Re: Pot arrests up


"LooseCannon" <lambchop.LC@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dlgj3u$fiv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> OldGoat wrote:
>
> > Dear LC,
> >
> > I replied the way I did because my response to Juba was used as an
> > opportunity to make personal attacks on someone I was responding to.
>
> Unless Im mistaken, that was not done by me. I reply directly to Kenny
> or directly to whoever I am intending my remarks for. Always have
> always will.
>
> At
> > least that was the way I saw what had been written in reply to my
response
> > to Juba. Perhaps I misread or jumped to conclusions, but it is mighty
hard
> > to separate the substance from the crap as of late.
>
> On THIS thread?
> Ya cant count where it falls within the thread, only what attributions
> are in the individual post, and I DO NOT believe I've posted to anything
> directly that youve posted. In fact, Ive checked, and I've not used
> anything youve written to Kenny in any of my posts against him.
>
> > What you have replied is good enough for me, I hope it's clear that I
want
> > no part in your internal squabbles, and whether I reply to Juba,
yourself,
> > that moron Richard, or Jesus himself, my response is to that person, and
> > though I welcome other points of view, lets stick to the subject, cause
I
> > don't give a damn who thinks what about who, or this little war you ALL
(not
> > one side or the other-BOTH) insist on playing out in front of people who
> > really could use some help. It should not be considered an opportunity
to
> > blast someone, and certainly not doing so using my name.
>
> And I respect that and will continue to.
>
> I've seen my name
> > used in the tug of war in a few posts and while I'm honored that you all
> > (again BOTH sides) have a bit of respect for me, that would not continue
> > long were I to become involved in this mess.
>
> As I even let Hawki know when she said something not so nice to me, my
> quibble isnt with her,

again...my name pops up...cannot remember the context tho



or you, and afaic, yer never gonna have a problem
> with me. I respect anyone who makes their own decisions, even when
> those decisions arent what I agree with. Even more, I respect those who
> apply one set of standards all around (even if I end up criticized by
> those standards), not one for their buddies and another for everyone else.
>
>
> And staying out of it is so
> > easy, I just don't understand how so many can get swept away by such
> > negativity. If you need to blast somebody, email them. Smash a few
pumpkins
> > with a baseball bat. Get it out of your systems, but don't make those
who
> > need support and those who need to give it, suffer. Somebody calls you
an
> > ***, call them one back if you must, then ignore them. While I might
> > peek at a thread called "Old Goat sucks donkey dicks", and maybe even
drop a
> > reply, I surely wouldn't take part in making it the longest thread in
the
> > group.
>
> ROFL
>
> > After all how many ways can you say "*** you"?
>
> Intersting point.
>
> The constant off
> > topic hate back and forth only serves to lose respect, particularly of
those
> > we really need or want to reach out to us.
>
> Another good point. One small thing...I stick to facts, Kenny throws
> out all kinds of medical and legal opinions (aka guesses) AS FACTS, and
> I know that doesn't mean anything to YOU (good, it prolly shouldnt) but
> it does to me and several others.
>
> > I don't know. We're all grown ups, regardless of how we may come across
from
> > time to time, and nobody can make another do things other than they want
to
> > do.
>
> And ya see, thats the problem behind all of this. Kenny CAME here to
> dish out his justice, tell others how to act, who to like, etc., and
> continues to do so, and cannot GET IT when ppl wont do as he sez!
> Kennys behavior & bullying is the central focus of all these problems.
> Only one person can fix that. Kenny.
>
> I only ask that ALL OF YOU involved in this hate fest think before you
> > hit that send icon. You would be amazed how many nasty posts and replies
I
> > have saved in my drafts folder.
>
> Actually, Ive got some saved ones that'd curl yer hair!
>
> It made me feel good to write them and even
> > helps when I re-read them, but had I posted them, I wouldn't have a
shred of
> > self respect left, and surely wouldn't have a soul here that I could
> > consider a friend. Some things are too important not to look long and
hard
> > at before you leap, no matter how strongly you may feel.
