If Cue was arguing for decriminalization as the first step to legalization, I could see that as a valid criticism.Originally Posted by Aea
This is an exceptionally idealistic all-or-nothing viewpoint.Which is just a fancy way of saying you still want it to be stigmatized, you just don't think the current level of stigma is the correct one. Try to think things through before you post.
-O
-O
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.
Firstly you know that you are stating North Carolina state law, and that has no bearing anywhere outside your states borders.
Which Wiggins case are you referring to, Rae Lamar or Meco Tarnell? In any event Lamar's case does not even cite possession of drugs as a charge against him, only that the charges against him (conspiracy to commit murder) were due to because of his refusal to finance a drug deal for his accomplices. Meco Tarnells case does not reference drugs at all.
For Wilkins, please provide me with a first name or a docket number, as there are apparently a fuck ton of Wilkins in NC.
And again; just because these are how cases have played out in NC, that doesn't mean it applies anywhere else.
Firstly in NJ simple possession (under 50 grams) is a disorderly person offence, not a felony. Secondly there is no mandatory minimum sentencing with respect to possession in NJ, whether under or in excess of 50 grams. All first time offenders have the option of going through Pre-trial intervention. PTI is essentially probation where instead of reporting to someone, you just have to stay out of trouble for the duration. When enrolling your record is sealed, and when successfully completed the arrest is expunge from your record.
Also the criteria here for establishing intent to distribute is very simple, Possessing multiple packets, empty baggies, a scale, or any other similar paraphernalia is sufficient to bring forth a charge. Now a good lawyer can get you off on something like you bought two eights that came in separate bags, but the state is still going to bring forth the charge.
For your point on taxation; North Carolina's tax is pretty interesting and I am surprised no one has challenged it, as it is no different then the Crack Tax that was introduced in Tennessee which was found to be unconstitutional and was repealed in 2009. The primary purpose of these laws is to create a frame work which law enforcement used to repossess and sell "ill-gotten goods" from convicted drug offenders.
And to your final point; How bout this; There are guns, and then there are GUNS, tell me what good law abiding citizen needs an automatic rifle, or handgun. After all if a government's interest is protecting its citizens, and keeping them productive, well there is nothing less protected or productive than dead citizens.
Also to directly answer your question about all the good law abiding citizens on meth; you would be shocked how many medications are wholly or in part, made from methamphetamines. You can in fact go to your doctor and get a script for it for ADHD or weight loss. Yet most cancer patients cant even smoke a fucking joint without being in legal peril.
I know Texas requires a tax stamp for illegal drugs, they'll get you for tax evasion too, and this is pretty common.
Also I think it bears talking about minimum sentencing guidelines for drug possession which can be egregiously bad or often entirely abused by prosecutors.
Here's an example on the federal level:
So to receive a MANDATORY [/b]MINIMUM[/b] sentence of 5 years for the FIRST offense you need to be in possession of one of the following substances:
100 g+ heroin
500 g+ cocaine
28 g+ crack
10 g+ PCP (pure) or 100 g+ PCP (mixture)
1 g+ LSD
100 kg+ marijuana or 100+ marijuana
plants
5 g+ meth (pure) or 50 g+ meth (mixture)
What's egregious about this is that not all substances are treated equal. 500g of cocaine will make roughly 1000g of crack cocaine, but only 28g of crack cocaine (very commonly used by minority communities over cocaine) is required.
Meth is apparently considered a cardinal sin of the greatest level since only 5g gets you locked up for life. The LSD one is the most egregious of all. 1g of pure LSD would mean 5,000+ doses. But the justice system considers the storage mechanism to be part of the drug. Have a dozen doses on blotter paper and you'll get a slap on the wrist. Have a dozen doses in a tincture and you're going to prison for a decade.
Also note that the law states "intent to distribute" but the bar for intent is hilariously hilariously low. Getting caught with any amount over a couple doses will likely get you intent to distribute even if you had no intention of over selling or distributing.
