Life sentence for pot conviction. When will the madness end?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Nope, I would blow your head off. I don't rely on the police for my personal security, I rely on Smith & Wesson specifically because I don't think the police *could* actually help me in this kind of situation.

What if you weren't home? (And, to be honest, even if you were home, I'd likey take the gun away from you before you cuold use it)

Anyway, the point you are basically making here is that all laws are the same. Sorry, but they aren't. Everything has to be looked at in it's own context, things aren't black and white.

Where did I say that?

If the law says that I can enslave a black person are you right or wrong to stop me doing so, against the law? Things simply aren't black and white. Comparing theft of personal property to smoking pot simply makes you look like a simpleton.

This makes no sense.

 

[NewtonTrino]

What if you weren't home? (And, to be honest, even if you were home, I'd likey take the gun away from you before you cuold use it)

Yes, because you are an expert ninja who will break in and disarm everyone.

This makes no sense.

I can't make you understand something beyond you.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes, because you are an expert ninja who will break in and disarm everyone.

No, it's just that you wouldn't have the nerve to use it. (And you don't even own a gun to begin with)

 

[JamesDillon]

Stop me.

Seriously, we absolutely are free to ignore whatever we want. Maybe the consequences will catch up with us, maybe not, but ignoring it is certainly an option.

Since I'm quite obviously talking about legal freedom, the fact that there may be consequences-- that the law may in fact stop you-- itself shows that you're wrong. You don't have legal freedom to ignore valid law precisely because there will be legal consequences if you do so.

You law and order types always make me laugh. You follow every law to the letter do you JamesDillon? I call BS on that and on your mentality.

I never claimed to follow every law to the letter. What I initially disputed was your implication that it's "evil" to think that democratically-enacted law should be respected whether I personally agree with it or not. I've also made quite clear that much of my reason for saying so is the fact that an orderly society can't leave these decisions to the conscience of each individual member, and because we happen to live in a society that is historically anomalous insofar as a process exists to ensure that the legislative power is derived from popular consent. You've yet to address any of this. You've yet to explain why your belief that a particular law is stupid or unjust should trump the judgment of a majority of your fellow citizens to the contrary, or offer any basis as to why only the laws that you disagree with can be disregarded. You've yet to respond to my questions as to how state laws against drug use are "blatantly unconstitutional," or even cite the provision of the Constitution that they supposedly violate. What you have done is called anyone who disagrees with you a "hypocrite" or a "simpleton." I find myself unimpressed by that argument.

If it was up to your type we'd still have slavery and indentured servitude.

And your position, I take it, is that not being allowed to smoke pot is a moral deprivation on par with slavery?

Just to follow up here the arguments being made by CTS and JD is that those running the underground railway were morally in the wrong. Nice company you guys keep. After all they were "law breakers".

I don't think I've made any claims about morality one way or the other, besides saying that I don't think it's evil to believe that a valid recidivism enhancement law should be enforced unless it's amended or repealed through the democratic process, whether I personally agree with the policy underlying that law or not.

 

[sadhatter]

It's pretty easy to make a case that dodging taxes is bad and that some degree of bad things should happen to people who dodge taxes.
Having some baggies with plants in them, on the other hand...

But i think the crux of the matter is the kid there.

If this guy was dealing, which it seems he was, then he shouldn't have had his kid there. Pot is harmless, and selling pot is relatively safe, but it is not totally safe, and when it becomes unsafe, it becomes really unsafe.

Alone, maybe the guy would have to get into a bit of a physical altercation, he chose to take the risk, no harm no foul. But take the same situation and add in his kid, and i think you can see where the problem comes in. An errant kick, or thrown object could leave the kid with injuries, possibly permanent ones.

I would be the grand puba of this guy's camp, if he hadn't shown such a careless attitude in regards to keeping his kid around.

 

[Taarkin]

But i think the crux of the matter is the kid there.

If this guy was dealing, which it seems he was, then he shouldn't have had his kid there. Pot is harmless, and selling pot is relatively safe, but it is not totally safe, and when it becomes unsafe, it becomes really unsafe.

