DEA's pot raid draws protests

The Sacramento Bee (CA) ^ | December 15, 2005 | Robert D. Dávila

[LIConFem]

"People break the speed limit every day. Is the law unjust?"

Does: All A are B

necessarily mean

All B are A?

"Unjust? Says who? Maybe the law was unpopular, not unjust."

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you (or the legislators and executives passing such laws). Explain to me why government prohibition of the consumption of alcohol is just? Further, explain how taking a person's freedom for smoking a dried weed serves justice?

[R. Scott]

People suffering racial discrimination is not even in the same league as dopers having to do without.

Where did I state that it was?
From your comment, I get the impression that in your world nothing can equal the importance of the civil rights movement and resultant changes in the law. If nothing equals that in importance no further changes in law are necessary.

[jmc813]

How can you disparage Rosa Parks by equating her acts with a smoking dope?

You sound like Cultural Jihad when he used to accuse people not agreeing with his pro-illegal immigration agenda of "equating murder with misdomeanor border crossings".

[jmc813]

And my vote is no. It is morally understandable, but not morally OK.

Here's another example that might hit closer to home for you. Do you feel that true Chinese Catholics (not followers of the official ChiCom version of the Church are morally OK in practicing their banned religion? I certainly do.

And again, for the record, the disclaimer, I'm not equating freedom of religion with marijuana use.

[Mojave]

You sound like Cultural Jihad when he used to accuse people not agreeing with his pro-illegal immigration agenda of "equating murder with misdomeanor border crossings".

Best non sequitur I've seen in a while.

[Mojave]

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you (or the legislators and executives passing such laws).

No, it isn't.

[robertpaulsen]

"Where did I state that it was?"

Fine. Unless you're attempting to compare the two, there's no need to even bring up racial discrimination.

[robertpaulsen]

"And again, for the record, the disclaimer, I'm not equating freedom of religion with marijuana use."

Sure looks that way to me and others, jmc813. Religious persecution, racial discrimination, gender inequality ... that's one thing.

But dope? C'mon. People didn't complain this much when alcohol was banned.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If a sufficient number of people break a certain law, it then becomes time to re-evaluate the penalty or the law itself

What number would you consider a threshold? If, say, a million people break a certain law, is it then time to re-evaluate the penalty, or the law itself?

[robertpaulsen]

"Explain to me why government prohibition of the consumption of alcohol is just?"

Alcohol is legal. Do you mean the government prohibition of the sale of alcohol to minors? You're saying that's unjust?

"Further, explain how taking a person's freedom for smoking a dried weed serves justice?"

So you're suggesting that people who smoke dried weeds are thrown in prison? A bit over-the-top today, eh?

People who smoke marijuana are breaking the law. NOT arresting them makes a mockery of the law and does not serve justice. Do you believe in the rule of law? Or not?

[robertpaulsen]

"What number would you consider a threshold? If, say, a million people break a certain law, is it then time to re-evaluate the penalty, or the law itself?"

Some states have done just that and have decriminalized possession of marijuana. New York chose to pass the Rockefeller Laws ("re-evaluate the penalty" goes in both directions, btw).

Since we have yet to see any drastic changes to the law, we obviously haven't reached that threshold.

(A million? There's about 20 million people who do illegal recreational drugs.)

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If a sufficient number of people break a certain law, it then becomes time to re-evaluate the penalty or the law itself.

A million? There's about 20 million people who do illegal recreational drugs.

Can I assume you agree with the notion, then, that it's time to re-evaluate the penalty of the law itself with regard to marijuana on a federal level?

[LIConFem]

"Alcohol is legal. Do you mean the government prohibition of the sale of alcohol to minors? You're saying that's unjust? "

No, I meant what I said, in reference to prohibition.

"People who smoke marijuana are breaking the law. NOT arresting them makes a mockery of the law and does not serve justice. Do you believe in the rule of law? Or not?"

Yes, I believe in the rule of law, but if you truly believe that the law always = justice, you're pretty naive. The law is the law. Justice is justice. To the extent that the two intersect, great. But to automatically equate the two is folly. And I submit that controlling someone's lift to the extent that drug (and other) laws do is profoundly wrong and unjust.

[robertpaulsen]

"Can I assume you agree with the notion, then, that it's time to re-evaluate the penalty of the law itself with regard to marijuana on a federal level?"

You bet!

Since about 17 of those 20 million are involved with marijuana, that seems to be the drug to focus on -- I say we increase the penaly to discourage use. You agree with THAT notion?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Since about 17 of those 20 million are involved with marijuana, that seems to be the drug to focus on -- I say we increase the penaly to discourage use. You agree with THAT notion?

