Do we have too many laws or too many criminals?

#151
#151
PKT_VOL said:
Of course the possession and consumption of it should be legal.

If those who consume it commit a violent/property crime, they should be charged with that crime.

What is hard about this?
Click to expand...
We don't prosecute for 'legal' drugs as it is until somebody gets killed, and even then not so much. Why would this be any different? I don't think weed should be illegal, but if you harm someone because of it, you should be severely prosecuted and punished. Tax from weed sales can pay for new prisons.
 
#152
#152
SpaceCoastVol said:
We don't prosecute for 'legal' drugs as it is until somebody gets killed, and even then not so much. Why would this be any different? I don't think weed should be illegal, but if you harm someone because of it, you should be severely prosecuted and punished. Tax from weed sales can pay for new prisons.
Click to expand...

Please expound.
 
#153
#153
PKT_VOL said:
Please expound.
Click to expand...
How many times do you hear about the fatality where the driver is on his 5ht 6th 7th 8th DUI? He/she should have gone to jail on the second one. The first is a mistake. The second is not. Ever know someone killed by a drunk?
 
#154
#154
SpaceCoastVol said:
How many times do you hear about the fatality where the driver is on his 5ht 6th 7th 8th DUI? He/she should have gone to jail on the second one. The first is a mistake. The second is not. Ever know someone killed by a drunk?
Click to expand...

If the offense is worthy of jail the second time, it is worthy of jail the first time as well.
 
#160
#160
SpaceCoastVol said:
We don't prosecute for 'legal' drugs as it is until somebody gets killed, and even then not so much. Why would this be any different? I don't think weed should be illegal, but if you harm someone because of it, you should be severely prosecuted and punished. Tax from weed sales can pay for new prisons.
Click to expand...
If you harm someone, whether it be intentional or through neglect and dereliction of responsibility..you should be severely prosecuted and punished. No reason to increase OR lessen the sentencing simply due to the results of a blood test. Getting retarded high on weed and driving a forklift through a wall and crushing the man who was on the other side of the wall would fit under dereliction of responsibility, for example.

Being an incompetent driver and causing a wreck that kills someone by complete accident wouldn't count, unless you were getting high, or drunk. You should still suffer consequences, but not as severe as if you were drunk, or doing it on purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#161
#161
SpaceCoastVol said:
We don't prosecute for 'legal' drugs as it is until somebody gets killed, and even then not so much. Why would this be any different? I don't think weed should be illegal, but if you harm someone because of it, you should be severely prosecuted and punished. Tax from weed sales can pay for new prisons.
Click to expand...

Conservatives, always wanting to take more of our money
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#162
#162
apevol said:
If you harm someone, whether it be intentional or through neglect and dereliction of responsibility..you should be severely prosecuted and punished. No reason to increase OR lessen the sentencing simply due to the results of a blood test. Getting retarded high on weed and driving a forklift through a wall and crushing the man who was on the other side of the wall would fit under dereliction of responsibility, for example.

Being an incompetent driver and causing a wreck that kills someone by complete accident wouldn't count, unless you were getting high, or drunk. You should still suffer consequences, but not as severe as if you were drunk, or doing it on purpose.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
#163
#163
PKT_VOL said:
I'm not following. My response was to something you stated explicitly after my request for you to expound upon your OP. I'm still trying to see what you are getting at.
Click to expand...
All I am saying is that drinking and driving is not prosecuted as it should be. When it takes multiple DUIs to get someone off the street, and even then it usually takes a fatality to bring their abhorrent behavior to light something is wrong. So, the question would then be, what would give me (hope) that there would be proper prosecution of tort crimes perpetrated with a newly legalized mind altering substance? Answer: none.
 
#164
#164
Vol8188 said:
Conservatives, always wanting to take more of our money
Click to expand...
Taxing marijuana is the issue as it is right now, numbnuts. The .gov just cannot figure out a way to tax the homegrown stuff. Conservative or liberal, it is all about the money.
 
#165
#165
apevol said:
If you harm someone, whether it be intentional or through neglect and dereliction of responsibility..you should be severely prosecuted and punished. No reason to increase OR lessen the sentencing simply due to the results of a blood test. Getting retarded high on weed and driving a forklift through a wall and crushing the man who was on the other side of the wall would fit under dereliction of responsibility, for example.

Being an incompetent driver and causing a wreck that kills someone by complete accident wouldn't count, unless you were getting high, or drunk. You should still suffer consequences, but not as severe as if you were drunk, or doing it on purpose.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. The ancaps will chime in with 'it shouldn't be a crime unless someone is harmed' Therein lies the rub. The .gov is responsible for the protection of life liberty and happiness of it's people. By allowing someone to drive around drunk/high/... they are allowing behavior that is proven to be potentially dangerous. If someone is then killed, they have failed in that simple duty.
 
#166
#166
SpaceCoastVol said:
All I am saying is that drinking and driving is not prosecuted as it should be. When it takes multiple DUIs to get someone off the street, and even then it usually takes a fatality to bring their abhorrent behavior to light something is wrong. So, the question would then be, what would give me (hope) that there would be proper prosecution of tort crimes perpetrated with a newly legalized mind altering substance? Answer: none.
Click to expand...

As to the first part of your post, you said DUI's should be jailed the second time and not the first. Ridiculous. If a crime is worthy of jail, it is worthy of jail the first time. Not that I believe DUI's are a jailable offense or should be a crime in general.

To the second part of your post, what tort crimes are you wanting with other drugs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#167
#167
SpaceCoastVol said:
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. The ancaps will chime in with 'it shouldn't be a crime unless someone is harmed' Therein lies the rub. The .gov is responsible for the protection of life liberty and happiness of it's people. By allowing someone to drive around drunk/high/... they are allowing behavior that is proven to be potentially dangerous. If someone is then killed, they have failed in that simple duty.
Click to expand...

The bold parts are in conflict with each other.

Furthermore, you are actually making the case for gun control. Although I doubt you support gun control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#170
#170
I guess they are going to release a bunch of prisoners. The DOJ will not be funding any more private prisons anymore.

So......
 
#171
#171
So now demonstrating needs extra legislation so that drivers can be free of civil penalty if they roll over a couple of them.

I swear, the reason why we have all of these laws is because you people get emotionally worked into a frenzy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#172
#172
Rasputin_Vol said:
So now demonstrating needs extra legislation so that drivers can be free of civil penalty if they roll over a couple of them.

I swear, the reason why we have all of these laws is because you people get emotionally worked into a frenzy.
Click to expand...

Yep. See..people have the freedom to assemble peacefully but most protesters forget that part. Your right to protest is not a right to impede others constitutional rights..
 
#173
#173
FLVOL_79 said:
Yep. See..people have the freedom to assemble peacefully but most protesters forget that part. Your right to protest is not a right to impede others constitutional rights..
Click to expand...

If you justifiably feel threatened, existing law already allows you to protect yourself.

But you do not have the right to drive over a crowd just because you are running late for work or a foot massage at home.
 
#174
#174
Rasputin_Vol said:
If you justifiably feel threatened, existing law already allows you to protect yourself.

But you do not have the right to drive over a crowd just because you are running late for work or a foot massage at home.
Click to expand...

You also don't have the right to impede the free movement of another person.
 
#175
#175
Rasputin_Vol said:
If you justifiably feel threatened, existing law already allows you to protect yourself.

But you do not have the right to drive over a crowd just because you are running late for work or a foot massage at home.
Click to expand...

You really think someone is going to kill another person to get to work on time?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top