Ahmad Bradshaw cited for pot possession

[Jaric]

You cannot blame a law. That's a scapegoat for those who want an excuse to get away with breaking the law. The law does not perform an action. Slice it any way you want to, it is the person who breaks a law.

Why not? Laws are not infallible. Many times they have unintended consequences (like prohibition or the war on drugs.) Can't we blame Jim Crowe laws for the harm they caused?

Regardless of all that, this much is clear. If you support the continued criminalization of marijuana you are pro cartel.

[Superman]

Can't we blame Jim Crowe laws for the harm they caused?

 

Those laws were blatantly unconstitutional. That happens from time to time. Way more often, laws completely contradict each other. They vary widely from one place to the next.

 

Like you said, laws are not infallible. They certainly shouldn't be considered the standard for what's moral or ethical.

[Jaric]

No it would not if people had the self control to NOT do it until it is legal. It is a conscious choice to do it. Therefore it is created by the people choosing to do it. Again, I am not weighing in my opinion on whether or not it should be cause it would only be conjecture. I am debating the facts at hand and the cause and effect of those facts, and where the issue originates.

Just because you believe is ok to drive 45 in a 40 mph zone in the middle of the woods is irrelevant. It's the posted speed limit and the law. You cannot blame the law because you disagree with it.

Guess what, they don't. We can accept that and make intelligent choices based on that or we can live in a fantasy world.

At this point the only group that benefits from criminalization are the cartels and privately run prisons. If you are pro criminalization that is what you're supporting.

[Narcosys]

Again, no, I don't. Just like anyone who's ever bought a sweatshirt that was made in a sweat shop is responsible for the atrocities that occur in sweatshops. Or anyone that's ever sped is responsible for speeding-related accidents or fatalities. It was not the users who said "hey, XX cartel should be making the most money off of illegal drugs, so they should go out and murder all of their rivals."

This is a ridiculous comparison. As a parent, you are physically present with your child to teach them right from wrong and how to behave in society. Pot smokers are not present with these cartels and gangs you keep referring to telling them how to conduct their business and to punish them and correct them when they do something wrong.

Well, first the US justice system is a borderline joke. Still, this is not even close to the same thing. The closest possible connection I could make is that it is the law for bars to cut off patrons after a certain point, and if a patron gets too drunk and leaves the premises and gets into an accident then yes, the bar can take some of the blame. However again, this is because the bartender or waiter was present with the patron and did not properly monitor the amount of intake. I still think this is a ridiculous law but it is what it is. What it is NOT, however, is a drunk driver being held responsible for any crimes that may or may not have been committed by the brewing company of his favorite alcohol.

If you knowingly but a sweatshirt that was created in a sweat shop, then you are culpable because you are supporting that business. Just because you want to ignore what is happening and not feel like you are responsible, doesn't change the fact that you are supporting that business and what it is doing. Just like you knowingly purchase the drug illegally. Just because you don't see the actions of those who you are buying it from doesn't change the fact that you are the reason they exist. Stop buying from then and they stop existing. And you are present when you purchase the pot. Therefore if that drug dealer is doing other illegal things to so that he can continue to sell to you illegally, you are the reason he is doing it. If he Leo's having to go to his supplier because you want put from him, you are the reason the supplier is there, and so on further up.

You are responsible for your actions and of those who are there to supply you with your actions.

[Jaric]

Those laws were blatantly unconstitutional. That happens from time to time. Way more often, laws completely contradict each other. They vary widely from one place to the next.

Like you said, laws are not infallible. They certainly shouldn't be considered the standard for what's moral or ethical.

Laws should reflect morality, not determine it.

[Superman]

Laws should reflect morality, not determine it.

 

In a perfect world, yes, but realistically, that's not even possible. My morality might be different than yours. Doesn't mean my morality should be imposed upon you. That's the whole point of the constitution.

[Narcosys]

I assume you drive a car....by doing so you're contributing to the demand for Oil and Gasoline. Do you accept responsibility for atrocities committed by the big time oil companies, or by the government on behalf of the oil industry?

And what are those illegal actions and atrocities that they do? Furthermore, purchasing gas is not illegal. I am performing a legal action.

That's the difference, you are not performing a legal action by obtaining and possessing drugs.

