3% of US population behind bars, on parole or on probation last year

[Berzerker]

Kid -

There are all kinds of laws against reckless behavior. Putting people and their property at risk is a cost to those at risk just as actual damage to their body or property is.

Using existing laws that may or may not be justified to justify immoral laws is illogical. Claiming that I am putting you or your property at risk because I'm smoking pot in my home is nonsense and insulting.

I'm going to tell you that many criminals haven't been caught yet and many future criminals aren't teenagers yet. Then you are going to say turn American into a police state.

Many of those criminals don't get caught because so many cops are breaking into people's homes to punish them for personal behavior. Wouldn't that make you "reckless" for supporting such a policy?

Shi -

Berzerker: You misunderstood me. I only favor punishment of people who prove themselves dangerous by actually committing a crime, nor do I believe in victimless crimes.

But in California they are putting people in jail (the 3 strikes law applies) for selling drugs based on the notion that selling a drug is a violent crime. I agree with you there though, I hate the fact these so-called tough on crime people are making our lives less safe by squandering our taxdollars chasing drug users instead of going after real criminals. I have little doubt that 9/11 would have been prevented if we spent our limited resources on real crime...





[quote]

[Kidlicious]

I usually don't put more than one smiley, but since I was actually laughing at your post I figured I would this time.

You have no idea what reckless means in the legal context. It means putting others at risk not yourself. When you put others at risk that justifies action against you to prevent you from doing so. There is no point in taking action against you for putting yourself at risk.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Prove it.

I don't think I need to prove that drugs diminish your ability to make decisions that insure public safety and that they deteriorate your overall decision making ability over time.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Answer this: if the government did not exist, would you go around threatening people to get their money (how taxes are collected now) so you could break down the doors of other people to cage them for using drugs in the privacy of their homes?

Government is always going to exist. Why do you ask these questions. Society bands together to protect their common interests. I know you hate that, but it will never change.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Damn near everything has a chemical effect on the brain. Even jogging releases a drug produced by the body into the bloodstream, a drug called "endomorphine". Sound familiar? It means "the morphine within". Wanna claim exercise is reckless now?

I didn't say taking all drugs were reckless. In fact, I believe marajuana should be legal as long as people don't drive and do other reckless activity.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sure they do, they can get educated and work their behinds off. Millions do it every generation...

Working hard is a risk. Many take that risk and lose. They still end up poor, and if they take out loans for college they end up poor and in debt. Taking a risk and losing is not control, and no one should be forced to take a risk.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

Using existing laws that may or may not be justified to justify immoral laws is illogical. Claiming that I am putting you or your property at risk because I'm smoking pot in my home is nonsense and insulting.



Many of those criminals don't get caught because so many cops are breaking into people's homes to punish them for personal behavior. Wouldn't that make you "reckless" for supporting such a policy?

Cops aren't breaking into people's homes to bust them smoking pot. You are paranoid.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Your society isn't naturally more violent than others per se. We've got everything that you've got except the availability of guns.

I would say we have a much bigger problem with fair distribution of wealth. That leaves an underclass, who, even though live in a much higher standard than most of the world, are relatively disenfranchized and left with poor access to the other resources that allow us who can afford them to get ahead in life and establish security for ourselves.

I am willing to bet that your welfare system is much geared towards a safety net approach that keeps people from making such desparate moves. I know this is true in Old Europe, though am ignorant of what happens in Australia.

Our consumerism/instant gratification culture is also much more acute than anywhere else, which is another motivating factor in itself.

Regarding the initial issue, I do think drug dealers should be subject to strict penalties, and they do destroy neighborhoods.

[Ted Striker]

One more thing regarding drug dealers that destroy neighborhoods. There are 3 other legal things that will destroy neigborhoods, which is why most people don't want them around:

1) Liquor stores
2) Gun stores
3) Strip clubs

Remember the old saying that went, "why is there a liquor store on every block in the ghetto???"

Watch the lines form at 5 AM so the locals can stock up on 40s and start the day ****ed up.

[Al B. Sure!]

dont forget the chinese stores on every other corner so people can start they day eating cheap fried chicken and smoking loosey newports, along with the liquor.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


I am willing to bet that your welfare system is much geared towards a safety net approach that keeps people from making such desparate moves. I know this is true in Old Europe, though am ignorant of what happens in Australia.

We do have a European style welfare net. The logic here is partly about the middle class deciding it's better to keep the poor at bay with a modest fortnightly payment so they aren't mugging people or breaking into your house. It's a cynical view but I think if people were honest that motive is there along with the more high minded ones.

There's a similar debate about drugs - give them the drugs under controlled conditions some say - what we really care about is the crime generated by prohibition.

Your middle class seems to prefer a punitive approach - more police and prisons. That also goes to deep ideas about self help and advancement which I think are much stronger in the USA - including ideas about the poor being poor because they deserve to be i.e. it's their fault.

[Al B. Sure!]

the sad thing is, the middle class that you are referring to has little to fear from poor criminals... the poor are too busy robbing and killing the poor.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

I usually don't put more than one smiley, but since I was actually laughing at your post I figured I would this time.

After "debating" Speer, I'm used to people laughing when they have nothing else to fire back with.

You have no idea what reckless means in the legal context. It means putting others at risk not yourself.

Can you quote me saying "reckless" behavior excludes behavior toward others? Weren't we just talking about driving recklessly on a sidewalk which does involve others? As strawmen go, that was pretty pathetic...

When you put others at risk that justifies action against you to prevent you from doing so. There is no point in taking action against you for putting yourself at risk.

But that was your argument, that because drugs can alter one's personality or brain chemistry, that makes it reckless and worthy of punitive action. Are you backtracking now?

I don't think I need to prove that drugs diminish your ability to make decisions that insure public safety and that they deteriorate your overall decision making ability over time.

Yes you do need to prove it because not all drugs are the same and do not share alcohol's characteristics (do you want to jail everyone who uses alcohol too? I bet not, public safety my a$$). Speed enhances awareness, not diminish it. That's why many truckers use it and why flyers used it during WWII.

Furthermore, you need to prove that using a drug in the privacy of one's own home creates this conveniently ambiguous danger to public safety. And one more thing, would you advocate jailing the mentally deficient too because they may be a threat to public safety? Or are you going to use the loophole that because they can't help it, jailing them would be unjustified?

If so, doesn't that ruin your argument that punishing drug users for the sake of public safety is necessary? You see, it doesn't matter if someone can or cannot help themself according to your logic, what matters is they are a perceived threat to public safety regardless of whether or not they actually are, and whether or not they can help it is irrelevant. The drug war is a threat to public safety, so it's ironic to hear a supporter of the drug war use threats to public safety to justify a threat to public safety.

Government is always going to exist. Why do you ask these questions.

To expose the immorality of your position, I take it that's why you're dodging the question. You wouldn't do that to other people if there was no government to hide behind.

Society bands together to protect their common interests. I know you hate that, but it will never change.

Now that's funny, society doesn't band together, people band together to form a society. And that's irrelevant...

I didn't say taking all drugs were reckless. In fact, I believe marajuana should be legal as long as people don't drive and do other reckless activity.

You said "drugs", not "some" or "the ones I don't like". And some people will drive under the influence if it's legal or if it's illegal. So do you want to punish ALL pot smokers because of those who do drive under the influence? That's your argument when it comes to "drugs", or should I say, "some unnamed drugs".

Working hard is a risk. Many take that risk and lose.

Is taking the risk or not taking the risk reckless behavior if it leads to poverty which leads to crime? If poverty leads to crime, which is your rationale for punishing drug users, i.e., drug use leads to crime, then being poor is reckless. Paint yourself out of that corner, Kid.

They still end up poor, and if they take out loans for college they end up poor and in debt. Taking a risk and losing is not control, and no one should be forced to take a risk.

Being put in a cage with criminals is risky, but you want to force drug users to take that risk. So we're right back to my question: if drug users need to be jailed because drugs leads to crime which is reckless, then why not poor people since poverty leads to crime which is also reckless? Aren't generalisations fun?

