NationStates Jolt Archive

...because he had a gun on him. A gun ON him, not brandished or threatened or even drawn attention to. Just possession, in an ankle holster. Sold marijuana three times wearing it. 3 counts of possession of a firearm during illegal drug trafficking. 55 minimum year sentence, of which the judge protested, but could do nothing.

The judge then urged the defendant's lawyer not only to appeal his decision but to ask President Bush for clemency once all appeals were exhausted. He also urged Congress to set aside the law that made the sentence mandatory.

2 hours earlier, the same judge had given a 22 year sentence to a man convicted of aggravated second-degree murder for beating an elderly woman to DEATH with a log.

During a court hearing in September, the judge posed a question to the opposing legal teams in the case: "Is there a rational basis," he asked, "for giving Mr. Angelos more time than the hijacker, the murderer, the rapist?"

(Source) (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/national/17sentencing.html?oref=login)

Does anyone not see a HUGE problem with the *justice* system?

Unforutnaly your source requires a regestraion password. quick question. what State did this take place in?

My apologies.

Takes place in Salt Lake City. Not surprising.

Judge Questions Long Sentence in Drug Case
By NICK MADIGAN Published: November 17, 2004

SALT LAKE CITY, Nov. 16 - In a case that has spurred intense soul-searching in legal circles, a 25-year-old convicted drug dealer, who was arrested two years ago for selling small bags of marijuana to a police informant, was sentenced on Tuesday to 55 years in prison.

The judge who sentenced him, Paul G. Cassell of the United States District Court here, said that he pronounced the sentence "reluctantly" but that his hands were tied by a mandatory-minimum law that required the imposition of 55 years on Weldon H. Angelos because he had a gun during at least two of the drug transactions.

"I have no choice," Judge Cassell said to Mr. Angelos, who seemed frozen in place as the extent of the sentence became apparent.

The judge then urged Mr. Angelos's lawyer, Jerome H. Mooney, not only to appeal his decision but to ask President Bush for clemency once all appeals were exhausted. He also urged Congress to set aside the law that made the sentence mandatory.

Judge Cassell said that sentencing Mr. Angelos to prison until he is 70 years old was "unjust, cruel and even irrational," but that the law that forced him to do so had not proved to be unconstitutional and thus had to stand. The sentence was all the more ironic, he said, because only two hours earlier he had been legally able to impose a sentence of 22 years on a man convicted of aggravated second-degree murder for beating an elderly woman to death with a log. That crime, he argued, was far more serious.

Mr. Angelos's wife, Zandrah, who sat in court with the couple's two boys, aged 5 and 7, began crying. "He might as well have killed someone," she said bitterly, wiping her eyes, referring to her husband. "He should have done worse than he did if he was going to get 55 years."

The question of Mr. Angelos's sentence was at the center of a debate as to whether it was fair to send a minor drug dealer to prison for 55 years when a murderer, rapist or terrorist, according to the same sentencing directives, would ordinarily receive no more than about 25 years.

During a court hearing in September, Judge Cassell posed a question to the opposing legal teams in the case: "Is there a rational basis," he asked, "for giving Mr. Angelos more time than the hijacker, the murderer, the rapist?"

The sentence against Mr. Angelos, the founder of the rap music label Extravagant Records, stemmed from his conviction on three counts of possession of a firearm while engaged in drug trafficking. The first count carried a mandatory five-year sentence, with each subsequent count calling for 25 years.

According to trial testimony, Mr. Angelos was carrying a pistol in an ankle holster while selling marijuana. He was not accused of brandishing the weapon or threatening anyone with it.

But in court on Tuesday, Robert Lund, an assistant United States attorney who prosecuted the case, called Mr. Angelos a "purveyor of poison," and said he had been dealing drugs for more than four years before his arrest. Carrying a gun in the commission of such crimes, he said, meant that Mr. Angelos was prepared "to kill other human beings."

It's a fuckin shame. Nevermind the innocent people that get murdered, the young girls/adult women that get raped, etc....those fuckin assholes are given 25 years with the possibility of parole. But a guy who sold weed and had a gun holstered on his ankle gets 55 years.

It's really all very sad. We see this type of shit on the news, read about it in the paper or online. Makes you wonder about our so called "justice" system....Fuckin bastards

This makes the typical amount of sense for the American legal system. No matter which part of it you're looking at, it's completely warped out of any kind of sensible shape.

Was it an illegal firearm?

55 years is a bit of a waste. 30 would probably be more than enough to completely ruin the guys life, why waste all that $$ on 55?

Was it an illegal firearm?
It was a pistol. I don't know if he had a licence or not. But that is surprisingly irrelevant. The law says possession of a firearm during trafficking is worth additional sentencing.

End the war on drugs, AND the war on guns.

Legalise (small amounts of) soft drugs, ban guns

It was a pistol. I don't know if he had a licence or not. But that is surprisingly irrelevant. The law says possession of a firearm during trafficking is worth additional sentencing.

End the war on drugs, AND the war on guns.

No, it's extremely relevant because I have a license to carry a firearm, and I often do, and I often do it while possessing drugs.

Any judge with the guts to stand up to injustice could sentence as he sees fit.

Any judge with the guts to stand up to injustice could sentence as he sees fit.

Well the law has already been challenged and deemed to be constitutional, so his hands are really tied, unless he wants to lose the bench.

Well the law has already been challenged and deemed to be constitutional, so his hands are really tied, unless he wants to lose the bench.

That's why he would need to actually be in possession of guts. Also he could have overruled the jury and found the guy guilty on lesser charges, thus invoking double jeopardy.

Was it challenged on Eighth Amendment grounds? Up to the Supreme Court?

Any judge with the guts to stand up to injustice could sentence as he sees fit.
In the UK yes, but I don't know how it works in the US.

Next time someone is in that situation they might as well try and shoot thier way out, as they won't get any more time for it! Great system!

Damn, and I was pissed when they gave me a €70 fine for drug trafficking.

:confused: What the ...

A man who sells a little weed gets 55 years while a proven murderer gets 40% of that? I know there is war on drugs, but the real drug dealers who happen line the pockets of corrupt cops and officials never get caught (or rarely). Anyway people have been selling weed for thousands of years and they probably need a little protection from thieving scum.

We, as citizens, need to continue to protest sentencing like this to our public officials. Letters to editors and call in shows are other ways to get more just views aired and laws changed.

Slender Goddess

It was a pistol. I don't know if he had a licence or not. But that is surprisingly irrelevant. The law says possession of a firearm during trafficking is worth additional sentencing.

End the war on drugs, AND the war on guns.

seriously.

people scream about the patriot act. What these monkeys dont understand is that we lost our rights in the war on drugs and the mob.

the law has become a sword instead of a shield

Sorry folks, but we're living in the age of intollerance and industrialized corporate prisons in this country. While I can't quote the exact figures, I remember hearing recently that the number of non-violent drug offenders would soon outweigh the number of offenders who commited all forms of violent crimes. Many of the non-violent offenders are being jailed for long terms (20+ years) because of the mandatory minimums that are being forced on judges. Keeping the capitalized prisons full is big business these days, as is the entire war on drugs. And the easiest substance by far to go after is pot and thus easiest people are the pot growers, dealers and users. Also, riddle me this batman - who'd you rather bust as a law enforcement officer? A non-violent pothead or a violent criminal?

As I expect someone will argue "but he had a gun!". Spare me. I've got a gun, he's got a gun, she's got a gun. This is America! We've all got guns! Well, maybe not all of us but a hell of a lot of us do.

Wonder how much time the guy in Wisconsin who shot the five other hunters over a hunting blind - THEIR HUNTING BLIND - is gonna get? Five years if that? And don't even get me started on the pathetic sentences given to rapists and child molesters. :mad: :headbang: :mad:

Does anyone not see a HUGE problem with the *justice* system?

No.

One less law-breaking citizen out of our hair.

...because he had a gun on him. A gun ON him, not brandished or threatened or even drawn attention to. Just possession, in an ankle holster. Sold marijuana three times wearing it. 3 counts of possession of a firearm during illegal drug trafficking. 55 minimum year sentence, of which the judge protested, but could do nothing.

The judge then urged the defendant's lawyer not only to appeal his decision but to ask President Bush for clemency once all appeals were exhausted. He also urged Congress to set aside the law that made the sentence mandatory.

2 hours earlier, the same judge had given a 22 year sentence to a man convicted of aggravated second-degree murder for beating an elderly woman to DEATH with a log.

During a court hearing in September, the judge posed a question to the opposing legal teams in the case: "Is there a rational basis," he asked, "for giving Mr. Angelos more time than the hijacker, the murderer, the rapist?"

(Source) (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/national/17sentencing.html?oref=login)

Does anyone not see a HUGE problem with the *justice* system?

You forgot to quote the other 99 pages of his "Rap-Sheet". Judges read these things.

seriously.

people scream about the patriot act. What these monkeys dont understand is that we lost our rights in the war on drugs and the mob.

the law has become a sword instead of a shield

Anyone who complains about the Patriot Act but not the War on Drugs may be ignorant to major issues, but I don't think that most of "these monkeys" don't also speak against the War on Drugs. Most of us realize it's just one thing after another, step by step.

But in court on Tuesday, Robert Lund, an assistant United States attorney who prosecuted the case, called Mr. Angelos a "purveyor of poison," and said he had been dealing drugs for more than four years before his arrest. Carrying a gun in the commission of such crimes, he said, meant that Mr. Angelos was prepared "to kill other human beings."

Purveyor of poison??? I wonder if the asshole knows that tobacco and alcool are both way worse than pot, in term of dependance and consequencies on the body. If yes, he's going to have a lot of work with all the alcool dealers out there...but no, he prefers attacking pot-dealers. Cause while it is hard to make tobacco or alcool, it is easy to grow pot, so the government would gain nothing by putting taxes on it.

The gun thing is also very fun, how is this guy supposed to defend himself against the real dangerous ones? Those who get 2 years? Now, he'll have to defend against them until he is 80. Because he gave recreation drugs to those who wanted some... What a justice... I say let's all express to Mr Robert Lund our view on his sense of justice.

No.

One less law-breaking citizen out of our hair.
uh huh...well I break the law on a regular basis, and I'm a little worried. I understand most people don't break the law, but a fairly large percentage do. What were we trying to accomplish with the War on Drugs again?

seriously.

people scream about the patriot act. What these monkeys dont understand is that we lost our rights in the war on drugs and the mob.

the law has become a sword instead of a shield
You're damn right. We have learned NOTHING from prohibition. The *War on Drugs* makes the Patriot Act look like small potatoes. War on Guns a close second. Liberal or a conservative, we are under assault by our bloated meddling government.

You forgot to quote the other 99 pages of his "Rap-Sheet". Judges read these things.
And...you think 55 years was a decent sentence?

uh huh...well I break the law on a regular basis, and I'm a little worried.

I'd be, too, but I'm talking about laws that have the potential to cause even greater trouble... like drugs, theft, etc. I'm not talking about jaywalking.

I understand most people don't break the law, but a fairly large percentage do.

Yes, and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, regardless.

What were we trying to accomplish with the War on Drugs again?

Nothing; we're too busy spending money on the war on terror to care.

No.

One less law-breaking citizen out of our hair.


I love this arguement (hopefully I'm not taking their sarcasm as being serious).

Like they've (probably) never broken the speed limit or disobeyed a traffic sign or done something else that broke the law in some small and pathetic way. Of course there are degree's of law-breaking involved here, but when you generalize by using a term like "law-breaking" you leave yourself open to generalized rebutal.

