While the Obama Administration continues its crackdown on marijuana, including medical marijuana, New York City is joining other jurisdictions in the decriminalization of possession of small quantities of pot. Last year, NYPD made 50,000 arrests for such small quantities of pot. The welcomed change further detaches the federal crackdown on marijuana from public opinion if not reality.
Possession of small amounts of marijuana is a crime only if the marijuana is in public view or if it is being smoked in public, but these arrests are part of the controversial policy of pat downs by police — the current debate of extensive use of the stop-and-frisk practice by police.
Just this week I was called by a friend whose teenage son was charged with other teenagers after a police raid on a party that generated a complaint over noise. He was simply in a house where officers found a small amount of pot but they still charged everyone upstairs with possession. It is obviously a ridiculous charge but I hear of such cases constantly in Virginia and other states. While some politicians insist that pot is a “gateway” drug to more serious drugs, it is more clearly a gateway to criminal records for teenagers who are torn from their schools and lives to face entirely unnecessary charges.
Source: NY Times
@Idealist: I win when I understand reality. I also win when I am able to successfully explain reality to others. In this case, my post above is admitting a failure to achieve that goal, because you are desperate to believe something besides reality because it makes you feel good.
Which is why I repeat, believe what you want. If you want to bet lives on the blanket statements of politically appointed authority, feel free.
TonyC,
Scraping the bottom of the barrel, are you?
Let us assume all are adults here, and reasoning ones also.
I thought you were a rational scientist. Am doubtful.
Winning seems to be connected to your self-image and esteem. A shame, really.
Statistics and countermeasures against disease are
ALWAYS about the relative importance of cardinogens with respect to each other. I won’t say more than both he and I believe that the importance of the
cannibis organic material when ingested via the lungs are far less than other agents in our environment today. Do some whole pop checks. Ask the NIH. Marijuana does not kill, two SGs have said so. Get it?
And no one has bothered to study the organics contained in bourbon whisky. It is alcohol which is the cancer villain. Of course cancer is the least of your worries when consuming alcohol.
So let us not run from the mouse and not see the lion coming.
Nicely put, if I say so myself.
@Idealist, JC: You guys believe what you want. THC is not the danger, the high temperature combustion is the danger, and the existence of carcinogens produced by the high-temperature combustion of the leaf is irrefutable. I believe that will be true for the combustion of ANY leaf.
Any activity that purposely introduces carcinogens into the lungs or bloodstream is going to increase the risk of cancer, that is the definition of “carcinogen.”
I am actually surprised that I have to explain that to adults.
TonyC and JCTheBigTree,
Missed JC’s post just before mine. After reading it hastily, I hasten to stand by my declaration of my ignorance of the field. But other than what I cited in my latest reply as to the reliability of recalled
data, I will satisfy myself to hang on to the coattails of JCTBT.
I would not be surprised that my belief in cannabis being the best of psychoactive natural substances will be borne out over time. And we know that both alcohol, nicotine, caffeine are also classified so, in reality, although not in the statutes perhaps.
And their damaging effects are well documented, and the users would concur in that evaluation.
I don’t use, perhaps a re-evaluation on that point is in order. In the meanwhile, let’s get this crime off the books, and that part of the system discarded.
Who needs so many casualties of injustice?
TonyC,
Been away for a while. so here’s a brief post.
What you write just shows that what is seen is in the eye of the beholder.
Did you not see that I was saying it all was over my head. Did you not see me backpeddliing for all I was worth. I would be a fool if I did not. You obviouly know this area, I do not, and said as much.
So what do you do, take each of my statements and interpret them as being attacks. Jeez, man. Don’t look for bears, you might find them.
Take one example, (I could take them all and turn your interpretation of what I say and give you the correct interpretation which I intenced. And face it. only I know what I intend to mean.
“The relevance of the mutagenicity tests depend on your evaluation.”
You say:
“No, it doesn’t. It is not subjective, it is a standardized and objective test to determine if something causes cancer.”
Please note that I am deferring to your greater knowledge of the subject. I use the word “your”, ie TonyC’s evaluation. I did not say “ones evaluation”.
Is there a difference? Of course, but if you are looking for enemies, then you will find them.
I am of course sorry, that after leaning over backwards to cover my ignoreance while backpeddling, to be misinterpreted for each and every statement I made.
You were, I believe, waiting for a big attack on the material you cited. And you found it. But it was never there. I conceded defeat. I don’t even know what a mutagenicity test is. Gene mutation upon exposure to chemical agents—so much can I guess. But the applicability, goodness, adequate proof of one or the other point, in toto—it is all over my head.
So having covered me in shit, go back and re-read what I wrote. For your own sake. Try to see where apprehension has made you see attacks where there were none. I know how it it myself. For I have been there many times; and may visit there again, if not careful.
The gang here were kind enough to show once, in a group effort.
Your choice. I continue on my innocent way.
However, there are some points I still can defend.
For example taking histories of cancer patients as to their use of possibly carcinogenetic substances and asking in essence the same of non-cancerous blood donors are doubtful value.
Previous studies have shown that cancer patients search for the “why”, and will grasp at a cause and that effects what they report.
Secondly, studies show that participants can not even correctly estimate what they have logged and reported in writing when they are queried orally.
Many such psychological studies show that orally recalled figures are highly dubious in value.
So we do indeed differ, but as to the rest—read it again. Cool it. Take a toke. Don’t use it
myself.
And to those who say this is passive-aggressive. I say drop dead. I am trying to reason with TonyC. Not hide and blame him for being aggressive. Hie aggressiveness is quite justified based on his apprehension of what he thought that I said. I’m simply saying that his expectations screwed up his perceptions. And his aggressiveness did not cause a tvinge of emotion in my little belly. At least not this time. No guarantees are given. Not sworn is better than faulty sworn—rough translation of Swedish saying.
@Tony…
I haven’t had good access to studies since graduate school so I won’t bother trying to find studies that refute the ones you cite. I will say that while they are somewhat damning, I cannot look at them as conclusive or all that statistically significant.
They are small population samples, several of which had individuals who smoked Tobacco and drank heavily. Hard to single out Cannabis when out of 13 cancer patients 11 had some other more likely cause of cancer. Also, when you have a sample population of 10 individuals with upper respiratory tract cancers where only half were heavy users of Cannabis and two were ‘regular’ users, while six were heavy drinkers and six were tobacco smokers, and two didn’t use anything, you’re not showing me anything that is statistically relevant to showing Cannabis causes cancer.
I’ll again point out that even with the staggering number of Americans smoking Cannabis on a regular basis and have been doing so for decades, there is no revealed smoking gun causal link between Cannabis and Cancer, even though the heavy anti-pot lobby would latch on to the slightiest positive evidence of a causal relationship. As bad as some lobby’s don’t want us smoking pot, I’m flat out surprised they haven’t even tried to make up a study.
I do know of one study that showed Cannabis smokers didn’t suffer from decreased lung functioning, and it even (statistically insignificant) showed individuals smoking,, even on a ‘heavy’ basis, actually saw their lung functioning improve. Clearly Cannabis and Tobacco smoke are not one in the same.
In fact, many of the ‘studies’ that gave us ‘proof’ that smoking Cannabis was bad have been shown to be falsified propaganda. Consider how ‘they’ determined back in the day that Cannabis kills brain cells. The study that ‘proved’ this was done by strapping gas masks on Chimpanzee’s and filling the masks with as much Cannabis smoke as they could…these Chimpanzee’s eventually suffered brain cell death supposedly from Cannabis smoke. The problem with the tests? Masks filled with any form of smoke will asphyxiate the individual/primate wearing the mask…and with asphyxiation comes brain damage. Basically, they suffocated monkeys until their brains started dying and told us that Cannabis will kill out brain cells. That has since been shown to be untrue and I believe (not a strong argument) that I have read it suggested that Cannabis can actually help jumpstart cell regrowth.
I’ll also mention that at least two of our recent US Surgeon General’s are on record as either being pro-legalization or decriminalization. Dr. Jocelyn Elders and Dr. C. Everett Koop, I find the latter striking as Dr. Koop was such a stalwart against big tobacco and the dangers of smoking tobacco.
Of course, I can sit here with all sorts of anecdotal evidence, but the bottom line is that there simply is no conclusive data suggesting a causal link, there is no anecdotal evidence, and in my personal experiences I’ve know Cannabis to keep cancer patients alive.
Personally, I smoke on a ‘regular’ basis. I also used to smoke tobacco cigarettes. While being a tobacco smoker I noticed myriad changes in my health, most diminished once I quit. Since I’ve been smoking Cannabis, I’ve noticed NONE of those changes. Really, in many ways I’m far healthier now that I smoke pot…I tend to want to take care of myself more. Eating healthier, exercising more, stretching more, just wanting to live healthier.
That’s a lot to write considering we’re on the same side of the real argument, legalization.
Regardless of even a slight health risk, the prohibition of Cannabis is about as backwards of a law as we have. It makes criminals out of young people (especially minorities who get busted for Cannabis at a rate of at least 4-1 compared to whites), it causes more violence that it could possibly stop, it leaves tax monies on the table, and basically insults every sense of individual’s natural rights we have.
I should have every right to put whatever I want into my body as long as I don’t do any harm to anyone else.
The Justice department better reign in the police.
Judges are being attacked in the streets like they were common members of the ‘Occupy’ movement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/nyregion/justice-thomas-d-raffaele-says-police-officer-struck-him.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
The police are out of control everywhere, and if we can take one method of abuse away from them, all the better for everyone.
Just classify marijuana where it belongs scientifically- and that will never, ever be Schedule 1.
the illegal drug trade is a big factor in keeping the bank afloat.
Mark – yes, you listed some of the reasons why, but you still don’t seem to
be aware of the role of drugs and how important they are to intelligence services in just about every country in the world.
I realize that you believe you “nailed” it — but you shouldn’t underestimate the role of governments and their dependence on drugs as a tool/weapon.
