Posted on 05/25/2006 6:51:03 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
This self-delusion of yours and your out of the box "idiot", "slick", etc. name calling is why I question your intelligence and integrity.
I answered your stop sign question. But apparently I'll need to do it again for you. Breaking traffic laws can be accidental, negligent, or purposeful. The law recognizes this and incorporates punishments ranging from warnings to hard time in prison, as well as a point system to protect the public from repeat offenders. If you have some examples of accidental felonies I'd love to hear them.
I've left a store before with an item in my pocket (technically shop lifting), and then returned later to pay for it, so I know theft can be accidental, but I'm having trouble envisioning accidental drug dealing or accidentally stealing something worthy of a felony. In any event, I have something referred to as a good name, which puts me in a better position with the jury than a career criminal.
If you want to introduce caning or better yet hard labor to replace long prison sentences for nonviolent petty crime power to you. Hard labor can be a powerful tool for introspection.
Punishing the guilty with the well known penalty is an injustice for you? I reserve that term for an innocent person being punished, or the law being used in a fashion for which it was not designed.
I'll have much more clout in speaking out on real injustice simply because I don't have any problems with the "justice" part.
Really? I remember saying I feel sad for them, but I don't recall any reveling.
A point of distinction between us is that I blame the criminal for the awful thing they've done to their children. You want to blame me.
Rapists, bank robbers, and serial murderers have children too. What of those children? Aren't they innocent? Why would you punish them by taking away their fathers? Don't you care about them?
You want to pretend that first time pot heads are getting 20 years in prison, and that I'm all for that. Its a ridiculous position to take.
What I'm for is harsh punishment suitable to the crime. Armed robbery would be 20 years without parole. Violent rape would be 25 years without parole, the second offense would be life. Pedophiles would get life for the first offense, but I would not include post puberty minors into pedophile offenses. Theft, vandalism, and drug use (as long as its illegal) would be punished with hard labor. The first offense would be at least a week of hard labor and each offense after that would be punished by a period four times greater than the previous.
Should the misdemeanor thief who shoplifts day in day out, year in year out, get life at some point? Yes.
You blame society for being mean, I blame the perps for purposely choosing to repeatedly break a valid law.
I think the punsihment for speeding is too high for me, who hasn't caused an accident in my life, and too low for the woman who hit my wife at 60 mph, while driving on a suspended license. Yet I know the law and because of that I'm not going to cry "injustice" if I get a ticket. Even if the ticket is for 5 mph over.
Did you ever make three mistakes as a teen? Or are you more perfect than that. Three is hardly "career," although I would sympathize with LWOP at 10 or 20 convictions - that's a career.
A good five years for the first offense would be good as well, then he can't cry that he didn't know the consequences or have time to think about it.
Considering that your sentence is harsher than many get for manslaughter, I think you have grossly distorted priorities.
Tell me, when your innocent little burglar pokes his head in my daughters window at 2 AM, do you want me to give him a good slap on the wrist, and gently explain his employment options to him?
First of all, he's not "my" burglar. Second, if he's committing a crime, he isn't innocent. Third, if he enters your daughter's window, he isn't a nonviolent criminal, which is who I'm talking about. In any case, if you think her life or body is in danger, you are legally entitled in many states to shoot to kill. Does that do it for you? (Assuming you can stay on topic?)
Felony isn't an innocent mistake, and if a prank or boneheadedness results in a felony, I expect the perpetrator to get more than coddled and to learn from that. After this, there simply isn't any excuse for further "mistakes".
To answer your question, NO I haven't committed any felonies in my life. I did receive a speeding ticket as a 16-year-old. I was being irresponsible and would have benefited from a stiffer penalty than what I got.
Three is hardly "career," although I would sympathize with LWOP at 10 or 20 convictions - that's a career.
Completely disagree. You could start sympathizing at 20 convictions? You're a career coddler. This is likely the most defining of your statements. We are light years apart on this. I'm unwilling to subject society to these people's crimes. I sympathize with their victims. These nonviolent criminals do a great deal of real harm. That sums up my priorities quite well.
Third, if he enters your daughter's window, he isn't a nonviolent criminal, which is who I'm talking about.
