This might not make me very popular....

[SkyHog]

ugh - another city gives up the war on drugs. This is a step backwards for the United States. I thought it belonged on theonion.com at first, until I found out that it is, in fact, real.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-03-pot_x.htm

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I dunno, Nick. The older I get, the less good I think drug laws do. We waste gobs of money and the drugs are still readily available on the street...

 

[SkyHog]

I dunno, Nick. The older I get, the less good I think drug laws do. We waste gobs of money and the drugs are still readily available on the street...

The only advantage I can see to legalization is soaking those damn druggies for the same tax money that I spend on Beer and Cigarettes. I'd love to see the price of illicit drugs fall, only to have the difference replaced by taxes.

But that still doesn't change my opinion that drugs ruin lives.

 

[grattonja]

We aggressively pursue mandatory minimum sentences, and the "war on drugs" is still in full swing here in Central PA. Yet, the criminal docket has grown numerically every year I have been here.

I agree that illegal drugs ruin lives. No doubt. The contribute to or "heat up" every other form of crime out there. Much of the thievery is driven by the need to pay for a fix.

But our aggressive pursuit of long sentences etc is not working here. We have recently instituted a drug court. It is an attempt to really work with those who are willing to address their addiction. It includes frequent court appearances, peer and group review and weekly review by the judge. It is a new direction. We are hoping it helps.

Jim G

 

[Brian Austin]

Personally, I think we need to go further up the supply chain and start treating the distributors like terrorists.

We lose a few buildings and 3,000+ people and we declare war on an entire country. Yet when we lose neighborhoods and lives to drugs...we shake our heads and say "how terrible".

Start fighting the fight or quit doing it altogether. Quit playing half-ass games with legal technicalities.

 

[Greebo]

The thing about Marijuanna, compared to other drugs, is how many people do you hear about commiting crimes to feed their habit? Crack/coke/heroin addicts, sure - but how many pot heads do you see ripping off liquor stores? (Hell, how many pot heads can FIND the liquor stores?)

IMO marijuanna is about as much of a gateway drug as alcohol - in other words - you can control your consumption. Not so with crack, coke, heroin, opium and the other narcotics.

The war on drugs is as much or more about keeping money going to certain departments than it is about stopping the drug flow, and has been about as successful as prohibition.

 

[Michael]

my take on drugs.
Not only do drugs ruin lives, but concider the crimes that are involved with drugs. You have robbery, addicts will steal for their fix. you have domestic viloence, records show 90% involved in domestic viloence are under some sort of subtance influence. DUI. murder, people have been known to kill while either under the influence, or protecting/stealing drugs.
Drug related crimes are killing us. If we had 0 tolerence on drugs. And were able to stop drugs from being impoted into this country... do you think our courts would be backed up as much as they are right now?

 

[SkyHog]

The thing about Marijuanna, compared to other drugs, is how many people do you hear about commiting crimes to feed their habit? Crack/coke/heroin addicts, sure - but how many pot heads do you see ripping off liquor stores? (Hell, how many pot heads can FIND the liquor stores?)

IMO marijuanna is about as much of a gateway drug as alcohol - in other words - you can control your consumption. Not so with crack, coke, heroin, opium and the other narcotics.

The war on drugs is as much or more about keeping money going to certain departments than it is about stopping the drug flow, and has been about as successful as prohibition.

The biggest difference between marijuana and alcohol, IMHO, is that I can easily go drink a beer and not get drunk, and leave it at that. I've never met anyone that smokes pot without getting high. People make all kinds of stories about how they drive better when they're high or whatever, but they're still driving impared. People make all kinds of poor decisions when high or drunk....the biggest difference is that the alcohol drinker doesn't always get drunk.

my take on drugs.
Not only do drugs ruin lives, but concider the crimes that are involved with drugs. You have robbery, addicts will steal for their fix. you have domestic viloence, records show 90% involved in domestic viloence are under some sort of subtance influence. DUI. murder, people have been known to kill while either under the influence, or protecting/stealing drugs.
Drug related crimes are killing us. If we had 0 tolerence on drugs. And were able to stop drugs from being impoted into this country... do you think our courts would be backed up as much as they are right now?

There is no way the courts would be as backed up as they are now. No drugs = less crime as far as I'm concerned. I don't get potheads - they are almost obsessed with it. I have friends that will do anything to get their pot....but they're not addicted!?!?!

Its bull if you ask me.

Personally, I think we need to go further up the supply chain and start treating the distributors like terrorists.

We lose a few buildings and 3,000+ people and we declare war on an entire country. Yet when we lose neighborhoods and lives to drugs...we shake our heads and say "how terrible".

