming back and making them money.

[Fallen]

I do consider myself compassionate, but I do not recall claiming that this policy is so. It is in fact exactly the general policy that crb describes: harm reduction [on net for society].

So I would take it then you would be for a change in drug policy that instead of putting users in jail, they would instead be placed into mandatory treatment programs?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So I would take it then you would be for a change in drug policy that instead of putting users in jail, they would instead be placed into mandatory treatment programs?

Why does it have to be one or the other? If I'm being completely serious, I'd say some people belong in prison and others might not. Perhaps because it's SO black and white today is why you may have a problem with it as it is now? I don't think everyone who is in prison for drug charges is harmless and willing to try to address their issues, just as I believe the same would be true if we let them all out.

[Methais]

The maximum punishment for being caught with weed should be having to watch Food Network for an entire day while baked and only being fed water.

[Latrinsorm]

So I would take it then you would be for a change in drug policy that instead of putting users in jail, they would instead be placed into mandatory treatment programs?I think mandatory treatment program sounds a little ominous, sort of like the gay cure people. I would want more details, to be sure.

[Methais]

I think mandatory treatment program sounds a little ominous, sort of like the gay cure people. I would want more details, to be sure.

Latrin wants gay people thrown in jail!

[tyrant-201]

Latrin wants gay people thrown in jail!

I hear prison cures the gay away.

[Gnome Rage]

The maximum punishment for being caught with weed should be having to watch Food Network for an entire day while baked and only being fed water.

Wh..

cruel and unusual sir!

[Warriorbird]

I have read many history books. I know of none that say organized crime activity decreased after the repeal of Prohibition.

When a policy empowered something it does not mean that something mysteriously ceases. I already demolished your fairy tale about Mussolini.

Prison and our prison industry cost America a tremendous amount. Are you about to argue that black America would have as many problems without our drug laws/policy?

[Latrinsorm]

When a policy empowered something it does not mean that something mysteriously ceases.Tell it to crb!
I already demolished your fairy tale about Mussolini.Borderline hate speech.
Prison and our prison industry cost America a tremendous amount. Are you about to argue that black America would have as many problems without our drug laws/policy?No. Why would I? Like I've said, there's plenty of problems with our justice system, but getting rid of any given law doesn't solve those problems. If you want to solve racial discrepancies, let's solve racial discrepancies. I've even given the solution already, you've just got to take the ratio of adjacent to hypothesis and cosign it!

[Warriorbird]

Tell it to crb!
I've even given the solution already, you've just got to take the ratio of adjacent to hypothesis and cosign it!

It also doesn't mean that the policy didn't empower something...

And your claimed solution presupposes a government that would be impossible for humans to create and that the idea of machine intelligence is purely benevolent.

[Ceyrin]

Crime goes down for marijuana? What a dirty slut!

QFT

[Thondalar]

GRAAAARRRR!

You can't fix people in a prison environment. You fucking can't. STOP TRYING.


Luckily this has been proven over and over, and now even Conservative bastions like Texas are starting to figure it out (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30275026)

[Thondalar]

I can just see the future. Pot completely legal! Oh, but no smoking anywhere in public.

Totally cool with that.

[Thondalar]

We need two kind of prisons.

One is run as a Boot Camp, and is filled with rehabilitation candidates (such as people who made dumb mistakes). Ideally they complete their short-term sentences and reintegrate with society.

The other is run as a no-man's land and is filled with hardened criminals (of the serial variant). Ideally they die within the walls and are never seen by society again.

Potentially we already have this, if we removed the incarceration to State/Federal facilities and instead remanded them to rehabilitation. See my other post with the Texas link.

[Thondalar]

Fine with me. You can't drink in public (outside of bars and restaurants, you know, you're not supposed to just drink on the street).

Oddly enough, that's pretty much an American thing...you can still freely drink on the streets in most European countries we like to compare America to.

[Thondalar]

Smoking is disgusting. It's hard for me to get worked up over people unable to smoke because it's illegal and costly.

Glad to know your idea of freedom ends at "it's disgusting to ME".

Let's follow THAT rabbit hole.

[Thondalar]

Cambridge, MA just raised the smoking age to 21 and banned e-cigs in public.

Banned E-cigs? WTF? They don't produce second-hand smoke, the vapor you exhale doesn't have any smell...people aren't smoking real cigs anymore, so let's fuck them for smoking fake cigs? How does this make sense on any level?

[Thondalar]

I'm talking about legal smokes. Were weed to be legalized in Louisiana, I'm pretty certain that would be included in the ban.

Although the thing says you can smoke at cigar bars, hookah bars, and vape bars... Which I imagine a bunch of French Quarter bars will turn into.

This is what happened to a lot of places in Florida when they passed the law against smoking inside buildings that were not designated bars...the measurement for the law was food sales...a lot of bars stopped selling food in order to maintain a majority of their clientele.

[Jhynnifer]

Banned E-cigs? WTF? They don't produce second-hand smoke, the vapor you exhale doesn't have any smell...people aren't smoking real cigs anymore, so let's fuck them for smoking fake cigs? How does this make sense on any level?

E-cigs are not all they're cracked up to be. First, liquid nicotine (which is in ecigs) is highly toxic and can be lethal. Second, because there is no quality control set on the manufacturers there's any number of other toxins (such as diethylene glycol ((also found in antifreeze))) that can be found in various ecigs, there's even instances where people have ingested bits of metal while smoking them. Top that with the negative effects ecigs still have on your lungs, they still pose dangerous threats. Until the manufacturers are forced to label their ingredients and be held to quality control standards, I am not opposed to banning them.

[Androidpk]

I don't think they should be banned but I don't think people should be walking around in stores smoking them. And yes, they should be labeled too.

[Thondalar]

Yes, jail is a bad thing. That is why it functions as a deterrent. People don't believe in science. People do believe the government can lock them up. Ideally we would increase the government's ability to follow through on its threat of conviction, but that's an entirely different discussion, altogether.

Nice try. You claim the reason people should be locked up for non-violent drug offenses is because their abuse may negatively impact their loved ones. Locking them up will definitely impact their loved ones. Admit you lost this one.


Since when? I only ever request data. Did I criticize your source's methodology? Did I say it was inexact, or imprecise? You hold so many grudges against me for things I don't do.

Really? When the data isn't available, of course you can't criticize the source or the methodology. I hold no grudge against you, brother...I've offered many times to buy you a beer or two and have a jovial discourse any time you find yourself in central Florida.


"the real discussion is whether marijuana usage is a crime at all." If you believe it is not, any non-zero number of people in jail for it is too many. If you believe it is, no number of people in jail for it is too many. See also the Gnome Rage portion of this post.

The GR portion of this post is actually what brought me in to this post...I saw you doing your normal routine to her, and (no offense, GR) felt I needed to step in because I don't feel she's quite prepared to take on your particular brand of bullshit. So there's the wheatmeat of it. I believe addiction is a medical condition, and not a criminal one, and society would be better served treating it as such. I'm prepared to present a veritable bevy of data to support this, both in America and abroad, should you choose to pursue this particular topic.


Ignoring my post (full of data) isn't ignoring data? That's a neat trick. :)

Huh...sorry, I assumed you had a full grasp of the English language. I didn't purposely ignore your post, I just didn't see it. I still haven't seen it, because quite frankly, I really don't care that much. I respond to the shit you post that I see. I have no interest, at all, in digging up shit you previously posted that I haven't seen.

[Thondalar]

E-cigs are not all they're cracked up to be. First, liquid nicotine (which is in ecigs) is highly toxic and can be lethal. Second, because there is no quality control set on the manufacturers there's any number of other toxins (such as diethylene glycol ((also found in antifreeze))) that can be found in various ecigs, there's even instances where people have ingested bits of metal while smoking them. Top that with the negative effects ecigs still have on your lungs, they still pose dangerous threats. Until the manufacturers are forced to label their ingredients and be held to quality control standards, I am not opposed to banning them.

I agree with the liquid nicotine part...nicotine by itself is incredibly toxic in large doses. That's pretty much where it ends. The main issue with cigarettes is that "second-hand smoke" can still be a carcinogen to others around you...I've seen no empirical evidence that suggests the same from e-cigs.

[Jhynnifer]

I agree with the liquid nicotine part...nicotine by itself is incredibly toxic in large doses. That's pretty much where it ends. The main issue with cigarettes is that "second-hand smoke" can still be a carcinogen to others around you...I've seen no empirical evidence that suggests the same from e-cigs.

You're right it is the main issue with public smoking, but truth be told if you are a smoker and you've switched to e-cigs then this is something you should be concerned about and researching.

[Thondalar]

You're right it is the main issue with public smoking, but truth be told if you are a smoker and you've switched to e-cigs then this is something you should be concerned about and researching.

Totally agree, but we're talking about the public realm in this particular vein of our discourse.

I'm a firm believer in reaping what you sow.

[Fallen]

I think mandatory treatment program sounds a little ominous, sort of like the gay cure people. I would want more details, to be sure.

...as opposed to motherfucking PRISON?

[Thondalar]

...as opposed to motherfucking PRISON?

He's foundering; let him sink.

[Fallen]

Why does it have to be one or the other? If I'm being completely serious, I'd say some people belong in prison and others might not. Perhaps because it's SO black and white today is why you may have a problem with it as it is now? I don't think everyone who is in prison for drug charges is harmless and willing to try to address their issues, just as I believe the same would be true if we let them all out.

I'm not sure i'm following you. My stipulation is for arrests involving amounts of a substance that does not indicate an intent to distribute. I don't believe anyone simply using a drug without mitigating factors such as committing some other crime (theft, assault, etc) should be imprisoned for choosing to imbibe an illicit substance.

[Androidpk]

...as opposed to motherfucking PRISON?

Prison > treatment

Death > psychosis

[Thondalar]

I'm not sure i'm following you. My stipulation is for arrests involving amounts of a substance that does not indicate an intent to distribute. I don't believe anyone simply using a drug without mitigating factors such as committing some other crime (theft, assault, etc) should be imprisoned for choosing to imbibe an illicit substance.

I think this would be a good start point, but I would like to get to a point where we could keep the latter without attaching any particular amount for possession. The "government" is already our approved drug dealer for scores of pharmaceutical narcotics, why not make it that way for all of them? Regulate it, tax it, whatever...there would still be a "black market", of course...there are still teenagers buying weed on street corners in Colorado...but it would be much reduced, and it would take away the main money-maker for cartels. We piss and moan about all of the injustice and civil unrest going on south of the border...not just Mexico but all of central/south America...guess what...it's all funded by drugs.

People are lazy by nature....well, most people. They will happily pay a few dollars more in taxes to get what they want legally. Regardless of Latrin's idiocy, prohibition made the mob a ton of money. The "war on drugs" has done the same for the cartels, to this day. America is a huge source of income for them...shifting that from foreign entities to Federal income would be a huge boon for our entire nation.

[Thondalar]

The point is...it's happening anyway. Has happened, will happen. We need to get off of this Puritan Ideal of everyone being a fucking snowflake and realize that's just not reality. Instead of ignoring it, or denying it, or fighting it...accept it. Make it useful.

[Methais]

I have read many history books. I know of none that say organized crime activity decreased after the repeal of Prohibition.

How many history books have you read that said organized crime activity didn't decrease after the repeal of Prohibition?

[Warriorbird]

How many history books have you read that said organized crime activity didn't decrease after the repeal of Prohibition?

I'm not believing he reads history books.

[Methais]

I'm not believing he reads history books.

Latrin reads history books from the future.

[Warriorbird]

People are lazy by nature....well, most people. They will happily pay a few dollars more in taxes to get what they want legally. Regardless of Latrin's idiocy, prohibition made the mob a ton of money. The "war on drugs" has done the same for the cartels, to this day. America is a huge source of income for them...shifting that from foreign entities to Federal income would be a huge boon for our entire nation.

Some of the truthiest truth in this thread.


Latrin reads history books from the future.

He actually IS Skynet.

[Thondalar]

Some of the truthiest truth in this thread.

I speak nothing but truth. You should see some of the other things I post.

[subzero]

...as opposed to motherfucking PRISON?

Why are you guys all so against furthering your education in crime and expanding your network?

[Gnome Rage]

Banned E-cigs? WTF? They don't produce second-hand smoke, the vapor you exhale doesn't have any smell...people aren't smoking real cigs anymore, so let's fuck them for smoking fake cigs? How does this make sense on any level?

Recent studies have come out finding that e-cigs might actually be worse than regular cigarettes. One finding was that "it definitely isn't water vapor" that you're breathing out. So, there is "second hand smoke" from them.

"Researchers commissioned by the health ministry found carcinogens such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in vapor produced by several types of e-cigarette liquid, a ministry official said."

idk why I can't actually find a link to the study.now I can't find it--just news articles referencing it.

I'm all for e-cigs, if you can eliminate regular cigarettes completely using them. We know a kid that used to smoke a lot, but now he just vapes. Even my dad, a 2 pack a day smoker has shown interest in it. (I don't actually know if he has been successful or not). I used e-cigs last year and "quit" smoking for about 3 months. But, I don't think that they are safe, perhaps the lesser of two evils. Definitely still not good for you, but there are a lot of holes in the research relating to it.

[Fallen]

Recent studies have come out finding that e-cigs might actually be worse than regular cigarettes. One finding was that "it definitely isn't water vapor" that you're breathing out. So, there is "second hand smoke" from them.

"Researchers commissioned by the health ministry found carcinogens such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in vapor produced by several types of e-cigarette liquid, a ministry official said."

idk why I can't actually find a link to the study.now I can't find it--just news articles referencing it.

I'm all for e-cigs, if you can eliminate regular cigarettes completely using them. We know a kid that used to smoke a lot, but now he just vapes. Even my dad, a 2 pack a day smoker has shown interest in it. (I don't actually know if he has been successful or not). I used e-cigs last year and "quit" smoking for about 3 months. But, I don't think that they are safe, perhaps the lesser of two evils. Definitely still not good for you, but there are a lot of holes in the research relating to it.

