Having A Debate With Some Friends

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But I can't get my head around legalizing some of the more notorious drugs. There's no way that coke should be legalized or speed or crystal meth, or heroin or the others.

On what grounds, though, should they really be illegal? I mean, sure they are dangerous - but only to yourself. And where in the constitution is the power given to the government to police what a person is and is not allowed to put into their own body? I mean - motor oil is dangerous for you to drink, but it's not illegal. People can get high off of glue or ether and they aren't illegal. And, of course, there are the examples of Tobacco and Alcohol, both devastating drugs, but they got into the game early (and didn't have any association with non-whites) so why do they get a free pass while these other narcotics don't? Simply because of precedent?

[FlamesPuck12]

I don't think he should be jailed for this accident. I believe that the jails are only good for keeping dangerous people away from the society; those people who will cause harm to the society if they are left out in the public. But this guy, he's just experiencing some personal problems and he just went down the wrong path.

Similar to drinking, consuming alcohol isn't a big deal to the society, its when they decide to drive while being impaired. If he was driving while he was high then he would be considered to be a threat to the society but other than that, he shouldn't be required to go to jail. I'm not saying he should get off free, he should be charged with some other penalty than being sentenced to jail while the taxpayers pay for his time in jail.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Chobyhy

I don't think he should be jailed for this accident.

Accident? He had 25,000 dollars worth of drugs. I don't care if that is only five pounds it is 25,000 dollars worth. It didn't fall into his backpack when he was leaving his buddies house. Someone didn't leave it under his seat in his car. He wasn't just carrying a couple of joints to smoke with his buddies and play some video games.

He may be a good guy to some but it is 25,000 freakin' dollars. I know people that are good guys but in tough spots or who got into messed up things, but I have never heard of them getting into anything this bad.

To me it is way too much to be just a bad mistake that can be shrugged off on a bad decision, tough time in his life etc. He should definitely spend time in jail.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by moon

To me it is way too much to be just a bad mistake that can be shrugged off on a bad decision, tough time in his life etc. He should definitely spend time in jail.

Why should he go to jail? What purpose would this serve? I don't mean to pick on you Moon but rather question, and possibly enlighten, those with your point of view. Sending this man to jail would be a case of society thoughtlessly doing something simply because it is the way it has done so in the past; rather than society evaluating the consequences of its actions in order to find a course of action(s) that will meet its goals. Those charged with maintaining law and order in society have the responsibility of dealing with law breakers in way that will fairly maximize benefit to society and help maintain law and order.

The jailing of law breakers keeps those who pose a danger to society safely away from the rest of society in addition to providing a deterrent to criminal activity. As such, the jailing of law breakers can be a solution for those in charge of maintaining law and order, however, how does it help in our case? The gentlemen in our example does not pose a danger to society as the act of being caught has potentially stopped him from preforming the illegal activities he was engaged in. A deterrent for him would be the knowledge that if he were to be caught engaging in these activities a second time leniency would not be shown again. So once again I pose the questions, "Why should he go to jail?" and "What purpose would it serve?".

If this man were to go to jail we would be dooming him to a life were his best options for surviving would be by engaging in the sort of activities we want to stop him from preforming. When we send this man to jail we are labelling him not only as a "convicted criminal" but also as "an employee that cannot be trusted and should be overlooked for most jobs", and "an extended family member/neighbour/fellow parishioner that poses a danger and for safety reasons should be shunned", "a man that cannot be trusted, makes ends meet, or brought home to mum and dad".

Is this fair? What will it achieve? Him reaching the point where he first decided to engage in illegal activities? Him in a position where he feels - and almost certainly rightfully so - that he has no other options but to live on the other side of the law? All of this because of a mentality of, "If you do the crime you should do the time!" Bunch of bollocks if you ask me...

[CrusaderPi]

Really depends if you think a criminal should be punished or rehabilitated. If you think a criminal should be punished; dude should go to jail. Pretty simple.


Also, its funny a guy named 'addick' is on the 'no jail' side.

[metallicat]

I don't even want to know what 25k of pot looks like. It has to be a lot. That's more than a bad decision, it's not as if you can claim you didn't know what was going on.

I say he gets charged, goes to trial, and sees what happens. Let the justice system take care of it. No sympathy here.