Start fighting the fight or quit doing it altogether. Quit playing half-ass games with legal technicalities.

couldn't have said it better myself, Brian.

 

[Greebo]

Yes, the effect is more immediate and pronounced. But making one stoned isn hardly life-destructive (UNLESS the idiot drives while stoned, which is as stupid as driving when drunk).

The life destruction is tied to addiction and the behaviors addiction triggers and you don't see those kind of destructive behaviors with stoners nearly as offten as you do with HARD drug users. Yes, people can become alcoholics and lose control and they can lose control with marijuanna too - but prohibition demonstrated how ineffective it is to try and control substances that people don't see as inherently dangerous. Hard drugs - no argument from me - keep cracking down on them - but stop wasting billions of tax dollars cracking down on pot. Its a waste of time money and manpower and doesn't do anything to stop the real crimes out there.

 

[SkyHog]

Yes, the effect is more immediate and pronounced. But making one stoned isn hardly life-destructive (UNLESS the idiot drives while stoned, which is as stupid as driving when drunk).

The life destruction is tied to addiction and the behaviors addiction triggers and you don't see those kind of destructive behaviors with stoners nearly as offten as you do with HARD drug users. Yes, people can become alcoholics and lose control and they can lose control with marijuanna too - but prohibition demonstrated how ineffective it is to try and control substances that people don't see as inherently dangerous. Hard drugs - no argument from me - keep cracking down on them - but stop wasting billions of tax dollars cracking down on pot. Its a waste of time money and manpower and doesn't do anything to stop the real crimes out there.

Its my opinion that an illicit drug is an illicit drug. If you want to legalize one, they you should support legalizing all, because it still comes down to personal choice.

There is no way to smoke marijuana without being impaired. Impairment leads to poor judgment, and whether or not stoners want to admit it or not, poor judgment leads to crime. Even small crimes are crimes.

Plus it smells bad, and tastes horrible (so I've heard).

 

[wsuffa]

Nick,

IMHO only.

The war on drugs has been an abject failure.

It has led to greater erosions of our rights than almost anything the government has done (until the Patriot Act, that is). And it has led to abuses of the systems (see the post by Dr. Bruce about the border control agents that searched his plane). And it consumes vast amounts of resources that otherwise could be put to good use.

As a country, we didn't learn from Prohibition (and in a similar vein, we've never been able to eliminate prostitution, have we?). A hard-line stance rarely works where the banned activity affects only the person who is a user and/or is activity between consenting adults. What it does is make more folks outlaws and contribute to crime.

IMHO, as a country, we should revisit the drug laws. Legalize and tax milder drugs like marijuana. Educate folks about the effects, and strongly penalize people that injure or impact others when under the influence.

It's my opinion only. Yes, I tend more libertarian on these things.

 

[Greebo]

Its my opinion that an illicit drug is an illicit drug. If you want to legalize one, they you should support legalizing all, because it still comes down to personal choice.

Its an illicit drug because the law says its an illicit drug. By your logic, since even one drink of alcohol *DOES* affect you, then alcohol should also be illegal. People do stupid stuff after drinking too, right?

The FAA recognizes that any amount of alcohol can have an effect - the MVAs of the country don't go that firm because they know the public would reject it out right. So again, by your argument, booze should be banned.

It does smell bad and tastes worse, but so does stale beer on the street (try New Orleans after a dry spell - YERGH). So does tobacco smoke.

Its a question of choosing our battles. We can't afford to crack down on everything - we should be putting our resources into cracking down on the truly dangerous drugs.

 

[TDKendall]

IMHO, treat pot like cigarettes. Grow it, process it, package it like cigarettes and tax the h*** out of it.

One can't get physically addicted to marijuana. The chemical properties that create physical addiction aren't present. Psychological addition is, however, a completely different subject. One cannot physically overdose on marijuana. The body will shut down and "sleep" it off before fatal amounts can be injested.

Here's the rub for me. Alcohol is both physically addictive and lethal when extreme amounts are injested whether over a short or long period of time. Alcohol is legal, pot is not. Am I missing something?

 

[SkyHog]

Nick,

IMHO only.

The war on drugs has been an abject failure.

It has led to greater erosions of our rights than almost anything the government has done (until the Patriot Act, that is). And it has led to abuses of the systems (see the post by Dr. Bruce about the border control agents that searched his plane). And it consumes vast amounts of resources that otherwise could be put to good use.

There's two different issues there - corruption of the powerful and corruption of the populace. If we can stop the flow of drugs, then the powerful would not have the ability to plant drugs on people. Stop the drugs, and you stop corruption based on drugs.

As a country, we didn't learn from Prohibition (and in a similar vein, we've never been able to eliminate prostitution, have we?). A hard-line stance rarely works where the banned activity affects only the person who is a user and/or is activity between consenting adults. What it does is make more folks outlaws and contribute to crime.

Prohibition of alcohol was fought hard enough that it was repealed. NORMlL doesn't have the power to change the laws because they don't have enough support. The difference is that no one who does drugs today has ever experienced a United States where drugs were legal. No rights were taken away, because the right never existed.

IMHO, as a country, we should revisit the drug laws. Legalize and tax milder drugs like marijuana. Educate folks about the effects, and strongly penalize people that injure or impact others when under the influence.

I'm fairly sure that's our policy now. Educate the children, overpenalize the abusers when their act effects others. I think everyone who is caught with illicit drugs should also be charged with tax evasion...thats what they're doing in purchasing a product on the black market.

IMHO, treat pot like cigarettes. Grow it, process it, package it like cigarettes and tax the h*** out of it.

One can't get physically addicted to marijuana. The chemical properties that create physical addiction aren't present. Psychological addition is, however, a completely different subject. One cannot physically overdose on marijuana. The body will shut down and "sleep" it off before fatal amounts can be injested.

I think that the effects of psychological addiction are often understated. I've witnessed friends go from normal people to being addicted to marijuana to the point where they let all priorities slip in life. I do not buy that marijuana is simply not addictive. Psychological addiction is a very strong force.

Here's the rub for me. Alcohol is both physically addictive and lethal when extreme amounts are injested whether over a short or long period of time. Alcohol is legal, pot is not. Am I missing something?

Yes - you're missing the fact that someone can ingest alcohol socially without getting drunk, and therefore not putting themselves in the danger of committing acts of violence or sheer stupidity. Smoking weed results in getting high...there is no social toking without impairment.

Its an illicit drug because the law says its an illicit drug. By your logic, since even one drink of alcohol *DOES* affect you, then alcohol should also be illegal. People do stupid stuff after drinking too, right?

Perhaps - but drinking a beer doesn't necessarily effect you to the point where you no longer make decisions like yourself. I can't say the same thing about marijuana.

The FAA recognizes that any amount of alcohol can have an effect - the MVAs of the country don't go that firm because they know the public would reject it out right. So again, by your argument, booze should be banned.

The FAA has it wrong, but I can understand why. If they weren't so harsh on alcohol, then there would be a lot more people who would fly after having one too many, like there is with people who drive drunk. They simply take the risk out of it by banning all alcohol within 8 hours.....essentially the same idea as making drugs illegal. Make it illegal, and there's no excuse for an idiot doing something stupid while on the drug.

It does smell bad and tastes worse, but so does stale beer on the street (try New Orleans after a dry spell - YERGH). So does tobacco smoke.

Yeah - I agree - and it was meant as tongue in cheek (forgot the smiley)

Its a question of choosing our battles. We can't afford to crack down on everything - we should be putting our resources into cracking down on the truly dangerous drugs.

I agree. But marijuana is, IMHO, a truly dangerous drug.

edit: I'm not sure I like this combining posts things. Makes it hard to separate quotes like this. Just another one of my endless opinions

 

[SCCutler]

Nick,

IMHO only.

The war on drugs has been an abject failure.

It has led to greater erosions of our rights than almost anything the government has done (until the Patriot Act, that is). And it has led to abuses of the systems (see the post by Dr. Bruce about the border control agents that searched his plane). And it consumes vast amounts of resources that otherwise could be put to good use.

As a country, we didn't learn from Prohibition (and in a similar vein, we've never been able to eliminate prostitution, have we?). A hard-line stance rarely works where the banned activity affects only the person who is a user and/or is activity between consenting adults. What it does is make more folks outlaws and contribute to crime.

IMHO, as a country, we should revisit the drug laws. Legalize and tax milder drugs like marijuana. Educate folks about the effects, and strongly penalize people that injure or impact others when under the influence.

It's my opinion only. Yes, I tend more libertarian on these things.

I guess I am getting into my irascible curmudgeon phase of life.

I think Bill has it on the nose here. We shall never, but never, end the drug trade. So, the next best thing (or maybe it's just the best, best thing), is to use the power of regulation (as opposed to prohibition) and, thus, derive revenue from the trade (which can be used in part for programs designed to ameliorate the bad effects on the minority of users who are abusers), and shift the vast majority of the revenue from the underground, crime-driven economy to the "legitimate" (and taxable) economy.

Just my thinking here.

 

[AirBaker]

Ooooh! The drug debate. I love this one.

There is no way the courts would be as backed up as they are now. No drugs = less crime as far as I'm concerned. I don't get potheads - they are almost obsessed with it. I have friends that will do anything to get their pot....but they're not addicted!?!?!

I agree Nick man. Got a really good friend in this situation. Fun guy up until he smokes then he's no fun to be around anymore. He just gets all quiet and depressed, then stares at the TV for hours.


Then we have California. Medial Marijauna... A few months ago we had this huge pot bust were people were shot and everything. Then they incinerate the pot. In my opinion... the state should just confiscate everything they get and sell it. More specifically the 'millions of dollars' in pot and sell it for medicinal use.

We could use the green... err cash!

 

[fgcason]

I dunno, Nick. The older I get, the less good I think drug laws do. We waste gobs of money and the drugs are still readily available on the street...

Agreed.
When it comes to it, laws are just that. Laws. A bunch of words written on a piece of paper in a filing cabinet somewhere. It's about personal integrity and willingness to work within a system that makes those words meaningful..or not. When it comes to it in the real world, the law applies to me and you and pretty much anyone that'll read this thread since as pilots we are typically good law abiding citizens in general. However the criminals are exempt from the laws. They are exempt because the laws are an annoyance to them so they ignore the laws and don't care if they exist or not then proceed to do whatever they want. Dope is already illegal so another dope law that they're exempt from won't solve the problem. Sure, if someone gets caught and pulled into the legal system, they have another offense to stack on the pile but on the street it's irrelevant. Drugs, terrorism, murder, speeding, robbery, theft, running redlights, jaywalking, cutting in line at the grocery store. Same thing. Some are just more insidious than others. It starts with the personal integrity one has behind closed doors when no one else is looking.

IMNSHO: It doesn't matter if we stick our heads in the ground and ignore it or spend 5 times the national debt every year fighting the drug dealers. Look at it from a supply and demand point of view. The stuff is no different than anything else that you can buy off the shelf at the local grocery store. As long as the demand for dope is there, the stuff will still pour across the borders and be cooked up in someone's garage or spare room. Since the users will do anything they need to get it, other people will continue to get robbed, mugged and murdered for it. As long as the market is there, the dope, it's supply chain and it's side effects will be there too.
If you really want to get rid of dope, there's only one sure fire way to do it. You're going to have to eliminate the demand for the stuff. Every thing else being done is anti-terrorism TFR and DC-ADIZ tactics. The solution starts at home, not in the court system that occasionally locks the random gate after the horse has bolted. As for how to eliminate the demand since the stuff has already run rampant and is so well established like it is in this country, I have no flipping clue...

 

[grattonja]

There's two different issues there - corruption of the powerful and corruption of the populace. If we can stop the flow of drugs, then the powerful would not have the ability to plant drugs on people. Stop the drugs, and you stop corruption based on drugs.

The problem as I see it is that it isn't just the supply of drugs that is the problem. Frankly, without users there would be no supply. No buyers, no profit, no sale $. Just like any other consumer product. As long as we have a ready, heavily but not totally urban poor, population who wants to consume this stuff rather than be productive for a living, we are going to have a supply. From somewhere. It comes from somewhere easy and cheap first. We shut that down, it gets tougher. But there is so much $ involved that someone will find a way to supply the stuff. Canada instead of South America for instance. Or the terrorists will find a way to get the stuff in here to make $ off us.

Hence the drug court here. Try to get the addicts cleaned up, thus getting rid of the supply that is driving the demand. In the meantime, my inclination is to legalize pot and coke and put it in the state stores. Nothing will chill interest in these drugs more than putting them in a state store, making them legal.

Just my 2 pennies, based on 15 years dealing with criminals in the court system.

Jim G

 

[mmilano]

i saw an interesting documentary a few weeks ago on discovery. the part that focused on marajuana and lsd seemed to hint that the govt. outlawed them more because of the way they seemed to promote independant thinking of the type that resulted in anti-govt movements.

my opinions:

alcholol is just as "bad" as marajuana except the latter takes up tax dollars with courts, jail, and police resources. neither of these are a real menace to society. if it were legal, i'd say pick your poison. .. resources could be better spent against drugs that have a real negative affect society.

"war on drugs" "war on terror" .. politics, more ways for the govt to waste money and make excuses to compromise personal privacy. these issues have existed for centuries and are either of these modern "wars" really doing anything for us?

 

[wsuffa]

There's two different issues there - corruption of the powerful and corruption of the populace. If we can stop the flow of drugs, then the powerful would not have the ability to plant drugs on people. Stop the drugs, and you stop corruption based on drugs.

My point is you will never be able to stop the drugs. Just like you will never stop corruption. Nor prostitution. Nor homosexuality. Nor sex out of wedlock, for that matter. Nor any number of other sins that various sets of folks in this country want to stop.

