Marijuana.com

Randøm_

Hey people, don't forget, we have medical associations on our side. The way I see, as with most other ARCHAIC laws, they are upheld by archaic people lost somewhere back in the un-stoned age.

Face it, these out-dated people have to die sometime. Why get so hung up on the politics os greed (duh ... cuz it matters), but look at the people. Every year MJ becomes more and more legal both nationally and globally (if I say that once more, I'll just make it my sig). The votes ...yeah buddy ... have almost reached half of the voting public favoring the LEGALIZATION of MJ. Remember to focus (zooms in), politicians aren't going to oppose a law if it will cost them their jobs.

Fight ever onward, but remember where the true prize lies ... then put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!

 

Fuzz E L0g1c

Shade,
If I take you correctly, your saying that the government stands to make a profit from keeping weed illegal.

I have no doubts that there are huge profits to be reaped from the illegal drug trade, marijuana included. I also have no doubts that the price of weed would go down if it was legal. I do however, think the idea that the government engages in drug dealing for profit is ridiculous.


In order for that line to work, you would have to show that the people who are in a position to change the law (Congress) are making a profit from keeping it illegal. And they are not. The CIA used Cocaine to raise a lot of illegal cash, yes. But the CIA didn’t get the money, they used it to illegally fund Contras in Nicaragua. They didn’t get any richer from it. The people who get rich from it are the drug lords themselves. They (drug lords, for lack of a better word) do have an interest in keeping drugs illegal, to be sure. But I don’t know of any drug lords in congress. I don’t think president Bush has fields of dope back in Texas that he harvests and sells for tax-free profits. And these guys, not the CIA are keeping weed illegal. Besides that, the CIA helped with COKE, not weed. Its apples and oranges.

Maybe you think that the CIA is pressuring congress, to keep weed illegal then? That’s very unlikely. The CIA has no need to do that. Congress already wants to keep weed illegal. What about kickbacks? Again unlikely, I don’t know of many drug lords that follow politics. “Hello Mr. congressman, I am a marijuana dealer. Please accept this tidy sum of cash from me. I want you to keep drugs illegal. Thank you. “
Gimme a break!
There is no need to resort to conspiracies if marijuana prohibition can be explained by obvious and observable data. I think it can be, but that’s just me.

As far as changing stereotypes goes, that great, and I am all for that. But like I said, most folks are not like Maggie. They are scared, and with good reason. Most folks will not come out and openly admit that they use weed. They figure its better to keep quiet and not put THEIR but on the line, even thought they are all for OTHER people doing it. Its a vicious circle.

