OT: You Might Be An Idiot If

[Erax]

I have to agree with Cherry, the problem is where to draw the line, how to decide what is tolerable (I won't say acceptable) and what is not. And what degree of punishment to apply in each case.

Edit / quote :

Compassion takes far more courage than revenge.

"The warrior wears his courage on the outside and his compassion on the inside. The monk wears his compassion on the outside and his courage on the inside." (Japanese proverb)

[ October 16, 2003, 17:52: Message edited by: Erax ]

[Saber Cherry]

Here's another one. The gem trade in Africa is the source of funding for many of Africa's bloody, seemingly permanent wars. The gems are bought by big companies and sold in jewelry in civilized countries where we don't have gem wars.

So, should people that buy emerald rings or diamond bracelets be jailed, because they are funding wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people every year? Or is that activity OK, because we all buy - or know someone who has bought - jewelry?

[Loser]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
But also, in each case, there are end-user addicts who are not hurting anyone, don't necessarily want to hurt anyone, and pose no danger to society.

But they are, and though they might not want to, they do pose this danger.

For one thing, as I said, allowing this to circulate only encourages it's production. The new circulation possibilities that opened up with the internet caused a huge surge in the world of kiddie-porn. To stop it's circulation, you have to do everything you can not only to attack production, but also to attack the consumer base.

Secondly, the more this stuff goes unpunished, the more these addicts are allow to congregate (in reality or virtually), the more then feel that their urges and acts are acceptable. This occurs with any behavior. No matter how wrong something is, if you are around people who do it long enough, it won't seem as wrong. 'Long enough' is not that long if it's something you do to.

Finally, these people are not addicted to looking at pictures or movies of terrible acts, they are addicted to the 'kick', the rush they get off these things. They never get the same kick off something that they did when they saw it for the first time, so they are constantly searching for new materiel. Eventually, this leads a lot of them into new behaviors in the 'real world' to get their kicks. You show someone who molests other people's children but who does not have child pornography, and I'll show you a blind or luddite child molester.

Now, about the drugs. The same "acceptance and demand" agreement fits, only more so. Unlike pornography, which can be reproduced endlessly, these things are consumables, so the more demand, the more will be produced, the more extra will be produced, the more will end up in new places hurting new people, and the more money and power the drug lords will get.

Secondly, you don't go to jail for being addicted to crack. You go to jail for doing stupid things, whether you are addicted or not. I'm guessing you've never been busted for possession, so you might not know that people only get busted when they're doing something else wrong. Random drug checks don't occur as you're walking down the street. If someone wants to keep their drug use secret, it's real easy.

Typically, someone gets hit with some moving violation, domestic disturbance, or some such and the cop figures that they're on something. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's not. But unless they're driving a car or on probation for something else stupid they did the cop can't demand a blood test. If they're in public, they get off with public intoxication, which is dumb enough on it's own. If it's in their house, nothing happens.

Now, the same thing can happen for possession. The cop has to have a reason to hassle them in the first place. If you don't want anyone to know you have drugs, don't act like a drug user. Don't dress like one. Don't talk like one. It's easy for the serious user. Don't do stupid things like getting in fights, shoplifting, or selling in public while your have your drugs on you.

The catch is, meth-, coke- and even pot-heads do the stupid stuff all the time. There is a connection between drug use and disorderly, uncivilized, law-breaking behavior. Of course, that same connection extends to alcohol, but again, you don't get busted for being drunk. You get busted for being drunk and doing something stupid.

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Loser:
Secondly, you don't go to jail for being addicted to crack. You go to jail for doing stupid things, whether you are addicted or not. I'm guessing you've never been busted for possession, so you might not know that people only get busted when they're doing something else wrong. Random drug checks don't occur as you're walking down the street. If someone wants to keep their drug use secret, it's real easy.

You might want to look up the Dallas, Texas "fake crack" scandal. Here, I'll give you an excerpt:


"In January 2002, the FBI began investigating how paid confidential informants set up dozens of innocent people on charges involving drugs that later turned out to be gypsum or some other legal substance.

The fake drugs were allegedly planted on the victims in investigations run by Senior Cpl. Mark Delapaz and Officer Eddie Herrera.

Delapaz was fired in April after being charged with five counts of deprivation of rights under color of law and one count of making false statements to federal officials. Herrera remains on paid leave.

Drug charges against more than 80 people were later dismissed by the Dallas County District Attorney's Office."


Yes, lots of people went to jail for possession of gypsum (Calcium sulfate, a building material). I don't think they were high at the time. But yes, you're right that I've never been busted walking down the street. Unfortunately... black people have it a bit harder. I know blacks who have been pulled over and had their cars searched for drugs (and came up clean, because they're nice, normal, everyday people) just because they're black.

You're right that (in America) white people don't usually get imprisioned just for possession or use, but minorities do.

-Cherry

P.S. Better attribute my sources... http://www.nbc5i.com/news/2434012/detail.html

[ October 16, 2003, 18:04: Message edited by: Saber Cherry ]

[Ran-Taro]

[quote]Originally posted by Erax:

The warrior wears his courage on the outside and his compassion on the inside. The monk wears his compassion on the outside and his courage on the inside." (Japanese proverb)

We need fewer warriors, but have too few monks.

[Loser]

I don't think it's fair, Cherry, to blame the law for abuses of the law. This certainly applies to the fake-drugs issue and to any other 'plants'. It could be said to apply to the issue of racial profiling, but I don't think that's a worthwhile fight.

To more directly address the abuse issue in profiling I'll briefly describe how the law says such a bust has to work. The officer has to back up his search by saying he has 'probably cause'. That is, as everyone here probably knows, that he or she has good reason to believe there are drugs in there. The cop cannot put "He was black." down on his paperwork to back up his search. He can, however, put "I smelled a sag-like odor." or some such nonsense.

With the growing freedoms of information, eventually someone will put it all together and report on how often the cops use BS reasons for their probably cause on minorities compared to how often they use them against anglos or whites in general. Then things will change. Until then, legalizing possession is hardly the answer.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

well, i really really hate to say this, but find me a mother that didn't take at least a couple of picture's of there kids in the bathtub.

well, we could always say 'any nude pictures of other peoples kids or imaginary kids, wings or not.' it's a start.