Just Decriminalize It Already

[Fuzzyone]

  I just think it is a hell of a legacy to leave our kids and grand kids our permission to get drugged up anytime they want. That way they do not have to work and can sit on the couch in the basement watching the boob tube!!

[htown]

   Yea that is a good ideal we just let the idiots make their minds up on their own. If you see  the people we have in jail in this area now I think you would change your mind in a hurry. Once they are let out if there is something they can screw up they do it in a hurry and end up back in jail. Mind you a vast majority of these crimes are not drugs. It is when they are on them.

Well there you go.  Do you realize you're helping me prove my point?  The idiots are going to end up in jail anyway.  Why punish the ones who can handle their s**t? 


 

[size=78%]  Try reading the papers a little more often on alcohol deaths, I saw a entire family killed, a college student who made trips overseas to help the poor, I saw a mother kill her kids ect ect.... no it really is not working very well and yes there are in jail where they belong. So you wish just to pile on the misery[/size]

What would you propose we do that we're not already doing fuzzywuzzy?  Do you want us to go back to the prohibition days?  We tried that already and it didn't work out so well.

    The question I want to ask you is this...... about 10 years after we wave the magic wand and let anyone use drugs as their personnel freedom who will pay for their health care.... liver, kidney, heart transplants they will need after destroying their system with drugs? I sure in the hell will not want my taxes to pay for it.

First we would have to determine if decriminalizing drugs would lead to an increase in drug usage.


I bet it would still be a fraction of the cost that we're already spending on the failed "war on drugs"  Not to mention the billions of dollars the criminals are gaining from transporting and selling the prohibited drugs.

[htown]

If it were to be fully legalized, I would want to see two things:
1. Regulate it like any public indecency.  You can do what you want but at home indoors out of the sight of the public or minors;
2. Absolutely no public benefits for users.  Drug test all welfare or unemployment benefit recipients.

Not bad ideas at all.




And stevieboy said earlier


" [/size]I could go on forever of family members I have and friends they have, and neighbors they have that have sucked up medicaid for drug addiction medication, not to mention social security because drug addiction is considered a DISABILITY. And these people will receive disability checks forever till they die."
[/size]
[/size]Is this actually true?  I think every crackhead and tweaker in the country would be taking advantage of this loophole.  They'd be lined up around the corner.

[Fuzzyone]

Well there you go.  Do you realize you're helping me prove my point?  The idiots are going to end up in jail anyway.  Why punish the ones who can handle their s**t? 

So we just make it legal so the ones that cannot not handle their [snip] can get it from say the local drug store. The poor idiots then can say flip the script and beat their wife into submission because she is bitching the guy is not working? Or say we make it legal so our Social security can pay them because it is pretty obvious they will not be working laying on the couch all day or stumbling around their town looking in the trash for chow.
 
"What would you propose we do that we're not already doing fuzzywuzzy?  Do you want us to go back to the prohibition days?  We tried that already and it didn't work out so well."


   I can always tell when I am winning a argument because the loser always has to start calling names!



First we would have to determine if decriminalizing drugs would lead to an increase in drug usage.
  So we make it legal then we see if it increases drug use.... thats a novel ideal

"I bet it would still be a fraction of the cost that we're already spending on the failed "war on drugs"  Not to mention the billions of dollars the criminals are gaining from transporting and selling the prohibited drugs."




   Have you added the cost of medical? have you added the cost of human suffering? Oh but we will get to tax the product, the problem with that is how long will we really end up ahead? Just the lost in production from people not showing up to work will be staggering. If you are talking about drugging the poor since they don't work that would be a good ideal right?



   

[fathertime]

I can see both points of view on this subject.  One reality is we really don’t have any ideal what would happen if we legalized drugs in the USA now, our society is unique to others that have tried it.  I have come to the opinion that legalizing marijuana may be something that happens down the road.  Bob made a superb point about drug testing if a person wants any sort of entitlement then they can’t be using drugs, but I can foresee a slippery slope there too because suddenly everybody will have an ‘ailment’ that requires marijuana for ‘pain’.  I don’t know how or where lines get drawn when a bunch of drug users start wanting to get disability so they can sit on the couch and munch on Ruffles and smoke joints all day.  Fuzzy makes compelling points about the crime rate and crimes committed while people are loaded.  You may not know this, but Fuzzy has tremendous experience in that field and his opinion carries a lot more weight then you may realize. 

