Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The state of California legalised recreational cannabis use in November 2016, and it will become legal state-wide on Monday. That means anyone 21 and older will be able to buy cannabis from a licensed store, known as a dispensary.
The resentencing provisions of Proposition 64, California's cannabis legalisation initiative, have been in effect since last year, said Eunisses Hernandez, a policy coordinator at the Drug Policy Alliance, a group working to end drug prohibition. But few people know about the resentencing provision, which applies to people who are currently imprisoned or out on parole, Hernandez told Al Jazeera.
Individuals who apply for resentencing may be released from prison or have the charge on their criminal record reduced. Felonies may be lowered to misdemeanours, misdemeanours to infractions, or infractions to an outright dismissal of charges.
Resentencing will likely affect thousands of lives, since at least 500,000 marijuana-related arrests have been recorded in California over the last decade, Hernandez said.
[...] Several groups in the US have urged authorities to include changes to drug-related criminal offences in their efforts to legalise recreational cannabis.
Proponents of cannabis legalisation feared that allowing people with past drug convictions to get out of jail or reduce their sentences would lower the chance that the laws would pass at all. "There was, in many cases, a reluctance to bring this up," he told Al Jazeera.
Today, opponents of resentencing provisions often argue that retrying these cases puts "a very, very large potential burden on the courts", Sterling said.
Law enforcement officers may also contend that a guilty plea to cannabis possession may follow the dropping of more serious charges, such as possession with the intent to distribute - "and so to make a blanket change without looking at all of the underlying facts of the arrest would mean that more serious offenders would have their records expunged", Sterling said.
Ultimately, Sterling said it is most important to make sure people who may be affected by a resentencing law are aware that the law exists in the first place.
"The key thing, I think, is the ability for people to re-enter the economy and society free of those encumbrances," he said. "We would also say they are eligible to vote, they are eligible for jury duty, that all of their civil rights are restored."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @11:05AM (1 child)
How are you going to replace 13 million minimally paid people, oh right 13 million more slaves, and you can bet that is just the beginning, watch as rents, food, transit skyrocket in the next 2 years , I'm going to kill my self but the rest of you and the children you cursed to bring into the world are going to suffer the consequences
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @01:03PM
To raw for you autists?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by starvingboy on Wednesday January 03 2018, @02:28PM (25 children)
How did they handle it when Prohibition was repealed? It's not like we haven't been down this road before.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @02:47PM (12 children)
But, but, but, this is TOTALLY different!
Because, REASONS!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @03:15PM (11 children)
Do some introspection. Contemplate why it is that you thought your comment would be a worthwhile contribution to this discussion.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday January 03 2018, @04:10PM (9 children)
Potheads feel the need to constantly validate their choice of intoxicant.
That said your point is a good one. With the end of prohibition we already have a path we can follow.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:36PM (8 children)
We're vocal because marijuana has been demonized for years due to racism and greed. It's not 100% harmless but vs every other intoxicant AND legitimate medicine, it is close to being harmless in moderation (e.g. not smoking an ounce a week, seriously, you got a fuckin problem). We don't like being lumped in with the heroin addicts, coke/crack heads, crank smokers and alcoholics who are out causing chaos while we're over here trying to relax after a long hard work day. Not that every pot head is an angel in need of some mental relaxation, of course there are fuck up potheads just like there are fuck up _________ (fill in the blank.) But seriously, it's the least of Americas problems and for some reason it's treated like a monster. Grow up.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday January 03 2018, @08:44PM (7 children)
Don't know what kind of paradise city you live in, but for the city in which I live DUII arrests have gone up by 12% since legalization.
What pot smokers lack in belligerence compared to alchies, they make up for in stupidity. I already voted to give you your legalization so you can shut up, get high, and stop making up fake statistics about health benefits. I found it great how as soon as the legislation went through the talk about how healthy and cancer curing it was immediately died to make way for "dude weed lmao".
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @09:56PM (2 children)
I'm pretty sure I keep seeing additional results for medicinal uses of cannabis. Did you just stop looking after it was legalized or something?
Of course DUII arrests will go up. Do you have a number for convictions? Afaik there is no reliable insta-test like with alcohol, so cops will arrest everybody they can. The bloodwork will clarify who's high and who isn't. Even then, I would expect convictions to go up slightly.
If you can't figure out why that is, you're probably having an knee-jerk reaction based on prior brainwashing. Knee-jerk-itis hasn't been well-studied, but I would propose that this is a condition that cannabis can also help with. Smoke two joints and call me in the morning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @02:37AM (1 child)
Supposedly Sulla is an older gent, so your "prior brainwashing" point is 100% accurate. Hell, I am in my 30s and have a friend who just couldn't come to grips with weed even though he'd smoked it himself and one day he said "It must just be the fact that it is illegal!"
A smart person who couldn't figure out why he was so against weed. Because it is illegal? Lol, dude admitted to driving drunk a few times. The brainwashing really fucking worked, so we'll have to deal with malcontents like Sulla for a while. Though he said he voted for legalization, so massive props for common sense overriding the cultural washing machine.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday January 05 2018, @12:20AM
Only 27 but was one of only a handful of kids who never smoked it in k-12. My issues with it stem from watching everyone around me get progressively dumber and make progressively worse life decisions and then play it off by blaming the pot or the weed rather than their decision to use the substance. I don't doubt there are not some medical uses for pot, but it isn't some wonder drug that cures every cancer ever like it was painted before legalization. My vote for legalization was because people are free to do to themselves what they want and if people are free to choose to do long term damage to their liver and kidneys then why aren't they free to make themselves dumber as well.
Although I would not have voted any differently knowing what I do now, I am really tired of smelling pot everywhere I go. I was not expecting public smoking to be as prevalent as it is. When I am out smoking a cigar I don't puff as I walk past people, I expect the same courtesy when someone walking pot walks past me.
As a note pot smoking in public is not legal, but the police don't enforce it.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @11:03PM (1 child)
The problem is that cops even pull over people who aren't driving dangerously for different reasons, and then notice they're high and decide to get them for that too, even though it should be based on whether their driving was endangering others. How much of that (and DUI charges in general) is because of that?
I don't use marijuana and never have a single time in my life, just in case someone accuses me of being a pothead for seemingly defending the substance.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday January 05 2018, @12:30AM
Kind of hard for me to respond to as I feel that DUII shouldn't exist and instead reckless driving should hold the same consequences that driving impaired currently does.
In this scenario the question is whether cops are increasing the amount of people they choose to pull over for diving dangerously compared to how it was before legalization. The local police have decided to not bother arresting/citing people for smoking pot in public, but I don't know if their lack of concern over public smoking extends to increased concern over drivers. I think it is very likely that police have stepped up enforcement following legalization in an attempt to get more revenue, but I think it is also very likely that there are more impaired drivers on the road. I have heard a lot of people complain that they should be able to drive while smoking pot because they claims it makes them better drivers, but I also don't trust the cops to not do all they can to skim some more money.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @11:45PM
lmfao! so greedy pigs preying on potheads is the potheads' fault? stfu! those people aren't going to crash into shit. these stupid goddamn pigs just can't earn an honest living.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @04:25PM
Man you sound angry. Did your mom sleep with a black man after smoking pot?
(Score: 4, Touché) by frojack on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:07PM
One AC chiding another about worthless contributions. Seriously?
It would be good if you took your own advice.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @03:41PM (11 children)
Western society is predicated on the notion that the Law is King.
Regardless of whether the King changes His mind, it is still the case that people defied the King in the past, which cannot be tolerated; why should they be pardoned?
That being said, the non-violent offenders will be released, not because that is the moral choice, but rather because they are expensive to keep around.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday January 03 2018, @04:43PM (4 children)
The expense of keeping prisoners is really not the issue. Not at all.
