Author Topic: kidnapped CA girls,their dates just let it happen? (Read 1721 times)

Kieran · « **Reply #75 on:** August 04, 2002, 04:41:26 PM »

I believe you stated we need to end the war on drugs, so that our overcrowded prisons wouldn't be, and we could lock up the real criminals. Have I mis-paraphrased you?

Sandman · « **Reply #76 on:** August 04, 2002, 04:54:38 PM »

I'm pretty sure I stated that the drug war was the problem. It is the reason we have more prisons and that those prisons are overcrowded and that mandatory sentencing requirements force the parole of other more violent criminals.

I don't think I offered a solution. I find it rather funny that you guys see the same solution that I do to the above problem. The real difference is whether we find that "solution" acceptable or not. Certainly, there are others... The DNC would have us throw more money at it. The GOP would increase the penalty. (But again... another thread).

Kieran · « **Reply #77 on:** August 04, 2002, 05:00:31 PM »

Ah! I think I need to correct you on something, then... I only agreed there were some pretty wacky judges out there, like the one I mentioned. I also agree there are people that are walking around that should have been put away long ago, and there has been ample opportunity to do so. Lumping me in with people blaming all liberal judges is not exactly correct.

OTOH, I am resolute on my feelings about drugs and their impact on society. I merely began to notice you repeatedly reference the war on drugs, wasted efforts, and the real criminals.

Sandman · « **Reply #78 on:** August 04, 2002, 05:09:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Ah! I think I need to correct you on something, then... I only agreed there were some pretty wacky judges out there, like the one I mentioned. I also agree there are people that are walking around that should have been put away long ago, and there has been ample opportunity to do so. Lumping me in with people blaming all liberal judges is not exactly correct.

Did I do that? Or... was it Karnak?

EDIT: Damnit, I did offer it as a solution... sort of.

Quote

other than possibly ending the drug war and letting our police do real police work or setting up permanent security check points at each of the major interstate junctions

I give up...

Kieran · « **Reply #79 on:** August 04, 2002, 05:42:03 PM »

miko2d · « **Reply #80 on:** August 05, 2002, 03:03:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by easymo
I have read accounts of lefties going to some idiotic lengths to excuse criminal behavior. But this is a classic.

While I support the death penalty, I admit that there is a good case to be made that if the punishment is extremely severe - like one for rape same as for murder, the criminal would tend to kill the victim to remove a witness - since he does not risk more punishment but increases his chances to get away.

I would prefer to have some kind of ID bracelet installed permanently on all violent criminals after the first offence.

Sandman: That wasn't condemnation of law enforcement. It's not their fault that there aren't enough of them. It's not their fault that they spend a disproportionate amount of their time chasing down non-violent drug offenders.
Oh yes, it is - they may have been corrupted by the drug war but the result is that they are corrupt.
Did you see John Stossel exposee? A protest meeting for legalisation of pot? A bunch of guys with posters, few lighting the joints demonstratively. A whole load of police around - dozens. Jumping on the offenders and arresting them?
Stossel asks a group of poicemen - one woman among them: "Do you believe those guys pose any danger?"
Everybody says "No, of course not, they are harmless".
He asks again: "Aren't you worried that after 9/11 with all the threats so many of you are busy here on a nuisance patrol?" and "Would you not rather prefer to be somewhere chasing terrorists and real criminals than standing watch over those harmless guys?".
And the stupid cow says righ into the camera "Of course I would rather be here than chase terrorists!".
If that is not a corruption, than what is? "New York Finest" - what a shame...

kieran: I believe you stated we need to end the war on drugs, so that our overcrowded prisons wouldn't be, and we could lock up the real criminals. Have I mis-paraphrased you?
How about not jailing the users or growers for self-consumption but only dealers and sellers? That would cut the prison population drastically. As for people who hurt other people, prosecute them whether they were stoned, drunk or sober at the time. We already have laws for that.

miko

Sikboy · « **Reply #81 on:** August 05, 2002, 03:08:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Guys... To continue the drug war or not is off topic.

The drug war is simply cited as a reason for prison overcrowding and the early parole of criminals. Is this not true?

No, people breaking the law and getting caught is the reason for prison overcrowding. Perhaps it's murderers who are causing the overcrowding. I think we should legalize murder so that we can get prison population numbers lower.

-Sikboy

miko2d · « **Reply #82 on:** August 05, 2002, 03:18:42 PM »

sickboy: I think we should legalize murder so that we can get prison population numbers lower.
You vote for legalizing murder, I will vote for legalizing pot. It's your right to express your views.

One thing that can be said for sure about rabid fundmentalists is that they see the world as black and white rather than it's natural scale.

To them there is no difference between a person (arguably) harming himslef and killing another - I guess it's like a religious difference where every nuance matters. All or nothing. I guess US was Sodom and Gomorrah before the 1920 when drugs were outlawed - as bad as if murder was legal, right?
Now all is well though - you can kick back with your beer and cigar and boast how you took mother away from her childern for ten years for smoking a joint.

miko

easymo · « **Reply #83 on:** August 05, 2002, 05:00:35 PM »

Since this has gone off into another drug debate let me chip in my reasons. I wont cover them all, just an example.

