independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 27th Apr 2018 1:34am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Attorney General blowin up the gov
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 2 <12
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 01/09/18 10:58am

djThunderfunk

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

djThunderfunk said:


Agreed, except with the last 3 words. Clearly the War On Drugs has been used to target and marginilize "certain groups" disproportionally, but I know plenty of "others" that did NOT get a "pass".

Nothing will ever be 100%, but I think your use of the word "disproportionally" is the most important part


I have no disagreement with that fact, jj. I simply objected with the phrase "get a pass", as if white people who smoke don't fear arrest or prosecution.

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 01/09/18 11:03am

jjhunsecker

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

jjhunsecker said:

Nothing will ever be 100%, but I think your use of the word "disproportionally" is the most important part


I have no disagreement with that fact, jj. I simply objected with the phrase "get a pass", as if white people who smoke don't fear arrest or prosecution.

I would think a white drug user would have a lesser chance of being arrested, and a lesser chance of being prosecuted. For example, for years we had in NYC "stop and frisk"- what would basically happen is that young ninorities would be stopped by the cops, and if they had drugs on them, would end up in the system. Whereas the cops were never indiscrimately tossing white prep school kids, or Wall Street bankers, even though they were probably using drugs at a higher percentage than inner-city minorities.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 01/09/18 11:06am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

1) we do not know it is as there is very little research and you can not compare it to cigarettes as it is not always smoked and how many people have smoked 20+ a day for 30 years?


how about if it was moved off sch 1 and tested before we just make it legal?


2) that was your idea, not mine...

3) so then it is not completely separate is it?


1 - There's plenty of research and if use your googles you can learn all about it.

2 - No, it wasn't my "idea". You gave we "don't need ANOTHER intoxicant" argument, I simply countered with the logic that maybe the wrong intoxicant is the legal.

3 - Yes. It's separate. Allowing adults to choose to smoke marijuana is a separate issue from testing impairment of drivers.

1) I know there are many that say the same kinds of talking points you have been repeating but I doubt the validity of it... I do not believe enough of it has been done to find the truths or to support a cause.

2) no: say we do not need another is not the same as saying we should get rid of what we have. I do not need another car... that is not the same as saying I am going to sell the one I have.

2) so in your mind when deciding on the legality of something its safety to others when used should not be considered?

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 01/09/18 11:13am

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the issue with how drug laws are unfairly enforced is not a valid argument to make drugs legal as many other laws are abused to the same effect. From J-walking to driving to violent crimes... they all impact some groups more than others.

You end the so-called "drug wars", and the crimes associated with it will diminish drastically. Innocent lives will be saved. Gangs associated with the trade will fade away. And the "New Jim Crow" of the penal system will have one less LARGE tool at their disposal.



The bottom line is, people who want drugs will always find a way to get them, legal or illegal. That is a mental health issue, and a societal one. Resources should be poured into treatment and prevention, not incarceration.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 01/09/18 11:14am

djThunderfunk

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

djThunderfunk said:


1 - There's plenty of research and if use your googles you can learn all about it.

2 - No, it wasn't my "idea". You gave we "don't need ANOTHER intoxicant" argument, I simply countered with the logic that maybe the wrong intoxicant is the legal.

3 - Yes. It's separate. Allowing adults to choose to smoke marijuana is a separate issue from testing impairment of drivers.

1) I know there are many that say the same kinds of talking points you have been repeating but I doubt the validity of it... I do not believe enough of it has been done to find the truths or to support a cause.

2) no: say we do not need another is not the same as saying we should get rid of what we have. I do not need another car... that is not the same as saying I am going to sell the one I have.

2) so in your mind when deciding on the legality of something its safety to others when used should not be considered?


1 Your "beliefs" have no bearing on the facts. Do some more research. While your at it, see how much evidence of the dangers of cannabis consumption you can come up with.

2 It's a nonsense argument to say that we don't need another intoxicant (in this case, the safest one we know of) because we already have one (one of the most dangerous ones we know of)

3 Sure. Consider it. As a separate topic.


We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 01/09/18 11:25am

jjhunsecker

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

1) I know there are many that say the same kinds of talking points you have been repeating but I doubt the validity of it... I do not believe enough of it has been done to find the truths or to support a cause.

2) no: say we do not need another is not the same as saying we should get rid of what we have. I do not need another car... that is not the same as saying I am going to sell the one I have.

2) so in your mind when deciding on the legality of something its safety to others when used should not be considered?


1 Your "beliefs" have no bearing on the facts. Do some more research. While your at it, see how much evidence of the dangers of cannabis consumption you can come up with.

2 It's a nonsense argument to say that we don't need another intoxicant (in this case, the safest one we know of) because we already have one (one of the most dangerous ones we know of)

3 Sure. Consider it. As a separate topic.


I don't think that anyone is saying that crimes committed when a person is "under the influence" of any susbstance should not be considered or prosecuted.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 01/09/18 11:55am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

1) I know there are many that say the same kinds of talking points you have been repeating but I doubt the validity of it... I do not believe enough of it has been done to find the truths or to support a cause.

2) no: say we do not need another is not the same as saying we should get rid of what we have. I do not need another car... that is not the same as saying I am going to sell the one I have.

2) so in your mind when deciding on the legality of something its safety to others when used should not be considered?


1 Your "beliefs" have no bearing on the facts. Do some more research. While your at it, see how much evidence of the dangers of cannabis consumption you can come up with.

2 It's a nonsense argument to say that we don't need another intoxicant (in this case, the safest one we know of) because we already have one (one of the most dangerous ones we know of)

3 Sure. Consider it. As a separate topic.


1) why do your beliefs have bearing and not mine?


2) you believe it is safer based on 'research' you chose to accept

3) somehow I doubt you are as committed to that standard as you seem

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 01/09/18 11:56am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

djThunderfunk said:


1 Your "beliefs" have no bearing on the facts. Do some more research. While your at it, see how much evidence of the dangers of cannabis consumption you can come up with.

2 It's a nonsense argument to say that we don't need another intoxicant (in this case, the safest one we know of) because we already have one (one of the most dangerous ones we know of)

3 Sure. Consider it. As a separate topic.


I don't think that anyone is saying that crimes committed when a person is "under the influence" of any susbstance should not be considered or prosecuted.

it is about how can we tell if they are or are not impaired? and one of the big lies is THC doesn't impair people's ability to do stuff safety.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 01/09/18 12:19pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



jjhunsecker said:




djThunderfunk said:




1 Your "beliefs" have no bearing on the facts. Do some more research. While your at it, see how much evidence of the dangers of cannabis consumption you can come up with.

2 It's a nonsense argument to say that we don't need another intoxicant (in this case, the safest one we know of) because we already have one (one of the most dangerous ones we know of)

3 Sure. Consider it. As a separate topic.




I don't think that anyone is saying that crimes committed when a person is "under the influence" of any susbstance should not be considered or prosecuted.





it is about how can we tell if they are or are not impaired? and one of the big lies is THC doesn't impair people's ability to do stuff safety.



There are such things as "drug tests "...
All mood altering substances will impair a person in some manner. All drugs should be treated as alcohol is today- legal, yet regulated, with penalties for certain actions performed or committed under the influence.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 01/09/18 12:21pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it is about how can we tell if they are or are not impaired? and one of the big lies is THC doesn't impair people's ability to do stuff safety.

There are such things as "drug tests "... All mood altering substances will impair a person in some manner. All drugs should be treated as alcohol is today- legal, yet regulated, with penalties for certain actions performed or committed under the influence.

so then it is like guns?

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 01/09/18 12:44pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



jjhunsecker said:


OnlyNDaUsa said:




it is about how can we tell if they are or are not impaired? and one of the big lies is THC doesn't impair people's ability to do stuff safety.



There are such things as "drug tests "... All mood altering substances will impair a person in some manner. All drugs should be treated as alcohol is today- legal, yet regulated, with penalties for certain actions performed or committed under the influence.



so then it is like guns?



WTF are you talking about?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 01/09/18 12:54pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so then it is like guns?

WTF are you talking about?

you seem to say let all drugs be legal and let the people who missue them be dealt with on a case by case bases... right?

