This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Legalizing marijuana?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
And I seriously disagree. I don't believe in making an example of a person to discourage future crime by others. A person's individual punishment should fit their individual crime.
Post by
Squishalot
I never said that you're making an example of a person.
I said to
start
enforcing the laws seriously, and you'll be having to deal with less people.
Post by
pezz
I never said that you're making an example of a person.
I said to
start
enforcing the laws seriously, and you'll be having to deal with less people.
That's some tricky language. You've made it clear that, in addition to your main goal, you're going to be benefiting from the fact that it'll cause some people to reevaluate their cost benefit analysis. Now we're talking more about semantics than anything.
Hmm, the universal quantifier is in my recaptcha.
Post by
Squishalot
It's not that tricky, is it? (Not intended to be, mind you.)
Every public holiday period in my state, police make it very clear that all penalties for speeding, drink driving and safety belt offences are doubled. They announce that they're going to be putting extra patrols out on the road. Unless they enforce the penalties, it's a meaningless exercise. Since they do, people know that the police are serious about their threats.
Isn't that going to cause someone to reevaluate their cost-benefit analysis, without specifically making an example of someone?
I acknowledge that the first few people to be dealt 'harshly' with will be considered 'examples'. But it's just about enforcement and the public perception of whether enforcement will occur. You don't need more beat cops, you just need the system to actually enforce the penalties on the guys who are getting caught.
Post by
Skreeran
Well, suffice it from me to say I'm glad you're a civilian in Australia rather than a legislator in the United States, no offense. I have some serious disagreements with your views for how to approach drug legislation.
Post by
Squishalot
None taken. I'd argue the same about your approach to legalisation of currently illicit drugs.
Having said that, do you believe that shop-lifters should be punished for their actions in accordance with the penalties proscribed by law?
Post by
HoleofArt
See, I'm not sure about that. It's one thing to have beat cops running around looking for teenagers everywhere, which I agree is excessive expenditure. My point is that those who are caught are generally given slaps on the wrist and moved on. There is an attitude of tolerance at the moment.
Maybe in Australia. In most of the continental United States possession of marijuana is still quite a big deal. I know several people that have been arrested, and a few that had jail time. Unless you consider arrested to be 'a slap on the wrist'? Because I seriously don't.
Post by
Monday
See, I'm not sure about that. It's one thing to have beat cops running around looking for teenagers everywhere, which I agree is excessive expenditure. My point is that those who are caught are generally given slaps on the wrist and moved on. There is an attitude of tolerance at the moment.
Maybe in Australia. In most of the continental United States possession of marijuana is still quite a big deal. I know several people that have been arrested, and a few that had jail time. Unless you consider arrested to be 'a slap on the wrist'? Because I seriously don't.
Really? Here in Utah there isn't really a big deal about it.
I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.
Here.
In.
Utah.
Marijuana users aren't given very harsh penalties.
Post by
Squishalot
Maybe in Australia. In most of the continental United States possession of marijuana is still quite a big deal. I know several people that have been arrested, and a few that had jail time. Unless you consider arrested to be 'a slap on the wrist'? Because I seriously don't.
I'd call anything that's considered 'minimum penalty' (for the crime) or less a relative slap on the wrist. The guys who get pulled over for speeding, get a lecture and drive off with a warning, I'd call that a slap on the wrist.
If you're arrested, but the next day you walk out with no other real repercussions other than losing your stash, then yes, it's a slap on the wrist. Jail time is different.
Post by
Skreeran
Maybe in Australia. In most of the continental United States possession of marijuana is still quite a big deal. I know several people that have been arrested, and a few that had jail time. Unless you consider arrested to be 'a slap on the wrist'? Because I seriously don't.
I'd call anything that's considered 'minimum penalty' (for the crime) or less a relative slap on the wrist. The guys who get pulled over for speeding, get a lecture and drive off with a warning, I'd call that a slap on the wrist.
If you're arrested, but the next day you walk out with no other real repercussions other than losing your stash, then yes, it's a slap on the wrist. Jail time is different.In my city, just in the last month, one guy was sentenced to 20 years in prison for growing.
None taken. I'd argue the same about your approach to legalisation of currently illicit drugs.
Having said that, do you believe that shop-lifters should be punished for their actions in accordance with the penalties proscribed by law?Yes, of course I do.
If a few guys are very publicly jailed with maximum penalties for smoking weed, you can bet that there are going to be a number of rational people out there who will think "jeez, this is getting way too serious, I'm going to stop". There are still going to be the guys who don't care, who would break the law regardless. But you're going to be helping minimise the amount of law breaking generally, at the cost of a few extended jail sentences.This is the part I disagree with.
I think that people should be punished with their crime in mind, not the repercussions it will have on the criminal community. If a person did not commit maximum harm with their crime, they should not receive the maximum penalty, even if it helps reduce crime in other people. Rather than sacrifices some poor sucker for the well being of the community, I believe in fair punishment that fits the crime in its intensity.
