Woman gets 10 Years in Prison for Selling $30 Worth of Weed in Oklahoma

[The-Joker]

Damn, that is remarkable... you could probably pay for universal health care alone, just by putting non-threat dudes on the street and taxing MJ.

 

[The-Joker]

Damn, that is remarkable... you could probably pay for universal health care alone, just by putting non-threat dudes on the street and taxing MJ.

Okay maybe not, but by my calculations if we taxed marijuana and cut our prisons to canada levels. We could save 100 billion dollars. Which is 1 % of GDP and roughly 1 % of the national defecit.

 

[franklin]

It shouldn't have to be said, but I guess I should have prefaced it all with the disclosure that I am for legalizing mj, but have a few hangups, not outright opposition, but hangups on what will happen in the real world. So are the majority of conservatives, moderates, and liberals I know under the age of 50. So there you have it. It's not a war between me and the pot heads. Defenses down, ok?

a) OK.. What about alcohol? Do you not want cops to decide who is driving drunk either?
b) Me neither. Then again I don't want people to drive drunk either. But if I had to choose I'd probably take the stoned guy over the drunk. DUI includes driving while messed on more stuff than just alcohol I don't see why pot couldn't be included here too.
c) Would your boss fire you if you showed up drunk or even smelled alcohol on your breath? Why would you need to call the Sheriff? Leave it to the discretion of the business.

Comparing US prison rates to China, North Korea, or at least half the Islamic Conference members is bad example and you know it. Compare west to west and I'm with you.

a) I don't want cops playing judge and jury on anything, including pot and alcohol. BAC tests are reliable and directly correlated to toxicity. THC tests don't tell you anything about current condition, as far as I know anyway.

c) If you are taking the libertarian view that GF is then I have no qualms outside usury and feudalism issues that libertarians by and large don't recognize as existent (I also have strong Austrian leanings, so kiss my *** if you want to pick a fight with me on this). Others will, however.

All I am saying is if it is legal then you will increase usage, at least in the short term, and you will have operators with THC in the bloodstream who may or may not be stoned. If you want to let a paranoid boss fire them then that's what we live with. But you're going to see plenty opposition, mainly from the left.

So we should keep it illegal because it isn't detectable in real time? So if law enforcement can't establish a test that would differentiate between a stoned driver and a sober driver then maybe it's because there isn't much of a difference. On the other hand, if a field sobriety test would catch stoners then we're all set, aren't we?

That's my only question. I'm not in favor of law enforcement or regulators establishing guilt based on a personal judgement (this coming from someone who does this for a living). When it comes down to an officer's testimony against the innocent, who do think the judge will side with? The judge of the executive. Brown shirts aren't my style.

I believe scientific advancement should lead regulation. BAC tests work and are credible evidence that minimize human error, bias, prejudice, and vendettas. Any cop pair can declare you stoned and there is nothing you can do about it. Well, not for years until the ******** are finally caught and your case gets tossed. I don't want to take that chance and spend 15 at the point over an ******* with a gripe. I don't see how any libertarian or stoner is not in agreement here.

I'm for complete drug legalization. I'm also for employers having the ability to hire/fire based on any criteria they see fit, including drug/alcohol tests or even cholesterol level. I'd expect periodic random drug screening by employers would be a more effective way to control drugs than the current war on drugs is. Not saying no one would do drugs or that no one would get away with doing it and working in places people on drugs shouldn't, so it would be a lot like our current situation in that regard.

And you have the moral upper hand on every member of this website based on consistency and lack of hypocrisy and personal mental blocks. I'm not arguing against this because it's a value system and not something you establish a logical foundation away from or toward. Where I move away from libertarianism, and I was one for life minus the last 3 years, is the feudalism issue. How do libertarians solve it? Jefferson did, libertarians deny. That's my dumb minded understanding anyway.

1. Basic civil liberties are at stake.

I'd call you on this if I thought you were a hard core leftist, which I know you're not.

2. eh? Cannabis is not only a psychotropic drug, but also an extremely good source of food. Only a complete moron would argue against converting corn and soy fields to cannabis for food supply reasons.

