The Legalization of Marijuana

[psi_radar]

<snip>...I'm just saying that its a weak argument for legalization because the largest chunk of cash and enforcement is spent on coke, not marijuana. Most of that "marijuana enforcement cash" is spent by the feds (DEA) too. Local cops aren't letting murderers go because they are making weed busts. Like the author of the post I linked said.....


and

Friend of mine (55-year old hippie lady) got popped for 11 felonies a few months ago, all circulating around MJ...ELEVEN felonies, COME ON. They invested a lot of man-hours (22 cops searched her house...she's REAL scary ). In the end, she won't do any time, but they confiscated some stuff and she had to put a second mortgage on her house to afford the lawyers fees. I think the lawyer, bail bondsman, and county were the only winners there. Bravo! maybe now they'll finally go after Jon Benet's real killer.

 

[Tgace]

Yeah and five Canadian cops were gunned down by a Marijuana grower. The number of Cops at a house dosent really mean all that much. I had 3 cars and 6 cops cover me on a basic warrant arrest on a car stop just last night. The detective bureau probably has hundreds of open cases from petit larcenies to murder. This event would have just been another folder in the pile (the detectives assigned are probably vice and wouldnt be working on Jon Benet's case anyway). The legalization of Pot wouldnt really make my job any different. Maybe the 4 detectives in my Vice squad, but that would be about it. The idea that patrolmen and det. bureaus are ignoring other crimes because of marijuana is just kinda silly from my perspective. The DEA may have a different opinion, but to local and maybe even county/state levels a whole lot of resources (some yes) are not being chewed up by marijuana. Court systems may be a different story......

 

[psi_radar]

Yeah and five Canadian cops were gunned down by a Marijuana grower. The number of Cops at a house dosent really mean all that much. I had 3 cars and 6 cops cover me on a basic warrant arrest on a car stop just last night. The detective bureau probably has hundreds of open cases from petit larcenies to murder. This event would have just been another folder in the pile (the detectives assigned are probably vice and wouldnt be working on Jon Benet's case anyway). The legalization of Pot wouldnt really make my job any different. Maybe the 4 detectives in my Vice squad, but that would be about it.

The legalization of pot would make a difference to those three cops that got shot. Where there's money there's crime and the potential for violence. Take away the revenue and you take away the violence.

The idea that patrolmen and det. bureaus are ignoring other crimes because of marijuana is just kinda silly from my perspective. The DEA may have a different opinion, but to local and maybe even county/state levels a whole lot of resources (some yes) are not being chewed up by marijuana. Court systems may be a different story......

Maybe I've got this wrong, but don't you all work from the same budget? Won't resources spent in one department or task force drain the funds for another? All I'm saying is that I'd rather have police funds spent on the resolution of violent crime than tracking down pot-smokers and dealers, who regardless of your example, are typically non-violent.

 

[Ray]

The legalization of pot would make a difference to those three cops that got shot. Where there's money there's crime and the potential for violence. Take away the revenue and you take away the violence.

I can't believe that this is being used as an arguement to legalize pot. You could take almost any illegal activity (e.g. kiddie porn) and use the same arguement.

Yes, I know, someone is going to say that pot isn't kidde porn. But the reasoning still holds.

All I'm saying is that I'd rather have police funds spent on the resolution of violent crime than tracking down pot-smokers and dealers, who regardless of your example, are typically non-violent.

I rather have police funds spent on enforcement of the law. If it's illegal to posses pot or to make meth or to murder, then the cops should be enforcing those laws.

Cops don't prevent crime and they don't "resolve" crime. Depending on the crime and the situation: they warn people, they cite people, they arrest people...they don't punish people and they don't make law.

 

[Flatlander]

The legalization of pot would make a difference to those three cops that got shot. Where there's money there's crime and the potential for violence. Take away the revenue and you take away the violence.

Sorry, psi, but in this circumstance you are incorrect.

To begin with, the police were there on circumstances unrelated to the weed. They were killed anyway.

Secondly, weed is (currently) a criminal industry. You can remove the product, but the criminal remains. They simply find another way to earn their cheddar. Decriminalization of marijuana will not change the tendency of lawbreakers to disrespect the law.

Bear in mind that I am for decriminalization. This, however, is not an argument that I would use. :asian:

 

[Tgace]

Maybe I've got this wrong, but don't you all work from the same budget? Won't resources spent in one department or task force drain the funds for another? All I'm saying is that I'd rather have police funds spent on the resolution of violent crime than tracking down pot-smokers and dealers, who regardless of your example, are typically non-violent.

Im paid from the property taxes levied on the homeowners and business owners of my town.

 

[psi_radar]

I can't believe that this is being used as an arguement to legalize pot. You could take almost any illegal activity (e.g. kiddie porn) and use the same arguement.