Bill –
Wake up to what? My former post was mainly ranting but I think it’s fairly obvious why it’s still illegal. Lobbying by police unions, executive/congressional inertia, lack of appreciation by society of the negative externalities associated with prohibition, lack of coverage/neutrality of the same by the mainstream media, etc…
There is no cabal or global conspiracy, just self-interested actors and ignorance.
Mark —
Do you ever wonder if there might be more to it than just “a bunch of puritans sitting up at night worrying that someone, somewhere, is enjoying themselves.”?
Wake uP.
Christ, our society is full of a bunch of puritans sitting up at night worrying that someone, somewhere, is enjoying themselves. Just legalize the damn thing already. If someone is functioning and not harming anyone, who the hell cares what they do privately in their spare time? Leave people alone to live their own lives.
Decriminalization Possession Of Small Quantities Of Pot is first big step. In my opinion it’s right way!
Gene, There’s being confused and then there’s being bought off. The Police and Firefighters were left unscathed by walker’s policies as part of the “dive and conquer” tactic. It’s not as if Walker’s plan wasn’t revealed, and even with the reveal – “divide and conquer” coming out of his own mouth to a big, business donor – it still worked to his advantage.
I wonder how long it will be before he now goes after them? Or if he will. It doesn’t seem that he really needs to and it might lose votes for the party if he does before November. But maybe he just won’t be able to restrain himself. Wisconsin is still going to be worth watching.
There may well be good reason the 1% seem to hold the other 99% in such apparent contempt.
*********
“Walker gets support of Milwaukee police and firefighter unions”
By Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel
April 2, 2012
“Madison — Two unions that were largely spared from Gov. Scott Walker’s curbs on collective bargaining endorsed him Monday.
Walker is facing a recall this summer because of his successful plan to all but eliminate collective bargaining for most public workers. Walker’s plan mostly left alone police officers and firefighters, and the unions representing Milwaukee cops and Milwaukee firefighters renewed their support for him Monday. The two were some of the only unions to endorse Walker when he initially ran in November 2010.
“Governor Walker has a strong record of supporting public safety with an unwavering commitment to first responders,” said a statement from Michael Crivello, president of the Milwaukee Police Association. “Today, we are proud to announce our support for Governor Walker’s reelection.”
The Walker campaign released a similar statement from Dave Seager, president of the Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Association.”
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/145814335.html#!page=16&pageSize=10&sort=newestfirst
I found this quote in a HuffPo article about the exit polls of the Wisconsin election.
“The recall was often framed by both sides as a battle between Gov. Walker and Wisconsin’s labor unions, but those lines were somewhat blurred on voting day. Walker won 36 percent of the vote among members of union households, exit polling shows, roughly reflecting the partisan breakdown among union members.
Those numbers are nearly identical to 2010, when Walker won among 37 percent of union household members in his race against Tom Barrett for governor. Walker’s foes had hoped that number would shrink. “If that doesn’t change, then congratulations, they will have formed their own suicide squad,” former Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.) told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
The same blurring can be seen in Walker’s performance among supporters of President Barack Obama, who led Mitt Romney by a double-digit margin (53 percent to 42 percent) among those who voted. However, Walker won 17 percent of those who say they will support Obama in November. ”
Blurring is an interesting word choice. I think it is not only accurate, but it bolsters what I said about the ability to purchase propaganda improperly influencing elections. One of the chief tactics of propaganda is to obfuscate issues.
obfuscate \ˈäb-fə-ˌskāt; äb-ˈfəs-ˌkāt, əb-\. v., v.t.,
ob·fus·cat·edob·fus·cat·ing
1a : darken b : to make obscure (obfuscate the issue)
2: confuse (obfuscate the reader)
It’s paramount in getting someone to vote against their best interests that you confuse both the issue and the audience.
blur, v., v.t.,
1: to obscure or blemish by smearing
2: sully
3: to make dim, indistinct, or vague in outline or character
4: to make cloudy or confused
Candid home video of the Koch brothers celebrating tonight.
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3779/tumblrm51gbpqfpu1qi7an6.gif
swarthmore,
that is an amazing stat. How can that many people vote against their own self interests? Crazy. Money corrupts and the people who do not follow the real facts get duped into thinking that they must protect the Koch’s of this world because they will take care of them. They are sadly mistaken. Gene is right that the money must be removed or we face a very uncertain future.
@bill mcwilliams Your right even former customs officials have said they were stopped from inspecting “certain” imports.
I mean there HAS to be a reason why states are legalizing pot, but the feds keep spending millions to prosecute people, even those with a STATE LICENSE to grow it!!
raff/Smom,
I think the fact that Walker went into this with an 8:1 cash advantage thanks to the Kochs just goes to show how exactly how money corrupts the electoral process through its ability to buy propaganda.
Proof positive that elections (and ergo politicians and laws) can be bought by the highest bidder.
We have no hope of avoiding real civil strife and ugliness in the future until this fundamental problem that drives corruption is remedied.
rafflaw, The bad news is that 37% of union households voted for Walker and the Koch brothers agenda. I guess the polls were right.