5 ms·

Oh really? As someone that once faced serious jail time for plants, I think that would have been a nice option, but I wasted two years of my life in court/etc.

micromacrofoot 3y ago
[flagged]
- popcalc 3y ago
  The GP didn't specify which rights they were referring to. The parent probably assumed they mean natural rights. I think that's an understandable assumption.
- direwolf20 3y ago
  like possessing the wrong non-toxic plant
  - pc86 3y ago
    So change the law, but "this thing shouldn't be illegal" is a completely separate discussion from "breaking this law should carry no penalty."
    - fantasybroker 3y ago
      Not sure why you have such a strong opinion on this. There are countless examples of people suffering immense harm for trivial things that are considered unlawful in some jurisdictions. And no, "so change the law" is not the full answer, that's just blaming the victim.
      - pc86 3y ago
        Not sure why you think I have such a strong opinion. You are not a victim if you break the law, and it's not victim blaming to say that you should follow the law and work to change it if you disagree with it. Plenty of people never smoked pot when it was illegal then started using it recreationally when it was legal recreationally. If you want to break the law I could care less for something victimless like low level recreational drug use but don't be surprised when some regressive jurisdiction nails you for it and punishes you. That doesn't make you a victim, it makes you someone who got caught breaking the law.
        fantasybroker 3y ago
        How do you keep track of all local, state, and federal laws?
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        So your thesis is that just because some arbitrary thing is against some law then nobody should use the word victim to describe people having their lives ruined by the enforcement of said law? Because laws are somehow divine and perfect by virtue of them just existing or something? Nobody has ever been the victim of any repressive system of government or "justice" because it was "the law?" Many people are victims of unjust laws from laws against pot to laws against homosexuality. Thousands of people across the US and across the world are routinely victimized by unjust laws and corrupt police.
        lostlogin 3y ago
        This. Pick pretty much any disadvantaged group and there will be or have been a law that keeps them in their place. I guess they should just follow the rules and complain via the methods the oppressors specify?
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        The thing is that there is a huge amount of indoctrination from schools to popular media that encourages people to just accept "Law" as somehow of divine providence. Many many people go their entire lives without considering the possibility that the primary function of many laws and "justice" systems would be to oppress and victimize people.
        lostlogin 3y ago
        It’s not quite the same thing as what you are describing, but it leads into Peelian Principles of policing. By consent and with transparency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
    - sowbug 3y ago
      What penalty was appropriate for people who engaged in miscegenation in the United States before June 12, 1967?
      - lostlogin 3y ago
        > What penalty was appropriate A life sentence. Silliness aside, I didn’t know this was a thing. Yikes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation
  - talldatethrow 3y ago
    A police officer once told me officers liked having something concrete and easy to catch someone with. His mode of thinking was "if someone is willing to risk jail for something as simple as weed, imagine what else they'd do for a greater reward"
    - mock-possum 3y ago
      Sounds like exactly the sort of person that should not be a cop
      - talldatethrow 3y ago
        Maybe. He was pretty convincing. The above goes along with his statement on "non violent drug offenders". He thinks it's a false concept, because again most people risking jail time transporting 5lbs of weed also do other bad things, but you just can't catch them doing it or prove it. If a drug dealer doesn't get paid by someone, they usually ARE violent with that person. If someone snitches to the police, they are violent with that person. If you insult a drug dealer casually on the street, they are violent with that person. They do carry weapons with them often. But catching them being violent or using their weapons is pretty hard. Catching them with the 5 lbs is easier. And then they get labeled non violent.
        throwaway902984 3y ago
        > He thinks it's a false concept, because again most people risking jail time transporting 5lbs of weed also do other bad things That isn't the case IME, most people in the black market dealing with weed are pretty non-violent up until you are talking millions of dollars, which 5lbs will never be. They tend to only deal in weed or weed derivatives at those levels as well. It just doesn't make economic sense to do otherwise. What little bloods and crips style stuff of favela fame is a lot less common now too from what I can tell.
        talldatethrow 3y ago
        People robbing a weed store shot and killed a police officer in Oakland a few days ago. Nice people.
- jurynulifcation 3y ago
  [flagged]
- uxp8u61q 3y ago
  Once you've served your sentence you should recover all your rights. Lifelong punishment is a violation of human rights - those rights that you cannot "forfeit" or lose.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    I believe there exist some set of crimes for which lifelong punishment is appropriate. Which crimes are in that set is a fine topic for debate and some may argue that the null set is correct. For me, the set is not-null. (Simple drug possession, of any drug, in any amount, is not among that set for me.)
    - uxp8u61q 3y ago
      Take it up with the UNHRC.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        I have way better uses for my time than to argue with them in either direction. They can hold whatever stance they do and I'll do the same.
        uxp8u61q 3y ago
        As if the opinion of a random person on the internet had the same value as the policy of an organization established by the general assembly of the UN.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        If it helps, I value your opinion, random internet commenter, on equal footing with the UN’s.
- mock-possum 3y ago
  It should never have been a crime in the first place. Punishment for breaking an unjust law is an injustice. The state owes restitution to the person you replied to. You should be ashamed for dismissing their suffering so carelessly.
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    I think a lot of laws shouldn't exist, but I have no illusions about being able to break them without consequence.
  - d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
    If you can just pick and choose which laws are just and unjust then society breaks down. As another commenter said, it's far better to focus your efforts on changing the laws. If they are truly unjust, then changing them will have wide support. We can already see this with the relaxation of Marijuana laws. Even if you personally disagree with something and think it should be changed, you still have to "read the room" and see if society agrees with you. If not, then bide your time and wait for society to catch up.