Besides, part of the problem with this particualr case is the degree of the severity of the punishment. He didn't face a fine or a short stay in some minimum security prison. He's facing more than twice the number of years as a convicted MURDERER!!!


You forgot to quote the other 99 pages of his "Rap-Sheet". Judges read these things.

The judge in this case didn't want to impose the sentence. He was FORCED to by the mandatory minimum set in place. Go back and read the article. But I've come to expect very little from you, sir. Please, go start up another thread that gets shut down by the mods.

I'd be, too, but I'm talking about laws that have the potential to cause even greater trouble... like drugs, theft, etc. I'm not talking about jaywalking.
I am under the age of 21, and I consume alcohol regularly. I also smoke marijuana on occasion. I have never hurt anyone, stolen anything, or defaced public property. What trouble have I caused?

Yes, and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, regardless.
You are aware that close to 100 million Americans have experimented with pot alone? We'd need to build some new prisons.

Nothing; we're too busy spending money on the war on terror to care.
A lot of money goes into the "War on Drugs", entire bloated beaurocratic agencies set up to "wage" that war, and the money wasted is rising exponentially, while drug use remains fairly constant overall.

I am under the age of 21, and I consume alcohol regularly. I also smoke marijuana on occasion. I have never hurt anyone, stolen anything, or defaced public property. What trouble have I caused?

The fact that you're drinking under 21 not only has potential problems for you but for those all around you... let me relate a scenario that deeply disturbed me my freshmen year of college.

I lived in the freshmen housing dormitory, co-ed, with boys on the second floor and girls on the first and third floors (I living on the latter).

One night, during the second to last week of the first semester last year, some boys decided that they would have a huge party in their dorm room... so, after getting completely drunk, they were caught by the University Police... after that ordeal was order, the same boys who had been written up and cited went outside to smoke pot, where they, too, were caught after us girls reported them... to top it off, they went back into their dorm room and started drinking again... only to have 19 boys cited again for underage drinking and possession, one boy sent to the hospital for alcohol poisoning, and one girl I was acquainted with having been raped.

Guess what happen to those boys other than being cited, including the one that raped the girl?

They were fined, cited, and that's it. There parents found out, that might've been the worse punishment for them, because the University did absolutely nothing to protect the girls of our building from their behaviour and a girl was raped, ended up moving back home, and will probably never set foot on a college campus again thanks to them. The University ignored the problem because of the PR disaster, and instead, but our well-being and lives in jeopardy.

But then again, it's just kids smoking and drinking, right?

By no means am I saying merely boys are capable of this behavior either, I'm just going on experience and relating the harrowing tales of my freshmen year as I lived them... hence, why I now live with my fiancee off-campus, way away from campus.

You are aware that close to 100 million Americans have experimented with pot alone? We'd need to build some new prisons.

Well, maybe if the government got off its ass and focused its priorities on America rather than overseas... perhaps, 100 million Americans wouldn't be doing "pot" because we'd be preventing them from doing it by finding a legitimate war on drugs. Followed-up on my next post...

A lot of money goes into the "War on Drugs", entire bloated beaurocratic agencies set up to "wage" that war, and the money wasted is rising exponentially, while drug use remains fairly constant overall.

Exactly, but that's because we don't really care about the war on drugs, which is what my original point was... if we cared about the war on drugs half as much as we care about the war on terror, there would be signifcant changes in those numbers.

TOne night, during the second to last week of the first semester last year, some boys decided that they would have a huge party in their dorm room... so, after getting completely drunk, they were caught by the University Police... after that ordeal was order, the same boys who had been written up and cited went outside to smoke pot, where they, too, were caught after us girls reported them... to top it off, they went back into their dorm room and started drinking again... only to have 19 boys cited again for underage drinking and possession, one boy sent to the hospital for alcohol poisoning, and one girl I was acquainted with having been raped.

Guess what happen to those boys other than being cited, including the one that raped the girl?

They were fined, cited, and that's it. There parents found out, that might've been the worse punishment for them, because the University did absolutely nothing to protect the girls of our building from their behaviour and a girl was raped, ended up moving back home, and will probably never set foot on a college campus again thanks to them. The University ignored the problem because of the PR disaster, and instead, but our well-being and lives in jeopardy.

But then again, it's just kids smoking and drinking, right?

See, I think this isn't something that should be copped up to the smoking and drinking, it's copped up the the kids.

And frankly, someone should've beat the little shit that raped the girl until he didn't have enough teeth left to apologize.

Tuesday Heights, what happened to the girl you are talking about is hideous. And the fact that the University did nothing about it speaks volumes about the University. But let me just say that of all the people I've known who have been pot heads and of all the people I've known who abuse alcohol it's the alcohol that causes the problems. And alcohol is legal! The pot heads have been the mellow, laid back ones who don't do anything more damaging than waste their lives away. I used to drink to excess and it usually caused me to become violent. Diference here is I took it out on myself and my own possesions. Smoking pot never caused me to go on a rampage or loose consciousness or throw up the next day.

Abusing any substance is a bad thing. But rape and assualt are much worse.

I could rant for pages and pages about all the problems that arise from abusing alcohol, but I can't do the same about pot-heads.

See, I think this isn't something that should be copped up to the smoking and drinking, it's copped up the the kids.

But, still, I don't think it would've necessarily happened if these kids weren't hyped up on substance and booze, in this situation, per se.

And frankly, someone should've beat the little shit that raped the girl until he didn't have enough teeth left to apologize.

I agree.

But then again, it's just kids smoking and drinking, right?


The matter of contention here is the degree of penalty in the face of the crime. I firmly believe those engaged in violent crimes including rape, assault and murder should recieve a stiffer penalty for their actions. Thereby if we accept the 55 year imprisonment for the armed drug dealer, the murderer and the rapist should recieve an even longer, or harsher penalty.

Tuesday Heights, have you ever stopped to think that blindly supporting the system, the law, might be a little short-sighted? Maybe the law is unjust? Maybe the "war on drugs", especially the prosecution for possession of (the 'soft', relatively harmless drug) marijuana, and specifically for this dude who got 55 years, is a little unfair, and, perhaps, that prohibition is an unenforceable law? Maybe....?
Think about it.


Anyway, I'd like to agree with this:

Legalise (small amounts of) soft drugs, ban guns

I don't see how legally allowing the widespread ownership of guns is by any means a good idea. It's a simple rule: if you don't have a gun, you can't shoot anybody. In the UK, and the rest of Europe, guns are illegal and we have, comparatively to the US, almost no shootings, armed robberies, or death due to gun use; dispite having a population accross Europe equal to that of the US. Guns are stupid IMO, and anybody who says that they are necessary for personal protection - get real... how many thugs actually break into your home and assault you and/or your family? Plus, if nobody had guns, why would you need to protect yourself (to the same degree)?
Probably going to get flamed for this, but oh well....

See, I think this isn't something that should be copped up to the smoking and drinking, it's copped up the the kids.

And frankly, someone should've beat the little shit that raped the girl until he didn't have enough teeth left to apologize.
Yeah. I don't want to see the priveleges of all people taken away because some people are irresponsible with their drinking.

But I don't think anyone's been raped or died from an overdose of marijuana. Booze however, is dangerous shit, I'll agree. It doesn't matter what age you are, booze is dangerous shit.

It's been my personal experience that those who have been denied alcohol through high school, suddenly thrust into the college party scene with no previous experience with drinking, often end up having the most problems with it. Case in point, being me, but I'd rather not get into that. Young people are sorely uneducated about alcohol, something that almost all people will eventually drink at one point in their entire life. Banning the stuff doesn't work, obviously. The raise the age from 18 to 21 thing was a joke. Unless we really want to create a police state, there is no way we can stop people who just want to get drunk or high. But we can make it less dangerous, and help those with problems. Throwing them in jail is the worst solution.

Tuesday Heights, have you ever stopped to think that blindly supporting the system, the law, might be a little short-sighted?

I agree, blinding supporting the system, can be short-sighted, but unfortunately in this day and age, blinding supporting it is the only way anything gets done in the legal system. America is very hesitant to change its laws and system, and as much as I hate being a pacifist, I do believe their are bigger battles than changing the law out there at this moment.

Maybe the law is unjust?

Very often, unfortunately.

I agree, blinding supporting the system, can be short-sighted, but unfortunately in this day and age, blinding supporting it is the only way anything gets done in the legal system. America is very hesitant to change its laws and system, and as much as I hate being a pacifist, I do believe their are bigger battles than changing the law out there at this moment.


What the FUCK is so goddamn pacifist about sending a pot-head to get sodomized for the rest of his life? Pacifist my ass! You think a guy should get 55 goddamn years in a fucking Federal Prison with murders and rapists for selling small bags of weed to preppy mormon-fucks! What the fuck do you think goes on in a prison -- do you realize that he'll get the shit beat out of him the first night during lights out.. do you realize that he'll get passed around and sodomized like a blow-up doll? They'll probably smash his teeth out so they can make him give them head without having to worry about it. Do you know what the number one cause of death is in prison? AIDs -- Fucking AIDs!

If you want to know why AIDs is such a problem in this country, it's becuase it gets passed around to our prison system and then when the rapist get out after 7 or so years they get to release to the rest of the world. But you've probably never thought of that, or much of anything else -- you seem to just follow all of the rules and despise those who ask questions.

...But let me just say that of all the people I've known who have been pot heads and of all the people I've known who abuse alcohol it's the alcohol that causes the problems. And alcohol is legal! The pot heads have been the mellow, laid back ones who don't do anything more damaging than waste their lives away. I used to drink to excess and it usually caused me to become violent. Diference here is I took it out on myself and my own possesions. Smoking pot never caused me to go on a rampage or loose consciousness or throw up the next day.


Waste our lives away?? Oi - that's not fair, or true!


Oh wait, it is. Sorry. :D

Good point tho, Alchohol is a dangerous, highly addictive and socially damaging drug, which is LEGAL. Weed is a non-addictive and non-dangerous (nobody has ever died as a result of pot-use or has ever become addicted to pot, compared to the aprrox. 14 million americans who suffer from alcohol-addiction (source (http://store.health.org/catalog/facts.aspx?topic=3)) and the 1400 college students who die every year from alcohol related-problems (couldn't find overall stats) () source (http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/facts/snapshot.aspx) ).
And yet, pot remains ILLEGAL while the far more "evil" drug alcohol goes free, legally, and doesn't carry with it even a fraction of the negative stigma that pot does in the public's view.
And dont even start of tobacco!

But, still, I don't think it would've necessarily happened if these kids weren't hyped up on substance and booze, in this situation, per se.
Tuesday, I was a Residence Assistant for two years in my dorm. I dealt with people who drank socially, and people who drank excessively. There is a BIG difference between the two. I had an unofficial rule: if I don't see it or hear it, it's not happening. Now, most students took to that just fine, sat in their room with a friend or two, drank alcohol and enjoyed each other's company.
Then, there were the students who thought that college was one big loop of Animal House. They would buy massive amounts of booze, meet in the common room with stereos and 20 guests, and have a party. They would get sloppy drunk, and sometimes violent. The noise and smell always got my attention, and I had to go in and break up the party.
Now, what's the difference between these two groups? Responsibility. The students who sat in their room and enjoyed alcohol in moderation acted very responsibly in their underage consumption. The students who chose to use alcohol as an excuse to get noisy, rowdy and stupid did not act at all responsibly. You, however, would strive to join these two groups together, as they are both breaking the law.
Truth is, assholes don't need alcohol to be assholes. They just use alcohol as an excuse to be assholes. The rapist (who indeed should be daily tortured to within an inch of his life) would have raped a girl with or without alcohol. Alcohol was just the catalyst.
We can't blame alcohol (or any other substance) for the ills of society. Society is ill, substances or no.

