It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Marijuana Arrests Outnumber Those for Violent Crimes, Study Finds

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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 showed you how it specifically talks about prison,at length. Section V of that article is specifically about prosecution...its not stupd semantics, its fact. You didn't read it did you?




posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's pretty easy not to enforce that law.


True, but that's just a temporary Band-Aid that can get those whose job it is to enforce such laws in trouble--it is their job. I'm uncertain as to what part of that you're refusing to accept.

If I refuse to do part of my job because I have personal objections to it, I will lose my job.


The better route to go--and the route that I advocated--is to actually fight to change the law.

The rest of your response to me is basically an argument against personal responsibility. I agree that we need to fight how we can to get the drug war abandoned in this country, but at the same time, until that happens, if you break the law, you know the possible consequences, as they're all there in black and white for everyone to read.

I refuse to set aside personal responsibility just because I don't like a law--that's actually pretty foolish from where I stand. You can have convictions both ways--it doesn't have to be one or the other.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Exactly, in states that legalized weed people voted on the issue and now many can smoke freely. So many stupid people have the mindset "if enough of us get arrested for smoking weed surely it will show something wrong with the law"



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So what about the people using this to cope with their problems and get arrested? Marijuana's medical properties are only just now getting explored. It can help with things like cancer all the way to addiction therapy. It's actually been shown to help with opiate addiction for instance. You know, de-zombify middle-America? But if the people who use it medically are being arrested, are we supposed to just say "Tough, deal with your problems"?
edit on 14-10-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
lol another myth, that marijuana is some sort of panacea.
scienceblogs.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lice000
lol another myth, that marijuana is some sort of panacea.
scienceblogs.com...

This guy proceeds to gloat about how Cannabis isn't really medically viable then proceeds to disprove his own point with his linked study. First he has to give a HUGE caveat that his data is coming from a slew of different studies that had to be whittled down due to bias.

If you want to get an idea of just how crappy the evidence base is, take a look at the description of the methods and characterization of the studies:

The searches identified 23,754 hits (records) of which 505 were considered potentially relevant, based on title and abstract screening, and obtained as full-text studies. A total of 79 studies (6462 participants), available as 151 reports, were included; 3 studies (6 reports) were included in multiple indication categories (Figure 1). Thirty-four studies were parallel-group trials (4436 participants), and 45 were crossover trials (2026 participants). Four studies were available only as an abstract, a further 3 were available only as abstracts but with additional details available on trial registries including full results in one, and details of 2 trials (including full trial results) were available only as trial registry entries; all other trials were reported in full-length journal articles. Where reported, the proportion of participants who were men ranged from 0% to 100% (median, 50% [57 studies]), and the proportion of white participants ranged from 50% to 99% (median, 78% [18 studies]). Publication dates ranged from 1975 to 2015 (median, 2004 [with one-third of trials published before 1990]). Studies were conducted in a wide range of countries. A variety of cannabinoids were evaluated and compared with various different active comparators or placebos; most active comparators were included in the nausea and vomiting indication …

Damn if you have to call your evidence base "crappy", you aren't off to a great start proving your point. In any case, then he goes on to disprove his own point when he points out that the studies merely disprove that medical marijuana is a slam dunk but there ARE noted beneficial effects from it.

In other words, the evidence is reasonable, but by no means a slam dunk, given the methodological difficulties with the studies.


It's like this article author, who is likely biased against medical marijuana since he is bragging about saying "I told you so", saw a study that didn't fall over itself to confirm that medical marijuana was viable then tripped over himself to say "I told you so." Then he has to move his own goal posts back in the very blog he is writing because even he has to admit that there are some positives and even that his study has many problems.

PS: You are a hypocrite, calling out my poor sourcing while you post such a questionable source... A blog is probably the least credible source you could have found and this guy who wrote this blog is a moron.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

ha hah hah!

arrest everyone who sits and chills for a moment of quiet contemplation is more popular?
or arrest everyone who doesn't chill for a moment of quiet contemplation?

must mean we're all supposed to just get pissed and start braking things rather than sit for a spell of quiet contemplation?

seems current policies are still catering to neanderthal-types who prefer to throw their weight around...aids in the poopy-pants/dead guy scenario?

chill people are easier to bully out of their lunch money?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

While I agree that the active ingredients in cannabis can have positive effects for certain ailments and diseases, the fact of the matter is that what I said still stands.

