As per the DEA:

Ninety-five percent of Americans do not use drugs.

Source

Keep in mind that the government is all too happy to lump marijuana in with other substances when they use the word “drugs,” but they disregard FDA approved drugs like Tylenol (which can actually kill a person). If you get semantic about it, there are hardly any Americans at all that “don’t use drugs.”

And, even in this document the DEA likes to use the word “drugs,” but calls out marijuana prominently. Leaving most readers to think that this is really only about marijuana; in which case their numbers are extremely off base. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people that use cocaine but don’t touch marijuana. This is true for many other drugs.

But that’s not what this post is about. It’s about that 95%.

At first I thought, “this is an outright lie.” But it’s not. Well, not exactly.

I thought I should look more into it just to see what the real numbers look like, and they are interesting indeed. And as a bonus, I found a new area of discussion about which I haden’t previously considered.

The Real Numbers

So let’s play with the numbers and see what we have.

The DEA says 95% of Americans don’t use drugs. Well, it turns out that more than 14% of Americans are under the age of 10. Another 4% are over the age of 80. Source

I bring these groups in as the case of a 9 year old toking up is so rare that you can completely disregard them in this case with no problems. And as for the elderly, I feel that life changes are pretty drastic in such that the availability, desire and opportunity to smoke weed is rather slim.

That leaves us with a total of 18% of Americans that are very unlikely to currently/regularly use marijuana.

This leaves us with an “eligible” 82% of the population. Already 95% doesn’t work well with reality.

What They Meant To Say

What they likely meant to say was:

95% of Americans aged 12 and older do not currently use marijuana.

Which would be closer to the truth (though still inaccurate). As of 2007 5.8% of Americans aged 12 and older have used marijuana in the last month (remember, we aren’t looking at other “drugs”). And this is only in the last month. Source

We see a total of just over 10% of Americans 12 and older that have used marijuana in the past year, and 40.6% in their lifetime.

And these are numbers from the government themselves.

When We Talk Numbers

Remember that these are surveys. Surveys that are in place by the government. I’m not saying they play with the numbers directly, but keep in mine 2 things.

First, if a cop asked you if you smoked marijuana recently, would you tell him “yes?” When people are approached by the government to answer such questions, they are naturally hesitant to give a real answer.

Second, I know for a fact that no government organization has ever asked these questions of me. Have they asked you?

The funny thing about polls and surveys is that you can continue them for so long as you have not obtained a desired number; or cease them once you have.

Let’s say you have 100 people you can poll. In reality 25% of them are left-handed. That leaves 75% who are right-handed. But you don’t know this yet. You haven’t asked them all.

You are pressed for time so you decide to ask 10 people which of their hands is dominant. 7 of them are left-handed, 3 are right-handed. Now you know, that 70% of the people surveyed are left-handed. Now pretend you need to ask 304 million people the same question.

I’m pretty sure I rest my case on that one. Or maybe I’m the dummy.

In Case You Haven’t Heard, The Economy Sucks

Now that we’ve seen how that 95% is almost a made-up number, I want to share an interesting thought with you.

When I was going through these numbers I noticed a huge decrease in use between lifetime, past year and past month users.

For example, in 2007 42% of Americans aged 26 or older reported use at least once in their lifetime. But, that number drops to 6.8% in the last year, and further to 3.9% in the last month. That’s a pretty big drop.

You could think that “hey, that shows that a lot of people try it, but don’t get hooked.” Which is a true statment. But still, that’s a really large drop.

You could also say that “I wouldn’t mind telling a cop I smoke weed when I was a kid, but I’m not fessing to doing it yesterday. What’s he gonna do?” Again, a justifiable assumption.

But as I was expressing my curiousity to a friend, he reminded me of something.

“Yeah, that’s about when the economy started to go to shit,” he so elequently stated. “How many people lost jobs and had to clean up for a drug test?”

