**** Elections thread *****

[Keith]

getting back on topic , how come wuf isn't jumping all over this ?
https://conservativedailypost.com/pr...during-debate/

presence of the earpiece could let her strategists prompt her replies, and the guy at the start/end collecting her papers looks dodgy .

[OngBonga]

catching up with a couple of Ongs points , growing and selling weed is definitely worse than living off benefits cos its illegal. Also can't understand the conviction that if weed was made legal , that all would be rosy with the world. Sure there would be guaranteed quality and regulated product available for sale, but you'd also see the same illegality as with the tobacco trade with people buying knockoff imported tobacco where no tax has been paid , hence much cheaper but with less regulation to ensure the quality.
Any "entrepreneur" exploiting this market would be incentivised to cut in a bit of heroin/crack /whatever at a very low rate to ensure addiction and continued purchase of their product.

Keith I mean this sincerely, not to take the piss, but you really haven't got a clue.

I asked you which was more immoral. Is legality where you draw your morality line? Do you not have an opinion based on your own sense of morality, rather than an opinion based on the law?

Noone is going to lace weed with heroin/crack/whatever at very low rate because it's not economic. People don't get addicted to very low amount of heroin when it coats their weed. This concept is dumb to be honest keith. It's expensive, compromises the product, and changes the risk factor significantly. It's not happening.

You bring up a valid point about import tobacco, but it's not really a huge issue in the sense that most of the tobacco that is importaed is not knock-off, it's just cheaper because of different tax rates (it's still regulated), and the baccy that is fake generally doesn't sell very well because it's horrible. The VAST majority of tobacco sold in this country is taxed and regulated. Yes there's a black market, but it is utterly dwarfed by the legal market.

[OngBonga]

Regarding the big brother thing, yes we do sometimes need to prevent adults from doing stupid shit for their own good. Not everyone is a sensible person.

Ah.

This is where we have polar opposition in our opinions of the purpose of law.


People making their own mistakes is the essence of freedom. Any laws which inhibit a person from any activity which only directly affects the person in question is amoral, IMO. It is everyone's right to be a self-destructive tool.


EDIT: Is it even remotely viable to legally mandate sensibleness?!

I have to say I'm with mojo here. Like I've already pointed out, I can smoke grass, but not weed. How is the law preventing me from doing stupid shit here? I can snort washing powder but not cocaine. I can inject stangnant pond water but not heroin. I can eat this mushroom but not that mushroom.

I mean magic mushrooms being illegal, that's not protection. They're mushrooms, they're nutritious. Furthermore, some mushrooms are dangerous. It's not illegal to eat poisnonous mushrooms that could kill you, but it's illegal to eat the harmless ones that get you all fucked up.

The law isn't trying to prevent people doing stupid shit. Is there a law that says I can't drink fifteen pints of cider? Is there a law that says I can't eat maccies three times a day? Is there a law that says I must consume water?

[Poopadoop]

The purpose of the law is not to legislate in or out every conceivable behavior up to infinity. Just because the law gives people credit for not being complete window-licking morons doesn't mean it's irrational of unfair.

All of your examples of dangerous things that aren't illegal represent nothing more than behaviors that go completely contrary to common sense. These things shouldn't need laws. It's blatantly stupid to do some things and everyone with an IQ > 50 knows it. If someone theoretically could decide to poke their eyes out with a stick, does that mean we need a law to ban poking out your own eyes with a stick? I think not.

But if you're talking about things that the average person might do just because their notions of risk/reward are somewhat skewed, say driving a motorcycle without a helmet cause they like the feel of the wind in their hair, should my taxes go towards the years of rehab they will need cause they got serious brain damage from being in an accident while not wearing a helmet? Fuck that.

Should it be ok to say you don't need seat belts cause it impinges on your right not to be bothered about having to take the two seconds to do yours up when you get in a car? These laws are made because some percentage of otherwise reasonable people will say 'screw that i'm not wearing a seatbelt, I'm sticking it to the man!'. So we need a law to tell them to do that.

That's different than saying we need a law to stop someone from smoking their lawn or whatever other creative way they can think of to harm themselves for no conceivable gain. The law of natural selection already dealt with people like that millions of years ago.

[Savy]

There's a law against suicide.

Your argument is more you shouldn't pay for other peoples mistakes which I think a fair few people agree with. I'd also assume that insurance should cover a lot of the rehab costs. On top of all of that not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle probably results in more deaths than people who need long term care, wearing a helmet probably scoots more people into that category.

Your same argument also applies to lots of things that aren't illegal. Poor health choices such as smoking, being fat. Funnily enough though the huge chunk of your taxes you're so worried about goes into squeezing every last miserable year out of the elderly.

[Keith]

smoking/selling marijuana is clearly morally worse because living off benefits doesn't create the following health issues attributed to smoking marijuana.

How does marijuana affect the brain?

Marijuana has both short- and long-term effects on the brain.
THC acts on numerous areas (in yellow) in the brain.

Image by NIDA

Short-term effects

When a person smokes marijuana, THC quickly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream. The blood carries the chemical to the brain and other organs throughout the body. The body absorbs THC more slowly when the person eats or drinks it. In that case, the user generally feels the effects after 30 minutes to 1 hour.
THC acts on specific brain cell receptors that ordinarily react to natural THC-like chemicals in the brain. These natural chemicals play a role in normal brain development and function.
Marijuana overactivates parts of the brain that contain the highest number of these receptors. This causes the "high" that users feel. Other effects include:

• altered senses (for example, seeing brighter colors)
• altered sense of time
• changes in mood
• impaired body movement
• difficulty with thinking and problem-solving
• impaired memory

Long-term effects

Marijuana also affects brain development. When marijuana users begin using as teenagers, the drug may reduce thinking, memory, and learning functions and affect how the brain builds connections between the areas necessary for these functions.
Marijuana’s effects on these abilities may last a long time or even be permanent.
For example, a study showed that people who started smoking marijuana heavily in their teens and had an ongoing cannabis use disorder lost an average of eight IQ points between ages 13 and 38. The lost mental abilities did not fully return in those who quit marijuana as adults. Those who started smoking marijuana as adults did not show notable IQ declines.3
A Rise in Marijuana’s THC Levels

The amount of THC in marijuana has been increasing steadily over the past few decades.4 For a new user, this may mean exposure to higher THC levels with a greater chance of a harmful reaction. Higher THC levels may explain the rise in emergency room visits involving marijuana use.
The popularity of edibles also increases the chance of users having harmful reactions. Edibles take longer to digest and produce a high. Therefore, people may consume more to feel the effects faster, leading to dangerous results.
Dabbing is yet another growing trend. More people are using marijuana extracts that provide stronger doses, and therefore stronger effects, of THC (see "Marijuana Extracts").
Higher THC levels may mean a greater risk for addiction if users are regularly exposing themselves to high doses.

