Marijuana Arrests Outnumber Those for Violent Crimes, Study Finds

Well I for one am glad there are more people interested in MJ than in committing a violent crime.

Well, I am hopeful my state will maybe get it's ($#t together.
We have legal medical. Ann Arbor will let you have a personal amount, without a medical license. And now, the mayor of East Lansing past a similar law for his town.

For those of you that don't know, these are the homes of MSU and UofM. Very fitting really.

a reply to: Lice000

Who on Earth are you to dictate what people can and cannot put into their own bodies? Who the hell are you to say whether someone can get high off a plant or not?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lice000

Two seconds reading the article produced this link. You're welcome.

That's not really a study, its just another article with distorted propaganda

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Lice000

Who on Earth are you to dictate what people can and cannot put into their own bodies? Who the hell are you to say whether someone can get high off a plant or not?

...pot smokers...so simple minded.
I wasn't saying that they should not be able to, i was saying that if they didn't act like it was some god given right and maybe did it more privately than maybe they wouldn't get arrested so much.

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lice000

Two seconds reading the article produced this link. You're welcome.

That's not really a study, its just another article with distorted propaganda

Did you read it? It clearly has data, charts, and graphs. All sourced too. What did you think a "study" was exactly? It's not an experiment or anything.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lice000

Two seconds reading the article produced this link. You're welcome.

That's not really a study, its just another article with distorted propaganda

Did you read it? It clearly has data, charts, and graphs. All sourced too. What did you think a "study" was exactly? It's not an experiment or anything.

They source themselves repeatedly, maybe in the "sources" include links to the actual data? Its just a reference to an analysis of data that they did, not the actual data.

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lice000

Two seconds reading the article produced this link. You're welcome.

That's not really a study, its just another article with distorted propaganda

Did you read it? It clearly has data, charts, and graphs. All sourced too. What did you think a "study" was exactly? It's not an experiment or anything.

They source themselves repeatedly, maybe in the "sources" include links to the actual data? Its just a reference to an analysis of data that they did, not the actual data.

What are you talking about? When you click on the source numbers it literally pops up a source name of outside places they got their information from. Each graph also has a source listed at the bottom of it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lice000

Two seconds reading the article produced this link. You're welcome.

That's not really a study, its just another article with distorted propaganda

Did you read it? It clearly has data, charts, and graphs. All sourced too. What did you think a "study" was exactly? It's not an experiment or anything.

They source themselves repeatedly, maybe in the "sources" include links to the actual data? Its just a reference to an analysis of data that they did, not the actual data.

What are you talking about? When you click on the source numbers it literally pops up a source name of outside places they got their information from. Each graph also has a source listed at the bottom of it.

Yes, and that source more often that not is either HRW themselves or an analysis of data carried out by HRW, not the actual data.

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lice000

Two seconds reading the article produced this link. You're welcome.

That's not really a study, its just another article with distorted propaganda

Did you read it? It clearly has data, charts, and graphs. All sourced too. What did you think a "study" was exactly? It's not an experiment or anything.

They source themselves repeatedly, maybe in the "sources" include links to the actual data? Its just a reference to an analysis of data that they did, not the actual data.

What are you talking about? When you click on the source numbers it literally pops up a source name of outside places they got their information from. Each graph also has a source listed at the bottom of it.

Yes, and that source more often that not is either HRW themselves or an analysis of data carried out by HRW, not the actual data.

There are 595 listed sources in that article. Are you telling me you went through all of them?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Lice000

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lice000

Two seconds reading the article produced this link. You're welcome.

That's not really a study, its just another article with distorted propaganda

Did you read it? It clearly has data, charts, and graphs. All sourced too. What did you think a "study" was exactly? It's not an experiment or anything.

They source themselves repeatedly, maybe in the "sources" include links to the actual data? Its just a reference to an analysis of data that they did, not the actual data.

What are you talking about? When you click on the source numbers it literally pops up a source name of outside places they got their information from. Each graph also has a source listed at the bottom of it.

Yes, and that source more often that not is either HRW themselves or an analysis of data carried out by HRW, not the actual data.

