Drugs and the Government

[devonin]

Well here's one: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...648629,00.html

The study by New Zealand's Medical Research Institute found that longtime pot smokers can develop symptoms of asthma and bronchitis, along with obstruction of the large airways and excessive lung inflation. The paper was released Tuesday ahead of its publication in the journal Thorax. "The study shows that one cannabis joint causes a similar degree of lung damage as between 2.5 and five tobacco cigarettes," said lead author Sarah Aldington.

[lord_carbo]

Just to rebut an old statement in the thread, an open letter signed in part by renowned economist Milton Friedman delivers an economic evaluation that says ending the drug war could save $7.7 billion in govt. spending annually. Although Friedman acknowledges that there very well could and probably would be economic benefits, though, he has been quoted for saying that the drug war is much more of a moral battle, and it's possible he signed it for the mere reason of supporting anything that may help end the drug war.

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html

As a counterpoint, though, I (and Reason Magazine) do agree that the government would not legalize marijuana unless they saw/found financial benefits.

Anyway, a new subject has arisen.

TK_Breed has quoted completely out of context... well, he made a straw man by changing Dragula's wording of "get you high" to "harm." But devonin, please demonstrate how this study concludes that asthma and bronchitis are results of the THC inside of cannabis and not the cannabis itself. Note that his post was in complete reference to the main psychoactive drug found inside the marijuana, THC, not the plant itself.

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by devonin

Well here's one: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...648629,00.html

Well, it's kind of a given whenever you smoke something.

[devonin]

Yeah, but their point is that it is one way in which cannibis joints are actually worse than tobacco cigarettes.

[TK_Breed]

Originally Posted by devonin

Yeah, but their point is that it is one way in which cannibis joints are actually worse than tobacco cigarettes.

some people smoke 40 cigarettes a day, the biggest pot smokers smoke 5 to 8 times a day, that puts an end to that.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

TK_Breed has quoted completely out of context... well, he made a straw man by changing Dragula's wording of "get you high" to "harm."

You are right my friend, I jumped to a conclusion too quickly and didnt read carefully enough. The more times i read what dragula put the more and more right it seems.

Originally Posted by devonin

Well here's one: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...648629,00.html

its not what gets you high that ruins your lungs. that why people should be more aware of vaporizers which eliminate almost all the harmful substances leaving you with a nice thc vapor, hence the phrase vaporizer. smoke is bad for you no matter what the substance or type of smoke, that is proven and should never be argued.

[Coolgamer]

A low amount of teenagers in the Netherlands smoke pot, even though it is legal. They have tried it, but don't indulge, because the thrill a lot of people get from it is that they are doing something "bad". I support legalized grass, and E with tight controls.

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by solopro

And for alcohol and such, yeah, I don't know why. Most minors believe all the myths people say about beer, like it'll make you feel good and crap. Well, it don't.

No, alcohol can certainly make you feel good.

The effect of alcohol is a narrowsightedness; whatever's in front of you is what you think about. Alcohol blunts your attention so that you find it hard to seriously think about things that aren't actually happening.

So basically, if you're at a party where things are going well, alcohol will definitely make you feel better. However, if you're depressed and you sit at home and drink by yourself with nothing to distract you, alcohol will definitely make you feel worse.

[Parsnips]

Originally Posted by Chrissi

No, alcohol can certainly make you feel good.

The effect of alcohol is a narrowsightedness; whatever's in front of you is what you think about. Alcohol blunts your attention so that you find it hard to seriously think about things that aren't actually happening.

So basically, if you're at a party where things are going well, alcohol will definitely make you feel better. However, if you're depressed and you sit at home and drink by yourself with nothing to distract you, alcohol will definitely make you feel worse.

Lies. I'm sorry but I cannot stand this anymore. Someone has to stand up for my dear friend.

Beer is made from tears of joy wept from rainbow unicorns, and if I sit by myself, drink and do nothing, I will have a blissed out smile on my face. It is true that if you drink too MUCH, you can get emotional and loser-drunk; many young teens with low tolerance reach this zone and I figure that's where solopro is coming from, but you. I expect better.

Wikipedia: "...alcohol generally produces feelings of relaxation and cheerfulness..."

Benjamin Franklin: "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Also, sometimes I hear people saying that alcohol is a depressant, in an attempt to further prove the sort of idea you had, that alcohol doesn't make you happy. The word depressant is used to specify what it does to the body; stimulants make your heart beat faster, depressants slow down your breathing. It does NOT classify the emotional affects. Just thought to clear that up beforehand if it comes up.

