REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[AFK]

I'd like to add another point about the "no financial aid" policy:

From a legal standpoint isn't that policy unconstitutional? Seems to me as though it violates double jeopardy. I mean, we've already decided as a society that we punish drug law violations with fines and/or jail time. IF someone is fined and/or jailed as a result of their drug conviction (this counts even if their sentence is suspended, since it's still imposed) and pays the fine/serves the time how is it justifiable to continue to punish them for the rest of their life?

Well technically it isn't but I do agree it is unneccessarily adding another layer of punishment. 

[Doktor Howl]

Again with your selective reading.  I think I made it quite clear in a couple of posts that I believe that kids who get in trouble should get second chances.  However, the other thing I know quite clearly is that our young people also need to experience logical consequences of their behavior.  Otherwise they don't learn.  If there are no consequences for behavior, behavior doesn't change.  

So what we're doing here is conditioning them to behave in a way that the rest of society feels is acceptable?

Am I tracking so far?

No.  What I'm saying that until things are different kids need to be educated on what is.  Education is important, and like it or not, there are certain rules that are in place for financial aid.  Are they too draconian?  Sure.  But they aren't going to change overnight.  They just aren't.  So kids need to decide what is more important and make decisions accordingly.  If using pot or other drugs is THAT important, than they need to understand they are taking on certain risks for their future, health being a primary and educational opportunities being another.  

Children are known for making good decisions?  And given that the first offense is - in many areas - a life wrecker, I fail to see any advantages to prohibition, given the relatively harmless effects of pot compared to having your life ruined FOREVER because you made a dumb decision at age 16 (any SANE society makes allowances for stupidity at that age).

Having tracked the thread for the last dozen pages or so, I am now more than ever convinced that prohibition does far more harm than good.  I have yet to see a single argument from any source to support it that isn't based on the slippery slope fallacy, or appeal to authority.

[East Coast Hustle]

I get a little personally testy about the financial aid thing, for reasons already explained, but in general I just find this thread fascinating both as an example of how a group of extremely diverse and EXTREMELY strong-willed people actually CAN have a heated debate that still stays rational and respectful.

I mean, my caring about most pot laws is limited to my general sense of justice. It's not like any of it affects me personally. I don't give a shit if something is legal or not if I want to do it. I don't see why pot should be any different from speeding, in that respect.

[Doktor Howl]

I'd like to add another point about the "no financial aid" policy:

From a legal standpoint isn't that policy unconstitutional? Seems to me as though it violates double jeopardy. I mean, we've already decided as a society that we punish drug law violations with fines and/or jail time. IF someone is fined and/or jailed as a result of their drug conviction (this counts even if their sentence is suspended, since it's still imposed) and pays the fine/serves the time how is it justifiable to continue to punish them for the rest of their life?

They can't TRY you twice.  They can lump on as many punishments as they want in sentencing.

[AFK]

RWHN, I usually skip points that I have already seen adequately refuted.

Uh huh.  The point remains you are holding me to a different standard than other posters in this thread and I think it is plainly because you don't only disagree with me, you disagree with my on a level that for some reason is personal.  I mean, it's completely obvious you are trying to catch me in a "gotcha".  Which is why you are selectively reading.  

Law of Fives in full effect.  

Nope. The reason is that there are a ton of other people in this thread refuting your points fairly exhaustively and only one person defending them, and I don't see the need to keep covering points others already have.

But that was a good stab at mind-reading I guess.

Honestly, outside of this one topic, and the punning, I like you. But you're like an eel on this one topic, and when you can't defend a point, you either invent a strawman to tear apart or simply evade it and it gets old.

As I said, Law of Fives in full effect.  YOu are seeing what you want to see which is fairly evident by your selective reading and your generalizations.  I appreciate that Net conceded on that point but see that you are going to go ahead and dig in.  If that's what floats your boat.

And, really, I don't honestly care if you like me or not.  Oh, and thank you for getting the pun dig in as well.  I'm glad to know (what was plainly obvious) that the puns annoy you.  You should do yourself and me a favor and just avoid conversing with me alltogether.  

[East Coast Hustle]

I'd like to add another point about the "no financial aid" policy:

From a legal standpoint isn't that policy unconstitutional? Seems to me as though it violates double jeopardy. I mean, we've already decided as a society that we punish drug law violations with fines and/or jail time. IF someone is fined and/or jailed as a result of their drug conviction (this counts even if their sentence is suspended, since it's still imposed) and pays the fine/serves the time how is it justifiable to continue to punish them for the rest of their life?

