Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-17-2019, 08:49 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 428

Under no circumstances should someone be given a felony for drugs.


I would like to assert that nobody producing, distributing, using, or simply possessing drugs should be given a felony, nor should there be a mandatory sentencing on drug possession. Every drug charge should be a misdemeanors at the very most, and mandatory sentencing should not exist for drug charges. There are far more drug charges against regular people for simple possession than there are for intent to sell. Even more so most of those intent to sell charges are often not large scale cartel operations, we majority of the time don't hit the guys who mass manufacture or mass distribute or smuggle in. We always hit our own people, US citizens, who are funding these cartels by consuming the drugs. Instead of mass criminalizing our own people for petty drug charges, we should be focused on stopping the issue from the core. A) cut off the profits, legalize all drugs. B) produce at home and kill the central/south american imports. I believe the main reason we have so many people charged for drugs is because it's an easy crime to get marks for, and it was a method to disenfranchise black and minority voters after they were given the right to vote, and since then it's continued to spiral out of control. The police get more funding for charging more people, poorer people of color are less likely to fight their charges, the private prisons get more money for having more people, more funding means anyone invested in these private prisons collect larger dividends. Ontop of this the people who actually create and pass the laws and policies, are typically republicans who will have tougher elections if more blacks / minorities vote. So they do shit like the war on drugs to suppress their votes, and likely make a profit off their investments in private prison stocks.

In conclusion, charging people felonies for drugs is the result of people wanting to make a profit, and stay in power. It directly hurts us, US citizens, while the big bad drug manufactures and large scale distributors rack in millions off, just like the courts, prisons, and police rack in money off the citizens they charge. I would go as far as to say there is a profit motivation to keep drugs coming into the US, and not doing anything about it so we can put more people in prison.
  #2  
Old 07-17-2019, 09:14 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,596
"Nobody producing..." So, how would you feel about your next door neighbor starting up a meth lab in their kitchen?

CMC fnord!
  #3  
Old 07-17-2019, 09:27 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
"Nobody producing..." So, how would you feel about your next door neighbor starting up a meth lab in their kitchen?

CMC fnord!
I think if it was legalized, and therefor regulated, you could diminish the risks of manufacturing meth. You could for example, only give licenses to a handful of companies to manufacture and distribute meth, which would be safer, cleaner, and controlled potency than home made meth, so your average meth head goes an buys some crystal from these businesses than trying to make their own. There will certainly be some people still manufacturing meth, if it's a problem we can just make the manufacturing of meth illegal unless you have a license to do so.

Never the less, your neighbor cooking meth shouldn't be given a felony for making meth (unless he blew his house up and hurt or killed others). If we did legalize meth, and regulate the production of it, then we should make that guy have to get a license to do so. The same should apply to moonshine as well.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 07-17-2019 at 09:28 PM.
  #4  
Old 07-17-2019, 09:34 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,849
It's already manufactured legally. See Desoxyn.

Butyeah, I agree with most of your points.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #5  
Old 07-17-2019, 09:40 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post

Never the less, your neighbor cooking meth shouldn't be given a felony for making meth (unless he blew his house up and hurt or killed others). If we did legalize meth, and regulate the production of it, then we should make that guy have to get a license to do so. The same should apply to moonshine as well.
Or you could prevent the loss of innocent lives by giving the fucker a felony.
  #6  
Old 07-17-2019, 09:44 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,464
Yes amateur meth making could be the new hobby like brewing beer in your basement. I think felonies for certain things involving drugs, depending on type and scale are a good thing.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #7  
Old 07-17-2019, 09:46 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Or you could prevent the loss of innocent lives by giving the fucker a felony.

Making it a felony to manufacture meth doesn't stop people from manufacturing meth. Making it harder to get the ingredients to create meth is helps prevent it.

Regardless most people who make meth, intend to smoke it, not sell it. Therefor if you have a regulated manufacture with oversight, you can produce higher quality, cleaner, and a regulated potency. This makes consumption safer, diminishes blackmarket profits, and decreases the need to manufacture ur own meth at home.

