"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself, and where they are they should be changed."
Do you agree or disagree?
This was in response to a question about his view of marijuana laws, and at drug laws in general.
Quote: from Acid World at 9:14 pm on Sep. 17, 2008 Quote: from Event Horizon at 5:58 pm on Sep. 17, 2008 Quote: from Acid World at 8:52 pm on Sep. 17, 2008 Disagree, we had this topic. Punishments are usually worse than the harm of the crime as to make sure there is a LARGE incentive not to do the crime. My outlook on the legalization of drugs is a different story, but if the effects were perfectly equal for any given crime then everybody would do crimes with huge disregard. People go to jail for months for shoplifting, which obviously in the described justice system they'd otherwise just have to pay for the clothes. In that universe, everyone would shoplift and when they get caught just laugh and go "Ah, you caught me, heres a 20." I see your point, I had a similar thought when I first read it, but then I began to think: You can't really equate shoplifting to using drugs. I do concede that dealing would have to have high consequences if drugs were kept illegal, since that is the main thing they are trying to stop. However, shoplifting is in a way harming someone ELSE, which is why it is shunned so much. Using drugs [remember we are talking about possession, so there is no question of doing somethings stupid while high] is a personal thing. The laws are put there to prevent people from hurting themselves [like seat belt laws, and helmet laws] So what is the sense of putting someone is a spot that is worse off than they were while actually USING the drug, I think that is the point. Whether what I'm about to say is the fault of the government or the people is a different topic, but buying drugs is effectively harming people at the moment in that it is pumping money into the black market. For instance, only so long ago if you were buying cocaine or marijuana, you would be putting money in the pocket of Pablo Escobar, who used that money to an extent of actually becoming a real threat to the stability of the entire country of columbia. Now-a-days a central source isn't as clear as Pablo, but terrorist orginizations invest in selling drugs to America so they can buy weapons for their "freedom fighting" or whatever they'd like to call it. Of course, alot of buying just goes to some rednecks with a marijuana field in Kentucky or maybe just a local person who has a grow house. But, it's in the government's best interests to make sure that you AREN'T sending money to the dangerous side of the black market or else it can escalate to a national security threat. Again, whether this is the fault of the government in the first place for making it illegal isn't really apart of the topic, because since it IS illegal there must be a punishment. So far, the government likes to make it much worse than the crime in order to deter buying it. I think that is a silly reason: 1. We make drugs illegal to help preserve the health of our citizens. 2. When citizens buy drugs, they contribute to the black market and possibly terrorists 3. The reason they buy from the black market is because it is illegal 4. we fine and punish our citizens for contributing to the black market Does that make sense? If we didn't have to go through the black market, we would be doing NO harm. So basically we are doing harm, and deserve punishment, SOLELY because the government has forced drug sales to the black market? Seems a bit crooked to me...
Quote: from Event Horizon at 5:58 pm on Sep. 17, 2008 Quote: from Acid World at 8:52 pm on Sep. 17, 2008 Disagree, we had this topic. Punishments are usually worse than the harm of the crime as to make sure there is a LARGE incentive not to do the crime. My outlook on the legalization of drugs is a different story, but if the effects were perfectly equal for any given crime then everybody would do crimes with huge disregard. People go to jail for months for shoplifting, which obviously in the described justice system they'd otherwise just have to pay for the clothes. In that universe, everyone would shoplift and when they get caught just laugh and go "Ah, you caught me, heres a 20." I see your point, I had a similar thought when I first read it, but then I began to think: You can't really equate shoplifting to using drugs. I do concede that dealing would have to have high consequences if drugs were kept illegal, since that is the main thing they are trying to stop. However, shoplifting is in a way harming someone ELSE, which is why it is shunned so much. Using drugs [remember we are talking about possession, so there is no question of doing somethings stupid while high] is a personal thing. The laws are put there to prevent people from hurting themselves [like seat belt laws, and helmet laws] So what is the sense of putting someone is a spot that is worse off than they were while actually USING the drug, I think that is the point. Whether what I'm about to say is the fault of the government or the people is a different topic, but buying drugs is effectively harming people at the moment in that it is pumping money into the black market. For instance, only so long ago if you were buying cocaine or marijuana, you would be putting money in the pocket of Pablo Escobar, who used that money to an extent of actually becoming a real threat to the stability of the entire country of columbia. Now-a-days a central source isn't as clear as Pablo, but terrorist orginizations invest in selling drugs to America so they can buy weapons for their "freedom fighting" or whatever they'd like to call it. Of course, alot of buying just goes to some rednecks with a marijuana field in Kentucky or maybe just a local person who has a grow house. But, it's in the government's best interests to make sure that you AREN'T sending money to the dangerous side of the black market or else it can escalate to a national security threat. Again, whether this is the fault of the government in the first place for making it illegal isn't really apart of the topic, because since it IS illegal there must be a punishment. So far, the government likes to make it much worse than the crime in order to deter buying it.
Quote: from Acid World at 8:52 pm on Sep. 17, 2008 Disagree, we had this topic. Punishments are usually worse than the harm of the crime as to make sure there is a LARGE incentive not to do the crime. My outlook on the legalization of drugs is a different story, but if the effects were perfectly equal for any given crime then everybody would do crimes with huge disregard. People go to jail for months for shoplifting, which obviously in the described justice system they'd otherwise just have to pay for the clothes. In that universe, everyone would shoplift and when they get caught just laugh and go "Ah, you caught me, heres a 20." I see your point, I had a similar thought when I first read it, but then I began to think: You can't really equate shoplifting to using drugs. I do concede that dealing would have to have high consequences if drugs were kept illegal, since that is the main thing they are trying to stop. However, shoplifting is in a way harming someone ELSE, which is why it is shunned so much. Using drugs [remember we are talking about possession, so there is no question of doing somethings stupid while high] is a personal thing. The laws are put there to prevent people from hurting themselves [like seat belt laws, and helmet laws] So what is the sense of putting someone is a spot that is worse off than they were while actually USING the drug, I think that is the point.
Disagree, we had this topic. Punishments are usually worse than the harm of the crime as to make sure there is a LARGE incentive not to do the crime. My outlook on the legalization of drugs is a different story, but if the effects were perfectly equal for any given crime then everybody would do crimes with huge disregard. People go to jail for months for shoplifting, which obviously in the described justice system they'd otherwise just have to pay for the clothes. In that universe, everyone would shoplift and when they get caught just laugh and go "Ah, you caught me, heres a 20."
Punishments are usually worse than the harm of the crime as to make sure there is a LARGE incentive not to do the crime.
My outlook on the legalization of drugs is a different story, but if the effects were perfectly equal for any given crime then everybody would do crimes with huge disregard. People go to jail for months for shoplifting, which obviously in the described justice system they'd otherwise just have to pay for the clothes.
In that universe, everyone would shoplift and when they get caught just laugh and go "Ah, you caught me, heres a 20."
I see your point, I had a similar thought when I first read it, but then I began to think:
You can't really equate shoplifting to using drugs.
I do concede that dealing would have to have high consequences if drugs were kept illegal, since that is the main thing they are trying to stop.
However, shoplifting is in a way harming someone ELSE, which is why it is shunned so much. Using drugs [remember we are talking about possession, so there is no question of doing somethings stupid while high] is a personal thing. The laws are put there to prevent people from hurting themselves [like seat belt laws, and helmet laws] So what is the sense of putting someone is a spot that is worse off than they were while actually USING the drug, I think that is the point.
Whether what I'm about to say is the fault of the government or the people is a different topic, but buying drugs is effectively harming people at the moment in that it is pumping money into the black market.
For instance, only so long ago if you were buying cocaine or marijuana, you would be putting money in the pocket of Pablo Escobar, who used that money to an extent of actually becoming a real threat to the stability of the entire country of columbia.
Now-a-days a central source isn't as clear as Pablo, but terrorist orginizations invest in selling drugs to America so they can buy weapons for their "freedom fighting" or whatever they'd like to call it.
Of course, alot of buying just goes to some rednecks with a marijuana field in Kentucky or maybe just a local person who has a grow house. But, it's in the government's best interests to make sure that you AREN'T sending money to the dangerous side of the black market or else it can escalate to a national security threat.
Again, whether this is the fault of the government in the first place for making it illegal isn't really apart of the topic, because since it IS illegal there must be a punishment. So far, the government likes to make it much worse than the crime in order to deter buying it.
I think that is a silly reason:
1. We make drugs illegal to help preserve the health of our citizens. 2. When citizens buy drugs, they contribute to the black market and possibly terrorists 3. The reason they buy from the black market is because it is illegal 4. we fine and punish our citizens for contributing to the black market
Does that make sense? If we didn't have to go through the black market, we would be doing NO harm.
So basically we are doing harm, and deserve punishment, SOLELY because the government has forced drug sales to the black market? Seems a bit crooked to me...
Thats not the topic though. Obviously it's circular, which is the reason for the "end the drug war" movement.
But as is drugs are illegal, and the most efficient way to make sure no one buys illegal drugs is to make a very hefty price.
Two carter quotes in one day huh?
imho, not if they're a dealer
Well, the idea is that it is that the punishment should not exceed the harm being done. If there is little harm being done, then the punishment should be slight, if there is no harm, then why punish?
404 users online 
225119 members 205 active today Advertise Here
404 users online 225119 members 205 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