What are the other health effects of marijuana?

Marijuana use may have a wide range of effects, both physical and mental.
Physical effects

• Breathing problems.Marijuana smoke irritates the lungs, and frequent marijuana smokers can have the same breathing problems that tobacco smokers have. These problems include daily cough and phlegm, more frequent lung illness, and a higher risk of lung infections. Researchers still do not know whether marijuana smokers have a higher risk for lung cancer.
• Increased heart rate.Marijuana raises heart rate for up to 3 hours after smoking. This effect may increase the chance of heart attack. Older people and those with heart problems may be at higher risk
• Problems with child development during and after pregnancy.Marijuana use during pregnancy is linked to increased risk of both brain and behavioral problems in babies. If a pregnant woman uses marijuana, the drug may affect certain developing parts of the fetus’s brain. Resulting challenges for the child may include problems with attention, memory, and problem-solving. Additionally, some research suggests that moderate amounts of THC are excreted into the breast milk of nursing mothers. The effects on a baby’s developing brain are still unknown.

Photo by ©iStock/Adrian Hillman

Mental effects

Long-term marijuana use has been linked to mental illness in some users, such as:

• temporaryhallucinations—sensations and images that seem real though they are not
• temporary paranoia—extreme and unreasonable distrust of others
• worsening symptoms in patients with schizophrenia (a severe mental disorder with symptoms such as hallucinations, paranoia, and disorganized thinking)

Marijuana use has also been linked to other mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts among teens. However, study findings have been mixed.
How Does Marijuana Affect a User’s Life?

Compared to nonusers, heavy marijuana users more often report the following:

• lower life satisfaction
• poorer mental health
• poorer physical health
• more relationship problems

Users also report less academic and career success. For example, marijuana use is linked to a higher likelihood of dropping out of school.5 It is also linked to more job absences, accidents, and injuries.6
Is marijuana a gateway drug?

Some research suggests that marijuana use is likely to come before use of other drugs.7 Marijuana use is also linked to addiction to other substances, including nicotine. In addition, animal studies show that the THC in marijuana makes other drugs more pleasurable to the brain.8
Although these findings support the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug," the majority of people who use marijuana don't go on to use other "harder" drugs. Read more about marijuana as a gateway drug in the Marijuana Research Reportat www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/letter-director.
Is marijuana addictive?

Contrary to common belief, marijuana can be addictive. Research suggests that 30 percent of users may develop some degree of problem use, which can lead to dependence and in severe cases takes the form of addiction.9 People who begin using marijuana before age 18 are 4 to 7 times more like than adults to develop problem use.10 Dependence becomes addiction when the person can't stop using marijuana even though it interferes with his or her daily life.
How can people get treatment for marijuana addiction?

Long-term marijuana users trying to quit report withdrawal symptoms that make quitting difficult. These include:

• grouchiness
• sleeplessness
• decreased appetite
• anxiety
• cravings

Behavioral support has been effective in treating marijuana addiction. Examples include therapy and motivational incentives (providing rewards to patients who remain substance free). No medications are currently available to treat marijuana addiction. However, continuing research may lead to new medications that help ease withdrawal symptoms, block the effects of marijuana, and prevent relapse.

interesting bit is the how does it affect a users life , pretty much exemplifies Ongs life, no job , no relationship and no aspiration and a depressed IQ and quite probably addicted to it. Challenge for Ong , go the whole of october weed free to prove you aren't addicted.
The part about pregnancy is also interesting as it affects the childs memory , attention and problem solving. given the mood effects on users its also possible to speculae that the rise in adhd in children could be related to parental weed use during pregnancy

[Savy]

I don't mean "repeatable" as in that exact exam is repeatable. I mean in that the "univariate calculus" exam is repeatable. The exams would have to organize price, frequency, and questions in such a way that doesn't provide for gaming of the system.

Writing exams that are up to standard is something which takes a lot of time and effort.

What you are suggesting implies that students would be able to take exams at various times a year, something which I don't think happens very often and especially not on any sort of large scale. And any that do are incredibly rife for "gaming" as the material that can be on exams is limited & the more papers created the more they are repeatable. Something like the bar (as I understand it) is very different to a standard module that makes up part of your credits for a year. The bar acts as a barrier of entry after you have basically done everything else you need at which point repeating it is viable & waiting between exams is also viable. Something like Calc101 with your system would require people having the chance to sit a calc101 paper very regularly or the barrier stopping them moving onto the next stage is too high (assuming you want high marks as said).

How is it a nightmare? It would be very easy. Private organizations have already done it.

Examples.

[Savy]

interesting bit is the how does it affect a users life , pretty much exemplifies Ongs life, no job , no relationship and no aspiration and a depressed IQ and quite probably addicted to it. Challenge for Ong , go the whole of october weed free to prove you aren't addicted.

Lots of those things are a result of very biased samples in that people who suffer from those things are more likely to become heavy drug users and not necessarily the other way round.

[Poopadoop]

getting back on topic , how come wuf isn't jumping all over this ?
https://conservativedailypost.com/pr...during-debate/

presence of the earpiece could let her strategists prompt her replies, and the guy at the start/end collecting her papers looks dodgy .

It does look a bit weird, but it makes me wonder:

First, if you're going to cheat by giving someone the questions ahead of time, why not give it to them days or weeks in advance? Does it really make sense to hide them in their podium?

Second, if you pause the video at 1.11, the guy already has something in his hand as he's reaching into the podium. So whatever he comes out of it with doesn't necessarily have to come from withing the podium.

Finally, it's lol to suggest that because this guy seems to know both Hillary and the moderator, that somehow implies he's a part of a conspiracy to rig the debate.

This and the videos showing Hillary touching her face to 'signal' the moderator to ask a follow up question 30 seconds later strike me as conspiracy nutjob stuff.

All that said, the moderator did strike me as pretty biased, and it wouldn't surprise me if the debate was rigged to a greater or lesser extent.

[Poopadoop]

There's a law against suicide.

People can commit suicide if they're clinically depressed, which should be discouraged imo. Clinically depressed people don't generally poke themselves in the eye with a stick or smoke their lawn.

Your same argument also applies to lots of things that aren't illegal. Poor health choices such as smoking, being fat. Funnily enough though the huge chunk of your taxes you're so worried about goes into squeezing every last miserable year out of the elderly.