[Coolgamer]

According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco."

Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose.

Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 786,000 individuals per year -- far more than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

In 1972, a Congressionally created commission called the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, whose members were appointed by then-President Richard Nixon, completed one of the most comprehensive reviews ever undertaken regarding marijuana and public policy. Their report, "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding," proclaimed that "from what is now known about the effects of marihuana, its use at the present level does not constitute a major threat to public health," and recommended Congress and state legislatures decriminalize the use and casual distribution of marijuana for personal use.

Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies regarding marijuana’s health impacts. None of these have revealed any findings dramatically different from those described by Nixon’s 1972 Commission.

[Coolgamer]

Myth: Marijuana's Harms Have Been Proved Scientifically. In the 1960s and 1970s, many people believed that marijuana was harmless. Today we know that marijuana is much more dangerous than previously believed.

Fact: In 1972, after reviewing the scientific evidence, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse concluded that while marijuana was not entirely safe, its dangers had been grossly overstated. Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies of humans, animals, and cell cultures. None reveal any findings dramatically different from those described by the National Commission in 1972. In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."

Myth: Marijuana Has No Medicinal Value. Safer, more effective drugs are available. They include a synthetic version of THC, marijuana's primary active ingredient, which is marketed in the United States under the name Marinol.

Fact: Marijuana has been shown to be effective in reducing the nausea induced by cancer chemotherapy, stimulating appetite in AIDS patients, and reducing intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. There is also appreciable evidence that marijuana reduces muscle spasticity in patients with neurological disorders. A synthetic capsule is available by prescription, but it is not as effective as smoked marijuana for many patients. Pure THC may also produce more unpleasant psychoactive side effects than smoked marijuana. Many people use marijuana as a medicine today, despite its illegality. In doing so, they risk arrest and imprisonment.

Myth: Marijuana is Highly Addictive. Long term marijuana users experience physical dependence and withdrawal, and often need professional drug treatment to break their marijuana habits.

Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.

Myth: Marijuana is a Gateway Drug. Even if marijuana itself causes minimal harm, it is a dangerous substance because it leads to the use of "harder drugs" like heroin, LSD, and cocaine.

Fact: Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. Indeed, for the large majority of people, marijuana is a terminus rather than a gateway drug.

Myth: Marijuana Offenses Are Not Severely Punished. Few marijuana law violators are arrested and hardly anyone goes to prison. This lenient treatment is responsible for marijuana continued availability and use.

Fact: Marijuana arrests in the United States doubled between 1991 and 1995. In 1995, more than one-half-million people were arrested for marijuana offenses. Eighty-six percent of them were arrested for marijuana possession. Tens of thousands of people are now in prison or marijuana offenses. An even greater number are punished with probation, fines, and civil sanctions, including having their property seized, their driver's license revoked, and their employment terminated. Despite these civil and criminal sanctions, marijuana continues to be readily available and widely used.

Myth: Marijuana Policy in the Netherlands is a Failure. Dutch law, which allows marijuana to be bought, sold, and used openly, has resulted in increasing rates of marijuana use, particularly in youth.

Fact: The Netherlands' drug policy is the most nonpunitive in Europe. For more than twenty years, Dutch citizens over age eighteen have been permitted to buy and use cannabis (marijuana and hashish) in government-regulated coffee shops. This policy has not resulted in dramatically escalating cannabis use. For most age groups, rates of marijuana use in the Netherlands are similar to those in the United States. However, for young adolescents, rates of marijuana use are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States. The Dutch people overwhelmingly approve of current cannabis policy which seeks to normalize rather than dramatize cannabis use. The Dutch government occasionally revises existing policy, but it remains committed to decriminalization.

Myth: Marijuana Kills Brain Cells. Used over time, marijuana permanently alters brain structure and function, causing memory loss, cognitive impairment, personality deterioration, and reduced productivity.

Fact: None of the medical tests currently used to detect brain damage in humans have found harm from marijuana, even from long term high-dose use. An early study reported brain damage in rhesus monkeys after six months exposure to high concentrations of marijuana smoke. In a recent, more carefully conducted study, researchers found no evidence of brain abnormality in monkeys that were forced to inhale the equivalent of four to five marijuana cigarettes every day for a year. The claim that marijuana kills brain cells is based on a speculative report dating back a quarter of a century that has never been supported by any scientific study.