A misdemeanor for manufacturing meth is just fine. When you drive reckless you don't get a felony off the bat. Although you could possibly harm others, until you actually do you aren't charged for it. Everything here goes for moonshine as well. Since both moonshine and meth are privately manufactured, with high potency, and can possibly harm others if manufactured wrong. Hence why both should be legal, and you should require a license to manufacture, and where you manufacture at should be regulated as well.
  #8  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:00 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
Yes amateur meth making could be the new hobby like brewing beer in your basement. I think felonies for certain things involving drugs, depending on type and scale are a good thing.
Your premise is that by making manufacturing meth a misdemeanor, more people will start manufacturing it. In states where marjiuana is legalized, and people can grow their own, majority of people still purchase their weed instead of growing it. Why? It takes time and effort and on a small scale you don't get enough yield to make up for that time and effort. Only a handful of people will grow their own pot, and even then there is a concern about the quality and if you grew the pot good.

Meth is the same way, same with moonshine. If we had legalized moonshine (like 160-200 proof, typically cut with water), do you think most people are going to build moonshine stills to create moonshine themselves? No, most are going to buy moonshine from the store. Further more, by making people have to get a license to do so, odds are that one weirdo who wants to create his own meth and moonshine, will go get the license so he can legally do so, and get his hands on the ingredients and tools used to manufacture.

So I find your assertion absurd, and naive.
  #9  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:10 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,849
The problem with comparing home grown pot with home meth labs is that a spun-out idiot can blow up and set fire to a neighborhood extremely easy. Or just poison the neighborhood with toxic fumes. A stupid stoner is likely to just waste water and power.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #10  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:22 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I think if it was legalized, and therefor regulated . . .
"It shouldn't be a felony" and "it should be legalised" are two completely different positions. I think you should probably pick one position and stick to it.
  #11  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:29 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
The problem with comparing home grown pot with home meth labs is that a spun-out idiot can blow up and set fire to a neighborhood extremely easy. Or just poison the neighborhood with toxic fumes. A stupid stoner is likely to just waste water and power.
That's not the point of the comparison.. the point is even with growing pot legal yet only a small amount of people actually grow pot. (relative to the entire weed smoking population)

But if you want to go that route.... distilling alcohol in the same method of moonshine is legal. You need a license to distill it though, and it's made the same way you'd get normal moonshine. It's even sold in stores. Does the legalization of licensed "moonshining" make more people moonshine? No, why? It's hard to get a license to distill alcohol for commercial use. I would say make it easier for private individuals to obtain that license for personal consumption, then another license for commercial. But never the less your premise is faulty. Owning semi-automatic rifles is legal(with few exceptions), does everyone have an AR15 sitting in their bedroom? No. I'd be willing to guess most people don't, even in the most lax of states.

If your premise was correct, then somewhere like Switzerland which had an heroin epidemic, would have had an even worse epidemic after they basically legalized heroin... they start manufacturing clean, controlled heroin then would give addicts a dosage in a controlled environment and would be monitored while high then released once it wears off. What they ended up doing was pull a bunch of heroin addicts off heroin(they also virtually eliminated prostitution as well). Instead of people looking to abuse the legal heroin, they used it to get off the stuff since the body needs some kind of opioid to release symptoms of withdraw, and alternative medicines aren't nearly as effective.
  #12  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:33 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
"It shouldn't be a felony" and "it should be legalised" are two completely different positions. I think you should probably pick one position and stick to it.
I stick to both. In my opinion all drugs should be legalized. In reality centrists and right wingers won't allow that because they aim to make a profit off other peoples suffering while putting on a moral facade of wanting to prevent drug dependency. However, the point of this thread is mainly that there are no circumstances you should be given a felony for a drug charge alone. In the case of something like meth or moonshine you could certainly harm others with manufacturing, which is why I propose legalization and regulation. It's a solution to the concerns about people no longer being deterred.
  #13  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:52 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I stick to both. In my opinion all drugs should be legalized. In reality centrists and right wingers won't allow that because they aim to make a profit off other peoples suffering while putting on a moral facade of wanting to prevent drug dependency . . .
Once you accept that drug dependency can cause suffering, I don't see any basis for assuming that those who favour legal restrictions do so because they hope to profit rather than because they hope to minimise suffering. I think you have to acknowledge at least the latter possibility.