Prohibition of alcohol was fought hard enough that it was repealed. NORMlL doesn't have the power to change the laws because they don't have enough support. The difference is that no one who does drugs today has ever experienced a United States where drugs were legal. No rights were taken away, because the right never existed.

Prohibition is case in point. It WAS put into place as an amendment to the Constitution - driven by idealogues and fundamentalists (aka Temperance), then repealed (and regulated). Folks realized that you could just never stop the trade. This was the ONLY amendment ever made to the US constitution that explicitly banned an activity.

The drug laws have never been put to a general vote of the populace.

There are, BTW, still counties and cities that are dry - but drinking still happen there.

I'm fairly sure that's our policy now. Educate the children, overpenalize the abusers when their act effects others. I think everyone who is caught with illicit drugs should also be charged with tax evasion...thats what they're doing in purchasing a product on the black market.

Yes, there is preaching of abstinance. If, arguendo, use of drugs (or other sins) don't have material impact on folks other than the users, why ban it? Make sure the users know the impact drugs can have, and make them personally responsible.

I think that the effects of psychological addiction are often understated. I've witnessed friends go from normal people to being addicted to marijuana to the point where they let all priorities slip in life. I do not buy that marijuana is simply not addictive. Psychological addiction is a very strong force.

The same effects can happen with alcohol or any number of other substances/sins. Psychological addiction is not limited to drugs. Should we ban everything that can be addictive?? (Gosh, I'd hate to give up flying!)

Yes - you're missing the fact that someone can ingest alcohol socially without getting drunk, and therefore not putting themselves in the danger of committing acts of violence or sheer stupidity. Smoking weed results in getting high...there is no social toking without impairment.

You don't need to be drunk to be impaired. Really. And you can be boorish even without being impaired.

Perhaps - but drinking a beer doesn't necessarily effect you to the point where you no longer make decisions like yourself. I can't say the same thing about marijuana.

And what responsibility is that of the government? Doesn't that fall into the realm of personal responsibility?

IMHO, the governments has a role when one's abuse of a drug affects others.

The FAA has it wrong, but I can understand why. If they weren't so harsh on alcohol, then there would be a lot more people who would fly after having one too many, like there is with people who drive drunk. They simply take the risk out of it by banning all alcohol within 8 hours.....essentially the same idea as making drugs illegal. Make it illegal, and there's no excuse for an idiot doing something stupid while on the drug.

Your logic seems to have a disconnect somewhere on this. One issue with alcohol in an aircraft is that the effects are compounded with reduced oxygen. The other is the obvious judgement thing. Lots of other drugs and medical conditions are banned by the FAA.

This is, of course, my opinion. I'm not a NORML member, I don't use drugs, though I enjoy wine and other adult beverages. I do think, as a country, we need to revisit the war on drugs.

 

[deafsound]

Just to clarify, you can smoke weed and not be impaired. Not common with the grade of pot that people smoke these days beacuse lately gorwers cultivate weed to be super strong.
If you were to smoke old school pot, you might not get much of a buzz at all. You'd have to smoke a huge bag of reefer to equal one hit of the strong stuff.
The newer "chronic" weed will leave you passed out on the couch under a pile of Doritos.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

The biggest difference between marijuana and alcohol, IMHO, is that I can easily go drink a beer and not get drunk, and leave it at that. I've never met anyone that smokes pot without getting high. People make all kinds of stories about how they drive better when they're high or whatever, but they're still driving impared. People make all kinds of poor decisions when high or drunk....the biggest difference is that the alcohol drinker doesn't always get drunk.

Saw an alcohol study done on a race track with high tech measuring devices on a NASCAR racecar driver once. A casual, non-problem drinker, he adamantly didn't think one drink made a difference in him.

One (1) ounce of alcohol and his reaction time on brake pedal went up (BAD Thing). Whether or not he was warned of an impending stop or it came by surprise, reaction time increased with one (1) drink. Then reaction time performance continued to decline with each additional drink he took.

He visibly enjoyed the study but, was quite shocked to observe the undeniable negative results first hand.

 

[Alan]

After all the money spent on combating drug trade and use, it continues.

Then again, much money and effort has been spent on drunk driving, prostitution, etc, as well as the crimes with victims such as murder, rape, theivery, and on and on.

None have been eradicated nor will they ever be. if we give up, where do we draw the line?

 

[Greebo]

Drunk/impaired driving, murder, rape, thievery - they all have victims. Its a crime to drink AND drive, its not a crime to drink. If you ask me, the line should be drawn where behaviors run an undue risk of harming someone else or *deliberately* harm someone else.

Drinking and driving crosses the undue risk line. So does impaired driving. Drinking and NOT driving run the risk of only harming yourself. Likewise with sitting at home smoking a joint or hiring an escort for the evening.

Why should we, as a free nation, invest an incredible amount of energy and resources pursuing "crimes" that harm none?

 

[SkyHog]

Drunk/impaired driving, murder, rape, thievery - they all have victims. Its a crime to drink AND drive, its not a crime to drink. If you ask me, the line should be drawn where behaviors run an undue risk of harming someone else or *deliberately* harm someone else.

Drinking and driving crosses the undue risk line. So does impaired driving. Drinking and NOT driving run the risk of only harming yourself. Likewise with sitting at home smoking a joint or hiring an escort for the evening.

Why should we, as a free nation, invest an incredible amount of energy and resources pursuing "crimes" that harm none?

Its amazing to me that most people who feel the way you do, also support Seatbelt laws, even though the seatbelt does nothing but protect (allegedly) the driver of the vehicle. I say that you support it without hearing you say it because almost everyone supports that law (except me).

But back to the topic. I agree 100% about impaired driving laws. And while its not legal, technically, sitting at home, smoking a joint is not going to cause any problems, realistically. Its public intoxication or public possession that causes the problems.

I forgot that the drug debate is about as useful as the religion debate or political debate - no one gets anywhere, and everyone has firm opinions

 

[Greebo]

Its amazing to me that most people who feel the way you do, also support Seatbelt laws, even though the seatbelt does nothing but protect (allegedly) the driver of the vehicle. I say that you support it without hearing you say it because almost everyone supports that law (except me).

I would appreciate it if you refrain from making assumptions about my beliefs or putting words in my mouth. You assume too much, both in what *I* believe, and in what "most everyone" believes.

Point of correction: Seat belt laws do protect more than the driver, if the driver is not the only person in the vehicle. I don't, however, support the idea of forcing people to wear them, or making it ok to get pulled over for not wearing one. The insurance companies pushed to make those laws a reality because it saves THEM money. I support mandatory seat belts for young children and child safety seats, but I don't agree with forcing adults to wear them, even if I personally chose to wear a seat belt at all times. Its a question of my choice and a matter of my responsibilities, not the governments.

 

[SkyHog]

I would appreciate it if you refrain from making assumptions about my beliefs or putting words in my mouth. You assume too much, both in what *I* believe, and in what "most everyone" believes.

Point of correction: Seat belt laws do protect more than the driver, if the driver is not the only person in the vehicle. I don't, however, support the idea of forcing people to wear them, or making it ok to get pulled over for not wearing one. The insurance companies pushed to make those laws a reality because it saves THEM money. I support mandatory seat belts for young children and child safety seats, but I don't agree with forcing adults to wear them, even if I personally chose to wear a seat belt at all times. Its a question of my choice and a matter of my responsibilities, not the governments.

Wow - my apologies - I agree 100%, except for the children part - that's parental choice in my opinion.

 

[Anthony]

Just another statement to show how liberal Denver is, like San Francisco banning handgun ownership. The law is meaningless. State and Federal law supersedes Denver's.

BTW. I'm still dropping anti-drug leaflets over Denver from my Tiger.

 

[Alan]

Drunk/impaired driving, murder, rape, thievery - they all have victims. Its a crime to drink AND drive, its not a crime to drink. If you ask me, the line should be drawn where behaviors run an undue risk of harming someone else or *deliberately* harm someone else.

Drinking and driving crosses the undue risk line. So does impaired driving. Drinking and NOT driving run the risk of only harming yourself. Likewise with sitting at home smoking a joint or hiring an escort for the evening.

Why should we, as a free nation, invest an incredible amount of energy and resources pursuing "crimes" that harm none?

From my post:
Then again, much money and effort has been spent on drunk driving, prostitution, etc, as well as the crimes with victims such as murder, rape, thievery, and on and on.

My point being that any crime, with or without victims, will continue regardless of how much we spend. Yet, we must continue. Now, with or without victims, where do we decide to fight and where do we give up?

 

[Richard]

I'd like to hear some examples of victimless crimes.

 

[HPNFlyGirl]

UGH I HAD A DEBATE ON THIS IN SCHOOL TONIGHT!!!! KEEP ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS ILLEGAL

The pregnant woman part of my debate.

Its my body I can do what I please with it? Besides its not hurting anyone but me!!! Think of a woman who is pregnant? Is that drug only harming that person, or is it harming someone else too?

Think of a women who takes illegal drugs when pregnant. Some women who do illegal drugs when pregnant have miscarriages, otherwise known as spontaneous abortions, or they have still born babies. If the baby does survive it is often born prematurely. They have low birth weights, and tons of other medical problems. For example if the mothers drug of choice was crack, the baby is automatically labeled a "crack baby." I mean who would want their baby labeled a name such as that. Not me.

