If they're currently breaking the law, logic tells us they will continue to do so in the future.
If the only WAY that they are breaking the law is by selling drugs and then selling drugs becomes legal, then, by your logic, they will continue to sell drugs, and therefore will NOT be breaking the law.
Because the government and big business won't allow it.
What makes you think this? There isn't anything to compare it to, in the case of marijuana.
If the only WAY that they are breaking the law is by selling drugs and then selling drugs becomes legal, then, by your logic, they will continue to sell drugs, and therefore will NOT be breaking the law.
I don't think there's a place in a "Legalized Society" for Paco, to sell drugs. Sure, I'm making an assumption but I think it's a pretty good assumption.
What makes you think this? There isn't anything to compare it to, in the case of marijuana.
You're right. What else should I assume? Should I assume that Paco will open a neighborhood dope store? Do you think the city would allow Paco, whom has a lengthly record, a license?
Do you think the city would allow Paco, whom has a lengthly record, a license?
If you are saying that people who are career criminals are likely to go on being career criminals, then I won't argue with that. But legalizing drugs isn't going to change that. What legalizing drugs will change: locking up a lot of people who don't need to be locked up.
Do you think the city would allow Paco, whom has a lengthly record, a license?
you might want to ask scribe, thx, but if the crimes for which paco has a record are no longer illegal, doesn't the record disappear? if someone's in jail for doing somehting that is suddenly made legal, they are released, right?
OK, lets repeal all assault laws because "I" don't like them.
Furthermore, "I" would like all people in prison for assault be mass released to the streets to do whatever they want. Why? Because it's called freedom. No other reason. "I" just don't like the law.
Hey wait a minute! They could become employed at a non existent brass knuckle factory!! Yeah, that's it!!!
"I" would like all people in prison for assault be mass released to the streets to do whatever they want. Why? Because it's called freedom. No other reason. "I" just don't like the law.
the deal is, assualt infringes on other people's freedom.
someone taking a drug infringes on nobody's freedom.
You obviously would not be a good lawmaker.
will the city give a license to a former dope dealer with a lengthy record?
a license for what? To operate a business?
do we currently give people with records licenses to run a business?
"They are immoral laws. That folks are driven to violate them is a black mark against the makers and keepers of the immoral laws, not those who are pursuing their rights as sovereign individuals in charge of their own well-being."
I say lock them all up. But users are all given at least one chance before the book is thrown at them. Dealers are a different story.
so, it's back to prohibition
Rico! Youngblood!
get out the tommy guns!
Society has imposed those laws and they should be respected and the consequences should be paid for violations of that law until the law is changed. If the law is never changed so be it
that's what they said about slavery and Jim Crow laws...and...
it's bad law.
and changing it is exactly what we are discussing here.
since you can't show how someone having or taking drugs harms anyone else, it's just another reason that it's a bad law.
you are talking about locking people up for not having done anything to anyone.
bad law is wrong...period.
Let's say that Hitler made a law saying that all Jews are illegal and if you know where one is you have to turn them in or break the law yourself.
Torpedo-8 - 11:06am Apr 15, 2003 PST (#925 of 932)
OK, lets repeal all assault laws because "I" don't like them.
It doesn't matter if you like them or not. Assault laws are on the books so that it is illegal for one person to assault another. There is a victim to such crimes. Drug use, drug selling and possesion, by itself, doesn't harm anyone. The harm that comes to individuals who use or deal drugs comes from two sources:
1) addiction 2) because drug use, posession, and dealing are illegal.
As for addiction, you can pretty much rule that out for marijuana. I've known people who are "psychologically addicted to it" but such people have other problems and marijuana use is a symptom, not a cause. There's no proof that LSD or psylocibin mushrooms are addictive. For other drugs that are addictive, there are other solutions. For cocaine: Why not make coca leaves legal? That would solve the economic aspect and give a legal and harmless alternative to cocaine. Heroin I won't defend: It's bad news. But consider that legalization will at least end the many deaths that result from the fact that it is illegal (dirty needles, overdoses, etc) Money freed up from the USELESS war on drugs can be used to educate the public about the dangers of heroin, and provide help to those who are addicted.
crabbs and Das, I don't know how many times I have to point out where using drugs can take away someone else's freedom. You two fail to see it through the smoke haze.
that argument doesn't hold up, torp. just because i can get drunk off my ass, and kill someone while driving my car we should make alcohol illegal? same argument, different substance. because i can go into my kitchen drawer, take out a steak knife and kill someone, do we make steak knives illegal? make the act that actually takes away someone else's freedom illegal. and ya know what, that's already the case. that's not to say that everything should be legalised, you just need to come up with a better argument for maintaining the status quo.