This is my first post here -- but I have to say I love the topic.

To start off, I'm from Salt Lake City, and this case is big news here. Of course, don't expect the typical ultra right-wing response from me as I'm not your typical Utahan. :P I'm a centrist libertarian...so some of what I say here might sound "left wing", some may sound "right wing", but that's why I confuse the hell out of SO many people. I'm neither.

For those who pointed out that this happened in SLC, it needs to be remembered this was a FEDERAL judge making orders on a FEDERAL case according to FEDERAL law. This could have happened in any federal district court in the USA. It has nothing to do with the place.

I peronsally think that any government attempt to legislate matters of personal morals is pointless. The government is SUPPOSED to be here to protect our liberty and way of life and freedom of choice. Drinking and smoking pot and growing pot and selling pot to a consenting adult in and of themselves have no detrimental effect on anyone NOT involved in making those decisions.

Purveyor of poison, indeed. *rolls eyes* As was already pointed out, alcohol and tobacco are poisons. Hell, rat poison is a poison.

I'm sick and tired of seeing the government try to play parent by making laws designed to protect ourselves from our own choices. The answer lies in education and parenting. Young people need to be made aware of the consequences of drug and alcohol abuse. I for one have never experimented with alcohol or drugs (beyond caffeine) because I grew up with a father who was a alcoholic and a drug addict. I saw secondhand what it did to him and I knew the whole time that his condition was due to his own choice.

As for guns - this is where I disagree with some points made. I personally do not own a gun, but I believe the right to bear arms is an essential liberty that still applies today, but I do believe gun registration and background checks are a necessary part of that. (I also believe there should be mandatory gun education.) Of course, this topic is probably best in another thread. :sniper:

I'm not saying the guy in this case didn't deserve time in jail. Illegal possession of the gun is cause enough alone, IMO (despite my personal feelings on drug law). But I totally agree with the judge that the 55 year sentance was excessive. Even 10 years would be a lot to this guy...not being able to watch his two kids grow up would be pure hell.

Considering Texastambul ruined a fine debate here, ladies and gents, I'm out due to his flaming. Sorry, if you wish to continue, telegram me.

I'll concede this: Society is ill to start, but ignorance is not an excuse for getting drunk and high, responsible or not.

I agree, which is why I feel that the best way to fight drug and alcohol abuse is to eliminate ignorance by education and good parenting. Those two items would do a lot to right societal ills.

I agree, blinding supporting the system, can be short-sighted, but unfortunately in this day and age, blinding supporting it is the only way anything gets done in the legal system. America is very hesitant to change its laws and system, and as much as I hate being a pacifist, I do believe their are bigger battles than changing the law out there at this moment.

Very often, unfortunately.

Im sorry I don't understand your arguement. In your previous post you seemed to be advocating blind, unquestioning, support of the law.

You said:

Yes, and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, regardless.
in response to:

uh huh...well I break the law on a regular basis, and I'm a little worried. I understand most people don't break the law, but a fairly large percentage do.

Now, changing tack, you're agreeing with me, saying that this policy is short sighted and "unfortunate". I'm now confused as to where you stand on this.

And just because there are "bigger battles" (I understand that you are alluding to the 'War On Terror') doesn't mean that this man going to jail for a ridiculously long time is just or right - or indeed it doesn’t mean that we (I mean you - Americans) cant do anything about it. Just because there is a 'war' on doesn’t mean that the entire country stops and the legal system and bureaucracy are frozen - this isn't Total War.

I'll concede this: Society is ill to start, but ignorance is not an excuse for getting drunk and high, responsible or not.
It is ignorance we are fighting. People don't realize the consequences of substance abuse, and the DEA's "wonderful" ad campaign is universally mocked, and a large part of the problem we are facing.

Oh, and I agree completely with Torrentbits. The government exists to defend our rights (i.e. stopping other nations from invading, protecting the minority from the majority, etc), not to take our rights.

The fact that you're drinking under 21 not only has potential problems for you but for those all around you... let me relate a scenario that deeply disturbed me my freshmen year of college.

I lived in the freshmen housing dormitory, co-ed, with boys on the second floor and girls on the first and third floors (I living on the latter).

One night, during the second to last week of the first semester last year, some boys decided that they would have a huge party in their dorm room... so, after getting completely drunk, they were caught by the University Police... after that ordeal was order, the same boys who had been written up and cited went outside to smoke pot, where they, too, were caught after us girls reported them... to top it off, they went back into their dorm room and started drinking again... only to have 19 boys cited again for underage drinking and possession, one boy sent to the hospital for alcohol poisoning, and one girl I was acquainted with having been raped.

Guess what happen to those boys other than being cited, including the one that raped the girl?

They were fined, cited, and that's it. There parents found out, that might've been the worse punishment for them, because the University did absolutely nothing to protect the girls of our building from their behaviour and a girl was raped, ended up moving back home, and will probably never set foot on a college campus again thanks to them. The University ignored the problem because of the PR disaster, and instead, but our well-being and lives in jeopardy.

But then again, it's just kids smoking and drinking, right?


Yup, millions of people do it every day, and people aren't being chased through the streets by intoxicated maniacs. Gee, wonder why that is?

And once again in America, we have people shuffling off blame onto substances rather than people. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in this country? A rowdy and abusive bunch of assholes should be dealt with for being a rowdy and abusive bunch of assholes, not because of what substances they couldn't handle.

Considering Texastambul ruined a fine debate here, ladies and gents, I'm out due to his flaming. Sorry, if you wish to continue, telegram me.

I'm sorry if it sounded harsh, nevermind what I said earlier -- prison is a fun place with kittens and rainbows and very little sodomy -- there you go, now you can go back to being proud of yourself for your callous 'so what' statement about sending someone to a living-hell for 55 years for selling a few joints.



I'll concede this: Society is ill to start, but ignorance is not an excuse for getting drunk and high, responsible or not.

What are you, a mormon? What the hell is so evil about enjoying the perks of life?

What are you, a mormon? What the hell is so evil about enjoying the perks of life?

No, I'm not; shouldn't one be able to enjoy the perks of life without subjecting themselves to physical degredation by consuming substance or booze? Isn't it possible to enjoy life without enhancing it in a way that not only has the potential to kill you in the process but in most cases just makes things worse when taken to the extreme?

(I could keep going on this thread all night, but I'm going to have to get some sleep soon)


Tuesday, I hope you don't feel you're getting ganged up on here (even though you pretty much are). Most of the posters on this thread just feel very passionate about this subject. And when you start off with a post like "one less law-breaker out of our hair" it's going to invoke some pretty strong responses.

Also, by saying

"I agree, blinding supporting the system, can be short-sighted, but unfortunately in this day and age, blinding supporting it is the only way anything gets done in the legal system."

you are making one hell of a cop-out. If you honestly believe blindly supporting any unjust law, even if you think there are bigger battles out there, isn't a bad thing then I just don't know what to say. Texastambul pointed out quite graphically the consequences of NOT fighting to change THIS unjust law in particular.

Now, having spent time in college can you argue that there isn't a lot of problems with alcohol on and off campuses. Especially in the frat house system where it seems we regulary hear about hazing incidents and partys involving alcohol at frat houses that result in death and date rape. I know this goes on all over campuses and not just at frat houses, but the point I make is that the problem is with alcohol and not with pot, which is part of the point of what this thread has evolved into.

But the basic point of this thread is what I am still trying to get back to. Why should a person dealing in a nonviolent way with a substance like marijuana, with or without a gun, face a prison term over twice that of a convicted murderer? There is no way this can be rationally defended!!!

Now, what's the difference between these two groups? Responsibility. The students who sat in their room and enjoyed alcohol in moderation acted very responsibly in their underage consumption. The students who chose to use alcohol as an excuse to get noisy, rowdy and stupid did not act at all responsibly. You, however, would strive to join these two groups together, as they are both breaking the law.
Truth is, assholes don't need alcohol to be assholes. They just use alcohol as an excuse to be assholes. The rapist (who indeed should be daily tortured to within an inch of his life) would have raped a girl with or without alcohol. Alcohol was just the catalyst.
We can't blame alcohol (or any other substance) for the ills of society. Society is ill, substances or no.

Indeed, very well said.

No, I'm not; shouldn't one be able to enjoy the perks of life without subjecting themselves to physical degredation by consuming substance or booze? Isn't it possible to enjoy life without enhancing it in a way that not only has the potential to kill you in the process but in most cases just makes things worse when taken to the extreme?

sure, I suppose we could all stop consuming caffine and suger (sugar high) perhaps we shouldn't run too fast (lest we get a runners high)
maybe I should stop driving my car around.. you know how dangerous the roads are... why don't I stop listening to music -- it'll eventually cause hearing loss, which reminds me -- how much time do you spend damaging your eyes by looking at a computer monitor? Wait a second... didn't you say you were going to ignore me because I made you cry... go back to doing that, I'm enjoying this way too much and I'm sure that's bad aswell.

No, I'm not; shouldn't one be able to enjoy the perks of life without subjecting themselves to physical degredation by consuming substance or booze? Isn't it possible to enjoy life without enhancing it in a way that not only has the potential to kill you in the process but in most cases just makes things worse when taken to the extreme?

Shouldn't one have a choice in these things? Who the hell are you to dictate to people how they ought to enjoy their lives? Of course these things are possible, but just who are you to be telling people, "Well, I think you shouldn't do these things, so you can't." "Physical degradation?" When used responsibly, there is no physical degradation, sorry. And this phrase is just beautiful: "Isn't it possible to enjoy life without enhancing it in a way that not only has the potential to kill you in the process but in most cases just makes things worse when taken to the extreme?" Could you possibly have slipped a few more caveats in there to get you to the worst-case-scenario?

sure, I suppose we could all stop consuming caffine and suger (sugar high) perhaps we shouldn't run too fast (lest we get a runners high)
maybe I should stop driving my car around.. you know how dangerous the roads are... why don't I stop listening to music -- it'll eventually cause hearing loss, which reminds me -- how much time do you spend damaging your eyes by looking at a computer monitor?

That's not the point, and you know it. You're simply trying to diverge the debate in order to foster your own point. Won't work, most of us can see through the faulty logic and technique.

Alcohol in moderation is fine; illegal drugs, are bad, period.

Wait a second... didn't you say you were going to ignore me because I made you cry... go back to doing that, I'm enjoying this way too much and I'm sure that's bad aswell.

Why would I cry over someone who makes themselves feel better by trying to make others feel bad? I have far more important things to cry about in life than a few verbal swipes at my responses here in this thread.

Isn't it possible to enjoy life without enhancing it in a way that not only has the potential to kill you in the process but in most cases just makes things worse when taken to the extreme?

I challange you to name one thing that doesn't fit into either of those catagories!

I'm enjoying this way too much and I'm sure that's bad aswell.

:D

I challange you to name one thing that doesn't fit into either of those catagories!

We both know that's impossible, and I've already addressed that issue in my previous response to your logic. :rolleyes:

Shouldn't one be able to enjoy the perks of life without subjecting themselves to physical degredation by consuming substance or booze? Isn't it possible to enjoy life without enhancing it in a way that not only has the potential to kill you in the process but in most cases just makes things worse when taken to the extreme?


Tuesday,

Smoking marijuana won't kill you!!!

admitedly, the potential exists that someone driving while stoned could get in an accident or hurt someone else. And please stop lumping pot and alcohol together. They are very diferent substances with very diferent effects. Lastly, why should the government or anyone tell me what to do with or to my body? NONE OF THEIR FING BIZNESSS! Let alone put me in jail for doing so.

That's not the point, and you know it. You're simply trying to diverge the debate in order to foster your own point. Won't work, most of us can see through the faulty logic and technique.

Alcohol in moderation is fine; illegal drugs, are bad, period.

Why do you worship the law? Would you feel the same way if alcohol were made illegal?


Why would I cry over someone who makes themselves feel better by trying to make others feel bad? I have far more important things to cry about in life than a few verbal swipes at my responses here in this thread.

Why do people cry when the masturbate? How the hell should I know what goes on in other peoples heads, I'm not Freud.

Why do you worship the law? Would you feel the same way if alcohol were made illegal?


What do you think the answer will be? I gotta feeling I know already.

Tuesday,

Smoking marijuana won't kill you!!!

Did I ever say it did?

And please stop lumping pot and alcohol together. They are very diferent substances with very diferent effects.

First, I was lumping both into one category when used in their extremes, they have the same effect. Oh, and the two categories were alcohol and substances, not pot and alcohol, there's quite a bit of difference there.

Lastly, why should the government or anyone tell me what to do with or to my body? NONE OF THEIR FING BIZNESSS! Let alone put me in jail for doing so.

Yes, they should, because illegal drugs not only kill people, but also put people in a position to be killed who aren't even doing them. So, damn right, I want the government to take away your damned pot, heroin, cocaine, whatever.

That's not the point, and you know it. You're simply trying to diverge the debate in order to foster your own point. Won't work, most of us can see through the faulty logic and technique.

Alcohol in moderation is fine; illegal drugs, are bad, period.

Texas has a perfectly valid point - drugs are drugs, regardless of the stigma you so obviously buy into. America has a huge problem with caffeine, for example. You have no idea how mind-altering substances work, do you? There is nothing that differentiates alcohol from THC from LSD from caffeine...they're all drugs. Satan doesn't live inside some and not others. The classification of legality has more to do with marketing than their danger. Alcohol has far more damaging effects that marihuana, so if you're against the latter, you'd damned well better be against the former.

Why do you worship the law?

I don't worship the law; if you actually read through some of my political leanings in this forum, you'd know that I am an ardent proponent of some laws and a wannabe abolisher of others.

Currently, I'm crusading to be able to marry my fiancee in September of 2007, against the law, as homosexual marriage is beginning to be illegal across the US.

I think that fact alone shows I don't "worship the law" as you say.

Would you feel the same way if alcohol were made illegal?

Considering I'm a social, responsible drinker, if went back to the prohibition days, I don't feel I'd be missing much.

Alcohol in moderation is fine; illegal drugs, are bad, period.
Why? How about marijuana in moderation? How about caffeine in excess? How about abusing cough syrup (it's legal!). How about nicotene in excess?

The reason some drugs are illegal and some aren't is mindboggling. The arguments they used to ban weed back in the day were patently racist as well as rediculous. It was the "PCP" of it's time...one toke and suddenly black men will become super strong and rape our white women. They even attached the name "marijuana" to cannabis to eek out subtle Mexican racism.

The army passed out amphetamines during WWII to enhance the performance of the soldiers. Not much different from drinking a very strong cup of coffee. :p

Morphine, vicodin, valiums, oxycodin...all prescribed to sick patients. Why not marijuana (which is certainly less addictive than the above)?

"Drugs" (which include ALL mood and mind-altering substances) are such a fact of society that any attempt to draw a line between some drugs and other drugs is useless.

You have no idea how mind-altering substances work, do you?

Yes, I do know how they work.

Alcohol has far more damaging effects that marihuana, so if you're against the latter, you'd damned well better be against the former.

I wish for Pete's sake people would read through this entire thread instead of just bits and pieces that strike their fancy... This entire time, I've been debating the banning of all SUBSTANCES currently classified as illegal drugs in America (not just pot) and have been advocating responsible alcohol use in moderation.

Yes, they should, because illegal drugs not only kill people, but also put people in a position to be killed who aren't even doing them. So, damn right, I want the government to take away your damned pot, heroin, cocaine, whatever.

As Texas points out, doing many things in life puts you in the position to affect those around you. I'd hope you don't drive, for the danger you recognize that you are...

So alcohol can be used in moderation and responsibly, but "harder" drugs cannot. Why don't you explain to me how that works, not citing legality, since that has no pharmacological effect.

Why?

Drugs, and the ignorance of their affect on society, have not only been a detriment to our way of life but have blinded the masses who use them into believing that substances are a more viable way of enjoying life, and destroying it, too, than actually living life.

Yes, they should, because illegal drugs not only kill people, but also put people in a position to be killed who aren't even doing them. So, damn right, I want the government to take away your damned pot, heroin, cocaine, whatever.

You've been brainwashed by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America... and you know who they are? They're the guys who make pills that do worse things to your body than alcohol and marijuanna could ever dream off. They're making billions off of pain pills and prozac and they're convincing you that things that grow in the dirt should be destroyed by the Gestapo.

I'd hope you don't drive, for the danger you recognize that you are...

Actually, I don't drive. I don't have a license, and don't need one, for that matter.

So alcohol can be used in moderation and responsibly, but "harder" drugs cannot.

Considering alcohol, when used in moderation, does not cause addiction and "harder" drugs - in most cases - do lead to addiction, I think that's a perfectly valid point as to why drugs should be illegal, completely, even pot.

You've been brainwashed by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America...

Actually, no, I haven't been. I've had my fair share of run ins with drugs and alcohol in my life. I'm not immune to the ignorance and apathy of the citizenry around me.

They're the guys who make pills that do worse things to your body than alcohol and marijuanna could ever dream off. They're making billions off of pain pills and prozac and they're convincing you that things that grow in the dirt should be destroyed by the Gestapo.

Did I ever rule out once these pills, like Prozac and Zoloft, were good? No, I didn't, because we aren't talking about prescriptions, are we? We're talking about illegal drugs.

Yes, I do know how they work.

Funny, you wouldn't know it by your arguments here.

I wish for Pete's sake people would read through this entire thread instead of just bits and pieces that strike their fancy... This entire time, I've been debating the banning of all SUBSTANCES currently classified as illegal drugs in America (not just pot) and have been advocating responsible alcohol use in moderation.

I've read this whole thread, and you make little sense, since many of us don't share your belief in certain generalizations and assumptions. You keep throwing around the claim that "Illegal drugs kill!!!" Thusly, it's perfectly valid to point out the marihuana does not, while alcohol does. Yet, you advocate moderation for the killer and draconian sentencing for the latter. That's an absurd argument, so you'd do well to stop throwing a fit when someone points it out. Let's see, either we're all speaking gibberish or you are...so which is it? Hmm...

Currently, I'm crusading to be able to marry my fiancee in September of 2007, against the law, as homosexual marriage is beginning to be illegal across the US.

I think that fact alone shows I don't "worship the law" as you say.



Considering I'm a social, responsible drinker, if went back to the prohibition days, I don't feel I'd be missing much.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

okay, I'd like to point out that sodomy is much more dangerous than smoking a joint!

Did I ever say it did?


First, I was lumping both into one category when used in their extremes, they have the same effect. Oh, and the two categories were alcohol and substances, not pot and alcohol, there's quite a bit of difference there.



Yes, they should, because illegal drugs not only kill people, but also put people in a position to be killed who aren't even doing them. So, damn right, I want the government to take away your damned pot, heroin, cocaine, whatever.


By lumping all illegal drugs into one generic "substance" catagory you ARE saying that pot kills. You are also saying that the end effects of twenty tequilla shots and twenty hits off a bong are the same. You have no idea what you are saying. And by implicating that since illegal drugs kill they should be taken away. Well, plenty of legal drugs cause lots of problems and even - oh my god - kill people! A small percentage of people have deadly reactions to antibiotics like penacillin (myself for one) and the flu shot. Should the govt ban these as well?

Drugs, and the ignorance of their affect on society, have not only been a detriment to our way of life but have blinded the masses who use them into believing that substances are a more viable way of enjoying life, and destroying it, too, than actually living life.

Yes, because all people who use any kind of illegal drugs just sit around all day and use them. Constantly, because they're convinced that it's the only way to enjoy life. Nope, no moderate users out there at all...

No people doing this on alcohol, either, obviously. We can afford to moderate that. Ditto gambling. Las Vegas is a figment of your imaginations.

Actually, no, I haven't been. I've had my fair share of run ins with drugs and alcohol in my life. I'm not immune to the ignorance and apathy of the citizenry around me.

Intersting -- so would you be willing to serve the appropriate jail time for the crimes you commited? You should go turn yourself in, you know -- do what's right.




Did I ever rule out once these pills, like Prozac and Zoloft, were good? No, I didn't, because we aren't talking about prescriptions, are we? We're talking about illegal drugs.

my point was that these so 'illegal drugs' were less dangerous then the legal ones -- so, I'm not really sure how it's not relevant. It's pretty 'on-topic,' you know, it's not like I brought up Genetically Altered food or the flaws of socialism in European society.

okay, I'd like to point out that sodomy is much more dangerous than smoking a joint!

Considering sodomy isn't a danger to society, and more importantly, to point out I'm a lesbian so sodomy doesn't even come into question is beyond your scope of comprehension.

I've read this whole thread, and you make little sense, since many of us don't share your belief in certain generalizations and assumptions.

Actually, the problem would be that most NSers can't see the light at the end of the tunnel and realize life is about generalizations rather than specifications. It's called "the bigger picture," sorry, I'm one of those kids that see it. Those of us who do see it, that frequent the NS forums, stick together.

I'm done here. I've taken about enough personal attacks, because I see clearly the bigger picture here than most do. Maybe one day, you'll see that it's more important to look at things in generalizations to actually crusade than to waste one's time trying to prove one another "wrong" just to be "right."

Drugs, and the ignorance of their affect on society,
I think the "War on Drugs" has been more harmful than the substances themselves. It empowers gangs, which leads to far more death and violence than a person quietly abusing drugs in the privacy of their own home. Addicts become criminals. HIV is spread by dirty needles. Non-violent people filling the jails. People dying from poorly prepared drugs. Death, misery, anguish...THAT is the "War on Drugs".

have not only been a detriment to our way of life but have blinded the masses who use them into believing that substances are a more viable way of enjoying life, and destroying it, too, than actually living life.
Our perception of life is controlled by various chemicals. Introductions of other chemicals can change that perception. Who is to say which way is the more "viable" way?

Considering alcohol, when used in moderation, does not cause addiction and "harder" drugs - in most cases - do lead to addiction, I think that's a perfectly valid point as to why drugs should be illegal, completely, even pot.
Only the opiates (heroin, morphine), cocaine, amphetemines, and downers (valiums, oxycodin, etc) are addictive. The latter are legal.

The psychedelics in general are non-addictive. They're illegal.

Pot is non-addictive. Illegal.

Alcohol...19 million addicts in America. Legal.

Nicotine...however many deaths a year, highly addictive. Legal.

Considering alcohol, when used in moderation, does not cause addiction and "harder" drugs - in most cases - do lead to addiction, I think that's a perfectly valid point as to why drugs should be illegal, completely, even pot.

Uh, yes, alcohol does cause addiction. It's called "Alcoholism." I heard a few of those wacky people got a group together somewhere to help each other, though it's virtually unheard of, I know. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, it's virtually impossible to get addicted to THC. Doesn't happen, so there goes that little argument. Ready to stop waving the banner of "illegal drugs" yet?

And, I might add, I find it funny that your resistence of the law to pursue your happiness is alright, but others deserve a 55 year prison sentence. There are those who would call both paths criminal, moral deviance, so where do you get off, exactly?