>
> Interesting point again. Thanks for the input. AND yer STILL safe from
> me! ;)
>
> >
> > Take Care--og
> >
> >
> >
> > "LooseCannon" <lambchop.LC@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:dlec75$n07$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >>OldGoat wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>LC and Richard,
> >>>
> >>>Do me a favor if you please. If I respond to something that you may
find
> >>>controversial and would like to have an intelligent debate on, I'm more
> >>>than happy to discuss views with anyone. Just don't use any of my
replies
> >>>for personal attacks, I don't give a damn who it is I'm responding to.
> >>
> >>Unless Im mistaken, I dont think I have, and have no intention of doing
> >>so. I see you as neither a mindless defender of Kenny nor a propaganda
> >>pushing mushmind. I simply see you as a caring person in allot of pain.
> >>No need for concern on this end. Cant speak for anyone else.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If either of you made a statement on a pertinent opinion, I don't think
> >>>you would appreciate a personal attack in reply. I would not do it to
> >>>you, I would stick to pertinent statements, even if I held your views
> >>>totally wrong. I would not attack you or other that feel like you do,
> >>>even if a somewhat heated debate followed. A man is truly a fool if he
> >>>can't entertain the topical thoughts of another. That doesn't mean an
> >>>agreement, but it does mean sticking to a topic, without personal
> >>>attacks. I have disagreed with many opinions written by both of you,
and
> >>>when I felt it important enough, I like to think I've let you know, but
> >>>even if I have despised what you have written from time to time,
> >>>particularly in the "all flame threads", I have said very little,
because
> >>>it would be attacking someone as an individual, those comments have no
> >>>place in this forum. I would expect the same courtesy. The was nothing
in
> >>>these replies regarding medical pot, just what your personal opinion is
> >>>of someone else.
> >>>It's bad enough you (and I include both "sides" in this) have taken it
> >>>upon yourselves to devote entire threads to who is an *** and who
is
> >>>not in your personal opinions. I do not recall anyone asking that, it
has
> >>>nothing to do with any aspect of chronic pain and none of you realize
the
> >>>more you post this stomach turning bull***, it only makes you appear
to
> >>>be a bunch of assholes, regardless of whether it's Juba and his
friends,
> >>>or you guys.
> >>>If you happen to come across a post or thread which I 'm involved in
and
> >>>you have something pertinent to add or wish to strike up a debate,
> >>>discussion or anything else pertinent, I'm happy to engage you, any of
> >>>you. The minute it becomes attacks of a personal nature, Juba busting
on
> >>>Richard, LC busting on Juba, you have crossed the line of being
> >>>considered equals and deserve and will receive no respect what so ever
> >>>from me. I take offense you my name being used in you all carrying out
> >>>your childish little vendetta's, the stakes are much too big to waste
> >>>time on them.
> >>>If you want to waste it, start your own threads, none of you seem to
have
> >>>a problem doing that, but if using anything I write in this group to
> >>>carry on your offensive little bull*** hate fest is something I find
> >>>offensive. All it does is make those in need afraid to post and get
> >>>information that they may find valuable. If you don't give a damn about
> >>>those unfortunates, which is quite obvious that few of you do consider
> >>>others in your tirades, fine. Kill each other. Do it in your own little
> >>>hate threads of which there seems to be an endless supply.There's no
need
> >>>to expose all of us to your hate. Send each other "*** you emails" for
> >>>the rest of you lives. Leave the rest of us out of you petty decade
long
> >>>whining. Juba, LC, Richard, and your bands of "go alongs", on both
sides.
> >>>You are all wrong, you are all impotent while carrying on this way, and
> >>>of help to no one.
> >>>You want to be adults and discuss pain issues, you won't find anyone
more
> >>>attentive than I to what you have to say. You keep acting like
children,
> >>>you won't find anyone who couldn't give a rats ass more. And I speak
for
> >>>one hell of a lot of people, from those who only post occasionally to
> >>>those that just read hoping someone else will ask their question and
take
> >>>the chance of getting some moron attacking them.
> >>>You should ALL be ashamed of yourselves.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"LooseCannon" <lambchop.LC@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>>news:dldha1$hcv$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Juba wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"More people were arrested for marijuana offenses last year than at
any
> >>>>>time in U.S. history."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>More law enforcement, more arrests, put more people in
prison....Yeah!