Well, I never thought about that. I can’t say for sure that this is indeed the case, but it would make perfect sense that a ton of people lost jobs over the last few years and needed to accommodate this incredibly rediculous law in order to take care of their responsibilities (which an amazing amount of “stoners” do).

So, I leave you with that for this Friday. Next week I’m going to post on some really interesting stuff I received about Marinol. Stay tuned.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

1. …ugh

2. …

3. I umm…

4. :::YAWWWWN:::

5. Hmmm…I was just about to do something.

6. Where the hell are my keys?

7. Man, Jessica Alba is so hot.

8. Perhaps there are no good or evil men in this world. Instead, all men are the same in that they all act in both good and evil at some time in their lives. The only thing that really separates us is the degree to which we are willing to act in either direction of good or evil in order to attain what we want.

9. Man, Jessica Alba is so hot.

10. I swear I was supposed to do something.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Source: Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Baby boomers, now well into middle age, are still turning on to illegal drugs, doubling the rates of illicit drug use for the older generation, according to U.S. government statistics released on Wednesday.

The rates of people aged 50 to 59 who admit to using illicit drugs in the past year nearly doubled from 5.1 percent in 2002 to 9.4 percent in 2007 while rates among all other age groups are the same or decreasing, the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reported.

“These findings show that many in the Woodstock generation continue to use illicit drugs as they age,” SAMHSA Acting Administrator Eric Broderick said in a statement.

“This continued use poses medical risks to these individuals and is likely to put further strains on the nation’s health care system — highlighting the value of preventing drug use from ever starting.”

Baby boomers are the post World War II generation born between 1946 and 1964.

The data used in the study came from various surveys including 16,656 men and women participating in the 2002 through 2007 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health.

I question the comment on the strains on the healthcare system. I have no data to base that questioning on other than the many recent studies that marijuana reduces the risk of several cancers, side effect of radiation treatments and the alleviation of pain.

Perhaps the strain on the healthcare system is the reduction in profits for pharmaceutical companies, thus increased prices for everyone else?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

But I beg another question. Are these dogs even effective in properly identifying the possession of marijuana? Further, should their alert be used as probable cause, the basis of a more in depth search?

Before I continue, I think the answer to those questions is “no.”

Traveling Abroad For Answers

In my limited amount of time to look into this, I couldn’t find much in the way of research on the use of sniffer dogs and their validity in America.

So, like anyone else who wants to find the answers to American propaganda I widened my search to include other countries.

To Australia!

The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties decided not too long ago to review the Police Powers Act. With a few differences, the way in which their police use dogs as a means to find illegal substances is very similar to ours.

In their review, they found that sniffer dogs “get it wrong in three out of five searches.”

Three out of five? Yeah, three out of five. But let’s take a few closer looks at what they found.

No Suppliers Found

I’m not too sure on the details of the goals of dog use in America as it regards to the ‘War on Drugs,’ but in a debate the NSW Police Minister said:

The Bill is aimed primarily at detecting and prosecuting persons committing offences relating to the supply of prohibited drugs or plants.

Basically, they are looking for drug dealers. Has the use of dog sniffers worked so far?

Sniffer dogs are intended to help police catch drug suppliers. They are a spectacular failure. Only about 1-2.5% of all people identified by sniffer dogs are drug dealers. In fact, only about 20-30% of all people identified by sniffer dogs are in possession of drugs at all. Of those, the vast majority are in possession of small amounts of cannabis.

I see. The dogs are only properly identifying 1 – 2.5% of those alerted as “drug dealers,” and with only a 20-30% success rate in identifying even simple possession.

The review continues with:

Drug detection dogs are being used by police as an excuse to trawl the community. The dogs are being used not so much for drug detection but rather to arbitrarily stop, search and detain citizens police would not otherwise be able to. Under the guise of sniffer dog operations, police are asking thousands of people for their names and addresses and storing this information on police databases – even when the citizen has committed no offense. This is a misuse of state power and must stop immediately.

So it seems that the police were using these dogs and their alerts as a reason to stop and question citizens.

Blind Faith In Dogs

More disturbing than the inaccurate use of the dogs to find drug offenders are the stories you hear about their handlers giving them queues to alert on a vehicle or person.

I know it seems like a conspiracy theory. But think about this. You are a cop, and you want to search a vehicle. The owner of the vehicle has told you that he does not consent. Now, not only are you not able to search the vehicle, but this punk kid is being a “smart ass,” what with his rights and all. That’s fine. I’ll just pull my dog out, wave my hand a bit, and blamo; I have probable cause.

The appalling inaccuracy of these dogs is compounded by the unwillingness of their handlers to admit this inaccuracy. The handlers offer many excuses for their dogs, for example that people identified had recently used drugs or were in the presence of those who did. Such excuses do not alter the fact that these dogs cannot accurately detect people in actual possession of prohibited drugs.

This blind faith is documented in the Discussion Paper. For example, one dog handler claims that his dog ‘never lies’. This leads to the disturbing attitude of dog handlers and police that anyone identified by these dogs is in someway connected to prohibited drugs– and if the citizen denies it, then law enforcement officials assume they are lying.

You have to remember that dogs (and other animals in general) have a very simple mindset. Though they have feelings, they are not as defined as that of a human.

When being trained, these dogs are rewarded for finging drugs. So, even if done so unconciously, a handler is rewarding his dog for finding what he wants to be found.

This dog only knows that when it finds what it’s owner wants, he gets a treat. What does his owner want? This marijuana. Or, maybe it’s plastic bags. Or maybe it’s brown paper bags.

See my point? Think Pavlov.

Cannot Provide Reasonable Suspicion

Given the dismal accuracy of drug detection dogs, CCL submits that it is not possible to claim that an identification by a sniffer dog is sufficient of itself to constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is in fact carrying prohibited drugs. It is certainly not possible to say that such a sniffer dog identification is sufficient of itself to formulate a reasonable
suspicion that an individual is involved in the supply of prohibited drugs.

The question of reasonable suspicion is extremely important in policing. In the case of prohibited drugs, a police officer may stop, search and detain any person he or she reasonably suspects of having in their possession or control any prohibited drug or plant.

I bring this part up for a very important reality of what I feel most people are not aware. You may be thinking that in order for a police officer to search your vehicle they would need to establish probable cause. And that a dog’s alert is so obviously fallible that it would not constitute needed cause.

Unfortunately you would be incorrect.

In 1998 Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding in his vehicle. The officer that had stopped him went through the routine as usual. Though the officer requested no aid, Trooper Craig Graham of the Drug Interdiction Team decided to join anyway. He pulled out his dog, which alerted to the trunk of Caballes’ vehicle. And inside, they found marijuana.

There was a short debate over whether or not the use of the canine unit was justifiable in the first place, as the first officer was already writing a warning with intent to leave it at that when Graham arrived. There was no prior reason to believe Caballes was in possession, but the dog’s alert was accepted as probable cause to search and Caballes was sentenced to 12 years.

Even after the Illinois Supreme Court said that the arrival of the drug dog improperly broadened the scope of the investigation from a traffic stop to a drug investigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that trained drug-sniffing dogs may be used to search suspects regardless of probable cause.

In Closing

It seems that sniffer dogs unreliable at best. And now that we have adopted their use so openly, they may be used regardless of your privacy rights.

Welcome to America.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In my post “Criminalization Creates Criminals” I touched on the perception people have for cops and the general dis respect for the law that marijuana prohibition causes.

As level-headed as I may attempt to be, even I get a pissy attitude when thinking about cops.

“Geez, I don’t want to have to deal with this guy. He’s just going to look for a reason to book me anyway.”

or

“There are a few cops over that way. Let’s go around.”

Why? Why, when I see a couple cops roaming an outside event do I decide to keep my distance? I rarely do anything even remotely illegal. I never have anything on my person that would constitute an arrest.

So why do I feel this way about our police officers?