First, these people can be freed (1) because their lives have already been ruined, and (2) to make room to incarcerate younger people who have not yet realized that they should not insult or embarrass our dear leader, legislators, judges, and their corporate owners.
Second, the cost of keeping prisoners is infinitely scalable and sustainable. Just raise taxes on the non incarcerated population to whatever levels it takes to maintain the incarcerated population. This keeps for-profit prisons profitable, and stock prices and executive bonuses high.
The education system can be organized to ensure that approximately half the population are unthinking worker drones. The fruits of their labors can pay to incarcerate the other half which could not be successfully conditioned to stop questioning the nature of things. Yet who can work from prison to provide tech toys for the 1% who preside over the two halves of the population. (the halves and the halve knots)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @05:09PM (3 children)
An allocation of resources is either profitable, or it isn't; given that resource accessibility in our Universe is fundamentally scarce and that the future is unknown, that means an endeavor is only sustainable when it is profitable.
Profit is the only reason to do anything; it's certainly the only reason to do anything well.
The problem isn't that the prisons are seeking profit; the problem is that the prisons are not "private"—they derive their income from a violently imposed monopoly, not from a free market built around voluntary trade, where "voluntary" is determined by contracts to which the parties concerned agree in advance of interaction.
That is to say, the problem is—as always—coercion; the problem is authoritarianism; the problem is "government".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday January 03 2018, @05:44PM
Yes. I agree.
But lack of government is a much much bigger problem.
I would prefer the lesser problem of having government.
Of course, you could let the free market help you by letting you choose which prison you would prefer to be confined to. This works with mental health facilities as well. I would kindly recommend giving one a call for consultation.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:37PM (1 child)
Don't mistake "profitable" meaning "financial beneficial to a particular person" with "profitable" meaning "of net positive benefit to society."
The problem with private profit being considered an unqualified "good" (as some classical economists continue to argue) is that externalities are often not taken into account. For example, a manufacturing plant that is privately profitable to run but which causes massive mercury contamination of a nearby aquifer may be profitable to run if the we ignore the social cost of the pollution, but unprofitable if the owners of the plant were forced to pay the cost to control the pollution and/or compensate people who were adversely affected by the pollution. In my example, the assessment of the cost could be straightforward, but many externalities are not easy to with specificity link to specific owners or to easily quantify and assess the cost of.
More realistic example - in the US, roads are provided "for free" to all comers by the government, funded primarily by a tax on fuel. The fuel tax is not a great way to measure wear and tear - heavy vehicles inflict proportionally more wear than their fuel consumption would suggest compared to cars. Railroads are (or were at the time of my example) privately owned and maintained by the railroads. One of the reasons long-haul trucking came to dominate freight movement in the US at the expense of long-term rail shipment was this difference in cost - the need to maintain their tracks was a significant expense for railroads that trucks did not incur (in fact, given many trains were diesel, like trucks, mean that railroads ALSO contributed actively towards the maintenance of surface roads they never used via the fuel tax). Many assessments argue that rail freight is, on the whole, a cheaper way to ship goods long distances if these costs were all factored in. Is rail freight "unprofitable" or not?
You can define certainly define the word "profit" in a way that makes neither of these examples paradoxical to the notion that "profitable activities should occur, unprofitable ones should not." But it means considering something other than "what's reflected in dollar terms on the corporate balance sheet."
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 04 2018, @02:49AM
Is the diesel sold to railways actually road taxed in the USA? Here in Canada, I assume it isn't considering that I can buy gas for my lawnmower (hard to find) that isn't road taxed as well as farmers buying gas/diesel that isn't road taxed. Generally it is dyed purple and the cops used to check for it when they used to do the defective vehicle roadblocks. Boat fuel is another one that doesn't have road taxes on it if you can find it.
I'd assume that railways buy diesel by the tanker truck full and shouldn't have any problem getting fuel without the road taxes.
Another cost issue with railways in the States, or perhaps some States, is having to pay property taxes on the railroad, with some jurisdictions having high taxes.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:22PM (3 children)
Your conclusion here is suspect to me.