I can also see where htown is coming from because I like the ideal of live and let live.  I just don’t want my family to be victimized here by desperate for cash, unemployed, drug users.

I am torn on whether it would do more harm than good to legalize marijuana, other drugs being legalized I’m still firmly against for now.

Fathertime!  

[htown]

So we just make it legal so the ones that cannot not handle their [snip] can get it from say the local drug store.

It's either the local drug store or the local gang of pushers who are supplied by violent criminal organizations.  Which do you prefer?

The poor idiots then can say flip the script and beat their wife into submission because she is bitching the guy is not working?

If someone is going to get cracked out and beat his wife, he's going to do it whether or not he scored his dope legally or illegally.  Either way he's going to end up in jail and hopefully in a treatment center.




 

[size=78%] Have you added the cost of medical? have you added the cost of human suffering? Oh but we will get to tax the product, the problem with that is how long will we really end up ahead? Just the lost in production from people not showing up to work will be staggering. If you are talking about drugging the poor since they don't work that would be a good ideal right?[/size]

[size=78%]I'm starting to realize that the whole basis of your argument is the assumption that drug usage rates will soar if drugs were legalized.  In countries that have legalized drugs this hasn't been the case.  The number of drug related crimes and drug users ending up in treatment centers have DECREASED.  [/size]

[size=78%]I'm sure the cartels love closed-minded people like you fuzzyone.  Guys like you are what keep them in business.[/size]

[Stevieboy]

  Well horetown check out this


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/10/portugal-decriminalisation-drugs-britain_n_2270789.html


  You pretty much can go any where on the web and find support for one side or the other. By the way yes you are wrong but oh well!

Oh I get it, you pasting a link from the huffington post as reputable information was a sarcastic joke. Took me a while then burst out laughing. Thanks       

[Fuzzyone]

  I think you really lost the whole point but when you have to call names you already have lost the argument. To let you know my back ground I have worked the last 18 years in law enforcement as a correction officer. I have encountered those people that you say are in jail only because of drug abuse. I got news for you it is only a ploy to convince people that our prisons would empty out if we made drugs legal! I don't know how many of these people are in jail for getting drugged up and killing their wife screwing their kids robbing people that were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you really think that if made legal all these problems would disappear? I got news for you the jails are full of people who do not want to work, they want drugs and who the hell is going to pay for their treatment you?


   You and many other people have no ideal really what is going on, the statement of well it will shut down the cartels, it will shut down the bad people. The bad people will just move on to the next thing to steal or sell that is against the law.


  When I was in Colombia I got to watch first hand the destruction caused by the coke trade, people snorting it on the street corners ect. You cannot hang out when it gets dark outside the house because they are always around looking for a buck one way or another.




  There always is a arm chair quarterback that thinks they know better but really you do not know what the results will be and I am not going to bet the farm or my grandkids future on a pipe dream.

[Fuzzyone]

Oh I get it, you pasting a link from the huffington post as reputable information was a sarcastic joke. Took me a while then burst out laughing. Thanks       

  I know it is hard to swallow anything huffington has to say but I guess most guys here really don't know they are not worth a crap!

[Stevieboy]

  I know it is hard to swallow anything huffington has to say but I guess most guys here really don't know they are not worth a crap!

Well, actually, I'm in agreement with your argument I think. If I'm correct, you're against legalization as am I. I dont think you've read my opinions. With that, however, Dude, you can't expect to take what the Huffington Post says as a factual source to a debate with other educated people. Adriana Huffington is hack with an agenda. Thought you knew that. 
 
 

[Stevieboy]

Oops, wait a minute, I think I misread your statement. Disregard

[stnmasn]

Damn I am sick of paying to incarcerate all those scumbags.....isnt there something that can be done to lower the prison population and deter future crimes with some kind of harsh penalty for commiting a crime?

[Fuzzyone]

Well, actually, I'm in agreement with your argument I think. If I'm correct, you're against legalization as am I. I dont think you've read my opinions. With that, however, Dude, you can't expect to take what the Huffington Post says as a factual source to a debate with other educated people. Adriana Huffington is hack with an agenda. Thought you knew that.

   That is ok stevie... I wanted to see if anyone caught the huffington post.... normally I would not wipe my behind with anything that they post.. Useless!

[Fuzzyone]

Damn I am sick of paying to incarcerate all those scumbags.....isnt there something that can be done to lower the prison population and deter future crimes with some kind of harsh penalty for commiting a crime?

