We have a problem, 1 in every 142 people in US in prison

[Whisper]

Hell, I say legalize any and every drug available. If people want to mess up their lives with cocaine, let em. We're all adults and (for the most part) are capable of making decisions about what we do or do not want to put into our bodies.

Ok, so maybe legalizing every controlled substance out there is far-fetched, but at least bring in the mary jane. I've never smoked and never will, but I have absolutely no problem with those who do, and see it as a drug of equal (and in most cases less) harm causing potential than alcohol and nicotine. And in all actuality, with nicotine being more addictive than heroin, it makes you wonder why the reefah hasn't yet been made acceptable by law.

As for the disproportionate demographics in america's prisons: anyone that doesn't see this as a problem of both society and culture as well as the individual has some serious issues. Sure, we're all able to tell right from wrong...to a certain degree. But if you're growing up in an area where many around you break the law on a semi-regular basis, it's going to desensitize you to the law in general. Say what you will, but socioeconomic status has a lot more to do with crime than does personal character. Hell, look at the number of people on this board alone that use or have used pirated software. Sure, it's a different type of crime than those commited by inner-city blacks, but does that make it more acceptable? Of course it does, because most of its perpetrators are middle class white guys who like to look down on others that "lack the ability to control themselves and not commit crimes that get them thrown in jail."

And no, I'm not saying that software piracy is the same thing as rape, armed robbery, or the like. I'm just trying to make a point. The surroundings you grow up in, and the people that you associate with play a HUGE role in your likelihood of committing a crime. To argue otherwise is to admit ignorance.

 

[IKeelU]

No, people do not need drugs. They do not need alcohol. They do not need cigarettes. They do not need sports cars.
Legality doesn't mean something's more morally right/wrong, it just means that's the current law where you're living at the moment. Alcohol was legal, then it was illegal, then it was legal again. If the a guy occasionally drank beer all his life, he'd be considered a law abiding citizen in the 1910's, a criminal during prohibition, and then a law abiding citizen again afterwards. Or if was illegal here and he travelled to a place that it was legal, does that change whether it's morally right/wrong to do? What you have is a country making rules, then trying to convince everyone that their rule is just, fair, and universally accepted.

Well said.

Ideally, law should be based on morality, not the other way around. When someone uses the law to define what he/she believes is moral, they're allowing whoever controls the law to control them.

Do people who use drugs really need to be in jail?
That should answer your question.

The answer is a big YESSSSSSSSS!!!

Ummm, since when is my smoking Marijuana detrimental to your being? Let me elaborate; does it hurt you if I grow a perfectly NATURAL plant in my basement, then pluck off certain parts of it, then light them and inhale the fumes? Legalizing this drug would actually reduce the influence of organized crime, not to mention it would provide a new taxable good for the government (since they could license people to sell it).
Now, wouldn't it make you happy to know that potheads all over America are contributing to the government (and hence, the military) with their recreational habit?

Besides, drug laws should concern the non-licensed selling of drugs, not possession of drugs.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: IKeelU

No, people do not need drugs. They do not need alcohol. They do not need cigarettes. They do not need sports cars.
Legality doesn't mean something's more morally right/wrong, it just means that's the current law where you're living at the moment. Alcohol was legal, then it was illegal, then it was legal again. If the a guy occasionally drank beer all his life, he'd be considered a law abiding citizen in the 1910's, a criminal during prohibition, and then a law abiding citizen again afterwards. Or if was illegal here and he travelled to a place that it was legal, does that change whether it's morally right/wrong to do? What you have is a country making rules, then trying to convince everyone that their rule is just, fair, and universally accepted.

Well said.

Ideally, law should be based on morality, not the other way around. When someone uses the law to define what he/she believes is moral, they're allowing whoever controls the law to control them.

Do people who use drugs really need to be in jail?
That should answer your question.

The answer is a big YESSSSSSSSS!!!

