If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   End Mass Incarceration Now   (nytimes.com) divider line 342
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11090 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 May 2014 at 8:21 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



342 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-26 01:58:31 AM  

FredPhelp'slovechild: I have an honest question. There seems to be a pretty obvious correlation (yes, I know, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation) between tougher criminal penalties and lower crime rates. Isn't there a possibility that we are catching non-violent offenders before they become violent offenders? Do we really believe these numbers are simply a coincidence?


No, but it's not what you think.

It's like drift-net fishing. The finer the mesh, the more fish you catch; but they're not necessarily the fish you want to catch. If you're fishing for tuna, but using a one-centimeter mesh, you'll catch plenty of tuna--but also a shiatload of smaller fish that didn't slip through the net. You may keep the tuna, but meanwhile all those trash fish are dead.

Same way with harsher penalties for lesser crimes. Sure, they're vacuuming up a few hard-core offenders and catching some that MIGHT have gone on to become violent offenders--but in that same fine net, they're sweeping up plenty of small trash fish that weren't intended, and which now have been ruined by our society that does not allow the criminal to pay for his crimes, since once a felon, always a felon insofar as jobs, housing, education, etc., are concerned.

Just as tuna fishers can catch about the same poundage of fish with judicious line and wider nets; so a targeted approach to law enforcement could catch the hardcore felons and potential troublemakers early--but that would mean proactive policing and requiring society to take responsibility for policies that create conditions for crime; and we're not there yet.
 
2014-05-26 02:11:07 AM  

Gyrfalcon: FredPhelp'slovechild: I have an honest question. There seems to be a pretty obvious correlation (yes, I know, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation) between tougher criminal penalties and lower crime rates. Isn't there a possibility that we are catching non-violent offenders before they become violent offenders? Do we really believe these numbers are simply a coincidence?

No, but it's not what you think.

It's like drift-net fishing. The finer the mesh, the more fish you catch; but they're not necessarily the fish you want to catch. If you're fishing for tuna, but using a one-centimeter mesh, you'll catch plenty of tuna--but also a shiatload of smaller fish that didn't slip through the net. You may keep the tuna, but meanwhile all those trash fish are dead.

Same way with harsher penalties for lesser crimes. Sure, they're vacuuming up a few hard-core offenders and catching some that MIGHT have gone on to become violent offenders--but in that same fine net, they're sweeping up plenty of small trash fish that weren't intended, and which now have been ruined by our society that does not allow the criminal to pay for his crimes, since once a felon, always a felon insofar as jobs, housing, education, etc., are concerned.

Just as tuna fishers can catch about the same poundage of fish with judicious line and wider nets; so a targeted approach to law enforcement could catch the hardcore felons and potential troublemakers early--but that would mean proactive policing and requiring society to take responsibility for policies that create conditions for crime; and we're not there yet.


Fair enough, and basically I agree, certainly with the idea that once a felon you're screwed and that's not the right approach. My problem is with someone selling drugs being considered non-violent. We have seen in this country and others that those peddling this stuff can resort to some pretty hideous stuff when business is threatened. I'm not sure going easy on them is the right approach.
 
2014-05-26 02:11:18 AM  
SunsetLament:
Hahaha, you think we run around seeing how many dopeheads we can lock up because we have nothing better to do.

No, it mostly comes from traffic stops. If they consent to a search, you give them a summons to appear in court. If they don't, the K-9 comes out, fakes a hit and they spend the night in county (whether there's drugs in the car or not, that's what the drop bag is for). Then they go before the judge who gives them probation for a first time offense. Then they get pulled over 2 weeks later. The K9 gets another hit, and boom, probation violation.

It's more like that.
 
2014-05-26 02:23:05 AM  
I suffer(ed) from substance abuse.. (Yes, a choice I made)

A protective order was requested and granted due to my substance abuse.

My initial violation (Went back to the house hours after the order was issued to grab my stash and to shower, non the less I know I was wrong) sent me to county for 5 months.

I was released and shortly after was invited to my 'victims' house by, you guessed it, the 'victim'.. Another bad choice I made, I accepted this request.

My mother caught wind and called the police. Yes, I know I violated a protective order, yes I know I was wrong. However I was clean, was checking in with probation and going to treatment. I expected to sit in jail a while longer..

Nope! Prison! Despite my victim being present at my sentencing. Despite my work vouching for me via letter and in court house, despite my attendance at and working of recovery. Despite it being my first felony.

My victim wrote me regularly during my stay and placed money on my books regularly, however I could not write or call her to thank her due to more charges being filed. Which happen to be  enhanceable.. Oh, they are also considered a people crime as well as domestic violence.

Merika.
 
2014-05-26 02:40:29 AM  
Not to mention how this batfark insane system is why cops get shot, why cops are overeager to shoot, ...
 
2014-05-26 02:42:16 AM  
FredPhelp'slovechild:
Fair enough, and basically I agree, certainly with the idea that once a felon you're screwed and that's not the right approach. My problem is with someone selling drugs being considered non-violent. We have seen in this country and others that those peddling this stuff can resort to some pretty hideous stuff when business is threatened. I'm not sure going easy on them i ...

You mean like how bar owners and liquor store clerks and smoke shop owners are constantly getting into shootouts when competition moves in too close?

What do you mean they don't?
 
