or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Milton Friedman: Legalize It!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Milton Friedman: Legalize It! - Page 3

post #81 of 368
and BTW: terrible analogy, because public masturbation is not smoking pot and is potentialy very harmful to others in a direct manner . . . and if you can't understand that then I don't know what to say.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #82 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
What insipid idiocy . . . . I do happen to gree with Trumptman that it is fishy to base the idea of rights on the 'bottom-line'

and I also object to the War in Iraq on entirely different lines than dollars . . . but you show consistently that you are incapable of thinking beyond your little reactionary idea about us 'progressives' . . . . and just the fact that a great number of VERY CONSERVATIVE people, high profile eloquent spokespeople for the Conservative movement, why I meantioned William F Buckley (but obviously you don't even know who he is . . . after all he isn't Star Trek) shows that decriminalization is NOT a Left/Right issue!!

and you didn't even comment on the fact that the issue is actually most susceptible to a old-school-Conservative's perspective: get Big-Governmenet-Mommy-Protections off of my back!!

Get it!!!?

I do get it. If laws are changed to make MJ legal, I will accept it as law, despite disagreeing with it. Majority rule and all. I may even raise a torch to try change it. I can't say i blame a pothead for wanting pot to be legal. But wanting and getting are two different things.

The problem with this whole argument is people want to say the current law is stupid simply because they don't like it. Of course anyone that disagrees with you is also stupid, according to your latest post. Not a very effective way of getting a majority to help you change current laws, ya think? Your tactic shows why this will never be a law here in the US. Condescension is just part of being "progressive", I suppose.

By the way, I do know who William F Buckley is. What I don't know is, how what he thinks is supposed to influence me.
post #83 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
and BTW: terrible analogy, because public masturbation is not smoking pot and is potentialy very harmful to others in a direct manner . . . and if you can't understand that then I don't know what to say.

Wait a minute - I think I remember how the republicans do this kind of thing:

"You don't want to legalise marajuana? WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH?!?!"
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #84 of 368
Quote:
The problem with this whole argument is people want to say the current law is stupid simply because they don't like it.

No, it is illegal because a small segment of the population used propaganda to instill fear in the population, and inertia is too big to get the law reversed.

It would be a good thing for the country if marajuana was legal - I don't think that you can dispute that with any good reason. Because it would be good for the country to remove the law, the law is a bad law.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #85 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
No, it is illegal because a small segment of the population used propaganda to instill fear in the population, and inertia is too big to get the law reversed.

It would be a good thing for the country if marajuana was legal - I don't think that you can dispute that with any good reason. Because it would be good for the country to remove the law, the law is a bad law.

According to you.

I think it's good law.

Oh wait, I forgot, I'm stupid I don't count. Save me from myself. Please.

Make me smoke pot.
post #86 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Nope. It is about majority rule. Always has been. You can twist it to be about oppression or whatever. Democracy means majority rule.

One sense of the word "democracy" means pure-and-simple majority rule, but that sense is best expressed by the word "majoritarianism". In common modern usage, "democracy" generally refers to constitutional democracy, and constitutional democracy is certainly not majoritarianism. Constitutional democracies (ideally) ultimately derive their power and authority from majority support, but filter raw majority impulses in a number of important ways.

One of those ways simple majoritarianism is filtered is by getting the majority to agree on broad principles such as freedom of speech. The social bargain we make for freedom of speech goes something like this: "I know I'm likely to be in a majority in some of my opinions, and in a minority in other opinions. I wish to express as broad a range of my own opinions as I can, without concern that the majority, acting through the government, will suppress or limit my expression. In order to have this freedom myself, I understand that I must grant everyone else the same freedom, and may have to endure exposure to expressions of views that I find objectionable or even repugnant as part of the deal."
Quote:
Well, you see that's what you "progressives" want to do, isn't it? In your circle it's socially acceptable, so therefor you wish to impose your "social values" on everyone else, despite being in the national minority on this issue.

I don't find drug use "socially acceptable". I don't use drugs myself apart from alcohol, and even that is something I indulge in rarely and typically in small quantities -- a beer or two every few months.

I, however, feel no need to impose my views concerning drugs on others. Why? Because until others interfere with my freedom or threaten my safety by what they do, it's none of my business what substances they inhale, ingest, or inject.
Quote:
Not really. No-one is forcing you to leave. It happens to be an option afforded to you. You can stay, just don't sell pot to minors or smoke it in public. That's all.

So, in addition to your bizarre idea of "freedom" which includes freedom to be jailed for doing what you like, you'd like to now extend that to include "freedom" to attempt to evade law enforcement?
Quote:
I like the "progressives" are using the word Gulag when talking about America. Brilliant perspective.

The only "brilliancy" on display here is a brilliantly gratuitous example of missing the point.
Quote:
Going to jail for possession of a controlled substance is now comparable to a Stalin era gulag where millions died of starvation.

No such equivalence was stated at all. I'm not sure if it's kinder to imagine that you're incapable of seeing that, or to imagine that you see it plainly but are willing to twist things dishonestly for rhetorical effect.

The point is that words like "free" and "freedom" become uselessly devoid of meaning if you include things which are against the law among those things you are "free" to do -- if only you accept punishment, evade law enforcement, or leave your own country.

[Edit: fixed some bad vB code]
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #87 of 368
Quote:
Oh wait, I forgot, I'm stupid I don't count. Save me from myself. Please.

That makes no sense - it is you that is trying to save people from themselves by wanting pot to be illegal.

You are the one that wants the nanny state, not me.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #88 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
On the discussion topic, I was hoping for more people looking at the whole goverment granting rights not because they are proper, inalienable, etc. but because there is money to be made or costs that are not incurred. I'm not much of a slippery-slope guy but I do see more and more instances in our society where people are claiming rights can be withdrawn because of their cost or granted to save money. To me, it is a troubling trend. Our human rights should be more than a math problem that we hope adds up correctly.

So marijuana isn't right because it does no harm, or wrong because it does cause harm it is right or wrong because it costs or saves X dollars.

I agree, and the idea that we ought to legalize drugs because we'd make money off it seems immoral to me.

I don't have a problem with sin taxes, like taxes on tobacco, as a means of collecting revenue and discouraging behavior that's clearly destructive. But I don't like making "sins" legal for the sole purpose of taxing them, which is what I think has happened in some cases like state lotteries.

I personally think it would be fine to decriminalize drug use for libertarian principles, but I don't think selling should be legal.
post #89 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I do get it. If laws are changed to make MJ legal, I will accept it as law, despite disagreeing with it. Majority rule and all.

So if the laws changed to make murdering jews or slavery legal, you would accept it as law, despite disagreeing with it. Majority rule and all.
post #90 of 368
Quote:
But I don't like making "sins" legal for the sole purpose of taxing them, which is what I think has happened in some cases like state lotteries.

In the case of MJ, I don't think that it is the sole case for legalisation - but it may be the thing that pushes it over the edge.

In fact, that is the last point made in the article that started this thread. There are many reasons to legalise drugs, but the thing that will make it happen is the chance for congress to spend some extra money.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #91 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
So if the laws changed to make murder of jews or slavery legal, you would accept it as law, despite disagreeing with it. Majority rule and all.

I believe this is the place for NaplesX to totally (and deliberately?) miss your obvious point by saying something like "You think sending drug users to jail is as bad as killing jews and slavery!?"
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #92 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
So if the laws changed to make murdering jews or slavery legal, you would accept it as law, despite disagreeing with it. Majority rule and all.

Of course not. I would fight it or move.

What makes you think that would ever happen?
post #93 of 368
Legalize pot already. The plant is great for the environment. So many things can be made out of the plant including paper, etc. It grows quickly. It has medicinal properties.

Anyone seen the ads they had to encourage people to grow hemp during World War II?

I haven't smoked it in years but I would support National Hemp Day. It would be great for the economy/food industry.
post #94 of 368
Here's a question for you liberal legalization dudes... Why is the tobacco industry lobbying for legalization?
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #95 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Of course not. I would fight [laws making murdering jews or slavery legal] or move.

The beauty of a good constitutional system is that you shouldn't have to do either. The courts should step in and invalidate such laws regardless of whether these laws are supported by a majority or not.
Quote:
What makes you think that would ever happen?

Are you really, truly that out of touch with the illustriative value of deliberately extreme examples?

You keep confusing the use of such examples with the idea that someone is either (A) stating an equivalence between the extreme example and some other action/law/condition/policy/whatever, or (B) is terribly worried that the extreme example is a pending danger.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #96 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Here's a question for you liberal legalixation dudes... Why is the tobacco industry lobbying for legalization?

