Thrasher
Wheeee!
Yep. I just think a lot of laws that protect people from their own stupid behavior or someone else's ideas of immoral behavior (but hurt noone directly but themselves) should be removed from the books and the people freed.
Madoff made-off with billions...
- Thread starter Remus
- Start date
vanedor
Keeper of the Watch
For example?
Not like there are a lot of people in jail for using drugs, being polygamist or something.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Quite the contrary, a huge percentage of the inmates in California prisons are there for drug offenses and illegal immigration. Note that this is exacerbated by the 3 strikes law, which doesn't take into consideration violent vs non-violent offenses.
vanedor
Keeper of the Watch
If you claim that selling drugs "hurt noone directly but themselves", I think you are wrong there.
As for illegal immigrants, why don't they just send them back home?
Still, I don't see a huge number of people that are in jail to protect themselves from their own stupid behavior or someone else's ideas of immoral behavior. Illegal immigration doesnt answer to your categorizing.
As for illegal immigrants, why don't they just send them back home?
Still, I don't see a huge number of people that are in jail to protect themselves from their own stupid behavior or someone else's ideas of immoral behavior. Illegal immigration doesnt answer to your categorizing.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
No one is forced to buy drugs from the sellers. One has to take responsibility for one's own actions. Blaming it on the sellers is a lame excuse in my book. Besides, many of the inmates are there just for possession, not selling.
Illegal immigration is in a different category, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Illegal immigration is in a different category, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
vanedor
Keeper of the Watch
For the sellers, you would be right if drugs didnt actually create so much dependence and people were actually free to purchase them or not once the dependence is created. I would agree. But it's not the case.
As for :
I would be curious to see the numbers, the statistics about this.
As for :
I would be curious to see the numbers, the statistics about this.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Yes, but the sellers didn't start the dependence. The users made that first step, and made the choice. So blaming the sellers is what I consider a symptom of our society's movement towards the "blame game". Why take responsibility when one can blame someone else for one's own self-induced problems? in a sense it's bad morals in my book.
The current drug laws were started by Nixon in his paranoia about his own protection of power, and had little to do with protecting people.
people need tot ake responsibility for their actions, but to do so they need to be educated enough to make an informed choice
Putting the government into babysitting mode goes hand in hand with having a poor education system
The current drug laws were started by Nixon in his paranoia about his own protection of power, and had little to do with protecting people.
people need tot ake responsibility for their actions, but to do so they need to be educated enough to make an informed choice
Putting the government into babysitting mode goes hand in hand with having a poor education system
vanedor
Keeper of the Watch
He didnt start the dependence, but he helped it and certainyl didnt inform his customer properly of the effect it would cause. That's pretty criminal in my mind.
Anyhow, drug ban havent started in the 70' by Nixon. The chinese empire had Opium banished long before. They even had a war against the british and right at the beginning of the XXth century, laws began to appear in many parts of the world to control its use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Prohibition_outside_China
Sure, education is a solution, but education alone cannot do it. Some layers of the society, the youngs, the poors need to be aided because they often don't have the knowledge, the maturity and/or the knowledge. Yes, babysitted if you care so much to use this word. For the good of the society, for the good of these people and because the alternative is very dangerous for the common good. A society full of drug addicts doesnt go far... the former chinese empire being the perfect example. During the XIXth century, up to 1/4 of its male population was addicted to Opium. See where it led them... until Mao finally cleaned the country.
Anyhow, drug ban havent started in the 70' by Nixon. The chinese empire had Opium banished long before. They even had a war against the british and right at the beginning of the XXth century, laws began to appear in many parts of the world to control its use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Prohibition_outside_China
Sure, education is a solution, but education alone cannot do it. Some layers of the society, the youngs, the poors need to be aided because they often don't have the knowledge, the maturity and/or the knowledge. Yes, babysitted if you care so much to use this word. For the good of the society, for the good of these people and because the alternative is very dangerous for the common good. A society full of drug addicts doesnt go far... the former chinese empire being the perfect example. During the XIXth century, up to 1/4 of its male population was addicted to Opium. See where it led them... until Mao finally cleaned the country.
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
They were banned all before Nixon. Unless you're saying all of his enemies were drug addicts then I don't see how "paranoia" factors into this? The drug laws are stupid, but the people on both sides of the aisle are moralistic to the extreme. I don't see many Lefties lining up to overthrow the current system.
Last edited:
magerette
Hedgewitch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Nixon did start the so-called War on Drugs, but I'd say it had more to do with PR than paranoia--he was mimicking LBJ's War on Poverty, which began all this warfare on terms and concepts that's gone so well for us.
I don't think you can pin it all on the repubs, however:
From the wiki
Hopefully we'll see more progress on this issue under the current administration.
I don't think you can pin it all on the repubs, however:
From the wiki
Here's the timeline, which starts with the 1880's Opium War.
Hopefully we'll see more progress on this issue under the current administration.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
Yup, that's my point. It was already illegal, Nixon turned it into what it is today, but it was a PR stunt. I think it'd be like saying his move to create the EPA is because he was paranoid about his enemies. PR stunt to gain political influence - politics is filled with it. But since the Dems have wholeheartedly supported this for almost half a decade, I don't think it can be pinned on one guy.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
It's a commonly held idea that Nixon was paranoid about drugs, after digestion of the tapes. In particular, cosolidation and strengthening of the Federal role. Prior to this the enforcement and penalities were weaker. The "progress" made during this era has been argued to be the strongest cause of prison overcrowding.
Check out this article:
http://www.alternet.org/story/12666/?page=entire
Check out this article:
http://www.alternet.org/story/12666/?page=entire
Thrasher
Wheeee!
So should all the Blizzard executives be sent to jail for all the WoW addicts it is responsible for?
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
I understand the arguments against it, and I don't understand why you seem to think I'm arguing in favor of it (I'd chalk that up to once again you not knowing where I stand on virtually every issue). My point is you can't blame this entirely on Nixon. Congress heard the testimony and got to vote on it. How many nationally elected officials have fought to overturn this? None. Public support is still highly in favor of these laws, on both sides of the aisle, so if you want to blame Nixon's paranoia, you better be blaming congressional democrats, Carter, Clinton, and Obama as well.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
It's politically intractable to back off on the drug laws. Since Nixon ramped it up more than anyone else, he was responsible more than anyone else for the current situation.
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
So Nixon's politicking is to be condemned, but is everyone else's excusable? Any president or congress could have moved to overturn them at any time. They haven't. At some point it doesn't it become the fault of those who run the government? It's pretty easy to blame someone forty years ago, but if they don't do anything to intervene or change said policy, they're just as much to blame - along with the majority of the population who supports these drug laws.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
I'm not excusing anyone. It's a political reality that it's easier to make these laws and organizations stronger. So anyone who takes advantage of this political reality to further his own political gains or for whatever reasons (including paranoia) is more culpable.
magerette
Hedgewitch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
Now Madoff is getting 'counseling' on adjusting to prison life--couldn't someone just tell him not to bend down to pick up the soap whilst in the shower with Bubba and be done with it?
Madoff's Prison Consultant
Madoff's Prison Consultant
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
(groan)Bernie's second son has just died due to cancer, around 24 hours ago at age 48. This was his last surviving son, his first son who was 49 I think committed suicide in 2010.
This family of white collar jewish criminals is truly cursed.
This family of white collar jewish criminals is truly cursed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 203