USA is number one in something, and it ain't freedom.

[Dan Druff]

Only a tiny percentage of those in prison didn't knowingly break the law.

Most of those complaining about the US incarceration rate are doing so from a societal standpoint, as if somehow society is supposed to stop the individual from deciding to commit crimes.

Furthermore, very few in prison are there because they were committing crimes in order to acquire basic necessities. For every guy in prison who was just trying to feed his starving family, there are 1000 who just wanted to get rich the easy way.

The privatized prison system needs reform (though not for the tinfoil hat reasons that judges are supposedly sentencing people in exchange for bribes), but I don't see what we're supposed to do about the incarceration rate.

Ignore crimes and just let people off? That's already happening too much as it is.

Release nonviolent recreational drug users? Okay, but they only make up a tiny percentage of those in prison.

Shorter sentences? I don't think that's a good idea, given that most criminals serve a short percentage of their sentence these days as it is.

Law and Order republicans love putting people of color in jail. It makes them feel safer, but ask those same republicans to pay for it, they are nowhere to be found. Do you want to pay more California state taxes for more prisons Druff? I know I don't.

False. That's a dumb left-wing talking point to make it look like their weak position on crime-and-punishment is based in fighting racism.

Law and Order Republicans (myself included) do not give a shit about the racial makeup in prisons. We just want those committing crimes incarcerated, and those not committing crimes to be free.

I would have the exact same views on this if white people were the ones with disproportionate numbers in prison.

How many Law and Order Republicans have you seen defend a white criminal just because of his race? None. We want the white trash loser criminals locked up for just as long as the black trash loser criminals.

Do I want to pay for it? Sure, and that's where reform of the privatized prison system comes in (again, something most Law and Order Republcans SUPPORT).

The goal of a criminal justice system is not to save money. I hate the line of, "It cost XXXXX dollars to prosecute this crime". Yeah, it did. But that's a better option for society than letting criminals walk free.

BTW, if you want to talk about crime and increased costs for society, violent crime is going up rapidly over the past few years, in part because the strong community policing model, developed amidst a horrible crime problem in the early 90s, is now eroding. This is because of the left's recent vilification of police to where they can no longer feel comfortable doing their jobs.

For example, the number of murders in the first 5 months of 2016 in Las Vegas were DOUBLE the same time period in 2015, and we are seeing trends like this all over the country.

This was after a 23-year period of declining violent crime.

I realize this is a different topic, but that's the real crime issue we should be worried about, not the number of drug dealers in prison.

[Dan Druff]

Great job putting words in my mouth about something totally unrelated.

Sodomy laws were religion-based. I have never once come out here to defend religious-based laws.

All drugs have a consequence upon society, but hard drugs are especially bad. We can't simply say, "Legalize all drugs for all adults and let them make their own decisions", because then it falls in society's lap to take care of these people when they become addicts.

There is also an incorrect left-wing belief that decriminalizing drugs would end the mass incarceration problem.

Wrong.

Again, most of the people in prison for drug offenses are there because they were dealing. These people were dealing as a way to make quick money that wouldn't be available to them legally. If you take away the drug avenue for making money, they will simply resort to other illegal methods to obtain money, such as robbery, burglary, auto theft, extortion, and scamming. It is a left-wing fantasy that today's drug dealers will morph into productive members of society if drugs are legalized.

And yes, Larry, I have worked for minimum wage before. It sucked and was rather eye-opening regarding what low-paid workers go through. However, there is also plenty of opportunity for advancement in the US for those that really want it. Nobody is stuck at minimum wage forever. In fact, there are plenty of people from this forum with no college education and working-class parents (or worse) who carved out a nice career and living for themselves.

You cannot simply say, "Minimum wage jobs suck, so we should automatically forgive and exonerate anyone who resorts to illegal activities to make quick money."

Again, that simply punishes those who follow the law and work had at the jobs they have.

Complete decriminalization of drugs in this country would simply lead to a much worse addiction problem than we already have.