Smoking should be illegal. Being fat can't be illegal because it's a consequence of other bad behaviors, not a bad behavior in and of itself. That would be like saying lung cancer should be illegal cause u get it from smoking, or that having brain damage is illegal cause u get it from falling off your bike without a helmet. Legislate the behavior not its consequences.

I'm not just worried about where my taxes go, there's also the sense in which i think we as a society need to look after our own people by discouraging certain stupid behaviors.

They already discourage smoking by adding taxes to tobacco, and are planning to do the same with poor eating habits by introducing a junk food tax (if they haven't already done it). Would be better in my opinion to ban tobacco and foods that are nutritionally crap.

[OngBonga]

keith, I'm aware of the long term effects of smoking cannabis. I've been smoking it for 20 years.

Incidentally, your sample size of one, ie me, is insufficient for comparison. I'll take a sample size of one... my housemate, who owns the house I live in, with his wife, and he holds his job down without a problem. Most of the people I call my friends smoke weed. Most of my friends have jobs and are in relationships. The idea that weed is why I'm single is bollocks. I'm single because I don't have any ambition or prospects, which is a consequence of my childhood if we're going to assign blame. I lived in foster homes and children's homes until 16, left school with exactly 1 GCSE. I didn't stand a chance, I'm lucky that I didn't turn straight to crime. Weed might actually have saved me, because it turned me from an angry little kid suddenly thrown into the big bad world, into a naive little soul who didn't have a care in the world.

But I don't look at my life an think "what went wrong", because I'm happy, despite having nothing. I think something must have gone right somewhere along the line.

And I'm not going to prove to anyone that I'm not addicted, because I am addicted. So long as I have money spare, I'll buy weed. I don't consider my addiction to be a problem, because I'm not going to steal anything when I have no weed or money. I'll go a month without weed when I can't afford weed for a month, and I'll be just fine.

So you explain that selling weed is worse than living on benefits because of health risks.

Ok.

What's more immoral? Living off benefits? Or getting a job in a bar?

[OngBonga]

My addiciton isn't a problem for the simple reason that I can prioritise food, rent, and any other bills that I have to pay, before deciding how much money I have "spare". Weed is not top of my list of priorities. It's the top "non-essential" priority.

The fact that I consider weed to be non-essential, that shows that the addiction is psychological. I won't give it up because I don't want to, it has nothing to do with any kind of withdrawal symptoms. It's is very much a different kind of addiciton to things like heroin.

I'm addicted to tea, too. Honestly, the idea of not being able to have a cup of tea when I wake up, that's worse than not having a spliff. Going a day without tea... worse than a day without weed.

Why is weed a problem and not tea? I must consume ten sugars a day at least, in tea alone. I might get diabetes, which then makes me a burden on the NHS.

Ban tea, ban sugar, and anyone who produces them should be sent to prison, right?

[OngBonga]

You're not going to win this one keith. There are MANY worse things than weed, many of them perfectly legal. The ONLY argument in your favour is the legality of it, but I can at the very least demonstrate how ridiculous the legal status of cannabis is. I draw a distinction between morality and legality. If you don't, that's your choice, you can allow law to guide your morality if you like. But that doesn't make you a better person than someone who is guided by their own sense of morality.

You can argue you're a better person than I am as far as society is concerned because you work and pay taxes, and I'd have no rebuttal. But the cannabis argument, you really haven't got a clue.

[MadMojoMonkey]

But if you're talking about things that the average person might do just because their notions of risk/reward are somewhat skewed, say driving a motorcycle without a helmet cause they like the feel of the wind in their hair, should my taxes go towards the years of rehab they will need cause they got serious brain damage from being in an accident while not wearing a helmet? Fuck that.

If you're issue is that your tax dollars are being misused, then why is your focus on a circumstantial method of triggering that misuse?

[MadMojoMonkey]

The law of natural selection already dealt with people like that millions of years ago.

Natural selection is ongoing, i.e. not finished dealing with it.
Also, it's random, and suboptimal / incomplete solutions are evident everywhere.
Your sexy fun time bits are right next to your stinky bits? Not really optimized well, IMO. You don't build a fun park right next to a sewage plant.

People (genetically modern humans) have only been around for ~190,000 years.

FYI

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you're issue is that your tax dollars are being misused, then why is your focus on a circumstantial method of triggering that misuse?

I'm not just worried about where my taxes go, there's also the sense in which i think we as a society need to look after our own people by discouraging certain stupid behaviors.

OK.

[Poopadoop]

People (genetically modern humans) have only been around for ~190,000 years.

FYI

Nit. Pick.

Sorry that I couldn't be bothered to remember the word 'hominids' or look up the exact length of homo sapiens' existence and any other thing that would be needed to keep someone from getting excited about my point not being 100% factually indisputable.

[Poopadoop]

Your sexy fun time bits are right next to your stinky bits? Not really optimized well, IMO.

Where would you suggest moving one or the other? It's easy to find a grounds for criticizing nearly anything ...

[MadMojoMonkey]

Where would you suggest moving one or the other? It's easy to find a grounds for criticizing nearly anything ...

Anywhere else? Further up, I suppose, since being on the torso is important. Boobs in great location, IMO.

Why only 1 opposable thumb? It's so damn useful! I bet another one on the other side would be even better. What the hell is my pinky finger doing for me anyway? Slacker!

Dudes have nipples? What's that about?

Only sensitive to a tiny band of the EM spectrum? There's plenty of other animals which can see wider bands. Why not us?


Yeah, it's easy. Natural selection is a blind butcher who occasionally makes a good cut.

[Poopadoop]

Anywhere else? Further up, I suppose, since being on the torso is important. Boobs in great location, IMO.

Well the sewage system has to go somewhere, it's always going to be in danger of spilling on something. think the way it points is more important than where it sits. could be wrong because i admit i don't spend hours thinking about it.

Why only 1 opposable thumb? It's so damn useful! I bet another one on the other side would be even better.

Most people have two thumbs I think.

What the hell is my pinky finger doing for me anyway? Slacker!

While you can probably get along without it, it has touch receptors and muscles that move it and so it does contribute something.

Dudes have nipples? What's that about?

No idea.

Only sensitive to a tiny band of the EM spectrum? There's plenty of other animals which can see wider bands. Why not us?

Because it takes resources to create and energize cells that are sensitive to light, and also for the brain cells that process the input ? NS has suggested those extra bands wouldn't serve us well enough to justify their cost. If it were free, I agree have all you want.

Yeah, it's easy. Natural selection is a blind butcher who occasionally makes a good cut.

