Marijuana prohibition is insane.

/DNRTFA
//Too stoned
///I wish

OK. Now I RTFA. The guy should be applauded, not imprisoned. He hacked a secured site and did nothing underhanded. They should publicly make a case out of him, then privately hire him to figure out their weaknesses.

FREE GANJA!

Stupid hippies.

What about owning and/or carrying guns?

I think they confused America with Singapore. Understandable mistake, but you'll have to go to Asia if you want 25-year sentences for small amounts of marijuana. Despite the ever-so-popular argument, a 25-year sentence for importing a truckload of marijuana does not equal a 25-year sentence for smoking marijuana.

As much as we Americans are coming to grips with the failings of various parts of our government each day, IMHO there is nothing so woefully broken as our criminal justice system. The percentage of our population that is incarcerated, the prison-industrial system's influence on legislation and budgets, self-aggrandizing prosecutors, judges, and cops who feel the need to make a name for being tough on crime rather than serving justice because they face election in the fall.... I wager it never gets fixed until we eventually revolt and start over.

LordPistachio: a 25-year sentence for importing a truckload of marijuana does not equal a 25-year sentence for smoking marijuana.

I bet that in Cali you could easily get the 25 under the three strikes law if you had enough pot on you (2 ounces, IIRC) to make it a felony. In Oregon, even one ounce is good for 10 years and $100,000, whether you're dealing or not. Growing even a single plant in your home can net you a 60-year federal rap.

/The U.S is decades behind rational thought with Marijuana laws.
//Canada's only slightly better
///Don't toke, but support legalization

Suicidal Writer: What about owning and/or carrying guns?

I'm against gun control, but regulating devices that can be used to kill people makes a big more sense than regulating a mostly harmless plant.

RemyDuron: I'm against gun control, but regulating devices that can be used to kill people makes a big more sense than regulating a mostly harmless plant.

After all, we wouldn't want dangerous individuals to acquire pointy sticks.

of course marijuana should be legal, but honestly... how many people do you actually believe are in prison for smoking marijuana ???

Comrade438: RemyDuron: I'm against gun control, but regulating devices that can be used to kill people makes a big more sense than regulating a mostly harmless plant.

After all, we wouldn't want dangerous individuals to acquire pointy sticks.

No we don't. They can take someones eye out with them.

That's not a failing of the criminal justice system, that's just the criminal justice system being used to enforce stupid laws.

Highroller48: I bet that in Cali you could easily get the 25 under the three strikes law if you had enough pot on you (2 ounces, IIRC) to make it a felony. In Oregon, even one ounce is good for 10 years and $100,000, whether you're dealing or not. Growing even a single plant in your home can net you a 60-year federal rap.

In that instance, you'd be getting a 25 year sentence for smoking marijuana after committing two other felonies. So in other words, you've committed three crimes and one was when you knew the next one was your last chance. In that case, I have no pity for you.

Unless you want to suggest a scenario where all three felonies were for 2 ounces of pot possession, but the truth of the matter is that the prosecutor's office will not prosecute you under those facts. They have the option to, but they will not do it. They just won't - all it would do is cause a nightmare in the press and cause hourly phone calls from Sacramento to said prosecutor's office. In fact, if you gave every chief prosecutor in California the option of prosecuting someone under these facts, or stabbing themselves in the eye with a pencil, you'd have to start a union of one-eyed prosecutors.

Finally, the federal prosecutors office won't prosecute someone for growing plants in their home unless you have way over 50 or 60 - unless, of course, you have committed a bunch of other offenses too and they just want to tack onto your sentence. Read that again, 50 or 60 plants minimum - that's not a recreational user, that's a dealer. And that's why it's in place.

what krack said. and this: of course mckinnon should just be hired as a consultant rather than face prison time. but now that the case is public, it's perfectly reasonable to expect "an example" to be made. it is indeed possible to commit a crime using a computer. it is also possible to commit a crime unknowingly. he has done both. sadly, he now faces the consequences.

and "community service, plus a fine, in this country": oh come on he's not a murderer, only a hacker!

liberalish: As much as we Americans are coming to grips with the failings of various parts of our government each day, IMHO there is nothing so woefully broken as our criminal justice system. The percentage of our population that is incarcerated, the prison-industrial system's influence on legislation and budgets, self-aggrandizing prosecutors, judges, and cops who feel the need to make a name for being tough on crime rather than serving justice because they face election in the fall.... I wager it never gets fixed until we eventually revolt and start over.

A large part of the problem is our philosophy on crime. We (as in society) ignore the costs to criminals. The argument goes the welfare of criminals is irrelivant because they are criminals. For many people, it is detestible that a criminal's rights should be given any weight.