I think it has a lot to do with our individual outlooks. We know that marijuana prohibition is silly. And we know a lot of cops feel the same way (LEAP for example). But at the end of the day, whether a police officer agrees with a law or not, they have to act in regard of it.

So, to my point of appreciation.

You Will Fall To My Powers Of Logic

I went to the mall last weekend and as we walked along the second floor we noticed a line of tables and booths on the first floor. Some sort of mini expo was going on. You could see blue and red lights flashing about 150 yards away. GASP!

Could it be? Could God have graced me with cops gallore with which to discuss marijuana legalization?

Don’t these guys know who I am? I’m a pro-legalization blogger. I’m going to thrust into the fray and make these cops wish they never showed up!

With my wife and kids in tow, I hurry to the epicenter of the action.

And here we are. In the midst of what seems to be a table for each and every type of law enforcement with every agency and department represented. K9 units have a table. Traffic cops have a table. And of course, the DEA has a table.

My eyes were wide at the site of brochures and pamplets strewn about. As far as I could see, propaganda lined the walkways. Naturally, most of what was available was aimed at kids.

Awesome.

I picked up as many of the paper lies as I could. I’m going to read these and force the pushers into a conversation about marijuana. I know I have the knowledge and logic on my side. Now is my chance to confront them publicly.

“Dude,” I say to my wife. “These guys won’t know what hit them.”

But then, I read them. I asked my fam to chill a sec while I thumbed through a few brochures on “keeping your kids off drugs” and “how to tell if your child is using marijuana.”

Wait. What the hell is this shit?!

Exactly What I Want To See

I wanted so badly to catch a lie in any of these brochures. But, I didn’t. In fact, I was quite pleased with the message selected for use.

At just under 30 years of age, it isn’t too difficult to remember being a child. I remember that the last thing I liked was being treated as a child. I try to keep this in mind with I speak to my oldest, a son of 9.

When we talk on drugs, I don’t regurgitate the DARE BS. I don’t lie to him. I would never tell him that if he smokes marijuana, that his life will suddenly fall apart or that he will kill a family member.

Instead, at his age, I try to lump all drugs into a singular object. Right now all he needs to know is that drugs are for adults, and usually initiated by a doctor or someone of qulification.

“Tylenol is a drug. That is why we don’t let you have them. We, as your parents or a doctor will decide on your use.”

I also explain that alcohol is a drug, however different it may seem. It is a drug that people use for recreational purposes, but only when they are much older, and only in a responsible manner.

We don’t talk on the consequences of use of drugs, as much as we discuss the consequences of abuse.

In my house, drugs share the same category as guns. Guns don’t kill people themselves. Guns are tools used to solve specific problems. However, the abuse of guns has a very serious, very real consequence. This is why only adults use guns, and only responsibly.

For now, this is sufficient. He needs to know one fact: Drugs are not for kids. That’s it. They are not good or bad.

What he doesn’t need to know is that marijuana will make black people think they are as good as white men, or that if he ever smokes it he will inadvertantly kill his little sister. And rest assured that when he is old enough to understand the very real danger of hate, I will show him why marijuana is really illegal.

So to see that these pamplets seem to speak in the same tone as I was a real releif. It was nice that the sentiment that I feel for my children was the same as the message these cops were promoting. There were no fake statistics used or baseless facts about marijuana. Simply, kids shouldn’t use it.

Not only were these cops peddling decent information, I got to overhear a few conversations between a lot of them and a few parents.

Even at one point one lady went halfway into a tirade about how she would beat her kid silly if she ever found a joint in his room. The officer directly in front of her explained how that would only escalate, and that sitting with her kids on a regular basis to openly talk would be more effective. He never told her to say “drugs are bad,” but that instead she should consistently ensure that the lines of communication are open. He asked “would you rather your son go out smoking and driving with his friends, or would you rather he approached you when he tried it?”

The day went nicer as I got to sit in one of the unmarked cars. Though my wife had to slap me when I accidently exclaimed “heh, never been in the front seat before!”