And it's the good cuts who don't go around poking themselves in the eyes with a stick. The good cuts also tend to reproduce more than the bad.

[Keith]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1139487/pg1 more ammo for wuf

[Poopadoop]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1139487/pg1 more ammo for wuf

I love how it's called 'above top secret' as if their espionage skills are so great they can find out things ordinary spies never will.

[wufwugy]

Writing exams that are up to standard is something which takes a lot of time and effort.

What you are suggesting implies that students would be able to take exams at various times a year, something which I don't think happens very often and especially not on any sort of large scale. And any that do are incredibly rife for "gaming" as the material that can be on exams is limited & the more papers created the more they are repeatable. Something like the bar (as I understand it) is very different to a standard module that makes up part of your credits for a year. The bar acts as a barrier of entry after you have basically done everything else you need at which point repeating it is viable & waiting between exams is also viable. Something like Calc101 with your system would require people having the chance to sit a calc101 paper very regularly or the barrier stopping them moving onto the next stage is too high (assuming you want high marks as said).




Examples.

P and FM actuarial exams are offered six times a year. They cost ~$220 each time and must be made ~6 weeks in advance with no refunds. Testing protocols are very strict, like an employee at the testing center wipes your calculator and you're not allowed to review notes in the center. Each exam is different in a prohibitive to game way but not a prohibitive to construct way. A math PhD could make 10 tough and diverse Venn diagram questions in a day easily (which is a far greater rate of question construction than needed); constructing the exams certainly would not be more labor intensive than the current system of each university having ~hundreds of faculty already constructing exams. In order for somebody to game the actuarial exam system, well, they can't. Past exam questions are posted and the early exams are pretty much all problem crunching. Even if somebody somehow games past the first two exams, they'll have spent thousands of dollars and many years doing so and have gained little since to be an actuary you have to pass many more much harder exams.

A university-like accreditation institution could institute similar protocols.

My opinion is in part informed by the way I learned univariate calculus. My community college had a really great tutoring center. I would sit in it and read the book/watch videos/do the work and raise my hand whenever I was stuck so that a tutor could help me. I learned far more this way than though the traditional lecture system, and the real cost of the knowledge gained was far lower. I'm one of the better examples since math is my weakest natural skill.

Universities are among the least efficient institutions I can think of. In a way this makes sense since academics uniquely have to focus on sufficiency. But there is so much room for improvement when it comes to making the learning process (and the costs) more efficient.

[wufwugy]

...unless he/you means that the university degree doesn't signify talent or education so much as it signifies conformity. Which would seem more plausible (but still wrong, or at least overly simplistic). Is that what you meant?

Yes that's closer to it.

[wufwugy]

I'm not really a conspiracy theory guy. I briefly glanced at the Crooked signaling the moderator thing when it came out but the presentation was full of bad conspiracy tells so I shut it off.

Crooked's crookedness is a matter of fact and public record. Her "pattern of behavior" akin to treason has been verified by credible sources. As for Rapin' Bill, innocent until proven guilty, but a million women don't accuse you of shit unless you've done shit, and there is compelling evidence that suggests he did the Juanita Broaddrick assault. As for Crooked's incompetence, American voters looking to promote her after doing something you or I would get fired and prosecuted for.

[boost]

This gif has won the election for Clinton.

[JKDS]

Nothing hillary has done comes anywhere close to donald's transgressions. It's hard to find a single moment where he hasn't lied or screwed someone over, and we think he won't continue that behaviour when he's potus.

[OngBonga]

keith I realise you can't be arsed to continue our exchange, but please answer this one question...

What is more immoral? Living off benefits, or getting a job in a pub?

[a500lbgorilla]

Nothing hillary has done comes anywhere close to donald's transgressions. It's hard to find a single moment where he hasn't lied or screwed someone over, and we think he won't continue that behaviour when he's potus.

As with most politics, it's a matter of taste

I just wanna seal my vote away and be done with this noise.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I couldn't understand GB2's appeal, either. The way he would scoff at questions and make a face as his response, like the question was beneath him... i.e. the audience is beneath him... I don't get how someone looks at that and thinks, "yeah, that's who I want representing my nation on the world stage." But they do.

I don't understand the appeal of Republican candidates for pres.
I do understand the appeal of many Republicans, but their pres. candidates are just confusing to me.

The public response to people like GB2 and Trump is beyond me.

[wufwugy]

Nothing hillary has done comes anywhere close to donald's transgressions. It's hard to find a single moment where he hasn't lied or screwed someone over, and we think he won't continue that behaviour when he's potus.

Only in the world of false equivalence is what he's done comparable or as proven.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This gif has won the election for Clinton.

Can we vote for Shaq?
Would strongly consider it.

[wufwugy]

I couldn't understand GB2's appeal, either. The way he would scoff at questions and make a face as his response, like the question was beneath him... i.e. the audience is beneath him... I don't get how someone looks at that and thinks, "yeah, that's who I want representing my nation on the world stage." But they do.

I don't understand the appeal of Republican candidates for pres.
I do understand the appeal of many Republicans, but their pres. candidates are just confusing to me.

The public response to people like GB2 and Trump is beyond me.

If I can attempt to explain, it may be rooted in that these people don't like the government and elitists that much, so they enjoy a candidate who marginalizes both.

There are two kinds of voters: those who want to be left alone and those who don't want to leave others alone. Most people fall into a mix of both.

[JimmyS1985]

smoking/selling marijuana is clearly morally worse because living off benefits doesn't create the following health issues attributed to smoking marijuana.

interesting bit is the how does it affect a users life , pretty much exemplifies Ongs life, no job , no relationship and no aspiration and a depressed IQ and quite probably addicted to it. Challenge for Ong , go the whole of october weed free to prove you aren't addicted.
The part about pregnancy is also interesting as it affects the childs memory , attention and problem solving. given the mood effects on users its also possible to speculae that the rise in adhd in children could be related to parental weed use during pregnancy

I wanted to reply to Keith even if this topic may be dead by today because I have a lot of experience in this field, on perhaps both sides of the law you might say, as a former dealer and as someone who holds a 4 year degree in Criminal Justice from a non-profit University, my classmates were often police officers, future police officers, social workers and probation parole officers, and sometimes I even had uniformed police officers as my college professors for that matter.

Hi, I'm a former marijuana user and drug dealer. I was a small-time drug dealer who sold small amounts of marijuana in the $30 to at most $55 range, to local people in my neighborhood, never got caught, arrested or charged for that matter.

And so I don't write a post that is as long as a book, I'm just going to address this one statement specifically in this post.