   My own opinion 3 time child molester? found guilty take him out behind the court house and shoot him or her. What would happen if he was guilty the 3rd time ohhh well he still was guilty 2 times before. I think they really need to make jail a little harder, wake them in the morning put them to work for 8 or 10 hours cleaning trash growing food ect. If they have enough money to buy 50 or 75 dollars worth of goodies every week then they have enough money to pay for some medical and other charges. We should not have to pay for everything like some states make you.


  Bust a drug dealer start looking a little harder for his money, what has he bought the last year ect TAKE IT!

[Ray]

Damn I am sick of paying to incarcerate all those scumbags.....isnt there something that can be done to lower the prison population and deter future crimes with some kind of harsh penalty for commiting a crime?

 
Yes, there is.
 
 
Just treat them the same as we treated Pablo Escobar...
 
 
 

[V_Man]

I want to clarify a couple of points.
First is that I am for the full legalisation of marijuana - which I don't see as even close to other drugs.
The prohibition of marijuana does far more harm than the drug itself. I have not read a single argument here to support it's continued criminalisation that would stand up to the simplest analysis.

Secondly I can see that the prohibition of harder drugs has been a failure.
Hence these drugs also need a new approach.
Exactly what that should be is not a simple question to answer.
My point is that doing the same thing and expecting better results would be the definition of madness.

[beulah]

The prohibition of marijuana does far more harm than the drug itself. I have not read a single argument here to support it's continued criminalisation that would stand up to the simplest analysis

you sound like a complete idiot and zealot with these comments.  There are good arguments to keep marijuana in the same status it is in currently. It is not a clear cut issue.

[Stevieboy]

   My own opinion 3 time child molester? found guilty take him out behind the court house and shoot him or her. What would happen if he was guilty the 3rd time ohhh well he still was guilty 2 times before. I think they really need to make jail a little harder, wake them in the morning put them to work for 8 or 10 hours cleaning trash growing food ect. If they have enough money to buy 50 or 75 dollars worth of goodies every week then they have enough money to pay for some medical and other charges. We should not have to pay for everything like some states make you.


  Bust a drug dealer start looking a little harder for his money, what has he bought the last year ect TAKE IT!

.
That, I disagree with. I think the OPs original statement was to "decriminalize" it. Like I disclosed before, I'm a pot smoker. But I'm also an adult, business owner, tax payer, and politically a republican, if that makes any sense.  Some people here want to Legalize pot and turn it into a taxable commodity. I say NO, not a good idea. But I also say don't put people in jail and create further criminals for what they do to themselves. Meanwhile, if they move on to harder drugs (usually happens with the young) and become addicts, NO DISABILITY.
China would love for the typical amercian to be on a daily high. The illegal immigrants as well.   
I've read posts of pro legalization from persons here who haven't commented that they they theselves use drugs. If it's not such a big deal, why not admit it? I for one don't think pot is a big deal, but then again I'm old school. I also have no faith in the common sense of today's lazy, nanny government raised youth. Which is why I legalization is bad idea IMO. Stats don't mean a squirt of piss to me, when what I see on main street is different.   
You can't say you know what you're talking about, if you have;nt been there nor done that. On both sides. 
 

[V_Man]

you sound like a complete idiot and zealot with these comments.  There are good arguments to keep marijuana in the same status it is in currently. It is not a clear cut issue.

Why do you say that. It is a fact that the criminalisation of marijuana and the way those laws are enforced does more harm than the drug itself. There is nothing idiotic about that statement. It is a simple fact.

I do agree it is not a clear cut issue in that there are a set of health issues with the use of marijuana. Just as there are a set health issues with tobacco. Just as there are a set of health issues with alcohol.
Ending prohibition of alcohol did not end the health issues with alcohol. No one ever expected it to and no one expects the legalisation of marijuana to end the health issues with marijuana.

What are the good arguements to maintain the current status and enforcement of the laws with marijuana?

[beulah]

Why do you say that. It is a fact that the criminalisation of marijuana and the way those laws are enforced does more harm than the drug itself. There is nothing idiotic about that statement. It is a simple fact

Since it is a "Simple fact" you should have no problem proving it.  So where is your unquestionable proof? 

Your earlier statement about a "simple analysis" was idiotic, and your inability to see there are two sides to this issue shows a lack of intelligence concerning the issue. 