They can't TRY you twice.  They can lump on as many punishments as they want in sentencing.

Funny, I was never sentenced to "6 months in jail, to be suspended pending payment of a $2000 fine AND loss of all federal financial aid for life". In fact, I'm pretty sure they tacked that on after the fact which IIRC means it DOES violate double jeopardy (for people who still believe in that sort of thing).

[AFK]

Heh, just looking at the "Who's Online" and it looks like a bunch of people are reading this thread. If nothing else at least it's entertaining people.  But, I'm out, need to get the kiddos clean for tomorrow.  It's been real. 

[East Coast Hustle]

What's sad is that there's a pretty good chance that this thread is the single most intelligent discussion ever had on this particular subject.

[Doktor Howl]

I'd like to add another point about the "no financial aid" policy:

From a legal standpoint isn't that policy unconstitutional? Seems to me as though it violates double jeopardy. I mean, we've already decided as a society that we punish drug law violations with fines and/or jail time. IF someone is fined and/or jailed as a result of their drug conviction (this counts even if their sentence is suspended, since it's still imposed) and pays the fine/serves the time how is it justifiable to continue to punish them for the rest of their life?

They can't TRY you twice.  They can lump on as many punishments as they want in sentencing.

Funny, I was never sentenced to "6 months in jail, to be suspended pending payment of a $200 fine AND loss of all federal financial aid for life". In fact, I'm pretty sure they tacked that on after the fact which IIRC means it DOES violate double jeopardy (for people who still believe in that sort of thing).

Naw, they added it as a condition for student aid, which is a different matter, altogether.

For example, if you are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in this state, you serve your time.

You also can't own guns, even though that wasn't in the sentence (and the crime wasn't a felony), because gun ownership laws in this state require that:

1.  You are a citizen.

2.  You have no felonies.

3.  You have no domestic violence convictions.

One is a sentence (the time you do), the other is a qualifier.  I have a problem with this on 2nd amendment grounds, but not on double jeopardy, as the person accused is not tried twice, which is what double jeopardy implies.

[East Coast Hustle]

I understand the technical distinction, I'm just making the point that it is strictly technical.

Also, that was added as a condition of student aid AFTER my conviction. So I didn't even have the option of knowing that particular potential consequence of my actions.

[Doktor Howl]

I understand the technical distinction, I'm just making the point that it is strictly technical.

Also, that was added as a condition of student aid AFTER my conviction. So I didn't even have the option of knowing that particular potential consequence of my actions.

1.  The law is nothing but strict technicalities.  As I've heard judges say all too often, "Fair is a four letter word".

2.  Yep.  Check this out:  Being indicted for a felony means you can't own a gun here.  No conviction required.

[BadBeast]

It pays to bear in mind that Drug Laws were introduced, primarily to protect people from exposure to the pernicious and debilitating dangers of drugs.

So why are we all passively supporting "War on Drugs" Laws that are only ever implemented against the very people they were set up to protect in the first place?

They have consistently failed to deliver any protection at all. Monumentally. And rather than change a such a costly and drastically counter productive policy mistake, they'd much rather just continue punishing the victims. It's loads easier than having to admit they fucked up.

Anyway, the most important thing is that people see the process of punishment happening. It has to happen to bad guys, or it's pointless. So those people are bad. By default of being punished.

A policy worthy of any despot, from Caligula,to Pol Pot.  Ivan 1st, to Robert Mugabe.

[East Coast Hustle]

You know, if you would just start posting FIRST in a bunch of threads you'd save the rest of us ALOT of time and energy.

[Doktor Howl]

You know, if you would just start posting FIRST in a bunch of threads you'd save the rest of us ALOT of time and energy.

Yeah, BB makes a lot of sense when he isn't being all British.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It pays to bear in mind that Drug Laws were introduced, primarily to protect people from exposure to the pernicious and debilitating dangers of drugs.

So why are we all passively supporting "War on Drugs" Laws that are only ever implemented against the very people they were set up to protect in the first place?

They have consistently failed to deliver any protection at all. Monumentally. And rather than change a such a costly and drastically counter productive policy mistake, they'd much rather just continue punishing the victims. It's loads easier than having to admit they fucked up.

Anyway, the most important thing is that people see the process of punishment happening. It has to happen to bad guys, or it's pointless. So those people are bad. By default of being punished.

A policy worthy of any despot, from Caligula,to Pol Pot.  Ivan 1st, to Robert Mugabe.

Yes. This. Very very this!