"Compared to nonusers, heavy marijuana users more often report the following:

lower life satisfaction
poorer mental health
poorer physical health
more relationship problems"

You know what else creates "lower life satisfaction, poorer mental health, poorer physical health, and more relationship problems"? Prison. Everytime I sold a quarter ounce of marijuana, with a street value of no more than $30, (now granted this was about a decade ago), I was looking at a Class C felony with a mandatory minimum of 5 years in a state prison, under a "5 grams = 5 years law" that Moral Do-Gooders and White Christian Conservative law makers (and to be fair, Democrats of the era as well who didn't want to be seen as "soft on crime") had passed as criminal sanctions for drug use/distribution in an attempt to root out "immorality" in our society.

You talk about the negative side effects of heavy marijuana use. You also don't mention the negative effects of a prison sentence on an individual due to marijuana use. I'd argue that if that statement is in regards to marijuana users within the United States, a lot of side effects can be directly attributable to our Criminal Justice system's response to use of marijuana in fact, as opposed to the use of the plant itself.

One thing that needs to be mentioned is most marijuana users, sell marijuana on the side to help finance their habit, so a lot of users also fall under the same super harsh marijuana drug laws as sellers themselves even if they're a very small player in the international drug trade.

Marijuana use, crack use, heroin use, meth use, these should all be dealt with as issues for the medical community and not issues for the criminal justice community. Now if someone robs a bank to fund their habit, it would still fall under being a criminal justice issue, regardless if possession/sale of the substance was legal or illegal.

Going to prison over drug use, sale, even mere possession is ruining lives, not helping them. A lot of people, particularly on the Right Wing Authoritarian side of the political spectrum, have a vague belief that "ruining" peoples lives, "helps" peoples lives. This is why they initially and for the past 30 years up til maybe 2010, supported harsh criminal sanctions for victimless nonviolent acts such as drug use and distribution. This is why RWA's support heavy handed police tactics in minority communities. Stop and Frisk. This is why RWA's support a criminal justice system that effectively and efficiently hands out criminal sanctions and mass incarcerations that has heavily impacted minority communities, and are generally against programs meant to alleviate poverty (one thing you'll notice about communities that have high violent crime rates, they also tend to have high levels of poverty as well).

I have a small library of poker books (Why I'm on this forum) but also Criminal Justice books. And there's a book I own that comes to mind, it's called "Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse" by Todd R. Clear.

You have no idea how much a prison sentence, hell even a few months in jail, just upends, and uproots an individuals life, and sets them and their immediate family on a downward spiral, hell Back to the Future II was all about trying to prevent his kids from going to prison for several years.

By the 1970's, Criminal Justice Scholars had figured out that incarcerating individuals, wasn't the most effective tactic at reducing crime and social disorder, and it was theorized that they would eventually become obsolete for all but the most dangerous of individual (violent offenders with a high chance recidivize, career criminals, people who posed a major threat to society in other words). Instead we ramped up prison building in this country, we made it MUCH easier for an ordinary citizen to go to prison than it use to be.

Instead of having these harsh criminal sanctions and it being a well known fact that our government would have plenty of bed space available as a detterent to prevent crime from occurring, people just wound up going to prison at much higher rates, and for much longer sentences than they use to, to the point that now a lot of prisons are turning into defacto mental hospitals/retirement homes. And this era of mass incarceration, has directly caused much more harm to communities, particularly communities of color, than it has to benefit them.

Anyways I've ranted long enough. The War on Drugs has ruined FAR more lives, than it has helped.

[OngBonga]

Hi fucking five to that.

[Poopadoop]

American prisons are a form of slave labor. Prisoners work for cheap. And I don't mean minimum wage cheap but closer to 1/10th of minimum wage (look it up).

And it's all good cause they were caught with a bag of weed.

And they're enslaved until they die because it was their third time being caught and it's three strikes and you're in for life.

No wonder you guys hate your government.

[Keith]

did you read the original question .... which is morally worse living off benefits or smoking/selling dope. Those smoking /selling dope made the conscious decision to do so and the ensuing legal risks that they face. Those living off benefits may be doing so through no fault of their own , chronic illness , disability , redundancy etc.
As for Ongs second question , nothing morally wrong with working in a bar or living off benefits as both are legal and both can have detrimental health effects .

[JimmyS1985]

did you read the original question .... which is morally worse living off benefits or smoking/selling dope. Those smoking /selling dope made the conscious decision to do so and the ensuing legal risks that they face. Those living off benefits may be doing so through no fault of their own , chronic illness , disability , redundancy etc.
As for Ongs second question , nothing morally wrong with working in a bar or living off benefits as both are legal and both can have detrimental health effects .

Some things can be illegal and still moral. Some things can be legal, and still immoral.

For example, Anne Frank and her family hiding in the attic was illegal, but it was still moral.

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”


― Martin Luther King Jr.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."


- Thomas Jefferson

It is immoral to lock people up for 5 years over 5 grams of marijuana. Part of why I never felt a single ounce of shame, guilt or remorse for selling marijuana, was because the punishment was so unjustifiably cruel compared to the act itself.

I broke that 5 grams = 5 years law enough times to have racked up probably 500 years in prison for that matter.

[OngBonga]

Yeah I mean I just wanted to emphasise the point that keith considers legality and morality to be one and the same.

I don't. We're only ever going to agree on this matter when the law changes, and therefore keith's moral position on the matter changes by default.

[OngBonga]

keith, is it immoral for someone in Colorado to grow weed?

[OngBonga]

I mean as far as Keith's logic goes, it's immoral to fuck a 15-y/o girl in England, but not France.

[JKDS]

The war on drugs isn't the reason drug users and sellers went to prison.

It's because they chose to be drug users and sellers.

You knew it was illegal. (How could anyone not?) You did it anyway. And if the legalization side is to be believed, weed isn't even addictive. But it's the war on drugs destroying lives and leaving families broken.

No. It's committing a fucking crime that did that. Next you'll blame the police for catching you in the act.

[wufwugy]

The war on drugs isn't the reason drug users and sellers went to prison.

It's because they chose to be drug users and sellers.

You knew it was illegal. (How could anyone not?) You did it anyway. And if the legalization side is to be believed, weed isn't even addictive. But it's the war on drugs destroying lives and leaving families broken.

No. It's committing a fucking crime that did that. Next you'll blame the police for catching you in the act.

Sometimes the law is wrong.

[Poopadoop]

I mean as far as Keith's logic goes, it's immoral to fuck a 15-y/o girl in England, but not France.

Oh shit, I had that backwards then. Oh well, see you guys in jail.

[JKDS]

Sometimes the law is wrong.