The Lines Aren’t So Clear…

…and that’s a good thing. With the advent of LEAP and with what seems to be even a few police officers looking at marijuana with a bit more logic, there seems to be less of a ‘good guys vs. bad guys’ attitude. At least, in this case.

I would never ask a police officer to disregard his or her responsibilities by looking at the reality of mairjuana use and let an “offender” slip away, but I wouldn’t advise against it either. Hell, simply feeling that some of these guys might actually let someone go without a problem is somewhat of a relief.

A Good Reminder

This felt good. The whole experience reminded me to make sure I look at each situation individually. Usually, when I see the materials used for a DARE presentation, I end up quite angry.

I make no mistake. The threat of the arrest of someone with a few grams in their pocket is still real. One or 2 cops hanging out on a saturday morning isn’t going to change that. But it did remind me that they are human, and the grand majority are damn good people.

To approach the situation in which I had just been was unjustifiable. To not look at all the sides before I passed judgement; to no take into account the facts before I made the assumption of misinformation. Well, that was wrong on my part.

It reminded me of the people that fight for prohibition. I just did what they did. Thankfully there was a sufficient pause before I jumped into action.

Those guys would have totally been sorry.

Related posts:

1. Criminalization Creates Criminals I got into a very small, very interesting conversation on...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This is a really big deal to me as a father of 2. I don’t like that my kids can’t play outside. I don’t like that the cops are never around when they are desperately needed. And I don’t like that my city would risk losing what little resources we have in the way of law enforcement.

I submitted a few questions early on about marijuana legalization and how the revenue could be used to supplement our law enforcement and education programs (another area of concern in Jacksonville).

Let’s see how the conversation went. You can catch the whole thing here, but I wanted to talk about some of the more relevant points.

The questions were presented by David Hunt. Keep in mind that these questions and responses are taken from the chat portion and are not direct quotes. However, the video shows them to be of the correct context and sentiment.

Sheriff Rutherford: For 17 years Jacksonville has been 1 or 2 in the murder rate. Why are we raising more killers here than anywhere else in this state?

I want you to keep this in mind as this is one of the more important points to me. I’m a law-abiding citizen of Jacksonville, and I would like to think that being so means I may raise my family without harm. Unfortunately, this isn’t true. My neighborhood specifically has been on a downward spiral that I’ve personally witnessed over the last few years. More on why in just a few.

Sheriff Rutherford: Over 4,000 people in Jacksonville had been to jail 5 or more times
Sheriff Rutherford: Drug court is one of the best drug treatment programs in the country, bar none. And it helps stop that cycle of in/out of prison. Many are now productive members of society.

If you don’t know much about drug court, it’s basically a movement wherein a substance abuse offender would be directed into treatment instead of incarceration. This sounds great on paper, but it costs a lot of money too.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t have treatment programs, rather that we shouldn’t be marking every person who smokes pot as criminals.

It goes like this:

• You get arrested because your neighbor smelled marijuana and the cops used it as probable cause to search your home.
• They haul you in because you are now a threat to society.
• The judge says “you can go to jail, or you can go to a treatment facility.”
• You are pretty sure that all jails are comparable to ‘OZ’ and decide that roughing through a treatment center would better fit your lifestyle.
• Blamo. Your, and my tax money hard at work.

As far as becoming productive members of society, who is to say they weren’t before you busted them? I know many people who work full time (some with additional part time jobs), spend time with their families and pay their taxes. They like to smoke marijuana every once in a while (some of them nightly after the wife and kids are in bed) to help them unwind from the society that we’ve created.

This is a bad person? This person deserves to go through the legal system wasting countless hours and resources? He or she deserves a record that will follow them for the rest of their lives? For what? Because they took part in an action that allowed them to relax with absolutely no negative impact on the people around them.

I find it funny that this system is praised by officials when it suits them, but when they need a different point of view they use it as a scare tactic to keep marijuana illegal.

The DEA will use the rise in admissions to treatment centers as proof that marijuana usage is out of control. And that they need more funding for the war on drugs. Sheriff Rutherford: I believe in the residential portion of the drug treatment program and have used forfeiture money to continue to fund that.

