Gee...what a shock-more Socialist...voters

Source: AP

Jan 5, 4:49 PM EST


Fed judges: Wash. felony inmates should get vote
By RACHEL LA CORTE
Associated Press Writer

More Socialists on tap...further degradation of the American Standard...felons voting...WTF... [scratchin' my head] "I wonder what party this constituency will lean towards?" [Rant1]

Of Course, another laughable ruling from the 9th, the biggest f****** legal system joke on the planet.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FELONS_VOTING?SITE=OKOKL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE= DEFAULT

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) -- Incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote in Washington to ensure that racial minorities are protected under the Voting Rights Act, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

I personally think that once you are out of prison, and aren't on any type of probation, then you should no longer be considered a felon and should have your full rights restored, but this sounds like he wants people who are currently incarcerated to be able to vote. I disagree with that, as not being able to vote comes with being incarcerated.

I think anyone in jail has lost their right to vote.

i also think anyone who never achieved a high school education or GED equivalent should not be allowed to vote as well. if you aren't going to spend the time to get a basic education that is provided to you by the tax payers, then you forfeited your right to vote. we need an educated society making decisions, not high school drop out crack dealers picked up by an acorn bus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

I think anyone in jail has lost their right to vote.

i also think anyone who never achieved a high school education or GED equivalent should not be allowed to vote as well. if you aren't going to spend the time to get a basic education that is provided to you by the tax payers, then you forfeited your right to vote. we need an educated society making decisions, not high school drop out crack dealers picked up by an acorn bus.

---

+1,,, and breed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

I personally think that once you are out of prison, and aren't on any type of probation, then you should no longer be considered a felon and should have your full rights restored, but this sounds like he wants people who are currently incarcerated to be able to vote. I disagree with that, as not being able to vote comes with being incarcerated.

---

this.

If you haven't served in the Armed Forces,,then you shouldn't be allowed to vote. ;) Hows that?

Going to let them buy firearms,legally?
How about a rapist/child molester,let them live next door?

Once a machinegun,,always a machinegun
Once a felon always a felon

Ah, the socialist plan for taking over the country's next step...allowing felons to vote. Why, this makes so much sense, we should just count Registered Democrat's votes three times, and disallow any Registered Republicans or Independents votes. This sounds fair, don't you think, comrade?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SNAFU

Going to let them buy firearms,legally?
How about a rapist/child molester,let them live next door?

Once a machinegun,,always a machinegun
Once a felon always a felon

---

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

You have to look into what I said deeper than just the surface. If someone can't be trusted to live in society without all their rights, then they shouldn't be in society, period. If you are child molester and no one trusts you to be around children, then it's life or the noose for you.



Also, I fail to see how this ruling has anything to do with socialism.

Well Stu and Sniper, I guess I'm somewhere between you two.

Depends on what a guy was incarcerated for whether or not he should be able to vote again and have his other rights restored. Needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. For example, I don't think a guy who had a felony marijuana conviction at 18 or 19 should be barred from voting and owning guns for the rest of his life, but child molesters, well, why would we ever let a child molester out of prison?

As far as who should be allowed to vote in the first place, it is my understanding that some of our founding fathers intended only white, land owning males to be able to vote. I don't think that is fair at all, even though I am a white, land owning male..[LOL]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

"I fail to see how this ruling has anything to do with socialism."

---

EXTRACT: “Of the more than 18,000 felons in [WA] state custody who could get back their right to vote under this ruling, 37.1 percent are minorities. Of that group, blacks make up the largest percentage, at 19.2 percent.”

Of the two viable options in the political arena today, both of which will remain the dominant party's over the next three national election cycles [~decade minimum] and most likely well into the future, which do you believe that potential 37% will gravitate to? The answer is obvious, this minority Bloc will bias Democrat, without question, for those that elect to exercise their “newly afforded” right anyway (only time and analysis will tell the real impact statistically). "Who is Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan [Plaintiff] casting his vote for?"

Caveat, I guess one could presume “the other ~60%” impacted [i.e. the non-minority felons] could potentially slant right but statistics indicate only a moderate percentage of the demographic would do so.