2014-05-26 02:44:27 AM  

fredbox: SunsetLament:
Hahaha, you think we run around seeing how many dopeheads we can lock up because we have nothing better to do.

No, it mostly comes from traffic stops. If they consent to a search, you give them a summons to appear in court. If they don't, the K-9 comes out, fakes a hit and they spend the night in county (whether there's drugs in the car or not, that's what the drop bag is for). Then they go before the judge who gives them probation for a first time offense. Then they get pulled over 2 weeks later. The K9 gets another hit, and boom, probation violation.

It's more like that.


You lost me at "fakes a hit" - that's pothead paranoid conspiracy nonsense.
 
2014-05-26 02:49:58 AM  

SunsetLament: fredbox: SunsetLament:
Hahaha, you think we run around seeing how many dopeheads we can lock up because we have nothing better to do.

No, it mostly comes from traffic stops. If they consent to a search, you give them a summons to appear in court. If they don't, the K-9 comes out, fakes a hit and they spend the night in county (whether there's drugs in the car or not, that's what the drop bag is for). Then they go before the judge who gives them probation for a first time offense. Then they get pulled over 2 weeks later. The K9 gets another hit, and boom, probation violation.

It's more like that.

You lost me at "fakes a hit" - that's pothead paranoid conspiracy nonsense.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-canine-off ic ers-20110105_1_drug-sniffing-dogs-alex-rothacker-drug-dog

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/legal-challenge-quest io ns-reliability-police-dogs

There's plenty of other information out there. Now, are you personally accusing me of being a pothead on the public internet, simply because I understand how dogs react to reward-based training?
 
2014-05-26 02:52:52 AM  

SunsetLament: There is.  There is also a gigantic possibility that we are prosecuting violent offenders for non-violent crimes because we can't make the violent crime prosecution stick.


SunsetLament: Hahaha, you think we run around seeing how many dopeheads we can lock up because we have nothing better to do.

"Hey Lieutenant, Bob and I thought we'd go down to the local High Times store and arrest a few of the potheads that come out because we have nothing more important to do," said no police detective ever.

"Hey Police Detective Joe, you know that non-violent pothead who isn't involved in any other crime that you arrested the other night? I can't wait to press that one because I have nothing better to do this week," said no prosecutor ever.


SunsetLament: that's pothead paranoid conspiracy nonsense.


----

I take it you are a police officer?

Assumptions, condescending, stereotyping, referring to potheads as dopeheads?

You seem to suffer from many of the same thinking errors as many criminals. Perhaps you should enter treatment.

The Four Agreements is also a good book.

/that is all

 
2014-05-26 02:53:22 AM  

SunsetLament: fredbox: SunsetLament:
Hahaha, you think we run around seeing how many dopeheads we can lock up because we have nothing better to do.

No, it mostly comes from traffic stops. If they consent to a search, you give them a summons to appear in court. If they don't, the K-9 comes out, fakes a hit and they spend the night in county (whether there's drugs in the car or not, that's what the drop bag is for). Then they go before the judge who gives them probation for a first time offense. Then they get pulled over 2 weeks later. The K9 gets another hit, and boom, probation violation.

It's more like that.

You lost me at "fakes a hit" - that's pothead paranoid conspiracy nonsense.


http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/03/28/lawsuit-man-arrested-searched -f or-marijuana-solely-for-having-colorado-license-plate/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/04/23/lawsuit-a ud io-depicts-another-police-conspiracy-to-plant-drug-evidence/

I could be here all night.
 
2014-05-26 02:53:27 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: jaytkay:  [img.fark.net image 693x464]

Yep, I already agreed the it has actually only been since 2006 they have been falling.  The better part of one decade. Incarceration rates are falling as the number of private prisons are increasing.  Sorry about the facts.  Post another out of context graphic though.  :)


There's been a very small reduction over the last 8 years in some states.  The US incarceration rate is still incredibly, unacceptably high, largely due to non-violent (drug-related) offenses.

And nobody is going to buy your bald assertion that this small drop is in any way related to the existence of private prisons, given the flatly incorrect bullshiat you opened with in the thread. Sorry, but you lost any credibility you might have had in Weeners.  Troll again later.

/the private prison boom began in the early ninties, and peaked in 1999
 
2014-05-26 02:57:31 AM  

Gyrfalcon: FredPhelp'slovechild: I have an honest question. There seems to be a pretty obvious correlation (yes, I know, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation) between tougher criminal penalties and lower crime rates. Isn't there a possibility that we are catching non-violent offenders before they become violent offenders? Do we really believe these numbers are simply a coincidence?

No, but it's not what you think.

It's like drift-net fishing. The finer the mesh, the more fish you catch; but they're not necessarily the fish you want to catch. If you're fishing for tuna, but using a one-centimeter mesh, you'll catch plenty of tuna--but also a shiatload of smaller fish that didn't slip through the net. You may keep the tuna, but meanwhile all those trash fish are dead.

Same way with harsher penalties for lesser crimes. Sure, they're vacuuming up a few hard-core offenders and catching some that MIGHT have gone on to become violent offenders--but in that same fine net, they're sweeping up plenty of small trash fish that weren't intended, and which now have been ruined by our society that does not allow the criminal to pay for his crimes, since once a felon, always a felon insofar as jobs, housing, education, etc., are concerned.