I had an aquaintence in Denver, back in the early 80,s. He was a successful business man. He also like coke a lot. And not the kind that makes you fat. He gave me a bit of a lecture, one night, on his usage. He pointed out that he was harming no one but himself, if that. He also said that his wife and two children did not want for anything. He supported them in a fine manner.

Two days later, I received the news that he was dead from a drug overdose. I belive that this hurt his children, and I know it hurt his wife. She told me that he had used up all their savings on dope. There was life insurance. But not nearly enough for the kids education, Or to keep them living in anywhere near the standard they were use to.

So this whole victimless crime business is a lot of BS. I wont even bother with the crimes that are committed by dopes to get more dope, or just because they were loaded at the time and their natural inhabit ions were deadened

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #84 on:** August 05, 2002, 05:21:30 PM »

Yeah, but Easymo... this was under the current "War On Drugs", wasn't it?

I rest my case. The current "War on drugs" and it's policies are a miserable failure and waste of police man power and tax payers money.

Review the policy, make it a true war on drugs and not a war on the american people.

"Lock 'em up! That'll make 'em get off that dope!"

Errr no... a lot of 'em just hit the dope harder and become hardened criminals.
-SW

easymo · « **Reply #85 on:** August 05, 2002, 06:48:42 PM »

Errr no... a lot of 'em just hit the dope harder and become hardened criminals.
-SW

OH! I get it. Its the threat of criminal prosecution that makes them take drugs.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #86 on:** August 05, 2002, 06:55:49 PM »

Where did I say that Easymo?

And... err... "threat of criminal prosecution"? No, they have already been prosecuted and placed in jail.

Hence the "ship 'em off to jail, that'll make 'em stop doing illicit drugs" sarcastic comment.

Whether you choose to accept it or not, the current policy isn't working at all.

They arrest a couple million druggies a year, bust a couple hundred thousand tons of illict drugs a year(approx 40-60%), and spend millions of tax payers money a year... and you will whole heartedly support the current "War on Drugs"....

What if I told you that after all of that, it's still a multi-billion dollar business... still think the current "War on Drugs" is working?
-SW

Sandman · « **Reply #87 on:** August 05, 2002, 08:21:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by easymo
Since this has gone off into another drug debate let me chip in my reasons. I wont cover them all, just an example.

I had an aquaintence in Denver, back in the early 80,s. He was a successful business man. He also like coke a lot. And not the kind that makes you fat. He gave me a bit of a lecture, one night, on his usage. He pointed out that he was harming no one but himself, if that. He also said that his wife and two children did not want for anything. He supported them in a fine manner.

Two days later, I received the news that he was dead from a drug overdose. I belive that this hurt his children, and I know it hurt his wife. She told me that he had used up all their savings on dope. There was life insurance. But not nearly enough for the kids education, Or to keep them living in anywhere near the standard they were use to.

So this whole victimless crime business is a lot of BS. I wont even bother with the crimes that are committed by dopes to get more dope, or just because they were loaded at the time and their natural inhabit ions were deadened

No argument. Drugs are dangerous and quite possibly very bad things. This doesn't mean the drug war is necessarily a good thing.

miko2d · « **Reply #88 on:** August 06, 2002, 07:51:39 AM »

easymo: ... he was dead from a drug overdose. ...he had used up all their savings on dope.
So this whole victimless crime business is a lot of BS.
Are those particular reasons for or against legalisation?

As I see it, he is a victim - of the war on drugs. But for war of drugs he could have bought cheap safe coke of regulated purity in convenient dozage at the pharmacy. No need to dip into kids' college savings or risk overdose/poisoning.

Of course they all would have been better off if government arrested him and thrown to jail for twenty years and his wife for ten as an accomplice, confiscated their car and house and put children to into foster care.

miko

Kieran · « **Reply #89 on:** August 06, 2002, 11:30:36 AM »

Quote

As I see it, he is a victim - of the war on drugs. But for war of drugs he could have bought cheap safe coke of regulated purity in convenient dozage at the pharmacy. No need to dip into kids' college savings or risk overdose/poisoning.

You have to be kidding me!

Do you really think in a free market society, where an addictive product such as cocaine is available, it would be CHEAP!? That is, unless, the government puts a price cap so that it is available to all citizens at fair prices. *cough*socialized drug addiction*cough*.

Do you really think with a product such as cocaine maintaining "standards" would come without government intervention?

Do you really think the government should go into the business of dealing drugs over-the-counter to its people? (I can see the rebuttal now: "Iran/Contra")

Has cocaine not shown itself to be an all-consuming addiction for many, sapping the users of the will to do anything but score the next high? (I can see the rebuttal now: "Yea, but what about alcohol?")

And this man's death is because the government was trying to take away the instrument of his demise? Wow, I've seen some twisted logic and denial, but this is pretty up there.