A guy who smokes pot has hurt no one but himself (and that's assuming it even has that great of a detrimental effect). Giving him five years in prison and a permanent criminal record it too harsh a punishment, in my opinion.
If he's on welfare (which he wouldn't be, if a UA was required), and he harms himself, he's simply costing the state money. Give him a harsh fine, take money back, and let him off.
No one should be locked up for growing or burning a plant. That's just ridiculous.
Post by
HoleofArt
Marijuana users aren't given very harsh penalties.
Uhh?
Enforcement is another deal. If a cop chooses to "let it slide", that isn't the state being lax on it, it's that particular cop choosing not to act on it. The actions of the state are pretty harsh when actually carried out.
Post by
Squishalot
In my city, just in the last month, one guy was sentenced to 20 years in prison for growing.
Good on him. How about everyone else growing?
Yes, of course I do.
So why not for illicit drugs? Because you think the penalties prescribed by law are unreasonable. But that doesn't change the fact that the penalties are there and are prescribed, and people can make their own choice as to take the risk or not.
I think that people should be punished with their crime in mind, not the repercussions it will have on the criminal community. If a person did not commit maximum harm with their crime, they should not receive the maximum penalty, even if it helps reduce crime in other people.
How you define 'maximum harm'? Smoking pot commits less harm than distributing pot, which is why the penalties prescribed are less. How can you harm yourself more or less by smoking? A better approach, perhaps, might be to create charges for smoking a single joint, or possessing a single ecstasy tablet, etc., and charge people multiple times per joint smoked or tablet possessed. Would that be fair in your eyes?
A guy who smokes pot has hurt no one but himself (and that's assuming it even has that great of a detrimental effect). Giving him five years in prison and a permanent criminal record it too harsh a punishment, in my opinion.
Cigarette users convince themselves of that every day, without thinking about the stench in the city that they're creating by exhaling. If you walked up to someone and blew a concoction of poisons into their face, under any other circumstances, you'd be arrested for assault. My point is, you're assuming that the only harm is the self-harm. There are other elements of harm, such as second-hand smoking, the social impacts on others not smoking around you, and, of course, the growing often associated with smoking in the first place.
No one should be locked up for growing or burning a plant. That's just ridiculous.
If I took a hundred thousand cigarettes and set up a small cigarette bonfire (within unregulated burning tolerances) in the middle of my backyard, and had the smoke waft over the neighbourhood, do you think I should be locked up for that? If I replaced the tobacco with a million bucks of marijuana, would that change your views? What if it were just ordinary garden leaves that I'm clearing up after autumn (fall)?
Perhaps I should start growing poppies in my back yard and produce opium. Should that get me locked up, in your books?
Enforcement is another deal. If a cop chooses to "let it slide", that isn't the state being lax on it, it's that particular cop choosing not to act on it. The actions of the state are pretty harsh when actually carried out.
The guys who get pulled over for speeding, get a lecture and drive off with a warning, I'd call that a slap on the wrist.
Post by
apocalypsa
Im from holland and I can tell you, legal weed is fine. Potheads arent a danger to society AT ALL here, everyone is kinda fine with it and afaik weed hasnt destroyed anyone's life yet.
Personally, I also dont think its the governments job to protect people from themselves. If they want to take drugs, let them.
Post by
Cyonisper
Potheads arent a danger to society AT ALL
Obviously you are not a Cheeto.
Post by
apocalypsa
Whatever that is.
Post by
Cyonisper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetos
Post by
apocalypsa
Cheetos are awesome, but I still dont get the connection to potheads.
Post by
Murrdurr
I know when I smoke at night I am not stuffing my face in a bunch of snacks, actually I dont really get hungry when I smoke. Seriously I can be pretty damn hungry but then blaze one and the hunger goes away. Usually I just have glass of tea/pop/water after wards.
Post by
Monday
Marijuana users aren't given very harsh penalties.
Uhh?
Enforcement is another deal. If a cop chooses to "let it slide", that isn't the state being lax on it, it's that particular cop choosing not to act on it. The actions of the state are pretty harsh when actually carried out.
Just realized my edit didn't go through. I meant to say that enforcement isn't that high, mainly because the officers are trying to take down meth (I believe it is meth) rings.
Post by
Skreeran
Marijuana users aren't given very harsh penalties.
Uhh?
Enforcement is another deal. If a cop chooses to "let it slide", that isn't the state being lax on it, it's that particular cop choosing not to act on it. The actions of the state are pretty harsh when actually carried out.
Just realized my edit didn't go through. I meant to say that enforcement isn't that high, mainly because the officers are trying to take down meth (I believe it is meth) rings.Perhaps where you live, but please refer back to my post explaining that a guy in my town got sentenced to 20 years for growing, and the cops are pretty vigilant when it comes to enforcing.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.