Actually, we pointed out that the amount at which possession becomes dealing in the eyes of the law is set so low that many people who are actually only guilty of possession are wrongly convicted of being dealers, so off to jail they go.
For someone to be convicted of selling drugs, absolutely zero evidence is needed that they ever sold a thing. Somehow people think that there’s nothing wrong with this. 
Completely true. However, the disagreement in this thread seems to not be on the issue “Should pot be legal or illegal?” (there seems wide agreement that it should not be illegal, or at least decriminalized, whatever the subtle distinction, which always evades me), but rather on the issue “Given that certain pot-related activities are currently legally punished by incarceration, should we feel sympathy for those who go to jail as a result?”.
Which itself raises the larger ethics question of whether there is a threshold at which these people would say, “Enough! The law has become an ass.” Despite his foibles and enigmaticisms (like the LA purchase), I like Thomas Jefferson’s take on this matter: “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”
Danger! Falling Strawman!
If there was a constitutional amendment that even tried to MENTION the sweet mary jane, then righteously fighting the system is the deal! 'Til then, just because a law is stupid doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow it and just because you don’t follow it BECAUSE it’s stupid doesn’t mean that you should be exempt from the consequences arising therefrom.
Slight nitpick: although the aftermath occurred under Clinton, George H. W. Bush was president when the actual arrest and botched raid took place.
Agree 100%.
Because a lot conservatives that I know think of tacet violation of gun laws as minor/victimless crimes (similarly to the way a lot of my liberal friends feel about law-abiding marijuana smokers). If you don’t share this sentiment, you place a higher value on the ‘law and order’ tenet of conservative thought than you do on the ‘anti-government intrusion’ tenet which became more pronouncd in the years since the Reagan revolution.
If you believed Randy Weaver’s arrest was justified, you are the first self-identified conservative I’ve ever met who did so. And I’m talking here about the intial arrest on a weapons charge – the ATF overkill in response to Weaver’s failure to appear in court is a different matter.
The trick with freedom is that for it to really mean anything you have to be in favor of it even in situations you don’t like or understand. Everyone is an advocate for their own freedom. The hard part is being an advocate for everyone else’s.
It might not seem that high at first glance, but it is the highest rate in the world.
The only remnant of our society that will society that will last as long as the Pyramids are our prisons.
The difficulty in taxing an herb that is easily grown by anyone might have a lot to do with its illegality. After all, there is no “Big Fat Doobie” lobby working the halls of Congress to ensure the American public their unfettered access to marijuana. Instead, we’re stuck with either legally enjoying dangerous substances that can be sold at great profit and easily taxed, or run the risk of the consequences of deciding what mood alterant we prefer.
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
Where does Absolute say that he never ever breaks the law? Furthermore, are you seriously saying that driving drunk shouldn’t be against the law??
** Oh, yes, of course that’s exactly what I said, isn’t it. No, wait, it’s nothing of the sort. His contention was (essentially) you knew what you were doing was against the law, therefore, don’t expect sympathy when you get the consequences. And I am suggesting that while most folks do seem to know that driving under the influence is against the law, most wouldn’t have a fucking clue what their blood alcohol is on any occasion, unless they’ve routinely done breathalyzers on themselves.
I often see business folk out in the bars/restaurants drinking, and believe they’re “ok” to drive. I believe that they would, indeed test out over the 0.08 bal. Additionally, even for those who will designate a driver before they tie one on, don’t think twice about their BAL the next morning. FME, (supervised a boatload of drug/alochol tests), their BAL would test out higher than accepted levels.
don’t know, don’t care where he lives. Again, his contention is that knowingly breaking a law = no right for compassion from him. And, again, most citizens where I live don’t know about the law on seduction, therefore, they couldn’t ‘knowingly’ break it. In court, it won’t be a defense. Indeed even if your date swears she’s 16 and you believe her, if she’s under 16, you’re still guilty of a crime in my jurisdiction.
There’s any number of cases I can think of where some one could knowingly commit an act w/o knowing that it was criminal in nature.
hope you’re including your strawmen on the side. I’ve not commented on if I think pot should be illegal, let alone growing, selling it. Not my point at all.
Oh, yes, of course that’s exactly what I said, isn’t it. No, wait, it’s nothing of the sort. His contention was (essentially) you knew what you were doing was against the law, therefore, don’t expect sympathy when you get the consequences. And I am suggesting that while most folks do seem to know that driving under the influence is against the law, most wouldn’t have a fucking clue what their blood alcohol is on any occasion, unless they’ve routinely done breathalyzers on themselves.
I often see business folk out in the bars/restaurants drinking, and believe they’re “ok” to drive. I believe that they would, indeed test out over the 0.08 bal. Additionally, even for those who will designate a driver before they tie one on, don’t think twice about their BAL the next morning. FME, (supervised a boatload of drug/alochol tests), their BAL would test out higher than accepted levels.
don’t know, don’t care where he lives. Again, his contention is that knowingly breaking a law = no right for compassion from him. And, again, most citizens where I live don’t know about the law on seduction, therefore, they couldn’t ‘knowingly’ break it. In court, it won’t be a defense. Indeed even if your date swears she’s 16 and you believe her, if she’s under 16, you’re still guilty of a crime in my jurisdiction.