What has he done? You think that 20 convictions "might" make someone a career felon, but you're willing to assume that a burglar is violent because there happens to be a girl inside the room he is entering? At least I'm consistent, and my willingness to punish him early would have a better chance of saving his life from some father busting a cap on him.
I just can't understand your lack of concern for society at large. If there weren't horrible consequences to giving felons second chances, I'd be all for giving them dozens. But there are real consequences to not punishing them.
Possession of an unregistered gun is a felony in some states. If your grandfather dies and passes a gun to you, and you don't register it, poof, you have just committed a felony. After conviction for that crime, if a cop finds so much as a single round of .22 rimfire ammo on your person, in your vehicle or in your house, that's "felon in possession" and according to your own standard of "career criminal" you yourself would advocate LWOP at that point.
After this, there simply isn't any excuse for further "mistakes".
Just so we know what sort of person you are.
To answer your question, NO I haven't committed any felonies in my life.
I'm greatly humbled by you. I have never met a single person in my entire life who knew the entire federal criminal code, not to mention entire state criminal code, and could state for certain that he had never committed a felony in his entire life.
Tell me, do you enter memory contests? You should, you'd certainly win. I only know ~80 digits of pi off the top of my head, but I do not think I could ever memorize the entire federal criminal code.
Incidentally, a BATFE agent bragged he could convict anyone on possession of bomb-making components. Do you, by chance, own (1) any glass bottles, whether full or empty, (2) gasoline in any container other than a completely siphon-proof vehicle, and (3) any cloth of any kind, such as a washcloth, sock, shirt, or towel? If the answer is yes to all three, said BATFE agent could allege that you possess "bomb-making components," specifically, to make molotov cocktails, possession of which is a felony. And that's just one of hundreds - thousands - tens of thousands - of ways that people can be charged with felonies.
Completely disagree. You could start sympathizing at 20 convictions?
I said 10 or 20.
You're a career coddler. This is likely the most defining of your statements. We are light years apart on this. I'm unwilling to subject society to these people's crimes.
Would you support stronger requirements for criminals to compensate their victims, as I do, or do you just want to empower The State more, because there are bad people? I sympathize with their victims. These nonviolent criminals do a great deal of real harm. That sums up my priorities quite well.
Some guy is found with a few grams of coke and an ounce of pot in his pocket, for the third time. Please tell me who he has harmed, that would justify locking him away for life? Third, if he enters your daughter's window, he isn't a nonviolent criminal, which is who I'm talking about.
but you're willing to assume that a burglar is violent because there happens to be a girl inside the room he is entering?
I think, and many juries and bodies of law agree, that someone entering an occupied room at night has more than theft on his mind. What is he trying to steal? Stuffed animals? Plastic unicorns?
At least I'm consistent,
Then you will have no trouble answering who is harmed by drug possession, by a known drug user.
and my willingness to punish him early would have a better chance of saving his life from some father busting a cap on him.
So that he can rot the rest of his life in some jail cell, because you don't "coddle" him (as I do, apparently) and you would send him to jail, LWOP? That's some lifesaver, you've got there.
I just can't understand your lack of concern for society at large. If there weren't horrible consequences to giving felons second chances, I'd be all for giving them dozens. But there are real consequences to not punishing them.
Well then, kill them all. Death on the first offense, because anything else is a second chance, and you apparently know all too well what the horrible consequences of giving them second chances is. Let's start by shooting all the people who have inherited guns, and haven't registered them, in the states that make such a felony. I'm sure you'll agree that will make America more free, and more safe.
That last paragraph is sarcasm, by the way.
According to your own post, one felony ought to be enough to lock someone away for life, "the cost of second chances is too high."
I doubt that there are more than a handful that fall into the category you describe.
Well, too bad for them, then!
This isn't to say that there aren't overzealous prosecutors, but that is a separate problem with known remedies. Overzealous prosecutors can send innocent people to prison for a long time without a three strikes law.
Here, you conflate the issue of excessively harsh sentences for minor crimes, with the issue of sending actually innocent people to prison.
The BATFE agent's statement you referenced is a joke.