Now you've gone and confused them.
post #97 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Here's a question for you liberal legalization dudes... Why is the tobacco industry lobbying for legalization?

Question One:
Who's going to tell William F. Buckley that he's a liberal?

Question Two:
Are you sure about the tobacco industry and legalization, or is that just an Urban Myth, like Philip Morris holding a patent on "Panama Red" and "Aculpulco Gold"?


Edit:
Read and Learn
Quote:
Eli Lilly, Pfizer and others stand to lose at least a third of their entire, highly profitable, patent monopoly on such drugs as Darvon, Tuinal, Seconal, and Prozac (as well as other patented medications ranging from muscle ointments to burn ointments, to thousands of other products) because of a plant anyone can grow: cannabis hemp. Isn't it curious that American drug companies and pharmacist groups* supply almost half the funding for the 4,000 "Families Against Marijuana" type organizations in America? The other half is supplied by Action (a federal VISA agency) and by tobacco companies like Philip Morris, and by liquor and beer makers like Anheuser Busch, Coors, etc., or as a "public service" by the ad agencies who represent them.

* Pharmacists Against Drug Abuse, etc. See appendices.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #98 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Question One:
Who's going to tell William F. Buckley that he's a liberal?

Question Two:
Are you sure about the tobacco industry and legalization, or is that just an Urban Myth, like Philip Morris holding a patent on "Panama Red" and "Aculpulco Gold"?

first, I don't know shit about Buckley, since I'm not from the States.
Second, Having worked with a lot of liberitarian and radical groups myself, being a radical, liberal minded person, I've only sofar met one organization that is not remotly democratically organized, and recives funding from foreign "unkown" sources. That group is Normal, the "unofficial" norwegian branch of NORML.

Drugs is a complex issue. Firstly it is all very culturally-dependent. Legalization in the US might be a different case than in Europe. Different drugs have different roles in different cultures. But some facts are quite universial, any statician will tell you. Accessability and price is the main factor in consumption and the following abuse and damage of drugs.

I have enough stoner friends to say that I don't believe it would help a single one of them if their drug of choice was legal. Even though they think so themselves. Pot or hash won't kill you, I smoke occasionally myself, and I absolutely think it's absurd that I might be jailed for it, but that is a question of law and penalty, not legalization.

To be more precise, if you look at alcohol consumption, alcoholism and alcohol related illnesses in Europe, It is all to obvious that price and other restrictions are the clearly most important factors.

Edit: Wow, how is it that the only time it's okay to use propaganda sites as source is in the legalization debate? I mean we laugh whenever someone uses a right-wing blog or christian site as source, but this is ok?
Try using some real material, not second hand gathered stuff off a campagin-site.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #99 of 368
Quote:
that is a question of law and penalty, not legalization.

Huh?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #100 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Edit: Wow, how is it that the only time it's okay to use propaganda sites as source is in the legalization debate? I mean we laugh whenever someone uses a right-wing blog or christian site as source, but this is ok?
Try using some real material, not second hand gathered stuff off a campagin-site.


There are many sources reporting that Philip Morris donated money to the PDFA. Take your pick.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ica%22&spell=1
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #101 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Here's a question for you liberal legalization dudes... Why is the tobacco industry lobbying for legalization?

1. What does that have to do with anything?

2. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

3. Answer (if actually true): because they will profit from selling pot. This is a reasonable thing - not everything that the tobacco companies do is evil. You would not begrudge a cheese company from thinking about profiting on crackers, why worry about tobacco companies thinking about pot?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #102 of 368
Quote:
I have enough stoner friends to say that I don't believe it would help a single one of them if their drug of choice was legal.

It would not hurt them either, because they all have access to pot already. It would, in fact, help them - they would no longer be at risk of jail time.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #103 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Huh?

I know you americans like to put people in jail, and the concept of other sanctional methods might be a bit hard to grasp. But my point is that Legalization and decriminalization are to very different things.

I don't think people should go to jail for smoking pot, but I think introducing Canabis as a commercial product is a recipie for disaster. I mean, sefishly, I sounds very tempting. But having a kid is a good cure for much of that kind of selfishness.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #104 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker

There are many sources reporting that Philip Morris donated money to the PDFA. Take your pick.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ica%22&spell=1

They also made a commercial saying smoking is bad...
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #105 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by New
I know you americans like to put people in jail, and the concept of other sanctional methods might be a bit hard to grasp. But my point is that Legalization and decriminalization are to very different things.