What I think is need to break this cycle is a debate with congress. Not in front of congress, but with them. I want to hold the guys who make these silly laws accountable for them. They have to be asked the hard questions, an not be allowed to wriggle out of them with a one-liner. We need to really go after them, and we need to do it right, because we would probably only get one shot. We need strong evidence and an open, fair debate. If we forced them to defend their arguments, unshielded, in front of the world, they would be exposed for what they are.

~~~~~~~~~
What the American Public doesn't know is what makes them the American Public.

willy

the results of an informal telephone poll that they run everyday were published. The question was---"Should patients be allowed to smoke marijuana?"---- 92% of the callers said yes and only 8% said no.

I know these polls are not scientific and are somewhat skewed by the slant of the story that inspired the poll but my sense of the story was that it was somewhat disapproving of cannabis use as medicine. And yet the results were overwhelmingly in favor of allowing patients to use marijuana.

I'm not sure that this kind of public response will have any effect on Supreme Court justices, lawmakers, prosecutors or law enforcement.

The case in front of the court now presents a dilemma for the conservative justices who have consistently found in favor of states rights. Their heads are probably spinning in confusion because they have also consistently supported the war on drugs by rulings that invoke a drug law exception when civil liberties are in question. In this one I tend to think that they will affirm the appellate ruling that the controlled substance act supercedes state referenda. In reading some quotes of questions by the justices I get the impression that that is the direction they are leaning. I am not optimistic.

Since this is a civil proceeding and not a criminal one I don't know what the ramifications would be if they find in favor of the government but it can't be good.

Let's hope I'm wrong.


Thanks

Slightly Stoopid

Willy, St. Louis had a poll like that and the numbers were about the same

Hell even my Chemistry Teacher BROTHER (As in ordained clergy) beleives marijuana should be available to all people that have a reason to use it.

__________________
Slightly Stoopid
"Before you knock it, try it first. You will learn that it is a blessing and not a curse"
-Ben Harper

Greenman

I am not normally one to repost things that I have written, but this was fairly lengthy, but illustrates the kind of cash that we are talking about here. I have taken the liberty of editing most of it out, to only bring the on topic points to bear, and corrected some inaccuracies. The full text can be reached at:

http://ubb.marijuana.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000040.html


Show them the money.

Accepted Facts.
American Taxible Population = 250 million
1 prisnor/year = $30,000
Unemployment factor = 5%
1 unit = 1/4 oz of a specific type of Cannibas
Estimated Monthly Marijuana users = 10 million
Drug War Advertising (1998) = $775 million
Arrest rate for marijuana charges (1998) = 675,000
Arrest rate (approx) for possession (1998) = 540,000
Cost for 1 marijuana possession trial = $15,000
Average IRS tax amount = $3,000
Average Drug War spending (1999) = $20 billion
Alcohol related deaths (1998) = 250,000
Tobacco related deaths (1998) = 100,000
Pharmacudical Related Deaths = 100,000

.................

Let us look on tracible finacial aspects of the war.

We will assume there are 1 million people currently in prison for marijuana related charges. And there will continue to be 1 million people in prison for the entire year of 1999. In reality, there are less however the exact number cannot be easily determined (800,000 or so, which makes for awkward numbers) . So one million will simply be a working number.

In just maintaining the marijuana inmates. It costs the people, the taxpayers, approximatly 30 billion dollars.

There is another loss of income tax revenue, $3 billion. If one figured in unemployment, the total would drop to $2.8 billion

As shown in the arrest numbers, the majority of Drug War Enforcement dollars falls on cannibas users over all other drugs. Estimate a savings of about 10 billion in Drug War Funding.

It cost the taxpayers 10.125 billion dollars to simply try all the marijuana cases (8.1 billion of which was used to try people for simple possession.)

Likewise, look to save 350 million in anti-marijuana adverstising.

At right there, that is an annual savings of approximatly $52.3 billion dollars a year.

Now, Let us look on the tax side of the coin.

For the sake of simplicity, we will assume that the costs of growing marijuana and tobacco are the same (this means no credit is given to marijuana’s ability to resist insects and to replenish the soil, unlike tobacco which strips it and requires expensive chemicals to do the same.)

The government levies a 50% tax on cannibas, which is then sold for $20 per unit. Assuming that the average use per user is 1 unit per week (which is very conservative) that would be the equivelent to $400 million in taxes per month., or $4.8 billion annually.

This is not including the increased tax revenue from farmers who grow the cannibas, workers and companys who process the cannibas, liscencing fees for distrabution places (akin to bars and liquor shops) Decreased judicial loads, and the like, which I will get into a little later.

I want to call attention to the fact that no where is there any calculated savings on reducing the number of police serving the community. Police perform a nessicary job to their communitys and their jobs are not based on the types of laws in place. The savings will be shown in the further decrease of violent and property crimes, as police will be free to use more of their resources in those areas.

So, the tangible savings come out to approximatly $57.1 billion dollars annually, using conservative numbers for calcualtions that the numbers were not readily available. To get some handle on the size of money we are talking about. Every person in America would pay an additional $228.40 on their income taxes to get the total amount that a twenty fifth of the population is willing to pay right now.

There are several non-tangible savings/benifits from the rescheduling of cannibas as science and law dictate.

It will reduce the amount of kids exposed to harder drugs by taking marijuana off of the street and puting it into the stores. When we look at the situation realisticly, if a teen wants to smoke marijuana he is going to smoke it. Just like they drink alcohol and smoke ciggerettes. The key difference is that he will not be exposed to the criminal element to get the drug. We cannot maximise our efforts to keep kids away from the truly dangerous and addictive drugs such as cocaine and heroine if we continue to lump cannibas in with them. When they learn that cannibas isn’t dangerous, then they will assume the hazards of the others are over-emphasized as well.

Farmers on the verge of bankrupcy would have be allowed to grow what is considered the 3rd largest cash crop in the united states. Prices are as high as 200 dollars an acre for the industrial version of the same plant, which lacks virtually any THC (the main psycho-active ingredient) of recreational grade cannibas. This is revenue that would be taxed by the government. Kentucky, once the hemp capitol of the united states, is now the owner of some of the most impovrished counties in the entire nation.

