1 in very 100 adults is in jail [Archive]

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 08:39 AM

Hmmm....if the population of the US is 270 Million, that would mean that more than 2.7 million people are in jail...wow...

Maybe not the most in the world, but the most of the G-7 countries? probably.
I don't think that those other countries would count political prisoners, nor do I think the US counts "POW" or "detainees".

it's one out of every 100 adults, the math needs some adjusting

It's three things:

1.) A big business. I really doubted this impact on things until I saw people who really were completely innocent of any crime get railroaded and ground into the system. Just to make some a$$holes career as a prosecutor and to make money for the companies that warehouse people.

2.) As a culture, we are failing. When I was a kid, you behaved because a neighbor might tell your parents. Today, you tell somebodies parents - YOU are the problem. We're rapidly adopting thug culture as the norm, the family unit has been assassinated, and our educated class has performed self-genocide through birth control and infanticide.

3.) Based on the scumbags I see on the street, I'm not surprised 1 in 100 are incarcerated. As a culture, as a people, we need to stop accepting bad behavior as culturally acceptable.

It's a bigger issue, that no one wants to hear, because it interferes with their self-destructive bliss.

All said, it is still better here than in a true police state.

Quite true. The moral fabric of our society is gone. Remember sitcoms from 20 years ago? Watch TV now, at any time of day or night and everything is a negative message. Don't get me wrong, people should have the right to express themselves, but there should be a proper time and place for everything. What can be done about these problems? We have nurtured a culture of stupidity, and I'm sure we haven't seen the worst of it! I think the 1 out of 100 is not so bad, seeing as many should-be inmates are released due to overcrowding.

Well, enough with my "back in my day" lecture....:mad:

sanjuro_ronin

02-29-2008, 08:44 AM

it's one out of every 100 adults, the math needs some adjusting

Bah, details !

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 08:53 AM

Bah, details !

God bless you son, you're one fine North American!

David Jamieson

02-29-2008, 10:03 AM

Prisons in many cases are merely an extension of the welfare system.

Conservative thinkers should be on board with this idea because then they don't have to worry about some welfare bum spending their .037 cent contribution on a colt45. :rolleyes:

yes, america will jail you for pretty much anything and near 1% of the overall population is of convict status.

nice, what a country. lol.

still, beats the heck out of a lot of other countries, I guess, as long as you go some money and a job, otherwise, your'e screwed.

lkfmdc

02-29-2008, 10:23 AM

The socialist from up north speaks :rolleyes:

yes, america will jail you for pretty much anything

yeah, we put people in jail for stupid stuff like assault, murder, robbery, forcing people into prostitution, selling drugs to kids, stealing identitites, fraud etc

we'd all be much better off without any legal system....

:rolleyes:

David Jamieson

02-29-2008, 10:29 AM

you also put them in jail for being in debt, being homeless and angry, for not supervising their teenagers, for looking too arabic etc etc.

whatever dave. :rolleyes:

read a friggin stat now and again will you. lol

you must think you're in freaking heaven or something. That Q line exhaust is getting to your head. You really think all is well with the american crime and punishment system? really?

I'm pretty cretain taht my canadian system is completely screwed as well. Becaus eit still functions under a lot of victorian writs, which is nonsense, but what can we do in the day and age of willless governance, weak politicians and a wealth that has provided a gaping void of apathy unlike any other time in written history.

ahve a beer? eat a cheeto? watch a movie? listen to some brittney and repeat? lol

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 10:35 AM

you also put them in jail for being in debt Um, actually there are little punitive consequences for debt in America, being homeless and angry I know some homeless people escape the cold by going to jail, but thats hardly the government's fault, for not supervising their teenagers Never heard of this? , for looking too arabic etc etc. Really?
whatever dave. :rolleyes:

read a friggin stat now and again will you Where are the stats to support what you said?. lol

you must think you're in freaking heaven or something. That Q line exhaust is getting to your head. You really think all is well with the american crime and punishment system? really?

I'm pretty cretain taht my canadian system is completely screwed as well. Becaus eit still functions under a lot of victorian writs, which is nonsense, but what can we do in the day and age of willless governance, weak politicians and a wealth that has provided a gaping void of apathy unlike any other time in written history.

ahve a beer? eat a cheeto? watch a movie? listen to some brittney and repeat? lol

I'm going to have to go with lkfmdc on this one...

lkfmdc

02-29-2008, 10:35 AM

:rolleyes:

you also put them in jail for being in debt, being homeless and angry, for not supervising their teenagers, for looking too arabic etc etc.

Are you reading Charles ****ens again? :rolleyes:

We put people in jail for debt? Not in this century?

For being homeless?

If by "not supervising their teenagers" you mean "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" well, on that you got me :rolleyes:

For looking too arabic? LMFAO, I guess you haven't ever been in NYC. Not only do we have a lot of people who "look" Arabic, we have a TON of Arabs!!!!

People don't get arrested for looking Arab. They get arrested for wiring money to organizaitons that sponsor terror, or similar stuff. Please, cut the over the top liberal rantings

Again, please explain how being "homeless" will get you arrested and put in prison in the US. That one should be good :rolleyes:

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 10:38 AM

The socialist from up north speaks :rolleyes:

yeah, we put people in jail for stupid stuff like assault, murder, robbery, forcing people into prostitution, selling drugs to kids, stealing identitites, fraud etc

we'd all be much better off without any legal system....

:rolleyes:

Yeah, seems about right. Our system of justice is certainly not perfect, and innocent people do get sent to jail. I still think a majority of prisoners need to be there, or perhaps in drug/psychological treatment. If anything, more people need to be in jail, look at our crimerates! Look at repeat offenders!

David Jamieson

02-29-2008, 10:40 AM

:rolleyes:

Are you reading Charles ****ens again? :rolleyes:

We put people in jail for debt? Not in this century?

For being homeless?

If by "not supervising their teenagers" you mean "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" well, on that you got me :rolleyes:

For looking too arabic? LMFAO, I guess you haven't ever been in NYC. Not only do we have a lot of people who "look" Arabic, we have a TON of Arabs!!!!

People don't get arrested for looking Arab. They get arrested for wiring money to organizaitons that sponsor terror, or similar stuff. Please, cut the over the top liberal rantings

Again, please explain how being "homeless" will get you arrested and put in prison in the US. That one should be good :rolleyes:

Dave, you have a propensity for demonstrating your own ignorance and self interest. So rather than go on for pages that will degrade into your personal attacks on me or others who disagree with you because you seem to be wholly incapable of human discourse that doesn't fit into you model of the world, I will only sigh and move on and leave it at that. I would only part with, you can put whatever spin you like on whatever you want to spin, but facts are facts and truthes are truths and if you only want to live in your own little box of a world then tat is all you will be able to perceive.

Nothing personal Dave, but you've actively demonstrated that you live in a bubble inside a box on this forum for some time. The only thing that outshines the prolific number of posts you have is your egoism and sense of self worth. :D

sayonara mr "i'm right all the time or else". lol

Shaolinlueb

02-29-2008, 10:43 AM

Fools! Prisons are corporate businesses...just like parking garages, or fast food chains!

Lol hopefully some of you got the reference heres the link for the proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riki-Oh

i didnt need to look at the link to know what you were tlaking about. actually they say car parks instead of parking garages. ;)

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 10:44 AM

Dave, you have a propensity for demonstrating your own ignorance and self interest. So rather than go on for pages that will degrade into your personal attacks on me or others who disagree with you because you seem to be wholly incapable of human discourse that doesn't fit into you model of the world, I will only sigh and move on and leave it at that. I would only part with, you can put whatever spin you like on whatever you want to spin, but facts are facts and truthes are truths and if you only want to live in your own little box of a world then tat is all you will be able to perceive.

Nothing personal Dave, but you've actively demonstrated that you live in a bubble inside a box on this forum for some time. The only thing that outshines the prolific number of posts you have is your egoism and sense of self worth. :D

sayonara mr "i'm right all the time or else". lol

I'm not saying anything about you, but could you provide some info to support:

Going to jail for debt
Going to jail for being homeless and angry
Going to jail for not supervising teenagers
Going to jail for looking (or being) Arab

If you can dig some stuff up I'd love to be informed.

Shaolinlueb

02-29-2008, 10:48 AM

dave before you call this country ****ty anymore why dont you come live here for a couple years. this place is better then canada is many ways.

lkfmdc

02-29-2008, 10:50 AM

Dave, you have a propensity for demonstrating your own ignorance and self interest. So rather than go on for pages that will degrade into your personal attacks on me or others who disagree with you because you seem to be wholly incapable of human discourse that doesn't fit into you model of the world, I will only sigh and move on and leave it at that. I would only part with, you can put whatever spin you like on whatever you want to spin, but facts are facts and truthes are truths and if you only want to live in your own little box of a world then tat is all you will be able to perceive.

Nothing personal Dave, but you've actively demonstrated that you live in a bubble inside a box on this forum for some time. The only thing that outshines the prolific number of posts you have is your egoism and sense of self worth. :D

sayonara mr "i'm right all the time or else". lol

TRANSLATION OF ABOVE

No, he can not explain to us how you end up in jail for
1) being in debt
2) being homeless
3) being hungry
4) looking Arab

That's because, it doesn't happen :rolleyes:

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 10:54 AM

TRANSLATION OF ABOVE

No, he can not explain to us how you end up in jail for
1) being in debt
2) being homeless
3) being hungry
4) looking Arab

That's because, it doesn't happen :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure you're correct, but I want him to have a chance to post evidence to the contrary.

lkfmdc

02-29-2008, 10:58 AM

I'm not saying anything about you, but could you provide some info to support:

Going to jail for debt
Going to jail for being homeless and angry
Going to jail for not supervising teenagers
Going to jail for looking (or being) Arab

If you can dig some stuff up I'd love to be informed.

He can't support it, that's why he just whined for like 3 paragraphs :rolleyes:

"Going to jail for looking (or being) Arab" LMFAO, again, ANYONE who lives in NYC knows how patently absurd that is!

Like most liberals, he'll probably find a round the way explanation of what he means, something like "well, this guy was homelss and hungry so he broke into a house to get warm/get something to eat/to steal so he could get something to eat. The US is a horrible capitalist place, so he's homeless and poor and society drove him to it and he HAD to do it"

IE, when the police arrive and arrest him, and eventually he gets put in jail, it is because of the breaking and entering and theft

Of course, we can also point out that on that same night, 100 other homeless and/or poor people didn't break into anyone's house :rolleyes:

sanjuro_ronin

02-29-2008, 11:01 AM

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 11:07 AM

Don't know about the debt part, but NOT paying your debts can get you jail time.
Homelessness will not get you jail time, but vagrancy will.
Not supervising teenager SHOULD out anyone in jail !
:D
As for looking/being arab, I dont think that you can go to jail for that, but I am sure you can get arrested for, ie: profiling.

The only way not paying your debt will get you in jail is if your debt is to the government. I know people that are over $60,000 in debt and are facing no legal consequences (phone consequences yes :D ). You can file for bankruptcy, or just not pay, or pay the minimum, more often than not. Taxes, on the other hand, you don't want to mess around with, and even the IRS will charge penalties before seeking to send someone to jail. It doesn't pay to have the in-debted in jail, they can't pay from in there...

p.s. all teenagers who act like teenagers SHOULD BE sent to jail, and have the teenageness beaten out of them, and in most cases teenageness is not the parents fault.

MasterKiller

02-29-2008, 11:23 AM

Heck, being homeless in NYC gets you a one-way bus ticket to Florida.

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 11:25 AM

Child's first logic mistakes
Child: The Easter bunny exists

A: How do you know?

Child: My mommy says so

Without proper education this will either become:

College child dumass just took first semester with liberal professors (ccdjtfswlp): The US government sends people to prison for anything

B: Really, what do you mean

ccdjtfswlp: like, they send people to jail for nothing

B: who told you that?

ccdjtfswlp: Like my professors told me maaaann

B: Can you show me some evidence?

ccdjtfswlp: Just look around man, can't you see it?

Conservative white trash has life so bad needs to blame on someone else guy (cswthlsbntbseg): Did you know the liberal government hired the same mersonary guy to kill the branch dividians, the ruby ridge, and all the right wing heroes??

B: really, how do you know?

cswthlsbntbseg: Radio guy told me

B: And who told radio guy

cswthlsbntbseg: he thinked it up, being he's real smart and all

cough cough They're taking our jobs!!!

lkfmdc

02-29-2008, 11:27 AM

The only way not paying your debt will get you in jail is if your debt is to the government.

Even then, most likely they will put a "lean" on your property, NOT put you in jail :rolleyes: I have a family member who owed $5000 to IRS and pretty much nothing happened....

I know people that are over $60,000 in debt and are facing no legal consequences (phone consequences yes :D ).

You can sign up for a thing called "privacy direct" and even your creditors can't phone you and bother you, only in America!

Lucas

02-29-2008, 11:28 AM

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 11:30 AM

I'm for the death penalty, for severe crimes (j-walking not included)

lkfmdc

02-29-2008, 11:31 AM

Just curious as to how many of you are in favor, as I am myself, of execution for heinous crimes.

I may be the only one, you may all hate me, but I stand by my belief.

Life and death arent that far apart, if one cannot respect life, perhaps they can respect death.

Not to be too much of a "downer" but we live a world where predators kidnap children, abuse them, torture them and kill them. That predator should DIE in my opinion, I know the liberals will cry for the poor lost sould :rolleyes:

diego

02-29-2008, 11:54 AM

Not to be too much of a "downer" but we live a world where predators kidnap children, abuse them, torture them and kill them. That predator should DIE in my opinion, I know the liberals will cry for the poor lost sould :rolleyes:

if a teenager loses it one day and kills his classroom, maybe he shouldn't get the death penalty...serial killers should be tortured though send them off into another reincarnation...just like we put down rabid pitbulls once they taste blood so to should they...but this is ideals, in the real world it's just people and many of these people grew up to be bullies...how many innocents were executed?...especially in 1950 texas and you a negro

sanjuro_ronin

02-29-2008, 11:55 AM

The only way not paying your debt will get you in jail is if your debt is to the government. I know people that are over $60,000 in debt and are facing no legal consequences (phone consequences yes :D ). You can file for bankruptcy, or just not pay, or pay the minimum, more often than not. Taxes, on the other hand, you don't want to mess around with, and even the IRS will charge penalties before seeking to send someone to jail. It doesn't pay to have the in-debted in jail, they can't pay from in there...

p.s. all teenagers who act like teenagers SHOULD BE sent to jail, and have the teenageness beaten out of them, and in most cases teenageness is not the parents fault.

ah, I see, thanks

David Jamieson

02-29-2008, 11:55 AM

I know that America has good and bad points.

however:

Going to jail for debt - Try to get away with being poor as an excuse for not paying your taxes. IN the US, you WILL be imprisoned. Other countries will do it as well. This is jailing people for debt even if you just want to call it taxes.

Going to jail for being homeless and angry - In the land of fairness, the rich as well as the poor may not by law sleep under bridges r steal bread.

Going to jail for not supervising teenagers - I believe there is a thread about a woman who was arrested recently because she couldn't handle her teenage sons aged 13 -17. I think the kids are still at home and were even filmed threatening a journalist with a bat. yet, the woman goes to jail. hmmmmn.

Going to jail for looking (or being) Arab - One name, Harar. The yanks shipped him off to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured for no good reason. I think he is still suing you and has been garnted some few millions of dollars by the supreme court. I'm sure it would prove difficult to find records of all the arabic speaking and arabic peoples who have been picked up on suspicion, jailed and treated like ****, but it wouldn't prove that difficult to find even a few just using the internet.

But hey, let's dwell on little side issues so we don't have to face the quagmire we're really in. Oh look a pony! with sparkles yayyyyy! :rolleyes:

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 12:02 PM

I know that America has good and bad points.

however:

Going to jail for debt - Try to get away with being poor as an excuse for not paying your taxes. IN the US, you WILL be imprisoned No, not necessarily, and under a certain income makes you exempt form taxes. Other countries will do it as well. This is jailing people for debt even if you just want to call it taxes Read previous posts, this is very rare for the IRS to do.

Going to jail for being homeless and angry - In the land of fairness, the rich as well as the poor may not by law sleep under bridges r steal bread I don't know where you get that, plenty of people sleep freely under the bridges of the city where I live. As a matter of fact the only places where they can't sleep are private properties.
Going to jail for not supervising teenagers - I believe there is a thread about a woman who was arrested recently because she couldn't handle her teenage sons aged 13 -17. I think the kids are still at home and were even filmed threatening a journalist with a bat. yet, the woman goes to jail. hmmmmn. One isolated incident, hardly a trend
Going to jail for looking (or being) Arab - One name, Harar. The yanks shipped him off to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured for no good reason. I think he is still suing you and has been garnted some few millions of dollars by the supreme court. I'm sure it would prove difficult to find records of all the arabic speaking and arabic peoples who have been picked up on suspicion, jailed and treated like ****, but it wouldn't prove that difficult to find even a few just using the internet. There are examples like this, and in the wake of global terror racial profiling may happen, but there are other factors. I don't know the numbers of Arabs in the United States, but there are a lot, of whom a very small minority are ever bothered by law enforcement, who have reasons other than "looking Arab"

But hey, let's dwell on little side issues so we don't have to face the quagmire we're really in. Oh look a pony! with sparkles yayyyyy! :rolleyes:

I still don't buy what you're trying to sell

according to the 2000 census, 1.2 million reported having arab heritage (not including mixed race). I'm assuming Persians, Turks, and other peoples associated with the middle east region are also not included in that number.

lkfmdc

02-29-2008, 12:07 PM

LMFAO, man, you've really lost your mind.....

Going to jail for debt - Try to get away with being poor as an excuse for not paying your taxes. IN the US, you WILL be imprisoned.

LMFAO, NO, not at all. First they'll harass you for the money. Then they'll put a lean on your propoerty or attach your bank accounts. Please cite a statistic for anyone in JAIL for not paying taxes. My bet would be it will be less than 1%.....

Going to jail for being homeless and angry - In the land of fairness, the rich as well as the poor may not by law sleep under bridges r steal bread.

Pathetic liberal double talk. First of all, NO ONE has ever gone to jail for sleeping under a bridge, or on the street. If you lived in NYC for more than 10 seconds you'd know that.

If you STEAL, yes you might spend a night in jail. That's because STEALING IS A CRIME :rolleyes:

Going to jail for not supervising teenagers - I believe there is a thread about

1) First, look up the details and the facts.
2) Look up "contributing to the delinquency of a minor

Going to jail for looking (or being) Arab - One name, Harar.
(followed by the typical liberal single story without details)

You found one name, and even that case (which I am familiar with) hardly consititutes "going to jail for looking (or being) an Arab" :rolleyes:

When you make financial contributions to a suspected terrorist cell, are recorded making phone calls to known terrorists, have been picture meeting known terrorists, you will be picked up for, now pay attention, being a terrorist :rolleyes:

The police arent' exactly roaming the streets of the US picking up Arabs randomly. My wife's best friend is Afghani, she's never been stopped, detained, questioned or even approached in 30 plus years of her life here in the US. That's ONE NAME for you :rolleyes:

Lucas

02-29-2008, 12:09 PM

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 12:12 PM

I used to teach English as a Second Language to Arabs in a Pittsburgh neighborhood with a large Arab community (Brookline) and I never heard one of them complain about or even mention unfair treatment or harassment or anything else from law enforcement.

sanjuro_ronin

02-29-2008, 12:13 PM

Can you get jailed for vagrancy?

lkfmdc

02-29-2008, 12:17 PM

Can you get jailed for vagrancy?

Here's what happened in NYC (and note how liberals spin the truth when it suits them). The city determined that many homeless people were not in the mental state to make informed decisions in regards to their own health and well being. IE, when the temperatures were freezing they were sleeping on the streets, they were frequently FREEZING TO DEATH :eek:

The vagracy lawas allow the police to pick up homeless people when the outside temperature reaches a life threatening level. IE the "arrest them"

The "arrest" is followed by taking them to a shelter, where they are fed, and given a bed in a heated house for the night

THOSE BARBARIANS! :rolleyes:

David Jamieson

02-29-2008, 12:20 PM

Not too mention, america is ridiculous in it's implementation of its so called war on drugs.

the stats are through the roof ridiculous on this level.

Dave, the fact that you resort to rhetoric and name calling is indicative of an oncoming down-spiral of the ross-rant tm, so let's agree to disagree because i am sure as sh1t not going on an internet trail blaze to show you data when all you are gonna do is not recognize it for what it is.
the real point is that in the so called richest land in all the world, where human rights are the foundation supposedly and freedom is the way of life, there is a full 1% of the citizenry in prison for crimes in some cases that are heinous of course, but also for small petty crimes that are non-violent and non-threatening to anything but the seat of control and power.

people need to get with it and realize that the government is YOUR employee, that cop works for YOU on YOUR dime.

Freedom is more than part of a catchphrase on a bumper sticker.

Executing 1 person wrongly is 1 person too many.

Jailing one person errantly and destroying their life is wrong and indicative of a greater problem.

If you think there's no problem, then YOU are the problem.

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 12:31 PM

Not too mention, america is ridiculous in it's implementation of its so called war on drugs. I somewhat agree on this point, the prohibition of drugs creates a black market and therefore more crime, but legalizing some drugs is unrealistic (exception being marijuana)
the stats are through the roof ridiculous on this level.

Dave, the fact that you resort to rhetoric and name calling is indicative of an oncoming down-spiral of the ross-rant tm, I saw him posting facts without name calling, I suggest you reread the posts, because I didn't see anything offensive. Perhaps you want to believe that he is insulting you to be true? so let's agree to disagree because i am sure as sh1t not going on an internet trail blaze to show you data when all you are gonna do is not recognize it for what it is.
the real point is that in the so called richest land in all the world, where human rights are the foundation supposedly and freedom is the way of life, there is a full 1% of the citizenry in prison for crimes in some cases that are heinous of course, but also for small petty crimes that are non-violent and non-threatening to anything but the seat of control and power. Again, prisons are crowded with drug dealers, murderers, rapists, and repeat offenders. Crowded prisons means that petty criminals are, in fact, released prematurely.
people need to get with it and realize that the government is YOUR employee, that cop works for YOU on YOUR dime. Cops serve me and make the streets of my city and country safer. I salute the majority of them for a difficult job well done. There are certainly corrupt or bad cops, but that's the small minority. Freedom is more than part of a catchphrase on a bumper sticker.

Executing 1 person wrongly is 1 person too many. I don't disagree, but mistakes happen, even with a good system.
Jailing one person errantly and destroying their life is wrong and indicative of a greater problem. Every nation/state in the history of humankind has done this, so nobody has created a perfect method of dealing with crime/national security yet???
If you think there's no problem, then YOU are the problem.

Well, I agree there are problems, and alway will be problems, but I think everything is pretty dam good! Am I the problem?

cjurakpt

02-29-2008, 12:32 PM

The "arrest" is followed by taking them to a shelter, where they are fed, and given a bed in a heated house for the night

not to get all liberal and tree-hugging, but, having worked in the field a bit, there were reasons that a not insiginificant number of homeless people chose to brave the cold as opposed to taking advantage of the shelter system (e.g. - verbal / physical abuse by staff / fellow "borders", having things stolen, less than santitary conditions); mind you, it's not across the board, just saying that, like everything, there are pluses (e.g. - not freezing to death, being "lucky " enough to get into a shelter that was well run) and negatives (e.g. - getting beaten up / robbed)

lkfmdc

02-29-2008, 12:32 PM

oh, here we go :rolleyes:

Not too mention, america is ridiculous in it's implementation of its so called war on drugs.

so, basicly, since your claims don't stand up to scrutiny, you want to change the subject? :rolleyes:

So, which is it you want to talk about? Your claim that being poor can put you in jail or how the war on drugs is unfair?

Of course, one wonders what you find some amicable about taking drugs, selling drugs and being a drug addict?

Dave, the fact that you resort to rhetoric and name calling is indicative of an oncoming down-spiral of the ross-rant tm, blah blah blah

You're bait and switch approch is wearing thin... it's very clear what is going on here. You made claims, we called you on them, you couldn't support them.

What percentage of Americans are in "jail" for not paying taxes?
How many Americans are in jail for "sleeping under a bridge"?
How many Americans of Arab descent have been arrested JUST for being Arab?

All perfectly valid questions based upon your earlier assertions

so let's agree to disagree

The last refuge of a man who can't defend his initial argument LOL!

the real point is that in the so called richest land in all the world, where human rights are the foundation supposedly and freedom is the way of life, there (edited) citizenry in prison for (edited) small petty crimes that are non-violent

1) You haven't at all established that any of the "crimes" you claim will get you put in jail will in fact do that

2) this is a strategic retreat where now you want to complain that people are being put in prison for "small petty crimes that are non-violent"

How old are you? That's a serious question. I've always assumed you are an adult, now I'm really not sure? Grow up. A crime is a crime. No one makes you committ one, no matter what your circumstances. There are tons of poor people who don't commit crimes.

Selling drugs isn't a "non violent" crime. Drugs are responsible for much of the violence on the streets and for ruining many families and for many DEATHS

Really, grow up

lkfmdc

02-29-2008, 12:36 PM

not to get all liberal and tree-hugging, but, having worked in the field a bit, there were reasons that a not insiginificant number of homeless people chose to brave the cold as opposed to taking advantage of the shelter system (e.g. - verbal / physical abuse by staff / fellow "borders", having things stolen, less than santitary conditions); mind you, it's not across the board, just saying that, like everything, there are pluses (e.g. - not freezing to death, being "lucky " enough to get into a shelter that was well run) and negatives (e.g. - getting beaten up / robbed)

Chris, before my first semester at NYU (ie when dinosaurs roamed the earth) I did an internship at HPD. I am aware of those issues of course

But in the context of this discussion, the fact remains that vagrancy is NOT used to arrest someone to put them in "JAIL". It just doesn't happen. They are sent to shelters. If you want to argue for shelter reform, that's a valid but separate topic

We're just refuting the false claims that are being made here :p

sanjuro_ronin

02-29-2008, 12:37 PM

As long as this is still legal in that states, they are ok by me :D

bodhitree

02-29-2008, 12:39 PM

As long as this is still legal in that states, they are ok by me :D

You sir, would make one fine American!

Lucas

02-29-2008, 12:40 PM

As long as this is still legal in that states, they are ok by me :D

Not only are those legal, but required.

sanjuro_ronin

02-29-2008, 12:56 PM

I love the stars and stripes:

sanjuro_ronin

02-29-2008, 12:57 PM

Even when understated:

bakxierboxer

02-29-2008, 06:42 PM

.......The only thing that outshines the prolific number of posts you have is your egoism and sense of self worth. :D

*************
David Jamieson Posts: 9,416

lkfmdc Posts: 6,455

*************

Hmmmm..... 9416 / 6455 = 1.458..........?

Sez the guy with 45.8% more posts........

bakxierboxer

02-29-2008, 06:53 PM

Even then, most likely they will put a "lean" on your property......

The IRS uses a "lien".
I think it's still "da mob" what "leans" on folks......

Black Jack II

02-29-2008, 06:54 PM

Again, please explain how being "homeless" will get you arrested and put in prison in the US. That one should be good

He can't. Like most of the other socialist nonsense he whines about with such poet like grace, its almost all bullsh!t:cool:

lkfmdc

02-29-2008, 07:59 PM

*************
David Jamieson Posts: 9,416

lkfmdc Posts: 6,455

*************

Hmmmm..... 9416 / 6455 = 1.458..........?

Sez the guy with 45.8% more posts........

Oh, and you know it only gets better.... I have always been just "LKFMDC" so that post count is ALL of my posts for as long as I have been here. He was "Kung Lek" before (wasn't he?) so you'd have to add all THOSE posts to the number!

bakxierboxer

02-29-2008, 10:09 PM

Oh, and you know it only gets better.... I have always been just "LKFMDC" so that post count is ALL of my posts for as long as I have been here. He was "Kung Lek" before (wasn't he?) so you'd have to add all THOSE posts to the number!

I wouldn't know about all of THAT "pre-history"....
I'm a newbie.... here.

OTOH, in some respects, your own recent claim to a Triassic(?) history at NYU is relative Johnny-come-lately stuff.... although one of your erstwhile training buddies seems to have some kind of link to the Jurassic.....?

SifuAbel

03-01-2008, 01:24 AM

You want to reduce the prison population dramatically?

Legalize it. Tax it.

bakxierboxer

03-01-2008, 01:44 AM

You want to reduce the prison population dramatically?

Legalize it. Tax it.

Even better might be a "plan" to use "capitalist principles" within the prison system.

Prisoners are said to have "a debt to society".
Put a dollar value on it.
Put a dollar value on their incarceration/"up-keep".
Allow them to earn an income based on whatever they're capable of doing (that's legal).
Deduct the cost of incarceration/"up-keep".
(they can also choose to pay for more up-scale "accommodations")
(probably lengthening their "stay")
Apply whatever is left to reducing their "debt to society".
Apply accounting principals to determine if they can pay for their up-keep AND pay off their debt within their expected term of imprisonment/life-span.
If they can't.... well, that's simply making themselves "a bad investment".....

Drake

03-01-2008, 02:58 AM

I bet the problem would ease if people just took some personal accountability for their actions and STOPPED BREAKING THE LAW. You are IMPRISONED for BREAKING THE LAW. Not being hungry, not being homeless, not angry about taxes, not for finding legal recourse to their problems.

As for the arab comment... that was just f^&*ing stupid. Stop shooting from the mouth and give me some statistics on how unjust our system is, despite the fact that courts are designed to protect the accused, many times moreso than the victim.

If somone dodges taxes, steals, or otherwise commits a crime, we suffer. Funny how we paint them as the victims when we are the victims of their actions.

bakxierboxer

03-01-2008, 03:07 AM

I bet the problem would ease if people just took some personal accountability for their actions and STOPPED BREAKING THE LAW. You are IMPRISONED for BREAKING THE LAW.

That sounds altogether too.... too...... well, LOGICAL to ever be a "popular solution"........

That last idea I put forth was more in the line of "re-education"..... for those already confined.

Matrix

03-01-2008, 06:17 AM

Not too mention, america is ridiculous in it's implementation of its so called war on drugs. I think you need to look in your own back yard before you judge your neighbour. :rolleyes:

Bill

David Jamieson

03-01-2008, 07:35 AM

yes well aren't we all just offended and ready to attack when america gets called out for jailing 1% of it's citizens. Look guys, i'm not gonna do your research for you, but if you think everything is rosy and peachy, well then you just live in it.

I mean, you have to don't you, so what are you gonna do anyway. I would say that like typical americans, you'll do nothing. :)

regards

ps dave, my posts as kung leka nd my posts as me are combined, I merely had my name changed.

unlike yourself, who makes fake accounts to sling mud, I've always had the same account, so lets not be too hasty in our math here. Me+ Kung Lek = same amount of posts because all are the same account.

also I'm not surprised that the usual suspects are just desperate to wade into the minutia about me. I'm flattered. wow.

Seppukku

03-01-2008, 07:44 AM

That is just a sign that there are too many laws in the USA.

Let's just make laws illegal.

David Jamieson

03-01-2008, 07:45 AM

LMFAO, man, you've really lost your mind.....

LMFAO, NO, not at all. First they'll harass you for the money. Then they'll put a lean on your propoerty or attach your bank accounts. Please cite a statistic for anyone in JAIL for not paying taxes. My bet would be it will be less than 1%.....

Pathetic liberal double talk. First of all, NO ONE has ever gone to jail for sleeping under a bridge, or on the street. If you lived in NYC for more than 10 seconds you'd know that.

If you STEAL, yes you might spend a night in jail. That's because STEALING IS A CRIME :rolleyes:

1) First, look up the details and the facts.
2) Look up "contributing to the delinquency of a minor

You found one name, and even that case (which I am familiar with) hardly consititutes "going to jail for looking (or being) an Arab" :rolleyes:

When you make financial contributions to a suspected terrorist cell, are recorded making phone calls to known terrorists, have been picture meeting known terrorists, you will be picked up for, now pay attention, being a terrorist :rolleyes:

The police arent' exactly roaming the streets of the US picking up Arabs randomly. My wife's best friend is Afghani, she's never been stopped, detained, questioned or even approached in 30 plus years of her life here in the US. That's ONE NAME for you :rolleyes:

here is an example of where you are given information and you reject it.
You do this very often. In some cases, you're legit in doing so, in many others, you are pretty much wrong.

But whatever dave, if you like to see words changed in order to make the crime fit, then fine. That's just how your head works.

Let's see now, we can't jail a guy for being homeless, but we can jail him for vagrancy or loitering, so that removes the homeless from the equation and makes the guy illegal, well alright I feel better about jailing him now.

You fail to see the problem with that circle of logic don't you dave.

Harar wasn't the only one shipped off to torture by homeland security, in fact, it's a pretty safe bet there are a lot of guys who just won't ever be known about, but you're ok with that because hey, it's your america and you're proud of it and wave that flag wave it! Wave it while the cia / pentagon plane shuttles a couple of other arab americans off to some country for their waterboarding because they were suspicious.

If you cannot see fault in yourself, you will consistently fail to render the fault inert.

whatever though, wave your flags and eat your burgers, watch your tv and remain asleep.

don't stand up for yourselves though and continue to remain as silent as you can except for places like this which are tantamount to useless when driving any change whatsoever. When's the last time any one of you guys wrote a letter to your congressman?

yep, it;'s just peachy down there isn't it.

Seppukku

03-01-2008, 07:49 AM

Fine, we're all coming to Canada. Oh, and we're not going to pay taxes to your govt. and we'll all take up those pert Canadian jobs, and we'll wreck your economy. But hey....you'll all get free healtcare. It'll be the only thing you can afford.

DEATH TO CANUCKS!:p

David Jamieson

03-01-2008, 08:00 AM

sorry, we can't let you in for a couple of reasons.

also, I don't think I'm championing Canada as any sort of model, it's not. It's an antiquated little colonial place that is quaint and nice until it gets down to brass tacks and if you rouse the current oligarchy, they will be angered, debate, call an enquiry then find a way to silence you or stain your character.

that's the kind of vicious backbiting grubs we have in our political chambers here.
that and we are essentially supplicants to britain though half of us haven't a clue about it because our government, like yours doesn't work for it's citizenry, it works for itself and merely uses the citizenry to now and then validate mandates and agendas that the parties decide are the direction we should go.

In fact, you can't even start a political party in Canada without a measure of wealth that is beyond the average canadian. Not just anyone can be involved in politics. you absolutely have to be economically elite here. If you can't come up with a million bucks in support, then you cannot be allowed to speak on behalf of the people in your community. and so, economically difficult areas have no voice. we also practice apartheid here with our indian act and reservation system and we still are beholden to the vatican and have public tax dollars paying into a catholic school system across the country.

americas failures directly effect canadians as well because americans buy 80% of everything we have to sell. so because your economy is failing and hemorrhaging badly under the ineptitudes of the bush/cheney admin, more than 100,000 canadian jobs have been lost in th manufacturing sector.

This gap in and of itself will create desperation and in turn create criminals who have to feed their families and find that th social safety net is not everything they thought it could be because it was not designed to take in such a huge influx of people all at once.

anyway, i love how some of you guys toss about the word "socialist" like it is equivalent to "rapist". that is some nice errors in thinking. But anyway, I feel this entire thread exercise is like trying to teach monkeys quantum physics, it's a waste of time because the monkeys won't ever get it and they certainly don't want to sit there all bored when they can be tossing sh1t around or wanking!

Seppukku

03-01-2008, 08:05 AM

americas failures directly effect canadians as well because americans buy 80% of everything we have to sell. so because your economy is failing and hemorrhaging badly under the ineptitudes of the bush/cheney admin, more than 100,000 canadian jobs have been lost in th manufacturing sector.

You're just mad because you're not getting an economic stimulus check. But I'll tell you what, when I get my 600 dollars, I'll send you five so you can buy yourself a beer.

