The minimum age hypocrisy

User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by anastrophe »

and further riddle me this: why is it a soccer mom can get addicted to an opiod drug that gets you high as a kite and it's just the saddest thing and oprah or dr. phil will chat you up for an hour and help you get into rehab, god bless, but a kid in the ghetto who gets caught smoking some pot get stuck in the klink for seven to ten?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by anastrophe »

drug laws are insane. they could be really simple:



if you are over 18, you can do any goddamned thing you want to, so long as:

a) you don't hurt other people

b) you don't do things with the grave potential of hurting other

people (driving while high)



this isn't exactly a new concept:

"Justice consists of doing no one injury"

-Cicero, 106-43BC

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
Tombstone
Posts: 3686
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by Tombstone »

Sounds like you subscribe to the Libertarian Ticket!

;)
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
User avatar
Tombstone
Posts: 3686
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by Tombstone »

gr8geezer wrote: Riddle me this:

Why can an 18-year old American get married, smoke tobacco, die for his country and is responsible for himself, yet cannot purchase alcohol himself?

I view this as a major contradicition in our drug laws.


Was it MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) that was the main catalyst of this?
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by anastrophe »

Tombstone wrote: Sounds like you subscribe to the Libertarian Ticket!



;)
could be, i dunno. i don't care what party embraces it.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
Tombstone
Posts: 3686
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by Tombstone »

gr8geezer wrote: Possibly. I know the evangelical right has been responsible for much of the anti-drug regislation in that area.


As conservative as my views are (yes, i admit it! :D ), I have a real problem with our drug laws. Too harsh for the insignificant stuff.

I'm even finding myself thinking about the positive benefits of legalizing many of the current controlled substances.

What do you all think about this?
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
Paula
Posts: 1852
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by Paula »

it really doesn't matter, i don;t care, i didn;t do it, yes i have pierceings, i won;t tell you where, have you had your apple today? hello, i am here... :-3 goofin off. :D i need to... :D
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
Paula
Posts: 1852
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by Paula »

Under-age drinking, awful. Drinking is bad news, period. It is in every culture? I know it is here, and i don;t know what is better getting high on pot, drugs or drinking? I wish i had a different attitude when my children were growing up. If i knew what i knew today, my children would have not seen alcohol. Under-age drinking is disgusting, it has to stop.
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by gmc »

Possibly. I know the evangelical right has been responsible for much of the anti-drug regislation in that area.


The lead up to US prohibition makes interesting study if you wonder what faith based legislation on behaviour can lead to.

drug laws are insane. they could be really simple:

if you are over 18, you can do any goddamned thing you want to, so long as:

a) you don't hurt other people

b) you don't do things with the grave potential of hurting other

people (driving while high)

this isn't exactly a new concept:


couldn't agree more if i tried.
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by kensloft »

anastrophe wrote: but a kid in the ghetto who gets caught smoking some pot get stuck in the klink for seven to ten?


There are three classes of people in the U.S.. Those with money. Those that want money and Criminals.
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by Lon »

Legalize it, pure and simple. Why shouldn't the average bloke have acess to the same stuff as your pro atheletes, Hollywood heros, politicians et al, and suffer no more dire consequenses than they do?
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by anastrophe »

kensloft wrote: There are three classes of people in the U.S.. Those with money. Those that want money and Criminals.
there are three classes of people in canada: those who can make perspicacious, substantive arguments in favor of or opposed to a given issue, those who can't, and those who substitute meaningless generalizations for their lack of perspicacity.



:yh_wait
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by kensloft »

anastrophe wrote: there are three classes of people in canada: those who can make perspicacious, substantive arguments in favor of or opposed to a given issue, those who can't, and those who substitute meaningless generalizations for their lack of perspicacity.



:yh_wait


Enjoyed Berkeley. Both my cousins went there. One's a chemist. One's a lawyer. Both puffed and did whatever they could lay their hands on. They didn't care if it was an up or a down. If it got them off it was OK.

You seem to think that I am putting down the States but I am not. It was your story of the ghetto kid that made me repeat this statement. The one that was included in our little discourse a few days ago on another thread.