> >>>>>That's the ticket!
> >>>>
> >>>>Whassamatta? Nervous? Ya should be....LOL
> >>>>
> >>>>BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>-------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20051115-9999-1n15pot.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Arrests soaring amid concerted police effort
> >>>>>
> >>>>>By Joe Cantlupe
> >>>>>COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
> >>>>>
> >>>>>November 15, 2005
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Arrests for marijuana offenses in the U.S. are way up. Plant seizures
in
> >>>>>San Diego County are on the rise. What's behind the nation's war on
pot?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>WASHINGTON - More people were arrested for marijuana offenses last
year
> >>>>>than at any time in U.S. history.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>More than 770,000 people were cited for marijuana-related violations
in
> >>>>>2004, according to the FBI's latest annual uniform crime report.
Almost
> >>>>>90 percent of them were charged only with possession.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Federal officials said the local police actions reflect the
importance
> >>>>>of waging a fight against marijuana as part of the overall war on
drugs.
> >>>>>The FBI report showed that marijuana arrests have more than doubled
over
> >>>>>the past 12 years.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"We think the use of marijuana is consequential, and there is a
health
> >>>>>impact for the users," said David Murray, drug policy analyst for the
> >>>>>White House Office of Drug Control Policy. "We are saying, 'This is a
> >>>>>risk you are taking' if you use marijuana. It's a public health
> >>>>>problem."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The increased arrests have prompted widespread criticism from groups
> >>>>>seeking to relax marijuana laws.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"This effort is a tremendous waste of criminal justice resources that
> >>>>>diverts law enforcement personnel away from focusing on serious and
> >>>>>violent crime," said Allen Pierre, executive director of the National
> >>>>>Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Even as the number of arrests is rising, people in some parts of the
> >>>>>country are sending mixed messages about how they want to enforce
laws
> >>>>>restricting marijuana use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Last Tuesday, Denver became the first city in the nation to eliminate
> >>>>>criminal and civil penalties for adults possessing a small amount of
> >>>>>marijuana. Oakland voters last year directed their officials to make
> >>>>>marijuana arrests the lowest city priority.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In San Diego, the controversy has revolved around the use of
marijuana
> >>>>>for medical purposes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In 1996, California voters approved the use of marijuana for patients
> >>>>>who have a doctor's recommendation, despite the fact that federal law
> >>>>>prohibits marijuana use under any circumstance. The result has been a
> >>>>>confusing pattern of enforcement. Federal agents still make arrests
in
> >>>>>California, while cities and counties either follow the state law or
the
> >>>>>federal mandate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In San Diego County, the Board of Supervisors recently refused to
follow
> >>>>>a provision of the state law and issue identification cards that
would
> >>>>>help medical marijuana users avoid arrest. Last week, they went a
step
> >>>>>further and said they will file a lawsuit to challenge the state law.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The supervisors spoke about their objections to marijuana.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>JOHN GIBBINS / Union-Tribune
> >>>>>Several agencies are involved in finding, confiscating and removing
> >>>>>marijuana plants, including federal and local law enforcement, the
> >>>>>National Guard, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
> >>>>>Management.
