Another victory for "freedom"

[Five-hole]

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010374.html

Holy freaking cow.

This is the kind of thing that just incenses me when America blabs on about how it's spreading freedom to the oppressed peoples of the world. How, exactly, is throwing everybody in jail for 5 or 10 years -- as a minimum mandatory sentence -- dealing with the so-called "drug problem"? Don't bother with treatment, don't bother with cutting off the problem at the roots -- the growers and extremely high-level distributors -- let's throw parents in jail for 3 years if they have knowledge of their child being somehow involved with drugs and they don't report them within 24 hours to the DEA.

Freedom indeed.

the bill would also create a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for a first-time conviction of distributing a small amount of marijuana to a person under 18 years of age ... and a 10-year sentence for a second offense of distributing marijuana to a person under 21. By comparison, the average time served by convicted rapists in this country is about seven years.

(Emphasis mine.)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Five-hole@May 25 2005, 04:42 PM
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010374.html

Holy freaking cow.

This is the kind of thing that just incenses me when America blabs on about how it's spreading freedom to the oppressed peoples of the world. How, exactly, is throwing everybody in jail for 5 or 10 years -- as a minimum mandatory sentence -- dealing with the so-called "drug problem"? Don't bother with treatment, don't bother with cutting off the problem at the roots -- the growers and extremely high-level distributors -- let's throw parents in jail for 3 years if they have knowledge of their child being somehow involved with drugs and they don't report them within 24 hours to the DEA.

Freedom indeed.

(Emphasis mine.)

Honestly I don't have a problem with it, and there are treatment programs available in jail.

But to me, if your giving dope to a kid under the age of 18, or somebody thats been in drug rehab, what do you expect? I have no sympathy at all for somebody who is encouraging drug use in minors or tempting somebody who's gone through drug treatment.

And if its a problem with the comparison of rape sentances to drug sentances, maybe its time for the Justice department to re-adress those sentances.

And how is this any kind of assault on freedom, last time I checked marijuana isn't legal in the states at this time in any quantity.

Just my two cents.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Yeah, I gotta go with Crunch on this one. It's no more an assault on freedom than harsher punishments for murder would be. Right now it is illegal (different arguement all together), so you're the one breaking the law. Some people want it stamped out, and if you knew you were gonna get 5 yrs in prison for it wouldn't you think twice before you rolled that next joint?

The guy that wrote this bill obviously thinks there should be harsher punishments for something that is already illegal, if you think that means he is an enemy of freedom, I think you need to re-examine what you think freedom means.

[Flames89]

So, you two find this reasonable?

hunh.

I guess all those spliffs you rolled when you were 16 caused some long term damage ...

[RougeUnderoos]

Doesn't that "you go to the slammer if you don't 1) turn in your child 2) testify against him" part bother you? It bothers me and I don't even live in that country. That is certainly an attack on freedom. It's not a very free place if there is a mandatory jail sentence for not snitching on your kids or the kid down the street that you heard might be selling pot.

Think about it... didn't you know of one guy who sold reefer (maybe even to you) back in the day? Do you think he deserved 10 years in jail for selling you that joint? And if he didn't sell it to you but you knew he was selling to someone else, did you snitch?

Captain -- I don't think some guy buying some reefer is going to tell you if he's been in drug rehab.

These mandatory sentences will do one thing for sure -- turn a lot of petty criminals into hardcore criminals. They will do nothing about the drug problem. Maybe even make it worse in the long run. Locking up ever more scores of people obviously doesn't work.

The hysteria over marijuana is just mindbuggering.

This will not work.

[CaramonLS]

Honestly I wanted to see what the actually law being proposed (without spin) was. Tried to look and I can't see a single gram amount whether to detirmine these sentances.

"Should that guy who sold you weed goto jail?"

I Feel all drug dealers should be locked away for a while actually.

I still don't have all the information I want before judging this bill, but it does look a little on the extreme side to be honest.

[JohnnyTitan]

I agree more with Rouge. It's not that I think we should just ignore the wacky-tabacky....but it's just SUCH a mis-use of resources.

Police / politicians should be allocating time / effort to getting the REAL criminals.

To me, this sounds like the equivilent of the gun registry. Officers of the law are hunting down farmers and duck hunters because they have been turned into criminals. Meanwhile, real hard-core criminals are organizing real threats to our safety and there are not enough cops to stop them.

Sounds like smoking a joint is now more criminal than drunk driving. Is that right? Again, I go back to the "Are you inhibiting my freedom" school of thinking. Someone smoking the chronic down the block doesn't really bug me. Some boozed-up low-life crusing the block could kill me / someone else.

And we can't smoke on patios (SECOND HAD SMOKE KILLS!!) but gambling addicts and alcoholics are routinely not properly taken care of.

Just another example of screwed up priorities IMO.

[CaramonLS]

Drug dealers are the equivilent of innocent farmers who carry guns for protection?

