Sub Jailed-ness

[Cleon]

Apples and oranges. Drug laws are on the books for good reasons...you may reject those reasons, but that doesn't make them bad.

I disagree that they're "good reasons." In fact, I've never heard any good justification for keeping weed outlawed beyond "it's bad for you." (Which doesn't hold up since you can get alcohol and tobacco, both far more harmful, rather easily.)

All the laws you mentioned were overturned by the correct application of our democracy. If you are right then the NJ laws will go the same route.

...Eventually. It took slavery a century, Jim Crow another century. People even as recently as WWII (and arguably Vietnam) were thrown in jail for criticizing the government, and the courts said it was ok.

I don't have faith in invisible hands; just because a law *should* be overturned, that doesn't mean it necessarily *will*.

I'm not holding my breath. Anti drug laws will never = Jim Crow or the Alien and Sedition act. They're not in the same league.
-z

Depends on what league you're talking about. No, banning weed doesn't have the same effect as banning speech, but they both criminalize something that shouldn't be criminalized.

 

[Tony]

Exactly!

No, not exactly. TMY's post is big false anology.

We have a fine system of representative government that produced this law for the protection of the public.

Evidence?

 

[toddjh]

Apples and oranges. Drug laws are on the books for good reasons...you may reject those reasons, but that doesn't make them bad.

There are two main issues here. First is the issue of whether drugs like marijuana ought to be illegal. I vote no; you would probably vote yes. It's a question of how much liberty to engage in self-destructive behavior we should have, and there is legitimate debate on that subject.

But the second issue is one of consistency. It makes no sense for marijuana to be illegal while tobacco and alcohol (the latter of which is not only worse for you physically, but much more destructive mentally) are freely available at any convenience store. There may be some merit in trying to ban harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin, but marijuana is less harmful than other drugs which are perfectly legal. Marijuana is outlawed for political reasons, which is not something we, as a society, should support.

Edited to add: There is, of course a third major issue: do these laws work? Does the "war on drugs" amount to anything more than very expensive subsidies for drug growers and black market fixers? But that's a practical question, and we seem to be concerned mainly with theory here.

I can understand the position of wanting to restrict access to drugs such as marijuana. I think it's not a good decision, but I can see the point of it. What I can't understand is thinking those laws are good without also pushing for prohibition of tobacco and alcohol.

Jeremy

 

[Tmy]

Theres a distintion wh alcohol. The point of smoking pot is specfically alter your state of thinking to a point were you become impared. While impared, all sorts of bad things can happen.

Alcohol is a beverage and can be/should be enjoyed as such. You can drink it without becoming impared. Many people igonore this and drink to access. Thats why we have public drunkeness laws.

Plus we triedto outlaw the stuff and it really didnt work.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Plus we triedto outlaw the stuff and it really didnt work.

Nowhere near as well as the War on Drugs works, anyway.

 

[Tony]

Apples and oranges. Drug laws are on the books for good reasons...

Yeah, the "good" reasons like expelling all the Mexicans out of Cali, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona.

 

[Tmy]

antiDrug laws do have a noble motive. Befre we had them there were all sorts of issues with intoxication and adiction. THat brought about the bans. I think thats somthing most people can agree. Even if you want to legalize pot, most people still draw the line at harder drugs. Does anyone want coke freely avaiable??

We do draw lines. The fact that a drug line is not whetr you like it is hardly a huge injustice requiring civil disobedience.

 

[Tony]

antiDrug laws do have a noble motive. Befre we had them there were all sorts of issues with intoxication and adiction. THat brought about the bans.

Say what? There are issues with intoxication and addiction AFTER the bans.

Does anyone want coke freely avaiable??

I don't want it "freely available", but I also don't want people doing prison sentences for being caught with it. It should be treated more like a health issue than a criminal issue.

 

[toddjh]

Theres a distintion wh alcohol. The point of smoking pot is specfically alter your state of thinking to a point were you become impared. While impared, all sorts of bad things can happen.

Have you ever had pot? Pretty mild high. I didn't really notice much of anything, other than general goofiness. Equivalent to a couple beers, at least in my case.

Thats why we have public drunkeness laws.

Do we have private drunkenness laws?

Plus we triedto outlaw the stuff and it really didnt work.

The "war on drugs" isn't working, either. After hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of citizens in jail, drugs are much cheaper and more easily available than they were 20 years ago.

Jeremy

 

[Tony]

The "war on drugs" isn't working, either. After hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of citizens in jail, drugs are much cheaper and easily available than they were 20 years ago.

Indeed. When I was 14 I was able to get weed and coke much easier than alcohol or tobacco. Getting weed or coke only required you to call someone. Getting beer or cigs required you to either know someone who was of age, know of a place that sold to underage people, or play "Mister Mister".

If anything, the black market that exists as a result of drugs being illegal makes them EASIER to get.

 

[Carvaka]

Theres a distintion wh alcohol. The point of smoking pot is specfically alter your state of thinking to a point were you become impared. While impared, all sorts of bad things can happen.

Alcohol is a beverage and can be/should be enjoyed as such. You can drink it without becoming impared. Many people igonore this and drink to access. Thats why we have public drunkeness laws.

Plus we triedto outlaw the stuff and it really didnt work.

I don't know if you've noticed, but non-alcoholic beer hasn't done too well...
Most alcoholic beverages are an acquired taste, in my opinion, and the effects of the alcohol seem to have more to do with why people keep drinking than the taste. I find the "alcohol is a beverage" argument very weak.
At the same time, I also disagree with the notion that the point of smoking pot is to alter your thinking to the point of impairment. You can smoke a very small amount and feel relaxed and experience pain-relief without getting blitzed.
Prohibition of pot, to me at least, doesn't make anymore sense than the prohibition of alcohol.

 

[varwoche]

I think the principle behind the law (which is "Drugs are bad, mmmkay. Don't do drugs.") is silly. And wording laws vaguely enough that the fabled "rusty old rifle" is being treated, in connection with the pot charges, like the guy was toting San Andreas style hardware is ridiculous.

However, even silly laws have correct ways to be changed. You can't just decide "Oh, this is a stupid law, I'm justified in breaking it." Well, you can, but don't expect good to come of it. There are other laws that I find silly and contemptible, but other people might not agree. When I break them, I will not be surprised at the consequences.

I don't see a substantial difference between your position and Cleon's. Cleon doesn't like the law, and application thereof. I didn't hear him suggest an appeal on legal grounds, nor a free-sub rally, nor a jailbreak.

 

[Frank Newgent]

We are only privy to a few facts. Unlike the jury that tried him. They were presented with detailed evidence and testimony.

A letter from a juror on a certain case to the Governor of Michigan:

Dear Governor Granholm:

I first ask for your patience being that this is not typed out.

I have felt for many months that a great injustice is being done concerning Daniel O'Leary, a man who really should not be going to prison. My name is *, jury member number *. Please hear me out - first I have never written like this to anyone in my sixty-one years, but if there is a chance for a pardon for that man, I very much reach out for it.

Yes, he is a frail man; yes, he was growing pot , supposedly for his own health. For that he is guilty, and I'm not feeling sorry for him up to that point, but it's the old rusty gun that we all looked at, and myself (used to being around guns all my life - parents and grandparents deer hunters, etc) I inspected the gun, inside the barrel also. it needed a cleaning so bad that the comment was made that if it was fired like that it could blow up. It's a '22 single shot, without any bullets at all found in the house.

I said to the others that the gun should be thrown out of the case; about half of the other jury members agreed right away, but the jury foreman said we had to go by the guidelines concerning any firearm found within so many feet of a felony situation, so for hours on and off we kept going around and around concerning the gun. Two times another juror spoke up and said I believe we are all in agreement that the gun should be thrown out and almost everyone nodded their heads yes, but a few kept bringing up about the guidelines so one by one they were swayed over only because of the guidelines.

As time went on it came down to me, because there was so much talk about having to come back next Monday being at the time Friday afternoon. I said I was not going to budge, that it just was not right.

The jury foreman who was using his cell phone several times came up and spoke quietly to me, said that he was some kind of an inspector on a line and his company was losing $11,000.00 either an hour or a day - I forget which, and that he was in no way going to be coming back next week, he then took the paper with the guidelines and held it about six inches from my nose with the others looking on.

From about 2:30 on that Friday afternoon I reallly got it. Everyone just wanted to do their thing and get their lives back (as they put it). One lady scoldingly said why are you doing this to us? Another offered to take me out to dinner. I said it's just not right and I wrote a note (two) times to be given to the bayliff to give to the judge, that we were hopelessly deadlocked, both times the jury foreman intercepted my note and said "no", you are not going to have us back here next week.

There waqs a lady over in the corner who was getting sick and I was asked why are you making her sick? Again, the jury foreman loudly and scoldingly put the guidelines in my face again. I said "no" it's just not right and others here know it too.

About six others very nicely kept talking to me to come over to their side so we could all go home, then more talk about having to come back next week.