I don't think people should go to jail for smoking pot, but I think introducing Canabis as a commercial product is a recipie for disaster. I mean, sefishly, I sounds very tempting. But having a kid is a good cure for much of that kind of selfishness.

Ah. Do you think that people should be put in jail for buying and selling pot? Because buying and selling are a nessessary condition for using.

Once you allow buying and selling - I take it you believe that it should only be individuals that buy and sell - not corporations.

Seems fairly arbitrary to me, and I don't see the problem with corporations selling pot - in fact you get much better quality control from corporations.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #106 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
It would not hurt them either, because they all have access to pot already. It would, in fact, help them - they would no longer be at risk of jail time.

They would smoke more and end up even more fu*ked up than they already are.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #107 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Ah. Do you think that people should be put in jail for buying and selling pot? Because buying and selling are a nessessary condition for using.

not really, pick up an alternative book on mushrooms and go for a trip in the forest. But for the sake of the arguement, ok. I Believe in penalizing the sellers and the distributors, not the user.



Quote:

Seems fairly arbitrary to me, and I don't see the problem with corporations selling pot - in fact you get much better quality control from corporations.

What a crazy notion... Since when did IKEA make a better closet than a carpenter?
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #108 of 368
Sorry for my terrible spelling tonight. It's 2 at night here so I'm of to bed.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #109 of 368
I agree completely with New. It would be a disaster to get corporations into marketing even more harmful drugs than they do today. If people want to use it, they can grow it themselves or among their friends. Continue to punish the sellers, but stop putting users in prison.
post #110 of 368
Quote:
What a crazy notion... Since when did IKEA make a better closet than a carpenter?

IKEA makes more consistant product. When LSD was made by chemical companies it was perfectly safe - it was only when it was made illegal that it became dangerous.

You don't know if you are getting a "master carpenter" or a "lousy hack" when you buy a baggie on the street.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #111 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I agree completely with New. It would be a disaster to get corporations into marketing even more harmful drugs than they do today. If people want to use it, they can grow it themselves or among their friends. Continue to punish the sellers, but stop putting users in prison.

Now you guys are talking sense. Change the law to be more equitable. I am not opposed to that.

I do believe New has injected some common sense here.

Great job.
post #112 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Now you guys are talking sense. Change the law to be more equitable. I am not opposed to that.

I do believe New has injected some common sense here.

Great job.

Now we just need to convince Mr. Bush and company.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #113 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I agree completely with New. It would be a disaster to get corporations into marketing even more harmful drugs than they do today. If people want to use it, they can grow it themselves or among their friends. Continue to punish the sellers, but stop putting users in prison.

Yes, I am in agreement too . . .
Yet there should be commercialization and yet strict regulated areas of acceptable usage: at home, no TV, Billboards or children-youth ta=rgeted adds.
The point is is that my daughter will most assuredly be exposed to drugs at a far younger age than I want her to even know that they exist . . . to force the world into some fantasy Thomas Kincaid painting idea is simply unrealistic and is not pragmatic.

Stop the jail times and allow for strictly regulated usage and distribution for adults.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #114 of 368
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=28

Quote:
New legislation currently making its way through the House of Representatives poses a grave threat. If passed, H.R. 1528 will force Americans to inform on their friends, family members, or neighbors within 24 hours of acquiring any knowledge about their involvement in drug-related activity, including marijuana
Congressman Sensenbrenner's (R-Wis.) draconian mandatory minimum sentencing bill will have serious consequences for our democracy, requiring you to spy on all your neighbors, including going undercover and wearing a wire if needed. Refusing to become a spy for the government would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence.

As is often the case with new federal violations of civil liberties, this bill is constructed to appear as though it is designed to protect children from drugs, but its implications are far more sinister. Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to the police within 24 hours:

* You see someone you know pass a joint to a 20-year old college student.

* Your cousin mentions that he bought Ecstasy for some of his college friends.

* You find out that your brother, who has kids, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife.

* Your substance-abusing daughter recently begged her boyfriend to find her some drugs even though they're both in drug treatment.

* Observe one student passing a joint to another, and you could fall under this law. You would be required to report the incident to authorities within 24 hours or risk prosecution and a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison.

* If a neighbor under 21 mentions buying some marijuana for a party, you would be required to report him or her to the government or risk jail time yourself.