David Jamieson

03-01-2008, 08:17 AM

I'm mad because my dollar is worth more than yours and because of that, you won't buy any manufactured or raw materials from us.

i don't really care about more of George Bushes obfuscations and bumbling trying to look like something different than the asshat he really is.

David Jamieson

03-01-2008, 08:20 AM

David Jamieson

03-01-2008, 08:22 AM

for dave-

"Although not a crime, being homeless may be the end result of many underlying social problems which may lead to criminal activity. Officers are now encouraged by policy to consider alternatives to arrest to resolve problems involving the homeless. Through a COPS Problem-Solving Grant, community oriented police officers began to work with the Broward Outreach Center, a local facility for homeless people who want to become self-reliant. As a result of this effort, a municipal ordinance was re-drafted to address the issue of sleeping in public. In a first of it's kind ordinance, officers are now mandated to offer a person an alternative to arrest for sleeping in public. That alternative is for the person to check his or herself into Broward Outreach Center for the homeless. It has been determined that simply by making arrests, problems associated with being homeless will not be solved. By giving the homeless "mandated," exposure to the Outreach Center where they are provided the necessities of life until they can become self-sufficient, it is hoped that the homeless population in Hollywood will decrease."

see how this explains that in that area, people were being arrested for loitering etc which are catch pits for homelessness.

David Jamieson

03-01-2008, 08:25 AM

for dave-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067317/

David Jamieson

03-01-2008, 08:29 AM

for dave - related to "the war on drugs" 1 in 50 american kids has a parent in jail. Mostly this speaks to the problems with substance abuse and the symptoms and results of poverty.

If you want to deal with pinpoints of minutia, then the point overall is lost on you and there needn't be any further discussion around this problem.

http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/citation/1993/914/7

if you are ok with people being jailed left and right and huge masses of criminals being created with the stroke of bushies pen then ok, live in it. But don't sit there and deny the problem because that totally makes you look like an ass.

Seppukku

03-01-2008, 08:59 AM

Economic elitism.....you're not blaming the real problems. It has nothing to do with socioeconomic stratification. Look at Paris, Brittney, and Lindsey.

I don't even have to tag on last names.

lkfmdc

03-01-2008, 10:12 AM

Look guys, i'm not gonna do your research for you,

TRANSLATION (AGAIN)

You can't back up your ridiculous claims so you try and put up some smoke to cover your tracks :rolleyes:

That's ok, we pretty much already showed how totally emtpy your comments are.

ps dave, my posts as kung leka nd my posts as me are combined, I merely had my name changed.

So you claim, but we've already established your HUGE credibility gap :rolleyes:

Regardless, for a person that wanted to bring up number of posts, YOU are the one who has 3000 more posts than I do.... :rolleyes:

unlike yourself, who makes fake accounts to sling mud,

Truly and utterly LAME. Now that you are losing the argument badly, not only smoke and mirrors but outright LIES, tsk tsk :rolleyes:

I don't have any fake accounts. Maybe in your twisted mind I do, just like in your twisted mind people who live under bridges get put in prison :rolleyes:

Again, this thread is a glowing testment to you total lack of credibility and your propensity to just make up things

But, once again, let's review YOUR claims

1) you can go to prison for being in debt
2) you can go to prison for being homeless
3) you can go to prision for being Arab

Not only are they patently ludicrous on the face of them, and of course we've dismantled them completely, you now claim you can't/won't even try to cite some evidence

Yeah, credibility :rolleyes:

lkfmdc

03-01-2008, 10:18 AM

here is an example of where you are given information and you reject it.

No, here is an example of where your claims, upon examination, prove to be completely false :rolleyes:

we can jail him for vagrancy or loitering,

NO... can't you read?

No one ever goes to jail for "loitering"

No one goes to jail for vagrancy either, they go to SHELTERS

In your liberal empty double talk, I guess you are going to try and equate a shelter with heat and meals and social services with jail :rolleyes:

Harar wasn't the only one shipped off to torture by homeland security, in fact, it's a pretty safe bet there are a lot of guys who just won't ever be known about,

Again, seems you either can't read or just want to twist the truth

He wasn't picked up for being Arab!

He was picked up because
1) He made contributions to a terrorist organization
2) He made phone calls to a known terrorist
3) He met with a known terrorist

IE, no one gets arrested or put in jail for being Arab!
They get arrested or put in jail for being a terrorist :rolleyes:

You are incredibly dense.....

lkfmdc

03-01-2008, 10:21 AM

for dave-

"Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tax Evader Sentenced to 63 Months in Prison

Earlier today a federal judge sentenced convicted tax evader Elaine Brown to 63 months in prison. She and her husband Ed Brown were both convicted of tax evasion. "

lets call it evasion and then it's not jailing someone for debt!

Link? Newspaper citation?

"Monday, March 3, 2008
Dense Canadian shown to have no genetalia

Earlier today, evidence that a certain Canadian who posts on internet forums not only has no facts to back up his case, but also has no genetalia

JUST FOR YOU :D

lkfmdc

03-01-2008, 10:24 AM

Do you think just typing something makes it true? You wouldn't last 30 seconds on Wikipedia :rolleyes:

"Although not a crime, being homeless may be the end result of many underlying social problems which may lead to criminal activity.

Don't you realize that your entire argument just fell apart with the first sentence you posted?

Poor people may choose to break the law, no one makes them break the law

There are plenty of poor people who do NOT break the law. They, strange at it may seem to you, NEVER go to jail :rolleyes:

lkfmdc

03-01-2008, 10:30 AM

for dave - related to "the war on drugs" 1 in 50 american kids has a parent in jail.

So, if a mass murderer and/or child molester just happens to be a parent we shouldn't send him to jail? Wonderful logic there :rolleyes:

Mostly this speaks to the problems with substance abuse

If you actually did some research (I know you already said you won't, that says a lot already), you'd find that people go to jail for selling drugs, helping to sell drugs (muling) and for stealing to buy drugs. Again, that's a CHOICE. A choice to become an addict, then become so desperate you engage in a crime

Not all poor people take drugs. Many poor people would find your rhetoric offensive. Many poor people have intact families and good values. Many poor people go to Church and have faith.

and the symptoms and results of poverty.

See above, being poor does not equal being a drug addict and a criminal

B-Rad

03-01-2008, 10:35 AM

As for going to prison for debt, that would have to be some serious debt going on for a very long time and most likely with an element of fraud too. I'm not going to say no innocent person has ever been put in jail just for screwing up their finances, but the number is going to be extremely small and it'd be very unusual. Accumulation of debt is a big problem in my country, but innocent debtors going to prison isn't really part of it. If just being in debt could send you to prison, that number would be a hell of a lot higher than 1/100, lol. There's a lot of things not to like in our country, but it's still frustrating to see someone so completely clueless about our nation make s#it up about us just because he hates government. Draws attention away from real issues.

lkfmdc

03-01-2008, 10:38 AM

for dave-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067317/

Do you even read the stuff you cite? :rolleyes:

From the article

about 725 individuals have been held on immigration violations

So they were here illegally or stayed beyond their visa or were working without the proper visa

IE, they weren't detained for being Arab, they were being detained for BREAKING THE LAW....or as the article states a bit later

Our greatest concern has to do with the selective prosecution of individuals who have overstayed visas

Their "greatest concern" is with the fact that the government has ceased individuals who BROKE THE LAW.... and overstaying a visa has nothing to do with being ARAB!

I’m personally aware of more than 100 who were granted “voluntary departure,” which means that the [Immigration and Naturalization Service] has reviewed their family and work history and agreed to let them leave the country without a black mark on their immigration records.

That's the head of the infamous ACLU (All Criminals Love Us) speaking there! He just admitted that many, after being detained for breaking the law, were not sent to prison! They were sent HOME! :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]

Seppukku

03-01-2008, 10:44 AM

Dave...then what about Wesley Snipes?

Why is the US trying to track him down? Why did they want Bobby Fischer? Why did they want Ezra Pound?

The IRS was going to impound them.

I hate to say it, but I think Scientology's correct on this issue. The IRS is a global terror organization hellbent on putting us all behind bars for the will of Lord Xenu.

B-Rad

03-01-2008, 10:45 AM

Lots of broad assumptions based on that figure... Yes, it's startling, but you also have to look at WHY these people are in prison. Is there an unjust law that can be changed? Do some states need to modernize DNA testing and other methods that could lead to innocents being put in prison? Are Americans just becoming more corrupt? How many are repeat offenders and does this point to an ineffective rehabilitation system? There's a lot of factors that could be looked into for a solution that don't involve legalizing drugs, have nothing to do with our wars, and are unrelated to lots of the other crap thrown out there. Sure, we could save money by not prosecuting people for certain crimes, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'll make the U.S. a better place to live. That's a quick fix solution that could lead to more problems down the road.

Seppukku

03-01-2008, 10:55 AM

What if we banned crime?

mantis7

03-01-2008, 11:01 AM

(I am not a lawyer but this is my understanding thus far about the homeless ness issues and arrest)

I was speaking to my brother about this to get his insight about being arrested while homeless. (Sorry, he is a beat cop)

He said, "You can not be arrested for being homeless. What usually occurs, you will be arrested for vagrancy, trespassing on public property, public nuisance, public lewdness (usually ****ting ****ing in public), public drunk and disorderly, and others.

The homeless get caught in a catch 22. They are poor and have to survive. A lot of the homeless are alcoholics or drug addicts which lead to other issues. It is a social economic carousal ride.

Hell, being arrested for panhandling just had a case in 2007, that a homeless man won. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/nyregion/31loiter.html

The arrest was deemed unconstitutional. Now remember, anything deemed as public property can be used to state that you are trespassing.

So make it of it what you will but things are not as rosy as we think nor is it as bad as some people want us to believe.

Ross
But in the context of this discussion, the fact remains that vagrancy is NOT used to arrest someone to put them in "JAIL". It just doesn't happen. They are sent to shelters. If you want to argue for shelter reform, that's a valid but separate topic

Now I will say that I don't have concrete evidence to dispute your statement, but i do have anecdotal evidence of actual experience. The Police Officers in my family say, :That very rarely are the homeless people taken to shelters when they are arrested. Usually, when they are approached, something occurs that leads them to being taken to the tombs." "They usually get charged with drunken disorderly and other such things." "Vagrancy is used as an excuse for stop and search reasons but from what I gathered is still an arrestable offense." (from my minor understanding)

Mr. Hoffstead, who has been jailed 20 times in Westchester County on misdemeanor charges, remains in custody on a trespassing charge stemming from an arrest on May 22. He is due in court on Friday.

The state penal code holds that a person is loitering if he “remains or wanders about in a public place for the purpose of begging.”

The 1992 federal ruling outlawing that provision came in a case that originated in New York City and applied specifically to enforcement in the city. The provision remained in effect for the rest of the state, and nearly 2,400 people statewide have been charged under the statute in the past decade.

Legal experts say the 1992 ruling is not binding on state courts but could be a strong precedent when judges hear a constitutional challenge.

The New York Police Department issued 791 summonses from June 23, 2005, when a federal judge in Manhattan ordered it to “cease enforcement” of the provision, to Feb. 21, 2007. That enforcement is the subject of a contempt-of-court motion filed by Matthew D. Brinckerhoff.

B-Rad

03-01-2008, 11:23 AM

I think a lot of people forget how different things can be from state to state, and city to city.

Seppukku

03-01-2008, 12:19 PM

I think we should all be a little more sensitive to the plight of the homeless. Just look at President Bush. He wandered from place to place, fell on hard times, and can currently be found squatting somewhere in D.C.

Besides, we all **** and ****. Look how civilized we are. We **** and **** in porcelain bowls, and channel them through underground tubes to transport them to some waste facility. I think the homeless make a great commentary on society by ****ing and ****ting on the streets, in the city, where we do our commerce.

See, it's as if we're the waste facility, and they are the civilized ones.

Drake

03-01-2008, 01:28 PM

Let's not forget other factors, such as there simply being more people around to commit crime, along with better reporting techniques and convictions being easier to get due to new forensic evidence techniques.

lkfmdc

03-01-2008, 02:04 PM

Just when you think things couldn't go any worse for old David Jamieson

for dave-

"Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tax Evader Sentenced to 63 Months in Prison

Earlier today a federal judge sentenced convicted tax evader Elaine Brown to 63 months in prison. She and her husband Ed Brown were both convicted of tax evasion. "

lets call it evasion and then it's not jailing someone for debt!

This is a case of a person in debt? A poor person maybe?

http://ronideutch.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html

Earlier today a federal judge sentenced convicted tax evader Elaine Brown to 63 months in prison. She and her husband Ed Brown were both convicted of tax evasion. He is expected to receive a similar sentence later this afternoon. The two were found guilty by a jury of hiding Elaine’s income from 1996 to 2003, which was $1.9 million

The poor, helpless, desolate woman, put in jail for hiding $1.9 million dollars :rolleyes:

lkfmdc

03-01-2008, 02:11 PM

Just to summarize, David Jamieson went from

you also put them in jail for being in debt, being homeless and angry, for not supervising their teenagers, for looking too arabic etc etc.

to

for dave-

"Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tax Evader Sentenced to 63 Months in Prison

Earlier today a federal judge sentenced convicted tax evader Elaine Brown to 63 months in prison. She and her husband Ed Brown were both convicted of tax evasion. "

lets call it evasion and then it's not jailing someone for debt!

a case where someone tried to conceal $1.9 dollars in income....

Yeah, there's a logical sequence of thought isn't there? :rolleyes:

Black Jack II

03-01-2008, 02:28 PM

Sniff....sniff...this may be the first day I have ever seen on KFO that people bonded together against absurd liberal douchebagery.

I swear this is a fine day:D

SifuAbel

03-01-2008, 10:12 PM

Even better might be a "plan" to use "capitalist principles" within the prison system.

Prisoners are said to have "a debt to society".

In an ass backwards society that would make the most sense. Get more people in jail so they can work for you for free. Thats slavery.

OR!!! How about this logic. Eliminate consensual crimes from the law books. Make it a misdemeanor for smoking a joint in public instead of sending the poor slob to jail for 5 years.

No prison, no debt, in fact we MAKE money on the taxes and fines.

bakxierboxer

03-02-2008, 02:41 AM

In an ass backwards society that would make the most sense. Get more people in jail so they can work for you for free. Thats slavery.

It's either that or let them continue to cost the taxpayers beaucoup $$$ for not much of anything in the way of "relief" or "rehabilitation".
At least my plan won't cost any more $$$ and even stands a bit of a chance to make BACK some $$$ if the cons opt to buy "luxuries" with their legitimately-gotten gains.

OR!!! How about this logic. Eliminate consensual crimes from the law books. Make it a misdemeanor for smoking a joint in public instead of sending the poor slob to jail for 5 years.

How about using "the plan" to convince them that they'd be better off working for themselves on "the outside" than "working for the man" inside?

No prison, no debt, in fact we MAKE money on the taxes and fines.

Great idea.... now how do you propose to set taxes and fines for "minor inconveniences" to the public..... you know, kinda like that stuff called "mass murder"?

Drake

03-02-2008, 06:22 AM

The gov't benefits more from hard-working, high income, educated citizens than it does poor labor in the prison system.

Seppukku

03-02-2008, 06:32 AM

In an ass backwards society that would make the most sense. Get more people in jail so they can work for you for free. Thats slavery.

OR!!! How about this logic. Eliminate consensual crimes from the law books. Make it a misdemeanor for smoking a joint in public instead of sending the poor slob to jail for 5 years.

No prison, no debt, in fact we MAKE money on the taxes and fines.

If we ever do legalize it, I'm putting all of my stocks in Patchouli.

Yet, most of us don't want it legalized. It's not that I'm against people toking up. Rather, it's just that potheads reek like soiled underpants, and I'm not up for walking through sanitized streets that still smell like a waste facility.

diego

03-02-2008, 06:52 AM

If we ever do legalize it, I'm putting all of my stocks in Patchouli.

Yet, most of us don't want it legalized. It's not that I'm against people toking up. Rather, it's just that potheads reek like soiled underpants, and I'm not up for walking through sanitized streets that still smell like a waste facility.

yeah i love the smell of whinos....

Seppukku

03-02-2008, 06:56 AM

Um, I think you meant rhinos.

You'll never live down the rhino friggin' incident of '87. We're like velociraptors.

We remember.

BTW, it's kind of hot in those rhinos.

Eddie

03-02-2008, 07:12 AM

If your police system is working well, and the next thing – the justice system is working well, then does it matter how many people do you have in jail?

My country, the last stats I heard our prisons are something like 89% over populated. If this meant that the Police are actually doing their jobs, and the courts are actually doing their jobs, then I’d be happy. The sad part is, a very small percentage of cases that ends up in court actually gets convicted (in this country). But the biggest problem lies with the Police. Down here you can buy yourself out of ANY situation. Not really surprising if you consider that the average cop takes home – after medical insurance, tax and other minor deductions, about $250.00usd per month). The police doesnt have much success, cause they don’t do much. The whole system is flawed.

I’d be HAPPY to live in a country where criminals are being treated like criminals, and where people who violate other people get to deal with the law.

bakxierboxer

03-02-2008, 04:49 PM

The gov't benefits more from hard-working, high income, educated citizens than it does poor labor in the prison system.

No question about that!

"The plan" would be to develope the idea within the cons themselves that hard/"better" work will benefit them!
They might even be smart enough to carry that idea over to life after their release.

Some part of this is already in use, but I think it's been limited to "menial" tasks and the rewards have not been great enough or emphasized enough to "get through" to the "population".

There's also been no real "negative" attached to not-working.

BM2

03-02-2008, 06:18 PM

I didn't read through this entire thread but the number one reason for the inmate population being there was drug use. They stole for drugs, were under the influence of drugs or for selling them. I believe it was at least 70% of the inmate population.
I worked at a close security prison for 6.5 months. I learned it doesn't go well for you if you have to use a public defender , they will throw the book at you. I saw people doing the same amount of time for rape as someone that did a property crime.
When you think about it, you can get up to five years in prison for using a video camera in a movie theater and you can get five years for a rape, something is wrong.

SifuAbel

03-02-2008, 06:30 PM

Great idea.... now how do you propose to set taxes and fines for "minor inconveniences" to the public..... you know, kinda like that stuff called "mass murder"?

