|
goodness posted:But it is not logically wrong for the cities arresting people. They get hundreds and hundreds of millions from state and federal government to run their prisons. So it is very logical to do what they do. Well I'm trying to find a word that means logical ,respectful and decent for human rights first, someone would be able to put this a hell of a lot better than I am. My terrible word usage isn't helping here. Edit for content: Anyone have any idea what the prices might settle down to once more shops open up and there is a decent supply going? How exactly would that be compared to the current illegal prices in that area? Bushmaori fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jan 14, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
Bushmaori posted:Well I'm trying to find a word that means logical ,respectful and decent for human rights first, someone would be able to put this a hell of a lot better than I am. My terrible word usage isn't helping here. But that is the point, what you think is logical, respectful and decent is not what other people think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
goodness posted:But that is the point, what you think is logical, respectful and decent is not what other people think. What you seem to be saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that because there is no direct consensus for people on what is (let's just use the word moral for the sake of this shall we?) moral that there cannot be any full decision on what qualifies as a decent way to treat people. Following this line of reasoning would the morality of punching a baby in the face be questioned simply because some people think there is nothing wrong with it? What I am trying to say is that although there is many different opinions for situations like this the idea that hurting innocent people may somehow be correct simply because some people believe it to be so is utterly useless in real world situations. What you seems to be saying is that there cannot be a right and a wrong because people have different ideas on what is right and wrong, I agree with this on a technical level but say in real world situations this is a useless line of thought that offers nothing. In the real world one of the most basic ways to construct a fair moral code is on the basis of 'Don't hurt innocent people', I understand you could argue the definition of innocent and hurt based on different ideas but such a philosophical level of a concept is, again, not very useful in real world situations. TLDR: I think I understand what you are saying but the idea that there cannot be a 'correct' moral or legal code because of opinions is nothing something I can swallow. Regardless this derail has gone on long enough, people will probably be sick of my prattling by now. If you have PMs I would be interesting in continuing. Content edit again: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/colorado-pass-bill-banning-food-stamps-pot-products states that Colorado will be banning people from using food stamps to buy drug food like pot brownies. It seems that most legal drugs, caffeine excluded, also have this rule. Anybody know of any studies on exactly what the rate of purchase would be if this was allowed? Towards alcohol I mean. Bushmaori fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
That's a sensible law, though I should mention in WA on my final month of food stamps I was able to purchase energy drinks with it. I definitely recall having to use cash before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
goodness posted:But that is the point, what you think is logical, respectful and decent is not what other people think. Are you compos mentis? The fact that some people hold an opposing view does not make their view morally acceptable. goodness posted:But it is not logically wrong for the cities arresting people. They get hundreds and hundreds of millions from state and federal government to run their prisons. So it is very logical to do what they do. It is morally reprehensible to punish people who have a drug preference that differs from the drug preferences of the majority. The fact that their primary motive for persecution is money makes it egregious. KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Are you compos mentis? Well I am glad I know where you stand morally, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Except I'm not outraged or amazed at all? And I have a JD too just for the record, so I had too extensively study US law and I read a lot about Colorado's marijuana laws out of general interest. I can still think "I smell weed" is a complete bullshit probable cause standard. I'm allowed to disagree on what the law should be. I can even do it without calling people idiots or punks. we both have issues with dishonest cops abusing the doctrine. as far as i can tell, our only difference is that i think the legalization of marijuana goes a long way to addressing these abuses and getting rid of the doctrine as it currently stands is a bad idea as I find that the basis of the doctrine is sound, but the practice is lacking due to credulity of most judges and the dishonesty of most cops. if a cop stops somebody a few blocks away from where a bombing was reported and they reek of diesel or fertilizer, that unquestionably constitutes reasonable suspicion for a search in my view and the view of most courts. it's when the doctrine comes into play with the moral outrage that is american drug law or when cops are overtly dishonest that it becomes an issue. also calling people idiots and punks simply makes it all worthwhile for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
goodness posted:Well I am glad I know where you stand morally, thanks. Well, by your logic, it's only proper for the cities to enforce these laws because they're paid to do it, if the previous quote is actually honest. I'm all for elevating the law above petty morality, but I'm also all for elevating it above petty theft too, which is primarily how it behaves in regards to drug laws. White people get fines, black people get jail, and the corrupt make profits. I mean, completely pragmatically, the country's economy is in a poo poo way and the workforce is greatly truncated and there's social issues ranging the whole gamut directly associated with the high incarceration rate. It does not benefit the state or the common populace if the state is arresting and incarcerating the common populace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
It is very logical for them, I concur. The problem is it is unethical as dicks. So much pointless punishment for nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:I have no idea what your complaint is here. He isn't suggesting a causal relationship between medical intent and the potency, he is simply noting that it is true and measurable and thus higher potency marijuana is now more available in California. Do you not think that the medical industry's existence has lead to higher availability of higher potency weed? You are right, sensimilla existed before SB420, so why did its prevalence in California only increase after SB420? (The weed in those dispensaries is pretty killer fyi...) The second study is by NORML and is explicitly showing the high potency of medical marijuana even compared to high grade weed sold elsewhere in the country. It makes perfect intuitive sense that the stronger legal protections have lead to more experimentation in potency research among growers. He is explicitly suggesting a causal relationship for an observed effect: That an increase in marijuana related arrests and rehab admissions is caused by the diversion of medical marijuana to the recreational market. The suggested mechanism is that people can't handle the newly potent weed. OK, fine, it's a theory, everyone agrees that medical weed is potent. My point is that the cited support for his factual premise ("we know that medical marijuana has twice as much THC as street marijuana") flatly doesn't say that. Or rather, it does, but he didn't dig any further. The paper he actually cites is this one. It has nothing to do with investigating potency, the author just mentions that other research has shown that. But what the underlying source for the claim actually shows is that there is considerable variance in seized marijuana content in California (note: seized is not 'street', particularly given the very changes to the enforcement system that are at issue), with trends observable well before 2004, to the point where a main thrust of their conclusion is cautioning against uniform characterizations like "street marijuana". Figure 2 basically gives you the alternative explanation that he doesn't think exists. I don't think he read the paper. I think he saw a non-authoritative claim while he was hunting for studies on weed and psychosis, liked the sound of it, and rolled with it. Google + confirmation bias = research. That makes me reluctant to believe other factual claims or 'reasonable assumptions' he might make in the article, unless I dig through the citations myself. I'm with moebius2778; the author may well have a point, but I'm not sure I trust him to make it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:plain smell is no more or less bullshit than plain view. You are nitpicking over technical terms as an excuse to ignore the real point which is this. I disagree with this. You aren't magically right by repeating yourself a third time. Get the gently caress over yourself. TenementFunster posted:also calling people idiots and punks simply makes it all worthwhile for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
goodness posted:But it is not logically wrong for the cities arresting people. They get hundreds and hundreds of millions from state and federal government to run their prisons. So it is very logical to do what they do. goodness posted:Some people think it is genuinely right to not do drugs, some think it is. Just like any other issue. Some people thought it was logically right for the White man to enslave the Black man. They got lots of free labour do the cotton pickin', mining and all the other dirty work. It was all very logical. Other people thought it was genuinely wrong to enslave the Black man. It's just like any other issue. ^^^Is this the gist of your argument?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
If only you had realized this awhile ago. We all have to learn for ourselves. In Colorado you can smoke in your yard, in public view on private property right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
goodness posted:In Colorado you can smoke in your yard, in public view on private property right? Nevvy Z posted:You are nitpicking over technical terms as an excuse to ignore the real point which is this. I disagree with this. You aren't magically right by repeating yourself a third time. Get the gently caress over yourself. maybe you should consider take advantage of Colorado's medical medical program for all this unchecked aggression!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
They aren't technical terms, they're just terms you learn in a class that are used in a specific professional context. You know- technical terms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
quote:maybe you should consider take advantage of Colorado's medical program for all this unchecked aggression!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 15:37
|
|