I'd like to read more on this bill before I pass my opinion, but come you just cannot marginalize people who deal drugs like that?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I never said that I was for the law. Quite the opposite, I think it is a horrible idea. But you can't go around calling every tough law (even ones that seem too tough) an attack on freedom. Does this law actually forbid you from doing something you had the right to do previously? No, it is just an extension of an existing law that makes it tougher. It is way over the top, and pretty stupid, but it isn't an attack on freedom.

[Five-hole]

To me it speaks to the misanthropic style of justice that seems to be prevailing in the US and other conservative circles these days.

First of all, you've gotta ask yourself the question of what a 5 year sentence for passing a joint to a minor is actually supposed to achieve. Is 5 years in jail going to rehab the person more effectively than 3 months? One year? Hell, why not throw 'em in for 50 years? That'll teach 'em. Better yet, why not just kill 'em? It'll get these obviously hardened, lost-cause criminals off our streets and our precious America drug-free.

Look at me, I'm pulling out the slippery slope argument. It sucks doesn't it, righties?

If the goal is not to rehabilitate them, but have the punishment serve as a pre-emptive sort of "don't do this or else" kind of thing, I have to ask: do you really think that's the best way of dealing with the drug problem? It's pretty well known in psychological circles that that which is taboo is endlessly more alluring for it. Instead of spending millions of dollars incarcerating people who are pretty much the furthest thing you can get from being an actual criminal without being innocent, why not spend it on education and a gentler kind of rehab?

There's rehab in jail. Sure. But do you think someone is going to get out of the slammer after being thrown in for 5 years for passing a joint to someone they didn't know had been in drug rehab and will magically turn into a dutiful citizen? My guess is no. I think it's far, far more likely that not only do they become bitter, resentful, and delinquent, but after spending 5 years with REAL criminals they probably have a few more ideas on how not to behave.

It seems misanthropic and hopelessly misguided. Building a narc society isn't the fast road to a drug-free and happy America.

I also want to ask the question: why is America so friggin terrified of marijuana?

[CaptainCrunch]

I love the whole bringing up of the slippery slope argument, you know the one.

First of all, you've gotta ask yourself the question of what a 5 year sentence for passing a joint to a minor is actually supposed to achieve. Is 5 years in jail going to rehab the person more effectively than 3 months? One year? Hell, why not throw 'em in for 50 years? That'll teach 'em. Better yet, why not just kill 'em? It'll get these obviously hardened, lost-cause criminals off our streets and our precious America drug-free.


Because I fail to see any kind of argument in it, its more of a beratment (sp?). Especially when you add in this

Look at me, I'm pulling out the slippery slope argument. It sucks doesn't it, righties?

Because conversly I could pull out

You've got to ask yourself the question, so what if we legalize dope, hey there's no harm for that. Hell why not legalize Crystal Meth, or acid or coke, I mean its all about freedom of choice right? I mean it costs us so much to fight the drug trade why not legalize it all and let people take thier chances?

Look at me I'm pulling out the slippery slope argument. It sucks dosen't it Lefties?[B]

And I'm sorry if one of the biggest complaints in the states is that people are willing to turn a blind eye to criminal acts, and selling drugs is a criminal act. The three year mandatory is all about going after people who are distributing drugs. Its not about turning in children specifically.

But the old accessory to a crime is coming into play here. If you witness a crime and refuse to step forward then the three year sentence can come into play. I personally don't really have too many problems with it.

I don't understand the complaints here, but I guess I'm just too much of a rightie to understand enlightened views.

But one of the worst things about the drug trade in my mind is that it targets young kids, and hooks them early, so if this goes out of the way to punish people that are giving marijuana to kids under the age of 18, then I'm all for it.

If its all about going after people who are tempting people that have just gone through drug rehab then I'm all for it.

As far as I'm concerned this is a great tool for going after dealers who target the young and the weak.

And I don't see it as an attack on freedom as dope has never been legal in the states anyways. All this is about is tightening up the laws and consequences.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@May 25 2005, 12:35 PM

"Should that guy who sold you weed goto jail?"

I Feel all drug dealers should be locked away for a while actually.

We might have a different opinion of what a drug dealer is, but that's a different argument.

I might be guilty of oversimplifying here, but the whole philosophy of "just lock them up" clearly is not working. If harsher prisons, longer sentences, more prisons, more cops, tougher judges and locking away millions of criminals really worked to lower crime and stomp out the drug problem, the US would be the safest, drug free-est place in the world. It's not.

They have the death penalty, they lock up a lot more people for a lot longer and in harsher prisons than we do but they still have more crime and more drug use.

Maybe it's time for a different approach?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Flames89@May 25 2005, 06:07 PM
So, you two find this reasonable?

hunh.

I guess all those spliffs you rolled when you were 16 caused some long term damage ...

I don't know whether to be insulted by this or not, but I assumed that you were trying to be funny and failed badly.

Sorry my brain is completely undamaged and I'm thinking quite clearly.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 25 2005, 01:29 PM
And I don't see it as an attack on freedom as dope has never been legal in the states anyways. All this is about is tightening up the laws and consequences.