Just as tuna fishers can catch about the same poundage of fish with judicious line and wider nets; so a targeted approach to law enforcement could catch the hardcore felons and potential troublemakers early--but that would mean proactive policing and requiring society to take responsibility for policies that create conditions for crime; and we're not there yet.


That's a really great analogy. And that's one of the problems with preventative law. By it's very nature you are going to end up harming more people than people you would catch actually doing something truly bad. It was the motive behind Alcohol Prohibition. Since some people end up doing bad stuff with alcohol, let's make it illegal for everyone. Not only did that end up causing more problems than it "solved" (which was none), not only did it end up creating an entire class of criminals based around bootlegging which gave the mob a tremendous amount of money to control politicians, police and judges, but it didn't even stop drinking.

That's what we have with drugs, and with any number of laws, such as many gun laws. Casting a huge net and limiting the freedoms of everyone with the hope that you might stop a handful of violent criminals ahead of time. It didn't work then, it doesn't work now, and it's contrary to the individual liberties this nation was founded on. People should be free to act as they will provided they are not infringing on the rights of others. All crimes should have a definable victim. You do X and person(s) Y suffer or could suffer for that specific act. So make X a crime. Make the punishment for X severe enough that people won't want to do it and leave everyone else alone. And it works about as well as anything can for things like drunk driving. Drinking is not a problem. Driving while drinking either does cause harm or that specific act could cause harm. We should apply that to drugs. Drugs are not the problem. Committing harmful acts on drugs is. And yes, it can be applied to guns too. Carrying a gun is not a problem. Shooting at people without just cause is. Remove the idea of victimless crimes from the books and we can solve a lot of problems and let people be free to act as they will, and should, as long as they aren't hurting anyone or their property.

The side benefit of this is that the effectiveness of all areas of law enforcement would shoot up. Police response times would be reduced as we are not out busting people for a bag of weed. Jails would be far less crowded and safer for both the inmates and the guards. Trials would be faster as there would be fewer of them. Public attorneys could spend more time and thought on real cases because they're not bogged down with hundreds of pointless minor cases. Everything from how fast a restraining order is applied and how well it's enforced, to response times for home invasions, to murder investigations would be enhanced because more manpower could be spent dealing with those things instead of a criminal justice system filled past it's breaking point with "criminals" who have hurt no one, stolen nothing, and infringed no one's rights.

So why don't we do this? Well first, politicians love to be seen "doing something". The first thing brought up whenever a major incident happens is how we can make a new law to stop it, never how can we enforce the laws we already have better. The second is money. When you make an incentive to do something, that something will always rise. For profit prisons create an incentive to have more criminals. So that's what we have now. And third, and certainly not least is control. Guilt is a powerful factor in controlling a population. Even right now felons are prevented from voting and possessing firearms. Those of course are the two ways any citizenry can enforce its will on its rulers. By taking away those two things, entire swaths of "undesirables" people can effectively be removed from the political process and any say they have in how their nation is run is neutered.

I'm reminded of a great quote. "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws "

Once a person is classified as a criminal it becomes far easier to do anything you want to them, and far easier to get those who aren't yet criminals to go along with it. Well America seems to be trying to create new criminals by the thousands every day. We need to ask ourselves why and more importantly, if this is really good for us as a people.
 
2014-05-26 02:58:29 AM  

fredbox: SunsetLament: fredbox: SunsetLament:
Hahaha, you think we run around seeing how many dopeheads we can lock up because we have nothing better to do.

No, it mostly comes from traffic stops. If they consent to a search, you give them a summons to appear in court. If they don't, the K-9 comes out, fakes a hit and they spend the night in county (whether there's drugs in the car or not, that's what the drop bag is for). Then they go before the judge who gives them probation for a first time offense. Then they get pulled over 2 weeks later. The K9 gets another hit, and boom, probation violation.

It's more like that.

You lost me at "fakes a hit" - that's pothead paranoid conspiracy nonsense.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-06/news/ct-met-canine-off ic ers-20110105_1_drug-sniffing-dogs-alex-rothacker-drug-dog

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/legal-challenge-quest io ns-reliability-police-dogs

There's plenty of other information out there. Now, are you personally accusing me of being a pothead on the public internet, simply because I understand how dogs react to reward-based training?


No, I'm personally accusing anyone who thinks the cops are running around "faking" drug dog hits and using "drop bags" to arrest non-criminals for crimes that do not actually exist of being a pothead (and a paranoid one at that).
 
2014-05-26 03:03:08 AM  

fredbox: I believe a majority of states would pass a ballot measure that gave the police the right of summary execution of crime suspects.

If there's anything the American people want more than the next Big Mac, it's institutionally sanctioned violence on anyone they view as criminals.


And then it would be the duty of any liberty minded individual to stand up to that sort of tyranny, with violence if necessary.
 
2014-05-26 03:05:27 AM  
SunsetLament:

No, I'm personally accusing anyone who thinks the cops are running around "faking" drug dog hits and using "drop bags" to arrest non-criminals for crimes that do not actually exist of being a pothead (and a paranoid one at that).

Let me rephrase. The dog is not faking the hit, but they are a product of reward-based training and they are rewarded for hits. They just want to make their human happy, and what their human wants is an excuse for a warrantless search. The finer point of that is a little beyond a dog's higher reasoning ability, but there's a "good boy" between the hit and the search turning up nothing.

Drug possession is a crime that actually exists, though, so I'm not sure what you're talking about cops arresting non-criminals for crimes that do not actually exist.

For criminal prosecutions involving planted or falsified evidence, see ... oh, the last 50 or so years. It's a relative minority, but it does happen, and if you don't believe the cases that have come to light, then I have an honest politician to sell you.
 
2014-05-26 03:07:08 AM  
SunsetLament:

No, I'm personally accusing anyone who thinks the cops are running around "faking" drug dog hits and using "drop bags" to arrest non-criminals for crimes that do not actually exist of being a pothead (and a paranoid one at that).


You really think that kind of shiat never happens?.. Oo

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/us/in-california-a-champion-for-po li ce-cameras.html

"In the first year after the cameras were introduced here in February 2012, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent compared with the previous 12 months. Use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent over the same period"

 
2014-05-26 03:09:16 AM  

Sticky Hands: DrPainMD: Honest Bender: Stop breaking the law!

That's not possible. We have so many laws that we all commit several felonies every single day. Literally every person in the country could receive a life sentence just for crimes committed within the last month.

and yet, somehow, the people that destroyed the economy a few years back did nothing illegal.


Correct, because the law at the time required them to offer "predatory loans" or the banks would be shut down by the federal government on suspicion of racial bias.

So if they HADN'T destroyed the economy, they would have broken the law.

/lesson we should have learned: "be careful what you demand, because actions have consequences."
//lesson we actually learned: "WAAAAH the world isn't perfect so we need to blow it all up and start over!"
 
2014-05-26 03:13:03 AM  

Tatterdemalian: Sticky Hands: DrPainMD: Honest Bender: Stop breaking the law!

That's not possible. We have so many laws that we all commit several felonies every single day. Literally every person in the country could receive a life sentence just for crimes committed within the last month.

and yet, somehow, the people that destroyed the economy a few years back did nothing illegal.

Correct, because the law at the time required them to offer "predatory loans" or the banks would be shut down by the federal government on suspicion of racial bias.

So if they HADN'T destroyed the economy, they would have broken the law.


upload.wikimedia.org

needed
 
2014-05-26 03:13:21 AM  

Drearyx: SunsetLament:

No, I'm personally accusing anyone who thinks the cops are running around "faking" drug dog hits and using "drop bags" to arrest non-criminals for crimes that do not actually exist of being a pothead (and a paranoid one at that).


You really think that kind of shiat never happens?.. Oo

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/us/in-california-a-champion-for-po li ce-cameras.html

"In the first year after the cameras were introduced here in February 2012, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent compared with the previous 12 months. Use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent over the same period"


Damn straight complaints go down as well as violence. People are a lot less prone to do thing when they know they're being filmed. It's pretty common to have people threaten to file a false sexual harassment/racism complaint in order to get out of a ticket or other consequence. Informing them that their attempt has been caught on my body cam usually changes their tune pretty fast.
 
2014-05-26 03:14:11 AM  

fredbox: Tetrazphere: fredbox: Tetrazphere:

So, any hope for recovery, or is your life effectively over now?

I've been off probation for a few years now, The only thing that's not going away is the 2 drug felonies on my record.

Do you live in a state where expungement is possible? Do you have a hope of a career (not that careers these days are much hope themselves)?


I can petition to have it expunged after a couple more years, but it really depends on the judge, and I did catch another charge while I was on probation and no I don't think it would matter much for my career now, I just sell alot of pot for a living, and a drug record is like having a degree...lol jk. Yes my career goals (philosophy, or if I want to actually make money- tech) would entail me hopefully being able to have it expunged. And if I were to ever write a controversial book on things, the drug record would be convenient ammo to disregard the content by those with a differing outlook.
 
2014-05-26 03:18:48 AM  

fredbox: FredPhelp'slovechild:
Fair enough, and basically I agree, certainly with the idea that once a felon you're screwed and that's not the right approach. My problem is with someone selling drugs being considered non-violent. We have seen in this country and others that those peddling this stuff can resort to some pretty hideous stuff when business is threatened. I'm not sure going easy on them i ...

You mean like how bar owners and liquor store clerks and smoke shop owners are constantly getting into shootouts when competition moves in too close?

What do you mean they don't?


I get your point. I think the question becomes how much is too much? In our most underprivileged neighborhoods, we have liqour stores and smoke shops in abundance. Do we really want to add heroin and meth shops? I'm not asking for users, or even sellers, to be locked away for life. I'm asking for sensibility. Why is it so wrong to say that some of this stuff is harmful to society as a whole? It seems pretty clear that it is.
 
2014-05-26 03:19:15 AM  

Tetrazphere: fredbox: Tetrazphere: fredbox: Tetrazphere:

So, any hope for recovery, or is your life effectively over now?

I've been off probation for a few years now, The only thing that's not going away is the 2 drug felonies on my record.

Do you live in a state where expungement is possible? Do you have a hope of a career (not that careers these days are much hope themselves)?

I can petition to have it expunged after a couple more years, but it really depends on the judge, and I did catch another charge while I was on probation and no I don't think it would matter much for my career now, I just sell alot of pot for a living, and a drug record is like having a degree...lol jk. Yes my career goals (philosophy, or if I want to actually make money- tech) would entail me hopefully being able to have it expunged. And if I were to ever write a controversial book on things, the drug record would be convenient ammo to disregard the content by those with a differing outlook.


Sounds like whatever you end up doing, your best bet is to freelance. Good luck.
 
2014-05-26 03:20:46 AM  
taurusowner:Damn straight complaints go down as well as violence. People are a lot less prone to do thing when they know they're being filmed. It's pretty common to have people threaten to file a false sexual harassment/racism complaint in order to get out of a ticket or other consequence. Informing them that their attempt has been caught on my body cam usually changes their tune pretty fast.


Of course it only goes in the way that you view it right? Not that some police are forced to behave them selves as well. Oh no.
 
2014-05-26 03:24:30 AM  

FredPhelp'slovechild: fredbox: FredPhelp'slovechild:
Fair enough, and basically I agree, certainly with the idea that once a felon you're screwed and that's not the right approach. My problem is with someone selling drugs being considered non-violent. We have seen in this country and others that those peddling this stuff can resort to some pretty hideous stuff when business is threatened. I'm not sure going easy on them i ...

You mean like how bar owners and liquor store clerks and smoke shop owners are constantly getting into shootouts when competition moves in too close?

What do you mean they don't?

I get your point. I think the question becomes how much is too much? In our most underprivileged neighborhoods, we have liqour stores and smoke shops in abundance. Do we really want to add heroin and meth shops? I'm not asking for users, or even sellers, to be locked away for life. I'm asking for sensibility. Why is it so wrong to say that some of this stuff is harmful to society as a whole? It seems pretty clear that it is.


Meth has been proven to cause actual brain damage, but I still don't think it should be illegal. It's not illegal to possess dimethyl mercury, FFS, although if you google it to learn what it is that's probably a violation of the Patriot Act at some level.

Much of the harm of even hard drugs would be reduced if purity and dosage could be standardized, though. There are people with addictive personalities who will find a way to ruin their brains and lives no matter what, whether they use meth, heroin, gasoline, religion or television.
 
2014-05-26 03:25:38 AM  

Drearyx: taurusowner:Damn straight complaints go down as well as violence. People are a lot less prone to do thing when they know they're being filmed. It's pretty common to have people threaten to file a false sexual harassment/racism complaint in order to get out of a ticket or other consequence. Informing them that their attempt has been caught on my body cam usually changes their tune pretty fast.


Of course it only goes in the way that you view it right? Not that some police are forced to behave them selves as well. Oh no.


Not sure what you're looking for here. I encounter a lot of people at work. Most traffic incidents are fairly mundane and go about as expected. Some people however are utter shiatbags and don't  bat an eye at the thought of lying in order to get out of the consequences for their actions. So I've taken precautions to mitigate that. That's what I have personally done for my job. I don't know what else you want me to say.
 
2014-05-26 03:26:32 AM  

Ed Grubermann: TheHighlandHowler: Everyone is on this bandwagon until a friend/famly-member gets robbed or worse.  Then they want to throw away the key.

Yes, I'm sure that's why there are so many in prison for non-violent offenses. Are there shades of grey in your world? Any form of nuance at all?


He has a point. People are irrationally convinced that being a drug abuser automatically means you commit related crimes like robbery to support your drug habit.
 
2014-05-26 03:30:19 AM  

taurusowner: Some people however are utter shiatbags and don't  bat an eye at the thought of lying


Unfortunately, there's more than a few of those in your ranks. The modern psych exams weed out the too smart and the free thinkers, but not the sociopaths.
 
2014-05-26 03:32:18 AM  

fredbox: taurusowner: Some people however are utter shiatbags and don't  bat an eye at the thought of lying

Unfortunately, there's more than a few of those in your ranks. The modern psych exams weed out the too smart and the free thinkers, but not the sociopaths.


Really? You know more about the people I work with than me? Wow. You must be psychic.
 
2014-05-26 03:36:33 AM  

taurusowner: fredbox: taurusowner: Some people however are utter shiatbags and don't  bat an eye at the thought of lying

Unfortunately, there's more than a few of those in your ranks. The modern psych exams weed out the too smart and the free thinkers, but not the sociopaths.

Really? You know more about the people I work with than me? Wow. You must be psychic.


Oh, you. Obviously I don't know your coworkers personally, and am unfairly lumping some notoriously corrupt departments in with everyone else. "Your ranks" is a generality to the profession currently.

You're welcome to refute my point about the psych exams, though.
 
2014-05-26 03:41:05 AM  

taurusowner: fredbox: taurusowner: Some people however are utter shiatbags and don't  bat an eye at the thought of lying

Unfortunately, there's more than a few of those in your ranks. The modern psych exams weed out the too smart and the free thinkers, but not the sociopaths.

Really? You know more about the people I work with than me? Wow. You must be psychic.


You must be as well, to know 100% of them are honest 100% of the time. I know you want to have faith and trust in the people you work with but unfortunately it does not work that way, no matter what field you work in, no matter the importance of your duties. That's not how it goes.. He simply made a statement that is undoubtedly true..

Sorry 'bout it.
 
2014-05-26 03:42:57 AM  

taurusowner: Drearyx: SunsetLament:

No, I'm personally accusing anyone who thinks the cops are running around "faking" drug dog hits and using "drop bags" to arrest non-criminals for crimes that do not actually exist of being a pothead (and a paranoid one at that).


You really think that kind of shiat never happens?.. Oo

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/us/in-california-a-champion-for-po li ce-cameras.html

"In the first year after the cameras were introduced here in February 2012, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent compared with the previous 12 months. Use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent over the same period"

Damn straight complaints go down as well as violence. People are a lot less prone to do thing when they know they're being filmed. It's pretty common to have people threaten to file a false sexual harassment/racism complaint in order to get out of a ticket or other consequence. Informing them that their attempt has been caught on my body cam usually changes their tune pretty fast.


I'm going to bet that your point will go right over their heads.
 
2014-05-26 03:43:30 AM  

drewogatory: Crack is to cocaine as cocaine is to chewing the leaves


Only if you cut pussy lines (or have shiatty "coke"). Seriously, have you ever done cocaine?


done cocaine never crack

but from the descriptions I've heard, crack is way more intense

really don't know but anecdotally sounds like a very different effect/drug

I think treating it different legally from the power is justifiable

I favor legalizing most all drugs but crack and meth maybe not so much
 
2014-05-26 03:45:17 AM  

fredbox: FredPhelp'slovechild: fredbox: FredPhelp'slovechild:
Fair enough, and basically I agree, certainly with the idea that once a felon you're screwed and that's not the right approach. My problem is with someone selling drugs being considered non-violent. We have seen in this country and others that those peddling this stuff can resort to some pretty hideous stuff when business is threatened. I'm not sure going easy on them i ...

You mean like how bar owners and liquor store clerks and smoke shop owners are constantly getting into shootouts when competition moves in too close?

What do you mean they don't?

I get your point. I think the question becomes how much is too much? In our most underprivileged neighborhoods, we have liqour stores and smoke shops in abundance. Do we really want to add heroin and meth shops? I'm not asking for users, or even sellers, to be locked away for life. I'm asking for sensibility. Why is it so wrong to say that some of this stuff is harmful to society as a whole? It seems pretty clear that it is.

Meth has been proven to cause actual brain damage, but I still don't think it should be illegal. It's not illegal to possess dimethyl mercury, FFS, although if you google it to learn what it is that's probably a violation of the Patriot Act at some level.

Much of the harm of even hard drugs would be reduced if purity and dosage could be standardized, though. There are people with addictive personalities who will find a way to ruin their brains and lives no matter what, whether they use meth, heroin, gasoline, religion or television.


This is true, but I'm not sure we're thinking about the fallout of adopting such a policy. There was a very interesting thread from the other day about reparations which basically evolved into an argument about how to bring up poor people. Do we think that flooding the streets with life-altering drugs would help alleviate poverty? Yes, we might make life for an addict easier but is that really the best approach? I think that only encourages addictive and life-destroying behavior. Please don't get me wrong, I think over-criminalization of drug use is the wrong approach. But allowing an "everything is fair game" approach is not likely correct either. We need balance.
 
2014-05-26 03:47:31 AM  
"Unfortunately, there's more than a few of those in your ranks. "

Is the 'undoubtedly true' I am referring to, not the rest of the post.
 
2014-05-26 03:53:59 AM  

FredPhelp'slovechild: fredbox: FredPhelp'slovechild: fredbox: FredPhelp'slovechild:
Fair enough, and basically I agree, certainly with the idea that once a felon you're screwed and that's not the right approach. My problem is with someone selling drugs being considered non-violent. We have seen in this country and others that those peddling this stuff can resort to some pretty hideous stuff when business is threatened. I'm not sure going easy on them i ...

You mean like how bar owners and liquor store clerks and smoke shop owners are constantly getting into shootouts when competition moves in too close?

What do you mean they don't?

I get your point. I think the question becomes how much is too much? In our most underprivileged neighborhoods, we have liqour stores and smoke shops in abundance. Do we really want to add heroin and meth shops? I'm not asking for users, or even sellers, to be locked away for life. I'm asking for sensibility. Why is it so wrong to say that some of this stuff is harmful to society as a whole? It seems pretty clear that it is.

Meth has been proven to cause actual brain damage, but I still don't think it should be illegal. It's not illegal to possess dimethyl mercury, FFS, although if you google it to learn what it is that's probably a violation of the Patriot Act at some level.

Much of the harm of even hard drugs would be reduced if purity and dosage could be standardized, though. There are people with addictive personalities who will find a way to ruin their brains and lives no matter what, whether they use meth, heroin, gasoline, religion or television.

This is true, but I'm not sure we're thinking about the fallout of adopting such a policy. There was a very interesting thread from the other day about reparations which basically evolved into an argument about how to bring up poor people. Do we think that flooding the streets with life-altering drugs would help alleviate poverty? Yes, we might make life for an addict easier but is that really the bes ...


If drugs were legalized and taxed, the increased tax revenue plus decreased expense of the prison-industrial complex to house drug offenders, some of that money could be shifted to education and substance abuse treatment in poor areas, and we'd see general improvement in another 20 or so years.

However, I have little faith that the public will continue supporting positive steps forward when the gang-bangers are still shooting each other on year 2, because they're just still used to that. However, there's a prison bed free now for the gang-banger to stick around a little while longer, instead of getting kicked out early for the next pot grower.

Yes, I know there will still be illicit production of drugs. There's still moonshiners, too. There's even illicit cheese production. But we haven't re-prohibited alcohol or banned cheese.
 
2014-05-26 03:54:48 AM  

FredPhelp'slovechild: My problem is with someone selling drugs being considered non-violent.


18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence defined
The term "crime of violence" means-
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
If smoking weed is a violent crime, then so is drinking beer.

Drug use may in some cases be a felony, but it generally doesn't involve "the person or property of another [person]". It could be used - just like EtOH - when someone does commit a violent crime, but that would involve another charge (e.g. "battery" or whatever). As for risk, as Frank Zappa said:
A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound. The problem comes in when people who take drugs treat them like a license to behave like an asshole.
There will always be some assholes in any sufficiently-large group of people. Just as most people who consume EtOH are not "drunks" doing violent things to others, neither are the people who use most other drugs. You just don't hear about them as often.
 
2014-05-26 03:58:02 AM  
Incidentally, for those who automatically assume I'm a criminal because I disagree with you, my extensive record consists of 1 (one) moving violation and 1 (one) equipment violation, both tickets dismissed, then nothing for the next 23 years except for an increased amount of getting pulled over for no good reason than being out after dark during saturation patrols because of that filthy DHS grant money to pay for overtime. The grant money is filthy because there are no federal grants to pay me overtime.
 
2014-05-26 04:04:39 AM  
 
2014-05-26 04:10:55 AM  

zepillin: I favor legalizing most all drugs but crack and meth maybe not so much


We give kids low doses of meth under the guise of ADD meds.

Crack is just cocaine taken to 11. It's the same compounds, just with added chemicals so they hit harder and faster.

If coca leaves are beer, cocaine is whiskey and crack is moonshine.
 
2014-05-26 04:11:05 AM  

fredbox: FredPhelp'slovechild: fredbox: FredPhelp'slovechild: fredbox: FredPhelp'slovechild:
Fair enough, and basically I agree, certainly with the idea that once a felon you're screwed and that's not the right approach. My problem is with someone selling drugs being considered non-violent. We have seen in this country and others that those peddling this stuff can resort to some pretty hideous stuff when business is threatened. I'm not sure going easy on them i ...

You mean like how bar owners and liquor store clerks and smoke shop owners are constantly getting into shootouts when competition moves in too close?

What do you mean they don't?

I get your point. I think the question becomes how much is too much? In our most underprivileged neighborhoods, we have liqour stores and smoke shops in abundance. Do we really want to add heroin and meth shops? I'm not asking for users, or even sellers, to be locked away for life. I'm asking for sensibility. Why is it so wrong to say that some of this stuff is harmful to society as a whole? It seems pretty clear that it is.

Meth has been proven to cause actual brain damage, but I still don't think it should be illegal. It's not illegal to possess dimethyl mercury, FFS, although if you google it to learn what it is that's probably a violation of the Patriot Act at some level.

Much of the harm of even hard drugs would be reduced if purity and dosage could be standardized, though. There are people with addictive personalities who will find a way to ruin their brains and lives no matter what, whether they use meth, heroin, gasoline, religion or television.

This is true, but I'm not sure we're thinking about the fallout of adopting such a policy. There was a very interesting thread from the other day about reparations which basically evolved into an argument about how to bring up poor people. Do we think that flooding the streets with life-altering drugs would help alleviate poverty? Yes, we might make life for an addict easier but is that really the bes ...

If drugs were legalized and taxed, the increased tax revenue plus decreased expense of the prison-industrial complex to house drug offenders, some of that money could be shifted to education and substance abuse treatment in poor areas, and we'd see general improvement in another 20 or so years.

However, I have little faith that the public will continue supporting positive steps forward when the gang-bangers are still shooting each other on year 2, because they're just still used to that. However, there's a prison bed free now for the gang-banger to stick around a little while longer, instead of getting kicked out early for the next pot grower.

Yes, I know there will still be illicit production of drugs. There's still moonshiners, too. There's even illicit cheese production. But we haven't re-prohibited alcohol or banned cheese.


We agree on the possible long-term effects of legalization. What I think is missing is the devastating short-term affects. I hope we can agree on that. We are not some country in northern Europe, the consequences of embracing legal drugs are different for our culture. I feel like you're adopting a long-term strategy without fully thinking about short-t erm consequences.
 
2014-05-26 04:13:45 AM  

FredPhelp'slovechild: Do we think that flooding the streets with life-altering drugs


This assumes that those same streets are somehow not "flooded" with drugs right now. Is it your assertion that anybody that wants drugs can't easily get them - in spite of the fact that we can't even keep them out of prisons?

This assertion is usually based on a similar type of magical thinking seen in the "pro-life"/anti-abortion crowd. In both cases, there is an unstated assumption that by passing laws you prevent some act from happening. Just as banning abortion doesn't stop people from having sex (sometimes stupidly), banning drugs does not stop people from using them.
 
2014-05-26 04:23:01 AM  

pdkl95: FredPhelp'slovechild: My problem is with someone selling drugs being considered non-violent.

18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence definedThe term "crime of violence" means-
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.If smoking weed is a violent crime, then so is drinking beer.

Drug use may in some cases be a felony, but it generally doesn't involve "the person or property of another [person]". It could be used - just like EtOH - when someone does commit a violent crime, but that would involve another charge (e.g. "battery" or whatever). As for risk, as Frank Zappa said:A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound. The problem comes in when people who take drugs treat them like a license to behave like an asshole.There will always be some assholes in any sufficiently-large group of people. Just as most people who consume EtOH are not "drunks" doing violent things to others, neither are the people who use most other drugs. You just don't hear about them as often.


I'm not trying to advocate for people struggling with addiction to be locked away. At worst, we should want them provided with top notch rehabilitation (this is not likely, I know). I also know that certain chemical compounds make you much more likely to become an asshole or, even worse, dead. It doesn't much matter who you were in reality, once you fell to addiction you were gone. I want us to adopt a culture where we can admit that these addictions suck and hurt people, possibly even killing them. I have seen it in-person.
 
2014-05-26 04:29:53 AM  
FredPhelp'slovechild:

[stuff that was truncated]

No, I well understand there will be some negative short term consequences. That's no reason not to move forward into rational policy, or to abandon it because a few tweakers burn themselves out more quickly. Honestly, I view tweakers as lost causes anyway.
 
2014-05-26 04:33:36 AM  

pdkl95: FredPhelp'slovechild: Do we think that flooding the streets with life-altering drugs

This assumes that those same streets are somehow not "flooded" with drugs right now. Is it your assertion that anybody that wants drugs can't easily get them - in spite of the fact that we can't even keep them out of prisons?

This assertion is usually based on a similar type of magical thinking seen in the "pro-life"/anti-abortion crowd. In both cases, there is an unstated assumption that by passing laws you prevent some act from happening. Just as banning abortion doesn't stop people from having sex (sometimes stupidly), banning drugs does not stop people from using them.


Ok, this is a difficult one and you are correct, the drugs are easily accessible. For me, the question is how much is too much? Is it possible that by giving our permission to this that we're encouraging more of it? I honestly just want to find a solution to the problem so I want to hear differing opinions, but this is how I feel about it after a lot of self-examination.
 
2014-05-26 04:36:02 AM  

fredbox: Incidentally, for those who automatically assume I'm a criminal because I disagree with you, my extensive record consists of 1 (one) moving violation and 1 (one) equipment violation, both tickets dismissed, then nothing for the next 23 years except for an increased amount of getting pulled over for no good reason than being out after dark during saturation patrols because of that filthy DHS grant money to pay for overtime. The grant money is filthy because there are no federal grants to pay me overtime.


Having an arrest record doesn't make you a criminal; it makes you a criminal that got caught.  Committing crimes makes you a criminal.  I notice you left out whether or not you have committed crimes ... you know, like "possession of a controlled substance"?
 
2014-05-26 04:40:19 AM  

fredbox: FredPhelp'slovechild:

[stuff that was truncated]

No, I well understand there will be some negative short term consequences. That's no reason not to move forward into rational policy, or to abandon it because a few tweakers burn themselves out more quickly. Honestly, I view tweakers as lost causes anyway.


I cannot agree with your sentiments there. I feel those "tweakers" are our brothers and sisters and we should never give up on them until they're dead. Please think about the idea that you may have been born in a crappy life and somehow ended up in addiction. I know you wouldn't want anyone to give up on you.
 
2014-05-26 04:57:00 AM  

rkiller1: Mr. Eugenides: Perhaps it's time to revisit and remove the 3 strikes laws.  That's what's causing us the trouble, the automatic amplification of sentences for repeat offenders.  That's how non-violent offenders end up serving craploads of time for minor infractions.

Three felonies are minor?  I though that was called "misdemeanor."


Let us be clear. Are you advocating LIFE in prison for minor petty theft and drug possession incidents?
 
2014-05-26 05:29:10 AM  
SunsetLament:
Having an arrest record doesn't make you a criminal; it makes you a criminal that got caught.  Committing crimes makes you a criminal.  I notice you left out whether or not you have committed crimes ... you know, like "possession of a controlled substance"?

Like most Americans, I unknowingly commit around three felonies a day. In the past I've been especially guilty of Clean Air Act violations but I've since stopped eating at Taco Bell. I do tire how your ilk automatically assume that anyone advocating the repeal of drug prohibition must by default be a drug user, however. I don't assume every cop has shot someone without justification and gotten away with it, or planted evidence, or accepted free "gratuities" from merchants.

Incidentally, having an arrest record doesn't make anyone a criminal that got caught. Having an arrest record makes someone officially accused of criminal activity. There are criminals that get away with their crimes; there are innocents wrongfully convicted. Like all human systems, the criminal justice system is subject to human fallibility. I've served on a criminal jury, and it was a real eye opener as to how bad your chances are if you have criminal charges go to trial.

FredPhelp'slovechild:

I cannot agree with your sentiments there. I feel those "tweakers" are our brothers and sisters and we should never give up on them until they're dead. Please think about the idea that you may have been born in a crappy life and somehow ended up in addiction. I know you wouldn't want anyone to give up on you.

The family members are welcome to help however they imagine they can. If they're addicted despite prohibition (or actual incarceration, where such drugs are notoriously easy to obtain) then legalization won't make much difference regarding their efforts, except as previously noted, allowing a greater ability for such addicts to meter their doses and avoid exposure to unknown chemicals. As far as family members giving up on me, some have simply because I didn't join the military, get married or father children (you're welcome). I got over it.
 
2014-05-26 05:29:24 AM  

Honest Bender: Stop breaking the law!


You mean: "stop breaking the law while poor".
 
2014-05-26 05:38:59 AM  

fredbox: Honestly, I view tweakers as lost causes anyway.


Those tweakers who you see as lost causes, would be lost causes regardless of meth use.  It's the individual, not the drug use to blame.

I've known too many people who have successfully walked away from meth to blame the drug.
 
Displayed 50 of 342 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report