Ummm, since when is my smoking Marijuana detrimental to your being? Let me elaborate; does it hurt you if I grow a perfectly NATURAL plant in my basement, then pluck off certain parts of it, then light them and inhale the fumes? Legalizing this drug would actually reduce the influence of organized crime, not to mention it would provide a new taxable good for the government (since they could license people to sell it).
Now, wouldn't it make you happy to know that potheads all over America are contributing to the government (and hence, the military) with their recreational habit?

Besides, drug laws should concern the non-licensed selling of drugs, not possession of drugs.

Nice fantasy and all, but it isn't relevant. Drugs are not CURRENTLY legal so your argument is response to me was NOT valid. Simply put I a FOR the legalization of marijuana, but the LAW right now said it is illegal. Marijuana is not something that cannot be handled at a state level anyways. Since Federal law supersedes State law it will always be illegal until there is a bill passed that voids or rewrites prior legislation. If you are smoking marijuana right now you are taking a risk just like someone who drinks underage. The only problem sometimes you don't get a slap on the wrist. If they question was do people who drink underage deserve to be in jail I would STILL say yes. Even though I am only 20 and drink I KNOW my risk ahead of time. I don't feel as if I would be martyred if I were caught. I am not doing it for a "movement" either. That is the main thing that pisses me off about some marijuana groups. They act as if they are rebelling against the government by smoking. Just like our buddy Ed Rosenthal who didn't think the Feds would snatch his ass up.

I have said it numerous times: Legalize marijuana as soon as a standardized field test for intoxication is created. Until then you are taking a risk and should not WHINE when busted. If I speed and get a ticket I CANNOT WHINE. I broke the law and I have to deal with it.

For the record legalizing hard drugs will not work. Evidently, some who are arguing for that have no prior experience with addicts nor do they have a working knowledge of the effects of hard drugs. I am not saying that as an insult, but I think a little research needs to be done before saying legalize ALL drugs. I don't want Crack legal, I don't want Benzos available without a prescription, and I don't want Methamphetamine legal. Now, Heroin is a drug that could probably be legalized since most heroin addicts can function if they have a supply of their drug. The other drugs I mentioned cause too much physical and mental change to be legalized.

BTW, please don't always assume that a person is anti-legalization just because they feel people are responsible for their actions.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Amused
End the war on drugs, and much of this maddness will end.

come to berkeley and see for yourself how crappy a place would be if your entire city is festered with drugged out hobbos.

They'll be on drugs whether or not they are illegal. Hasn't the abject failure of the War on Drugs taught you anything? Did the history of Prohibition escape you? Do you honestly think any signifigant number of people stay away from drugs only because they are illegal?

The fact of the matter is, the rate of drug abuse rises and falls on popular trends and education campaigns, not the effects of law enforcement. The only effect law enforcement has had is to drive drug distribution underground into dangerous gang controlled black markets... creating a huge crime wave we still suffer from. Exactly the same thing Prohibition caused in the 1920s.

In other words, the War on Drugs CREATES crime, it does not stop it.

The War on drugs is about as much a failure as the war on Terrorism- though the government has done a GREAT job of reducing it, the imperfections of the government continued to be scrutinized like crazy. Here in berkeley, drug use is practiced out in the open because the police have stopped caring about the it a long time ago. Go to a place like Orange County where law enforcement is much less lax and tell me how enforcement has not made a difference.

As for prohibition, there were many other reasons besides the outlaw by the federal government that caused use of alcohol to increase. Among them is the fact that it was only enforced by the federal government, which during the time going into recession caused -get this- less than 2000 appointed federal law enforcers to regulate this law. State government did next to nothing to stop it. lemme get you the sources, hold on...

 

[Eli]

Didn't mean to turn this into another drug thread.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Amused
End the war on drugs, and much of this maddness will end.

come to berkeley and see for yourself how crappy a place would be if your entire city is festered with drugged out hobbos.

They'll be on drugs whether or not they are illegal. Hasn't the abject failure of the War on Drugs taught you anything? Did the history of Prohibition escape you? Do you honestly think any signifigant number of people stay away from drugs only because they are illegal?

The fact of the matter is, the rate of drug abuse rises and falls on popular trends and education campaigns, not the effects of law enforcement. The only effect law enforcement has had is to drive drug distribution underground into dangerous gang controlled black markets... creating a huge crime wave we still suffer from. Exactly the same thing Prohibition caused in the 1920s.

In other words, the War on Drugs CREATES crime, it does not stop it.

The War on drugs is about as much a failure as the war on Terrorism- though the government has done a GREAT job of reducing it, the imperfections of the government continued to be scrutinized like crazy. Here in berkeley, drug use is practiced out in the open because the police have stopped caring about the it a long time ago. Go to a place like Orange County where law enforcement is much less lax and tell me how enforcement has not made a difference.

As for prohibition, there were many other reasons besides the outlaw by the federal government that caused use of alcohol to increase. Among them is the fact that it was only enforced by the federal government, which during the time going into recession caused -get this- less than 2000 appointed federal law enforcers to regulate this law. State government did next to nothing to stop it. lemme get you the sources, hold on...

You have now made the claim that law enforcement has a direct affect on the rate of drug use/abuse. Whether or not it is done out in the open is not the point, so we'll call that moot.

I contend it does little to nothing to affect the rate of drug use/abuse.

Both prohibition and the WOD have been failures. The war on terror is NOT comparable here. Prohibition and the WOD are wars against victimless crimes. The war on terror is a war against people who intentionally and with malice of fore thought harm others. Two are wars to save people from themselves (a lost cause), and the other is to save people from murderers.

Countries that have decriminalized drug use have NOT seen a rise in abuse rates. Moreover, they have seen a dramatic decline in crime rates.

When was the last time liquor dealers did drive by shootings on each other? When alcohol was banned.

 

[tcsenter]

Well, I welcome you to spend a few days at any number of retreats like Riker's Island, Pelican Bay, or Jackson State, then try to decide which of those currently incarcerated you wouldn't mind living in your neighborhood.

The reason we have a lot of people incarcerated is - duh - because we have a lot of criminals. We can afford to incarcerate our criminals, many other countries cannot even afford to prosecute their criminals not to mention incarcerating them. Even where some countries might be able to afford it, they chose not to, because they do not prioritize law enforcement or criminal justice as the United States does.

The three criminals who robbed U.K. farmer Tony Martin in his home between them had over 100 criminal convictions. These were convictions, not arrests. Fred Barras, killed by Martin during the robbery, was barely 72 hours freed on bail and had two pending criminal charges against him at the time he robbed Martin. He bragged to his criminal friends the night before about plans to pull his first "big job". Despite these facts, his most recent probationary report swelled with positive comments. I guess a 'positive' in England would be 'Mr. Barras hasn't murdered anyone yet, that we know of, so he's doing very well!'

The man wounded by Martin, 32 year-old Brendon Fearon, who alone has more than 30 criminal convictions, has been cleared to receive legal assistance under the UK's 'victim assistance' laws. He is suing Martin for, among other things, compensation for 'loss of earnings' while recuperating from his injuries. The man is a professional criminal and drug dealer who hasn't earned an honest dollar in his life.

In England, these three, particularly the younger Barras, are considered just your 'average English youths' with a disposition for 'misbehaving' and 'misguided fun'. 100+ criminal convictions, including several assault and batteries, at least one on a peace officer, are just 'misguided youths having some innocent fun' in England.

Because England doesn't prioritize criminal justice, they have a 'kid glove' revolving door policy there that makes any US 'revolving door' policies by comparison look like a draconian Inquisition. Its all done in the name of 'compassion' (for criminals, but not for victims); i.e. giving people who make mistakes another chance'. Another chance? I'm all for another chance, but 30...40...50?

Their criminals don't use any of these 'second' chances to change their criminal ways and become productive members of society, they grow old and retire! Its almost as though mugging people, stealing cars, and burgling homes is an ill-reputed but tolerated career choice there, akin to an exotic dancer or used car salesmen.

I will amend my previous statement that we have more criminals. That isn't necessarily true, per capita, we have harsher sentences across the board and we penalize recidivism. In the U.K., one may receive no more severe penalty for their 20th criminal conviction than their 10th. Slap on the wrist, spend a day in jail, promise not to do it again (for the 20th time), and you're good to go have a laugh with all your buddies about what a joke your criminal justice system is then plan your next "big job", knowing full well if you get caught again, no biggie.

In the US, if one amasses 20 criminal convictions, it is likely they will do a stint in prison, because we reject the notion that we are somehow 'obligated' to give anyone 30 or 40 chances to go from a petty criminal to a murderer out of some misguided sense of 'compassion' (for criminals, but not for their victims).

So while all of the U.K.'s recidivist criminals are repeatedly set free over and over to commit dozens more crimes, our criminals are, hopefully, incarcerated where they cannot commit dozens more crimes against the public, thus our higher incarceration rates.

There are no economic crimes in the US anymore. Nobody is stealing bread, milk, eggs, baby formula, or diapers. They steal stereos, televisions, liquor, cigarettes, jewelry, fashion clothing, starter jackets, cell phones, etc. When they steal cash, it isn't to buy bread, milk, eggs, baby formula, or diapers, its to buy drugs or other stolen merchandise. Most crime in the US isn't due to desperation, its due to unbridaled greed, or resentment, or rage.

Non-violent crimes include identity theft and fraud, both are enormous problems in the United States. Spend three years and thousands of dollars trying to restore your good name and credit after being the victim of identity theft, because someone thinks that working an honest job is for 'suckers', then you may have an opinion on how long the perpetrator should spend in prison.

Last, but certainly not least, there is the issue of free will. If you don't want to do the time, don't commit the crime. The choice is yours.

 

[ndee]

what about that stupid 3-time-thing-go-to-jail-for-life-time in Cali? If you steal 3 times a chewing gum and get caught, you can go to prison for good? I remember some pathetic case.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ndee
what about that stupid 3-time-thing-go-to-jail-for-life-time in Cali? If you steal 3 times a chewing gum and get caught, you can go to prison for good? I remember some pathetic case.

most of those have a minimum threshold... gum would probably be a fine and not jail time (or maybe time served) any way. any cop that runs you in over gum probably has too much time on his hands...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ndee
what about that stupid 3-time-thing-go-to-jail-for-life-time in Cali? If you steal 3 times a chewing gum and get caught, you can go to prison for good? I remember some pathetic case.

It's three felonies. Gum theft would not be a felony.

http://www.silicon-valley.com/star1.html

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE SECTION 667.

a) (1) In compliance with subdivision (b) of Section
1385,any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been
convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense
committed in another jurisdiction which includes all of the elements
of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence
imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement
for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried
separately. The terms of the present offense and each enhancement
shall run consecutively.

(2) This subdivision shall not be applied when the punishment
imposed under other provisions of law would result in a longer term
of imprisonment. There is no requirement of prior incarceration or
commitment for this subdivision to apply.

(3) The Legislature may increase the length of the enhancement of
sentence provided in this subdivision by a statute passed by majority
vote of each house thereof.

(4) As used in this subdivision, "serious felony" means a serious felony
listed in subdivision (c) of Section
1192.7.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

The numbers can be interpreted in many ways... maybe more of you should stop jumping up to scream about your opinion and do a little more thinking as to the actual meaning of this information.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
The numbers can be interpreted in many ways... maybe more of you should stop jumping up to scream about your opinion and do a little more thinking as to the actual meaning of this information.

Ever stop to think (for yourself) that some of us HAVE thought about it?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
The numbers can be interpreted in many ways... maybe more of you should stop jumping up to scream about your opinion and do a little more thinking as to the actual meaning of this information.

Ever stop to think (for yourself) that some of us HAVE thought about it?

Every person I see yapping seems to only be yapping about one specific thing.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
The numbers can be interpreted in many ways... maybe more of you should stop jumping up to scream about your opinion and do a little more thinking as to the actual meaning of this information.

Ever stop to think (for yourself) that some of us HAVE thought about it?

Every person I see yapping seems to only be yapping about one specific thing.