I also think your position is not quite coherent. "Under no circumstances should anyone be given a felony for drugs", but the production and distribution of drugs should be regulated. So what happens to people who produce/distribute in breatch of the regulations? Surely they must "get a felony for drugs"? If the regulatory regime is not enforced, what is the point of having it?

I think the issue here is not whether the drug economy should be legally restricted, but exactly how it should be legally restricted. And if you restate your position in less extreme and more realistic (and, I think, accurate) terms, it might attract more support.
  #14  
Old 07-17-2019, 11:52 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,464
I don't personally have an issue with marijuana legalization or at least tolerance for its use, even though I've never personally enjoyed it the few times I've used it. Drugs like meth, coke, heroin don't really have any net positive benefits for society and are quite deleterious in their effects on mental, physical, and social well-being.

I don't support extreme punishment of individual users of drugs possessing small amounts for personal use but I also don't think it's in the best interest to let major drug manufacturers or dealers get off with essentially a slap on the wrist. This point if probably moot anyway as most of those higher up drug dealers are engaged in a litany of crimes beyond just distributing and manufacturing drugs.

If you are a first time offender and didn't engage in violence, then I can have compassion for someone that was selling large amounts of drugs, they don't deserve 20 years in prison, they have a real chance to change and be a better person.

That said, in a country with staggering healthcare costs, not much of a social safety net, increasing government deficits, numerous deaths due to car wrecks, suicide, guns, and an increasingly bleak outlook for the poor and middle class, I don't think it's in the best interest of society to have more people abusing drugs out there binging, driving, going to work high, I think we have more than enough problems in this country than we can handle at the moment.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"

Last edited by pool; 07-17-2019 at 11:54 PM.
  #15  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:47 AM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,301
So, selling heroin to children should be a misdemeanor?
  #16  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:00 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Your premise is that by making manufacturing meth a misdemeanor, more people will start manufacturing it. In states where marjiuana is legalized, and people can grow their own, majority of people still purchase their weed instead of growing it. Why? It takes time and effort and on a small scale you don't get enough yield to make up for that time and effort. Only a handful of people will grow their own pot, and even then there is a concern about the quality and if you grew the pot good.

Meth is the same way, same with moonshine. If we had legalized moonshine (like 160-200 proof, typically cut with water), do you think most people are going to build moonshine stills to create moonshine themselves? No, most are going to buy moonshine from the store. Further more, by making people have to get a license to do so, odds are that one weirdo who wants to create his own meth and moonshine, will go get the license so he can legally do so, and get his hands on the ingredients and tools used to manufacture.

So I find your assertion absurd, and naive.
How does it then follow that "most people making meth are going to smoke it, not distribute it"?
  #17  
Old 07-18-2019, 08:38 AM
Qadgop the Mercotan's Avatar
Qadgop the Mercotan is offline
zymolosely polydactile
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slithering on the hull
Posts: 27,239
Ricin's a drug. Want folks making that?
  #18  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:52 AM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
So, selling heroin to children should be a misdemeanor?
What, they are gonna buy heroin with their milk money?
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #19  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:53 AM
jackdavinci is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Port Jefferson Sta, NY
Posts: 8,076
I am fine with that in theory. Working out the practicalities will obviously be a project.

OTOH I am OK with policing quality. Though of course regulating something inherently a bit dangerous for safety is tricky, but at least people will know exactly what they are getting
  #20  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:35 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Meth is the same way, same with moonshine. If we had legalized moonshine (like 160-200 proof, typically cut with water), do you think most people are going to build moonshine stills to create moonshine themselves? No, most are going to buy moonshine from the store. Further more, by making people have to get a license to do so, odds are that one weirdo who wants to create his own meth and moonshine, will go get the license so he can legally do so, and get his hands on the ingredients and tools used to manufacture.

So I find your assertion absurd, and naive.
You mean like Everclear?

You're right in that most people don't bother building stills, and the vast majority of those who do are tinkerers/hobbyists.

But there are STILL moonshiners and illicit alcohol production operations in the US, despite all that. In particular, they target minorities and low income inner city residents- unlicensed and untaxed alcohol being sold from unlicensed places is both cheaper to the end user and very lucrative. (essentially a lot of that tax money is going to the moonshiner's pocket).

I think the fundamental difference here is that most anti-moonshining efforts are centered mostly around making sure the government(s) gets paid, rather than as a public safety/pure liquor type effort.

Most anti-drug legislation is more concerned with the societal effects, and most of those center around the idea that they're more easily addictive and that their addicts are more societally damaging than say... alcohol.

That said, there's a set of drugs that are pretty much NOT in that category of harmfulness or addictive potential, but for whatever reason are lumped in- weed and ecstasy/molly come to mind. These ought to be legalized, IMO.

But if a government legalizes some drugs, they're going to tax them, and you've just shifted your policing needs from prohibition to enforcement of licensing and purity.

Now beyond all that, there's a pretty big and vocal segment of the US population who tends to view ANY pharmacological alteration of one's mental state as unacceptable- they don't drink, for example. They're going to be even more against legal crack or legal heroin, and no amount of rational argument is going to change that. I'd wager that there are some of them lobbying the Federal government to go crack down on Colorado's legal weed as we speak, for the mere reason that they don't like it.
  #21  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:42 AM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,633
Drugs should be legal, if for no other reason than the war on drugs is a failure of epic proportions.

The people who want to use drugs will do so, regardless of the criminal penalties.

If there is a market, someone will step in and supply it.

Criminal penalties drive up the risk. Risk drives up price. Increased prices means more illegal profit potential. Profit potential means....and so on and so on....

It is unavoidable.

The war on drugs did not create a drug free America. It created powerful Cartels and the associated ills, including police and political corruption and hypocrisy.
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #22  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:04 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
What, they are gonna buy heroin with their milk money?
Uh, assuming this isn't a whoosh, yes and any other money they can get their hands on.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, should distributing heroin to minor only be a misdemeanor?
  #23  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:17 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
The war on drugs did not create a drug free America. It created powerful Cartels and the associated ills, including police and political corruption and hypocrisy.

You say this like it's a bug in the system. That's weird to me.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #24  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:35 PM
asterion is offline
Just Some Guy
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan View Post
Ricin's a drug. Want folks making that?
That's really more of a natural product extraction, ricin being a lectin and all.
  #25  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:28 PM
Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
What, they are gonna buy heroin with their milk money?
Middle school kids have money. They mow lawns, babysit, get allowances, money from grandma.

And hooked, they steal money.

Kids doesn't necessarily mean six year olds. It also means fourteen year olds - who are notoriously bad at making decisions.
  #26  
Old 07-18-2019, 05:49 PM
rsat3acr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
Drugs should be legal, if for no other reason than the war on drugs is a failure of epic proportions.

The people who want to use drugs will do so, regardless of the criminal penalties.

If there is a market, someone will step in and supply it.

Criminal penalties drive up the risk. Risk drives up price. Increased prices means more illegal profit potential. Profit potential means....and so on and so on....

It is unavoidable.

The war on drugs did not create a drug free America. It created powerful Cartels and the associated ills, including police and political corruption and hypocrisy.
So should we just make everything legal? The war on crime is a failure. Clearly criminal penalties don't keep people from stealing or committing murder. I believe most murders are a spur of the moment action and not premeditated therefore the are clearly committed regardless of criminal penalties and by your logic should be legalized.
  #27  
Old 07-18-2019, 06:02 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 13,017
Most people that start meth labs are not making it for personal consumption. They are making it to sell. Do most consume their own product, yes, but it is done as a business.