Alone, maybe the guy would have to get into a bit of a physical altercation, he chose to take the risk, no harm no foul. But take the same situation and add in his kid, and i think you can see where the problem comes in. An errant kick, or thrown object could leave the kid with injuries, possibly permanent ones.

I would be the grand puba of this guy's camp, if he hadn't shown such a careless attitude in regards to keeping his kid around.

1) Should anyone who has expensive items at home with their kids be thrown in jail forever?
2) The law he was sentenced under doesn't say anything about having kids around.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Since I'm quite obviously talking about legal freedom, the fact that there may be consequences-- that the law may in fact stop you-- itself shows that you're wrong. You don't have legal freedom to ignore valid law precisely because there will be legal consequences if you do so.

Maybe there will be legal consequences, maybe not. It depends on the outcome of court action, does it not?

I never claimed to follow every law to the letter. What I initially disputed was your implication that it's "evil" to think that democratically-enacted law should be respected whether I personally agree with it or not.

Which is where my slavery analogy comes in. I would consider anyone who didn't fight against slavery to be evil. If a slave comes to your house asking for help and you turn them away that's evil. After that I suppose it's just a matter of degree. In other words, just because something is a law doesn't make it moral to support it. In fact, quite the opposite.

Now am I saying pot is the same thing as slavery? Yes, just not to the same degree. Keep in mind we are chucking people in jail here so it's very equivalent to slavery. In fact it seems to be mostly black people getting thrown in jail... hmmmmmmmmm maybe it is the same thing. A way to control those in society who don't fit the norms that are "preferred". It's a simple tyranny of the majority situation.

So yes, you are evil for supporting pot laws in the same way that those supporting slavery laws were evil. Anyone who wants to put people in jail for smoking pot or selling pot is evil.

I've also made quite clear that much of my reason for saying so is the fact that an orderly society can't leave these decisions to the conscience of each individual member, and because we happen to live in a society the is historically anomalous insofar as a process exists to ensure that the legislative power is derived from popular consent.

As I said, you're a law and order type. Good for you.

You've yet to address any of this. You've yet to explain why your belief that a particular law is stupid or unjust should trump the judgment of a majority of your fellow citizens to the contrary, or offer any basis as to why only the laws that you disagree with can be disregarded.

I thought the arguments against putting in people for jail for victimless crimes was obvious.

 

[NewtonTrino]

But i think the crux of the matter is the kid there.

If this guy was dealing, which it seems he was, then he shouldn't have had his kid there. Pot is harmless, and selling pot is relatively safe, but it is not totally safe, and when it becomes unsafe, it becomes really unsafe.

Alone, maybe the guy would have to get into a bit of a physical altercation, he chose to take the risk, no harm no foul. But take the same situation and add in his kid, and i think you can see where the problem comes in. An errant kick, or thrown object could leave the kid with injuries, possibly permanent ones.

I would be the grand puba of this guy's camp, if he hadn't shown such a careless attitude in regards to keeping his kid around.

The kid thing is a complete red herring. The only reason selling pot is dangerous is that it's illegal.

Anyway we already have laws against child engangerment. There's no reason to bring pot into it. This guy did nothing he should be in jail for.

What's worse, his dad being in jail or his dad selling pot?

 

[sadhatter]

1) Should anyone who has expensive items at home with their kids be thrown in jail forever?
2) The law he was sentenced under doesn't say anything about having kids around.

1) It has nothing to do with the value of the items. It has to do with the clientele a pot dealer attracts. 95% plus normal, nice people with a slight but inevitable chance of someone sketchy coming by and starting something.

A better analogy would be if someone ran a bar out of their home, and they let their child wander about. By the very nature of the business something violent or sketchy is going to happen at some point, keeping children away from this should be a priority.

A person with a house full of awesome gear, very well may never have anyone steal anything. Especially if they are careful of their friends. But someone selling pot, eventually, is going to encounter someone who wants to start something. As a friend of mine put it, long ago, dealing with sketchy a-holes is part of the cost doing business in this profession.

2) But it is obviously something that was taken into consideration. And if not, it was a crummy law that hit up a crummy person. If someone undeserving gets life, i will be in their camp. But this guy, having his kids around in this situation, let alone having previous chances to stop , i don't have too much sympathy for.

I mean christ, how hard is it to either

A) Deal only on the weekends and have someone look after the kid.

B) Keep your dope at someone else's house, pay them a minimal fee to deal there.

C) Simply have the kid stay with someone else while you deal.

( and before the tirades of the impossibility of this, these are all things that i have seen retailers with kids do, because of the dangers inherent in their career. People who care about their kids , take precautions. )

 

[NewtonTrino]

1) It has nothing to do with the value of the items. It has to do with the clientele a pot dealer attracts. 95% plus normal, nice people with a slight but inevitable chance of someone sketchy coming by and starting something.

A better analogy would be if someone ran a bar out of their home, and they let their child wander about. By the very nature of the business something violent or sketchy is going to happen at some point, keeping children away from this should be a priority.

A person with a house full of awesome gear, very well may never have anyone steal anything. Especially if they are careful of their friends. But someone selling pot, eventually, is going to encounter someone who wants to start something. As a friend of mine put it, long ago, dealing with sketchy a-holes is part of the cost doing business in this profession.

2) But it is obviously something that was taken into consideration. And if not, it was a crummy law that hit up a crummy person. If someone undeserving gets life, i will be in their camp. But this guy, having his kids around in this situation, let alone having previous chances to stop , i don't have too much sympathy for.

I mean christ, how hard is it to either

A) Deal only on the weekends and have someone look after the kid.

B) Keep your dope at someone else's house, pay them a minimal fee to deal there.

C) Simply have the kid stay with someone else while you deal.

( and before the tirades of the impossibility of this, these are all things that i have seen retailers with kids do, because of the dangers inherent in their career. People who care about their kids , take precautions. )

You're making a TON of assumptions here. Now I don't know anything about this particular guy but most pot dealing isn't dangerous other than from the cops. My pot dealer for example mostly deals to musicians. It's not like selling crack to street people.

 

[sadhatter]

The kid thing is a complete red herring. The only reason selling pot is dangerous is that it's illegal.

Anyway we already have laws against child engangerment. There's no reason to bring pot into it. This guy did nothing he should be in jail for.

What's worse, his dad being in jail or his dad selling pot?

What's worse, having a missing dad, or a messed up face because you caught a thrown ashtray with it?

And the fact remains, it is dangerous, the reason doesn't matter. If the kid does get hurt do you think he gets to the hospital, the doctor says " Oh, this happened because of a dope deal? Why didn't you say so, dope shouldn't be illegal. " waves his hands and any injury is gone?

 

[JamesDillon]

Maybe there will be legal consequences, maybe not. It depends on the outcome of court action, does it not?

Not in any relevant sense. The fact that the law forbids a certain action means that you're not legally free to perform that action.

Which is where my slavery analogy comes in. I would consider anyone who didn't fight against slavery to be evil. If a slave comes to your house asking for help and you turn them away that's evil. After that I suppose it's just a matter of degree. In other words, just because something is a law doesn't make it moral to support it. In fact, quite the opposite.

Let's return to what I've said earlier-- that part of the reason we should respect democratically-enacted law arises from the fact that such law reflects popular sovereignty and acknowledges the equal political rights of co-citizens to engage in self-government. Obviously, the pre-1866 South did not do that. It certainly didn't do it for slaves, who weren't recognized as having any political rights at all, and it systematically denied the rights of free blacks and even abolitionist whites. It was not a legitimately democratic system, so there was no moral obligation for anyone to abide by its mandates.

Now am I saying pot is the same thing as slavery? Yes, just not to the same degree. Keep in mind we are chucking people in jail here so it's very equivalent to slavery. In fact it seems to be mostly black people getting thrown in jail... hmmmmmmmmm maybe it is the same thing. A way to control those in society who don't fit the norms that are "preferred". It's a simple tyranny of the majority situation.

Now your argument seems to be that jail is equivalent to slavery. Ignoring for the moment the fact that the Thirteenth Amendment specifically exempts servitude "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" from its general ban on slavery, how is that not an argument against all incarceration?

So yes, you are evil for supporting pot laws in the same way that those supporting slavery laws were evil. Anyone who wants to put people in jail for smoking pot or selling pot is evil.

I don't want to put people in jail for smoking or selling pot. But I do think that there is broad room for disagreement about what society should prohibit without one side or the other being morally depraved.