At about 4:10 I said all right - How sad I agreed to let them win me over, because when we were called back into the courtroom (at 4:30) and I slowly and frowningly said yes in agreement with the others for the verdict, that later the question about the gun was brought up to the judge. She said she was not going to bring us back next week and if we were not in agreement she was going to throw the gun out.

If I would only have lasted twenty more minutes. Thank you, ma'am.

**

Only want to encourage folks to write a letter to a guy who could use and damned well deserves a little support. Knowing Dan a little I could be biased, but around here that's called principle.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Ive been told: Dan has a neurological disease (I forget the name). He needs to takes medication. He has been provided an inadequate supply by the prison.

http://www.healthboards.com/boards/archive/index.php/t-88357.html

 

[Jocko]

If anything, the black market that exists as a result of drugs being illegal makes them EASIER to get.

So why the indignation? Prefer to hand over taxes to feed your vices? Seems unlike you, Tony.

 

[rikzilla]

Well, I also am concerned about some states having mandatory minimums and/or draconian penalties for simple possession of MJ. But that's not really what we're talking about here. Michigan seems to me to have very sane penalties re; MJ...in other words, even the felony level grow operation would not have necessarily sent Dan to prison. It was the unlucky juxtaposition of the rifle in the closet that sent him up. But again, the law is NOT wrong here, it's the APPLICATION of it that is essentially wrong. As the juror said, the condition of the firearm, lack of ammo, and benign role of the weapon in context of the crime should have been taken into consideration. The law itself is perfectly sane; even a rusty unloaded weapon can carry alot of threat during a violent felony....the problem is that this jury did not distinguish between a violent/non-violent felony. They should have.

As for the repeal of anti-MJ laws...sorry, but as a former daily user I can see a huge difference between the late 70's and now. I have a 17 year old daughter that is a product of our reformed culture. She had DARE classes in school, as did her peers. The result being that pot smoking (and smoking teens in general) are NOT COOL! The drug laws had their role in reforming the culture as did the anti-drug training, etc, etc.... Had I grown up in this culture I doubt I'd have been involved in drugs at all. Back in the 70's every comedy record had drug humor...Cheech and Chong made an entire movie career of it...even such clean comedians as Steve Martin winked at it, remember "Let's get small"? Also the rock-n-roll, you couldn't dance to most of it...it was made to get high to, and we did.

Man I can tell ya, I thought that stuff was funny...and I loved getting high,...but I also lost quite a few friends to drugs. I'm glad my daughter is far less likely to use drugs than I was.

The removal of legal roadblocks to MJ would likely be seen as tacit approval of it's use...such a thing would set the reformation of American drug-culture back ten years right away. Us parents, even us ex-druggie parents, don't want that to happen...and we vote.

I think there are many legal avenues still open to Dan. His case is full of circumstances that should be seen as mitigating. Hopefully he'll be out early.

-z

 

[toddjh]

Man I can tell ya, I thought that stuff was funny...and I loved getting high,...but I also lost quite a few friends to drugs.

How many did you lose to marijuana?

I'd really like to see an answer from the anti-legalization side about the point that's been raised here many times: are you similarly in favor of making alcohol and tobacco illegal? I'm willing to bet a large percentage of the population has lost friends and family members to smoking or drinking.

Also, I'd like to point out that decriminalization would not necessarily mean changing the anti-drug programs in schools. The program in my school preached against tobacco and alcohol just as much as against illegal drugs. It could remain the same even if pot were for sale at the corner store.

Jeremy

 

[rikzilla]

How many did you lose to marijuana?

3 directly. One to a motorcycle accident while high. One who fell from a third floor window hitting his head on the bumper of a duece-and-a-half that was parked under it. (He had been smoking hashish...which is really just the euro version of MJ). One other who ran in front of a U-Bahn...hash again.

I'd really like to see an answer from the anti-legalization side about the point that's been raised here many times: are you similarly in favor of making alcohol and tobacco illegal? I'm willing to bet a large percentage of the population has lost friends and family members to smoking or drinking.

Well, that's a good point. It's a cultural issue. First you may as well throw out cigarette smoking. Tobacco wouldn't get a fly high. It's destructive to your health, but then again so are Big Macs.

Culturally we seem to need something that resembles a recreational drug. We have alcohol. The list of recreational drugs however does not need to be expanded. The line has been drawn. Don't like it? Work with the system and change it. Join NORML,..do your part,...maybe you'll succeed. I have no real reason to favor alcohol over MJ other than it's ability to provide a zillion different tastes, while reefer is...well... just reefer.