Considering sodomy isn't a danger to society, and more importantly, to point out I'm a lesbian so sodomy doesn't even come into question is beyond your scope of comprehension.

Sodomy isn't a danger to society, but AIDs is -- just like how marijuann isn't a danger to society but Driving a two ton automobile while high on marijuanna is.

Actually, I am very able to comprehend that you are a lesbian... I'd also like to point out that the media representation of lesbians is false; they're not all hot.

Tuesday, if you want to live your life substance free, more power to you and good for you. I appluade you for it. But don't presume to tell me what I should or should not do to my own body! It just arrogant. Do the HARD drugs cause a lot of problems? When abused, yes. Without a doubt. But dropping acid one time doesn't always kill or lead to addiction. It is matter of PERSONAL RESPONSABILITY!!!! If someone can't take responsability for themselves and their actions then they should probably not do much of anything. And I'm not talking about the responsability of facing the punishment of a draconian drug law And there is a big diference between soft drugs like marijuana and heroin. Saying otehrwise only shows you have no idea about the diferences.

Addendum:

But you've left this thread so all of what we're saying won't make any dif. Someone fire up a joint and pass it over this-away :D

Actually, the problem would be that most NSers can't see the light at the end of the tunnel and realize life is about generalizations rather than specifications. It's called "the bigger picture," sorry, I'm one of those kids that see it. Those of us who do see it, that frequent the NS forums, stick together.

I'm done here. I've taken about enough personal attacks, because I see clearly the bigger picture here than most do. Maybe one day, you'll see that it's more important to look at things in generalizations to actually crusade than to waste one's time trying to prove one another "wrong" just to be "right."

My, Christofi would be proud...life is about generalizations? I'd say such a thing is the product of a mind to apatheic to think about the world in its complexities. Do you kno why you're getting so many "attacks?" I know I, for one, find you self-righteousness here outright sickening. You haven't put up a decent argument in 3 pages, and it's clear you're not even thinking about what others post, merely throwing back some rewording of your previous posts, weighted with a decent amount of condescension. From what I can tell, it's not relevant if you can't address the point being made - how convenient for you. Your hypocrisy regarding the law is striking. I'd say you're the typical problem with America. "He's got his, I've got mine." You go out and marry your lesbian girlfriend, corrupting the family structure and bringing around the downfall of society, and make sure you vote to get those damned druggies thrown into the slammer (what was that you were saying about "right" and "wrong" again?)! After all, it doesn't influence your life, does it?

Yup, generalizations are great...let's not confuse them with facts. We've got our own narrowly-framed bigger picture, after all.

But you've left this thread so all of what we're saying won't make any dif. Someone fire up a joint and pass it over this-away :D

*puff puff pass*

God, self-righteous pseudo-straight edgers piss me off.

"People should be able to enjoy their lives without the physical degradation of drug use!"

"Want another beer?"

"Oh, yes please!"

Just another shade of hypocritical zealotry. :rolleyes:

Yup, generalizations are great...let's not confuse them with facts. We've got our own narrowly-framed bigger picture, after all.

forget that lesbian-mormon and her 2D world view -- let's blow our minds and see things how they really are.

(I could keep going on this thread all night, but I'm going to have to get some sleep soon)


Tuesday, I hope you don't feel you're getting ganged up on here (even though you pretty much are). Most of the posters on this thread just feel very passionate about this subject. And when you start off with a post like "one less law-breaker out of our hair" it's going to invoke some pretty strong responses.

Also, by saying

"I agree, blinding supporting the system, can be short-sighted, but unfortunately in this day and age, blinding supporting it is the only way anything gets done in the legal system."

you are making one hell of a cop-out. If you honestly believe blindly supporting any unjust law, even if you think there are bigger battles out there, isn't a bad thing then I just don't know what to say. Texastambul pointed out quite graphically the consequences of NOT fighting to change THIS unjust law in particular.

Now, having spent time in college can you argue that there isn't a lot of problems with alcohol on and off campuses. Especially in the frat house system where it seems we regulary hear about hazing incidents and partys involving alcohol at frat houses that result in death and date rape. I know this goes on all over campuses and not just at frat houses, but the point I make is that the problem is with alcohol and not with pot, which is part of the point of what this thread has evolved into.

But the basic point of this thread is what I am still trying to get back to. Why should a person dealing in a nonviolent way with a substance like marijuana, with or without a gun, face a prison term over twice that of a convicted murderer? There is no way this can be rationally defended!!!

well said. good man. :D

...
Alcohol in moderation is fine; illegal drugs, are bad, period.
...

Who says that illegal drugs are "bad"? Why are they bad? Because they are illegal or because of medical & social grounds?
Pot, medically and socially, is not a "bad" drug in the eyes of many experts as a result of decades of research. As far back as the 1970s arguements were made for its legalisation in the USA by a federally-sanctioned report. In Holland, where it has been decriminalised, the country and society is not falling apart as a result - people aren't even using the drug more now than when it was illegal.
Pot is not a bad drug


I wish for Pete's sake people would read through this entire thread instead of just bits and pieces that strike their fancy... This entire time, I've been debating the banning of all SUBSTANCES currently classified as illegal drugs in America (not just pot) and have been advocating responsible alcohol use in moderation.
Pot is a substance currently illegal in America. I'm arguing that it should not be lumped together with the truely harmful illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine. I argue this point because you said (again quoted)

...
...illegal drugs, are bad, period.
...

You lump pot in with these bad drugs and thus seemingly, indirectly defend the case for the poor dude who got 55 years.


ps: like Matalatataka says, sorry if you feel like you're being ganged up on :)

goddamnit i spent so long writing that fing post that he left.

o well, pass the joint ;)

*subtly goes to sit on the left*

*skins up another*

Anyone ever catch the South Park episode where Mr. Mackey get's experienced? Said it all. Great show!

*pffftf*

eer

You know the REAL reason a large number of mind-altering subtances are illegal, and a large number of mind-altering subtances are not?

Business.

It's the reason booze, tobacco, caffeine, ritalin, prozac, oxycodin, valiums, vicodin, percocet, dilotid, morphine, DXM, toradol, demoral, xanax, dexedrine, codeine, etc., are legal.

There's money to be made.

DXM in particular is notable for being an excellent cough suppressor, as well as a strong disassociative, often compared in its effect to a cross of LSD and extasy. But Robitussin has made a hell of a lot of money off of this, no way it would ever get criminalized.

Why is marijuana illegal? Inertia. No politician would dare touch that with a ten-foot stick. They leave it as is...lest they appear "weak on crime", an attack that doomed liberal and progressive candidates to stepping in line with their fanatical conservative associates.

Why is LSD and shrooms illegal? I have no clue. Probably just another way of clamping down on the freedoms gained through the 60s.

New drugs are constantly being synthesized, and congressman think to themselves, "Do we ban this one too?" Of course they will. Nip it in the bud, lest they appear weak on crime.

John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, and obviously Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton have all admitted to experimenting with marijuana. They obviously went on to become successful members of society. The president used cocaine, for chrissakes. He's not a dirty addict giving handjobs for crack in the back alleys, is he?

There is so much information being suppressed about drugs in favor of those "generalizations" that are so humorously packaged by the DEA, D.A.R.E., and other organizations for our brainswashing pleasure.

...because he had a gun on him. A gun ON him, not brandished or threatened or even drawn attention to. Just possession, in an ankle holster. Sold marijuana three times wearing it. 3 counts of possession of a firearm during illegal drug trafficking. 55 minimum year sentence, of which the judge protested, but could do nothing.

The judge then urged the defendant's lawyer not only to appeal his decision but to ask President Bush for clemency once all appeals were exhausted. He also urged Congress to set aside the law that made the sentence mandatory.

2 hours earlier, the same judge had given a 22 year sentence to a man convicted of aggravated second-degree murder for beating an elderly woman to DEATH with a log.

During a court hearing in September, the judge posed a question to the opposing legal teams in the case: "Is there a rational basis," he asked, "for giving Mr. Angelos more time than the hijacker, the murderer, the rapist?"

Does anyone not see a HUGE problem with the *justice* system?


I have a HUGE problem with laws like this. For the system to be respected even laws must pass scrutiny. In this case, the punishment far exceeds the gravity of the crime. Hopefully a judge will overturn this ruling. I'd love to be on jury duty for something like this.....

jury nullification. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification)

Actually, Chodolo, you're still right. There's an even bigger buisness in keeping pot and psychadelics illegal. The DEA, Corporate run prisons, and advertising agencies alone make a ton of money off keeping these mostly benign (regardless of what Tuesday thinks) in the class one catagory. And pot is easy to go after because there is so much of it.

Law enforcement can sieze and resell a user/dealer/growers property and cash and resell/auction the material goods. Not sure where the cash goes, but I can make a guess.

Corporate run prisons make a profit by keeping full as well as using the inmates as slave-wage laborers for a variety of corporations. Plus the guards can abuse the prisoners and use them in gladiatorial, fight club-like games.

Now for the politicians. They get lots of monetary support for being "tough on crime" by keeping the status quo status quo. Add to this that once convicted of a felony, most of the time it means your right to vote is taken away permanently. Some states let ex-felons vote after they've served their time and completed their probabtion, but plenty more don't. Keep pot a felony crime and keep mandatory minimums in place like the one used against this guy in Utah and you can keep plenty of free-thinking folks from voting for anyone ever again.

Actually, Chodolo, you're still right. There's an even bigger buisness in keeping pot and psychadelics illegal. The DEA, Corporate run prisons, and advertising agencies alone make a ton of money off keeping these mostly benign (regardless of what Tuesday thinks) in the class one catagory. And pot is easy to go after because there is so much of it.

Law enforcement can sieze and resell a user/dealer/growers property and cash and resell/auction the material goods. Not sure where the cash goes, but I can make a guess.

Corporate run prisons make a profit by keeping full as well as using the inmates as slave-wage laborers for a variety of corporations. Plus the guards can abuse the prisoners and use them in gladiatorial, fight club-like games.

Now for the politicians. They get lots of monetary support for being "tough on crime" by keeping the status quo status quo. Add to this that once convicted of a felony, most of the time it means your right to vote is taken away permanently. Some states let ex-felons vote after they've served their time and completed their probabtion, but plenty more don't. Keep pot a felony crime and keep mandatory minimums in place like the one used against this guy in Utah and you can keep plenty of free-thinking folks from voting for anyone ever again.

god damn sick system if you ask me.
kinda glad i live in the UK where the police, especially round University areas (like here ;) ) are more and more turning a blind eye to pot; and even if you get caught its just confiscation of the drug, and maybe a fine - not even a formal caution :D
Yay liberalism!

god damn sick system if you ask me.
kinda glad i live in the UK where the police, especially round University areas (like here ;) ) are more and more turning a blind eye to pot; and even if you get caught its just confiscation of the drug, and maybe a fine - not even a formal caution :D
Yay liberalism!
Resists urge to move, resists urge to move, resists urge to move... :p

When will America catch up to it's more civilized neighbors?

The fact that you're drinking under 21 not only has potential problems for you but for those all around you... let me relate a scenario that deeply disturbed me my freshmen year of college.

I lived in the freshmen housing dormitory, co-ed, with boys on the second floor and girls on the first and third floors (I living on the latter).

One night, during the second to last week of the first semester last year, some boys decided that they would have a huge party in their dorm room... so, after getting completely drunk, they were caught by the University Police... after that ordeal was order, the same boys who had been written up and cited went outside to smoke pot, where they, too, were caught after us girls reported them... to top it off, they went back into their dorm room and started drinking again... only to have 19 boys cited again for underage drinking and possession, one boy sent to the hospital for alcohol poisoning, and one girl I was acquainted with having been raped.