Something I haven't ever heard. Thanks.

3. I imagine there are quite a few pot heads out there who would pay a premium for locally grown, organic weed if it were legalized. They already do so now.

I'm not talking local pothead anomalies who actually stick to their values (and in my experience are thoroughly parasitic anyway). You know the left is hypocritical here.

 

[franklin]

What's the hypocrisy on the right?

Most righties go at this from a moral and family perspective (like Spazz). Just because lefties don't like that angle doesn't make it hypocrisy.

It's not my role on the forum to attack the right so ask the lean lefters here. I'm the initial defender based on DUI/DWI hurting others as example of why it's not hypocrisy and civilizations always draw lines in the sand. That's when One Brow went on a tangent about my usual rhetoric and whatnot.

----------------------------------------------

This is the basics of the foundations of the three competing theories. It's worth going to the roots of it all. But all three groups are pissed at the fascists, the commies, and the unconstitutional freedom hating ********.

 

[Nate505]

You do realize that the two largest Muslim countries in the world have had female presidents, right?

Yes, perhaps I should have rephrased that to Arab hell holes. That's where women's rights tend to be the most severely restricted.

 

[Nate505]

Your analogy wasn't about doing something cuz it's the law, it was about doing something so you don't get shot. Women who don't wanna get raped shouldn't dress in revealing clothing either?

No, initially the statement was something along the lines of "you'll regret standing up for what you believe is right when your getting reamed in Federal Pound You in the *** Prison." In both cases it is the threat of violence that would make one think about civil disobedience, not the mere idea of the ethics of breaking the law.

 

[franklin]

And you have the moral upper hand on every member of this website based on consistency and lack of hypocrisy and personal mental blocks.

I'm editing this to almost everyone here. LG98, for one, is solid.

The point is everyone draws a line in the sand somewhere. Everyone. Get into where that line is and get out of demonizing others and you're at the heart of it all. But the b.s. overshadows everything. We have agendas.

 

[Nate505]

It seems to me that many of the arguments are about money as what is doing the most "harm" to people or our country (taxpayers), as opposed to some sort of moral stand. Money is not as important as the people involved or affected.

The woman is teaching her children to break the law, she is teaching them to use and sell illegal substances. She is teaching them to be dishonest by doing this. She is teaching them to use some substance as an escape from real life. Do we know Mary Jane is the only substance she uses or sells? There could be much more, and usually is, that is going on in her life that she is teaching those children.
What do you think those kids are going to grow up and do?
You think just having a job means someone is a "productive" member of society?
I disagree that it is a harmless substance, it just gives different results, and harms people in a different way. This "harmless" substance definitely harms lives, families, and if I want to go your money route, the GDP.
I don't think taking the kids away and giving them to someone else that doesn't care does any good to the kids, or society as a whole either.

I think what is doing the most harm to individuals, families, and society is the erosion of self control, moral values, and restraint. Too many people in this country, and probably the world are addicted to many things. Addicted to illegal and legal drugs, gambling, porn, video games, power, money, and who knows what else. When a person is addicted to something it cuts into their quality of life, the quality of their kids lives, and harms our society, economy, and government.
How different would our country and government if every single person running the government had self control?

/rant

A mother who has her kids in the car while she is speeding is teaching her kids to break the law. I doubt anyone would support a lengthy jail sentence for that.

 

[Nate505]

OK, now to keep in JF tradition, I'm ranting on leftist hypocrisy too.

Why do you want to put all those hard working prisoner guards, policemen, and legal professionals out of work? I thought you are make-work, antiquated union supporting types?

Why do you want to divert food producing farm land into marijuana production? Are you trying to starve the children? Now you're going all free market, profit based on us...

Why do you want huge corporations to control the marijuana trade from start to finish? I thought it's all about buy local, hate Walmart "dey took are jarbs", support the small guy? What gives, sudden corporate shill?

Weren't you Utah lefties the ones screaming about Milton Friedman being a bad dude for being pro-legalize marijuana when the conservatives were championing Milton Friedman's voucher ideas? Yeah, you discredited his voucher ideas on the basis of his marijuana stance. We should be listening to that crowd of smarties.