This doesn't seem like it would be all that hard to test. Just run the condensed smoke through a Mass Spec/HPLC. I wonder why there is such uncertainty in the market.

[Gnome Rage]

This doesn't seem like it would be all that hard to test. Just run the condensed smoke through a Mass Spec/HPLC. I wonder why there is such uncertainty in the market.

Different studies have shown different things, different brands have different levels so it is really hard to make a blanket statement. The study that all these news articles are referring to, done for the health ministry, found one brand had up to 10x the formaldehyde as regular cigarettes, but says nothing about any other carcinogens--so, cigarettes have like 100 different types in varying levels, as far as the report says, the e cigs have 10x more formaldehyde but perhaps none of the other chemicals. There is also problems because the wire that is used for vaping the liquid can apparently help to cause more carcinogens within the smoke if it overheats (unclear as to how this works, but the study with methodology hasn't been published yet... I guess, or I just can't find it)

Also, another side thought about e-cigs. When I first got mine, everyone, EVERYONE wanted to try it, wanted to see what it tasted like. A friend of mine who has never even had a sip of alcohol wanted a drag, just to see, and she REALLY liked the flavor and for about a week she would take a puff or so a day from it cause she liked it. THAT seems more like a gateway drug than anything else we've talked about lol.
JUSTFOODFORTHOUGHT.

also wtf birthdaycake vodka, like how is that not advertising to children.

[Androidpk]

Birthday cake vodka?

[Fallen]

Different studies have shown different things, different brands have different levels so it is really hard to make a blanket statement. The study that all these news articles are referring to, done for the health ministry, found one brand had up to 10x the formaldehyde as regular cigarettes, but says nothing about any other carcinogens--so, cigarettes have like 100 different types in varying levels, as far as the report says, the e cigs have 10x more formaldehyde but perhaps none of the other chemicals. There is also problems because the wire that is used for vaping the liquid can apparently help to cause more carcinogens within the smoke if it overheats (unclear as to how this works, but the study with methodology hasn't been published yet... I guess, or I just can't find it)

If you stick with normal brands I imagine you'll be far better off. Blue E-cigs, for instance, would be far safer than some do-it-yourself shit you buy from a vape shop, made under god knows what conditions.

If anything, there needs to be regulation on e-cigs to control for content, not for usage.

[Gnome Rage]

Birthday cake vodka?

It was just like, one of those side thoughts that gets lodged between the lobes of my brain. Why can booze companies sell birthday cake vodka, or cupcake this or whatever when cigarette companies cant sell flavored cigarettes--because it's advertising to minors just the same.

[Gnome Rage]

If you stick with normal brands I imagine you'll be far better off. Blue E-cigs, for instance, would be far safer than some do-it-yourself shit you buy from a vape shop, made under god knows what conditions.

If anything, there needs to be regulation on e-cigs to control for content, not for usage.

Well, the ones you get at the vape place, (idk if this place exists, but I guess it must), theoretically you get to decide what liquid goes in there, which could allow you to brand shop for one with lower levels of carcinogens. With blu (which is what I used as my second e-cig) you're stuck with what they want to put in.

[Androidpk]

I'm guessing for the same reasons why alcohol TV commercials are allowed (and e-cigs now) but not cigarettes.

[Gnome Rage]

JUST RUDE.

[Fallen]

Well, the ones you get at the vape place, (idk if this place exists, but I guess it must), theoretically you get to decide what liquid goes in there, which could allow you to brand shop for one with lower levels of carcinogens. With blu (which is what I used as my second e-cig) you're stuck with what they want to put in.

Unless those ingredients were made under some sort of food or manufacturing standard, that's a very dangerous assumption to make. Look at all the herbal supplements that are turning out to be completely devoid of their claimed contents.

Also, WTF? You have never seen vape shops before? There are at least 5 within 10 miles of my house, if not more.


JUST RUDE.
?

[Gnome Rage]

Unless those ingredients were made under some sort of food or manufacturing standard, that's a very dangerous assumption to make. Look at all the herbal supplements that are turning out to be completely devoid of their claimed contents.[/COLOR]

I never thought that herbal supplements and vitamins ever had anything in them, HA JOKES ON Y'ALL! :P

The hope is that you could compare ingredients, and probably don't buy the cheapest lol.

[Fallen]

I never thought that herbal supplements and vitamins ever had anything in them, HA JOKES ON Y'ALL! :P

The hope is that you could compare ingredients, and probably don't buy the cheapest lol.

I agree with the logic behind the intent, it's just that the reality is you can't trust what is on those labels, as your research has shown. Better to stick with the evil you know. Yes, blu e-ciggs (or insert another top brand made by a large company) may turn out to be the worse offender, but I sincerely doubt this to be the case.

[Methais]

It was just like, one of those side thoughts that gets lodged between the lobes of my brain. Why can booze companies sell birthday cake vodka, or cupcake this or whatever when cigarette companies cant sell flavored cigarettes--because it's advertising to minors just the same.

Adults like birthday cake and cupcakes too you know.

[Gnome Rage]

Adults like birthday cake and cupcakes too you know.natuh

[JackWhisper]

Adults like ADULT birthday cakes.

7229

[Atlanteax]

Adults like ADULT birthday cakes.

7229

Do you have a larger image/link for that?

I want to send it to my SO to answer her question of "what do you want for your birthday?"

[JackWhisper]

I do not, sadly. Sorry.

[JackWhisper]

My collections of "HOLY SHIT THIS IMAGE IS PERFECT FOR XX SITUATION" is sorely lacking in size and dimension!

[Parkbandit]

Do you have a larger image/link for that?

I want to send it to my SO to answer her question of "what do you want for your birthday?"

http://media3.popsugar-assets.com/files/2013/04/24/941/n/1922398/ec1b54fa6825ad93_b5b7b848ac6511e2b39e22000a9d0df1_ 7.xxxlarge/i/Jaime-King-popped-out-birthday-cake-set-Hart-Dixie.jpg

http://s.sidereel.com/cms/posts/240973/large/Hart-Of-Dixie-Season-2-Episode-14-Take-Me-Home-Country-Roads-3.jpg

[~Rocktar~]

I want this one, or one like it.


http://youtu.be/5poA9SMZIjA

[Latrinsorm]