As I said, you're a law and order type. Good for you.

Not good enough. Once again, please explain to me how a society is supposed to function if every individual is free to disregard laws he believes to be misguided.

I thought the arguments against putting in people for jail for victimless crimes was obvious.

That isn't what I asked. My question is, since those "obvious" arguments failed to prevail in the legislative debate, why are you morally justified in ignoring these laws, but someone who believes that there are equally "obvious" arguments against, say, laws prohibiting consensual sexual relations with a 7-year-old isn't justified in ignoring the laws against child molestation? The answer can't be "Because child molestation is wrong." Who gets to make that decision? It's either a democratically-elected legislature, in which case we're all bound by the legislature's decisions whether we agree with them or not, or it's each individual, in which case literally anything goes.

 

[sadhatter]

You're making a TON of assumptions here. Now I don't know anything about this particular guy but most pot dealing isn't dangerous other than from the cops. My pot dealer for example mostly deals to musicians. It's not like selling crack to street people.

Yes, it is less dangerous than other drugs. But the fact remains that you can't always control who knows you deal. A nice friend mentions it to a slightly less nice friend, and on down the line, until someone you really don't want knowing it does. And this isn't even taking into effect a normally nice gent coming from the bar, for example, being upset with the quality of the goods, or the price, and starting something.

For a grown adult, no, not much danger. Keep an equalizer or two around the place, and your fine. Once you bring children into the equation , not only is there the chance of a blow, or object meant for you hitting them, but the chance that someone is simply going to threaten them to get you to comply.

From what you say, you seem to have experience with the use, not any retail aspects of the product. Dealers of the kind you talk to will downplay any sketchiness that occurs, because they cater to people like yourself, and myself ( when i still smoked.) and don't want you to find someone else due to worry of being involved in a sketch situation , hang around enough of them for long enough, and you will see even they have their sketchy moments.

 

[Resume]

A cannabis distributor of my acquaintance has thirty years worth of experience. In no way shape or form does he want reefer legalized, insisting it would make an unnacceptable dent in his profit margin.

ETA: He's been fined, had a car and a residence confiscated so he's no genius either.

 

[Furcifer]

Wonderful...what a society.

Maybe you could start a petition to get it going earlier, like in middle school? I'm sure middle schoolers are stressed out and need a break from reality too. There's gotta be a profitable market there.

It's there. Usually the little brother of "the guy". He sneaks a pinch or two, rolls it into 40 joints and sells them for $5 each. By the time he hits high school he's "the guy" himself and assumes the roll.

I have less experience with that, but I did hang around 5 different high schools in my day and saw pretty much the same pattern in each school.

I'm just saying in my experience exclusive pot dealers don't have a lot of problems with the law. Once they venture into other drugs that's when the problems start. Many of them know this and stay well away from the harder stuff.

Again YMMV, this is just a small part of Canada and things may well be different in your area.

 

[Furcifer]

I believe marijuana should be legalized as well. Unfortunately, it is not legal, so I am going to hold off on selling it from my house until it is legalized because I am aware of the consequences....I have a feeling the guy in the story was aware of the consequences as well.

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but it should be pointed out that even parking 13 inches from the curb could land you in jail.

Sure you have to do it many times and ignore the fines, but it could happen. These are the consequences and although the punishment doesn't exactly fit the crime there is a penalty for continuing to disobey the law. Much like the guy who gets falsely arrested and in the process resists arrest.

 

[NewtonTrino]

What's worse, having a missing dad, or a messed up face because you caught a thrown ashtray with it?

And the fact remains, it is dangerous, the reason doesn't matter. If the kid does get hurt do you think he gets to the hospital, the doctor says " Oh, this happened because of a dope deal? Why didn't you say so, dope shouldn't be illegal. " waves his hands and any injury is gone?

If dope wasn't illegal likely it would be sold at 7-11 and this wouldn't be an issue.

You are creating a big fat man made of straw here to justify.... I don't even know what. Do you think throwing someone in jail is a joke?