You have recourse for changing it. It's happening now in az.

The recourse you don't have is ignoring/deliberately breaking the law

[wufwugy]

You have recourse for changing it. It's happening now in az.

The recourse you don't have is ignoring/deliberately breaking the law

That which is morally right is not determined by what the law says.

[JimmyS1985]

The war on drugs isn't the reason drug users and sellers went to prison.

It's because they chose to be drug users and sellers.

You knew it was illegal. (How could anyone not?) You did it anyway. And if the legalization side is to be believed, weed isn't even addictive. But it's the war on drugs destroying lives and leaving families broken.

No. It's committing a fucking crime that did that. Next you'll blame the police for catching you in the act.

I wanted to address this statement specifically.

If this were a black and white world, all of drug crime would be squarely the individuals fault. But this isn't a black and white world, this is a million shades of gray world, similar to how poker is rarely a black and white game but a million shades of gray game, particularly when you're playing deep stacked against another deep stack.

Whereas it may be wrong to be "results oriented" in poker though, I think it's perfectly ok to be results oriented in the terms of the real life consequences of the War on Drugs on millions of American citizenry's lives.

The results of the War on Drugs, as well as several other factors has been mass incarceration of US Citizenry, often for years at a time, for crimes with no victims and no monetary amount of actual damage to society in general. My 5 grams = 5 years laws that I fell under for making marijuana sales being a prime example.

One reason I believe I was never caught or arrested, was specifically because I lived in a community that was probably 99% White (actually IIRC we were the only household to have a Black person living with us for about 12 years, she was a family friend of my mom's from Kenya, hardly reasoning enough for all the Whites in my neighborhood to leave the neighborhood because a single Black person lived in our area), whereas if I lived in a majority Black community, I certainly would have been caught, arrested and served some prison time. Drug laws weren't heavily enforced in my community if at all, and believe me we had some black market drug activity going on in our upper-middle class White neighborhood and I was by far from being the only player in it.

But really, the War on Drugs, from it's inception in 1970, wasn't a means to try to stop American's from doing drugs as government officials have always wanted the civilian populace to believe, it was a means to disrupt and incarcerate Left Wing Anti-War Hippies, and leaders of the Black community.

I've known about this for years, but only until recently did a concrete piece of evidence come out that put it out there for all to see.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

With such contemptible reasoning to arrest and incarcerate US Citizenry, under a false facade that what our US and state governments was really trying to stop people from doing drugs, any one who's done a bit of research into the War on Drugs and it's obvious results, can see that the goal and results of the War on Drugs in reality was to put vast amounts more of American Citizenry who might be hostile to Right Wing charlatan politicians, behind bars.

And based on which demographics of communities who have suffered by far the most and have been arrested and incarcerated the most during the War on Drugs, the War on Drugs, could easily also be called "The War on Blacks".

I still maintain to this day that it is no mere coincidence that the moment the era of Jim Crow Segregation ended, the era of Mass Incarceration began. You can call me a conspiracy theory tin foil hat nut ball all you want for saying that out loud, it's what I believe.

[JKDS]

That was 40 years ago, even If true. How can you complain when all your life these substances were illegal? The laws predate your own personal lifestyle choice.

You've also got a lot of balls to accuse even half of our police of being racist in drug busts. It's always fun to say it, but the evidence is much weaker than books like "the new Jim crow" make it seem.

[OngBonga]

The war on drugs isn't the reason drug users and sellers went to prison.

It's because they chose to be drug users and sellers.

You knew it was illegal. (How could anyone not?) You did it anyway. And if the legalization side is to be believed, weed isn't even addictive. But it's the war on drugs destroying lives and leaving families broken.

No. It's committing a fucking crime that did that. Next you'll blame the police for catching you in the act.

Right.

In Uganda, it's illegal to be homosexual.

So... bummers have no recourse. Just don't be a bummer. It's illegal, you don't get to decide which laws apply to you and which do not.

It's committing a fucking crime, putting your penis in another man's bottom. Next you'll be blaming the police when they catch you in the act.

[OngBonga]

OH but I was born a bummer, it's not my fault.

I was born a stoner.

Fuck off with your "weed is bad but anal sex with men is fine".

[OngBonga]

Of course, bumming isn't illegal in Canada, so JKDS is fine to be gay. Good job he's not living in a fucked up place like Uganda.

Of course, I'm just trying here to ram the point into JKDS' face.

Law is not morality.

[JKDS]

Strawman harder.

[OngBonga]

But you're saying "it's law so don't do it".

This isn't a strawman... I'm asking you what the difference is between the UK govt telling me I can't smoke weed, and the Ugandan govt telling their citizens that men can't kiss on the lips.

Should men in Uganda just accept the law, and if they get caught kissing, deal with the consequences without complaining because they comitted a crime and they knew it?

Why is the right to be a bummer protected but not the right to be a stoner?

[Poopadoop]

To be fair, I think one of jkds points is that while it's not directly up to you to decide what is legal, you do have a free choice about whether or not to abide by the law. And so even if you think the law is unjust or immoral or that the punishment is absurdly out of proportion to the crime, you can avoid the whole conundrum by following whatever laws happen to be in place.

If applied on a case-by-case basis, this argument makes sense. Saying you're powerless to control your desire for weed doesn't really cut it as an answer, since you admit yourself you can go a long time without it and not experience withdrawal.

Before you think I'm taking jkds side, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that one part of his argument is logical. If I decide that I should be allowed to murder someone for no other reason than because I think the world would be better off without them, and therefore it's a moral act, I have to accept that decision doesn't jibe with the law's interpretation of morality. Just because I can make a case for why it should be legal to murder someone, doesn't mean I should ignore the realities that exist in the real world, where getting caught will land me in jail.

That said, another part of his argument is not logical. He argues that it's just the people who are breaking the law who are responsible for all the incarcerations. Obviously the law has a lot to do with that as well, because of the drug laws being so unreasonable. If they were brought more in line with a 'punishment fitting the crime' principle of law, then the number of people in jail for drug crimes would be much lower. So the legal system has its part to play as well.

The law needs to recognize that whatever it does, people are going to use drugs. Up the punishment? People still use drugs. So the law can decide that's wrong and put them all in jail for as long as it wants, but the main consequence of that won't be stopping drug use, it will be making the prison population larger.

That to me isn't what the law is there for.

[JimmyS1985]

To be fair, I think one of jkds points is that while it's not directly up to you to decide what is legal, you do have a free choice about whether or not to abide by the law. And so even if you think the law is unjust or immoral or that the punishment is absurdly out of proportion to the crime, you can avoid the whole conundrum by following whatever laws happen to be in place.