KingEup posted:Some people thought it was logically right for the White man to enslave the Black man. They got lots of free labour do the cotton pickin', mining and all the other dirty work. It was all very logical. I support legalization & decriminalization but these lovely analogies of yours are not helping the cause. Comparing your choice of recreational drug being illegal to racism is disgusting, just stop it. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Isn't CA still the only state that issues for mental health problems? I'm pretty sure that state MM programs leave that up to the doctor, who has his/her own list of things for which they will "recommend" cannabis. At least I don't think MM laws usually place restrictions on that kind of thing, but I'm often wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I'm pretty sure that state MM programs leave that up to the doctor, who has his/her own list of things for which they will "recommend" cannabis. At least I don't think MM laws usually place restrictions on that kind of thing, but I'm often wrong. Like literally everything about medical marijuana, it depends on the state. California's is probably the loosest (the requirement is a "serious" condition, as determined by the doctor), but some states have specific lists of eligible conditions written into the law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I'm pretty sure that state MM programs leave that up to the doctor, who has his/her own list of things for which they will "recommend" cannabis. At least I don't think MM laws usually place restrictions on that kind of thing, but I'm often wrong. Pretty much any cannabis prescription is going to be "off label" anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Pretty much any cannabis prescription is going to be "off label" anyways. Which is outrageous because it is literally the best medicine for severe anxiety & major depressive disorder that I have ever known, by a tremendous margin. And I've been on more different SSRI/SNRI regimens than any ten of you guys put together, over a span of decades. Nothing even comes close; it's like penicillin vs. leeching.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Isn't CA still the only state that issues for mental health problems? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I support legalization & decriminalization but these lovely analogies of yours are not helping the cause. Comparing your choice of recreational drug being illegal to racism is disgusting, just stop it. I agree the analogies aren't the best, but it's not like racism and drug law enforcement are completely independent of each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 20:40
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:I agree the analogies aren't the best, but it's not like racism and drug law enforcement are completely independent of each other. I never said they were? Do I really need to explain why a comparison between drugs being illegal and racism is disgustingly offensive? Last I looked one can stop using drugs! Good loving luck on quiting being black! 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I support legalization & decriminalization but these lovely analogies of yours are not helping the cause. Comparing your choice of recreational drug being illegal to racism is disgusting, just stop it. Except for the fact that the persecution of people for having a different drug preference has resulted in more African American men being jailed than were slaves before the start of the Civil War. Expect for the fact that 1 in 4 black men will spend time in jail. Expect for the fact that 1 in 15 black men are behind bars at any one time. Except for the fact that drug prohibition is one of main methods that black men are deprived of the right to vote. quote:Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) grants that there are laws impeding the ability of black males to vote — they just have nothing to do with voter ID laws or the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Voting Rights Act. The scale of immorality is staggering. The fact that you don't consider this highly immoral or comparable to other atrocities is telling - some people have come to believe that persecution during the war on drugs isn't all that bad. Either that or they're just plain ignorant. Before you embarrass yourself any further, do some reading: Prof Michelle Alexander posted:
KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Except for the fact that the persecution of people for having a different drug preference has resulted in more African American men being jailed than were slaves before the start of the Civil War. Expect for the fact that 1 in 4 black men will spend time in jail. Expect for the fact that 1 in 15 black men are behind bars at any one time. Except for the fact that drug prohibition is one of main methods that black men are deprived of the right to vote. While 62% of black children grow up in single family households (childstats.gov) only 1 in 6 black men have been incarserated at some point in their lives (NAACP). I'll grant that that incarceration rate is way too high for any reasonable society, but there's clearly more going on with single parent households than all the black fathers are locked up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:While 62% of black children grow up in single family households (childstats.gov) only 1 in 6 black men have been incarserated at some point in their lives (NAACP). I'll grant that that incarceration rate is way too high for any reasonable society, but there's clearly more going on with single parent households than all the black fathers are locked up. 17% of an entire population has been incarcerated. 100% of that population does not have children. I don't know exactly where we might find numbers, but I'm pretty sure that it is nowhere near 100% of black males are fathers. Likewise, not all incarcerated black males are fathers. However, 17% of a select population is loving huge to be incarcerated at any period of time. That's the point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:17% of an entire population has been incarcerated. 100% of that population does not have children. I don't know exactly where we might find numbers, but I'm pretty sure that it is nowhere near 100% of black males are fathers. Likewise, not all incarcerated black males are fathers. I completely agree that it's a huge segment of the population, and it represents some serious flaws in our legal system. However, that doesn't mean black children are fatherless because their fathers are all locked up. Unless you have reason to believe black fathers are more likely to be incarcerated than black non-fathers, I don't understand your statistical argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Discussion about race for another thread