Look at the growing addiction to prescription pain medication. This has grown sharply in the past decade due to one factor: Availability. Due to their legal status, these pills are easy to obtain, whether by shady doctors who prescribe them like candy or buying them from someone who obtained them from said doctors.

The same people clamoring for complete legalization of drugs will be the ones demanding that society absorb the new increased addiction problem. If we don't spend loads of money treating these addicts, supporting them on disability when they can't work, and forgiving them for crimes they committed while high, those same people will accuse us of being cold and callous. It's a vicious cycle.

This is not a matter of "freedom", because those who abuse this freedom will look to society to cure them.

Druff, I agree that the prescription drug abuse levels are now off the hook. But there is a relatively easy fix to reduce the availability of such drugs: Make the manufacturers bear some liability risk for treating people who abuse their drugs. Because right now, there is absolutely zero cost to Big Pharma for all of the misuse of those drugs that their super-profitable-to-big-pharma-availability fosters.

#WheresTheAccountability?

I don't understand what accountability Big Pharma is supposed to have.

They aren't the ones distributing the drugs irresponsibly.

The crackdown should be against the scumbag doctors who overprescribe for an easy buck.

[Gordman]

Mumbles is like that guy at a dinner gathering who everyone wonders why he was invited...and at the same time keeps joining little groups while people are sipping their wine/ nibbling on shrimp and trying to converse, and talking and rambling until 3/4 of the people begin to slam the remainder of their drink and rapidly make their way to the door....

[MumblesBadly]

Druff, I agree that the prescription drug abuse levels are now off the hook. But there is a relatively easy fix to reduce the availability of such drugs: Make the manufacturers bear some liability risk for treating people who abuse their drugs. Because right now, there is absolutely zero cost to Big Pharma for all of the misuse of those drugs that their super-profitable-to-big-pharma-availability fosters.

#WheresTheAccountability?

I don't understand what accountability Big Pharma is supposed to have.

They aren't the ones distributing the drugs irresponsibly.

The crackdown should be against the scumbag doctors who overprescribe for an easy buck.

Wow! I guess you don't know much about how Big Pharma promotes drugs to doctors using incentives.

Also, if the government were serious about reducing the number of "scumbag doctors who overperscribe", it would make the pharma companies accountable for paying for treatment programs for addicts, which would motivate them to work with pharmacies to police how much doctors are perscribing them.

[Gordman]

Mumbles is like that guy at a dinner gathering who everyone wonders why he was invited...and at the same time keeps joining little groups while people are sipping their wine/ nibbling on shrimp and trying to converse, and talking and rambling until 3/4 of the people begin to slam the remainder of their drink and rapidly make their way to the door....

[gimmick]

Great job putting words in my mouth about something totally unrelated.

Sodomy laws were religion-based. I have never once come out here to defend religious-based laws.

All drugs have a consequence upon society, but hard drugs are especially bad. We can't simply say, "Legalize all drugs for all adults and let them make their own decisions", because then it falls in society's lap to take care of these people when they become addicts.

There is also an incorrect left-wing belief that decriminalizing drugs would end the mass incarceration problem.

Wrong.

Again, most of the people in prison for drug offenses are there because they were dealing. These people were dealing as a way to make quick money that wouldn't be available to them legally. If you take away the drug avenue for making money, they will simply resort to other illegal methods to obtain money, such as robbery, burglary, auto theft, extortion, and scamming. It is a left-wing fantasy that today's drug dealers will morph into productive members of society if drugs are legalized.

Complete decriminalization of drugs in this country would simply lead to a much worse addiction problem than we already have.

Look at the growing addiction to prescription pain medication. This has grown sharply in the past decade due to one factor: Availability. Due to their legal status, these pills are easy to obtain, whether by shady doctors who prescribe them like candy or buying them from someone who obtained them from said doctors.

The same people clamoring for complete legalization of drugs will be the ones demanding that society absorb the new increased addiction problem. If we don't spend loads of money treating these addicts, supporting them on disability when they can't work, and forgiving them for crimes they committed while high, those same people will accuse us of being cold and callous. It's a vicious cycle.

This is not a matter of "freedom", because those who abuse this freedom will look to society to cure them.