Hunt: Can’t you just seize your way of out of this problem?
Sheriff Rutherford: laughs. We seize about 1.2 $1.3 million per year, and that goes right back into our programs.
Hunt: Are you saying that $1.2 million is cash, assets, or both?
Sheriff Rutherford: Both.

Make sure you read that carefully. Approximately $1.2 million in seized cash and property is in turn used to fund the drug court program. I can guarantee you that it isn’t enough money to go around. We seriously barely have a new courthouse, and countless millions have been dumped into that.

Let’s take a different look at the same situation. Let’s say marijuana use is legalized, regulated and taxed.

First, no more drug court, at least in the same way it is now. No more high dollar judges and lawyers pulled away from an already stressed system for pot use. There, we just freed up some of the money I’m handing you people every 2 weeks.

Also, that money seized from crimes. Sure, it may go down a bit becuase you aren’t stealing all the stuff marijuana user bought (and paid tazes on). But, all of it goes to the Sheriff’s office.

Now that marijuana is legal, it is taxed. This is money that goes back into the system (hopefully we can spare some of it for our schools too).

Estimates from California put the revenue generated from teh legalization of marijuana at about $1.4 billion. Yeah, that’s a ‘b.’ Sure, Florida isn’t quite as large as California; their population doubling ours. So, using poor, simple math we could argue that Florida would be looking at about $700 million in generated revenue.

If I have $700 in my pocket, I would gladly give the Sheriff $2. See where I’m going with this?

But what about the crime?

Sheriff Rutherford: The decrease in murder rates are largely because we got “dopers” off the street
Hunt: Is the decrease in crime because of a decrease in drug use?
Sheriff Rutherford: Absolutely
Sheriff Rutherford: If people will go online to jaxsheriff.org and look up our 2006 murder study, one of the stats is that 55% of our murder victims died in high-drug trafficking areas. That’s one good clue.

I’m a bit disappointed that a man in law enforcement looks at the numbers this way. This is his reasoning for not agreeing to the legalization of marijuana.

55% of the murder victimes died in high drug trafficking areas. Wouldn’t it be nice if those areas didn’t exist?

Let’s take a walk into my fantasy world again and imagine that instead of the need to deal with real criminals, I could simply go to the store and purchase a joint, in much the same way I do a pack of cigarettes. They check my I.D., I pay my price and the state makes money.

A large chunk of the revenue generated illegally drops because they don’t have anymore marijuana customers. Yay for me.

He “got dopers off the streets?” Actually, he didn’t. Sheriff Rutherford soon continues that:

Hunt: Has violent crime been spreading to other areas?
Sheriff Rutherford: Actually, it’s around those drug-dealing areas. We have identified those areas.
Sheriff Rutherford: We are attacking those particular areas. There is some displacement, including Sheriff Beasler in Clay County saying Duval County is chasing some down to Clay.

Wait, so you never got them “off the streets.” You just pushed them to other streets. Awesome. If you aren’t from around here, Clay County isn’t exactly far away either. Simply pushing them somewhere else doesn’t actually help anything.

The Sheriff explains that removing the criminals is the goal, but getting them out of the city is the “next best thing.”

Actually, that’s not the next best thing. That’s not a thing at all. That shouldn’t even be on the table. Sure, you are the Sheriff of Jacksonville, and that should be of your main concern. But above that you are an American. And if America goes to shit because of your type of thinking, do you really think Jacksonville will be the bastion of hope?

And what of those “areas” you talked about. Apparently my street wasn’t one of those areas a few short years ago, but it is now. I wonder if the Sheriff’s office has re-established what those areas are now that they have forced violence into neighboring communities, and if they will ever take on those new areas. I wonder how long it will be before they understand that it’s an uphill battle to be reactive. We need to think proactively.

I don’t think Sheriff Rutherford has any military experience. When faced with an enemy with resources over which you have the power, you don’t fight said enemy head on. You take their resources.