[Jaric]

In a perfect world, yes, but realistically, that's not even possible. My morality might be different than yours. Doesn't mean my morality should be imposed upon you. That's the whole point of the constitution.

Certainly. Everyone draws the lines at different places for different issues. The general point I wanted to make was that something isn't immoral simply because its illegal. That's the legal equivilant of "Because I said so!"

[Superman]

Certainly. Everyone draws the lines at different places for different issues. The general point I wanted to make was that something isn't immoral simply because its illegal. That's the legal equivilant of "Because I said so!"

 

We agree, 100%. Your Jim Crowe example was perfect.

[Narcosys]

Why not? Laws are not infallible. Many times they have unintended consequences (like prohibition or the war on drugs.) Can't we blame Jim Crowe laws for the harm they caused?

Regardless of all that, this much is clear. If you support the continued criminalization of marijuana you are pro cartel.

Wow... that's dumb and not clear. So somehow you say if someone is against drugs they are pro cartel? There's no way you can make that statement true because you are still trying to blame a law. A law that does not perform actions. It is the person who performs actions. Much like my speeding comparison. Just because you think you should be able to go 45 in a 40 in the middle of the woods doesn't mean the law is the problem. You are making a conscious choice. You choosing to break the law makes it illegal.

Also, what existential crimes were created from the Jim Crowe laws? Who performed other illegal actions just because they were segregated. There wr probably some beatings and other things done to those that were perceived to break the law but there was nothing done illegally to support someone who wanted to break the law.

That cannot even come close to comparison. You're trying to bring in other irrelevant and incomparable issues to prove a point.

[Warhorse]

I think we should weed him out. 

 

Seriously though....

 

At one time the argument may have been, "Please stop trying to get in line and vote. You hurt yourself and others by willfully breaking the law"

 

"But just because I am a woman, I should not be refused the right to vote!"

 

"That is not the issue.....it is illegal for you to vote!"

[Jason_]

And what are those illegal actions and atrocities that they do? Furthermore, purchasing gas is not illegal. I am performing a legal action.

 

Really you have no idea what atrocities have been committed in the name of big oil?  Wars have taken place in the name of oil. 

 

 

That's the difference, you are not performing a legal action by obtaining and possessing drugs.

 

It doesn't matter if buying oil is legal...you're still supporting the oil industry.  That's been your premise...those who use a product are responsible for the actions of the manufacturers of said product. 

[18Manning]

Not that AB was using pot for the reason I'm going to comment on, but IMO pot is one of those issues in a "gray" area. There is no black and white answer in some scenarios. In my example, a family member has dealt with many issues of the head, i.e. depression, chemical imbalance, the list goes on. She has been prescribed various man-made, brain altering medications over the years to try and help. One day, this person called me and said she hasn't been so happy in years. She stopped taking all her medications, and started smoking pot. Not smoking to the point she was constantly high. I would much rather see this person smoke pot then popping 3-6 different medications at once EVERY DAY. I'm pretty sure pot is still illegal in the state she resides, but I'm okay with her smoking.  

 

On the flip side, there are many people that take advantage of "medical marijuana". I need it because my toe hurts, my arm hurts, my joints (no pun intended) hurt and so on.  

[Narcosys]

Guess what, they don't. We can accept that and make intelligent choices based on that or we can live in a fantasy world.

At this point the only group that benefits from criminalization are the cartels and privately run prisons. If you are pro criminalization that is what you're supporting.

Ok, so if most people don't have self control to not break the law that means its ok? That's just another way to excuse those that break the law. If everyone else does it then it must be ok. That's the worst argument possible to prove your point. There are plenty more people who do have the self control to not break laws.

They only benefit from those that break the law. You continue to try and blame a law. It cannot perform an action. It is people who break the law. End of story. You are only trying to find a scapegoat to give yourself an excuse to break the law and not to think about the actions of those who do things to support your need/want for an illegal substance.

[Jaric]

Wow... that's dumb and not clear. So somehow you say if someone is against drugs they are pro cartel? There's no way you can make that statement true because you are still trying to blame a law. A law that does not perform actions. It is the person who performs actions. Much like my speeding comparison. Just because you think you should be able to go 45 in a 40 in the middle of the woods doesn't mean the law is the problem. You are making a conscious choice. You choosing to break the law makes it illegal.

Also, what existential crimes were created from the Jim Crowe laws? Who performed other illegal actions just because they were segregated. There wr probably some beatings and other things done to those that were perceived to break the law but there was nothing done illegally to support someone who wanted to break the law.

That cannot even come close to comparison. You're trying to bring in other irrelevant and incomparable issues to prove a point.

As long as drugs are illegal, drug cartels will exist and prosper. There is no realistic scenario in which that is not the case. You could kill everyone associated with the cartels today and tomorrow there will be a hundred new ones to take their place.

Ergo, if you support criminalization, you are effectively saying "yes" to cartels even if you don't want to. We found that out the hard way with prohibition. You can claim its not your fault, that the fault lies with those darn drugs users and their lack of self control. But ultimately you're supporting measure that directly lead to criminal cartels.

If you want to get rid of cartels, get rid of the laws that create a need for them. That's the only way to do it. "Just saying no!" Has failed miserably.

[Narcosys]

Really you have no idea what atrocities have been committed in the name of big oil? Wars have taken place in the name of oil.

It doesn't matter if buying oil is legal...you're still supporting the oil industry. That's been your premise...those who use a product are responsible for the actions of the manufacturers of said product.

No my premise is that you are committing an illegal action, creating a need for other illegal organizations to do more illegal actions in support of your demand. Therefore being responsible for those actions.

If someone is doing something legal, they cannot be held accountable for the action of those who decide to do something illegal. That's the difference and makes your comparison invalid because there is a break in the legal/illegal chain. Everything to do with joe schmoe smoking it is illegal. With the exception of those with medical prescriptions.

You're grasping straws.

[Jaric]

Ok, so if most people don't have self control to not break the law that means its ok? That's just another way to excuse those that break the law. If everyone else does it then it must be ok. That's the worst argument possible to prove your point. There are plenty more people who do have the self control to not break laws.

They only benefit from those that break the law. You continue to try and blame a law. It cannot perform an action. It is people who break the law. End of story. You are only trying to find a scapegoat to give yourself an excuse to break the law and not to think about the actions of those who do things to support your need/want for an illegal substance.

I'm not looking for a scapegoat. I'm looking for a rational solution to end a serious problem in this country.

What's your solution? "Self-control?" "Just say no?" We've been trying that for the past 30 years and all we've accomplished is locked away a staggering number of citizens (disproportionately minorities by the way) and made drug cartels and private prison operators rich.

So again, what's your solution?

[Narcosys]

As long as drugs are illegal, drug cartels will exist and prosper. There is no realistic scenario in which that is not the case. You could kill everyone associated with the cartels today and tomorrow there will be a hundred new ones to take their place.

Ergo, if you support criminalization, you are effectively saying "yes" to cartels even if you don't want to. We found that out the hard way with prohibition. You can claim its not your fault, that the fault lies with those darn drugs users and their lack of self control. But ultimately you're supporting measure that directly lead to criminal cartels.

If you want to get rid of cartels, get rid of the laws that create a need for them. That's the only way to do it. "Just saying no!" Has failed miserably.

Yes, they will exist because there are those who want it. Again, you cannot blame a law for your conscious decisions. If everyone just stopped breaking the law the cartels would go away. Then go on and repel the law.

You continue to try to make excuses to justify illegal actions. There is no argument in the world that will make your statements true. Illegal actions are illegal actions, performed by individuals. A law does force someone to break a law, a person chooses to break a law.

If everyone just obeyed the law, there would be no issue. That does not mean that obeying the law means you cannot oppose it.

[Superman]

I think we should weed him out. 

 

[Narcosys]

I'm not looking for a scapegoat. I'm looking for a rational solution to end a serious problem in this country.

What's your solution? "Self-control?" "Just say no?" We've been trying that for the past 30 years and all we've accomplished is locked away a staggering number of citizens (disproportionately minorities by the way) and made drug cartels and private prison operators rich.

So again, what's your solution?

So it's not rational for you to just stop doing it? Are you that addicted that you will die if you stop? Oh and please say that pot isn't addictive, please. That just makes your statement even more ridiculous. If it won't kill you, then it is completely rational to just stop. But you won't, you are making a conscious decision to break the law. Which proves my point that it is the person who choose to break the law, not the law that forces people to do it.

And don't bring in the race card. That's ridiculous.

[Jaric]

Yes, they will exist because there are those who want it. Again, you cannot blame a law for your conscious decisions. If everyone just stopped breaking the law the cartels would go away. Then go on and repel the law.

You continue to try to make excuses to justify illegal actions. There is no argument in the world that will make your statements true. Illegal actions are illegal actions, performed by individuals. A law does force someone to break a law, a person chooses to break a law.

If everyone just obeyed the law, there would be no issue. That does not mean that obeying the law means you cannot oppose it.

Look, if this about blame, blame whoever you want to.

All I'm saying is that its time to rethink how we address this issue because what we've been doing has been a total failure.

Attacking the problem at the demand side has failed. Just like trying that during prohibition failed.

You can blame whoever you want but the truth if the matter is still the only oeople who benefit from drug laws are cartels (and street gangs) and private prison operators.

Groups of people who we can do without.

[Jason_]

No my premise is that you are committing an illegal action, creating a need for other illegal organizations to do more illegal actions in support of your demand. Therefore being responsible for those actions.

 

 

Yes, smoking weed is a criminal action. I agree.  Yes, smoking weed creates the demand for the supply of weed.  I agree with that as well.  I can also accept that smoking weed requires others to perform the illegal actions of growing, harvesting and distributing weed.  However smoking weed does NOT require gangs to murder other gangs, cartels to murder members of other cartels etc etc.  That's all in how they choose to run their business, which is something the weed smoker has no control over. 

[Jaric]

So it's not rational for you to just stop doing it? Are you that addicted that you will die if you stop? Oh and please say that pot isn't addictive, please. That just makes your statement even more ridiculous. If it won't kill you, then it is completely rational to just stop. But you won't, you are making a conscious decision to break the law. Which proves my point that it is the person who choose to break the law, not the law that forces people to do it.

And don't bring in the race card. That's ridiculous.

No, it's not rational to expect the millions of people in this country who use drugs to suddenly stop doing so. The last 30 years have proven that without a doubt. You don't have to like that, but it's the world we live in.

I'm also going to request that you not make insinuations that I am a drug addict. You don't know me and its irresponsible of you to make such an accusation because I favor legalization. Marijuana can be addictive. So can many other activities if moderation is not applied. That doesn't mean everyone who smokes is an addict just like everyone who drinks is not an alcoholic.

Finally, as to "the race card," it's entirely reasonable to bring that up because drug laws in this country DO disproportionately effect minorities. I'm not suggesting you hate black people or anything (which would be absurd and if I was unclear about that I sincerely apologize) but if we're going to talk about this like adults we have to look at the facts.

[Narcosys]

Look, if this about blame, blame whoever you want to.

All I'm saying is that its time to rethink how we address this issue because what we've been doing has been a total failure.

Attacking the problem at the demand side has failed. Just like trying that during prohibition failed.

You can blame whoever you want but the truth if the matter is still the only oeople who benefit from drug laws are cartels (and street gangs) and private prison operators.

Groups of people who we can do without.

I don't disagree that they benefit from criminalization. But that is the result of people choosing to break the law. I can also agree it hasn't worked. But that doesn't change the chain of responsibility as it currently stands.

That's what we were discussing. The path forward is another topic.

[Jaric]

That's what we were discussing. The path forward is another topic.

Honestly, blame who you want. For me that question is at this point irrelevant. The path forward is the only question that matters (IMO).

[GoPats]

Has anyone else noticed that there's a fairly intense marijuana debate going on, and the anti-pot guy has the word "Narc" in his username? Life is sometimes just poetic.

 

(We now return to your regularly scheduled drug debate.) 

[Warhorse]

Well. in Oregon it has changed. There are cannabis outlets all over Portland. I'll let you all know when the gloom and doom begins. Right now I am too relaxed to give a shuck. 

[Jaric]

Well. in Oregon it has changed. There are cannabis outlets all over Portland. I'll let you all know when the gloom and doom begins. Right now I am too relaxed to give a shuck.

It's only a matter of time before reefer madness takes you and you start raping and killing.

[GoPats]

It's only a matter of time before reefer madness takes you and you start raping and killing.

 

This scene sums it all up perfectly:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1jk4F1757A

 

"You don't want this Dewey!" 