If applied on a case-by-case basis, this argument makes sense. Saying you're powerless to control your desire for weed doesn't really cut it as an answer, since you admit yourself you can go a long time without it and not experience withdrawal.

Before you think I'm taking jkds side, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that one part of his argument is logical. If I decide that I should be allowed to murder someone for no other reason than because I think the world would be better off without them, and therefore it's a moral act, I have to accept that decision doesn't jibe with the law's interpretation of morality. Just because I can make a case for why it should be legal to murder someone, doesn't mean I should ignore the realities that exist in the real world, where getting caught will land me in jail.

That said, another part of his argument is not logical. He argues that it's just the people who are breaking the law who are responsible for all the incarcerations. Obviously the law has a lot to do with that as well, because of the drug laws being so unreasonable. If they were brought more in line with a 'punishment fitting the crime' principle of law, then the number of people in jail for drug crimes would be much lower. So the legal system has its part to play as well.

The law needs to recognize that whatever it does, people are going to use drugs. Up the punishment? People still use drugs. So the law can decide that's wrong and put them all in jail for as long as it wants, but the main consequence of that won't be stopping drug use, it will be making the prison population larger.

That to me isn't what the law is there for.

I want to elaborate on this point you made, how the legal system itself has a heavy amount of responsibility for our incarceration rate and not just entirely the individuals fault.

A few people are arguing, if you do drugs and get caught, that's your choice, you do the crime you do the time. It places the entire fact that someone is heavily criminally sanctioned for a drug crime, entirely on the individual, not the cop, the prosecutor, the judge, the prison system or the entire criminal justice system itself.

Also one person pointed out that our criminal justice isn't racist. In theory, it isn't racist. In practice it is racist. Like I said, WHites and Blacks use and sell drugs at virtually the same rates, I think there might even be a slight higher probability that Whites use and sell them more.

But the ones being arrested, charged, sentenced and incarcerated by a heavy majority are Black people. This is why I consider the War on Drugs, to be synonymous with being called "The War on Blacks".

In theory justice is blind to a persons race, in practice, she's one of the most racist SOB's in the whole country.

There are so many examples of how racist our criminal justice system is, I could write a book on it. This is my personal quote on the matter after my studies of the system, and taking a Race, Crime and Justice class from a retired police sergeant with a PHD in Criminal Justice (for that matter, the man was White who was teaching the class. "From the Routine Traffic Stop, all the way up to the Death Penalty, and at every level in between, Blacks get discriminated against in this great country of ours.".

And I'm just going to do one fact that shows ample evidence, that the legal system, hell even the law makers themselves are racist, if you look at the results of their laws on black lives. For that matter though, laws that have heavily impacted the Black community, have also heavily impacted lower income Whites as well, just not to the same extent.

Ok so in 1980 we had 25,000 Federal inmates serving time in prison. Today, we have roughly 200,000 people serving time in Federal prison. To keep things simple, I'm not even going to touch on state, local, and county levels of jail, prison or other forms of incarceration. The majority of this 175,000 additional Federal Prisoners have been Blacks, and Non-White Hispanics.

An 800% increase in Federal Prisoners, represents a drastic change in our Criminal Justice system between 1980 and 2016. For people still claiming that no one is at fault except for the individual if they find themselves in jail or prison, this begs the question "Are Americans 800% more evil today, than they were in 1980?".

[OngBonga]

The thing with murder though is that it directly impacts on another person's life.

Saying you're powerless to control your desire for weed doesn't really cut it as an answer, since you admit yourself you can go a long time without it and not experience withdrawal.

Who has the right to say what an adult must supress? I can go without weed, but I don't want to. Homosexuals can go without cock, but they don't want to. What's the difference? Is the difference simply choice? I chose to smoke weed, homos don't tend to choose to be gay. That is the only difference. But why can't an adult make such a choice? I can choose to become an alcoholic, so it's not about choice.

The point JKDS makes is... it is illegal, so don't do it. That applies to gay men in Uganda as well as stoners in England. It's equally absurd. If they made alcohol illegal, would JKDS stop drinking wine? Would keith? Would it suddenly become immoral to do so? Would those who ignore the new law deserve the prison time they get? Even if it's years?

JKDS' argument is absurd, which is why I'm being absurd.

[JimmyS1985]

The thing with murder though is that it directly impacts on another person's life.



Who has the right to say what an adult must supress? I can go without weed, but I don't want to. Homosexuals can go without cock, but they don't want to. What's the difference? Is the difference simply choice? I chose to smoke weed, homos don't tend to choose to be gay. That is the only difference. But why can't an adult make such a choice? I can choose to become an alcoholic, so it's not about choice.

The point JKDS makes is... it is illegal, so don't do it. That applies to gay men in Uganda as well as stoners in England. It's equally absurd. If they made alcohol illegal, would JKDS stop drinking wine? Would keith? Would it suddenly become immoral to do so? Would those who ignore the new law deserve the prison time they get? Even if it's years?

JKDS' argument is absurd, which is why I'm being absurd.

We made alcohol illegal between 1918 and 1932. It was considered a complete and total fucking disaster of public policy. It's the only time in our nations 240 years that we actually repealed a Constitutional Amendment with another Amendment (And believe me, it is super difficult to add new Amendments to our Constitution). Sure, a few individuals may have stopped drinking, but I recall reading a statistic that said the murder rate went up 1000% due to organized crime. Just look at all the dead Mexicans in Mexican border towns since 2006, when the Drug War down there really started getting out of hand.

[OngBonga]

Hardcore derails are the best.

I'm sure the upcoming election will reclaim this thread in due course.

[JimmyS1985]

Hardcore derails are the best.

I'm sure the upcoming election will reclaim this thread in due course.

Well to be fair, Criminal Justice policy is heavily influenced by law makers, including the President and his pick for Attorney General.

For that matter, Trump wants Stop and Frisk 50 states wide, and Hillary Clinton does not, in fact I think she opposes the practice. Glaring difference between the two candidates if there ever was in terms of the President being able to directly impact ordinary citizenry's lives, even if it's only one Criminal Justice issue.

[Poopadoop]

The thing with murder though is that it directly impacts on another person's life.



Who has the right to say what an adult must supress? I can go without weed, but I don't want to. Homosexuals can go without cock, but they don't want to. What's the difference? Is the difference simply choice? I chose to smoke weed, homos don't tend to choose to be gay. That is the only difference. But why can't an adult make such a choice? I can choose to become an alcoholic, so it's not about choice.