And your claimed solution presupposes a government that would be impossible for humans to create and that the idea of machine intelligence is purely benevolent.Intelligence is neither benevolent nor malevolent, by definition. It is also not agency. You might as well worry those sensor doors are going to decide to slam shut on your face.
Nice try. You claim the reason people should be locked up for non-violent drug offenses is because their abuse may negatively impact their loved ones. Locking them up will definitely impact their loved ones. Admit you lost this one.In the same way that DUI may negatively impact people, but we lock people up for it (and definitely impact their loved ones) even if they don't hit anyone.
Really? When the data isn't available, of course you can't criticize the source or the methodology. I hold no grudge against you, brother...I've offered many times to buy you a beer or two and have a jovial discourse any time you find yourself in central Florida.:D
The GR portion of this post is actually what brought me in to this post...I saw you doing your normal routine to her, and (no offense, GR) felt I needed to step in because I don't feel she's quite prepared to take on your particular brand of bullshit. So there's the wheatmeat of it. I believe addiction is a medical condition, and not a criminal one, and society would be better served treating it as such. I'm prepared to present a veritable bevy of data to support this, both in America and abroad, should you choose to pursue this particular topic.Whoa whoa, who said addiction? Marijuana isn't addictive. As for Gnome Rage, I thought she and I were having a very productive conversation.
Regardless of Latrin's idiocy, prohibition made the mob a ton of money.Is that what I said? Sheesh! All I challenged was the claim that organized crime activity went down after Prohibition was repealed. All those criminal organizations had plenty of ways to make money before and after Prohibition, they'll do the same if we make every drug legal now. Like our judicial system, the way to fix our organized crime problem is to fix our organized crime problem. It's a red herring.
...as opposed to motherfucking PRISON?Yes, as opposed to prison. I can find (and have found) plenty of details about prison, obviously I can't do that for a hypothetical treatment program that you are proposing.
How many history books have you read that said organized crime activity didn't decrease after the repeal of Prohibition?Four: Casino, Goodfellas, Mob City, and Payback.

[Warriorbird]

Intelligence is neither benevolent nor malevolent, by definition. It is also not agency. You might as well worry those sensor doors are going to decide to slam shut on your face.

I can find (and have found) plenty of details about prison, obviously I can't do that for a hypothetical treatment program that you are proposing.

I've had sensor doors slam on me in two places, Walmart and Royal Caribbean. Both of those places are too American/RL for you so I doubt you're familiar with them but those doors are a danger.

It's funny how you don't worry about machine intelligence/agency but Bill Gates and Elon Musk do. I'm going with Gates and Musk here.

You could simply look up details about Portugal's treatment program (or others) if you wanted data (but you don't want any data but your own.)

[Gelston]

I've had sensor doors slam on me in two places, Walmart and Royal Caribbean. Both of those places are too American/RL for you so I doubt you're familiar with them but those doors are a danger.


Why should you get to go on one cruise when some people can't go on any cruises?

[Fallen]

I've had sensor doors slam on me in two places, Walmart and Royal Caribbean. Both of those places are too American/RL for you so I doubt you're familiar with them but those doors are a danger.

It's funny how you don't worry about machine intelligence/agency but Bill Gates and Elon Musk do. I'm going with Gates and Musk here.

You could simply look up details about Portugal's treatment program (or others) if you wanted data (but you don't want any data but your own.)

You don't need to look to Portugal to see they are more effective.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Drug_Courts#sthash.qCDy3mVk.dpbs

All stats given are sourced.

[Latrinsorm]

I've had sensor doors slam on me in two places, Walmart and Royal Caribbean. Both of those places are too American/RL for you so I doubt you're familiar with them but those doors are a danger....
It's funny how you don't worry about machine intelligence/agency but Bill Gates and Elon Musk do. I'm going with Gates and Musk here.I encourage you to read what Gates actually said, specifically the distinction he draws between intelligence and super-intelligence. Nothing about my proposal involves super-intelligence or agency or anything more nefarious than slidey doors. I'll be honest, when I made that comparison I never anticipated someone would say that slidey doors had it in for them...
You could simply look up details about Portugal's treatment program (or others) if you wanted data (but you don't want any data but your own.)I could assume Fallen is proposing a scheme similar to Portugal's (or others) or I could politely ask him about the details of his proposal. I know it cheeses me right off when people put words in my mouth, so why wouldn't I extend Fallen the courtesy of letting him put words in his own mouth? And then... spit them out? For once it's not a perfect analogy, but look, the problem is solved:
You don't need to look to Portugal to see they are more effective.Well, the first thing that jumps off the page to me is "Sanctions can include ... spending time in jail or being kicked out of the program and facing traditional sentencing." Given how vigorous your reaction has been to jail in the past, I am surprised that this program meets with your approval. They also mention (but don't quantify) that it costs more, which also seems opposted to your and others' objection over the cost of the drug war, and like the criminal justice system (although again not quantified) there are racial biases in play.

I am also struck by the section declaring that only 7% of arrestees are even eligible for these drug court programs. Yes, only half of those eligible were enrolled in drug court, but even at 100% capacity we're not talking about revolutionizing the justice system here. (The specific reasons given for ineligibility are also pretty eye-popping, but that's neither here nor there.) At 100% capacity we're talking about removing 50,000 prisoners assuming all of them don't foul it up AND assuming the drug court can even find spots for them (see point #19). I'm happy for you and I will let you finish, but that number is less than 5% of the prison population.

Point 33 is also a little alarming for the same reason as point 19, in the sense that the programs do not seem readily expandible (further exacerbated by point 41) and in the sense that it undermines points such as #35. It's certainly good for us to save money on criminal drug users, but if that comes at the cost of not helping non-criminal drug users that ought to be factored in too, no? District Judge Hoffman (a bastardization of my own name, as it happens) has apparently observed these hypothetical issues come to dismal fruition in points 44-45, and even goes so far as to refer to the drug court system as "enabling our national schizophrenia(!!!) about drugs".

So now knowing these details, I think it is in no way a silver bullet solution, and may not be a solution at all. More data is required.

[Fallen]

Well, the first thing that jumps off the page to me is "Sanctions can include ... spending time in jail or being kicked out of the program and facing traditional sentencing." Given how vigorous your reaction has been to jail in the past, I am surprised that this program meets with your approval.

I'm fine with failure to comply leading to jail time. I'm not sure if you read any of the positive points, but most state that the best odds are for those that complete the program. Jail time for not doing so is acceptable as to promote the best possible outcome for the participants.


They also mention (but don't quantify) that it costs more, which also seems opposted to your and others' objection over the cost of the drug war, and like the criminal justice system (although again not quantified) there are racial biases in play.

I've seen numbers stating it costs less. In the link I provided, no less! But hey, it doesn't support your argument so you ignore it. Less recidivism also would mean less costs overall. Also, you never gave a fuck about the inherent racism of the drug war, why start now?


I am also struck by the section declaring that only 7% of arrestees are even eligible for these drug court programs. Yes, only half of those eligible were enrolled in drug court, but even at 100% capacity we're not talking about revolutionizing the justice system here.

Yes, because of people like you who favor locking people up because Prohibition works! It's only lead to increased usage of marijuana over the last decade in the US and GB. But why stop now, right? Let's continue to promote a stance of feeding hundreds of thousands of people to the prison system without any real thought to the consequences.



Point 33 is also a little alarming for the same reason as point 19, in the sense that the programs do not seem readily expandible (further exacerbated by point 41) and in the sense that it undermines points such as #35.

Seeing as how you glanced over points 20-23, as well as how you've come to the unshakable conclusion of Marijuana's harm, you'll forgive me if I take any calls for more data on your behalf. Ignoring data that points to mandatory treatment programs showing benefits over continuing to throw people in jail just so you can be right makes you come off as awfully compassionate, Latrine.