Soooooooooooo, you're saying smoking a joint leads inevitably to mass murder?!?!?!

Is that what you're saying?

The two are not directly connected. Treat drugs like a disease instead of a crime and you'll have a reduction in drug related crime. For one, it will be affordable. Two, it will be the tobacco companies that will mass produce the stuff. You can license, tax and track where it goes and who is producing it. There would be no gang related drug deaths anymore. I don't see Columbian cartels dedicated to running gin.

bakxierboxer

03-02-2008, 09:29 PM

Soooooooooooo, you're saying smoking a joint leads inevitably to mass murder?!?!?!

Is that what you're saying?

Nope, just carrying your idea out to a somewhat logical conclusion.
If taxation and fines can serve to "legalize" pot-smoking, just how much will society (or "the powers that be") decide to charge for the legalization of murder?
In the event of "mass murder" should there be a "quantity discount"?

The two are not directly connected. Treat drugs like a disease...

Sure, why not?
If "your friend" does it, there's a fair possibility that you will end up at least "trying it".... some folks would say that sounds suspiciously like it's a "communicable disease". One tried and true "cure" for "communicable diseases" is "isolation" and/or "quarantine".

OTOH, I heard that, at one point the PRC, while allowing the existing opium users to go on about their "lives" as usual
(perhaps even subsidizing them), decided to "treat" new opium addicts with the "final cure"... aka "death".

For one, it will be affordable. Two, it will be the tobacco companies that will mass produce the stuff. You can license, tax and track where it goes and who is producing it.

That would NOT make up for having a population of stoners staggering about the streets.... and wondering just how GREAT it would be to try "something stronger".
"Like, WOW! Maaaan! I'm HIGH! wonder what it'd be like to get a little bit SIDEWAYS?"

There would be no gang related drug deaths anymore. I don't see Columbian cartels dedicated to running gin.

That's a crock.
Running/selling drugs is just the "current vogue" and easiest-to-market source of income for any/all levels of "criminal enterprise".
Running the equivalent dollar volume of gin takes massively greater shipping capabilities.

Drake

03-02-2008, 10:57 PM

FYI.... rape in the military is punishable by death. People usually get no less than 10 years, though. Suppose our system may be a step above the civilian one.

bakxierboxer

03-02-2008, 11:27 PM

FYI.... rape in the military is punishable by death. People usually get no less than 10 years, though. Suppose our system may be a step above the civilian one.

So long as it IS actually "no less than 10 years".
DOJ ("civilian"?) stats show 10+ years as the "average sentence" with 5+ years as "the norm" for time served.
(although there are times when "The Golden Rule" seems like it'd be an appropriate "comeuppance") :D

That ultimate penalty must be for "something special" since it doesn't seem to be enforced very often, and the sentences for your "average everyday rape" seem to be at least fairly fairly equitable.......

(hmmmm.... "The Golden Rule".......)(or was that "Rod"?)

SifuAbel

03-03-2008, 12:20 AM

SifuAbel

03-03-2008, 12:25 AM

That would NOT make up for having a population of stoners staggering about the streets.... and wondering just how GREAT it would be to try "something stronger".
"Like, WOW! Maaaan! I'm HIGH! wonder what it'd be like to get a little bit SIDEWAYS?"

You mean like........now.

Sorry, but yet another knee jerk reaction.

bakxierboxer

03-03-2008, 12:28 AM

Sorry, but this is knee jerk bull****.

No more so than your positions are typical liberal/brainless/drug-addled bull****. :D

Drake

03-03-2008, 12:28 AM

So long as it IS actually "no less than 10 years".
DOJ ("civilian"?) stats show 10+ years as the "average sentence" with 5+ years as "the norm" for time served.
(although there are times when "The Golden Rule" seems like it'd be an appropriate "comeuppance") :D

That ultimate penalty must be for "something special" since it doesn't seem to be enforced very often, and the sentences for your "average everyday rape" seem to be at least fairly fairly equitable.......

(hmmmm.... "The Golden Rule".......)(or was that "Rod"?)

Well, I think you also have to look at the balance of punishing the offender while at the same time not conducting overkill for the sake of making a point. You don't want to ruin someone, especially if you want to somehow integrate this person back into society at some point. We had a rape case here, and the whole situation was pretty questionable, with both people being drunk, and the accuser not even knowing who she was having sex with. She was later upset because she thought it was someone else, hence the rape charge. The guy is down to around 2-3 yars of prison time after our sergeant major requested clemency for the guy.

bakxierboxer

03-03-2008, 12:38 AM

... We had a rape case here, and the whole situation was pretty questionable, with both people being drunk, and the accuser not even knowing who she was having sex with.

Doesn't sound like much of a case.
There was at least an equal cause for nailing the b1tch with a "morals charge".
Just because the woman has a case of "Near-Terminal Stupid" does not justify charging anyone else with a crime.

She was later upset because she thought it was someone else....

.... and up until she found out she hadn't screwed who she thought she'd screwed, everything was "peachy".... and she may even have been bragging about it.

... hence the rape charge. The guy is down to around 2-3 years of prison time after our sergeant major requested clemency for the guy.

Sounds like a "miscarriage of justice" and an Army Lawyer with too much time on his hands.

bakxierboxer

03-03-2008, 12:43 AM

You mean like........now.

Sorry, but yet another knee jerk reaction.

The "knee jerk" you're trying to use is actually "knee-jerk", and what you're posting is just another knee-jerk liberal blind/non-response, trying to dodge the fact that your own argument has no merit and you have no follow-up argument at all.

SifuAbel

03-03-2008, 12:52 AM

No more so than your positions are typical liberal/brainless/drug-addled bull****. :D

Which is going on legally or illegally whether you like it or not. The war on drugs is yet another abject government FAILURE!!! :rolleyes: It pathetic the faith you have in the "system". Over 50% of our kids in school have tried MJ. That wouldn't be the case if the adult demand(which has never been bigger) was being met through legal channels.

And your knee jerk comparison to murder is still hyperbole at its finest. I bet more murders happen in bars then for a spliff.

BTW, I'm a fence sitting moderate. So I'm neither a liberal or a cave dweller. I neither wish to be in line with anal bleeding hearts or with glutinous pigs that have a funnel permanently attacked to their mouths consuming the world.

So you can take that chili and cheese stained, beer soaked flag out of your ass, wave it a bit, then put back in for a fresh coat.

bakxierboxer

03-03-2008, 01:20 AM

No more so than your positions are typical liberal/brainless/drug-addled bull****.

Which is going on legally or illegally whether you like it or not.

????
I guess "it's" going on legally, since the Liberal Dystopia has yet to be established to prevent you or anyone else from expressing your opinion.... no matter how feeble.

The war on drugs is yet another abject government FAILURE!!! It pathetic the faith you have in the "system".

I have far less "faith" in "the system" since liberal judges/defenders/bleeding-hearts tend to mess up everything they come in contact with.... particularly including the legal and "criminal-justice" systems.
(and they're "going to work on" the health-care system)

Over 50% of our kids in school have tried MJ. That wouldn't be the case if the adult demand(which has never been bigger) was being met through legal channels.

Prove either one of those points... and then show how it is relevant to anything at all.

And your knee jerk comparison to murder is still hyperbole at its finest.

Sure thing.
Extending your idea out to murder was hyperbole, but you didn't have an answer for it.... or even suggest a "good enough" cut-off point for your "idea".

BTW, I'm a fence sitting moderate.

No doubt on one of the points of a white picket fence..... " 'cause it feels so good!" when you get that little bit higher off the ground. :rolleyes:

So I'm neither a liberal or a cave dweller. I neither wish to be in line with anal bleeding hearts or with glutinous pigs with a funnel permanently attacked to my mouth consuming the world.

Of course not!
You just told us you're a "fence-sitter", and with that picket stuck up your arse you're not at all likely to be falling off your perch any time soon.
Gotta be careful, or that picket might cause some of that anal bleeding you don't want to be
"in line with".

So you can take that chili and cheese stained, beer soaked flag out of your ass, wave it a bit, then put back in for a fresh coat.

I don't eat or imbibe that stuff.
There are better/more-traditional places for a flag than that.
OTOH, I have no control over how you choose to use/abuse/pre-treat your own Strange-Pride Flag.... that IS what you wear wrapped around your head, isn't it?

zapruder_bjj

03-03-2008, 01:45 AM

Nope, just carrying your idea out to a somewhat logical conclusion.
If taxation and fines can serve to "legalize" pot-smoking, just how much will society (or "the powers that be") decide to charge for the legalization of murder?
In the event of "mass murder" should there be a "quantity discount"?

Sure, why not?
If "your friend" does it, there's a fair possibility that you will end up at least "trying it".... some folks would say that sounds suspiciously like it's a "communicable disease". One tried and true "cure" for "communicable diseases" is "isolation" and/or "quarantine".

OTOH, I heard that, at one point the PRC, while allowing the existing opium users to go on about their "lives" as usual
(perhaps even subsidizing them), decided to "treat" new opium addicts with the "final cure"... aka "death".

r
That would NOT make up for having a population of stoners staggering about the streets.... and wondering just how GREAT it would be to try "something stronger".
"Like, WOW! Maaaan! I'm HIGH! wonder what it'd be like to get a little bit SIDEWAYS?"

That's a crock.
Running/selling drugs is just the "current vogue" and easiest-to-market source of income for any/all levels of "criminal enterprise".
Running the equivalent dollar volume of gin takes massively greater shipping capabilities.

Your first argument is a blatant straw man and irrelevant conclusion, and in fact most of your arguments consist of at least one variation of the Ignoratio Elenchi. If you would like to support your claims using fallacy free arguments you would end up with a valid truthful conclusion. Please show me REPLICATED studies that show MJ is a gateway drug...or for that matter there is such a thing as a gateway drug. I would also like to see you produce evidence that MJ is a contributing factor to user related crime(i.e. theft, mugging, ect). There is a reason the AMA approved MJ as an accepted medical option. Now remember when responding to this post avoid using logical fallacies, falsifying any argument you create.
Cheers

bakxierboxer

03-03-2008, 02:21 AM

Your first argument is a blatant straw man and irrelevant conclusion.....

Oooooh.... he KNOWS a term! (or thinks he does)
"2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated."
So, now you need to easily refute or defeat it.
Simply calling it a straw man does not make it one.

... and in fact most of your arguments consist of at least one variation of the Ignoratio Elenchi.

WOW! another term!
(please try to figure out what it is you're trying to talk about before talking)
"The mistake or fallacy of arguing to a conclusion that does not bear on the issue at hand, and is therefore irrelevant."
The "issue at hand" is whether or not "legalization" by taxation/fine is appropriate to any crime at all.

If you would like to support your claims using fallacy free arguments you would end up with a valid truthful conclusion.

"Sauce for the goose".... my arguments are no more fallacious than Abel's.
In my view, less so.

Please show me REPLICATED studies that show MJ is a gateway drug...or for that matter there is such a thing as a gateway drug.

The term "gateway drug" has an accepted definition.
In any case, it's a "moot point" since there also seem to be "gateway personalities"/"gateway attitudes" etc.
(& see below)

I would also like to see you produce evidence that MJ is a contributing factor to user related crime(i.e. theft, mugging, ect).
It's another "attitude thing".... people who flout one "law"/"stricture" with relative impunity will tend to go on to "bigger and better".
It's the old "human nature" "give 'em an inch...."

There is a reason the AMA approved MJ as an accepted medical option.

Yeah, it's kinda like a Jewish Mother with her chicken soup:
"It might not help, but it wouldn't hurt!" you know, scientific-like and all that!

Now remember when responding to this post avoid using logical fallacies, falsifying any argument you create.

Cheers

With equal cheer, I recommend that you blow it out your arse!
Again, your saying my arguments are fallacious does not make them so.

zapruder_bjj

03-03-2008, 03:07 AM

Oooooh.... he KNOWS a term! (or thinks he does)
"2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated."
So, now you need to easily refute or defeat it.
Simply calling it a straw man does not make it one.

WOW! another term!
(please try to figure out what it is you're trying to talk about before talking)
"The mistake or fallacy of arguing to a conclusion that does not bear on the issue at hand, and is therefore irrelevant."
The "issue at hand" is whether or not "legalization" by taxation/fine is appropriate to any crime at all.

"Sauce for the goose".... my arguments are no more fallacious than Abel's.
In my view, less so.

The term "gateway drug" has an accepted definition.
In any case, it's a "moot point" since there also seem to be "gateway personalities"/"gateway attitudes" etc.
(& see below)

It's another "attitude thing".... people who flout one "law"/"stricture" with relative impunity will tend to go on to "bigger and better".
It's the old "human nature" "give 'em an inch...."

Yeah, it's kinda like a Jewish Mother with her chicken soup:
"It might not help, but it wouldn't hurt!" you know, scientific-like and all that!

With equal cheer, I recommend that you blow it out your arse!
Again, your saying my arguments are fallacious does not make them so.

Did you miss that last part about not using fallacious arguments? First it is a straw man argument because you equate drug use (a debatable moral position) with mass murder an obvious wrong doing. If you would like to get technical this is also a slippery slope argument as well, as there are gradients to crimes (verbal assault is not the same as physical assault for example ... see definition before you attempt to refute this)

2 I chose to talk about your arguments and not abels, as I have argued with abel before...and there just is no logic so there is no use trying to go through that looking glass. Either way... I will let you tell me what fallacy you implemented there.

3 The term dragon has an accepted definition as well as gryphon, wizard, boogie man, and the tooth fairy; having a definition does not make it reality or science fact. The fact is there is no empirical evidence to support the theory of a gateway drug. Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy, so come with some sort of empirical evidence to support your claim.

4Once again argumentum ad populum as well as slippery slope. So those that jay walk, speed, park in handicapped spaces, walk on the grass, carry plyers in their back pocket(in Texas), drink on Sunday; are these these people more likely now to steal, rape, and murder?

5 No its NOTHING like a Jewish mother and her chicken soup, as this is empirically proven scientific fact.

So once again I invite you to lay out an argument without any fallacies. It is not hard, just go and find the data that you say is so obvious and prove your claims.

bakxierboxer

03-03-2008, 03:58 AM

Did you miss that last part about not using fallacious arguments? First it is a straw man argument because you equate drug use (a debatable moral position) with mass murder an obvious wrong doing.

You have reading comprehension problems.
I did NOT "equate" drug use with murder (mass or otherwise).
My postulate was that it should "cost more" to "legalize" through taxation/fines.

If you would like to get technical this is also a slippery slope argument as well, as there are gradients to crimes

Certainly so.... as I said above, some crimes should
"cost more" if we're going to use "Abel's idea".

(verbal assault is not the same as physical assault for example ... see definition before you attempt to refute this)

You must have a rather strange background to think anyone had an issue with this.
"Physical Assault" is also not necessarily the same thing as "Assault and Battery".

2 I chose to talk about your arguments and not abels....

I'm not here to "talk about my arguments".

... as I have argued with abel before...and there just is no logic so there is no use trying to go through that looking glass.

It seems that we agree on at least one thing.... :eek:

Either way... I will let you tell me what fallacy you implemented there.

I don't particularly care.
I admittedly play "fast'n'loose" with my arguments in an ad hoc manner....
in this case, to refute Abel's position.

3 The term dragon has an accepted definition as well as gryphon, wizard, boogie man, and the tooth fairy; having a definition does not make it reality or science fact.

Having a definition also does not make it imaginary or less-than-fact.

The fact is there is no empirical evidence to support the theory of a gateway drug.

Patent nonsense, given the proliferation of *legal* medications that are known to be addictive.

Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy....

Certainly so... within the domain of logical argument.
Try it out on a crack-head who wants your wallet. :D

so come with some sort of empirical evidence to support your claim.

Come see me after you've developed an adequate empirical database from your "conversations" with those crack-heads.

4Once again argumentum ad populum as well as slippery slope. So those that jay walk, speed, park in handicapped spaces, walk on the grass, carry plyers in their back pocket(in Texas), drink on Sunday; are these these people more likely now to steal, rape, and murder?

Putting shoes on the other foot.... prove they're not.... empirically. Interviewing convicted felons in some out-of-the-way prison should provide a decent starting point for your research, although they're as likely to laugh in your face as answer your questions.

5 No its NOTHING like a Jewish mother and her chicken soup, as this is empirically proven scientific fact.

Where's your proof of fact? :cool:
In point of fact, MJ does not "cure" anything at all.... at best it's a palliative....
???? that kinda sounds like chicken soup, except that the soup happens to have some small amount of nutritional value.

So once again I invite you to lay out an argument without any fallacies. It is not hard, just go and find the data that you say is so obvious and prove your claims.

Again, I think we need to see how it works out with the shoe on the other foot.

I still don't care what you think of my "style" of "argumentation", especially since I don't regard this forum as anything at all like a "debating society".

Drake

03-03-2008, 04:06 AM

Drake

03-03-2008, 04:06 AM

FYI - I'd ban smoking if I could.

zapruder_bjj

03-03-2008, 05:47 AM

The point is, drugs are harmful and addictive. I'm not sure what the imaginary cutoff line is between smoking/alcohol and marijuana, etc, but really, it's all about social responsibility. To live in a society we must have laws, because without them, we'd have anarchy (don't get philosophical with this...it's fact). We must come to an agreement on what works for the general good of the people. If we draw lines in the sand, regardless of whether or not they make the most sense, we should abide by those laws and try ironing out discrepancies later, unless of course they are blatantly unfair, which would require immediate resolution. Notice not once did I suggest ignoring/breaking the law.

There's a right and wrong way of doing things. The war on drugs failed due to mismanagement and going after the wrong people. Education and border control are key elements for keeping out the hard drugs. Marijuana should've been considreed a nuisance until the bigger problems were handled.

There's also secondary effects of drug use. I was stationed at Ft. Huachuca, AZ, and many people were in danger or harmed/killed due to the drug trade. These are not friendly traders walking the Silk Road. They are heavily armed criminals with no concern for human life. Do we really want to support them?

