Another victory for "freedom"

[nfotiu]

Most people caught with a joint don't have to go either to rehab or jail. Drug laws are archaic and do absolutely infringe upon people's personal freedoms. It is rather disgusting that we accept that our government can tell us what we can do to ourselves. MJ is probably not that high on the list of dangerous things we can do to ourselves. Smoking,drinking,MacDonalds meals are all probably much more dangerous. I seriously can't understand the side that thinks this substance should be illegal. I think these people should just mind their own business, and I find their stance offensive.

These new law proposals are horrible. They will no doubt be enforced racially in this country, as the current laws already are. You think a cop is going to arrest a 19 year old white guy for passing a joint to a 17 year old in an upscale white neighbourhood house party? Compare that to cops coming across a 19 year old black guy giving some to his 17 year old brother in the projects.

[JohnnyTitan]

This maybe should be a thread on its own, but the article is not new and it just seems to fit so perfectly to this conversation.

In short, in general I like the way our society handles big issues better than the way the Yankees do. Not to say corruption and money-squandering doesn't P!$$ me off big-time...but I'm not ready to join the States just yet.

Very good article IMO.

PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE "It's not just the weather that's cooler in Canada"

Wednesday, July 30, 2003
You live next door to a clean-cut, quiet guy. He never plays loud music or
throws raucous parties. He doesn't gossip over the fence, just smiles
politely and offers you some tomatoes. His lawn is cared-for, his house is
neat as a pin and you get the feeling he doesn't always lock his front door.
He wears Dockers. You hardly know he's there.

And then one day you discover that he has pot in his basement, spends his
weekends at peace marches and that guy you've seen mowing the yard is his
spouse.

Allow me to introduce Canada.

The Canadians are so quiet that you may have forgotten they're up there, but

they've been busy doing some surprising things. It's like discovering that
the mice you are dimly aware of in your attic have been building an espresso

machine.

Did you realize, for example, that our reliable little tag-along brother
never joined the Coalition of the Willing? Canada wasn't willing, as it
turns out, to join the fun in Iraq. I can only assume American diner menus
weren't angrily changed to include "freedom bacon," because nobody here eats

the stuff anyway.

And then there's the wild drug situation: Canadian doctors are authorized to

dispense medical marijuana. Parliament is considering legislation that
would not exactly legalize marijuana possession, as you may have heard, but
would reduce the penalty for possession of under 15 grams to a fine, like a
speeding ticket. This is to allow law enforcement to concentrate resources
on traffickers; if your garden is full of wasps, it's smarter to go for the
nest rather than trying to swat every individual bug. Or, in the United
States, bong.

Now, here's the part that I, as an American, can't understand. These poor
benighted pinkos are doing everything wrong. They have a drug problem:
Marijuana offenses have doubled since 1991. And Canada has strict gun
control laws, which means that the criminals must all be heavily armed, the
law-abiding civilians helpless and the government on the verge of a massive
confiscation campaign. (The laws have been in place since the '70s, but I'm

sure the government will get around to the confiscation eventually.) They
don't even have a death penalty!

And yet ... nationally, overall crime in Canada has been declining since
1991. Violent crimes fell 13 percent in 2002. Of course, there are still
crimes committed with guns -- brought in from the United States, which has
become the major illegal weapons supplier for all of North America -- but my

theory is that the surge in pot-smoking has rendered most criminals too
relaxed to commit violent crimes. They're probably more focused on
shoplifting boxes of Ho-Hos from convenience stores.

And then there's the most reckless move of all: Just last month, Canada
decided to allow and recognize same-sex marriages. Merciful moose, what can

they be thinking? Will there be married Mounties (they always get their
man!)? Dudley Do-Right was sweet on Nell, not Mel! We must be the only
ones who really care about families. Not enough to make sure they all have
health insurance, of course, but more than those libertines up north.

This sort of behavior is a clear and present danger to all our stereotypes
about Canada. It's supposed to be a cold, wholesome country of polite,
beer-drinking hockey players, not founded by freedom-fighters in a bloody
revolution but quietly assembled by loyalists and royalists more interested
in order and good government than liberty and independence.

But if we are the rugged individualists, why do we spend so much of our time

trying to get everyone to march in lockstep? And if Canadians are so
reserved and moderate, why are they so progressive about letting people do
what they want to?

Canadians are, as a nation, less religious than we are, according to polls.
As a result, Canada's government isn't influenced by large, well-organized
religious groups and thus has more in common with those of Scandinavia than
those of the United States, or, say, Iran.

Canada signed the Kyoto global warming treaty, lets 19-year-olds drink, has
more of its population living in urban areas and accepts more immigrants per

capita than the United States.

These are all things we've been told will wreck our society. But I guess
Canadians are different, because theirs seems oddly sound.

Like teenagers, we fiercely idolize individual freedom but really demand
that everyone be the same. But the Canadians seem more adult -- more
secure. They aren't afraid of foreigners. They aren't afraid of
homosexuality. Most of all, they're not afraid of each other.

I wonder if America will ever be that cool.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Five-hole+May 25 2005, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Five-hole @ May 25 2005, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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? [/b][/quote]
So his point is that making punishments a deterrant are an infringment on freedom. As I've said before I think this is a stupid law, it goes way too far for a crime that in my opinion isn't that bad (I'll stop short of saying that is shouldn't be a crime though). Is it too harsh, I think so, but the guy introducing it clearly doesn't. There are a lot of stupid bills out there (luckily most of the really stupid ones get defeated), but just because this is probalby overly harsh doesn't mean it is an attack on freedom.

If the government is killing people for jaywalking, cleary the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and I'd probably agree with you that that is a great example of an attack on freedom (god I hate that phrase now, Freedom this, Freedom that. GO TEAM AMERICA, But I digress). I suppose the debate here is wether or not the proposed punishment here fits the crime, and appears we're on the same side there, but clearly there are people who don't agree.

Is this bill inappropriate? I sure think so.
Is it an attack on freedom? Probably not.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+May 25 2005, 03:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ May 25 2005, 03:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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?

So his point is that making punishments a deterrant are an infringment on freedom. As I've said before I think this is a stupid law, it goes way too far for a crime that in my opinion isn't that bad (I'll stop short of saying that is shouldn't be a crime though). Is it too harsh, I think so, but the guy introducing it clearly doesn't. There are a lot of stupid bills out there (luckily most of the really stupid ones get defeated), but just because this is probalby overly harsh doesn't mean it is an attack on freedom.

If the government is killing people for jaywalking, cleary the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and I'd probably agree with you that that is a great example of an attack on freedom (god I hate that phrase now, Freedom this, Freedom that. GO TEAM AMERICA, But I digress). I suppose the debate here is wether or not the proposed punishment here fits the crime, and appears we're on the same side there, but clearly there are people who don't agree.

Is this bill inappropriate? I sure think so.
Is it an attack on freedom? Probably not. [/b][/quote]
My point is that you can justify any new punishment by saying "it was against the law anyway so this is just tightening things up".

The thousand dollar speeding ticket was meant as an exaggeration, but when I think about it it, to me it makes as much sense as locking someone up for 5 years on a first offense of selling weed. They are both ridiculous. Although... the thousand dollar fine would definitely cut down on speeders. We know from experience (or at least we should) that putting more and more people in jail for longer stretches does not solve "the drug problem".

[Agamemnon]

I bet drunk-drivers kill 10's of 1000's more people in the US than any/all (illegal) drug-related deaths.

I think taxing the snot out of cigarettes and liquor, and at the same time banning _very_ similar substances, is hypocritical. Either ban them all, or realize that many of them are here to stay.

Seriously, was the War on Drugs an actual effort to 'win the war'? If it was, it's failing... dismally. And I don't think it's because the old/current laws are too soft. It's because the demand is insatiable.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@May 25 2005, 06:24 PM

The hysteria over marijuana is just mindbuggering.

I think the love affair with it is infantile, but hey...what the hell do I know.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+May 25 2005, 05:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ May 25 2005, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@May 25 2005, 06:24 PM

The hysteria over marijuana is just mindbuggering.

I think the love affair with it is infantile, but hey...what the hell do I know. [/b][/quote]
Who has a love affair with it?

[Thunderball]

I think the law is the law. If its illegal and punishable by heavy sentencing, than don't do it or live with the consequences. Maybe States will start legalizing possession (which is stupid) or actually legalize everything and have big business run the drug dealers out of the market. Until then, thats the way it works.

I think the biggest travesty is the low prison term for rape... that simply must change.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@May 25 2005, 11:11 PM

Who has a love affair with it?

Are you saying it's not popular? I have heard lots of people, some on this forum, try and justify it's use.

1. It's illegal. Breaking the law is dumb. You go to prison. The sentences set down by the laws may look off kilter (and I have complained incessantly about the lack of umph in the sentences for sex offenders) but they are there and if someone breaks the law they should NOT be surprised when they are sentenced.

2. I don't care if alcohol and cigarettes are as bad for you or worse. That's like saying you're going to pull the pin on a grenade and sit on it because it's not as bad as sitting on a nuclear warhead that's going to blow.

The arguments presented in favor of using marijuana are pathetic on every level. People who need to use it and feel oppressed because it's illegal are weak at best. It's those people I refere to when I say there is a love affair. I've known a few.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 25 2005, 10:43 PM
I bet drunk-drivers kill 10's of 1000's more people in the US than any/all (illegal) drug-related deaths.

I think taxing the snot out of cigarettes and liquor, and at the same time banning _very_ similar substances, is hypocritical. Either ban them all, or realize that many of them are here to stay.

Seriously, was the War on Drugs an actual effort to 'win the war'? If it was, it's failing... dismally. And I don't think it's because the old/current laws are too soft. It's because the demand is insatiable.

And it is my personal Opinion that Alcohol and Smoking be banned since they are both terrible things.

If the government could ban Alcohol don't you think they would? In fact they *tried* to with prohibition, but the revolt against it was so strong that it was completely unenforcable.

If smoking hadn't been so mainstream, I'm sure it would have been illegal too.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+May 25 2005, 11:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ May 25 2005, 11:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@May 25 2005, 10:43 PM
I bet drunk-drivers kill 10's of 1000's more people in the US than any/all (illegal) drug-related deaths.

I think taxing the snot out of cigarettes and liquor, and at the same time banning _very_ similar substances, is hypocritical.# Either ban them all, or realize that many of them are here to stay.

Seriously, was the War on Drugs an actual effort to 'win the war'?# If it was, it's failing... dismally.# And I don't think it's because the old/current laws are too soft.# It's because the demand is insatiable.

And it is my personal Opinion that Alcohol and Smoking be banned since they are both terrible things.

If the government could ban Alcohol don't you think they would? In fact they *tried* to with prohibition, but the revolt against it was so strong that it was completely unenforcable.

If smoking hadn't been so mainstream, I'm sure it would have been illegal too.[/b][/quote]
No, I don't think the government would ban alcohol, 'even if it could'. I think this is because it can't, inherently. We live in a democracy, and a large, broad majority of people support legalized alcohol. When prohibition came into effect, it had the support of the people (wasn't there a referendum?).

It seems like what you're saying is that cigarette smoking is legal because of it's pervasiveness, because it's 'mainstream'. If that's the case, I've got news for you. Smoking marijuana is rapidly, rapidly becoming pervasive and 'mainstream'.

I'm hear you though, either legalize weed, or outlaw alcohol/tobacco. I equate all three, and am puzzled by the deferential treatment the latter two get (though I did see a documentary once claiming that US cotton growers are the reason for marijuana/hemp's illegality, as it would have destroyed their lucrative industry back in the day, but who knows).

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+May 25 2005, 11:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ May 25 2005, 11:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@May 25 2005, 06:24 PM

The hysteria over marijuana is just mindbuggering.

I think the love affair with it is infantile, but hey...what the hell do I know.[/b][/quote]
Lol, yep, stupid kids, I'm sure they'll grow out of it!

*cracks a beer*

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 25 2005, 11:35 PM

No, I don't think the government would ban alcohol, 'even if it could'. I think this is because it can't, inherently. We live in a democracy, and a large, broad majority of people support legalized alcohol. When prohibition came into effect, it had the support of the people (wasn't there a referendum?).

It seems like what you're saying is that cigarette smoking is legal because of it's pervasiveness, because it's 'mainstream'. If that's the case, I've got news for you. Smoking marijuana is rapidly, rapidly becoming pervasive and 'mainstream'.

I'm hear you though, either legalize weed, or outlaw alcohol/tobacco. I equate all three, and am puzzled by the deferential treatment the latter two get (though I did see a documentary once claiming that US cotton growers are the reason for marijuana/hemp's illegality, as it would have destroyed their lucrative industry back in the day, but who knows).

Good post. I don't disagree with any of that really. Your reasoning is based on logic, not some pathetic cry of oppression.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 25 2005, 11:24 PM
The arguments presented in favor of using marijuana are pathetic on every level.# People who need to use it and feel oppressed because it's illegal are weak at best.# It's those people I refere to when I say there is a love affair.# I've known a few.

Well, not much more pathetic than 'it's wrong because the law says so'. That's not explaining why it's wrong, it's explaining what happens if you get caught doing it. Different things.

People that want to smoke marijuana do it largely for the same reason people want to drink beer; it's a relaxing way to pass the time. If you've got a weed problem, that's not good. If you've got a liquor problem... that's also not good. How is one great, and the other evil? Because the government says so? Why does it 'say so'. Is everything it says the gospel truth?

It used to be illegal for black people to sit at the front of the bus. Laws change, they evolve, as society evolves.

Types of stem-cell research in the States are illegal. Is this research 'wrong and stupid' because of government say-so?

And finally.... alcohol/cigarettes are a grenade, and marijuana a nuclear bomb? Please explain. I've never heard that they are sooooo far apart in orders of magnitude. Have you tried all three? I assume you have, since you seem to know about it...

edit: Sorry, I don't mean to rip you on this, I just feel very strongly about this issue

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 25 2005, 11:36 PM

Lol, yep, stupid kids, I'm sure they'll grow out of it!

*cracks a beer*

Didn't think I used the proper adjective?

in·fan·tile (nfn-tl, -tl)
adj.

1. Of or relating to infants or infancy.
2. Displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; extremely childish.

Interestingly, the word expresses my feelings perfectly.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+May 25 2005, 11:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ May 25 2005, 11:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@May 25 2005, 11:36 PM

Lol, yep, stupid kids, I'm sure they'll grow out of it!

*cracks a beer*

Didn't think I used the proper adjective?

in·fan·tile (nfn-tl, -tl)
adj.

1. Of or relating to infants or infancy.
2. Displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; extremely childish.

Interestingly, the word expresses my feelings perfectly. [/b][/quote]
Don't have a problem w/ the word, have a problem w/ the hypocracy of drinking beer, while deriding weed. I condone your word useage

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 25 2005, 11:41 PM
Well, not much more pathetic than 'it's wrong because the law says so'. That's not explaining why it's wrong, it's explaining what happens if you get caught doing it. Different things.

People that want to smoke marijuana do it largely for the same reason people want to drink beer; it's a relaxing way to pass the time. If you've got a weed problem, that's not good. If you've got a liquor problem... that's also not good. How is one great, and the other evil? Because the government says so? Why does it 'say so'. Is everything it says the gospel truth?

It used to be illegal for black people to sit at the front of the bus. Laws change, they evolve, as society evolves.

