Tax time for students!

[Ecomike]

It's scary :shiver: how much you and I think alike in this area! Outright SCARY!

:sunshine:

I'm talking about "decriminalisation," not "legalisation." There is a difference.

If it's decriminalised, then mere posession and use is no longer illegal. There ca (and should be!) penalties for inappropriate use, and the guidelines for "inappropriate use" can be derived from those for booze. However, "decriminalisation" makes mere possession no longer a crime. It makes mere use no longer a crime.

I'm not wild about the effects of herion and other opoids on people - especially in the long term - but once it's been decriminalised and legitimised, it can be more properly addressed and we can begin to recover these people into useful members of society (akin to what is done in Europe. I don't normally draw favourable comparisons between us and Europe, but there are a few cases where they are ahead of us. Drugs and associated problems. Nudity taboos and their attitude towards the body. Public transportatioin infrastructure. &c.)

As long as we continue to make the mere possession of these substances illegal, we are going to continue to have the street crime associated with them. We are going to have signficant amounts of dollars leaving the country (which doesn't do the economy any good. Money goes out, but nothing useful comes back in that case.) And, we are going to continue to have a large unproductive segment of the population. And continue to ramp up our rate of incarceration. As said, a good percentage of the people locked up to-day (and getting stigmatised as felons) are not violent. And a good portion of them (mainly the users of THC - weed and hash) aren't likely to become violent.

The principal reason I advocate decriminalisation is simple and twofold: 1) What we've been doing for the last fifty years just flat is not working. 2) Prohibition of booze didn't work either. So, we after criminalising it (by Constitutional Amdendment,) and decriminalised it (by Constitutional Amendment.) This wouldn't take anywhere near as much work.

 

[fscrig75]

As usual there are many sides to the issue. But we started out in the 60's and 70's locking people up for +20 years with a felony record just for possession of any amount of weed. Some of them are still in jail today for nothing more than possession of the remains of a joint some one else left behind.

I'm not saying that the current laws on the books are right or wrong, but they are the law. Possession is possession whether its 1lbs or 5lbs. Thats just how I see it. If you don't want to get arrested for illegal drugs don't be around illegal drugs. If you want to smoke dope then you must be comfortable with the fact that if you get caught you might go to jail.


I agree with both you and 5-90 about changing our system to the way the Europeans run it. I do worry about the initial blast of morons who go out and baked and have ODs or DUIs etc... Its the same with the our drinking age, if we do away with the drinking age, I think, there will be a huge spike in DUIs, alcohol posionings and whatnot by the people that 21+ effects.

We can all say well tough people need to be responsible, till its our brother, daughter, cousin etc... then the ones, preaching from the mountain top, will be the same ones crying how there needs to be some type of regulation.

 

[buschwhaked]

I'm not saying that the current laws on the books are right or wrong, but they are the law. Possession is possession whether its 1lbs or 5lbs. Thats just how I see it. If you don't want to get arrested for illegal drugs don't be around illegal drugs. If you want to smoke dope then you must be comfortable with the fact that if you get caught you might go to jail.


I agree with both you and 5-90 about changing our system to the way the Europeans run it. I do worry about the initial blast of morons who go out and baked and have ODs or DUIs etc... Its the same with the our drinking age, if we do away with the drinking age, I think, there will be a huge spike in DUIs, alcohol posionings and whatnot by the people that 21+ effects.

We can all say well tough people need to be responsible, till its our brother, daughter, cousin etc... then the ones, preaching from the mountain top, will be the same ones crying how there needs to be some type of regulation.

There have actually been studies done saying that there would only be a marginal increase in the amount of marijuana users if it were to be legalized.

 

[fscrig75]

I suspect there are just as many Illegal drug users with normal daily lives, if not more, than there are gun owners who lead normal daily lives in the USA. And I am pretty sure there are way more drug abusers leading normal lives than gun owners.

I'll call BS on that one. If you can find some type of numbers then cool. I'm sure there are millions of illegal drugs users just as there are millions of gun owners.

I was comparing heroine users to gun owners. Not weed users.