The point JKDS makes is... it is illegal, so don't do it. That applies to gay men in Uganda as well as stoners in England. It's equally absurd. If they made alcohol illegal, would JKDS stop drinking wine? Would keith? Would it suddenly become immoral to do so? Would those who ignore the new law deserve the prison time they get? Even if it's years?

JKDS' argument is absurd, which is why I'm being absurd.

My point was simple: If there's a law and you break it, be it murder, drugs, or jaywalking, you the individual are at least partly responsible for the consequences of getting caught. In that JKDS was correct.

Where he was wrong was in absolving the law itself of any responsibility for the consequences of how the law works in practice.

[OngBonga]

My point was simple: If there's a law and you break it, be it murder, drugs, or jaywalking...

...homosexuality, blasphemy, critisising the head of state, denying the Holocaust, insulting a foreign diplomat, having an ice cream cone in your back pocket, refusing to sing the national anthem...

[OngBonga]

Well to be fair, Criminal Justice policy is heavily influenced by law makers, including the President and his pick for Attorney General.

For that matter, Trump wants Stop and Frisk 50 states wide, and Hillary Clinton does not, in fact I think she opposes the practice. Glaring difference between the two candidates if there ever was in terms of the President being able to directly impact ordinary citizenry's lives, even if it's only one Criminal Justice issue.

America is fucked whatever happens. Clinton or Trump. Fucking hell.

[OngBonga]

Alabama is a wonderful place for law.

It's illegal (and therefore immoral in keith's world) to play dominos on a sunday. It's illegal to wear blue jeans on Noble Street. Bear wrestling is banned. In one town, opening an umbrella on the street is illegal. In another town, selling peanuts after sundown on a wednesday is a no-no.

But you can marry your sister. Which, again, makes it moral in keith's world.

[JKDS]

I never said "law is morality", nor is that my point.

I have not absoled the law of any responsibility.

I am providing a retort to those who claim we should feel sorry for all the drug users that willfully chose to break the law. Woe is the druggie who can freely control his actions, but chooses not to because fuck the man.

For the record, Uganda is nothing like the UK or the States. To think otherwise, or to even compare the two, is beyond laughable. And no, just because I'm gay does not mean I think gays in Uganda take no personal responsibility for deliberately breaking the law. I suppose it was neat to assume that, tho?

Yall are acting like you woke up one morning and suddenly this is illegal and now your business is ruined and so are your habits and woe is me, woe is me. There is no woe. For your entire life this has been illegal, yet you choose to blatently, even proudly, ignore it.

Ps: yes, I do think drug laws are too harsh. But no, the answer to that viewpoint isn't to become a criminal.

[OngBonga]

But no, the answer to that viewpoint isn't to become a criminal.

This is where you absolve law of responsibility.

I'm not the reason I'm a criminal, law is.

[JimmyS1985]

This is where you absolve law of responsibility.

I'm not the reason I'm a criminal, law is.

One way to reduce crime rates, is to make less things illegal. One way to increase crime rates is to make more things illegal.

[Poopadoop]

But no, the answer to that viewpoint isn't to become a criminal.

Ghandi was pretty successful by doing this very thing.

I'm not saying it's ok to break laws just because you disagree with them. But some laws are fucked and should be rebelled against.

[boost]

Can we vote for Shaq?
Would strongly consider it.

A vote for Clinton is now a proxy vote for Shaw.

[boost]

Being a scofflaw is a great way to push for the repeal of a dumb law. I might even go so far as to say it's the most important ingredient.

Should you feel guilty for your risk aversion? No.

Should it be a huge shock when a scofflaw gets penalized (lol that's a funny word) before the law changes? No. However the absurdity of he punishment dealt out is precisely what makes this an effective protest, as it hits home with the other scofflaws and garners sympathy from the masses.

[boost]

Side note: the west 50 years ago was not all that different from Uganda in respect to gay rights. You know who you owe much of the freedoms you enjoy as an out gay man? Yeah, criminals.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It should be asked, for any law, if it's worth taking away someone's parent over the offense.

Sending someone to prison isn't necessarily depriving a child of their parent, but often times it is. Even if it's not, it's a great standard for parsing what should be punishable by fines or community service vs. what should be punishable by prison time.


I've never heard an argument which says that a person smoking pot is worse for society than a child w/o both parents - even if one of them is a pot head.

So, even if MJ is illegal, the punishment for said crime is cruel and unusual, IMO.

[wufwugy]

Side note: the west 50 years ago was not all that different from Uganda in respect to gay rights. You know who you owe much of the freedoms you enjoy as an out gay man? Yeah, criminals.

A+ point, gent.

MLK was correct. It is the duty of a good man to break a bad law. Not all of us can be so good though.

[JKDS]

It's easy to speak of rebellion and great leaders like mlk and ghandi.

But what have any of you ever done that even comes close to mirroring them? You arnt rebelling. Youre just breaking the law. To rebel is to provoke change. Ignoring the law while complaining that it's tough doesn't do jack.

The reason laws change isnt because of criminals. It's because law abiding citizens took up the cause and actually put the work in. Even now, with marijuana legalization becoming more and more popular, I'd bet you two just sit and ride the coattails.

[wufwugy]

It's easy to speak of rebellion and great leaders like mlk and ghandi.

But what have any of you ever done that even comes close to mirroring them? You arnt rebelling. Youre just breaking the law. To rebel is to provoke change. Ignoring the law while complaining that it's tough doesn't do jack.

The reason laws change isnt because of criminals. It's because law abiding citizens took up the cause and actually put the work in. Even now, with marijuana legalization becoming more and more popular, I'd bet you two just sit and ride the coattails.

Some historians claim that criminals have been at the forefront of the creation of many new rights that are taken for granted today. It's very interesting stuff.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that it's not the entire story. There is much we don't yet understand about how societies change, but there is compelling evidence that it takes both law abiding citizens as well as criminals.

[JKDS]

It should be asked, for any law, if it's worth taking away someone's parent over the offense.

This sounds great until you game theory it. People would take advantage of such a policy, and in fact often try to even without it. But again, its not the State that chose to "take someone's parent away". It is the rare case where the crime is one of accident, or negligence. Usually it was intentional. Some could argue that intentionally committing a crime, even though you have children, should warrant an even greater punishment. What kind of example are you setting for the kid? Is a criminal lifestyle something beneficial to his upbringing? Does being around drugs have a net positive impact on him growing up? Is the kid actually better off without the criminal?

These are tough questions, and I grapple with them often. But as hard as these questions are, theres an even tougher one.

Why on earth did you choose to commit a crime, the punishment for which could leave your child without a parent? Who is the bad guy here?