[buencamino]

Uraguayan parlament was on the verge of legalizing marijuana last year but in the end President Mujica who had supported it finally nixed  it based on various factors including a poll of the Uraguayan population around 60% of whom were against it. There is still considerable political will in favor however and it may well come to pass in the future under a different administration.

Semana 12/21/2912

 

[bcc_1_2]

Hi guys,

Was reading through this thread and I just would like to say that the violence in certain parts of Mexico is certainly real and not hype. I have lived 6 years in Tamaulipas. Parts of this state are dangerous to the point that I would consider calling them war zones. Please Google "ciudad mier" an entire town of people forced to abandon their homes.

I myself lived in Valle Hermoso, Tamaulipas when the Cartel del Golfo took control from the Zetas. The whole city was without electricity for 3 days. We put furniture in front of the doors and sat on the floor listening to the screeching tires, gunshots and grenades. They hung half the cops in the city from traffic lights around town. The bodies were there for two days, people were scared to take them down. I know that this may disturb some readers, my intent is not to glorify the violent acts but to make sure everyone is aware that the violence in Mexico is very real, not hype. If you goto mund0narco you can read the news, probably one of the only places where the killings are being reported consistantly, milenio noticias is also a pretty good source but both are spanish language sites for English you can try "borderland beat". Many reporters have been killed, many have been threatened and the local media is scared to cover cartel violence. I only offer this information in the hopes that no one will take any unnecessary risks. Just know that there are parts of Mexico that are very dangerous. God bless and keep you safe!

from another forum...

[fathertime]

I want to clarify a couple of points.
First is that I am for the full legalisation of marijuana - which I don't see as even close to other drugs.
The prohibition of marijuana does far more harm than the drug itself. I have not read a single argument here to support it's continued criminalisation that would stand up to the simplest analysis.

Secondly I can see that the prohibition of harder drugs has been a failure.
Hence these drugs also need a new approach.
Exactly what that should be is not a simple question to answer.
My point is that doing the same thing and expecting better results would be the definition of madness.

what is the drug policy in Australia?    Is it safe to assume that your comments are pertaining to Australia?  Are there quite a few marijuana and other drug users in Australia?     


Thanks,
Fathertime! 

[V_Man]

Since it is a "Simple fact" you should have no problem proving it.  So where is your unquestionable proof? 

Your earlier statement about a "simple analysis" was idiotic, and your inability to see there are two sides to this issue shows a lack of intelligence concerning the issue.

OK I don't have the time to give you a really decent outline of the research and data but here is a quick summary off the top of my head....


