use among american indians (positive aspects)\n\ndoes it lower crime rate?
125034
ah yes, Indian hemp. I've only ever heard two cases in the time I've looked at the issue of industrial hemp. I found references to one of the cases for the source. \n\nThe ones I've seen have the DEA ripping up industrial hemp and telling the media that they have stopped a marijuana supply. Legally there is no difference between growing industrial hemp and marijuana. \n\nThe motivations the Indians have is that hemp is a legal cash crop in the US that is a greater value than all but tobacco. It's value is somewhere in the hundreds of dollars per ton and several tons per acre. Unfortunately it is illegal to grow in the US. You may eat, wear, buy, sell, but not grow industrial hemp in the US. Thus it would be a nice cash crop to grow in the US. Instead we purchase raw industrial hemp from Canada were it is legal to grow.   \n\nI'm afraid I can't speak of reasons why Indians might want it for the marijuana drug, I can't think of any arguments I may have seen on that topic.
524897
No - it does not work.  Our jails are overcrowded.  We make arrests that don't go anywhere.  We should be more concerned about the security of the USA rather than some guy smoking weed in their house.  \n\nI am Libertarian as well
467865
No. Around here a big deal crime is drunk driving or petty vandalism. Around the nearest big city it is drive-by gang shootings setting new highs in the murder rate.
267884
Surely blending in is always easier.  It's always difficult to go against the "norm" or to be a minority.  \n\nBut NO I don't think that if they "blended" in it would alleviate the issue all that much.  They are breaking laws and reaping benefits that many citizens themselves do not.  We'd still be having these discussions b/c there would still be a group of about 12 million people living here illegally.  \n\nIf I walk down the street firing an unregistered gun at random, or if I petition a minor, or if I run someone down with my car after too many drinks, or if I launder money through the system and make millions without paying taxes...it's all still against the law (law created to protect people from the infringement of others, laws which are reasonable and just, laws which must be upheld and enforced for the benefit of the citizens for which they were created).  \n\nAll those things I stated are punishable by law; I'd get arrested, tried, thrown in jail and fined for any of those things and I blend into stereotypical America pefectly on my worst day.\n\n** Vavoom:  such a grossly overgeneralized statement such as that is to err more than words can describe.  Can you prove that "white people" are inhererntly more racist?  Maybe, being comfortable in the majority and having been socialize in this culture there may be an inclination.  But the same will hold true for other races.  Please don't say things like that b/c just the other day a black guy declared that "blacks are the best looking race," if I said the same thing about white people I'd get reported for abuse on here.
363901
I think not.  The effect is totally different.  I have never met a pothead who would rob somebody for a fix, or turn a trick for a joint...........Crackheads are quite different, as well as methfreaks.....They need serious help.........
414394
I just attended a lecture yesterday that talked about these very statistics.  Our crime rate is actually going down, but our rate of incarceration is going up.  This reflects the US' "war on crime" and "war on drugs" started in the late 70s, early 80s (Reagan, mostly).  It's because we are taking action and using incarceration as the solution.  To really properly analize these numbers, you also have to look at the crime rates of all these nations (we also score very poorly, there, so you still have a point).  The statistics for african-americans is even worse - something like 6000+ african-american inmates per 100,000.
492723
woohoo finally someone has the same thoughts on this as i do.... hello people every history book will tell you that the native Americans where here first and that the Europeans ran them out of all their homes... yes, Mexicans came and did the same to the Indians when they took over Arizona, new Mexico and California but seriously how much better is white people than brown people if they both stole this land from the true natives??\n\nedited-what I'm saying is yes the Indians where here first but i do not agree with new immigrants or Americans taking advantage of welfare.. i have three children and can't get any help to send them to preschool because my husband  makes a HAIR more than the limit. now my oldest son is behind in kindergarten. \nI'm not trying to contradict myself i just don't like to hear white people say they where here first. and i don't like the fact that because people don't work they get hand outs, and the middle class can't get any help at all...\n\nedited- i don't get what is this discussion about dirty jobs? i love the show but i don't understand what you are all talking about? email me..thanks in advance..
671429
From a practical standpoint only, I don't think it would work.  As it is, the cleanup costs are up to $15,000 and they're using sandblasters.  I doubt toothbrushes would do much good, and I wouldn't want to arm these kids with power tools!\n\nPersonally, I rather like the sandwich board approach.  Make them advertise their crimes, and set them walking up and down Wisconsin Avenue.  Heh heh.
81508
I am .8 percent Native American. I just missed the amount you need to be to get all education free. My grandpa got college completely free though! I think the tribe was not well known so I can't tell you w/o lying.