What truly disgusts me about your position is the amount of effort you will go through in researching things like the risks of marijuana, while seemingly being completely uncaring about the negative effects on society of things like the drug war and the prison system. You talk about arguing from a position of compassion, yet was that link I sent you honestly the first time you've looked into mandatory drug treatment as opposed to jail time? You will pour over papers trying to find evidence of less than a percent increase of schizophrenia in marijuana, yet do absolutely no research into any beneficial aspects of the drug. You'll dismiss it with a sentence or two while writing pages about its slight risk. Why? If harm reduction was truly your goal, why wouldn't you do serious work to see if this drug has beneficial uses instead of continuing a stance of staunch prohibition?

You continue to unwaveringly supporting a stance, a moral stance based on harm reduction mind you, when you say people should be unquestionably put in jail should they be arrested for imbibing illicit substances. Time and again you'll ignore the damages that the drug war and the prison system wreaks on families, yet claim that people who smoke marijuana are the real threat to their loved ones. It's this blind focus on the risks of marijuana at the cost of ignoring any and all alternatives to the continuation of the status quo of the current system that makes people dismiss you as a troll. Someone arguing from the position of compassion and of harm reduction doing no research into the consequences of prohibition, let alone arguing in any way for compassionate alternatives comes off as extremely hypocritical.

Well, successful troll is successful, because you drive me up a fucking wall. If that's your intent, because it can't possibly be from any objective sense of promoting the greater good, then you're batting a thousand.

[Thondalar]

Why Texas is closing prisons in favor of rehab (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30275026)

[Thondalar]

This guy is a clinical professor of Psychology and an adjunct professor of Law. (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison-could-be-productive/punishment-fails-rehabilitation-works)

[waywardgs]

I'm fine with failure to comply leading to jail time. I'm not sure if you read any of the positive points, but most state that the best odds are for those that complete the program. Jail time for not doing so is acceptable as to promote the best possible outcome for the participants.



I've seen numbers stating it costs less. In the link I provided, no less! But hey, it doesn't support your argument so you ignore it. Less recidivism also would mean less costs overall. Also, you never gave a fuck about the inherent racism of the drug war, why start now?



Yes, because of people like you who favor locking people up because Prohibition works! It's only lead to increased usage of marijuana over the last decade in the US and GB. But why stop now, right? Let's continue to promote a stance of feeding hundreds of thousands of people to the prison system without any real thought to the consequences.




Seeing as how you glanced over points 20-23, as well as how you've come to the unshakable conclusion of Marijuana's harm, you'll forgive me if I take any calls for more data on your behalf. Ignoring data that points to mandatory treatment programs showing benefits over continuing to throw people in jail just so you can be right makes you come off as awfully compassionate, Latrine.

What truly disgusts me about your position is the amount of effort you will go through in researching things like the risks of marijuana, while seemingly being completely uncaring about the negative effects on society of things like the drug war and the prison system. You talk about arguing from a position of compassion, yet was that link I sent you honestly the first time you've looked into mandatory drug treatment as opposed to jail time? You will pour over papers trying to find evidence of less than a percent increase of schizophrenia in marijuana, yet do absolutely no research into any beneficial aspects of the drug. You'll dismiss it with a sentence or two while writing pages about its slight risk. Why? If harm reduction was truly your goal, why wouldn't you do serious work to see if this drug has beneficial uses instead of continuing a stance of staunch prohibition?

You continue to unwaveringly supporting a stance, a moral stance based on harm reduction mind you, when you say people should be unquestionably put in jail should they be arrested for imbibing illicit substances. Time and again you'll ignore the damages that the drug war and the prison system wreaks on families, yet claim that people who smoke marijuana are the real threat to their loved ones. It's this blind focus on the risks of marijuana at the cost of ignoring any and all alternatives to the continuation of the status quo of the current system that makes people dismiss you as a troll. Someone arguing from the position of compassion and of harm reduction doing no research into the consequences of prohibition, let alone arguing in any way for compassionate alternatives comes off as extremely hypocritical.

Well, successful troll is successful, because you drive me up a fucking wall. If that's your intent, because it can't possibly be from any objective sense of promoting the greater good, then you're batting a thousand.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Fallen again.

[subzero]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yndfqN1VKhY

[Thondalar]

Somehow we've totally got off track on this thread (amazing!) and bent it towards corrections vs. rehab and whether or not it should be a crime to "do drugs" and blah blah...

This is the last thing I'm going to say in this particular vein.

Raise your hand if you've ever actually worked for a prison. County, State, Federal...anyone?

I did, for almost 4 years. I moved around a bit, but I started out in a level 5 prison. In Florida, that means Close Custody aka "Maximum Security"...we had a death row. We had "lifers". When I first started working there, I was a lockstep Republican. My experiences there are the primary driving factors for my moving to Libertarianism.

Look...I'll be the first to say, some people simply cannot cope with being "normal" members of society. Some people are so completely fucked up in their internal wiring that they pose a significant threat to "normal" people. There are some who, for whatever reason, either brain chemistry or learned behavior or psychological trauma as a youth or...any number of reasons...should be locked away in a hole forever or just executed and removed from the equation entirely.

That particular part moves away a bit from my Libertarian beliefs, but, just like the given Libertarian foreign policy stance, I think the powers that be are a bit misguided, and a hybrid solution would be best. While it's admirable to follow principle, we can't ignore reality. The anarchist ideal would be my ultimate goal, but in order to achieve that we have to find a way to make mutual destruction a reality for every single person on the planet. That's not reality, because there will always be leaders, and there will always be followers. The only way for a true anarchist world-society to exist would be if every single person on the planet suddenly became self-aware and self-actuating. The vast majority of humans on this planet are herd mammals.

But I digress.

The point is...prison is a terrible, awful place. Latrin wouldn't last 5 seconds in gen pop at my old prison. The first time he got slick out the mouth it'd be over. But, human nature being what it is, we are, at our core, survivors. We learn. We adapt. A prison sentence of longer than a year and a day (in Florida, anyway), sends you to one of these State facilities...for many who are "enforcers" on the streets anyway, and there for murder, attempted murder, battery with intent, strongarm robbery, armed robbery, etc etc etc...that's going to be MOST of that population. As we've already figured out, roughly 20% of US facilities are "non-violent" drug offenders...guess what happens when you throw that 20% into an environment of 80% violence? They learn...they adapt...they have to, or they die. And many do. Die, that is.

The rest come out of prison, from their 2 or 3 year sentence for possession, or 4th DUI, or 15th fraudulent use of ID, or non-payment of child support, or whatever other silly non-violent thing we lock people up for...hardened criminals. They learned how to survive in the jungle. They learned how to hunt. They made contacts, they learned how to be better criminals.

I watched it happen every day. A kid would come in, 19 years old, with a trafficking charge because he picked up a QP of weed and got pulled over because his tail light was out. By the time he left Polk CI 2 years later, he had gang tats and didn't give a fuck, and comes back 6 months later for shooting up some nigga's house.

It's an entirely different world that most of you have never seen. You hear stories, but it's not real to you...it's like Jack and the Beanstalk. "Yeah, prison is a bad place, blah blah"....you really have no fucking clue. Modern facilities have cut down a lot on the rape and murder, but it's still so completely different from anything any of you have ever experienced.

