Posted on 07/16/2014 4:44:01 AM PDT by AustralianConservative
It's the rationalization for many liberal big-government programs - one that is flatly contradicted by the father of the Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 41.
Do we agree?
There are such persons as nonaddicted users and non-harming addicts - and it's immoral to punish them for the harms some addicts do.
Sorry, but I do not buy that at all. I have yet to see a regular user of any drug that is not addicted...
There are such persons as non-"regular" users (a true statement whatever exDemMom's personal definition of "regular") - and it remains true and unchallenged that there are such persons as non-harming addicts. It's immoral to punish those persons for the harms some addicts do.
if it weren't for the addiction, why are they even using? Especially when there are so many non-drug related activities to engage in?
Different strokes for different folks - some people like to knit, while others consider it a paralyzing bore.
The term "violence" occurs nowhere on that page. Adding that term to the search string narrows the result list to four - two of which don't actually mention violence, one of which is about treating aggression, and one of which makes no mention of changes to the physical structure of the brain.
Still sounds like urban legend.
One imaging study: they found physical changes in the structure of the brain.
No mention of violence - or indeed any mental/behavioral effects other than reward/aversion.
Another imaging study: memory is impaired in "medical" marijuana users with MS.
No mention of violence - just memory, information processing speed, and attention.
"The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here."
FYI, psychotic people are more likely to be violent than the general population, and are over-represented in prison populations.
Ah, but the trick is that correlations between X and Y and between Y and Z do not establish a correlation between X and Z: http://www.academia.edu/281987/Vos_P._2009_._Pearsons_correlation_between_three_variables_using_students_basic_knowledge_of_geometry_for_a_statistical_exercise.
Anyway, I can reference study after study, but this should be sufficient. The fact is that marijuana use has been observed to cause brain structure changes. One recent study showed behavioral changes persisting for at least 2 years after last use. Another study showed permanent effects on fetuses when their mothers used marijuana. I'm certain that with the recent legalization of marijuana in many jurisdictions, and the resulting ease of doing studies on marijuana use, more deleterious effects will be documented in great detail.
Yes, marijuana can have negative health effects - as can alcohol and tobacco. It's a well settled principle that harming one's own health is not a crime. One's unborn child is another story - but if we're going to ban for all adults, including men and infertile women, all things that harm the unborn, we've got quite a list to work on.
I will point out that searching PubMed is not quite like searching Google. Google is very flexible about search terms, while PubMed requires fairly specific keywords. But if you know how to search PubMed, you can usually find things... but if you fail to find something, that does not mean that there is not at least one publication that discusses what you are looking for.
If I make any claims of medical fact, I'll have to confront that issue - but so far you're the only one who's made such claims.
"Under the Rockefeller drug laws, the penalty for selling two ounces (57 g) or more of heroin, morphine, "raw or prepared opium," cocaine, or cannabis or possessing four ounces (113 g) or more of the same substances, was a minimum of 15 years to life in prison, and a maximum of 25 years to life in prison."
Crime still shot up in NY like it did everywhere else. So much for your argument.
A. This law was only in New York. In California, at the same time, marijuana was a misdemeanor, much like a traffic ticket.
B. The portion of it that pertained to marijuana was repealed in 1979.
C. Mandatory sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when the United States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1952. The acts made a first time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000; however, in 1970, the United States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses.[4] With the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 Congress enacted different mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including marijuana. And,
C. You are the one claiming to see a correlation between marijuana laws and crime rates, not me. As I already pointed out, there is not even a weak correlation. And any causative mechanisms that exist between drug laws and crime are far too complex to be hinted at by a simplistic calculation of correlation.
As you said, the first 3-strike law was passed in 1993. Another passed the following year, and I'm assuming others were passed in subsequent years.
The 3 strikes laws were not the only factor. Pushing for longer minimum sentences had an effect, as well. To put it simply, it is exceedingly difficult for a criminal in prison to commit crimes. And, since we the people have been pushing back against leniency towards criminals since the 1980s, more of them *are* convicted, and more of them *are* incarcerated for longer terms that keep them off the streets for longer periods of time. BTW, that Wiki article on minimum sentencing had almost no useful information other than what I quoted above. It seemed to be more of a sociology essay, meant to influence opinion. Furthermore, it seemed focused almost exclusively on drug laws, but I wanted info on all criminal laws.
The correlation between drug laws and crime rates isn’t hard to find. Just look at that driving force and enabling mechanism behind the increasing number of Second and Fourth Amendment rights violations by government agencies. Or are we not considering that a crime?
The claim that 3-strike laws were in any way causative in reducing crime does not hold water when you look at state level data.
Crime fell as much in states that didn't have such laws as those that did - even in liberal states. For example, Illinois and Massachusetts had no 3-strike laws, but their violent crime rate fell by half or better from the early 1990s peak, as it did everywhere else. The data is available at the following link =>
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
______________________________________________________________
And, since we the people have been pushing back against leniency towards criminals since the 1980s, more of them *are* convicted, and more of them *are* incarcerated for longer terms that keep them off the streets for longer periods of time.
Oh, so now it's the 1980s? You've claimed in post after post it started in the 1990s =>
_______________________________________________________________
...the more strict measures that started being implemented in the 1990s... (post #42)
In the 1990s, as a result of widespread criminal behavior, people started pushing back... (post #50)
...the tougher laws and mandatory sentencing requirements that have been enacted since the 1990s... (post #53)
In the 1990s, people started becoming very vocal about getting tough on crime—the first 3 strikes law was passed in 1993 in WA, and CA’s 3 strikes passed a year later (post #57)
And it still supports my hypothesis that the move towards tougher sentencing laws which began in the early 1990s has had an effect to lower crime, (post #76)
______________________________________________________________
As has been demonstrated, your argument for causation is not supported by the facts.
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.