> >>>>>"Marijuana is not beneficial," Supervisor Bill Horn said. "It's
> >>>>>dangerous and addictive."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Frankly, I don't see any difference in the ID card and the handing
out
> >>>>>of marijuana," Supervisor Dianne Jacob said. "The evidence is
> >>>>>overwhelming. Marijuana is addictive; it's a gateway drug that leads
to
> >>>>>use of harder drugs."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The supervisors voted against the identification cards even after
being
> >>>>>criticized earlier this year by the San Diego County grand jury. The
> >>>>>jury's report said the supervisors had ignored the will of California
> >>>>>voters and should take "all possible action" to promote access to
> >>>>>marijuana for seriously ill patients.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The FBI's annual uniform crime report doesn't give state-by-state
> >>>>>breakdowns for marijuana arrests. But other studies based on federal
> >>>>>figures show that in California arrests linked to simple possession
or
> >>>>>sale rose from 21,000 in 1990 to 48,000 in 2003.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In San Diego County, there has been a 20 percent increase in
marijuana
> >>>>>arrests over the past decade, according to the Sentencing Project, a
> >>>>>Washington-based group that seeks alternatives to incarceration.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"We're seeing a lot of marijuana, and a lot of seizures and arrests,"
> >>>>>said Lt. Richard Rotha, commander of the San Diego Police Department
> >>>>>narcotics enforcement unit. "It's probably the most available of any
of
> >>>>>the illicit drugs. It's pretty consistent."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The rise in marijuana arrests can be linked to a concerted effort by
> >>>>>many local police agencies, encouraged by the White House, to target
the
> >>>>>illicit substance. The White House Office of National Drug Control
> >>>>>Policy has spent billions of dollars over the years on educational
> >>>>>campaigns, some specifically targeting marijuana.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Within the past month, the White House Office of National Drug
Control
> >>>>>Policy awarded $17.1 million in matching grants to support coalitions
to
> >>>>>establish drug-monitoring programs for youths and $7.2 million to
> >>>>>implement random drug-testing programs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In addition, the federal office has launched ad campaigns
specifically
> >>>>>targeting marijuana. One ad focusing on parents says, "Marijuana
could
> >>>>>threaten your teen's success."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Despite the uptick in enforcement, marijuana use has declined only
> >>>>>slightly since 1997, according to federal data analyzed by the
> >>>>>Washington-based Marijuana Policy Project, which seeks to reduce
> >>>>>marijuana penalties. Marijuana availability and daily marijuana use
> >>>>>among 12th graders, for example, was the same as in 1975, despite a
> >>>>>tripling of the arrests since the 1980s, according to the Policy
Project
> >>>>>and other groups working to legalize marijuana.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"Present policies have done little if anything to decrease
marijuana's
> >>>>>availability or dissuade youth from trying it," said Pierre, the
> >>>>>executive director of NORML. He said a majority of young people in
the
> >>>>>United States now report having easier access to pot than to alcohol
or
> >>>>>tobacco.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>White House officials said their anti-marijuana campaigns are paying
> >>>>>off, noting that only 12 percent of the drug arrests in the latest
> >>>>>report were of people under age 18.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"We believe it has been one of the most effective and valuable media
> >>>>>campaigns," said Murray of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy,
> >>>>>referring to a recent ad campaign targeting marijuana use. "It brings
> >>>>>out the risk of marijuana and the sense of responsibility needed and
> >>>>>prevents them from getting into trouble."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Overall, marijuana use declined by 7 percent among young adults
between
> >>>>>18 and 25 from 2002 to 2004, according to last year's federal
National
> >>>>>Survey on Drug Use and Health.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Those figures are a strong indication that marijuana arrests
eventually
> >>>>>might decrease in coming years, Murray said.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Although there were more arrests of marijuana users last year than
ever
> >>>>>before, Murray said population increases in the United States suggest
> >>>>>that the numbers have generally "stabilized over the years."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>But Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy
> >>>>>Project, said the administration is trying to use law-enforcement to
do
> >>>>>too much of the job against illicit drug use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"If the goal is to reduce marijuana use, there's no solid evidence
that
> >>>>>we can arrest our way out of the problem," Mirken said.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The FBI report said marijuana represented 44.2 percent of all drug
> >>>>>arrests in 2004, compared with 28 percent in 1993.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Other studies have also shown that marijuana arrests have
overshadowed
> >>>>>other drug arrests over the past decade, including arrests for
> >>>>>methamphetamine, which ranks just behind marijuana as the drug of
choice
> >>>>>in San Diego County and many other parts of the country.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>A May study of FBI data showed that the proportion of heroin and
cocaine
> >>>>>cases plummeted from 55 percent of all drug arrests in 1992 to less
than
> >>>>>30 percent 10 years later, according to the Sentencing Project.
Neither
> >>>>>the Sentencing Project study nor the FBI report offered a breakdown
of
> >>>>>methamphetamine arrests.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Drug-use reports show that marijuana remains, by far, the most
commonly
> >>>>>used drug. While more than 12 million people age 12 and older
reported
> >>>>>using methamphetamine at least once, at least 96.8 million people in
the
> >>>>>same category reported trying marijuana at least once, the White
House
> >>>>>Office of Drug Control Policy said.
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >


.