With the prison system churning out the new slaves of America (doesn't matter what colour you are) by criminalizing them with drug records then one has to wonder where America is going to send these individuals, seeing as how England had the States and Australia as their prisons away from home?

D'ya think Dubya will grant them some kind of pardon?

Remember one of the U of T proffessors telling me that she could see my ability to be perspicacious while I was fending off some bs that the university establishment was laying on me. Much like the (?) that I seem to be going through now!

Are you having another of your shooting from the lip episodes?
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by kensloft »

Lon wrote: Legalize it, pure and simple. Why shouldn't the average bloke have acess to the same stuff as your pro atheletes, Hollywood heros, politicians et al, and suffer no more dire consequenses than they do?


The problem with legalizing it is that then, as is explained on another's earlier post, a five year old could score and do it. Decriminalization would be a better means of making it like liquor or cigarettes.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by anastrophe »

kensloft wrote: There are three classes of people in the U.S.. Those with money. Those that want money and Criminals.
there's a russian orthodox monastery up the road. tell me, which class do the monks there fall under?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by kensloft »

anastrophe wrote: there's a russian orthodox monastery up the road. tell me, which class do the monks there fall under?


Probably all three.

Anastrophe.

There are criminals and there are criminals. Criminalizing young people because of where they live or the economic circumstances that surrounds their lives does not mean tha they are criminals.

They are forever second-class citizens. They have nowhere to go because they live in America and will be governed by laws that are repressive towards them for their entire lives. That's what I'm going on about.

kensloft
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by anastrophe »

kensloft wrote: Probably all three.


and i thought *i* was a cynic.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by capt_buzzard »

Angiepangie wrote: Do you have a problem with underage drinking in the States?

We have here in the UK and getting drunk in the local children's swing park, seems to be a favourite past-time of our 13-16 year olds. By the time many kids reach 16 they start frequenting the local pubs, even though it's illegal to sel them alcohol for two more years. Then once these youngsters hit 18 they're off terrorising European holiday resorts, getting drunk, spewing their alcohol up, having sex with anyone sober enough to stay awake and generally given British youth a very bad name indeed.

Even our *adults* (read that as 20-30somthings) seem to drink to get absolutely inebriated. We have a drinking culture here that is going to have some frightening ramifications in the years to come. Ireland, much the same as Gt Britain
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by kensloft »

anastrophe wrote: and i thought *i* was a cynic.


Did you notice that I appended something to that particular post?
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by anastrophe »

kensloft wrote: Probably all three.



Anastrophe.



There are criminals and there are criminals. Criminalizing young people because of where they live or the economic circumstances that surrounds their lives does not mean tha they are criminals.
what laws criminalize young people because of where they live or the economic circumstances that surround their lives?





They are forever second-class citizens. They have nowhere to go because they live in America and will be governed by laws that are repressive towards them for their entire lives. That's what I'm going on about.



kensloft
it's funny how many millions of people flood into this country every year from every corner of the earth to escape repressive governments. it's so sad that they don't realize they're jumping from the frying pan into the fire.



i say this with irony.



also, generally speaking, if you're going to make significant, material changes to a post, it's better to either make a new post, or at minimum fill in the 'reason for edit' text box. your original post had three words in it. your edited post was twenty-five times longer. that's not cool in my opinion. massive material changes to an existing post change the substance of already existing followups. i made a one-liner reply to your one-liner reply, but had you not mentioned your edits, a third-party might have come to a different conclusion.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by kensloft »

anastrophe wrote: what laws criminalize young people because of where they live or the economic circumstances that surround their lives?


I believe that there was talk of people being arrested for a simple drug charge, like marijuana, being put in the slammer for seven years.





Next time I'll make another post.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by anastrophe »

kensloft wrote: I believe that there was talk of people being arrested for a simple drug charge, like marijuana, being put in the slammer for seven years.
i'll ask again: what laws criminalize young people because of where they live or the economic circumstances that surround their lives?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by kensloft »

anastrophe wrote: i'll ask again: what laws criminalize young people because of where they live or the economic circumstances that surround their lives?


mind altering drugs have been used by humans since prehistoric times. prohibitions on what are entirely normal, human tendencies are unfortunate - at least when those prohibitions extend beyond 'do no harm'. lock a kid up for fifteen years for possessing an ounce of weed? this is justice? (need i add the counterpoint - serial rapists and murderers who get fifteen years also - and get out on 'good behavior' after seven, only to recommit their favorite crimes - this is justice?)

__________________

Paul Theodoropoulos


'nuff said.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by anastrophe »

kensloft wrote: 'nuff said.you're making zero sense. my post you quoted says absolutely nothing in support of your claim. "lock a kid up for fifteen years for possessing an ounce of weed?" has to do with locking a kid up for fifteen years for possessing an ounce of weed. that kid could live in wealth or poverty, in hillsborough or east palo alto. seems like you're filtering everything through your own political bias.



again,



what laws criminalize young people because of where they live or the economic circumstances that surround their lives?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by kensloft »

anastrophe wrote: what laws criminalize young people because of where they live or the economic circumstances that surround their lives?


It is the unwritten law that governs those that can pay for the defence of a lawyer as opposed to those that can't. I"ve lived in enough ghettos to understand that if a judge is sentencing a young black, lawyerless kid from the ghetto and a young white kid from the Pallisades then the black kid will go to jail and the white kid will get a probation for the same type of crime.

A lawyer will understand the differences in law that can lead to a probationary sentence, whereas, a duty council will know of the differences but, because of his workload, will not have the time to do the necessary paperwork for that sentencing procedure.

If you are going to sit there and say that money doesn't count in the American judicial system then there is nothing that I can say that will change your mind. It is already made up that the foreigner doesn't know what he is talking about.

Are you so removed from reality that you would pretend that this doesn't occur in order to nuture some false ideal that doen't exist in the courts?

54.1% of the federal inmate population is in jail for drug related charges. That is up from the 16% that were sentenced in 1970. That is 3,384 convicted offenders in 1970 to 77,876 in 2004.

Although black constitute 10-15% of the population they make up 40.2% of the prison population. Over 80% of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions. "The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 701 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Russia. The U.S. nonviolent prisoner population is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska. While the number of offenders in each major offense category increased, the number incarcerated for a drug offense accounted for the largest percentage of the total growth (59%), Assuming recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 20 Americans (5%) can be expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. For African-American men, the number is greater than 1 in 4 (28.5%).

States spent $32.5 billion on Corrections in 1999 alone. To compare, states only spent $22.2 billion on cash assistance to the poor. From 1984 to 1996, California built 21 new prisons, and only one new university. "The total number of State and Federal inmates grew from 488,000 in 1985 to over 1.3 million in 2001. The number of local jail inmates tripled from approximately 207,000 in 1982 to over 631,000 in 2001. Adults on probation increased from over 1.3 to about 4 million persons. Overall, corrections employment more than doubled from nearly 300,000 to over 747,000 during this period."

Nationally, 1 out of 3 African-American males in their 20s are either in prison, on probation, or on parole. In Washington DC, that percentage is 1 out of 2 African-American men between the ages of 15 and 35.

If current trends continue, more African American children will go to prison than to college when they grow up.

If current trends continue, African-American children are more likely to go to prison than to college when they grow up.

:-5 I could go on but I am only throwing statistics for your consumption.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by anastrophe »

kensloft wrote: It is the unwritten law that governs those that can pay for the defence of a lawyer as opposed to those that can't. I"ve lived in enough ghettos to understand that if a judge is sentencing a young black, lawyerless kid from the ghetto and a young white kid from the Pallisades then the black kid will go to jail and the white kid will get a probation for the same type of crime.



A lawyer will understand the differences in law that can lead to a probationary sentence, whereas, a duty council will know of the differences but, because of his workload, will not have the time to do the necessary paperwork for that sentencing procedure.



If you are going to sit there and say that money doesn't count in the American judicial system then there is nothing that I can say that will change your mind. It is already made up that the foreigner doesn't know what he is talking about.



Are you so removed from reality that you would pretend that this doesn't occur in order to nuture some false ideal that doen't exist in the courts?



