3 ms·

You would seriously keep people in jail for marijuana charges after marijuana was legalized? If a mistake is made, remedy the mistake. The government made a mi

by imgabe 10y ago

You would seriously keep people in jail for marijuana charges after marijuana was legalized? If a mistake is made, remedy the mistake. The government made a mistake in providing a glut of cheap money and prohibiting the borrowers from discharging the debt in bankruptcy. They need to fix their mistake by undoing that. What you're proposing is like abolishing slavery, except for everyone who is currently a slave. "Sorry guys, there will be no NEW slaves, but you were slaves when it was legal, so, tough"

gxs 10y ago
Your response doesn't make any sense. Throw a hissy fit all you want about your pot, but you KNOW it's illegal and if you choose to ignore that that's on you. Same as with loans. You choose to take out the loan, that's on you. If I choose to run my car into a crowd I suffer the consequences, not Chrysler. (And yes, I realize this analogy isn't perfect) And comparing this to slavery is plain stupid. That is an issue much greater than this regarding equality for everyone. You didn't have a choice to be born a slave. And here I don't even necessarily agree with not helping these people - I just want the issue addressed of where we draw the line between poor decision making and poor choices.
dredmorbius 10y ago
That description bears similarities to how slavery was constrained in the US: The international slave trade was abolished in 1800, but existing slaves, and their children, could still be kept, bought, and sold, until 1863.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The international slave trade was abolished in 1800, but existing slaves, and their children, could still be kept, bought, and sold, until 1863. 1865 (with the ratification of the 13th Amendment), actually.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Well, if you want to go there, technically slavery is still legal, but only as a punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      The point about 1865 is that 1863 refers to a military order that applied only to the states in rebellion. There were, IIRC, on the order of 50k permanent chattel slaves in the Union that were not affected by the application of the proclamation to rebel states as the Union secured control of them, and we're only freed by the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

by imgabe 10y ago

gxs 10y ago

Your response doesn't make any sense. Throw a hissy fit all you want about your pot, but you KNOW it's illegal and if you choose to ignore that that's on you. Same as with loans. You choose to take out the loan, that's on you. If I choose to run my car into a crowd I suffer the consequences, not Chrysler. (And yes, I realize this analogy isn't perfect) And comparing this to slavery is plain stupid. That is an issue much greater than this regarding equality for everyone. You didn't have a choice to be born a slave. And here I don't even necessarily agree with not helping these people - I just want the issue addressed of where we draw the line between poor decision making and poor choices.

dredmorbius 10y ago

That description bears similarities to how slavery was constrained in the US: The international slave trade was abolished in 1800, but existing slaves, and their children, could still be kept, bought, and sold, until 1863.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The international slave trade was abolished in 1800, but existing slaves, and their children, could still be kept, bought, and sold, until 1863. 1865 (with the ratification of the 13th Amendment), actually.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Well, if you want to go there, technically slavery is still legal, but only as a punishment for a crime: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The point about 1865 is that 1863 refers to a military order that applied only to the states in rebellion. There were, IIRC, on the order of 50k permanent chattel slaves in the Union that were not affected by the application of the proclamation to rebel states as the Union secured control of them, and we're only freed by the ratification of the 13th Amendment.