Cops aren't breaking into people's homes to bust them smoking pot. You are paranoid.

Now that's quite a detachment from reality. Try watching "Cops" for a while and then tell us cops don't break into people's homes to bust them for drugs, or just pot. Hell, PBS ran a show a while back that focused on how cops are breaking into people's homes to bust them for medicinal pot. And don't splice two quotes together to change what I said, the second quote didn't mention pot, just personal behavior which can refer to pot or any other drug.

Ted -

One more thing regarding drug dealers that destroy neighborhoods. There are 3 other legal things that will destroy neigborhoods, which is why most people don't want them around:

1) Liquor stores
2) Gun stores
3) Strip clubs

Strange, we have all three and our neighborhood isn't ruined.

Remember the old saying that went, "why is there a liquor store on every block in the ghetto???"

Watch the lines form at 5 AM so the locals can stock up on 40s and start the day ****ed up.

That ruins a neighborhood? I thought it would be the drive by shootings between gangbangers who make their money by selling "illegal" drugs. If people don't want to allow people to be drunk in public, so be it. But if those people who are buying go home and get drunk, does that still ruin the neighborhood?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Surprise surprise we don't lock people up and we have low crime rate too.

In that regard I was very impressed with the contrasts with Canada that Michael Moore brought out in Bowling for Columbine. In Detroit it's crime central, across the river in Windsor people don't lock their doors at night. A very telling contrast I thought.

Divide Moore's disparity by two, as he's very full of sh!t throughout Bowling for Columbine, including on this particular issue. Further dilute the disparity between the U.S. and Canada by removing Detroit as somehow being in any way representative of the U.S. in general. But Canada is less crime ridden, and I'm sure part of the reason is what you say. But the whole reason can only be explained by a large number of factors. Harsh sentences and recidivism are factors, as are the multicultural nature of the U.S. compared with Europe or Canada.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
......

Your middle class seems to prefer a punitive approach - more police and prisons. That also goes to deep ideas about self help and advancement which I think are much stronger in the USA - including ideas about the poor being poor because they deserve to be i.e. it's their fault.

This is in part because many if not most people in the middle class have personal experience of, or have personally witnessed class (in the U.S. defined more or less by income) mobility. I've seen the people in my family who lay around the trailor and bounce from one crappy job to another and those who got advanced degrees and make serious money, marry well, own their own homes in nice cities etc. We all came from the same group of white trash / indians in Oklahoma / Arkansas / Texas / Missourri, and grew up more or less with the same basic cultural values, which IMO have been no detriment to success. But when it comes to personal motivation, there is a gulf. As our family started poor, those who aren't well motivated remain so.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


I think the point we're making is the punitive approach and other policies like on gun control is what is encouraging the violence in the USA.

And the gaols are full because the courts are putting a lot people behind bars that in other countries wouldn't be.

Your society isn't naturally more violent than others per se. We've got everything that you've got except the availability of guns.

Well you don't have an ex-slave population which accounts for 12% of your population and 48% of your murders either.

[Al B. Sure!]

blah?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Is taking the risk or not taking the risk reckless behavior if it leads to poverty which leads to crime? If poverty leads to crime, which is your rationale for punishing drug users, i.e., drug use leads to crime, then being poor is reckless. Paint yourself out of that corner, Kid.

Your remarks are simply classist. You are implying that rich people work hard and poor people are lazy. I'm not in the mood to argue with you about that right now.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander
This is in part because many if not most people in the middle class have personal experience of, or have personally witnessed class (in the U.S. defined more or less by income) mobility. I've seen the people in my family who lay around the trailor and bounce from one crappy job to another and those who got advanced degrees and make serious money, marry well, own their own homes in nice cities etc. We all came from the same group of white trash / indians in Oklahoma / Arkansas / Texas / Missourri, and grew up more or less with the same basic cultural values, which IMO have been no detriment to success. But when it comes to personal motivation, there is a gulf. As our family started poor, those who aren't well motivated remain so.

So you made it out, and now you want to make it harder for others to escape and blame them for being there in the first place.