Anecdotal and personal as it is...MY EXPERIENCE is that locking up non-violent offenders CREATES future violent offenders. I've watched it happen with my own eyes. Granted, only in MY prison, but...human nature is pretty predictable. We can go back as far as Aristotle for this. With little variation, PEOPLE in the same circumstances are going to GENERALLY react the same way, over a broad enough sample size. There will, of course, be outliers...but we don't look at those as proofs now, do we?

[Thondalar]

save your tl;dr and fucking read it, it's like...not even the same amount as 2 pages in your average book.

[Warriorbird]

Somehow we've totally got off track on this thread (amazing!) and bent it towards corrections vs. rehab and whether or not it should be a crime to "do drugs" and blah blah...

This is the last thing I'm going to say in this particular vein.

Raise your hand if you've ever actually worked for a prison. County, State, Federal...anyone?

I did, for almost 4 years. I moved around a bit, but I started out in a level 5 prison. In Florida, that means Close Custody aka "Maximum Security"...we had a death row. We had "lifers". When I first started working there, I was a lockstep Republican. My experiences there are the primary driving factors for my moving to Libertarianism.

Look...I'll be the first to say, some people simply cannot cope with being "normal" members of society. Some people are so completely fucked up in their internal wiring that they pose a significant threat to "normal" people. There are some who, for whatever reason, either brain chemistry or learned behavior or psychological trauma as a youth or...any number of reasons...should be locked away in a hole forever or just executed and removed from the equation entirely.

That particular part moves away a bit from my Libertarian beliefs, but, just like the given Libertarian foreign policy stance, I think the powers that be are a bit misguided, and a hybrid solution would be best. While it's admirable to follow principle, we can't ignore reality. The anarchist ideal would be my ultimate goal, but in order to achieve that we have to find a way to make mutual destruction a reality for every single person on the planet. That's not reality, because there will always be leaders, and there will always be followers. The only way for a true anarchist world-society to exist would be if every single person on the planet suddenly became self-aware and self-actuating. The vast majority of humans on this planet are herd mammals.

But I digress.

The point is...prison is a terrible, awful place. Latrin wouldn't last 5 seconds in gen pop at my old prison. The first time he got slick out the mouth it'd be over. But, human nature being what it is, we are, at our core, survivors. We learn. We adapt. A prison sentence of longer than a year and a day (in Florida, anyway), sends you to one of these State facilities...for many who are "enforcers" on the streets anyway, and there for murder, attempted murder, battery with intent, strongarm robbery, armed robbery, etc etc etc...that's going to be MOST of that population. As we've already figured out, roughly 20% of US facilities are "non-violent" drug offenders...guess what happens when you throw that 20% into an environment of 80% violence? They learn...they adapt...they have to, or they die. And many do. Die, that is.

The rest come out of prison, from their 2 or 3 year sentence for possession, or 4th DUI, or 15th fraudulent use of ID, or non-payment of child support, or whatever other silly non-violent thing we lock people up for...hardened criminals. They learned how to survive in the jungle. They learned how to hunt. They made contacts, they learned how to be better criminals.

I watched it happen every day. A kid would come in, 19 years old, with a trafficking charge because he picked up a QP of weed and got pulled over because his tail light was out. By the time he left Polk CI 2 years later, he had gang tats and didn't give a fuck, and comes back 6 months later for shooting up some nigga's house.

It's an entirely different world that most of you have never seen. You hear stories, but it's not real to you...it's like Jack and the Beanstalk. "Yeah, prison is a bad place, blah blah"....you really have no fucking clue. Modern facilities have cut down a lot on the rape and murder, but it's still so completely different from anything any of you have ever experienced.

Anecdotal and personal as it is...MY EXPERIENCE is that locking up non-violent offenders CREATES future violent offenders. I've watched it happen with my own eyes. Granted, only in MY prison, but...human nature is pretty predictable. We can go back as far as Aristotle for this. With little variation, PEOPLE in the same circumstances are going to GENERALLY react the same way, over a broad enough sample size. There will, of course, be outliers...but we don't look at those as proofs now, do we?

I agree... and I've only taught a few adult education classes at the regional jail/a bunch of them at the local juvenile facility.

[JackWhisper]

Somehow we've totally got off track on this thread (amazing!) and bent it towards corrections vs. rehab and whether or not it should be a crime to "do drugs" and blah blah...

This is the last thing I'm going to say in this particular vein.

Raise your hand if you've ever actually worked for a prison. County, State, Federal...anyone?

I did, for almost 4 years. I moved around a bit, but I started out in a level 5 prison. In Florida, that means Close Custody aka "Maximum Security"...we had a death row. We had "lifers". When I first started working there, I was a lockstep Republican. My experiences there are the primary driving factors for my moving to Libertarianism.

Look...I'll be the first to say, some people simply cannot cope with being "normal" members of society. Some people are so completely fucked up in their internal wiring that they pose a significant threat to "normal" people. There are some who, for whatever reason, either brain chemistry or learned behavior or psychological trauma as a youth or...any number of reasons...should be locked away in a hole forever or just executed and removed from the equation entirely.

That particular part moves away a bit from my Libertarian beliefs, but, just like the given Libertarian foreign policy stance, I think the powers that be are a bit misguided, and a hybrid solution would be best. While it's admirable to follow principle, we can't ignore reality. The anarchist ideal would be my ultimate goal, but in order to achieve that we have to find a way to make mutual destruction a reality for every single person on the planet. That's not reality, because there will always be leaders, and there will always be followers. The only way for a true anarchist world-society to exist would be if every single person on the planet suddenly became self-aware and self-actuating. The vast majority of humans on this planet are herd mammals.

But I digress.

The point is...prison is a terrible, awful place. Latrin wouldn't last 5 seconds in gen pop at my old prison. The first time he got slick out the mouth it'd be over. But, human nature being what it is, we are, at our core, survivors. We learn. We adapt. A prison sentence of longer than a year and a day (in Florida, anyway), sends you to one of these State facilities...for many who are "enforcers" on the streets anyway, and there for murder, attempted murder, battery with intent, strongarm robbery, armed robbery, etc etc etc...that's going to be MOST of that population. As we've already figured out, roughly 20% of US facilities are "non-violent" drug offenders...guess what happens when you throw that 20% into an environment of 80% violence? They learn...they adapt...they have to, or they die. And many do. Die, that is.

The rest come out of prison, from their 2 or 3 year sentence for possession, or 4th DUI, or 15th fraudulent use of ID, or non-payment of child support, or whatever other silly non-violent thing we lock people up for...hardened criminals. They learned how to survive in the jungle. They learned how to hunt. They made contacts, they learned how to be better criminals.

I watched it happen every day. A kid would come in, 19 years old, with a trafficking charge because he picked up a QP of weed and got pulled over because his tail light was out. By the time he left Polk CI 2 years later, he had gang tats and didn't give a fuck, and comes back 6 months later for shooting up some nigga's house.