* If your brothers or sisters have children and mention to you that they and their spouses sometimes smoke marijuana in their bedroom after their kids are asleep, you would be required to immediately inform on them or face prison time.

Click the link above to sign a petition against this police state, thought-crime legislation.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #115 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I think you are wrong. People that drive drunk are the very same people that would drive high. I will contend that they are often doing both.

Most people that i know that smoke pot use alcohol at the same time. A puf and a beer chaser. Let's deal in the real world, please.

So then these people you know really wouldn't be any more or less dangerous if a law changed because they are already dumbasses, correct?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #116 of 368
And I as well am pretty much in line with New.

Decriminalization of something like pot is probably a reasonable idea. I'm not sure about outright legalization.

But marijuana laws in the US are just a farce. A few years ago my best freind was coming back from a concert with another friend. The driver had been drinking, my friend had pot but hadn't smoked it (yet). Driver makes a U-Turn, cop pulls them over. They both get arrested. The driver gets 3 days in jail (for his 3rd DUI offense, only had to serve one day of the 3 day sentence) and was given restrictions on his trval for 6 months (work, church, etc.). My friend was given 30 days in jail (suspended, but he gets an automatic year if caught again within 5 years of his sentencing), had his license revoked for one year, and was denied limited travel.

That's just horseshit. A guy who isn't stoned, is a passenger in a car, willingly informs the officer he is in possession instead of trying to get away with it, and only now hit up on his first ever offense for possession, gets a far stiffer penalty than a guy arrested on his 3rd DUI?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #117 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
So then these people you know really wouldn't be any more or less dangerous if a law changed because they are already dumbasses, correct?

They would be more dangerous. The amazing amount of time and effort that goes into obtaining pot, keeps them busy. The somewhat prohibitive price and the effort it takes to obtain keeps their use down compared to if it was affordable and convenient, IMO.
post #118 of 368
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New legislation currently making its way through the House of Representatives poses a grave threat. If passed, H.R. 1528 will force Americans to inform on their friends, family members, or neighbors within 24 hours of acquiring any knowledge about their involvement in drug-related activity, including marijuana
Congressman Sensenbrenner's (R-Wis.) draconian mandatory minimum sentencing bill will have serious consequences for our democracy, requiring you to spy on all your neighbors, including going undercover and wearing a wire if needed. Refusing to become a spy for the government would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence.

As is often the case with new federal violations of civil liberties, this bill is constructed to appear as though it is designed to protect children from drugs, but its implications are far more sinister. Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to the police within 24 hours:

* You see someone you know pass a joint to a 20-year old college student.

* Your cousin mentions that he bought Ecstasy for some of his college friends.

* You find out that your brother, who has kids, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife.

* Your substance-abusing daughter recently begged her boyfriend to find her some drugs even though they're both in drug treatment.

* Observe one student passing a joint to another, and you could fall under this law. You would be required to report the incident to authorities within 24 hours or risk prosecution and a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison.

* If a neighbor under 21 mentions buying some marijuana for a party, you would be required to report him or her to the government or risk jail time yourself.

* If your brothers or sisters have children and mention to you that they and their spouses sometimes smoke marijuana in their bedroom after their kids are asleep, you would be required to immediately inform on them or face prison time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you get paid? Because if you get paid, then I'm all for it. I know tons of potheads, and could make a shitload of money turning them in. Holy shit, I'd be rich!!! Even if you don't get paid, I'd have a grand ol' time turning mad people in. WooH, I'd have so much fun.
The Supreme Being
Reply
The Supreme Being
Reply
post #119 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by Protostar
Do you get paid? Because if you get paid, then I'm all for it. I know tons of potheads, and could make a shitload of money turning them in. Holy shit, I'd be rich!!! Even if you don't get paid, I'd have a grand ol' time turning mad people in. WooH, I'd have so much fun.

Flash back to Germany, 1938...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #120 of 368
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Look if you just can't stop yourself, and you need a hit, go in your bathroom and hit it. You get high, no-one sees you. You're really happy, I'm happy. No-one is effected by your preferences, unless you operate equipment, drive a car, try to post on AO...

Are you telling me you don't realize these things?



Well, according to you: "do the crime..."

So no, hitting it in your bathroom isn't okay and you should be subjected to criminal prosecution under current applicable laws. Again, according to you.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Milton Friedman: Legalize It!