5 ms·

> 1. Drugs should be legal and sold out of liquor stores to anyone 21 and older. I agree (mostly), but they are not. Society has decided that certain drugs are

> 1. Drugs should be legal and sold out of liquor stores to anyone 21 and older. I agree (mostly), but they are not. Society has decided that certain drugs are illegal (for now). This point doesn't really have anything to do with anything. > 2. His sentence isn't about trying to cripple the drug trade, but about punishing someone the government does not like. How do you figure? Did they just pick him out randomly and decide to find whatever they could on this guy? I would probably think that the people prosecuting him believed he had significant impact in enabling certain drug trades. > 3. The same motivation could someday be used to prosecute people who serve cheeseburgers to drug dealers at a restaurant under the theory that they were helping those drug dealers to deal drugs (you can't deal drugs if you're starving). This is ridiculous, and completely undermines everything else you said. 24 years for building hidden compartments is a joke, even if he knew what they were being used for. Current drug laws are a joke. Governments enable a tonne of bad behaviour by denying people access to substances they want that rarely hurt others. But making outrageous claims about serving food to a drug smuggler helps no one.

baddox 12y ago
> Society has decided that certain drugs are illegal (for now). An oversimplification, because government has decided that certain drugs are illegal. > This is ridiculous, and completely undermines everything else you said. Is it? Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is a court case where the organization was accused (and ruled against) of providing material support to a terrorist organization because they advised the organization to not use violence. That's the government's other perpetual war, but it shows that something which sounds completely ludicrous can also be very real.
- jsmeaton 12y ago
  > An oversimplification, because government has decided that certain drugs are illegal. I don't think it is an oversimplification. Society as a majority, at some point, wanted these drugs illegal. Government passed the law and society allowed it to happen (and to remain). > because they advised the organization to not use violence The law says not to aid terrorists organisations. They aided a terrorist organisation. That's pretty far removed (in my opinion) from serving someone a cheeseburger that walks into your store. The "war" on drugs and the "war" on terrorism and the laws that support them are incredibly unjust and extreme in my opinion. I would bet lots of people here feel the same. But throwing out ridiculous statements as opposition harms more than helps.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > Society as a majority, at some point, wanted these drugs illegal. Most likely, this is still the case. However, if you polled people on a case-by-case basis, I think you would find that a majority would not support a large number of cases regarding drugs. And, of course, if you suggested that only the people who oppose drug legality should contribute funding to the drug war, you would find a much smaller group of proponents. > Government passed the law and society allowed it to happen (and to remain). Isn't that just a blatant appeal to nature? Yes, society has "allowed" it to happen, in the sense that it has happened. But according to that usage, literally everything that has happened since society existed has been "allowed" to happen by society. > The law says not to aid terrorists organisations. They aided a terrorist organisation. That's pretty far removed (in my opinion) from serving someone a cheeseburger that walks into your store. They "aided" a terrorist organization by recommending that they cease being a terrorist organization. Giving food to a criminal is much more direct aid to criminal activity than urging a criminal to cease criminal activity. > But throwing out ridiculous statements as opposition harms more than helps. And I believe I have thrown out zero ridiculous statements thus far.
    - x0x0 12y ago
      Then -- if people polled so believe -- they should get off their lazy goddamn asses and vote. We did have such a vote on marijuana recently in California, and we lost. We'll probably have another vote in 2016. But if all people are willing to do is run their mouths to pollsters, then we're going to have another 40 years of the war on drugs. Showing that allowing people to smoke a bowl at will doesn't cause society to crumble will help when we discuss harm abatement projects for heroin, meth, etc.
      - baddox 12y ago
        The problem with voting is that the individual benefit of voting is almost certainly less than the individual cost of voting. To expect most people to educate themselves about political issues and vote is to expect most people to act irrationally. If, on the other hand, individuals were able to choose to decrease their own taxes by whatever portion is used to the fund the drug war, I suspect people would be more educated about how the drug war works, and the drug war would have a lot less funding. Conversely, if everyone voted on what car to manufacture, and only the winning car could be legally manufactured, I suspect people would do very little research of cars, and the winning car would be an awful car.
ithought 12y ago
His punishment is either punitive or hysterically motivated. In my experience, people who have been threatened by either federal agents or prosecutors feel like they are being punished for personal reasons outside of the crime. Asserting your rights or just merely not accepting a plea deal can be enough. Let alone engaging in a legal technical trade that subverts law enforcement's ability, thus thumbing your nose at them, which is similar to speaking out against them publicly.