As soon as the baby is born, its drug supply is automatically cut off. When cut off from its drug supply most babies go into convulsions, which they can die from, so the doctors give them a tranquilzer to lessen the effects of the drugs, therefore increasing the babies chance for a decent recovery.

Think of the women who do loose thier babies. Some may not care because they are too drugged up to care. Others may resort to doing more drugs, which can leave to them having more babies, and the vicous cycle starts all over again.

Illegal drugs are a dangerous thing, and they should stay illegal.

 

[astanley]

UGH I HAD A DEBATE ON THIS IN SCHOOL TONIGHT!!!! KEEP ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS ILLEGAL

The pregnant woman part of my debate.

Its my body I can do what I please with it? Besides its not hurting anyone but me!!! Think of a woman who is pregnant? Is that drug only harming that person, or is it harming someone else too?

Think of a women who takes illegal drugs when pregnant. Some women who do illegal drugs when pregnant have miscarriages, otherwise known as spontaneous abortions, or they have still born babies. If the baby does survive it is often born prematurely. They have low birth weights, and tons of other medical problems. For example if the mothers drug of choice was crack, the baby is automatically labeled a "crack baby." I mean who would want their baby labeled a name such as that. Not me.

As soon as the baby is born, its drug supply is automatically cut off. When cut off from its drug supply most babies go into convulsions, which they can die from, so the doctors give them a tranquilzer to lessen the effects of the drugs, therefore increasing the babies chance for a decent recovery.

Think of the women who do loose thier babies. Some may not care because they are too drugged up to care. Others may resort to doing more drugs, which can leave to them having more babies, and the vicous cycle starts all over again.

Illegal drugs are a dangerous thing, and they should stay illegal.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, mothers smoking, crap, there are some people that having certain vaccinations while pregnant increases your risk for autism.

Should those be outlawed too? Because an irresponsible adult may choose to use them innappropriately?

The fact of the matter is, responsibility is stripped from adults on the drug issue. We trust people to be responsible with alcohol, with tobacoo, and various other addictive and destructive activities. There are many people who believe that motorcycling is an unacceptable danger, as is cycling, mountain biking, flying, even sports.

The drug war is a monumental failure.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[Greebo]

From my post:
Then again, much money and effort has been spent on drunk driving, prostitution, etc, as well as the crimes with victims such as murder, rape, thievery, and on and on.

My point being that any crime, with or without victims, will continue regardless of how much we spend. Yet, we must continue. Now, with or without victims, where do we decide to fight and where do we give up?

You have my apologies - I missed that important part of your statement. Although I disagree that drunk driving is victimless - there isn't always a victim, sometimes the drunk driver gets lucky - more often than not - but the increased risk to society at large makes society the victim in that case.

That said, I think we should be re-drawing the line so it doesn't include "activities which some people don't approve of but which cause no harm nor undue risk to other people".

I'd like to hear some examples of victimless crimes.

There are too many things in this country to list that are defined as crimes that have no victims but are simply crimes because some people didn't approve of the behavior as a matter of personal choice and wanted to enforce their morality on others.

 

[wsuffa]

From my post:
Then again, much money and effort has been spent on drunk driving, prostitution, etc, as well as the crimes with victims such as murder, rape, thievery, and on and on.

My point being that any crime, with or without victims, will continue regardless of how much we spend. Yet, we must continue. Now, with or without victims, where do we decide to fight and where do we give up?

Alan, from the other side of the equation, where do we stop the government from trying to legislate common sense? Where do we draw the line on new laws?

Alcohol is harmful taken to excess. Gambling, same (including state lotteries). Smoking cigarettes/cigars. Excessive fat or salt in your food. Soda. Sugar. Flying. Hiking. Etc. Etc.

All I'm suggesting is that we revisit where the line is drawn. Crimes that affect others (murder, assault, drunk driving, etc) remain crimes. "Sins" that don't affect others probably shouldn't be criminalized... but we need to make clear that people bear personal responsibility for their choices.

We need to get away from the government legislating our concience - whether driven from the right wing or the left wing.

 

[Richard]

There are too many things in this country to list that are defined as crimes that have no victims but are simply crimes because some people didn't approve of the behavior as a matter of personal choice and wanted to enforce their morality on others.

You can't be serious! Then what the hell are we doing in this thing called society and community? Any society is held together by rules and those rules are founded upon moral interpretations of what is good and right for that society.

Anyway, would you care to answer my question? Name three examples.

Alan, from the other side of the equation, where do we stop the government from trying to legislate common sense? Where do we draw the line on new laws?