1 Your first point comes down to political ideology; where do you stand on individual freedoms vs "the greater good"

2 I disagree... well with the reasoning, not that the war was mismanaged. All I can ask is how can you win a multi-front war with a foe that has unlimited resources at their disposal?

3 OK this is just too much fallacy, though I believe your heart is in the right place. This is called the converse fallacy of accident. The reason I point out these fallacies...ad nauseam : if you want to be able to say anything with any validity AND truth it must be fallacy free.

I have to ask why would you ban smoking?

sanjuro_ronin

03-03-2008, 06:00 AM

Drake

03-03-2008, 07:42 AM

1 Your first point comes down to political ideology; where do you stand on individual freedoms vs "the greater good"

2 I disagree... well with the reasoning, not that the war was mismanaged. All I can ask is how can you win a multi-front war with a foe that has unlimited resources at their disposal?

3 OK this is just too much fallacy, though I believe your heart is in the right place. This is called the converse fallacy of accident. The reason I point out these fallacies...ad nauseam : if you want to be able to say anything with any validity AND truth it must be fallacy free.

I have to ask why would you ban smoking?

The last paragraph fell victim to me being too lazy to look up verifiable references to common knowledge.

I would ban smoking because it turns people into walking smokestacks, harming everyone around them with known toxic carcinogens.

lkfmdc

03-03-2008, 02:22 PM

Having work in a drug rehab center some time ago I gave up the view of "harmless" or "recreational" drugs.

So, what have we learned so far?

People are in jail for breaking the law, and a lot of people break the law.

College kids who smoke some pot are always big on "drugs are harmless recreation". Those with hands on experience with real drugs never seem to agree

Not saying pot will make you a mass murdered, probably the opposite, it won't make you do anything, or rather it will make you do nothing, uh, other than become an essential part of the late night munchies economy.

The obvious problem, if you legalize pot, it's a gateway to legalizing other drugs. And if you really think legalizing all drugs is a great idea, look into what it actually looks like in practice

zapruder_bjj

03-03-2008, 02:24 PM

The last paragraph fell victim to me being too lazy to look up verifiable references to common knowledge.

I would ban smoking because it turns people into walking smokestacks, harming everyone around them with known toxic carcinogens.

Choice is what freedom and liberty are all about, whether those choices are good or bad, it is the freedom to choose.

Black Jack II

03-03-2008, 02:41 PM

Choice is what freedom and liberty are all about, whether those choices are good or bad, it is the freedom to choose.

Not when it can hurt others.

bakxierboxer

03-03-2008, 02:56 PM

Not when it can hurt others.

????
That doesn't "sound like you"....

There are lots of things that "can hurt others".
You wanna ban all of them?

zapruder_bjj

03-03-2008, 02:59 PM

Not when it can hurt others.

Then shut down all the cola companies, stop manufacturing sugar, stop burning fossil fuels, in fact stop burning everything entirely as ALL smoke contains carcinogens, no more fast food ( check into the addictive qualities and health benefits of it) or how about cell phones and living by power lines, good god man banning things that are bad for you is an absolute effort in futility...moreover WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT BABYSIT US AND MAKE THE DECISIONS FOR US?

zapruder_bjj

03-03-2008, 03:16 PM

College kids who smoke some pot are always big on "drugs are harmless recreation". Those with hands on experience with real drugs never seem to agree

Not saying pot will make you a mass murdered, probably the opposite, it won't make you do anything, or rather it will make you do nothing, uh, other than become an essential part of the late night munchies economy.

The obvious problem, if you legalize pot, it's a gateway to legalizing other drugs. And if you really think legalizing all drugs is a great idea, look into what it actually looks like in practice

I worked in a rehab center while in college(my degree is in psychology and philosophy dual major) and your experiences were not mine experiences. Once again a fallacy in your first statement(this is getting as old for me as it is for you) argumentum ad populum. I urge you to go find the data to support your claims, and once again make sure these studies are reproducible. Here let me show you how: for your second statement you make the assertion that pot smokers have no motivation..cuz hey EVERYBODY knows that.. when in fact here is the scientific data:
Amotivational Syndrome

It has sometimes been observed that when a young person starts smoking marijuana there are systematic changes in that person's lifestyle, ambitions, motivation, and possibly personality. These changes have been collectively referred to as the _amotivational syndrome_, whose symptoms are:

"... apathy, loss of effectiveness, and diminished capacity or willingness to carry out complex, long-term plans, endure frustration, concentrate for long periods, follow routines, or successfully master new material. Verbal facility is often impaired both in speaking and writing. Some individuals exhibit greater introversion, become totally involved with the present at the expense of future goals and demonstrate a strong tendency toward regressive, childlike, magical thinking[1]."

There is no doubt that many young individuals have changed from clean, aggressive, upwardly mobile achievers into the sort of person just described at about the same time as they started smoking marijuana. What is not clear, however, is a causal relationship between the loss of middle class motivations and cannabis. Which comes first, the marijuana or the loss of motivations? This is not easy to answer. In fact, there may be no clearcut answer. To begin with, all we know about the amotivational syndrome is a result of a few case histories. These data cannot answer questions about: a) how common the syndrome is; b) whether the marijuana actually caused the change in behavior; or c) if the change is caused by marijuana, if it is best described as a change in all motivations, specific motivations, or something other than motivation, like ability or personality.

It does not appear as though the amotivational syndrome is all that common among marijuana smokers. In one survey[2] a sample of almost 2000 college students was studied. There was no difference in grade point average and achievement between marijuana users and nonusers, but the users had more difficulty deciding on career goals, and a smaller number were seeking advanced professional degrees. On the other hand, other studies have shown lower school averages and higher dropout rates among users than nonusers. In any case these differences are not great. If there is such a thing as amotivational syndrome, its affects appear to be restricted to a few individuals, probably the small percentage who become heavy users.

Laboratory studies provide additional information on the causal relationship between motivation and marijuana. The Mendelson[3] experiment, where hospitalised volunteers worked on an operant task to earn money and marijuana for 26 days, found that the dose of marijuana smoked did not influence the amount of work done by either the casual-user group or the heavy-user group; all remained motivated to earn and take home a significant amount of money in addition to the work they did for the marijuana. It seems clear that marijuana does not cause a loss of motivation.

While marijuana does not specifically diminish motivation, it is clear that cannabis affects attention and memory, and these are intellectual capacities usually considered necessary for success in educational institutions. We know that a significant tolerance develops to these effects and they can be suppressed voluntarily at low doses, but consistent smoking of high doses of marijuana must impede a successful academic career. In fact, achievement motivation must be high indeed in any individual who combines high levels of cannabis use with a successful academic career.

Since most reports of the amotivational syndrome originated in the sixties in North America, what they seem to describe is a tendency for college students to 'drop out' and assume a lifestyle that rejects traditional achievement motivations of their parents' generation. In an effort to understand this rejection it was very easy to believe that it was pharmacological and to dismiss it as 'amotivational syndrome.'

[1] McGlothin, W.H., & West, L.J. (1968). The marihuana problem: An overview. _American Journal of Psychiatry_, vol. 125, 370-378.

[2] Brill, N.Q., & Christie, R.L. (1974).Marihuana and psychosocial adjustment. _Archives of General Psychiatry_, 31, 713-719.

[3] Mendelson, H.H., Kuehnle, J.C., Greenberg, I., & Mello, N.K. (1976). The effects of marihuana use on human operant behavior: Individual data. In M.C. Broude & S. Szara (eds.), _Pharmacology of marihuana_, vol. 2(pp. 643-653). New York: Academic Press.

For argument 3: Converse Fallacy of Accident and a picture perfect example of this fallacy by the way. Once again I urge you to produce the scientific data to support your claims, and once again make sure the studies are reproducible.

lkfmdc

03-03-2008, 03:18 PM

Then shut down all the cola companies

you can sit next to me all day drinking soda, won't effect me at all.

stop manufacturing sugar

see above

stop burning fossil fuels

Ultimately, for more than the stated reasons, we as a society will have to address fossil fuels. But that is sort of OT to this discussion

no more fast food ( check into the addictive qualities and health benefits of it)

Sorry, I think Crack is a little more addictive than fried chicken (and I love my fried chicken, but I haven't had any in well over a year, I doubt a crack addict could do that)

zapruder_bjj

03-03-2008, 03:26 PM

you can sit next to me all day drinking soda, won't effect me at all.

see above

Ultimately, for more than the stated reasons, we as a society will have to address fossil fuels. But that is sort of OT to this discussion

Sorry, I think Crack is a little more addictive than fried chicken (and I love my fried chicken, but I haven't had any in well over a year, I doubt a crack addict could do that)

Ah but the soda companies are the ones hurting others, slick move but... point being there is a group out there actively hurting others, and since you want to ban things that hurt others...

Lucas

03-03-2008, 03:38 PM

You guys better get to work on banning me.

Cuz It's me that hurts others!

BOOM :eek:

lkfmdc

03-03-2008, 03:44 PM

Ah but the soda companies are the ones hurting others, slick move but... point being there is a group out there actively hurting others, and since you want to ban things that hurt others...

FAIL

your freedom ends where mine begins... and soda companies aren't making me do anything

zapruder_bjj

03-03-2008, 03:54 PM

FAIL

your freedom ends where mine begins... and soda companies aren't making me do anything

So what exactly are smokers making you do again? How about another example then anything that produces an electro magnetic field (power lines, cell phones etc) do we ban these things too? I mean cuz that is where your freedom begins right? The cars that drive by you when you walk down the street belch out more toxic fumes...do we ban those too? I mean cuz that is where your freedom begins right? How about cows..they release more noxious fumes than smokers or cars. Do we ban cows? I mean cuz that is where your freedom begins right

Black Jack II

03-03-2008, 04:36 PM

That doesn't "sound like you"....

True, and I should of been more clear on what I mean, by that I mean a person's freedom ends when it directly effects anothers in a harmful way, within reason.

My statement is all about personal responsibility.

Smoking, your secondhand smoke can get in my daughters lungs, if at a public indoor place, something that really bugs me because the said person can't keep their very harmful habits away from others, but using that example I don't care if its a private smokers estabilshment or whatever, in that context I expect you to tell me to go f@ck off.

But...and this is the but...we are talking about drugs here, not second hand smoke or sugar or porn or anything of that nature, I am a firm believer that so-called soft drugs can have serious issues.

Having said that, I really don't care if you smoke pot in your own home, or up at your cabin, or whatever. It's when you step into a car and plow into mine because you were baked that these habits cross over into my world model.

All I ask is for people to keep their habits off my lawn, take responsibility for one's actions, because I promise you I take responsibility for mine.

zapruder_bjj

03-03-2008, 05:06 PM

True, and I should of been more clear on what I mean, by that I mean a person's freedom ends when it directly effects anothers in a harmful way, within reason.

My statement is all about personal responsibility.

Smoking, your secondhand smoke can get in my daughters lungs, if at a public indoor place, something that really bugs me because the said person can't keep their very harmful habits away from others, but using that example I don't care if its a private smokers estabilshment or whatever, in that context I expect you to tell me to go f@ck off.

But...and this is the but...we are talking about drugs here, not second hand smoke or sugar or porn or anything of that nature, I am a firm believer that so-called soft drugs can have serious issues.

Having said that, I really don't care if you smoke pot in your own home, or up at your cabin, or whatever. It's when you step into a car and plow into mine because you were baked that these habits cross over into my world model.

All I ask is for people to keep their habits off my lawn, take responsibility for one's actions, because I promise you I take responsibility for mine.

WELL SIR it seems we are in FULL agreement. Personal responsibility comes FIRST and foremost in a free society. period.

bakxierboxer

03-03-2008, 05:07 PM

True, and I should of been more clear on what I mean....

AH!
MUCH better! (and very clear, indeed) :)

Of course, a certain someone had to take the original statement, attribute it to all and sundry and "run with it".
Hopefully, that will now cease......

zapruder_bjj

03-03-2008, 05:22 PM

AH!
MUCH better! (and very clear, indeed) :)

Of course, a certain someone had to take the original statement, attribute it to all and sundry and "run with it".
Hopefully, that will now cease......

Communication must be clear to be understood, which is why I am such a stickler about logical fallacies.

bakxierboxer

03-03-2008, 06:28 PM

Communication must be clear to be understood, which is why I am such a stickler about logical fallacies.

Yeah, I also liked the clarity of your bit of research giving "empirical proof" of the "gateway personalities" and "gateway attitudes" I mentioned earlier. :D

zapruder_bjj

03-03-2008, 06:51 PM

Yeah, I also liked the clarity of your bit of research giving "empirical proof" of the "gateway personalities" and "gateway attitudes" I mentioned earlier. :D

There is no proof of gateway personalities or attitudes, so I am confused by your comment.

bakxierboxer

03-03-2008, 07:27 PM

There is no proof of gateway personalities or attitudes, so I am confused by your comment.

Not by those specific terms, no.
Whatsamatter? Can't take a compliment? :D

SifuAbel

03-03-2008, 08:23 PM

Having said that, I really don't care if you smoke pot in your own home, or up at your cabin, or whatever. It's when you step into a car and plow into mine because you were baked that these habits cross over into my world model.

All I ask is for people to keep their habits off my lawn, take responsibility for one's actions, because I promise you I take responsibility for mine.

There ARE drunk driving laws. YET there are drunk drivers. Go figure. Got prohibition? :rolleyes: Bottom line is that nothing would change in that respect. DUI laws wouldn't suddenly be repealed.

To say that there would be this grand explosion of pot smokers if it became legal is ridiculous. Ross suddenly being infected with refer madness and becoming a heroine addict because of it, while being a hilarious visual, is preposterous. In fact, you're all behind the curve. Its already there. The grand explosion happened 20 years ago and it still expanding.

BJII, you want your daughter not to smoke dope? Teach her not to. Thats ALL you can do. It IS everywhere. And there is a 1 out of 2 chance she might try it anyways.

People, the point isn't whether or not drugs are bad for you. They are. The point is that they are here, they being used widely, and what is required to treat this disease doesn't exist in a jail cell. The laws need to CHANGE. Throwing people in jail where they are likely to get MORE drugs is a typical anti logic this GOV is proud of.

Black Jack II

03-03-2008, 08:41 PM

BJII, you want your daughter not to smoke dope? Teach her not to. Thats ALL you can do. It IS everywhere. And there is a 1 out of 2 chance she might try it anyways.

Of course, that is all you can do, be the best parent you can be, and instill the best value system you can.

It is all and will always be about the parenting.

Having said that and agreed it is a frightening vision to in my view to have drug legalization. The war on drugs, though absurdly expensive, is not a failure.

Exposing the dangers of drug use, arresting, prosecuting, and jailing pushers is an expensive price but one we most pay. To think that if we legalize drugs, than the drug pushers will just roll over and go to sleep is wrong thinking and bad logic.

The drug business is a very profitable business in the world, people do not walk away from profit, and if it becomes legit than all we are doing is making our law enforcement officers into enforcers for the drug community.

Now...if you are talking about jail and rehab programs Abel, that is another story and one we may get more mileage out of, well maybe at least in terms of certain types of offenders, and in specific urban kids.

SifuAbel

03-03-2008, 08:49 PM

I don't eat or imbibe that stuff.
There are better/more-traditional places for a flag than that.
OTOH, I have no control over how you choose to use/abuse/pre-treat your own Strange-Pride Flag.... that IS what you wear wrapped around your head, isn't it?

Wow, you are a dense little hate mongering cocksucker, aren't you. Welcome imperial fantasy camp. Population, you.

SifuAbel

03-03-2008, 08:57 PM

Of course, that is all you can do, be the best parent you can be, and instill the best value system you can.

It is all and will always be about the parenting.

Having said that and agreed it is a frightening vision to in my view to have drug legalization. The war on drugs, though absurdly expensive, is not a failure.

Exposing the dangers of drug use, arresting, prosecuting, and jailing pushers is an expensive price but one we most pay. To think that if we legalize drugs, than the drug pushers will just roll over and go to sleep is wrong thinking and bad logic.

alcohol The drug business is a very profitable business in the world, people do not walk away from profit, and if it becomes legit than all we are doing is making our law enforcement officers into enforcers for the drug community.

Now...if you are talking about jail and rehab programs Abel, that is another story and one we may get more mileage out of, well maybe at least in terms of certain types of offenders, and in specific urban kids.

Thats the point. There wouldn't be pushers on the street to prosecute. The adult supply would be easily purchased at a licensed dealer. Like alcohol. That loss of margin is death to the drug cartel's profit. After prohibition ended, the Mob's hold on the booze market went to 0. It would no longer be a profitable enterprise to hold on to.

The war on drugs is a failure and a farce. It is only intensifying the situation. It will never be won. Maybe until we are all in jail. But then again it would be easier to get. Irony.

The paradox of resource is another fault of the "just say no" generation. Thank you Nancy Regan. The money spent on the war on drugs would pay for rehab, treatment and educational programs MANY times over.

Drake

03-03-2008, 09:57 PM

The point is you can choose to drink cola, choose to eat fast food, and choose to employ logical fallacies after claiming to be a stickler with them. You are not given a choice when inhaling sidestream smoke. Ban it.

sanjuro_ronin

03-04-2008, 05:21 AM

Over the last few years here the govermnent has made it very clear their stance on Tabaco, I just don;t think that people are grasping what the government is really doing.
By putting HUGE signs on cigarette cases and in advertising stating that smoking is dangerous to you AND others, by banning smoking in public places, they are setting smokers up for a very big fall, can you guess what it is?
Hint: Has to do with health care and the HUGE amount of money spent on dealing with smoke related issues.

Drake

03-04-2008, 05:25 AM

sanjuro_ronin

03-04-2008, 05:31 AM

And the blatant fact that they are hurting others as well as themselves.

From what I gather, "they" are working on a test to see if a person's "smoke related" issues are second hand or direct-responisbility.
The one they have now is not 100%, it basically tests the mouth and tounge since a person that has been exposed to second hand smoke won't have direct damage to those areas, but "they" want better tests to make sure.

In other words, if you smoke its YOUR problem to deal with YOUR health issues since you have been well warned NOT to smoke for quite some time.
Second hand smokers will still get their treatments paid for by the government, but not people that had done "it to themselves".