Sodomy laws and war on drugs are both laws based morality. There is no tangible damage that either one causes. One has it's basis on religion and the other in western culture. Both are born out of a desire to tell others what they can and can't do at the privacy of their of homes.

Regarding hard drugs what you're essentially saying is that drugs are bad mmmkay and you can tell this by all the horror stories of drug abuse from the last 45 years when drugs have been illegal. I don't quite understand how that is in anyway an argument favoring prohibition of drugs ? Like i understand how you can use the argument that drugs are bad mmmkay in 1971, but when the horror stories haven't stopped in 45 years it just doesn't make any sense.

Then we can move on to the evil addicts that fall on the society's lap for treatment and shit. What the fuck do you think happens now? Are you somehow under the assumption that with the current legislation they don't fall on society's lap? That's kinda the only way how your argument isn't completely retarded.

And then we can move on to mass incarceration. Let's just assume for simplicity's sake that it's merely a coincidence that the start of war on drugs sparked an 800% increase in prisoners in the span of 40 years. This way we can get faster to your arguments about the issue. You started with a sentence that had the word "incorrect" in it. That's almost an argument. Then you followed it with the lone word "wrong". It had the capital W and a strong decisive period at the end. Sadly it's even less of an argument.

Your only actual argument was that people in the drug trade would resort to other illegal endeavors. I assume that's because you think that people in the system for drug offenses are hardened versatile criminals that made a lot money for their part in the trade. That hasn't been true for a long time. The large majority people in the system are street level peons that for all intents and purposes worked in the service industry. "Robbery, burglary, auto theft, extortion, and scamming" are already all much better paying fields of crime and well above the average skill set possessed by your typical black market fast food worker.

And then we move back to addiction. Large majority of all studies about addiction say the same thing. Prohibition increases the amount of people that have a problem with addiction and it makes their issue worse. Go figure that losing your job and/or having more limited options regarding employment, getting incarcerated and then having even more limited options regarding employment, sprinkling of a social stigma, spending excessive amounts of time with unsavory characters while getting your drugs that are rarely that pure and sometimes not quite what the label said, really doesn't help addicts.

But for arguments sake lets assume that addiction skyrockets after you end the war on drugs. You can just pay for it by taxing a 100 billion dollar industry that's not currently properly taxed. If that's not enough through a few coins from the billions you save when you suddenly have quite a few less people to run through the system. If we go by Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports then in 2007 there were about 1,841,200 state and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States. Roughly 80% of all those arrest were for possession.

[gimmick]

And then to costs of "freedom" with fancy numbers and stuff.

From studies circa 2006-2007 from CDC, DOJ and the good ol Surgeon General.

When it comes to the costs of substance abuse Tobacco still leads the pack with estimated cost of 295 billion to USA. Alcohol is still a solid second with 224 billion. And on the third place we finally get the Illicit Drugs with 193 billion. The direct healthcare costs are in the same order $130bn, $25bn and $11bn.

Remember how worried we were about the healthcare costs of junkies? That massive burden to society. Well we can double it and we still can't catch the costs of drunks to society. And if we ever dream of catching Tobacco, the third doubling will only get us 2/3 of the way.

But back to the estimated costs of Illicit Drugs because clearly 11bn isn't 193bn. So where does the 182bn come from? Well it's a combination of loss of productivity and drug related crime. Loss of productivity as a result of incarceration was 48bn and another 4bn from drug-related homicides. I believe they are saying that you're not remarkably productive when you're either in prison or dead. Criminal justice system costs of drug-related crime were about 56bn.

Adding stuff related to crime regarding Illicit Drugs gives us the number of $108bn. This is the number that has the strongest correlation to war on drugs from the economical side. You only have to take 1/10 of it away to cover the direct healthcare costs of Illicit Drug use. Just stopping the 1,5 million yearly arrests for possession roughly represents that cost.

[Dan Druff]

Sodomy laws and war on drugs are both laws based morality. There is no tangible damage that either one causes. One has it's basis on religion and the other in western culture. Both are born out of a desire to tell others what they can and can't do at the privacy of their of homes.

