Lax sentencing for criminals

[dre]

Yes. I like Fritos corn chips. But if the government brought in a law which could put me in jail for six months for having Fritos around the house I'd stop buying Fritos.

How complicated does this have to be for you?

Nobody but sychophantic little stooges would obey such a law. Demand would still be high, and you would create a huge black market for corn chips, and a web of organized crime. The criminals would then take the easy revenue from their corn chip operations and use that money to fund other crimes like human trafficing, extortion, and sexual slavery. Plus you would keep honest, regulated, tax paying businessmen out of the game.

Your example is excellent though because criminalizing soft drug use makes about as much sense as criminalizing corn chips.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Your example is excellent though because criminalizing soft drug use makes about as much sense as criminalizing corn chips.

So out comes the usual hedge...soft vs. hard core corn chips. Seems rather inconsistent and a practical problem if not for criminalization, for employment law. Would employers be forced to hire/retain users of soft corn chips, but not corn cobs?

[noahbody]

and in the second place, the reference is to sentence, not how much of that sentence is actually served.

If that is a fact, then your math is incorrect and the actual cost is a fraction of the $80,000,000 you claimed.

[WWWTT]

Yes. I like Fritos corn chips. But if the government brought in a law which could put me in jail for six months for having Fritos around the house I'd stop buying Fritos.

How complicated does this have to be for you?

Man this quote is freekin hallarious!

The reason why is because it has been medically found that junk food can be bad for your health.In fact it can be argued that eating junk food can be more bad for your health then using cannibis!

I guess if something is legal it must be OK to consume!

Thanks for looking out for me Harper!

WWWTT

[Saipan]

Man this quote is freekin hallarious!

The reason why is because it has been medically found that junk food can be bad for your health.

But unlike dope, not dangerous to other drivers and their passengers. Your health is of no concern.

[dre]

But unlike dope, not dangerous to other drivers and their passengers. Your health is of no concern.

Bullshit. Plenty car accidents happen because the driver is eating, or drinking non alcoholic beverages.

[Scotty]

Nobody but sychophantic little stooges would obey such a law.

Why? Why do you expect everyone else to heroically refuse to obey a law for the sake of some freaking Fritos, and risk their jobs, and going to prison with a bunch of slack jawed scumbags? I might think a law banning Fritos was dumb but I'm not about to go to jail for it. No one but an idiot is going to take up arms and shout "Give me Fritos or give me death!"

It's just a corn chip, you know. I can live without it.

And if you can't live without your pot then I feel sorry for you.

[eyeball]

But unlike dope, not dangerous to other drivers and their passengers. Your health is of no concern.

That's right and like alcohol society can rely on personal responsibility to prevent the dangers of allowing its use.

[Scotty]

I probably would too, my cowardice taking precedence over principle if I consider the rewards of the newly-illegalized behaviour to be insufficient for the potential risks.

However, it's pretty galling to hear someone talk this way. If a law is unjust, we're going to condemn the lawbreakers and, tacitly, defend the increasingly-authoritarian government?

Like I said, if the government announces corn chips are going to be illegal, you can just give them up. You don't have to seek out that guy in the back alley and buy illegal corn chips. You don't have to take risks. It's not like the government is banning something you can't do without.

And while I might think a ban on corn chips is dumb, it's a matter of weighing what I like and don't like about any given party. What I do like about them outweighs what I don't like about them. Do I want to vote in an opposition party which promises to get rid of the ban on corn chips, but also thinks the hug-a-thug school of justice can educate rapists and killers into not being such bad people? Nope.

[eyeball]

Why? Why do you expect everyone else to heroically refuse to obey a law for the sake of some freaking Fritos, and risk their jobs, and going to prison with a bunch of slack jawed scumbags? I might think a law banning Fritos was dumb but I'm not about to go to jail for it. No one but an idiot is going to take up arms and shout "Give me Fritos or give me death!"

It's just a corn chip, you know. I can live without it.

And if you can't live without your pot then I feel sorry for you.

It's living with a system of government that can stomp on anyone's backs that it chooses for whatever silly reason the stupider base of it's support thinks is moral and proper for everyone else. Fuck them. Why should anyone have to live with them? They're complete assholes.

We usually laud those who say give me death in reply to these sorts of people.