In the 2010 edition of “[/size]The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition[/color][/font][/color][/size],” Jeffrey Miron, director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University, estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $13.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition.[/color][/size][/color][/size]http://www.cnbc.com/id/36600923/The_CostandBenefit_Arguments_Around_Enforcement[/color]
[/size]Miron’s massive study, first released in 2005, concludes that state and local government would save money and resources every step of the way, from arrest to prosecution to incarceration.[/font]
[/color][/size]“I don’t think there is any data to suggest any payoff for greater enforcement,” Miron tells CNBC.com. “If you are making lots of arrests then you are spending more money making arrests, lots of prosecutions, etc. In terms of showing that differences in enforcement lead to differences in use rates, no, there isn’t any evidence to support that."[/font]
[/color][/size]1. There are heath hazards from the use of marijuana but these are rarely addressed, researched or even discussed since the drug is illegal.[/font]
[/color][/size]7 other reasons according to Tom Head are:[/font]
[/color][/size]
2. Some claim Enforcement of marijuana laws is racially discriminatory.The burden of proof for marijuana-prohibition advocates would be high enough if marijuana laws were enforced in a racially neutral manner, but—this should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with our country's long history of racial profiling—they are most definitely not.
3. Enforcement of marijuana laws is prohibitively expensive.Six years ago, Milton Friedman and a group of over 500 economists advocated for marijuana legalization on the basis that prohibition directly costs more than $7.7 billion per year.
4. Enforcement of marijuana laws is unnecessarily cruel.You don't have to look very hard to find examples of lives needlessly destroyed by marijuana prohibition laws. The government arrests over 700,000 Americans, more than the population of Wyoming, for marijuana possession every year. These new "convicts" are driven from their jobs and families, and pushed into a prison system that turns first-time offenders into hardened criminals.
5. Marijuana laws impede legitimate criminal justice goals.Just as alcohol prohibition essentially created the American Mafia, marijuana prohibition has created an underground economy where crimes unrelated to marijuana, but connected to people who sell and use it, go unreported. End result: real crimes become harder to solve.
6. Marijuana laws cannot be consistently enforced.Every year, an estimated 2.4 million people use marijuana for the first time. Most will never be arrested for it; a small percentage, usually low-income people of color, arbitrarily will. If the objective of marijuana prohibition laws is to actually prevent marijuana use rather than driving it underground, then the policy is, despite its astronomical cost, an utter failure from a pure law enforcement point of view.
7. Taxing marijuana can be profitable.A recent Fraser Institute study found that legalizing and taxing marijuana could produceconsiderable revenue.
8. Alcohol and tobacco, though legal, are far more harmful than marijuana.I have written in the past that the case for tobacco prohibition is actually much stronger than the case for marijuana prohibition. Alcohol prohibition has, of course, already been tried - and, judging by the history of the War on Drugs, legislators have apparently learned nothing from this failed experiment.
More authorative sources have more compelling findings but the conclusions are similar:
[/size]The Cost of Drug Prohibition in Australia [/color][/size]Dr John Jiggens School of Humanities and Human Services 2005 concludes as follows:[/b]
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/3442/1/3442.pdf[/font][/color]Between January 1976 and December 2000, Australian governments spent in the [/font][/color]order of $13 billion prosecuting about one and a half million drug offences with the [/font][/color]purpose of reducing drug use. However, drug prohibition did not reduce illicit drug [/font][/color]use; instead it created an enormous black market, spiralling prison populations and [/font][/color]a plague of heroin overdoses. [/font][/color]The futility of prohibition was demonstrated even in “successes” like the marijuana [/font][/color]drought of 1977, which created the conditions for the heroin plague, and the heroin [/font][/color]drought of 2001, which led to the current methamphetamine plague. On the two [/font][/color]occasions they have occurred, droughts have only acted as incubators for a new [/font][/color]drug plague. [/font][/color]Prohibition is a cure that makes the disease worse. It aims to stop the use of drugs, [/font][/color]but instead, it glamorises drug use. It aims to morally improve the drug user, but [/font][/color]instead, it corrupts society. Under the rule of morals improvers and “War on Drugs” [/font][/color]advocates like Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Sir Robert Askin, states like Queensland [/font][/color]and New South Wales descended to levels of corruption that made their police [/font][/color]forces a public scandal. Rather than being suppressed by the police, the drug trade [/font][/color]thrived and became the lucrative fiefdom of corrupt detectives and their close [/font][/color]friends; so that, even though more people went to jail for drugs each year, every [/font][/color]year there were more drugs on the street. [/font][/color]At the start of the War on Drugs, free market economist, Milton Friedman, declared [/font][/color]that the failure of prohibition was inevitable because of corruption as officials [/font][/color]succumbed to the lure of easy money: Said Friedman: “So long as large sums of [/font][/color]money are involved—and they are bound to be if drugs are illegal—it is literally [/font][/color]hopeless to expect to end the traffic or even to reduce seriously its scope.”22 As this [/font][/color]paper shows, money spent on drug prohibition simply acts as a multiplier for the [/font][/color]drug market, increasing the amount available for perverting officials. It is this [/font][/color]capacity of the black market to corrupt the gatekeepers that causes prohibition to [/font][/color]fail year after year. The result is the entrenched system of corruption whereby the [/font][/color]drug trade continues under the protection of corrupt police. [/font][/color]