You think drug abuse causes no tangible damage? Try talking to a family of a drug addict sometime. The fact that you're comparing it to sodomy (which causes no tangible damage except perhaps a prolapsed anus) shows how far you're reaching to vilify what you see as the "moral right". Try again. As I'm sure you know, I'm not a Christian, and I don't favor legislation related to morality or religious purity. Stop trying to group my arguments in with those whose points are easier to argue against.

Regarding hard drugs what you're essentially saying is that drugs are bad mmmkay and you can tell this by all the horror stories of drug abuse from the last 45 years when drugs have been illegal. I don't quite understand how that is in anyway an argument favoring prohibition of drugs ? Like i understand how you can use the argument that drugs are bad mmmkay in 1971, but when the horror stories haven't stopped in 45 years it just doesn't make any sense.

Then we can move on to the evil addicts that fall on the society's lap for treatment and shit. What the fuck do you think happens now? Are you somehow under the assumption that with the current legislation they don't fall on society's lap? That's kinda the only way how your argument isn't completely retarded.

I have no idea what you're rambling about here. Are you trying to say that the fact that the illegality of drugs hasn't stopped drug abuse, we should just give up and make it legal? When has anyone ever said that the illegality of drugs has completely eradicated the problem?

And yes, drug addicts of today do fall on society's lap. We will have many more of them if we legalize it. Again, this is why pill abuse is so rampant. It's much easier, less risky, and less stigmatized to abuse prescription pills. The same will happen if we legalize and tax all other drugs.

And then we can move on to mass incarceration. Let's just assume for simplicity's sake that it's merely a coincidence that the start of war on drugs sparked an 800% increase in prisoners in the span of 40 years. This way we can get faster to your arguments about the issue. You started with a sentence that had the word "incorrect" in it. That's almost an argument. Then you followed it with the lone word "wrong". It had the capital W and a strong decisive period at the end. Sadly it's even less of an argument.

Your only actual argument was that people in the drug trade would resort to other illegal endeavors. I assume that's because you think that people in the system for drug offenses are hardened versatile criminals that made a lot money for their part in the trade. That hasn't been true for a long time. The large majority people in the system are street level peons that for all intents and purposes worked in the service industry. "Robbery, burglary, auto theft, extortion, and scamming" are already all much better paying fields of crime and well above the average skill set possessed by your typical black market fast food worker.

Again, you are inserting words in my mouth that I didn't say, and are over-complicating a simple concept.

Those who work in the drug trade, whether the super-rich kingpins, the middlemen, or the street-level peons, are working in the trade because it's both easy and far better money than they could make otherwise. Again, they will resort to other means to make this money if taken out of the drug trade. These same people won't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well... back to McDonald's I go!", and return to flipping burgers for minimum wage.

Even if I accept your argument that legalizing all drugs would take a lot of these low-level dealers out of crime (and thus out of prison), the number of new addicts would be staggering, and the cost to society (both monetarily and otherwise) would not be worth it.

And then we move back to addiction. Large majority of all studies about addiction say the same thing. Prohibition increases the amount of people that have a problem with addiction and it makes their issue worse. Go figure that losing your job and/or having more limited options regarding employment, getting incarcerated and then having even more limited options regarding employment, sprinkling of a social stigma, spending excessive amounts of time with unsavory characters while getting your drugs that are rarely that pure and sometimes not quite what the label said, really doesn't help addicts.

A "large majority of studies" do not say this. Our current problem with prescription pain medication -- something that is LEGAL and is rapidly replacing the other drug problems of old -- proves this wrong. The prohibition of drugs may entice a small percentage of wannabe rebels to do it when they otherwise wouldn't have, but most people do drugs simply because they want to get high (or as a result of social pressures to get high), not because they are trying to give a fuck you to the law. Besides, drugs have been around since before we were born, and they aren't new and exciting. There is no thrill to doing prohibited drugs at this point, just for the sake of them being prohibited.

But for arguments sake lets assume that addiction skyrockets after you end the war on drugs. You can just pay for it by taxing a 100 billion dollar industry that's not currently properly taxed. If that's not enough through a few coins from the billions you save when you suddenly have quite a few less people to run through the system. If we go by Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports then in 2007 there were about 1,841,200 state and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States. Roughly 80% of all those arrest were for possession.

"You can just pay for it", you say.

Money doesn't solve everything.

Why do you think so many kids of super-rich celebrities are so fucked up, even after their drug problems are identified and attempted to be treated? All the money in the world can't help some of these addicts once they're too far gone.

That's what we're trying to avoid here by NOT legalizing hard drugs and basically giving the government's stamp of approval for anyone to start doing them whenever they feel down, stressed, or lonely.

Your final statement does focus upon one area where we probably agree, though. I do think the authorities should stop wasting their time arresting users, and only go after the dealers. I don't feel that drug addicts (or even just recreational users who aren't addicts) are committing any crime worth prosecuting, and treating it as such is just a waste of taxpayer dollars and the court's time.

Unfortunately, while my approach involves the continued fight against the dealers who make these dangerous and addictive substances available to vulnerable people, your approach seems to involve a simple shrug of the shoulders and a blind faith that we won't become a basket case country of fucked up addicts.

[NaturalBornHustler]

Yeah I am calling bullshit on a lot of this, sooo many things not adding up here.

If they are drug testing you on probation these days, you probably are a junkie which seems to fit the bill judging by your incoherent posts. For the most part PO's don't give a shit about weed anymore, so I call bullshit on that as well. Typically back in the day if you got caught doing ANY crime that involved drugs, you were labeled in addict, forced to do some bullshit program even if you had zero problem at all, or have never even tried a hard drug. But times have changed, the rubber stamping and bullshit programs have faded away for the most part, as the government doesn't want a bunch of weed smokers clogging the system as we WOKE THE FUCK UP as a country these last few years.

Since you are in Illinois, a fairly liberal non deep south state, it makes even less sense unless you live in some rural bumfuck county. In my local urban environment you can basically walk into the office right after smoking a blunt, and they could care the fuck less. They aint got time for it anymore, and would rather focus on the dope fiends and crack whores out there on their list.

[varys]

Druff opiates becoming a problem has just as much to do with the nature of that particular addiction as it does availability. Being "dopesick" is absolutely hell on earth and as far as i know only alcohol withdrawl can compare to it.

[Dan Druff]

Druff opiates becoming a problem has just as much to do with the nature of that particular addiction as it does availability. Being "dopesick" is absolutely hell on earth and as far as i know only alcohol withdrawl can compare to it.

A little off topic, but when I had my full month of constant dental pain in October 2015, I actually quit the Vicodin about 2 1/2 weeks in, fearing a possible addiction developing.

I didn't feel addicted, but I didn't want to even start down that awful road. I kept thinking about Rush Limbaugh and it scared me away from taking another pill during that month.

I'll take Vicodin again in the future, but not for longer than that period of time.

[adamantium]

Gimmick is EASILY the best poster since oh5

[Jayjami]

Law and Order republicans love putting people of color in jail. It makes them feel safer, but ask those same republicans to pay for it, they are nowhere to be found. Do you want to pay more California state taxes for more prisons Druff? I know I don't.

False. That's a dumb left-wing talking point to make it look like their weak position on crime-and-punishment is based in fighting racism.

Law and Order Republicans (myself included) do not give a shit about the racial makeup in prisons. We just want those committing crimes incarcerated, and those not committing crimes to be free.

I would have the exact same views on this if white people were the ones with disproportionate numbers in prison.

How many Law and Order Republicans have you seen defend a white criminal just because of his race? None. We want the white trash loser criminals locked up for just as long as the black trash loser criminals.

Do I want to pay for it? Sure, and that's where reform of the privatized prison system comes in (again, something most Law and Order Republcans SUPPORT).

The goal of a criminal justice system is not to save money. I hate the line of, "It cost XXXXX dollars to prosecute this crime". Yeah, it did. But that's a better option for society than letting criminals walk free.