The law can be unjust. If an unjust law is broken, it doesn't follow to me that there cannot be a consideration of pardoning the offenders. The fact that the law evolves is proof that society's (and the law's) notion of "what is just?" changes over time. That's not to say that EVERY TIME a law changes, it's indicative that the notion of "what is just?" has changed in a way that should naturally pardon all past offenders. But to argue it's NEVER appropriate is questionable.
To take an extreme example, should runaway slaves have been imprisoned under the Fugitive Slave Act [wikipedia.org] after the abolition of slavery? After all, they broke the law as it existed at the time. Should the members of the underground railroad who helped them escape? That was illegal too.
Taking a more recent and less extreme example, in the 90's the federal government created mandatory minimums for crack cocaine offenses that were 100x more harsh than similar offenses involving powder cocaine. Part of the problem seen in these guidelines was that the racial mix of the users of the two substances were very different - crack offenders were predominantly African American, while powder cocaine offenders were primarily white. Critics have argued this was not coincidental, and are evidence of racial bias in the law. The Fair Sentencing Act [wikipedia.org] reduced (but did not come close to eliminating) these disparities. Should offenders sentenced under the earlier mandatory minimums be re-sentenced [aclu.org] under the new guidelines? After all, they were sentenced under the law as it existed at the time of their offense.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:36PM (2 children)
I appreciate your sincerity, but this is a sarcastic conversation.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:39PM (1 child)
I'd like to believe that's true. I see no indication in AC's post I responded to that this was sarcasm.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 03 2018, @07:15PM
Text forums are weird that way...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dry on Thursday January 04 2018, @03:02AM
Here, the Crown is actually represented by a Queen, and yes, at least in theory, all laws, courts and such come from her. She doesn't have any problem using the Royal prerogative to give out pardons. Generally keep your nose clean for 5-10 years, fill out some paper work, pay a fee and the government does a bit of investigation to make sure you are now a contributing member of society and you get pardoned, with your records put in a different, harder to open, filing cabinet.
Of course here, the idea is to have criminals become productive members of society rather then suffer for ever.
As an aside, it'll be interesting what happens here in respect to criminal records, people serving time,etc when marijuana is legalized this summer (predicted for Jul 1st, but some governments are asking for a delay to finish setting things up as the Provinces are in charge of regulating it)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:11PM
That describes a dictatorship. Why do you say "western society" is predicated on the basis of dictatorships?
Western society *should be* predicated on the notion that the law is written by unreliable humans, who may need to be replaced in the next election. Replacing them does not make any sense, if their replacements first job is not to fix the mistakes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday January 03 2018, @03:44PM (3 children)
If you have proof of possession with intent, then the defendant should be charged with that. Charging them with possession, distribution, possession with intent, and a laundry list of other charges just to get them to plead guilty to possession is extortion.
IMHO, the bargain system is a bug, not a feature.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:16PM (2 children)
You've hit on the simple solution to the question.
If you are incarcerated for ONLY possession of marijuana, just let them go.
If there were ANY other felony convictions, make them sue for re-sentencing only on the possession charge.
There is virtually nobody in jail for ONLY a personal use possession charge.
Those sentences usually were for 90 days in county lockup, or simple probation
Once you eliminate those you will have 27 jail beds available.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:57PM (1 child)
Citation needed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday January 03 2018, @07:27PM
That's correct. The whites are out, and the dark-skinned ones also assaulted the officer's car with their face, before causing major property damage with their blood, and refusing to cooperate by being unconscious.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday January 03 2018, @04:06PM (7 children)
Alaska had a lot of failed attempts to legalize pot because the bill always included stipulations that prior convictions would be overturned. Evidently Alaskans are not a forgiving people and while fine with legalization are not fine with overturning convictions.