It was said in all seriousness. Remember that this the same BATFE that jails people for writing "Y" and "N" on a federal form instead of "Yes" and "No" and that burns innocent women and children to death, after gassing them with a gas banned under the Geneva convention.
Your next point was that a person must memorize the statutory law of all 50 states, federal gov., protectorates, and D.C. to ensure they never commit a felony.
On the contrary, it was that a person has to memorize the federal law and those of one state in which he resides. Still, an impossible task.
Hmmm? Poppycock. You again exhibit the belief that our prisons are full of innocent citizens being rounded up on unimaginably exotic charges.
If they have broken the law, they aren't innocent, are they?
Your example of a felony possession charge for a cartridge in a felon's house is a bit humorous given the leeway given to most felons in this arena.
You are obviously unfamiliar with Project Exile, which the NRA fully supports, and which has sent a lot of dubiously harmful people to jail for mandatory minimum federal sentences.
In any event, I've found the Ten Commandments, and a small amount of research on transporting firearms to be quite sufficient for the last 40 years.
You are obviously not familiar with the case of the person whose plane was diverted to NJ, IIRC, either. He had a gun on board, it wasn't his fault the airline sent him there (it wasn't his destination) but he got slapped with several felonies, all at once. Too bad, I can hear you reply.
I also have a lot more faith in a jury nullifying a Star Chamber prosecution on technicalities than you do.
No technicalities here: that man was a criminal in the state of NJ, despite the absence of any intent or even control over his situation.
There are and always has been abuses of the law by those charged with executing it.
But that's just it, these aren't "abusive" prosecutions, they're letter-of-the-law prosecutions.
You appear to want to give criminals a pass because somewhere there may be a bad cop working with a bad prosecutor, with an inept defense attorney, and an asleep judge that just might be unfair.
False, I want to remove so many thousands of laws from the books that are more a tool of oppression than a means of protecting life, liberty, and property.
Right here I'll tell you that I've never bought into the line that it is better to let one thousand guilty men loose rather than jail one innocent man.
A revealing comment from you, at odds with the founding fathers of this country.
The flaw in this logic is that those thousand criminals do an incredible greater amount of harm to hundreds if not thousands of innocent people.
The flaw in your argument is that the destruction of liberty is a greater harm than the crimes committed by these released guilty people. Governments kill a lot more people than ordinary criminals do, and they use the law as their tool to do so.
We must do our best to give people a fair trial with ample defense in front of a jury. However, upon conviction we must believe that person to be guilty.
You forgot something: applying just laws.
We should not punish the convicted with the precaution that they might really be innocent.
That is not, and has never been, my position.
Finally, you want to imply that drug possession isn't really a crime, by challenging me with the victimless crime line. Who's hurt? Everyone. The user, the user's family, their friends, their neighbors, me, and you.
I'll ask my question again. How, specifically, are YOU hurt by someone possessing drugs?
I don't see a great deal of difference between the person that steals and the person that knowingly purchases stolen property.
Assuming the thief was a burglar and not a robber (that is, it was a non-violent crime) I don't either. But I do see a difference between both of these crimes, vs. murder, rape, assault, robbery, pedophilia, and kidnapping.
When a DEA agent is killed by a smuggler, the users financed it.
There you go again, bringing explicitly violent crimes into a discussion about drug possession. For the sake of argument, suppose the drug possessor grew or cooked his own, for his own use. Then there is no money changing hands, no smuggler ring supported, no DEA agents risked unless they want to bust down his own door, because he's growing a plant. How are YOU harmed by this?
When the cost of enforcing our common law is increased by users, it comes out of everyones pocket.
The fault for that is people like you, who vote for drug war funding, who vote for long sentences that will cost everyone even though you can't articulate how YOU were harmed.
If you want to legalize drugs, then push for that, but I'm not willing to ignore certain laws that are constitutionally valid because some people don't like them.
Curiously, it took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but not to ban pot, or heroin, or cocaine. I don't think the laws are Constitutional.
But I suspect that you would then worry that someone, somewhere might benefit from their labor.
