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

[Nate505]

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?

/rant2

Both options suck. If a gun were pointed to my head I would have to go with #2, because when you are talking about "law" in general most of it applies to putting people who harm others away so they can't harm any more others. In that case law is perfectly valid, and is the primary reason prison should be reserved for those who are a true danger to society (and not some lady selling a dime bag of weed). So at it's absolute most base point, I'd slightly prefer repressiveness to anarchy. Much like I'd prefer a stab wound to a gunshot.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

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.

I didn't make the argument that in this case the woman's sentence was excessive, it probably was. I don't know the whole story, so I would be guessing.
I was not talking about separating the punishment from the crime, I was talking about separating the effect a lawbreaking parent has on his/her kids from the law and corresponding punishment.

I am just saying that in general there is a higher likelihood that children raised by parents that break the law will continue to do so vs. children raised by parents that do not break the law. Each case will be different, but in general kids do what their parents do unless they make a conscious effort to not do the same things. I agree with the rest of this paragraph, people should use reason and a code of ethics... and yes in most cases they would not conflict with laws.

Not that it matters, and I don't see how it has to do with what I was saying, but I do agree that (in my personal opinion) I think a man that cheats on his wife is doing more harm than somebody that smokes pot. Neither are good, but I personally believe there is something sacred to a marriage vow that adds extra weight to the breaking of that. It may not be a law today, but in other societies it has been a law. Ethics and morals often times go beyond the scope of laws.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Both options suck. If a gun were pointed to my head I would have to go with #2, because when you are talking about "law" in general most of it applies to putting people who harm others away so they can't harm any more others. In that case law is perfectly valid, and is the primary reason prison should be reserved for those who are a true danger to society (and not some lady selling a dime bag of weed). So at it's absolute most base point, I'd slightly prefer repressiveness to anarchy. Much like I'd prefer a stab wound to a gunshot.

So it just comes to an argument over which laws you like and which ones you dont like...... and it's tough to get people to agree on it. There are so many angles people take, and reasons, or even agendas that get in the way.
I tend to agree with you though, even though both are tough to deal with.

 

[LogGrad98]

They can do tests to determine the amount of active THC in the system. The current test is more for the metabolites of THC than THC itself since it metabolizes relatively fast in the body. Certain metabolites are fat-soluble only, so they bond to fat which is why it can take 30 days for it to clear your system. It was also deemed only necessary to see if any traces at all were in their system, since it is illegal and all, and the amount and immediacy were irrelevant. The same applies to narcotics testing. The tests are basically just simple present/not present results. They can do tests that determine more accurately how much and how recent. I have a wayward friend, for example, who has been struggling with narcotics, but one problem the court had in monitoring him was that he had a pain control issues (permanent back pain due to car accident) that caused him to need to use some narcotics as pain control under the direction of a pain control specialist. The court ordered blood tests regularly to see the exact level of the narcotics in his system, and compared that to the prescribed dosing to see if he was abusing beyond his pain control regimen. It would not be that tough to change the laws to allow someone to be brought in on DUI charges and then run a test for THC that is more comprehensive. I think for employers it would be no different than it is now, other than the tests would change. We send someone out if they have an accident on PIT (forklift, reach truck, etc.) that hurts someone or causes >$500 in damage and it tests for alcohol and the standard battery of drugs. I think as long as the tests are modified, I would not care if marijuana was legalized. Maybe other drugs as well.

One thing that making it illegal does is it makes it harder for people to get it who would otherwise not go looking for it. Obviously if you are set on it, you can find a dealer, but I think if drugs in general were legalized, you would see an uptick in teens using various drugs as they try out dad's stash or whatever, just like they get into their parent's booze now. The danger is that with harder drugs the consequences can be far worse than a hangover, or even alcoholism. The danger of overdosing and simply hard-core addiction is great enough that I think I could not with good conscience vote for legalizing everything.

But I think legalizing marijuana, which really is no more dangerous than alcohol, would lift a huge burden from the taxpayers and our over-crowded jails since MJ-related "criminals" are a relatively high percentage of prisoners at almost every level (estimates range between 1 in 5 and 1 in 8 prisoners are in there for marijuana-related crimes).

 

[One Brow]

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

Wouldn't it have been better described as Strawman Leftist hypocrisy?

 

[One Brow]

That's when One Brow went on a tangent about my usual rhetoric and whatnot.

Are you talking about some other thead?