See, that's the beauty of America (in this regard, at least)--the 10th Amendment exists because there is no expectation for all states to follow or legislate the same laws at the state level. If you need (or feel you need) access to cannabis for medicinal reasons to make your quality of life better, you have three options:

1. Ignore state and federal laws and do the drug anyhow and risk prosecution/punishment, or

2. Fight and (hopefully) overturn the draconian war-on-drugs laws that give the state (state and federal) authority to tell you what you can consume as an individual, (supposedly) free human being (and then do #1 above in the meantime), or

3. Move to a state that already has passed laws allowing it to be used medicinally and/or recreationally and stop having to deal with numbers 1 and 2.

Again (and for the final time in this thread), I will reiterate my stance to you: I hate the war on drugs, I hate that so many people's lives are potentially ruined due to the illegality of drugs like marijuana, and I hate that convictions because of these laws perpetuate poverty and incarceration in the United States. However, I'm a man who appreciates that, by living in America and the society in which you live, you passively agree to follow the common laws of the area/state in which you reside, and if you CHOOSE to break said laws, you need to understand that there is a choice--break the law and deal with punishments, or adhere to the laws and possibly not have access to marijuana. But in any event, you always have the option to fight the laws and try to change them, but there is no guarantee that it will be successful. If not, move to somewhere that conforms more to what you need, or just keep on hiding the use from the cops.

But, there are myriad options available in America other than just staying put and dealing with the consequences.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's a better study because it sources something other than its self. Im not moving the goal post here...HRW does not provide data outside themselves and when they do, they provide their analysis of the data.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Marijuana legalization is something I break away from the mainstream GOP from. It does way to much damage to to many people for so little a thing. Regulate and enforce it just like alcohol and be done with it.

I'm glad so many states are taking it upon themselves to legalize it, I think it will greatly help in many areas.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t Yeah Obama is SOOOO LIBERAL and has been president for 7 years , first 2 years he had freedom to do whatever he wanted, didn't do crap. Now Hillary isn't for rescheduling either. Shows you what a full term of a do nothing democrat will do for you, they will get you put in jail for a small bag of weed.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

What if you do both 1 and 2 because you don't have the ability to do 3?



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: beeeyotch

Need I remind you that these draconian drug laws were started under Republicans?



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, honestly? I wish beer drinkers would.

I'm just saying.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

What if you do both 1 and 2 because you don't have the ability to do 3?


Then you must prepare for the consequences if 2 fails. It sucks, but that's the way it is in many states at the moment, and how it is nationally. I don't really foresee that changing any time soon, etiher.



Need I remind you that these draconian drug laws were started under Republicans?


Well, like Beeeyotch noted, started under Republicans or not, Democrats had two years to change the national drug policy and did not, and have not fought in any way except slightly superficially to get anything changed in the remaining last 5.5 years.

And that's my point--I don't see anything changing in the war on drugs any time soon with the Ping-Pong way that we choose presidents in the two main parties, and it's disappointing, because neither truly cares about the negatives of the drug war unless in might get them more votes.

(sorry for the late response)



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well it only just recently became a national discussion. Before Obama, it wasn't even kosher for a President to admit that he smoked pot. Remember Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale" nonsense?

The thing about national issues is that the start slow then quickly build momentum. And then many times the national discussion quickly outpaces the political discussions. So politics spends a long time playing catch up. Notice how Hillary Clinton had to quickly change her stance on marijuana when she was shown how much it mattered to young people thanks to Bernie Sanders? Granted it's still not where it should be, but it is moving in the right direction and we have four years to further push that opinion. Meanwhile, on the right, it isn't even a conversation.



And that's my point--I don't see anything changing in the war on drugs any time soon with the Ping-Pong way that we choose presidents in the two main parties, and it's disappointing, because neither truly cares about the negatives of the drug war unless in might get them more votes.

Well that is the system we have to work with. Unfortunately you sacrifice efficiency for input, but its preferable to all other forms of government out there currently.
edit on 18-10-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join