Also, I'd like to point out that decriminalization would not necessarily mean changing the anti-drug programs in schools. The program in my school preached against tobacco and alcohol just as much as against illegal drugs. It could remain the same even if pot were for sale at the corner store.

Jeremy

Sure Jeremy, but at the same time the states were raising taxes on these vices while also making it harder for minors to obtain them. Now, revisualise your training with a larger backdrop of the states relaxing the laws.... I would see a problem of mixed messages...and an anti-drug program being undermined by the very government that's funding it. No. That's just not smart. I can tell you in no uncertain terms, things are better now than they were back then. It was fun, don't get me wrong....I enjoyed myself....but there was quite a price. It's just not worth it.

-z

 

[toddjh]

3 directly. One to a motorcycle accident while high. One who fell from a third floor window hitting his head on the bumper of a duece-and-a-half that was parked under it. (He had been smoking hashish...which is really just the euro version of MJ). One other who ran in front of a U-Bahn...hash again.

Sounds to me that they died because they were irresponsible, not because of the drugs. If you're arguing that the drugs are what made them careless, then, again, you could make a more persuasive case for banning alcohol by pointing to the much more serious problem of drunk driving.

Well, that's a good point. It's a cultural issue. First you may as well throw out cigarette smoking. Tobacco wouldn't get a fly high. It's destructive to your health, but then again so are Big Macs.

So you're admitting there's some culturally redeeming value in getting high? It's a legitimate reason to indulge in a potentially harmful activity? That's a refreshing change. So many people seem to be of the opinion that doing something because it feels good is intrinsically wrong. Of course, like you say, they never seem to apply that logic to food.

I agree about smoking. I've never even touched tobacco, but a lot of my relatives smoke, and it seems to be the source of nothing but pain for any of them. No other drug has caused so many problems while providing so little enjoyment. If we should be banning one substance in particular, tobacco is it.

Culturally we seem to need something that resembles a recreational drug.

I agree. I can't think of a single culture that hasn't collectively indulged in that kind of thing.

We have alcohol. The list of recreational drugs however does not need to be expanded. The line has been drawn.

Here's where we disagree. You seem to be operating from the assumption that having twice as many recreational drugs available will result in correspondingly higher drug use. I don't see it that way. I think each person has a "high threshold" -- they'll indulge in substance use to reach it, but won't go any higher.

You might argue, for example, that if pot were legal, people would drink and smoke at the same time for that extra high. I'd respond by saying that, if their "high threshold" is that large, they'd simply drink more to attain it in the absence of pot. Completely different types of euphoria, of course, but I think the point stands.

Don't like it? Work with the system and change it. Join NORML,..do your part,...maybe you'll succeed. I have no real reason to favor alcohol over MJ other than it's ability to provide a zillion different tastes, while reefer is...well... just reefer.

It tastes like ass, doesn't it?? I'm not arguing this for myself. Pot is nasty, and it doesn't even really do much for me. I just don't like the idea of hundreds of thousands of people behind bars for using a substance that is no worse than several that you can get at the grocery store. It seems hypocritical and politically motivated. I don't like that.

Sure Jeremy, but at the same time the states were raising taxes on these vices while also making it harder for minors to obtain them.

But it's been established (at least to my satisfaction) that decriminalizing marijuana and taxing the hell out of it would make it harder for minors to obtain it, too. I don't think kids of an impressionable age think as much about the message sent by relaxing anti-drug laws. They're more likely to think about how easy it is to get them at parties, and who else is doing it.

Now, revisualise your training with a larger backdrop of the states relaxing the laws.... I would see a problem of mixed messages...and an anti-drug program being undermined by the very government that's funding it.

Even if you're right, that's a short-term problem, affecting only a single generation of schoolchildren. Two or three years later, it would be gone. I don't think that's a compelling reason to avoid it.

No. That's just not smart. I can tell you in no uncertain terms, things are better now than they were back then. It was fun, don't get me wrong....I enjoyed myself....but there was quite a price. It's just not worth it.

You figured that out on your own, and so did I. You don't think they would, too, especially with more help than you had? I think you're making the error of trying to get kids to learn from your mistakes. In my experience, that just doesn't work.

Jeremy

 

[rikzilla]

Sounds to me that they died because they were irresponsible, not because of the drugs. If you're arguing that the drugs are what made them careless, then, again, you could make a more persuasive case for banning alcohol by pointing to the much more serious problem of drunk driving.