Of course, this is just a "rumour"....

Drake

03-04-2008, 05:36 AM

From what I gather, "they" are working on a test to see if a person's "smoke related" issues are second hand or direct-responisbility.
The one they have now is not 100%, it basically tests the mouth and tounge since a person that has been exposed to second hand smoke won't have direct damage to those areas, but "they" want better tests to make sure.

In other words, if you smoke its YOUR problem to deal with YOUR health issues since you have been well warned NOT to smoke for quite some time.
Second hand smokers will still get their treatments paid for by the government, but not people that had done "it to themselves".

Of course, this is just a "rumour"....

I don't care if they will treat me for emphysema. It's eventually terminal, and a nasty road to your end. Airborne carcinogens are dangerous. That's why they banned asbestos in insulation way back when.

sanjuro_ronin

03-04-2008, 05:39 AM

The cost of treating smoke related diseases is in the billions.

David Jamieson

03-04-2008, 06:11 AM

The cost of treating smoke related diseases is in the billions.

you have to admit that smokers who do fall victim to smoking (because there are many who don't) pay their own way through the medical system.

In the states you gotta pay and in canada, they pay double.

1. they pay into out=r universal health care system like everyone else
2. they pay the greater portion of the cost of their vice in taxes that directly go to their health care when they are flagging from teh smoking.

bottom line is that the government does allow for some vices to be proliferate and others are not allowed.

the "war on drugs" demands some 50 or so billion dollars each year.

where does that go?

i'm not even sure there is that much drug consumed. It is probably more fiscally responsible to stop this war on drugs and start some other program aimed at stemming the problem of hopeless listless malaise in our societies. :)

sanjuro_ronin

03-04-2008, 06:43 AM

Ah, the "war on drugs"...

I don't even wanna touch that can of worms...

Drake

03-04-2008, 07:31 AM

you have to admit that smokers who do fall victim to smoking (because there are many who don't) pay their own way through the medical system.

Not in the US they don't.

bakxierboxer

03-04-2008, 11:53 AM

Wow, you are a dense little hate mongering cocksucker, aren't you. Welcome imperial fantasy camp. Population, you.

OK, "Mr. Pot"... just because you like something doesn't mean anyone else does....

bakxierboxer

03-04-2008, 12:03 PM

you have to admit that smokers who do fall victim to smoking (because there are many who don't) pay their own way through the medical system.

OTOH, if smoking really does kill them, they will all die "early".... yielding a "windfall"/"bonanza" for the HealthCare and Social Security programs.
So, perhaps the gummint ought to pay people to smoke!????

In the states you gotta pay and in canada, they pay double.

1. they pay into out=r universal health care system like everyone else
2. they pay the greater portion of the cost of their vice in taxes that directly go to their health care when they are flagging from teh smoking.

Except in California, where they've found "better things to do with the money".
A largish chunk (if not all, by now) goes into the "Education" "budget"/sink-hole.

Lucas

03-04-2008, 12:24 PM

My favorite are the legal drugs you see advertized on television.

You know, the ones that give you blindness, constipation, insomnia, heart problems, loss of apetite, internal damage, etc.

and fix one small, often times social, problem.

arent drugs already legal? We just get to choose which ones we can keep in control because we produce them and sell them.

Not too many kids making viagra in their basements.

If it were up to me I would get rid of them all, even alchohol.

But its not up to me. They wont let me kill heroin dealers.....

How many kids start getting high from their own parents medicine cabinet?? answer: LOTS

sanjuro_ronin

03-04-2008, 12:29 PM

The person that can make a "herbal" verison of viagra without the side effects and dependancy issues will make a fortune greater than anything in Medalene Cartel !
:D

zapruder_bjj

03-04-2008, 12:40 PM

sanjuro_ronin

03-04-2008, 12:41 PM

Point them out fascist.

You say fascist as if that is a bad thing.

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

- John Adams,
Letter, April 15, 1814

zapruder_bjj

03-04-2008, 01:06 PM

You say fascist as if that is a bad thing.

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

- John Adams,
Letter, April 15, 1814

All societies die..but not all societies live...YOU CANT TAKE OUR FREEEEEEDDDOOOOMM!!!!!!:D

sanjuro_ronin

03-04-2008, 01:08 PM

All societies die..but not all societies live...YOU CANT TAKE OUR FREEEEEEDDDOOOOMM!!!!!!:D

Excellent comeback !!
:D

zapruder_bjj

03-04-2008, 01:12 PM

Excellent comeback !!
:D

What do you say to someone that supports fascism? I mean all I can do now is throw a joke out there and move on. They want no part of a free and democratic country so thats that.

sanjuro_ronin

03-04-2008, 01:21 PM

What do you say to someone that supports fascism? I mean all I can do now is throw a joke out there and move on. They want no part of a free and democratic country so thats that.

One mans' democracy is another man's dictatorship...

Democracy is a funny thing, some will argue that it either is or it isn't, that there is no "gray" area, other view the world as one great gray area.

Dealing in absolutes is never the way to go.

1bad65

03-04-2008, 01:30 PM

One mans' democracy is another man's dictatorship...

Democracy is a funny thing, some will argue that it either is or it isn't, that there is no "gray" area, other view the world as one great gray area.

Dealing in absolutes is never the way to go.

But you are always free to leave in a democratic society.

Remember; free countries build fences to keep people out, dictatorships build them to keep people in.

sanjuro_ronin

03-04-2008, 01:47 PM

But you are always free to leave in a democratic society.

Remember; free countries build fences to keep people out, dictatorships build them to keep people in.

More importantly, you are also free to change it.

That said, democracy gives no one the right to voluntarily harm others.

bakxierboxer

03-04-2008, 02:05 PM

You say fascist as if that is a bad thing.

"It's all relative...."

My extremely Liberal younger brother used to call me a Nazi, and insisted that he had every right in the world to take whatever drugs he liked.

We agreed to disagree....

Being something of a "speedy" type, he died from "burnout" some time back....

Drake

03-04-2008, 02:05 PM

bakxierboxer

03-04-2008, 02:14 PM

Honestly, if I had my way, I'd crush you all under an iron fist of oppression. Someone has to grab the reins and start running this monkey farm, because history keeps showing that people are too stupid to manage themselves as a collective.

If you'd promise (cross yer heart) to be only "slightly less oppressive" (perhaps only an "Iron Palm of Repression(tm)"?), you'd have my vote....... :D

Drake

03-05-2008, 02:32 AM

Maybe an iron caress? An iron pat on the back?

Either way...as long as my people behave, there's no need for my secret police to drag them from their homes in the dead of night.

bakxierboxer

03-05-2008, 02:45 AM

Maybe an iron caress? An iron pat on the back?

Either way...as long as my people behave, there's no need for my secret police to drag them from their homes in the dead of night.

:confused:
WHAT????!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
NO beating about the head and ears?
NO splinters under the fingernails?
WHAT kinda discipline izzat???!!!
HOW in the blue blazes can ANYONE feel properly repressed without a little bit of "encouragement"?
!@#$#% #$%$&^((!!!!

Drake

03-05-2008, 02:50 AM

:confused:
WHAT????!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
NO beating about the head and ears?
NO splinters under the fingernails?
WHAT kinda discipline izzat???!!!
HOW in the blue blazes can ANYONE feel properly repressed without a little bit of "encouragement"?
!@#$#% #$%$&^((!!!!

"Behave" can mean many things, and the definition often changes. Keeps people on their toes. :D

bakxierboxer

03-05-2008, 03:15 AM

"Behave" can mean many things, and the definition often changes. Keeps people on their toes. :D

Long as you don't start it off with that little old ditty:

"If you bend over and touch your toes....."

bodhitree

03-05-2008, 08:53 AM

Being something of a "speedy" type, he died from "burnout" some time back....

Dude, are you serious? That's a shame, sorry to you and your family.

David Jamieson

03-05-2008, 09:24 AM

Honestly, if I had my way, I'd crush you all under an iron fist of oppression. Someone has to grab the reins and start running this monkey farm, because history keeps showing that people are too stupid to manage themselves as a collective.

let's see now, we went from cave people, to neolithic people, to the bronze age, to the iron age, to the industrial age, to the nuclear age and now we sit at the edge again of progress and understanding.

I don't think we are that great of a failure to ourselves. I do believe there are a great deal of us who are unwilling to do much about anything and are satisfied to live our lives out and that's that.

Then there are some of us who push forward, always claiming new ground of understanding and knowing.

So, because of this more or less historical record of success that shows that aggressive iron hand type rulers rise and fall and collapse in the period of their life time, then I would say that this thinking is the backwards kind and not the kind that wants people as a whole to work together towards a better tomorrow.

Having said that, yes we will make mistakes, but how are we to learn. For instance, democracy today has taken a step backwards and right now doesn't look like much more than a dictatorship fo the majority. At least in the G8 countries that 's how it is at the moment. This is a flaw and is dangerous. It is important to not let aristocratic types take contreol of governments or to set in place rules of governance that destroy the foundations and good stuff of democracy.

in my opinion there is a need for change in the implementation of democracy. and it has to be a step to previous models and not a continuance of what there is now.

bakxierboxer

03-05-2008, 09:51 AM

Dude, are you serious? That's a shame, sorry to you and your family.

Dead serious..... (POOH!)

Thanks for the condolences.

He lived his life the way he wanted to....
It still broke me up when it happened 'cause you just don't expect the younger one to go first.... now I've gotta "wait'n'see" what happens with the youngest who did not "do" quite as much, but still has "a problem" to deal with. TCM helps him.

Also lost my Dad more recently... but, he was "ready" for it, which made a bit of a difference.

When you start "getting on in years" this kinda stuff "happens when it happens".... not an awful lot to do or say about it other than "the obvious".

I only brought it up because it seemed to have a bit of a relationship to one of the ongoing topics.

AJM

03-06-2008, 10:29 AM

As a former correctional officer I cantell you that in my opinion nearly half of the people doing time are for things that I don't consider crimes.

sanjuro_ronin

03-06-2008, 11:21 AM

As a former correctional officer I cantell you that in my opinion nearly half of the people doing time are for things that I don't consider crimes.

that is a huge statement

SifuAbel

03-06-2008, 07:01 PM

"It's all relative...."

My extremely Liberal younger brother used to call me a Nazi, and insisted that he had every right in the world to take whatever drugs he liked.

We agreed to disagree....

Being something of a "speedy" type, he died from "burnout" some time back....

Not to sound callous, but it makes you wonder if things would be different if Regan didn't totally cut federal spending for treatment instead of the much cheaper "just say no" campaign. And In cheaper I mean the trillions spent on prosecution and recidivism.

You are a Nazi.

The "you're a traitorous, liberal, towel head" comment in 3..........2...........1.

bakxierboxer

03-06-2008, 07:52 PM

Not to sound callous, but it makes you wonder if things would be different if Regan didn't totally cut federal spending for treatment instead of the much cheaper "just say no" campaign. And In cheaper I mean the trillions spent on prosecution and recidivism.

Any money spent on treatment is a waste.
None of them will quit until THEY decide to do it.

You are a Nazi.

The "you're a traitorous, liberal, towel head" comment in 3..........2...........1.

Sorry if I messed up your count, butit's not my problem if your drug-addled brain has trouble counting high enough for the time elapsed since you posted that crap.

Not the words I'd choose.... try:

"You're a subversive, commie, fat-head-covering, brainless turd."

Oh, yeah... you also have absolutely NO idea what a real NAZI is like.

zapruder_bjj

03-07-2008, 04:08 PM

Any money spent on treatment is a waste.
None of them will quit until THEY decide to do it.

Sorry if I messed up your count, butit's not my problem if your drug-addled brain has trouble counting high enough for the time elapsed since you posted that crap.

Not the words I'd choose.... try:

"You're a subversive, commie, fat-head-covering, brainless turd."

Oh, yeah... you also have absolutely NO idea what a real NAZI is like.

Hmm I am torn, as I agree with your first statement...I am just not sure how this makes me feel :p Seriously though all the data out there supports legalization WOULD solve many of the problems the drug war has created, and yes there would be other problems that are introduced, but violent crime and over crowded jails would be reduced PERIOD. This would also lead to the fall of drug cartels. Now that being said all of the recourses that are wasted trying to catch the evil drugs that WILL be pushed across our borders no matter what, they can be used to curb illegals(and if you ask any border security nothing is better than feet on the beat for this) The money spent for lying propaganda could be spent of a variety of other programs to address the newer problems. And there is the revenue that would be generated by the taxation of these drugs.

Now all that being said the best models we have out there now suggest that some drugs should be legalized and others just decriminalized based on the nature of the drug itself. If the government would use their resources to find a real solution instead of clinging to a policy that is unrealistic and unwinnable, we would make some progression solving this problem.

zapruder_bjj

03-07-2008, 04:11 PM

One more thing Rudy please stop posting on this thread. It is people like you that make supporting drug reform policies look like morons

bakxierboxer

03-08-2008, 09:50 AM

Hmm I am torn, as I agree with your first statement...

???? :eek:
"Will wonders never cease?" :rolleyes:

I am just not sure how this makes me feel...

You ARE entitled to your "feelings".
OTOH, your "feelings" are your very own internal response.... "subjective" so to speak.
"In the real world", we need to concern ourselves with the "objective".

Seriously though all the data out there supports legalization WOULD solve many of the problems the drug war has created, and yes there would be other problems that are introduced, but violent crime and over crowded jails would be reduced PERIOD. This would also lead to the fall of drug cartels.

Tsk!
"Sauce for the goose..."?
Although that appears to be a "slippery slope" argument, it more closely approximates a "converse accident"... two known forms of "fallacy" you chose to cite in the past.
However, the "slippery slope" is not always a fallacy, whereas the "converse accident" always is a "formal" fallacy.

Now that being said all of the recourses that are wasted....

"resources"... I might argue that "recourse" (to "summary execution" in this case) would be "more efficacious" in ending an addiction.

.... trying to catch the evil drugs that WILL be pushed across our borders no matter what....

"It's a buyer's market..."

The money spent for lying propaganda...

"Mere characterization" of a policy as "propaganda" does not make it "a lie".

... could be spent of a variety of other programs to address the newer problems.

You ever hear of "the (Lernaean) Hydra"?

And there is the revenue that would be generated by the taxation of these drugs.

"Catch me if you can".... song by numerous "artists".

Now all that being said the best models we have out there now suggest that some drugs should be legalized and others just decriminalized based on the nature of the drug itself. If the government would use their resources to find a real solution instead of clinging to a policy that is unrealistic and unwinnable, we would make some progression solving this problem.

As I see it, the real problem is one of "permissiveness",which is an example of "the slippery slope".... (ok, that, in itself, is "arguable", but certainly seems to be, to me, "demonstrable"))

zapruder_bjj

03-08-2008, 03:58 PM

Ah the joy of semantics! I have empirical evidence to back up my claims, where is yours.

bakxierboxer

03-08-2008, 04:20 PM

Ah the joy of semantics! I have empirical evidence to back up my claims, where is yours.

I actually see it in your so-excellent empirically-founded post #129....
Simply because you choose to "not-see" it is not my problem.

zapruder_bjj

03-08-2008, 06:25 PM

I actually see it in your so-excellent empirically-founded post #129....
Simply because you choose to "not-see" it is not my problem.

So are you asking for more data? There is plenty of it, so if you want more jsut ask.

bakxierboxer

03-08-2008, 07:03 PM

So are you asking for more data? There is plenty of it, so if you want more jsut ask.

Thanks, but no thanks. :D
I'm fine with what I 've gotten to date. :eek:

zapruder_bjj

03-09-2008, 12:47 AM

Thanks, but no thanks. :D
I'm fine with what I 've gotten to date. :eek:

Ok just make sure to lube up the fingers before inserting them into your ears, you wouldnt want them chaffing upon entry.

zapruder_bjj

03-09-2008, 02:45 PM

Thanks, but no thanks. :D
I'm fine with what I 've gotten to date. :eek:

And it is people like you that kept science at bay and the world "flat" for all those years.

bakxierboxer

03-09-2008, 06:27 PM

Ok just make sure to lube up the fingers before inserting them into your ears, you wouldnt want them chaffing upon entry.

As indicated in your post, there IS at least ONE thing you fail to understand.... everyone else is NOT "like you".
For the most part (OK, I have none of "your" "empirical evidence" for this), the general populace does NOT have "free passage" between their ears.

OTOH, if they did, there would be a whole lot more incidences of being able to "see light from the other side" when happening to get a direct look at one of their ears.

bakxierboxer

03-09-2008, 06:30 PM

And it is people like you that kept science at bay...

As in "baying at the (someone else's) moon"?

... and the world "flat" for all those years.

Supermodels gotta come from somewhere.

Lee Chiang Po

03-09-2008, 07:32 PM

The real problem with our society, what with all the new prisons and people to fill them, is society itself. Society has taken the right to parent away from the us. Meaning that you can no longer beat the hell out of your teenager for making seriously wrong decisions. We become a part of the judicial system when we do. Then when the courts have to start dealing with them, they want to blame the parents for not doing enough. How do you punish a child when they can tell you to K T A and you can not do anything? The greatest ally that we ever had was the military draft. They took 18 year olds that were not doing anything with their lives and cleaned their minds out and rebuilt them into young men. Today, they graduate from highschool and take to the streets. No guidance, no structure, and no sense of responsibility. Certainly no work ethic. For this reason the great and growing industry of prison building moves to the forefront. You can build you own prison, license it and house inmates for so much a head, and you can use thugs to run them. It has already gone beyond recovery. There is no way of changing it now. We will have to reinstate the draft and wait for a whole new generation to come along.
Another solution would be to use the national guard and round up all registered felons and execute them. We toy with the death penalty, but it is our salvation. Why feed and house people that we know are beyond rehabilitation? It is insane. Just terminate them and be done. Make room for those that can be rehabilitated. And rather than sentence someone to several years in prison, sentence them to serve several years in the military serving their country. Boot camp and a few ass kickings will clean up their act. And for those that are too old or too far gone, make dog food out of them. Sig Heil

zapruder_bjj

03-09-2008, 10:50 PM

As indicated in your post, there IS at least ONE thing you fail to understand.... everyone else is NOT "like you".
For the most part (OK, I have none of "your" "empirical evidence" for this), the general populace does NOT have "free passage" between their ears.

OTOH, if they did, there would be a whole lot more incidences of being able to "see light from the other side" when happening to get a direct look at one of their ears.

There is a reason you do not have any empirical evidence, because there is no studies that can be replicated to support your argument. That is why I spoke about propaganda earlier, because blatant refusal to hear the evidence (the FDA refusing to hear the evidence brought to them by the AMA) and using studies that can not be reproduced multiple times (ie good science) the government is spewing propaganda. There was a reason the founding fathers didnt make opium dens illegal, and god knows they didnt think highly of the average persons intellect.

bakxierboxer

03-10-2008, 08:38 AM

... because there is no studies...

"... because there ARE no studies..."

... that can be replicated to support your argument.

Ever have anyone tell you to "think for yourself"?

That is why I spoke about propaganda earlier, because blatant refusal to hear the evidence (the FDA refusing to hear the evidence brought to them by the AMA)

... and you actually think that the AMA is truthful/selfless and has no axe to grind?

... and using studies that can not be reproduced multiple times (ie good science)...

Or possibly repetitive drudgework.

.... the government is spewing propaganda.
According to you.
As before, simply calling something "proganda" does not make it wrong.

There was a reason the founding fathers didnt make opium dens illegal, and god knows they didnt think highly of the average persons intellect.

Of course not, some of them were Puritans and might well have banned breathing through a gas mask if the filters in it resembled women's underwear.
It's also the case that "intellect" was confined to the "upper classes" in those days.

In any case, now you've got me curious....
Just what IS it that you've been sticking deep in your ears that requires a lubricant?

zapruder_bjj

03-10-2008, 09:46 AM

Well since you dont seem to even know the definition of propaganda, here ya go:

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

I cant think for myself and say the moon is made of cheese, yet it doesnt make it so. And while on that note, how is it we know this? Why...its scientific data, and lets see, if I gather a sample of moon rock today, will it still not be made of cheese tomorrow? Ah...wait yes it will because it is a study that can be replicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zapruder_bjj View Post
... because there is no studies...
"... because there ARE no studies..."

Quote:

There you go grasp at them typo straws since you have no facts to base your argument.

Quote:
That is why I spoke about propaganda earlier, because blatant refusal to hear the evidence (the FDA refusing to hear the evidence brought to them by the AMA)
... and you actually think that the AMA is truthful/selfless and has no axe to grind?

So I am confused the AMA disseminates propaganda but the government doesnt?

Quote:
... and using studies that can not be reproduced multiple times (ie good science)...
Or possibly repetitive drudgework.

NO!! This is called good science. A hypothesis may not become theory until it is shown to be true...and how is that by replicating the results.

It is strange to watch a person cling to their ideas in the face of facts, cuz gol darnit you knows the real truth about the world, dont have to look at the real world to know about it

bakxierboxer

03-10-2008, 10:32 AM

Well since you dont seem to even know the definition of propaganda, here ya go:

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

You're just proving me right, since your initial use of it assumed that it was always a NEGATIVE type of "info".

I cant think for myself....

If you say so.

and say the moon is made of cheese, yet it doesnt make it so.

Seemingly, nothing you say does that.... at least insofar as what you've posted in this thread.

And while on that note, how is it we know this? Why...its scientific data, and lets see, if I gather a sample of moon rock today, will it still not be made of cheese tomorrow? Ah...wait yes it will because it is a study that can be replicated.

That was always supposed to be "green cheese", but any fool (with working eyes) can see it isn't green.... so, most folks just chalked that up to a kiddie tale.
You, OTOH, needed "proof"?

Originally Posted by zapruder_bjj View Post
... because there is no studies...
"... because there ARE no studies..."

There you go grasp at them typo straws since you have no facts to base your argument.

???
Seems to me you're acknowledging your mistake as a "fact"......

That is why I spoke about propaganda earlier, because blatant refusal to hear the evidence (the FDA refusing to hear the evidence brought to them by the AMA)

... and you actually think that the AMA is truthful/selfless and has no axe to grind?

So I am confused the AMA disseminates propaganda but the government doesnt?

I think that it would be a very unusual organization that didn't use:
"The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." (aka "their" cause)
aka: "propaganda"

... and using studies that can not be reproduced multiple times (ie good science)...

Or possibly repetitive drudgework.

NO!! This is called good science. A hypothesis may not become theory until it is shown to be true...and how is that by replicating the results.

OTOH, a "theory" is still not a "law".....

It is strange to watch a person cling to their ideas in the face of facts, cuz gol darnit you knows the real truth about the world, dont have to look at the real world to know about it

I think you need to "make allowances" for those who choose to look (and think) for themselves.

zapruder_bjj

03-10-2008, 03:54 PM

I can hear you now, with fingers jammed in ears LALALALA LALALA LALA LALALALA!!!!!

bakxierboxer

03-10-2008, 04:35 PM

I can hear you now, with fingers jammed in ears LALALALA LALALA LALA LALALALA!!!!!

You hear funny.
The only thing you're likely to hear like that is "the sound of the ocean" "roaring in your ears"... no doubt accentuated by the echo from the vast emptiness between those same ears.
This very emptiness may well have been caused by sticking all those well-lubricated thingies through there.

OTOH, this seems to be "getting old"....maybe we should stop it?

1bad65

03-10-2008, 05:06 PM

Maybe instead of trying to be witty you actually present evidence baking up your claims.

bakxierboxer

03-10-2008, 05:09 PM

Maybe instead of trying to be witty you actually present evidence baking up your claims.

WHAT!!!??
That's no fun at all!

Drake

03-11-2008, 12:33 AM

let's see now, we went from cave people, to neolithic people, to the bronze age, to the iron age, to the industrial age, to the nuclear age and now we sit at the edge again of progress and understanding.

I don't think we are that great of a failure to ourselves. I do believe there are a great deal of us who are unwilling to do much about anything and are satisfied to live our lives out and that's that.

Then there are some of us who push forward, always claiming new ground of understanding and knowing.

So, because of this more or less historical record of success that shows that aggressive iron hand type rulers rise and fall and collapse in the period of their life time, then I would say that this thinking is the backwards kind and not the kind that wants people as a whole to work together towards a better tomorrow.

Having said that, yes we will make mistakes, but how are we to learn. For instance, democracy today has taken a step backwards and right now doesn't look like much more than a dictatorship fo the majority. At least in the G8 countries that 's how it is at the moment. This is a flaw and is dangerous. It is important to not let aristocratic types take contreol of governments or to set in place rules of governance that destroy the foundations and good stuff of democracy.

in my opinion there is a need for change in the implementation of democracy. and it has to be a step to previous models and not a continuance of what there is now.

From that same historical perspective, then you'll also admit that most of our progress has been through war and conquering. The USA sits on what used to be someone else's home, people are fighting in the middle east about who oppressed who, and the very message board we argue on was the end result of a military project. Industrial modernization to fight the German war machine, nuclear research in order to best the Russians, countries forcibly brought into compliance by the European expansionists, and even modern aviation was all brought about by the art of war and conquering. All peace ever got anyone was a one way ticket to being on the short end of that stick (See Tibet, Native Americans, "neutral" WWII nations, etc).

So give me the story of peace and harmony all you like, but the fact is, we got to where we are by way of spear, sword, and ridiculously gigantic bombs.

greendragon

03-11-2008, 10:28 PM

Drake

03-12-2008, 01:19 AM

A HUGE percentage of the incarcerated are in for drug offenses. Why pay their room and board ? If we legalize all drugs, it takes the big profit out of manufacturing and distributing them, addicts won't need to commit crime to pay the high prices. The "war on drugs" can quit and save billions. The thrill of forbidden fruit will be gone for kids who will then see it as a lame sickness. It is corrupt government that makes money from illegal drugs. All those fields of opium poppies in Afghanistan keeping money flowing to the Taliban, why don't we napalm those fields ? The government flooded the ghettos with cheap heroin in the sixties to control the civil rights protests like they gave blankets loaded with small pox to the indians a hundred years before that. People at the top are making obscene money on illegal drugs. Legalize them and we throw a wrench in the system and drug use shrinks to a fraction of what is is today. Prison population goes down and those people can return to being productive. Many law enforcement folks take this view.

Please show me a single shred of credible evidence that the government intentionally flooded poor areas with heroin. Legalizing drugs to fix the prison system is like smashing the oven so you don't have to bake. Why not legalize everything that is filling up the prisons, using that logic? We can't napalm opium farmers in Afghanistan, BTW. They are a sovereign nation and we need their permission, which, suffice to say, will not be granted.

Secondly, drugs aren't a problem just because kids are being rebellious. Please inform yourself on these things before making outlandish suggestions simply for the sake of making yourself be heard.

sanjuro_ronin

03-12-2008, 04:12 AM

Please show me a single shred of credible evidence that the government intentionally flooded poor areas with heroin. Legalizing drugs to fix the prison system is like smashing the oven so you don't have to bake. Why not legalize everything that is filling up the prisons, using that logic? We can't napalm opium farmers in Afghanistan, BTW. They are a sovereign nation and we need their permission, which, suffice to say, will not be granted.

Secondly, drugs aren't a problem just because kids are being rebellious. Please inform yourself on these things before making outlandish suggestions simply for the sake of making yourself be heard.

I doubt the reason that Opium fields are NOT bombed is because Afghanistan is an sovereign country and "permission" is needed.
We have bombed many things in many places without permission.

Drake

03-12-2008, 04:26 AM

I doubt the reason that Opium fields are NOT bombed is because Afghanistan is an sovereign country and "permission" is needed.
We have bombed many things in many places without permission.

Not allies.

sanjuro_ronin

03-12-2008, 04:33 AM

Not allies.

Ah, so they were our allies BEFORE we went into the 'Stan?

Drake

03-12-2008, 04:51 AM

Ah, so they were our allies BEFORE we went into the 'Stan?

The country was being run by murderous lunatics. We came in as a response to an attack, and now they have a democratic government in place. Now we follow their rules.

David Jamieson

03-12-2008, 05:21 AM

The country was being run by murderous lunatics. We came in as a response to an attack, and now they have a democratic government in place. Now we follow their rules.

Drake- nothing personal, but your assessment of Afghanistan is entirely off track. It is an always has been the worlds largest provider of opium. This is both for legal and illegal use. IE: all morphine, valium, and opiate based drugs in general are derived from opium which is first manufactured into heroin, then morphine then all the other things which are then processed by big pharma and sold to hospitals and governments all over the world.

what afghanistan has is oil pipeline to service both russian and iraqi oil fields. this is very important and must be guarded and maintained. This is the #1 reason why afghanistan matters. Secondly, when the Taliban took power, they wiped out the opium crop. Since they have been scattered, the trade is back up and running at levels even higher than before it's collapse at the hands of the taliban.

so while we were all focusing on how obscure muslim fundamentalist groups and laws played out, the background was really what the haps was.

Afghanistan has been in a state of constant war for longer than many of its citizens have even been alive. With the Soviets being in there, then civil war and now the Canadians, Brits, Americans and a few other greeting card countries are holding up the protectionism going on there.

Ultimately, The USA and G8 or Nato in general has to control the oil and drugs of teh region because that's where the money is and it is money that fuels war. If you control the flow of money, you control any and all conflict which may occur. If you control access to things like wealth and armaments, then you control the region. Period. that's how it works and don't let anyone tell you different.

people arguing democracy on a marble floor is a luxury afforded to us by the blood of soldiers. Don'tr get caught up in one world one love thinking, it doesn't exist, but it can be worked towards. What is need is someone who is essentially uncorruptible, producing an ideology that is palatable by th greatest portion of the population and that exudes and offers lasting peace and has the hand to stay any trouble at the door before it enters the society or affects it or effects it.

strip away the chit chat and media obfuscation, read a history book or two and that's all your left with. really.

sanjuro_ronin

03-12-2008, 05:24 AM

The country was being run by murderous lunatics. We came in as a response to an attack, and now they have a democratic government in place. Now we follow their rules.

Murderous lunatics we "put" in there ...
Point being, if we wanted to wipe out any drug fields we could have done along time ago.
As for democratic governments, well...there's democracy and then there is democracy, just because a government was democractically elected doesn't mean it is recognized nor does it mean they can tell "us" what to do.
As we well know from recent examples in the middle east.

That said, the war of drugs is a valid one, even if it is not being fought the best way possible.

Drake

03-12-2008, 05:30 AM

Drake- nothing personal, but your assessment of Afghanistan is entirely off track. It is an always has been the worlds largest provider of opium. This is both for legal and illegal use. IE: all morphine, valium, and opiate based drugs in general are derived from opium which is first manufactured into heroin, then morphine then all the other things which are then processed by big pharma and sold to hospitals and governments all over the world.

I never said otherwise.

what afghanistan has is oil pipeline to service both russian and iraqi oil fields. this is very important and must be guarded and maintained. This is the #1 reason why afghanistan matters. Secondly, when the Taliban took power, they wiped out the opium crop. Since they have been scattered, the trade is back up and running at levels even higher than before it's collapse at the hands of the taliban.

Never contradicted that statement either.

so while we were all focusing on how obscure muslim fundamentalist groups and laws played out, the background was really what the haps was.

Our troops have been working on the opium issue for years, trying to motivate farmers to switch to other profitable, legal options, such as silk.

Afghanistan has been in a state of constant war for longer than many of its citizens have even been alive. With the Soviets being in there, then civil war and now the Canadians, Brits, Americans and a few other greeting card countries are holding up the protectionism going on there.

Actually, they've been fighting for hundreds of years.

Ultimately, The USA and G8 or Nato in general has to control the oil and drugs of teh region because that's where the money is and it is money that fuels war. If you control the flow of money, you control any and all conflict which may occur. If you control access to things like wealth and armaments, then you control the region. Period. that's how it works and don't let anyone tell you different.

We know this already.

people arguing democracy on a marble floor is a luxury afforded to us by the blood of soldiers. Don'tr get caught up in one world one love thinking, it doesn't exist, but it can be worked towards. What is need is someone who is essentially uncorruptible, producing an ideology that is palatable by th greatest portion of the population and that exudes and offers lasting peace and has the hand to stay any trouble at the door before it enters the society or affects it or effects it.

strip away the chit chat and media obfuscation, read a history book or two and that's all your left with. really.

I argue democracy from a foxhole, so my perspective is different than yours. You'll never get a corruption-free world, so we can drop that idea right now. But we will work towards getting the best we can.

David Jamieson

03-12-2008, 05:38 AM

CIDA or the Canadian International Development Association tried to stem heroin production in afghanistan some timne ago by offering alternative crops such as food stuffs.

the people were swayed away at the time. This was during soviet occupation.

the reason being that the russian mobs controlled a lot of the heroin there due to the convenient occupation by the soviet military, and between them and the brits, they supplied the world.

who here thinks that there aren't soldiers who have direct relations to gang activities? Raise your hand? OK? Fail! This basic principle applies to all fighting forces in the region. there are corrupted ones who right now are making arrangments to move drugs or booty back into the west. Now, this amount is fairly insignificant and amounts to only a few kilos. But when it's a general moving stash? You know he's got a hercules filled with it! lol

Just hypothesizing, but has anyone thought about how exactly is ith atht such huge volumes of drugs can just come and go out of countries when billions and billions of dollars are being spent on surveillance and policing of these very activities. is it possible that criminals are smarter tahn all law enforcement or does the element of corruption have a bigger part to play in it all.

In my opinion, corruption is one of the pillars of power. It's almost as if it cannot be avoided in an institutionalized society where the mechanisms become so large, abstract and complicated, that it is not difficult to find a quite place within them to carry out operations that are contrary to what those institutions stand for.

just sayin...

Drake

03-12-2008, 05:41 AM

David Jamieson

03-12-2008, 05:50 AM

The highest ranking person involved in gang activities I've seen here in USAREUR has been a Staff Sergeant, who is now a Private, last I checked.

Nobody is loading drugs in planes in Afghanistan. That stuff is checked by a number of people. There is gang activity in the military, and we're doing everything we can to get rid of it.

And generals dealing heroin? Really... c'mon. They really really really don't need the money.

It cannot be excluded as a distinct possibility. Soldiers, like anyone else are not above corruption.

here's another thing. Did you know that in Canada the national police force has surmised that the greatest amount of investment money for drugs being brought into the country is coming from cartels of doctors and lawyers.

they came to this conclusion after realizing that it was this demography alone that could provide the monies and resources to make the deals happen.

I would guess, it is the same in the USA. barring large organized crime organizations and their operations, there are many independent groups from all walks of like that are holding up the business of drug trafficking.

But, conflict is always a gateway to further vice and graft, you better believe it and there are plenty of soldiers of all ranks that are opportunists.

Drake

03-12-2008, 07:20 AM

It cannot be excluded as a distinct possibility. Soldiers, like anyone else are not above corruption.

here's another thing. Did you know that in Canada the national police force has surmised that the greatest amount of investment money for drugs being brought into the country is coming from cartels of doctors and lawyers.

they came to this conclusion after realizing that it was this demography alone that could provide the monies and resources to make the deals happen.

I would guess, it is the same in the USA. barring large organized crime organizations and their operations, there are many independent groups from all walks of like that are holding up the business of drug trafficking.

But, conflict is always a gateway to further vice and graft, you better believe it and there are plenty of soldiers of all ranks that are opportunists.

Sounds more like the national police force assumed. Based on what you just told me, this is a logical fallacy.

Problem with corruption in the military is that we police ourselves. For instance, we had a major involved in a contracting fraud issue. He's in jail now. There's too much oversight here for anyone with real power to get away with much.

sanjuro_ronin

03-12-2008, 07:21 AM

Sounds more like the national police force assumed. Based on what you just told me, this is a logical fallacy.

Problem with corruption in the military is that we police ourselves. For instance, we had a major involved in a contracting fraud issue. He's in jail now. There's too much oversight here for anyone with real power to get away with much.

..to get away with much for very long, you mean.

Drake

03-12-2008, 07:31 AM

..to get away with much for very long, you mean.