I choose often, and will again, repetitively, here and elsewhere, to use the invective “Socialist” in reference to the current Democratic Party and those that support their policies and general philosophy [platform]. I do it to be disrespectful, express my disdain for the current Administration and to disparage anyone who suggests the current Democratic regime accountable to manage this country has any value. Put simply, I consider what used to be deemed a Democrat to now be defined as a Socialist, because that is what they have become.

Net – The majority of that ~37% that casts a vote will do so for the Socialist [aka Democrat, maybe “Progressive would be better?”] party. I don’t care if it is 1 vote or 10,000 votes, an incarcerated felon casting a vote for Oba’Mao or his unknown predecessor in the future is a vote for Socialism.

If you fail to see or appreciate my choice to associate current or potential Democratic supporters [voters] as Socialists I’m good with that. Maybe I’ll choose to post nothing but literal and direct content in the future to avoid confusion Stuart. Maybe.

Lastly, the side-bar running in parallel above re: “should a convicted felon be afforded full recovery of their rights post-societal debt being paid?” I’ll leave that debate for another day but my perspective, "yeah; I concur with that on principal but that’s whole other discussion." Frankly, I couldn’t care less whether that ever becomes a topic of national interest or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

You have to look into what I said deeper than just the surface. If someone can't be trusted to live in society without all their rights, then they shouldn't be in society, period. If you are child molester and no one trusts you to be around children, then it's life or the noose for you.

---

I think we should consider other possibilities. Although I do like the thoughts of public hangings in town square on Saturday, I think we should entertain the notion of bringing back firing squads as well. In addition to, not instead of. But the hangings should be required attendance for kids in juvenile detention, in the hopes that they'd decide that they didn't want the same fate. I have said before, and I still think, rapists and murderers of small children should get one appeal, technicalities should not be allowed, and then they should be executed without delay. Same with serial killers and rapists. I fail to see why we should house and feed them for the rest of their lives.

I guess I am going to be the odd man out on this one. I do not believe that convicted felons should get their right to vote back automatically. But, there is a process in most states for convicted felons to petition through the courts for their right to vote, and if successful, they get their right to vote and hold public office restored.

Do not confuse this with their right to bear arms, that is not included in the rights restored, only those rights related to voting and public office. Case in point, many inmates earn their law degree while incarcerated but many states will not allow a convicted felon to take the Bar Exam and become licensed attorneys, so they can petition the court to allow those rights to be restored so they can become productive citizens of society.

I am all for that aspect of the process, but it should always be on a case by case basis and not automatic. Look for this to be overtuned on appeal, the state of Washington will most likely pursue this appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troublco

and I still think, rapists and murderers of small children should get one appeal, technicalities should not be allowed, and then they should be executed without delay. Same with serial killers and rapists. I fail to see why we should house and feed them for the rest of their lives.

---

So how many innocent men would you have killed? http://www.innocenceproject.org/know...e-Profiles.php

While this attitude of 'kill em all' may appeal greatly to the primeval sense of revenge we carry in all of us, it doesn't belong in the legal system of a civilized people. While justice should be harsh on the guilty, it should also recognize anything human is flawed and have the capability of reversing itself and righting a wrong. Kind of hard to do after the innocent are executed.

Double post.

Don't know... I'm a black or white type of guy. I do not like grey areas. If you did something where you landed in prison, then all rights should be stripped from you. Upon release, maybe some given back, but not all.

I think we can all agree upon the rapist or whatever losing all rights, forever, period.

I think about the 18 year old that got busted for drugs and sent to jail like this:

He's 18, should be held accountable for his actions. At 18, you are seen as a full adult. Depending on the amount of drugs (misdemeanor vs felony) several things can happen -
- A. Misdemeanor falls under probation, maybe one night in jail, etc.
- B. Felony is a several year prison stint.

Upon A. Sure, let teh kid keep his rights, we all make mistakes. But let the punishment be harsh and initmately understood that he is respsonisble for his own actions.