Alcohol is harmful taken to excess. Gambling, same (including state lotteries). Smoking cigarettes/cigars. Excessive fat or salt in your food. Soda. Sugar. Flying. Hiking. Etc. Etc.

All I'm suggesting is that we revisit where the line is drawn. Crimes that affect others (murder, assault, drunk driving, etc) remain crimes. "Sins" that don't affect others probably shouldn't be criminalized... but we need to make clear that people bear personal responsibility for their choices.

We need to get away from the government legislating our concience - whether driven from the right wing or the left wing.

Without a compass you lose your way. Having become lost panic sets in and we start asking bizarre questions, unsure of the question and doubly uncertain of the answer.

 

[Greebo]

You can't be serious! Then what the hell are we doing in this thing called society and community? Any society is held together by rules and those rules are founded upon moral interpretations of what is good and right for that society.

I can give you thirteen examples of just ONE type of law that defined as crimes activities which had no victim and affected nobody but those involved. Until 2003, thirteen states (+ puerto rico, so make it 14) in this country had sodomy laws, 4 of which were applied to homosexuals only, the rest of which applied to both homo and hetro sexuals.

If two adults are consenting to such a practice, and it is done in private, and no harm is done to anyone, by what right does the state or the general public declare such an activity a crime? Upon what moral basis does the public interest invade the private bedroom? What victim is there in such a crime?

Ok, granted, sodomy isn't exactly dinner table discussion - but you asked for an example, and thats one a good hotbutton right there, because I bet you that there are quite a few people who are reading this right now who are thinking, "Well it SHOULD be illegal" and the ONLY basis of that thinking is PERSONAL dislike of the practice. Personal preference is NOT a moral choice, its simply opinion, and should never be the basis of public law.

But we'll call sodomy example #1.

Example #2: Prostitution. In Nevada there are counties (perhaps the whole state, I don't really know, never been there) where prostitution is legal, and there are legal brothels in the state. There are women who work there who bring in six figure incomes and enjoy their work. Their customers have included not only single individuals, but also married and unmarried couples. I'm sure there are also married men who go there without their wives knowing - and while there is a moral wrongness to that, it isn't a reason for a law against prostitution. (And really, should adultery be a CRIMINAL offense? I think divorce courts handle that well enough...)

Nevada is an example of a state where prostitution is legal, safe, and it works. In all other states (to my knowlege) prostitution is illegal. And yet there are women who earn extremely good livings as high class "escorts" who also enjoy their work, and if nobody is hurt (adultery cases aside) and proper protection is used to prevent illness, who is the 'victim' in a case of a man or woman hiring a woman or man (whatever) to satisfy some natural urges?

Example #3: If a person or group of people spend an evening playing cards and smoking a joint, and they stay in one place and don't do something stupid like drive under the influence, who's the victim? But what they've done *IS* a crime in most states. What about the person who depends on marijuana to relieve the pain of cancer or glaucoma? Is smoking a joint a crime? YES, but thats a crime where the act of NOT commiting a crime has a victim - the person who suffers through the pain that isn't necessary.

Do I really need to keep finding more cases? There really are lots more, I just cited some of the biggest ones.

 

[wsuffa]

You can't be serious! Then what the hell are we doing in this thing called society and community? Any society is held together by rules and those rules are founded upon moral interpretations of what is good and right for that society.

Anyway, would you care to answer my question? Name three examples.

Without a compass you lose your way. Having become lost panic sets in and we start asking bizarre questions, unsure of the question and doubly uncertain of the answer.

Richard,

Who makes the moral judgement?

Once the government starts down the road of making moral judgements, it reaches a crecendo with fundamentalists wanting to control things - on moral grounds.

This country was founded on protecting individual rights. The right to privacy is not explicitly enumerated. IF you start making moral judgements at the government level, without a right to privacy, then there is no limit to government intrusiveness in attempting to enforce those morals.

I don't trust the government. Do you?

 

[AirBaker]

I'd like to hear some examples of victimless crimes.

Jaywalking?

Ripping those tags off of pillows and mattresses?

 

[Greebo]

Jaywalking?

Poses undue risk to vehicular traffic - and to the person doing the jaywalking.

Ripping those tags off of pillows and mattresses?

Only a crime if you don't own the mattress. Don't get me started on the usefulness of those tags tho...

 

[AirBaker]

I don't trust the government. Do you?

Ha, trust or not trust. They're too incompetitant to do anything about it.

Poses undue risk to vehicular traffic - and to the person doing the jaywalking.


Only a crime if you don't own the mattress. Don't get me started on the usefulness of those tags tho...

True, but then is it only a crime if such traffic exists?

I know that somewhere down the line someone COULD be HURT by not knowing the contents of the mattress.

I think we need a 'philosophical' phorum...