goodness fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
So, let me get this straight, based on your experience talking to a group of 100+ prisoners, you believe that black people are cool with the racially motivated War on Drugs because they're keeping themselves down on purpose? And you are trying to claim that we can't speak for an entire group of people without knowing their experiences. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Blaming it on rap music? God drat did I enter a time warp into 1995?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
rscott posted:Blaming it on rap music? God drat did I enter a time warp into 1995? There was that article claiming prison owners paid music execs to promote gangster rap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Hey, I did not come up with this randomly. It's what I was told for 7 months straight, and had to listen to every single night as I tried to sleep. Also, if you really don't think that the rap culture has a huge negative affect on the progression of the culture, then I don't know what to say. When you grow up and hear music about killing, drugs and other poo poo, it does affect your development. I see kids that can barely write their name singing lyrics that involve prolific profanities. A lot of it is that it glorifies being in jail, being in a gang, etc. That is not something you promote to young people... For content, are there any states planning to legalize medical/recreational this year? goodness fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
goodness posted:It's nice to look at reports of data that has been collected by people who have never been around the people they are looking at. But I actually was in jail with all these people that you say are being mistreated. Please explain to me how rap music and "not wanting to see another person rise up before them in live" can possibly explain how black males are incarcerated at higher rates for drug crimes than whites even if they aren't using drugs at a higher rate. I'm not exactly expecting a coherent answer given the fact that you can't even write a coherent sentence but it's worth a try.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Please explain to me how rap music and "not wanting to see another person rise up before them in live" can possibly explain how black males are incarcerated at higher rates for drug crimes than whites even if they aren't using drugs at a higher rate. I am not talking about the bias in court at all though. You know that it if you don't commit the crimes, then you won't be in front of a judge being hosed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
goodness posted:You know that it if you don't commit the crimes, then you won't be in front of a judge
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:GET OUT Why don't you? I'm actually trying to discuss things without calling people idiots and using my ULTIMATE legal knowledge to berate others. It's funny to read you complaining about being picked on by the cops for weed or whatever. Guess what, you are committing a crime. It literally has nothing to do with whether you think is right or wrong, morally acceptable or whatever else you want to call it. It is not the cop's job to interpret laws the way he wants, it's his job to follow the law and let the other systems work it out. goodness fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jan 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
goodness posted:I am not talking about the bias in court at all though. You know that it if you don't commit the crimes, then you won't be in front of a judge being hosed? If the laws were enforced on the entire population like they are on black males then you'd have a huge proportion of the population sitting in prison and an even larger one unable to vote. Even with our current system which fucks minorities and is "easy" on whites, we still have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world. Does that possibly suggest there is an issue or is it all DURR DON'T BREAK THE LAW  ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If the laws were enforced on the entire population like they are on black males then you'd have a huge proportion of the population sitting in prison and an even larger one unable to vote. Even with our current system which fucks minorities and is "easy" on whites, we still have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world. Does that possibly suggest there is an issue or is it all DURR DON'T BREAK THE LAW Sure I never said the courts weren't biased. I know they gently caress the black male population, I know they treat them unfairly. I am not talking about the court bias though, so why keep bringing that up? My point has nothing to do with that. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
goodness posted:"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" I'm not sure if you're so high that you forgot where you're posting, but you just posted this statement in the weed legalization thread. The entire loving argument of this thread is that weed shouldn't be a crime. Quit while you're behind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 23:41
|
|