Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 28, 2020 1:56:20 GMT
You are talking to complicated here for the pot heads that are going to worry if they are next. Ol Archie's been hitting the Schlitz too hard, he seems unable to write coherently or use basic english.
Nothing new there.
He also is not capable of posting simple links.
Sad.
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,021
|
Post by petep on Jul 28, 2020 14:27:21 GMT
So narcotics laws are like Nazi Germany? Please explain the leap of logic that gets you to that conclusion. It's a question of right and wrong. At the risk of sounding like a partisan person, I'd contend that such questions are more difficult for Conservatives, who seem to prefer rules; hence the Nuremburg defence. In the case in question, the man imprisoned for 5 years has not harmed a soul; his posession of a substance is entirely legal only a few hours drive in any direction. A quirk in legislation has robbed him, via the arresting officer's use of words, of his future. This isn't justice, it's administrative absurdity. That's actually about as wrong as you can get...the democratic run states, and especially the cities, have a ratio of approx 100:1 pages of laws on the books relative to conservative run states...look for example, gun laws in conservative states vs liberal states.... the far left states are similar to any far left place...laws upon laws upon laws.. under trump, so many useless regulations have gone to the dumpster.. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 28, 2020 17:24:34 GMT
I'm not real happy with the legalization of marijuana but it's legal in some states and illegal in others. Seriously, if you're traveling with it, it needs to be in a suitcase and not available to you if/when you are the driver of the car. Makes your life somewhat easier, actually a lot easier in some cases. However, let this man out of jail/prison. What is his past history of arrests/convictions? Does he have one? Why is his wife given the same sentence that he's given? Past history of arrests/convictions? Something about this case smells, and it's not the odor of marijuana. He is a former bomb disposal team member with an Iraq tour. Not sure if he's ever been arrested for owt. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 28, 2020 17:27:58 GMT
It's a question of right and wrong. At the risk of sounding like a partisan person, I'd contend that such questions are more difficult for Conservatives, who seem to prefer rules; hence the Nuremburg defence. In the case in question, the man imprisoned for 5 years has not harmed a soul; his posession of a substance is entirely legal only a few hours drive in any direction. A quirk in legislation has robbed him, via the arresting officer's use of words, of his future. This isn't justice, it's administrative absurdity. That's actually about as wrong as you can get...the democratic run states, and especially the cities, have a ratio of approx 100:1 pages of laws on the books relative to conservative run states...look for example, gun laws in conservative states vs liberal states.... the far left states are similar to any far left place...laws upon laws upon laws.. under trump, so many useless regulations have gone to the dumpster.. I didn't mean Conservatives like writing rules, necessarily, more that they seem more comfortable with rigid rule sets like in this case. Nobody has suggested Mr. Worsley has in any way harmed a living soul, but "because it's the law" he has his life destroyed. Who in the world could possibly support such a thing unless they just like rules? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 18:04:18 GMT
So narcotics laws are like Nazi Germany? Please explain the leap of logic that gets you to that conclusion. It's a question of right and wrong. At the risk of sounding like a partisan person, I'd contend that such questions are more difficult for Conservatives, who seem to prefer rules; hence the Nuremburg defence. In the case in question, the man imprisoned for 5 years has not harmed a soul; his posession of a substance is entirely legal only a few hours drive in any direction. A quirk in legislation has robbed him, via the arresting officer's use of words, of his future. This isn't justice, it's administrative absurdity. Would you say the same thing about a drunk driver that get's pulled over in front of his/her house? They didn't harm a soul so what was the harm? Why punish them? In a way I get the arguments for legalizing marijuana, but when you ask if the sentence is just, the answer is yes. His possession fit the crime and the sentence fit the law. It was just. Is the law just? Potentially no. But, there was nothing wrong with any thing the police or court did. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 28, 2020 18:50:31 GMT
It's a question of right and wrong. At the risk of sounding like a partisan person, I'd contend that such questions are more difficult for Conservatives, who seem to prefer rules; hence the Nuremburg defence. In the case in question, the man imprisoned for 5 years has not harmed a soul; his posession of a substance is entirely legal only a few hours drive in any direction. A quirk in legislation has robbed him, via the arresting officer's use of words, of his future. This isn't justice, it's administrative absurdity. Would you say the same thing about a drunk driver that get's pulled over in front of his/her house? They didn't harm a soul so what was the harm? Why punish them? In a way I get the arguments for legalizing marijuana, but when you ask if the sentence is just, the answer is yes. His possession fit the crime and the sentence fit the law. It was just. Is the law just? Potentially no. But, there was nothing wrong with any thing the police or court did. Drunk drivers certainly increase the risk of death, injury and damage to others. It's entirely right for us to forbid that, and penalise it. Using medicinal marijuana doesn't cause any harm to anyone, and it's hard to make a case for it being in any sense a harmful or wrong thing to do- except, as you do here, by saying "it's against the law". There's a law in the city of Chester, where I live, still on the books from the reign of Edward I (late 13th Century) that permits a constable to kill on sight any Welshman within the city walls after sundown (the law specifies using a bow and arrow). It's the law. "Just" and "legal" are not synonymous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 18:54:07 GMT
It's bad justice.
For one thing pointing to "it's the law in that state" ignores the developments that have been made in the rest of the civilized United States on this issue. "It's the law" has been the rationalization for a lot of bad shit historically.
Plus, "it's the law" does not obligate the judge or prosecutors to treat this guy like El Guapo. (Hehe)
Queshank
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 18:54:28 GMT
Would you say the same thing about a drunk driver that get's pulled over in front of his/her house? They didn't harm a soul so what was the harm? Why punish them? In a way I get the arguments for legalizing marijuana, but when you ask if the sentence is just, the answer is yes. His possession fit the crime and the sentence fit the law. It was just. Is the law just? Potentially no. But, there was nothing wrong with any thing the police or court did. Drunk drivers certainly increase the risk of death, injury and damage to others. It's entirely right for us to forbid that, and penalise it. Using medicinal marijuana doesn't cause any harm to anyone, and it's hard to make a case for it being in any sense a harmful or wrong thing to do- except, as you do here, by saying "it's against the law". There's a law in the city of Chester, where I live, still on the books from the reign of Edward I (late 13th Century) that permits a constable to kill on sight any Welshman within the city walls after sundown (the law specifies using a bow and arrow). It's the law. "Just" and "legal" are not synonymous. Actually, medicinal marijuana does harm people. It inhibits development of muscles and the brain in people under 26 and it has caused in an increase in DUI accidents in states that have legalized it. Saying that it is harmless is wholly inaccurate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 18:57:28 GMT
It's bad justice. For one thing pointing to "it's the law in that state" ignores the developments that have been made in the rest of the civilized United States on this issue. "It's the law" has been the rationalization for a lot of bad shit historically. Plus, "it's the law" does not obligate the judge or prosecutors to treat this guy like El Guapo. (Hehe) Queshank One of those civilized states, California, still has a law against eating ice cream with a fork in a park. Should Alabama enforce that? State laws are state laws. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,211
|
Post by demos on Jul 28, 2020 19:08:14 GMT
There's a law in the city of Chester, where I live, still on the books from the reign of Edward I (late 13th Century) that permits a constable to kill on sight any Welshman within the city walls after sundown (the law specifies using a bow and arrow). It's the law. "Just" and "legal" are not synonymous. * slowly crosses Chester off the list of potential vacation destinations * |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,211
|
Post by demos on Jul 28, 2020 19:09:46 GMT
Plus, "it's the law" does not obligate the judge or prosecutors to treat this guy like El Guapo. (Hehe) Queshank Depends on if there are mandatory minimum sentencing laws (although a prosecutor does have significant leeway on charging someone). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 19:15:35 GMT
It's bad justice. For one thing pointing to "it's the law in that state" ignores the developments that have been made in the rest of the civilized United States on this issue. "It's the law" has been the rationalization for a lot of bad shit historically. Plus, "it's the law" does not obligate the judge or prosecutors to treat this guy like El Guapo. (Hehe) Queshank One of those civilized states, California, still has a law against eating ice cream with a fork in a park. Should Alabama enforce that? State laws are state laws. lol Alabama has an outdated law still on the books. Just like California. And you think referencing California's outdated and silly laws is a good argument for why Alabama should enforce outdated and silly laws. What you're actually proposing in this thread is that CALIFORNIA should be enforcing a law against eating ice cream with a fork in a park. It would be as stupid as what Alabama did here. Queshank |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 19:17:18 GMT
Would you say the same thing about a drunk driver that get's pulled over in front of his/her house? They didn't harm a soul so what was the harm? Why punish them? In a way I get the arguments for legalizing marijuana, but when you ask if the sentence is just, the answer is yes. His possession fit the crime and the sentence fit the law. It was just. Is the law just? Potentially no. But, there was nothing wrong with any thing the police or court did. Drunk drivers certainly increase the risk of death, injury and damage to others. It's entirely right for us to forbid that, and penalise it. Using medicinal marijuana doesn't cause any harm to anyone, and it's hard to make a case for it being in any sense a harmful or wrong thing to do- except, as you do here, by saying "it's against the law". There's a law in the city of Chester, where I live, still on the books from the reign of Edward I (late 13th Century) that permits a constable to kill on sight any Welshman within the city walls after sundown (the law specifies using a bow and arrow). It's the law. "Just" and "legal" are not synonymous. This reminds me of an urban legend from my childhood in South Dakota. According to this urban legend, it is legal in the state of SD to shoot at any "Indians" gathering in groups of 6 or more as it constitutes a war party. Queshank |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 19:23:16 GMT
Would you say the same thing about a drunk driver that get's pulled over in front of his/her house? They didn't harm a soul so what was the harm? Why punish them? In a way I get the arguments for legalizing marijuana, but when you ask if the sentence is just, the answer is yes. His possession fit the crime and the sentence fit the law. It was just. Is the law just? Potentially no. But, there was nothing wrong with any thing the police or court did. Drunk drivers certainly increase the risk of death, injury and damage to others. It's entirely right for us to forbid that, and penalise it. Using medicinal marijuana doesn't cause any harm to anyone, and it's hard to make a case for it being in any sense a harmful or wrong thing to do- except, as you do here, by saying "it's against the law". There's a law in the city of Chester, where I live, still on the books from the reign of Edward I (late 13th Century) that permits a constable to kill on sight any Welshman within the city walls after sundown (the law specifies using a bow and arrow). It's the law. "Just" and "legal" are not synonymous. Your point isn't invalid, but your example is: chester.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Shoot_the_Welsh |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 28, 2020 20:03:10 GMT
Drunk drivers certainly increase the risk of death, injury and damage to others. It's entirely right for us to forbid that, and penalise it. Using medicinal marijuana doesn't cause any harm to anyone, and it's hard to make a case for it being in any sense a harmful or wrong thing to do- except, as you do here, by saying "it's against the law". There's a law in the city of Chester, where I live, still on the books from the reign of Edward I (late 13th Century) that permits a constable to kill on sight any Welshman within the city walls after sundown (the law specifies using a bow and arrow). It's the law. "Just" and "legal" are not synonymous. Actually, medicinal marijuana does harm people. It inhibits development of muscles and the brain in people under 26 and it has caused in an increase in DUI accidents in states that have legalized it. Saying that it is harmless is wholly inaccurate. OK, I agree; nothing is harmless. DUI applies to drink, too. Should Mr. Worsley be jailed for having a bittle of Scotch? Should you? Why not? |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 28, 2020 20:04:28 GMT
There's a law in the city of Chester, where I live, still on the books from the reign of Edward I (late 13th Century) that permits a constable to kill on sight any Welshman within the city walls after sundown (the law specifies using a bow and arrow). It's the law. "Just" and "legal" are not synonymous. * slowly crosses Chester off the list of potential vacation destinations *  no, you're ok, the Offences against tbe Person Act 1872 certainly supercedes this rule. They just forgot to scrub it. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 28, 2020 20:10:11 GMT
Drunk drivers certainly increase the risk of death, injury and damage to others. It's entirely right for us to forbid that, and penalise it. Using medicinal marijuana doesn't cause any harm to anyone, and it's hard to make a case for it being in any sense a harmful or wrong thing to do- except, as you do here, by saying "it's against the law". There's a law in the city of Chester, where I live, still on the books from the reign of Edward I (late 13th Century) that permits a constable to kill on sight any Welshman within the city walls after sundown (the law specifies using a bow and arrow). It's the law. "Just" and "legal" are not synonymous. Your point isn't invalid, but your example is: chester.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Shoot_the_WelshI was actually accosted by a copper a few years back, going in through the Bridge Gate on the way to watch a Wales v England rugby match. Wearing a Wales shirt "You do realise, sir, I am allowed to kill you now?" said the bobby. |
|
no, you're ok, the Offences against tbe Person Act 1872 certainly supercedes this rule.