Operation Sudden Fall: Inside the SDSU Drug Sting

[Smull]

Originally Posted by 7960

He attacked the older people, I replied in kind.

both are fallacious arguments

Originally Posted by Kytro

I'm not mad at the cops, but that being said - they can use discresion at at times. I was saying it being the law does not make it right, just enforcing the law isn't an automatic tick for the good guys.

Enforcing the law IS an automatic tick for the cops, the law isn't always right I agree with you there, but when the cop "uses discretion" and lets a crime slide it can be considered corruption and he could lose his job. Especially when its a raid thats been planned for months.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

".........causing almost 100 student to have their lives torn apart....."



No, THEY did that on their own. The idea that someone else screwed up their lives is moranic. I don't blame the cops for screwing up my driving record..... *I* was the one who sped and broke the law, *I* screwed it up all on my own.

Speeding increases how much damage you could do in a car accident. Smoking pot does not increase your chances of harming anyone. Besides the fact that the two actions are illegal, how else are they similar?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by northhunter

Tell the family of the student that died of an overdose that drugs on campus are harmless and hurt no one.

They hurt no one except for the user. Please tell me you don't think we should make things illegal just because someone's feelings may get hurt.

Also, do you have any solid evidence that the drug war has reduced drug use? Because I would like you to tell the families of those who have been arrested and thrown in jail, torn away from parents and children and had their records marked for life reducing their ability to get jobs and suffering all the humiliations of prison life, that the war on drugs is harmless and hurts no one.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Smull

I said earlier that marijuana is a safe and harmless drug, and I stand by that, sorry if that caused any confusion.


Its not the cops job to make the law or judge the law, (thank god). The cops were doing their jobs, ENFORCING the law. Its up to the legislatures to make the laws and the judges to decide the punishments, being mad at the cops is misdirecting your anger.

If you want to know who to be mad at then see who votes against H.R. 5843, which would eliminate just about all the federal penalties for marijuana and leave the decision up to the states. See here the presidential candidates stand on the issue. These are the people who call the shots, the cops just do their jobs.

Of course it is up to cops to judge the law. That is why when they pull you over for speeding, they can just let you go, without ticketing you.

They can decide to enforce it or not. However, in this situation, they would probably lose their jobs if they did not.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Speeding increases how much damage you could do in a car accident. Smoking pot does not increase your chances of harming anyone. Besides the fact that the two actions are illegal, how else are they similar?

please don't talk to me about fallacious arguments in one post and then make one in another. if you're going to say "speeding *can* increase the chances of ...." then you have to also admit "smoking *can* increase the chances of....."


and btw,

Dec. 1, 2005 - People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash.

The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash. Researchers say the likelihood of being at fault increased as the blood concentration of marijuana increased.

Marijuana Raises Risk of Fatal Car Crash

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Also, do you have any solid evidence that the drug war has reduced drug use? Because I would like you to tell the families of those who have been arrested and thrown in jail, torn away from parents and children and had their records marked for life reducing their ability to get jobs and suffering all the humiliations of prison life, that the war on drugs is harmless and hurts no one.

again, don't tell me my argument was fallacious and then use a SECOND one yourself

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

please don't talk to me about fallacious arguments in one post and then make one in another. if you're going to say "speeding *can* increase the chances of ...." then you have to also admit "smoking *can* increase the chances of....."

and btw,

Dec. 1, 2005 - People who drive after using marijuana are nearly twice as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash.

The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash. Researchers say the likelihood of being at fault increased as the blood concentration of marijuana increased.

Marijuana Raises Risk of Fatal Car Crash

Smoking cannot increase the chances of harming another. If you are talking about "second hand" smoke, good luck defending that position. So no, I am not using a fallacious argument.

As to smoking marijuana and driving, that has nothing to do with simple possession or distribution.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

again, don't tell me my argument was fallacious and then use a SECOND one yourself

What?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

What?

appeal to pity

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

appeal to pity

I never said his argument was fallacious. I was saying laws should not be made based on if someone's feelings are hurt. I was also saying, using his same argument, there are just as many feelings hurt, if not more, because of the drug war and that the drug war ruins lives just as much if not more than using drugs does.

[Smull]

I said earlier in the thread that attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself is fallacious.

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Speeding increases how much damage you could do in a car accident. Smoking pot does not increase your chances of harming anyone. Besides the fact that the two actions are illegal, how else are they similar?

They are similar because they are both illegal actions that you choose to engage in. Even if your perfectly confident you can drive safely at 85mph or safely smoke weed you realize that if you are caught there are consequences and it doesn't matter weather or not you disagree with those consequences. You knew of them and chose to proceed with breaking the law anyway. If you don't agree with the law then you should ideally use the democratic process to change it, and be a good law abiding citizen until you succeed in doing so, if you choose the other road (fuck it, lets just smoke/speed anyway) you should be aware of the risks and consequences involved.

I do feel it should be illegal to drive while high. Based on both statistical evidence and personal experience I feel that being high while driving not only puts your own safety at risk but also others on the road at the time. I could be mistaken but i believe there is some kind of law in place which makes it illegal to do this (other than marijuana itself being illegal).

That said I still believe that the War on Drugs is doing more harm than good.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Smull

Enforcing the law IS an automatic tick for the cops, the law isn't always right I agree with you there, but when the cop "uses discretion" and lets a crime slide it can be considered corruption and he could lose his job. Especially when its a raid thats been planned for months.

No matter the reason, it does nor make it right, or ethical. Yes, they could lose thier jobs, but doing something legal that is unethical is still unethical

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Smull

They are similar because they are both illegal actions that you choose to engage in.

And I already conceded this. However, they are not the same kind of illegal acts. One act increases the chances of harming another. The other does not.

Only a cold-hearted person would say that "I think they should be punished, because they broke the law", even when the law is immoral.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

And I already conceded this. However, they are not the same kind of illegal acts. One act increases the chances of harming another. The other does not.

Only a cold-hearted person would say that "I think they should be punished, because they broke the law", even when the law is immoral.

Not everyone believes the laws are immoral. In fact, I would wager that most people wouldn't think they were which is why drug laws continue to get stiffer rather than easier. You're essentially quantifying the justice system based on your personal perception of morality which is likely the minority.

[AmericanDrugWar]

Do you find it morally sound to lock up cancer patients for choosing to use marijuana instead of prescription drugs? I'd wager that "most people" don't even give it much thought.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by AmericanDrugWar

Do you find it morally sound to lock up cancer patients for choosing to use marijuana instead of prescription drugs? I'd wager that "most people" don't even give it much thought.

I don't, I think it's wholly ridiculous and morally and ethically wrong to boot.

Marijuana is proven to increase appetite (hello, munchies) and appetite is something those being treated by chemotherapy often lose.. not to mention it can combat nausea, decrease certain types of pain.. etc

There's no justifiable reason for it to not be available as a medical product, EVEN if you think (for some reason I probably wouldn't find justifiable either) it shouldn't be legal for adults to consume.

I hope one day we have a prominent politician with the testicular fortitude to stand up and have a rational conversation with the American people about it.. I think once that happens, and people's fears are alleviated, we'll see a major shift in policy and law.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not everyone believes the laws are immoral. In fact, I would wager that most people wouldn't think they were which is why drug laws continue to get stiffer rather than easier. You're essentially quantifying the justice system based on your personal perception of morality which is likely the minority.

It is not about "believing" drug laws are immoral. It is about the fact that they are immoral.

The justification for drug laws is that they will make society better off, yet there is no evidence that they do. But there is plenty of evidence that they make society worse off (imprisonment can ruin a person's life).

Anyone that thinks drug laws are "moral" has no critical thinking capacities.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

It is not about "believing" drug laws are immoral. It is about the fact that they are immoral.

The justification for drug laws is that they will make society better off, yet there is no evidence that they do. But there is plenty of evidence that they make society worse off (imprisonment can ruin a person's life).

Anyone that thinks drug laws are "moral" has no critical thinking capacities.

Sure there's evidence. Crime rates used to be on an incline. Yet with us becoming more strict and locking up drug offenders our crime rates are dropping dramatically. When you lock up people willing to break the law, you tend to have less overall crime in a society. Look at any factor of crime measurement such as the UCR and compare it to the incarcerations for drug offenses. As the offenses go up and the incarcerations are more strict the crime rate falls. I can't think of a single reputable person in the criminal justice field who doesn't think locking up drug offenders has a positive impact on crime in on society. The evidence for it is overwhelming. The question should be whether or not it is worth the cost and giving up the freedom. Keep in mind, Americans freely give up their rights when they feel it benefits them.

And again, morality is subjective. You'd have a hard case to make if you tried to prove it as fact that the majority of Americans believe it's morally sound to legalize drugs. I think you're taking your morality and applying to everyone else. Not everyone thinks the same way as you do. We have states that ban public smoking, topless beaches, public nudity, gambling, being drunk in public, etc into infinity. To suggest somehow that your idea of morality on drugs equates to mainstream society is most likely wrong considering there has been no legitimate push in most states to have anything done about it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that in most cases a federal politician who even tried to make it happen would have trouble getting reelected whether they be Republican or Democrat.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by JaJae