82% of Americans report using or having used Marijuana, and 73% report using illegal drugs other than marijuana. 89% admit to having used any illicit drug.
Can someone remind me again why Obama wants to lock 89% of Americans in cages?
Source: p. 101 & 102 http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2009...
original thread: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2010/12/22/6310/2857/12#c12
I mean, given the current lines of public rhetoric, how is "Obama wants to reduce drug offense sentences" going to go over?
The fact is that he went out of his way to block scientific research by appointing Leonhart as DEA administrator. He goes out and claims he supports scientific integrity, but his actions show this is completely false. Nominating someone who supported science wouldn't be controversial or cost him any political capital, but he nominated her anyway just to stall progress and create a climate of fear.
No one is claiming it would be politically feasible for Obama to pass laws allowing heroin in the checkout lines of Wal-Mart, but the fact is that he's rejected every opportunity for change, even the ones with zero political cost.
That'd be nice.
But congress might actually be changing in a way that is more condusive to change becuase the tea party/libertarian types are more open to this than the socially conservative republicans a lot of them are replacing. We'll see. But even I think it is a lower level priority for the federal government and comes down to state and local government. The cops in this story are local, not the FBI.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/jul/13/medical_mari... http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/marijuana_index.htm... http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=13589480 http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html
The grandparent post observed that that the federal government was 'not harassing people...nearly as much as the previous administration.' It did not make any claims that federal enforcement had halted. Indeed, your linkage seems to support rather than refute the claim that was made.
I don't support drug prohibition, but I have to take the outraged complaints about the federal government with a pinch of salt; California voters had the opportunity to legalize the growing, possession and sale of pot 6 weeks ago and decided not to do so. I have heard numerous people mentioning that they voted against it or didn't want it to pass because it would have impacted the business of someone they know in the trade, since legalization would probably have led to a price collapse, at least in the short term. Whether this perspective was held by enough people to alter the outcome of the voting I do not know, but it seems the police are not the only ones invested in the status quo.
This is mostly true. Unfortunately that has been the extent of the progress. And the administration still routinely makes threats against states that are thinking about reforming their drug laws.
"The cops in this story are local, not the FBI."
* Many local police departments get funding from the feds if they to spend it on drug enforcement. The vast majority of cities that get offered this money can't afford to turn it down, because it also gets used to keep the rest of the town afloat.
* The fact that drugs are illegal on the federal level strongly discourages local governments from legalizing drugs. Many citizens are afraid that the feds will start conducting raids in their town or find a way to cut off their highway funds or otherwise penalize them. Elected officials are afraid of getting sent to jail if they legalize drugs in their towns, even though technically it's perfectly legal.
* It doesn't correct for students (12th graders) who were absent on the day of the survey, or for the 12-15% of students who drop out of high school before the fall of their senior year. By using clever methodology they are actually able to measure how the differences in drug use among students who were absent the day of the survey, but they don't correct for it. (They explain the differences in the methodology though.) And as for students who dropped out, Appendix A of volume 1 of the same report explains how they concluded that dropouts were probably 1.5x more likely to have used marijuana by 12th grade. So if you take into account that the 20% of dropouts and absentees have a lifetime prevalence closer to 88%, then that would increase the total lifetime prevalence of marijuana use by about 1%, so to 83%.
* About 1.8% of those who admit marijuana use recant each year. It's likely those who recant actually did use the drug, for reasons that are explained here: http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar...
The survey partially corrects for this by counting those who recant after admitting to use on at least two previous surveys (multiple years apart) as having used marijuana. However, students weren't surveyed until 12th grade, so it stands to reason that if the 1.8% linear rate of recanting held until age 13 years 11 months, the average age of first marijuana use, then you'd have to add about 5.5%. Again this is somewhat speculative, but probably roughly accurate.
* It seriously undercounts those who later become heavily addicted to drugs. So anyone who didn't use drugs through 12th grade but then became a drug addict essentially wouldn't be counted at all.
* It doesn't count people who would have used marijuana at some point after 12th grade, but who died of non drug-related causes before they got a chance to. This is significant because unlike alcohol where virtually everyone who will ever drink has already started by age 18 or so, a large percentage of eventual marijuana users are still trying the drug for the first time up until their mid 30s.
The fact is that if you make it to age 50, your chances of having smoked weed are probably closer to 88-90%. The Erowid thing I linked to is also good in general for as a quick way of grokking the validity of the numbers.