[Ford Prefect]

I'm generally a pretty forgiving guy ... for example I thought Robert Latimer deserved some leniency. But $25K in drugs is way beyond simple possession, and being Mr. Nice Guy is no more a defense than being Mr. Stupid is a crime. Maybe they should be, but they ain't. Mr. Nice Guy has to do the time, I say.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Really depends if you think a criminal should be punished or rehabilitated. If you think a criminal should be punished; dude should go to jail. Pretty simple.


Also, its funny a guy named 'addick' is on the 'no jail' side.

Why does it have to be a case of being punished OR rehabilitated? I don't get that. I think it should be both, and criminals should not be released until they've fulfilled both the punishment and rehab terms.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Addick

Why should he go to jail? What purpose would this serve? I don't mean to pick on you Moon but rather question, and possibly enlighten, those with your point of view.

As a deterrent?

[transplant99]

Why should he go to jail? What purpose would this serve?

Hmmm...maybe because it sets a precedent to others that if you break the law, there are consequences?

What is the other outcome...do whatever you want to, the law be damned, and have no worries about a punishment?

Good grief.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Why does it have to be a case of being punished OR rehabilitated? I don't get that. I think it should be both, and criminals should not be released until they've fulfilled both the punishment and rehab terms.

Good point. I usually associate the punishment as being the rehab. But that doesn't really work for everything.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Addick

Why should he go to jail? What purpose would this serve? I don't mean to pick on you Moon but rather question, and possibly enlighten, those with your point of view. Sending this man to jail would be a case of society thoughtlessly doing something simply because it is the way it has done so in the past; rather than society evaluating the consequences of its actions in order to find a course of action(s) that will meet its goals. Those charged with maintaining law and order in society have the responsibility of dealing with law breakers in way that will fairly maximize benefit to society and help maintain law and order.

The jailing of law breakers keeps those who pose a danger to society safely away from the rest of society in addition to providing a deterrent to criminal activity. As such, the jailing of law breakers can be a solution for those in charge of maintaining law and order, however, how does it help in our case? The gentlemen in our example does not pose a danger to society as the act of being caught has potentially stopped him from preforming the illegal activities he was engaged in. A deterrent for him would be the knowledge that if he were to be caught engaging in these activities a second time leniency would not be shown again. So once again I pose the questions, "Why should he go to jail?" and "What purpose would it serve?".

If this man were to go to jail we would be dooming him to a life were his best options for surviving would be by engaging in the sort of activities we want to stop him from preforming. When we send this man to jail we are labelling him not only as a "convicted criminal" but also as "an employee that cannot be trusted and should be overlooked for most jobs", and "an extended family member/neighbour/fellow parishioner that poses a danger and for safety reasons should be shunned", "a man that cannot be trusted, makes ends meet, or brought home to mum and dad".

Is this fair? What will it achieve? Him reaching the point where he first decided to engage in illegal activities? Him in a position where he feels - and almost certainly rightfully so - that he has no other options but to live on the other side of the law? All of this because of a mentality of, "If you do the crime you should do the time!" Bunch of bollocks if you ask me...

I think he should go to jail because he broke the law. You seem to be taking the word of some of this guys friends pretty seriously. There are always people that say "he was a good guy" or "he just got caught up in the wrong crowd." Most often that is not the case.

As I said it was $25,000 dollars worth of drugs. That is more than making a little mistake or getting caught up with the wrong people.

Maybe I am too harsh but if you are a g"good guy" and you don't want to go jail don't hang around with people that will put you in that type of situation.

I can't get why people today seem want to constantly create excuses or lessen the responsiblity of people who break the law. As I said I know plenty of people who have run with the wrong crowd, fallen on hard times etc. and yet not one of them has been in a situation even close to this. To me it seems a little naive and a little biased when these friends talk about how he was a good guy, is scared straight now and will never do it again. Is there any criminal that doesn't say the same thing when caught and hoping to avoid punishment?

[RyZ]

I'm in the camp that it depends how much of each he had. If he had a large amount of LSD and a little bit of pot then throw his ass in jail. If it was 99% pot and a sheet of LSD it's not a big deal. Pot sits in the same group as alcohol and tobacco for me, so who cares.

Poor guy though, sounds like he just got caught up in a bad situation at the wrong time.

I also have a problem with how the police put a dollar value on "street drugs". If he drove that $25,000 stash to a big time drug dealer and sold him what was in the car it probably would be worth 1/3 of the police dollar value. You probably couldn't fit what would really be $25,000 worth of pot in a van, let alone a car.

[moon]

Originally Posted by RyZ

I'm in the camp that it depends how much of each he had. If he had a large amount of LSD and a little bit of pot then throw his ass in jail. If it was 99% pot and a sheet of LSD it's not a big deal. Pot sits in the same group as alcohol and tobacco for me, so who cares.

