REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Unnecessarily snarky comment deleted. Backing out of thread, again.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

How about the costs of keeping it illegal, RWHN? I keep bringing this issue up but you haven't even acknowledged it.

The war on pot does a lot more harm than the facile argument that it merely inhibits adults from smoking it, as you have implied.

What are the primary costs of marijuana prohibition, in your mind?

That questions, IMO, makes an incorrect assumption.  That legal marijuana is going to be the death-knell of drug cartels.  It would not be their death knell.  Many of these cartels also deal in the illegal and pirate prescription drug trade.  Many also deal with other, harder drugs.  Some of the more sophisticated outlets would undoubtedly switch to a new model where they develop and sell product that outdoes the legal product being regulated by the U.S. Government. 

Certainly, there is alway room for the enforcement of our drug laws to be carried out in smarter and more judicious manners.  I won't argue that. 

It appears you have confused me with Shibby D (who brought up cartels) because the only assumption I made was that there are also social costs due to marijuana prohibition. Or do you believe fueling drug cartels is THE primary cost of marijuana prohibition?

I'll ask again, what do you personally believe are the most damaging costs to society due to marijuana prohibition?

Also, what is the source of your information about cartels' ability to compete with legalized marijuana? It sounds highly implausible, how would that even work?

[AFK]

No, but that doesn't at all address the justness or wisdom of the law, or the factors of poverty, abuse and hopelessness that so heavily influence drug use. The fact that existing drug laws are disproportionately applied to people of color is also a real problem.

Considering I work in the city that has the most impoverished neighborhoods in the state, I think I understand fully the effect poverty has on drug use.  But these, also, aren't the kids who have any hope of going to college.  So I think you are confusing two different realities.  The kids who have college on the horizon are generally kids who are in a better place in their lives and for whom, abject poverty is going to be much less of an influence when it comes to substance abuse.  With these kids, you have things like peer pressure.  Fuck, the pressure to make it into college will drive kids to drugs.   

Sticking your head in the sand and saying "BUT THEY KNEW IT WAS ILLEGAL SO THEY DESERVE IT" is not productive.

Yeah, well neither is talking shit about "religion" and "evil". 

[Cinderflame KSC]

And to avoid a biased source, I went directly to the Bureau of Prisons website at http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp

Most recent stats:

Drug Offenses:   100,772   (51.2 %)
Weapons, Explosives, Arson:   29,960   (15.2 %)
Immigration:   22,140   (11.2 %)
Robbery:   8,471   (4.3 %)
Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses:   6,894   (3.5 %)
Extortion, Fraud, Bribery:   10,089   (5.1 %)
Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses:   5,424   (2.8 %)
Miscellaneous:   1,860   (0.9 %)
Sex Offenses:   9,184   (4.7 %)
Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement:   874   (0.4 %)
Courts or Corrections:   613   (0.3 %)
Continuing Criminal Enterprise:   513   (0.3 %)
National Security:   98   (0.0 %)

How many of that 100,000 are simple marijuana possession charges?  As opposed to trafficking, selling/furnishing to a minor, etc.? 

I don't have data on that, but I will see what I can find. But even if it's one-third of that 100,000, it would be higher than the next highest category.

[Cinderflame KSC]

Once again, didn't take me very long to find data. It's old, but the numbers can't have shifted around that much.

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/20/20021.html
U.S. Department of Justice: An Analysis of Non-violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories

The major findings of this study are:
    A substantial number of drug law violators sentenced to incarceration in Bureau of Prisons custody can be classified as "low-level". 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.
    If we further restricted the population to those offenders with zero criminal history points - according to U.S. Sentencing Commission rules, there were 12,727 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 28.2 percent of all drug offenders in the prison system and 16.6 percent of all sentenced prisoners.
    The average sentence of the low-level drug law offender group was 81.5 months which means that, under Guideline sentencing (must serve 85% of sentence), these individuals will serve, on average, at least 69 months before release from prison.
    Even with a liberal interpretation of criminal justice contact (where criminal justice contact was defined as an arrest regardless of disposition), the majority of low-level offenders had no prior recorded contact with the criminal justice system. The data do not reflect criminal justice contacts outside the United States. Therefore, criminal justice contacts for non-citizens may be under-reported.
    Based on the study sample, two-thirds of low-level drug offenders currently in the Bureau of Prisons (1994) received mandatory-minimum sentences. Even among low-level drug offenders, sentences have increased 150% above what they were prior to the implementation of Sentencing Guidelines and significant sentencing legislation which established mandatory-minimum sentences for primarily drug and weapons offenses.
    Among the low-level offenders, 42.3 percent were couriers or played peripheral roles in drug trafficking.

[BabylonHoruv]

Sigh. I'm not playing a game. I am thinking of all the destroyed families, imprisoned people, and lost college educations that are the direct result of criminalization.

Working to solve the community and social problems that result in drug abuse is a good thing. Criminalization of marijuana, though, is a corporate industry that hurts communities.

Absolutely. We spend so much money on incarcerating people that didn't do anything but get high. We're letting murderers and rapists out of jail because our prisons are too overcrowded to keep the druggies behind bars.

That's why I phrased my answer the way I did. Possession? Not a crime. Intoxication? As long as you're not behind the wheel, not a crime. Knocked over a liquor store while high on crack? Now you're going to jail.

Rather importantly, since without it the cartels keep their income.

Distribution with a license

Not a crime.

[BabylonHoruv]

Sigh. I'm not playing a game. I am thinking of all the destroyed families, imprisoned people, and lost college educations that are the direct result of criminalization.

All of the imprisoned people?  How many non-violent, non-trafficking adults are in prison for marijuana?  How many?  I would also like to point out a little thing called personal responsibility.  Unless someone has lived under a rock, they know that there are penalties associated with marijuana.  Ultimately, a person made a choice, knowing full well what the penalties would be, whether they agreed with them or not.  

Absolutely, they should campaign against those laws if they think they are wrong.  But I would have to question the priorities of someone who chose to knowingly risk their college opportunities over pot.  

Working to solve the community and social problems that result in drug abuse is a good thing. Criminalization of marijuana, though, is a corporate industry that hurts communities.

I disagree.  Community norms are an important protective factor when it comes to substance abuse according to the work of Hawkins and Catalano.  When communities have rules around substances that are enforced, there tends to be lower substance abuse.  

Putting aside the fact that I feel strongly that distribution should not be a crime the fact that someone is charged with trafficking does not mean that person was trafficking except in the legal sense.  Having marijuana in multiple containers is a trafficking charge, so is having more than a certain amount.  Growing it is a manufacturing charge, which is more serious than trafficking and the fact that the person may have been growing it for personal use is not taken into account.

[Bruno]

RWHN, if there was sound research proving that religion was harmful to children, and society as a whole,  would you support government regulation of religion?

[AFK]

Once again, didn't take me very long to find data. It's old, but the numbers can't have shifted around that much.

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/20/20021.html
U.S. Department of Justice: An Analysis of Non-violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories

The major findings of this study are:
    A substantial number of drug law violators sentenced to incarceration in Bureau of Prisons custody can be classified as "low-level". 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.
    If we further restricted the population to those offenders with zero criminal history points - according to U.S. Sentencing Commission rules, there were 12,727 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 28.2 percent of all drug offenders in the prison system and 16.6 percent of all sentenced prisoners.
    The average sentence of the low-level drug law offender group was 81.5 months which means that, under Guideline sentencing (must serve 85% of sentence), these individuals will serve, on average, at least 69 months before release from prison.
    Even with a liberal interpretation of criminal justice contact (where criminal justice contact was defined as an arrest regardless of disposition), the majority of low-level offenders had no prior recorded contact with the criminal justice system. The data do not reflect criminal justice contacts outside the United States. Therefore, criminal justice contacts for non-citizens may be under-reported.
    Based on the study sample, two-thirds of low-level drug offenders currently in the Bureau of Prisons (1994) received mandatory-minimum sentences. Even among low-level drug offenders, sentences have increased 150% above what they were prior to the implementation of Sentencing Guidelines and significant sentencing legislation which established mandatory-minimum sentences for primarily drug and weapons offenses.
    Among the low-level offenders, 42.3 percent were couriers or played peripheral roles in drug trafficking.