Regardless of whether or not the law was just, the people willingly violated the law.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday January 03 2018, @04:49PM (5 children)
I have to agree. Rationale: if the law is overturned, then it must have been unjust. Therefore, it seems that people formerly convicted of it should be freed. You can't have it both ways. Either the law was just or unjust. If just, then why overturn it? If unjust, then why continue to imprison people under an unjust law? But hey, I guess I just don't get it like those people do.
Few things are dumber than a flock of Palins. Which makes the current administration one of the few.
The state whose name might cause your Amazon Echo to light up.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Wednesday January 03 2018, @05:14PM (4 children)
At the time of the various failed attempts it was legal to smoke and possess but not legal to sell or have over a certain amount, so the majority of people caught/imprisoned were dealers. I think that combined with the conservative belief that "criminals are criminal by nature" made them think that someone willing to sell pot is no different than someone willing to sell meth.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 03 2018, @05:35PM
These dealers1 were selling pot, not meth. Not the same thing. Some people2 consider it to be "medicine". Therefore the dealer's motivation might have been good rather than bad.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1who try to force Tesla to sell through dealer networks, and will next set their sights on SpaceX to use dealer networks
2not necessarily me. prescription narcotics are *vastly* cheaper and more potent for occasional use to improve quality of life
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 04 2018, @03:13AM (1 child)
Which raises the question of how legal marijuana is going to be/is regulated in the various States where it is legal/soon to be legal?
Here (Canada), once it is legalized by the feds, the Provinces will be in charge of regulating it and each will be somewhat different. Where I am, it'll only be legally sold by licensed sellers, run much the same as liqueur. Just like it is illegal to make more then so much liqueur and illegal to sell it, the law will say that we can only grow 4 plants and can't sell it.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday January 04 2018, @08:56AM
You can look at the various ways different states regulate the sale of alcohol for a clue. The end result will likely be a a horrendous mishmash of laws (I'm assuming that harsh penalties for possession/use/whatever remain in some jurisdictions) making the simple act of buying some pot for personal use wherever you are much more complicated than it needs to be.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Monday January 08 2018, @02:03PM
I'm concerned by "not legal to sell of have over a certain amount". If the product is legal, then how is it illegal to have 'over a certain amount'? Like, Alcohol is legal, and there doesn't seem to be a limit on how much of it I may possess, bread too seems to have no limit to possession. So why would there be a limit to the amount of weed one can possess, if weed became legal?
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday January 03 2018, @05:11PM
This is not evident. There were previous attempts [ballotpedia.org] at recreational legalization across the nation. None succeeded until 2012. Alaska itself [wikipedia.org] decriminalized cannabis in 1982 but recriminalized it in 1990.
Your actual conclusion should be that attitudes towards cannabis changed significantly over the decades. Look at this graph [pewresearch.org]. You can see that Alaska's failed Legalize Marijuana Act in 2004 got more support (~44%) than nationwide support for legalization at the time (33%).
Cannabis was effectively decriminalized [wikipedia.org] by the Alaska Court of Appeals in 2003. Not that there weren't other ways to break the law other than possessing more than 4 ounces.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @04:13PM
Yes. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Disagree) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday January 03 2018, @04:32PM (4 children)
"Should US Marijuana Laws Address Past Drug Convictions?" YES
Should the sentences automatically be reduced/adjusted? YES, automatically for non-violent convictions. Evaluated on a case by case for convictions including violent behavior* under judicial discretion.
Should people convicted of recreational cannabis use be pardoned outright? NO*. It was against the law when they used it. They knew the law, even if it was bad, they choose to break it.
* As in they were a danger to others. "Resisting arrest" doesn't count, that charge gets thrown in to the mix if you don't get your hands up fast enough for the cop or say "what? I couldn't hear you over the truck that just went by".