Poor guy though, sounds like he just got caught up in a bad situation at the wrong time.

I also have a problem with how the police put a dollar value on "street drugs". If he drove that $25,000 stash to a big time drug dealer and sold him what was in the car it probably would be worth 1/3 of the police dollar value. You probably couldn't fit what would really be $25,000 worth of pot in a van, let alone a car.

Its great that pot sits in the same camp as alcohol and tobacco but it is still illegal. I don't see how whether it should be legal or not fits in this argument. It isn't legal. Selling/growing pot contributes to elements of society that are harmful and dangerous to the public, so it should be targeted.

Even if the amount of pot was $5,000 in terms of real value he should be punished. That is much more than anyone needs for their own use and not an amount you just have lying around.

Again why do people want to continue to make excuses for this guy? I don't see anything that should make someone feel bad for him. To me it seems that he made bad choices and hung around with bad people. It seems that it was brought on by himself and is fully his own fault. He deserves all the punishment that comes to him. Hopefully, it encourages him to change his lifestyle but that doesn't mean he should escape punishment.

[Robbob]

I think the guy has to go to jail. Bottom line is if he didn't get caught he'd probably still be selling right now. The fact that he got caught early enough he should count his blessing do the time and move on.

I'm with everyone else who says you judge a person by the actions and thats it. If he has turned things around then he will be paroled in no time.

[Mr.Coffee]

It bugs me when cops let off hot chicks for speeding tickets, let alone this.

He should go to jail.

I don't really consider weed a big deal, it's not going to kill you in a short timeframe like some of the other drugs could...

but generally if your a drug dealer your probably not a "good guy" because your feeding into other people's senseless and dangerous addictions. (I'm talking about the hard stuff here).

[GreenLantern]

Where is there a debate? You do the crime, you do the time.

Simple. Good guy or not, he knew what he was doing.

[Kipper is King]

He might be a "good guy" which I strongly doubt. If he is, then he's a very stupid guy for doing something like that.

Either way- off to jail for him. He needs time to reflect on how bad and/or stupid he is.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by moon

Selling/growing pot contributes to elements of society that are harmful and dangerous to the public, so it should be targeted.

Pot is harmful and dangerous to the public? Pot may be harmful to his lungs but I would like to know where you get the idea that it is somehow harming the public.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

Where is there a debate? You do the crime, you do the time.

Not to pick on you, but this is just one of those cliches that really get to me. Straight out of some bad 80s fear mongering junior high assembly video.

Every crime commited has different circumstances behind it and should be treated as such. This guy didn't hurt anyone. He is not a danger to anyone but his lungs. I'm going to assume this guy lives in N.S. where any marijuana bust is given a value based on it's street price of $10 a gram. So we're looking at 2500 grams of pot... a little more than 5lbs. WOW. Throw away the key guys.......

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

He might be a "good guy" which I strongly doubt. If he is, then he's a very stupid guy for doing something like that.

Either way- off to jail for him. He needs time to reflect on how bad and/or stupid he is.

Pretty harsh judgement considering you know absolutely nothing about the guy other than the fact that he had some drugs on him. Bad or Stupid? Something tells me there are more options out there.....

Anyone here on anti-depressants?

Anyone ever think that a lot of people who smoke weed use it for the exact same reason. To level out? Slow down your frantic thoughts?

One is legal and subsidized, the other isn't.
One permanently alters your brain chemistry, effectively changing your personality, the other puts some tar in your lungs and may give you cancer.

Not saying one is better than the other, just pointing out that because this guy had 5lbs of weed on him does NOT make him bad, stupid or worthy of a jail sentence. Should we lock up pharmasists?

Yeah, yeah he knew the consequences. That is not up for debate. But we CAN debate the effectiveness/necessity of those consequences.

**Just want to mention that this whole post is made under the assumption that he had mostly weed and maybe a bit of LSD for personal use or whatever. LSD is certainly a much more serious problem (if you need to ask why feel free). I would still argue that a jail sentence would be overkill but obviously some kind of further punishment would be warranted.


EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to bump an old thread. Had it open on my laptop from last night and didn't get time to respond till today.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

Pot is harmful and dangerous to the public? Pot may be harmful to his lungs but I would like to know where you get the idea that it is somehow harming the public.

I didn't say that pot was but that the people who are behind the growing/selling of it are harmful.