I read that report crabby. 3.2% of federal prisoners are in for possession? That's it? We are not talking about ounces here crabby. We are talking about possession of kilos probably. But I suppose even that much is perfectly ok with you.
did you think the Jim Crow laws were good too? You cannot compare laws that prevented people from participating in the democratic process with drug laws.
and what about Prohibition? I have no problem with it. If it is reinstituted so be it.
you just need to come up with a better argument for maintaining the status quo.
Like this is a republican government in which society, in other words the citizens, has determined that possession of certain drugs is illegal? Is that a good argument.
actually, yeah. it is. right up until society, in other words, the citizens get trumped by a larger body, that says that they can't say that possession of certain drugs is legal, because said larger body says so.
The citizens have determined to impose that limitation on themselves. Society has a right to make those rules. What you seem to be advocating, ares, is anarchy.
that's about the stupides thing i've ever heard, jethro. the citizens themselves of the state of california have decided otherwise. and yet the federal government says no. come on, man, where's your states rights when they really count, huh? oh wait. it doesn't suit you now, so california can piss off, right?
I wasn't referring to any particular state. I was making a general comment that applies to most states. I am not going to assist the pro-drug movement on the grounds of states rights unless those in the pro-dug movement will decry federal intrusion on the abortion issue.
the entire purpose of the law is for it to be applied unequally. I disagree.
We, the citizens, have decided that drug laws are appropriate. "we" have been lied to, made to believe that drug use, instead of being a natural and normal part of the human experience, is something that is evil.
You can call it a lie. I don't believe that it is. But a free people can lie to themselves and a free society can impose sanctions. There is no guarantee that a free society will be rational. Just to make it clear for dopers: I do not believe the drug laws are irrational.
So Paco's just going to start working at the local dope store?
THX 1138 - 05:57am Apr 14, 2003 PST (#904 of 912)
If the only WAY that they are breaking the law is by selling drugs and then selling drugs becomes legal, then, by your logic, they will continue to sell drugs, and therefore will NOT be breaking the law.
What makes you think this? There isn't anything to compare it to, in the case of marijuana.
So Paco's just going to start working at the local dope store?
THX 1138 - 07:40pm Apr 14, 2003 PST (#914 of 915)
Why do that when he can grow it at home?
If the only WAY that they are breaking the law is by selling drugs and then selling drugs becomes legal, then, by your logic, they will continue to sell drugs, and therefore will NOT be breaking the law.
I don't think there's a place in a "Legalized Society" for Paco, to sell drugs. Sure, I'm making an assumption but I think it's a pretty good assumption.
What makes you think this? There isn't anything to compare it to, in the case of marijuana.
You're right. What else should I assume? Should I assume that Paco will open a neighborhood dope store? Do you think the city would allow Paco, whom has a lengthly record, a license?
Why do that when he can grow it at home?
I hope the government has tigher controls on it than simply allowing Paco to grow his own and sell it on the street.
Do you think the city would allow Paco, whom has a lengthly record, a license?
If you are saying that people who are career criminals are likely to go on being career criminals, then I won't argue with that. But legalizing drugs isn't going to change that. What legalizing drugs will change: locking up a lot of people who don't need to be locked up.
Do you think the city would allow Paco, whom has a lengthly record, a license?
you might want to ask scribe, thx, but if the crimes for which paco has a record are no longer illegal, doesn't the record disappear? if someone's in jail for doing somehting that is suddenly made legal, they are released, right?
a lengthy record for what exactly?
a lengthy record for what exactly?
Possesion, possesion with intent, assault, weapons charges....
okay...the possession is expunged.
assault is still against the law.
did you think we were advocating repealing the assault laws too? because no one here but you are suggesting anything like that.
OK, lets repeal all assault laws because "I" don't like them.