I have no doubt there is more than one cause, and that many talked about here are valid. This does not make the individual opinions any less valid, does it? Of course not.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
The numbers can be interpreted in many ways... maybe more of you should stop jumping up to scream about your opinion and do a little more thinking as to the actual meaning of this information.

The actual meaning is that prison is not a deterrent to crime. Yeah well Bentham was wrong when you use his theories in a half assed way. He forgot that rational laws do not work in a land of irrational people, unless you are just plan cruel. So are you thinking that our Justice System is overtly oppressive? Compare it to another country such as Singapore or China? I would say it is a lot less oppressive than either one. Sure it is more oppressive than the British system, but LOOK at their crime rates. Off the charts as of late.

Such is my problem with those who say the WOD is lost. If we starting passing laws like in Singapore, then we could win the war on drugs in less than 10 years. Sure we would have to double or even triple our prison's capacity, but it is possible. The war on drugs is not lost because people think drugs are victimless. It is because society does not allow an irrational amount of punishment for a public order crime. If you want to win the war on drugs it can be done. With the size and scope of the Feds, it would be NOTHING like the prohibition. Yeah, we will have add even more Federal Agents but you can always raise the income tax! I don't think many of us want the income tax to be raised so we better keep educating people about hard drugs, rather than eradicating them.

I would like the name of one country in which ALL drugs are LEGAL(not decriminalized). Such an animal does not exist and I am do not want the US to be the Guinea pig.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
The numbers can be interpreted in many ways... maybe more of you should stop jumping up to scream about your opinion and do a little more thinking as to the actual meaning of this information.

The actual meaning is that prison is not a deterrent to crime. Yeah well Bentham was wrong when you use his theories in a half assed way. He forgot that rational laws do not work in a land of irrational people, unless you are just plan cruel. So are you thinking that our Justice System is overtly oppressive? Compare it to another country such as Singapore or China? I would say it is a lot less oppressive than either one. Sure it is more oppressive than the British system, but LOOK at their crime rates. Off the charts as of late.

Such is my problem with those who say the WOD is lost. If we starting passing laws like in Singapore, then we could win the war on drugs in less than 10 years. Sure we would have to double or even triple our prison's capacity, but it is possible. The war on drugs is not lost because people think drugs are victimless. It is because society does not allow an irrational amount of punishment for a public order crime. If you want to win the war on drugs it can be done. With the size and scope of the Feds, it would be NOTHING like the prohibition. Yeah, we will have add even more Federal Agents but you can always raise the income tax! I don't think many of us want the income tax to be raised so we better keep educating people about hard drugs, rather than eradicating them.

I would like the name of one country in which ALL drugs are LEGAL(not decriminalized). Such an animal does not exist and I am do not want the US to be the Guinea pig.

You cannot win a war on drugs, or any other victimless vice while adhearing to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. Nor can you do it if you value any semblence of individual freedom (the very cornerstone of our Constitution).

You'll need a police state. Personally, I am not willing to give up my individiual freedoms to save idiots from themselves. In fact, saving people from themselves is, in itself, anathema to the very concept of individiual freedom. Just as the religious morality laws the religious right has tried to pass is anathema to individual freedom.

Drugs were perfectly legal for over 100 years in this country. The problem then was no worse than it is now. The illegality of drugs is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that obviously cannot be solved with laws.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
The numbers can be interpreted in many ways... maybe more of you should stop jumping up to scream about your opinion and do a little more thinking as to the actual meaning of this information.

The actual meaning is that prison is not a deterrent to crime. Yeah well Bentham was wrong when you use his theories in a half assed way. He forgot that rational laws do not work in a land of irrational people, unless you are just plan cruel. So are you thinking that our Justice System is overtly oppressive? Compare it to another country such as Singapore or China? I would say it is a lot less oppressive than either one. Sure it is more oppressive than the British system, but LOOK at their crime rates. Off the charts as of late.