It's an entirely different world that most of you have never seen. You hear stories, but it's not real to you...it's like Jack and the Beanstalk. "Yeah, prison is a bad place, blah blah"....you really have no fucking clue. Modern facilities have cut down a lot on the rape and murder, but it's still so completely different from anything any of you have ever experienced.

Anecdotal and personal as it is...MY EXPERIENCE is that locking up non-violent offenders CREATES future violent offenders. I've watched it happen with my own eyes. Granted, only in MY prison, but...human nature is pretty predictable. We can go back as far as Aristotle for this. With little variation, PEOPLE in the same circumstances are going to GENERALLY react the same way, over a broad enough sample size. There will, of course, be outliers...but we don't look at those as proofs now, do we?


Yep. Everything people do has consequences.

To speak on that, is a person who knows a lot about it. Donnie Herrera.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dWjKkF0Zi4

[Fallen]

The problem is the idea of consequences goes out the window when the consequences for a non-violent crime are largely the same as the consequences for murder. We're sending everyone with over a certain amount of jail time to the same place. It's not an appropriate consequence for all crimes, so it isn't just.

[waywardgs]

Incarceration in this country is a broken system. We shovel our addicts and mentally ill into prisons like it's going out of style, pay lip service to their constitutional rights, offer next to nothing in the form of actual rehabilitation or preparation for reintroduction into society and then scratch our heads and wonder what went wrong when they get out and continue a life of crime. "But but they're bad people! Fuck em!" That's all well and good, but most crimes don't warrant life without parole. They get out- still wholly unprepared to be contributing members of society. All the system does is forge worse criminals, who, in a cycle of absurdity, end up back in jail on the public dollar.

[Gnome Rage]

Anecdotal and personal as it is...MY EXPERIENCE is that locking up non-violent offenders CREATES future violent offenders. I've watched it happen with my own eyes. Granted, only in MY prison, but...human nature is pretty predictable. We can go back as far as Aristotle for this. With little variation, PEOPLE in the same circumstances are going to GENERALLY react the same way, over a broad enough sample size. There will, of course, be outliers...but we don't look at those as proofs now, do we?
Thank you.


Incarceration in this country is a broken system. We shovel our addicts and mentally ill into prisons like it's going out of style, pay lip service to their constitutional rights, offer next to nothing in the form of actual rehabilitation or preparation for reintroduction into society and then scratch our heads and wonder what went wrong when they get out and continue a life of crime. "But but they're bad people! Fuck em!" That's all well and good, but most crimes don't warrant life without parole. They get out- still wholly unprepared to be contributing members of society. All the system does is forge worse criminals, who, in a cycle of absurdity, end up back in jail on the public dollar.

Also thank you.

[~Rocktar~]

Now see, if you take those non-violent offenders along with domestic violence offenders and used some draconian techniques, you would not send them to prison. Hell, a week in stocks 8 hours a day or flogging would easily be cheaper including the hospital care and even 1-2 years of rehab/psych care afterwards than putting people in a warehouse. I also think that work camps and other such things produce better results for most of the people in them. The Running Man style place seems to work in some places, you work like everyone else and escape means you get shot. In most every state I have heard about that has/had chain gangs, prisoners compete to get assigned to them so they can get out, work long hot hours and have something to feel pride in. Now a certain group of prisoners and especially arsonists, rapists and child molesters need to be locked up pretty much indefinitely because studies have shown they will be repeat offenders sooner or later.

I agree the current system is not working so well. I do not agree that we should be warm and fuzzy and turn the other cheek all the time either. There must be some middle ground that we can do better with because in the end, some people will never deal with human society and need to be kept out of it forever and others could use a different path than lockup. I also don't agree with the notion that we should reduce crime by legalizing things just because "everyone already does it". that kind of argument is simply vapid.

[waywardgs]

I also don't agree with the notion that we should reduce crime by legalizing things just because "everyone already does it". that kind of argument is simply vapid.

Totally vapid. It's a good thing nobody is actually making that argument.

[Gnome Rage]

Totally vapid. It's a good thing nobody is actually making that argument.
lol. Yeah, pretty much no one has said anything like that. I think we may have shifted topics to prison reform though, as a whole.

[waywardgs]

lol. Yeah, pretty much no one has said anything like that. I think we may have shifted topics to prison reform though, as a whole.

Well, the rest of his post was about punishment techniques in Hollywood movies and Simutronics games, so I didn't really feel the need to respond to that stuff.

[~Rocktar~]

Totally vapid. It's a good thing nobody is actually making that argument.

Yeah, yeah many of you do with the weed argument. Fail troll is fail. Again.

[Androidpk]

Yeah, yeah many of you do with the weed argument. Fail troll is fail. Again.

I don't think anyone plans on legalizing actual crimes any time soon.

[waywardgs]

Yeah, yeah many of you do with the weed argument. Fail troll is fail. Again.

Show me someone who has said "we should legalize marijuana because everyone already smokes it anyway" and I will join you in calling that person stupid.

[Fallen]

I'm failing to understand how people will on one hand claim the government is terrible, and its oversight into most areas of life should be kept to an absolute minimum. Yet on the other claim that the laws put forth by this body are just and infallible, especially when it comes to matters involving personal freedoms. They should not be questioned or re-examined in any way. You break the law, you go to prisons. Fine prisons, mind you, that the state/federal governments control which get the job done.

The government is bloated, misguided, and corrupt ... except when it comes to drug laws. Then you should just do as you're told and stop questioning authority.

[waywardgs]

I'm failing to understand how people will on one hand claim the government is terrible, and its oversight into most areas of life should be kept to an absolute minimum. Yet on the other claim that the laws put forth by this body are just and infallible, especially when it comes to matters involving personal freedoms. They should not be questioned or re-examined in any way. You break the law, you go to prisons. Fine prisons, mind you, that the state/federal governments control that get the job done.

The government is bloated, misguided, and corrupt ... except when it comes to drug laws. Then you should just do as you're told and stop questioning authority.

It's just the typical hypocrisy from the morality police.

[Tgo01]

The government is bloated, misguided, and corrupt ... except when it comes to drug laws. Then you should just do as you're told and stop questioning authority.

Hear, hear!

[Latrinsorm]