Furthermore, "I" would like all people in prison for assault be mass released to the streets to do whatever they want. Why? Because it's called freedom. No other reason. "I" just don't like the law.
Hey wait a minute! They could become employed at a non existent brass knuckle factory!! Yeah, that's it!!!
Deal?...Crabs?
did you think we were advocating repealing the assault laws too?
Uhm, no.
because no one here but you are suggesting anything like that.
Where did I suggest such a thing?
I was asking is, will the city give a license to a former dope dealer with a lengthy record?
What legalizing drugs will change: locking up a lot of people who don't need to be locked up.
But they do need to be there.
the deal is, assualt infringes on other people's freedom.
someone taking a drug infringes on nobody's freedom.
You obviously would not be a good lawmaker.
a license for what? To operate a business?
do we currently give people with records licenses to run a business?
why?
did they do something to someone else?
why do certain drug users need to be locked up and others do not?
and why are we locking up such a disproportionate number of black people with these laws?
"They are immoral laws. That folks are driven to violate them is a black mark against the makers and keepers of the immoral laws, not those who are pursuing their rights as sovereign individuals in charge of their own well-being."
Handsome language, but completely backward, IMO.
I say lock them all up. But users are all given at least one chance before the book is thrown at them. Dealers are a different story.
so, it's back to prohibition
Rico! Youngblood!
get out the tommy guns!
that's what they said about slavery and Jim Crow laws...and...
it's bad law.
and changing it is exactly what we are discussing here.
since you can't show how someone having or taking drugs harms anyone else, it's just another reason that it's a bad law.
you are talking about locking people up for not having done anything to anyone.
bad law is wrong...period.
Let's say that Hitler made a law saying that all Jews are illegal and if you know where one is you have to turn them in or break the law yourself.
Do you turn them in or do you break the law?
but that ISN'T the answer.
The answer is that blacks get locked up for it in FAR GREATER numbers than whites.
you saying that they should lock up everybody doesn't make it happen.
and if you do make it happen, you are talking about locking up something like at least 1/5th of the entire population.
now, are YOU gonna pay for that?
Torpedo-8 - 11:06am Apr 15, 2003 PST (#925 of 932)
It doesn't matter if you like them or not. Assault laws are on the books so that it is illegal for one person to assault another. There is a victim to such crimes. Drug use, drug selling and possesion, by itself, doesn't harm anyone. The harm that comes to individuals who use or deal drugs comes from two sources:
1) addiction
2) because drug use, posession, and dealing are illegal.
As for addiction, you can pretty much rule that out for marijuana. I've known people who are "psychologically addicted to it" but such people have other problems and marijuana use is a symptom, not a cause. There's no proof that LSD or psylocibin mushrooms are addictive. For other drugs that are addictive, there are other solutions. For cocaine: Why not make coca leaves legal? That would solve the economic aspect and give a legal and harmless alternative to cocaine. Heroin I won't defend: It's bad news. But consider that legalization will at least end the many deaths that result from the fact that it is illegal (dirty needles, overdoses, etc) Money freed up from the USELESS war on drugs can be used to educate the public about the dangers of heroin, and provide help to those who are addicted.
it's bad law.
We disagree. The drug laws are essentially good laws!
no law that incarcerates people who haven't done anything to anyone is a good law.
did you think the Jim Crow laws were good too?
and what about Prohibition?
are you of the opinion that this was a good law as well?
and if so, why do you think it was repealed?
what's next for you, Bodine?
advocating the enforcement of sodomy laws?
and, if for you the very fact that it's a law makes it a good one, then I suppose you thought that slavery was a good idea too
here's some more things that were laws once
were they good laws or bad laws?
a license for what? To operate a business?
Well yes, but more specifically, to operate a dope store.
do we currently give people with records licenses to run a business?
I don't believe you can get a liqours license if you have a record.
it would be just like any other business.
then you have answered your own question
crabbs and Das, I don't know how many times I have to point out where using drugs can take away someone else's freedom. You two fail to see it through the smoke haze.
that argument doesn't hold up, torp. just because i can get drunk off my ass, and kill someone while driving my car we should make alcohol illegal? same argument, different substance. because i can go into my kitchen drawer, take out a steak knife and kill someone, do we make steak knives illegal? make the act that actually takes away someone else's freedom illegal. and ya know what, that's already the case. that's not to say that everything should be legalised, you just need to come up with a better argument for maintaining the status quo.