This leads to a tough on crime mentality where we can never be tough enough on criminals. They can never repay their debt to society because their rights are as valuable as a Zimbabwe dollar. Indeed the only limit to punishing criminals is that govenrments have limited resources with which to punish them.

driven to quit: Comrade438: RemyDuron: I'm against gun control, but regulating devices that can be used to kill people makes a big more sense than regulating a mostly harmless plant.

After all, we wouldn't want dangerous individuals to acquire pointy sticks.

No we don't. They can take someones eye out with them.

this is why my family has devoted well over four generations to knocking down anything that could one day be turned into a pointy stick - trees, shrubberies, bushes, shorter trees, anorexic womens from hollywood - the whole shebang!

Mr Logo: This leads to a tough on crime mentality where we can never be tough enough on criminals

And also results in attitudes and policies that make it very difficult for criminals to ever intigrate back into society. Plus for many the feeling is, since they can't get back into society, reverting to crime isn't a bad option.

RemyDuron: I'm against gun control, but regulating devices that can be used to kill people makes a big more sense than regulating a mostly harmless plant.

Like guns, the plant itself is harmless, but the marijuana industry as well as the consumption of the plant aren't harmless. It makes zero sense to punish people for the use of marijuana. I suppose there could be tax issues and such with cultivation, but criminalization has just about reached the point of being indefensible.

What about owning and/or carrying guns?

Lock 'em up.

Farmers / Gamekeepers are the only people who need to use a gun in their daily work, and they only need them on the farm.

Our prison system is a national disgrace and the marijuana case referred to was this one:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/rockford/2005/pr0513_01.pdf (new window)

The 50 years for videotapes went all the way to the Supreme Court, a case involving someone never convicted of a violent crime. A lot of reactionaries would love to keep up the high incarnation rates or even increase them, but we have far passed the point of diminishing returns for society. We need to look at what works and spend a dime on investing in people and save a dollar later. Also, with putting so many people in prison for drugs, etc., there is less room for he people who really need to be there. (There is also the added benefit of not being such dicks, but I'll keep it focused on money.)
Source:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/23/america/23prison.php

The idea of being arrested for anything in the US seems kinda scary to me, but maybe I've spent too much time on Fark.

/not that being arested is ever pleasent unless you're a little mentally-disjointed, but you know what I mean, relatively speaking.

Glasgowsfinest: Farmers / Gamekeepers are the only people who need to use a gun in their daily work, and they only need them on the farm.

No one needs to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes.

Suicidal Writer: Glasgowsfinest: Farmers / Gamekeepers are the only people who need to use a gun in their daily work, and they only need them on the farm.

No one needs to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes.

Funny how it works when you turn something around like that, in'nit?

I'm going to guess the responses will be along the lines of "but guns are designed to kill". That's pretty standard fare.

Suicidal Writer: What about owning and/or carrying guns?

You're comparing a plant to a weapon, and the weapon charge still carries a lesser sentence. Fail.

Nor does the UK operate a Guantánamo Bay where the most basic legal principles have been abandoned as part of a post-9/11 panic

Well..........maybe not right NOW......

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts, first enacted in 1974 and codified in 1989, had seven parts; germane here is:
Proscribed Organisations: Allowed for organisations to be made illegal, making membership an arrestable offence. So far, this is not a crime in the US.
Arrest, Detention and Control of Entry: This part allowed for the arrest of individuals without a warrant and on reasonable suspicion that they were guilty of an offence under the Act or otherwise "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". Similar to provisions of the PATRIOT Act, and also exempted the detainee from safeguards similar to US Miranda rights.

During this time, Britain also suspended public trials, trial by jury, cross-examination of government witnesses, and other legal guarantees for defendants, in the name of "protecting" witnesses and prosecutors against terrorists (almost exclusively IRA). So, there's no need to cede the moral high ground to the Limeys. Whenever terrorists are involved, everyone's hands get dirty really fast.

I say chaps, sorry about this hacking lark. It's just your freedoms have us rightly miffed eh what...

No one needs to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes.

what does that have to do with firearms?

Brockway: Criminals should be exterminated.

You do realize that 40 percent of Americans have tried marijuana, right? That's a whole lot of exterminations, might take us a while. Maybe we should rig some showers to release gas or something.

//first ever Godwin. I'm so ashamed.

Glasgowsfinest: No one needs to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes.

what does that have to do with firearms?

What do firearms have to do with this thread?

Oh come on it's not like you can get 25 years for Marijuana unless you are black or brown.

The American government makes an almost UNLIMITED amount of money (can you say perscription drug industry and Reagan's Iran-Contra-Crack scandal?) from the "drug war". Of course they want it to continue forever, so it will.