micromacrofoot 3y ago

[flagged]

popcalc 3y ago
The GP didn't specify which rights they were referring to. The parent probably assumed they mean natural rights. I think that's an understandable assumption.
direwolf20 3y ago
like possessing the wrong non-toxic plant
- pc86 3y ago
  So change the law, but "this thing shouldn't be illegal" is a completely separate discussion from "breaking this law should carry no penalty."
  - fantasybroker 3y ago
    Not sure why you have such a strong opinion on this. There are countless examples of people suffering immense harm for trivial things that are considered unlawful in some jurisdictions. And no, "so change the law" is not the full answer, that's just blaming the victim.
    - pc86 3y ago
      Not sure why you think I have such a strong opinion. You are not a victim if you break the law, and it's not victim blaming to say that you should follow the law and work to change it if you disagree with it. Plenty of people never smoked pot when it was illegal then started using it recreationally when it was legal recreationally. If you want to break the law I could care less for something victimless like low level recreational drug use but don't be surprised when some regressive jurisdiction nails you for it and punishes you. That doesn't make you a victim, it makes you someone who got caught breaking the law.
      - fantasybroker 3y ago
        How do you keep track of all local, state, and federal laws?
      - MeImCounting 3y ago
        So your thesis is that just because some arbitrary thing is against some law then nobody should use the word victim to describe people having their lives ruined by the enforcement of said law? Because laws are somehow divine and perfect by virtue of them just existing or something? Nobody has ever been the victim of any repressive system of government or "justice" because it was "the law?" Many people are victims of unjust laws from laws against pot to laws against homosexuality. Thousands of people across the US and across the world are routinely victimized by unjust laws and corrupt police.
        lostlogin 3y ago
        This. Pick pretty much any disadvantaged group and there will be or have been a law that keeps them in their place. I guess they should just follow the rules and complain via the methods the oppressors specify?
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        The thing is that there is a huge amount of indoctrination from schools to popular media that encourages people to just accept "Law" as somehow of divine providence. Many many people go their entire lives without considering the possibility that the primary function of many laws and "justice" systems would be to oppress and victimize people.
        lostlogin 3y ago
        It’s not quite the same thing as what you are describing, but it leads into Peelian Principles of policing. By consent and with transparency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
  - sowbug 3y ago
    What penalty was appropriate for people who engaged in miscegenation in the United States before June 12, 1967?
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      > What penalty was appropriate A life sentence. Silliness aside, I didn’t know this was a thing. Yikes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation
- talldatethrow 3y ago
  A police officer once told me officers liked having something concrete and easy to catch someone with. His mode of thinking was "if someone is willing to risk jail for something as simple as weed, imagine what else they'd do for a greater reward"
  - mock-possum 3y ago
    Sounds like exactly the sort of person that should not be a cop
    - talldatethrow 3y ago
      Maybe. He was pretty convincing. The above goes along with his statement on "non violent drug offenders". He thinks it's a false concept, because again most people risking jail time transporting 5lbs of weed also do other bad things, but you just can't catch them doing it or prove it. If a drug dealer doesn't get paid by someone, they usually ARE violent with that person. If someone snitches to the police, they are violent with that person. If you insult a drug dealer casually on the street, they are violent with that person. They do carry weapons with them often. But catching them being violent or using their weapons is pretty hard. Catching them with the 5 lbs is easier. And then they get labeled non violent.
      - throwaway902984 3y ago
        > He thinks it's a false concept, because again most people risking jail time transporting 5lbs of weed also do other bad things That isn't the case IME, most people in the black market dealing with weed are pretty non-violent up until you are talking millions of dollars, which 5lbs will never be. They tend to only deal in weed or weed derivatives at those levels as well. It just doesn't make economic sense to do otherwise. What little bloods and crips style stuff of favela fame is a lot less common now too from what I can tell.
        talldatethrow 3y ago
        People robbing a weed store shot and killed a police officer in Oakland a few days ago. Nice people.
jurynulifcation 3y ago
[flagged]
uxp8u61q 3y ago
Once you've served your sentence you should recover all your rights. Lifelong punishment is a violation of human rights - those rights that you cannot "forfeit" or lose.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  I believe there exist some set of crimes for which lifelong punishment is appropriate. Which crimes are in that set is a fine topic for debate and some may argue that the null set is correct. For me, the set is not-null. (Simple drug possession, of any drug, in any amount, is not among that set for me.)
  - uxp8u61q 3y ago
    Take it up with the UNHRC.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      I have way better uses for my time than to argue with them in either direction. They can hold whatever stance they do and I'll do the same.
      - uxp8u61q 3y ago
        As if the opinion of a random person on the internet had the same value as the policy of an organization established by the general assembly of the UN.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        If it helps, I value your opinion, random internet commenter, on equal footing with the UN’s.
mock-possum 3y ago
It should never have been a crime in the first place. Punishment for breaking an unjust law is an injustice. The state owes restitution to the person you replied to. You should be ashamed for dismissing their suffering so carelessly.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  I think a lot of laws shouldn't exist, but I have no illusions about being able to break them without consequence.
- d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
  If you can just pick and choose which laws are just and unjust then society breaks down. As another commenter said, it's far better to focus your efforts on changing the laws. If they are truly unjust, then changing them will have wide support. We can already see this with the relaxation of Marijuana laws. Even if you personally disagree with something and think it should be changed, you still have to "read the room" and see if society agrees with you. If not, then bide your time and wait for society to catch up.