That's not a concern, but profiting from labor of prisoners is something Red China does, and I'm not sure we should do it here, unless the ones who profit are the criminal's own victims. If The State profits from violations of law, it will be in The State's interest to criminalize as many things as possible. It is now openly admitted that seatbelt laws and speed limits are foremost about revenue generation, and only distantly (and dubiously) about public safety. But the wool is over enough people's eyes like yours, that such laws have strong support. Drug laws are in the same category, especially when the harm that illegal drug USE (not, e.g. gang killings over drug sale turf) bring, compared to tobacco and alcohol use.
I wonder if you are aware that people used to machine-gun speakeasies during The Prohibition, but that somehow stopped when Prohibition ended, which means that the criminal activity associated with alcohol at that time was more associated with prohibition, than with alcohol. The killings over drugs today are likewise.
Depending on the felony, YES! I do think that. Recidivism rates for pedophiles and violent rapists runs over 90%, and that is just based on those that get caught. Assuming that that the perps get caught the very first time they attack the next person, that means that giving 100 of them a second chance will result in at least 90 women and children being raped. Realistic numbers based on solved crimes puts the number at over 200. Have you no mercy for the innocent?
(In reference to your example amounting to a handful of people) Well, too bad for them, then!
Yes, and too bad for those falsely convicted, and too bad those who's mommy's didn't love them. All very, very sad, but meanwhile I'm protecting innocent lives.
Here, you conflate the issue of excessively harsh sentences for minor crimes, with the issue of sending actually innocent people to prison.
No. I point out that only an overzealous prosecutor would go after someone on the petty circumstances you point out. I then make the case that an overzealous prosecutor can always be too harsh and unjust no matter the law. Its like speed traps. They are their own issue; the answer is not to diminish the law or the punishment because someone, somewhere is over-zealously applying it. Deal with the real problem and continue to protect the innocent.
(c. BATFE agent’s comment)It was said in all seriousness. Remember that this the same BATFE that jails people for writing "Y" and "N" on a federal form instead of "Yes" and "No" and that burns innocent women and children to death, after gassing them with a gas banned under the Geneva convention.
You must have skipped the whole trial by jury concept. Yes, law enforcement can arrest you at any time any where. After this they must justify it. Please provide the case where someone was convicted for marking "Y" instead "Yes". As to the Geneva Convention, it does ban tear gas, not because tear gas is horrible, but because it is covered as a "chemical agent". This is unfortunate as tear gas would be very useful in Iraq right now and save a lot of innocent lives. Did you know that the GC also bans shotguns and deforming bullets? Are you compliant with that?
Nonsensical statements in response to my denial that memorization of the laws is required to prevent being convicted of a felony.
You are obviously unfamiliar with Project Exile, which the NRA fully supports, and which has sent a lot of dubiously harmful people to jail for mandatory minimum federal sentences.
Not at all. As an NRA member, I've fully supported it. Again, give me the case name of the individual that was convicted for having a single .22 LR round on their property.
But that's just it, these aren't "abusive" prosecutions, they're letter-of-the-law prosecutions.
There is nothing mutually exclusive about being "letter of the law" AND overzealous. Prosecutors are elected officers of the court who are tasked with enforcing the laws to protect society. If they use a law selectively to harass someone, then they have to explain that to a jury and ultimately to the electorate. Again I will point you to the speed trap analogy.
(on giving criminals a pass)False, I want to remove so many thousands of laws from the books that are more a tool of oppression than a means of protecting life, liberty, and property.
I too am protecting life, liberty and property. I just have non-criminals in mind.
The flaw in your argument is that the destruction of liberty is a greater harm than the crimes committed by these released guilty people. Governments kill a lot more people than ordinary criminals do, and they use the law as their tool to do so.
Pretty argument. Try telling the woman that just got raped by the repeat offender that she needs to suck it up and take one for the team. Again you create a straw man argument that we can't punish criminals without diminishing liberty for everyone. Just plain nonsense. Do you have children? Are you able to punish the one that broke the lamp, while running in the house, without restricting your other child's freedom to run on the playground? You really are very paranoid. You would hog tie the legal system in fear that every step was the first one on the slippery slope. This is why we have a jury system drawn from ordinary citizens, and a Republican democracy for making and unmaking laws.
I'll ask my question again. How, specifically, are YOU hurt by someone possessing drugs?