BTW, if you want to talk about crime and increased costs for society, violent crime is going up rapidly over the past few years, in part because the strong community policing model, developed amidst a horrible crime problem in the early 90s, is now eroding. This is because of the left's recent vilification of police to where they can no longer feel comfortable doing their jobs.

For example, the number of murders in the first 5 months of 2016 in Las Vegas were DOUBLE the same time period in 2015, and we are seeing trends like this all over the country.

This was after a 23-year period of declining violent crime.

I realize this is a different topic, but that's the real crime issue we should be worried about, not the number of drug dealers in prison.

Mr. Law and Order. LOL. This from a guy who posted this:

Therefore, it is important to attempt to beat traffic tickets, regardless of whether you're actually guilty.

You might be surprised to read such a thing from the owner of a site dedicated to outing scams, scandals, and shady behavior. After all, if you're guilty of a traffic violation, isn't the right thing to pay the ticket and accept the consequences? Unfortunately, no.
http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...in-25-minutes)

[CrackPipes and Kakfights]

But drugs are bayad.

Case closed Edith

[DJ_Chaps]

Druff, I agree that the prescription drug abuse levels are now off the hook. But there is a relatively easy fix to reduce the availability of such drugs: Make the manufacturers bear some liability risk for treating people who abuse their drugs. Because right now, there is absolutely zero cost to Big Pharma for all of the misuse of those drugs that their super-profitable-to-big-pharma-availability fosters.

#WheresTheAccountability?

I don't understand what accountability Big Pharma is supposed to have.

They aren't the ones distributing the drugs irresponsibly.

The crackdown should be against the scumbag doctors who overprescribe for an easy buck.

Not sure if serious.

[LarryLaffer]

so ive been poasting from my phone this entire time. But now I've decided to get out the computer so I could actually type out a response to all of this:


almost 1300 views on this thread so far, i'm rather impressed. I'm glad I sparked a discussion.

Druff, you didn't answer the one question that I wanted you to answer:

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT MARIJUANA SHOULD BE A SCHEDULE ONE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE


[ ] yes

[ ] no


if you check YES, then I want to know if you truly believe marijuana (from hence forth it will be called by it's actual name, CANNABIS) to be just as addictive and dangerous as other schedule one drugs such as heroin? (cocaine is schedule 2 by the way)

if you check no, then maybe you do have a little but of sanity in you.

But my guess, and this is purely a guess, from the previous D.A.R.E. program type agenda you must be on in relation to the unjust war on the people (masquerading as the war on drugs) you prbably think that cannabis being a schedule 1 controlled substance is just fine.

You know what drug kills more people than any of the others combined?

TOBACCO. it kills more than a half a million people per year. How many people have died from cannabis? ZERO POINT ZERO.


In fact, cannabis actually can help cure things. a quick internet search on the benefits of cannabis oil and how it treats some forms of epilepsy in small children will show you that.

it also helps with cancer patients. the list goes on and on and on.

But I digress, as my point of this ENTIRE THREAD (which has almost 1300 views in one day, by far a personal record for me in any forum ive ever been apart of) is that we as the american people are being DUPED by 70+ years of the government throwing this anti cannabis shit down our throats. They threw it down our parents throats, and in turn, they threw it down ours. We are being lied to. We are being punished for something that has no affect on anyone else. So what if someone wants to light up a joint in their house. Why is that a crime? Well, judging from your responses here, it's a crime because the government says it's a crime, and we as citizens should do wahtever the government says, right? (execpt for those speeding tickets. OR PLAYING ILLEGAL ONLINE POKER LIKE YOU DO ALL DAY LONG ON BOVADA)


that's the real hypocrisy here Druff. The fact that you think things should be illegal, when for all intents and purposes you break the law EVERY FUCKING TIME YOU PLAY ONLINE POKER.


Lets equate this to online poker since that's what you have the biggest chubby for it seems. Since online poker is legal in a few states (as is cannabis) then why not move to one of those states to play legal online poker? Oh that's right, you don't do that, because there's still "quasi-legal" online poker being offered in all 50 states, just like there's weed available in all 50 states. So if the argument is "well, if you wanna smoke weed, move to colorado" then the argument could also be "well, if you wanna play legal online poker then move to nevada, or jersey, or delaware or go to canada"

but I don't see you doing that.