 

[fscrig75]

There have actually been studies done saying that there would only be a marginal increase in the amount of marijuana users if it were to be legalized.

But really how could they even prove that if its not legal? People always say one thing and then do another.

 

[Ecomike]

I'm not saying that the current laws on the books are right or wrong, but they are the law. Possession is possession whether its 1lbs or 5lbs. Thats just how I see it. If you don't want to get arrested for illegal drugs don't be around illegal drugs. If you want to smoke dope then you must be comfortable with the fact that if you get caught you might go to jail.

Sorry but I still have a problem with leaving people in jail for 20 plus years just for possession of a naturally occurring, natural plant, and then a week later making the same possession a misdemeanor fine, or even legal. Seems like we should go back and do some kind of early release, amnesty convictions based on a failed idea or failed law.

We started this country in a revolution to fight bad laws.

If you want to see a great historical debate about my point, versus yours, watch the recent hit movie "The Great Debate" and play close attention to the final debate and final statement in the final debate about civil disobedience against bad laws.

 

[fscrig75]

I agree with 100%, the laws are stupid they are archaic and should be taken off the books.

BUT they are still on the books therefore its still the law. If you want to go smoke a joint thats cool, hell I'll let you borrow my lighter. You just need to accept the fact that if you get caught you might go to jail.

I feel bad for every 19y/o kid that got sent to jail for 15 years for having some weed in their car. But they knew it was illegal they took the chance and rolled the dice, and lost. Sorry do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

[Ecomike]

I agree with 100%, the laws are stupid they are archaic and should be taken off the books.

BUT they are still on the books therefore its still the law. If you want to go smoke a joint thats cool, hell I'll let you borrow my lighter. You just need to accept the fact that if you get caught you might go to jail.

I feel bad for every 19y/o kid that got sent to jail for 15 years for having some weed in their car. But they knew it was illegal they took the chance and rolled the dice, and lost. Sorry do not pass go, do not collect $200.

If you feel sorry for them, then do something about it. You seem to forget that we the people create the law, or least we use to create it, something about for the people, by the people, of the people. There is nothing that I know of that says we can not change the law, and in doing also also free those who committed non-violent criminals such as possession of traces of a naturally occurring weed and give them a second chance.

I mean really, 20+ years for the first conviction of possession of a trace of a natural weed. Does that sound like what a legitimate progressive civil society does to its youth?

The Nazi's used the same excuses, used laws on the books, and followed them because they were the laws on the books, they were just following the laws of the land as they committed atrocities. Just because it is the law, is no excuse to follow it, or condone it.

If the law required you to commit suicide at the age of 30, I take it you would follow the law because it on the books?

 

[Ecomike]

I'll call BS on that one. If you can find some type of numbers then cool. I'm sure there are millions of illegal drugs users just as there are millions of gun owners.

I was comparing heroine users to gun owners. Not weed users.

I was comparing illegal drug users, including weed. Last time I checked it is just as illegal, and unlawful as heroin, in sufficient quantities.

 

[fscrig75]

If you feel sorry for them, then do something about it. You seem to forget that we the people create the law, or least we use to create it, something about for the people, by the people, of the people. There is nothing that I know of that says we can not change the law, and in doing also also free those who committed non-violent criminals such as possession of traces of a naturally occurring weed and give them a second chance.

I mean really, 20+ years for the first conviction of possession of a trace of a natural weed. Does that sound like what a legitimate progressive civil society does to its youth?

The Nazi's used the same excusses, they were just following the laws of the land.

Sorry my current job does allow me certain lattitudes for political activities but I, personally, do not think I should be allowed to do that stuff so I don't. (I do vote though)

Yep your right its a natural occurring weed. But it was made illegal. Obey the law and you got nothing to worry about.
Do you get upset if you get a speeding ticket for going 5 mph over? Your still speeding aren't you?

Come on the Nazis really? This was going so well and you had to throw that garbage out there.

My brother lives on top of Mt Hood, OR. He snowboards all the time, tends bar and hikes the forest up there. When he isn't doing those things he smokes a lot of weed. I've told him over and over again, be careful. The locals at Government Camp might not care, but some statey that comes through who is having a bad day might care. And sorry, again, but the law is the law.

