• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

50% of Americans want to legalize marijuana

Fleshofthegods said:
DUDE I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GETTING IT. It still costs money to follow around a car you suspect of people that have pot, pull them over stand there and put them through hell then arrest them take them to jail etc. THAT MONEY WOULD NOT BE USED if it was illegal decriminalized etc so there would be no reason to spend that tax payer money when there are no arrests being made. THE MAJORITY of taxpayer money goes towards arresting drug users, and if that IS NOT happening anymore there would be NO REASON to spend that money anymore would there?
Click to expand...

Umm... yes that money would still be used...

The officer would follow around someone they suspected of drunk driving instead.....

Time used on marijuana enforcement doesnt just disappear. It gets re-assigned.....

Why is that so hard for you to understand?
 
Caine said:
Your tax money is not allocated by crime.
What don't you get about that?

Using the word "to" above is dishonest, it suggests that it is ALLOCATED specifically for drug arrests, which it is not.

And.......... You are also going off of the false assumption that USERS of marijuana are jailed for significant periods of time.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that money is allocated for anything I'm saying that it costs money to arrest, convict and hold marijuana offenders/drug users and if that money isn't going to be spent then it is a waste of tax payer money to still be paying for it. It doesn't matter if the money isn't allocated for anything specifically Less arrests=less spent money=less taxpayer money.
 
Caine said:
Umm... yes that money would still be used...

The officer would follow around someone they suspected of drunk driving instead.....

Time used on marijuana enforcement doesnt just disappear. It gets re-assigned.....

Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but police are already assigned to those things to begin with. What I'm saying is that marijuana arrests overwhelmingly outnumbers all other arrests, so there would be a defecit of arrests which means wasted money.
 
Caine said:
Public Safety pay isn't based upon arrests made.
Period.


Do we pay firefighters based upon the amount of fires they put out?
No.
Click to expand...

No but if there was a new technology that signifigantly decreased the number of fires then we wouldn't be spending as much money on firefighters.
 
Fleshofthegods said:
I'm not saying that money is allocated for anything I'm saying that it costs money to arrest, convict and hold marijuana offenders/drug users and if that money isn't going to be spent then it is a waste of tax payer money to still be paying for it. It doesn't matter if the money isn't allocated for anything specifically Less arrests=less spent money=less taxpayer money.
Click to expand...

You are making the assumption that the time saved on dealing with potheads is not resulting in an arrest somewhere else........
 
Fleshofthegods said:
No but if there was a new technology that signifigantly decreased the number of fires then we wouldn't be spending as much money on firefighters.
Click to expand...

Ehh.. We still would...

You failed to realize something very important when it comes to public safety persons.

Firefighters, Police Officers, Paramedics, etc...

They do not get paid for what they DO.... They get paid for what they MIGHT HAVE TO DO.
Which means...

You aren't paying them per arrest, per traffic stop, per IV injected, per fire put out, etc.

They are getting paid for providing coverage for an emergency response when a citizen calls for the need.

Less fires doesn't mean one isn't going to happen.
Less drug arrests doesn't mean that other crimes aren't happening, other incidents aren't being reported.
Less sick people doesn't mean that we can justify increasing the response time of an ambulance to save money.....
 
Caine said:
Umm.... No.

Thats like saying that a guy got moved from patrol to homicide.... Nobody was hired to replace him in patrol..... Has the money changed? No.
One officer just moved from one spot to another... no pay increase.... no change.
Click to expand...

But around here...yes it did. The sherriff went before the county commission and requested ADDITIONAL resources to ADD ADDITIONAL people for these 'task forces' and got them. I understand your point and am sure it happens like you said but I would question one of your statements. If one moved a guy from patrol to homicide wouldn't there be less 'on the street' enforcement? That doesn't sound like adequate security unless the 'homicide guy' was pulling double duty. And how did the opening in homicide come about? Because someone left from retirement or increase in work load.
 