The root of this problem, and believe me, I'm not saying all drugs should be legal, I think hard drugs such as opiates and amphetamines should not be legal by any means is that we have an unjust SCHEDULE that these drugs are in. Like i said, according to the government, and their logic, cannabis is just as addicitive and damaging to society as heroin or methamphetamine (and that cocaine is less addictive)


So once that's changed, everything else changes with it. The crime rates go down, the prison population rates go down. Everything goes down.

But one thing will go down, and that's what everyones up in arms about (well, not everyone, just shit heel anti drug people who want the $$$$ from the private prison industry) is that REVENUE FROM PRISONS will go down.

that's right. No more slave labor. No more Whole Foods cheese being made for pennies on the pennies by someone who by all odds, is there for non violent drug crimes.

Oh about those violent drug crimes, they cease to happen when the drugs that are being sought after are now worthless on the black market as anyone can just go purchase them legally.

we don't see gangs and gang bangers out there committing murder over cigarettes, or alcohol do we.


The absurdity of the war on the people, which masquerades as the war on drugs (and is intertwined with the war on terror) is so high, that even people like the conservative judge up there that mumbles posted agrees that it's time to end this failed war.


Did we not learn anything from the prohibition of the 20's and 30's?


no we haven't have we.

[Salty_Aus]

Imagine if China had 9,000,000 people in prison, this is proportionally about the same amount of people in prison based on population. Or India had 9,000,000 people locked away. You'd never hear the end of it from the US government, they'd be screaming civil rights abuse at every opportunity.

Quite frankly this is a civil rights abuse, you incarcerate people at about ten times the rate which truly civilized countries do.
The private prison system, and the tens if not hundreds of millions being spent by lobbyists trying to profit from your laws is the main reason why... I really don't understand how you allow lobbyists in the first place, it's basically corruption.

I could carry on about your war mongering ways, your health system and drug companies, and even how an obviously dishonest person like Hillary Clinton will soon be POTUS.
But I'd probably be branded as someone who hates you guys, and I sincerely do not. But seriously, your once great country is morally bankrupt. *end rant*

[wrenchjockey]

Dodge, duck, dip, dive, dodge.

[LarryLaffer]

the full version

[LarryLaffer]

wrench jockey

since you're cumming in your pants already about all of this let me tell you something:

The law i broke, shouldn't be a fucking law. I had some pot. big fucking deal. you're acting like I murdered someone. All i did, was possess some pot. There need to be a victim for there to be a crime, and there are no victims here. VICTIM-LESS CRIME.

You ever hear of jury nullifaction? probably not. You hear about the judge who couldn't find 9 people to convict someone of a cannabis offense? yeah that actually did happen.

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/mon...cc4c002e0.html

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court this month.

Jurors -- well, potential jurors -- staged a revolt.

They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.

The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.

No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.

In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said Missoula County deputy attorney Andrew Paul.

District Judge Dusty Deschamps took a quick poll as to who might agree. Of the 27 potential jurors before him, perhaps five raised their hands. A couple of others had already been excused because of their philosophical objections.

“I thought, ‘Geez, I don’t know if we can seat a jury,’ ” said Deschamps, who called a recess.

And he didn’t.

During the recess, Paul and defense attorney Martin Elison worked out a plea agreement. That was on Dec. 16.

On Dec. 17, Cornell entered an Alford plea, in which he didn’t admit guilt. He briefly held his infant daughter in his manacled hands, then walked out of the courtroom, smiling.

“Public opinion, as revealed by the reaction of a substantial portion of the members of the jury called to try the charges … is not supportive of the state’s marijuana law and appeared to prevent any conviction from being obtained simply because an unbiased jury did not appear available under any circumstances,” the plea memorandum filed by his attorney said.

“A mutiny,” Paul said.

“Bizarre,” the defense attorney said.

In his nearly 30 years as a prosecutor and judge, Deschamps said, he has never seen anything like it.

we need more of that, and less of the shit you're pedaling pal.