I'm convinced that only pot smokers support legalizing marijuana

i don't mind vaping when i can afford it.

 

Okay...nice talking to you, mac.

 

It was a decision - he made the decision to get high out of his mind, not caring what he might do while in such a state. If he then commits a crime his intent is criminal negligence.

I'm still not seeing a justification for 20 year minimums just because you were intoxicated when you committed the crime. Especially for minor crime, that's an absolutely ridiculous sentence.

 

The justification is to discourage people from committing crimes while under the influence of illicit drugs.

If you want to get high you have to pay a price.

And that's the ONLY compromise i'm willing to support.

 

So you're willing to crap on the Constitution and its protections against cruel and unusual punishments and you call that "compromise"??

 

You have to prove it's unconstitutional and you have to prove it's cruel and unusual punishment.

And if putting people in jail for a long time is cruel and unusual punishment to you, then I think you should be fighting the sentencing or a life sentence or several life sentences.

 

20 years and a million dollar fine for shoplifting a $2 candy bar? The court would take about 2 seconds to declare that cruel and unusual.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight, because executing your grandmother for jaywalking is the same as executing a mass murderer.

Anyway, by trotting out your ridiculous proposal that has no chance of seeing the light of day, you've essentially labeled yourself as someone not to be taken seriously on this issue. You've made yourself irrelevant.

 

Except that there are MANY people in jail for smoking marijuana for a very long time to today.

And there are people in jail for a very long time for OTHER frivolous reasons too.

So don't give me that altruistic junk.

Methinks you're a pothead.

 

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to give you that "altruistic junk". I know that human rights aren't for everyone...well actually they are for everyone but some people just write them off as "altruistic junk" right up to the point where it affects them personally, then they cry like babies...you know what I mean.

And I think that you have a lower than average IQ and the social skills of a dead autistic cow but I'm not rude enough to just come out and say it for no reason.

 

Nope, you just want to be able to commit crime and get away with it.

And there's no such thing as human rights. human rights are a pipe dream and tyranny and war is the human norm.

Get your head out of the smoke.

 

I just want to commit crime and get away with it? That's all you could come up with?

Now we know what you base your political opinion on...tyranny and the denial of human rights.

That's good to know, going forward.

 

Yea I said that... and you quoted it... ("The bad decision was intentionally letting go of his sobriety, getting high.") There was just no decision to commit the other crime, because he was out of his mind when that one happened.

Now that we've agreed there are two difference crimes, we can address your question:

The issue is he can't just pay the find or go to jail for stealing something, because he also committed the crime of choosing to go "out of his mind" first. Like a guy who speeds while drunk will face a stiffer sentence than a guy who just speeds.

You further added the consideration that the guy is an addict, which means no sentence we could pass will dissuade him from getting high. Even when sober he's not in control of his use of the substance.

In your opinion, restricting this guy for 20 years is too much. My opinion is different. In my opinion, this guy will certainly get high again and has demonstrated in that state he may at least rob someone. I'm worried worse will happen, but robbery alone is reason to restrict the guy indefinitely. In my opinion, this guy should be treated like a persistent danger to society and locked up until to he can demonstrate he is no longer a danger to society. Like we do with the criminally insane.

My only reservation in doing so is the cost and to alleviate that cost I might consider felony conviction, then probation with continued drug testing and supervision.




​

 

Allowing people to commit crimes that hurt other people is the true tyranny, which some people want to enable.

So who is the real tyrant here? The person who wants to get high and hurt someone or someone who wants to protect other people.

You see, this actually creates a schism. liberals say they're against conservatives because they want to protect people and they see conservatives ad bigoted, racist, homophobic people who want to hurt people so they must ignore the constitution and enact all kinds of laws that put people in the care of the government.

But when ti comes to drugs, they just want to get high, and ignore the fact that all kinds of crimes are committed while under the influence of drugs, such as drunk drivers who run down a child or a pregnant mother, or get angry at someone and shoot their wife and kills her. crimes like date rape (oh wait, liberals don't care about the risks of sex so they think there's no such thing as sexual morality so they think rape is okay) and just plain out rape.

I see no difference.

I see no substance or credibility there.

All I seek to do is to protect people from doing harm, and there is plenty of harm caused by people on drugs.

But who cares. It's getting high and feeling good that's important.

 

Save the liberal vs. conservative claptrap for someone who is either a liberal or a conservative. I am neither, and do not subscribe to your simple-Simon partisan generalizations.

Also, give me a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing break with that "protecting people" garbage. Locking your grandmother in a cage for 20 years and fining her what could amount to a life's wages simply for stealing a candy bar after she drank too many gin and tonics doesn't "protect" anyone. It is simply the petty and vindictive musings of a buffoon. That has nothing to do with being a liberal or a conservative or a Presbyterian. That has to do with being a tyrannically minded individual with an inflated sense of self importance.

 

Just like you and your ridiculous statements.

Ah well.

You sure really showed me and put me in my place.

Yep, must be a pot head that just wants to get high and go out and shoot people just for the fun of it.

 

That's right. And I kill puppy dogs for funzies while spitting on little old ladies. Now you're boogeyman narrative is complete and you can continue living in the alternate reality that you've created for yourself.

 

You're getting nowhere fast.

Getting back to the OP.

 

To me, the exact reason that he committed the crime is not relevant to how long he should be in jail for doing it.

What I would suggest, though, is that if someone commits a crime while intoxicated then it should be mandatory that they get off their addiction for a set period of time (which may be rendered permanent if he is a repeat offender). Just like if you commit a crime with a firearm, your freedom to possess and do drugs should only exist so long as you do not abuse that freedom and commit crimes because of them. If you cannot keep yourself from being a criminal while you are intoxicated, then your freedom be be intoxicated should be revoked.

But 20 years is flat out not reasonable when we are talking about minor crimes, that's extremely inflexible. I might understand it if he committed a high-value robbery but for petty crime that's ridiculous.

 

Wrong. I don't smoke MJ and I support its removal from Schedule I. The cost for enforcement to the police, the courts, probation and local county jails is enormous; if States could regulate and tax the growth, marketing and sales of MJ everyone would benefit. MJ is ubiquitous and its illegality only benefits criminals. It is a multi-billion dollar black market and maybe the stupidest policy within the failed war on drugs. The health impact of MJ is much less than alcohol and tobacco, and if regulated the level of THC can be set much the same as proof in alcohol.

 

But what if long term research proves the belief that teenagers smoking pot reduces their IQ long term. Now wouldn't that be justification enough for banning it as a dangerous drug.

 

Of course! And if the same is shown to apply to television and video games then we can ban them too. After those are out of the way we can ban 32oz. sodas because it makes people fat and the liberal nanny-state that you seem to desire will be full-steam ahead. Sounds great.

 

LOL! All I have to say about that is there must be a bunch of folks a smokin'

 

You are wrong about this, and I'll tell you why. Although I smoked grass way back in the old Hippie days, I stopped it completely when I went back to school to get my Bachelor's Degree, and I never smoked it again after that, except for very rare occasions.

I'm an arch-Conservative, about as far to the edge of the Right Wing as you can get, but I voted FOR total legalization of marijuana in Colorado! WHY? First and foremost, like a lot of Conservative people, I believe in the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO FREEDOM! If somebody wants to smoke MJ, shoot heroin, or take a gun and blow their brains out, they should have that RIGHT! You should always have the RIGHT to do whatever you want to do so long as you do not infringe on the rights of other people.

Next, I wanted to create an opportunity for Colorado to gain tax revenue from somebody besides ordinary taxpayers, like ME! We always get gouged in the ass whenever the damned teachers' unions want to raise property taxes to pay for all their wonderful socialist goodies and this splendid thing we call a public school "education".... And I could name a lot of other areas where, if we can get enough extra tax revenue coming in from marijuana sales, those liberal Democrat bastards who run things here in Denver won't be as likely to slam the rest of us with even higher overall taxes and "fees" for everything under the sun.

So, be careful when you paint people with an overly-broad brush. You may be wrong, and not even know all the reasons why you're wrong....

 

Spoken life a true right wing money grubbin' ********. Before Reagan, his tax cuts for the wealthy and busting labor unions started the demise of the middle class this country used to be fair to all:

View attachment 29094

View attachment 29092

 

How do you get off an addiction? And if it was possible to stop being an addict, you're ok with becoming one again after a set period of time?

Any you seriously think someone who was speeding because his wife was in labor should face the same sentence as someone who was speeding because he was drunk?

You're trying to negotiate with someone who is incapable of that negotiation. By definition. The sentencing in such a case is not a penalty to dissuade a future decision, it's an action to shield society from a proven threat that we don't see a way to end. It's a last recourse.

We don't imprison the criminally insane for 5, 10, or even 20 years. We restrict them for life or until they can prove they are no longer insane. And unlike people who are addicts, the medical community believes people who are insane can stop being insane. An addict is always an addict.





​