1. April 4th, 2005. I had a drug addict stick a 9mm in my face to get $20.
2. July 16th, 2005. The car in front of me went off the road, while the drug addict man was beating the drug addict woman. As all I could distinguish was that a woman was trying to flee and a man was restraining her and beating her into submission, I felt I had to intervene. Both of these people put me at risk of bodily harm or death.
3. My wife sees 60-70 drug users a week at the ER. Besides being occasionally hit or pissed on, it costs all of us about $35,000 a week for their care. That is one of thousands of hospitals.
4. My taxes are higher at a local and federal level both to pay for taking care of these self-induced cripples (and their financial responsibilities) and to pay for the damage they do to society with property damage and harm to other individuals.
5. Ditto my insurance rates.
Go bark up a different tree with that no-harm line.
(Concerning culpability of users for crimes of the trade.)There you go again, bringing explicitly violent crimes into a discussion about drug possession.
Its all the blood and murder that makes connecting the dots so easy for me. For the record I also think that buying black market organs finances murder and that frequenting Turkish brothels finances slavery. When one action directly results in another occurring, it takes fairly simple deductive reasoning to connect it. You have to close your eyes very tight to not see this.
As for your grower-users, I can't say that I've ever read about a person being arrested for growing one marijuana plant. It always seems to be tens or hundreds of plants. That's a lot of puffing for one person isn't it? But I'll answer your question with a question. What harm does child pornography do, especially if the pictures were taken in a country where its legal? Am I just a big meany to want to lock someone away for sitting in their own home and looking at thousands of pictures of children being raped? If your answer is "yes", then we fundamentally disagree on what should be done to protect society, and that is the answer to your question. I don't lose a moments sleep worrying that taking away child porn is a slippery slope to putting me in jail for writing an op-ed.
The fault for that is people like you, who vote for drug war funding, who vote for long sentences that will cost everyone even though you can't articulate how YOU were harmed.
Again you find the innocent to blame for the criminal's behavior. I supoose it was your mother's fault when you broke curfew, because she set the curfew to begin with. As for articulating the harm, I've done nothing but. You just don't think the harm is sufficient to infringe on the desire to get high. When the harm hits you and yours, I will expect a sea change in attitude.
Curiously, it took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but not to ban pot, or heroin, or cocaine. I don't think the laws are Constitutional.
No Constitutional amendment was required to ban alcohol. It was simply the route that was taken. In my opinion a poor use for an amendment to the Constitution. The decision has been taken to control certain substances that are found to be exceedingly dangerous or harmful when misused, e.g. dynamite, cocaine, DDT, rockets, machine guns, artillery, etc. Your logic would make all items and substances uncontrollable by Constitutional protection. I don't much care for anarchy, even when paraded as freedom. The Constitution provides us direction on where some lines must not be drawn and also a system which allows us free and open debate on where to draw other lines.
(concerning the prediction that you would come down against allowing shorter sentences if they had to include real hard labor)That's not a concern, but profiting from labor of prisoners is something Red China does, and I'm not sure we should do it here, unless the ones who profit are the criminal's own victims. If The State profits from violations of law, it will be in The State's interest to criminalize as many things as possible.
So in short, I was correct that you would be against it. As you think it would be profitable to incarcerate people for $40,000, so that you could profit from their ditch digging, I assume you are not running a business. You don't see much hard labor in the United States any more, simply because its no profitable. I want hard labor as a punishment, and I'm certain prison ditch diggers won't be sidelining bulldozers, but then I don't have your sensibiities.
It is now openly admitted that seatbelt laws and speed limits are foremost about revenue generation, and only distantly (and dubiously) about public safety. But the wool is over enough people's eyes like yours, that such laws have strong support. Drug laws are in the same category, especially when the harm that illegal drug USE (not, e.g. gang killings over drug sale turf) bring, compared to tobacco and alcohol use.