 

[Taarkin]

1) It has nothing to do with the value of the items. It has to do with the clientele a pot dealer attracts. 95% plus normal, nice people with a slight but inevitable chance of someone sketchy coming by and starting something
...
But someone selling pot, eventually, is going to encounter someone who wants to start something. As a friend of mine put it, long ago, dealing with sketchy a-holes is part of the cost doing business in this profession.

Living on the planet Earth guarantees that you will encounter scumbags at some point. Should all Earhdwelling parents be thrown in jail forever?
Also, many of the dangers that come with drug dealing are caused by the laws against it. Should those legislators be thrown in jail forever?

2) But it is obviously something that was taken into consideration.

Evidence? Why wasn't he hit with child endangerment?

Do we even know if he was dealing out of his house, or if the kid was there if he did?

 

[NewtonTrino]

Not in any relevant sense. The fact that the law forbids a certain action means that you're not legally free to perform that action.

Are you a lawyer? Because this simply isn't true.

Let's return to what I've said earlier-- that part of the reason we should respect democratically-enacted law arises from the fact that such law reflects popular sovereignty and acknowledges the equal political rights of co-citizens to engage in self-government. Obviously, the pre-1866 South did not do that.

And neither does our current government. This is the fundamental disagreement we have right now. Maybe things are better than 1866 but they sure aren't even close to perfect.

It certainly didn't do it for slaves, who weren't recognized as having any political rights at all, and it systematically denied the rights of free blacks and even abolitionist whites. It was not a legitimately democratic system, so there was no moral obligation for anyone to abide by its mandates.

So your claim is that our current system actually does represent the interests of the people therefore it should be more respected? I humbly disagree.

Now your argument seems to be that jail is equivalent to slavery. Ignoring for the moment the fact that the Thirteenth Amendment specifically exempts servitude "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" from its general ban on slavery, how is that not an argument against all incarceration?

Actually it probably is an argument for eliminating certain parts of our justice system where some inmates are defacto slaves.

I don't want to put people in jail for smoking or selling pot. But I do think that there is broad room for disagreement about what society should prohibit without one side or the other being morally depraved.

And I disagree. I think if you try to prohibit victimless crimes that you are the one who is creating victims and that's evil. Simply my opinion. You obviously feel different. Fine, I think you're morally bankrupt. Don't worry though, I don't have a police state who agrees with me so you won't be going to jail, unlike my many pot smoker friends sitting in prison (shout out to Marc Emery, booya).

Not good enough. Once again, please explain to me how a society is supposed to function if every individual is free to disregard laws he believes to be misguided.

Again, isn't this how it currently works? When things get bad enough people go really crazy and overthrow the government. It's the natural cycle.

That isn't what I asked. My question is, since those "obvious" arguments failed to prevail in the legislative debate, why are you morally justified in ignoring these laws, but someone who believes that there are equally "obvious" arguments against, say, laws prohibiting consensual sexual relations with a 7-year-old isn't justified in ignoring the laws against child molestation?

Are you saying every law that is passed can pass this test? I personally think our political system is broken and this is the result. Just because they get it right on some occasions (e.g. making it illegal to molest children as in your example) doesn't mean that every decision they make is correct or well debated. In fact with you law and order types you want to assume that everything is ok and that mistakes aren't made. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because lawmakers make a law doesn't mean they actually thought it through or that they had strong arguments.

The answer can't be "Because child molestation is wrong." Who gets to make that decision? It's either a democratically-elected legislature, in which case we're all bound by the legislature's decisions whether we agree with them or not, or it's each individual, in which case literally anything goes.

I disagree that we are all bound to the decisions the legislature makes. Every man is and should be guided by his own conscience.

Again, there is room for disagreement here. I think you're evil, you might think of stupid or crazy. It's no skin off my nose either way but I will continue to advocate for the rights of those who are legally being discriminated against.

 

[NewtonTrino]

From what you say, you seem to have experience with the use, not any retail aspects of the product. Dealers of the kind you talk to will downplay any sketchiness that occurs, because they cater to people like yourself, and myself ( when i still smoked.) and don't want you to find someone else due to worry of being involved in a sketch situation , hang around enough of them for long enough, and you will see even they have their sketchy moments.

Dude, a bunch of violin players and software engineers who get their pot from my guy aren't going to go postal and start hurting people. The biggest danger for any of us is literally being screwed with by the police.