nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
Secondly, you refute your own argument. And I quote "but also to stop the person from committing any more crimes (even in prison)". I am not aware of any modern case where someone on death row has committed a criminal act. Therefore, you undermine your own death penalty argument, as life imprisonment is sufficient to prevent the prisoner from committing any more crimes.

If they are on death row, then they are usually in isolation, so they don't commit crimes, even against other prisoners.
However, if you get rid of the death penalty, and switch them to life, then they are mixed in with the regular prison population.
Considering the number of violent attacks in prison, they do commit more crimes.


Thirdly, the role of prisons should not be to punish, but to reform. It's that think that is a leading factor in prison re-admittance rates. If we spent money on teaching skills necessary to hold a steady job, rather then punishment, we'd reduce both crime and expenses in one go.

Sorry, but we'll have to disagree on this. In most cases reform doesn't work, it just leads to smarter criminals that are harder to catch.
The worse the crime, the more likely they will commit similar crimes once they are released.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Contact high is most likely a myth per the research. I mean unless they were chain smoking joints in a small totally enclosed area. 16 joints an hour is what was tested.

Maybe the kid was just retarded?

Links in articles to studies.
https://www.businessinsider.com/randi-kaye-contact-high-2014-1

Most pot use, like alcohol use is responsible.

Working in restaurants though— alcohol was a much bigger issue than the stoners. The pot heads never got drunk during shift and tried to fight the owner. Drunks did twice though lol.


But the drunks don't sneak into the walk-in freezers and munch the deserts :cool:

Eating up the profits .... literally.
 

bugleyman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,227
Also interesting about this thread: The number of people assuming that a conviction means the defendant was guilty. Innocent people often have very strong financial incentives to plead guilty to a lesser charge, and going to trial is risky.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
6,504
Also interesting about this thread: The number of people assuming that a conviction means the defendant was guilty. Innocent people often have very strong financial incentives to plead guilty to a lesser charge, and going to trial is risky.
The problem with minor pot convictions is to my understanding they preclude you from federally backed student loans and I know they preclude you from military service and many government jobs.

I’ve seen a 10 sack keep people from doing stuff they want to do.
 

RobCalleg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2018
Messages
128
I don’t smoke weed. I drink tequila every night.

Weed should be legal and alcohol should be illegal.
 

Jelly

Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
801
to my understanding they preclude you from federally backed student loans and I know they preclude you from military service and many government jobs.

Even after my two mj related felonies, I was able to get fed backed student loans, worked a gov job (true I had to get an exception from each shipyard commander when a new job opened up) but it’s not automatically the end of all good opportunities.
 

XvMMvX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,665
If you support drinking and don't support marijuana use, something is a bit off here.

Possessing and consuming alcohol is legal in all 50 states. Marijuana is not. I am not going to tell my kids to not possess and use illegal drugs based on some moral high ground. I am going to tell them to avoid it because the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Nothing good comes from a criminal record.

Also, being a parent is pretty much being a hypocrite. I am going to tell them not to do things that I did... full stop.
 

Eshelmen

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
5,429
Possessing and consuming alcohol is legal in all 50 states. Marijuana is not. I am not going to tell my kids to not possess and use illegal drugs based on some moral high ground. I am going to tell them to avoid it because the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Nothing good comes from a criminal record.

Also, being a parent is pretty much being a hypocrite. I am going to tell them not to do things that I did... full stop.

So when it's legal, you'll flip the switch then.

Sounds good!
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
If you support drinking and don't support marijuana use, something is a bit off here.

Not at all. I wouldn't even support marijuana use in Colorado where rec use is legal...... because it's still illegal federally. Telling someone it's OK in your state is a great way to fuck up people job opportunities in the future.

I vote against it exactly because of this reason. I will not support pot in my State until after the Feds back off and legalize it for the country. It's just a huge false flag/mixed message for young people to fuck themselves up with.

And BTW, we just received renewed emphasis from the Army's Command that pot is still illegal federally and that we even have to watch out with investments as investing in pot farming or farming pot yourself remains illegal from a government employee angle. Yes, they are even saying pot stocks are out of bounds for government employees.

Reading some of the documents on it, it would seem that the Feds are still coming to grips with all the angles of these issues. For instance, I'm pretty sure they would have a problem with me loaning Uncle Fester $10K for his pot farm, legal or otherwise in his state. The also might not like me investing in a company who's company profile included cultivation of recreational and medical weed. But medical weed only might be different. The word "knowingly" came up with a suggestion that investing in a mutual fund without realizing that the fund has a pot stock in it would probably be overlooked. What about investing in Anheuser-Busch?
Can I invest in BUD or not because they have branched out in their product line-up?


I'm hoping that the federal government will eventually come around and relent on this issue and leave it to the States to determine it on their own. Either that or they have to "bring the states to heal", and I'm not really for that approach. Flies in the face of my views on States rights and just what our Government should and shouldn't be getting into.
 
Last edited:

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
Not at all. I wouldn't even support marijuana use in Colorado where rec use is legal...... because it's still illegal federally. Telling someone it's OK in your state is a great way to fuck up people job opportunities in the future.

I vote against it exactly because of this reason. I will not support pot in my State until after the Feds back off and legalize it for the country. It's just a huge false flag/mixed message for young people to fuck themselves up with.
It has to start somewhere and the way things are this is it's best chance until certain elders are not in office
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
It has to start somewhere and the way things are this is it's best chance until certain elders are not in office


I don't agree. Your statement assumes that it's something that must happen and I'm not sold on that.

That being said, I do think it should be up to the States, so I believe the Federal Government should give in.

But until they do, I am not a proponent of going it alone because I think it puts a State's citizens in a catch-22.

If you think I have an odd perspective on it try and understand, I see this as a perfect example of why the Federal Government needs to stay out of things as much as they can while they pursue their true responsibilities as charged by the Constitution.

To this end, I also believe that our people need to stop looking to big brother to solve all their problems for them.
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
6,504
Not at all. I wouldn't even support marijuana use in Colorado where rec use is legal...... because it's still illegal federally. Telling someone it's OK in your state is a great way to fuck up people job opportunities in the future.

I vote against it exactly because of this reason. I will not support pot in my State until after the Feds back off and legalize it for the country. It's just a huge false flag/mixed message for young people to fuck themselves up with.

And BTW, we just received renewed emphasis from the Army's Command that pot is still illegal federally and that we even have to watch out with investments as investing in pot farming or farming pot yourself remains illegal from a government employee angle. Yes, they are even saying pot stocks are out of bounds for government employees.

Reading some of the documents on it, it would seem that the Feds are still coming to grips with all the angles of these issues. For instance, I'm pretty sure they would have a problem with me loaning Uncle Fester $10K for his pot farm, legal or otherwise in his state. The also might not like me investing in a company who's company profile included cultivation of recreational and medical weed. But medical weed only might be different. The word "knowingly" came up with a suggestion that investing in a mutual fund without realizing that the fund has a pot stock in it would probably be overlooked. What about investing in Anheuser-Busch?
Can I invest in BUD or not because they have branched out in their product line-up?


I'm hoping that the federal government will eventually come around and relent on this issue and leave it to the States to determine it on their own. Either that or they have to "bring the states to heal", and I'm not really for that approach. Flies in the face of my views on States rights and just what our Government should and shouldn't be getting into.
10k for a pot farm doesn’t even turn on the lights.

Minimum $10m for a startup in California at this point.

The USFG has already had to back off. Medical marijuana for VA patients has changed tremendously in the last 6 years. It’s actually crazy to watch.
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,213
It’s weed ... big deal. Recreational marijuana was made legal for the entire country, where I live, and guess what happened. Nothing.
 

RobCalleg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 15, 2018
Messages
128
Not at all. I wouldn't even support marijuana use in Colorado where rec use is legal...... because it's still illegal federally. Telling someone it's OK in your state is a great way to fuck up people job opportunities in the future.

I vote against it exactly because of this reason. I will not support pot in my State until after the Feds back off and legalize it for the country. It's just a huge false flag/mixed message for young people to fuck themselves up with.

And BTW, we just received renewed emphasis from the Army's Command that pot is still illegal federally and that we even have to watch out with investments as investing in pot farming or farming pot yourself remains illegal from a government employee angle. Yes, they are even saying pot stocks are out of bounds for government employees.

Reading some of the documents on it, it would seem that the Feds are still coming to grips with all the angles of these issues. For instance, I'm pretty sure they would have a problem with me loaning Uncle Fester $10K for his pot farm, legal or otherwise in his state. The also might not like me investing in a company who's company profile included cultivation of recreational and medical weed. But medical weed only might be different. The word "knowingly" came up with a suggestion that investing in a mutual fund without realizing that the fund has a pot stock in it would probably be overlooked. What about investing in Anheuser-Busch?
Can I invest in BUD or not because they have branched out in their product line-up?


I'm hoping that the federal government will eventually come around and relent on this issue and leave it to the States to determine it on their own. Either that or they have to "bring the states to heal", and I'm not really for that approach. Flies in the face of my views on States rights and just what our Government should and shouldn't be getting into.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,913
Sorry, but we'll have to disagree on this. In most cases reform doesn't work, it just leads to smarter criminals that are harder to catch.
The worse the crime, the more likely they will commit similar crimes once they are released.

Except studies have shown the opposite. You see this effect better outside the US, where the rest of the industrialized world has much lower rates of people released from prison committing crimes (yet another on the list of "things the rest of the world does better then us").
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


I'm all for it.

All you have to do is figure out how to challenge the constitution itself, or Congresses interpretation of it which is going to be hard.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And:
Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Title 21 of the United States Code governs Food and Drugs in the United States Code (U.S.C.).

Give this one a quick read and see it's references to your issue. I think you will have a hard time applying the Tenth to this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_21_of_the_United_States_Code

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

(1) Many of the drugs included within this subchapter have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.

(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.

https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/801.htm
 

DF-1

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
2,639
If you have never taken a hallucinogen, I outright question your ability to be objective.

Too many squares in this forum looking down their noses at others for things they know nothing about.
What a dumb stance. Do you need to be a murderer to be objective on murder? A rapist for rape?

How did this get 20 likes
 

Xpl1c1t

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
471
What a dumb stance. Do you need to be a murderer to be objective on murder? A rapist for rape?

How did this get 20 likes

You categorize drug use as 'illegal" alongside rape and muder...
Yet, drug use does not necessitate the involvement of a 2nd party.
What I do to myself, by myself, staying away from you - no one has a fucking right to interfere with.
 
Top