Types of stem-cell research in the States are illegal. Is this research 'wrong and stupid' because of government say-so?

And finally.... alcohol/cigarettes are a grenade, and marijuana a nuclear bomb? Please explain. I've never heard that they are sooooo far apart in orders of magnitude. Have you tried all three? I assume you have, since you seem to know about it...

edit: Sorry, I don't mean to rip you on this, I just feel very strongly about this issue

I didn't say it's wrong because the law said so. I said it's ILLEGAL. Big difference.

I didn't say one was great and the other evil either.....where are you getting this stuff?

Laws to evolve and change. Yep, they do. That's a good thing. Segregatory laws are a little bit different from anti-drug laws though. Not a good comparison on your part. If marijuana becomes legalized, those that do it will be considerably less stupid than those that do it now. Does that make sense to you?

Types of stem cell research are illegal in the US? That's news to me....I think what you mean is that it is illegal for the Federal government to fund types of stem cell research. I could be wrong though.

Uh, no.....you completely missed the point of the analogy. You don't justify unhealthy behavior with "other unhealthy behavior is just as bad or worse"....in other words, you don't pull the pin on a grenade and sit on it (marijuana) because it's not as bad as sitting on an armed nuclear warhead (worse vice).

I've drank alcohol...to excess in the past. That was bad behavior. Bad for me. Changed who I was. I did things I wouldn't have normally done (more bad behavior) as most drunks do. I drink a beer now and then. Haven't been drunk in many years. I have never taken a puff of anything. Why? Prude? *$#@!? Nope. I know what it's like to not be able to breathe and I've seen what people who smoke (what they smoke is irrelevant) go through when they die of lung cancer or emphysema. The price is much to high for me. I like clean air.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 25 2005, 11:43 PM

Don't have a problem w/ the word, have a problem w/ the hypocracy of drinking beer, while deriding weed. I condone your word useage

Why? Are they exactly the same?

Sell me on that one. Be careful though.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+May 25 2005, 05:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ May 25 2005, 05:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@May 25 2005, 11:11 PM

Who has a love affair with it?

Are you saying it's not popular? I have heard lots of people, some on this forum, try and justify it's use.

1. It's illegal. Breaking the law is dumb. You go to prison. The sentences set down by the laws may look off kilter (and I have complained incessantly about the lack of umph in the sentences for sex offenders) but they are there and if someone breaks the law they should NOT be surprised when they are sentenced.

2. I don't care if alcohol and cigarettes are as bad for you or worse. That's like saying you're going to pull the pin on a grenade and sit on it because it's not as bad as sitting on a nuclear warhead that's going to blow.

The arguments presented in favor of using marijuana are pathetic on every level. People who need to use it and feel oppressed because it's illegal are weak at best. It's those people I refere to when I say there is a love affair. I've known a few. [/b][/quote]
Breaking the law is dumb. Some laws are dumb too, and should be changed. The law in question is obviously dumb and it isn't even a law yet and I don't think it should become one. Do you?

Did you ever smoke marijuana before you turned 18? 21? Do you think the supplier of it committed a crime that warrants a 5 or 10 year stretch in a federal prison? What if one of your parents caught you but didn't snitch on and testify against the seller? Would they deserve a mandatory 3 year prison sentence for not snitching?

This is a stupid law. It should not pass. It will not help the drug problem. Locking more people up for lesser crimes does plainly doesn't work.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+May 25 2005, 04:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ May 25 2005, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@May 25 2005, 11:43 PM

Don't have a problem w/ the word, have a problem w/ the hypocracy of drinking beer, while deriding weed.# I condone your word useage

Why? Are they exactly the same?

Sell me on that one. Be careful though. [/b][/quote]
Well that's kind of an unfair demand, isn't it? What sort of evidence are you looking for?

Why don't you sell us on why they're different enough to warrant passing a bill such as this one? You do seem to be defending its illegality, after all.