Also in the news

[LiberalFox]

Surely the American solution is arming the train driver and crew with machine guns. 

[marbles]

Good points by both Deb and SO1.  I’m glad we’re able to have a discussion, despite our differing opinions.

 

I do believe in rehab.

I also believe the way we (as in US) punish criminals needs to be overhauled.

If you commit a crime, you should not get a pass, or the opportunity to repeat based on the severity of it.  However, I don’t agree that non violent criminals should be housed with violent ones.  It only creates more violent criminals.  Both should still be jailed - but separately/separate facilities.

 

Blaming politicians, or educating at the root of the problem, is simply avoiding the issue.

People choose to break laws.  They don’t do it because a politician forced them to.  They don’t do it because they are uneducated.

Why in low income neighborhoods, with 2 kids growing up side by side, attending the same school - will one stay in school, learn and better themselves, while the other turn to a life of crime?  It’s a choice.  Certain people choose to take the easy way out.

 

 

 

 

[marbles]

2 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

Surely the American solution is arming the train driver and crew with machine guns. 

That’s kinda funny.

As I stated, the solution is to cut off an entire state from receiving needed goods - that’s where things are headed?  Why? Because our politicians cannot get on the same page about anything.

 

Although it is interesting that Biden/Harris have recently come out talking about needing to address crime.  My guess is they realize that’s what the country wants.
 

[Carl the Llama]

35 minutes ago, marbles said:

Good points by both Deb and SO1.  I’m glad we’re able to have a discussion, despite our differing opinions.

 

I do believe in rehab.

I also believe the way we (as in US) punish criminals needs to be overhauled.

If you commit a crime, you should not get a pass, or the opportunity to repeat based on the severity of it.  However, I don’t agree that non violent criminals should be housed with violent ones.  It only creates more violent criminals.  Both should still be jailed - but separately/separate facilities.

 

Blaming politicians, or educating at the root of the problem, is simply avoiding the issue.

People choose to break laws.  They don’t do it because a politician forced them to.  They don’t do it because they are uneducated.

Why in low income neighborhoods, with 2 kids growing up side by side, attending the same school - will one stay in school, learn and better themselves, while the other turn to a life of crime?  It’s a choice.  Certain people choose to take the easy way out.

It's not nearly as black and white as you make out. 

 

Take cannabis laws:  In your country this very moment there is a situation where in one state an adult can legally walk into a shop and purchase marijuana from a business which employs people to sell a product sourced from farmers who employ staff to grow hundreds, maybe thousands of plants a year.  Meanwhile in other states every single person involved in the whole transaction would be arrested for having broken the law, their behaviour's legality being arbitrarily defined by which lines on the map encompass their location.  Do you really think it's fair to automatically lock people up for small crimes given the subjective nature of what even constitutes one?  Crossing the road at an undesignated location is a crime in most states, should everybody who sees an empty road and saves a bit of time be locked up?  A bit of perspective is required before condemning every individual case, surely.

Edited 22 January 2022 by Carl the Llama

[marbles]

It’s about breaking the law Carl.

If people don’t like the law, they need to change it by electing the right officials, not by making excuses for the people who break it.

For the record, I agree it’s stupid that our laws are not the same from state to state.  I also think our marijuana laws are stupid.  However, I was raised to follow the law and that what I try my best to do.

 

As for the jaywalking scenario - jail is not the punishment, so there really is nothing to argue about.

I know you were just using it as an example.  Whatever “petty” crime you come up, my answer is still the same.  If the punishment is jail - that’s where they should go.  If people don’t like it, they can change the laws.  Not pick and choose what to follow.  Choosing which laws to follow are exactly what criminals do.

 

Edited 22 January 2022 by marbles

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, marbles said:

It’s about breaking the law Carl.

If people don’t like the law, they need to change it by electing the right officials, not by making excuses for the people who break it.

For the record, I agree it’s stupid that our laws are not the same from state to state.  I also think our marijuana laws are stupid.  However, I was raised to follow the law and that what I try my best to do.

 

As for the jaywalking scenario - jail is not the punishment, so there really is nothing to argue about.

I know you were just using it as an example.  Whatever “petty” crime you come up, my answer is still the same.  If the punishment is jail - that’s where they should go.  If people don’t like it, they can change the laws.  Not pick and choose what to follow.  Choosing which laws to follow are exactly what criminals do.

 

In an ideal system, that would be fine. Is the US system, locally and nationally for electing officials representative of their people, ideal?

 

I don't think so, and as such I'll continue to be an advocate for jury nullification based on conscience because sometimes the system is corrupt and as such the law is an arse.

[marbles]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

In an ideal system, that would be fine. Is the US system, locally and nationally for electing officials representative of their people, ideal?

 

I don't think so, and as such I'll continue to be an advocate for jury nullification based on conscience because sometimes the system is corrupt and as such the law is an arse.

Its the system we have - des it work? not all the time.  That still doesn't mean we get to decide which rules we want to follow. 

I harken back to a term Deb used earlier - Civilized Society.  In order to have a civilized society, there has to be rules.  Rules are not suggestions.  They are meant to be followed.

This is not a dictatorship, therefore if you don't like rules/laws, you elect someone that will change them.  

 

As for juries - I hate them.  With the internet today, its impossible to have an impartial and fair jury trial.

I believe juries should be abolished, and trials ruled over by a 3 judge panel - with majority ruling for the verdict.

 

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

37 minutes ago, marbles said:

Its the system we have - des it work? not all the time.  That still doesn't mean we get to decide which rules we want to follow. 

I harken back to a term Deb used earlier - Civilized Society.  In order to have a civilized society, there has to be rules.  Rules are not suggestions.  They are meant to be followed.

This is not a dictatorship, therefore if you don't like rules/laws, you elect someone that will change them.  

 

As for juries - I hate them.  With the internet today, its impossible to have an impartial and fair jury trial.

I believe juries should be abolished, and trials ruled over by a 3 judge panel - with majority ruling for the verdict.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't disagree that laws are necessary and anarchy could result from people deciding en masse which ones to follow and which not.

 

But I also don't think that the people have as much freedom to change those laws through legit means as you do. When that isn't available, what does one do? A place doesn't have to be a dictatorship for people to have less say in how their country is run - just a democracy that is open to elements of corruption at local or national level has a similar effect.

 

WRT jury trials, I'd say the advent of social media and the internet has had a profound impact on jury trials, yes. I wouldn't go so far as to abolish them, but the procedures do need looking at in this digital age.

[marbles]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

But I also don't think that the people have as much freedom to change those laws through legit means as you do. When that isn't available, what does one do? A place doesn't have to be a dictatorship for people to have less say in how their country is run - just a democracy that is open to elements of corruption at local or national level has a similar effect.

 

Not really sure what alternatives there are, but I do know it would be a huge mistake for the people to decide for themselves which laws to obey - starts with something insignificant like marijuana laws, and then what’s next?  

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, marbles said:

Not really sure what alternatives there are, but I do know it would be a huge mistake for the people to decide for themselves which laws to obey - starts with something insignificant like marijuana laws, and then what’s next?  

 

I think the truth is that there is no really simple answer to this one and it's a shit sandwich no matter which way it's sliced.

[Aus Fox]

I’m a bit late to this discussion, but find it fascinating. I suppose one of the big things for a society to define is the purpose of a prison.

Is it there as a punishment, or is it there to rehabilitate people?

If any given area, country, state, county has the highest levels of incarceration, then surely there is a deeper problem that society needs to address.

For me, education is the key to everything, we know the more educated you are the more likely you are to have a job, contribute to society and not find yourself in jail - this doesn’t mean educated people don’t commit crimes by the way.

Now imagine, if everyone who was sentenced to jail time was offered the chance to complete an apprenticeship or gain a qualification. The opportunity to get a job on their exit, or better still given the opportunity to choose between completing a qualification or going to jail - obviously depending or the seriousness of the crime, if that person is a danger to the community they should remain locked up.

The other thing we need to do is lose the stigma employers have about hiring people who have served time. 
We could do so much better as a society when every member of that community sees this opportunity to be successful. 
People make mistakes, and shouldn’t be punished their whole life for those mistakes, and if you did your time you should have the opportunity to move on. 
Personally, I wouldn’t look at jail time for anyone who didn’t represent a threat to the community in some way. These people should be offered support to fullfill their potential and participate fully in their community. 
For a state with the highest incarceration rates I would start by overhauling their education system- it’s clearly not working.

 

[marbles]

I like what you’re saying Aus, but I am going to argue one point you made.

 

Although education in this country is severely lacking (double emphasis on severely), I can’t see how that is what drives criminal activity.

Like I asked in an earlier post, why are their times when 2 kids raised together, attended school together - one studies, and betters themselves.  The other turns to a life of crime?  If it was only about the education, they would both (or all) follow the same path.  I think some people just choose the easy way in life.

 

I love your idea about training as someone is being released.  It gives them an opportunity to turn themself around.

I also agree about employers not holding it against former inmates.  Maybe it should be a federal law that once time is served, the record is expunged from general view - with the only exception being crimes involving children (sorry, but IMO it doesn’t get any worse)..  Even go so far as not allowing the question on job applications.

 

 

Edited 23 January 2022 by marbles

[nnfox]

The issue of prison/rehab is such a complex one, not least because there are so many different types of offenders all being squeezed into the same "one-size-fits-all" system.  I believe that rehab is possible but the offender has to engage in the process.  How many chances do they get before it's decided that it doesn't work?  The petty criminal that commits crime to fund a drug/alcohol dependency and can't get a job because of that dependency should be offered rehabilitation and given lots of support - if they are willing to engage. But there are some people who choose a life of crime, in every town and city, who get up with the sole intention of committing crime.  They make enough money to get by (some make much more).  It's their choice - they should be the ones in prison for the longest time.

[Buce]

 

I break the law every day because I smoke weed.

 

I'm a fully functioning member of society and my law-breaking hurts nobody, yet I face the constant threat of being branded a criminal.

 

The law is there to protect society but society doesn't need protecting from me or my activity, therefore I suggest it's the law that's wrong, not me.

[marbles]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I break the law every day because I smoke weed.

 

I'm a fully functioning member of society and my law-breaking hurts nobody, yet I face the constant threat of being branded a criminal.

 

The law is there to protect society but society doesn't need protecting from me or my activity, therefore I suggest it's the law that's wrong, not me.

Youre branded a criminal because you break the law.  
If it’s not legal where you smoke it, that means you are most likely buying from a dealer.  That dealer may get it from someone who deals in more than just weed.  Do you see where I’m going with this?

 

You can suggest whatever you like.

Im sure thieves feel they should be able to steal from the rich because they can afford it.  
criminals always find a way to justify what they do.  At the end of the day, they are breaking the law.

 

 

Edited 23 January 2022 by marbles

[RoyalBlueGaz]

 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, marbles said:

Youre branded a criminal because you break the law.  
If it’s not legal where you smoke it, that means you are most likely buying from a dealer.  That dealer may get it from someone who deals in more than just weed.  Do you see where I’m going with this?

 

 

No, what you're doing is making assumptions about something you clearly no nothing about.

 

1 hour ago, marbles said:

 

 

You can suggest whatever you like.

Im sure thieves feel they should be able to steal from the rich because they can afford it.  
criminals always find a way to justify what they do.  At the end of the day, they are breaking the law.

 

 

 

I won't say what I want to say here because I don't want banning.

Edited 23 January 2022 by Buce

[Guest SO1]

20 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

Surely the American solution is arming the train driver and crew with machine guns. 

Just another version of an Armored Truck except it runs on rails. Pretty sure the railroads had just this solution in the Wild West of the 1800's. That kind of gives you an idea of which way our county is moving.

[FoxesDeb]

5 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I break the law every day because I smoke weed.

 

I'm a fully functioning member of society and my law-breaking hurts nobody, yet I face the constant threat of being branded a criminal.

 

The law is there to protect society but society doesn't need protecting from me or my activity, therefore I suggest it's the law that's wrong, not me.

I think the assumption that society doesn't need protecting from you is probably fair enough if you're growing your own. 

 

If you're buying from a dealer though, even if your particular dealer at your street level isn't, the people above them are often involved in much wider and more significant crime. A very quick Google search shows us that illegal arms dealing, exploitation of vulnerable people and children, and terrorism are all widely associated with drug dealing, child exploitation is apparently rife even with cannabis dealers. 

 

So while people might think they are doing little wrong smoking a bit of dope in the comfort of their own living room, drug users also need to be aware of the background, and the way the drugs arrive to their little part of their comfy world. 

 

 

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

I think the assumption that society doesn't need protecting from you is probably fair enough if you're growing your own. 

 

If you're buying from a dealer though, even if your particular dealer at your street level isn't, the people above them are often involved in much wider and more significant crime. A very quick Google search shows us that illegal arms dealing, exploitation of vulnerable people and children, and terrorism are all widely associated with drug dealing, child exploitation is apparently rife even with cannabis dealers. 

 

So while people might think they are doing little wrong smoking a bit of dope in the comfort of their own living room, drug users also need to be aware of the background, and the way the drugs arrive to their little part of their comfy world. 

 

 

Another quality post. 

[Parafox]

8 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I break the law every day because I smoke weed.

 

I'm a fully functioning member of society and my law-breaking hurts nobody, yet I face the constant threat of being branded a criminal.