There are 595 listed sources in that article. Are you telling me you went through all of them?

595? I don't think you know what a source is...
lets look at the first few

1“Neal Scott” and “Nicole Bishop” are both pseudonyms, as are all other names used in the summary, with the exception of Corey Ladd.

2.Not all states report thoroughly to the FBI, from whom we obtained national arrest data. Because we compared arrest data and US Census data, we could not accurately assess racial disparities where reporting coverage was limited. We therefore included only those states where at least 75 percent of the population was covered in data reported to the FBI. There is no evidence that states that fell below this threshold would have substantially different arrest disparities. Because the FBI does not keep data on Latinos arrested, classifying them instead as white or Black, our racial disparities analysis is limited to those categories.

3.Henceforward, we use “state jail felony” interchangeably with “under a gram

Notice how just because there is a number in brackets it is not a source?

a reply to: Lice000
You should read a bit past the opening summary...

Information starts at 11 by the way.

11 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976, art. 17.

32 Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (New York: The New Press, 2012); Jamie Fellner, “Race, Drugs, and Law Enforcement in the United States,” Stanford Law & Policy Review, vol. 20 (2009), journals.law.stanford.edu... (accessed August 1, 2016), pp. 257-292; Fatema Gunja, “Position Paper: Race and the War on Drugs,” ACLU, May 2003, www.aclu.org... (accessed August 1, 2016).

594 American Civil Liberties Union, The War on Marijuana in Black and White, p. 75, 71.

It's like you are doing everything in your power to deny the study without reading it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trey Goudy or Ted Cruz...NEVER heard of Christie as AG at all.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lice000
You should read a bit past the opening summary...

Information starts at 11 by the way.

11 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976, art. 17.

32 Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (New York: The New Press, 2012); Jamie Fellner, “Race, Drugs, and Law Enforcement in the United States,” Stanford Law & Policy Review, vol. 20 (2009), journals.law.stanford.edu... (accessed August 1, 2016), pp. 257-292; Fatema Gunja, “Position Paper: Race and the War on Drugs,” ACLU, May 2003, www.aclu.org... (accessed August 1, 2016).

594 American Civil Liberties Union, The War on Marijuana in Black and White, p. 75, 71.

It's like you are doing everything in your power to deny the study without reading it.

Yeah, check out 11, some real eye opening stuff. and 32? they simply reference someone who backs up their opinion. 594 is to a book i don't have

I do like how many of these articles focus on how black people get arrested for drugs so the laws must be racist lololololol

a reply to: Lice000

Yeah. You seem content to just disbelieve this study at all costs.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lice000

Yeah. You seem content to just disbelieve this study at all costs.

No...its the same crap that has been told for years, most of it simply inst true. Violent crime has been falling for years, that does not mean that people arrested for dealing pot are this new problem. They are giving parts of data but not the whole picture. Prisons are not filled with non-violent drug offenders.
This does not breakdown or separate people who were arrested for traffiking and distribution nor does it separate people arrested for soley marijuana with no other charge. And i would like to see first time offenders too.

a reply to: Lice000

This study isn't talking about prisons. It's talking about arrests. Not all arrests lead to prison but they are ALL life disrupting and make it hard to hold a job or get a job.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lice000

This study isn't talking about prisons. It's talking about arrests. Not all arrests lead to prison but they are ALL life disrupting and make it hard to hold a job or get a job.

did you actually read the article? It talks quite a bit about prison...

Incarceration for Drug Possession

At year-end 2014, over 25,000 people were serving sentences in local jails and another 48,000 were serving sentences in state prisons for drug possession nationwide. The number admitted to jails and prisons at some point over the course of the year was significantly higher. As with arrests, there were sharp racial disparities. In 2002 (the most recent year for which national jail data is available), Black people were over 10 times more likely than white people to be in jail for drug possession. In 2014, Black people were nearly six times more likely than white people to be in prison for drug possession.

a reply to: Lice000

Alright. I'm tired of these stupid semantics arguments. Get a real argument otherwise I'm done talking to you. I mean the article mentions prisons. So what? The general idea of the article is about arrests. Prison stay is just one part of that equation.