More Data http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2...Fed-MMs-NW.pdf
I think Cue1 is the only person who's said that prisons should be "nothing but holding pens" until their time of release, which is quite baffling. Not because of some 1900's stuff citing BF Skinner that supposes people are anything like dogs, but because human beings are generally social creatures and most of us respond to our social environment in a way that changes our beliefs, desires and opinions.Yes exactly thats my point but I want somebody who believes that it doesnt work to explain why it doesnt work when there is ample evidence of the opposite.Of course it works.
...
I'd like to see him attempt to defend that, too. Cue? You say that you can't "shove reform down their throats" which is fine, of course you can't reprogram people. But do you actually think that the environment people are kept in doesn't shape what they believe and want? Do you actually think that if you take a million people and shove them into jails that are run like holding pens, that there will be no difference between shoving them into an environment that attempts to 'reform' them (half the time this will mean giving them emotional support)?
People don't stop learning just because they're out of school, never mind how many of them never did finish school.
For this discussion i recommend Michel Foucalts 'discipline and punishement'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish
Schopenhauer:
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..
Would you like to give some context as to why?
The author in question was born into a rich well off family, was an eccentric douche who rejected outside labels and made up his own, appeared to have little to no actual hands on study outside of student protests, was French, and died of AIDS. His entire history shows his scientific methods to be of questionable validity but supported by friends on an emotional basis.
The criticism section in that link you posted is fairly big and brings up some serious flaws.
I like how you add all those ad-homenims in there.Would you like to give some context as to why?
The author in question was born into a rich well off family, was an eccentric douche who rejected outside labels and made up his own, appeared to have little to no actual hands on study outside of student protests, was French, and died of AIDS. His entire history shows his scientific methods to be of questionable validity but supported by friends on an emotional basis.
The criticism section in that link you posted is fairly big and brings up some serious flaws.
Foucalt has been majorly influential in the debate on punishment vs. rehabilitation (even in the US in the seventies and eighties). I usually dont like wiki pages but its all in there. You guys were discussing his points and i added a view point that might actually help the discussion but you opted to get all uppity because he is french, had aids, was rich etc etc.
Good going you dumb ignorant american fuck.
Schopenhauer:
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..
You're funny because you whine about ad hominems when anyone says something mean to you, and then you rile against one of the most influential figures in social and literary theory with schoolyard insults.Would you like to give some context as to why?
The author in question was born into a rich well off family, was an eccentric douche who rejected outside labels and made up his own, appeared to have little to no actual hands on study outside of student protests, was French, and died of AIDS. His entire history shows his scientific methods to be of questionable validity but supported by friends on an emotional basis.
The criticism section in that link you posted is fairly big and brings up some serious flaws.
I know someone like Foucault is so antithetical to your worldview it would never enter your realm of thinking, but the way you went about this is pathetic.
Yes, I did toss in a few ad's in there due to the abrupt way that Sacul toss in this guy as a reference. Ok, he's an influential and really controversial figure. Some of my points still stand against him, and I don't mean the French and AIDS part.You're funny because you whine about ad hominems when anyone says something mean to you, and then you rile against one of the most influential figures in social and literary theory with schoolyard insults.Would you like to give some context as to why?
The author in question was born into a rich well off family, was an eccentric douche who rejected outside labels and made up his own, appeared to have little to no actual hands on study outside of student protests, was French, and died of AIDS. His entire history shows his scientific methods to be of questionable validity but supported by friends on an emotional basis.
The criticism section in that link you posted is fairly big and brings up some serious flaws.
I know someone like Foucault is so antithetical to your worldview it would never enter your realm of thinking, but the way you went about this is pathetic.
I see I've hit a nerve with you two and yet you've still contributed little about this guy and why I should read his book. Sacul, posting a link to a complex topic that spans into areas that have no bearing on an argument isn't really doing much here. If you have a book, point of view, or ideal that you want to toss in the ring, then add context because listing a book isn't adding a point. In this case you want to probably say something a bit about structuralism or explain how the book addresses the debate since not everyone has read it and not everyone is going to do so. The wiki post appears to have two paragraphs relevant to the discussion at hand. Would you like to expand on that? Are you making an argument towards a "delinquent class" or are you saying that US prisons are (dis)similar to the Panoptic prison design noted by Foucault?