[/color]The impact of cannabis decriminalisation in Australia and the United States Eric Single, Paul Christie and Robert Ali Journal of Public Health Policy, 21,2 (Summer, 2000): 157-186.
http://parliament.wa.gov.au/intranet/libpages.nsf/WebFiles/ITS+-+CIN+article+Single+and+Christie/$FILE/CIN+article+SIngle+and+ali.pdf[/font][/color]
This paper summarises and compares the impacts of cannabis decriminalisation measures in two countries. In Australia, an expiation model of decriminalisation succeeded in avoiding the imposition of criminal convictions for many offenders, but substantial numbers of offenders received criminal convictions because of a general "net-widening" in cannabis offence detections, and the failure of many offenders to pay expiation fees and thus avoid criminal prosecution. Despite these problems, the expiation approach has been cost-effective, reducing enforcement costs without leading to increased cannabis use. In the United States, cannabis decriminalisation similarly reduced enforcement costs, with enforcement resources generally redirected toward trafficking and other illicit drugs. There were no increases in cannabis use or substantial problems that could be ascribed to decriminalisation. The implications to other countries are discussed, with particular attention to the importance of implementation issues, monitoring and evaluation. Cannabis laws: an analysis of costs Robert E. Marks1 Australian Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.http://www.agsm.edu.au/bobm/papers/toDAR.pdfAbstract: Despite the nine-year Drug Offensive against drug abuse, and theincreasing expenditures to enforce the laws against cannabis use, and theseizure of large plantations of cannabis plants, there is evidence that the useof cannabis is increasing in Australia, with stable black-market prices.Recent government data are used to estimate the conservative cost of druglaw enforcement against cannabis use of $329m in 1991−92. Alternatives tothe existing regime are examined, including expiation, decriminalisation, andlegalisation.Cannabis, the Law and Social Impacts in Australia
Lynn Atkinson and David McDonald Australian Insittue of Criminology Oct 1995
http://aic.gov.au/documents/A/D/5/%7BAD592CF2-21C6-45A9-AC71-0CF4445CF355%7Dti48.pdf
Cannabis law enforcement costs the Australian community well in excess of
$300 million per year (about three-quarters of the total cost of illegal drug
enforcement). The enforcement of laws relating to cannabis can have an
impact on future employment, education and travel prospects of thousands
of young Australians.
This Trends and Issues looks at the social impacts of cannabis and of
actual and potential law enforcement and criminal justice system responses
to cannabis, particularly to minor cannabis offences. It derives from a
larger, ongoing study commissioned by the National Drug Strategy
Committee (NDSC) at the request of the Ministerial Council on Drug
Strategy (MCDS), Phase 1 of which was completed in April 1995. A range
of analytical points from the research and some basic data are presented
here, to help inform this important policy debate.
In Australia the evidence isaccumulating ¾ from public attitudesurveys coming down on the side ofliberalising cannabis laws, fromcriminal justice system data indicatinga vast, expensive and relativelypunitive net being cast over youthfulcannabis users, and from evidence thatliberalisation does not increasecannabis use ¾ that the totalprohibition approach is costly,ineffective as a general deterrent, anddoes not fit with the National DrugStrategy's goal of harm minimisation.
[/color]The consequences and costs of marijuana prohibition
Katherine Beckett & Steve Herbert
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) | University of Washington (Seattle)
March 2009

[/color]http://www.undrugcontrol.info/en/issues/cannabis/item/2993-the-consequences-and-costs-of-marijuana-prohibition?pop=1&tmpl=component&print=1[/font][/color]


This report draws on a wide range of data sources to assess the consequences and costs of enforcing criminal laws that prohibit the use of marijuana. Despite widespread and longstanding disagreement about the continuation of marijuana prohibition, the number and rate of marijuana arrests have increased significantly in the United States since the early 1990s. These arrests are not evenly distributed across the population, but are disproportionately imposed on African Americans. Our findings regarding the costs and consequences of marijuana prohibition, as well as state and local efforts to relax it, are summarized below.
Download the publication (PDF)
Finding 1:    Intensified enforcement of marijuana laws does not achieve the stated goals of marijuana prohibition.
•    Marijuana arrests in the U.S. have increased dramatically since 1992. In 2006, there were a record 829,625 marijuana arrests. Nearly half (44%) of the roughly 1.9 million annual drug arrests were for marijuana.
•    Despite increases in marijuana arrests, the price of marijuana dropped; its average potency increased; it has become more readily available; and marijuana use rates increased during the 1990s, the decade of increasing rapidly increasing marijuana arrests. It thus appears that the goals of marijuana prohibition have not been achieved.
Finding 2:    The collective costs of marijuana prohibition for the public are significant; The personal costs to individuals and their families are also substantial, even in the absence of incarceration
•    The enforcement of the laws prohibiting marijuana consumes significant fiscal and organizational resources that could usefully be allocated toward other pressing public safety goals.
•    Marijuana arrests are not evenly distributed across the population, but are disproportionately imposed on African Americans.
•    The enforcement of marijuana laws imposes a range of social, psychological, and familial costs on those arrested for marijuana law violations. A complete accounting of the costs and benefits of marijuana prohibition requires consideration of these non-monetary costs.
•    A full and adequate analysis of the cost of enforcing current marijuana laws requires better and more complete record-keeping and data reporting by the police and others in the criminal justice system.
Finding 3:    Decriminalizing marijuana and deprioritizing enforcement of Marijuana laws Leads to no significant increase in marijuana use.
•    Many states and localities have either decriminalized marijuana or deprioritized the enforcement of marijuana laws.
•    There is no evidence that the decriminalization of marijuana by certain states or the deprioritization of marijuana enforcement in Seattle and other municipalities caused an increase in marijuana use or related problems.
•    This conclusion is consistent with the findings of studies indicating that the increasing enforcement of marijuana laws has little impact on marijuana use rates, and that the decriminalization of marijuana in U.S. states and elsewhere did not increase marijuana use.
The human costs associated with enforcing marijuana laws can be high even in the absence of conviction or incarceration. These costs, along with the absence of evidence that criminalization reduces marijuana use and any harm associated with it, underscore the need to reconsider the criminalization of marijuana.