True, but this is the effect. You asked the question. Perhaps you were looking for a case of MJ caused cancer? Somehow I doubt it'd look any different from cigarette caused cancer. I'm sure it happens, just harder to prove and quantify than cigarette caused cancer.

And yes, much the same could be said about alcohol...but again it's part of our culture. That's why prohibition didn't work. Somehow I don't see any up-side to adding to the list of approved drugs. What we have now is bad enough.

So you're admitting there's some culturally redeeming value in getting high? It's a legitimate reason to indulge in a potentially harmful activity? That's a refreshing change. So many people seem to be of the opinion that doing something because it feels good is intrinsically wrong. Of course, like you say, they never seem to apply that logic to food.

Sure,...after a long commute it's nice to relax with a beer or if I'm feeling luxurious, a single-malt scotch. Mmmmm! People do need to unwind ya know.

I agree about smoking. I've never even touched tobacco, but a lot of my relatives smoke, and it seems to be the source of nothing but pain for any of them. No other drug has caused so many problems while providing so little enjoyment. If we should be banning one substance in particular, tobacco is it.

Well I smoked a pack a day in high school and my first 3 years in the Army. Luckily for me I found it fairly easy to quit. I'd likely have never taken up the habit had it not been so damned cooool at the time! Thankfully it no longer is. My youngest daughter even says it should be illegal! So just maybe the culture is moving more towards further restrictions in the future, not less??

I agree. I can't think of a single culture that hasn't collectively indulged in that kind of thing.

Yup...'tis true. Human cultures seem to be historically more geared towards doing things that enhance their collective experience, and identity...rather than worry about their health and longevity. That last thingy is a modern concern. Back in the old days people weren't real concerned about dropping dead @ 40...it was just something that happened sometimes.

Here's where we disagree. You seem to be operating from the assumption that having twice as many recreational drugs available will result in correspondingly higher drug use. I don't see it that way. I think each person has a "high threshold" -- they'll indulge in substance use to reach it, but won't go any higher.

Well, I think what I'm saying is that when a culture shows approval of an activity we tend to get more of it. That was certainly true in the 70's. Of course MJ wasn't legal then either, but the culture showed alot of approval in other ways. There seem to be alot more kids nowadays that reject illegal drugs than there were back then.

You might argue, for example, that if pot were legal, people would drink and smoke at the same time for that extra high. I'd respond by saying that, if their "high threshold" is that large, they'd simply drink more to attain it in the absence of pot. Completely different types of euphoria, of course, but I think the point stands.

But I didn't argue that. What I would argue is that pot currently has a stigma; "illegal drug". Remove that stigma and you will get more kids using it. Once they do that it's alot easier to justify experimenting with other "illegal drugs". Now I'm not saying they will do that,...just that it would certainly be easier to justify...which I think is the argument most people are thinking of when they say pot is a "gateway drug". I don't know about that,..but it sounds reasonable. I'd be agreeable to have small quantaties of MJ decriminalized....quietly....but I think most states have indeed been doing that. Again, Dan wouldn't have gone to prison for the felony grow operation...the unfortunate juxtaposition of the "rusty gun" is what screwed him.

It tastes like ass, doesn't it?? I'm not arguing this for myself. Pot is nasty, and it doesn't even really do much for me. I just don't like the idea of hundreds of thousands of people behind bars for using a substance that is no worse than several that you can get at the grocery store. It seems hypocritical and politically motivated. I don't like that.

No, I do think we agree here also. Alot of people ARE needlesly behind bars...such as our friend Dan. But a smarter, less formulaic way of interpreting the existing law (had it been allowed) would have had Dan facing a much shorter jail term....at least. Maybe none at all.

But it's been established (at least to my satisfaction) that decriminalizing marijuana and taxing the hell out of it would make it harder for minors to obtain it, too. I don't think kids of an impressionable age think as much about the message sent by relaxing anti-drug laws. They're more likely to think about how easy it is to get them at parties, and who else is doing it.

Decriminalizing is not the same as legalising. But I get what you mean. It's possible you're right...but again, we have our legal cultural high right now. Expanding recreational substances is not really the answer to anything.

You figured that out on your own, and so did I. You don't think they would, too, especially with more help than you had? I think you're making the error of trying to get kids to learn from your mistakes. In my experience, that just doesn't work.

Jeremy

Yeah but I'm 45 years old! I've figured alot out "on my own". Yup, just me...and 27 years of adult experience. Much of it dangerous. I was lucky. No wait....I was
L-U-C-K-Y!!!

There,...that's about right....

-z