4 ms·

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
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        This is a great addition to the conversation! I didn't know about the Peelian principles and had only a passing familiarity with the entire concept of 'policing by consent.' Living in the US, it is not surprising that this concept seems foreign to me. Personally, I still take issue with the idea of locking other human beings in cages. I think a police force that strictly follows the ideals laid out by Sir Robert Peel is about as close to ethical as it can get while still having people whose full-time job it is to enforce society's collective will on others. I believe there will always be better conflict resolution techniques than violence. That being said, the Peelian principles do lay out a seemingly ideal compromise in a society haunted by trauma and violence. Maybe even a path to a society where we don't lock anyone in cages anymore.
        3y ago
- 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.

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
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        This is a great addition to the conversation! I didn't know about the Peelian principles and had only a passing familiarity with the entire concept of 'policing by consent.' Living in the US, it is not surprising that this concept seems foreign to me. Personally, I still take issue with the idea of locking other human beings in cages. I think a police force that strictly follows the ideals laid out by Sir Robert Peel is about as close to ethical as it can get while still having people whose full-time job it is to enforce society's collective will on others. I believe there will always be better conflict resolution techniques than violence. That being said, the Peelian principles do lay out a seemingly ideal compromise in a society haunted by trauma and violence. Maybe even a path to a society where we don't lock anyone in cages anymore.
        3y ago
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.