baddox 12y ago

> Society has decided that certain drugs are illegal (for now). An oversimplification, because government has decided that certain drugs are illegal. > This is ridiculous, and completely undermines everything else you said. Is it? Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project is a court case where the organization was accused (and ruled against) of providing material support to a terrorist organization because they advised the organization to not use violence. That's the government's other perpetual war, but it shows that something which sounds completely ludicrous can also be very real.

jsmeaton 12y ago
> An oversimplification, because government has decided that certain drugs are illegal. I don't think it is an oversimplification. Society as a majority, at some point, wanted these drugs illegal. Government passed the law and society allowed it to happen (and to remain). > because they advised the organization to not use violence The law says not to aid terrorists organisations. They aided a terrorist organisation. That's pretty far removed (in my opinion) from serving someone a cheeseburger that walks into your store. The "war" on drugs and the "war" on terrorism and the laws that support them are incredibly unjust and extreme in my opinion. I would bet lots of people here feel the same. But throwing out ridiculous statements as opposition harms more than helps.
- baddox 12y ago
  > Society as a majority, at some point, wanted these drugs illegal. Most likely, this is still the case. However, if you polled people on a case-by-case basis, I think you would find that a majority would not support a large number of cases regarding drugs. And, of course, if you suggested that only the people who oppose drug legality should contribute funding to the drug war, you would find a much smaller group of proponents. > Government passed the law and society allowed it to happen (and to remain). Isn't that just a blatant appeal to nature? Yes, society has "allowed" it to happen, in the sense that it has happened. But according to that usage, literally everything that has happened since society existed has been "allowed" to happen by society. > The law says not to aid terrorists organisations. They aided a terrorist organisation. That's pretty far removed (in my opinion) from serving someone a cheeseburger that walks into your store. They "aided" a terrorist organization by recommending that they cease being a terrorist organization. Giving food to a criminal is much more direct aid to criminal activity than urging a criminal to cease criminal activity. > But throwing out ridiculous statements as opposition harms more than helps. And I believe I have thrown out zero ridiculous statements thus far.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    Then -- if people polled so believe -- they should get off their lazy goddamn asses and vote. We did have such a vote on marijuana recently in California, and we lost. We'll probably have another vote in 2016. But if all people are willing to do is run their mouths to pollsters, then we're going to have another 40 years of the war on drugs. Showing that allowing people to smoke a bowl at will doesn't cause society to crumble will help when we discuss harm abatement projects for heroin, meth, etc.
    - baddox 12y ago
      The problem with voting is that the individual benefit of voting is almost certainly less than the individual cost of voting. To expect most people to educate themselves about political issues and vote is to expect most people to act irrationally. If, on the other hand, individuals were able to choose to decrease their own taxes by whatever portion is used to the fund the drug war, I suspect people would be more educated about how the drug war works, and the drug war would have a lot less funding. Conversely, if everyone voted on what car to manufacture, and only the winning car could be legally manufactured, I suspect people would do very little research of cars, and the winning car would be an awful car.

ithought 12y ago

His punishment is either punitive or hysterically motivated. In my experience, people who have been threatened by either federal agents or prosecutors feel like they are being punished for personal reasons outside of the crime. Asserting your rights or just merely not accepting a plea deal can be enough. Let alone engaging in a legal technical trade that subverts law enforcement's ability, thus thumbing your nose at them, which is similar to speaking out against them publicly.