Well...basically. We're so paranoid about corruption here, sometimes people even get busted under the presumption of corruption.

bakxierboxer

03-12-2008, 09:06 AM

... assessment of Afghanistan is entirely off track. It is an always has been the worlds largest provider of opium. This is both for legal and illegal use. IE: all morphine, valium, and opiate based drugs in general are derived from opium which is first manufactured into heroin, then morphine then all the other things which are then processed by big pharma and sold to hospitals and governments all over the world.

Sorry, Valium (aka "diazepam") is NOT an opiate.
It's a member of the family of compounds called benzodiazepines.......

greendragon

03-13-2008, 08:40 PM

The highest ranking person involved in gang activities I've seen here in USAREUR has been a Staff Sergeant, who is now a Private, last I checked.

Nobody is loading drugs in planes in Afghanistan. That stuff is checked by a number of people. There is gang activity in the military, and we're doing everything we can to get rid of it.

And generals dealing heroin? Really... c'mon. They really really really don't need the money.

YES, they are. How do you think it gets here ? The CIA can go unchecked, Reagan and Olly North dealt drugs to raise funds for the contra deal, Nixon's advisor BB Rebozo was endicted for drug smuggling ties, the generals were smuggling heroin in the coffins of dead soldiers. How soon we forget. They don't need the money ? but the greed never ends, they always want more money. Afghan opium is now funding the taliban. fact. what happened to the war on terrorism ? We sprayed paraquat on colombian pot fields in the 70s and we could napalm opium fields now in afghanistan. We occupy the freakin country.
I am not condoning drug use, but legalizing it would be more effective than this political "war on drugs" that makes the corrupt rich. This was also the opinion of the national association of police chiefs. C'mon, jailing 1% of the population for dope use ? Go after the big guys. Follow the money.

zapruder_bjj

03-13-2008, 09:30 PM

YES, they are. How do you think it gets here ? The CIA can go unchecked, Reagan and Olly North dealt drugs to raise funds for the contra deal, Nixon's advisor BB Rebozo was endicted for drug smuggling ties, the generals were smuggling heroin in the coffins of dead soldiers. How soon we forget. They don't need the money ? but the greed never ends, they always want more money. Afghan opium is now funding the taliban. fact. what happened to the war on terrorism ? We sprayed paraquat on colombian pot fields in the 70s and we could napalm opium fields now in afghanistan. We occupy the freakin country.
I am not condoning drug use, but legalizing it would be more effective than this political "war on drugs" that makes the corrupt rich. This was also the opinion of the national association of police chiefs. C'mon, jailing 1% of the population for dope use ? Go after the big guys. Follow the money.

Hmm treat the disease and not the symptoms? That just sounds ludicrous!

Drake

03-13-2008, 09:41 PM

YES, they are. How do you think it gets here ? The CIA can go unchecked, Reagan and Olly North dealt drugs to raise funds for the contra deal, Nixon's advisor BB Rebozo was endicted for drug smuggling ties, the generals were smuggling heroin in the coffins of dead soldiers. How soon we forget. They don't need the money ? but the greed never ends, they always want more money. Afghan opium is now funding the taliban. fact. what happened to the war on terrorism ? We sprayed paraquat on colombian pot fields in the 70s and we could napalm opium fields now in afghanistan. We occupy the freakin country.
I am not condoning drug use, but legalizing it would be more effective than this political "war on drugs" that makes the corrupt rich. This was also the opinion of the national association of police chiefs. C'mon, jailing 1% of the population for dope use ? Go after the big guys. Follow the money.

Ok, can we use an unverified reference that isn't over 25 years old?

bakxierboxer

03-13-2008, 10:21 PM

Ok, can we use an unverified reference that isn't over 25 years old?

Sure, why not?
Everything they spout is unrelieved lunacy in any case.

Drake

03-13-2008, 11:06 PM

YES, they are. How do you think it gets here ? The CIA can go unchecked, Reagan and Olly North dealt drugs to raise funds for the contra deal, Nixon's advisor BB Rebozo was endicted for drug smuggling ties, the generals were smuggling heroin in the coffins of dead soldiers. How soon we forget. They don't need the money ? but the greed never ends, they always want more money. Afghan opium is now funding the taliban. fact. what happened to the war on terrorism ? We sprayed paraquat on colombian pot fields in the 70s and we could napalm opium fields now in afghanistan. We occupy the freakin country.
I am not condoning drug use, but legalizing it would be more effective than this political "war on drugs" that makes the corrupt rich. This was also the opinion of the national association of police chiefs. C'mon, jailing 1% of the population for dope use ? Go after the big guys. Follow the money.

Please PLEASE tell me you aren't getting the coffin myth story from having watched American Gangster. PLEASE.

It didn't happen, you know.

David Jamieson

03-14-2008, 05:45 AM

Sorry, Valium (aka "diazepam") is NOT an opiate.
It's a member of the family of compounds called benzodiazepines.......

sorry, it is a synthetic yes. I probably meant to say Codiene and other analgesics but for some reason went with valium....anyway, there are many drugs that are derived from opiates and used in everyday medicine.

Big Pharma buys opium is the point.

bakxierboxer

03-14-2008, 01:30 PM

sorry, it is a synthetic yes.

A synthetic non-opiate compound to be a bit more specific.
It may not be "germane", but there is also a class of "synthetic opiates".

I probably meant to say Codiene and other analgesics....

Codiene is a "narcotic analgesic"/"opioid", as distinct from the general class of "analgesics".... sic, "Aspirin", "Acetominophin", "NSAIDS", etc.

but for some reason went with valium....anyway, there are many drugs that are derived from opiates and used in everyday medicine.

"Everyday" prescription "remediations".
It also might be "more accurate" to say that they are "opium related" as opposed to "opium derived".
Most of them are a class unto themselves and are chemical compounds with "similar actions".

Big Pharma buys opium is the point.

Possible, although why they'd engage in that is a good question, since they can manufacture "related" drugs such as oxycodone, hydromorphone, etc.

I'm not horribly familiar with any actual opiate-containing meds.... the only one that comes immediately to mind is the old-time nostrum "Paregoric" and some prescription cough medicines.

BoulderDawg

03-14-2008, 01:52 PM

The concept of prison is a fairly recent thing....I would say no more than 3-4 hundred years. Before that there really wasn't any law to speak of and communities policed themselves.

If not surprising to hear that the US has more people in prison than other countries. I would guess the reason for that is because Americans are willing to pay for it. Now they're even talking about putting this NY gov in jail for years for sleeping with a prostitute.......What good would that do?

People in other countries have learned to solve their own problems. Here is the US we have gotten to the point of calling 911 for jaywalking.

zapruder_bjj

03-14-2008, 04:34 PM

BoulderDawg

03-14-2008, 05:39 PM

Go learn history. You are just plain wrong. Prisons 3-4 hundred years? I... I just cant go on...please I just cant take it...

I have no idea what you're talking. You need to clarify or give any indication what you mean.

Of course if you're saying that people were actually detained a thousand years ago then this is correct. Sure....my guess is caveman caged up people.

However the concept of sending a wrongdoer to prison for a lengthy sentence is a relativily new concept. Of course you can always enlighten me as to the history that I need to learn.

Maybe the reason you can't go on is because you can't explain yourself?

1bad65

03-14-2008, 05:42 PM

Now they're even talking about putting this NY gov in jail for years for sleeping with a prostitute.......What good would that do?

The reason will be in legal trouble is if it's shown he used campaign funds to pay for the prostitutes.

People in other countries have learned to solve their own problems. Here is the US we have gotten to the point of calling 911 for jaywalking.

Yeah, locking up or executing those who disagree with the Gov't like they do in China and Cuba and stoning rape victims like those Arab countries do is a great way to solve crime problems.

BoulderDawg

03-14-2008, 06:05 PM

The reason will be in legal trouble is if it's shown he used campaign funds to pay for the prostitutes..

Even if he used taxpayer money the state of New York has no business locking the man up for years. If I were a NY taxpayer I would not won't to pay to keep someone like this in jail.

Originally Posted by BoulderDawg
People in other countries have learned to solve their own problems. Here is the US we have gotten to the point of calling 911 for jaywalking.......

Yeah, locking up or executing those who disagree with the Gov't like they do in China and Cuba and stoning rape victims like those Arab countries do is a great way to solve crime problems.

I guess you could start by telling me in what way, shape or form your response has to do with my quote.

1bad65

03-14-2008, 07:51 PM

Even if he used taxpayer money the state of New York has no business locking the man up for years. If I were a NY taxpayer I would not won't to pay to keep someone like this in jail.

So, do you feel stealing taxpayers money should not be severely punished?

I guess you could start by telling me in what way, shape or form your response has to do with my quote.

If you can't see how it does, you really should not be debating.

zapruder_bjj

03-14-2008, 08:25 PM

I have no idea what you're talking. You need to clarify or give any indication what you mean.

Of course if you're saying that people were actually detained a thousand years ago then this is correct. Sure....my guess is caveman caged up people.

However the concept of sending a wrongdoer to prison for a lengthy sentence is a relativily new concept. Of course you can always enlighten me as to the history that I need to learn.

Maybe the reason you can't go on is because you can't explain yourself?

Ok look at western civilization. More? Look at Rome...just go learn something the come and debate with an informed opinion.

BoulderDawg

03-14-2008, 08:43 PM

Ok look at western civilization. More look at Rome...just go learn something the come and debate with an informed opinion.

I think I just did that. Check out htis link on the Roman Legal System:

http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/legallatin/legal01.htm

Let me highlight one important paragraph here:

"Perhaps the biggest difference between Roman and contemporary legal systems is the use of prisons. Roman prisons were not used to punish criminals. Instead they served only to hold people awaiting trial or execution. Those who disobeyed court magistrates could also be imprisoned. The wealthy were generally held in house arrest at the home of a friend who would guarantee their presence at the trial. Private prisons existed for slaves."

*****

By the way were you saying something about an "informed opinion"?:D

BoulderDawg

03-14-2008, 08:47 PM

If you can't see how it does, you really should not be debating.

You must be related to this other guy.

I don't see any corelation between the two. You tell me what jailing people in the US for minor offenses has to do with political prisoners in China and stoning rape victims.

Something tells me I'll get another one sentence answer to that.:p

zapruder_bjj

03-14-2008, 09:19 PM

I think I just did that. Check out htis link on the Roman Legal System:

http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/legallatin/legal01.htm

Let me highlight one important paragraph here:
Private prisons existed for slaves."

*****

By the way were you saying something about an "informed opinion"?:D

In the words of an internet ****...self pwnage

1bad65

03-14-2008, 09:30 PM

I don't see any corelation between the two. You tell me what jailing people in the US for minor offenses has to do with political prisoners in China and stoning rape victims.

They are both wrong. You said other countries have learned to solve their problems. I pointed out their solutions are wrong.

But I will say an elected official stealing taxpayer money is a serious crime. Jaywalking is not.

Something tells me I'll get another one sentence answer to that.:p

You're wrong there too. ;)

zapruder_bjj

03-14-2008, 09:31 PM

I think I just did that. Check out htis link on the Roman Legal System:

http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/legallatin/legal01.htm

Let me highlight one important paragraph here:

"Perhaps the biggest difference between Roman and contemporary legal systems is the use of prisons. Roman prisons were not used to punish criminals. Instead they served only to hold people awaiting trial or execution. Those who disobeyed court magistrates could also be imprisoned. The wealthy were generally held in house arrest at the home of a friend who would guarantee their presence at the trial. Private prisons existed for slaves."

*****

By the way were you saying something about an "informed opinion"?:D

But since you are going in the right direction(googled though it was) It becomes a debate in semantics, as many were held in the prisons decades until their death, were they formally sentenced no...were they technically sentence to life in prison...yes. Form or function. Meh I am going to go to sleep, and hopefully wake up in a better mood and be nice and helpful instead of a ****

lkfmdc

05-27-2008, 02:50 PM

ttt for this wonderful example of how David Jameson can't support any of the claims he ever makes

kwaichang

05-27-2008, 02:53 PM

Cant you find any quotes of your own to use ?? Why are you stealing the ones from my posts? They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery . KC

SifuAbel

05-27-2008, 03:26 PM

ttt for this wonderful example of how David Jameson can't support any of the claims he ever makes

oh boy, more drama. Glass houses, bub, glass houses.............

David Jamieson

05-28-2008, 05:07 AM

ttt for this wonderful example of how David Jameson can't support any of the claims he ever makes

Actually, I do support them Dave. You just choose not to read them, or you don't answer to those, or you will gloss over them.

I think this probably has to do with issues you carry around as a person. You've demonstrated that here before in your communication. I expect this of you. I don't know you, I probably don't want to know you and frankly, I don't have much respect for you as a person and most certainly not as a martial artist.

you're a mere internet thug.

stay isolated bud, that's where your comfort zone is. You just stay inside of it and prosper there.

I really don't have a problem with being wrong, admitting I was wrong etc etc. Nothing is concrete, nothing is black and white and I will not make it so through the act of willful ignorance or creating fantasy narrative around how I think the world is or who I am.

So, even though I privately extended an olive branch, oh well.

Perhaps it's best if we just don't participate in anything such as these off topic nonsense thread where we all get to be armchair politicians and copy and paste stuff verbatim from other peoples writings as if we knew all along.

:rolleyes:

Now let's talk Kungfu! :)

lkfmdc

05-28-2008, 05:39 AM

Actually, I do support them Dave. You just choose not to read them,

LMFAO, desperate are you David? Of course I read them, that's why I was able to rip your stupid non-arguments to pieces. Let's review

you also put them in jail for being in debt, being homeless and angry, for not supervising their teenagers, for looking too arabic etc etc.

you claimed you could go to jail for being in debt, for being homeless or "looking too arabic"

Of course, he couldn't back up ANY of these points

Going to jail for debt - Try to get away with being poor as an excuse for not paying your taxes. IN the US, you WILL be imprisoned.

When it was pointed out that most poor people don't have taxes to pay, THIS is what you responded with!!!!!!

for dave-

"Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tax Evader Sentenced to 63 Months in Prison

Earlier today a federal judge sentenced convicted tax evader Elaine Brown to 63 months in prison. She and her husband Ed Brown were both convicted of tax evasion. "

This is a case of a person in debt? A poor person maybe?

http://ronideutch.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html

Yup, David Jamieson's ONLY evidence you can be "put them in jail for being in debt" is a case of a woman put in jail for hiding $1.9 million dollars :rolleyes:

His evidence you can go to jail "for looking too arabic" turned out to be a case where people were here illegally or stayed beyond their visa or were working without the proper visa

MOST OF THEM WERE NOT EVEN ARAB! :rolleyes:

But the real kicker was that they never went to jail! The head of the infamous ACLU (All Criminals Love Us) admitted that they were not sent to prison! They were sent HOME! :rolleyes:

Watch, Jamieson won't deal with any of this, he'll double talk, try to insult and hope for his dear life you don't notice that he is the worst kind of ignorant liberal pansy waste

David Jamieson

05-28-2008, 05:43 AM

LMFAO, desperate are you David? Of course I read them, that's why I was able to rip your stupid non-arguments to pieces. Let's review

you claimed you could go to jail for being in debt, for being homeless or "looking too arabic"

Of course, he couldn't back up ANY of these points

When it was pointed out that most poor people don't have taxes to pay, THIS is what you responded with!!!!!!

This is a case of a person in debt? A poor person maybe?

http://ronideutch.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html

Yup, David Jamieson's ONLY evidence you can be "put them in jail for being in debt" is a case of a woman put in jail for hiding $1.9 million dollars :rolleyes:

His evidence you can go to jail "for looking too arabic" turned out to be a case where people were here illegally or stayed beyond their visa or were working without the proper visa

MOST OF THEM WERE NOT EVEN ARAB! :rolleyes:

But the real kicker was that they never went to jail! The head of the infamous ACLU (All Criminals Love Us) admitted that they were not sent to prison! They were sent HOME! :rolleyes:

Watch, Jamieson won't deal with any of this, he'll double talk, try to insult and hope for his dear life you don't notice that he is the worst kind of ignorant liberal pansy waste

wow, really creative there lard ass. You simply copy and paste the same thing!

wow, you are soooo smart.

anyway, let's obfuscate all this so dave ross doesn't look like the stupid ass he constantly presents himself as. lol

what point do you want to debate Dave specifically. Anyone can go back through this thread and simply click the provided links.

There is a debate, but you can't seem to understand how things work.
so here it is, pay attention.

Nothing is black and white and your world view will not be validated anymore than anyone else's because of that plain and simple fact.

plain and simple...like your brain dave. :rolleyes:

lkfmdc

05-28-2008, 05:48 AM

David Jamieson

05-28-2008, 05:53 AM

Poor, sad, pathetic David Jamieson, unable to deal with FACTS he thinks some school yard insults are going to win him the argument :rolleyes:

You can insult me all day, it doesn't change the fact you made ridiculous claims you couldn't back up. This thread is here and you can't stop people from reading it. Maybe if you were smart, you'd edit your own posts so you wouldn't seem like a completely clueless twit, but you still think you are right! LMFAO, it's precious

Let's review

1. Your "evidence" that poor people go to jail for debt was a tax evader who was hiding 1.9 million dollars :rolleyes:

2. Your "evidence" that you can go to jail for "looking too arabic" was a bunch of illegals, half of which weren't even ARAB! who didn't go to jail, they got deported :rolleyes:

Go ahead with more petty personal jabs, they dont' distract anyone from seeing you FAIL, and dude, you're FAILED BIG TIME :rolleyes:

No dave, I believe I provided a link or two. And I think the inference was that the possibility was there and that in fact, it had been done.

W.Snipes case is an interesting twist on it as well. one thing becomes another and so on.

2. You failed to look at the documentation and news wire story I posted about Harar.

Dave, if there is anyone on this forum who goes for personal jabs, it's you.

But just to even it out, I'm gonna call you lard ass one more time. Maybe it will inspire you to train more instead of posturing and capering and prancing and mincing like you are the alpha omega.

you're a disgrace on so many levels.

so, keep saving face tubbo, you need to.

I'm 100% ok with you tools ragging on me, because you're tools. This is the level we communicate at. Low.