Myth: Marijuana Causes an Amotivational Syndrome. Marijuana makes users passive, apathetic, and uninterested in the future. Students who use marijuana become underachievers and workers who use marijuana become unproductive.

Fact: For twenty-five years, researchers have searched for a marijuana-induced amotivational syndrome and have failed to find it. People who are intoxicated constantly, regardless of the drug, are unlikely to be productive members of society. There is nothing about marijuana specifically that causes people to lose their drive and ambition. In laboratory studies, subjects given high doses of marijuana for several days or even several weeks exhibit no decrease in work motivation or productivity. Among working adults, marijuana users tend to earn higher wages than non-users. College students who use marijuana have the same grades as nonusers. Among high school students, heavy use is associated with school failure, but school failure usually comes first.

Myth: Marijuana Impairs Memory and Cognition. Under the influence of marijuana, people are unable to think rationally and intelligently. Chronic marijuana use causes permanent mental impairment.

Fact: Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs memory or other cognitive functions.

Myth: Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness. Among adolescents, even occasional marijuana use may cause psychological damage. During intoxication, marijuana users become irrational and often behave erratically.

Fact: There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.

Myth: Marijuana Causes Crime. Marijuana users commit more property offenses than nonusers. Under the influence of marijuana, people become irrational, aggressive, and violent.

Fact: Every serious scholar and government commission examining the relationship between marijuana use and crime has reached the same conclusion: marijuana does not cause crime. The vast majority of marijuana users do not commit crimes other than the crime of possessing marijuana. Among marijuana users who do commit crimes, marijuana plays no causal role. Almost all human and animal studies show that marijuana decreases rather than increases aggression.

Myth: Marijuana Interferes With Male and Female Sex Hormones. In both men and women, marijuana can cause infertility. Marijuana retards sexual development in adolescents. It produces feminine characteristics in males and masculine characteristics in females.

Fact: There is no evidence that marijuana causes infertility in men or women. In animal studies, high doses of THC diminish the production of some sex hormones and can impair reproduction. However, most studies of humans have found that marijuana has no impact of sex hormones. In those studies showing an impact, it is modest, temporary, and of no apparent consequence for reproduction. There is no scientific evidence that marijuana delays adolescent sexual development, has feminizing effect on males, or a masculinizing effect on females.

Myth: Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Damages the Fetus. Prenatal marijuana exposure causes birth defects in babies, and, as they grow older, developmental problems. The health and well being of the next generation is threatened by marijuana use by pregnant women.

Fact: Studies of newborns, infants, and children show no consistent physical, developmental, or cognitive deficits related to prenatal marijuana exposure. Marijuana had no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities. The administration of hundreds of tests to older children has revealed only minor differences between offspring of marijuana users and nonusers, and some are positive rather than negative. Two unconfirmed case-control studies identified prenatal marijuana exposure as one of many factors statistically associated with childhood cancer. Given other available evidence, it is highly unlikely that marijuana causes cancer in children.

Myth: Marijuana Use Impairs the Immune System. Marijuana users are at increased risk of infection, including HIV. AIDS patients are particularly vulnerable to marijuana's immunopathic effects because their immune systems are already suppressed.

Fact: There is no evidence that marijuana users are more susceptible to infections than nonusers. Nor is there evidence that marijuana lowers users' resistance to sexually transmitted diseases. Early studies which showed decreased immune function in cells taken from marijuana users have since been disproved. Animals given extremely large doses of THC and exposed to a virus have higher rates of infection. Such studies have little relevance to humans. Even among people with existing immune disorders, such as AIDS, marijuana use appears to be relatively safe. However, the recent finding of an association between tobacco smoking and lung infection in AIDS patients warrants further research into possible harm from marijuana smoking in immune suppressed persons.

Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.

Myth: Marijuana's Active Ingredient, THC, Gets Trapped in Body Fat. Because THC is released from fat cells slowly, psychoactive effects may last for days or weeks following use. THC's long persistence in the body damages organs that are high in fat content, the brain in particular.

Fact: Many active drugs enter the body's fat cells. What is different (but not unique) about THC is that it exits fat cells slowly. As a result, traces of marijuana can be found in the body for days or weeks following ingestion. However, within a few hours of smoking marijuana, the amount of THC in the brain falls below the concentration required for detectable psychoactivity. The fat cells in which THC lingers are not harmed by the drug's presence, nor is the brain or other organs. The most important consequence of marijuana's slow excretion is that it can be detected in blood, urine, and tissue long after it is used, and long after its psychoactivity has ended.