[Wild Bill]

Like I said, if the government announces corn chips are going to be illegal, you can just give them up. You don't have to seek out that guy in the back alley and buy illegal corn chips. You don't have to take risks. It's not like the government is banning something you can't do without.

And while I might think a ban on corn chips is dumb, it's a matter of weighing what I like and don't like about any given party. What I do like about them outweighs what I don't like about them. Do I want to vote in an opposition party which promises to get rid of the ban on corn chips, but also thinks the hug-a-thug school of justice can educate rapists and killers into not being such bad people? Nope.

You're suggesting a dangerous game, Scotty. There are more and more people in more and more categories who voted and intend to vote Tory simply because they saw them as the least offensive choice.

Harper has already made it perfectly obvious he has driven a stake through any and all Reformer principles in the new supposedly merged Tory party. The attitude seems to be "Who else can they vote for?"

Now the Tories are targeting those who puff a little weed instead of drinking alcohol. What's next? How many demographics are the Tories going to blow off with "Who else can they vote for?"

I don't know if you're old enough to remember but this is EXACTLY the same attitude prevalent in Mulroney's Tory party! The MSM even had a term for it - "disenfranchised conservative" meaning a conservative who had to vote for Mulroney's bunch only because he had no other alternative.

This arrogance is what helped split the Conservatives and launch Reform! There was a huge number of pissed off people who felt they had been taken for granted and abused. When Manning offered them an alternative that looked better they bailed on the old Tories in droves!

Are we heading for the same thing again? If the Tories keep this up they WILL make many people start to wonder if endless Liberal governments might be better than this sort of situation!

It would not surprise me if someone, somewhere, maybe with some of the old Reform crowd is watching and planning, waiting as the present Tories keep putting straws on the camel's back. The old Tories have been so successful in seizing control and stamping out the Reform elements that they seem to have totally forgotten that their popular support at the time of the merger was literally mice nuts in comparison to that for the Alliance/Reform.

This is NOT a healthy situation and if the Tory party is made up of too many people who share your attitude then it may very well happen all over again...

[RNG]

You're suggesting a dangerous game, Scotty. There are more and more people in more and more categories who voted and intend to vote Tory simply because they saw them as the least offensive choice.

Harper has already made it perfectly obvious he has driven a stake through any and all Reformer principles in the new supposedly merged Tory party. The attitude seems to be "Who else can they vote for?"

Now the Tories are targeting those who puff a little weed instead of drinking alcohol. What's next? How many demographics are the Tories going to blow off with "Who else can they vote for?"

I don't know if you're old enough to remember but this is EXACTLY the same attitude prevalent in Mulroney's Tory party! The MSM even had a term for it - "disenfranchised conservative" meaning a conservative who had to vote for Mulroney's bunch only because he had no other alternative.

This arrogance is what helped split the Conservatives and launch Reform! There was a huge number of pissed off people who felt they had been taken for granted and abused. When Manning offered them an alternative that looked better they bailed on the old Tories in droves!

Are we heading for the same thing again? If the Tories keep this up they WILL make many people start to wonder if endless Liberal governments might be better than this sort of situation!

It would not surprise me if someone, somewhere, maybe with some of the old Reform crowd is watching and planning, waiting as the present Tories keep putting straws on the camel's back. The old Tories have been so successful in seizing control and stamping out the Reform elements that they seem to have totally forgotten that their popular support at the time of the merger was literally mice nuts in comparison to that for the Alliance/Reform.

This is NOT a healthy situation and if the Tory party is made up of too many people who share your attitude then it may very well happen all over again...

I am a disenfranchised conservative. They are less bad than the others in my opinion. A really sad situation, IMO.

[Molly]

If that is a fact, then your math is incorrect and the actual cost is a fraction of the $80,000,000 you claimed.

...(because......)...

...and therefore: .....

What's your point, man? Out with it.

[bloodyminded]

That being said, I've never been offered a perfect match to my own values.

No, certainly not, and if one finds such a political party, I would suggest to him to look at himself for signs of partisan sycophancy. Asking for a perfect match is flatly unreasonable. Do we not at times have disagreements with our very loved ones?

Why would we expect better from political organizations?

So it's not that I have so little respect for conservatives. I just have little respect for Scotty's views on this subject!

Ah, I think you misunderstood me. I was speaking of Scotty, not of you.