54.1% of the federal inmate population is in jail for drug related charges. That is up from the 16% that were sentenced in 1970. That is 3,384 convicted offenders in 1970 to 77,876 in 2004.



Although black constitute 10-15% of the population they make up 40.2% of the prison population. Over 80% of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions. "The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 701 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Russia. The U.S. nonviolent prisoner population is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska. While the number of offenders in each major offense category increased, the number incarcerated for a drug offense accounted for the largest percentage of the total growth (59%), Assuming recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 20 Americans (5%) can be expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. For African-American men, the number is greater than 1 in 4 (28.5%).



States spent $32.5 billion on Corrections in 1999 alone. To compare, states only spent $22.2 billion on cash assistance to the poor. From 1984 to 1996, California built 21 new prisons, and only one new university. "The total number of State and Federal inmates grew from 488,000 in 1985 to over 1.3 million in 2001. The number of local jail inmates tripled from approximately 207,000 in 1982 to over 631,000 in 2001. Adults on probation increased from over 1.3 to about 4 million persons. Overall, corrections employment more than doubled from nearly 300,000 to over 747,000 during this period."



Nationally, 1 out of 3 African-American males in their 20s are either in prison, on probation, or on parole. In Washington DC, that percentage is 1 out of 2 African-American men between the ages of 15 and 35.



If current trends continue, more African American children will go to prison than to college when they grow up.



If current trends continue, African-American children are more likely to go to prison than to college when they grow up.



:-5 I could go on but I am only throwing statistics for your consumption.hilarious! i don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said. but your filters are quite amazing, and quite entrenched. apparently you cannot read or write without warping all output to conform to your preconceived notions of how evil the united states is, and how perfect canada is.



i'll repeat:



what laws criminalize young people because of where they live or the economic circumstances that surround their lives?



i know, i'll never get a straight answer to the question. a massive heap of unrelated statistic will likely be the retort. oh well.



civil code 796683-ac4-subsection 7: any person under the age of seventeen whose gross wages are under $4,772 per annum, shall be incarcerated for no less than two years, and no more than six years, and shall be eligible for parole after six months served with good behavior.



civil code 44286.224-4, subsection 27c{sub c}: any person under the age of fifteen, residing within the northeastern quadrant of east palo alto, california, bounded by avenue a, crowley street, burbank avenue, and 17th avenue, shall be incarcerated for no less than twelve years, with no possibility of parole.



man, i'm glad i made those up. otherwise we'd never get anywhere.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

The minimum age hypocrisy

Post by kensloft »

anastrophe wrote: conform to your preconceived notions of how evil the united states is, and how perfect canada is.


This is where the problem lies. I do not and, as far as I know, have I ever written that America is evil and Canada is good. You have read that into what you think my intent is. I like America even with its warts.

I lived in the States during the height of the Viet Nam War. In Venice, California. War was the topic of the day. Those for. Those agin. People, neighbours would discuss what they wanted to say but tempers would flare and discussion would be replaced by non-communication.

In order to get some coversations going, all it took was for me to say "eh" in the Canadian manner. I would then become a sounding board for both parties. Either side could voice whatever it was that was on their chests, and instead of shutting down communication, they continued by focusing on the issues at hand instead of the dirty stares at the other guy's take on things.

America, like Canada, is not perfect. As a Canadian and a friend it is my obligation to state what I see is happening before me in my neighbours community. It is the least that I would expect from an American. I don't have time to ridicule, disparage or belittle someone with a pretentious pontification of our being better than thou. All I am doing is putting in my observations. Hoping that they aren't vacuous, inane, subjective observations that would rile even me.

You, living in the States, are subjective about what you see around you. I, living in Canada, am objective about what I see as going on in America. And vice versa.

As for finding the types of laws or by-laws that you have offered as a template for how you wish me to answer your question? If it is in any books then they wouldn't show them to you because, if they did, they'd be ridden out of town on a rail. Tarred and feathered would be the least of their worries. You are, in essence, asking a rhetorical question.

Return to “Drugs, Alcohol Tobacco”