You should probably read the book because you come across constantly as a pretty dumb, ignorant hick racist in every post you make and by doing so you may, just may educate yourself.
(The good part of me hopes you are the internet personality of an educated human btw).
Please don't teach me what to do with my pc.
ok, thats enough with the personal insults from both sides.
Yes Sir! Good to see you Sir!
Schopenhauer:
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..
Not sure why what I argue changes your viewpoint. It's all or nothing, and very idealistic. I don't think there should be any more stigma attached to pot use than there is alcohol use, other than the fact one is legal to possess, the other gets confiscated. Addiction is a disease, but as has been proven time and time again, the first step is admitting a problem, and you can't just throw people into rehab and hope they change.If Cue was arguing for decriminalization as the first step to legalization, I could see that as a valid criticism.This is an exceptionally idealistic all-or-nothing viewpoint.Which is just a fancy way of saying you still want it to be stigmatized, you just don't think the current level of stigma is the correct one. Try to think things through before you post.
-O
-O
Let's cut this shit off right here. Every state has it's own laws, and then the feds have theirs. They are ALL totally independent, there's no discussion to be had if you want to talk about every fucking state's different laws.
With that said, the vast majority of law in the US is built on case law, which is exactly what I've given you. When someone takes a case to appeals court, they bring forward case law from anywhere that's applicable. So no, it's not completely irreverent.
My point is that there are people currently serving hard time for possession. Just because your state doesn't have laws on it, doesn't disprove my point.
http://law.justia.com/cases/north-ca...30sc985-1.html
https://www.courtlistener.com/ncctap...ate-v-wilkins/
Gun ownership does not cause loss of production. I've owned a gun for almost a decade now, still productive member of society. Or if you'd like to go by just pure numbers, 30,000 people die in the US every year due to guns. 20k or so of those are suicides, 10k are homicides. Drugs kill 38,000 every year. This seems somewhat close until you look at the 7.5 MILLION people who meet the clinical definition of dependence in 2012 between pot, pain killers, and cocaine. Add in the 529,000 regular meth users, and you're comparing an illegal and challenging to tax industry to a heavily taxed and regulated one at a rate of something like 260 to 1.
References before you ask.
My apologies that you can't smoke a joint if you have cancer, but use of medication made from meth does not equal addicted to meth. I've had Oxycontin for pain before, doesn't mean I'm a heroin addict. Chemical changes in a drug change the effects of a drug. Arguing two drugs are related makes them equal is about as stupid as asking for a ban on steel because guns are made of steel.
Five fucking characters and people still can't get my name right.
Actually, what I said was that they're currently being used as holding pens, and that that's their intended function. Working as intended. Doesn't mean it can't be improved to a better system, but you can't go just letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry back out on the street because they claim to have reformed their ways.
See!? You got it right that time!
Last edited by Cue1*; May 29 2014 at 07:09:42 AM.
Ah. I've run into this problem before. I'm arguing for how things should be. So yes, I will be idealistic. Ask me if I've got a roadmap to get there, and the answer will be "If I had a feasible roadmap, would I be on some forum arguing about it?"
If I understand your argument correctly however, it still doesn't make much sense. You want pot and alcohol to be exactly the same except...one's legal and one's not? Why? Can you give me an actual justification for why legalizing pot would be bad in that scenario?
-O
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.
I think he's posting a fact not making an argument for how it should be.
Actually, I merged two sentences and apparently lost a paragraph in between the two. Not sure how that happened, my fault.
I don't have any issues with legalizing pot, other than some minor issues with how to handle lace. I have an issue with legalizing heroin, meth, and similar 'hard' drugs. I think that sending someone to prison for possession is stupid though. Stigma is mostly applies by society, change the punishment, the stigma will follow. Do people think you're a shitbag for getting a speeding ticket? Because that's what I'm suggesting as punishment for possession.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks