Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

New Bill Legalizing Marijuana Possession

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I just received a link from a friend who said:

"If you care about the fact that our government spends $30 billion a year to put potheads in prison instead of rapists, then doyour part. Good old Barney Frank is sponsoring H.R. 5843, which will make possession of small amounts of marijuana legal on a federal level. It doesn't take long to write your representative:"

Now, they talk strictly about the pragmatic consequences, but I deleted the pre-written message and wrote about why marijuana should be legalized, based on individual rights. Whether you choose to keep their message or write your own, here is the link:

https://secure2.convio.net/mpp/site/Advocac...tion&id=177

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I have to say I'm pretty disappointed. I thought forum members would jump at the chance to advocate rights in a way that is simple, incredibly easy, and actually would make a difference.

If I'm wrong about this somehow, could someone explain why this is either not simple, not easy, or wouldn't make a difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just received a link from a friend who said:

"If you care about the fact that our government spends $30 billion a year to put potheads in prison instead of rapists ..."

Where did he get the idea that either the government elects not to incarcerate rapists so that it may jail marijuana-addicts instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did he get the idea that either the government elects not to incarcerate rapists so that it may jail marijuana-addicts instead?

I don't know that it really is an either/or situation per se, but there is limited space for incarceration and many prisons are overcrowded. Since they are overcrowded, many offenders are given reduced sentences, probation instead of incarceration and/or early release from incarceration, many of which are 'real' criminals who violated people's rights as opposed to many who stay incarcerated for having a plant in their pocket.

I think that is where the either/or idea comes from. If our facilities were not so populated by drug offenders, we would have more room for 'real' criminals.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Just curious, as a police officer how do you deal with this, i.e., do you use your discretion when it comes to these types of offenses (like drugs, prostitution, etc) and concentrate on real crime or do you follow the letter of the law? I've always wondered about how someone in a position such as yours, knowing the correct moral context deals with these unjust laws day to day. Also, I believe you are a Sargent or something like that? Assuming, you use discretion when it comes to unjust laws, do you also instruct your subordinates to follow suit, and how does that go over with them and/or your superiors? I'm only asking these questions because I have great respect for proper law enforcement, but the vast majority of "law enforcement" seems to take place to loot citizen's of their money to fill the city's coffers, i.e., Click it or Ticket, etc., and I was wondering how a person with a correct moral understanding of why these things are unjust and wrong deal with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DarkWaters: in addition to limited jail space, police have limited resources. Any time/energy/capital spent chasing down marijuana owners is unavailable to spend on chasing down other criminals (or to give back to the taxpayers).

Nyronus: it worked for me just now, and apparently Jaskn as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I have to say I'm pretty disappointed. I thought forum members would jump at the chance to advocate rights in a way that is simple, incredibly easy, and actually would make a difference.

Perhaps not everyone is as big of an activist as you are. A good reason to join the Free State Project.

I sent it out. I kinda think the fed gov is a lost cause. I'm focusing on a more attainable goal (and receiving a lot of help!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so, I'm pretty sure loony Libertarian promoting of seceding from the Union is against forum policy, so I'm gonna ignore that.

I've been thinking about this issue some more, and whilst I can't imagine it would do any harm, I don't know if Marijuana is an issue we can really win on. As with all things, besides an immediate violation of rights (such as that issue with the Marines not being allowed access to their own office), I'm not really that gung-ho for political action. You really need to start getting the culture moving in your favour, so you can have a whole swarm of voices crying for a repeal on the something like this.

Now, as for the whole repeal in itself, against all drugs laws, I think this is one of the areas we could really succeed in fighting. Hell, if they could do it after the Prohibition, why can't we do it now, with the billions of dollars wasted and the kind of gang violence Al Capone could only have dreamed of? But marijuana is so specific, and the culture just isn't ready to oppose the 'War' on principle, that it's a bit of a waste of time.

Edited by Tenure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...a bit of a waste of time.

You spent more time writing that than it takes to send in one of these things. Literally, it takes no more than a minute or two if you don't type your own message.

[edit] I'm not saying this is supposed to replace philosophical action. I'm saying it can be done in addition, takes a ridiculously miniscule portion of time, and if enough people do it, congressmen will start to realize the country cares more than they thought, about their rights and money.

Edited by musenji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LiveFreeOrDie, there are multiple threads on the Libertarian Party and the Free State Project, and why Objectivists, usually, do not side with either organization. You should be able to find them using the search feature.