643657
It HASN'T affected ME negatively....but I can only speak for me.\n\nbut some comments....because I always have comments\n\n1.   I am undecided on the tax impact.  Believe me taxes are no joke in this house BUT I have often wondered how all the "welfare receipients" in this country pay "good honest to goodness taxes"......oh and then get kickbacks....a check for just being them at the end of the year.  I believe that no HONEST, Hardworking person appreciates that too much.\n\n2.  Education is the key......PERIOD.\n\n3.  A criminal mind is a criminal mind, I would never color code deviant behaviour and personally get offended when people do.\n\n4.  OH someone mentioned gangs.  Well while I haven't lived in CA for quite some time.  I was born and raised and left to join the Army.  When I was there my mom worked for the Riverside County DA for close to 30 years at that time.  She came home with HORROR stories but most of the time BACK THEN it was concerning "bloods" and "crips" and no mention was ever made of the powerful gangs that everyone says has the CURRENT grip on CA.  \n\nTo end we have lived damn near everywhere......and oh wait someone mentioned border states.  Yep.....live in a border state and was raised in a border state.  When stationed in El Paso...I found the community amazing, beautifully painted homes, amazing aromas drifting out of well taken care of diners.  See how perceptions are SO different for people.  We made amazing friends (yes locals) and we would go back in a heartbeat.  \n\nTo end...now......doesn't affect me......then......didn't affect......even BACK then......wouldn't have affected me.  \n\nPeace
364537
That's a pretty loaded question, but there are certainly ways that crime can be useful. For instance, overthrowing governments, riots against unjust laws or rulers, and civil disobedience to draw attention to abuses of power or inequalities. Crime is defined by the law, so crime that leads to the repeal of unjust laws could be considered useful.
258136
Laws don't protect people.  They are not designed as a preventative measure.  Instead, they are designed as a deterrent and spell out the measures that will be taken against anyone who perpetrates a crime.   The concept is, inform people of those actions deemed by society as unacceptable and the people will not engage in those activities.  It works for most of society.\n\nAddressing it another way, the law is “reactive” not “proactive“.   It only becomes active after an offence has been committed, and another victim created. \n\nTo be anything else would constitute prior restraint.  We could lock everyone up and prevent crime that way.  But that is unfair, impractical, and it would never work in America.  You do find this type of action being taken in some countries around the world.  Recipients of this type treatment are often referred to as "political prisoners".  Their incarceration by a government is intended as a preemptive measure.  The idea is to find a individual or group perceived to be a threat and conduct a preemptive strike by locking them away before they can commit a crime.  \n\nThis sort of thing occurred in the US during WWI when legislation was passed that denied American citizens the right to criticize the government or it's war efforts.  The idea was to control vocal groups before they could be heard both here and in the enemy's camp.  \n\nWWII saw a similar activity when Japanese Americans were interned in camps away from the coast.  The concern was, where did the true loyalty of Japanese Americans lie.  The government felt Japanese Americans loyalty could easily lie with Japan even if the people had earned citizenship and had sworn allegiance to the United States.  Most of these families lost everything, their land, personal property, and any other holdings.  Some restitution was paid but many never recovered even a small percentage of their losses.  In my opinion the only thing good that came of this was that during WWII we didn't experience the wholesale execution of Japanese Americans.  While it was never tested, I believe feelings against the Japanese ran so high that many white Americans may have acted as vigilantes if the opportunity would have presented itself.  This action could have cost thousands of Japanese American lives right here in the USA.\n\nAnother aspect of our justice system in "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".  This brings home the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".  Typically the state has more resources than the defendant so the burden placed on the state is higher than on the defense.  All a defense attorney has to do is introduce a reasonable doubt in one juror and the result is a mistrial.  While the state must convince each and every juror "beyond a reasonable doubt" of the guilt of the defendant.\n\nI hope this helps, I tend to get a bit long sometimes but you can weed out anything you don’t want to use.
113674
Most definitely.  Before the Europeans arrived in North America there was very little crime and what there was, was swiftly punished.\n\nWith the arrival of Western Europeans, crime, sickness and perversions became the norm.  They became responsible for the extinction of entire tribes, forced death marches as in the case of the Seminole Nation.  Mass slaughter of Chinese immigrants brought over to construct the railroad.\n\nYes, you are very right.  We should get rid of ALL the immigrants that came into the continent over the last 500 years and allow the native americans to regain the peace and prosperity that they once had.
19620
It probably works to some degree. We've managed to prevent some terrorist actions as a result of it...although at the expense of diminishing the authority of the U.S. Constitution.\n\nI'm a believer in slippery slopes so I imagine the logical end to all of this is to preempt every potentially illegal action by putting the entire population of the country into prison...just to be on the safe side.
672651
yea ... unfortunately its led the americans to understimate the world outside .. their opinion is further clouded by an insatiable materialistic pursuit... they constitute 5% of the worlds population and consume 45% of the worlds natural resources ... \n\nthey fail to realise that people have different satifaction levels.. for example i live in india... just cause my country isnt fully developed it doesnt mean that we aren happy...  it would broaden the perspective of americans if they stopped lookin at negatives of other communities and recognisin positives.
452682
It's a very appealing idea, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.  There should be safeguards, and you did say, "convicted."  That's one.  We'd have to fight to keep it from being used indiscriminately, like every traffic stop or if you litter.  These are summary offenses, usually dealt with by issuing a ticket.  But the size of our population and ease of moving around almost makes this proposal inevitable.
655281
I don't believe the crime rate is higher.  What I do believe, and know, is that the ARREST RATE is higher.  \n\nHowever, just because you are arrested does not mean you will be convicted.  Also, the statistics vary for region to region.  For example, the highest arrest rate here in Phoenix, Arizona is people of the Mexican ethniticity.  Why, simple because of the higher percentage of Mexicans in the area.  \n\nI will say, however, that non-whites are arrested more frequently because they meet the imaginary "profile" of the criminal.  Not fair, but true.  It will take years of teaching our children not to be prejudiced to turn this kind of thinking around.  I hope I live to see that, but I probably won't.