Guess what happen to those boys other than being cited, including the one that raped the girl?

They were fined, cited, and that's it. There parents found out, that might've been the worse punishment for them, because the University did absolutely nothing to protect the girls of our building from their behaviour and a girl was raped, ended up moving back home, and will probably never set foot on a college campus again thanks to them. The University ignored the problem because of the PR disaster, and instead, but our well-being and lives in jeopardy.

But then again, it's just kids smoking and drinking, right?

By no means am I saying merely boys are capable of this behavior either, I'm just going on experience and relating the harrowing tales of my freshmen year as I lived them... hence, why I now live with my fiancee off-campus, way away from campus.



Well, maybe if the government got off its ass and focused its priorities on America rather than overseas... perhaps, 100 million Americans wouldn't be doing "pot" because we'd be preventing them from doing it by finding a legitimate war on drugs. Followed-up on my next post...



Exactly, but that's because we don't really care about the war on drugs, which is what my original point was... if we cared about the war on drugs half as much as we care about the war on terror, there would be signifcant changes in those numbers.

Smoking weed and drinking =/= raping people.

That's a weak arguement. Millions of people daily smoke weed or drink without raping anyone, to say alcohol or pot were the cause of them doing that is irrational.

But one toke on that joint and you'll turn into a super-strong raging savage and seek out helpless white women to rape!!!

"Where all da white women at?"

But one toke on that joint and you'll turn into a super-strong raging savage and seek out helpless white women to rape!!!

lol - "If you smoke it, you will go INSANE!!!!" :rolleyes:

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

A handy clock to keep track of how much money has been spent on the famous "War on Drugs".

Mindboggling...

I cant believe how screwed up our judicial system is here in the USA. It is rediculous for someone with a drug charge to receive such a sentence. I spent over a year battling with the Parole Board on behalf of someone who received an excessive sentence. I provided examples of the inconsistencies of their decisions. Of course, I got nowhere and had to give up because I was about to lose my mind. The cases i researched to show to the Parole Board included child molesting where the offender served 2 years or less. Rapists who served 4 years or less, Even murderers were released after 15 years. These are just a few, there are many more instances that would blow your mind. Why spend all that money and time on someone who was selling or doing drugs when there are real criminals who pose a threat to society?? I live here in the US , and I am outraged because we have such a poor sense of justice. :headbang:

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

A handy clock to keep track of how much money has been spent on the famous "War on Drugs".

Mindboggling...

I wish the War on Drugs hadn't been so effective! I could really use some marijuana right now!!!

I wish the War on Drugs hadn't been so effective! I could really use some marijuana right now!!!

It's not hard to find at all, which proves that it isn't effective

It's not hard to find at all, which proves that it isn't effective

Hi, thanks for explaining the joke and making me look silly.
kthxbi.

I wish the War on Drugs hadn't been so effective! I could really use some marijuana right now!!!

My minimum wage student job is more effective at keeping me off drugs than the War on Drugs

Maybe if Osama had a minimum wage job we wouldn't need a War on Terror

My minimum wage student job is more effective at keeping me off drugs than the War on Drugs

sad but true :(


Maybe if Osama had a minimum wage job we wouldn't need a War on Terror
lol

Tuesday -

You have pointed out a real problem, which is not that young men, when drunk, are often ass-holes, which is also true. No, the problem is that young people on college campuses foolishly rely on the campus rent-a-cops for not only security but for the prosecution of offenders, even felony offenders.

Colleges are businesses, and, unfortunately, the business model that capitalism works under today is that the purpose of a business is to make a profit, period. Nothing about keeping customers satisfied, much less safe. Therfor colleges will cover up crimes, plain and simple. Even rapes and other assaults. Your friend should have filed charges with the real police. If it has not been too long ago, she still may be able to, and to sue the HELL out of that damn college.

My native is not english... but I will try anyway :eek:

-The poor guy got 55 years :eek: It is not only ekspensive... is so also stupid.

-Why would you prison anyone for 55 years?

-In Denmark is the maximum prison sentence 28 years (Actually NEVER used) or life (12-14 years). People in the US, must by now realise, handing out a 20, 25 or 50 year sentance does the same job?! The difference is the bill you hand out to the hardworking and tax paying citizens. :headbang:

-The key to succes is Education. I could see no reason why you would give this man more than a 1/2 year... maybe... just maybe 2 years? But never 55 years. WHO FAILED... FOR GODS SAKE!... THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF IRAN IS MORE HUMANE :headbang: :confused:

He broke the law. If someones dumb enough to deal drugs and carry a gun with themselves, they don't have any bloody right to whine. They knew the law, I think it's pretty damn clear.

I'm all for limited pot legalisation, even though I'll never use it, but until that happens FOLLOW THE DAMN LAW.

No.

One less law-breaking citizen out of our hair.
TH, ever dropped a piece of litter?

Ever had a speeding ticket?

Ever not kept off the grass?

My native is not english... but I will try anyway :eek:

-The poor guy got 55 years :eek: It is not only ekspensive... is so also stupid.

-Why would you prison anyone for 55 years?

-In Denmark is the maximum prison sentence 28 years (Actually NEVER used) or life (12-14 years). People in the US, must by now realise, handing out a 20, 25 or 50 year sentance does the same job?! The difference is the bill you hand out to the hardworking and tax paying citizens. :headbang:

-The key to succes is Education. I could see no reason why you would give this man more than a 1/2 year... maybe... just maybe 2 years? But never 55 years. WHO FAILED... FOR GODS SAKE!... THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF IRAN IS MORE HUMANE :headbang: :confused:

THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF IRAN DOESN'T GIVE YOU FREE AIR-CONDITIONING, GYM MEMBERSHIP, UNIVERSITY LEVEL EDUCATION, TELEVISION, COMPUTER ACCESS, FOOD, MEDICAL CARE AND ASSORTED VARIETIES OF CHEESE.

I'd be, too, but I'm talking about laws that have the potential to cause even greater trouble... like drugs, theft, etc. I'm not talking about jaywalking.

That's only your opinion, and there are studies that suggest marijuana-as-gateway has little or no scientific basis, or is the property of a circular arguement about legalisation

Besides which, I'm sure all the anti gay laws, still in force in a number of hick states, were justified in the same way.

He broke the law. If someones dumb enough to deal drugs and carry a gun with themselves, they don't have any bloody right to whine. They knew the law, I think it's pretty damn clear.

I'm all for limited pot legalisation, even though I'll never use it, but until that happens FOLLOW THE DAMN LAW.
Lets just boil this down to a simple question: is dealing drugs, even with a gun, worthy of a greater sentance than murder?

Alcohol in moderation is fine; illegal drugs, are bad, period.
Can I just ask, what is the logic to this view? I can break this statement down in one the following ways:

"Drugs are made illegal for good reasons, like because they're bad for you"

Reply: False, tobacco and alcohol.


"Anything is fine in moderation, but people aren't able to take illegal drugs in moderation".

Reply: False, some people do. Some people on this thread do.


"Illegal drugs are bad because they are illegal, through the consequences of breaking the law"

Reply: Isn't that then the perfect reason to legalise them?

How does a place in America or anywhere on this planet for that fact. Place more weight upon those that posses a (God created herb) plant and a man made tool (gun) than those that forcefully go against another beings will by raping or murdering them? We put more weight in our possessions than our very selves!!! Does nobody else see the emergency of ridding this thought from our fellow friends? A material (plant,gun) are more important than Gods created life that we have been given? Lame ass fucks that want that kind of shit. Is that place stricken with mad cow disease??

Lets just boil this down to a simple question: is dealing drugs, even with a gun, worthy of a greater sentance than murder?
probably not, but it's currently the law right now, and as such I believe it should be respected.

There's no way in my mind that dealing m-j and holding a gun is worse than rape, but once again, the law views it as such.

The law is the set of rules that are basically the governments morals. These morals, like all others, are relative.

probably not, but it's currently the law right now, and as such I believe it should be respected.

There's no way in my mind that dealing m-j and holding a gun is worse than rape, but once again, the law views it as such.

The law is the set of rules that are basically the governments morals. These morals, like all others, are relative.

It's beliefs like this that maintain and support a flawed system. Nothing changes if your attitude is, "Well, that's the law, so it must be alright." No law has ever been changed by people holding such views.

probably not, but it's currently the law right now, and as such I believe it should be respected.

There's no way in my mind that dealing m-j and holding a gun is worse than rape, but once again, the law views it as such.

The law is the set of rules that are basically the governments morals. These morals, like all others, are relative.
if the status quo is inane and bad, how does respecting it without a fight get the world changed

"well slavery was legal and should be respected"

etc etc

fuck it, fight against it, there is no reason to sit around and be battered with asinine, unjust rules.

Tuesday -

Was alcohol bad when it was illegal? Did it become not bad, and capable of being used in moderation, when it became legal again? If...

A) No, then your statement is logically false, or only true under modern conditions; or if

b) true, then drugs could be made not-bad, and capable of being used in moderation, if they were legalized.



P.S.: far more assaults, rapes, murders, etc. occur per capita by assailents using alcohol than ones using marijuana. Alcohol is far more dangerous in every respect, except in its commerce.

if the status quo is inane and bad, how does respecting it without a fight get the world changed

"well slavery was legal and should be respected"

etc etc

fuck it, fight against it, there is no reason to sit around and be battered with asinine, unjust rules.
What I'm saying is that this here is good. Call a congressman, Spam the President. To express your views in an open forum is a wonderful thing. People should always do that. But respect the law as it stands and you won't get thrown in jail, where you can't do any of these productive things.

Change the law from within, not without.

A fight doesn't necessarily include breaking the law.

If one wants to smoke pot to help lift the ban, then that person's a moron. The action doesn't help end it.

probably not, but it's currently the law right now, and as such I believe it should be respected.

There's no way in my mind that dealing m-j and holding a gun is worse than rape, but once again, the law views it as such.

The law is the set of rules that are basically the governments morals. These morals, like all others, are relative.
No, its the result of political fuck-wittedness on the government's part, and career Republicans and conservative Democrats wanting to look tough on crime without assuming the burden of actually being tough on crime and instuting mandatory minimums to lock up non violent offenders for disproportionate amounts of time in a system that even the judges don't like and is significantly prejudiced against black and hispanic people.

What I'm saying is that this here is good. Call a congressman, Spam the President. To express your views in an open forum is a wonderful thing. People should always do that. But respect the law as it stands and you won't get thrown in jail, where you can't do any of these productive things.

Change the law from within, not without.

A fight doesn't necessarily include breaking the law.

If one wants to smoke pot to help lift the ban, then that person's a moron. The action doesn't help end it.
i dont have the kind of money to convince a congressman, much less a republican one.

all the crazy ass "family" lobbying groups have plenty of money (any group with family or mother in it are 90% nutcases)


also did anyone notice all the anti drug commercials targeted at marijuana so as to emotionally convicne people it should be banned but provide thigns that could be applied to alcohol and should be common sense anyway

like

"dont smoke pot and drive" no shit, dont drink anddrive jackass

Heh, it's always nice to know that if I ever wanted to get into prison and stay there for a long time, my chances of succeeding would be better if I engaged in free trade than if I, for example, beat or raped someone to death.

Heh, it's always nice to know that if I ever wanted to get into prison and stay there for a long time, my chances of succeeding would be better if I engaged in free trade than if I, for example, beat or raped someone to death.
or unless you beat someone to death with a stick WHILE having a gun on your ankle

What I'm saying is that this here is good. Call a congressman, Spam the President. To express your views in an open forum is a wonderful thing. People should always do that. But respect the law as it stands and you won't get thrown in jail, where you can't do any of these productive things.