I sent my letter, Ben. I was out of town this past weekend and didn't see your post until today. Maybe you'll get a better response during the week??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, as a police officer how do you deal with this,

EC,

I intend to answer your question here but I've been very busy over the last week. I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this or that I'm not just blowing your question off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, as a police officer how do you deal with this, i.e., do you use your discretion when it comes to these types of offenses (like drugs, prostitution, etc) and concentrate on real crime or do you follow the letter of the law?

One of the things I learned from my participation on this forum sometime back is the importance of being a country of laws, of order. As a whole, the US is (in my opinion) still basically a rights-respecting nation. That being the case, I hold that enforcing the rule of law, even with bad laws sometimes, is more important than rebeling against particulars laws. This means that I will endeavor to stay within legal means to try to change bad laws but I will still enforce them "when I am required to". As a sergeant, I do more management of a squad at this point than actual hands on putting people in jail.

However, before I was promoted and when I was tasked more with "putting bad guys in jail" I would not actively seek to enforce certain laws (which have no victims or do not violate anyone's rights). But, if I stopped or arrested some guy for some other violation of the law and they had dope on them, I was (professionally speaking) in a position where I would be required to take some enforcement action. The discretion you speak of is not really as broad as you might imagine, at least in the city and section of the department where I work, and in some cases should you elect not to charge somebody with a violation of the law, you can cross into the realm of "neglect of duty", misfeasence, etc. So while I might be able to elect not to charge somebody for not wearing the seatbelt, a minor traffic infraction, electing not to enforce a significant misdemeanor offense would be frowned upon if there was clearcut probable cause, fact and circumstances and so on.

Inserting my personal ethics on others in the police department can be a dicey matter. There are times when I can appropriately share some of my views on laws with folks that work for me but I have to be careful about telling them NOT To enforce laws. Rather, I try to encourage them in more subtle ways to focus their efforts on enforcing other laws. i.e. I would much rather see a guy go to jail for DUI than for carrying plant material around in his pocket. However, this is an uphill battle to a large degree. At least two factors work against me; 1) some folks FERVENTLY believe "drugs are baaaad, m'kay" and 2) enforcing drugs laws (on the patrol level) are way easier than enforcing some other laws. Sad, but true.

Let's say you stop a guy on a Terry stop or a traffic stop, get consent to search and find some crack cocaine. BAMMM, felony arrest on an essentially open and shut case. Some might argue that it takes "work" to get lawful consent, but I disagree.

By contrast, a DUI is a semi-complex process of building a case and taking about 2 hours out of your shift dealing with someone who is likely to be a drunk and very unpleasant. What makes the process semi-complex is that you have to keep current YEARLY with changes in DUI laws and there a a number of hoops you must jump through during the building of your case. I"m still not sure what it is about DUI that requires ever-changing laws each year.

So basically it is like this; I think it is wrong to put someone in jail for possessing some drug or selling some drug to otherwise consenting adults. However, if the person is going to do that KNOWING there can be legal consequences, then sometimes they are going to get nailed. While I would love to see only proper, objective law on the books it is still important that we remain a country that abides by law, sometimes even bad law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Thanks for the reply, but without implying that you are predictable or anything, this is pretty much the answer I was expecting, i.e., respecting the rule of law in even a semi-free country like ours at present, because it is probably how I would have answered the question.

So my next question, and this in general not particularly directed just at RB, when do we know when the line has been crossed and the main job of the police is to violate the rights of citizens and not protect them by enforcing the rule of law any longer. I would posit that in at least a large portion of this country that is already the case. I could show at as evidence all the anti-drug and prostitution stings, the speed traps, Ticket or Click it, "drunk driving" arrests when someone has only drank six or eight beers or whatever, arresting someone for child support or "probation" "violations", arresting someone for "disorderly conduct" for taking a beer from one bar to the one next door and telling the cop in illegally sitting in the parking lot to essentially fuck off, wearing ones pants to low ( lol ), I could go on and on, but my point is made. This country is quickly moving towards a "dictatorship of the majority" and if that "line" hasn't been crossed as of yet--we are very close. All this puts current or near-future police officers into almost the same moral category as the Gestapo or moving closer to it every day. The time where someone can claim to be both an "moral" enforcer of law and a rational and moral man is quickly and decisively fading. What we need is less, MUCH less police officers right now, but there is always an incessant call for MORE, which is absurd. If we got back the number of police officers by at least 75-90 % and allowed everyone to arm oneself, not only would there be a HUGE drop in crime, but the relatively small number of police would be essentially FORCED to only go after real criminals instead of creating "criminals" out of thin air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...