Mexico is getting really interesting

[Keith B]

Whether they were talking on their cell phone, they were just a bad driver, they were falling asleep, drunk, turning left into the turn lane, or high on PCP is completely moot. The punishment should be the same. I'm all for increasing the punishment across the board, but increasing it ONLY under the circumstances that you were at fault in addition to some other factor is hypocritical and inconsistent. That's what's wrong with our laws and our government to begin with.

I have to disagree with this. The purpose of the courts is not only to determine if a party is guilty of a crime, but to also determine punishment based on the circumstances of the crime. To remove the ability for a jury to temper justice with mercy puts us in totalitarian system of justice that is completely unacceptable.

Sure. Allow the JURY to make this determination, but you are advocating exactly what you say you oppose. Do you oppose hard-line increased sentences, or not? Only in the case of DUI? What if I think it should be ONLY in the case of text messaging while driving or putting on make-up? That's the problem with being inconsistent. Everyone has a different opinion.

I have to agree with txflyer. There are extenuating circumstances in all cases. Having as set penalty is not the best way to handle ANY case, whether DWI, drugs, murder, negligent homicide, etc. All factors in the case should be weighed and a decision and penalty be based upon those factors. Setting guidelines for penalties is fine, but to try and lump all of one type of violation into a black and white sentence is not what our justice system is based on.

[Oldgringo]

Keith B wrote:

I have to agree with txflyer. There are extenuating circumstances in all cases. Having as set penalty is not the best way to handle ANY case, whether DWI, drugs, murder, negligent homicide, etc. All factors in the case should be weighed and a decision and penalty be based upon those factors. Setting guidelines for penalties is fine, but to try and lump all of one type of violation into a black and white sentence is not what our justice system is based on.

I sometimes wonder what our justice system is based upon:
* Martha Stewart went to prison for insider trading
* Madoff gets to stay in his luxury apartment after stealing $50 Billion
* The current Treasury Secretary is excused from tax dodging
* O.J. Simpson was excused from murder because he's black.
* Illegal aliens and terrorists have the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens
* Juveniles get to burn, pillage, rape and murder and it's okay because they're juveniles
* etc., etc.

Just what is our justice system based upon.

[austin]

Questions:

* If the drugs were legal in the US, would I partake? Absolutely not!
* Would anyone else start using because the drugs were available at Wal-Mart, etc? Probably not.
* Would the drug related crimes decrease to being nearly nonexistant if the substances were legally available? Probably yes.

Could not agree more.

[Keith B]

Keith B wrote:

I have to agree with txflyer. There are extenuating circumstances in all cases. Having as set penalty is not the best way to handle ANY case, whether DWI, drugs, murder, negligent homicide, etc. All factors in the case should be weighed and a decision and penalty be based upon those factors. Setting guidelines for penalties is fine, but to try and lump all of one type of violation into a black and white sentence is not what our justice system is based on.

I sometimes wonder what our justice system is based upon:
* Martha Stewart went to prison for insider trading
* Madoff gets to stay in his luxury apartment after stealing $50 Billion
* The current Treasury Secretary is excused from tax dodging
* O.J. Simpson was excused from murder because he's black.
* Illegal aliens and terrorists have the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens
* Juveniles get to burn, pillage, rape and murder and it's okay because they're juveniles
* etc., etc.

Just what is our justice system based upon.

It is based upon a fair trial and judgment by a jury of your peers. However, I never said it was perfect or running like it should.

[cowboymd]

Illegal drug use is not a victimless crime. Problem is that the victim is not the user of the drugs, directly. The victim is the homeowner whose house is broken into because a drug addict needs money for drugs. Or the innocent child who gets shot in the crossfire of a gang shooting. The victims are not usually those involved in the crime.

Legalizing drugs (and not just marijuana) would dramatically reduce all of these crimes. It may increase the number of people addicted to drugs, but in the long run the body count and property crime benefit would far outweigh the downside of a few more users of these drugs. We just had a long thread where people claimed that you can drink alcohol responsibly, but the fact is that alcohol use is just as dangerous as the recreational use of many of these street drugs on a personal scale, so save the morality arguments unless you are going to go back in favor of reinstituting prohibition of alcohol. Time for society to stop being such hypocrites. If you can drink responsibly, then you can use marijuana, cocaine, or methamphetamine responsibly too.

We always have this problem with making legal those things that we know are self-destructive. But self-destructive people are going to self-destruct anyway. There is always a way. It's like thinking that banning guns will reduce suicide. What's next, banning knives? Ropes? tall buildings or bridges? Trees that you can run your car into? Cars? I bet most of the people who would start using drugs if they were legalized are already abusers of alcohol, prescription drugs, or OTC drugs of some kind.

And while I am talking about morally unpopular things, I don't see how whether you were drunk or under the influence of some other drug has any bearing on the severity of a crime. If my family is killed in a car wreck by a negligent person, the reason they were negligent is irrelevant. Whether they were talking on their cell phone, they were just a bad driver, they were falling asleep, drunk, turning left into the turn lane, or high on PCP is completely moot. The punishment should be the same. I'm all for increasing the punishment across the board, but increasing it ONLY under the circumstances that you were at fault in addition to some other factor is hypocritical and inconsistent. That's what's wrong with our laws and our government to begin with. Legalizing drugs while also carving out another category of special crime and punishment is just trading one hypocrisy for another.

I do not drink alcohol, and considering the problems that arise with alcohol use in which I have seen, just as with drugs in which I have also seen, I myself have no issue with prohibition.

[WildBill]

I do not drink alcohol, and considering the problems that arise with alcohol use in which I have seen, just as with drugs in which I have also seen, I myself have no issue with prohibition.