Myth: Marijuana Use is a Major Cause Of Highway Accidents. Like alcohol, marijuana impairs psychomotor function and decreases driving ability. If marijuana use increases, an increase in of traffic fatalities is inevitable.

Fact: There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.

Myth: Marijuana Related Hospital Emergencies Are Increasing, Particularly Among Youth. This is evidence that marijuana is much more harmful than most people previously believed.

Fact: Marijuana does not cause overdose deaths. The number of people in hospital emergency rooms who say they have used marijuana has increased. On this basis, the visit may be recorded as marijuana-related even if marijuana had nothing to do with the medical condition preceding the hospital visit. Many more teenagers use marijuana than use drugs such as heroin and cocaine. As a result, when teenagers visit hospital emergency rooms, they report marijuana much more frequently than they report heroin and cocaine. In the large majority of cases when marijuana is mentioned, other drugs are mentioned as well. In 1994, fewer than 2% of drug related emergency room visits involved the use of marijuana.

Myth: Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past. Adults who used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s fail to realize that when today's youth use marijuana they are using a much more dangerous drug.

Fact: When today's youth use marijuana, they are using the same drug used by youth in the 1960s and 1970s. A small number of low-THC sample sized by the Drug Enforcement Administration are used to calculate a dramatic increase in potency. However, these samples were not representative of the marijuana generally available to users during this era. Potency data from the early 1980s to the present are more reliable, and they show no increase in the average THC content of marijuana. Even if marijuana potency were to increase, it would not necessarily make the drug more dangerous. Marijuana that varies quite substantially in potency produces similar psychoactive effects.

Myth: Marijuana Use Can Be Prevented. Drug education and prevention programs reduced marijuana use during the 1980s. Since then, our commitment has slackened, and marijuana use has been rising. By expanding and intensifying current anti-marijuana messages, we can stop youthful experimentation.

Fact: There is no evidence that anti-drug messages diminish young people's interest in drugs. Anti-drug campaigns in the schools and the media may even make drugs more attractive. Marijuana use among youth declined throughout the 1980s, and began increasing in the 1990s. This increase occurred despite young people's exposure to the most massive anti-marijuana campaign in American history. In a number of other countries, drug education programs are based on a "harm reduction" model, which seeks to reduce the drug-related harm among those young people who do experiment with drugs.

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by Parsnips

Lies. I'm sorry but I cannot stand this anymore. Someone has to stand up for my dear friend.

Beer is made from tears of joy wept from rainbow unicorns, and if I sit by myself, drink and do nothing, I will have a blissed out smile on my face. It is true that if you drink too MUCH, you can get emotional and loser-drunk; many young teens with low tolerance reach this zone and I figure that's where solopro is coming from, but you. I expect better.

Wikipedia: "...alcohol generally produces feelings of relaxation and cheerfulness..."

Benjamin Franklin: "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Also, sometimes I hear people saying that alcohol is a depressant, in an attempt to further prove the sort of idea you had, that alcohol doesn't make you happy. The word depressant is used to specify what it does to the body; stimulants make your heart beat faster, depressants slow down your breathing. It does NOT classify the emotional affects. Just thought to clear that up beforehand if it comes up.

What I said was that alcohol narrows the attention, so, if you are already depressed and you sit by yourself and drink, you'll feel worse. If you are happy and you drink, you might feel happier. It all depends on what's obvious and prevalent at the time.

It is FACT that alcohol has the effect that I described. Look in any psychological study on alcohol's attentional effects.

[Parsnips]

Originally Posted by Chrissi

What I said was that alcohol narrows the attention, so, if you are already depressed and you sit by yourself and drink, you'll feel worse. If you are happy and you drink, you might feel happier. It all depends on what's obvious and prevalent at the time.

It is FACT that alcohol has the effect that I described. Look in any psychological study on alcohol's attentional effects.

I'd love to see a study like that. I googled around a bit but didn't really find anything that states: narrowed attention = amplified current feelings. From experience though... I'm trying to think back to a time where I have been unhappy, and then I drink by myself and feel worse or even still unhappy but I can't think of one, and there have been many a time that I've done that. The only time I feel worse after drinking is when I drink much too much, and I think the same is true with many other drugs. So, I can't take your word for it.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Coolgamer

A giant pile of "myth/fact" crap

Your myths and facts are all nonsense unless or until you provide citations showing where your myths come from and where your facts come from. You can't just copypasta this huge block of text and not even tell us where it was from and expect us to accept it.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by devonin

Your myths and facts are all nonsense unless or until you provide citations showing where your myths come from and where your facts come from. You can't just copypasta this huge block of text and not even tell us where it was from and expect us to accept it.