As someone that knows how and by whom those laws are lobbied for, you are dead wrong. I'll tell you my ER Doc wife has issues with seeing the 4 and 5-year-olds that come in without limbs or smashed skulls, she's also gotten tired of calling people in the middle of the night to tell them that their daughter, wife, son, husband, etc. is dead. That's why she pushes for these laws. But she is just being selfish, and we are thinking men who know what is really important, so please share your fair solution to people who fail to restrain/protect and fail to have adequate insurance or any insurance at all to pay for the $300 thousand to $1 million dollar medical bills that some of the revenue and our insurance premiums are offsetting.
Should we require proof of insurance before we extract the mangled bodies?
Perhaps we can take $20 a week out of their pay? That should straighten things out it 500 to 1000 years.
What should be the penalty for not having insurance? You know it could be an accident on their part, so don't be too harsh.
I wonder if you are aware that people used to machine-gun speakeasies during The Prohibition, but that somehow stopped when Prohibition ended, which means that the criminal activity associated with alcohol at that time was more associated with prohibition, than with alcohol. The killings over drugs today are likewise.
So all those stills that kept running were for historical purposes only? Isn’t it odd that we don’t still have “machine-gun speakeasies” full of minors?
Drug addicts kill and steal because they can’t/don’t/won’t earn enough money to support their habit. Unless you are going to force me to pay for their free drugs, this won’t stop. The idea that these recreational drugs would be so cheap that it wouldn’t matter is absurd to anyone familiar with normal pharmaceuticals. And good luck finding a manufacturer that will last five minutes after they are pounced on by the hordes of tort lawyers that will be massing at their gates.
For the third or fourth time, that's a violent crime, which is not what I'm talking about.
[I'll ask my question again. How, specifically, are YOU hurt by someone possessing drugs?] 1. April 4th, 2005. I had a drug addict stick a 9mm in my face to get $20.
That's not "possession" that's armed robbery, which is a violent crime. (For something like the fifth time.) Inicdentally, the Drug War costs ~$50 billion/year, which is something like $250/taxpayer/year, or the same as getting robbed of $20 every two weeks.
2. July 16th, 2005. The car in front of me went off the road, while the drug addict man was beating the drug addict woman. As all I could distinguish was that a woman was trying to flee and a man was restraining her and beating her into submission...
Assualt, DUI, reckless driving, kidnapping - not possession.
3. My wife sees 60-70 drug users a week at the ER. Besides being occasionally hit or pissed on, it costs all of us about $35,000 a week for their care. That is one of thousands of hospitals.
Drug poisonings are partly a result of poor purity controls, since the manufacturing chains are all illegal. (And, there were a lot of people poisoned or blinded by methanol or glycol during Prohibition, too.) The $35,000 cost is a consequence of socialist laws, that we have to pay for another's care, it's not a consequence of "drugs."
4. My taxes are higher at a local and federal level both to pay for taking care of these self-induced cripples (and their financial responsibilities) and to pay for the damage they do to society with property damage and harm to other individuals.
Again, a cost of socialism. (You forgot to mention that you also have to pay for the JBTs and the courts and the prisons, too, but you apparently enjoy paying for that - and forcing others to pay, too.) But, once again, this isn't "possession."
5. Ditto my insurance rates.
Go bark up a different tree with that no-harm line.
LOL! You still haven't answered my question, you've only offered changed subjects. If someone is growing their own, how does it harm YOU? You offer violent crimes in response to my question of possession. I don't know if you can not understand, or if you will not understand, but what is clear is that you do not understand.
Its all the blood and murder that makes connecting the dots so easy for me.
Your position is simply bigoted. KKK members and white supremacists can not distinguish between criminal and non-criminal black people; they're all out to rape white women as far as they are concerned. Brady Campaign gun grabbers can't distinguish between lawful and criminal gun ownership - any NRA member owns guns only to shoot up schools, as far as they are concerned. And you, similarly, are incapable of distinguishing between otherwise peaceable drug users, and armed robbers and kingpin dealers, who would kill police with abandon, just as part of the job. Same zebra, different stripe: bigotry.
For the record I also think that buying black market organs finances murder
So do you support an above-board market for organs, then?
and that frequenting Turkish brothels finances slavery.
Do you support or oppose legal brothels here, knowing that if they aren't legal, there will be more slavery elsewhere? Your answer will say a lot about you.