Using that philosophy I guess you'd have no problem with an increase in fines for speeding tickets. Say $1000 for going 1 km over? That's just tightening up the laws and consequences and it's not taking away anyone's freedom because speeding was already illegal.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+May 25 2005, 07:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ May 25 2005, 07:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@May 25 2005, 12:35 PM

"Should that guy who sold you weed goto jail?"

I Feel all drug dealers should be locked away for a while actually.

We might have a different opinion of what a drug dealer is, but that's a different argument.

I might be guilty of oversimplifying here, but the whole philosophy of "just lock them up" clearly is not working. If harsher prisons, longer sentences, more prisons, more cops, tougher judges and locking away millions of criminals really worked to lower crime and stomp out the drug problem, the US would be the safest, drug free-est place in the world. It's not.

They have the death penalty, they lock up a lot more people for a lot longer and in harsher prisons than we do but they still have more crime and more drug use.

Maybe it's time for a different approach? [/b][/quote]
Whats the best option then? (I'm being serious here).

You aren't going to "rehab" drug dealers, drug users maybe, but not the dealers.

[Five-hole]

Uh, well, thinking along those lines would require the government acknowledge that not all drug users are complete derelict deviants. To rehab you have to understand the person you're attempting to reform and "cure". To do so would require the understanding that puffing on a joint doesn't turn a person into a crazed and dangerous criminal. In fact, many people can smoke marijuana and have it impact their life no less negatively than most people with social drinking.

Fat chance of that sort of sober, balanced thought ever coming from the American government.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+May 25 2005, 01:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ May 25 2005, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@May 25 2005, 01:29 PM
And I don't see it as an attack on freedom as dope has never been legal in the states anyways. All this is about is tightening up the laws and consequences.

Using that philosophy I guess you'd have no problem with an increase in fines for speeding tickets. Say $1000 for going 1 km over? That's just tightening up the laws and consequences and it's not taking away anyone's freedom because speeding was already illegal. [/b][/quote]
No it isn't taking away anyone's freedom. You can still speed if you want to, but he consequences will be pretty darn high. You're still free to choose to do it or not.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@May 25 2005, 12:58 PM
No it isn't taking away anyone's freedom. You can still speed if you want to, but he consequences will be pretty darn high. You're still free to choose to do it or not.

Um, yeah, that was his point.

Let's get really ridiculous. How about the death penalty for jaywalking? You're still free to do it. Nobody's freedom is being impinged upon. Right?

I mean, if the goal is to make everybody into a perfect, law-abiding citizen...why not?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+May 25 2005, 01:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ May 25 2005, 01:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

We might have a different opinion of what a drug dealer is, but that's a different argument.

I might be guilty of oversimplifying here, but the whole philosophy of "just lock them up" clearly is not working. If harsher prisons, longer sentences, more prisons, more cops, tougher judges and locking away millions of criminals really worked to lower crime and stomp out the drug problem, the US would be the safest, drug free-est place in the world. It's not.

They have the death penalty, they lock up a lot more people for a lot longer and in harsher prisons than we do but they still have more crime and more drug use.

Maybe it's time for a different approach?

Whats the best option then? (I'm being serious here).

You aren't going to "rehab" drug dealers, drug users maybe, but not the dealers. [/b][/quote]
I don't know. I know what they are doing isn't working though. A lot more of the same isn't going to help.

The way this law looks to me is that it will make it mandatory to lock up some dirtweed peddling kid for 5 years. Leaving it up to a judge to not destroy his life forever isn't such a bad thing, is it?

The Snitch Clause is just terrible.

[BlackEleven]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+May 25 2005, 03:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ May 25 2005, 03:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

We might have a different opinion of what a drug dealer is, but that's a different argument.

I might be guilty of oversimplifying here, but the whole philosophy of "just lock them up" clearly is not working. If harsher prisons, longer sentences, more prisons, more cops, tougher judges and locking away millions of criminals really worked to lower crime and stomp out the drug problem, the US would be the safest, drug free-est place in the world. It's not.

They have the death penalty, they lock up a lot more people for a lot longer and in harsher prisons than we do but they still have more crime and more drug use.

Maybe it's time for a different approach?

Whats the best option then? (I'm being serious here).

You aren't going to "rehab" drug dealers, drug users maybe, but not the dealers. [/b][/quote]
Why not try to curb the demand instead of the supply. Locking up dealers, is trying to limit the supply of drugs. Why not do something about the factors that lead to drug use in the first place?

I'm not talking about marijuana here. I'm talking about hard drugs. Drugs that will make people break into your house and steal your tv to fund their habits, or mug you on the street. Drugs that can kill you. I think those are the drugs we want to eliminate in society. In my opinion, marijuana is not one of those drugs, but this is a whole other debate...

So to attack the demand, you have to figure out who's using the drugs. A big group of users in the poor, using the drug as an escape. So why not use allocate some of the billions being spent on the war on drugs towards helping people out of poverty. If a better standard of life exists for these people, they may not start using the drug to escape their depressing circumstances.

Will it work? I don't know. But at least its a change from the increasingly stiff jail times that, as others have pointed out, is not working...

That's my 2 cents anyway....