Upon B. Strip all rights, period. It was a conscious descison to sell, traffic, whatever the charge in a certain amount of illegal drugs.

Bottom line is that individuals are responsible for their own actions. Do I believe people can change? Sure. Do I believe some people get a raw deal in life (crappy home life, no father figure, etc)? Sure. Do I believe people are in charge of their own life and descisions no matter the circumstance? Hell yes. If we held people to a higher standard I bet things would turn around in a hurry. Instead our politicians and a lot of the voting constituency are themselves ex-cons, etc who want to "change" things to make what they illegally did, legal. Look at the marijuana wars currently taking place in our country.

Marijuana and such has been around for millenia. It is a naturally occuring plant. Native Americans used it in ceremonies. It is a mind altering drug, and it DOES lead to harder drug use. However, do I personally think it should be illegal? No, it is a naturally occuring substance. Do I partake in marijuana? No, I see no personal benefits in it for me. It is a mood changer, and I try to stay in control of my body/actions at all times. Do I believe it should be sold in stores or on street corners or in any way regulated? Definitely not. How would I vote for it? In the negative. I believe that is a personal descision that should be made. Should it be a crime to grow/possess? No. Should it be a crime to sell to minors, distribute, etc? Actually, I do. Hard to explain my feelings, but something along the lines of concrete and abstract emotional thought maturity occur at different times in childhood. Sometimes, depending on age, children do not have a solid connection on what something can do to them. Hence kids that stick their hands in electrical sockets when told not too, etc. Since the brain has not reached full maturity, smoking pot, etc can damage critical synapses that have yet to be formed and thus.... the dumbing down of our society... Kind of make sme want to go watch that movie "Idiocricy" again. HA.

Much the same thoughts on beer, cigarettes, etc. But I understand the gooberment needs some sort of tax income... lol.

Now I'm just rambling...Your thoughts?


In answer to Mutt's post... then the prosecuting attorney should be given the same fate! HAHAHA. j/k (Looks like the 80's was a busy decade for prosecutors!)

You know before you commit a felony that if you get caught, you lose your right to vote.

So anyone who HAS lost their right to vote has willingly chose to give that up in the event they get caught for their crime.

That's the problem with today's world. No-one wants to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamhunter

That's the problem with today's world. No-one wants to deal with the consequences of their actions.

---

Bingo! That's what I was trying to say... Individual responsibility. We pander to the low side of the equation too much. It drags down the middle and good sides.

Man, I type too much. I do have a job to do. See y'all in a few, lol.

Criminalization of Marijuana - The greatest current waste of resources and human potential in our legal system.

It should be legalized, legally grown and regulated, taxed and sold right next to your smokes and booze. Prohibition does not work when a large chunk of a society sees no problems with a prohibited item. Did the criminal empires built and lives ruined over the legality of alcohol teach us nothing? Apparently not.

Legalizing weed would have 3 major effects:
1. The end of all drug wars where criminals attempt to control distribution and production of weed. Once corporations get involved in something, the downward spiral of profit margins chases criminals out.

2. Our prisons get a lot less crowed. Non-violent drug offenders make up a good chunk of our prison population. I for one don't like funding the food and sheltering of people who like to smoke weed unless they committed a real crime. You would think the world is seriously wrong if hundreds of thousands of people were locked up for drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, yet imprisonment for weed is ok?

3. Massive increase in tax revenue. Right now govt gets nothing for the billions spent on weed. People are buying it anyway, might as well have some societal benefit to it. If you doubt it would help govt coffers, just look at the revenue generated from booze and smokes.

There's my rambling to the whole weed issue. And before you think I'm some hippie pothead, I'm not. I never smoked weed (but I would try it once if were legal), drink maybe once a year, and don't smoke. I just believe on common sense over ideology.

As for felons getting the right to vote, that's delegated to the states by The Constitution. Each state, hopefully according to the will of its residents, gets to decide this issue for themselves.

Individual responsibility - totally agree. People need to be held to account for their choices. If we enforced this more, the world would be a better place.

Good stuff Mutt. Didn't think about those points. The only problem I would have it that making something legal (when I do agree it probably should be in the first place since it's a naturally occuring substance) doesn't nessecarily make it... healthful? I don't know how to qualify that reasoning. I'm thinking along the lines of look at all the alcoholics that are a drain on society, etc. Just some more thoughts. I don't think there is a right or wrong on this issue. That is probably why it's one of such a universal contention.

BigBear - of the three, weed is the least harmful to your health. It's outlawed for political and ideological reasons, not health. As for pot addicts (not sure if that can really exist?) you're always going to have people who chose to engage in unhealthy and addictive activities. If you chose to waste your life and health over cigs, booze, drugs, food, etc - so be it. Enjoy, while you can, and then accept the consequences (see Individual Resposibility). I understand your point about trying to protect people from themselves, but that just doesn't work.

Freedom is, and should be, a double edged sword. Just because you're free to do something doesn't mean you should do it. Thsi is why we humans have a thinking and reasoning brain. Too bad so many of us chose not to use it.

Very Kewl. I love this board. I agree with you Mutt. Just throwing some other stuff out there. I do not want to protect people from themselves though... I think we should hand out more Darwin Awards and cleanse the gene pool a little! HAHA.

I really like your last paragragh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutt

Criminalization of Marijuana - The greatest current waste of resources and human potential in our legal system.

It should be legalized, legally grown and regulated, taxed and sold right next to your smokes and booze. Prohibition does not work when a large chunk of a society sees no problems with a prohibited item. Did the criminal empires built and lives ruined over the legality of alcohol teach us nothing? Apparently not.

Legalizing weed would have 3 major effects:
1. The end of all drug wars where criminals attempt to control distribution and production of weed. Once corporations get involved in something, the downward spiral of profit margins chases criminals out.

2. Our prisons get a lot less crowed. Non-violent drug offenders make up a good chunk of our prison population. I for one don't like funding the food and sheltering of people who like to smoke weed unless they committed a real crime. You would think the world is seriously wrong if hundreds of thousands of people were locked up for drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes, yet imprisonment for weed is ok?

3. Massive increase in tax revenue. Right now govt gets nothing for the billions spent on weed. People are buying it anyway, might as well have some societal benefit to it. If you doubt it would help govt coffers, just look at the revenue generated from booze and smokes.

There's my rambling to the whole weed issue. And before you think I'm some hippie pothead, I'm not. I never smoked weed (but I would try it once if were legal), drink maybe once a year, and don't smoke. I just believe on common sense over ideology.

As for felons getting the right to vote, that's delegated to the states by The Constitution. Each state, hopefully according to the will of its residents, gets to decide this issue for themselves.

Individual responsibility - totally agree. People need to be held to account for their choices. If we enforced this more, the world would be a better place.

---

Well said. I was going to post my own opinion on the subject, but you summed it up perfectly. +1,000,000,000

As for marijuana vs alchohol:

I work in construction. I know a veritable ton of potheads and alchoholics.

The potheads will go home, get baked, eat $30 bucks worth of Taco Bell, and come to work the next day ready to rock and roll.

The alchoholics will get drunk at night, get in some kind of fight, then either be in jail or too damned hung over to even show up for work the next day. If they do, they are not worth a shit.

I don't drink anymore, save an occasional beer or glass of wine, but I had some hard drinking days in my 20's.. I have been in countless mean redneck bars and been in my share of fights. There is some quality of alchohol which seems to cause guys to want to fight. There is always some asshole at a bar with a chip on his shoulder. As soon as he gets drunk, he wants to kick the whole bar's ass. I have busted this guy's head and he has busted mine countless times. I call it Alchohol Induced Stupidity.

Pot, conversely, seems to have the opposite effect. I have never seen a guy get stoned and want to do anything more than eat Taco Bell and watch SpongeBob. Yes, I do think pot makes a person lazy. Yes, I think pot can steal a guy's motivation, but I have never seen a pothead start pointless fights.

Yes, I tried pot once or twice in my younger days. Any substance which causes paranoia and a desire to eat fast food is probably not a good choice for me. Lord knows, I'm already fat and paranoid enough..[LOL]

In addition, I'm a married man with a family now. It is not worth going to jail over.

I fully support decriminialization of marijuana for adults. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutt

So how many innocent men would you have killed? http://www.innocenceproject.org/know...e-Profiles.php

While this attitude of 'kill em all' may appeal greatly to the primeval sense of revenge we carry in all of us, it doesn't belong in the legal system of a civilized people. While justice should be harsh on the guilty, it should also recognize anything human is flawed and have the capability of reversing itself and righting a wrong. Kind of hard to do after the innocent are executed.

---

What is your answer to that question?

I submit;

1. Not all of those listed were ever even 'at-risk' [death sentence] to begin with. That said; your point remains valid and understood, improper convictions have occurred and will in the future. Assigning legal accountability upon its citizenry is a profound responsibility society bears.

2. A list of those “exonerated” is only partial, very narrow view of the system. Being absolved (i.e. “walked & made the list”) may or may not be a legitimate outcome (pick a case and dive deeply). While I will not / cannot condemn the good work performed on occasion I remain cautious of the Innocence Project and other like-minded organizations. I’m appreciative they exist to promote balance but they bring significant bias as well.

3. While I’m certain this severe, unrecoverable error has occurred at some point historically in multiple cultures can you validate a single-case where an innocent person has been executed in the US?

While I greatly respect [most of] my fellow citizens personal position re: capital punishment, including yours, I vehemently disagree with it. There is absolutely a responsibility on society to carry forward the elimination of those proven to be the worst nature can produce. I’ll take it a step further, maybe offensively to some, and state that societal revenge is not only acceptable from my perspective (my opinion) it’s necessary & expected when warranted. I’ll stand behind those left piecing together shattered lives as a result of violent crime before I burn time wondering if an offender “may change someday.” I’ll support societal revenge for them and in honor the victims no longer with us because of their actions.

“Reversing itself?” Agreed, and it’s very “easy to change” when you have a deserved/earned execution date hanging over your head as a result of one’s past actions. But…damn…sometimes it’s just too late for “the change” to matter isn’t it? I don’t care how much one changes and / or how good they’ve become after-the-fact, you raped and murdered a child, and its proven beyond doubt [key point], you die.

One comment I can lend in support of a non-death sentence for violent crimes, “good knowing some sociopaths are forced to sit in a shit-hole state facility with those of like-mind for decades, having to think about it over and over, day-in and day-out, body and spirit slowly rotting away.” Yup…would be a helluva a way to “live.”

Good stuff Mutt, I do understand your very valid and sincere points. I also clearly understand each case is a unique set of circumstances and must be managed accordingly. Bottom-line, this is a complex and sensitive subject; positions like mine are hard to defend sometimes too. If I’ve learned one thing in life it’s that “when everyone starts thinking like I do or exactly how I want them too, that’s when I know really in trouble.” ;)

Quote:

---

As for felons getting the right to vote, that's delegated to the states by The Constitution. Each state, hopefully according to the will of its residents, gets to decide this issue for themselves.

---

Back to [part of] the original point, that never happened for the good people of WA. The decision was made for them and imposed by the 9th Circuit Court. And it is not felons of note; it is incarcerated felons that now help determine the political outcomes for the residents. That’s bullshit PC run amok, not intelligent government by the people.

Good points everyone.

Greenscout... I am a younger guy and just finished a Masters a year ago so I have some stories about weed and stuff too!

Knew a law student (working on narcotic laws believe it or not) who was a pot head. Always smoked before a test and ACED every friggin' one of them!! (How'd he do that?!) He had a lazy mentality but he always got his work done... It was interesting to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cebeu

1. Not all of those listed were ever even 'at-risk' [death sentence] to begin with..

---

Cebeu, my comment about killing of innocents was in regards to a post that stated we should allow 1 appeal for rapists/molesters and then promptly execute them if the guilty verdict stands. If that were in fact 'the law', then a good majority of these innocent people on the list would be dead. I am aware most of these men were not on death row, although some were.

There is no doubt these people are innocent. To get a sentence overturned requires the state to agree as well. The state doesn't like to admit its wrong unless it's forced to by irrevocable evidence. These individuals are innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.

As for the evidence an innocent man has been executed: none. However, it has to be assumed it has/will happen. Logic tells us it's possible. If innocent people are imprisoned (proven) and on death row, then the probability is there. Unfortunately, one day, such a case will be proved. It's only a matter of time.

I can't say I'm against the death penalty. I agree there are monsters that should be removed. The problem is the death penalty is final, no redo's if society was wrong. Since we can never create a perfect system, the death penalty is not a valid choice. To me the best alternative is a life of hard labor, and i mean hard, doing things society needs (not the frat house prisons we have now) with no hope of parole. At least then, if one is found innocent, there is an opportunity to provide some type of compenstion for a life wasted. Can't do that with a corpse.

“Reversing itself?”: I was referring to the system reversing itself and exonerating a wrongfully convicted man. I was not referring to a convict reversing himself. I don't care if you found Jesus, salvation, conscience or redemption while in prison. You still serve our your entire sentence. If you are truely changed, then you can prove it by not coming back. If your sentence is life, too bad. My apologies for not being clearer about that point.

The old axiom of " Pot is a gateway drug" while some feel this is true I think it is but isn't all at the same time... but on the flip side of the coin ...


If pot is decriminalized.... will that lead to other drugs being decriminalized ?
At what point do we stop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clublights

The old axiom of " Pot is a gateway drug" while some feel this is true I think it is but isn't all at the same time... but on the flip side of the coin ...


If pot is decriminalized.... will that lead to other drugs being decriminalized ?
At what point do we stop?

---

Who says we should stop? This is just my point of view, but the govt has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body. Doing so is an infringement of my liberty. Remember there was a time when there were no laws prohibiting the use of 'illegal' substances. Society didn't fall apart in a drug induced madness then, and will not do so now. Infringing on my personal liberty to save the weak from themselves is not acceptable.

Now to a more practical view. Drugs are illegal yet people still consume them. We haven't saved anyone from themselves who didn't want to be saved. All we have done is spent hundreds of billions on enforcement, imprisoned those who's only crime is smoking a stupid plant, and created massive criminal empires who have caused more human misery than the drugs could have ever done on their own.

Stop outlawing things and let nature take its course. The weak will select themselves out of the gene pool, hopefully before they reproduce, and humanity will be all the better for it.

And I do realize this entire subject is not that simple. Things never are.

Quote:

---

...my comment about killing of innocents was in regards to a post that stated we should allow 1 appeal for rapists/molesters and then promptly execute them if the guilty verdict stands. If that were in fact 'the law', then a good majority of these innocent people on the list would be dead. I am aware most of these men were not on death row, although some were.

---

Now understood, appreciate the clarity.

Quote:

---

There is no doubt these people are innocent…individuals are innocent of the crimes they were convicted of.

---

I won’t go that far in agreement in all cases presented in that list or elsewhere, i.e. my emphasis earlier on exoneration earned as a result of the efforts put forth by the Innocence Project (I’m hard-headed). Selective, retroactive application of law years and often decades after the [violent] reality has long-passed produces unpredictable and often faulty results. I can’t prove it as I sit here now but I guarantee there are names on that list that were/are not worthy of the declared innocence regardless of an outcome determining other-wise. That said; while I am stoopid I’m not a fool. I cannot/would not debate cases of those exonerated due to substantive, accepted science (.e.g. DNA evidence) and/or other tenable evidence but…treading the path of subjectivity, a tactic often used by the IP and others dedicated to “freeing felons,” can and does have disastrous results as well when reversing history. Regardless, at the end of the day, I always press for the truth to win out as I’m not looking to be the “hang em’ all high” guy, even though that may appear to be the case on this thread.

Quote:

---

As for the evidence an innocent man has been executed: none.

---

Accurate, there has never been a single case of an innocent person executed in the US. Luck? Validation that the often ugly US justice system works? Ignorance and maybe it has happened? Many answers here, maybe all apply. My point, as a populace we do take this tremendous responsibility very seriously and we do well with meting out the ultimate justice in a disciplined and defensible manner. While brutal to some and maybe defined as vengeful, so be it (I’m preachin’ to the choir here aren’t I?).

Quote:

---

However, it has to be assumed it has/will happen. Logic tells us it's possible. If innocent people are imprisoned (proven) and on death row, then the probability is there. Unfortunately, one day, such a case will be proved. It's only a matter of time.

---

It is possible [the ultimate risk] and I will have some added and hard-core reflection to do if that day ever comes.

Quote:

---

“…the death penalty is not a valid choice.”

---

Sure it is, and not only is it valid it is practiced reality. You may not want to accept it for your stated reasons but your only option is to work to put people like me on the defensive and sway the American electorate in your favor. Until then, it remains valid while carrying the degree of risk you've noted. I'm privileged the US prosecutorial engine has this tool in it's arsenal. As a citizen, all I ask is that it continued to be used responsibly on my behalf.

Quote:

---

“Reversing itself?”… I was not referring to a convict reversing himself.”

---

Again, now understood, appreciate the clarity. I was on my soap-box and not paying attention again Mutt. [Whacko]

I appreciate the rich dialouge Mutt, thanks.

cebeu,

First: Sorry about steering your thread so far off course. I blame BigBear for bringing up weed!

Second: You and I pretty much see eye to eye on most of this. I believe we have the best imperfect justice system on this Earth. I also believe as a society we really strive to find the truth and apply justice properly. Do we get it wrong a very small percentage of the time? Yes. Do we get it right a hell of a lot more? You bet.

As for the death penalty, I simply have personal reservations about it because what if we kill an innocent man? Unless we can be 100% sure, I can't justify such a 100% punishment. To me the sparing of one innocent is worth letting 100 guilty go free. I know the argument can be made that the loss of one innocent is acceptable 'collateral damage' for getting 100 guilty, but to me justice isn't about cold, hard math. What if you or I are that one innocent person? Is the math so simple then?

Hypothetically, if I knew someone 100% without a doubt raped and murdered a child; I'd fry his ass without a second thought. Problem is we almost never get handed such a cut and dry case. Do I advocate abolishing the death penalty as a result? Believe it or not, no. But I think it should only be applied when there is 100% certainty someone is guilty of a most heinous crime. 100% certainty is a rarity.

Sry... I seem to derail threads easily...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mutt

"...thread so far off course. I blame BigBear for bringing up weed!"

---

heh heh

Thread drift is good...

9th Circus Court Ruling --> to Felons --> to Socialist association --> to Capital Punishishment --> to Humboldt County Homegrown --> to ???

Good enough for my low-end ass! [Beer]

Cebeu: I was going to point out that you were confusing Democrats with Socialism, but you did it on purpose with the intent to be insulting to the Democratic party. There's literally nothing else I can say. Cheers.

I agree with Mutt about everything except the whole tax bullshit. Mentioning taxes while discussing the legalization of drugs or prostitution is a complete and total cop out. In no way does the government need, nor deserve a single dime more taxes than they already steal from the populace as it is now. There is a whole list of reasons why legalizing drugs would benefit (and not destroy) society (list well started by Mutt) and taxes doesn't even make it onto the list in my opinion.

There is a huge market for legal, slightly regulated marijuana in this, and every country. The private market benefits far exceed any benefit the gub'ment would have by stealing inflated taxes out of the market.

Right now as it stands, despite common perception, marijuana is NOT on the correct path towards legalization that will benefit society at all. Medical marijuana is a complete and utter failure and it will start to show in the next 12 months or so. Placing marijuana into the most regulated industry (medical) is a huge mistake and will not solve a single marijuana related issue in this country. It won't remove pot drug dealers, it won't reduce prices, it won't reduce sentences or keep people out of jail.

I laugh at all the discussions of medical marijuana going on right now. On one side of the coin you have a rush of young males faking non-specific "chronic pain" so they can get their hands on the medical pot card that allows them to grow their own pot or legally purchase it from a distributor. Way to go geniuses. You just traded buying high quality pot at extremely marked up prices when you can still buy it off the street faster and for cheaper. Or, now you think you're going to grow high grade pot and sell it to your friends and make bank. Instead of getting busted for selling pot like before, now you're going to get busted for selling a controlled substance to people. I'd personally rather get busted growing/selling pot than Oxycontin or something similar.

On the other side of the coin we have cities that are racing to create legislation that will keep dispensaries a certain distance from schools and from each other. Why? Before legal dispensaries came along, schools had the most publicly available pot in town, now they are just second place, and the presence of a dispensary isn't going to change that fact any more than the presence of a Wal-greens pharmacy effects the levels of oxycontin flowing through the hallways of that same school.

Let's talk about the effort to keep dispensaries at least 1,000 ft apart from each other. Why? similar stores in close proximity to each other allows customers to enjoy lower prices and more variety, which is bettter for business. Furniture stores do it, fast food places do it, and diamond sellers are notorious for it. There is a place in some large city, New York, Chicago, LA, some where, where one city block contains over 1,000 diamond distributers. Why would they cluster together like that when they could just as easily be the ONLY kiosk in a suburban mall? Simple, by locating next to each other, their customer flow greatly out numbers the trickle they'd get in the malls. They can keep their prices lower and more competitive when their 700 customers a day can price shop by walking a few feet, compared to their 200 customers a day having to drive all over town to price compare. They don't have to sell to everyone because there are more than enough customers to go around. Happy customers equals happy, and more importantly, profitable businesses. These cities trying to pile on unneccessary and short sighted regulation on dispensaries don't even realize that they'll have a difficult time taking inflated tax rates from dispensaries if it is too difficult for any of them to stay in business. Politicians are so stupid that they ONLY have even considered legalizing marijuana due to the allure of slapping a sin tax onto the industry, and are already trying to slap profit killing (for everyone) regulation into the industry right out of the gate.

Mark my words, unless there is a serious laxing of regulation, medical marijuana will be an utter failure in the years to come. Since it's the medical industry, that will never happen. Prices will remain high, drug dealers will remain rampant, people will go to prison faster and stay longer, and that pipe dream of "think of all the taxes!" will remain elusive. Anyone who isn't a politician working for the city should be ashamed to even bring taxes up in a discussion about marijuana.


:)


Oh yeah, and before I forget. If you are a CCW walking down the street and happen upon an active shooter at a post office or an elementary school, run across the street and save the day, you just committed a very serious felony and have removed your rights. You knew the consequences before hand though, so it your fault for saving innocent lies and you deserve to pay the price, no votes and no guns. No one is going to stand up for you for saving their kids though, because you broke the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

In no way does the government need, nor deserve a single dime more taxes than they already steal from the populace as it is now.

---

Ah Stuart, you and I would get along so well. We can agree on this. While I do mention potential tax revenue from legalization, I only really mean it as a stark contrast to the billions wasted on enforcement. In the end, I'd much rather see govt keep their greedy hands out of it.

But oh no, are we now steering this thread down another unrelated subject? [Coffee]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

Cebeu: I was going to point out that you were confusing Democrats with Socialism, but you did it on purpose with the intent to be insulting to the Democratic party. There's literally nothing else I can say. Cheers.law.

---

No confusion here Stuart, none.

sounds like a plan,, I mean how else can we continue to elect professional politicians that have NO experience to the highest office.

And don't forget them Judges that pay no taxes and continue to TELL us what the law is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuart

I personally think that once you are out of prison, and aren't on any type of probation, then you should no longer be considered a felon and should have your full rights restored, but this sounds like he wants people who are currently incarcerated to be able to vote. I disagree with that, as not being able to vote comes with being incarcerated.

---

I also tend to agree with Stuart's position on this (along with his further explanation). Either you've paid your price to society, or you haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mtn.man

....professional politicians...

---

[Bounce][JRope][Bow][Ban2][ROFL2][ROFL1][ROFL3][LOL]