When one action directly results in another occurring, it takes fairly simple deductive reasoning to connect it. You have to close your eyes very tight to not see this.
One action: Criminalization of something, e.g. drugs. Another action occuring: criminal activity associated with the first, e.g. armed robbery. You have to close your eyes very tight to not see this.
As for your grower-users, I can't say that I've ever read about a person being arrested for growing one marijuana plant. It always seems to be tens or hundreds of plants.
It doesn't matter if there were such cases, because I doubt it would make any difference to you.
That's a lot of puffing for one person isn't it? But I'll answer your question with a question.
Answering a question with a question doesn't work for Mike Rosen and it doesn't work for me.
The decision has been taken to control certain substances that are found to be exceedingly dangerous or harmful when misused, e.g. dynamite, cocaine, DDT, rockets, machine guns, artillery, etc.
So you agree with the lefties about DDT? FYI the harms of that were grossly overstated, and even the lefties are starting to realise it.
Your logic would make all items and substances uncontrollable by Constitutional protection.
False. Constitutional Amendment is the ONLY legal way to ban something at the federal level, what with specifically enumerated powers and all that. Not that you care about Constitutional restraints to federal power.
I don't much care for anarchy, even when paraded as freedom.
Straw man. I didn't say "abolish all police and government" which is what anarchy is.
The Constitution provides us direction on where some lines must not be drawn and also a system which allows us free and open debate on where to draw other lines.
Indeed, it does. The federal government ONLY has powers where the Constitution specifically, explicitly gives it. And the result of this open debate for where to draw other lines is a Constitutional amendment.
So all those stills that kept running were for historical purposes only?
No, they were for criminals to make money with. (Like the Kennedys, who are still in political power as a result.)
Isn’t it odd that we don’t still have “machine-gun speakeasies” full of minors?
First, you misunderstood me, "machine-gun" was used as a verb, not an adjective. Second, alcohol is now decriminalized, which has reduced the incidence of teen drinking. Teens today find it easier to get drugs than alcohol, so your prohibition doesn't do what you apparently wish in terms of availability to children, at least.
Drug addicts kill and steal because they can’t/don’t/won’t earn enough money to support their habit.
On the contrary, many do, the so-called white-collar addicts. (Just as there are many responsible drinkers today, in fact the overwhelming majority - contrary to the representation of the Prohibitionists) But you don't care, you'd throw them in prison anyway, even though they don't steal or anything else other than buy or grow, possess and use.
The idea that these recreational drugs would be so cheap that it wouldn’t matter is absurd to anyone familiar with normal pharmaceuticals.
Can you remind me how much it costs to grow a weed? You have to spend money to eradicate it.
And good luck finding a manufacturer that will last five minutes after they are pounced on by the hordes of tort lawyers that will be massing at their gates.
Cook your own - at your own risk.
Imainge a parallel universe, where everything is the same except drug legality. Some guy passes you on the sidewalk, carrying dope. In that universe, he goes on about his way, because it's legal, where in this one, you notice it and drop a dime on him, and he is violently arrested and convicted and incarcerated. In neither case did he directly harm you. Yet you apparently would prefer to live in this one. It has nothing to do with drugs, because they are present in both cases. The real question is, why do you have this need to violently deprive others of their liberty?
You asked me to imagine a parrellel universe. I didn't have to try very hard, as you are in it. You have a vivid imagination and have described it in great detail. A place where cause and effect have no relationship and can be neatly divided. A place where crack cocaine is indistinguishable from Miller Lite. A utopia where drug use is what good productive citizens do to pass the time on their commute.
You may want to give thought to the fact that democracies that have failed have done so because they have failed to provide the rule of law, not because they haven't provided enough outlets for moral vice and crime.
So you are at least for long mandatory sentences, and progressively much longer sentences for repeat offenders if they threaten or cause physical harm to someone during their crime???? Well, that is a start. We'll see how you feel about adding theft to the list after your house and car get torn apart a few times.
We are in fundamental disagreement on several points.