There's enough hypocrisy on both sides.

When does being left amount to being against the free market?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

If guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns... Isn't that how the saying goes?

Not the point.
The point is there are too many people now that do not control themselves, and in your words, become "outlaws".
We wouldn't need, or wouldn't have put in so many laws if there weren't people that broke the laws.
If people did not steal, would we need a law against stealing?
There is, in general, a regression from disobeying laws, to dishonesty from hiding the disobedience, to more of the same, to collusion with others who do the same thing, to secret groups/gangs/whatever that work together to hurt others or for gain, or for power, at the cost of everything good for a society.
If people were honest and kept their word, we would not need lawers, people would not be sued, and a handshake would be a person's bond.
Unfortunately that is not the world we live in.
Some or many people lie, steal, kill, break every law they can in multiple ways... this requires tougher laws, more government to enforce the laws, tougher penalties for those that break the laws ... but it's still not effective because of the numbers of people out there doing these things.

This is a serious question I don't think there is an answer to: What is better, to have no or few laws which allow people to do almost whatever they want without fear of a penalty, or many many laws where the rest of society has to support those people? Is it better to have weak punishments and allow people to break laws time after time and return to society to break them again, or to have stronger punishments to take repeat offenders permanently out of society so they can no longer be a burden to society as a whole? What is better for society, and what is better for those individuals?

I hear arguments for all sorts of things, and I can honestly say I don't remember a single one I like. What is it going to take to fix our country and the people in it?

/rant2

 

[Jazz Spazz]

A mother who has her kids in the car while she is speeding is teaching her kids to break the law. I doubt anyone would support a lengthy jail sentence for that.

A mother who has her car while speeding is teaching her kids to break the law. Two separate issues, one is that the person breaking the law, if caught should receive the punishment equal to, or attached to that law. A ticket, or maybe she might be taken in to jail or something if she is going 120 in a school zone, or if she has 15 unpaid parking tickets too.
The second issue is that teaching your children to break the law repeatedly is only causing those same habits to be part of those children's lives and they are more likely to not see a problem in breaking that law, or others depending on what other experiences they have. The kids will just keep the law breaking going most likely, and it will be multiplied by how many kids you have.... in general.

Separate the breaking the law and the punishment from what is being taught to the kids.

 

[Nate505]

A mother who has her car while speeding is teaching her kids to break the law. Two separate issues, one is that the person breaking the law, if caught should receive the punishment equal to, or attached to that law. A ticket, or maybe she might be taken in to jail or something if she is going 120 in a school zone, or if she has 15 unpaid parking tickets too.
The second issue is that teaching your children to break the law repeatedly is only causing those same habits to be part of those children's lives and they are more likely to not see a problem in breaking that law, or others depending on what other experiences they have. The kids will just keep the law breaking going most likely, and it will be multiplied by how many kids you have.... in general.

Separate the breaking the law and the punishment from what is being taught to the kids.

In this issue I can't separate the punishment. The punishment is ridiculously excessive and should not be warranted, even if the idiotic laws in Oklahoma support such a punishment.

And I'm not sure I agree with the general premise that children raised by minor lawbreakers are bound to become career criminals. If anything they just may break those minor laws, but I'm not even convinced there is much of a correlation there. Ethics are much more important than following the law. In general the two are one in the same, but there are times when the line gets blurry, especially when the law goes into moral value code territory than a cut and dry standard of harming your fellow person (or their property).

For example, who is being raised in the more ethical house. The children of parents who are monogamous and live an otherwise normal, tax paying life but with a father who smokes weed on the weekends or when the get home from work or whatever (and let's say this is in a sane state like Colorado where that activity wouldn't even bring jail time if they were caught with it). Or the father who lives an otherwise normal tax paying life, doesn't use any illicit drugs, but goes around and has numerous extramarital affairs. Unless they were in some sort of open relationship I would say the second is far less ethical. In the first the law is being broken, but that's about it. In the second the father is violating at the very least a contract with his wife (and more profound violations if you are of the religious nature), which is essentially lying, which as a behavior is just more unethical than the act of breaking a law.