Author Topic: First time marijuana seller gets 55 years (Read 3914 times)

TweetyBird · « **Reply #45 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:19:39 PM »

Yea Redtop, it WOULD make me happy and is something columnist/author William F. Buckley Jr. endorsed years ago. You can't save people from their own stupidity.

lazs2 · « **Reply #46 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:20:08 PM »

I am for tough sentancing of crimes with firearms... If the firearm is simply at your home that is not a firearms crime tho in my opinion.

I haven't heard of this tough of a sentance for not even using a gun in a felony... especialy a non violent felony.

I suppose that it is all drug related.. part of the "war on drugs"... I don't agree with this if that is the case... all felonies should be treated equally except where violence is involved and then all vilolent felonies involving firearms should be treated with stiff mandatory penalties.

lazs

RedTop · « **Reply #47 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:23:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>> Ideally, he should be on a chain gang, working in the south west. <<

Think meager thoughts and have a meager existence. IDEALLY, he shouldn't have been addicted to drugs, and IDEALLY, there should be no profit in drugs.

It was scocities fault he was a drug addict and turned to selling. He surely wasn't making any money on it at all. He was probably a deprived child and was beaten and abused. His mom was probably a hooker and his dad beat her as well. Possibly his dad was his moms pimp. Oh , what a country we live in. We as a country should have seen that and taken care of that problem. We should all be ashamed at our not thriving to keep things like this from happening.

We should make laws that all drug offenders should go thru a 12 step program on the first offense. IF a gun was involved make gun training a part of the program as well. That way they know how to properly use the firearm and can apply for a license to carry after they have completed the course.

2nd time make them repeat the course but throw in "I will try not to do this again and not be on drugs even though the money makes it a great temptation" on a spiral notebook. 50 sheets only as anything more than that could be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

3rd time is 2 steps above plus..and hold on..MANDATORY SOUP KITCHEN LINE WORK for 4 sundays over the course of one year.

Thats getting tough on those drug dealing people. By golly by gum.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #48 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:27:35 PM »

Blah blah, or you could just admit that no law will prevent a moron from drinking antifreeze if he wants to.

NUKE · « **Reply #49 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:30:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Blah blah, or you could just admit that no law will prevent a moron from drinking antifreeze if he wants to.

Yeah, laws are pointless. Now I get it.

RedTop · « **Reply #50 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:32:54 PM »

Ding Ding!!!!!!

Correct sort of. BUT , if you make the law KNOWN to be tough , and no room to move on the law , doesn't that send a message when things like this happen?

I understand that people will do what they want whenever they want regardless. Totally understand it. Laws are to keep honest people honest. Law abiding citizens don't fear the law. They respect it.

But why not make it so if you break a certain law...you WILL suffer a penalty? Why *****foot around with it like they did for so many years?

Ill admit 55 years is tough , but it is the law. AND , the guy I would bet KNEW if he got busted he was going to jail. It is illeagle no 2 ways around it. And a Gun involved , whether threating or not , makes it even worst. Its a simple thing.

If ya do the crime ya do the time. End of Story , Case Closed.

Suave · « **Reply #51 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:35:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Typical of a person who thinks they are above the law just because they don't like it.

That reminds me of...... liberals.

You are saying you will not abide by laws you don't personally agree with? Classic.

I demand a recount!

No that's not what I'm saying. It's a puzzle, figure out what I meant. I spoke directly and used literal syntax so it may prove difficult for you.

I'm sorry, I forget what I'm supposed to call myself. Are liberals defending the right to bear arms and championing the return to constitutional legislature now? Somebody help me out.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #52 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:35:41 PM »

>>Yeah, laws are pointless. Now I get it.<<

That leap of logic accounts for comments that we are a stupid people. Laws governing how you interact with others, i.e, laws protecting others rights ARE needed. Laws governing how you interact with yourself are ridiculous. While no law should say you cant get stoned, laws SHOULD say, you can't drive or expect government relief if your life is committed to being stoned.

Suave · « **Reply #53 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:37:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I am for tough sentancing of crimes with firearms... If the firearm is simply at your home that is not a firearms crime tho in my opinion.

I haven't heard of this tough of a sentance for not even using a gun in a felony... especialy a non violent felony.

I suppose that it is all drug related.. part of the "war on drugs"... I don't agree with this if that is the case... all felonies should be treated equally except where violence is involved and then all vilolent felonies involving firearms should be treated with stiff mandatory penalties.

lazs

You constitution toting liberal !

NUKE · « **Reply #54 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:40:32 PM »

What's a leap of logic?

Maybe people should be allowed to get stoned because it's their body, right? Well drugs are illegal to sell, produce or buy, so that kind of negates that as an argument.

JoOwEn · « **Reply #55 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:42:14 PM »

I dont really care if people get stoned or not so long as they dont try to rob me or car jack me and kidnap/rape my children.

RedTop · « **Reply #56 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:44:26 PM »

Wait til you see a law this tough on drunk driving.

Suave · « **Reply #57 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:46:39 PM »

Well our courts seem to think that getting stoned and owning a gun is much worse than car jacking or rape and murder.

Of course pot addiction leads to horrible things things like rape and murder and gun ownership.

Airhead · « **Reply #58 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:47:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Drunky
He should still rot in jail. He's a law breaker and law breakers deserve to go to jail.

Rot in jail, rot in jail.

I'm watching you Airhead. Break the law and I'll narc on you and you'll rot in jail, rot in jail.

Well, I don't live in some back asswards state like Utah or Texas Drunky, so I'm beyond the reach of your frontier justice. In fact where I live what he did wouldn't even get a parking ticket....and that's if we'd tolorate undercover cops busting people from dime bags, which we don't. We send them after crank labs.

Rot in Texas, Rot in Texas... I smoke pot through my dildo. In Texas that'd be double life.

Suave · « **Reply #59 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:48:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RedTop
Wait til you see a law this tough on drunk driving.

That would be a step in the right direction. But I'd be surprised if that ever happens.