1. You either believe that there is no connection between drug use and crime (which is ignoring the plain facts), or you believe that any connection, regardless of whether its even 100%, simply doesn't matter. I infer that you think the latter. To make a traffic law analogy, this would result in having no speed limits anywhere, because potential energy never killed anyone. To you, it is the failure to stop, not excessive speed, that is the problem. And if the speed limits were eliminated and death rates climbed 500%, so what, they are just failing to stop. Conversely, I see the connection and feel as much responsibility for what I fail to do as what I do.
2. You continually compare drug use to alcohol consumption as a means of downplaying it. I don't consider this any more valid than comparing scotch to coffee. Apples and oranges.
3. You believe the everything goes society you prescribe would be freer. From historical precedent, I think it would implode with devastating results for personal liberties in a fairly short period. The fascists were the law and order party in Italy, and quite popular because of it.
How did abundant, legal, and priced right opium work out for the Chinese? Don't blame the British, they weren't forcing anyone to use it.
I don't support brothels period. Did ending slavery in this country force slavery somewhere else? No, it didn't. But you're right about one thing, my answer and your question say a lot about both of us.
You said no such thing, and have been clear that law breaking, while under the influence should be punished. I should not have included the reference to a commute. My apology to you.
Considering that I have been speaking about nonviolent crimes the entire course of this discussion, I'm glad you have finally picked up on it. Tenth time is a charm, I suppose.
We'll see how you feel about adding theft to the list after your house and car get torn apart a few times.
Theft harms others objectively, and I support keeping it illegal. But, I have a higher bar for LWOP or death for those who commit such crimes (1) than you do, and (2) compared to those who rape, murder, etc., for which I have much less patience.
1. You either believe that there is no connection between drug use and crime (which is ignoring the plain facts), or you believe that any connection, regardless of whether its even 100%, simply doesn't matter.
You either believe that there is no connection between drug prohibition and crime (which is ignoring the plain facts), or you believe that any connection, regardless of whether its even 100%, simply doesn't matter.
To make a traffic law analogy, this would result in having no speed limits anywhere, because potential energy never killed anyone.
Bad analogy. (First, it's kinetic energy, not potential.) Reckless driving places others directly in jeopardy, whereas someone smoking a joint or snorting meth does not. But, like a KKK bigot or a Million Mom Marcher, you can't distinguish peaceable drug use (being black, gun ownership) from ancillary criminal activity, e.g. gangs.
2. You continually compare drug use to alcohol consumption as a means of downplaying it. I don't consider this any more valid than comparing scotch to coffee. Apples and oranges.
This country has experimented with alcohol prohibition, just as it now does do with drug prohibition. The same things said about drugs today have been said about alcohol: it ruins lives, it leads to hopelessness, it addicts most who try it, it's immoral and corrupts those who try it, it's poison, it kills people through disease, etc. Same old same old. I don't compare alcohol to drugs, except to say that alcohol kills ~50,000/year (which is far more than all illegal drugs put together) but rather I compare Prohibition to the drug war.
3. You believe the everything goes society you prescribe would be freer. From historical precedent, I think it would implode with devastating results for personal liberties in a fairly short period.
Cocaine, heroin, pot - all were legal for 100 years or more in this country from its founding to ~1906. What implosion happened during this time? You're the one citing historical precedent. Please cite it.
How did abundant, legal, and priced right opium work out for the Chinese? Don't blame the British, they weren't forcing anyone to use it.
Maybe not "forcing" but it was in their interest for there to be a lot of addicts, so they did what they could to encourage use. Comparing my position to that is dishonest, to say the least.
Its not a bad analogy just because it makes your argument look bad. A speeding car is potential energy, in reference to a crash, which is what is referenced. The analogy is perfect because to you there is nothing wrong in the chain of events until the final step. Thus, how can you say that someone that is speeding is reckless? They haven't caused an accident yet have they? You just refuse to apply the same logic to drug use. Its exactly the same thing.
But you don't compare alcohol to drugs?! Do you read your own posts?
Other things that were legal for hundreds of years before 1906.
-Going 150 mph on the interstate.
-Software piracy.
-Owning a machinegun without a permit.
-Flying without a license.
Notice a connection here? News flash, laws prohibiting harmful behavior don't usually exist before it becomes a problem for society. Notice that we no laws restricting spacecraft? You have a real problem with cause and effect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.