Such is my problem with those who say the WOD is lost. If we starting passing laws like in Singapore, then we could win the war on drugs in less than 10 years. Sure we would have to double or even triple our prison's capacity, but it is possible. The war on drugs is not lost because people think drugs are victimless. It is because society does not allow an irrational amount of punishment for a public order crime. If you want to win the war on drugs it can be done. With the size and scope of the Feds, it would be NOTHING like the prohibition. Yeah, we will have add even more Federal Agents but you can always raise the income tax! I don't think many of us want the income tax to be raised so we better keep educating people about hard drugs, rather than eradicating them.

I would like the name of one country in which ALL drugs are LEGAL(not decriminalized). Such an animal does not exist and I am do not want the US to be the Guinea pig.

Glad we don't have many people who share your opinion. :Q

It's hard to say what the proper solution for a country such as ours is, and frankly I find the situation so depressing (as it inevitably is only getting more oppressive and restrictive), the only hope I have is that things don't get too horrible before I can get to myself to a position where I can leave.

 

[0roo0roo]

not gonna change while ashcroft is in power

keeping the cost of certain drugs artificially high only creates the conditions that allow very bad people to profit.

making drugs illegal funds terrorists. there u go.

 

[teddymines]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
U.S. prisons and jails now hold record 2 million inmates

This really makes me sick. Do we really have that many people that deserve to be locked up, or is the government just putting too many people in jail?

Let's move the prisons offshore.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
The numbers can be interpreted in many ways... maybe more of you should stop jumping up to scream about your opinion and do a little more thinking as to the actual meaning of this information.

The actual meaning is that prison is not a deterrent to crime. Yeah well Bentham was wrong when you use his theories in a half assed way. He forgot that rational laws do not work in a land of irrational people, unless you are just plan cruel. So are you thinking that our Justice System is overtly oppressive? Compare it to another country such as Singapore or China? I would say it is a lot less oppressive than either one. Sure it is more oppressive than the British system, but LOOK at their crime rates. Off the charts as of late.

Such is my problem with those who say the WOD is lost. If we starting passing laws like in Singapore, then we could win the war on drugs in less than 10 years. Sure we would have to double or even triple our prison's capacity, but it is possible. The war on drugs is not lost because people think drugs are victimless. It is because society does not allow an irrational amount of punishment for a public order crime. If you want to win the war on drugs it can be done. With the size and scope of the Feds, it would be NOTHING like the prohibition. Yeah, we will have add even more Federal Agents but you can always raise the income tax! I don't think many of us want the income tax to be raised so we better keep educating people about hard drugs, rather than eradicating them.

I would like the name of one country in which ALL drugs are LEGAL(not decriminalized). Such an animal does not exist and I am do not want the US to be the Guinea pig.

Glad we don't have many people who share your opinion. :Q

It's hard to say what the proper solution for a country such as ours is, and frankly I find the situation so depressing (as it inevitably is only getting more oppressive and restrictive), the only hope I have is that things don't get too horrible before I can get to myself to a position where I can leave.

Oh that isn't my opinion. That is just me saying that a war on drugs COULD be won easily.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Millennium
[Nice fantasy and all, but it isn't relevant. Drugs are not CURRENTLY legal so your argument is response to me was NOT valid. Simply put I a FOR the legalization of marijuana, but the LAW right now said it is illegal. Marijuana is not something that cannot be handled at a state level anyways. Since Federal law supersedes State law it will always be illegal until there is a bill passed that voids or rewrites prior legislation. If you are smoking marijuana right now you are taking a risk just like someone who drinks underage. The only problem sometimes you don't get a slap on the wrist. If they question was do people who drink underage deserve to be in jail I would STILL say yes. Even though I am only 20 and drink I KNOW my risk ahead of time. I don't feel as if I would be martyred if I were caught. I am not doing it for a "movement" either. That is the main thing that pisses me off about some marijuana groups. They act as if they are rebelling against the government by smoking. Just like our buddy Ed Rosenthal who didn't think the Feds would snatch his ass up.

I have said it numerous times: Legalize marijuana as soon as a standardized field test for intoxication is created. Until then you are taking a risk and should not WHINE when busted. If I speed and get a ticket I CANNOT WHINE. I broke the law and I have to deal with it.

I think you are going about thinking about this issue the wrong way. If a law is not just, I do not mind breaking it.