 

[fscrig75]

I was comparing illegal drug users, including weed. Last time I checked it is just as illegal, and unlawful as heroin, in sufficient quantities.

Ok, fine.

I was comparing heroin users to gun owners. Gun owners don't scare nearly as much as junkies who haven't had a fix in 8 hours.

 

[Ecomike]

Come on the Nazis really? This was going so well and you had to throw that garbage out there.

Agreed, it was going well, but you played the "Law is the Law" card, sounding like Silvester Stallone in that movie where he plays the Cop, Judge and Jury in one man, with instant justice delivered at the scene of the crime, LOL, so I had to play my ace card. The Nazi's, during the Nuremberg war trials, tried to claim they were just following lawful orders from superiors.

Comes from thinking like a mathematician. We tend to look at derivatives, and ask the question of what happens to a function at the extremes, does the output also get extreme, at what value does the output get extreme? In this case it tests the extremes of what happens when people put the written law above everything else, including common sense, reason, and rationality.

 

[fscrig75]

Agreed, it was going well, but you played the "Law is the Law" card, sounding like Silvester Stallone in that movie where he plays the Cop, Judge and Jury in one man, with instant justice delivered at the scene of the crime, LOL, so I had to play my ace card. The Nazi's, during the Nuremberg war trials, tried to claim they were just following lawful orders from superiors.

Comes from thinking like a mathematician. We tend to look at derivatives, and ask the question of what happens to a function at the extremes, does the output also get extreme, at what value does the output get extreme? In this case it tests the extremes of what happens when people put the written law above everything else, including common sense, reason, and rationality.

I'll give you the Judge Dredd, haha. But seriously thats just how I view things, me personally. I know I break the law all the time, I like to speed. The cops stop me ask me all those silly questions, why did I stop you? blah blah blah, I always tell them exactly why. I was 55 in a 35. They get that dumb look on their face. Priceless

We need laws, our society just can't operate without them, IMO. People are greedy and want more, more, more. We can't make everyone happy all the time with the laws.

Please don't start telling how laws are meant to control me and used so we are just all good sheep. I'm not buying you aren't convincing me. (Not towards you Mike, but someone will come here and tell me that.)

 

[fscrig75]

The Nazi's, during the Nuremberg war trials, tried to claim they were just following lawful orders from superiors.

I still think that is a bit of a stretch. They were following orders that everyone knew to be morally wrong. Orders that went against human rights. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (thats right isn't it?)

Yes you can say smoking some weed is some ones pursuit of happiness, but seriously comparing getting high to genocide?

 

[Ecomike]

I still think that is a bit of a stretch. They were following orders that everyone knew to be morally wrong. Orders that went against human rights. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (thats right isn't it?)

Yes you can say smoking some weed is some ones pursuit of happiness, but seriously comparing getting high to genocide?

Good question, I was not trying to compare getting high to genocide. Comparing the law treating a group of people as worthless maybe, but actually I was

Primarily taking your (the) argument that the "Law is the Law", no matter what, to its logical limit (the extrema), where it then becomes obvious that the "Law is the Law" argument is flawed at the extremes, and that it has its limits, a place where it is no longer reasonable or defensable.

Then the question becomes when should moral, reasonable people disobey the law, or fight the law or change the law (or defend the law for that matter). Sometimes one must disobey the law, such as civil disobedience to force changes in the law, to create public awareness and outrage, because the law sometimes tries to protect itself (with help from the few who seek power and control over everyone else) by outlawing challenges or changes to itself.

Nazi Germany did not start with Genocide, it started with the creation of a police state, and with new laws that took away the rights and possessions, jobs, the right to work of the targets, and created laws that took away the right to even object to their loss of a voice for those that were targeted (Jews for one, also communists, Gypsys, etc.), much like I fear we are, and have been headed for here, by creating common enemies of the state, scape goats to turn and re-focus the publics anger on over the past failures of the state. They were singled out and persecuted using a misuse of the law and abuse of power by those that had taken control of the law. The Nazi rise to power took a good 10 years or more before the genocide began.