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday January 03 2018, @04:53PM
I don't, I really don't want to Godwin1 this by suggesting other illegal activities such as helping people escape from the Nazi's. After all, you chose to break the law. Once WWII is over, you should continue to be imprisoned.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1but I am not calling or *comparing* anyone here to a Nazi, so Godwin shouldn't apply
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday January 03 2018, @05:29PM (2 children)
Laws against recreational drug usage by, and production for, and sales to, informed, consenting adults are inherently wrong; therefore, any conviction for these things is also inherently wrong; therefore, they should be reversed. This also goes for attempts to non-violently protect one's self from ancillary legal consequences of wrongful laws, such as charges that you didn't report your sales to the tax authorities.
Initiating violence, however, is unacceptable. Convictions for initiation of violence should stand.
The moral authority for peaceful civil disobedience comes directly and inevitably from the fact that the law is morally wrong. There is no moral authority in advocating, creating, obeying or enforcing a law that is wrong, nor in simply declaring “it’s the law.” Only moral failure.
When the government asserts it can interfere with the choices of an informed, consenting adult, or like-minded adults, the government is always wrong.
This Thomas Aquinas quote is particularly relevant:
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:44PM (1 child)
You were doing well until you tried to loop in the entire illegal industry. A step too far.
You seem to forget that all law is based only on "human opinions". Even murder. Its just the opinion of the majority that makes murder illegal. We simply agree that murder is wrong, even in the face of plenty of examples of infanticide and patricide in the animal world. (We then carefully engineer exceptions to the law which make murder perfectly legal and even the right thing to do).
Given that, there is no way you can, with any degree of intellectual honesty, make blanket statements that any law is inherently wrong. So you are on thin ice from the get go. But you went too far when you said humans have no right to regulate human business practices. Do you REALLY want to open that door? Didn't I see you raging against corporations a while back?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday January 03 2018, @07:36PM
No, I'm still doing fine. Immoral law is immoral law.
Your attempt to grandfather in unjust, immoral and harmful government acts as "okay" is what's going too far.
Unjust and immoral punishment is not made just and/or moral because it was in the past. If it fails in these regards, it has failed, period, end of excuses – and the obligation to repair the damage caused immediately arises.
The justice system must strive to be just, and law must strive to be moral, and mistakes must be put right, or there's little point to law (other than creating an immoral, unjust society) and the concept of "justice" become meaningless.
When the government is wrong – and it most certainly has been wrong in this matter – it should cease causing harm and seek to undo harm previously caused insofar as that is reasonably possible, certainly not less so when we're talking about ruined lives and prospects as we are here.
I didn't say that; you have erected a strawman there.
What I said was that immoral law was wrong. Laws removing adult, personal / consensual informed choice are immoral. Those regulations are inherently without legitimacy. That's quite different in nature from legitimate regulation of business practices in general. What we're talking about here is the setting aside legitimate business practices as beyond the pale – and that is wrong, was wrong, and shall forever be, wrong.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:06PM (15 children)
Sure, letting stoners out of jail would make a lot of sense if dope is no longer illegal. That's just saving a bunch of cash, never a bad thing.
However, the bigger deal would be erasing the conviction from criminal records. Because one of the major purposes of the War on Vegetables (as Dr. Timothy Leary liked to call it) was to enable legalized discrimination, like this:
1. Pass laws making drugs popular among certain populations illegal (this is exactly why pot is illegal, both Harry Anslinger and Richard Nixon were very clear on this point).
2. Train your cops to more-or-less pick people among those populations at random and search them for drugs. If they don't have any, the cops can and do bring their own along, since it's a possession crime and a cop's word is usually taken as gospel truth if it goes to court.
3. Make running criminal background checks common for things like employment, housing, and government welfare programs.
4. Pass laws saying that it's legal to exclude people from employment, housing, or welfare if they have a *gasp* drug conviction on their record.
And this system isn't accidental, in any link on the chain. Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow [newjimcrow.com] goes into extensive details.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:53PM (5 children)
Yeah, someone with an ax to grind wrote a book so we can all just stop arguing about the whole purpose of laws in general, right?
The purpose of setting up this elaborate convoluted scheme excluding all these people from employment and housing would be what?