In states that permit recreational use of marijuana, there is a limit on how many plants you can grow for your own use. To mass grow, you must be licensed, have permits, and pay taxes.

Even given this structure, one of the biggest issues these states face, is bootleg marijuana production and dealing, so that growers can illegally bypass the taxes. Tax evasion can be a felony.
  #28  
Old 07-18-2019, 06:40 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan View Post
Ricin's a drug. Want folks making that?
I've already addressed this is unsound logic, you're operating on a false premise that by making something legal, you instantly get millions of people cooking meth in their moms basement.

Most of the posts after my last replies have reiterated the same things I already refuted or addressed. Disappointing
  #29  
Old 07-18-2019, 06:43 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Uh, assuming this isn't a whoosh, yes and any other money they can get their hands on.

Anyway, getting back to the OP, should distributing heroin to minor only be a misdemeanor?
Yes. (I thought the title made that clear)

Last edited by Barack Obama; 07-18-2019 at 06:43 PM.
  #30  
Old 07-18-2019, 06:52 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Yes. (I thought the title made that clear)
Nah that's just a straight up stupid idea, sorry OP.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #31  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:10 PM
madmonk28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12,301
Yeah, that’s just dumb.
  #32  
Old 07-18-2019, 07:53 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I've already addressed this is unsound logic, you're operating on a false premise that by making something legal, you instantly get millions of people cooking meth in their moms basement. {...}
How many meth labs you comfortable with?

CMC fnord!
  #33  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:02 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,342
Forget about giving heroin to children. Is it okay for a pimp to give heorin to his hookers to keep them working for him?

Is it okay for a football team to give amphetamines or meth to amp up players before a game, or to give them opioids to help them play when hurt?
  #34  
Old 07-18-2019, 09:39 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by madmonk28 View Post
Anyway, getting back to the OP, should distributing heroin to minor only be a misdemeanor?
Yes. (I thought the title made that clear)
Sorry Mr. President, you've lost any hope of winning my support. Children are especially vulnerable to an overdose because the dosage required to overcome their developing body is lower than it would be for an adult. I feel like there are other factors but as I am not a doctor, I won't speculate.

A quick search on the internet for the effects of heroin on children probably got me put on the FBI watchlist, but to my bittersweet satisfaction people find occasion to talk about the effects of losing a parent to heroin rather than the effects of heroin itself on a minor child. Even so it is a fact that kids overdose on opioids such as methadone or oxycodone (Leiber, 2018).

The point is that giving heroin to a child is never justified, and doing so will very likely ruin multiple people's lives, forever. Giving heroin to children is beyond the pale, and deserves a felony charge at the very least.

~Max

Leiber, M. (March 5, 2018). Opioid overdose among children nearly doubled. CNN. Retrieved July 18, 2019 from https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/05/healt...udy/index.html
  #35  
Old 07-19-2019, 02:04 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,593
Your history is way off.
One of the first things the Congressional Black Caucus did was to go to Nixon and demand that drug abuse and addiction by declared a major national crisis. In response to this Nixon declared the war on drugs 3 months later. The harsh New York drug laws were passed under Nelson Rockefeller, the liberal republican and long time NAACP member. The harsh California drug laws were passed under the very liberal democrat Jerry Brown. Liberal Senator Ted Kennedy was the first to propose a federal sentencing commission to make drug dealer sentences longer.

Private prisons only house 9% of the total inmates in the US. Only 20% of US prisoners are in for drug offenses. Private prisons and drug offenses are not large contributors to mass incarcerations.
  #36  
Old 07-19-2019, 02:12 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
So if people manufacture underground drugs for the purpose of distribution, we should just put that person in a gateway program?
  #37  
Old 07-19-2019, 03:00 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,115
I'm all for the full legalization of drugs. Glad to hear you're for it too. I guess that means you'll join the campaign to abolish the FDA? People should be within their rights to develop, produce and sell drugs of all sorts without FDA approval?

