Glory Days;1370669 wrote:The violence waned because of WWII and vietnam more than legalizing. Look at organized crime, it just evolved. The Hell's Angels and other biker gangs rose up after WWII when many drugs were still legal. Then Vietnam came around and organized crime slowed down again. Soon after there was the rise of the Mafia etc.
I'm not suggesting that violence itself waned. However, violence surrounding the alcohol industry never picked up again, with or without a World War going on.
Organized crime will do what it has to in order to survive, sure. However, the more things you make illegal, the more you allow them to diversify. They were forced out of the alcohol business, because the added security and profitability was no longer achievable when they had to compete with legal companies.
Glory Days;1370669 wrote:assuming he is a teacher for kids, of course they would be on probation for committing a crime. For adults, possession of less than 100g is a minor misdemeanor....or about the same as a speeding ticket. you ever get probation or jail time for that?
I wouldn't know. I've never been arrested.
However, I didn't ask what it took in order to get jail time. I asked how many non-violent drug offenders are in jail, and since you voiced your doubt of his statistics, I asked you for your own, which you have yet to give.
Glory Days;1370669 wrote:care to throw out some stats?
Studies, if you'd like, sure.
Studies on the health detriments and addictive properties of marijuana and alcohol:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/num2/the-toxicity-of-recreational-drugs/1
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.marijuanamagazine.com/toc/addictiv.htm
If you'd like, I can cite more.
Also, for fun, here's some information about the violence attributed to communities as a result of consumption of alcohol versus marijuana:
www.ukcia.org/research/AgressiveBehavior.pdf
pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/chap06c.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14656545
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/drug-facilitated-assault
Happy reading. Let me know if you get through it all. It's not hard to find, so I can post more links for your article-reading fulfillment.
Glory Days;1370669 wrote:so is talking about alcohol in a thread about marijuana, but i let it slide.
Not when the issue of legalization comes up, since the comparison between a legal drug and an illegal drug can establish grounds for the logic, or lack of logic, behind the law.
Glory Days;1370669 wrote:oddly enough, it was taxed and regulated first.....
Why else would Uncle Sam not mind it at the time?
Glory Days;1370669 wrote:oh snap, someone better go tell colorado and washington they did it all wrong!
Wrong in that it took far too long, sure. Right destination. Wrong journey.
Glory Days;1370669 wrote:so why not kill 2 birds with one stone? lets try to keep drugs off the street and lock up the cartels by keeping it illegal and as a tool to use against the cartels?
A couple reasons.
(a) No reason to "keep drugs off the streets" any more than a reason to keep alcohol off the streets, if we're dealing with the substances themselves.
(b) We aren't capable of doing so.
(c) Because any historian or illegal trafficking expert will tell you that the easiest way to kill the criminal influence in a particular trade is excessive competition. Illegal trafficking is ONLY profitable because it is illegal. Cost of operation is high, but as long as you hold a relative oligopoly, and all parties keep prices high (since they all need to, because they're all operating illegally), you can still turn a relatively good ROI. However, when legal companies get into the business, their cost of operation will be lower, as they won't need to make arrangements for illegal transport or sale (not to mention a more steady turnover rate of employ). They will be able to see the same returns as the illegal operations at a MUCH lower cost to the consumer, giving them a natural leg up in the market. As enough enterprises pick up the legal side of it, the criminal element in the industry is forced to abandon their connection to the industry.
C'mon. This is basic-level stuff.
Glory Days;1370669 wrote:and just like every medical marijuana "study" there are problems. very few of those "studies" are legit.
Largest study ever conducted (and thus, the fewest problems with sample size) on the toxicity and addictive qualities of marijuana is in one of the links I posted above. Seems that it demonstrates a more accurate (purely based on the adherence to scientific method and infallible process ... nevermind the result) representation of the whole of society.
Glory Days;1370669 wrote:good for you, bet you wont even get drunk off one or two. however, do you know people who smoke weed to not get high?
Well, I drink potent beer, so a buzz of two (especially with an empty stomach) is not far-fetched. Again, that's not the point.
The point isn't to try to force people to not get high, just like the point is not to force people not to get drunk. I know people who drink for no other purpose than to get drunk. They harm nobody else. As such, it is not a crime to be drunk, nor should it be.
If they do commit a crime while under the influence, they are held accountable for that crime.
Why do you see being high as any different?
Glory Days;1370669 wrote:right, they arent problems, maybe i was wrong, you did get drunk off of one of two.
Or perhaps you have, given that you suggest a person would have to be drunk in order to observe a logical consistency which can be articulated. Nothing you have asserted as validation for your view of marijuana, thus far, has been logically consistent in any way.
I think this is how Glory Days views himself