I would assume this:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

One person's laziness is not an excuse to also be lazy. Viva la Google, first result!

After skimming through it, from the extent of my knowledge, most to all of it is true. I'm not too sure about the "fact" on pregnancy and marijuana, but again, it's highly preventable by not being an idiot in the first place (e.g. would you punch your uterus ten times a day?). Factoid or not, it's mostly trivial to being an intelligent person. And the best part about telling people that is that it applies to all drugs. Kids are stupid, so telling them that it's O.K. to smoke marijuana while they're pregnant would also make them possibly do drugs that may harm the fetus. Much like how when false facts on marijuana are told through anti-drug programs. Kids try marijuana and feel like it's not as bad as how the program made it out to be, they dismiss it all as false or shaky, when there are many drugs out there which are very dangerous to most people.

This is actually a justification for a drug program which isn't anti-drugs, but teaches something more like, "we personally don't recommend it for most people but if you choose to use drugs, safely and research drugs before you get into them, and be respectful to those who do drugs because they're still human." Most kids who fall for anti-drug propaganda probably wouldn't be doing drugs in the first place, and it actually makes it worse by making these kids anti-drug tools. Like if I offered someone a joint, they'd do the whole "they won't accept you if you don't accept the joint, so say no and go away" thing that's encouraged in drug programs. Which is completely bologna, of course, and can be compared to offering a piece of chewing gum to a person.

*Ahem, got off track*

Additionally, it's a bit sloppy on a few parts, e.g. instead of just saying "marijuana doesn't cause crime," I would say that its status as an illegal drug would cause people more likely to commit crimes to do the drug. And on the marijuana and driving part, it should mention still that driving high is still dangerous and only an idiot would do so, even though it is less dangerous than driving while drunk. I'm not sure if it's as safe as they make it seem, though. I would exercise caution in throwing that part around.

[stephen_g74]

I am generally a very lazy person. I don't smoke very much (im not a stoner), but when I do smoke it makes me want to get up and do something. Then, I usually get up, grab my skateboard, and go find some of my friends to go skate with. I feel as though I am more rested and get a better night's sleep afterwards also. Since I dont smoke very often, this tends to have an overall positive outcome for me.

[Coolgamer]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

I would assume this:

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

One person's laziness is not an excuse to also be lazy. Viva la Google, first result!

Sorry... I thought that I had included the source. Guess it didn't get pasted.

The war on drugs has resulted in the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of tens of thousands of persons each year for crimes associated with the possession and use of illegal drugs. The drug war has also eroded constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to freedom of religion, the right to travel, freedom of assembly, equal protection under the law, and the right to privacy.

* Prison Overcrowding More than 80 percent of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 is due to drug convictions.

* Racial Injustice In 1986, the year Congress enacted federal mandatory drug sentences, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11 percent higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49 percent higher.

* Women Between 1986 and 1996, the number of women in prison for drug law violations increased by 421 percent. This led U.S. Bureau of Prisons Director Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer to testify before Congress, "The reality is, some 70-some percent of our female population are low-level, nonviolent offenders. The fact that they have to come into prison is a question mark for me. I think it has been an unintended consequence of the sentencing guidelines and the mandatory minimums."

The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program provides hundreds of millions of dollars a year to local and state crime prevention initiatives. In recent years the program has come under scrutiny for its role in perpetuating racial disparities, police corruption, and civil rights abuses. This is especially true when it comes to the program's funding of hundreds of regional anti-drug task forces across the country. These task forces, which lack oversight and are prone to corruption, are at the center of some of our country's most horrific law enforcement scandals. The program has also been criticized for wasting taxpayer money and failing to reduce crime.

The most notorious Bryne-funded scandal occurred in Tulia, Texas where dozens of African American residents (representing 16 percent of the town's black population) were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison, even though the only evidence against them was the uncorroborated testimony of one white undercover officer with a history of lying and racism. The undercover officer worked alone, and had no audiotapes, video surveillance, or eyewitnesses to collaborate his allegations. Suspicions eventually arose after two of the defendants accused were able to produce firm evidence showing they were out of state or at work at the time of the alleged drug buys. Texas Governor Rick Perry eventually pardoned the Tulia defendants (after four years of imprisonment), but these kinds of scandals continue to plague the Byrne grant program.