I've never understood people who on the one hand say that drugs should be legal, that people have a right to put whatever they want in their own bodies, and yet support the FDA being the sole arbiter of which medicines you can take and which ones you cannot.

The meth lab thing is a red herring. It's possible to regulate meth labs without regulating meth, in the same way that you might regulate the manufacture of industrial chlorine.

I would make one exception to legal drugs - those drugs which, when taken, make someone a danger to society. For example, if someone developed a drug which removed your inhibition to kill and harm others, and the mere fact of taking it constitutes reckless endangerment of the public, there's a rational, even libertarian basis for banning that drug.
  #38  
Old 07-19-2019, 04:25 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I'm all for the full legalization of drugs. Glad to hear you're for it too. I guess that means you'll join the campaign to abolish the FDA? People should be within their rights to develop, produce and sell drugs of all sorts without FDA approval?

I've never understood people who on the one hand say that drugs should be legal, that people have a right to put whatever they want in their own bodies, and yet support the FDA being the sole arbiter of which medicines you can take and which ones you cannot.
One word: Thalidomide.
Quote:
In 1960, Frances Kelsey was one of the Food and Drug Administrationís newest recruits. Before the year was out, she would begin a fight that would save thousands of lives ó though no one knew it at the time.
  #39  
Old 07-19-2019, 04:59 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,115
But you are for the legalization of heroin and meth? What if pregnant women take them? The FDA hadn't approved them. Marijuana has not gone through trials for efficacy and safety, but is used for medical reasons. What's the difference?

BTW, if you are going to list a single success of stopping a drug by the FDA, you also have to also consider the body count of people who died because a drug they needed was held up by the FDA, or who died because drugs that could have saved them were never developed because of the high cost of the certification process.
  #40  
Old 07-19-2019, 05:16 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
But you are for the legalization of heroin and meth? What if pregnant women take them? The FDA hadn't approved them. Marijuana has not gone through trials for efficacy and safety, but is used for medical reasons. What's the difference?

BTW, if you are going to list a single success of stopping a drug by the FDA, you also have to also consider the body count of people who died because a drug they needed was held up by the FDA, or who died because drugs that could have saved them were never developed because of the high cost of the certification process.
If you had checked the history of thalidomide you would had noticed that while there can be cases when people could had been saved, overall the evidence points at more people dying if the process and organization was not there.

What I posted was a way to explain why it was a bit nonsensical to declare that there are no good reasons to have a group like the FDA.

One should mention here that the current FDA is being looked approvingly by many private pharma groups thanks to their accelerated approval moves for some medicines and one should point out that a group like that is a good way to save the private companies' ass bottom line from their own biases as it happened in the thalidomide case.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 07-19-2019 at 05:18 PM.
  #41  
Old 07-26-2019, 07:40 PM
Dongyang2016 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 28
I get angry that the government has the ability to tell me, a legal adult what I cannot consume in my body in the privacy of my home, and then giving life altering punishments to violators of their drug laws.

I also get angry about criminal records and “background checks” that deny otherwise talented people for jobs (and housing) because of arrests and convictions that occur years and decades ago. How many 19-20 year old kids get caught with a nickel bag of powder, gets convicted and now has a felony that follows them around the rest of their lives. How is this right? Who does this protect? Answer, no one.

While not a felony, I have misdemeanor conviction for theft of property under $500 for stealing a steak from a supermarket, over 23 years ago. 1996. I live abroad now but am thinking about coming back to America to find a job. This is just not right that I have to worry and be “punished” for stealing a $19 steak almost a quarter century ago. And they wonder why criminals are recidivists. I mean, duh.

So what we have now is a bunch of people with low level drug convictions and people like me with misdemeanors who have eschewed and disavowed their past and want to be tax paying working people.
  #42  
Old 07-26-2019, 08:03 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,862
Dongyang, some places won't do a background check further back than a certain amount of time. IIRC, in Texas, for instance, many background checks won't look further back than 7 years for misdemeanors.

Plus, a misdemeanor for shoplifting 23 years ago sounds pretty trivial.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017