Change the law from within, not without.

A fight doesn't necessarily include breaking the law.

If one wants to smoke pot to help lift the ban, then that person's a moron. The action doesn't help end it.
How did that one work out for South Africa?

i dont have the kind of money to convince a congressman, much less a republican one.

all the crazy ass "family" lobbying groups have plenty of money (any group with family or mother in it are 90% nutcases)


also did anyone notice all the anti drug commercials targeted at marijuana so as to emotionally convicne people it should be banned but provide thigns that could be applied to alcohol and should be common sense anyway

like

"dont smoke pot and drive" no shit, dont drink anddrive jackass

Bring a whole swarm of friends with you to the Congressman's office. Guess what, it's not that hard, I visited my congressman on a yearly basis since I was 15. They are receptive to the views of the little people. Despite the BS that so many put out. And I am not rich by any means.

What I'm saying is that this here is good. Call a congressman, Spam the President. To express your views in an open forum is a wonderful thing. People should always do that. But respect the law as it stands and you won't get thrown in jail, where you can't do any of these productive things.

Change the law from within, not without.

A fight doesn't necessarily include breaking the law.

If one wants to smoke pot to help lift the ban, then that person's a moron. The action doesn't help end it.
Sometimes civil disobedience gets better results.

Bring a whole swarm of friends with you to the Congressman's office. Guess what, it's not that hard, I visited my congressman on a yearly basis since I was 15. They are receptive to the views of the little people. Despite the BS that so many put out. And I am not rich by any means.
how nice of you to live within distance to dc, i dont, thanks for the asinine, ignorant suggestions


let me reiterate

i dont have the MONEY to convince a congressman of anything, much less a REPUBLICAN one

first thing they tell you in law school is to forget everything else you have learned because they are going to teach you everything you need.


Then they tell you that the justice system is not about justice...


hopefully oneday soon they'll teach what it does uphold?

until that day, wheather or not its moral, or right, that the guy got 55 years while a rapist gets less doesn't matter. He got his time because he did multiple crimes that together added up.

now i really want to find out what justice means...

how nice of you to live within distance to dc, i dont, thanks for the asinine, ignorant suggestions


let me reiterate

i dont have the MONEY to convince a congressman of anything, much less a REPUBLICAN one
I live in fucking North East Ohio. Every congressman has an office in his/her district. Visit them with a large crowd. Crowds can also convince a congressman.

Does anyone here understand the reason why we have minimal sentence requirements?

I live in fucking North East Ohio. Every congressman has an office in his/her district. Visit them with a large crowd. Crowds can also convince a congressman.
i dont live anywhere near my congress man in the state either, thats a good long as hell drive.

Does anyone here understand the reason why we have minimal sentence requirements?
to make congressmen look good and people who should be deciding these things powerless?

....this might be the worst argument i've ever heard on NS....

i dont live anywhere near my congress man in the state either, thats a good long as hell drive.
Now you're just making excuses. If it was important to you you'd make the drive. Think about things like the protests in DC, those are long drives, but people still go. I voted absentee and it took forever to get my ballot, but I did, and I voted. It now takes me 2 hours to get to my congressman because I am at a Uni in a different part of the state, but I went this October all the same. What state do you live in? Wyoming?

Now you're just making excuses. If it was important to you you'd make the drive. Think about things like the protests in DC, those are long drives, but people still go. I voted absentee and it took forever to get my ballot, but I did, and I voted. It now takes me 2 hours to get to my congressman because I am at a Uni in a different part of the state, but I went this October all the same.
and my drive to the congressman is 4 hours at best. and thats ASSUMING i know when hes in or where EXACTLY he even is IF i knew how to get there anyway

now go away you bother me

Are you telling me to shove off?! Acting like some sort of ancient king now are we? Oh, so somone disagrees with you and you want them to go away, eh? Quality. Another one of the "You can hold any beliefs you want, just so long as they're in sync with my beliefs." liberals. Why can't you accept that people have different points of view. Oh wait, you can, but if they don't agree with you they are uneducated rednecks.

Make a damn appointment then. And make it a road trip, do anything else you wanted to do while you're in the area.

Are you telling me to shove off?! Acting like some sort of ancient king now are we? Oh, so somone disagrees with you and you want them to go away, eh? Quality. Another one of the "You can hold any beliefs you want, just so long as they're in sync with my beliefs." liberals. Why can't you accept that people have different points of view. Oh wait, you can, but if they don't agree with you they are uneducated rednecks.
oh look a whiny, uppity conservative dipshit, IGNORED

oh look a whiny, uppity conservative dipshit, IGNORED
my point exactly.

Oh yeah, for the vast bulk of liberals out there, I apologize for being so angsty and stereotyping, Chess Squares is just ticking me off. I know almost all of you are good people, and Chess Squares probably is too, I'm just in a heat of passion. Keep debating you're all vital.

Does anyone here understand the reason why we have minimal sentence requirements?

It makes politicians look like their doing something positive about drug crimes.

you know, i really get tired of the conservatives riding around on their painted moral high horse going "liberlas bad blah liberals bad" then sitting around spouting it like idiot parrots and replace though with "liberal" and are done

you know, i really get tired of the conservatives riding around on their painted moral high horse going "liberlas bad blah liberals bad" then sitting around spouting it like idiot parrots and replace though with "liberal" and are done
When did I say liberals were bad, in fact, if I remember I seem to have just said they were good...

....this might be the worst argument i've ever heard on NS....
Agreed. Between Texastambul who was obviously high upon entering and the blind partisanship which has death-gripped the discussion now, it definitely deserves a ranking in the Hall of Shame. I feel sorry for Teusday Heights, being ganged up on earlier in the thread. I wish I could've been around to at least stick up a little for you! Sorry!

Room 1006, Baker East, OSU South Campus" Really? Wow, I'm in Stillman. Unless you were kidding. In which case, I'm in Japan.

Really? Wow, I'm in Stillman. Unless you were kidding. In which case, I'm in Japan.
That's sweet, yep I'm in Baker East. Small internet.

Agreed. Between Texastambul who was obviously high upon entering and the blind partisanship which has death-gripped the discussion now, it definitely deserves a ranking in the Hall of Shame. I feel sorry for Teusday Heights, being ganged up on earlier in the thread. I wish I could've been around to at least stick up a little for you! Sorry!
Well, thats the effect that being completely wrong has y-know.

Well, thats the effect that being completely wrong has y-know.

Then why doesn't that happen to you all the time?

...

2 hours earlier, the same judge had given a 22 year sentence to a man convicted of aggravated second-degree murder for beating an elderly woman to DEATH with a log.

No shit. A log? He should get more time.

Wow, it's about to get started AGAIN...

Look, I disagree with some of the things Tuesday was saying, but honestly some of you went out of your way to piss her off. I'm no moderator, but I saw traces of embers starting to heat up. There's a way to peacefully give your opinion, and then you can just verbally attack and rape someone.

And texas? Shut up about straightedgers, I happen to be one. Just because I don't smoke, drink, do drugs, or partake in sport fucking doesn't mean I'm some kind of inferior human being.

poor bastard, at least the judge was strongly on this side. What a joke these drug laws are in some US states, in some the death sentence is available for being in possession of over a certain amount of weed (1 oz I think). Crazy

Then why doesn't that happen to you all the time?
Handbags at dawn?

*puff puff* :D

that is so harsh....in the UK, Marijuana is effectively legalise (its class C...means you have to be found about 27 times with it before they even arrest you), a lot of the US judicial system needs a serious rethink.

Just because I don't smoke, drink, do drugs, or partake in sport fucking doesn't mean I'm some kind of inferior human being.
Wha...what?!

You...inferior human being!!! :p

Handbags at dawn?

Is it cheating if mine's studded?



(I'm glad you didn't take me seriously, I didn't mean it that way ;))

"55 years in jail for pot-dealer... "

He's lucky. If I had been the judge, I would have sent the SOB away for life! The only reason I wouldn't have given him the death penalty is because selling pot isn't a capital offense.

"55 years in jail for pot-dealer... "

He's lucky. If I had been the judge, I would have sent the SOB away for life! The only reason I wouldn't have given him the death penalty is because selling pot isn't a capital offense.
Theres probably a reason people like you don't get appointed to the bench.

Is it cheating if mine's studded?
Not at all!

I'll be slipping a lucky horseshoe in mine.

"55 years in jail for pot-dealer... "

He's lucky. If I had been the judge, I would have sent the SOB away for life! The only reason I wouldn't have given him the death penalty is because selling pot isn't a capital offense.
oh god...

Eutrusca, when I'm prez, you want a spot on the Bench? (same goes for Spoffin and Chodolo)

Wha...what?!

You...inferior human being!!! :p

Bah, I'll have you know I'm much more...more...much more ferior then you'll ever be ;)

Not at all!

I'll be slipping a lucky horseshoe in mine.

:D

*Puts dentist on speed-dial*

55 years for drug trafficing and celebrity\ies get off with 1 for anything..Thats the justice system at its best!!!!!

:headbang:




ALL WILL FEAR THE WRATH OF THE dRunKEN MoB OF DOOM!!!

I'll do you one better...

The man who recived a 75 year sentence (or something in that range) for selling pot within a few blocks of a drug free school (and thereby within the "drug free zone"). I will try to dig up the article, but maybe one of you good people remember the case I am refering to. It was either in the midwest or one of the southern states, I'm not to clear on it.

Drunken Mob of Doom Forever!!!!!!!

Eutrusca, when I'm prez, you want a spot on the Bench? (same goes for Spoffin and Chodolo)
I doubt any one of us would get confirmed.

Eutrusca has advocated executing marijuana users, I have supported consensual incest, and I'm sure Spoffin has made some other crazy remarks. :p

I'll do you one better...

The man who recived a 75 year sentence (or something in that range) for selling pot within a few blocks of a drug free school (and thereby within the "drug free zone"). I will try to dig up the article, but maybe one of you good people remember the case I am refering to. It was either in the midwest or one of the southern states, I'm not to clear on it.

That is so ridiculous. The sentencing law I mean. These idiots go around yelling protect the children while the fact that pot is illegal and thus unregualted means that it is easier for underaged people to get their hands on pot than substances like alcohol or tobacco.

Hey wait- on second thought maybe that is protecting the children. I know that I would far rather any child of mine to use marijuana rather than using alcohol or tobacco. FAR less harmful. (In which case a harsh penalty for protecting the children is twice as stupid)

Theres probably a reason people like you don't get appointed to the bench.

Um ... yeah ... I don't have a law degree. :)

I doubt any one of us would get confirmed.

Eutrusca has advocated executing marijuana users, I have supported consensual incest, and I'm sure Spoffin has made some other crazy remarks. :p

ROFL! Very true! :D

Um ... but I didn't say anything about marijuana USERS ... just the pushers. Especially those who carry weapons with which to kill whomever they choose.

But let me just say that of all the people I've known who have been pot heads and of all the people I've known who abuse alcohol it's the alcohol that causes the problems. And alcohol is legal! The pot heads have been the mellow, laid back ones who don't do anything more damaging than waste their lives away.

Unless, of course, the pot is adulterated with PCP or something else....

Unless, of course, the pot is adulterated with PCP or something else....
Good point. Pot should be legalized and carefully regulated to prevent impurities and tampering.

but I didn't say anything about marijuana USERS ... just the pushers.
Oh come on, no one PUSHES drugs on other people...People seek it out and purchase it consensually. No one ever complains "That man pushed a drug on me!" Drug users and sellers are equally guilty or innocent, depending on your position on the legality of the substance itself.