It has been proven by the Dutch that legalization of cannibas does not cause a spike in hard drug use, or even in cannibas use. In fact, the dutch have the lower rates of marijuana users, as well as hard drug users than virtually every country in the world with a ban on marijuana. Marijuana has been legal and sold in coffee shops there for just about two decades. And have noticed a decrease in violent and property crimes.
----------


And lets not be so abysmal reguarding the supreme court case. What is at issue here is the fact that a Cannibas Club is invoking the nessessity defence, not the patient. The fact that a patient does or does not have a right to medical nessessity has not come up in front of the Supreme Court as of yet, nor has Proposition 215 or any other marijauna law. This is not a very broad issue, and even if the court rules negatively, it will still be legal for those in the states that allow it to possess cannibas, at the state level.

And reguardless what the courts say, or congress for that matter. In America, you are tried by a Jury of your peers. If Jurys stop convicting people of drug crimes, and DA's can no longer get the nice padded victories that the War used to provide, they will stop prosecuting them.

In Texas, it is illegal, punishable by death I believe, to have wire cutters in your back pocket. Its on the books. But you could never get a conviction, so we have people with wire cutters in their back pockets.

A negative ruling would suck, but it is a FAAAAAAR cry from being the coffin nail on the movement. It will be a loss, and we will move on.

Peace.

__________________
Some will never open their eyes. Some will have them opened for them. Some will see light, some won't be able to stand the brightness and will turn away. -Robin Prosser's Diary Day 23 -- Please read our Posting Guidelines for questions on our policies.

 

willy

As to the oakland case; I didn't mean to sound too negative. I agree that the patient' legal right in CA is not in question. One of the justices, Kennedy I think, brought this up as well.

I am a little concerned, though, that if they go to the controlled substances act as the law of the land they will probably rule against Oakland. My sense is that if they do that a precedent will be set if, or when, a case involving an individual's use or growing or whatever comes up. Not to mention other states rights cases.

I still am not sure what it will mean, since it's not a criminal case, whichever way it is decided.

I'm going to go back and read your financial scenario again.

Thanks

TrollMan420

I read quite a few of the briefs presented to the Supreme Court by both sides... although not a lawyer, my take on this case is that the Oakland Club will lose this case based on what is at stake regarding the government's ability to regulate commerce

Now I know that most of us are somewhat anti-government, because of the injustice we suffer with regard to cannabis regulation. The truth is that we must have some government, to avoid anarchy; and the majority of laws provide an environment where we can pursue happiness.

The problem is: if the Supreme Court gives the "thumbs up" to Oakland, the ability of the government to regulate commerce will suffer. At the risk of being flamed, I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that this is the fair rule of law in this country.
We need to realize that this case is going to come out against Oakland. It DOES NOT end medical cannabis. We should see a victory - this is a high visibility case that will show many people the problems regarding getting cannabis to hurting people who truly need it.

I am becoming convinced that the fight will be won finally in the legislatures -- not the referendums or courts. Please continue to contact your lawmakers in support of ending cannabis prohibition laws.

TrollMan outie

Randøm_

TrollMan420,
Nice perspective! I love arguing but can find nothing argueable in tose truths. Yes, the Supreme Court case regards nothing potentially jeopardising the propositions already passed. Change never starts high up, but in the local legislaive branches then work their way up. Speak out, all my fellow freedom fighters, let your pen be your swords and the truth your shields. Ah, had to throw a little peotic prose in there.

willy

I just looked at a couple of reports about the goings on in the court. It seems like most of the commentators feel the decision will be so broad as to not have much effect whichever way it comes down.

I don't think interstate commerce will be affected as much as pointing back to the controlled substances act will affect states rights. One possible consequence of federal law superceding state law is that local law enforcement could be even more vigorous in taking drug cases federal.

We have seen this court go off on weird tangents before so I have no idea what they will decide. We'll have to wait and see.

Thanks

Fuzz E L0g1c

Excellent post Greenman!

That's exactly what I mean. I knew the cost of enforcing marijuna laws was high, but I din't know it was THAT high! Nearly 60 billion in real, tracable cash going down the toilet every single year. It makes me sick! Although you didn't emphasize it in your post, its also important to think about how much time cops waste with this stuff. Where I live, cops had night vision equipment, leased planes, drug dogs in schools, you name it. I imagine its not much different anywhere else. I remember I once called to cops because some kid trying to run me down with his motorcycle, It took em an hour and half to respond, and when he did I just got a phone call. Know what the cop said? "I'm too busy with this narcotics stuff to come out there, next time it happens, just call 911 AGAIN AND AGAIN untill someone responds."
The costs of marijuana law enforcement is a total outrage.

In regards to the supreme court case, well, they could rule broadly or narrowly. I have been following the case a little more closley since my original post and have changed my mind slightly. I still think Oakland will lose, but I think the court will make it a narrow decision against Oakland specificaly, not the whole medical marijuana. But I could be wrong. The court does have the abilitly to strike down Medical Marijuana laws.
According to CNN.com in an article titled: Court to decide if patients can get marijuana


"The court's watershed ruling, expected by June, likely will settle whether patients may get marijuana as a "medical necessity" even though it is an illegal drug under federal law. "

As for the trial by jury thing, I think I made it clear in previous posts why that would not work And I don't want to waste space by repeating it here. Also, even if you could find a sympathic jury, they can't break the law. If you guilty, your guilty, no matter how sympathetic the jury may be to you.
Judges give them specific instructions to go by the letter of the law, now wheather they personaly think your getting a raw deal.

"A negative ruling would suck, but it is a FAAAAAAR cry from being the coffin nail on the movement."

I never said it would kill it, I said it would almost kill it by sending back to square one, because it possible that the court could kill a state's ability to make thier own laws regarding weed. It would make it a federal battle, and that would be tough. I was very careful about the way I worded it in order to protect myself against just such an attack.

If this post sucks its because its 4:00 am and I am in the middle of writing a term paper. Peace

~~~~~~~~~~~~

What the american public doesn't know is what makes them the american public.