- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:22 pm to The Pirate King
You are too stupid to argue with. Have you missed the last 500 threads on the OT where people like you get destroyed?
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:22 pm to The Pirate King
quote:well, it has been a complete failure. why would you continue fighting a war that was lost 30 years ago. That's insanity.
strategy to "try something different" is to spit in the face of the war on drugs and legalize what they spent years trying to prevent. Makes sense.
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:23 pm to Salmon
quote:
like I said, if you can source me that is the case of the majority of the time, please do so
Yeah, that would take some time, but I understand your skepticism. This will probably sound anecdotal, but I know plenty of cops that don't arrest for that kind of stuff. I would imagine most of the simple possession-only arrests happen in small towns where not much else is happening.
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:24 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
This will probably sound anecdotal, but I know plenty of cops that don't arrest for that kind of stuff.
oh same here
one of my best friends is a cop and he says he always just makes them throw the weed away and he is a member of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)
but cops also use the "I smell weed" line to gain probably cause for searches, which I have massive issues with
This post was edited on 10/12/16 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:25 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Because they look simply at drug arrests and don't mention if any of these people are charged with any other crimes at the same time
Should it matter? Should one crime compound the sentencing of another? Is robbing someone worse if you do it with a joint in your pocket? What about someone who was convicted of assault from a bar fight when they were 18, is that person now a violent offender? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to follow the logic.
One thing we do know is Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman admitted that harsh drug sentencing was created because they could not make being black or being anti war illegal. Black people and hippies were the biggest hurdle for the Nixon campaign in the 1960's so they targeted those groups via mandatory minimum drug sentencing. This much we know as fact.
I agree that the article is not the best piece of journalism in the world but it poitn out the fact that a mechanism exits to use a minor drug possession offence as a catalyst to lock someone up for the rest of their life.
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:29 pm to Salmon
I say legalize it and tax it like cigs and alcohol.
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:30 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Because they look simply at drug arrests and don't mention if any of these people are charged with any other crimes at the same time. It's giving the impression that cops are going out looking for people smoking a joint which cops typically don't do.
You make the best point. What caused the stop or search in the first place? It sure as hell wasn't suspicion of possessing a few joints.
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:31 pm to Barf
quote:
Should it matter? Should one crime compound the sentencing of another? Is robbing someone worse if you do it with a joint in your pocket? What about someone who was convicted of assault from a bar fight when they were 18, is that person now a violent offender? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to follow the logic
I think it's important due to the fact that the article essentially frames it as possession being sole factor for arrest, which I think is unlikely. Frankly, I think that article is dishonestly lacking. It bugs me when people look at end results but never look at the factors leading to the results.
quote:
One thing we do know is Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman admitted that harsh drug sentencing was created because they could not make being black or being anti war illegal. Black people and hippies were the biggest hurdle for the Nixon campaign in the 1960's so they targeted those groups via mandatory minimum drug sentencing. This much we know as fact.
Yeah, I think that's where we really started going off the rails. The fact that the DEA recently decided to keep MJ on the Schedule I list is a complete travesty.
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:31 pm to Salmon
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/8/20 at 10:19 am
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:31 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
You want to legalize all drugs and prostitution, but obviously can't see the shite storm that would create.
I agree, people like the idea of freedom but they couldn't handle it if they really had it. Government's role is to protect us from decisions that we could make to harm ourselves.
This post was edited on 10/12/16 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:31 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
What about all the resources wasted on prostitution? Should be legalized too right?
Of course it fricking should. If two consenting adults agree frick for money, you honestly believe that you or the government should be able to tell them not to? Do you have any idea of the amount of inflated chickenshit ego it takes to even make that statement?
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:34 pm to TexasTiger39
quote:
Okay, what were their prior convictions for?
does it matter?
if the prior convictions did not earn a life sentence, a simple possession charge now should?
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:34 pm to TexasTiger39
quote:
Okay, what were their prior convictions for? I guarantee you it isn't for simple possession.
The point is, it shouldn't matter. The final straw that lands you behind bars for life, should not be a bag of weed. Unfortunately it's possible for that very thing to happen.
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:34 pm to The Pirate King
quote:People should not get arrested and put in jail if they are not harming others period.
o because "everybody's doing it" we should change the laws to accommodate the criminals? Lol that's just stupid.
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:35 pm to PortCityTiger24
quote:
Blame the law makers, not the police (
Ummm it's the Sheriff's association that kills every legalisation bill at legislative committee. Marijuana possession is their golden goose, they have zero interest in killing it, it will put them out of business.
So yes I blame LEO.
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:35 pm to TexasTiger39
quote:
Okay, what were their prior convictions for? I guarantee you it isn't for simple possession.
The part that really burns my arse is that politicians like Obama constantly decry the disparity in race when it comes to things like drug charges and castigates local PD's for it yet he has done nothing to curb the issue regarding the most common drug people are arrested for. He's had 8 years to fix the issue, but the only thing he's done is commute some sentences and did nothing to prevent them.
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:38 pm to Salmon
quote:
but cops also use the "I smell weed" line to gain probably cause for searches, which I have massive issues with
Yeah, that one can go either way. Using it as an excuse to search a car I think can be acceptable sometimes, but using it to search a house I think is total bullshite.
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:39 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
Your strategy to "try something different" is to spit in the face of the war on drugs and legalize what they spent years trying to prevent. Makes sense.
Or maybe it's so we can stop wasting resources trying to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people just because they smoke some weed. Tabacco and alcohol are just as bad yet they're legal and we tax the hell out of it. What real argument is there to keep marijuana illegal?
Posted on 10/12/16 at 1:41 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Yeah, that one can go either way. Using it as an excuse to search a car I think can be acceptable sometimes, but using it to search a house I think is total bullshite.
Can it be used to search a house? I have always been under the impression it could not be used to search either one.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News