Yes, you could, but I wouldn't, because I find quite a large moral gap between creating/possessing kiddie porn and growing/selling/smoking pot. The kiddie porn intrinsically has victims, whereas pot hurts very few.

Yes, I know, someone is going to say that pot isn't kidde porn. But the reasoning still holds.

Not to me.

I rather have police funds spent on enforcement of the law. If it's illegal to posses pot or to make meth or to murder, then the cops should be enforcing those laws.

Cops don't prevent crime and they don't "resolve" crime. Depending on the crime and the situation: they warn people, they cite people, they arrest people...they don't punish people and they don't make law.

I know LEOs have a job to do and I do respect them in general. I know where laws come from. However, the LEO level is where the rubber hits the road, not congress. As King Lear once discovered, words are inconsequential, it's action that counts.

We have a fundamental disconnect here. I may have a criminal mentality, but I believe it is my right to use my own moral compass to direct my actions and formulate my own judgements and to speak out if I find laws to be unjust and more hurtful than helpful. According to the law, my friend got basically what she deserved. According to me, she's an aging, pain-filled woman who never hurt anyone and whose retirement is now in jeopardy. So I'm speaking out.

You seem to believe (at least from what you stated) that a literal interpretation and obeysance (sp) of the law trumps personal beliefs. That's fine, just a difference in perspective.

 

[Tgace]

Secondly, weed is (currently) a criminal industry. You can remove the product, but the criminal remains. They simply find another way to earn their cheddar. Decriminalization of marijuana will not change the tendency of lawbreakers to disrespect the law.

Yes. Im fairly certain that the shooter wouldnt have truned into a peace loving, non violent, boy scout if weed had been legal. Bad people do evil things. Laws just make people do illegal things. Ive arrested plenty of people who did something illegal but were otherwise pretty "nice" people. Shoplifters come to mind....

 

[psi_radar]

Sorry, psi, but in this circumstance you are incorrect.

To begin with, the police were there on circumstances unrelated to the weed. They were killed anyway.

Hi Flatlander, I just had what was stated to go on. It's a tragedy.

Secondly, weed is (currently) a criminal industry. You can remove the product, but the criminal remains. They simply find another way to earn their cheddar. Decriminalization of marijuana will not change the tendency of lawbreakers to disrespect the law.

Bear in mind that I am for decriminalization. This, however, is not an argument that I would use. :asian:

I see your point, but I think there's a great deal of supposition with that statement. I don't think pot growers/dealers would necessarily jump to another illicit activity to provide income. I know my friend would not have.
:asian:

 

[Flatlander]

Yes, fair enough. Admittedly, that was a generalization. :asian:

 

[psi_radar]

Im paid from the property taxes levied on the homeowners and business owners of my town.

Right, but those funds are dispersed through a general budget, right, x amount going to vice, y to homicide, etc.? If you remove part of x, y would be greater, correct?

 

[Tgace]

Decriminalization of marijuana will not change the tendency of lawbreakers to disrespect the law.

Just a slight tangent, but a little relevant. I find that statement "generally" true. A phenomena I have found on the job is how when you find a person who blatantly disregards, say a vehicle and traffic law, you find "other" things interesting with them. Warrants, drugs, stolen property, suspended license, etc. Now we all violate traffic laws fairly regularly, I mean those instances where you see somebody do something on the road and say "man that took a lot of nerve" or "Why you stupid @#$%#$!" Now I dont really use that as a rule when I work, but there are many times when I see somebody do something and think "This guy has something else going on". Just a gut feeling type of thing.

 

[Ray]

Yes, you could, but I wouldn't, because I find quite a large moral gap between creating/possessing kiddie porn and growing/selling/smoking pot. The kiddie porn intrinsically has victims, whereas pot hurts very few.

Sure. It's easy for us to rationalize our favorite weakness, but the vices of others are another matter.

...but I believe it is my right to use my own moral compass to direct my actions and formulate my own judgements and to speak out if I find laws to be unjust and more hurtful than helpful. According to the law, my friend got basically what she deserved. According to me, she's an aging, pain-filled woman who never hurt anyone and whose retirement is now in jeopardy. So I'm speaking out.

You're probably right. So, if my moral compass tells me that I should begin to shoot that cut me off on the freeway, then it's all good.

You seem to believe (at least from what you stated) that a literal interpretation and obeysance (sp) of the law trumps personal beliefs. That's fine, just a difference in perspective.

I believe that, if a law is wrong, it should be changed. If society won't change it, then society should enforce it. There are venues for changing laws; I don't believe that laws should just be ignored if inconvenient.

If we tell ourselves we can pick and choose which laws we're going to follow, then shouldn't we afford others the same luxury? If you're going to smoke pot, then I'm going to (e.g) steal from the rich. I can rationalize my decision, too: they have way too much money (Bill Gates for instance) and I am way too poor (it's not "fair"). If we pick and choose which laws we're going to follow; then we should still bear the brunt of the associated penalties.