[bloodyminded]

It's living with a system of government that can stomp on anyone's backs that it chooses for whatever silly reason the stupider base of it's support thinks is moral and proper for everyone else. Fuck them. Why should anyone have to live with them? They're complete assholes.

We usually laud those who say give me death in reply to these sorts of people.

No, no...that only applies to old-timey dissidents. Contemporary dissidents are "slack-jawed scumbags," evidently.

Edited July 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

Why? Why do you expect everyone else to heroically refuse to obey a law for the sake of some freaking Fritos, and risk their jobs, and going to prison with a bunch of slack jawed scumbags?

Strict legal positivism is a dangerous thing, my friend.

If the government passed a law where all Jews must be gassed, why would you risk your job, going to prison and possibly being killed yourself? You should just follow the law because it is written.

That's different because the government is asking you to do something illegal? But it's not, they made a law making it legal. They made a law making it your responsibility and what you're saying above is that people should follow whatever laws are made by the government.

My example is extreme and stupid? Well so is yours about Fritos. It would be nice if life were that simple.

This argument is about legal validity. What makes a law valid? Is it valid simply because it is written? Is it valid simply because it meets the requirements of a higher written law, in other words the Constitutional requirements? Or is there something more to making a law valid. Is a law only valid when a society supports it? Or when it has moral backing? Or how about religious backing? Is a law only valid when a judge, using his or her judicial discretion, makes a ruling on it?

It's not as cut and dry as quitting Fritos. If I happen to love Fritos and I'm not hurting anyone but myself by eating them and I'm well aware of the risks, then in my opinion any law written outlawing their consumption has no validity. I don't believe a law is valid simply becuase it's written. That kind of thinking is what gave the Nazis so much power.

[Scotty]

You're suggesting a dangerous game, Scotty. There are more and more people in more and more categories who voted and intend to vote Tory simply because they saw them as the least offensive choice.

As opposed to what? Voting for them because of their charismatic leadership? Because of their exciting and innovative policy initiatives?

Now the Tories are targeting those who puff a little weed instead of drinking alcohol. What's next? How many demographics are the Tories going to blow off with "Who else can they vote for?"

Were you ever operating under the belief the Tories and Harper would be friendly towards pot smokers? I certainly never got that impression. I doubt many people did.

It would not surprise me if someone, somewhere, maybe with some of the old Reform crowd is watching and planning, waiting as the present Tories keep putting straws on the camel's back.

There are three things I'd like to point out. One, these Tories are still much more conservative than the PCs. Two, these tories have not entirely sold themselves to Quebec (mind you, they tried), and so are paying more attention to the needs of the West, where Reform arose, than the PCs did. And conservatives can remember what happened the last time the conservative vote was split - more than a decade of incompetent Liberal government with no real opposition to reign them in.

But in any event, I'm not sure what your point is since most small c conservatives would be unlikely to be growing pot anyway, nor to have much sympathy with those who do.

[Scotty]

Strict legal positivism is a dangerous thing, my friend.

If the government passed a law where all Jews must be gassed, why would you risk your job, going to prison and possibly being killed yourself? You should just follow the law because it is written.

Such a law would not be legal as it's unconstitutional. And I think your comparison is silly. You say my use of Fritos is extreme? How so? Why is my desire to eat fritos frivolous compared to people's desire to smoke weed?

[Oleg Bach]

They sure slapped Conrad Black around for stealing from himself. YET - old George Bush can wage an illegal war - screw the nation for billions - cripple up a bunch of young people - and in the end they will build a library in his name?

[cybercoma]

Such a law would not be legal as it's unconstitutional. And I think your comparison is silly. You say my use of Fritos is extreme? How so? Why is my desire to eat fritos frivolous compared to people's desire to smoke weed?

The Nazis laws were not unconstitutional and were perfectly legal in Nazi Germany. Edited July 6, 2011 by cybercoma

[Oleg Bach]

The Nazis laws were not unconstitutional and were perfectly legal in Nazi Germany.

Look at American airport security - They can grope a 90 year old lady and security of the person is tossed on the ash heap.

[Wild Bill]

As opposed to what? Voting for them because of their charismatic leadership? Because of their exciting and innovative policy initiatives?

Were you ever operating under the belief the Tories and Harper would be friendly towards pot smokers? I certainly never got that impression. I doubt many people did.