Look at this way, would you rather take a chance on your kids trying drugs and ending up with a drug problem, or injury (not that any law is going to stop kids from doing and trying stupid sh*t) because the drugs were decriminalized (but keep in mind, education as to the REAL risks of drug abuse is the best true detterance!), or would you rather risk their getting caught on a possession charge because someone they gave a ride too dropped something out of a bag or pocket in your kids car by accident (or on purpose when they saw the cops bubble gum machine go off) , or because they decided to be stupid and try some weed, or other illegal drug, and thus ended up a felon for life, and in jail for 20 plus years?

Making these drugs illegal gives them a mystique that attracts young kids, decriminalizing them in combination with a public campaign to educate kids about the dangers of drug, & alcohol abuse, along with helping addicts dry out, and using those reformed addicts as spokespeople to youth groups to warn kids with real life stories, is the positive way to solve many of the problems the drug war has simply made worse.

 

[5-90]

If you feel sorry for them, then do something about it. You seem to forget that we the people create the law, or least we use to create it, something about for the people, by the people, of the people. There is nothing that I know of that says we can not change the law, and in doing also also free those who committed non-violent criminals such as possession of traces of a naturally occurring weed and give them a second chance.

I mean really, 20+ years for the first conviction of possession of a trace of a natural weed. Does that sound like what a legitimate progressive civil society does to its youth?

The Nazi's used the same excuses, used laws on the books, and followed them because they were the laws on the books, they were just following the laws of the land as they committed atrocities. Just because it is the law, is no excuse to follow it, or condone it.

If the law required you to commit suicide at the age of 30, I take it you would follow the law because it on the books?

Interesting you'd haul in Logan's Run...

But that's another point where we agree (check for rocks falling from the sky any time now...)

"If a law is to be rescinded as pointless, useless, and/or stupid, the review current incarcerees under that law to see if they should be released and/or exonerated and the record expunged. Not sealed - thrown out entirely."

There are a great many laws that should be rescinded out of hand and people given their lives back - I'm thinking that most of them are drug-related and/or firearms-related (NFA34 and GCA68 come readily to mind for the latter. Possession statutes for the former.)

I find it interested to note that, prior to GCA68, even felons would be given back their hardware upon release. Now, you get put away again if you get caught with a sidearm - violent or non-violent. Either make the distinction, or throw it out altogether (and eliminate the CCW idea as well. Society will sort itself out in very short order after that!)

 

[muddyrocks]

Another point: Those incarserated would be due large sums of money in the event of reversal of laws. I don't like it but it would be ventured.

 

[muddyrocks]

Was it Logans Run or was it Judge Dredd? I dunno...

 

[Ecomike]

Interesting you'd haul in Logan's Run...

:laugh3:

But that's another point where we agree (check for rocks falling from the sky any time now...)

"If a law is to be rescinded as pointless, useless, and/or stupid, the review current incarcerees under that law to see if they should be released and/or exonerated and the record expunged. Not sealed - thrown out entirely."

There are a great many laws that should be rescinded out of hand and people given their lives back - I'm thinking that most of them are drug-related and/or firearms-related (NFA34 and GCA68 come readily to mind for the latter. Possession statutes for the former.)

I find it interested to note that, prior to GCA68, even felons would be given back their hardware upon release. Now, you get put away again if you get caught with a sidearm - violent or non-violent. Either make the distinction, or throw it out altogether (and eliminate the CCW idea as well. Society will sort itself out in very short order after that!)

I should have known you pick up the allusion to Logan's Run, LOL.:laugh3: Great catch! Who says you have memory problems!

GCA68?

CCW?

I agree, I have a problem with ex-felons never being able to vote too.

OMG! Was that a rock?

LOL.:laugh3:

 

[Ecomike]

Was it Logans Run or was it Judge Dredd? I dunno...

Both! Logan's Run was where they committed suicide at age 30 (or was it 39?) as population control to be "Reborn" LOL!party1:

Judge Dred was " I AM THE LAW!"