[/font][/color][/color][/size][/font][/size][/color][/font]

• 
  Weblink
  The consequences and costs of marijuana prohibitionhttp://www.drugtext.org/Marijuana-The-New-Prohibition/ii-the-cost-of-the-marijuana-laws.html[/size][/color][/color][/size][/font][/size][/color][/font]

  Books   - Marijuana, The New Prohibition[/b][/font][/size][/font]

  Written by John Kaplan   [/b]  [/color][/color][/font][/size][/color][/font]

  Before weighing the costs of the criminalization of marijuana, a warning is necessary to prevent misunderstanding. The analysis of the costs of a policy is not, in itself, an assertion that the policy is wrong. The evidence in this chapter showing that the costs of criminalizing marijuana are very high does not prove that these-costs outweigh the benefits accruing from the marijuana laws. The costs comprise only one side of the equation; they may be a consequence of laws that are proper as well as of those that are unwise. The wisdom of our marijuana laws depends not only upon their costs but also upon their benefits in terms of factors such as how many people they save from becoming violent crimi-nals, from serious psychological damage, from progression to other drugs, or from reduced productivity as citizens—matters that we will discuss in subsequent chapters. On the other hand, as will become clear by the end of this chapter, the costs of the marijuana laws are so high it would be hard to visualize benefits great enough to balance them. The price of keeping marijuana illegalIt is incredibly expensive to keep marijuana illegal. [/size][/color][/size][/color]Nobody knows exactly how much money is spent to enforce anti-marijuana laws because there are so many factors to consider. Some of these factors are listed below.[/font][/color][/font][/size] [/size]http://www.mjlegal.org/cost.html[/color][/size]Allen St. PierreExecutive Director NORML/NORML Foundation[/color][/font] [/color][/size]Federal marijuana laws that rely primarily on criminal penalties and law enforcement are an ineffective policy tool to control the use and sale of marijuana.[/color][/size]-Marijuana Prohibition Does Not Produce Stated Public Goals- Public policies are measured by their ability to produce intended results. The stated goal of criminal marijuana prohibition is to deter marijuana use and promote public health. Therefore, the success or failure of U.S. marijuana policy must be evaluated by its performance at accomplishing these goals when measured against specific drug use and public health indicators. If current marijuana policy is to be judged as an effective public policy, then increasing the arrest rate for marijuana should produce an intended reduction in several of these key indicators, most importantly, the use and availability of marijuana among the population.[/color][/size]Despite total US marijuana arrests increasing 165% during the 1990s, from 287,850 in 1991 to 755,000 in 2003, this enhanced enforcement has not produced intended results, and in some cases, it has produced opposite, unintended consequences. Upon review of the available data, it is clear that increased arrest rates are not associated with reduced marijuana use, reduced marijuana availability, a reduction in the number of new users, reduced treatment admissions, reduced emergency room mentions, any reduction in marijuana potency, or any increases in the price of marijuana.[/color][/size]http://norml.org/library/item/executive-summary[/color][/size]April 2012:[/color][/size]Hundreds of Economists: Marijuana Prohibition Costs Billions, Legalization Would Earn Billions By [/size]Ezekiel Edwards[/size][/size][/font][/color], ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project & [/size]Rebecca McCray[/size], ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project at 4:29pm [/color]Over 300 economists, including three Nobel Laureates, recently [/color]signed a petition that encourages the president, Congress, governors and state legislatures to carefully consider marijuana legalization in America. The petition draws attention to an article by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, whose findings highlight the substantial cost-savings our government could incur if it were to tax and regulate marijuana, rather than needlessly spending billions of dollars enforcing its prohibition.[/size][/font][/color][/size]Miron predicts that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement, in addition to generating $2.4 billion annually if taxed like most consumer goods, or $6 billion per year if taxed similarly to alcohol and tobacco. The economists signing the petition note that the budgetary implications of marijuana prohibition are just one of many factors to be considered, but declare it essential that these findings become a serious part of the national decriminalization discussion.