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 01/09/18 1:13pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

djThunderfunk said:


I have no disagreement with that fact, jj. I simply objected with the phrase "get a pass", as if white people who smoke don't fear arrest or prosecution.

I would think a white drug user would have a lesser chance of being arrested, and a lesser chance of being prosecuted. For example, for years we had in NYC "stop and frisk"- what would basically happen is that young ninorities would be stopped by the cops, and if they had drugs on them, would end up in the system. Whereas the cops were never indiscrimately tossing white prep school kids, or Wall Street bankers, even though they were probably using drugs at a higher percentage than inner-city minorities.


Yes, "lesser chance", that's what the disproportion is all about. No?

The words "get a pass" do not conjur up images of a white person being less likely to be caught, they suggest that if caught, they wouldn't be arrested or prosecuted.

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 01/09/18 1:40pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

djThunderfunk said:


1 Your "beliefs" have no bearing on the facts. Do some more research. While your at it, see how much evidence of the dangers of cannabis consumption you can come up with.

2 It's a nonsense argument to say that we don't need another intoxicant (in this case, the safest one we know of) because we already have one (one of the most dangerous ones we know of)

3 Sure. Consider it. As a separate topic.


1) why do your beliefs have bearing and not mine?


2) you believe it is safer based on 'research' you chose to accept

3) somehow I doubt you are as committed to that standard as you seem


This talking in circles thing is so boring, dude.

Do you know the history of our "marijuana" laws? Are you aware that ALL of the reasons used to make the plant illegal have long been exposed as lies motivated by racism and greed? Did you know that the word marijuana actually had nothing to do with cannabis/hemp? It is a word used to describe a certain type of tobacco leaf, but, it sounded scarier (and ethnic) and using this new term helped fool people who would not have backed the criminalization of hemp. The result of this law that passed based on deception is criminalization and loss of liberty for millions of Americans.

You give the same excuses every president for over 2 decades have given: we need more studies, we don't need another legal intoxicant, what about the dangers of driving under the influence...

Are you aware that many times the federal government has commissioned studies to prove the dangers of "marijuana" and then buried the results that suggested that harm that comes from criminalizing it far outweighs any harm that comes from it's use? Do you believe that people who choose to use cannabis deserve to lose their freedoms and their rights while we condone use of alcohol?

As for driving while impaired, yes, obviously this is an issue that must be addressed. There are some people that can pass a sobriety test that fail the breathalizer just as there are some people that pass the breathalizer only to fail the sobriety test. Same with weed. I know someone who passed a driver's test high and I know someone else who hit their own garage door because they were a high. Everybody's different and anything from alcohol to weed to prescription drugs to illegal drugs and even caffiene and nicotine can impair a driver. Hell, emotions and fatigue can be an impairment. Obviously we need a new way to test IMPAIRMENT of drivers. This is clearly a SEPARATE issue.

You want to doubt my commitment? Why do you think it's okay to criminalize responsible cannabis users because someone who is not responsible might get behind the wheel and hurt someone, but, you don't think it's okay to criminalize responsible gun owners because someone else might use one to commit a crime? How commited to your standards are you?

It's the same thing, no? Responsible gun owners and responsible cannabis users should not lose their rights and their freedom because of the criminal behavior of others.



[Edited 1/9/18 13:43pm]

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 01/09/18 1:54pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

djThunderfunk said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

1) why do your beliefs have bearing and not mine?


2) you believe it is safer based on 'research' you chose to accept

3) somehow I doubt you are as committed to that standard as you seem


This talking in circles thing is so boring, dude.

Do you know the history of our "marijuana" laws? Are you aware that ALL of the reasons used to make the plant illegal have long been exposed as lies motivated by racism and greed? Did you know that the word marijuana actually had nothing to do with cannabis/hemp? It is a word used to describe a certain type of tobacco leaf, but, it sounded scarier (and ethnic) and using this new term helped fool people who would not have backed the criminalization of hemp. The result of this law that passed based on deception is criminalization and loss of liberty for millions of Americans.

You give the same excuses every president for over 2 decades have given: we need more studies, we don't need another legal intoxicant, what about the dangers of driving under the influence...