Caine said:
You are making the assumption that the time saved on dealing with potheads is not resulting in an arrest somewhere else........
Click to expand...
Other than being potheads, what crime are they committing? And shouldnt we then be locking up alcoholics for being alcoholics?
 
Caine said:
Ehh.. We still would...

You failed to realize something very important when it comes to public safety persons.

Firefighters, Police Officers, Paramedics, etc...

They do not get paid for what they DO.... They get paid for what they MIGHT HAVE TO DO.
Which means...

You aren't paying them per arrest, per traffic stop, per IV injected, per fire put out, etc.

They are getting paid for providing coverage for an emergency response when a citizen calls for the need.

Less fires doesn't mean one isn't going to happen.
Less drug arrests doesn't mean that other crimes aren't happening, other incidents aren't being reported.
Less sick people doesn't mean that we can justify increasing the response time of an ambulance to save money.....
Click to expand...

So basically we'd just be spending money for things that aren't happening, because money isn't "allocated".
 
Caine said:
You are making the assumption that the time saved on dealing with potheads is not resulting in an arrest somewhere else........
Click to expand...

Yes but nowhere near as many is the point I am trying to make.
 
VanceMack said:
Other than being potheads, what crime are they committing? And shouldnt we then be locking up alcoholics for being alcoholics?
Click to expand...

Your argument doesn't follow the purpose of my post, which has nothing to do with the illegality or legality of alcohol and marijuana.
 
Fleshofthegods said:
So basically we'd just be spending money for things that aren't happening, because money isn't "allocated".
Click to expand...

If you think so.....

But you are failing to understand that because marijuana is legal doesn't mean the officer who would have been working marijuana isn't out there now working a Drunk Driving case, or working harder to catch a hit and run suspect, or hanging out near a shopping center catching shoplifters, etc.

Which all result in arrests.... which public funds are spent upon.

There is more crime than time to deal with it available to officers..... take away marijuana and you STILL have more crime than time available to officers....... The time saved on not having to deal with marijuana can still result in an arrest somewhere else....

Why is that so hard to understand?
 
Fleshofthegods said:
Yes but nowhere near as many is the point I am trying to make.
Click to expand...

And that is your guess.....

And I feel being an angry at the cops pot smoker has something to do with your judgement in that matter.
 
Caine said:
If you think so.....

But you are failing to understand that because marijuana is legal doesn't mean the officer who would have been working marijuana isn't out there now working a Drunk Driving case, or working harder to catch a hit and run suspect, or hanging out near a shopping center catching shoplifters, etc.

Which all result in arrests.... which public funds are spent upon.

There is more crime than time to deal with it available to officers..... take away marijuana and you STILL have more crime than time available to officers....... The time saved on not having to deal with marijuana can still result in an arrest somewhere else....

Why is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

That I understand what you don't understand is that there are a LOT more marijuana arrests than other types of arrests.
 
Caine said:
Ehh.. We still would...

You failed to realize something very important when it comes to public safety persons.

Firefighters, Police Officers, Paramedics, etc...

They do not get paid for what they DO.... They get paid for what they MIGHT HAVE TO DO.
Which means...

You aren't paying them per arrest, per traffic stop, per IV injected, per fire put out, etc.

They are getting paid for providing coverage for an emergency response when a citizen calls for the need.

Less fires doesn't mean one isn't going to happen.
Less drug arrests doesn't mean that other crimes aren't happening, other incidents aren't being reported.
Less sick people doesn't mean that we can justify increasing the response time of an ambulance to save money.....
Click to expand...

But if there were fewer fires to be put out and fewer people to be arrested, then there would be less that they might have to do.
 
Caine said:
Your argument doesn't follow the purpose of my post, which has nothing to do with the illegality or legality of alcohol and marijuana.
Click to expand...
But it does point out that being a pothead is no different than being an alcoholic. Being a casual user is no different than being a casual drinker. The topic is about legalizing marijuana. That marijuana use in and of itself is no more dangerous than alcohol is significant. The only reason we invest time money and other reasources in fighting marijuana is because at some point it's use was deemed criminal. If that law were changed there would be a whole lot of upsides and no downsides.
 