How farking difficult is that to understand? As for this poor guy .... be prepared to be Guantanamoooooooed.

/I hope he likes naked pyramid games!

Brockway: Criminals should be exterminated.

Glasgowsfinest: what does that have to do with firearms?

Hobbies and vices are different, but both cultures react in a hostile manner to one or the other, with support, implied or explicit, from the population at large, who don't want to allow the liberty for one or the other in the name of one or the other being dangerous, and liberty superfluous.

I'm all for being tough on criminals, but as others have alluded to, when the price has been paid, it should be considered paid in full.

The 'sex offender' laws are a prime example of this. If someone is unfit to be out in society without a scarlet letter on their chest, 500 restrictions on where they can live, and websites tracking their every move..... DON'T LET THEM OUT OF PRISON.

As for the rehabilitation vs punishment, well, I guess it depends widely on the quality of the individual prisoner, and our ability to trust justice officials of any level to be able to make the distinction.

Some folks are so far gone that you might as well just lock them up for as long as they give you an excuse to do so, while others could be recalibrated.

Reliably differentiating between the two is certainly a challenge.

binnster: Suicidal Writer: What about owning and/or carrying guns?

You're comparing a plant to a weapon, and the weapon charge still carries a lesser sentence. Fail.

He's comparing an inanimate object with another inanimate object. Valid point IMO.

Don't legalize it.

Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Suicidal Writer: Glasgowsfinest: Farmers / Gamekeepers are the only people who need to use a gun in their daily work, and they only need them on the farm.

No one needs to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes.

Funny how it works when you turn something around like that, in'nit?

I'm going to guess the responses will be along the lines of "but guns are designed to kill". That's pretty standard fare.

and now for something completely different:

nobody needs to drink booze/smoke cigarettes/jerk off to porn for recreational purposes, but we allow the legality of said activities because they cause negligible harm at society at large, and as Prohibition proved, if you take criminalize a common vice then it's dissemination will quickly turn into a thriving criminal enterprise. over the course of the "war on drugs" the street price heroin has gone from $20 for a menial amount of 5% pure, to over ten times that amount of 100%. it's not farking working.

as for guns, yes they are designed to kill things. are you telling me that the SOCOM weapons system has any purpose other than the termination of human life? however, this in no way speaks negatively to the right to bear arms. we allow the ready dissemination of firearms(with proper regulation) for two reasons:

1) once again, if you criminalize something most folks already own, use, and enjoy, you're simply going to turn a lot of people into criminals. making handguns illegal isn't going to magically uninvent the semi-automatic, it's simply going to put it exclusively in the hands of those willing to break the law to get one.

2) the second amendment is not about our manly American right to hunt, nor is it about protecting us from each other. it's about protecting us from our government. if all three estates were to fall under the control of a unilateral party leadership(as they damn near did under Bush) then every action the federal government takes is done so under the assumption that the population is armed, and will revolt if pushed hard enough. the second amendment is the final check and balance of our constitution, "break glass in case of tyrannical overlords" if you will.

now, having said that, do i believe we are teetering on the brink of a tyrannical one party system robbing us of all of our liberties? not so much. however, i also believe that my house is not currently on fire, but that's hardly a reason not to keep a working smoke alarm and fire extinguisher about.

stickmangrit: Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Suicidal Writer: Glasgowsfinest: Farmers / Gamekeepers are the only people who need to use a gun in their daily work, and they only need them on the farm.

No one needs to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes.

Funny how it works when you turn something around like that, in'nit?

I'm going to guess the responses will be along the lines of "but guns are designed to kill". That's pretty standard fare.

and now for something completely different:

nobody needs to drink booze/smoke cigarettes/jerk off to porn for recreational purposes, but we allow the legality of said activities because BLAH BLAH some good points BLAH BLAH there is no victim, so go mind your own farking business you nosy, moral busybody!

Suicidal Writer: No one needs to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes.

The difference being you can't accidently (or intentionally) kill someone with a few grams of marijuana, but you knew that already.

Hagbardr: Brockway: Criminals should be exterminated.

Doctor Who. Final episode for US viewers. 90 minutes special. Sci-Fi channel. 8.30pm Eastern.

One reality bomb.
Two ways to stop it using kamikaze methods.
Three Time Lords.

I've said too much.

FarkingFarkers: He's comparing an inanimate object with another inanimate object. Valid point IMO.

So are fishing boats and microwave ovens, but a "Wow, that microwave sure did a number on my popcorn, but my fishing boat looks pretty in red" style comparison would still get you funny looks.

/tip: Just because they share one or even a number of characteristics doesn't mean that comparing the two is valid
//We call arguments based on that idea a "logical fallacy" around here

Shatner's Bassoon: What do firearms have to do with this thread?