We enjoy stepping over piles of human excrement dwelling in doorways and under overpasses while paying their medical bills and running soup kitchens because... Why?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 03 2018, @07:07PM (1 child)
The purpose of setting up this elaborate convoluted scheme excluding all these people from employment and housing would be what?
Really? You know the answer, stop playing dumb.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @02:59AM
No, I honestly think he doesn't understand. He seems to be a relatively decent person who is having trouble understanding the evil actions of others.
Racism and cultural warfare are real frojack, THAT is why the elaborate convoluted scheme was set up. War against the blacks and browns. Also, it funneled government money into prisons while increasing the overall power of white christians. Hope the clue bat didn't hurt too much!
(Score: 4, Informative) by MrGuy on Wednesday January 03 2018, @07:14PM
The PURPOSE? What was the purpose of segregation in the US? Apartheid in South Africa? The Rwanda genocide between Hutus and Tutsis?
People suck. They can, do, and will continue to hurt or diminish those who are unlike themselves for less than good reasons, because they can.
That doesn't mean that the assertion that that's what's happening in this case is CORRECT, or that any time someone claims "this is racist!" must be assumed to be true just because racism is a real thing.
But asking "why would anyone ever want to discriminate against someone different than themself?" as if it was an extraordinary thing to suggest MIGHT be happening is either naive or trolling.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 03 2018, @07:42PM
> The purpose of setting up this elaborate convoluted scheme excluding all these people from employment and housing would be what?
JFC, frojack [soylentnews.org], you made me wish there was a -1, Stupid moderation I could hang off your post. I'd school you, but others got in there first. Read the replies and learn from them.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 03 2018, @10:52PM
Why do we need to argue about it, when the people involved in coming up with the laws explained exactly why they did it?
Here's Harry Anslinger, the guy who first proposed making pot illegal in the US, said about why he wanted pot to be illegal:
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."
"The primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
John Ehrlichman, Richard Nixon's head of domestic policymaking, explained exactly why they were behind a major push in the early 1970's:
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Thursday January 04 2018, @12:17AM (8 children)
(1) Since every drug that is even remotely fun is illegal, how exactly is this nonsense supposed to be true? I guess they did make every drug popular with "certain populations" illegal, but then also made everything else illegal too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @03:01AM
They had to maintain an image of consistency, plus the "certain populations" would have just shifted over to the legal drugs. Sounds like you need a little less of your name upstairs.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 04 2018, @03:29AM (6 children)
Think of the differences between the law in respect to cocaine and crack, basically the same drug with way tougher penalties for the form that black people liked.
Also consider the difference in how the cops handle pulling over a car full of rich white kids smelling of marijuana compared to a car full of black people smelling of marijuana.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Entropy on Thursday January 04 2018, @06:16AM (5 children)
It's the big popular idea to blame everything on racism nowadays. I don't believe it, sorry. Crack cocaine is more addictive than powder cocaine for starters, and the differences don't end there.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 04 2018, @07:19AM (4 children)
The only reason that street cocaine is less addictive then crack is that, due to impurities, you generally don't take as big of doses. Start smoking or shooting it, and it is just as addictive.
As for racism, things are getting better but it still exists and is going to take a few more generations of people living together to get rid of it.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Thursday January 04 2018, @07:31AM (3 children)
Except powder cocaine isn't smoked or shot. Crack cocaine is.. Thus, it's legal penalties are higher because it's a more destructive substance.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 04 2018, @07:41AM (2 children)
I wish I'd known that before I ever smoked cocaine. Used to know someone with a source of clinically pure cocaine as well, he shot it up.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Friday January 05 2018, @01:05AM (1 child)
You can also get drunk by shoving alcohol in your butt, but that doesn't make it a statistically significant practice. Generally crack is smoked, and powder is snorted...This isn't rocket science.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 05 2018, @02:24AM
And it is very easy to turn cocaine into crack, a bit of heat with baking soda or, better, ammonia. If you want to stop people from using crack because it is harmful, you better have harsh laws for cocaine.