Okay, when you actually look at simple marijuana offenses, according to the BJS, only 1.6% of state inmates were conficted of a marijuana-only crime which includes trafficking.  Only 0.7% of state inmates were imprisoned with marijuana possession as the only charge and only 0.3% are first time offenders.  Federal stats from 2001 show that only 2.3% or 186 people sentenced to prison were sentenced for simple possession.  Only 63 of those actually served time. 

72 Unpublished BJS estimates based on the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. For a publicuse copy of the survey data, see http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/SISFCF/index.html
73 Ibid.
Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bulletin, April 2003, NCJ 198877.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim02.pdf
74 Prisoners in 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2003, NCJ 200248. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p02.pdf
75 U.S. Sentencing Commission's 2001 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. Table 33: Primary Drug Type of Offenders Sentenced Under Each Drug Guideline, Fiscal Year 2001. http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/SBTOC01.htm http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/table33.pdf

[AFK]

RWHN, if there was sound research proving that religion was harmful to children, and society as a whole,  would you support government regulation of religion?

Considering the 1st amendement of the U.S. Constitution, it's kind of a non-starter. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Once again, didn't take me very long to find data. It's old, but the numbers can't have shifted around that much.

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/20/20021.html
U.S. Department of Justice: An Analysis of Non-violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories

The major findings of this study are:
    A substantial number of drug law violators sentenced to incarceration in Bureau of Prisons custody can be classified as "low-level". 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.
    If we further restricted the population to those offenders with zero criminal history points - according to U.S. Sentencing Commission rules, there were 12,727 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 28.2 percent of all drug offenders in the prison system and 16.6 percent of all sentenced prisoners.
    The average sentence of the low-level drug law offender group was 81.5 months which means that, under Guideline sentencing (must serve 85% of sentence), these individuals will serve, on average, at least 69 months before release from prison.
    Even with a liberal interpretation of criminal justice contact (where criminal justice contact was defined as an arrest regardless of disposition), the majority of low-level offenders had no prior recorded contact with the criminal justice system. The data do not reflect criminal justice contacts outside the United States. Therefore, criminal justice contacts for non-citizens may be under-reported.
    Based on the study sample, two-thirds of low-level drug offenders currently in the Bureau of Prisons (1994) received mandatory-minimum sentences. Even among low-level drug offenders, sentences have increased 150% above what they were prior to the implementation of Sentencing Guidelines and significant sentencing legislation which established mandatory-minimum sentences for primarily drug and weapons offenses.
    Among the low-level offenders, 42.3 percent were couriers or played peripheral roles in drug trafficking.

Okay, when you actually look at simple marijuana offenses, according to the BJS, only 1.6% of state inmates were conficted of a marijuana-only crime which includes trafficking.  Only 0.7% of state inmates were imprisoned with marijuana possession as the only charge and only 0.3% are first time offenders.  Federal stats from 2001 show that only 2.3% or 186 people sentenced to prison were sentenced for simple possession.  Only 63 of those actually served time. 

72 Unpublished BJS estimates based on the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. For a publicuse copy of the survey data, see http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/SISFCF/index.html
73 Ibid.
Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bulletin, April 2003, NCJ 198877.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim02.pdf
74 Prisoners in 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2003, NCJ 200248. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p02.pdf
75 U.S. Sentencing Commission's 2001 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. Table 33: Primary Drug Type of Offenders Sentenced Under Each Drug Guideline, Fiscal Year 2001. http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/SBTOC01.htm http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/table33.pdf

1.6% of 1.2 million is only 19,200 people's lives. That's all.

By the way, all of your links are broken.

[AFK]

I'll ask again, what do you personally believe are the most damaging costs to society due to marijuana prohibition?