A 2002 report by the ACLU of Texas identified seventeen scandals involving Byrne-funded anti-drug task forces in Texas, including cases of falsifying government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, false imprisonment, stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to children, large-scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other abuses of official capacity. Recent scandals in other states include the misuse of millions of dollars in federal grant money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions based on police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower their charges in exchange for money or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Sources- http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/

[XpTrIpPyNeSsXd]

Originally Posted by devonin

Now look at pot. There's really just about -one- step between a plant and a joint, and that one step is easy, involves no special machinery and very little time. You see where I'm going with this?

People are already growing pot on their own, in their basements, and back gardens, and processing it themselves. All legalizing it would do is make it that much cheaper and easier to grow and use your own. The government would derive -very- little revenue from it, because very few people would have an incentive to buy it through government systems when they could just grow their own.

That's strictly assuming the pot would be used only for getting high.

The actual cannabis plant has many different uses. Hemp can be used for clothing. Many natural medicines can be derived from the plant as well. It can also be turned into fuel just like corn can, except it grows faster, and much more grows in smaller spaces than corn.

If the government were to tax the fields where they are being grown, and allow farmers and other people to legally grow it with taxes. It could solve our fuel problem. And open up a whole new world of trade for us. thus, the government would make a whole lot of cash from taxing it.

Furthermore, recently a group of Californian drugdealers offered the californian government 1billion dollars to help california pay off their debts. (Ill try to find the article in a few minutes) They come from a site called letuspaytaxes.org (I think it's down as of late) California probaly won't take the money, but this shows that many dealers are willing to pay taxes.

tl;dr : Cannabis has thousands of uses, and if the governemnt were to tax the fields of cannabis being grown, they could make lots of money.

[devonin]

tl;dr : Cannabis has thousands of uses, and if the governemnt were to tax the fields of cannabis being grown, they could make lots of money.

1/ tl;dr has absolutely no place in the Critical Thinking forum. Either read it anyway, or don't respond to it.

2/ My whole point is that since pot is so easily grown for private use, even if they were to tax large fields based on myriad uses for it, that would just make farmers growing crop A switch to growing Pot instead, if it generated enough profit. Fair enough, and likely to happen within the next 10 years in Canada if not the US. However, the whole thrust of my argument was in the context of legalizing its smoking, as a means of controlling it, and raising government tax money -from pot used for smoking- which falls afoul of the situation I described above: That it is impossible to actually enforce taxes on something which can be grown and processed for personal use so easily.

Context is important.

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by devonin

1/ tl;dr has absolutely no place in the Critical Thinking forum. Either read it anyway, or don't respond to it.

2/ My whole point is that since pot is so easily grown for private use, even if they were to tax large fields based on myriad uses for it, that would just make farmers growing crop A switch to growing Pot instead, if it generated enough profit. Fair enough, and likely to happen within the next 10 years in Canada if not the US. However, the whole thrust of my argument was in the context of legalizing its smoking, as a means of controlling it, and raising government tax money -from pot used for smoking- which falls afoul of the situation I described above: That it is impossible to actually enforce taxes on something which can be grown and processed for personal use so easily.

Context is important.

I don't think so. We could easily grow our own tomatoes; however, few people bother to do so, and those who do grow it don't really seem to have an impact on the tomato growing industry of farming.

Understandably, it seems logical that if something is easily grown, nobody will buy it, but that doesn't happen. I understand perfectly that marijuana is far easier to grow than tobacco, but from what I know, tobacco isn't so hard to grow that you couldn't grow it yourself. And nobody does that. So basically, yeah, some people will grow their own marijuana, but it seriously shouldn't make a difference at all.

I think people (who smoke pot) would appreciate being able to go into a store, present their ID, and buy all the marijuana they want without fear of legal repercussions or anything. I don't smoke pot, and I think this is a good idea.

[Coolgamer]

Originally Posted by Chrissi

I think people (who smoke pot) would appreciate being able to go into a store, present their ID, and buy all the marijuana they want without fear of legal repercussions or anything. I don't smoke pot, and I think this is a good idea.

I disagree. Even in Amsterdam, the amount of cannabis one can buy is strictly controlled. This is how it should be in America.