 

[Agoxlea]

They can do tests to determine the amount of active THC in the system. The current test is more for the metabolites of THC than THC itself since it metabolizes relatively fast in the body. Certain metabolites are fat-soluble only, so they bond to fat which is why it can take 30 days for it to clear your system. It was also deemed only necessary to see if any traces at all were in their system, since it is illegal and all, and the amount and immediacy were irrelevant. The same applies to narcotics testing. The tests are basically just simple present/not present results. They can do tests that determine more accurately how much and how recent. I have a wayward friend, for example, who has been struggling with narcotics, but one problem the court had in monitoring him was that he had a pain control issues (permanent back pain due to car accident) that caused him to need to use some narcotics as pain control under the direction of a pain control specialist. The court ordered blood tests regularly to see the exact level of the narcotics in his system, and compared that to the prescribed dosing to see if he was abusing beyond his pain control regimen. It would not be that tough to change the laws to allow someone to be brought in on DUI charges and then run a test for THC that is more comprehensive. I think for employers it would be no different than it is now, other than the tests would change. We send someone out if they have an accident on PIT (forklift, reach truck, etc.) that hurts someone or causes >$500 in damage and it tests for alcohol and the standard battery of drugs. I think as long as the tests are modified, I would not care if marijuana was legalized. Maybe other drugs as well.

One thing that making it illegal does is it makes it harder for people to get it who would otherwise not go looking for it. Obviously if you are set on it, you can find a dealer, but I think if drugs in general were legalized, you would see an uptick in teens using various drugs as they try out dad's stash or whatever, just like they get into their parent's booze now. The danger is that with harder drugs the consequences can be far worse than a hangover, or even alcoholism. The danger of overdosing and simply hard-core addiction is great enough that I think I could not with good conscience vote for legalizing everything.

But I think legalizing marijuana, which really is no more dangerous than alcohol, would lift a huge burden from the taxpayers and our over-crowded jails since MJ-related "criminals" are a relatively high percentage of prisoners at almost every level (estimates range between 1 in 5 and 1 in 8 prisoners are in there for marijuana-related crimes).

Countries that legalize drugs tend to see a decrease in their use. See: Portugal

 

[GVC]

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

This whole post is absolute ********. It's hard to know where to start.

Why don't we ban TV, fast food, carbonated beverages, fat, sugar, cars, etc. These are all more harmful than cannabis, and most of them are more addictive. Further, they provide an "escape", which, as far as I can tell, is completely healthy. Do you watch TV? Are you not a basketball fan? Is idle recreation really so bad? If so, 100% of the world population should be thrown in jail.

As for what she teaches her kids" Maybe she's teaching them that liberty matters, that people ought to be free to enjoy their lives and ease their pain any way they choose, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else. Maybe she's teaching them that fascism and the rise of the police state should be fought against unrelentingly.

And, I can assure you, many people's quality of life is enhanced by cannabis. I was a miserable, unproductive mess before being introduced to cannabis. Religion had nearly killed me (now that's a harmful substance of ever one existed). Maybe you should shut the **** up about things you know nothing about, and allow people to live their lives as they see fit. I'm not pounding down your door and harassing you for doing things that I don't do because you're probably not hurting anyone with your actions. I expect the same level of respect.

 

[GVC]

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.

Thanks for responding more respectfully later in the thread, but this post above is pretty damn terrible.

Characterizing cannabis legalization as an issue of the "left" is disingenuous at best. One needs only look at who has supported decriminalization and legalization measures in recent years to know that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)#Stance_on_initiative). Hell, the group most frequently and consistently in favor of legalization is libertarians, who are far from pro-farm bill, pro-labor union anti-capitalists.

meh.

 

[GVC]

So it just comes to an argument over which laws you like and which ones you dont like...... and it's tough to get people to agree on it. There are so many angles people take, and reasons, or even agendas that get in the way.
I tend to agree with you though, even though both are tough to deal with.

That's an oversimplification (which you are prone to). You can pick and choose laws based on societal effects. It's fair to say that actions between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home(s) shouldn't be readily punished. If you're out breaking into people's homes, raping them, then stealing their dog, that's something entirely different.

No?

 

[franklin]

Thanks for responding more respectfully later in the thread, but this post above is pretty damn terrible.

Characterizing cannabis legalization as an issue of the "left" is disingenuous at best. One needs only look at who has supported decriminalization and legalization measures in recent years to know that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)#Stance_on_initiative). Hell, the group most frequently and consistently in favor of legalization is libertarians, who are far from pro-farm bill, pro-labor union anti-capitalists.

meh.

Of course it's not the left and of course it was [mostly] disingenuous.

The only serious part was about vouchers in Utah. The left screams about freedom this and that until it hits their pet projects. We wanted freedom of school choice, lower school costs, etc. and the left crushed it. They pulled every ridiculous tactic in the book, including demonizing Milton Friedman over his legalize mj stance. If that wasn't pure hypocrisy then I don't know what is.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

Countries that legalize drugs tend to see a decrease in their use. See: Portugal

" Portugal has arguably the most liberal laws concerning possession of illicit drugs in the Western world. In 2001 Portugal decriminalized possession of effectively all drugs that are still illegal in other developed nations including, but not limited to, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and LSD. While possession is legal, trafficking and possession of more than "10 days worth of personal use" are still punishable by jail time and fines. Since decriminalization was implemented, Portugal has seen rapid improvement in the number of deaths from drug overdoses as well as a decline in new HIV infections."

How could they see decriminalizing cocaine and heroin as a good idea.

I think Denmark's policy is a move in the right direction but not without it's flaws either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands