It would be great if they made pot legal and tobacco illegal. Also, if they made any beer that scores below an 80 on Beer Advocate illegal.
TBD
James wrote:
It would be great if they made pot legal and tobacco illegal. Also, if they made any beer that scores below an 80 on Beer Advocate illegal.
Well I am sure only the big breweries would have beers rated above 80 on beer advocate if this were in effect.
James wrote:
It would be great if they made pot legal and tobacco illegal.
so agree with this…
boy I'm just too agreeable today.
yeah . . . like rj reynolds and philip morris would ever allow that. they control. major, major control. soon, a couple of companies will control pot, and fuck us all up with bullshit propaganda. like, nine out of ten doctors agree, that its great for you. smoke is, great for your body.
atomic wrote:RatBastard wrote:James wrote:
Are you trying to say that blacks smoke pot at the rate of eight times that of whites? God, you're a fucking retard.
The point is that blacks are arrested at a rate of eight times that of whites for something that they likely do at the same rate.RatBastard wrote:
Wow to think I thought Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson were the two biggest racists on the planet. This guy wins hands down. The whole debate of legalizing pot to any degree is irrelevant to the racists reasoning he used to cast his vote… (Personally though I could not care less who smokes what.)
http://news.yahoo.com/washington-d-c-panel-weighs-decriminalizing-marijuana-120117751.html
"Eight times more blacks than non-blacks in Washington are arrested for pot possession, and committee Chairman Tommy Wells said the measure's goal was fairness and reducing law enforcement costs.
'This is a social justice bill that addresses disproportionate impact,' said Wells, who is among nine candidates for mayor."
So according to him, since blacks break a certain law at a rate eight times that of non-blacks, the law needs to be repealed because of the "disproportionate impact" of the law. By his logic rape should be decriminalized since far more men are arrested for rape and their is a disproportionate impact against men. Did the people who live in DC actually vote this douche bag into office? (Yes I did intentionally leave out the part of the article that states his political affiliation as it is irrelevant.)
According to the cited source, blacks in DC are arrested at a rate eight times that of non-blacks. A logical deduction is that blacks in DC break the underlying law at a similar rate. This could be a result of any number of factors, none of which are relevant to the point being made. It is not mutually exclusive that all segments of society break a given law in the same rate, and at the same time in pure numbers one of those segments have a very high proportion of violators. Again all irrelevant to the discussion. Please try to respond to the point being discussed from now on.
I am sure African Americans have a much higher murder rate than white people in DC. We could have long discussion why but I agree with Ratbastard that they shouldn't change laws just because one group is charged with it more than another group of people. I am sure income level between the two groups is way apart as well and highest education level achieved. It could be that people who have marijuana arrests could not be the primary reason they were arrested. I believe people shouldn't be arrested for drug use unless they are driving or taking care of children.
First off the article was talking about blacks not african americans. No where did it mention africa.
stevewizzle wrote:
ratbastard, so regardless of the the this article and what tommy wells said (i.e., removing the political "rationale"), what's your opinion? should we legalize it?
It really does not matter to me either way. The usual arguments for legalization are a tad shallow to say the least (e.g. its not as bad as XZY) but that's not to say decriminalization or legalization should not be seriously considered.
chaz wrote:RatBastard wrote:
According to the cited source, blacks in DC are arrested at a rate eight times that of non-blacks. A logical deduction is that blacks in DC break the underlying law at a similar rate.
It's a logical deduction if you assume that the police forces and the justice system in general does not give preference to whites and people with $$. In actuality, the percentage of blacks and whites who smoke weed are nearly equal. But if you are black and you smoke, you are 4 times as likely to be arrested for it than your white counterparts.
These numbers are national. I don't know how it breaks down for DC.
1) I do not doubt for a second that money buys one different treatment.
2) The national numbers are irrelevant as the discussion is about a DC issue.
hutch wrote:
well the issue of why marijuana should be legalized , to me, has nothing to do with race.
it should be legalized because there's nothing really that bad about it….
A rather Pollyanna justification on the issue at best.
RatBastard wrote:
First off the article was talking about blacks not african americans. No where did it mention africa.
first off, do you consider it clever to make this "distinction"?
second, if you're going to use "first off" you need to follow it up with another point.
sweetcell wrote:RatBastard wrote:
First off the article was talking about blacks not african americans. No where did it mention africa.
first off, do you consider it clever to make this "distinction"?
second, if you're going to use "first off" you need to follow it up with another point.
The second off was readily evident with out needing to be said.
I think Ratbastard should not be able to talk about politics for a month. And then if he has 100 posts during the month he can post about politics the next month.
All he ever does is post his insane political views. Let's see what else he can contribute.
All he ever does is post his insane political views. Let's see what else he can contribute.
atomic wrote:
I think Ratbastard should not be able to talk about politics for a month. And then if he has 100 posts during the month he can post about politics the next month.
All he ever does is post his insane political views. Let's see what else he can contribute.
Really you think it is insane to believe we ought not make or change laws based on race? Of course this was not a politic discussion anyway, I intentionally left the political affiliation out of it since it was irrelevant… It was and is a discussion of law and how the guy in the article is a blatant racist.
atomic wrote:I believe people shouldn't be arrested for drug use unless they are driving or taking care of children.
you obviously don't have children ;)
RatBastard wrote:
1) I do not doubt for a second that money buys one different treatment.
Wow you are seriously misguided….So you think that the public defender is as good as the $500 hour lawyer at getting someone off for a drug possession crime
Sidehatch wrote:RatBastard wrote:
1) I do not doubt for a second that money buys one different treatment.
Wow you are seriously misguided….So you think that the public defender is as good as the $500 hour lawyer at getting someone off for a drug possession crime
You misread my post. I am saying that money DOES matter. That's why I said I don't doubt that money buys one different treatment.
RatBastard wrote:atomic wrote:
I think Ratbastard should not be able to talk about politics for a month. And then if he has 100 posts during the month he can post about politics the next month.
All he ever does is post his insane political views. Let's see what else he can contribute.
Really you think it is insane to believe we ought not make or change laws based on race? Of course this was not a politic discussion anyway, I intentionally left the political affiliation out of it since it was irrelevant… It was and is a discussion of law and how the guy in the article is a blatant racist.
I actually sort of agree with you on this one but all you do is talk politics on here. Most of your ideas are insane. I just think it would be better for you and us if you just tried to go a month without talking about politics. Because you always upset about it and you aren't going to change anyones mind. Seemss pointless. I would have a debate with you on things but you don't care what anyone else opinion on these subjects is.
atomic wrote:RatBastard wrote:atomic wrote:
I think Ratbastard should not be able to talk about politics for a month. And then if he has 100 posts during the month he can post about politics the next month.
All he ever does is post his insane political views. Let's see what else he can contribute.
Really you think it is insane to believe we ought not make or change laws based on race? Of course this was not a politic discussion anyway, I intentionally left the political affiliation out of it since it was irrelevant… It was and is a discussion of law and how the guy in the article is a blatant racist.
I actually sort of agree with you on this one but all you do is talk politics on here. Most of your ideas are insane. I just think it would be better for you and us if you just tried to go a month without talking about politics. Because you always upset about it and you aren't going to change anyones mind. Seemss pointless. I would have a debate with you on things but you don't care what anyone else opinion on these subjects is.
My views are most often well thought out, logical, and reasoned. Not sure if upset is an appropriate descriptor, more often I am sadly amused. You (as does everyone) have the right to whatever opinions, beliefs, and thoughts you choose. It would however be far more of a quality discussion if more or the replies to my views had some basis in reality rather than some far fetched never never land naivete.
ratbastard, do you object to being called Caucasian?
sweetcell wrote:
ratbastard, do you object to being called Caucasian?
I have no concern what-so-even what others call me. It has zero impact on me. Although by the technical definition of eh term I am not a member of that group. On a side issue, I would find it rather silly to refer to me as European-American.
RatBastard wrote:Your entire argument hung on the premise that eight times as many blacks smoke marijuana as whites and several of us referenced studies that make clear that's not the case and you refuse them out of hand and then accuse others of living in some far fetched never never land naivete?
It would however be far more of a quality discussion if more or the replies to my views had some basis in reality rather than some far fetched never never land naivete.
What's most funny is NO ONE I've seen in this thread even disagrees with you on your main point (that inequity in prosecutions isn't a good reason to get rid of a law). Several of us have said "yep, that's right." People are, at worst, correcting one detail of your argument. And you're still bent out of shape over it. Totally unnecessary, man.