Fleshofthegods said:
That I understand what you don't understand is that there are a LOT more marijuana arrests than other types of arrests.
Click to expand...

This is true....But like I have stated... you have no way of knowing that the officer wouldn't have made a different type of arrest if he didn't have to deal with a pothead.
 
Caine said:
And that is your guess.....

And I feel being an angry at the cops pot smoker has something to do with your judgement in that matter.
Click to expand...

No not really 800,000 people are arrested in the U.S. every year for simple posession in other words once every 30 seconds. I feel you being a cop/ex-cop whatever has something to do with you avoiding the facts.
 
Caine said:
This is true....But like I have stated... you have no way of knowing that the officer wouldn't have made a different type of arrest if he didn't have to deal with a pothead.
Click to expand...

But not in the sheer numbers there are more people smoking joints than raping or murdering is my point.
 
Dittohead not! said:
But if there were fewer fires to be put out and fewer people to be arrested, then there would be less that they might have to do.
Click to expand...

Wait, are these big bonfires of marijuana?
 
VanceMack said:
But it does point out that being a pothead is no different than being an alcoholic. Being a casual user is no different than being a casual drinker. The topic is about legalizing marijuana. That marijuana use in and of itself is no more dangerous than alcohol is significant. The only reason we invest time money and other reasources in fighting marijuana is because at some point it's use was deemed criminal. If that law were changed there would be a whole lot of upsides and no downsides.
Click to expand...

And what does that have to do with the use of public funds to fund the criminal justice system in the absence of the illegality of Marijuana?

If you are going to jump in head first, make sure you know what is being discussed at the moment instead of changing the subject.

What you are doing is akin to walking up to two guys talking about the shapes of different clouds and saying, "Leaves are Green and Rigid"
 
Fleshofthegods said:
But not in the sheer numbers there are more people smoking joints than raping or murdering is my point.
Click to expand...

Well no **** sherlock.

Raping Murdering and Pot Smoking are not the only three crimes in the world.
 
I'm one of the 50% named in the OP and I don't use.
 
Dittohead not! said:
But if there were fewer fires to be put out and fewer people to be arrested, then there would be less that they might have to do.
Click to expand...

But coverage would still be required........

Would you feel safer that an advancement in home building technology increased fire safety and reduced the amount of active fires your fire department had to deal with by 10%, and because of this.... they reduced the manpower of your local fire deparment, including closing down the station closest to you, increasing the response time of the fire department by 20 minutes?
 
Caine said:
But... its also a military town.
Click to expand...
Arkansas, not NC. No big base or anything here.

Fleshofthegods said:
It still costs money to follow around a car you suspect of people that have pot, pull them over stand there and put them through hell then arrest them take them to jail etc. THAT MONEY WOULD NOT BE USED if it was illegal decriminalized etc so there would be no reason to spend that tax payer money when there are no arrests being made.
Click to expand...
The cop would be getting paid the same if he making a pot bust or if he's not.

Fleshofthegods said:
THE MAJORITY of taxpayer money goes towards arresting drug users...
Click to expand...
cite, please.

Fleshofthegods said:
I'm not even going to reply because you seriously don't know what you're talking about if you think that we're going to be paying the same amount of money for less arrests being made then you must be the one on drugs not me.
Click to expand...
That's really not how budgets are made. They aren't made on a per bust basis.

Fleshofthegods said:
I'm not saying that money is allocated for anything I'm saying that it costs money to arrest, convict and hold marijuana offenders/drug users and if that money isn't going to be spent then it is a waste of tax payer money to still be paying for it. It doesn't matter if the money isn't allocated for anything specifically Less arrests=less spent money=less taxpayer money.
Click to expand...
At best, if there was a significant drop in work load for several budget cycles, the town council or w/e may adjust the budget.




 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom