I was gonna come back and explain to Ref about the Pyscologiccal addiction stuff...but I see Batman saved the day...said it better than I ever could..Thanks Caped Crusader! Amazing, who woulda thunk that Max,Glynch, Hayes and Ref would all agree on something...isn't pot amazing?
I have always maintained that I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. If that is the definition of a Libertarian...then I guess that's what I am. I do tend to agree with the Republican Party on a good many issues, social or otherwise...but not ALL the time. This thread is an example of that. I am what I am...and as you would expect, I ain't apologizing for it.
The justness of a law is independent of the punishment for breaking the law. If the penalty for embezzelment was death, that would not make laws against white collar crime unjust. In my view, the penalty should not matter, because you should not be breaking the law in the first place. Instead of toking up in defiance of the law, elect lawmakers that will make smoking pot legal. My only problem is when people complain about sentences being too harsh. It isn't like there is not a very easy way to avoid the sentence. Nobody forces fat people to go on a diet. Nobody forces illiterate people to learn how to read. We have the freedom in this country to not do what is best for us. If people want to do drugs, then they need to understand the possible consequences. The only people they should be pissed at are themselves for committing a crime and getting caught. BTW, there are recovery programs available in prison, from what I understand. Anyway, all the stuff you quoted about prison from me was in response to MM's story. Sure we feel sorry for the kids, but is the government really to blame for them not having a father, or is it the father that is on his THIRD stint in prison.
There is no ideal situation, even for those drugs which are better to leave illegal (ie. heroin). When there is no ideal situation we do the best we can. If you believe that the justice system is for rehabilitation of criminal activity, then wouldn't you want the method with the largest chance at success (rehab)? If you believe the justice system is there to punish, how severe should the punishment be? You said in your post that HayesStreet's assertion was incorrect. The first thing I was taught in criminal law my first year of law school was about proportionality...more simply put..."may the punishment fit the crime."
A simple question Ref. Why does the punishment matter when it can easily be avoided by not committing the crime in the first place?
good question Stupid! Sounds like we can save money by not having a legal system at all, since crime can just be avoided just don't do it... brilliant!
Because there is a notion that certain crimes deserve a stronger punishment than others. First degree murder is on one end of the spectrum (life imprisonment or death) while speeding is at the other (ticket). All others are somewhere in between. I assume that you don't want the death penalty handed down for speeding. This sets up a continuum of punishment for crime. If we can hand out public service as a punishment for crime, why not mandatory rehab?
Regarding the drug war. I heard some advertising guys criticizing the tens or perhaps hundreds of millions spent on tv commericials using tax payer money. Claimed it was just wasted money. It sounds good to those who want to do something about drugs. However, they said no corporation would spend so much money without focus group testing etc. showing that the message was effective on the targetted audience. Who knows? Maybe the targetted audience is really just those voters who want to feel something is being done to fight drug abuse.
i really think there's a bigger issue you guys are missing here...namely, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GUYS DOING UP AT 4 AM????
I would agree wholeheartedly with that. I don't know ANYONE who has quit because of some commercial telling them how bad it is for them. The only possible group that they could claim it's aimed at are kids that haven't started yet...and even then, when you were a teen, would you have not tryed something just because of a tv commercial? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have.
Jobless. That's really all the justification I have. That and I couldn't sleep last night. Now stop asking questions...it's for your own good.
Aren't the majority of those commercials funded by PACs? I could be mistaken but that was certainly my impression.
From John Nova Lomax in the Press: "It may well be dry out there, but none of you stoners has seen taunting billboards from the DEA saying, "If you think it's dry now, wait until October." It's an urban legend. A quick Internet search finds the same legend popping up in Minnesota in 1991, in Illinois in 1992, in Florida in 1998, and this year in Texas and Mississippi. (For some reason, the excruciatingly dry month is always September or October.) Racket has vague memories of hearing about these nonexistent signs in Tennessee circa 1990, but strangely he's never seen one, and neither has anybody he knows. It's always a friend of a friend. And why would the cops do that, anyway? To spike sales of hydroponic accessories? Some suspect the rumor was started by disgruntled pot growers preparing to go on strike, which would be almost logical." http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2002-09-19/racket.html/1/index.html Lessen' your friends have pics, they're friggin morons.