You'd have to ask Suicidal Writer, he's the one that brought them up initially.

stickmangrit: Jeffrey.Rodriguez: Suicidal Writer: Glasgowsfinest: Farmers / Gamekeepers are the only people who need to use a gun in their daily work, and they only need them on the farm.

No one needs to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes.

Funny how it works when you turn something around like that, in'nit?

I'm going to guess the responses will be along the lines of "but guns are designed to kill". That's pretty standard fare.

and now for something completely different:

nobody needs to drink booze/smoke cigarettes/jerk off to porn for recreational purposes, but we allow the legality of said activities because they cause negligible harm at society at large, and as Prohibition proved, if you take criminalize a common vice then it's dissemination will quickly turn into a thriving criminal enterprise. over the course of the "war on drugs" the street price heroin has gone from $20 for a menial amount of 5% pure, to over ten times that amount of 100%. it's not farking working.

as for guns, yes they are designed to kill things. are you telling me that the SOCOM weapons system has any purpose other than the termination of human life? however, this in no way speaks negatively to the right to bear arms. we allow the ready dissemination of firearms(with proper regulation) for two reasons:

1) once again, if you criminalize something most folks already own, use, and enjoy, you're simply going to turn a lot of people into criminals. making handguns illegal isn't going to magically uninvent the semi-automatic, it's simply going to put it exclusively in the hands of those willing to break the law to get one.

2) the second amendment is not about our manly American right to hunt, nor is it about protecting us from each other. it's about protecting us from our government. if all three estates were to fall under the control of a unilateral party leadership(as they damn near did under Bush) then every action the federal government takes is done so under the assumption that the population is armed, and will revolt if pushed hard enough. the second amendment is the final check and balance of our constitution, "break glass in case of tyrannical overlords" if you will.

now, having said that, do i believe we are teetering on the brink of a tyrannical one party system robbing us of all of our liberties? not so much. however, i also believe that my house is not currently on fire, but that's hardly a reason not to keep a working smoke alarm and fire extinguisher about.

I have no idea of your political persuasion. You'll only know I'm a progressive liberal because I said so.

And with that in mind, ^THIS!^

Murkanen: Suicidal Writer: No one needs to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes.

The difference being you can't accidently (or intentionally) kill someone with a few grams of marijuana, but you knew that already.

To be fair, you can accidentally kill someone with just about anything. If they have an allergy to which triggers an anaphylactic shock, for example.

That's why they call it accidental.

And yes, people can have an allergic reaction to cannabis. (new window)

No one needs to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes.

Good thing I smoke professionally.

Highroller48: LordPistachio: a 25-year sentence for importing a truckload of marijuana does not equal a 25-year sentence for smoking marijuana.

I bet that in Cali you could easily get the 25 under the three strikes law if you had enough pot on you (2 ounces, IIRC) to make it a felony. In Oregon, even one ounce is good for 10 years and $100,000, whether you're dealing or not. Growing even a single plant in your home can net you a 60-year federal rap.

/The U.S is decades behind rational thought with Marijuana laws.
//Canada's only slightly better
///Don't toke, but support legalization

Say what you will, but 2 oz. of weed is a lot to be carrying around.

/gets a worse rap than it should
//make it like alcohol and just write the equivalent of PI tickets or something

I have owned a ton of bongs, bowls, bubblers but, really, nothing beats a nice fat joint. I roll a little cardboard (playing cards work perfect) tube in the suck end to keep it hitting- I call it "The Euro" because I'm gay that way.

Jackpot777: Doctor Who. Final episode for US viewers. 90 minutes special. Sci-Fi channel. 8.30pm Eastern.

One reality bomb.
Two ways to stop it using kamikaze methods.
Three Time Lords.

I've said too much.

I'm watching the 4th season now. I'm too cheap to pay for cable so I got the episodes off something that rhymes with Schmidt Schmorrant.

stickmangrit

2) the second amendment is not about our manly American right to hunt, nor is it about protecting us from each other. it's about protecting us from our government. if all three estates were to fall under the control of a unilateral party leadership(as they damn near did under Bush) then every action the federal government takes is done so under the assumption that the population is armed, and will revolt if pushed hard enough. the second amendment is the final check and balance of our constitution, "break glass in case of tyrannical overlords" if you will.

No it's not.

Article one: Congress shall have the power "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You have the right to bear arms in support of the government, not against it.

Suicidal Writer:
No one needs to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes.

Yeah, we could smoke it for medical purposes, but then we'd still get stoned, so what?

Brockway: Criminals should be exterminated.

Citizens should be educated.