[/color][/size]The advantages of marijuana legalization extend far beyond an opportunity to make a dent in our federal deficit. The criminalization of marijuana is one of the many fights in the War on Drugs that has failed miserably. And while it's tempting to associate only the harder, "scarier" drugs with this botched crusade, the fact remains that marijuana prohibition is very much a part of the battle. The federal government has even classified marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance (its most serious category of substances), placing it in a more dangerous category than cocaine. More than 800,000 people are arrested for marijuana use and possession each year, and 46 percent of all drug prosecutions across the country are for marijuana possession. Yet this costly and time-consuming targeting of marijuana users by law enforcement and lawmakers has done little to quell use of the drug.[/b][/size][/color][/size]The criminalization of marijuana has not only resulted in a startlingly high number of arrests, it also reflects the devastating disparate racial impact of the War on Drugs. Despite ample evidence that marijuana is used more frequently by white people, Blacks and Latinos account for a grossly disproportionate percentage of the 800,000 people arrested annually for marijuana use and possession. These convictions hinder one's ability to find or keep employment, vote or gain access to affordable housing. The fact that these hard-to-shake consequences – bad enough as they are — are suffered more frequently by a demographic that uses marijuana less makes our current policies toward marijuana all the more unfair, unwise and unacceptable.[/b][/size][/color][/size]Our marijuana policies have proven ineffective, expensive and discriminatory. Our courtrooms, jails and prisons remain crowded with nonviolent drug offenders. And yet, the government persists in its costly, racist and counterproductive criminalization of marijuana. We learned our lesson decades ago with alcohol prohibition; it is long overdue for us to do the same with marijuana prohibition. In the face of Miron's new report, and its support from hundreds of economists, we are hopeful that not only will the national conversation surrounding marijuana change, but so will our disastrous policies.[/b][/size][/color][/size]http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/hundreds-economists-marijuana-prohibition-costs-billions-legalization-would[/color][/size]THE CONSEQUENCES AND COSTS OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITIONKatherine BeckettAssociate ProfessorDepartment of SociologyLaw, Societies and Justice ProgramBox 353340University of WashingtonSeattle, WA 98115andSteve HerbertAssociate ProfessorDepartment of GeographyLaw, Societies and Justice ProgramBox 353550University of WashingtonSeattle, WA 98115http://faculty.washington.edu/kbeckett/The%20Consequences%20and%20Costs%20of%20Marijuana%20Prohibition.pdf [/color][/size]CONCLUSION This report draws on a wide range of data sources to assess the consequences and costs of enforcing criminal laws that prohibit the use of marijuana. Despite widespread and longstanding disagreement about the continuation of marijuana prohibition, the number and rate of marijuana arrests have increased significantly in the United States since the early 1990s. These arrests are not evenly distributed across the population, but are disproportionately imposed on African Americans. Our findings regarding the costs and consequences of marijuana prohibition, as well as state and local efforts to relax it, are summarized below. FINDINg 1:    Intensified enforcement of marijuana laws does not achieve the stated goals of marijuana prohibition. •    Marijuana arrests in the U.S. have increased dramatically since 1992. In 2006, there were a record 829,625 marijuana arrests. Nearly half (44%) of the roughly 1.9 million annual drug arrests were for marijuana. •    Despite increases in marijuana arrests, the price of marijuana dropped; its average potency increased; it has become more readily available; and marijuana use rates increased during the 1990s, the decade of increasing rapidly increasing marijuana arrests. It thus appears that the goals of marijuana prohibition have not been achieved. FINDINg 2:    The collective costs of marijuana prohibition for the public are significant; The personal costs to individuals and their families are also substantial, even in the absence of incarceration •    The enforcement of the laws prohibiting marijuana consumes significant [/color] [/l][/l]

[/td][/tr][/table]

[V_Man]

I am sorry, I ran out of room to put more references in there but you get the picture. A quick unbiased review of the academic literature will give you the same results.