There are three things I'd like to point out. One, these Tories are still much more conservative than the PCs. Two, these tories have not entirely sold themselves to Quebec (mind you, they tried), and so are paying more attention to the needs of the West, where Reform arose, than the PCs did. And conservatives can remember what happened the last time the conservative vote was split - more than a decade of incompetent Liberal government with no real opposition to reign them in.

But in any event, I'm not sure what your point is since most small c conservatives would be unlikely to be growing pot anyway, nor to have much sympathy with those who do.

I think you'd be surprised at how many "small c conservatives" smoke pot. More importantly, there is a far larger number of small c conservatives who may not smoke it but feel it is harmless enough that it doesn't deserve the Prohibition treatment. Besides that, many truly resent their taxes being spent in a frivous manner on a trivial issue, with no expectation of any effective results. When they read in the paper about someone getting 5 years for growing a few plants in his basement they will not applaud the government! Rather, they will mutter a curse about all their tax dollars being wasted while real criminals walk the streets with impunity.

I really don't think you have any life experience behind your opinion of this matter. Back in the 60's, we ran stats of just those in our high school that we KNEW smoked pot! It was over 87%!

Times changed and likely most of those young hippies have long since stopped indulging in the weed but their attitudes towards it were set in that era. They do NOT buy the "Reefer Madness" trip! Now the Tories want to make this a political factor? When this "boomer" demographic is now right in the middle of the age group that supports the Conservatives? What the hell for? What do they expect to gain?

It doesn't matter what you say the present Tories are doing, Scotty. What counts is how many voters are feeling taken for granted and if that's a significant number that could affect an election.

I'm betting that it IS! And you are taking them for granted yourself! You dragged out how conservatives lost power when the vote was split, as an implied warning for those dissatisfied today to just shut up and do what they're told. Well, WHY was it split?

IMHO, the vote was split because Mulroney and his bunch totally lost the respect of their troops on the ground. They took them for granted, that they would keep coming out to volunteer every election, working those phones and banging in those lawn signs. What did it matter that the party couldn't care less about the values and feelings of their supporters? Who ELSE did they have to vote for?

I still vividly remember those times. Manning gave us an alternative we APPROVED! For most of us this was the first time it had happened politically to us in our entire lives. All the pentup anger and frustration against the PC party burst like water through a dam. Reform membership rose like a meteor and the PCs were essentially erased from the map.

If those Mulroney era Party brass had not caused all that anger and frustration Reform would never have gotten off the ground. The PCs did it to themselves.

People warned of splitting the vote then and it didn't matter a whit. You see, the vote would not be split if the PC party could be wiped out! That was all but accomplished when Harper sold us out to MacKay.

So if the present Tory party keeps becoming more and more arrogant they may very well cause the same set of events. Folks have learned a few things from the vote splits of the 90's. They will concentrate on marginalizing those PC type Tories that are left and leave THEM with no one else to vote for!

Someday the Liberals will get their act together. Perhaps someday a new party will be formed, a la Reform. Meanwhile, those old-style PCs are strutting around all proud of themselves because they ended up in control of the new party. What they appear to be too self-centred to notice is that it doesn't really matter if they control the party. They also have to be popular with enough voters! If they keep pissing off this demographic and that demographic AND alternatives come along then they could find vast numbers of "disenfranchised conservatives" voting with their feet and walking away, spitting at what they left behind!

These are very interesting times. Everything Harper claims he's been trying to achieve is in danger and he seems oblivious to it.

"After all", he thinks. "Who else can they vote for?"

Edited July 6, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Oleg Bach]

You can get stomped on pretty good in dear Canada - Try rolling your way through our family law system - or shall I call it our animal husbandry buisness. First thing the lawyer do is sic the tax department on you...making you fiscally crippled - then they take away your licence - making you immobile - Then they snatch your kids making you nuts...and it is all done systemically by experts our tax dollars pay for - Here they can screw you into the ground and have you pay the bill for the social and economic execution of ones self.

[Tilter]

They sure slapped Conrad Black around for stealing from himself. YET - old George Bush can wage an illegal war - screw the nation for billions - cripple up a bunch of young people - and in the end they will build a library in his name?

Yes but he won't know what it is :lol:

[jacee]

They sure slapped Conrad Black around for stealing from himself.

He stole from a publicly traded company. That's stealing from stockholders, not from himself.