There’s any number of cases I can think of where some one could knowingly commit an act w/o knowing that it was criminal in nature.
hope you’re including your strawmen on the side. I’ve not commented on if I think pot should be illegal, let alone growing, selling it. Not my point at all.
Nonsense. THC may be harmless, I’ll grant you. Smoke from burning carcinogens isn’t just harmful, it’s harmful to bystanders.
Sailboat
Three things wrong with that.
First, I disagree with your definition of a basic human right.
Second, I am in no way convinced that smoking pot in no way harms anyone else (let alone to the smoker).
Third, there are a number of criminal activities that could reasonably be stated to be “victimless.” Off the top of my head, there’s a whole slew of “attempted” crimes. But aside from that, polygomy, many cases of statutory rape, 99% of all drunk driving violations, 99.999999999999% of all speeding, stop sign, and red light running violations, parole violations (leaving the city without checking in - did that really hurth anyone?), not showing up to jury duty, tax evasion (do you really think the government is going to change the budget in the slightest because the average guy didn’t pay taxes?), cockfighting (hey, did Michael Vick actually hurt anyone?), violating restraining orders (did coming within 100 feet actually hurt anyone?)…the list goes on and on.
Fair enough. Looks like we both don’t have a clue what each other’s point is, because you missed mine and Absolute’s entirely. But yes, I didn’t get that out of your post, and for that I apologize.
your point isn’t (essentially) 'no sympathy from me if you knowingly break the law"?
Thought I addressed that in my most recent post.
Only partly. It’s you have to be prepared to accept the consequences if you intentionally break the law. You spoke about unknowingly breaking the law, which is maybe murkier…
Someone else mentioned, and I agree with, that I know that speeding is wrong, and if I’m caught speeding, I’m fully prepared to pay the price. I try not to speed (and I honestly try not to, which is a bane to my wife when we’re running late to her parents’…again…well, if she’d just take less time in the bathroom…hmmm…wrong time, wrong place here) but I have been pulled over, and it’s a fair cop. I don’t complain about how it’s a victimless crime and an unjust law.
That single stat is very interesting to me.
My county’s jail is online. 78% (yes, I counted) of this week’s inmates are there on alcohol-related charges (DUI, mostly). The second largest population is there on domestic violence charges; the 3rd largest is everything else, including drugs.
Depends on what you mean by ‘not harming’ someone else. In your OP you indicated (or seemed to indicate) that prison should only house “dangerous” criminals who “hurt” other people, and that it was inappropriate for any crime that didn’t hurt someone else.
So, how do you define hurt?
Again, you appear to be saying no one should go to prison unless they physically harm someone, and that everyone else who commits a crime should be “ignored”. Is this the case? And if so, what do you think should happen to someone who picks your pocket and makes off with your cash and credit cards? What if they break into your house when you aren’t home and make off with your possessions? What if they are fifty years old and have sex with a willing twelve-year-old? What if someone rents you a house they don’t actually own and makes off with your deposit and leaves you with nowhere to live? Etc., etc., ad infinitum.
On the other hand, if you are simply talking about so-called victimless crimes such as prostitution, gambling, pot-smoking, etc., why don’t you just come out and say so without all this talk about how no one deserves prison if they’re not hurting anyone?
As I recall, there was some disagreement as to just what laws Weaver violated and whether or not he was set up by the ATF or FBI. If he was truly guilty as charged, then yes, I would view his arrest as being justified.
Having said that, I despise the things that were done by law enforcement agencies with regard to both Weaver and David Koresh. In each instance, I feel the federal authorities deliberately chose to provoke an unnecessary confrontation solely to crush people they viewed as unlawful upstarts who dared to challenge their authority and firepower. In other words, they just decided that they were gonna kick some ass, and many people died unnecessarily as a result. The people responsible for these atrocious assaults will never get what they deserve…not in this lifetime anyway.
However, I disagree with your assessment that this means I hew to the law-and-order segment of conservatism rather than to the less-government-intrusion segment. The one does not necessarily exclude the other and I view myself as a proponent of both.
“should” is a strong word. I don’t suppose you have any studies to cite which show this to be an effective method of modifying someone’s behavior, do you?
I believe recreational drug use, particularly marijuana, should be legal, but it isn’t, so the question is what punishment is appropriate for MJ smokers/possessors, and is the punishment justice. The War on Drugs and mandatory sentencing remove a basic concept valued in American society, the individual. What is the point of having a judge to impose a sentence when the law predetermines the sentence and doesn’t consider mitigating circumstances? Mandatory sentencing is frequently a miscarriage of justice and a massive expense to tax payers.
I have known many pot smokers. A shortage of potato chips and Block Buster rentals seems to be the only serious risk to society. Surly there is an alternative to prison for potheads/drug users. I am sure there is also a better way to responsibly respond to substance abuse and mental illness.
If there’s no harm, how can there be any crime? How does Homer J Stoner lighting up inhis living room harm anyone, besides, perhaps, himself?