Here's the thing, we live in an authoritative society.  America wasn't set up as a county with unlimited freedom.  We have freedom within limits.  So, in that respect, certainly one cost to adults is unfettered freedom to engage in marijuana use.  But I don't see that as a cost to society.  It's a cost to individuals.  Certainly in some states there are also some rather draconian sentencing structures when it comes to marijuana.  That also partly explains why some individuals wind up in prison for simple possession.  An example would be states with "3 strikes your out" style sentencing.  But I would argue that is a damaging cost caused by sentencing guidelines and it is something that can be changed without legalizing the substance. 

Legalization would incur costs to society which I've outlined previously. 

Also, what is the source of your information about cartels' ability to compete with legalized marijuana? It sounds highly implausible, how would that even work?

Various sources in the DEA whom I obviously can't name.  How would it work?  Easy.  They cultivate a product that offers what regulated marijuana can't.  And I think we can all recognize that when it comes to adaptation, the U.S. Government isn't the most nimble of creatures.  I think a highly organized drug cartel could easily out maneuver the government.  And again, cartels are diversified.  Even without marijuana, they have the counterfeit and black market Rx trade that is more than enough to keep them afloat.  Not to mention trade in the other illicit substances.  Seriously, the Rx thing has blown up.  Legalizing marijuana may prune a small time operation here and there, but trust me, they will still be around. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I'll ask again, what do you personally believe are the most damaging costs to society due to marijuana prohibition?

Here's the thing, we live in an authoritative society.  America wasn't set up as a county with unlimited freedom.  We have freedom within limits.  So, in that respect, certainly one cost to adults is unfettered freedom to engage in marijuana use.  But I don't see that as a cost to society.  It's a cost to individuals.  Certainly in some states there are also some rather draconian sentencing structures when it comes to marijuana.  That also partly explains why some individuals wind up in prison for simple possession.  An example would be states with "3 strikes your out" style sentencing.  But I would argue that is a damaging cost caused by sentencing guidelines and it is something that can be changed without legalizing the substance. 

Legalization would incur costs to society which I've outlined previously. 

Also, what is the source of your information about cartels' ability to compete with legalized marijuana? It sounds highly implausible, how would that even work?

Various sources in the DEA whom I obviously can't name.  How would it work?  Easy.  They cultivate a product that offers what regulated marijuana can't.  And I think we can all recognize that when it comes to adaptation, the U.S. Government isn't the most nimble of creatures.  I think a highly organized drug cartel could easily out maneuver the government.  And again, cartels are diversified.  Even without marijuana, they have the counterfeit and black market Rx trade that is more than enough to keep them afloat.  Not to mention trade in the other illicit substances.  Seriously, the Rx thing has blown up.  Legalizing marijuana may prune a small time operation here and there, but trust me, they will still be around. 

So marijuana prohibition incurs no damage to society? Is that your position?

And with cartels, it sounds like you're claiming that they could cultivate even higher potency marijuana than what growers are currently supplying medical marijuana patients, is that right? Or do you believe cartels would be able to sell it even cheaper than legal sources?

[AFK]

That the drug is illegal incurs no significant damage to society.  How the law is enforced can incur costs to communities.  As I've stated countless times.  People shouldn't be in prison for simple possession, and percentage wise, they aren't.  I would be curious about the circumstances of those who are in state prison for marijuana possession.  My suspicion is that it is concentrated in certain states that have particularily draconian sentencing guidelines.  Those should be changed.  People should not be in prison for simple possession. 

But I have to point out again it is not the picture that is typically painted from those who support legalization.  The prisons are NOT bursting at the seams with people who are in for simple possession.  The majority of people in prison for marijuana-related offenses had other charges or were trafficking the drugs. 

I think one things cartels might do under legalization is adopt a model that involves the diversion of medical marijuana.  But I think the other thing they certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows.  Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users.  But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat.  I mean, criminals are good at being criminals.  They will find a way to survive.   

[Elder Iptuous]

...
  But I think the other thing they certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows.  Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users. 
...

good grief!  stronger than the stuff we have now?  the really nice buds are literally dripping with resin!
this just doesn't make much sense to me.  I have never met anyone that has complained that they just couldn't find strong enough marijuana anymore to get them the buzz they seek.  furthermore, the strongest stuff i've seen is cultivated by individuals that care for a small group of plants rather than the big operations.