You said:

If I speed and get a ticket I CANNOT WHINE. I broke the law and I have to deal with it

Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's just. Were black people wrong for whining when the current US laws barred them from acting like human beings and having access to the same facilities that white people had? After all, it was a law, so they should have been expected to not compain about it right?Maybe if they never "whined" about it, the laws would have never been changed.

If I get caught for something that I don't think is a legit law, I am going to "whine" about it.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
U.S. prisons and jails now hold record 2 million inmates

This really makes me sick. Do we really have that many people that deserve to be locked up, or is the government just putting too many people in jail?

Yeah! Lets let those overly persecuted individuals go! I'm sure he didn't mean to kill her. I'm sure he needed that car he stole. I'm sure all of the druggy junkies that were on the streets every night robbing people were just having a little fun. Most of all though, I am sure that I sleep better at night knowing that justice has prevailed and criminals are off the streets. America has one of the most fair judicial systems on the world, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And please do not insult my intelligence and degrade your self by telling me that drug use should not be a crime, you will only look silly when I quote the percentage of drug users involved in other crimes besides drug use.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Millennium
[Nice fantasy and all, but it isn't relevant. Drugs are not CURRENTLY legal so your argument is response to me was NOT valid. Simply put I a FOR the legalization of marijuana, but the LAW right now said it is illegal. Marijuana is not something that cannot be handled at a state level anyways. Since Federal law supersedes State law it will always be illegal until there is a bill passed that voids or rewrites prior legislation. If you are smoking marijuana right now you are taking a risk just like someone who drinks underage. The only problem sometimes you don't get a slap on the wrist. If they question was do people who drink underage deserve to be in jail I would STILL say yes. Even though I am only 20 and drink I KNOW my risk ahead of time. I don't feel as if I would be martyred if I were caught. I am not doing it for a "movement" either. That is the main thing that pisses me off about some marijuana groups. They act as if they are rebelling against the government by smoking. Just like our buddy Ed Rosenthal who didn't think the Feds would snatch his ass up.

I have said it numerous times: Legalize marijuana as soon as a standardized field test for intoxication is created. Until then you are taking a risk and should not WHINE when busted. If I speed and get a ticket I CANNOT WHINE. I broke the law and I have to deal with it.

I think you are going about thinking about this issue the wrong way. If a law is not just, I do not mind breaking it.

You said:

If I speed and get a ticket I CANNOT WHINE. I broke the law and I have to deal with it

Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's just. Were black people wrong for whining when the current US laws barred them from acting like human beings and having access to the same facilities that white people had? After all, it was a law, so they should have been expected to not compain about it right?Maybe if they never "whined" about it, the laws would have never been changed.

If I get caught for something that I don't think is a legit law, I am going to "whine" about it.

Oh sweet jebus, are you proposing nullification on the individual level for any "unjust" laws? Are you out of your mind? Their are plenty of amoral people who find nothing wrong with murder, should they not follow that law? Your argument is flawed on so many levels that it looks like a slice of swiss cheese and cannot hold water. Come back when you have something half-way intelligent to say.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
not gonna change while ashcroft is in power

keeping the cost of certain drugs artificially high only creates the conditions that allow very bad people to profit.

making drugs illegal funds terrorists. there u go.

Ashcroft should be locked up and beaten with a copy of the Bill of rights carved onto a stone tablet.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
U.S. prisons and jails now hold record 2 million inmates

This really makes me sick. Do we really have that many people that deserve to be locked up, or is the government just putting too many people in jail?

Yeah! Lets let those overly persecuted individuals go! I'm sure he didn't mean to kill her. I'm sure he needed that car he stole. I'm sure all of the druggy junkies that were on the streets every night robbing people were just having a little fun. Most of all though, I am sure that I sleep better at night knowing that justice has prevailed and criminals are off the streets. America has one of the most fair judicial systems on the world, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And please do not insult my intelligence and degrade your self by telling me that drug use should not be a crime, you will only look silly when I quote the percentage of drug users involved in other crimes besides drug use.

So why not prosecute them for those crimes instead?