I'm fine with failure to comply leading to jail time. I'm not sure if you read any of the positive points, but most state that the best odds are for those that complete the program. Jail time for not doing so is acceptable as to promote the best possible outcome for the participants.I read all the points with great interest. If jail time is an acceptable deterrent for people in drug court, why isn't it for people in no court? Surely the best possible outcome is for people to not become involved with our justice system at all.
I've seen numbers stating it costs less. In the link I provided, no less! But hey, it doesn't support your argument so you ignore it. Less recidivism also would mean less costs overall.As I said, those points failed to take into account the larger picture in two ways that were described in your source. First, a less (apparently) draconian penalty leads police and prosecutors to arrest more people for drug offenses: if a drug court graduate only costs 50% of a prisoner but you have three when you'd otherwise have had one, the drug court costs more. (Point 41.) Second, there are only so many beds in the hospital, so to speak. If I spend that bed on a drug court participant we agree it saves me money over sending that participant to prison, but I could have spent that bed on a drug user who wasn't involved with the criminal justice system... yet. That's a cost. (Point 33.) Again, these are points from your source, yet you accuse me of ignoring things that don't support my argument.
Also, you never gave a fuck about the inherent racism of the drug war, why start now?There is no inherent racism in the drug war. There is inherent racism in our criminal justice system, and that is something I have explicitly addressed in this thread.
Yes, because of people like you who favor locking people up because Prohibition works! It's only lead to increased usage of marijuana over the last decade in the US and GB. But why stop now, right? Let's continue to promote a stance of feeding hundreds of thousands of people to the prison system without any real thought to the consequences.According to your source it is primarily because offenders refuse to participate, they are suspected(?) of major drug trafficking, sex offenses, and/or severe mental illness. This goes back to my previous point with Gnome Rage regarding the % of prison population that are in for just drug use.
Seeing as how you glanced over points 20-23, as well as how you've come to the unshakable conclusion of Marijuana's harm, you'll forgive me if I take any calls for more data on your behalf. Ignoring data that points to mandatory treatment programs showing benefits over continuing to throw people in jail just so you can be right makes you come off as awfully compassionate, Latrine.I addressed the other parts of this earlier, but my conclusion is in no way unshakable. I have offered specific criteria before and am happy to do so again. All you need to produce is a study (1) from a peer-reviewed journal (2) with a longitudinal or cohort methodology (3) with a sample size of at least 1000 (4) that finds no correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia. I have produced a dozen with the opposite conclusion, no one has been able to produce one with yours. Why shouldn't I believe in marijuana's harm?
What truly disgusts me about your position is the amount of effort you will go through in researching things like the risks of marijuana, while seemingly being completely uncaring about the negative effects on society of things like the drug war and the prison system. You talk about arguing from a position of compassion, yet was that link I sent you honestly the first time you've looked into mandatory drug treatment as opposed to jail time?As I said before, and I stand by this, I didn't know what specific drug treatment program you had in mind. I'm not going to invent your position. It took you 30 seconds to type the post citing the information you wanted to use. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
You will pour over papers trying to find evidence of less than a percent increase of schizophrenia in marijuana, yet do absolutely no research into any beneficial aspects of the drug. You'll dismiss it with a sentence or two while writing pages about its slight risk. Why? If harm reduction was truly your goal, why wouldn't you do serious work to see if this drug has beneficial uses instead of continuing a stance of staunch prohibition?I have never dismissed marijuana's benefits. The difference you observe is because no one does, so there is no need to discuss it at great length. Many people here dismiss marijuana's detriments, so we have very long discussions about it. I have a lot more discussion about LeBron James being a great player than Michael Jordan, that doesn't imply that I believe LeBron is greater than Jordan, it implies that the people I discuss with have a low opinion of LeBron.
You continue to unwaveringly supporting a stance, a moral stance based on harm reduction mind you, when you say people should be unquestionably put in jail should they be arrested for imbibing illicit substances. Time and again you'll ignore the damages that the drug war and the prison system wreaks on families, yet claim that people who smoke marijuana are the real threat to their loved ones. It's this blind focus on the risks of marijuana at the cost of ignoring any and all alternatives to the continuation of the status quo of the current system that makes people dismiss you as a troll. Someone arguing from the position of compassion and of harm reduction doing no research into the consequences of prohibition, let alone arguing in any way for compassionate alternatives comes off as extremely hypocritical.At no point have I claimed my stance is moral, and I have specifically dismissed the depiction of my stance as compassionate. I don't know what else to tell you. You're furious at someone who does not exist. I really believe if you read my position for what it is and not what you want it to be and not what people tell you it is, you'll see I make some pretty good points. :)

[Latrinsorm]

save your tl;dr and fucking read it, it's like...not even the same amount as 2 pages in your average book.All I'll say is that I don't know how I can explicitly campaign for a complete overhaul of our justice system, then you people accuse me of supporting the current state of our jails. How do you reconcile those two beliefs? I only post about universal surveillance in every third post. Should I make it my sig?
Incarceration in this country is a broken system. We shovel our addicts and mentally ill into prisons like it's going out of style, pay lip service to their constitutional rights, offer next to nothing in the form of actual rehabilitation or preparation for reintroduction into society and then scratch our heads and wonder what went wrong when they get out and continue a life of crime. "But but they're bad people! Fuck em!" That's all well and good, but most crimes don't warrant life without parole. They get out- still wholly unprepared to be contributing members of society. All the system does is forge worse criminals, who, in a cycle of absurdity, end up back in jail on the public dollar.Again, I specifically rebutted the equation of criminals with bad people. This isn't even a straw man you people have made, it's a Kleenex man or something.
I'm failing to understand how people will on one hand claim the government is terrible, and its oversight into most areas of life should be kept to an absolute minimum. Yet on the other claim that the laws put forth by this body are just and infallible, especially when it comes to matters involving personal freedoms. They should not be questioned or re-examined in any way. You break the law, you go to prisons. Fine prisons, mind you, that the state/federal governments control which get the job done.

The government is bloated, misguided, and corrupt ... except when it comes to drug laws. Then you should just do as you're told and stop questioning authority.I want to give the government eyes on literally everything anyone ever does! That's the absolute maximum! What is wrong with you people?

[Warriorbird]

I want to give the government eyes on literally everything anyone ever does! That's the absolute maximum! What is wrong with you people?

Because that'll work out well. I thought about you when I heard they were making resisting arrest a felony in New York.

[Androidpk]

Because that'll work out well. I thought about you when I heard they were making resisting arrest a felony in New York.

Fuck the New York police union. Seriously. Fuck it right in the ass with a giant rubber dildo and then beat them over the head with it.

[Parkbandit]

Show me someone who has said "we should legalize marijuana because everyone already smokes it anyway" and I will join you in calling that person stupid.

Wait, you honestly haven't heard that argument before? "The War on Drugs is a complete failure" is making that exact argument.

[waywardgs]

Fuck the New York police union. Seriously. Fuck it right in the ass with a giant rubber dildo and then beat them over the head with it.

^

[Fallen]

At no point have I claimed my stance is moral, and I have specifically dismissed the depiction of my stance as compassionate. I don't know what else to tell you.

Ah, well we're fine then. I missed this admission. No further explanation is required.

[waywardgs]

Wait, you honestly haven't heard that argument before? "The War on Drugs is a complete failure" is making that exact argument.

The war on drugs is a complete failure =! let's legalize because everyone already does drugs.

[Latrinsorm]

Ah, well we're fine then. I missed this admission. No further explanation is required.Phew! There's hope yet. :)

[Latrinsorm]

Because that'll work out well. I thought about you when I heard they were making resisting arrest a felony in New York.You can think it's a dumb idea, that doesn't bother me. It bothers me if you think I think it's a dumb idea. There's no hope for communication then.

[Warriorbird]

You can think it's a dumb idea, that doesn't bother me. It bothers me if you think I think it's a dumb idea. There's no hope for communication then.

Of course you have that luxury. You're not likely to have the police choke the life out of you.

[Atlanteax]

Of course you have that luxury. You're not likely to have the police choke the life out of you.
Was it not proven that he died from heart issues and not breathing issues?