Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
[Hope and Change] 80 years for growing medical marijuana
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

petrjanda wrote:
Jesus, no way! How do you reconcile that that state you live in allows you to do something, gives you license to do it in fact, and then the Federal government gives you 80 years for it?
I'm a supporter of state's rights. I believe it was a egregious mistake by voters to elect and re-elect politicians who do not support state's rights. That said, federal authority has usurped state's rights.

It is illegal. Until enough states legalize it and effectively "force" the federal government to leave it to the states, it remains illegal.

As for what it means, it means the local authorities won't arrest me, but I'm still at risk from federal authorities. Especially if I draw their attention to it.

I support in spirit (and as mentioned with my vote) anyone willing to protest through civil disobedience, but they must live with the consequences of their actions. I'm personally not willing to ruin my life on this issue.

I find the TSA, PATRIOT acts and similar abridgements of liberty to be much more concerning. Focusing on marijuana seems to be ignoring the forest for the trees (or just not paying attention to the world beyond the smoke).
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When Kim Jong-Il had people executed for speaking ill of the regime, did you also take the attitude "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time?" I think you are kind of missing the point and ignoring the real issue here: not if this man broke the law, but if the law is just? If it isn't, and this man is the victim of an injustice, then what should we make of your lack of sympathy?
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
When Kim Jong-Il had people executed for speaking ill of the regime, did you also take the attitude "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time?" I think you are kind of missing the point and ignoring the real issue here: not if this man broke the law, but if the law is just? If it isn't, and this man is the victim of an injustice, then what should we make of your lack of sympathy?

Oh, yes, that is a reasonably comparable example. :roll: I can never keep the terms straight... is that straw man? I know it is one of the common fallacies.

Is it unjust to criminalize marijuana? I don't think it is unjust, but neither do I agree with criminalizing it. More importantly, I don't think there is a cost-effective solution to criminalizing it. Despite the cost and impact to others. Your right to consume it ends when it affects me. 2nd-hand smoke, taxes to pay for services you "require" because you can't keep a job, etc. Despite all of that, the cost to fight it is greater, if for no other reason than a lack of effectiveness.

Is it unjust to limit free speech? Plenty of 1st world countries have greater limits on free speech than the US (and the US seems to be degrading in that regard). So it would seem that it is not unjust to limit free speech.

So, given that it is just to imprison someone for possession of marijuana, the question is really how long is a justifiable term. My personal concern is less with the 80 years than it is with a seeming lack of appropriate term for violent crimes. Just one facet of why I think claims of our having the "best" system of justice is an overstatement of horrific proportions. Whether or not it is true is irrelevant to the flaws which should be unacceptable. This is also why I will do everything I can in protest of participating in such a justice system (read, involuntary juror -- my equivalent of those that choose to not vote).
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Oh, yes, that is a reasonably comparable example. :roll: I can never keep the terms straight... is that straw man? I know it is one of the common fallacies.

I'm not saying the two laws are equivalent, I'm saying that a law can be unjust and giving an (extreme) example.

Quote:
So, given that it is just to imprison someone for possession of marijuana, the question is really how long is a justifiable term. My personal concern is less with the 80 years than it is with a seeming lack of appropriate term for violent crimes. Just one facet of why I think claims of our having the "best" system of justice is an overstatement of horrific proportions. Whether or not it is true is irrelevant to the flaws which should be unacceptable. This is also why I will do everything I can in protest of participating in such a justice system (read, involuntary juror -- my equivalent of those that choose to not vote).

Yes, that's the question. Is a mandatory minimum of eighty years a just sentence? It seems like you are OK with it so long as sentences for violent crimes are rescaled to--what? 800 years for a murder? Would that be proportionate? Maybe this guy should have gotten four and a murderer forty.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, I don't think someone should get 80 years for personal use.

But that's not what is happening here. Not in the slightest. Note that I'm not saying I agree with the 80 years for the actual charges, but it certainly isn't a personal use charge.

Quote:
Williams is looking at a mandatory minimum of more than 80 years for marijuana charges and for possessing firearms during a drug-trafficking offense.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/opinion/the-fight-over-medical-marijuana.html?_r=0
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 758
Location: EU

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:

Yes, that's the question. Is a mandatory minimum of eighty years a just sentence? It seems like you are OK with it so long as sentences for violent crimes are rescaled to--what? 800 years for a murder? Would that be proportionate? Maybe this guy should have gotten four and a murderer forty.


out of whack. For comparison, mandatory minimum for murder (or any life imprisonment sentence) in Canada is 15 (due to the faint hope clause). Both sentences seem out of whack to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It isn't a marijuana issue. It is a drug trafficking issue with firearms.

Based on what I've heard or seen elsewhere, the drug trafficking & firearms multiply the offense drastically. So, maybe the original sentence would be 10 years, drug trafficking multiplies it by 4, firearms multiplies that by 2 (I'm not suggesting those multipliers are anywhere close to accurate).

But the reporting I'm seeing isn't going into details about what happened, just the ZOMG! Marijuana gets man 80yr sentence!!!!1111
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's focus on what he did rather than what prosecutors call what he did.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juniper wrote:
out of whack. For comparison, mandatory minimum for murder (or any life imprisonment sentence) in Canada is 15 (due to the faint hope clause). Both sentences seem out of whack to me.

Well in a sane world this guy wouldn't even be a criminal. I was just trying to show that an 80 year sentence is completely nuts if you believe that the length of a sentence should be proportional to the severity of the crime. There are many more severe crimes, but it's impossible to serve more than 80 years.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The notion that one should ALWAYS obey laws without question does not compute when new laws are added every day that limit your personal freedom more and more.

At one point you gotta ask yourself, if there is such discord between state and federal law, is that federal government working for your benefit or its own? Is it representing the interest of it's people or interests of power elite? If it represents interests of people, you got something that might be called progressive, republic-like state. If it represents the interests of power elite, it's fascism pretending to be something else.

Just because there is not "Fascist Party of USA" in white house, it doesn't mean that they are not. Letters are easier to change than politics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
Let's focus on what he did rather than what prosecutors call what he did.
Sure. I haven't found an article which seems to present the facts honestly. Just a few that present his "obvious" innocence. Marijuana is illegal.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum