Like they would restrict their usage to home.They don't now.
Posted on 12/22/2004 1:56:04 AM PST by Gorons
Did we get serious in 1979 under Jimmy Carter, when drug use began its decline?
Did we get unserious after the creation of a cabinet level drug czar in 1989, when drug use began to rise after falling for 10 years?
Like they would restrict their usage to home.They don't now.
It reached its peak halfway through Jimmy Let's-Federally-Decriminalize-Marijuana Carter's term, yes.
And it continued to fall until the events at Waco, Texas. What does Waco, Texas have to do with the low point in drug use? Absolutely nothing, the same as elevating the WOD to cabinet level.
You sure do have a weird way of connecting events.
"assuming the goal is to reduce supply."
Assuming that were the goal.
"The rates of mj use in the Netherlands is in the same ballpark as the US"
Is that a valid comparrison? Could there be cultural differences? Can I then compare the rates of mj use in Singapore? Tanzania? China?
But keep in mind that we tried that once -- 13 short years later it was repealed.
I'm sure living in Alaska is reason enough to be stoned as much as possible.
Probably a lot of drinking going on too.
So you're one of those who wants to regulate what an adult is allowed to do in the privacy of their home?
Funny, you don't LOOK like a fascist.
A line from the movie Roadhouse poped into my head.."Opinions vary"
Hard to explain then why Alaskan teen marijuana used dropped to the national average when marijuana was made illegal again.
"So you're one of those who wants to regulate what an adult is allowed to do in the privacy of their home?"
No, I'm one of those who wants to regulate what an adult is allowed to do anywhere.
You don't? Funny, you don't LOOK like an anarchist.
The good, the bad, and the ugly.
It reached its peak halfway through Jimmy Let's-Federally-Decriminalize-Marijuana Carter's term, yes.
Yep, if you're going to claim "getting serious" caused the decline, then Jmmy Carter gets credit for the onset of the 10 year decline.
And it continued to fall until the events at Waco, Texas. What does Waco, Texas have to do with the low point in drug use? Absolutely nothing, the same as elevating the WOD to cabinet level.
The WOD was elevated to cabinet level status to better fight the WOD. If demand increases after falling for 10 years and supply explodes, it's a failure.
Let's look at a chart of marijuana "Past Month" use so you know exactly where I'm coming from:
First of all, marijuana use fell 65% in the period from 1979 to 1993. It then remained relatively flat for 8 years. It is up slightly (NOT explosively) in the last few years.
Why is it up? My guess is that the increased calls for medical marijuana and decriminalization have a lot to do with it, just as it did in Jimmy Carter's days.
I'm in disguise. It must be working.
and this where I leave this thread.
MY behavior, in MY home, is none of your damn business, as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others. Which I don't.
See the tagline.
Why pick 1993? The vast majority of the fall had already occured by 1989, when Dr. William J. Bennett became the first cabinet level drug czar.
"My office is already conducting an exhaustive review of our national fight against drugs on both supply and demand sides." --Dr.Bennett, March 1989.
Did the WOD succeed in curbing supply or demand over the last 15 years?
That is correct.
But when you come knocking on my door to ask me to legalize and legitimate what you're doing in your home, then you're making it my damn business.
If you say so. Actually, I never bothered to look it up. Where did you get your information?
And even if the supply increased 100-fold, if nobody's smoking it, who cares?
"Why pick 1993?"
That was the lowest point (4.6%). Usage was 6.2% in 1988 and 5.4% in 1990 (no data for 1989.)
"The vast majority of the fall had already occured by 1989, when Dr. William J. Bennett became the first cabinet level drug czar."
Yes indeedy. Your point being?
"Did the WOD succeed in curbing supply or demand over the last 15 years?"
I've been quoting a figure averaging 5% of the population using marijuana over the last 15 years. I would expect the supply to increase to keep up with the growth in population. If there was an explosive growth in supply, it hasn't been reflected in the number of users.
Either that "explosive growth" is sitting around getting moldy, or current users are smoking more. But I would like to see your numbers.
Mostly from the WOD people. Walters talks about the high potency mj menace and record seizures are taking place. If demand is rising and prices are not falling, it is an indication of an increasing supply.
The vast majority of the fall had already occured by 1989, when Dr. William J. Bennett became the first cabinet level drug czar."
Yes indeedy. Your point being?
The point being, drugs were deemed enough of a national menace in 1989 to begin a cabinet level effort to fight them. The WOD failed in its stated purpose to curb supply and demand.
I've been quoting a figure averaging 5% of the population using marijuana over the last 15 years. I would expect the supply to increase to keep up with the growth in population. If there was an explosive growth in supply, it hasn't been reflected in the number of users.
Perhaps the demand is being met?
An explosive supply? That's the info I'm looking for.
As I said, even if the usage were flat at 5%, an increased population would automatically increase the demand.
Baloney. Drug use was falling, and had been falling, since 1979. It even continued to fall from 1989 to 1993. It then stayed flat for another 8 years.
I don't see any significance, one way or the other, of the formation of a 1989 cabinet position.
Baloney. Drug use was falling, and had been falling, since 1979. It even continued to fall from 1989 to 1993. It then stayed flat for another 8 years.
MJ use fell from about 13% down to the 5% range by 1989 and remained mostly flat since then, with a slight recent rise. Heroin addiction rose 50% from 1992-1999. You don't have enough lipstick to make that pig look pretty.
I don't see any significance, one way or the other, of the formation of a 1989 cabinet position.
The drug problem was deemed important enough in 1989 to create a new cabinet position, with much fanfare, and you don't consider it significant? OK.
These "scumbags" are human beings that like to smoke a naturally occurring herb, placed on Earth by God Himself, and given for mankind their use (Genesis 2:29,30. This would mean God deals in "drugs". Is God a "scumbag", sweetiepie?
The vast majority are there for cannabis. Opium derivatives are advertised but cannabis is busted, along with some for opium derivatives. The reason for this is simple commonsense; opium derivatives take up small spaces and are smuggled more efficiently and safe from detection, where cannabis takes up much spaces and is easy to detect. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
The federal budget is about $2 trillion. The federal WOD is about $20 billion (ie., 1%).
But we were discussing the percentage of money used in the WOD for cannabis persecution, not the percentage of the WOD budget of the federal budget. Remember? The issue was if insane clown posse of the DEA would still exit as such without the cannabis star chamber.
Under the 2003 WOD budget, a number of enforcement agencies were included. This skews the "supply/demand" budget split to 2/3 - 1/3. The 2004 WOD budget transfers some of the enforcement budget to other federal agencies, resulting in a "supply/demand" budget split of about 50-50. This restructuring (detailed in the link) also reduces the ONDCP budget from $20 billion to $12 billion. The largest reduction, $5 billion, came from the removal of 10 accounts in the DOJ, the largest of which, $3 billion, was for the incarceration of federal prisoners.
So, what this alphabet soup means is DEA uses it's budget for investigation, sting operations, and the due process chain all the way to conviction but transfers it to other agencies, but still the DEA's budget.
Again, if cannabis were to vanish from the Schedule, and all cannabis related activities, including in foreign countries, were to cease, the DEA would effectively lose the greater part of it budget and the greatest part of it's power.
As I said, our esteemed drug czar would have to seek greener federal pastures for his livelihood and arrogance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.