5 ms·

I see a bit or irony here. FTA: The Obama administration last month urged the Supreme Court to reject the suit, saying that the leakage was not Colorado's faul

I see a bit or irony here. FTA: The Obama administration last month urged the Supreme Court to reject the suit, saying that the leakage was not Colorado's fault. But just a few weeks ago, the same President argued that gun crime in Illinois is Indiana's fault for having less restrictive gun laws.

s_q_b 11y ago
No one's vape ever ricocheted off a wall into a child's chest cavity... Prosecutors have full discretion on the most important cases they choose pursue. This would be an exercise of that discretion.
- jqm 11y ago
  IDK... that could have happened at some point. Besides, that's like saying "no one ever got all baked and left their child in a hot car because they were carrying a gun.." In other words, it's kind of a pointless point.
- TrevorJ 11y ago
  The argument isn't one of severity, but of responsibility so your comment doesn't really address the argument being made.
- jorgecurio 11y ago
  I don't know why as society we are so adamant on censoring things or distorting reality to avoid hurting children the way we think is going to hurt them by exposure to marijuana etc but has somebody done the research that shows marijuana smoke hurts kids? Nothing pisses me more off than seeing a parent light up a fucking cigarette in front of their kids. But marijuana? God forbid any kid with epilepsy or depression smoke the devil's drug and end up like reefer madness...
dave2000 11y ago
No irony; get rid of drug laws and you rid yourselves of drug crime; restrict gun sales and you reduce gun crime.
- raintrees 11y ago
  By definition more gun law (restricted sales) results in more gun crime if those laws are enforced. "Get rid of gun laws and you rid yourselves of gun crime" would seem to be more equivalent. Crime is more often in the intent/implementation, not the tools.
  - tantalor 11y ago
    You can relax all the laws around gun sales, ownership, brandishing, etc. but shooting somebody will still be a crime. The moral equivalent with drug laws would be drunk driving. (And I think that kills more people than guns.)
  - lisper 11y ago
    At the risk of stating the painfully obvious, "gun crimes" refers to crimes committed with guns (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, etc.), not to violations of gun prohibition. There is no analogy to that with drugs. The only crime you can commit with a drug is a violation of prohibition. (Well, OK, maybe you can try to poison someone, but that's not exactly a rampant problem.)
    - LordKano 11y ago
      At the risk of stating the painfully obvious, "gun crimes" refers to crimes committed with guns (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, etc.), not to violations of gun prohibition. In that case, one could argue that "drug crime" isn't really violation of prohibition laws but the crimes committed to feed the habits of addicts or crimes committed while under the influence of drugs. In reality it's both. Gun crimes are shootings and non-violent violations of firearms regulations. Possession of an unlicensed machinegun is a gun crime.
      - lisper 11y ago
        Sure, but the vast majority of "crimes committed to feed the habits of addicts" would simply evaporate if there weren't prohibition because the price of drugs wouldn't be so high, so addicts wouldn't need to commit crimes to support their habit. I don't know how much crime is actually committed under the influence. I'm pretty sure that smoking marijuana actually reduces one's tendency to commit crimes.

s_q_b 11y ago

No one's vape ever ricocheted off a wall into a child's chest cavity... Prosecutors have full discretion on the most important cases they choose pursue. This would be an exercise of that discretion.

jqm 11y ago
IDK... that could have happened at some point. Besides, that's like saying "no one ever got all baked and left their child in a hot car because they were carrying a gun.." In other words, it's kind of a pointless point.
TrevorJ 11y ago
The argument isn't one of severity, but of responsibility so your comment doesn't really address the argument being made.
jorgecurio 11y ago
I don't know why as society we are so adamant on censoring things or distorting reality to avoid hurting children the way we think is going to hurt them by exposure to marijuana etc but has somebody done the research that shows marijuana smoke hurts kids? Nothing pisses me more off than seeing a parent light up a fucking cigarette in front of their kids. But marijuana? God forbid any kid with epilepsy or depression smoke the devil's drug and end up like reefer madness...

dave2000 11y ago

No irony; get rid of drug laws and you rid yourselves of drug crime; restrict gun sales and you reduce gun crime.

raintrees 11y ago
By definition more gun law (restricted sales) results in more gun crime if those laws are enforced. "Get rid of gun laws and you rid yourselves of gun crime" would seem to be more equivalent. Crime is more often in the intent/implementation, not the tools.
- tantalor 11y ago
  You can relax all the laws around gun sales, ownership, brandishing, etc. but shooting somebody will still be a crime. The moral equivalent with drug laws would be drunk driving. (And I think that kills more people than guns.)
- lisper 11y ago
  At the risk of stating the painfully obvious, "gun crimes" refers to crimes committed with guns (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, etc.), not to violations of gun prohibition. There is no analogy to that with drugs. The only crime you can commit with a drug is a violation of prohibition. (Well, OK, maybe you can try to poison someone, but that's not exactly a rampant problem.)
  - LordKano 11y ago
    At the risk of stating the painfully obvious, "gun crimes" refers to crimes committed with guns (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, etc.), not to violations of gun prohibition. In that case, one could argue that "drug crime" isn't really violation of prohibition laws but the crimes committed to feed the habits of addicts or crimes committed while under the influence of drugs. In reality it's both. Gun crimes are shootings and non-violent violations of firearms regulations. Possession of an unlicensed machinegun is a gun crime.
    - lisper 11y ago
      Sure, but the vast majority of "crimes committed to feed the habits of addicts" would simply evaporate if there weren't prohibition because the price of drugs wouldn't be so high, so addicts wouldn't need to commit crimes to support their habit. I don't know how much crime is actually committed under the influence. I'm pretty sure that smoking marijuana actually reduces one's tendency to commit crimes.