 

[Tgace]

Right, but those funds are dispersed through a general budget, right, x amount going to vice, y to homicide, etc.? If you remove part of x, y would be greater, correct?

Individually we are all paid according to our rank and time in rank regardless of what office we work in. If the vice office gets any more of a chunk set aside than anybody else its for overtime. Our vice squad is just 4 detectives and a lieutenant. If weed were legalized, maybe 2 of them at the most (maybe none Im not a vice cop) would get moved into the general bureau and the others would still be working on the other vices.

 

[psi_radar]

Sure. It's easy for us to rationalize our favorite weakness, but the vices of others are another matter.

You inferred something that I neither stated or implied. I believe if you are not hurting someone else in the course of your actions, you should have the freedom to pursue that activity. Natural law. Kiddie porn is a crime against nature in which there are instrinsically victims. Murdering someone who might find your pot and prosecute you when they come over is a crime against nature. Growing or smoking pot? Not so much.

You're probably right. So, if my moral compass tells me that I should begin to shoot that cut me off on the freeway, then it's all good.
I believe that, if a law is wrong, it should be changed. If society won't change it, then society should enforce it. There are venues for changing laws; I don't believe that laws should just be ignored if inconvenient.

See above statement. Don't do it if you're hurting someone else. Speeding isn't really much of a crime. Those limits were imposed back in the '70s to save gas. Cars handle and brake better now than then, and they're more fuel efficient.

Cutting someone off and endangering their welfare while speeding is criminal behavior.

Do you see the distinction I'm making? I don't believe in "if it feels good, do it," rather, "if it feels good and doesn't hurt anyone else, you should be able to do it."

If we tell ourselves we can pick and choose which laws we're going to follow, then shouldn't we afford others the same luxury? If you're going to smoke pot, then I'm going to (e.g) steal from the rich. I can rationalize my decision, too: they have way too much money (Bill Gates for instance) and I am way too poor (it's not "fair"). If we pick and choose which laws we're going to follow; then we should still bear the brunt of the associated penalties.

I think what I said above explains my rationale concerning this as well.

 

[Tgace]

You inferred something that I neither stated or implied. I believe if you are not hurting someone else in the course of your actions, you should have the freedom to pursue that activity. Natural law.

OK, but what if its illegal? If you say "so what" then Im in agreement with Ray.

As to law and violence. Again I say ...Bad people do evil things. Laws just make people do illegal things.

 

[psi_radar]

Individually we are all paid according to our rank and time in rank regardless of what office we work in. If the vice office gets any more of a chunk set aside than anybody else its for overtime. Our vice squad is just 4 detectives and a lieutenant. If weed were legalized, maybe 2 of them at the most (maybe none Im not a vice cop) would get moved into the general bureau and the others would still be working on the other vices.

Thanks for the info, it's interesting. Perhaps MJ crime doesn't sap as much as I initially thought, but I'd still rather have those two extra guys in the general bureau. :asian:

 

[Tgace]

Thanks for the info, it's interesting. Perhaps MJ crime doesn't sap as much as I initially thought, but I'd still rather have those two extra guys in the general bureau. :asian:

Bear in mind im in a mid-sized dept. Metro and city police are probably way different.

 

[psi_radar]

OK, but what if its illegal? If you say "so what" then Im in agreement with Ray.

Well I would hope so, you're an LEO! :ultracool: I don't particularly do anything illegal, except for speeding, but I do support a person's right as a human being to pursue activities that are often illegal by the letter of the law, but are victimless pursuits. For example, in many states sodomy laws were still on the books until a short time ago, but I support other people's rights to be gay. I also would have supported civil disobedience concerning the Jim Crow laws if i had been alive during that time. So not so much a "so what" as "that depends.."

As to law and violence. Again I say ...Bad people do evil things. Laws just make people do illegal things.

I agree, though evil and illegal are not always one and the same, IMO.

 

[Tgace]

Well I would hope so, you're an LEO! :ultracool: I don't particularly do anything illegal, except for speeding, but I do support a person's right as a human being to pursue activities that are often illegal by the letter of the law, but are victimless pursuits. For example, in many states sodomy laws were still on the books until a short time ago, but I support other people's rights to be gay. I also would have supported civil disobedience concerning the Jim Crow laws if i had been alive during that time. So not so much a "so what" as "that depends..".

So are you saying "break the law if it harms nobody"? and are you expecting LEO's to not enforce laws if they hurt nobody? You arent really making a clear statement there regarding the law and if you believe people should obey it. Or at least not be surprised when they get punished for breaking it. When the police found out that your friend was (growing?/possessing?) marijuana, with the law as it is, what did you EXPECT them to do???