Okay. It’s obvious that I’m just getting emotional now, so I’m going to end the post with this:

For so long as you recklessly spend your money and resources on a battle that you can not win, you will make no progress.

And Jacksonvillians, for as long as we have people like this in authority, we will continue to have economic problems and increased crime. They aren’t approaching the situation with any logical thought, but reactionary and perpetuated mis conceptions. Remember this when it’s time to vote.

Related posts:

1. Asking For Sheriff Rutherford’s View on Marijuna I found today that Jacksonville’s Sheriff Rutherford will be on...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

They need a total of 700,000 signatures from voters registered in Florida, and donations exceeding $5 million. I’m not sure where we stand so far, but these things need to be attained for the 2010 ballot are needed by Fed, 1 2010. Not a lot of time.

I’m working out the details to find a place to take my chunk of petitions for signing. It will likely be downtown Jacksonville, but I’ll post here when I know when and where for sure.

In the mean time, why not do your part while you’re here? You can download the petition here, and follow these instructions to do your part:

1. Download the petition
2. Print it on ONE sheet of paper (2 sheets are not valid)
3. Fill it out completely and sign it in BLUE ink
4. Send it to P.O. Box 560296, Orlando, FL 32856

I would also like to urge you to print a few extra copies and have your friends and family sign them. Also, donations would help a great deal, so you send your money to them online or by sending a check or money order to:

PUFMM
P.O. Box 560296
Orlando, FL 32856

So, stop complaining. There are more than enough people in Jacksonville alone to get the required signatures, let alone the whole state.

I’ll post when and where I’ll be when I get my stuff together. If you want to wait until then, that’s cool, but don’t rely to heavily as I am lazy.

Related posts:

1. Florida’s Marijuana Boom: House-Grown, and Potent Source: TIME California may be the center of the marijuana...
2. Asking For Sheriff Rutherford’s View on Marijuna I found today that Jacksonville’s Sheriff Rutherford will be on...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I submitted a few questions on his views on marijuana use in Jacksonville, and posed a few points on how marijuana legalization and taxation could not only help directly with the budget, but also in the decreased man hours spent on the “victimless crime.”

My questions were as followed:

I would like to ask Sheriff Rutherford’s opinion on marijuana legalization. I know it’s a larger topic of discussion, but I would like to know his views as an officer of law enforcement.

Does he feel that marijuana use in Jacksonville is an appropriate crime on which to spend precious man hours and resources. Does he feel that the use of marijuana among responsible adults in Jacksonville is a problem the deserves more or less attention?

Would it not be beneficial to legalize the use of marijuana, at least medicinally to allow people to attain and use it without breaking the law, thus taking a large chunk of the profits and power away from criminals? Would the taxes gained from such an effort not help the Sheriff’s Office, which is in dire need?

I hope he receives these questions and takes a moment to answer them.

I can tell you that, as a citizen of Jacksonville the crime in my area is getting noticeably worse as time goes on. We are talking violent crimes. Just down the road from my humble abode (where I live with my wife and infant daughter) a man with a gun forced his way into the house of an elderly woman, stole some of her stuff, and bolted.

Sure would have been nice if we had more cops (say what you will about JSO officers) that at least have the availability and ability to make their presence known. To patrol the streets with more consistency, instead of spending countless hours and dollars booking some guy for toking up.

I’ve had my share of run ins with the law around here, but those were usually due to actions on my part. As sided as we may seem at times, I would rather have them around than not.

To take more of them/their resources away takes us backwards, not forward.

There have been several stories of drug busts in Jacksonville lately, and it seems those resources could have been better spent with the increasing amount of shootings and violence.

As you may have heard I am in the works of getting petitions signed for PUFMM.org the weekend after this.

I am doing so in hopes that the legalization of marijuana, even medicinally at first will help to take the power away from people like these, and put it back into the hands of the people.

Let’s be realistic about it. Legalization will come. It’s a natural progression that a society moves gradually beyond ignorance of the past (unless you forget them, mind you).