Well as a matter of fact, there is a law under consideration in England (go figure) to ban knives with blades longer than 4 inches.
They're arguement doesn't hold up with me and mine with them. They also need to come up with something better.
I haven't seen one instance of you pointing out where someone using drugs takes away someone else's freedom.
let's get the statistics right, shall we?
Federal Bureau of Prisons QUICK FACTS
Drug Offenses: 82,056 (54.8%)
Weapons, Explosives, Arson: 15,982 (10.7%)
Immigration: 15,617 (10.5%)
Robbery: 10,095 (6.7%)
Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses: 7,076 (4.7%)
Extortion, Fraud, Bribery: 6,883 (4.6%)
Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses: 5,130 (3.4%)
Miscellaneous: 2,789 (1.9%)
Sex Offenses: 1,545 (1.0%)
Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement: 1,012 (0.7%)
Courts or Corrections: (e.g., Obstructing Justice)783 (0.5%)
Continuing Criminal Enterprise: 624 (0.4%)
National Security: 90 (0.1%)
so, over half of all Federal prison inmates are incarcerated for drug offenses.
in 1970, it was just 16.3%
yea...lots of people take drugs, don't they?
Racist law in action
Interesting concept.
The concept has a name but I can't recall what it is offhand.
and probably even committed a serious-misdemeanor or even a Felony
Really? What sort of people you hangning out with?
Ok, Mr. Science...
THX 1138 "Breaking The Law" 4/16/03 5:54am
did you think the Jim Crow laws were good too? You cannot compare laws that prevented people from participating in the democratic process with drug laws.
and what about Prohibition? I have no problem with it. If it is reinstituted so be it.
...drug laws, many of which are felonies, which prevent people from participating in the democratic process.
you just need to come up with a better argument for maintaining the status quo.
Like this is a republican government in which society, in other words the citizens, has determined that possession of certain drugs is illegal? Is that a good argument.
...drug laws, many of which are felonies, which prevent people from participating in the democratic process.
Only if they are convicted. I do not believe that such prohibition applies in every state after release from the sentence.
actually, yeah. it is. right up until society, in other words, the citizens get trumped by a larger body, that says that they can't say that possession of certain drugs is legal, because said larger body says so.
The citizens have determined to impose that limitation on themselves. Society has a right to make those rules. What you seem to be advocating, ares, is anarchy.
that's about the stupides thing i've ever heard, jethro. the citizens themselves of the state of california have decided otherwise. and yet the federal government says no. come on, man, where's your states rights when they really count, huh? oh wait. it doesn't suit you now, so california can piss off, right?
I wasn't referring to any particular state. I was making a general comment that applies to most states. I am not going to assist the pro-drug movement on the grounds of states rights unless those in the pro-dug movement will decry federal intrusion on the abortion issue.
equalapplication of law to every condition of man is fundamental."
I have no problem with handling dug offenses equally. That does not mean the drug laws need to be repealed.
of course it is.
the entire purpose of the law is for it to be applied unequally.
if you were to apply it equally, you would have so many prisons the cost would cripple our entire country.
we already lead the world in the incarceration of our own citizens. how many people have to be in prisons before you are happy?
"land of the free" my ass.
"we" have been lied to, made to believe that drug use, instead of being a natural and normal part of the human experience, is something that is evil.
it's a lie.
whenever a law is passed by means of lies and propoganda, watch out
Possessing and using drugs is not an inherent or inalienable right.
of course it is.
Of course it is not.
what I do with my own body is the most basic of inalienable rights.
I have a right to myself.
I own my body.
Only I have the right to decide what does and does not go in it.
the entire purpose of the law is for it to be applied unequally. I disagree.
We, the citizens, have decided that drug laws are appropriate.
"we" have been lied to, made to believe that drug use, instead of being a natural and normal part of the human experience, is something that is evil.
You can call it a lie. I don't believe that it is. But a free people can lie to themselves and a free society can impose sanctions. There is no guarantee that a free society will be rational. Just to make it clear for dopers: I do not believe the drug laws are irrational.