Are you aware that many times the federal government has commissioned studies to prove the dangers of "marijuana" and then buried the results that suggested that harm that comes from criminalizing it far outweighs any harm that comes from it's use? Do you believe that people who choose to use cannabis deserve to lose their freedoms and their rights while we condone use of alcohol?

As for driving while impaired, yes, obviously this is an issue that must be addressed. There are some people that can pass a sobriety test that fail the breathalizer just as there are some people that pass the breathalizer only to fail the sobriety test. Same with weed. I know someone who passed a driver's test high and I know someone else who hit their own garage door because they were a high. Everybody's different and anything from alcohol to weed to prescription drugs to illegal drugs and even caffiene and nicotine can impair a driver. Hell, emotions and fatigue can be an impairment. Obviously we need a new way to test IMPAIRMENT of drivers. This is clearly a SEPARATE issue.

You want to doubt my commitment? Why do you think it's okay to criminalize responsible cannabis users because someone who is not responsible might get behind the wheel and hurt someone, but, you don't think it's okay to criminalize responsible gun owners because someone else might use one to commit a crime? How commited to your standards are you?

It's the same thing, no? Responsible gun owners and responsible cannabis users should not lose their rights and their freedom because of the criminal behavior of others.



Did I say weed should not be made legal? NO... I said I was opposed to it being made legal but that it is an issue best left to states.


I pointed out a few areas of concern. The fact that you say there were studies that prove it safe (which I have heard for 30+ years) seem to be more fantasy than anything. But who knows.


I do not want to doubt it... I just do. I think we could find things that you would say "we do not need that" but you would want to keep the other things. It is about where you might draw the line,

and the gun comparison was to show just what you said: that we should level most of these things as they are and let people who misuse them face the consequences.



Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 01/09/18 2:04pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

djThunderfunk said:



jjhunsecker said:




djThunderfunk said:




I have no disagreement with that fact, jj. I simply objected with the phrase "get a pass", as if white people who smoke don't fear arrest or prosecution.



I would think a white drug user would have a lesser chance of being arrested, and a lesser chance of being prosecuted. For example, for years we had in NYC "stop and frisk"- what would basically happen is that young ninorities would be stopped by the cops, and if they had drugs on them, would end up in the system. Whereas the cops were never indiscrimately tossing white prep school kids, or Wall Street bankers, even though they were probably using drugs at a higher percentage than inner-city minorities.




Yes, "lesser chance", that's what the disproportion is all about. No?

The words "get a pass" do not conjur up images of a white person being less likely to be caught, they suggest that if caught, they wouldn't be arrested or prosecuted.



There are many studies that show that white drug abusers get lesser penalties than their minority counterparts. Studies also show that minorities are disproportionately jailed for drug offenses, even though the percentage of whites who use drugs is higher.

Of course, making it legal would eliminate these discrepancies
[Edited 1/9/18 14:06pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 01/09/18 2:10pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



jjhunsecker said:


OnlyNDaUsa said:




so then it is like guns?



WTF are you talking about?



you seem to say let all drugs be legal and let the people who missue them be dealt with on a case by case bases... right?



I say let's legalize them, and if a person is caught driving under the influence, or performing a duty that could put others at risk (such as a motor man), then the should be punished. In short, ALL drugs should be treated exactly like alcohol is today.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 01/09/18 3:12pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

There are many studies that show that white drug abusers get lesser penalties than their minority counterparts. Studies also show that minorities are disproportionately jailed for drug offenses, even though the percentage of whites who use drugs is higher. Of course, making it legal would eliminate these discrepancies


Do you think I disagree with anything in this statement, or that I have contradicted any of it.

Because I haven't. In fact I've said some of it myself.

I've merely disputed your "get a pass" wording.


We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 01/09/18 6:15pm

poppys

jjhunsecker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so then it is like guns?

WTF are you talking about?

falloff

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 01/09/18 6:17pm

poppys

jjhunsecker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

you seem to say let all drugs be legal and let the people who missue them be dealt with on a case by case bases... right?

I say let's legalize them, and if a person is caught driving under the influence, or performing a duty that could put others at risk (such as a motor man), then the should be punished. In short, ALL drugs should be treated exactly like alcohol is today.

Why not try that approach?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 2 <12
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Attorney General blowin up the gov