Especially those who carry weapons with which to kill whomever they choose.
Meh. 2nd amendment shouldn't change depending whether you have drugs on you or not.

Theres probably a reason people like you don't get appointed to the bench.
better hope bush doesnt read these forums eutrusca will be on a district court htre next time the congress is out of session. well then you gotta remember bush is an idiot and would take forever searching all the internets to find this place

better hope bush doesnt read these forums eutrusca will be on a district court htre next time the congress is out of session. well then you gotta remember bush is an idiot and would take forever searching all the internets to find this place

If nominated I will not run. If selected I will not serve. :)

If nominated I will not run. If selected I will not serve. :)
ah, but you'd get your own private set of law-school-educated lackeys! And job security that is next to none.

I doubt any one of us would get confirmed.

Eutrusca has advocated executing marijuana users, I have supported consensual incest, and I'm sure Spoffin has made some other crazy remarks. :p
No worries, I'm gonna mind-control the senate (unless MKULTRA hands out tinfoil hats)

Chess Squares can have a spot as well.

Unless, of course, the pot is adulterated with PCP or something else....
Well, try not to get your drugs from characters in hysterical anti-drug after-school specials like the Helen Hunt classic Angel Dusted (http://imdb.com/title/tt0082019/) and you should be okay.

I really just wanted to bring up Angel Dusted (http://imdb.com/title/tt0082019/)....(linked to imdb.com for those not familiar with this classic, rates alongside Reefer Madness (Tell Your Children) (http://imdb.com/title/tt0028346/) in its batshitedness.

Well, considering that my father and his friend were murdered by two drug traffickers, obviously who had possession of a firearm, and that those two guys were given 10 years with a possibility of parole, I am at a loss.

ah, but you'd get your own private set of law-school-educated lackeys! And job security that is next to none.

Um ... don't you mean "job security that is SECOND to none?" :)

Besides, I don't like most lawyers. Heh!

Tuesday Heights, your hypocritical, dishonest or utterly uninformed, control freak opinion sickens me. Oh the homosexual marraige laws are so unfair because I cant get married, that's worth fighting for. Well the drug laws may not be perfect, but hey all that happens is people end up locked in prison away from their family and children for about 55 years, it's no biggie, not like my wanting to get married.....

I really cannot believe you. Front up to this guys kids and tell them how your right to get married comes ahead of their right to have a father....please explain to us why since a lot of people think homosexuality is disgusting, amoral, a degridation of the body, etc shouldnt stop you doing what you want, your likewise feelings about other people's behaviours and life style choices justifies locking people up for over half a century.

You are coming across as an absolute hypocrite, you dont mind unjust laws except those that stop you doing what you want because other people dont like it, but you are happy to lock up those who do what you dislike...

Drugs, and the ignorance of their affect on society, have not only been a detriment to our way of life but have blinded the masses who use them into believing that substances are a more viable way of enjoying life, and destroying it, too, than actually living life.
A lot of people believe the exact same thing about homosexuality, is there some reason why your views should be legislated and their views should not be?

Considering alcohol, when used in moderation, does not cause addiction and "harder" drugs - in most cases - do lead to addiction, I think that's a perfectly valid point as to why drugs should be illegal, completely, even pot.
Firstly no most drugs used in moderation do not lead to addiction. Are you ignorant about the fact that alcohol is addictive and pot is not. Please explain why the fact that some drugs when abused lead to addiction is a perfectly valid reason for making pot which does not lead to addiction illegal, I'm guessing it's because you drink alcohol and dont think you should be stopped from doing what you want, but think you should be able to control everyone else.

Considering sodomy isn't a danger to society, and more importantly, to point out I'm a lesbian so sodomy doesn't even come into question is beyond your scope of comprehension.
All homosexual acivities are as harmful to society as my neighbour coming home after work and enjoying a joint in the privacy of his own home after dinner. The only difference between the two is one is something you wish to do and think should be ok and the other is something you dont wish to do and think anyone who does should therefore be locked up for.

Tuesday it seems to me that you make comments that are either uninformed or intentionally dishonest then get wild when we all are not too stupid to point this out to you. The only one missing the big picture around here is you, and frankly it appears to be the result of intentionally looking the other way as opposed to having poor eyesight. I really hope that all the control freaks out there who find you and your way of life disgusting, dont succeed in preventing you from pursuing life liberty and happiness in the manner that you choose, even if you are too hypocritical to wish the same for everyone else...

"55 years in jail for pot-dealer... "

He's lucky. If I had been the judge, I would have sent the SOB away for life! The only reason I wouldn't have given him the death penalty is because selling pot isn't a capital offense.
Etrusca, you want people dead because they sold something to someone who wanted to buy it? I dont even want to know what kind of messed up thinking leads to such a conclusion. I dont know what exactly is in your head, but the phrase 'very bad shit' springs to mind... :eek:

The fact that you're drinking under 21 not only has potential problems for you but for those all around you...

Bullshit. You're projecting. You assume that because somebody once did something bad while they were drunk that Mr. Chodolo might do the same thing. The alcohol in the story you've related did not cause rape to occur, the rapist did. We all have free will, even when we're drunk.

Instead of locking up drug offenders for decades (or at all for that matter) how about we try and punish those who actually hurt other people. 55 years might be an appropriate sentence for a rapist, though I'm open to castration or execution for particularly heinous cases.

And texas? Shut up about straightedgers, I happen to be one. Just because I don't smoke, drink, do drugs, or partake in sport fucking doesn't mean I'm some kind of inferior human being.

If you're referring to this...

God, self-righteous pseudo-straight edgers piss me off.

"People should be able to enjoy their lives without the physical degradation of drug use!"

"Want another beer?"

"Oh, yes please!"

Just another shade of hypocritical zealotry. :rolleyes:

...I have no remorse for saying it. The only thing that bothers me more than a preaching straightedger is a hypocritical preaching straightedger (ie the kind who uses alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine). If that's not you, then you ought not to be offended. I have a lot of respect for someone with such convictions, as I do for someone with any such conviction (the religious, for example). I lose that when the person in question is revealed as a hypocrite and/or starts shouting at me from a soapbox. Personal choices=good. Self righteousness=bad.

Etrusca, you want people dead because they sold something to someone who wanted to buy it? I dont even want to know what kind of messed up thinking leads to such a conclusion. I dont know what exactly is in your head, but the phrase 'very bad shit' springs to mind... :eek:

( shrug ) I hate drugs and those who sell them. Nothing "very bad shit" about that. Just saw too much bad come from "innocent" pushing.

Wow, did you guys know that Alaska almost LEGALIZED marijuana? I don't mean medical marijuana, or lowered penalties for marijuana, or decriminalized small amounts...I mean they almost LEGALIZED marjuana.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ballot.measures/

Alaska Measure 2: Legalizing Marijuana

"Would legalize the cultivation, use and sale of marijuana for persons 21 and older; the state and local government would regulate marijuana like alcohol and tobacco; doctors would be able to prescribe drugs to all patients, including children; public use laws could be enacted by the government as well as laws in the interest of public safety."

The ballot initiative was defeated 57% to 43%.

Bush on the other hand carried the state 62% to 35%.

If a state as hardcore Republican as Alaska nearly legalized marijuana, think how a similar bill would do in...say California? :D

Check these exit polls on Measure 2: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/AK/I/01/epolls.0.html

The supporters of legalization were mostly white or Native American, male, young (56%-44% in support from the 18-29 year old group, think what that bodes for the future?), poor, Democrats and independants, liberals, non-military, atheist and non-monotheistic (although Catholics were significantly more open to the idea than Protestants), undecided presidential voters, people who disapprove of Bush, people who care about Iraq, the economy, and jobs, people who want an intelligent, progressive candidate who cares about people, people worse off than 4 years ago, people who disapprove of Iraq, and live in more rural areas.

The largest opposition was Protestants, women, African-Americans, older people, rich and upper-middle class people, Republicans, and those concerned with terrorism and moral values, and who want a candidate of faith, trustworthy, a strong leader with clear positions on issues, and from Anchorage.

If you're referring to this...



...I have no remorse for saying it. The only thing that bothers me more than a preaching straightedger is a hypocritical preaching straightedger (ie the kind who uses alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine). If that's not you, then you ought not to be offended. I have a lot of respect for someone with such convictions, as I do for someone with any such conviction (the religious, for example). I lose that when the person in question is revealed as a hypocrite and/or starts shouting at me from a soapbox. Personal choices=good. Self righteousness=bad.

A little of that, more that Texas seemed to be inferring in a number of posts that life was all somehow better for everyone who did drugs and drank.

( shrug ) I hate drugs and those who sell them. Nothing "very bad shit" about that. Just saw too much bad come from "innocent" pushing.

I should probably just let it go but I gotta ask -- if someone is growing their own pot for their own use should they still be prosecuted for it? I'm not asking about what the law says, I'm asking for personal opinion. And let's not digress about if someone has their own meth lab and is making their own meth for their own use. One of the things that the lock 'em up side has been doing is lumping ALL illegal drugs together and that's just not being honest about reality (see the next paragraph). I don't want PCP, heroin, crack etc. being treated the same way as marijuana. Although, if someone wants to ruin their OWN life being stupid I don't think they should be stopped. Just don't bring your family and friends into it. Once again, personal responsibilty.

A note about the lumping of drugs together I'd like to point out. One of the reasons that marijuana is seen as a gateway drug is the arguement that once someone uses pot they move on to the harder and more harmful drugs. Well, when you tell someone that the use of something as benign as (UNTAINTED) pot is going to make them go crazy, etc and they find out it isn't true they have less reason to believe that the harder drugs will cause the problems they are being warned about. It's about honesty, folks. You lie to someone and they wont believe you when you telling them the truth.

Since someone quoted one of my earlier posts about how Pot laced with PCP isn't safe (thanks for the fast rebutal, Chodolo ). Sorry, but duh? Hopefully, there was a certaina mount of sarcasm in that arguement as it was so obviously WTF? Sometimes it's hard to tell. Regardless, I'd like to point out that during the years of the Prohibition of Alcohol there were people who were blinded and killed by bad batches of bathtub gin. Funny how prohibition caused problems that legalisation and regulation for purity helped to do away with. Plus there was that pesky problem of Al Capone and other gangsta's making all that money off the sale of an illegal substance that private enterprise and the government were then able to bring in plenty of much needed revenues once the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st.

And I'm begining to have second thoughts here. Maybe all the NON-VIOLENT drug growers/dealers/users should be be sentenced to life terms in some isolated but liveable place somewhere - no cruel or unusual environment like Antarctica or Devil's Island. Here's an idea, round 'em up, revoke their citizenship, and send 'em off. You might even get volunteers to go. I'm in. Anyone one else?

( shrug ) I hate drugs and those who sell them. Nothing "very bad shit" about that. Just saw too much bad come from "innocent" pushing.

Just curious... do you hate alcohol and liquor store owners and grocers who sell beer? What do you think of the pushing of alcohol in advertisements over radio, television, magazines, etc.? Have you seen the tremendously devastating badness that comes from the pushing of this drug?

BTW... the second most addictive legal non-pharmacutical drug in U.S. society today can be legally purchased and used by any child old enough to use money. Yes, caffiene is the true gateway drug. Right now I feel a splitting headache coming on, but I will chase it away by feeding my monkey.

What do you think of the caffiene pushers? They should rot/die in jail too, right?

But one toke on that joint and you'll turn into a super-strong raging savage and seek out helpless white women to rape!!!

*tokes and then begins to manically jazz dance*