Not at all. The effects of marijuana use pose no serious threat to the user or to society. Therefore, marijuana use should not be criminalized. If anything, I'd rather the federal government focus on more pernicious drugs, like cocaine, heroin, and meth.

[robertpaulsen]

"No, I meant what I said, in reference to prohibition"

Oh, you're asking me if I thought Prohibition was unjust? Of course it wasn't unjust. The people actually voted for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to implement it. Please tell me why you think that action was unjust. Can you? Can you really?

No, you can't. Prohibition was a mistake -- an unpopular law that lasted a mere 13 years. The people recognized their mistake and corrected it. For you to look back on that decision and call it an overturning of an injustice is totally unfounded and just plain wrong.

"But to automatically equate the two is folly."

I did this?

"And I submit that controlling someone's lift to the extent that drug (and other) laws do is profoundly wrong and unjust."

Nobody is "controlling" anybody's life. Nice try. If you choose to use drugs, there's a penalty.

What's wrong and unjust is a minority of the people attempting to force the rest of us to protect their supposed "right" to immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destuctive behavior. How is that "just", forcing me and my family to live next to drug addicts and drug dealers?

[robertpaulsen]

"The effects of marijuana use pose no serious threat to the user or to society."

You're saying they DO pose a threat to the user, just not a serious one? I agree, and that's one reason to prohibit it.

As to the "threat to society" -- IF the legalization of marijuana resulted in a doubling of teen use, would that be enough of a threat to our society to maintain the illegality of marijuana? Or don't you care about that?

IF the legalization of marijuana resulted in a tripling of marijuana use among adults (with no reduction in the use of other drugs, like alcohol), would that be enough of a threat to our society to maintain the illegality of marijuana?

I'm just trying to get a feel for your definition of a "serious threat to our society", which I'm guessing is a very high bar (I thinking your "serious threat" = Bubonic Plague).

[LIConFem]

" Please tell me why you think that action was unjust. Can you? Can you really?

No, you can't..."

Not s'fast, kid... It was unjust, because it, like (many) drug laws sought to control/limit behavior for the sake of controlling/limiting behavior. There's a difference between punishing behavior that results in harm (either to people or property) and restricting behavior for the sake of restricting behavior. The former is justice. The latter represents government intrusion into the life of the individual. And that is inherently unjust.

And by the way, if prohibition was "a mistake", as you so correctly pointed out, why, then, do you sanction penalizing pot smokers? Can you list any tangible differences between the two drugs, in terms of their effects and/or addictive qualities?

"'But to automatically equate the two is folly.'

I did this?"

Refer to your own post (#60). In response to my question about why you thought prohibition was just, you responded that alcohol was legal, implying that legal = just.

"'And I submit that controlling someone's lift to the extent that drug (and other) laws do is profoundly wrong and unjust.'

Nobody is "controlling" anybody's life. Nice try. If you choose to use drugs, there's a penalty."

Once again, by this reasoning, you blindly equate the law with justice. And once again, limiting behavior for the sake of limiting behavior isn't the proper function of government.

"What's wrong and unjust is a minority of the people attempting to force the rest of us to protect their supposed "right" to immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destuctive behavior."

Wait just a second here... You posit that limiting behavior is NOT tantamount to "controlling" someone's life, yet you believe that someone else's drug use is forcing you to protect their rights? And if drinking alcohol socially isn't "immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destructive", how does someone smoking pot with the same or similar frequency deserve those labels?

"How is that "just", forcing me and my family to live next to drug addicts and drug dealers?"

This is my fav... How the heck does legalizing pot "force" you to live next to junkies or drug dealers, any more than legalizing alcohol force you to live next to Ted Kennedy???? And I find it particularly interesting that you don't take behavior-modification laws as "controlling", but you think the lack of them is.

And by the way, it's very likely that legalizing pot would pretty much do away with pot dealers, and I doubt seriously that the number of users/abusers would increase significantly. I don't avoid pot because it's illegal. I avoid it because it has no place in my life, just as I limit my drinking to social occasions because drinking to excess holds no fascination for me.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

You're saying they DO pose a threat to the user, just not a serious one? I agree, and that's one reason to prohibit it.

I'm saying marijuana use, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to its users. Its effects are so insignificant that no level of government should be concerned with its prohibition. I believe state and local government should regulate its use in the same manner state and local governments regulate alcohol use or tobacco use.

As to the "threat to society" -- IF the legalization of marijuana resulted in a doubling of teen use, would that be enough of a threat to our society to maintain the illegality of marijuana? Or don't you care about that?

See above. A reasonable marijuana "legalization" scheme would undoubtedly include certain restrictions aimed at reducing underage use of marijuana. I don't advocate underage people using drugs or alcohol at all.

IF the legalization of marijuana resulted in a tripling of marijuana use among adults (with no reduction in the use of other drugs, like alcohol), would that be enough of a threat to our society to maintain the illegality of marijuana?

Adults should be free to make their own decisions, yes? If marijuana legalization results in more adults using marijuana, why would that threaten our society in any way? As I wrote earlier, the effects of marijuana use are tame compared with the effects of alcohol use, tobacco use, cocaine use, heroin use, meth use, oxycontin abuse, etc.

I'm just trying to get a feel for your definition of a "serious threat to our society", which I'm guessing is a very high bar (I thinking your "serious threat" = Bubonic Plague).

I think meth use poses a serious threat to our society. I think heroin use poses a serious threat to our society. I think cocaine use poses a significant threat to our society. Does that help a bit?

[robertpaulsen]

"There's a difference between punishing behavior that results in harm ..."

Aw, geez. The old harm vs. no harm argument. You'd have more credibility with that one if you could point out just one society/government in all of recorded history that used that philosophy as a guideline for their laws. It's a Libertarian utopian wet dream.

"And that is inherently unjust.

Oh baloney. Calling it unjust doesn't make it so. Because a law is against certain immoral behavior does not make it unjust.

"And by the way, if prohibition was "a mistake", as you so correctly pointed out, why, then, do you sanction penalizing pot smokers?"

Huh? You see some relevant connection between the two? I don't.

"Refer to your own post (#60). In response to my question about why you thought prohibition was just, you responded that alcohol was legal, implying that legal = just."

Hey, refer to this. I never said that all laws were just, nor did I ever say that the implementation of those laws equated to justice. Got it now?

You're the one doing the generalizing here, not I.

"Once again, by this reasoning, you blindly equate the law with justice."

Again ... huh?

What's with you and this law & justice fetish? There is nothing inherently unjust about a law against immoral behavior. Most of our laws are against immoral behavior. What's your problem with that?

"And once again, limiting behavior for the sake of limiting behavior isn't the proper function of government."

Oh, so you think society prohibits drugs just for the sake of prohibiting drugs? No other reason?

"yet you believe that someone else's drug use is forcing you to protect their rights?"

Watch it, bucko. I never said that, and that's the second time you put words in my mouth. Fair warning -- once more and were done. I have better things to do than spend half my posts correcting your f^&$ ups.

Nobody's drug use if forcing me to do squat. I said if anything is unjust it is forcing the majority of society, against their will, to protect the supposed "right" of people to do drugs. Which is what you would have us do.

"And if drinking alcohol socially isn't "immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destructive", how does someone smoking pot with the same or similar frequency deserve those labels?"

Getting drunk IS immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destructive. Drinking is not.

"How the heck does legalizing pot "force" you to live next to junkies or drug dealers, any more than legalizing alcohol force you to live next to Ted Kennedy???? "

No clue, huh? Let me spell it out for you. Since pot is illegal, I can have the junkies and pot dealers moved far away from me and my family. I couldn't move Ted Kennedy with a forklift.

"that you don't take behavior-modification laws as "controlling", but you think the lack of them is."

Laws against immoral behavior leave people with a choice -- they are not "controlled" or forced to do anything. 20 million illegal drug users will attest to that fact.

I have no choice if drug dealer is legally allowed to move in next door -- not like I do today.

"And by the way, it's very likely that legalizing pot would pretty much do away with pot dealers"

30% of pot smokers today are underage. If history is a guide, with legalization, that number will go up. So, with half the marijuana market being underage, you're telling me this "pot dealer" will go away and get a real job. Really? Promise?

Oh, what a wonderful world you Libertarians live in. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

We legalize marijuana and the pot dealer will sell to kids. Unless marijuana will be legal for everyone.

The pot dealer will sell other illegal drugs in addition to marijuana. Unless you're planning on legalizing all drugs, including prescription drugs.

The pot dealer will sell high THC pot. Unless you think the government will allow that.

The pot dealer will sell pot laced with other drugs. Unless they're legal also.

The pot dealer will turn from an importer into an exporter, selling our legal marrijuana to countries where it remains illegal. Unless, again, you assume the ROW will follow The Great Satan's lead.

So yeah, given those assumptions, the pot dealer will go away.

"and I doubt seriously that the number of users/abusers would increase significantly."

Your "doubt" is based on what ... hope? Certainly not on history. In the late 70's, pot use was TRIPLE the lowest level since then. And it was illegal, mind you.

"I don't avoid pot because it's illegal"

Which doesn't mean a thing.