[Superman]

Oh and please say that pot isn't addictive, please. That just makes your statement even more ridiculous.

 

Why does it matter if it's addictive? Food is addictive. Caffeine is addictive.

[Narcosys]

No, it's not rational to expect the millions of people in this country who use drugs to suddenly stop doing so. The last 30 years have proven that without a doubt. You don't have to like that, but it's the world we live in.

I'm also going to request that you not make insinuations that I am a drug addict. You don't know me and its irresponsible of you to make such an accusation because I favor legalization. Marijuana can be addictive. So can many other activities if moderation is not applied. That doesn't mean everyone who smokes is an addict just like everyone who drinks is not an alcoholic.

Finally, as to "the race card," it's entirely reasonable to bring that up because drug laws in this country DO disproportionately effect minorities. I'm not suggesting you hate black people or anything (which would be absurd and if I was unclear about that I sincerely apologize) but if we're going to talk about this like adults we have to look at the facts.

I never did insinuate that you were an addict because pot is very very difficult to become addicted to. The amount it would take on a daily basis is more than most any normal and reasonable person would use. You were the one who said it is not rational to just stop doing an essentially non-addictive drug.

Also it is irrelevant whether I like it or not. It's on those people making the decisions.

Ok let's talk facts. It is primarily low income people who do drugs or are caught doing drugs. Unfortunately the majority of minorities live in the low income range. Makes sense then that minorities are the primary ones charged with drug crimes.

[Jaric]

I never did insinuate that you were an addict because pot is very very difficult to become addicted to. The amount it would take on a daily basis is more than most any normal and reasonable person would use. You were the one who said it is not rational to just stop doing an essentially non-addictive drug.

Also it is irrelevant whether I like it or not. It's on those people making the decisions.

Ok let's talk facts. It is primarily low income people who do drugs or are caught doing drugs. Unfortunately the majority of minorities live in the low income range. Makes sense then that minorities are the primary ones charged with drug crimes.

Then i apologize. I've had this debate before and eventually it usually ends up with someone calling me a drug addict to attempt to diminish me and my opinions. I thought thats what you were doing and appreciate you clarifying.

Also, the point I was making was simply that it isn't rational to expect people in this country to suddenly stop doing drugs, addictive or not.

I consider myself pragmatic. We can argue all day about if thats "right" or not, but ultimately that is the world we live in so I think we should accept that. Even if we don't like it.

We've spent quite a bit if time discussing the unintended consequences of criminalization, but I think we also have to ask, what exactly do we get out keeping pot illegal? What are we gaining that is so important we're willing to keep locking up poor people and line the pockets of violent cartel and gang members?

[Warhorse]

But that is the result of people choosing to break the law.

I can picture a group of men saying much the same to a group of women when they said the voting rights laws for women are wrong. It was the defiance against what was wrong, the "bringing to the forefront" of the issue....is what changed that repugnant law. My guess is that the group of men that I indicated in the first sentence of this post, while quoting that violation of the law, actually had a personal interest in the law not being changed because of their beliefs. Is it out of line to ask if this discourse effects you the same way? Not trying to argue with you, just discuss. 

 

I may have smoked enough weed to fill the back of an F-150 in my life, but I no longer partake. What I can say honestly, is I have rarely seen more wasted resources and human efforts into something less effective and unnecessary in my life than the war against pot. It has been and is....a colossal waste of existence.  

 

By the way....on my way to paying a fine for not coming to a complete stop and got photographed....$250....I watched a policeman (god I love irony) pull up behind a large tractor in a very heavy trafficked part of town. The equipment had no lights, warning signs, or anything that made the driver legal, but the officer did nothing (even though it IS the law). I'll bet that had he been smoking a joint, he could have been kissing the pavement and had a knee in his back 5 years ago. 

 

Perhaps this thread is just an example of disagreeing on the topic, rather than on a single issue like breaking the law. 

[Warhorse]

I never did insinuate that you were an addict because pot is very very difficult to become addicted to. The amount it would take on a daily basis is more than most any normal and reasonable person would use. You were the one who said it is not rational to just stop doing an essentially non-addictive drug.

Also it is irrelevant whether I like it or not. It's on those people making the decisions.

Ok let's talk facts. It is primarily low income people who do drugs or are caught doing drugs. Unfortunately the majority of minorities live in the low income range. Makes sense then that minorities are the primary ones charged with drug crimes.

I guess you were dead on when you said "caught". My guess is that the numbers for usage is a great deal closer. Being caught is unfortunately....affected by income. 

[Jaric]

I would actually argue that the war on drugs is a huge contributor to the cycle of poverty, but that's probably another thread.

[Narcosys]

Then i apologize. I've had this debate before and eventually it usually ends up with someone calling me a drug addict to attempt to diminish me and my opinions. I thought thats what you were doing and appreciate you clarifying.

Also, the point I was making was simply that it isn't rational to expect people in this country to suddenly stop doing drugs, addictive or not.

I consider myself pragmatic. We can argue all day about if thats "right" or not, but ultimately that is the world we live in so I think we should accept that. Even if we don't like it.

We've spent quite a bit if time discussing the unintended consequences of criminalization, but I think we also have to ask, what exactly do we get out keeping pot illegal? What are we gaining that is so important we're willing to keep locking up poor people and line the pockets of violent cartel and gang members?

The government makes money off of it. State governments especially. The more people incarcerated, the more financial aid they get. The government rewards them for it and therefore they look for more people to incarcerate. Plus all the fines and bonds people post, court fees etc.

That's one big reason.

[Narcosys]

I can picture a group of men saying much the same to a group of women when they said the voting rights laws for women are wrong. It was the defiance against what was wrong, the "bringing to the forefront" of the issue....is what changed that repugnant law. My guess is that the group of men that I indicated in the first sentence of this post, while quoting that violation of the law, actually had a personal interest in the law not being changed because of their beliefs. Is it out of line to ask if this discourse effects you the same way? Not trying to argue with you, just discuss.

I may have smoked enough weed to fill the back of an F-150 in my life, but I no longer partake. What I can say honestly, is I have rarely seen more wasted resources and human efforts into something less effective and unnecessary in my life than the war against pot. It has been and is....a colossal waste of existence.

By the way....on my way to paying a fine for not coming to a complete stop and got photographed....$250....I watched a policeman (god I love irony) pull up behind a large tractor in a very heavy trafficked part of town. The equipment had no lights, warning signs, or anything that made the driver legal, but the officer did nothing (even though it IS the law). I'll bet that had he been smoking a joint, he could have been kissing the pavement and had a knee in his back 5 years ago.

Perhaps this thread is just an example of disagreeing on the topic, rather than on a single issue like breaking the law.

Women's rights don't compare. Noone was breaking the law for one, because they just were not able to vote period. Nor was anyone breaking other laws to help them in breaking the law.

I'm not sure about the rest of your post and where you're going with it.

[Jaric]

The government makes money off of it. State governments especially. The more people incarcerated, the more financial aid they get. The government rewards them for it and therefore they look for more people to incarcerate. Plus all the fines and bonds people post, court fees etc.

That's one big reason.

So the ability to ruin lives so we can gain government assistance is....a positive?

I'll be blunt. I find the idea of having laws specifically just to put people in jail nauseating. That's an affront to the ideals this country was founded on and basic human decency.

Those are people your talking about. With families, lives, hopes, dreams.

[NFLfan]

Ok let's talk facts. It is primarily low income people who do drugs or are caught doing drugs. Unfortunately the majority of minorities live in the low income range. Makes sense then that minorities are the primary ones charged with drug crimes.

If you are going to call something a "fact", you should provide a reference (or citation, no pun intended). I went to undergraduate and graduate school with upper middle class and rich kids. Believe me, many of them smoked marijuana and some did all sorts of other drugs that I had never heard of before meeting them.

You are kidding yourself if you think it is mostly (or "primarily") minorities and low-income people who do drugs. I cannot blame you for thinking this way, as that is what is shown in the media, but go to treatment and detox centers and you may be surprised to see how many of the folks in treatment look like they could be related to you.

[Narcosys]

So the ability to ruin lives so we can gain government assistance is....a positive?

I'll be blunt. I find the idea of having laws specifically just to put people in jail nauseating. That's an affront to the ideals this country was founded on and basic human decency.

Those are people your talking about. With families, lives, hopes, dreams.

Sorry if i wasnt clear, the states get funding for how many people are incarcerated. Just stating a fact, not saying its positive.