This is getting way off topic, but what the heck.
If you did drink alcohol would you have an issue with prohibition? It seems like everyone is okay with restricting the freedoms of "other people" as long as it doesn't affect themselves.

[Oldgringo]

I do not drink alcohol, and considering the problems that arise with alcohol use in which I have seen, just as with drugs in which I have also seen, I myself have no issue with prohibition.

This is getting way off topic, but what the heck.
If you did drink alcohol would you have an issue with prohibition? It seems like everyone is okay with restricting the freedoms of "other people" as long as it doesn't affect themselves.

GOOD POINT! We're fixin' to have a wet/dry election here in our little Pineywoods hamlet. There will be a lot of folk dead set on

restricting the freedoms of "other people"

because they either choose not to partake AND/OR don't want their brethren to see them partaking. They call these people prohibitionists among other things. Should the prohibitionists prevail, the kids they profess to protect and the wife beaters, etc. will still be forced to drive 30 miles, each way, to get their demon rum. Alas.

Back on point, if the drugs weren't illegal there would be no gigadollars to pursue, etc., etc.

[cowboymd]

I do not drink alcohol, and considering the problems that arise with alcohol use in which I have seen, just as with drugs in which I have also seen, I myself have no issue with prohibition.

This is getting way off topic, but what the heck.
If you did drink alcohol would you have an issue with prohibition? It seems like everyone is okay with restricting the freedoms of "other people" as long as it doesn't affect themselves.

I did not say I was a prohibitionist or trying to restrict the freedoms of others. I said I have no issue with prohibition. I was only commenting on the part of the post I highlighted. I do feel if these drugs were legalized (the topic?) usage would increase and I do not see anything positive coming from it. Just my opinion.

[mr.72]

I did not say I was a prohibitionist or trying to restrict the freedoms of others. I said I have no issue with prohibition. I was only commenting on the part of the post I highlighted. I do feel if these drugs were legalized (the topic?) usage would increase and I do not see anything positive coming from it. Just my opinion.

The positive things that would come from it are a huge reduction in violent crime and property crime, huge reduction in gang violence, and of course (getting back on topic) the Mexican drug war problems. Likewise many political problems we have with Mexico are really rooted in the illegal drug trade.

So I think those things are positive, and I think it is worth the much smaller personal cost that some people who are most likely already addicts will perhaps endure as a result of easier access to drugs.

Of course, what I really advocate is a drug policy that works like this: Just like a CHL, if you want to buy these controlled substances (and I would include alcohol), then you have to apply for a license and pay a fee. With this license you could buy all of these drugs over the counter at any drug store or wherever they are sold. But when you apply for a drug-buyer's license, then you forfeit your driver's license.

The other problem with legalizing "street drugs" is that currently we have a lot of legal prescription drugs that are kind of like "lite" versions of these street drugs. So what to do about that? Do we take away the prescription requirement for these? I would think so. Then what of the FDA? I think the purpose of a prescription would be to make it possible for doctors to direct you to take a drug and you would have some assurance that it has been approved for the application and it is low risk, but if you are going to take on the risk yourself you can buy without a prescription but you have no standing to sue the drug company. So in other words, if I buy oxycodone (which happens to be the only pain killer that works for me at all, and I am allergic to most others) without a prescription, then it is up to me to make sure I don't become addicted or wind up deaf. But if I do become addicted and wind up deaf, then I can't sue the maker.

[boomerang]

Then what of the FDA?

The answer to that question is plain as day in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[Liberty]

Keith B wrote:

I have to agree with txflyer. There are extenuating circumstances in all cases. Having as set penalty is not the best way to handle ANY case, whether DWI, drugs, murder, negligent homicide, etc. All factors in the case should be weighed and a decision and penalty be based upon those factors. Setting guidelines for penalties is fine, but to try and lump all of one type of violation into a black and white sentence is not what our justice system is based on.

I sometimes wonder what our justice system is based upon:
* Martha Stewart went to prison for insider trading
* Madoff gets to stay in his luxury apartment after stealing $50 Billion
* The current Treasury Secretary is excused from tax dodging
* O.J. Simpson was excused from murder because he's black.
* Illegal aliens and terrorists have the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens
* Juveniles get to burn, pillage, rape and murder and it's okay because they're juveniles
* etc., etc.

Just what is our justice system based upon.

Martha did not go to jail for insider trading. She went to jail because she didn't co-operate with the investigation. In the meantime the Clinton's are still free despite the numerous crimes they have committed.

[flb_78]

Legalize it all. If people want to be stupid, it's their right to be stupid.

But I also think that we should have MP5 vending machines on every street corner.

[boomerang]

Legalize it all. If people want to be stupid, it's their right to be stupid.

But I also think that we should have MP5 vending machines on every street corner.

[anygunanywhere]

I do not drink alcohol, and considering the problems that arise with alcohol use in which I have seen, just as with drugs in which I have also seen, I myself have no issue with prohibition.

Lots of folks say the same thing about your guns and your RKBA.

Anygunanywhere

[anygunanywhere]

I did not say I was a prohibitionist or trying to restrict the freedoms of others. I said I have no issue with prohibition. I was only commenting on the part of the post I highlighted. I do feel if these drugs were legalized (the topic?) usage would increase and I do not see anything positive coming from it. Just my opinion.

If firearms were legalized for the law abiding including all classes of NFA firearms and the restrictions against the law abiding using their firearms for self defense ANYWHERE the law abiding are allowed to be then eliminating prohibitions against alcohol and drugs would end up working out just fine.

Anygunanywhere