I would rather we put a rush on it while we still have a sheriff’s department to speak of.  Let’s stop wasting their time and our money; while crime gets worse. And let’s tackle some of the more important issues.

Related posts:

1. Sheriff Rutherford: Not For Legalizing Marijuana Earlier this morning I mentioned that Sheriff Rutherford of Jacksonville,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I read a story from The Vancouver Sun this morning about a few issues smokers and non-smokers have with the current state of the law on medical marijuana use, and when and where one may smoke up.

Actually I got it from High Times, but they took it from TVS so I thought they deserve a link.

Basically, the anti people restrictions on where someone may smoke marijuana, and the pro folk see this as another barrier between them and their rights.

Seriously?

You Get What You Ask For

In almost any given article asking for the legalization of marijuana, another drug is often pulled into the picture; alcohol.

We always tell of how dangerous alcohol is in comparison to marijuana. We feel that we should have the same rights over our own bodies as those who like to get drunk.

And we should.

But have we forgotten about the restrictions on drinking alcohol? We can’t have open containers in public (at least here in the U.S.), we can’t drive while drunk and we can’t show up to work in an incapacitated state.

So when we are told that we can’t smoke a joint in a public park (one of the examples in the above article), we bitch and complain about it? Does that make sense?

Don’t Be A Dick

In thinking about alcohol and the right to do to your own body as you see fit, let’s talk about one major difference. Alcohol doesn’t have a negative impact on the people around you; unless you jump into a car, but that’s a different problem.

Smoking does. I’ve smoked cigarettes like a chimney since I was 15 (about one half of my life). I know they smell and taste like crap. I like the right I have to smoke as I see fit, but I respect my fellow man too much to smoke in his face simply because I want to.

So what’s the difference with marijuana? Just because you like it, doesn’t mean everyone else does. I love the idea of getting high and spending a few hours at a park to enjoy God’s creations. So, do it before you go.

I can’t think of a justifiable reason to impose my smoking on the other people who would also like to enjoy the same park.

Plenty Of Time

To the dismay and disbelief of the anti-marijuana crowd, most of the people who use for medicinal purposes are genuinely in pain. I can appreciate that.

For 2 year prior and leading up to my mother’s death from cancer, I was there every day. I know first hand the impact that this shit disease has on people. And don’t get me started on the “treatments.”

She felt horrible all day, every day.

That being said, the effects of even decent weed can last from 2 to 4 hours, and more with the good stuff. So I ask, if you are in that much pain what the hell are you doing in public that lasts so long to require another toke?

I know. I know. Things happen and you have to accommodate life sometimes. But I don’t know of a dispensary that doesn’t offer some sort of consumable THC product.

If yours doesn’t, there are just under a hogillion (fake, exaggerated measurement of amount for drama purposes) websites that will show you just how to make the brownies or pills or any number of other treats at your own home.

Either way, you don’t have to smoke it.

Hypocrisy

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how you cut it. Gripes like this are hypocritical. We complain all too often of the freedom-preventing laws imposed by people who disagree with us.

We hate that we aren’t allowed to do something simply because someone else doesn’t want to, regardless of the lack of impact it has on others. We want freedom over our own bodies.

So why would we in turn impose our beliefs on those around us?

Instead, continue the fight for freedom and liberties, but respect your fellow bipeds.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What Makes The Cut?

These are all accounts that show a history of discussing marijuana, cannabis, and/or hemp with some sort of consistency. They may not be entirely all about weed, but they do take up the talk.

Not On The List?

If you’re not on the list, simply contact me via the contact page and let me know of the account that should be added. You can follow AboveTheFlaT, but I can’t promise that will result in a list inclusion as I am stretched pretty thin as it is.  Please note though, that there are a couple rules:

• The account must be somewhat active
• It must contain a little MJ talking
• It must have a profile pic
• No Spam! We understand the need to advertise a bit to make ends meet, but not every Tweet.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.