 

The law is there to protect society but society doesn't need protecting from me or my activity, therefore I suggest it's the law that's wrong, not me.

Were you high when you posted this?

[Jattdogg]

Come to canada and have some grade A Government weed. Loads of jobs over here for budtenders!

[SpacedX]

Since Russia redeployed a significant portion of it's far eastern armed deployment to Belarus I was hearing on the radio it's now believed that up to 127,000 troops are amassed near the Ukraine border. This is very different to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 where plausible deniability, propaganda and internal provocation (Russian backed separatists) were all employed to justify the occupation accusing Kiev of stirring up tensions in the country's east and of violating the Minsk ceasefire agreement. The current military build up suggests that a full scale invasion is now imminent after years of skirmishes in 'occupied territory' - Donetsk (where MH-17 was shot down) and Luhansk. In response to 2014, the Obama administration backed and insurgence in Donbas, whilst NATO has increased its defenses with combat-ready battlegroups in the eastern part of the alliance, in the Baltic countries, in Latvia, but also in the Black Sea region. The Crimean peninsula and the Russian Black Sea Fleet is now connected by a road bridge to mainland Russia and there is grave concern that they also have their eyes upon regaining supremacy in the Baltic.

 

Apparently, the European Union depends on Russia for around a third of its gas supplies - and obviously sanctions following an invasion will result in the disruption of this in response. For some time Putin has been using gas as a geopolitical weapon by insisting any extra supplies go via Nord Stream 2, which bypasses Ukraine to supply Germany directly via the Baltic Sea. Ukraine is worried the push to approve this pipeline signifies a lack of political will in Europe to back Kiev’s pro-western aspirations. Putin meanwhile wants to turn back time and go back to the situation that we had 35 years ago whereby The Soviet Union negotiated special conditions with politicians of different countries. This is one of the reason that the Moscow bots beavered away for Brexit on social media and were pro-Trump, who was threatening to come out of NATO. Nord Stream 2 would make Ukraine more vulnerable to a full-scale Russian invasion by removing a deterrent for Moscow not to act. If there will be no physical transit going through Ukraine, it increases the chances of a full-scale war between Russia and Ukraine, with all the consequences of it. The United States promises to have Europe's back if there is an energy shortage due to conflict or sanctions If pipeline supplies from Russia to Europe are reduced, European buyers would need to seek cargoes of superchilled gas to compensate. U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are set to rocket this year to make it the world's foremost LNG supplier. Europe competes for LNG supplies from suppliers such as the United States and Qatar with top consumers China and Japan, which also face an energy crunch.

 

At a time of soaring utility bills, inflation and rapidly increasing consumer expense - an invasion of the Ukraine by Russia and the subsequent shortage of gas could mean record prices. 

 

 

[Strokes]

16 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

I think the assumption that society doesn't need protecting from you is probably fair enough if you're growing your own. 

 

If you're buying from a dealer though, even if your particular dealer at your street level isn't, the people above them are often involved in much wider and more significant crime. A very quick Google search shows us that illegal arms dealing, exploitation of vulnerable people and children, and terrorism are all widely associated with drug dealing, child exploitation is apparently rife even with cannabis dealers. 

 

So while people might think they are doing little wrong smoking a bit of dope in the comfort of their own living room, drug users also need to be aware of the background, and the way the drugs arrive to their little part of their comfy world. 

 

 

Whilst all that may well be true, isn’t that a bit like blaming an Amazon/Starbucks/Apple customer when the corporation avoids tax etc.

The market and drug laws dictates that the purchase is made this way. It’s not the consumers fault that this is the collateral.

Partaking in cannabis use is not the problem.

[FoxesDeb]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Whilst all that may well be true, isn’t that a bit like blaming an Amazon/Starbucks/Apple customer when the corporation avoids tax etc.

The market and drug laws dictates that the purchase is made this way. It’s not the consumers fault that this is the collateral.

Partaking in cannabis use is not the problem.

I don't really think tax avoidance can be compared with illegal weapons dealing and child exploitation, no, but I take your point. 

 

My response was more to the OP's claim that nobody gets hurt by cannabis use. I don't think that's necessarily true, at least not the way it is produced and distributed at the moment. Changing the law is obviously the way forward, but at present, unless you're growing your own, I think it's naive to think that nobody suffers. 

 

Regarding your last point, ultimately if there was no demand there would be no problem. Obviously though that's not the way to solve the problem, and I believe people should be allowed to use if they wish. Again, the law needs to change and production and distribution needs to be regulated. But that's a whole other conversation.